ShareThis Page
Detective: Upper St. Clair lawyer got $68,000 from managing widow’s trust |

Detective: Upper St. Clair lawyer got $68,000 from managing widow’s trust

| Tuesday, May 5, 2009 12:00 p.m

Shortly after taking a $44,000 payment from a widowed millionaire’s trust, Charles McCullough paid country club dues and invested thousands in his County Council campaign and money market fund, an Allegheny County detective testified Monday.

McCullough, 54, a county councilman and Upper St. Clair lawyer, got about $68,000 in payments from managing the trust of Shirley Jordan, 92, also of Upper St. Clair, Detective Kevin P. Flanigan of the District Attorney’s Office testified during a preliminary hearing in Common Pleas Court.

McCullough is accused of trying to bilk $200,000 from Jordan’s estate in 2006 and 2007 before his election to council. He is charged with two dozen counts of theft, conspiracy and filing false reports.

Three days after a 2007 newspaper story showed he donated thousands of dollars of Jordan’s money to political candidates, McCullough pulled the $22,000 money market investment and cashed in a certificate of deposit in order to return money to Jordan, Flanigan said. McCullough returned all but $16,000 that he took as trustees fees from Jordan, Flanigan added.

McCullough’s attorneys did not have a chance to question Flanigan. Assistant District Attorney Lawrence Claus tried to introduce Jordan’s checkbook as evidence, but Common Pleas Judge Donald E. Machen postponed the preliminary hearing to give the defense time for review. He did not set a date for the hearing to resume.

Categories: News
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.