CHAPTER 18

Within days of her husband’s arrest, Pat Scher phoned various friends and family members and asked an important favor—that they come to Montrose on June 27 and testify at a bail hearing about Stephen Scher’s character and reputation. One by one, everyone she called agreed immediately.

Joan Mauldin, Scher’s patient, wasn’t surprised by Pat’s request. As a retired magistrate, Mauldin had been asked to be a character witness many times in the past.

“If there’s anything I can do, I will,” she told Pat. “I do not mind saying what I know. I know nothing but good.”

The Reverend Farwell didn’t hesitate to help, either. He’d been on vacation at the beach in Wilmington, North Carolina, when Pat called with the news of the arrest. Farwell flew to Scranton and stayed with Pat’s cousin prior to the hearing.

By now, Peter O’Malley had returned to Pennsylvania from Colorado but was still too ill to appear in court. His brother Todd, also a lawyer, agreed to stand in for him.

From home, Peter O’Malley dictated a brief arguing for bail. In it, O’Malley pointed out that Scher was married and lived with his wife and their fifteen-year-old son, Jonathan. He told the court that Stephen Scher was active in civic and community affairs and regularly attended St. Dorothy’s Catholic Church. He added that the doctor was in questionable health, having undergone open heart surgery, and that Scher had high blood pressure and was experiencing cardiovascular problems. O’Malley pointed out that a year earlier Scher had offered to surrender within one hour of learning about the coroner’s report, and again, as recently as May 1996, he had offered to turn himself in upon notice that an arrest was forthcoming. The brief stressed that Stephen Scher needed to be released so that he could continue to practice medicine to support his family and to contest the charges he faced.

*   *   *

The large courtroom on the second floor of the Susquehanna County Court of Common Pleas quickly filled on the morning of June 27. Supporters of the Dillon family gathered on the right side; friends of Stephen Scher sat on the left.

Kendall Strawn showed up, and so did Bonnie Mead. Larry and Jo Dillon, however, remained at Gunsmoke. The prosecution team, wary that the couple could be called by the defense to testify, requested that they stay away. Jo’s cousin, Bill Nash, and his wife, Vonda, went in their place and promised to call as soon as they had news.

Following O’Malley’s advice, Pat Scher did not attend the hearing. But Suzanne Dillon, now twenty-two and working as a costume designer, flew in from Colorado Springs to be there for her stepfather. Medium height and slim, she wore a black suit, her hair dyed auburn and cropped short. She stood next to a row of her family’s supporters, her eyes scanning the crowded courtroom.

Just before the hearing began, Kendall Strawn approached her. “Suzanne, I’m Ken Strawn,” he said.

The strapping developer towered over the young woman, but Suzanne Dillon was clearly not fazed. She knew who he was—she’d heard his name from her mother. She looked him directly in the eye. “Whose side are you sitting on?” she asked abruptly.

Kendall Strawn looked sad. “Suzanne,” he said gently, “I’m not here to take sides.” He smiled at her. “You look just like your dad.”

“I’m very proud of that,” she responded a bit sharply.

Kendall nodded. “I know it’s hard for you.”

Suzanne didn’t answer, but her expression softened. Then the bailiff called the court to order.

Seconds later, Dr. Stephen Scher was led into the courtroom in handcuffs. His eyes immediately went to his stepdaughter, and Suzanne smiled and nodded encouragingly, her eyes instantly filling with tears. She mouthed, “I love you.” Stephen Scher smiled.

Throughout the morning, Todd O’Malley called witnesses to testify to Scher’s good character and reliability.

“He’s known to be a compassionate doctor,” The Reverend Farwell told the court. “I’ve been in their home many times and I’ve found them to be a loving and close family. Dr. Scher supports the church financially. Pat teaches in Sunday School. The children attend Sunday School.”

On cross-examination, Robert Campolongo asked the priest several times about donations Scher made to the church, implying that was the reason Farwell spoke so well of him. Then the senior deputy attorney general turned his attention to another matter. Since the defense called a Catholic priest to the stand, Robert Campolongo intended to make use of him.

“The Catholic Church does not believe in divorce, is that correct?” he asked.

The priest hesitated. “I’m not sure how to answer.”

Campolongo tried again. “In 1976 did the Catholic Church believe in divorce?”

“It’s a sacramental bond that cannot be broken,” Farwell explained. “Divorce is a civil term.”

Campolongo ignored him. “I’m talking about two Catholics who go to church—Patricia Dillon, Martin Dillon, get married in church,” he said flatly. “The Catholic Church would not permit divorce.”

Before Farwell could answer, Todd O’Malley objected. “It’s way beyond the scope,” he complained.

The judge agreed, and Campolongo shrugged. He’d made his point.

Joan Mauldin testified next. She said she’d known Dr. Scher ever since he moved to Lincolnton four years earlier.

“He’s a very good doctor,” she told the court. “I’ve been in his home, he’s been in mine. He loves his family.”

“What is his relationship with his patients?” Todd O’Malley asked. “Would he walk out on them?”

She said he wouldn’t.

On cross-examination, Campolongo jumped to his feet. “Any idea of what his reputation may have been in Pennsylvania when he resided here?” he barked.

“No sir, I don’t.”

“Did you know of his reputation as a philanderer?” Before Mauldin could answer, Campolongo continued. “All you know is what you’ve observed in the last four years.”

Mauldin had to agree.

Mary Jane Neikirk, Scher’s bookkeeper, testified about the doctor’s practice, telling the court that he grossed about $350,000 a year. Carl Keuhner, whose wife was Pat’s first cousin, spoke of Dr. Scher’s devotion to his family. “Dr. Scher took over the education and support of both Suzanne and Michael Dillon,” he said. “Along the way they adopted Jonathan. He has provided lovingly for all three children to this day.”

Dr. Daniel Allan testified that since he moved to Las Cruces in 1981, four years after Dr. Scher, the two had become close friends. Allan told the court that in the last six months he loaned Scher $30,000 and paid for Suzanne Dillon’s airline ticket to Pennsylvania.

“His relationship with his patients is outstanding,” Allan testified. “They love him.”

Wendall Miller, the director of medical staff development for Lincolnton Medical Center, called himself a friend as well as a business associate of Scher. He testified that the doctor accepted Medicaid and Medicare patients.

Pat Scher’s good friend from Las Cruces, Susie Drumm, now divorced and using the last name Horton, took the stand and said that she’d traveled from New Mexico to testify on behalf of Dr. Stephen Scher. She told the court how she had met the Schers in 1978 when her former husband owned a jewelry store and they became close friends of the couple. She said everyone in Las Cruces spoke highly of Dr. Scher.

“He was probably one of the most loved physicians,” she said. “He would do anything for his patients.”

The highlight of testimony was at the end, when Suzanne Dillon testified. The young woman, clearly a bit nervous, told the judge of the wonderful life she’d had as the daughter of Stephen Scher.

“He’s been a fantastic father, textbook,” she said, her voice shaking slightly. “He’s been financially supportive, emotionally supportive. He’s been the most stable thing in my life. He treats his patients with compassion. He’s an excellent doctor. They love him.… He’s the only dad I’ve ever known.… My Dad’s great.”

She insisted that Stephen Scher was not a bail risk. “He wouldn’t leave because he can’t leave. He is first and foremost a doctor. He’s a responsible physician. He can’t leave.”

In response to a question from Todd O’Malley about the family’s finances, Suzanne’s animosity was evident as she related what the charges against her stepfather had done to her family.

“It’s ruined us,” she announced. “We’re broke. We have nothing. It’s all gone. The only way he can make any money is what he can make tomorrow until he dies.”

Suzanne Dillon then stunned the courtroom with her next declaration: She’d turned over the money she received from her father’s life insurance policy to Stephen Scher to help pay legal costs. Suzanne testified that her share of the insurance money, invested since 1976, totaled $65,000. She added that she never wavered in her desire to help in any way she could. Her reason was clear. “Because he’s my Dad,” she told the court. “That’s what you do when you’re family.”

When the witnesses had finished testifying, Todd O’Malley addressed the judge. In his argument to release Stephen Scher without bail or with a reasonable amount, O’Malley stressed the doctor’s devotion to his patients and his family. He reminded the judge that Scher had strong ties to his community and to his church.

In his argument against bail, Robert Campolongo attacked the witnesses brought by O’Malley, arguing that the defendant had simply manipulated them and that none of them knew him when he lived in Pennsylvania in 1976.

“He’s got the wheels turning all the time,” the prosecutor told Seamans. “He even has his own stepchild, the child of the deceased, testifying for him. What does she know about this? I don’t believe the sob story told by the daughter—he would never flee, he wouldn’t leave his patients. He was out of town pretty quick in 1976.”

Campolongo stressed the seriousness of the charges, that the evidence against Scher was strong. He told the court that the defendant was at great risk for flight. “He has severed his ties here,” he told the court. “He’s looking at life in prison. The defendant may not want to pay the piper.”

Judge Kenneth Seamans sided with the prosecution. After a brief recess, he handed down his ruling. “After consideration of the matters testified to in the bail hearing and evidence taken, in addition to consideration of the brief presented by defense counsel, this court being of the opinion that the nature of the crime charged is serious and in addition to that, that the ties of the defendant to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are minimal, bail is hereby set at the sum of one million dollars.”

It was a major victory for the prosecution. Supporters of Stephen Scher sat stonily, stunned by the judge’s decision. To make matters worse, the judge ruled that if Scher chose to put up real estate as bail, only property from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania could be used.

The courtroom began to empty. Kendall Strawn couldn’t resist confronting the man he believed killed his best friend. He walked to the front of the courtroom where Scher was seated at the defense table, and stage-whispered, “Steve, was it worth it?”

Stephen Scher did not turn around. Kendall Strawn, satisfied, started to walk away.

Suddenly, a red-faced Suzanne Dillon was pushing through the crowd, pursuing Strawn. “Excuse me, sir,” she called out to him, her voice loud and angry. “What did you say to my father?”

Strawn turned and faced the young woman. His face, too, was red with emotion. “Suzanne, you were too young to know,” he told her frankly.

“What did you say to my father?” Suzanne repeated.

“You were too young to understand then and you’re too young now.”

Suzanne just stared at him. “And you’re too ignorant,” she snapped and turned away.

*   *   *

Outside the courthouse, Scher’s friends expressed disbelief at the bail set by the judge.

Susie Horton told reporters that Scher had been wrongly accused. “If Pat had questions, if anything was askew, she wouldn’t have married him. It’s almost evil what’s going on here. It’s so blatantly one-sided.”

Joan Mauldin thought so, too. She told reporters that the bail hearing had been completely unfair. “I’ve never seen anything like this,” she said. “It’s something right out of a movie. It seems to me the town had made their minds up. I feel a lot of animosity here. I know nothing about Pennsylvania law but that wasn’t the way we would have done it. It was a farce. Everything had been decided upon. I can see how the DA could ask for that but I don’t know what the judge was thinking to allow it. Pennsylvania law may be entirely different but I thought the purpose of bond was universal. How totally ridiculous, how vindictive. If the man was going to run, he would have been gone. Bail is not to punish, it’s to assure their appearance in court. If he wasn’t going to appear, he would have gone to Timbuktu a long time ago.”

She went on to say that she couldn’t imagine that the prosecution had a case anyway. “I can’t know what went on 20 years ago, all I know is what I know in my heart. Whatever they have now they had then. Surely to goodness, if something was wrong why didn’t they do it 20 years ago? I don’t know how this is possible. A lot of witnesses passed on. How in the world do they think they’ll get a conviction?”

She said she was more determined than ever to do whatever she could to help the Schers. “I would do anything I could to help this man and this lady. It looks to me like they really are in for unpleasant times if this thing is tried there. He’s not the bear they try to make him out to be.… Suzanne is a fine young lady and she loves Dr. Scher with all her heart. She supports him 100 percent. This man could not be bad and have a young person such as she willing to say the things she did. It only reaffirms my belief that he is a good man.”

After the hearing, Reverend Farwell spent time with Pat and Suzanne and some of Pat’s relatives. He told them he had been to many trials and custody hearings in his twenty-five years of service, but he’d never seen anything like what he’d just witnessed in Montrose.

“I don’t know what law they’re practicing in Pennsylvania,” he told them. “One million dollars bail? It was a setup.”

He expressed his bitterness about the references to Scher’s donations to the church. “I resent that. I’m surprised at the viciousness and hatred generated.”

Having done all he could, The Reverend Farwell headed back to Lincolnton. It’s a bizarre comedy of tragic consequences, he thought. It doesn’t fit with the man I know, and I’ve been around some pretty evil people. It’s like a Shakespeare comedy and tragedy all wrapped up. He’s a man of integrity, a good man.

Clearly the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did not agree. When Peter O’Malley learned about the one-million-dollar bond the lawyer realized he needed help. He asked his brother Todd to call John Moses, a well-connected Wilkes-Barre attorney with a strong foundation in law and extensive experience with appeals.

“He’s almost as good as I am,” O’Malley later explained to a reporter.