ShareThis Page

2 charged in copper theft from Connellsville train yard

| Friday, July 8, 2011

Nearly $1,000 in copper wire was allegedly stolen from a local train yard by two men who are now each facing multiple charges.

Charged in the theft are David A. Senica, 26, of 97 Gibson Terrace, Connellsville, and Paul Peter Evans, 35, of 426 Airway Inn Road, Uniontown.

The thefts occurred between Sept. 20 and Sept. 30, 2010, and between Oct. 8 and Oct. 14, 2010, in the Green Junction Area, which is property owned by CSX, in South Connellsville.

Senica allegedly admitted to CSX railroad police that he stole the copper.

According to an affidavit of probable cause filed with District Judge Ronald Haggerty Jr., Senica told police he took the wire to a local scrap yard, from which he had receipts totalling $722.45.

Evans was interviewed in October 2010, when he also admitted to stealing the copper wires.

Evans said he also took the wire to a scrap yard where receipts totalled $250.

Both men were charged with multiple counts. Senica was charged with six each and Evans two each of disrupting, delay or prevention of train or facility, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property and defiant trespass.

Charges were filed this week at Haggerty's office.

A preliminary hearing has been scheduled for Senica at 11 a.m. Aug. 18 before Haggerty. A preliminary hearing has not yet been scheduled for Evans.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.