DA's OK questioned
Regarding the news story “DA Zappala: Pittsburgh chief's involvement in private company not illegal” (Feb. 8 and TribLIVE.com): I assume it is not necessary to recapitulate for the Trib and its readers what has transpired vis-à-vis the FBI investigation of this matter, Nate Harper's forced resignation as Pittsburgh police chief and Mayor Luke Ravenstahl's decision not to seek re-election since that story was published.
And yet, despite the tremendous amount of coverage that this highly disturbing investigation has received from the Trib, there has not been any apparent effort to interview Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. again and ask him to explain why he decided everything was fine and there was no reason whatsoever for the DA's office to become involved.
Perhaps the overwhelming expenditure of time, effort, investigative expertise and money by the DA's office on the Orie/Melvin cases depleted all its reserves and made it impossible to pursue other matters. Or Zappala may have determined that the “crime” of using governmental employees to do political campaign work was much more egregious than what has thus far been revealed (more to come) about the horrendous debacle involving the mayor and the Pittsburgh police department.
Zappala has stated there was no personal motive or political vendetta that led to his exhaustive efforts to put three sisters from a respected family with no criminal record in jail for years. If anyone believes that, let me know. There is a bridge in New York City available at a good price that I would like to bring to his attention.
Cyril H. Wecht
The writer is a former Allegheny County coroner.
Show commenting policy
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.
- ObamaCare solution
- Gun questions for mayor I
- Wolf is the right choice
- Shame on Wolf
- Gun questions for mayor II
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Ebola: No worries, right?
- Pushing witchcraft
- Wake up, voters
- Wrong on EPA water proposal
- Deepening divide