Share This Page

Defense: Indiana County woman victim in child porn framing case

| Thursday, Jan. 30, 2014, 4:11 p.m.

CLYMER — A defense attorney says a western Pennsylvania woman ordered to stand trial on charges she tried to frame her estranged husband on child pornography charges is the “victim” in the case and denies wrongdoing.

Attorney Christopher Welch commented Thursday on behalf of 42-year-old Meri Jane Woods of Cherry Hill Township.

State police say Woods claimed on Aug. 14 that her estranged husband sexually abused children and put related images on their home computer. But police determined the images were put on the computer Aug. 11, long after Woods' husband had left the residence July 23, under a protection-from-abuse order she obtained.

Woods has waived her right to a preliminary hearing on child pornography and false report charges. Welch says his firm continues to investigate the incident and that, “She's the victim here.”

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 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.