Woman in pizza bomber case to get nothing from father
Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong, sentenced to life plus 30 years in the pizza bomber case, will not get a large inheritance from her father while she is incarcerated.
Diehl-Armstrong's father, Harold Diehl, 95, died on Jan. 8, leaving behind a disputed will that bequeaths his only child $2,000. But even that money is gone.
Diehl-Armstrong has insisted she is due to inherit more from her father's estate, which was worth about $1.8 million until he gave much of it away to friends and neighbors in the years before his death.
Probate records filed last week, however, show that Diehl's estate is worth an estimated $118,000, and that the estate will be insolvent once Diehl's outstanding medical bills are paid from it.
By the time the estate is settled, “it is not going to distribute anything,” said Erie lawyer Sumner E. Nichols II, who represents an Erie couple who are the executors of Diehl's estate.
Her father's money, and allegations of Diehl-Armstrong's desire for it, emerged as underlying themes in the pizza bomber case, in which Diehl-Armstrong was convicted of being part of the plot that ended in the death of pizza deliveryman Brian Wells in Summit in 2003. He died when a bomb locked to his neck exploded after he robbed a bank.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Erie, which prosecuted the case, alleged Diehl-Armstrong hoped to get money from the bank robbery to pay her co-defendant, Kenneth E. Barnes, to kill her father so she could inherit his fortune before he gave it away to friends, neighbors and other relatives.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.