Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.

WILKES-BARRE — Now that Joann Curley is out of prison, having completed her full 20-year sentence for the murder of her husband, Bobby, many people still wonder why she was not prosecuted for first-degree murder.

Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. was the Luzerne County district attorney who prosecuted the case. During a telephone interview Tuesday, Olszewski, now in private practice, explained the process that eventually resulted in the acceptance of the defense offer of a plea to third-degree murder.

“First of all, I want to be clear that we never offered a plea to her,” Olszewski said. “Joann Curley’s attorney, Frank Nocito, called me with the offer that she would be willing to accept a plea of third-degree murder.”

Olszewski said the offer was for Curley to plead to third-degree murder for the September 1991, poisoning death of her husband. The former district attorney said that offer resulted in “a significant evaluation” of the case by the team of prosecutors and investigators.

“We also informed the Curley family of the offer, and at the end of the day, they were 100 percent for it, despite what I sense coming from some people today,” Olszewski said.

Nocito said one of the reasons the defense offered the plea was the fact that if the case went to trial Curley, could have faced the death penalty. He said that if toxicological test results that were considered new at the time were allowed into evidence, his client might have ended up on death row.

“Quite simply, this was a death penalty case,” Nocito said. “If the test result evidence was admissible and the jury believed it, she would have been looking at the death penalty. Our concern was if it was admissible and the jury bought it, she was looking at the death penalty.”

Olszewski said he received a letter from the Curley family attorney that clearly indicated they were agreeable to the acceptance of the plea.

Olszewski said a series of meetings were held with the prosecution team and the Curley family that ended with the Curley family unanimously agreeing to accept the plea.

In agreeing to accept the plea, the Curley family – Mary Curley, Bobby’s mother, and his sister and brother, Susan and David — had one condition — that Joann Curley submit to an interview. Joann Curley agreed to that stipulation, Olszewski said, and the interview was tape recorded. A written transcript was later generated of the interview, he said.

“I think they wanted to hear what she had to say,” Olszewski said. “I think it gave them some finality.”

Olszewski said Bobby Curley died in the Hershey Medical Center, and the initial autopsy was conducted by the Dauphin County coroner. At the time, Olszewski said, it was felt that Bobby Curley was poisoned at work, most likely by a co-worker. Olszewski said Bobby and his co-workers were on a job at the Stark Learning Center on the Wilkes University campus in an area near a chemistry lab where thallium was used.

The cause of death was determined to be thallium poisoning.

The investigation into the co-workers “went nowhere,” Olszewski said.

Sometime later, Olszewski said, he was prosecuting another murder case and met forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Baden; they discussed the Curley case. Baden informed him of some new toxicological testing that was available that could determine the number of ingestions of thallium and also provide a timeline of when it was ingested, Olszewski said.

Baden told Olszewski about the work of forensic toxicologist Dr. Frederic Reiders of Willow Grove and his company National Medical Services.

The first autopsy done on Bobby Curley did not include a sampling of his hair follicles or toenails, Olszewski said. After the co-workers were ruled out as suspects, he said, investigators went to Joann Curley’s home and did a search, finding thallium present in Bobby’s thermos.

Olszewski’s office requested an exhumation of Bobby Curley’s body to allow for further testing — specifically of his hair follicles and toenails for the presence of heavy metals.

The exhumation was approved, and testing showed multiple ingestions of thallium, more frequently near the time of his death. Olszewski said a timeline was compiled that showed when the ingestions occurred and results also indicated where Bobby was when it was ingested.

However, Olszewski said, he and his team were concerned. They were unsure if they would be able to get the new toxicological test results admitted into evidence.

Olszewski said the defense could request a Frye hearing. The Frye standard, or Frye test, is a test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. Olszewski said it provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only where the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community.

“No Pennsylvania case law existed where this type of testing was ever admitted into evidence,” Olszewski said. “There was some doubt about the admissibility of this evidence.”

Olszewski said a Frye hearing could result in a couple of possibilities: the court could rule the testing is admissible, but there was concern that it may not hold up on appeal; or the court could deny the evidence be admitted, leaving Olszewski with no choice but to withdraw all charges against Joann Curley.

“Other than these test results, we didn’t have much else to present,” Olszewski said. “And we were concerned that even if we did get the evidence in, would it hold up on appeal? We knew there would be this type of challenge, and we had to become reasonably confident to move forward.”

Olszewski said after many interviews by investigators, his office was able to prove who was responsible by excluding everybody who it couldn’t have been.

“The common thread was Joann Curley and nobody else,” Olszewski said. “We were confident who was responsible, but the question of whether the testing would be admissible was still there.”

So Olszewski said when the defense offered the plea to third-degree murder, the prosecution team ultimately accepted it.

“Nobody would have liked to have seen a first-degree murder conviction more than me,” Olszewski said. “Every prosecutor’s obligation is to do justice. I think I’d be in a worse condition today answering why I went forward when the evidence was inadmissible or overturned in an appellate court. Considering the uncertainty of that testing, I think we made the right decision – but, certainly, that remains open for debate.”

Nocito said the toxicological testing that was new at the time of the Curley case is today generally accepted in trials.

Olszewski
https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/web1_Peter-Paul-Olszewski-jr.-2007-1.jpg.optimal.jpgOlszewski

Curley
https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/web1_Curley-2.jpg.optimal.jpgCurley

By Bill O’Boyle

[email protected]

Reach Bill O’Boyle at 570-991-6118 or on Twitter @TLBillOBoyle.