Former Harvard morgue manager pleads guilty to trafficking body parts from donated cadavers
The former manager of the Harvard Medical School morgue pleaded guilty to stealing body parts from cadavers donated to the Boston institution and then selling them, federal prosecutors said.
Cedric Lodge, 57, of Goffstown, New Hampshire, pleaded guilty to transporting stolen human remains, the Department of Justice said Thursday.
MORE: Harvard Medical School morgue manager accused of stealing, selling human remains
He pleaded guilty during a change of plea hearing Wednesday in federal court in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. He faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000, according to his plea agreement.
Lodge, who had managed the morgue for the Anatomical Gifts Program at Harvard Medical School, admitted to transporting and selling the stolen human remains across multiple states from 2018 to at least March 2020, prosecutors said.
While employed by the morgue, he "removed human remains, including organs, brains, skin, hands, faces, dissected heads, and other parts, from donated cadavers after they had been used for research and teaching purposes but before they could be disposed of according to the anatomical gift donation agreement between the donor and the school," the U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania said in a press release.
He then took them to his home and, along with his wife, sold them to people in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, prosecutors said. The transactions totaled in the tens of thousands of dollars, according to the indictment.
MORE: Florida women arrested for selling human remains on Facebook Marketplace: Police
Lodge's attorney declined to comment on the case Thursday.
Harvard Medical School terminated Lodge's employment in May 2023, school officials said following his indictment, calling the activities an "abhorrent betrayal" and "morally reprehensible." Lodge acted "without the knowledge or cooperation of anyone else" at the institution, the school said.
Several other individuals have also pleaded guilty to interstate transport of stolen human remains in related cases, including Lodge's wife, Denise Lodge, who is awaiting sentencing, prosecutors said.
Former Harvard morgue manager pleads guilty to trafficking body parts from donated cadavers originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
2 days ago
- USA Today
President Trump is on a pardon spree
President Trump is on a pardon spree | The Excerpt On a special episode (first released on June 12, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: Trump's spate of controversial pardons hint at a two-tiered system of justice where only allies get clemency. Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Liz Oyer shares her insights on her former role and why recent clemency grants are so unprecedented. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Dana Taylor: Hello, I'm Dana Taylor, and this is a special episode of The Excerpt. It's been a busy few months in the world of federal pardons. It started on day one of the Trump administration with more than 1,500 people pardoned for their role in the January 6th Capitol Riot, and the pardons just keep coming. The past few weeks, we've seen a spate of controversial clemency grants, including a couple of reality TV stars who were found guilty of defrauding community banks out of tens of millions of dollars, a gang leader serving multiple life sentences, and a Virginia sheriff convicted of bribery in what prosecutors called a cash for badges scheme. The pardons are legal, but what are the ethical concerns here as President Donald Trump's list of pardons continues to grow? Here to dig into some of the details of the president's current pardon spree is former U.S. pardon attorney Liz Oyer. Thanks for joining me, Liz. Liz Oyer: Thanks for having me. Dana Taylor: Let's start off with full transparency here. You're suing the DOJ for your dismissal earlier this year. What's the background here, and can you please explain what the job of a U.S. pardon attorney is? Liz Oyer: I was fired in March from my position as pardon attorney, which is non-political position within the Department of Justice that is entrusted with reviewing applications for clemency from individuals around the country who are seeking that relief from the president and making recommendations to the President about who presents a worthy case for clemency. The position of pardon attorney is one that historically has been filled by a career employee of the Department of Justice, not a political appointee, to ensure that that position is one that is neutral and objective and that the clemency process is not fully politicized. Nevertheless, I was fired very abruptly in March, and my firing violated a whole host of civil service protections that apply to career employees. So I am appealing my termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which is the agency that's entrusted with adjudicating those types of issues. President Trump is on a pardon spree Trump's spate of controversial pardons hint at a two-tiered system of justice where only allies get clemency. Dana Taylor: There were some surprising pardons recently. We can't address them all, but I do want to discuss a handful. Let's start with Larry Hoover, a Chicago gang leader serving multiple life sentences for charges including murder, extortion, and money laundering. Trump can pardon whoever he wants. Do you worry he's not getting the best research for each case to determine if clemency is warranted? Liz Oyer: Well, the case of Larry Hoover is actually a very complex one. He has state convictions for an offense involving murder, and then he went on while in state prison to run a continuing criminal enterprise from the state prison, and he incurred additional federal convictions. So the federal convictions are the ones that were pardoned, not the state convictions. His sentence was commuted, and now he still has to deal with those state charges. But it is extremely unusual to grant a commutation of sentence to someone who goes on to commit a massive criminal offense while they're in prison. One of the things that's especially notable about Hoover's case is that he was serving his sentence at the federal super max prison. It's called ADX, it's a notorious prison where people who present challenging conduct in prison and need ultra restrictive conditions of confinement are housed. So the fact that he was granted a commutation by President Trump is very unusual and suggests that not a lot of weight is being placed on conduct in prison in considering who is worthy of a commutation of sentence. Dana Taylor: Many of these pardons are for people who owed significant sums of money and restitution for their crimes, Todd and Julie Chrisley, the reality TV stars, for example. What recourse do the people or entities who are due that money have, if any, and do you worry that Trump is granting clemency to people who don't show remorse? Liz Oyer: What the president has done in terms of using the pardon power to wipe out financial obligations that are owed to victims of crimes is unprecedented. The Chrisleys are one example among many of individuals who were required under federal law to pay what's called restitution, that means essentially paying back victims of crimes, but the pardons have the effect of wiping out that obligation to repay the victims, and those include people who are out of pocket very substantial sums. So that's an extremely unusual use of the pardon power, and it's one that really does prejudice the interests of people who have been victimized by crimes. Dana Taylor: And Liz, I mentioned former Virginia Sheriff Scott Jenkins at the top. He was convicted of receiving at least $75,000 in exchange for appointing North Virginia business executives as auxiliary deputies. He was scheduled to start a 10-year prison sentence the following day when the pardon came in. President Trump wrote on Proof social that he and his family were, "Dragged through hell by a corrupt and weaponized Biden DOJ." Do you worry that Trump is responding to personal emotional appeals rather than legal research? Liz Oyer: Trump does appear to be granting pardons to people in whom he sees something of his own story, something that he can relate to. But the case of Sheriff Jenkins was actually one that was a very straightforward case. He was caught on video accepting envelopes full of cash in exchange for bestowing badges upon people, so it's not a case where there was any doubt about his guilt. It is a case where the president decided to reward someone who was a political loyalist, and it's very unusual to see pardons of corrupt public officials in the way that Trump has been granting them. Sheriff Jenkins is actually one of, I believe, about eight public officials, elected officials, who have committed crimes involving an abuse of their official office who have received pardons from President Trump just in his second term alone. Dana Taylor: Why do you think it's important to have an independent set of eyes researching cases? Liz Oyer: What's so essential about the function that the Office of the Pardon Attorney has played historically is the vetting of candidates that they provide. The Department of Justice has a set of criteria that are very detailed and very rigorous that apply in every case before a recommendation is made to grant clemency. And in the interests of public safety, that vetting is taken very seriously so individuals who are not vetted won't get through this process. The vetting is an important component of it. And the other really important role that the Office of the Pardon Attorney has historically played is accessibility, making sure that the clemency process is accessible to all, not just those who have political connections, which unfortunately appear to be the only types of people who are getting clemency under the current administration. Dana Taylor: Paul Walczak, a former nursing home executive, also received a pardon. His mother recently attended a $1 million plate Mar-a-Lago fundraiser for Trump's Super PAC. Do you worry the president will grant clemency in exchange for gifts or even bribes? Liz Oyer: It appears that we're getting very close to that line. Individuals who are making large donations to the President or his causes are seeing those donations rewarded in the form of pardons. Walczak is one example of that, but not the only example. There's an individual named Trevor Milton, who committed a massive fraud, defrauded his investors of over $600 million, and he made a campaign donation of $1.8 million to Trump and then got a pardon early in the administration. So it's becoming almost sort of a business transaction for people who are involved in white collar crime. They're making a calculation that, "I can pay X and that I can profit X times 100 on committing white collar crimes," which is not something that we should be encouraging in this manner, and it's not how the pardon process is supposed to work. Dana Taylor: The president was asked a couple of weeks ago if he would consider pardoning P Diddy, who's currently on trial for sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution. In witness testimony, he's been described as violent and abusive. If this pardon were to happen, it would of course put an end to an emotional and taxing trial for his alleged victims. Is there any legal precedent for this? Liz Oyer: It's very unusual to grant pardons to people who are the subject of ongoing cases, but that has not deterred this president. This president has undercut his own justice department multiple times by pulling the rug out from under prosecutions that they're actively pursuing. It would be very unusual to grant a pardon to somebody in this circumstance who's currently on trial, but the president does have the authority to do that if that's what he chooses. I will note that one of the things that the Department of Justice ordinarily does is solicit input from victims of crimes about how they would feel about a pardon. That step is being skipped by this current administration. The people who are victims of these crimes that are being pardoned are not being consulted for their input, which again, is not how the process is supposed to work. Dana Taylor: These recent clemencies came on the heels of the biggest blanket clemency of all time, and that was for the January 6th rioters, including those who assaulted police officers. As a former pardon attorney, what's the takeaway here for the American public when it comes to pardons for Trump loyalists, and what message does it send to the law officer community? Liz Oyer: Well, that action, along with the other things this president has done have sent a very strong message that the pardon power is going to be used to reward political loyalists. He appointed a pardon attorney who essentially has said as much. After the pardon of that corrupt sheriff that you mentioned, Sheriff Jenkins, the new pardon attorney, Ed Martin, announced, "No MAGA left behind," which seemed to convey a view that MAGA supporters would be broadly considered for pardons if they have committed crimes. And certainly that's what the January 6th pardons reflect on an absolutely massive scale, that the president's supporters don't have to worry about committing crimes because they will be protected by pardons. Dana Taylor: Liz, does the Constitution say anything about the appearance of a two-tiered system of justice? Liz Oyer: The Constitution grants the President this unchecked power to grant pardons and commutations of sentence, and there really are no limits to it. But the framers who wrote this broad power into the Constitution intended that it would be used for mercy, that it would be used to correct excesses of the criminal justice system, not that it would be used to do special favors for people who have political connections or wealth, but that's exactly how it's being used now. The judge in the case of Paul Walczak that you mentioned actually said in sentencing Walczak to prison, "I'm sending the message that wealth is not a get out of jail free card in this country." And literally days later, Trump granted Walczak a pardon, which just illustrates that in fact, under Trump's system of justice, wealth can be and often is a get out of jail free card. Dana Taylor: As you've said, the power of the pardon has been used for centuries to grant clemency to those the President feels are deserving of it. In your opinion, has the legitimacy of the pardon power been called into question? Liz Oyer: Absolutely the legitimacy of the pardon power has been called into question. I think that there are a lot of people in this country now who are watching what's happening and asking why does this power even exist? It is a power that has a great deal of potential to be used for good. We saw it at its height under President Obama who used it in a very principled and disciplined way to reduce sentences of people who were over-incarcerated due to outdated mandatory minimums, and he did that in a way that was very fair and consistent across the board and did a lot of good. But the way it's been used more recently and what Trump is doing with it now is really raising legitimate questions about whether this power is a good thing. Dana Taylor: Thank you so much for sharing your insights and for being on The Excerpt, Liz. Liz Oyer: Thank you very much for having me. Dana Taylor: Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@ Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Newsweek
Republicans Launch Investigation Into Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republicans on the House Oversight Committee have announced a probe into Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Governor Gavin Newsom's response to protests and riots in the state and city over the past week. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer of Kentucky and Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana, both Republicans, sent letters to Newsom, Bass and the Department of Justice on Friday, all of which were published on the House Oversight Committee website. In his letters to Newsom and Bass, Comer accused the two leaders of having "protested President Trump's action to quell the violence caused by the rioters in Los Angeles, even resorting to falsely blaming him for the actions of violent rioters." Comer also accused the leaders of "falsely" claiming that law enforcement had protests under control as "police were clearly unable to quell the violence in Los Angeles prior ot the arrival of the National Guardsmen." "You have championed California's sanctuary policies, which prevent local law enforcement's cooperation with federal immigration authorities," Comer wrote in those letters. "You have also made it clear that you intend to block the objectives of the federal government, and defend aliens, regardless of their immigration status, criminal activity, anti-American views, or incitement to riot." Comer informed the two leaders that they must turn over any documentation of any communications they had between each other and with state, local and federal law enforcement regarding the protests and riots. This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil does not have to be released despite judge's order, Trump administration argues
Mahmoud Khalil's hopes of being freed on bond as he continues fighting the Trump administration's efforts to deport him were dashed Friday, despite a judge saying the government could no longer hold Khalil on the premise that his presence in the country is against the national interest. The administration was given until 9:30 a.m. Friday to file an appeal, or else the preliminary injunction would go into effect. No appeal was filed Friday, and attorneys for the Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate student demanded his release. 'The deadline has come and gone and Mahmoud Khalil must be released immediately. Anything further is an attempt to prolong his unconstitutional, arbitrary, and cruel detention,' Khalil's legal team said in a statement Friday morning. Judge Michael Farbiarz gave the government a new deadline of 1:30 p.m. to respond to the demand of Khalil's attorneys that he be immediately released. Farbiarz said the determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Khalil's presence in the country had 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States' was likely unconstitutional. But attorneys for the Department of Justice said the judge's decision did not prevent them from continuing to hold Khalil on a second claim – that he failed to give required information in his application to become a legal permanent resident of the US, in their response letter to the judge on Friday. Farbiarz appeared to throw cold water on that reasoning in his order earlier this week, writing, 'The evidence is that lawful permanent residents are virtually never detained pending removal for the sort of alleged omissions in a lawful-permanent-resident application that the Petitioner is charged with here.' But the judge did not specifically strike down that charge as a reason for detaining Khalil, and the Trump administration is seizing on that distinction. 'While the Court made a factual finding that it was unlikely that Khalil would be detained on another basis … the Court never held that it would be unlawful for Respondents to detain Khalil based on another charge of removability,' the Department of Justice attorneys wrote in their response. Khalil has not been charged with a crime. The Syrian-born Palestinian refugee is one of several foreign nationals the Trump administration has accused of posing a national security threat due to alleged ties to terrorist organizations – a claim his attorneys have repeatedly disputed. The administration has relied on an obscure section of US law to argue that Khalil should be deported because his presence in the United States threatens the administration's foreign policy goal of combatting antisemitism. His lawyers, meanwhile, challenged the legality of Khalil's detention and contend he was targeted for his pro-Palestinian views in violation of his constitutional rights. They argue the government's evidence is insufficient and based solely on a letter from Secretary of State Marco Rubio that does not allege criminal activity. CNN's Gloria Pazmino contributed to this report. This is a developing story and will be updated.
