Opinion ID: 796898
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Condon's introduction to Parrott and the Coroner's Office

Text: 5 At the time the offending photographs were taken, Parrott was the Hamilton County coroner. He testified in his deposition that, as coroner, he was the top policy maker with respect to conducting any duties and faithfully preserving the integrity of those bodies while they are in the County's custody. In 1999, Parrott began to explore the idea of creating an autopsy-training video for use by hospitals and law enforcement. He instructed Terry Daly, his administrative aide, to set up a meeting for the purpose of discussing this video project. 6 Daly invited Condon and film producer Ernie Waits, Jr. to meet with himself, Parrott, and Parrott's administrative assistant Rhonda Gros at the Coroner's Office in 1999. At that first meeting, Parrott explained to the group his idea for the training video and noted that he would seek legal counsel concerning issues of consent for the proposed video footage. As part of the instructional video or as a separate project, Parrott intended to showcase a rare neck-dissection procedure in which his office had developed a particular expertise. 7 Condon and Waits next met with representatives from the Coroner's Office in June or July of 2000. This meeting included the same attendees, except that Deputy Chief Coroner Dr. Robert Pfalzgraf attended in place of Gros. Daly and Waits testified in their depositions that, at either the first or second meeting, Condon mentioned that he would like to pursue an independent project of his own involving artistic photographs of dead bodies, and that he had brought along with him one or more books of such photographs to illustrate his intentions. Chesher alleges that one of these books was authored by Germano Celant, an Italian art critic, and included photographs of cadavers posed with props similar to the offending photographs later taken by Condon. 8 According to Daly, Parrott evinced little reaction to Condon's proposed art project, but stated something to the effect that we can consider it and that he had seen things like that before. An audiotaped conversation between Daly and Staff Pathologist Dr. Gary Utz that took place later, after the discovery of the photographs, similarly refers to Condon's art-project proposal at the meeting: 9 Utz: Didn't he [Parrott] know that Thomas [Condon] had an interest in doing this stuff? 10 Daly: We all did . . . verified that that goddamn book was in that first fucking meeting and everybody in that goddamn room looked at it. 11 (Omission in original.) Parrott claimed in his deposition that he could not remember whether Condon explained his individual project or exhibited any artistic books at the meetings, but added I can't say that it was not [discussed]. 12 By the time of this second meeting, Parrott had solicited and received a legal opinion from the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office advising him that he could produce the training video without obtaining the consent of the families of the autopsy subjects so long as the video was not used for commercial purposes. The opinion further advised Parrott to take steps to obscure identifying features of any bodies filmed. Although Parrott discussed this advice at the meeting, he stated in his deposition that he instructed Daly and Pfalzgraf to allow Condon and Waits to do whatever they needed to do to determine what resources would be needed to produce a cost estimate for the proposed instructional film. As preliminary work began on the training-video project, Parrott assigned Daly and Pfalzgraf specific roles. Daly was to be in charge of the logistics, and Pfalzgraf was to perform the autopsy procedures to be filmed. 13 Condon stated at his sentencing hearing that he provided Daly with a list of Symbolic Objects To Be Used And Their Intended Meanings in regard to his art project. Daly, however, denies ever having seen such a list.