ShareThis Page

Two charged in Murrysville jewelry thefts

Paul Peirce
| Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 8:26 p.m.

A Wexford man and a 68-year-old woman are accused of separate jewelry thefts during the past eight months.

Brian A. Dvorsky, 35, of 3923 Wick Place, is charged with theft and receiving stolen property for allegedly taking a diamond and emerald ring valued at $11,000 and a diamond-ruby ring valued at $14,000 from his parents' home on Round Top Road on April 7, Murrysville police said.

Dvorsky sold the rings for $443 at the Gold Buyers, a precious metals business, at Ross Park Mall, police said.

Dvorsky's parents were able to buy back the rings from Gold Buyers for the same price, Murrysville Officer Richard King said in the affidavit of probable cause filed before Murrysville District Judge Charles Conway.

In another theft, a Murrysville couple reported to police they noticed about $6,800 in jewelry missing from a bedroom of their Evergreen Drive home.

Police have charged the family's babysitter, Carol E. Chambers of 118 Tyrolia Drive, Monroeville, with the thefts, which occurred between September 2011 and March. According to an affidavit filed by King before Conway, Chambers sold the items at a jewelry buyback outlet in Monroeville during the seven-month period.

In an interview with police on April 23, Chambers admitted she took the jewelry and sold it because "she was overcome with taxes, bills and living expenses," the affidavit said.

Preliminary hearings are tentatively scheduled on Tuesday before Conway. Both are free on recognizance bond.

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.

click me