FBI agent who investigated Erie pizza bomber case speaks at Duquesne | TribLIVE.com
Regional

FBI agent who investigated Erie pizza bomber case speaks at Duquesne

Megan Guza
1665307_web1_ptr-collarbombtalk02-091319
Megan Guza | Tribune-Review
Retired FBI agent Jerry Clark talks about his time investigating the 2003 “pizza bomber” case in Erie in which a delivery driver was killed when a bomb strapped around his neck exploded. Clark spoke at a crime symposium at Duquesne University on Thursday, Sept. 12, 2019.
1665307_web1_ptr-collarbombtalk01-091319
Megan Guza | Tribune-Review
Retired FBI agent Jerry Clark talks about his time investigating the 2003 “pizza bomber” case in Erie in which a delivery driver was killed when a bomb strapped around his neck exploded. Clark spoke at a crime symposium at Duquesne University on Thursday, Sept. 12, 2019.

A sex worker with Westmoreland County connections was the linchpin in the infamous Erie pizza bomber case, a former FBI agent who investigated the crime said Thursday at Duquesne University.

Jerry Clark, now a Gannon University professor, worked for 21 years in the FBI, including nearly a decade with the Pittsburgh field office as an agent in the Erie satellite office.

He expected working in Erie would be an easy end to his law enforcement career.

Then at 3: 18 p.m. Aug. 28, 2003, Brian Wells, a pizza delivery driver for Mamma Mia pizza, walked into a PNC Bank branch on Peach Street and said he had a bomb strapped around his neck. Wells asked for $250,000.

“The teller says – and this is a true story – the teller says, ‘Hey, listen, the bank manager is at lunch, you’re going to have to come back,’” Clark said. “And (Wells) says, ‘Well, I’m robbing the bank.’”

Caught by state police a short time later with less than $9,000, Wells, 46, told police he was an unwilling participant in the robbery. The bomb went off before the bomb squad arrived, killing Wells. Investigators found a series of notes and complex instructions telling him how to live through the experience.

Clark spoke at Duquesne University as part of the Wecht Institute’s annual forensic science and law symposium. This year’s focus is on serial killers.

The complicated plot had tendrils in numerous directions, and the FBI spent several years tying everything together. Jessica Hoopsick, a sex worker listed in Wells’ address book, and the mutual friend that introduced Wells to Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong and Bill Rothstein ended up leading agents to their prime suspects.

Diehl-Armstrong would eventually be indicted in the case. Rothstein would die before the indictment was returned.

Clark called Hoopsick “the linchpin” that connected all of the conspirators together. She was a sex worker frequented by Wells, who used to drive her around looking for crack cocaine. That often led them to the home of Ken Barnes, who had connections to Diehl-Armstrong and Rothstein.

“If you look at it, once we knew that Jessica knew Ken Barnes and that Ken Barnes knew Marjorie and Bill Rothstein and now she introduced Brian to them, it doesn’t get any more important than that,” Clark said.

Hoopsick appeared in the Netflix documentary on the case, “Evil Genius,” during which she claimed that she was a favorite prostitute for Wells and that she set him up at the request of the organizers of the robbery plot.

Three months after she appeared in the documentary, Hoopsick was arrested on a bench warrant out of Westmoreland County for failing to appear in court on a prostitution charge in Greensburg. She told police at the time she’d recently appeared in the documentary. She pleaded guilty to the charge last year.

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Regional
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.