Jane Orie Iz Screwed

Much to the judge’s dismay, the warrant seeking certain exhibits in the Orie Sisters trial was released to the media, and it shed light on some things we weren’t certain of.

Having read the warrant request, let me save you the time of poring over it for details.

Of note!

1.  There was apparently an “ethics binder” submitted by the defense, which Jamie Pavlot claimed she never saw. The ethics binder contained the handwritten notes by Jane Orie on printed emails.

Pavlot testified under oath that she had never seen the binder before.

Yes, ETHICS BINDER. LOL.

Could they be any more blatant?

It’s like detectives breaking into a suspected thief’s house and finding on the coffee table a folder labeled, “WHY IT IS WRONG TO STEAL AND THEREFORE I WILL NEVER DO IT EVER EVER EVER AMEN.”

2.  The warrant confirms that because Pavlot denied ever seeing the notations or the ethics binder, they were not permitted to be entered as evidence. Orie then tesified under oath that she was fo course aware of the ethics binder, duh:

Orie testified under oath that the handwritten notations … had been written by her on or about the corresponding dates of the documents.

Oooh. Kiss of death.

I have a feeling the ink analysis is going to show the handwriting is fresh like phat beats.

3. Following testimony, the detective interviewed Jamie Pavlot:

Pavlot also adamantly denied ever having created, been in possession of or observed … the ethics binder. Pavlot also stated at this time that she could not recall any time in her tenure … that the Senator have given such lengthy handwriting notations on any subject matter.

The detective interviewed another employee who corroborated that Orie was more an email, text kind of person and not a let me print this out and write via longhand how I feel about it person.

4. A telling part that reveals the timing of the forgeries being brought to light:

On March 3, 2011, while awaiting a verdict … members of the District Attorney’s office were organizing copies of Orie defense exhibits and discovered that defense exhibit #101a containing an original ink signature of Jamie Pavlot which, when compared to Pavlot’s photocopied signature on defense exhibit #110, appeared identical.

So it was the DA’s people that found the original signature.

It was from there that everything hopped in the handbasket and shouted, “Hell, ho!”

5. One of the documents supposedly authored by Pavlot, submitted by the defense, and denied by Pavlot, actually had the address for the office wrong, as 4700 instead of 9400 McKnight Road. This mistake was noticed by Jamie Pavlot AFTER the mistrial during her interview with the detective and she said was further proof that she never authored the letter, as she would not have made such a mistake.

6. Orie testified that the documents in question, 39 in all, were in Jamie Pavlot’s control, but as the warrant then states, Pavlot was removed from her position and transferred out of the office last May, and since that time, the documents have been in Jane Orie’s control.

A roundabout way of saying, yep, she totally had the access and time and means to fabricate this stuff.

This is the part where Horatio would put his glasses on and say, “And she certainly had the [sunglasses] motive.”

YEAHHHHHHHHHHH!

Man, your life is missing something if you don’t watch CSI: Miami.

7. The United States Secret Service will conduct the forensic analysis, not Horatio Caine.

So we have political enemies, lying, intrigue, forgery, perjury, mall hair, clown makeup, hooker nails and now, the Secret Service.

This sounds like a Kardashian movie!

You can read the whole warrant here.

It’s a fun read!

Four stars! Two thumbs up!

DO YOU SMELL SMOKE, BECAUSE THIS LADY IS [SUNGLASSES] TOAST!

YEAHHHHHHH!





29 Comments

  1. gunnlino
    March 14, 2011 6:50 pm

    Man, and you thought the Titanic was a disaster .
    And in item #7 you omitted reptilian in appearance , which describes the sisters to a tee.



  2. Bram R
    March 14, 2011 7:23 pm

    Look at you, poisoning the jury pool! These women could now not be fairly tried in Nepal! Hung juries and double jeopardies all around!



  3. Chris
    March 14, 2011 7:48 pm

    Jane Orie IS NOT aa smok’in hot Burgher



  4. Butcher's Dog
    March 14, 2011 7:57 pm

    Orie’s only hot in the same context as Joan of Arc.



  5. Boones Farm
    March 14, 2011 8:25 pm

    This will be fun to watch. It would be great if there was a Twitter feed named @Orie’s Brain. Talk about fun! It just gets better and better with the Ories.



  6. bucdaddy
    March 15, 2011 12:36 am

    Why do I have a bad feeling Orie is being convicted in public because of the “mall hair, clown makeup” and “hooker nails”?

    Yes, she looks like the Wicked Witch of the West, at least in the images we get to see, so she MUST be guilty, because the weird and ugly are ALWAYS guilty.

    Not that she ain’t. Just sayin’.

    I’m a little bothered by my own complicity in this “How do you know she is a witch?” “She LOOKS like one” way of thinking.



  7. bluzdude
    March 15, 2011 9:41 am

    @bucdaddy,
    Let’s get the scales!



  8. Frantastic
    March 15, 2011 9:50 am

    Not loving the body/style snark but otherwise,
    Blam! Ories are busted.

    Next up, printing money for the legal fund using the office’s ink jet printer.



  9. Butcher's Dog
    March 15, 2011 9:52 am

    bucdaddy: a voice of reason in an otherwise cruel and appearance-bedazzled world. Nice to see some of us have a perspective on all this.

    I’m part of jumping on the pile as well, but the evidence as it’s been filtered through to us doesn’t look good for her.



  10. bucdaddy
    March 15, 2011 10:13 am

    B-Dog,

    No, it doesn’t, but … has anyone been charged with anything yet in this new fiasco? Maybe we should at least see what the charges are first before we build a bridge out of her.



  11. Virginia
    March 15, 2011 11:22 am

    Bucdaddy,

    In my defense, I have been more than fair when it comes to this trial, admitting that the news coming from the trial led me to believe that perhaps Jane was being targeted, and then posting a lengthy interview with a juror in which he also felt Orie was being targeted for minor infractions as they relate to political and personal time.

    However, as a personal blog stating my opinion, having followed the trial closely, it is my personal opinion that while Orie may not have been guilty of the original charges, the new evidence against her in these forgeries seems overwhelming and it has nothing to do with the physical appearance of Jane Orie.

    According to the warrant, Jane Orie, it is not hard to deduce, is the person they suspect of the forgeries. In addition, the charges pending will be:

    Forgery
    Perjury
    False Swearing
    Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence
    Obstructing Administration of Law

    I’ve followed the evidence I could and have come to the personal conclusion that someone tampered with the evidence, and with Jane Orie testifying under oath that she herself made those handwritten notations on the dates of the emails, that that “someone” is in my opinion Jane Orie.

    I don’t think anyone things Jane Orie is guilty based on her looks any more than anyone thought Michael Jackson was guilty based on his looks.

    Or maybe I’m just giving my readers too much of the benefit of the doubt.



  12. PG Wodehouse
    March 15, 2011 11:38 am

    Don’t forget the duck!!!



  13. Crazy Hat Bitch
    March 15, 2011 12:15 pm

    When you consider all the forgery that transpired, you have to know that whomever did those was trying to protect Jane Orie in that trial which meant she was probably guilty. Whomever did these things is arrogant beyond words, how can you think that jurors, lawyers & judges would not see the blatant forgery. Hope her idiot attorney wasn’t involved but it wouldn’t surprise me after his comment of we will file for “double jeopardy”. Note to Jane: He’s an idiot, cough up some cash for a good one, you will need one. Better yet, take a plea & move on with your life.



  14. Jen
    March 15, 2011 12:19 pm

    My own personal perception of her likely guilt (without having served on the jury or read most of the documents available online, so take it for what it is.. a relatively uneducated opinion) is more drawn from a personal distaste for political “dynasties” than from her looks. I think she would do whatever it takes to keep her political position because that’s her family business and what else will she do with herself? Politics shouldn’t be a profession, particularly an inherited one.

    I guess the fact that the Orie sisters all look alike makes their family connection more obvious, but I feel the same way about other more put-together politicians from political families. It’s one of the reasons I dislike Ravenstahl (not that he’s more put-together ;). He and his brother have gotten where they are, not from pulling themselves up by their own boot straps but from riding their relatives’ coat tails (and a bit of dumb luck). Of course, he’s done a lot of stupid things during his tenure to reinforce my negative opinion, but you get the idea. The sad thing is, politics is full of dynasties, at the local, state and national level, and people keep voting for them.



  15. AngryMongo
    March 15, 2011 12:45 pm

    The only thing missing in my life from not watching CSI: Miami is some Eva La Rue.

    rowr.



  16. USCMike
    March 15, 2011 1:06 pm

    Overall, I think the Orie’s are going to be charged, and convicted, on the perjury and forgery issues. Like other white-collar criminals, they lied to protect themselves and the feds (or the state) will get their convictions in one way or another.

    One look no further than Martha Stewart to see that looks have nothing to do with being guilty. It’s the lying and deceit that’ll get your butt thrown in the slammer. She spent months in prison because she didn’t want to own up to having traded on inside info that would have cost her pocket-change to settle, and lied to the feds instead.

    Now we’ve got the Ories who decided to invent an ‘ethics’ book that no one on the staff said they EVER saw while at work. There’s gotta be a certain irony in fabricating an ethics book so you can improve your defense in court. Maybe my dictionary has the wrong definition for ‘ethics’?



  17. mairinpgh
    March 15, 2011 1:54 pm

    (umm, no warrant found following your link. Please repost?? Now that you have our attention….)

    I agree that Ms. Orie was likely to be found innocent on the original charges (hell, I too had reasonable doubt & found the whole thing stunk of selective prosecution. And I’m no Orie fan.) But the latest? She’s going to get creamed, no matter what (and don’t forget, she is also a lawyer. Kiss that license goodbye.) And by far the weirdest thing in all of this? Cyril Wecht’s letter to the PG in Orie’s defense the other day. Hell has officially frozen over. Or it is a sign of the apocalpse. Probably both.



  18. Virginia
    March 15, 2011 1:58 pm

    The link is fixed. It will take you to WTAE’s page and you can click on “Read the Search Warrant.” When you click on it, it will take you to a blank WTAE page, but the download will be happening in the background.



  19. Aileen
    March 15, 2011 2:05 pm

    CHB –

    I’m not a fan of Ms. Orie, but her attorney is very experienced and highly regarded in the legal community.

    Double jeopardy attaches once a case is sent to a jury – so her attorney must argue that she can’t be retried on those original charges because he would be providing ineffective counsel if he didn’t raise the argument.

    Sorry to have to haul out the legal jargon ‘n at, but I felt compelled.



  20. bucdaddy
    March 15, 2011 2:19 pm

    Virginia,

    I’m not saying you haven’t been fair. I just caught myself slipping into the mindset that if they look crazy enough, they must be guilty, and maybe I was projecting some of that on other commenters but I get the sense maybe I’m not the only one who thinks that. They’re certainly guilty of bad appearances and fashion faux pas. And I think most of us can reasonably agree there APPEAR to be some high shenanigans going on, but “convicting” people of forgery before charges have even been brought seems just a little too eager.

    I say that as one who probably (without going back to look at the posts) jumped on the “Bennie got accused twice, he must be guilty of SOMEthing” bandwagon too. I’m not calling you or anyone out, you’re certainly entitled to an informed opinion (and if I know anything about you, it’s that you usually inform yourself before you venture an opinion on matters as serious as this) I’m just suggesting we all (me, too) proceed with caution when we’re not the ones sitting in the courtroom. Is all.



  21. Joe R.
    March 15, 2011 6:58 pm

    I conversed with Virginia for a few days about the first trial. Many of you reading these comments probably also read the interview she posted a few days ago concerning that conversation.

    Now… before anyone locks up an Orie and throws away the keys to their cell, consider this:

    The judge will decide what the jury is able to be presented with in the second trial.

    Will there be opposing viewpoints from equally qualified evidence examiners about the questioned documents? If so, what will the jury be allowed to consider? The case the jury hears and the one everyone else hears about on WPXI, WTAE, FOX53, Post Gazette, Trib, That’s Church, KDKA, and wherever else is MUCH, much different.

    While this is all a great topic for debate and conversation… unless a jury gets to hear about it… it’s just media filler and drama. The jury never heard about a lot of the things that the general public was made aware of daily during the course of the first trial. If the judge decides certain things aren’t to be heard by the next jury… the verdict that seems to already be handed down in the court of public opinion may differ from the one the jury comes up with on Grant Street.



  22. Dan (Not Onorato)
    March 16, 2011 9:13 am

    Man I absolutely love when you go all CSI:Miami on things…



  23. unsatisfied
    March 16, 2011 10:22 am

    she needs to film a “I’m not a witch” commercial.

    that’d convince me……



  24. Jay
    March 16, 2011 11:46 pm

    Re; Jane Orie When she was a DA at allgheny county she falsified documents to when cases, past&copy, forgery, she would go to the court reports office and take the disk or taps and the clerk there would let her take them, then she would modified court transcripts, she also fabrecated evidence against the deffendent,
    if they go threw all the cases she handled they would find records missing from the fills of almost ever case, she had to get ride of what she did so she wouldn’t get cote, she and her sisters don’t care who they hert or how bad to make a name for them selves.

    Jay



  25. Jer
    March 23, 2011 7:34 pm

    Hey Aileen,

    Jeopardy doesn’t attached when a mistrial is caused by the defendant’s own deceit.



  26. Jay
    March 24, 2011 5:29 am

    I told people in the court house and some Attorneys that she was altering court records and they said that was emposible and this was in 1989 threw 1992, Well gess what, whats emposible was posible, and her cronies that help her do this should be charged to, look into the past there evidence to show that Jane Orie the same things 15 to over 20 years ago, She was a criminal as a DA and still is and will never stop, the false documents then with the false documents know proves she forged them.

    Jay



  27. Tom
    April 12, 2011 7:34 pm

    Wow. You claim you’ve been “fair” throughout this entire trial, but as soon as a simple WARRANT is issued you’re screaming their guilt from the rooftops. You’ve clearly considered the other possibilities here — like the prosecution forged the documents when they realized they were losing. Or that pavlot, who your juror buddy said was a horrible witness did these things herself because she was incompetent. But, hey, there’s a warrant, these people MUST be guilty! I’m glad you weren’t at our constitutional convention. Ridiculous.



  28. louie prasnikar
    September 30, 2011 10:58 am

    Judgeing from all the evidence from her duties past and present,It,s pretty clear that her character is not that of a Pa.State Sen.Which we should have and demand that we have.People read the news,Weigh the facts,Then and only then.Please.VOTE THESE PEOPLE OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Louie