Steven Crea and the Murder of Michael Meldish - PT 1-7

[mafiastudent]

Good evening. I am posting this up with permission from Soliai who also said I can post in multiple threads....it's 26 pages long....it's a long story...so I'm going to do some replies to myself to get some of this stuff up there and then make separate threads.

Guilt for the Guiltless: The Story of Steven Crea, the Murder of Michael Meldish and Other Tales

“….the other thing we’ve learned…is just how large the universe of other people who wanted the guy dead is.”

Judge Cathy Siebel on Michael Meldish during a bail hearing for Steven D. Crea on August 3, 2018
On November 15, 2013, on a quiet street in the Throggs Neck neighborhood of the Bronx, 62-year-old Michael Meldish was found dead in his car with a single, fatal gunshot wound to the right side of his head.

Police were more than giddy about the murder, immediately telling news outlets they believed it was a “gangland-style” execution.

Meldish was one of the reputed leaders of the Purple Gang – a criminal group that controlled the drug trade in the Bronx and Harlem in the 70s and 80s. They were said to have killed and dismembered over 100 rivals, with Meldish having committed at least half of those murders himself. Police described him as a “stone-cold killer.”

Law enforcement pursued Meldish for more than 30 years but was wildly unsuccessful in bringing any charges against him even though he had been arrested 18 times since the early 70s. Joseph Coffey, former head of the NYPD Organized Crime Homicide Task Force, blamed it on witnesses who wouldn’t come forward.

“They had the people so terrified they just wouldn’t cooperate,” he said. He then added that Meldish’s murder “should have happened a long time ago. I call it vermin killing vermin – poetic justice.”

Despite spending what seemed to be an inordinate amount of time trying to “pin murders” on Meldish to no avail, law enforcement had no such problems when it came time to find the killers of this particular “vermin.” Reportedly, authorities identified the suspects “within days.” Yet, it took nearly a year before any arrests were made.

Eventually, four defendants were brought to trial for the events of that chilly November night in 2013 – Steven L. Crea, Matthew Madonna, Christopher Londonio, and Terrence Caldwell.

The murder and the trial that followed made headlines around the world and while the juiciest details made the pages of various media outlets, the complete story of what happened never did.

What follows is an in-depth look into the case of Steven L. Crea and how the government wrongly won a conviction against an innocent man for a murder he didn’t commit, participate in, or have any knowledge about.

Truths and Lies
Before we delve into the details of this sordid tale, there are some basic facts that need to be clarified.

First, there is no such thing as Crea Sr and Crea Jr – only Steven L (the elder) and Steven D (his son.) While our main focus is on the elder Crea, his son plays a major role in the story we’re about to tell. We’ll be referring to the elder Crea as Steven L or Crea and the younger Crea as Steven D. But what’s important is that this common Crea misnomer is a fact that was clarified by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Kelly at the July 21, 2017 bail hearing for Steven L when she told the Court: …Stevie Crea, Jr – he’s not actually a junior; they have different middle names.”

Next, like most of us, Crea has probably been called a lot of things in his lifetime, but he has never been called “Stevie Wonder,” “Wonder Boy,” or “Herbie” – by people who know him personally and people who don’t.

Sure, you see those nicknames floating around the web, in news reports, and on government indictments, but those nicknames don’t exist in the real world. Even law enforcement knows Crea’s nicknames aren’t real. Plus, Crea’s middle name is not Lorenzo. We’re not going to tell you what his real middle name is because, quite frankly, it’s none of your business, but Lorenzo isn’t it.

The point of bringing up these issues is to show how the government likes to pick and choose when it wants to tell the truth and when it wants to fib in order to further their case – even when it comes to the smallest of details. But Crea’s bogus nicknames aren’t small details as they become a very significant part of the case against him.

In addition, based on our review of all the public documents available in this case, it should be immediately noted just how low the feds will go when they have a target or targets in their crosshairs. They’ll pay criminals or use lying and desperate “witnesses” to assist with their dirty deeds. They’ll outright lie and manipulate the facts to reach their goals, even throwing temper tantrums in the middle of a trial to get their way. They’ll leak misinformation to the press complete with Hollywood-style storylines and use the media in the cruelest of ways to keep their narrative front and center without even thinking of how it might affect the families of those they’ve accused or even the accused themselves.

Because, after all, the feds are doing it in the name of “justice.” But their brand of justice doesn’t follow the “playbook” when it comes to organized crime. Instead, they pull out their secret down and dirty one that follows no rules.


Sitting Ducks
Although back in November 2013 law enforcement claimed it had identified “the suspects” in the Meldish murder, it wasn’t until the following year that the murder case started to pick up steam.

The first to be arrested was Christopher Londonio on November 8, 2014, on unrelated state gun charges. Londonio was an alleged “soldier” in the Lucchese Family and also a friend of Meldish. He was released on November 14 after posting bail.

Six months later, on May 5, 2015, Terrence Caldwell was picked up in Harlem and questioned by the NYPD about the murder. Caldwell was a friend of both Londonio and Meldish and was also an alleged “associate” of the Lucchese Family, though that’s debatable. He was held without bail on suspicion of murder.

On May 11, only a few days later, Londonio was hit with federal gun charges brought in a complaint by FBI agent Theodore Otto. SDNY Special Agent John Carillo was also involved in the investigation. Londonio was once again arrested, but this time there was no bail. He stayed behind bars.

Newspapers erroneously reported that Londonio and Caldwell had been charged with Meldish’s murder. In addition, “sources” leaked to Gang Land News that Londonio was the “definite new suspect” in the murder. The sources claimed there was “evidence” linking both Londonio and Caldwell to the crime, but no murder charges had yet been brought against either of them from the state or the federal government.

Gang Land later reported this happened so that “state probers” could gather and present “evidence” to the grand jury.” And federal “probers” would continue to try and gather “evidence” throughout the entirety of the case, even after they brought indictments against all the players allegedly involved. But, at this time, Londonio was only a small fish in a big pond and the feds wanted to use their little fish to catch bigger and better ones.

One of the ways they did this was by tickling the wires – a method that has always been a favorite of theirs. And in this particular world, they always seem to turn to their favorite source to do it – Gang Land News.

Gang Land News is a subscription-based online publication that touts itself as “the nation’s foremost expert on the American mafia.” It’s published by Jerry Capeci, who covered the organized crime beat for the NY Post (and who still occasionally contributes to its pages.) Gang Land is also reportedly read by alleged mafia members and federal officials alike, so it was the perfect vehicle for a fishing expedition by the feds.

But there was a problem. The “exclusive” information being leaked and published was speculation, and it was painting two men guilty in the eyes of the public and the potential jury pool before anyone was even officially charged with murder.

In essence, Gang Land News had become the unofficial spin machine for the prosecution as they desperately tried to put their ultimate fantasy case together. And it makes no difference if many times throughout this sordid tale it seemed that Gang Land was making fun of their informational benefactor. The fact is the majority of what was being published, especially in the early stages, was one-sided “evidence” that was put into the public arena without any thought as to how this gossip, speculation, and misinformation might affect the potential defendants, if and when they went to trial – something that a renowned journalist like Capeci should have learned in Ethics 101 .

What’s worse, the feds didn’t even know how to write this particular script. The only thing they knew for certain was that they wanted their big fish – aka Crea – and Londonio was the key to getting their man.

Going Fishing
On June 4, 2015, both Londonio and Caldwell were officially indicted by a Bronx grand jury and charged for their alleged participation in Meldish’s murder. Caldwell was accused of being the “trigger man” while Londonio was accused of being the “getaway driver.” But the accusation was a state charge, not a federal one, and it would remain that way for nearly another year.

Even so, law enforcement turned it up a notch. They wanted Londonio to flip, but he wasn’t biting. So, once again, they “leaked” information to see what they could catch.

In November 2015, Gang Land reported that Matthew Madonna, the alleged “boss” of the Lucchese Family, had been thrown into the mix. “Sources” told the outlet that prosecutors were “hoping” to include Madonna in the murder case based on information they received from “informants” as to how the hit went down. The rumor was that Meldish owed Madonna money for a gambling debt but refused to pay, even insulting and “disrespecting” the alleged “boss.”

When this “news” hit, Madonna was in prison serving a sentence for an illegal gambling and loansharking conviction he got back in June of that year. Remember, too, that both Londonio and Caldwell were sitting in jail when the informant rumors made the rounds. In effect, the “sources” were surreptitiously pointing fingers at the two recently arrested Meldish murder suspects, even though the rumors being circulated were false.

And even though the feds supposedly had all this “evidence” against Londonio and Caldwell, the case was lost in limbo – except for more rumors planted in the media and TV show-like drama happening behind the scenes.

As the World Turns
In March 2016, Gang Land reported there was a battle brewing between two factions of prosecutors over who should be in charge of the Meldish murder mystery – Bronx or Brooklyn.

In the Bronx, Assistant D.A. Christine Scaccia, who had been in charge of the state case since Londonio and Caldwell were first arrested in 2015 was working with the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office. That office was trying to “muster enough evidence” to file its own federal charges.

Over in Brooklyn, U.S. Attorney Nicole Argentieri was working on her own case and wanted Scaccia to “stand down.” Argentieri claimed she had a “turncoat” with information that would blow the case wide open, but Scaccia wasn’t budging. It seemed that everyone wanted a piece of this headline-worthy pie.

Plus, it was reported that lawyers for Londonio hadn’t even received discovery material or any evidence at all to support the charges levied against him.

Prosecutors claimed it was because they didn’t want to “jeopardize” their investigation, but it wasn’t clear which faction’s investigation was being jeopardized. Londonio’s lawyer, Charles Carnesi, told Gang Land the evidence was “sketchy” at best.

If you think about it, it sounds reasonable. DNA, phone records, and license plate readers seem like pretty solid evidence, but no federal charges were brought and the state case wasn’t moving along. Yet, two men – presumed innocent – were still sitting behind bars and others were being unfairly implicated. In addition, media reports were wild with rumors about “turncoats” who would blow the case wide open while Londonio and Caldwell were still sitting behind bars, unfairly implicating them as well.

It also begs the question as to why, if the evidence was so solid, did prosecutors need more time to “investigate?” Did they really possess the “evidence” they claimed they had?

One can speculate that not only did prosecutors not have the rock-solid evidence they claimed, but they also wanted more time to try to flip Londonio – and work on how they were going to piece together their case once Londonio made it clear he wasn’t going to bend over to their desires despite their numerous underhanded attempts to do so.

The Road to Nowhere
By September 2016, there was still no movement by either the feds or the state on the murder charges against Londonio or Caldwell. Londonio had already served 16 months and was set to be sentenced for the federal gun charges stemming from his May 2015 arrest.

He had previously agreed to a plea deal where the maximum sentence he could have received was 18 months, partly because he had no prior felony convictions.


Attorney Charles Carnesi who represented Christopher Londonio until his death in February 2019
But federal prosecutors were vehemently opposed to that sentencing even though they were the ones who had offered that deal in the first place. As it turns out, Assistant U. S. District Attorney Scott Hartman had changed his mind, and in a sentencing memo asked that Londonio be kept behind bars for at least “36 months or more.”

In other words, because the feds were so desperate to put together their trial of the decade, they wanted to renege on a plea deal and force an innocent man – who had already been sitting in jail for over a year – to serve an additional 20 months – three years total – for illegal gun possession charges. It’s also possible they were more than a little perturbed that Londonio was refusing to cooperate and wanted more time to work on that, too.

In addition, Londonio was still unable to even start preparing his case against the murder charges because his lawyer still hadn’t received the proper discovery material. It was a game the feds would play until the bitter end.

Carnesi described it best when he told Gang Land, “What we got was a roadmap to the discovery, but we got no discovery. We got police reports saying there were surveillance videos, but we didn’t get the videos; we got another police report saying there are statements, but we didn’t get the statements.”

It appears that the feds were still in the outline phase of their movie and trying to find the playerswho would make their “evidence” fit.

The Departed
On February 13, 2017, federal prosecutors finally made their move and officially indicted Londonio and Caldwell for the murder of Michael Meldish and other racketeering offenses.

However, even though the murder had taken place in the Bronx where the case had been brewing since 2015, the feds decided to bring the case to White Plains – a suburb of New York nowhere near the scene of the murder or any of the other crimes charged.

Even White Plains Federal Judge Nelson Roman, who had been assigned the case, questioned the move. He even wondered about the fact that two of the three prosecutors involved were based in the Manhattan office. So, he demanded that the prosecution provide good reasoning as to why it shouldn’t be transferred back there.

But Judge Roman wasn’t given a chance to rule on the issue. He was abruptly removed and replaced by Judge Cathy Siebel, who had a long history with “organized crime” having previously served as an assistant district attorney in the office’s organized crime unit. Not even the defense was aware of the change, only learning from the docket sheet that Roman was “no longer assigned to the case.”

Surprisingly, even Gang Land was scratching its head, stating that judge reassignments “are normally a matter of public record,” except it wasn’t so in this case. Capeci even reached out to both Roman’s and Siebel’s offices but was quickly rebuffed, both offices declining to comment without any specific detail.

At least not yet.

Later, it was revealed that prosecutors had given Roman a four-page letter explaining their reasons which included, among other things, that the Lucchese Family reportedly held their Christmas parties in Westchester County and that the White Plains prosecutors had already spent “so much time” investigating the case, it wouldn’t be fair to move it to another jurisdiction.

But by this time the point was moot. It was staying in White Plains.

Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap
In March 2017, the feds were back to their old tricks, turning once again to their favorite media outlet to report that federal prosecutors in Manhattan were planning to “hit the two top leaders” of the Lucchese Family – namely Crea and Madonna – for their reported role in Meldish’s murder. Madonna had already been mentioned back in November 2015, but Crea was a new addition.

Not only did the feds provide Gang Land with an “exclusive” story complete with the names of those they were pursuing, but they wanted to make it clear (in case anyone missed it) exactly who Crea and Madonna allegedly were in the chain of command. It could be described as pre-trial hierarchy PR.

Although Gang Land reported that the specific titles of Crea and Madonna “vary depending on whom you ask and when you pose the question,” the two were identified by law enforcement “sources” as alleged “underboss” and “acting boss,” respectively. This accusation fit perfectly into the feds’ underlying scheme to catch the bigger fish. Bigger fish, of course, meant bigger headlines, but it also meant putting out a public narrative that had yet to be proven in court.

In addition, “sources” told Gang Land they were targeting Crea’s son Steven D for racketeering and murder charges, even calling him an alleged “capo” in the Family. All this, despite the fact that the 45-year-old Steven D had no criminal record.

So, imagine if you had no criminal record – aka innocent – and all of a sudden gossip started circulating about you being involved in a “criminal enterprise” in a “high-standing position” and that the feds were coming for you? Not only that, but also that your dad was a “top guy” and the feds were coming for him, too? No one here can say that gossip in the neighborhood wouldn’t have run rampant and that everyone would be hitting the internet, checking the papers, and turning on their local news to see what came next.

It doesn’t matter at this point what was going to happen in two months. What matters is that, once again, innocent men were being painted guilty in the public eye even before any official charges were brought against them. And all the rumors and gossip were circulating right smack in the middle of the very place where these men called home – and the very place from which the potential jury pool would be drawn.

It was about to become a media frenzy with almost daily coverage, including in-depth television reports about the “gangster” next door and all sorts of other delicious fodder. So, what happened to their “innocent before being proven guilty” constitutional rights when these men were already labeled guilty before even stepping into a court of law? Was the media coverage fair and unbiased? Or did it just highlight the parts that would make for great water-cooler conversation the next day?

The Indictment Downpour
On May 31, 2017, Gang Land’s previous astounding “predictions” came true. Crea, his son, Steven D, and Matthew Madonna were charged with Meldish’s murder. Also charged in the superseding indictment were Christopher Londonio and Terrence Caldwell.

Fourteen other alleged members of the Lucchese Family were indicted on various charges as well, including attempted murder, extortion, loansharking, and labor racketeering.

Crea and Joseph Datello were charged with the attempted murder of Sean Richard, and the Creas, Vincent Bruno, and Paul Cassano were charged with the attempted murder of Carl Ulzheimer.

In addition, the elder Crea was charged with numerous other crimes under the draconian RICO Act, including almost everything every other defendant was charged with.. It should be noted that Crea had been indicted on labor racketeering charges in 2000. He served a 36-month sentence after a plea agreement and wasn’t released until 2006, with his supervised release restrictions being lifted in 2009.

For the Meldish murder, the feds were seeking the death penalty and didn’t change their stance until May 29, 2018, after they tried milking everything they could out of any defendant they could with a death penalty sentence hanging over his head.

The last time an alleged “mafia” figure had been executed was in 1944. His name was Lepke Buchalter. More recently, in 2011, and somewhat relevant to this case as we’ll learn later, a jury decided against the death penalty in the murder case of Vincent Basciano the alleged “acting boss” of the Bonanno Family, recommending instead another life sentence.

But the threat of the death penalty was a useful tool for the feds in getting people to flip. Former Bonanno Joe Massino famously did just that in 2004 after being threatened with death by the government. However, the feds weren’t going to have that kind of success with any of the defendants in this case.

Madonna, who was 80-years-old at the time and in poor health, was still sitting in jail in New Jersey, his dreams of parole effectively dashed (he was supposed to be released in January 2017.) Caldwell was also sitting in jail. For Londonio, who was still sitting in jail as well, his story was about to become a real-life horror movie.

Crea, who was 70-years-old at the time, and his son Steven D were arrested, but bail was going to become a nightmare.

In fact, the whole case was about to become one big clusterfuck of inordinate proportions.

------------

The Ratsqua Files
At the time of the indictment, the only witness the prosecution had tying Crea and Steven D to Meldish’s murder was a guy by the name of Frank Pasqua III.

Pasqua was an informant who started working with the FBI in March 2015 after a drug bust in Mississippi. He had a long history of drug abuse and domestic violence and had previously been arrested numerous times on drug charges. Pasqua was also the son of Frank, Jr., an alleged member of the Lucchese Family and Frank Sr., an alleged member of the Gambino Family before his death.

Shortly after his arrest, Pasqua met with the FBI and told a fascinating story about how the Meldish hit really went down. It was a story that didn’t quite gel with what the feds touted when they eventually charged Crea, Steven D, and the others in February and May 2017.

The “real” story, according to court records, was that Pasqua and his father had met with Steven D and “agreed to murder Meldish.” Steven D’s only explanation was that the hit order “comes from the top…Mikey’s got to go” and “my dad [Steven L. Crea]…knows about it.”

Following their “orders,” Pasqua and his father went to “pick Meldish up and bring him to Mulberry Street to pick up 100 grams [of heroin] on consignment” with the intention that they would wait until when Meldish could “pay for the 100 grams” to “kill him and keep the money.”

Pasqua reported that after arriving at the meet-up location, he and his father “walked towards (Meldish’s) car” and as Pasqua “began to get in the front seat,” his father told him to “go get the tablet (iPad)” from their car so they “can have a map” to get where they needed to go afterward.

Pasqua went to retrieve the iPad, and as he was doing so, he “heard what he initially thought was a car door slam” but “then realized it was a gunshot.” When he looked to see what was happening, he saw that “Meldish’s car door (was) left open” and that his father was “walking towards him.” Pasqua’s father then said, “It’s done,” and directed him “not to say anything,” but “if anyone asks them, (you) killed Meldish. So you can get credit for it.” The duo then left the scene and “dropped (their) car in front of a parking lot.”

The story seemed to fit with the reported evidence of Meldish’s murder scene. He was shot in the right side of the head presumably by a passenger in his car and the driver’s side door was open. But Pasqua’s story was about to change in a big way.

Strange Tales
In May 2015, Pasqua had been transferred from a Mississippi jail to the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) in Brooklyn.

While there, he also had an epiphany about what really happened the night Michael Meldish was murdered. Apparently, the first story he told was a “mistake” because according to him, he and his father weren’t involved in the murder at all. Yet, he insisted, Crea and Steven D were behind it.

The funny thing, though, is that his epiphany came only after he learned Londonio had been officially charged with Meldish’s murder. And the only part of his story that changed was that he and his father had nothing to do with it, but somehow he was still involved in a conversation with supposed “top guys” about a murder.

But there are even more oddities to this strange tale.

According to court documents, Pasqua originally told his story to FBI Agent Jennifer Laurie and Brooklyn U.S. Attorney Nicole Argentieri. But Pasqua’s story was suspicious. Even though back in 2016, the rumors were that Argentieri’s “informant” would blow the case wide open, the two decided to put Pasqua on a shelf.

Soon after, though, FBI Agent Ted Otto and U.S. Assistant Attorney Scott Hartman got wind of Pasqua’s tale and decided to dust him off as their golden ticket towards a federal indictment.

This particular change of agents and attorneys happened right before Pasqua had his epiphany. And Otto was already familiar with the case, having been the same agent who wrote the complaint against Londonio that got him arrested on federal gun charges and detained at the MDC in the first place. And while the government later claimed that Pasqua was “confused” about the details of the murder, Pasqua never once wavered from his original story during the four meetings he had with the FBI from March 2015 through October 2015.

Right after Pasqua’s retelling of his tall tale to Otto and Hartman, he conveniently agreed to wear a wire and befriend Londonio in the hopes that Londonio would give the feds the evidence they needed to tie in their targets for a federal indictment. To make it even easier, they arranged for Pasqua to become Londonio’s cellmate at the MDC.

During that time, Pasqua recorded a lot of conversations, too. After all, Pasqua had “connections,” and it seemed logical that Londonio would feel comfortable talking with him.

From the time Pasqua agreed to wear the wire through July 2017, over 30 in-person and telephone recordings were made – while he was in jail with Londonio, while visiting Londonio after being released from the MDC, and even during telephone conversations with Londonio when he couldn’t visit. Yet, in all those recorded conversations, not one implicated Crea, Steven D, or even Londonio himself in Meldish’s murder.

Another interesting point is that prosecutors had not turned over the evidence or even released Pasqua’s name to defense counsel because they said they “needed more time to secure CW-1’s safety.” But this was false because, during that time, Pasqua was still wired up trying to gather evidence from Londonio. He had secured 25 recordings after the May 2015 indictment and 11 more after the February 2017 superseding one.

Besides that, several of the conversations seemed to indicate that Pasqua didn’t even believe the lies he himself had told and many showed Londonio didn’t know much about the murder, either.

In a July 9, 2016 conversation, Pasqua told Londonio that he believed the Lucchese Family didn’t have anything to do with the murder.

In a November 24, 2016, conversation, Londonio told Pasqua that “fucking anybody could of did this shit (Meldish murder), bro. The list goes miles long.”

In a conversation on February 3, 2017, after Pasqua asked who committed the murder, Londonio replied, “Terry (Caldwell) didn’t do it, bro.” And in the same conversation, Pasqua told Londonio he shouldn’t worry about the murder charge because he “didn’t have shit to do with it.”

It didn’t seem as though Pasqua was going to be a very useful witness for the feds, even with his new handlers. Besides his own revised story, there was no other proof to back up what he claimed. The government was so nervous about their “star” witness, it even filed a motion requesting the Court ban the defense from cross-examining Pasqua on his super shady past, including:

• A 2012 felony conviction for violating an order of protection and threatening his wife (which the feds called “deplorable” but wasn’t an indication of a “witness’s truthfulness.”)

• A 2014 conviction for shoplifting (which the feds called “a simple shoplifting event” where he forgot to pay for an item he “accidentally” placed in his pocket.)

• Numerous incidents of domestic violence, including a 2006 rape accusation (because he hadn’t actually been convicted.)

• Or any questions about his mental health or drug abuse (because it had no bearing on his “credibility.”)

Despite their efforts to limit the damage, the government’s golden witness was about to implode. They needed a backup and found someone who was an even bigger winner than Pasqua.

A Hookah-Smoking Agent and His Delusional Jailhouse Snitch
On September 13, 2017, federal prosecutors charged Londonio with concocting an elaborate and fantastical plan to escape from the MDC where he had been housed since being charged with Meldish’s murder the previous February.

The feds said it was like a “script for a made-for-tv movie” that involved a hacksaw, dental floss, and rope made out of tied-up bedsheets with co-starring roles being given to his mother, father, wife, and even a priest.

(Side Note: The September charges against Londonio barely made a blip on the news front, but in October 2019 – more than two years later! – after Gang Land obtained the 10-page detailed report taken by Otto, this sick, made-up fantasy story by the feds made headlines around the world. And they weren’t nice. We’re not going to get into the specifics of that ludicrousness here, but there’s a lot to be said. The full story will be posted soon.)


A psychedelic view of the MDC in Brooklyn
This bogus escape charge was based on information from a jailhouse snitch by the name of David Evangelista.

Evangelista was a grammar school-educated heroin addict with documented mental problems (including depression, anxiety, and PTSD) and suicidal tendencies (he once swallowed razor blades while in his prison psychologist’s office) who had robbed several banks in Brooklyn in 2005.

He had been sentenced to 12 years in prison, but in November 2016, a few months before he was set to be released, he decided he was well enough to go back into society on his own and escaped from a Bronx halfway house.

He promptly robbed two more banks and attempted to rob a third. When he was arrested that December, he was taken to a hospital for evaluation (at his request) and then tried to escape from custody. He told marshals he had to use the bathroom, climbed onto the sink, and tried to escape through the ceiling. He even punched a hole in the wall to get to the adjacent room to facilitate his escape.

After he was subdued, he quickly attempted to make a deal with authorities to snitch on people he thought would be of interest to them in order to get a better plea deal for himself because he knew he was going to get slammed for the additional bank robberies and the escape itself.

Evangelista even offered up his own brother and another guy he had met in jail who he claimed had committed a murder. By the way, when Evangelista left the halfway house and before going on his bank-robbing rampage, he claimed he first went to dispose of the body of the man his jailhouse friend had supposedly killed. It was wrapped in a tarp and hidden in an alley – apparently.

Evangelista also wasn’t a very skilled bank robber since he only got $40 from one bank and about $1200 at the other, but it was enough for him to buy heroin to satisfy his craving.

Despite all this intriguing information he had in his back pocket, prosecutors declined his offer. Perhaps it was because they knew he had a long history of lying and being a snitch, especially on people he was told to watch when officials “needed it.” So, why pay him when they could get the information for free?

After the hospital incident, Evangelista was transferred to the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in Manhattan. On May 12, 2017, he was then accidentally released. Instead of taking advantage of the situation, he decided to turn himself in (like the good boy he was) after visiting his mother, telling authorities that they had made a mistake. He became the jailhouse laughing stock.

He was also set to face an additional 45 years behind bars because of those additional crimes. Evangelista didn’t want any more prison time because prison didn’t agree with him. He desperately wanted to make a deal, which is why, he said, he walked back through the doors of the MCC.

While the odds didn’t appear to be in his favor, he got lucky when Agent Otto opened a magic door.

The Magic Door
Around this time, Londonio was “accidentally” put into the GEO facility in Queens. It was well known throughout the prison population as “the rat jail.” He sat there for 8 days before prison officials “realized” it was a “mistake” and returned him to the MDC. But you can be sure that “word” about his GEO visit had already gotten around. And it compounded the falsity and ludicrousness of the rumor the feds had already insinuated with all their informant rumors they leaked to the press.

Shortly after Evangelista’s return to the MCC, he ended up talking with another set of prosecutors and agents who were willing to listen – the same ones, by chance, who happened to be working on the Meldish murder case (including Agent Otto.) Then, almost like magic, Evangelista found himself at the MDC where Christopher Londonio had just returned. He even ended up in the same cell block as Londonio – a convenient three cells down.

The very same day Evangelista arrived at the MDC, he met Londonio and the two reportedly became fast friends. So much so, that within that same week, Londonio bared his soul to his new best buddy – at least that’s the first story the government told.

According to court documents, Londonio divulged intricate details about his involvement in Meldish’s murder. He even shared with Evangelista his devious plan to escape the confines of the MDC.

And Evangelista was an old pro at hearing jailhouse confessions, too. Back when he was at the MCC, there was another inmate who had confided in him about his escape plans, which supposedly included discussion about jumping out of an 11th floor window with bedsheets.


Attorney George Goltzer who represented Terrence Caldwell
It kind of makes you want to ask the same question Caldwell’s attorney George Goltzer asked of Evangelista at the October 2019 trial: “Is there something about you, your personality, if you know, that makes people confess to you?”

Evangelista claimed he didn’t want to tattletale on his best buddy and tried to stay quiet but was getting nervous because he thought Londonio was going to go through with the escape. Evangelista hadn’t yet been sentenced, and he still didn’t have an official deal with the feds. But he didn’t want to get into trouble by not saying something about it beforehand if Londonio happened to be successful – even though Evangelista himself was planning to join in on the escape.

So, on August 1, 2017, he decided to come clean and confessed all he knew to his prison psychologist who contacted the feds who then sent FBI Agent Otto to take Evangelista’s statement. A month later, Londonio was hit with the escape charge – and the feds had a lot more “evidence” about Meldish’s murder, too.

However, the whole scenario seems off. First, Londonio didn’t know Evangelista from Adam. Evangelista didn’t have any “connections” other than both of them being Italian. And they weren’t even cellmates – only housed together in the same cellblock.

Yet, he “confesses” everything to this complete stranger he only knew for a week but never went into any detail ever with Pasqua -a guy he actually formed a relationship with? Think about it. Pasqua and Londionio were cellmates. Pasqua and Londino talked on the phone. Pasqua even visited Londinio in jail. And Pasqua had been recording conversations with Londonio through July 2017. Yet, not one of these times did Londonio ever confess to him let alone the escape.

But let’s get back to that confession.

Pre-trial court documents show that right after Londonio returned from a visit with his mother, he immediately “confessed” to Evangelista about everything Meldish. Evangelista reported that Londonio was “irate” because he learned that the Creas, who had ordered him to kill Meldish, had been released on bail “while he remained in custody.”

Londonio was referring to his mistaken belief that the Creas had gotten bail. However, Londonio never met with his mother on the day Evangelista claimed. And the information he received about the Creas’ bail was via an email discussion with her, not a jailhouse visit.

Even though Londonio’s mother had specifically said the Creas didn’t get bail, he thought they did when she wrote they were “in house.” And despite Evangelista’s claim that Londonio was “irate,” the July 13, 2017 email tells a completely different story.

In reply to his mother’ s news, Londonio wrote: “interesting. wow. that’s great for them love ya ttyl” – a complete contradiction of Evangelista’s claim.

It wasn’t until a few days later in another email that Londonio realized he had misunderstood what his mother was telling him. But that wasn’t the only thing Evangelista had gotten twisted up this twisted fairy tale.

The Myth of “Stevie Wonder”
Londonio said a lot of things to Evangelista during his alleged “confession.” Now, remember, Londonio and Evangelista had only known each other for 65 days – a little more than two months before the jailhouse snitch had bared his soul to prison officials and the FBI. But like everything else the government claimed, that time period would change by the time the trial came around

Remember too, that Londonio had known Pasqua a lot longer and talked with him a lot more as was documented in hours upon hours of recorded conversations. Yet, Londonio never went into this kind of spectacular detail. And while almost every other informant in this case was wire-up, Evangelista wasn’t. Was that because the government didn’t want to admit that they were setting up Londonio and the others even though Evangelista was a documented jailhouse snitch to who reported on people when he was told to?

Londonio revealed to Evangelista that Meldish was “ordered” killed after being “disrespectful to the boss (Madonna).” Then “Stevie Wonder and his son” passed down the orders to Londonio.

So, Londonio hired a “black guy” named “Terry” to shoot the miscreant. But the idea that the Creas had gotten bail while he was still sitting in jail bugged him beyond belief.

He told Evangelista that he “felt used by the people who gave him the order to kill Meldish because they knew he was friendly with Meldish which would afford easy access to (him).”

Plus, Londonio was “enraged” because he had heard from someone in the MDC that Madonna had reportedly called him a “rat.” Obviously, the government’s ploy had worked.

But let’s get back to that “Stevie Wonder and son” statement for a minute.

We already know that nobody calls Crea “Stevie Wonder” – and certainly not an alleged “soldier” when referring to one of his alleged “bosses” no matter how “irate” he may have been.

So, where did Evangelista get the bogus nickname”Stevie Wonder”?

Well, according to pretrial documents, it appears that after Londonio’s cell was searched following the bogus escape charge, eight Gang Land articles were found, and if you’re a regular Gang Land reader, you know that they love to refer to Crea by that bogus nickname.

At this point in the story, it’s unclear if he had previously read the articles in Londonio’s cell, but court documents show that Evangelista had read a Gang Land article provided to him by his lawyer before he talked with prosecutors. He also later admitted in court testimony that he had even talked with prosecutors and agents about a certain Gang Land article “one time.”

So, it’s fair to speculate that Evangelista might have read about “Stevie Wonder” from those articles. Perhaps he thought he would sound more credible using the nickname. Or it could be that Otto just helped him along – another “Ted Otto special” as Carnesi once said to Gang Land when referring to the escape charge. After all, the government needed something to tie Crea to the murder since Pasqua was a sinking ship.

If that seems questionable, then what about the hundreds of thousands of documents and tens of thousands of audio recordings the government possessed from over 20 years’ worth of investigations tied to the current case and even before? Somewhere in all of that material, someone would have to have said the words “Stevie Wonder,” right? Nope. In all of those recordings and documents, there was not one reference to anyone ever calling Crea “Stevie Wonder,” Wonder Boy,” or “Herbie.”

The myth of “Stevie Wonder” was on its deathbed, but like everything in the government’s magical world, “Stevie Wonder” got an unexpected life jolt in the first week of the trial. And like Pasqua before him, Evangelista’s testimony was about to transform into a magnificent work of art come October 2019.

[mafiastudent]

Fight Club
Besides the Meldish murder accusation, Crea was facing other charges as well. He, along with his son Steven D, Paul Cassano, and Vincent Bruno were charged with the attempted murder of Carl Ulzheimer.

Ulzheimer was an alleged “associate” of the Bonanno Family who had reportedly disrespected Crea by refusing him entrance into the Coddington Social Club in the Bronx in 2012.

Crea was so incensed by the affront that he and Steven D handed down “orders” to take out the offender. These “orders” fell to Cassano and Bruno, who then traveled to Ulzheimer’s home “armed with a gun with the intent to shoot and kill” him.

At least that’s the story the feds told initially when the indictment came out in 2017. However, as the case went along, the story began to change so much so that the feds couldn’t even keep their “facts” straight. But perhaps it was because prosecutors were once again relying too heavily on informants who could best be described as the lowest dregs of society, including Anthony Zoccolillo and Peter Lovaglio.

Mama’s Boy
In 2012, Anthony Zoccolillo starred in his own reality show on TLC called “Mama’s Boys of the Bronx.” It followed the lame adventures of a group of loser 30-something Italian-American guys who lived at home with their mommas. The show was such a bomb, it was canceled after only six episodes (one season.) Despite this, Zoccolillo tried to convince the producers of the show to give him a book deal about his life. They declined because his life was – like his show – lame.

Not only was Zoccolillo a failed reality show wanna-be star and book author, but he was also a failed drug dealer and fraudster.

In the early 2000s, he was arrested at Newark Airport in New Jersey after returning from Amsterdam with 20,000 oxycodone pills. He was sentenced to 33 months. As part of his deal, he agreed not to engage in any other illegal activities. However, after he was released, he found that his previous life of crime was too hard to resist, calling to him like a siren in the open seas.

According to court documents, he went to California and started a mortgage business “where he pretended to be a real estate agent” and would scheme people out of their down payments, keeping the “money for his personal use.” He was arrested and served additional time. This was also right after TLC kicked him to the curb for his failed reality show.

As a side note, he obviously had a hard time leaving the reality show life behind too because on April 10, 2012, he got busted on live TV breaking and entering into a house. How lame is that?


Zoccolillo in a starring role on the local news. (Click to enlarge)
In February 2013, he was charged with marijuana and oxycodone pill distribution and running an illegal gambling operation. Facing a mandatory minimum of 30 years in prison, it didn’t take long for him to decide which side of the fence he wanted to be on. Almost immediately after he was arrested, he became a government informant and agreed to wear a wire to gather evidence against various alleged mobsters, some of whom he had known since childhood. In total, his actions were responsible for putting 30 alleged mobsters behind bars.

Zoccolillo’s “work” helped convict alleged Genovese “soldier” Salvatore Larca in 2014 for allegedly running a pot distribution operation. Another case involved alleged members of the Bonanno Family. During that trial in January 2016, Zoccolillo told jurors he became an informant “out of the goodness of (his) heart. I felt it was the right thing to do.” He also admitted that he had the “tendency to exaggerate.”

According to court documents, while he was “acting” on behalf of the government, “he was caught having sexual relations with an underage girl” and was banned from seeing his young daughter because of this. When his government acting gig was over, “he asked his girlfriend, at the time, to go into WITSEC with him. She refused, so he beat her up and broke her nose, and she had to go to the hospital. He also stated numerous times that he would ‘feed her prescription pills’ (knowing she had an addiction) to keep her high. He knew that was the only time she was nice to him and he could control her.”

Despite all that, the government still paid him for his services and supported him and his mother (who had gone into WITSEC with him), even to this day.

Even more stunning was the government accolades he received in 2014 after he was rewarded with time served for his 2013 drug charges. According to Gang Land, Judge Richard Sullivan, praised his performance, telling Zoccolillo, “You really were an extraordinary operator and that has to be acknowledged and rewarded loudly. The work you have done, the cases that you have made, the difference you have made is truly extraordinary, no doubt about it.” Judge Sullivan, by the way, was the presiding judge during Larca’s 2014 trial.

But in the case of Steven L. Crea, Zoccolillo’s performance was only going to garner him a Razzie Award.

The Bullshitter
Peter Lovaglio was another top-notch winner for the feds. Lovaglio – known on the street as Petey Bullshit – was an alleged “capo” in the Bonanno Family who was convicted for stock fraud in 2003. He turned government informant shortly after he violently slashed the face of a Staten Island restaurant owner, causing him to become blind in one eye. Lovaglio had been facing up to 25 years for the assault, but in March 2017, he was given only 8 years for the crime. LCNBios reported he became an informant on June 23, 2016.

Lovaglio was a key witness in the trial of alleged former Bonanno “boss” Joseph Cammarano Jr and alleged former Bonanno “consigliere” John Zancocchio in March 2019. Both were acquitted. Before that trial began, Lovaglio was accused by defense attorneys of being given a “cheat sheet” by prosecutors to help him during his testimony.

He was also picked up on tape demanding money from an FBI agent before he would provide information, telling the agent, “Without the money, don’t bother.” And in another wiretap, he told a friend the feds were going to “wipe out” his sentence.

Gang Land later reported that Lovaglio also had a history of violent domestic abuse, including “brutal beatings” of former partners.

Still, none of that mattered to the feds in Crea’s case because Lovaglio knew everything about the Coddington Club confrontation that would lead to the alleged attempted murder of Carl Ulzheimer. And he would testify about it in excruciating detail in October 2019 – except his version of events would completely contradict those of Zoccolillo’s.

Word on the Street is…
When word first hit the streets about the alleged hit on Ulzheimer, rumors swirled like crazy. But despite all their supposed recordings and timelines, not even the feds could keep an accurate account of what really went down.

Was it early 2012 or late 2012? Was there one attempt or two?

At Steven D’s bail hearing on June 15, 2017, the government claimed the attempted hit took place in early 2012 and that Cassano and Bruno had only made one attempt to find and kill their quarry before giving up.

But less than a month later at the July 21, 2017, bail hearing for the elder Crea, the prosecution changed its story, claiming the alleged hit took place in late 2012 and that there were two failed attempts on Ulzheimer’s life. The government even beefed up the drama by claiming that “when Bruno and Cassano showed up at his house, he (Ulzheimer) pretended not to be home and the two left.”

And then at Steven D’s next bail hearing on July 28, 2017, the government dropped a bomb, claiming it had audio recordings that directly tied Steven D to the attempted murder of Ulzheimer.

“The evidence is quite strong against Mr. Crea,” the government said. “It includes a recorded conversation in which a Genovese soldier, who is close with Mr. Crea, talks about Crea’s specific role in the plan to murder this Bonanno associate.” This was allegedly a conversation between Larca and Zoccolillo.

The government even upped the ante saying that after Ulzheimer denied Crea entrance into the Coddington Club, he told Ulzheimer, “I’m going to remember your face” – which, by the way, was a statement that changed during court testimony.

But like almost every part of this warped fairy tale, there were several problems with their claims.

First, Larca and Steven D weren’t close at all. In the actual recordings, Larca doesn’t speak too kindly about Crea, which didn’t quite fit with the story of two guys being “close.”

The government also claimed that on a May 22, 2013 recording, Larca is heard saying Steven D had a “hard-on” for Ulzheimer since the alleged Coddington Club incident. They added that this was the “direct proof” linking the Creas to the attempted hit on Ulzheimer.

Even Siebel agreed at the time, saying, “I think it is a fair inference from the recording that when Larca says they had a hard-on, he meant that the defendant and his father were out to get Ulzheimer for what happened in that club.”

Yet, the actual recording indicated that the “hard-on” was for a completely different guy – Ernie Aiello, an alleged Bonanno “soldier.” One other thing that should be noted is that all of these alleged “positions” changed through the trial. The government’s “informant” witnesses couldn’t agree on who had what position during their separate performances on the stand, as we’ll see later.

In their desperation, the government even went as far as claiming that Vincent Bruno recounted in extraordinary detail to Larca, the story about how Steven D ordered the hit – “extraordinary detail” is key here as it was the government’s ongoing mantra. They even said the entire conversation was caught on tape.

A short time later though, another government lie came to light. In a September 29, 2017 letter to Judge Siebel, the prosecution stated it, ” has since re-reviewed the evidence and determined that the conversation between (Larca) and Bruno was not recorded.” They even admitted that there was no recorded evidence at all from Larca “directly saying that the defendant (Steven D) had a direct role in ordering the murder.”

Still, the prosecution arrogantly claimed that Larca’s alleged statements would be verified by the jailed Larca himself when the government subpoenaed him to testify. Larca scoffed at the idea.

In a September 13, 2018 letter from Larca’s attorney Vincent Martinelli to Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Hartman, Larca stated that, if subpoenaed, his testimony “will be only helpful to THE DEFENSE.”

Subpoenaed or not, Larca was not an informant and wouldn’t be assisting the government no matter what they had dreamed up in their head. As it turned out, he was never called to testify.

No One Believed It
If that wasn’t enough, no one on the street even believed the stories being told about the alleged Ulzheimer hit despite the prosecution’s insistence that recordings would show that both Cassano and Bruno were involved and that the Creas “ordered” it.

All of this information the government was claiming, mind you, came from both Zoccolillo and Lovaglio.

Like the false statements from Larca, the prosecution said it also possessed recordings of alleged Bonanno “soldier” Dominick Dellucia saying that Paul Cassano was involved in the murder and acted on the orders of the Creas. They said that Delluca was recorded saying, “I know for sure (Paul) was involved.”

Yet, it turns out, Dellucia said no such thing and didn’t even believe that either Cassano or Bruno were involved.

In a March 9, 2013 conversation recorded by Zoccolillo, Dellucia makes a number of statements completely contradicting what the government claimed.

At one point in the conversation, Dellucia says, “To tell you the truth, we were laughing…I was like get the fuck out of here.” At another point, he says, “I don’t put it past anybody, but we don’t – to be honest with you, we don’t think so with him [Bruno]. And we never did.”

In the same conversation, Dellucia even says, “I like him [Cassano]…. I don’t see him doing it. And I don’t see him signing on for that….”

Even Zoccolillo had been recorded saying he didn’t believe the “attempted murder” happened. He even went as far to say that the entire story sounded “farfetched.”

Most interesting of all, though, was that Zoccolillo, Bruno’s own friend, was recorded telling Dellucia,“Vinny asked me, he was like, ‘Are you hearing this, what’s going around?’” So, even Bruno, the guy stuck in the middle of this mess, was questioning the talk on the street.

Eventually, Vincent Bruno himself decided to set the record straight.

Setting the Record Straight
By this time, Bruno had already taken a plea offer from the government. He was previously serving a reduced seven-year sentence for a prior drug conviction in February 2013 when the May 2017 indictment came down.

On December 8, 2018, Bruno wrote a five-page e-mail letter to Judge Siebel about the truth of what happened in regards to the attempted hit on Carl Ulzheimer. The letter was written 37 days before his original scheduled release date into a halfway house. He had yet to be sentenced for the 2017 charges but ultimately received an additional 4 years in prison. Below are relevant sections of his letter verbatim:

“This part of my letter may seem unorthodox. I want to explain the contradictions and misstatements that were made on my charges. Hopefully, it will help shed light…they differ from the theory that has been presented. I am not a scholar of the law. I will not pretend to be. I do know my facts and truths…When I allocuted, I never once stated as the indictment claims – ‘that I drove to the victims house armed with a gun and knocked on the door, no one answered and I left then made a second attempt where the victim pretended not to be home and this all came to be because he disrespected a certain individual.’“

“I’m not denying that I drove to the victims home. I’m not denying that I had a dangerous weapon in the car. But – never once, let alone twice, did I get out of the vehicle and attempt to knock on his door. I have actually been to the victims house on numerous occasions. I have even been inside the home. We have known each other for years. In fact, he was willing to testify on my behalf that what was said in the indictment never occurred. I certainly never had a conversation with the Crea’s or Mr. Cassano to attempt or harm this victim in any way. I went to the victims home on my own account, based on an unrelated incident that involved someone passing disrespectful comments toward my sister in a bar, which is spoken about on the March 9, 2013, recording. When I drove to his house I saw that his car was not there, so I drove away. There was never a sit-down to settle the dispute. The first time I heard of this alleged sit-down was when I read my indictment.”


Part of Bruno’s December 8, 2018 letter to Judge Siebel (click to enlarge)
“There are also three consensual recordings on this matter that were recorded in 2013, which I learned were part of my 2013 discovery. They were not received until 2017. I went through the three tapes a hundred times. Both witnesses on two of the three tapes claimed, along with the person being recorded, that they doubt my involvement in this charged incident. In one of the tapes, the witness stated that I asked him about the rumors going around about me. Then the witness said the victim and I saw each other multiple times after the alleged incident date. On the third recording, the witness and another individual spoke about a story I told them. I still don’t know what story they were talking about. The court even stated at a co-defendants bail hearing that – ‘it could be one of many stories it doesn’t mean that that’s the story they are talking about.'””

“On March 9, 2013, the witness made a recording with another individual. The witness had been a government informant for at least a month by the time of the recording. The witness expressed doubts that I was involved. They went on to say I had questioned him about the ‘rumors’ that both the witness and the individual believed I was not involved. At the pre-trial motion hearing, it was brought to the court’s attention that I confessed my involvement to the witness, while I was hospitalized for an apparent drug overdose. When my lawyer inquired about more specifics related to the date, he received an email stating – ‘They are not sure exactly when that was, but they are sure he can find out.’ If I’m not correct about the exact wording in everything I said, I put in copies and transcripts for accuracy. I am still trying to get records from Jacobi Hospital from this incident. Weeks later, the account of the incident was changed to when the witness was in the hospital – and not me. The reason I reference this is because when I was in the hospital in late January of 2013, my memory of it does not fit the timeline of the Coddington Avenue club incident. I do know the witness was in the hospital in late January of 2013, which was when I supposedly told the witness about my involvement. If true, when he made the recording at the actual time, with nothing to lose, he said he doubted my involvement when telling the victim’s friend what I said.“

“In the same recording on March 9, 2013, the victim’s friend claimed that the victim was not even home that night. If that is true, how could he have pretended to be hiding behind the door, which was proffered to the court. In addition, as asked during the pre-trial motion hearing for more specifics regarding the timeframe of the firearm offense, it was answered via email – ‘On or about late 2012, Bruno and Cassano took a gun with them when they went to kill the victim.’ This is the same timeframe as worded in the indictment. I subsequently learned from the trial testimony of The People vs. Nicholas Santoro that the witness testified under oath that the whole ‘club incident’ was settled that day when both sides came to an agreement. The same day that this ‘club’ incident happened – I was in Oakland, California with the witness who confirmed he received a phone call about what occurred at Coddington Avenue. Then, he relayed the information about the incident to me. I told him that it does not concern us, and it is none of our business.”

“I am sure that as a government witness, he would have been required to inform his case agent about this information during his proffer sessions. The first time I was in California, I was with the witness. he purchased our flight tickets with his credit card. I attempted to get the flight and credit card records. I was informed that the airlines only keep records for 13 months. I know they can be located through AUSA Peter Skinner and Rebecca Merlmestein, as my flight records were one of the reasons I was denied bail in 2013, as a flight risk. If I knew about the recordings in 2013, I would have had my lawyer inquire if I was a target in any open investigations. If yes, I would have had this matter addressed at that time.“


Another part of Bruno’s December 8, 2018 letter to Judge Siebel (click to enlarge)
“At my co-defendants bail hearings, it was proffered to the court, I was on a consensual recording discussing who ordered the attempted murder, how it was planned, and what occurred that day. When challenged, it was proved no such recordings existed. However, it was never addressed how these misstatements originated. The alleged tapes caused me a lot of stress. These are the same recordings which had cost my co-defendants their liberty. As I mentioned earlier, I had driven to the victims home with a dangerous weapon in the car. I noticed his car was not at his house, so I left immediately. I never had any intention to harm him, but I merely wanted to speak to him about the disrespectful comments made to my sister at a bar. This was spoken about on a consensual recording between the witness and another individual. This was why I agreed to plea to my charge. The instrument mentions me alone, while I was reluctant to take the plea if it mentioned anyone else. As a man, I could not sit here and do time knowing people were charged with a crime in which they had no knowledge or participation. In another matter, as I stated earlier — I never had a conversation with the Crea’s or Mr. Cassano to go harm the victim. In fact, the only time I ever had a conversation with the elder Crea was after my incarceration for the current charges. I only wish that this was brought to the court’s attention earlier than now. I need to clear this up to lift the burden that I have been carrying on my shoulders, with people I know are falsely accused of my wrongdoings. No matter what sentence I receive by expressing the truths behind my charges, my time will be much easier.“

“Your Honor, as stated in an article by Jerry Capeci one week after my plea allocution, he wrote that I was offered the same plea as Mr. Cassano and was rejected (which was offered to me right after our November 3, 2017 status hearing as a non-written offer). Capeci erred because I never denied it. I asked for coverage for my charges. I was told in order to get coverage, I needed to plea to the top charge and would receive 17 years of coverage (2000-2017). That would put me at 16-years-old when this investigation started. I felt that was excessive. I do not want the court to think I asked for coverage because I had anything to worry about. I never worried that anything like this would happen to me, yet here I stand in front of the court. I am being sentenced for a crime for which I am already doing time. Never once was the – ‘ATTEMPTED ASSAULT IN THE AID OF RACKETEERING’ plea presented to me in a written form. The only pleas I received in written form were – ‘ATTEMPTED MURDER IN THE AID OF RACKETEERING’ – and my 371 plea, which I took for defrauding the government of the United States. If I had received the same offer as Mr. Cassano’s in writing, I would of taken it.“

“In addition, I am still bothered that no matter how many times my charge is explained to me, I still cannot comprehend how my prior drug conviction is used as a predicate act. Just before my scheduled trial date, a new predicate act for assault was added to my indictment. It was never explained to my attorney or I who I assaulted and when. I know in the motion IN LIMINE, it claims in 2013, that my co-defendants and I, being alleged members and associates of LCN, had sold drugs to gain entrance and/or maintain our position in LCN. Throughout my instant case history, all my paperwork from 2013 (indictment, plea allocution, sentencing minutes, and PSR) is devoid of mentioning anything related to O.C. I have been to four different institutions since I began my incarceration. Before I am allowed to enter any prison, I have been interviewed by an S.I.S. Lieutenant, sharing a common question. They ask (if it is on your record), ‘do you have any affiliations or associations with O.C.?’ Even with my new charge, when I arrived at MDC Brooklyn, my interview was devoid of the O.C. question. It was more surprising, since my instant case is a R.I.C.O. charge.”

“I have not written this letter to profess my innocence. Simply what I am charged with and allocuted to is a serious offense, no matter which way it is explained. I just feel that all these matters needed to be addressed and my actual involvement in this crime be presented in my words…I am confessing to my involvement as the truth reveals ..I understand that my charge claims it as a ‘mob’ related attempt on someone’s life, but after reading this, I hope those theories are not still the belief….I’m also tired of lying to my 4-year-old nephew and my 13-year-old cousin that I am in the military; not done serving our country. I do not want them to announce that they have a relative in jail and get bullied in school. The biggest misunderstanding about this is that I am in jail — but it is my family doing the time.”

-----------------

Ratsqua Redux
By this point, Frank Pasqua was still the government’s ace-in-the-hole witness for the Meldish murder even though David Evangelista was waiting in the wings. Good thing, too, because Pasqua was about to crash and burn.

At another bail hearing for Steven D on August 3, 2018, it was revealed that the government had hidden Pasqua’s original account of Meldish’s murder from everyone, including the defense team and even the Court. Defense lawyers learned about it only because the prosecution had finally released the information – three years after the fact.

The issue at hand was Pasqua’s new and improved version of the Michael Meldish murder which still featured both Creas at the center of this particular plot.

Throughout all of the bail hearings for father and son Crea, the prosecution had insisted it had almost irrefutable proof that they were directly involved in the plot to kill Meldish. And it was because of these claims that Judge Siebel kept denying Steven D bail.

Yet, it shouldn’t have been that much of a surprise to Siebel because the government had been making an innumerable amount of “misrepresentations” about alleged evidence they supposedly had since she took over the case in 2017 and even before that when the case was first brought against Londonio in 2015.

But this bombshell didn’t sit well with Siebel at all. She took the prosecution to task about their key witness, saying, “Now, you’ve got a theory (about the murder.) It may be a great theory. But another theory that fits the facts pretty darn well is that he’s lying.”

And while Hartman agreed that the prosecution should have been more forthcoming about their evidence, he insisted that Pasqua was telling the truth. He was, according to Hartman, just “confused” and the “inferences he drew” about what happened the night of Meldish’s murder were “incorrect.”

So, why did Pasqua change his story?

THE COURT: Let me ask another question. You say that now (Pasqua) realizes that Pasqua Jr. didn’t do it. What caused him to change his mind?

MR. HARTMAN: So, we have never said to him that we think Pasqua Jr. didn’t do it… At some point, (Pasqua) was confined to the MDC and he came into contact with Chris Londonio. Chris Londonio caused himself to be put in the same cellblock as (Pasqua). And in the course of their interaction,…(Pasqua) learned that Chris Londonio had been charged by the state with the murder of Meldish. And from that, I believe that (Pasqua) came to believe that he was not in fact there for the murder, as well as his subsequent interactions with the father…

In other words, Pasqua came to the conclusion that since somebody else was being accused, it probably would have been a good time to tell Otto and Hartman the truth of the matter. At least that’s what they seem to want you to believe. So, what did Pasqua think he was at the MDC for? Oh, yeah – setting up Londonio.

Plus, the whole statement about Londonio “causing himself” to be put in the same cellblock as Pasqua seems just a little too odd. Was Hartman overthinking his pathetic explanation? Perhaps trying not to get caught with the fact that he and Otto were the ones who had probably “caused” Londonio and Pasqua to be placed in the same cell? Hartman knew darn well that they weren’t cellblock mates but cellmates – another government lie that will be revealed during the trial. Maybe Hartman was the one who was “confused” and had a hard time keeping his jailhouse snitches straight.

Don’t forget, Londonio never knew Pasqua before they ended up together at the MDC. And the Creas didn’t know Pasqua at all.

In fact, at this hearing, Steven D’s lawyer Joseph DiBenedetto told Judge Siebel, “And Judge, just to make it clear, there is one thing that my client wants your Honor to know. He does not know (Pasqua), does not know (Pasqua). He wants me to make that clear to this Court. My client does not know (Pasqua).”

Judge Siebel found herself in a tight spot.

She could no longer justify the prosecution’s claim that Steven D was a “danger to the community” when their own witness was caught in a major lie and the prosecution themselves had hidden key information and made numerous “misrepresentations” about almost all of their evidence. She publicly admonished them, saying, “You knew at the last hearing that you were in the hot seat for misrepresentations made at a prior bail hearing.”

But in a rare display of good conscience, Judge Siebel finally granted Steven D his well-deserved bail after he had already spent more than a year behind bars.

Amazingly, after all that, the government still hadn’t revealed all it knew about Pasqua. On November 6, 2018, Hartman wrote a letter to the defense counsel stating:

“Additionally, we write to notify you that (Pasqua) has admitted to abusing drugs and alcohol at various points as an adult. In particular, (Pasqua) has informed Government investigators that he was under the influence of prescription drugs and alcohol on the night that he and Pasqua, Jr. encountered Michael Meldish in November 2013.“

So, if Pasqua was “confused” about his role in the murder because he was under the influence, it’s logical to surmise that he must’ve been “confused” about every part of his delusional tale, even the parts that included the Creas.


But even more telling was the fact that the government failed to disclose Pasqua’s April 2016 bust for smuggling heroin, suboxone, and other drugs into the Putnam County jail. If you look at the dates of the recordings we shared, Pasqua was obviously sitting at Putnam County after being “released” from the MDC.

But you also have to wonder how, after breaking his cooperation agreement (committing crimes are a big no-no) while holed up at Putnam, he was able to continue “working” for the government (with pay) “gathering evidence” from Londonio on the Meldish murder? And how was it that Steven D, who had NO criminal record, was continuously denied bail because of this superstar witness’ “evidence?” It’s another mystery that may never be solved.

The Ratsqua had blown up in the government’s face. While the government should have retreated to the shadows with its tail between its legs and tossed the whole indictment in the garbage where it belonged, they stood their ground and continued to rewrite their script over and over. After all, they are the “super” feds.

The Judge Won’t Budge
In September 2018, Crea’s defense counsel officially requested that Judge Siebel remove herself from the case due to a conflict of interest and an inability to judge in a fair and impartial way. There was good reason for this request, too.

Back in the early 90s, while she was a prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney’s organized crime unit, she worked on a case that involved alleged Lucchese Family “acting consigliere” Anthony Baratta.

When questioned, she claimed she remembered “basically nothing” about the case but asked prosecutors to investigate if there was “any overlap at all” between the two cases.

Gang Land reported that prosecutors had found “FBI intelligence and surveillance reports” during Baratta’s investigation that included Crea. Prosecutors denied that Crea was part of that investigation even though there were surveillance photos of Crea and Baretta together labeled with their alleged positions that were used at Baratta’s trial.

Maybe the feds couldn’t gather enough evidence against Crea at that time, but they certainly weren’t taking pictures of him (and labeling him with a position) just because he happened to be standing around. And that was the issue.

So, the defense brought in an outside expert by the name of Richard E. Flamm, who was well-versed in judge recusal cases (and had a long list of credentials,) to evaluate the situation. After reviewing the facts, he determined that Siebel could not “preside impartially over this case” and said that according to law, “the Court is required to recuse itself.”

Siebel wasn’t convinced and decided to stay because the law also allows the sitting judge to decide whether or not she should recuse. She gave the defense a full explanation for her decision and even went into why she took over the case in the first place.

She said that Roman had to leave the case for “personal reasons” and that her calendar just happened to be free so she “volunteered” to take over the case because, she said, “I like to be able to help out a colleague.”

She also said she found it “satisfying to work on a well-lawyered criminal case and suspected that this would be one.”

But remember that when Siebel became the presiding judge, the only two defendants were Londonio and Caldwell – not that they weren’t well-lawyered – but it’s still an odd thing to say. Or perhaps Siebel, like many prosecutors and judges before her, just happened to have had a keen sense of foresight – or foreshadowing in movie terms – because not too long after, the full indictment came down.

-----------------------

The Ends Justifies the Means
The FBI has a long history of working with informants and, as we can see even in this case, many of the government’s informants aren’t necessarily the cream of the crop. There are some very famous cases – Gregory Scarpa, Sr. and Whitey Bulger come to mind – of FBI agents engaging in rather slimy schemes to “get” their target, including providing names and addresses of other informants who were subsequently killed.

There have even been cases where prosecutors have allowed and even encouraged informants to lie on the stand. In the case of Joseph Barboza, his false testimony resulted in six men being convicted of murder in 1968. Four of the men were 100% innocent, but by the time the truth was revealed, two of the men had died in prison and the other two had already served 30 years behind bars. The prosecutors involved were never brought to justice.

In their 2017 indictment, Crea and Joseph Datello were charged with the “attempted assault and murder of (Sean Richard)…in retaliation for the decision by (Richard) to provide information to law enforcement. Datello, acting with the blessing of Crea Sr., traveled to New Hampshire to find, assault, and kill (Richard.)”

While this particular event might not be as notable as Barboza’s, what happened behind the scenes is disturbingly familiar.

Sean Richard
Sean Richard was the former son-in -law of John Riggi, a one-time alleged boss of the DeCavalcante Family. He had also been a business partner and close friend of Datello in the construction industry in the 90s.

In 2000, Richard was one of 37 defendants, along with Crea and Datello, who were facing charges of labor racketeering. Instead of facing the music, he decided to become a state witness in exchange for a new identity and a reduced sentence of five years probation. He claimed the reason he did it was that he feared Datello had been “given orders to kill him.” It was also later revealed that he stiffed Datello of a $200,000 loan.

Both Crea and Datello took plea bargains in that case and were sentenced to three years each.

After testifying in that trial, Richards left his wife and two young children to enter the WITSEC program with a stripper he had fallen in love with while he was still married. Not only did he abandon his family, he also left them bankrupt and nearly homeless. His soon-to-be ex-wife was facing foreclosure on her home. And like most of the informants in the government’s arsenal, Richard was a drug addict and drunk who self-admittedly used pot, cocaine, and heroin.

None of it bothered Richard. He had a new life to look forward to. In a September 8, 2000 interview with the New York Times, he boasted about upcoming movie and book deals, his new look, and how proud he was of being a rat. “The last thing anyone wants to be is a rat,” he said. “But you know something? I’ll be a rat and I won’t be in prison. I’ll be a rat and I’ll be alive.

So, what was the lowdown on the attempted murder of Sean Richard? Let’s take a trip down this dark and dirty path.

The Role of a Lifetime
Robert DeNero Spinelli was a lifelong drug abuser who had been in trouble with the law since the 1980s, serving numerous prison terms for drug trafficking and other crimes. He became a government informant in 2012.

Although his brother is alleged Lucchese “soldier” Michael Spinelli, Robert DeNero himself was basically a nobody who was only known around the neighborhood as “Mike’s brother.”

In 1998, he was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison for a failed March 1992 murder attempt on Patricia Capozzalo, the sister of alleged Lucchese “soldier” Peter Chiodo, who had flipped and was set to testify in the racketeering and murder trial of alleged Lucchese “boss” Vic Amuso.

According to Gang Land, at the time of Robert DeNero’s sentencing, his lawyer sought leniency from the court by claiming his client had an IQ of only 63, which classified him as “mentally defective” on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale.

Hard to believe a guy who reportedly graduated from Rutgers University in 1993 with a Bachelor of Science in Sports Management and Exercise Science and attended an undetermined number of graduate classes at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT), earning fewer than six credits, could have such a low IQ.


The “mentally defective” Robert DeNero
But perhaps that IQ “lie” was part of his “role-playing” schtick, even though he told that lie to the Superior Court in New Jersey in February 2019 – eight months before he was set to testify in Crea’s trial. But we’ll get to that later.

In 2011, Spinelli was charged with two counts of aggravated assault on a police officer, resisting arrest, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, unlawful possession of weapon, drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia after a traffic stop in Brick, New Jersey. The arresting officer had noticed Spinelli, who had multiple outstanding warrants on him, getting into the passenger side of a pickup truck. As he approached the vehicle, Spinelli tried to flee by taking control of the wheel from the driver. He didn’t succeed.

During a search of the vehicle after Spinelli was subdued, officers found a 5-inch steak knife, screwdriver, and copper mesh, commonly used as drug paraphernalia, underneath Spinelli’s seat. Two glass smoking pipes were recovered from Spinelli’s pants pocket.

He was facing four years for the charges but found a way out by going to the FBI and offering his services. In exchange, he received a reduced sentence of only six-months and started wearing a wire for the FBI in April 2012 – three months after he supposedly met Terry Caldwell. Plus, he had an “Amuso connection” – he claimed he had been his “messenger.”

In 2013, shortly after the Meldish murder and since he already had an “in,” Spinelli was partnered with an undercover agent by the name “Pete,” to find out everything he could about the murder and the possible involvement of Crea and Madonna. It was a dream come true for Spinelli.

Court documents reveal Spinelli became an informant to “get back at Matty” because, he claimed, “Matty” didn’t give him money that he supposedly promised after Spinelli had gotten out of jail. And he didn’t get “made” which was supposedly part of that agreement as well. He was more than a little upset that Madonna reportedly told him to “get a job” when he came around looking for that money.

While Spinelli pursued his ultimate target, he also more than happily pursued the FBI’s ultimate target – Crea – interjecting his name in nearly every conversation he had because that’s what Agent Otto wanted him to do – “get the guy (Crea) in the conversation.”

After figuring out all the details with his handlers, Spinelli set his sights on Joseph Datello – one of the people he thought would get him and the FBI closest to their main target because Datello was a friend and former business partner of Crea’s. And they both had dealings with Sean Richard.

And the federal government was paying Spinelli very handsomely for his services, too. He even quit his job to work full-time for the FBI. Court documents reveal he was being paid a salary of $4,500 per month. Plus, the FBI leased at least two new cars for him – first, a Nissan Altima then an upgrade to a Nissan Maxima. They picked up his car and medical insurance as well any travel expenses he had, including gas and his EZ-Pass. They paid for several storage units and even bought him clothes. In fact, he once asked them to buy him a cashmere sweater. “They pay all my expenses,” he boasted in court testimony.

Court documents also reveal that while Spinelli was earning his salary from the FBI trying to implicate Crea and others, he was stealing from his employer and committing other crimes as well. While he was selling his illegal cigarettes to various people, he would tack on an extra $5 per carton and pocket the money. He was also selling oxycodone pills, pot, and cocaine on the side. He stored the cigarettes and drugs in the FBI-funded storage units where he also made his cocaine deals with guys from Miami.

In addition, he had filed a false insurance claim lying that his house had been broken into and all of his non-existent expensive jewelry had been stolen. And even though his new rides were being paid for by the government, he had to get the bank loans on his own, you know, so it looked like it was on the up and up. When he went to trade in his old pre-informant vehicle for his brand spanking new one, he couldn’t get the loan because of his poor credit score, so he lied to the salesman about his salary and got the car anyway. Basically, a fraudulent bank loan application.

After all of his hard work the previous four years, Spinelli was put into the WITSEC program. He signed his cooperation agreement on April 21, 2017, and pleaded guilty to all the crimes he committed while working for the FBI and others prior to his new job, including racketeering and extortion.

And yet, like the Energizer Bunny, he kept going and going.

The Mentally Defective and Lying Energizer Bunny
On December 13, 2017, Spinelli left the scene of an accident in South Brunswick, New Jersey after colliding with a vehicle stopped in front of him. The other vehicle’s driver followed Spinelli where he had stopped several blocks away. When police arrived, Spinelli appeared intoxicated and had a cut above his eye which happened when he hit his head on the steering wheel during the crash. Spinelli refused medical treatment, denied being intoxicated, and said that he was hypoglycemic.

He failed the field sobriety test and when the breathalyzer results came back, it was found that his blood alcohol content was three times over the legal limit. He was charged with a DWI and reckless driving. Two days later, police added a charge of child endangerment because his 14-year-old son was in the car with him while he was driving drunk.

Spinelli fought the charges and attempted to get into New Jersey State’s pre-trial intervention program (PTI) which is designed to give first-time offenders a second chance. When state prosecutors denied his request, he accused them of “patent and gross abuse of discretion” and appealed the decision. His lawyers claimed that prosecutors “had unduly focused on the negative factors and failed to give ‘proper weight to . . . defendant’s character traits and rehabilitative efforts.'”

Although he had two prior DUI convictions, he told the court that “society would be better served by his admission into PTI ‘where he can learn the lesson from [his] mistake and return to work and care for his family.'” He added that there was “‘simply nothing in the record to justify the prosecutor’s reliance’ on a pattern of anti-social behavior.”

By the way, not only did Spinelli lie about his Rutger’s University degree, but he also told the appeals court that he was employed as a sales manager supervising over 20 employees and had worked at that company for 21 years. He also claimed he had no prior involvement with the criminal justice system – which, at this point, probably would have been wiped out by the good ‘ole U.S.A. because he had already signed a cooperation agreement.

In 2018, he won the appeal. However, state prosecutors fought back and a higher court reversed the lower courts’ decision. This was August 7, 2019 – two months before Crea’s October trial. You can read the full document here.

Despite knowing all of Spinelli’s serious offenses while he was working for the government, prosecutors still fought tooth and nail to prevent Crea from getting bail.

During bail hearings in 2017 and 2018, prosecutors claimed they possessed audio recordings taken by Spinelli of Datello discussing the attempted murder of Richard that proved, just like the indictment said, he had Crea’s “blessing.”

Asisstant U.S. Attorney Jacqueline Kelly informed the Court that:

“n 2016, Joseph Datello got a tip about where the witness was located, and then made attempts to find him, including by traveling to a location where he believed the witness to be, and waited outside the house for him to emerge. Joseph Datello recounts all this in a recorded conversation with our confidential source. And he makes clear to our confidential source on some of these consensual recordings that he needed Steven Crea’s okay to carry out the killing.

So initially, he reports that Steven Crea would be happy if this resulted. But then – and that’s in a conversation from February 2017. But a month later, because of different things that are going on in this case – in fact, after the initial indictment in this case was filed charging Christopher Londonio and Terrence Caldwell with the murder of Michael Meldish, Datello reports that Steven Crea had told him to back off because of the heat that was on the family at the time. Because Crea told Datello to back off at that point, Datello tells the confidential source that he has to wait. So he has to wait for the approval. He can’t act without the approval of Crea. So those plans are put on hold. But again, this is after the okay was given and Datello made extensive attempts to locate the witness to carry out the killing.”

These alleged recordings were a major part of why both father and son Crea were denied bail because this was more “evidence” proving the Creas were a “danger to the community.”

However, what the government claimed it possessed, and what it actually possessed were, as usual, two very different things.

Teller of Tales
During much of his “undercover” work, Spinelli tried to paint a different picture of himself than who he really was – a nobody liar. After all, he was playing a “role.”

In February 2017 – a month before the May indictment – Spinelli tried to stir up trouble with his new “business” partner by bringing up Sean Richard, a subject that was a sore spot for Datello. No matter what their previous dealings, Datello had been betrayed by a “friend,” and Spinelli milked Datello’s feelings for all they were worth.

On February 12, 2017, Spinelli encouraged Datello to speak to Crea about the Richard situation. Apparently, Spinelli had convinced Datello to go looking for Richard, but Datello remembered Crea had said previously “don’t go near him.”

Spinelli urged him on anyway. “Stevie would have been so happy if you did that, believe me,” Spinelli said, but Datello wasn’t convinced, responding, “I don’t know.”

It was clear that Richard stayed on Datello’s mind as it appeared he had gone to Crea anyway to talk about Richard.

On February 21, 2017, Datello told Spinelli: “The thing you told me, he (Crea) wasn’t receptive to it, wasn’t at all receptive to it…it’s a federal informant.” He added that Crea told him “don’t fuck with him because he ruined your life once already. ”

Spinelli wasn’t giving up. In a conversation on March 8, 2017, Spinelli told Datello to go to New Hampshire to find Richard despite what “Stevie says.”

“You know what?” Spinelli said, “You got to make this fucking decision.”

However, Datello resisted, telling Spinelli once again, “He [Crea] told me not to” and said the idea was “crazy” as we’re “talking about a fucking informant.”

Despite knowing all that, and getting caught in their lies during prior bail hearings, the prosecution claimed that a March 22, 2017 recording had all the proof they needed. They said that Spinelli had asked Datello if Crea had been “botherin'” him about the attempt on Richard’s life and that Datello replied “he’s keepin’ back…he’s keepin’ back.”

This was to back up the government’s claim that Crea had told Datello to hold off on the hit because of the “heat on the family.” Just to be clear, this “evidence” was presented to Siebel at the hearings in transcript form. The defense hadn’t received the actual recordings, but when they did, they learned that Datello’s actual words were quite different.

While the government claimed Datello said “he’s keeping back…he’s keeping back,” what Datello actually said was “he’s a pretty good guy…He’s a pretty good guy.” In other words, once again, the government had manipulated the “evidence” and lied to the court to suit their needs.

And then there was this which gives a clear look into how Spinelli – working on behalf of the government – was trying his hardest to please his employer and implicate Crea:

Spinelli: Yeah. I wanted Stevie to know, because I know that Stevie wouldn’t let nothing like that go. Ya know – And he’s not supposed to.
Datello: Right. Well, they do. When it comes to informants, they, they don’t wanna know nothing about it. They don’t either.
Spinelli: Really?
Datello: Yeah.

Spinelli failed at this task, but the dark truth of the attempted murder and assault of Sean Richard was just beginning to unravel and wouldn’t be fully revealed until October 2019.

Frame Job
On September 27, 2018, Gang Land reported in an “exclusive” story details about how Datello had found Sean Richard. The information was from a report Capeci obtained from the FBI.

In the report, Datello had explained that “someone had contacted his daughter through her FaceBook page and told her that Richard was ‘living in New Hampshire’ and gave her his “new name, address, everything.'”

Datello was suspicious, telling Spinelli, “It’s weird how I got him,” but he called the girl who gave his daughter the information to confirm its authenticity and ask why she was doing it.

She told him, “I don’t care what you do to him, I hate him.”

Gang Land speculated that “Spinelli and the FBI agents used a clever scam to get Datello to talk about his 2016 effort to whack Richard and his intention to kill him no matter how long it took. They did it by coming up with a cockamamie story that Spinelli had found out where… a cooperating witness who had testified against (Spinelli) was living…and that their friend ‘Pete’ had found” Spinelli’s rat.”

Spinelli said, “He has a Christmas tree farm in upstate New York. Pete found a lot of information on FaceBook in 90 minutes.”

Gang Land might have called it a “clever scam”, but, in truth, it seems more like a frame job in the spirit of Scarpa and Bulger. And while Datello never found his quarry, one does have to speculate what would have happened if he did, and who would have been ultimately to blame if something dire had actually happened to Richard.

Like Cockroaches Scurrying from the Light
The shady tactics of the FBI once again hit the spotlight in a November 15, 2018 Gangland “exclusive” article.

Gang Land reported that on August 14, 2014, Spinelli forgot to turn off his recording device and recorded a conversation between FBI Secret Agent “Pete” and FBI Super Agent Otto discussing a meeting Pete and Spinelli had with Brian Vaughan – another defendant in the case who ended up taking a plea offer from the government..

Pete was pleased with the outcome of the meeting, telling Otto they were certain they could convince Vaughan to commit the crimes they were setting him up for despite Vaughan’s resistance.

“He fits with our story,” Pete said. “We will get Brian good and we’ll open the door for cocaine.”

“We have to look at the bigger picture,” Pete continued. “It was a good day, a very good day. We’re beginning to open the door with him.”

James DiPietro and Joseph Gentile, who were Vaughan’s lawyers at the time, disclosed the recordings before Vaughan’s sentencing. Despite Siebel being aware of their existence, she “did not have anything to say about the FBI’s repeated pressure to make Vaughan do a drug deal he steadily rejected.” Siebel ended up sentencing Vaughan to seven years – six months more than the suggested minimum.

But there’s more.

Apparently, Spinelli’s tape recorder never stopped. After a meeting with Datello on the same day, Pete was caught on tape talking about Datello, saying, “So, if we can get him to facilitate something where he can implicate some guys here, that would be good.”

As they were driving away from Datello’s house talking about their next meeting with him on August 18, Pete gave Spinelli further insight into the FBI’s way of thinking:

“So, you see, a lot of times, you know, when we do this type of stuff, it’s very much like playing chess, right? So, you’re looking to – you see any – you call that planting a seed. In that in the future, three, four, five moves from now. That seed may grow into something else.”

You have to wonder if Pete had recently read Peter Lance’s book, Deal with the Devil: The FBI’s Secret 30-Year Relationship with a Mob Killer, which was published in July the previous year. In an interview with U.S. News & World Report, Lance said, “What a Machiavellian strategist he was, what a chess player,” after being asked what surprised him most during his research on Gregory Scarpa, Sr. Perhaps, that was on Pete’s mind when he made his comment about “playing chess.”

A Bit of Meldish Gossip ala Spineless Spinelli – A Side Story
As we’ve previously discussed, Spinelli interjected “Stevie” so much into his conversations that one might think he actually knew the guy, but it was all a glass pipe dream of his – a starry-eyed wish that would never come true. No matter who he tried talking to and no matter the subject “Stevie” was always on the tip of Spinelli’s tongue. It’s surprising that no one ever asked Spinelli if he had a secret crush on the guy.

But this constant “Stevie” fascination was a serious matter when it came to the government trying to “prove” Crea’s involvement in any of the crimes for which he was charged – especially the murder of Michael Meldish.

On an October 30, 2014, recording, James Maffucci (a co-defendant in the case) shot Spinelli down when he wouldn’t shut up about “Stevie”:

Spinelli: What’s up with Stevie? Can I go to Stevie myself with this fucking situation?
Maffucci: Stevie who? Do you know him?
Spinelli: No. No.
Maffucci: How you gonna (sic) go see him?
Spinelli: You know what, it’s done.
Maffucci: It’s all over. It’s done. And it’s none of our business.
Spinelli: Right. It’s not my business.
Maffucci: I mean, this is conversation —
Spinelli: We’re having — we’re gossiping.
Maffucci: Right.

But apparently, Spinelli wasn’t done gossiping about “Stevie” and the murder. One of the most damning recordings the government claimed it possessed was of Maffucci stating Crea was directly involved. But once again the government lied.

What Maffuci really said to Spinelli on that March 9, 2017, recording was this:

“I don’t think that Stevie had anything to do with it (Meldish’s murder.)”

And just like Spinelli, the government kept going and going…their Pinocchio nose getting longer and longer.

[mafiastudent]

If I dont' get everything up tonight...I'll do the rest tomorrow...

The Government Gets a Do-Over
On October 18, 2018, Crea’s lawyers wanted to review the grand jury minutes that led to the original indictment. The government had been caught in so many lies that they believed it might warrant a dismissal.


Crea’s attorney Anthony DiPietro
Anthony DiPietro, who had represented his own father in a criminal case and was no stranger to the shady tactics of the feds, wrote a 69-page Omnibus Motion demanding inspection. In a criminal case, the defense cannot automatically review the minutes. The request to inspect must either be granted by a judge or the judge herself can inspect the minutes.

However, Siebel had no intention of going down that dirty path to visit those minutes because she already knew what was hiding there. Instead of granting the request, she gave the prosecution an out, allowing them to file a “trial indictment.” And it took her until January 14, 2019, to even make that ruling.

In it, she told the government exactly what to do and warned them what would happen if they didn’t. We’re positive she probably said this to them before in private conversation, but since there was a motion on the record, she had to respond publicly.

In her ruling she stated:

“The Government seems to be adhering to the position that the Datello recordings support the proposition that Datello’s travel to New Hampshire was done with the blessing of Crea Sr. But it has not presented any justification for that position, and the portions of the recordings that have been brought to the Court’s attention seem to support the opposite proposition. If the Government does not re-indict, I may inspect the grand jury minutes relating to Count Six…If the Government re-indicts and the new indictment reflects the same theory, I will inspect the grand jury minutes because at that point the Government’s conduct could not be regarded as unknowing.

But yet, she was resistant to the idea that even if the prosecution continued to lie, she might not do what was judicially right anyway and threw that decision into the black hole of no return:

If that inspection reveals a basis for the theory apart from the recordings so far brought to my attention, dismissal may not be warranted, but that’s a decision is for another day.”

How can she say that even if she did find blatant lies in the minutes, after she gave the prosecution an undeserving do-over, that it may not warrant a dismissal? Why even have a trial at all at this point?

And why does the prosecution get to re-review their evidence? It’s not like this was the first time they lied.


Robert Franklin – Steven L. Crea’s attorney
Still, the prosecution greedily took their second bite of the apple, but they didn’t bring their new indictment to the Court until July 31, 2019 – almost six months later. One can only speculate that the government made a complete overhaul of their script so they wouldn’t have to revisit their failed disaster movie again.

But surprisingly, even though the prosecution worked tirelessly to prove the “evidence” against Crea on the attempted murder of Sean Richard charge, that charge mysteriously disappeared in Crea’s “new” indictment. Perhaps it fell into the same black hole as Siebel’s decision on whether a dismissal was warranted.

While this was a minor win for Crea, it didn’t do much for Datello, who had already worked out a plea agreement with the government, receiving a sentence of 9 years.

Unfortunately, the mystery about what lies were told in those original grand jury minutes will never be revealed.

But out of the government’s mysterious black hole emerged two new prosecutors. Hartman and Kelly were suddenly off the case replaced by Celia Cohen and Alexandra Rothman. Scotten, unfortunately, was still on the team. This changing of the guards might not seem like that big of a deal, but Rothman just happened to be a former law clerk for Judge Siebel. Even more interesting? Siebel officiated at Rothman’s wedding.

Conflict of interest? Coincidence? We’ll let you decide.

Mirages
In August 2019, Steven D agreed to a plea offer from the prosecution. He pled guilty for the alleged crimes charged in the indictment, but not all of them. Even though he was offered a 10-year deal if he would plead guilty to his participation in the murder of Meldish, Steven D declined. Throughout the ordeal, he never wavered from his innocence in relation to the murder, and he wasn’t about to admit to something he had nothing to do with or had any knowledge about.

Steven D had even taken a lie detector test earlier to prove his innocence. It was given by former FBI Special Agent Jeremiah Hanafin, who spent over 20 years investigating violent and white-collar crimes and conducted more than 2500 polygraph examinations during his career. Here is the result:

A. Did you direct anyone to murder Michael Meldish? Answer: No.
B. Did you ever meet with anyone and plan the murder of Michael Meldish? Answer: No.

Hanafin concluded that Steven D “showed no deception.” In other words, he passed the lie detector test with flying colors. He wasn’t involved in any way, shape, or form, and took an extra three years for not giving in to the government’s demands.

One thing that should be noted about plea bargains is that just because someone takes a plea offer, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re guilty. There have been numerous articles written about the many reasons why people plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit. If I could, I’d even tell you about my own personal experience, but instead, here’s something from Judge Jed Rakoff, a longtime judge in the U.S. District Court for the SDNY and a previous federal prosecutor and private criminal defense lawyer.

In an April 18, 2014 interview with USC News, he stated, “Plea bargains have led many innocent people to take a deal. People accused of crimes are often offered five years by prosecutors or face 20 to 30 years if they go to trial…The prosecutor has the information, he has all the chips…and the defense lawyer has very, very little to work with. So it’s a system of prosecutor power and prosecutor discretion. I saw it in real life [as a criminal defense attorney], and I also know it in my work as a judge today.”

He explained it even further in a November 2014 article he wrote for the New York Review of Books: “While, moreover, a defendant’s decision to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit may represent a “rational,” if cynical, cost-benefit analysis of his situation, in fact, there is some evidence that the pressure of the situation may cause an innocent defendant to make a less-than-rational appraisal of his chances for acquittal and thus decide to plead guilty when he not only is actually innocent but also could be proven so.”

I’ve presented this information not to persuade you either way, but to give you a more thorough understanding of the plea bargain process. People make plea deals for all sorts of reasons. Retaining a lawyer for any amount of time is costly even for non-high-profile cases and when a case drags on for years, the costs can be astronomical. And like Rakoff said, sometimes the plea deal is better than the alternative because you never know what’s going to happen in a court of law – even when you’re 100% innocent.

The pre-trial hearings were one thing, but when the trial started, it became its own episode of the Twilight Zone.

-------------------------

The Trial of the Year
The trial against Steven L. Crea and the others charged with Michael Meldish’s murder began on Monday, October 7, 2019. Although this was a high-profile case, the jury was not sequestered even though they were ordered, like all juries, not to watch the news or read newspapers about the trial. But remember, there were already plenty of news reports beforehand about the murder and the prior proceedings – and the trial itself made the news nearly every night.

Plus, there were countless news reports about the various plea bargain deals other defendants had taken, including Steven D, Datell0, Bruno, and Cassano which further painted Crea guilty by default. So, it’s ridiculous to think that none of them wouldn’t have come across something, even if it was accidentally.

We decided the best way to continue our story is to tell it with the witnesses’ own words and lawyer sidebars, which the jury wasn’t privy to. We supplemented this with our own narration throughout.

So we don’t have to keep repeating whose lawyer was who, here’s a rundown to help you keep it all straight.

On defense for Caldwell – George Goltzer, for Madonna Joshua Dratel and Andrew Patel, for Londonio – John Meringolo, and for Crea – Robert Franklin and Anthony DiPietro.

On the side of the government – Hagen Scotten, Alexandra Rothman, and Celia Cohen.

The “Mob Expert”
First up on the stand was SDNY Special Agent and “mob expert” John Carillo. During his two-day testimony, he talked about the protocols of the “Mafia” and gave opinions about informants. But it was his testimony about Crea’s nicknames that would change the course of the trial.

During pretrial hearings, Judge Siebel ruled that the alleged “Stevie Wonder and son” statement made by Evangelista would not be allowed in court testimony because it was based on hearsay without corroboration. But after Carillo had already testified, she decided to resurrect the myth of “Stevie Wonder.”

In her ruling, the day after Carillo’s testimony, she said he had testified to something she “didn’t know was coming. He said that in his entire career of chasing the mob, he never heard of a murder sanction by the boss that did not involve the rest of the administration; specifically, the underboss.”

But Scotten’s initial questioning of Carillo didn’t include the term “underboss.” It wasn’t until Scotten did his re-direct, and after various defense counsel asked for clarification about the roles of different “administration” members, did Scotten realize his mistake and ask specifically about that magic word.

Q. Are you familiar with any murder that was sanctioned by the boss that did not involve the administration?
A. Not to my knowledge, no.

Scotten’s re-direct after defense cross:

Q. Do you remember being asked if it was in the boss’ absolute authority to order a murder?
A. Yes.
Q. In the case of a murder ordered by the boss, have you ever heard of an instance where the underboss was not also involved?
A. No, I haven’t.

First, Scotten never asked the question he said he asked. Secondly, Carillo was supposed to be a “mob expert” but he apparently wasn’t keeping up with the news about the saga of Frank Locascio, the jailed Gambino former “underboss” whose murder case is being reviewed because master rat Sammy Gravano offered new evidence that the “underboss” didn’t know the “boss” was going kill the person Locascio was convicted of killing.

In addition, Carillo was the same agent who worked on the 2011 Vincent Basciano case where Basciano as “acting boss” of the Bonanno Family, sanctioned the murder of Randy Pizzolo without the approval of then”boss” and later informant, Joseph Massino. According to an FBI report:

“MASSINO reiterated his disagreement with several decisions that BASCIANO had made during his absence. He took particular offense to the fact that he had specifically told the BCF panel that they should all be in agreement before making anyone or killing anyone, and this order was ignored…MASSINO also noted that Basciano acted alone in ordering “RANDY” (RANDOLPH PIZZOLO) killed.”

So, it seems that Carillo might have had a temporary memory loss.

When it came time to nicknames, Scotten did even bother asking about them. Instead asking this:

Q. Do you know Madonna — whether Madonna and Crea are typically referred to by their full name?
A. No Matthew Madonna is referred to as Matty, and Steven Crea, Steven L. Crea is referred to as Stevie.

And since the “Stevie Wonder” myth was, at this time, not an issue, Crea’s lawyer Robert Franklin didn’t ask about that specific bogus nickname, either:

Q. Now, other than people in law enforcement, have you ever heard of anybody who has referred to my client, Steve Crea, as Herbie?
A. I have seen the nickname in writing, but I’ve never heard anybody use it.
Q. You’ve seen it in writing on an indictment, such as we have here; isn’t that true?
A. Yeah, and other places, true, yes.
Q. And other than a law enforcement person or seeing it in writing in a legal document produced by the government, have you ever heard of anybody refer to my client, Steve Crea, as Wonder Boy?
A. No.

So, it seems the government once again pulled out their dirty playbook because as luck would have it Siebel changed her ruling the very next day and denied numerous defense counsel requests to bring Carillo back to the stand so he could be asked about “Stevie Wonder.”

It makes you wonder if the government already knew what the answer would be and didn’t want their Pinocchio nose to grow any longer. But that nose kept growing and growing because, throughout the rest of the trial, almost every other government witness would add a jolt of life into that wondrous “Stevie Wonder” myth.

Carillo also had plenty to say about informants telling Londonio’s lawyer, John Meringolo that “if he’s known to be a liar” the government “shouldn’t use that person.”

And when it came to jailhouse snitches, he had an even stronger view saying “I would be skeptical and cautious with a jailhouse informant.” Now, to be fair, Meringolo actually used the term “jailhouse snitches” when asking Carillo if he found those to be the “most unreliable of all snitches.

But Scotten immediately was immediately offended telling Siebel, “I’m going to object to the term. It’s not appropriate for an officer of the court.” Of course, as we continue our story, Scotten makes many comments that seem rather inappropriate for “an officer of the court” so his “holier than thou” attitude only applies to everybody else.

Carillo also testified he had taken thousands of surveillance photos either personally or via pole cameras over the course of his career. For this case alone, he took more than 2000 photographs of the defendants at wakes, Christmas parties…and the Coddington Club. But in all those photographs, he had only seen John Pennisi present twice – and only at wakes, no less. Remember that when it’s Pennisi’s turn to testify.

One final note, the government made a board to put the alleged hierarchy of the Lucchese Family in living color for the jury to see day in and day out. As each “member” of the Family was identified by witnesses, a picture of the person was put on the chart with their name and rank. Even though it was a government exhibit and only relevant to the government’s side of the story, Siebel allowed the “chart” to stay up throughout the trial – despite numerous objections by defense counsel that it was prejudicial to their clients.

Secret Agent Money Man
Undercover Agent “Pete Pappas” (the secret name for the secret agent for security purposes) was Spinelli’s partner in the FBI’s scheme to “get” Datello and others with the ultimate goal of eventually snaring Crea. Although Pete didn’t have any “scenes” with Crea himself, he openly talked about the “role” he played during his two-day testimony and provided insight into Spinelli’s starring role.

He explained to Rothman that Spinelli was recruited by Agent Otto, who “tasked him to go back to his previous life, rekindle some of the older relationships he has and try to collect evidence on behalf of the government” and that his job as Spinelli’s partner, was to be the money man.

A.What was the role that you played in this undercover operation?
A. So Mr. Spinelli had the background into the family and the business but he didn’t have the capacity and the funding. So back in 2013, when the FBI, colleagues of mine approached me to participate in a case in an undercover capacity, my role was to create that capability, the money, the logistics, and the capacity for Mr. Spinelli to be able to do his tasks.
Q. In other words, you provided the money.
A. The money. Yes.

Q. What type of illegal activity did you participate in as part of this undercover operation?
A. The purchase of cocaine and other drugs, heroin. The sale of illegal stolen untaxed cigarettes and conspired to commit other crimes, and stolen goods.
Q. And did you provide the cigarettes to Spinelli and others?
A. Yes.

Pappas knew that Datello was one of the sub-targets and discussed what he knew about Datello’s background. He testifed that Datello had previously served time in prison, didn’t have a job, and “owed money to a friend of his named Stevie” and that “he had participated in illegal activity, including selling drugs in the not too distant future.”

Note how he mentions Datello “selling drugs in the not too distant future“…another federal official with foresight – except it wasn’t Pappas who was sitting behind bars.

Pete took advantage of Datello’s financial situation when Spinelli introduced them in August 2014 where Pappas introduced the idea of selling “illegal stolen cigarettes” so that Datello could “make some extra money.” This was in addition to the drug deals Pappas wanted to make, which Datello had initially resisted (just like Vaughan.)

Although the money to be made was in drugs, it did seem odd, as Franklin brought up, that Datello would also be willing to deal in illegal cigarettes. But “Pete” had an explanation:

Q. Okay. Did you find it odd that someone would be dealing in kilos of cocaine or kilos of heroin and also be interested in selling untaxed cigarettes?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Did I find it odd? Not really because Mr. Datello didn’t have a job. He had a lot of contacts and he was on Social Security making $1200 a month. An opportunity to go to contacts that he already knew, and make an easy 2 to $3,000. It wasn’t odd, it was the right thing to do.
Q. Okay. Considering his financial condition?
A. Absolutely.

“It wasn’t odd, it was the right thing to do.” Just think about that statement for a minute and what the agent is implying and how his work, as we’ll see, contributed to Datello “doing the right thing.”

What was also interesting was that the background information provided to him by Agent Otto was devoid of some key information that shines a spotlight on who Otto’s true target was:

Q. Just to explain, in connection with that, at the time of the meeting, did you know that he was a friend or had been in prison with my client, Steve Crea?
A. Yes, I had information based on access to FBI files, since I’m an FBI agent, but the information provided by Mr. Datello during the meeting, it was nothing more than the first names of his friends.
Q. That’s exactly what I was getting at. So using my client, Mr. Crea, as the example, at some point in this transcript he talks about a Stevie. Did you assume it was Mr. Crea or did you think it might be somebody else? Did you have enough information to understand who he was referring to? That’s what I’m getting at.
A. So I have enough context in this conversation to draw a logical conclusion that the Stevie that he was referring to, highly likely is Mr. Steve Crea.
Q. And at the time when this recording was made, did you also know that my client, Steve Crea, has a son by the name of Steven Crea?
A. I was not aware of the family member.

At this point, Pappas was under the gun and while he had been quite confident and detailed about what had transpired four or five years ago, including specific conversations and events, he stumbled when it came time to answer questions about that August 14, 2014 recording when Spinelli forgot to turn off his tape recorder. He claimed he didn’t “remember” and that he couldn’t “recall” the specifics of what he said.

Franklin wanted to make it easier for the good Agent by providing him with a verbatim transcript of what he said during the “off-mic” recordings. Although Judge Siebel eventually allowed Franklin to use the transcript, Rothman was not happy:

MS. ROTHMAN: First is, the witness’s words on the recordings are not being offered for the truth. We have instructed the jury that those are – his statements and Mr. Spinelli’s statements are not offered for the truth. What the defense is trying to do here is generally impeach the investigation, again, I believe by suggesting things that were said as part of their investigative steps.

I think that’s a reason to object to this line of cross-examination. Of course, I don’t understand why the defense is going to be pointing out these statements. Again, they are not offered for the truth. Again, the only purpose is to impeach and unless they can prove there’s something improper, which they haven’t done yet.

All this objecting because maybe the government might be exposed. And this is only the second day!

Siebel allowed Franklin to continue and he showed agent Pappas the transcript.

Q. After reading that, does that refresh your recollection that those are the words that you said at that time?
A. It appears that I made those statements, yes.
Q. Okay. And I read them accurately to you?
A. Yes, sir, you have.
Q. Very good. So, the question that I have for you, when you testified on Friday that you were only in a supporting role, by several different attorneys and the Judge herself, but you were the one that was strategizing as to how you would approach and how Mr. Spinelli, and the two of you, would approach Mr. Datello in four days on the 18th, when you were going to be meeting him for dinner; isn’t that true?
A. Sir, I recall that conversation, not so much strategizing. As an FBI agent, especially in an undercover capacity, when we are conducting an operation, we got to have a plan, and I was communicating maybe some of that plan with Mr. Spinelli.
Q. You were the one coming up with that plan; isn’t that true? You said that reference to chess and making moves. You were planning on doing this for a period of time; isn’t that true?
A. Sir, again, it was more chatting other than, you know –and less planning. The planning and the operation is something that falls on the case agents and not on the undercover.

Is he “shift blaming?” Because that’s going to be an issue of contention with the government later. It also could be that as Franklin continued his questioning, things were starting to click in Pappas’ mind about exactly what the government had been doing.

Q. And when you said, “So, if we can get him to facilitate something where he can implicate some guys here, that would be good,” that was going to be your plan going forward and specifically for the meeting of August 18th?
A. If this is my conversation or the statement that I’ve made to Mr. Otto, it was because it was more like guidance and less, you know, planning or putting a seed.

So, what was it, Agent Pappas? Planning, chatting, or guidance? Perhaps these next few parts will make it more clear:

Q. And you’ve told us that in the course of this undercover operation, and specifically with Mr. Datello, that you were playing a character; is that right?
A. I was, yes.
Q. And you were lying to him about this pretend character that you were, correct?
A. I was, I was doing my role, absolutely.
Q. Okay. But the things you were telling him were not truthful because it was a pretend character, it did not exist, this person who you were playing, pretending to be?
A. Yes. It was an undercover operation, yes.

Q. So, when you first met with him in person on August 14th at his home, do you recall that the conversation was about cigarettes, untaxed cigarettes? That’s what he was talking to you about, he being Mr. Datello?
A. Very first meeting, highly likely, yes. I don’t —
Q. And then at some point in that meeting, you suggested to him, in some fashion, that you could also move around cocaine, there could be some sort of a drug deal; isn’t that right?
A. Highly likely, absolutely.
Q. And from the conversation that you had in the car that we’ve already talked about, he told you, I don’t wanna do cocaine things, it’s too dangerous, it’s too risky, words to that effect; isn’t that right?
A. He did allude to that, yes.

Q. Over the next few months, in dealing with Mr. Datello, you, you gave him some gifts; isn’t that true?
A. Yes.
Q. One of them was a Johnnie Walker Blue Label. It’s a fancy whiskey, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And at one point when he was – he had earned some money, I think it was about $2,000, you suggested, here, I can give you a Rolex watch instead of the $2,000, because the Rolex watch is worth dramatically more. Do you remember that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he took the Rolex watch?
A. He did.
Q. And these were ways for you to move him along in the plan that you had for what you wanted him to do for you; isn’t that true?
A. I portrayed a street guy who engaged in drug smuggling and fencing stolen goods, so I gave him an option to choose whatever he wanted to do. It wasn’t part of the plan. It was part of my role.
Q. Well, your role is a pretend role; isn’t that true?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection.
THE COURT: I’ll allow it.
A. It is a pretend role, yes.

So, drugs, illegal cigarettes, informant salaries, new cars, storage units, phones, cashmere sweaters, and even Rolex watches. Plus, there’s that tiny issue of taking advantage of someone’s financial situation and framing them…American taxpayer dollars hard at work.

[mafiastudent]

-----CONTINUES

------------------------

The Name Dropper
John Pennisi was an alleged “soldier” in the Lucchese Family who had a criminal past that included a 1990 manslaughter conviction. He was only 20-years-old at the time. In 1989, he and another man were dating the same girl. When the other boyfriend found out Pennisi was at her house, he went there to confront her, but her father sent him away. he left and went to a bar.

Pennisi was upset that the other man had the nerve to show up the girl’s house, so Pennisi called up a friend and hunted the other boyfriend down, shooting him in the chest and killing him. It was never determined which one of the two friends killed the other man, but Pennisi took off and went into hiding for months. He was finally arrested, brought to trial and sentenced to 17 years behind bars.

However, he had lied during his testimony at that 1990 trial to protect him and his co-defendant. This “false narrative” was brought to light at the May 2019 trial of alleged Lucchese “soldier” Eugene Castelle when the government admitted this fact to the Court, saying in part: “CW-2 has admitted to the Government that during his testimony in the 1990 trial, he deliberately made false statements in an effort to shield himself and his co-defendant from liability.”

While in prison, Pennisi had many problems. He tried committing suicide because he couldn’t deal with prison life. He was a very paranoid and jealous man, too. He required his former girlfriend to “answer him on FaceTime (even if she was traveling on a highway or otherwise unable to use her phone at that moment) to ensure that another man was not present with her” and had burned her hair and knocked her teeth out with his fist.

However, the defense wasn’t allowed to ask about any of this because it wasn’t relevant to his credibility. So, what was relevant to his credibility?

It seemed that the main purpose of having Pennisi testify was so the government could complete its special hierarchy board for the jury to see. His testimony mostly consisted of identifying people in pictures and providing background information on the “Mafia” and Lucchese Family activities because he, apparently, knew everything and everybody even though he was a self-described “nobody.”

But despite being a “made” member from approximately 2013 to 2017 and knowing all the players allegedly involved, the prosecution didn’t even ask about the main plot of the trial – the murder of Michael Meldish.

Even Gang Land commented on it in their October 24, 2019 column, stating, “You’d think that a wiseguy who’d been made before the hit, and was active for more than four years after it took place, would have heard some scuttlebutt tying Crea or former acting boss Matthew (Matty) Madonna to the slaying.”

Nonetheless, he had heard about the Coddington Club incident. And he also provided the jury with some interesting information, including step-by-step detail about his “making ceremony” and many other side stories that fit with the government’s and perhaps even the public’s image of what the “Mafia” is all about.

Before being sent to prison for that 1989 murder, Pennisi claimed he had a relationship with “the mob,” specifically the Gambino Family as explained to our favorite prosecutor, Scotten:

Q. Was there any particular person or people in the Gambino Family you had a relationship with?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Tony Moscatiello and John Jr.
Q. And do you know John Jr.’s last name?
A. Gotti.

Right off the bat, let’s name drop a big name because even if the jury didn’t know much about the “Mafia,” they probably had heard of that famous name, right?

Q. Did you have any kind of a formal relationship with them? Were you just friends, or was there something more?
A. We were friends and I was associated to them.
Q. In the terms used at the time, how would you have been referred to?
A. I was with them.
Q. How long were you around the Gambinos on the street?
A. Since I was maybe 14, 15 years old.

He went on to describe that while in prison, he maintained his close relationship with “the Mob.” “There was a lot of guys locked up with us,” he said. “We were, we were mostly Italian guys.”

When Pennisi got out of prison in 2007, he got a job in construction because he was on parole until 2012. At some point, he ended up getting into a fight with some Colombo guys at a restaurant owned by the girlfriend of his friend Anthony Guzzo. This conflict happened because, apparently, the Colombo guys didn’t want to pay their check.

Although he and Guzzo “won the fight,” Pennisi was concerned there might be a problem, so he went to speak with his childhood friend Joey DiBenedetto, who was allegedly a member of the Lucchese Family, for help. After the conflict was resolved, Pennisi was “put on record” with Joey. Later, he met an alleged “capo” by the name of John Castellucci, and then the doors to the Lucchese Family swung wide open.

Q. During this period when you’re on record with DiBenedetto, did you ever meet anybody more senior than Castellucci?
A. Yes.
Q. Who did you meet?
A. The administration and other members.
Q. And who was in the administration at the time you met them?
A. Matty, Stevie, Joe D.
Q. And what’s Joe D’s full last name?
A. Excuse me?
Q. What’s Joe D’s full last name?
A. DiNapoli.

Scotten then asked about how Pennisi met the various members of the “administration.” It gets a little loopy, but let’s try to follow along. Pennisi first talks about how he met Madonna. Then he’s asked about Crea and others. Scotten shows him pictures to identify and they immediately go up on the government’s poster board.

Q. How were you introduced to Madonna?
A. I was introduced to him – I was introduced to him by Joe DiNapoli. And he said, “This is Matty. He’s the Acting Boss of the Family.” And he said, “Matty, this is John, amica nostra.” That’s how it was done.
Q. Other than just saying, “Hey, this is Matty,” is there significance to that? What is the purpose of such an introduction?
A. I don’t – what was the purpose?
Q. Yes.
A. Well, it had to be done.
Q. Why did it have to be done?
A. I was just inducted into the Family.

Q. Were you also introduced to Stevie Crea?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall who it was who introduced you to Stevie Crea?
A. It could have been one of two people. I don’t, I don’t exactly remember which one.
Q. Do you remember where you were introduced to Stevie Crea?
A. Yes.
Q. Where were you introduced to him?
A. At the club in the Bronx.
Q. And I’ll ask you more about the club in the Bronx in a minute. What was said when you were introduced to Stevie Crea? What was said?
A. How did —
Q. Yeah.
A. Like I said, I don’t know – it was one of two people who, who, who introduced us. They said, “This is Stevie. He’s the official Underboss of the Family. And this is John. Amica nostra.”

So, the first time he meets “Stevie,” this nobody is told Crea’s supposed position in the Family? Who would have guessed? And just to point out something else rather nifty…notice how Scotten refers to Crea as “Stevie”…just like he knew him personally.

And just so Londonio wouldn’t feel left out, because, you know, the government had given him so much attention for so long, Pennisi talked about him, too. The only one he didn’t talk about was Caldwell.

Q. And then, finally, when you were introduced to Chris, was anything said about Chris’s position? Was he introduced as a boss or an underboss or anything like that?
A. He was not.
Q. So, what does that mean?
A. He was a soldier.
Q. What was your rank at the time?
A. Soldier.
Q. All right. This wasn’t the first time you met the administration, was it?
A. No.

And “Chris” must be a close personal friend of Scotten’s as well since he refers to him by his first name. By the way, you catching the government’s trickery here? Pennisi never says he was introduced to “Chris” as a “soldier” but he could infer that was Londonio’s position because he wasn’t identified “as a boss or underboss or anything like that.” How does he know he wasn’t an “associate”?

Q. Where did you first meet Madonna, Crea, and DiNapoli?
A. At the club in the Bronx.
Q. And how did you end up at the club in the Bronx for the first time?
A. John and Joey took me.
Q. John Castellucci and Joe DiBenedetto?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they say why you were going?
A. No.
Q. What happened when you got there?
A. They introduced me to everybody.
Q. Any women?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Were there any women there?
A. There was a woman like serving. One woman.
Q. Other than her?
A. Any —
Q. Any women other than her?
A. No.

Because it’s a “boy’s club,” you know. No women allowed. But this will be proven false as well, which we’ll see shortly.

Q. And you said you were introduced to people. Who do you remember meeting that day?
A. I met, I met — like I said, I met the administration and whoever else was, was there.
Q. No. I’m asking you if you met them. You weren’t introduced in the sense you talked about before, were you?
A. No.
Q. And why, why is that?
A. I wasn’t, I wasn’t a member of the Family.

The problem with his testimony is that he says he met all of the administration and a whole bunch of other people at the club, but wasn’t introduced to them formally, because he wasn’t yet a made member. But, yet, he still met all of the supposed important people anyway, complete with full names and alleged titles. Also, he testified when he met Madonna, he had been inducted, but then said it wasn’t the first time he had met him because he met him initially at the Coddington Club. He was also introduced to Londonio, but apparently that wasn’t at the Coddington Club, either, but at a wake.

While it might not seem like a big issue, the way the testimony was presented made it seem like Pennisi was “in the know” and that everything else that followed was true and factual even though his testimony was conflicting from one segment to the next.

Let’s see what happened after he met everyone that big day at the Coddington Club:

Q. And after you met, in the informal sense, everyone there, what did you do?
A. What did I do?
Q. What did you do? Did you stand around? Did you get something to eat? What did you do?
A. We were just talking, and then eventually I think we ate.
Q. Where did you sit?
A. At, at the table that they were sitting at.
Q. And can you describe the conversation in general terms?
A. It was just friendly talk. It was, you know, not — talk about prison or whatever.
Q. And were you an equal partner in that conversation?
A. At times, yes.
Q. Now, you said there were people there other than Madonna, Crea, DiNapoli, and Castellucci?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember any of their names today?
A. Yeah. A few. Richie, Richie DeLuca was there. Frankie, Carmin.

He then talked about how things work at the club – almost as if he had just read the pages of a movie script:

Q. Now, did you go to the club on subsequent occasions?
A. On what?
Q. Later occasions. Is that the only time you were in the club?
A. No.
Q. And, generally, what was going on there when you were there?
A. Just guys talking and eating. A lot of eating.
Q. Did you ever discuss any criminal activity in the club?
A. Did I? No.
Q. Did you hear it discussed?
A. Not really.
Q. And do you know if there’s a reason for that?
A. Everyone was leery of bugs.
Q. Did you speak with other people in the Family, generally, about where to talk about things and where not to talk about things?
A. We — so, you don’t really talk in there. If you had —
Q. And did you ever discuss why not to talk in there?
A. We were worried about law enforcement listening.
Q. Did you have a solution for that, if you wanted to talk business?
A. You could go outside, if you wanted to.
Q. What did you do outside?
A. Have the conversation you wouldn’t have inside.
Q. Did you do a lot of that up at the club?
A. Did I do that? No.
Q. Did you see others doing it?
A.Yes.
Q. Who did you most often see doing that at the club?
A. Stevie.
Q.Who would Stevie talk with?
A.Mainly captains.
Q. And, to be clear, when you’re saying “Stevie, you’re referring to the Defendant here in court, Stevie Crea?
A.Yes.

So, according to this testimony, “Stevie” must obviously be engaging in criminal activity because he wouldn’t talk inside the club about anything important, only outside. And the reason he did this was that law enforcement might be listening. So, the logical conclusion would be if Crea was innocent then why would he have to hide his conversations? See how that works?

Also, think about this. Pennisi was at the club quite often, knew everything about it, and why people were there, but isn’t it strange that in all that time, he never talked or heard anyone else ever discuss any criminal activities? So, was he just a hanger-on who had some special magical quality that all the supposed important people always wanted him around?

He then discusses the “incident” at the Coddington Club – the only thing relevant to the charges against Crea.

Q. Did you ever learn of any confrontations that occurred at the club?
A. Yes.
Q. And at the time you learned of this confrontation, were you a member of the Family?
A. Yes.
Q. Who told you about the confrontation?
A. Well, several, several people brought, brought it up.
Q. What was the status of those people in the Family?
A. Also members.
Q. And what did they tell you about the confrontation in the club?
MR. DRATEL: Objection, Your Honor, hearsay.
THE COURT: I think you can lay a foundation for who these people are and purpose for the conversation.
MR. SCOTTEN: I think he’s stated they were members of the Family. And I’ll ask, Your Honor —
THE COURT: And when you say “members, you mean inducted members?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
Q. And when these people told you about the conversation, were you still doing Family business with them?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the confrontation concern matters of concern to the Family?
MR. FRANKLIN: Objection, Your Honor. This witness wasn’t — he wasn’t there. He doesn’t know, except what he may have been told.
THE COURT: His own conversation he has been there for. You can answer. Did — from what you were told, was this confrontation that occurred at the club something that was of concern to the Family?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.

It appears that gossip has a role when trying to prove someone’s guilt. However, considering the number of times Scotten asked Pennisi about this guy and that guy, it seems a bit odd that in this particular instance, he didn’t bother asking which “made” guys told Pennisi the tale – maybe Scotten didn’t need any more pictures for his board? Another point to remember as we continue through the trial is how the government was allowed to use hearsay testimony and gossip to present their case while the defense wasn’t allowed to do the same.

Let’s continue with the Coddington Club incident:

Q. So, what did these members of the Lucchese Family tell you about the confrontation at the club?
A. There was an incident prior to the confrontation where Matty had told members of the Bonanno Family that we — our Family didn’t recognize a boss that was away in prison.
Q. Before you go on, where was the Bonanno Family’s boss at the time?
A. He was in federal prison.
MR. DRATEL: Can we get a name, instead of just titles?
THE COURT: No. If you want, you can ask on cross.
Q. Do you remember his name?
A. Yes.
Q. What was his name?
A. Mikey Nose.
Q. And why did saying — well, what did they say about — Matty said about Mikey Nose?
A. Just, just that, that — that’s what the problem was over, that he said that we didn’t recognize a boss that was in prison.
Q. And how did that lead to a confrontation?
A. They took it as a sign of disrespect, being that our own boss was also in prison at that time. And they decided to confront — they got together, a whole bunch of them, and, and came into the club.
Q. Did they have anything with them when they came in the club?
A.Some had weapons.
Q.Was there any actual violence in the club that day?
A.Excuse me?
Q. Was there any actual violence in the club that day?
A. I was — no. I was told that there was no actual violence.

Basically no question about anything of relevance. No date, no questions about what was supposedly said by Crea. No mention of Crea at all or even Ulzheimer. And why bring Madonna into it when he wasn’t charged with anything related to this supposed “incident?”

So, after meeting everyone under the sun in 2012 for no apparent reason, he talks about how he came to be inducted into the Family in 2013. Apparently, there was a fight with some Genovese guys at a strip club. Although no one was hurt, Pennisi was summoned back to the Coddington Club the next day to explain himself because he wasn’t a made member and the incident caused some embarrassment. But it did speed up his induction into the Family.

A. I believe it was the next day I was told I had to go to the Bronx, to the club.
Q. By who? Who told you?
A. Little Joey.
Q. And what did Joe DiBenedetto do at that time? Did he go too?
A. Yeah, he took me there.
Q. And what happened when you and DiBenedetto got to the club in the Bronx?
A. He, he told me that we had to explain what happened, and he wanted me to explain what happened.
Q. Did, did DiBenedetto say why he wanted you to explain?
A. He said he wasn’t a good talker, and he just — he — and he — Little Joey was inside the club at the time that all of this took place outside. He wasn’t there. And he didn’t know what I just told you. He wasn’t part of that. So, he wanted me to explain that.

Q. And who did you end up explaining to at the club?
A. There was a group of — the administration was at the club. A group of guys also with them.
Q. Well, go ahead and give the names, as best you remember.
A. Matty, Stevie, Joe DiNapoli, Richie. Big John was there, myself, Freddy Boy —
Q. Okay. So —
A. — Little Joey.
Q. Sorry. Go ahead.
A. I said Little Joey was with me too.
Q. And so, Richie is the Richie DeLuca we discussed before?
A. Yes.
Q. And Big John is John Castellucci?
A. Yes.
Q. Have we mentioned Freddy Boy before?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Did you, in fact, explain what had happened to this group?
A. I did.
Q. And did the group say anything to you?
A. Occasionally, they would ask a question.

Q. Other than that, did you receive any information from the group?
A. Yes.
Q. Who told you what?
A. Stevie said who Ralphie and the other guy was.
Q. He explained to you their position in the Genovese Family?
MR. DRATEL: Objection, leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. What did he say when he said who Ralphie and the other guy was?
A. They were with the Westside.
Q. And did Stevie say anything further?
A. He said that Ralphie said I misrepresented myself.
Q. What did you understand misrepresented to mean?
A. That he was trying to say that I was talking like I was a wise guy when I was not.
Q. Did Crea say anything about whether this would be a problem? Did Stevie say anything about whether this would be a problem?
A. They, they didn’t feel that I misrepresented myself. And they — he said that he also told Ralphie that my name was on a list to be straightened out, so I could talk to him any way I wanted to talk to him.

So, wait a minute? First, Pennisi was admonished for misrepresenting himself but then, at the same time, it was okay what he did because he was on a list to be “straightened out?” And why wasn’t there a “sit-down?” Isn’t that part of “Mafia legend” when there’s a problem between two Families?

Q. So, couple things there. What does straightened out mean?
A. Inducted into the Family.
Q. And what does on the list mean?
A. When a person is gonna be inducted into the Family, his name is put on the list, and it’s passed around within that Family and then to the other Families.
Q. And, so, what did you understand him to mean when Stevie said you could speak to Balsamo however you wanted because you were on the list to get inducted?
A. That’s not the way he said it. He, he said, even if this Ralphie was, was, was telling the truth, that I spoke like that, I could speak like that. But he didn’t believe that I spoke like that either, from what I, what I explained happened.
Q. And was there going to be — did he say anything about future interactions with the Genovese Family?
A. We were told we couldn’t retaliate.
Q. Did Stevie say why?
A. He says it was settled.
Q. And did you speak with Matty at all about — Matty Madonna at all about this incident?
A. Yes.
Q. What did Madonna say?
A. He said that he, he told — he, he said he told the —
Q. Well —
A. — the West Side that — excuse me?
Q. I was just waiting for the court reporter. Go ahead.
A. He said he told the West Side that if they had sent us there to shake the place up like they believed, and we showed up in suits and a limousine, that we would be leaving in a hearse.
Q. And when we started this, you said this incident affected the timing of you getting straightened out?
A. Yes.
Q. How did it affect the timing of you getting straightened out?
A. It pushed it forward faster.
Q. Why?
MR. DRATEL: Objection.
Q. What is your understanding of why?
THE COURT: Well, first of all, what was the basis of the understanding, and then why.

Judge Siebel just helping out the over-enthusiastic and snotty Scotten before Pennisi continues with his tale because she needs to make sure the government keeps its facts straight…wouldn’t want to miss any important detail in their narrative.

Q. How did you come to believe that this moved forward the timing?
A. They were concerned about the West Side also maybe looking to sneak and hurt us.
Q. When you say they were concerned, who was concerned?
A. Our administration.
Q. How do you know your administration was concerned?
A. Because they pushed to straighten us out right away, like within a week or so.

Because in the world of the “Mafia,” they just needed this dumbbell to help them out in case there was a “sneak.” Also, notice how Pennisi always says “our administration” – proof positive that he was, indeed, “in the club.”

Q. So, do you remember the date that you were inducted?
A. Yes.
Q. What date was that?
A. April 2nd.
Q. Of what year?
A. 2013.
Q. Did you know beforehand that this was going to happen?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you know?
A. I was on a trip in — to Saint Thomas with a girl, and I got a telephone call.
Q. From who?
A. Anthony Guzzo.
Q. And what did — what occurred during that call that caused you to believe you were gonna be inducted?
A. He asked me where I was, and I told him. I asked him 1 where he was. He said he was at the club in the Bronx and that he needed my mother’s maiden name.
Q. And what does that have to do with getting inducted?
A. Obviously, if your last name is Italian, that’s your father’s name. So, having your mother’s maiden name is — your whole bloodline is Italian.
Q. Did you also discuss getting made with anybody before it happened? Or did anybody discuss it with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Who discussed it with you?
A. Johnny Side Burns.
Q. And what did Johnny Side Burns tell you?
A. He was joking and he said, “Stay out of trouble because it’s any day now.” I knew what he meant.

Well, didn’t he already know he was going to be inducted because “Stevie” had told him his name was on a list? So, if his name was already on a list, why would Guzzo need to call him to ask for his mother’s maiden name? Wouldn’t “the administration” have wanted to know that before he was put on that special “list?”And if Pennisi was “on record” with Joey DiBenedetto, why was Guzzo calling him for that information? Why not his “sponsor” or Crea or Madonna, for that matter, since he had such a great relationship with everyone already?

Pennisi then talked about his special day, going into excruciating detail about how it all went down from which expressway he took to get to the house in Staten Island all the way through to when he received his special souvenir knife from Big John. We’re not going to post the entire segment of testimony because it’s extremely lengthy, but here are parts of how it happened.

First, he and “Little Joey drove to Anthony’s house and picked up Anthony, and then we met Spanky at a diner in Staten Island.” They all got in Spanky’s car with another guy named “Patty or Patsy” and jumped on and off the “Korean War Veteran expressway” and “went through streets and then got to a house.”

He, Anthony, and Patty were brought “down to a basement” and then were called “one at a time” to go “upstairs.” When he got to the “top of the stars” Spanky brought him “over to sit at a, at a dining room table.”

“There was a whole, a whole table full of guys” including “Matty, Little John, Joe DiNapoli, Joe Cafe, John Brody, Patty, the guy — Spanky. Little Joey.”

Scotten was a bit confused about John Brody and asked for clarification. He wanted to know if that was “his nickname” and whether “John Brody was, in fact, Italian.” He was – have to keep that “Mafia” image going.

No one spoke. “They were just sitting there.” On the table was “a gun, a knife, a picture of a saint, a lighter and a, like a diabetic needle.”

Q. A diabetic needle? What do you mean by that?
A. Just, I guess, what the diabetic people use to take their blood, test their blood.
Q. Oh, like to prick your finger?
A. Yeah.

He then talked about the knife, which Pennisi eventually turned over to the government:

Q. Did you ever see the knife again?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you see the knife again?
A. Big John had gave it to me.
Q. At a later date?
A. Yeah.
Q. Did he say why?
A. He said, “Keep this as a souvenir, a souvenir.”

The first to speak was “Matty:

Q. So, after you were seated at this table, what happened?
A. Matty spoke to me.
Q. Do you remember what Matty said? Take us through it, as best you can.
A. He asked me if I knew why I was, why I was there.
Q. And what did you say?
A. I said I did not.
Q. Didn’t you know why you were there?
A. I did.
Q. Why did you say you didn’t?
A. You’re not supposed to say that you know why you’re there.
Q. And how did the ceremony go from there?
A. He said that I was there to be considered becoming a member of, of the — their Family, that they were Lucchese Crime Family, and if I wanted to become a member.
Q. What did you say?
A. I said yes.
Q. What happened next?
A. He, he asked me if, if I would kill, if asked, for the Family.
Q. Madonna asked you that?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say?
A. I said yes.
Q. What happened next?
A. He said that if my child was dying in the hospital, and I got a call from anyone in the Family, I would have to leave my child and go to the Family, and would I do that.
Q. Did you agree?
A. I did.

Of course, the worst scenario possible – a child dying in the hospital. We also need to mention that all of the above and all of the below is almost verbatim from Special Agent Carillo’s testimony on day one when he described “Mafia” protocols, including the making ceremony. If you would like a visual of a “making ceremony,” you can check out this one from HBO’s The Sopranos.

Matty then asked him for his “trigger finger” (he’s right-handed), then “Big John had the diabetic needle and he poked my finger, and Matty took my hand and they dropped some blood on the saint.” Then they lit the saint and he moved “the saint from hand to hand while it was on fire.” While that was happening he was to repeat after Matty:

Q. And what did he say? What do you recall?
A. He said that if I was to betray any member of the Family, that my soul would burn like the saint is burning.
Q. And did the saint, the picture of the saint actually finish burning?
A. It did.

After the saint picture stopped burning, Matty explained “the rules:”

Q. And as best you can remember, what did he say about rules?
A. He said that we were — as a member of the Family, I was never to go after or try to date anybody’s wife or another member’s wife or girlfriend, for that matter; that I was not to put my hands on any other member, but if they put their hands on me, just kill them and we would sort it out afterwards.

At this point, we have to mention that it appears if someone has a problem with someone else within their family, they can just “kill them” and it will be sorted out “afterwards,” but only “if they put their hands on” you first.

Other rules included not getting involved “in drug dealing or have anything to do with drugs. And we’re not to get involved with any kinds of lawsuits or stocks or bonds.” Scotten didn’t bother to ask why “members” couldn’t get involved with stocks and bonds, so that’s a mystery.

And then this:

Q. Did he say anything about money?
A. Yes.
Q. What, what did Madonna tell you about money?
A. He said that they were not there to shake us, shake us down. And that if, for instance, I owned a business, that, that money was mine. They was not gonna take legitimate money. But he said that anything I made on the strength of this was to — a percentage would go to the Family.
MR. SCOTTEN: If the record could reflect that when the witness said, “the strength of this,” he pointed to his — that’s his left breast pocket.
THE COURT: Okay. It will so reflect.
Q. What does it mean to say “the strength of this” and sort of grab or point to your left breast pocket?
A. It means button.
Q. What does button mean?
A. Button means a made member.
Q. Do you know where that term comes from?
A. Yes.
Q. Where does it come from?
A. Years ago, they used to call made members button men, and they would say that if an order was given to kill somebody, they would push a button.
Q. And, so, what does it mean to make money on the strength of your button?
A. Anything done illegally.
Q. And did Madonna say why you had to pay a percentage, some part of the money you made illegally, to the administration?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said that we were the ones who had — meaning the administration, were the ones who would have bull’s-eyes on them.
Q And did you understand what bull’s eye was a reference to?
A. Target for the government.
Q. Law enforcement investigations?
A. Law enforcement.

So, let’s briefly recap. People talk outside so law enforcement can’t hear about their illegal activity from law enforcement. When the “administration” calls on you to kill someone, you have to do it, even if your kid is dying in the hospital. You kick up money from your illegal activities because the “administration” is the target of law enforcement with the bull’s eye on their back. And if they weren’t doing anything illegal, they wouldn’t have to keep things secret and worry about being a target. Oh, and don’t forget the “making ceremony” because that’s all part of the secretness of this society.

When it was all over, introductions were made. As you read this, think about Pennisi’ previous testimony about who he met and when:

Q. Introductions to everybody. Do you remember the first introduction?
A. It was, it was introduction to Matty.
Q. By who?
A. Joe DiNapoli.
Q. So, this is the introduction you described at the beginning of your testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Once DiNapoli introduces you to Madonna, what does Madonna do?
A. He introduces me to Joe.
Q. And was that the only introduction that day?
A. No. I was introduced to the whole table.
Q. And you said before —
THE COURT: May I just ask a question?
MR. SCOTTEN: Please.
THE COURT: Some of these people, you’d met before, right?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: So, what’s the point of introducing you again?
THE WITNESS: Because they’re introducing me as a, as a member of the Family now, not as meeting somebody.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Since Pennisi had never spoken about “Joe” before, Scotten clarified that Joe was “Joe Cafe,” an alleged “captain” in the Family It also allowed Scotten to highlight how alleged members of the “Mafia” are not “normal” – further painting a sinister picture.

Q. So, to be clear, when you had met — had you met Joe Cafe before, as in a personal sense, like, hey, this is Joe?
A. Yes.
Q. And in that introduction, in the way normal people use it, was anything said about Joe Cafe’s status in the Family?
A. He was a captain.
Q. I know. But when you first met him, before you were inducted — okay?
A. Before? No.
Q. Yeah.
A. No.
Q. Similar to the kind of introduction normal people might engage in?
MR. GOLTZER: Objection.
THE COURT: Don’t use the word “normal.” Why don’t you say everyday.
Q. Was it similar to an everyday introduction you might have with anyone?
A. Yes.
Q. When you were introduced to Joe Cafe after the ceremony, what was said, to the best you recall?
A. “This is Joe Cafe. Joe is a captain with the Family. This is John, amica nostra.”
Q. And what is the purpose of doing this kind of — that kind of introduction, the one where you say amica nostra and state the person’s rank, if they have one?
A. Well, first, that’s how you introduce each other. And, second, is I need to know who he is.
Q. Why do you need to know who he is?
A. You need to know. You need to know who the captains are, who’s a soldier, who’s your administration.

Scotten then showed Pennisi more pictures for him to identify by name and rank, including Paul Cassano. He also provided information as to crews and who was in which crew and where the crew was based out of. Pennisi was like the government’s own Mafia encyclopedia. When they were finished, all those pics were placed on that hierarchy board of the government’s.

And, then the questions began about the government’s favorite topic – Steven L. Crea:

Q. Now, you said earlier in testimony that you were introduced to Crea, this Crea, the Defendant, at the club. Was he present at your ceremony?
A. He was not.
Q. Was anything said about him at your ceremony?
A. Yes.
Q. What was said — well, who said it, first?
A. Joe DiNapoli.
Q. And what did Joe DiNapoli say to you?
A. He said that Stevie couldn’t be here, but Stevie’s your official Underboss.
Q. And you said earlier, when you were introduced to him in the formal sense, it was either one of two people. Who was it who introduced you to Stevie Crea?
A. It was either Big John or Johnny Side Burns. I don’t remember which one.
Q. And when they did introduce you, did they state his position?
A. Yes.
Q. And what position did they state?
A. Underboss.

The power of recollection is strong with this one because, if you recall, Pennisi couldn’t remember who had first introduced him to Crea. But now we know. And isn’t it strange that he previously testified that he had already been told “Stevie’s” alleged position? I get that it’s a “making ceremony” and that’s a different kind of introduction, but nothing like the government hammering it home for the jury.

And, of course, Scotten had to revisit the subject of “Chris.” Have to establish that relationship.

Q. Now, you also said you were introduced to Chris at some point. Do you know Chris’s last name?
A. Yes.
Q. What’s Chris’s last name, as best you remember it?
A. Londonio.
Q. Do you remember where you were introduced to him?
A. Yes.
Q. And where was that?
A. At a wake.

Soon after Pennisi was inducted, he was given his very first job which was to give a “hospital beating” to the ex-son-in-law of Crea. He was given Davidson’s picture and address by Big John, who told him to get the job done. However, Pennisi was having a hard time getting the job done.

Even though he had someone install a GPS device on Davidson’s car (he couldn’t do it himself because he had a bad back,) he hesitated because every time he thought it was the right time, he noticed cameras everywhere, and he didn’t want to get caught. Eventually, he became so paranoid, he removed the device from Davidson’s car and destroyed the laptop he was using to track the guy.

By this point, Big John was getting extremely frustrated with Pennisi. So, Pennisi and the Guzzo (who was assigned the job with him) decided that maybe shooting a warning shot at Davidson while he was getting in his car might be a good idea, but then they changed their mind.

When Big John heard about it, he was not too happy and called Pennisi into “the club.”

Q. And what did John say when he met with you about this?
A. He — excuse me my language. He said, “Who the fuck told you to shoot anybody? That’s not what you were told to do.” And I said, “Well, I don’t know what to do anymore because it’s just — you know, I gotta keep hearing it from you all the time.” He said, “So get it done, you won’t hear me.”

But the pressure Pennisi was feeling wasn’t going away, especially any time he went to “the club.”

Q. I want to ask you a bit more about that pressure from John. Were there particular times you noticed that pressure?
A. Yes.
Q. And when was that?
A. Well, after a while, I — I noticed it. Not in the beginning, but I — I — it was when we went up to the club in the Bronx.
Q. And when you went up to the club in the Bronx, did you see what Castellucci did there?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he do?
A. He went and took a walk with Stevie outside.
Q. After Castellucci walked with Stevie, how would you describe the pressure?
A. Well, when we would — when we would leave the club and get back to Staten Island, he would — he would start putting pressure on, saying that — he said, “yous are embarrassing us, this is got to get done. It’s becoming an embarrassment.”

Yous – first and only time that was ever said in any of the recordings or testimony in this case. Yous…funny. Can’t you just hear Big John saying that?

Eventually, Pennisi found out why this was such an important job.

Q. Yes or no. Did you ever learn where the order for this was coming from?
A. Yes.
Q. And how did you learn?
A. Johnny Side Burns.
Q. And what did Johnny Side Burns tell you?
A. Well, originally, we thought that this had something to do with one of the Long Island crews, and we figured that they were using us because, you know, people in Long Island knew them better than they knew us. But Johnny Side Burns came back from the club one day and he said, “Now I know why you’re getting all this pressure.”
Q. Okay.
A. I said, “Why?” He said, “This is for Stevie.” And I was a little confused because the guy, he looks like this, you know, innocent pudgy guy. I — I was — I couldn’t understand, like how would he — this guy be involved with Stevie. Then he said it has something to do with a lawsuit. So I — I thought maybe it was a construction thing or something like that.

At some point, Pennisi was told to back off because Davidson had a court appearance and Big John didn’t want Davidson all bruised up at court. As it turns out, Pennisi never had to worry about the Davidson job again because someone else got the job done.

Q. Did Castellucci ever tell you whether it was accomplished?
A. He did.
Q. Did he say who accomplished it?
A. He called me one day and I met with him and we took a walk in Staten Island and he said, “Remember that thing that you took over a year to get done?” And I said, “Yes.” And he says, “Well, my brother Spanky got it done in two days. Not a year, two days,” he said.

In October 2018, Pennisi’s shining star started to dim – at least that’s what he thought. When he was at a wake, everyone he had previously been chummy with was ignoring him. He got paranoid and thought he might be in some trouble. Why? He wasn’t sure but thought maybe people were suspicious of him because some guy had lifted up his shirt to signify he had “no wire” which gave Pennisi the impression people were thinking he was a rat. So, he took off to Georgia and went into hiding for a bit before going back to New York to walk up the stairs into the FBI’s big building in the Manhattan sky.

And since Pennisi had all of this knowledge about the Lucchese Family and because all of these people he knew so much about were recently indicted, the FBI scooped up their new prize. On May 14, 2019, he signed a cooperation agreement, and soon after testified in another trial associated with alleged “members” of the Lucchese Family. That particular trial might have had more to do with him visiting the FBI than his paranoia about people thinking he was a rat. He also believed his girlfriend at the time was seeing another guy – Eugene Castelle – but it was just another Pennisi delusion.

It’s hard to believe there’s anymore to tell about Pennisi’s sorry tale, but the defense was able to pull more out of him, including his alleged knowledge of the “Mafia” and more details about that Coddington Club incident.

Madonna’s lawyer, Joshua Dratel was first at bat, and although he didn’t clarify why he was asking these particular questions, it’s clear that Pennisi wasn’t the Mafia encyclopedia the government thought he was.

Q. The Genovese Family is considered the most powerful Family in New York?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Is it the largest, as far as you know?
A. Possibly, yeah.
Q. And — so, during the period when you were made a member, when you were an associate and thereafter until the change in leadership, Vic Amuso remained the Boss of the Family, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And, in fact, he was able to do certain things even from prison in terms of issue orders and directives?
A. I guess if he wanted to.
Q. Well, did he take Johnny Joe Spirito off the shelf?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Did Amuso take Johnny Joe Spirito off the shelf?
A. I don’t know if he took him off the shelf. I don’t know.
Q. And he didn’t — you didn’t — withdrawn. He didn’t send a note to take Johnny Joe Spirito off the shelf?
A. I just said I didn’t know that he did that.

So, the alleged “boss” of one Family can put an alleged “soldier” of another Family on the shelf? That’s something new.

During the next day of testimony before the jury was brought into the courtroom, Scotten got his panties in a bunch when he learned that Franklin was going to make a board of his own. Scotten’s disdain for Crea was becoming more and more apparent as the trial went on.

MR. SCOTTEN: Mr. Franklin has informed me that during his cross-examination of Mr. Pennisi, he wishes to post a poster board on which Mr. Franklin is then going to write things. Mr. Franklin informs me he has done this in State Court. I’ve never seen it done. He wasn’t able to provide a rule of evidence that supports it. I think it is likely to lead to all kinds of arguments about characterization since Your Honor has established that we’re going to be very careful about any pedagogical aid only being put up if it’s supported by the evidence. I’m sure Mr. Franklin is going to want to phrase things in ways that he thinks are fair but we think are not, and, therefore, we shouldn’t be arguing about did he write it right, et cetera, et cetera, and there’s a transcript for
that. If he wants to have something read back, there is a very able court reporter.
THE COURT: Well —
MR. FRANKLIN: Your Honor —
THE COURT: — he is doing it with this witness. He’s not going to be writing things other witnesses said. So, we will be able to compare the witness’s answer to whatever Mr. Franklin writes to see if it’s —
MR. FRANKLIN: I’m not — just so we’re clear, we had a very brief conversation. I didn’t fully explain to him what I’m doing. There’s a section of his testimony where there are a lot of different names of people that he’s dealing with. So, when he says Jimmy and Joey, that was what I was going to write down, just so we have on a sheet who was involved in a particular transaction. I’m not characterizing it, I’m merely writing down what he would say. I believe earlier he had —
THE COURT: Sounds like the Defendant’s version of the board. It sounds all right to me.
MR. FRANKLIN: Exactly. I’ve done this for 30-something years in state and federal courts. I’ve never had an issue with it. I’m not characterizing anything. I’m merely putting down what the witness says. Sometimes we have the witness do it and he had the police officers doing that. But that’s — there is no characterization. I’m merely going to be taking names that he puts in and to show relationships and that sort of thing.
MR. SCOTTEN: If there is no characterization, we won’t object. We will object if we think there’s something wrong.
THE COURT: Sounds good. Let’s get the jury.
MR. FRANKLIN: Your Honor, I’m sorry I caused a misunderstanding.
THE COURT: No problem.

So, Scotten is arguing about “characterizations?” Gotta love the government.

If Pennisi’s testimony sounded rehearsed, there was a good reason as Franklin discovered.

Q. Before you testified yesterday, did you prepare with the prosecutors and the agents to give your testimony as to questions that would be asked, the answers that you would give?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, there were pictures that we were shown yesterday of various people. Were you shown those pictures during your preparation session?
A. Some.
Q. I said “preparation session.” Was it more than one session to prepare you for your testimony here?
A. Yes.

Considering all the times Pennisi said he was at the Coddington Club, Franklin had some additional questions. One thing that should be noted is that the prosecution had two hours of video showing the comings and goings of people at the club. They only showed the jury snippets that fit with their narrative. Later during the trial, the defense brought their own witness to the stand, a woman who had worked at the club for many years. Her testimony, although given on a different day, will be shared below Pennisi’s.

Q. You said you had been in the Coddington club on occasion, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you say you’ve been there many times?
A. Yes.
Q. Inside the club, correct?
A. Inside the club.
Q. Can any member of the public go into this club?
A. I don’t — I didn’t see any, but I don’t know.
Q. What are the requirements for going into this club?
A. I mean, there was only members of the Family when I was there. I don’t know if it was requirements.
Q. I’m sorry. Going back to that same exhibit, which I seem to have lost again.
MR. FRANKLIN: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. This is on Page 4- — 3509-42, Page 420.
A. Okay.
Q. Now that you’ve had a chance for your recollection to be refreshed, can any member of the public go into the club?
A. I said no, but it’s — that was just my opinion. I mean, I don’t know if people walk in off the street and they get chased out or they’re welcomed. I don’t — I don’t believe so.
Q. Well, didn’t you say, “People from the street just don’t walk in there”?
A. I never seen anybody just walk in there.
Q. But you said those words?
A. Yeah.
Q. And you were under oath at the time?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And every time that you were there inside the club, there were not people from the outside, other than people related to organized crime, where you said there was one woman that would cook and do things like that?
A. There was two women that served and helped cook, yeah.
Q. But other than those two women, it would just be men from — people that you knew from your crew or a different crew, as you have described it?
A. Yes. And then sometimes some guys would be playing cards, sometimes with Stevie. I don’t know who, I don’t know who they were. I never was introduced to them. They were not, as far as I know, members. Maybe they were associated to somebody, but —

Didn’t he testify that he met everybody at the club? Or was it only the people that really mattered? And since he was there so often, wouldn’t he have known who these other people were since it was all “connected” people who hung out there? Also, he’s a court-approved expert now, so he can offer his “opinion?”

Q. And you don’t talk business in the club because you’re afraid that it might be bugged or tapped in some way?
A. I don’t talk? I mean, basically —
Q. Before that — criminal business is not discussed in the club because you’re fearful that the club might be bugged and people could — the FBI could hear it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you’ve also testified that, as a result of that, when people want to discuss business, they walk outside and talk outside and then they come back?
A. Usually.
Q. That’s what I’m referring to.
A. Usually. Sometimes there were conversations that were — that went on, and sometimes there wasn’t. Sometimes people went outside.
Q. Did you speak with other people in the Family generally about where to talk about things and where not to talk about things?
A. Um, not, not really. We used to kid around about it. Don’t talk too loud in here, or whatever.
Q. And did you ever discuss why not to talk in there?
A. I mean, it was common knowledge why we wouldn’t talk in there.
Q. Is the reason why you didn’t talk in there because you were worried about law enforcement listening?
A. Absolutely.
Q. Did you have a solution for that if you wanted to talk business?
A. We would go outside if we had to talk.

Sometimes they talked outside and sometimes they didn’t. Yet, during his testimony with Scotten, he was firm in his answer that no one talked inside the club. It’s too bad the defense wasn’t able to prepare Pennisi as well as the prosecution did.

On October 31, 2019, a few days after Pennisi’s testimony, the defense called Tomasa Viscuso to the stand. She worked at the Coddington Club for ten years. In her testimony, she explained that the Coddington Club had moved from its Coddington Avenue location to another location around 2013 or 2014, something that Pennisi never even mentioned, even though he claimed he had been going there regularly since 2012.

Viscuso was shown numerous interior pictures of the club when it was at Coddington Avenue, and she identified numerous people by name as well as gave some history on who they were – most of them were retired men and women from the neighborhood who got together to play cards and eat. She was also asked about Crea.

Q. Okay. Now, do you know Steve Crea?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know him?
A. Friend.
Q. And have you also seen him at the club?
A. Yes.
Q. And when it was the Coddington Club, how often would you say he was at the club?
A. Every day.
Q. Would he leave at a particular time?
A. He left about 4:00, 4:30.
Q. And do you know why he would leave at around that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Why is that?
MR. SCOTTEN: Objection.
A. He had a sister —
THE COURT: No, no. When somebody objects, you wait for me to rule. If I say, sustained, you don’t answer. If I say, overruled, you do. And I say sustained. Sounds like it calls for hearsay.
MR. FRANKLIN: Okay. Can we put up Government Exhibit 12, please.
BY MR. FRANKLIN:
Q. Ma’am, have you ever seen that person?
A. No.
Q. Has that person ever been in the Coddington Club when you
were there?
A. No

Who was the person in Government Exhibit 12? John Pennisi. And why did the prosecution object before Viscuso could explain why Crea left at the same time every day? Well, apparently, the defense can’t use “hearsay” testimony the same way the prosecution can (as we mentioned earlier) – such as when Pennisi described what he “heard” about the alleged Coddington Club incident.

The Ex-Son-In-Law
Next up was Edward Davidson, who had been married to Crea’s daughter for many years. He was the “innocent, pudgy guy,” Pennisi discussed the previous day. But Davidson was no innocent. While he was still married, he worked as a treasurer for a special education school and stole $40,000 from them. He was arrested, charged with larceny, and sentenced to three years’ probation. He was also ordered to pay full restitution. Crea loaned the money to Davidson, giving it to Davidson’s lawyer (which Crea also paid for) who then gave the money to the school.

Before Davidson came to the stand to basically testify about nothing, Scotten wanted to make clear what his stance was on the defense’s possible cross-examination of Davidson…the most important thing being that Davidson “didn’t take a dime from any small person.”

He is the son-in-law who was the subject of the assault. He committed a larceny which we think has sufficient deception that the Defendants are welcome to ask him about it. The particular institution he stole from is some kind of school for disabled kids. We don’t think the title of the school is at all relevant. To be clear, Your Honor, he stole from a for-profit school. He didn’t take a dime from any small person.

You also have to wonder, who exactly is running the show here? Or is it all the same “enterprise” – aka – the government?

When Davidson took the stand, he talked briefly about his divorce from Crea’s daughter, which happened sometime in 2015 after Davidson stole the money. The “bizarre incident” took place sometime in 2016. Apparently, while he was dropping something off at a Fed Ex box near his office, a car pulled up, some guys jumped out, ran over to him, and started hitting him with some sort of rubber tubing. He said it had a “whipping effect.” He also added they had shouted something to the effect of “stop messing with the wife.”

He thought the incident was odd, but he wasn’t seriously hurt and didn’t go to the hospital. It was so insignificant, he didn’t even report it to the police.

When Franklin, asked about it, Davidson said this:

Q. Okay. Now, do you believe that my client, Mr. Crea, had anything to do with this bizarre incident that happened to you in 2016?
A. I didn’t think at the time. I, I have no idea who or why that incident happened.
Q. Do you think the fact of the matter is that it could have been anybody that did this to you?
A. Yes.
MR. SCOTTEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Do you recall if you had been to a bar the night before and may have been talking to a woman in a bar?
A. I cannot give you specifics as to what I did the night before, sir, but is it a possibility? Yes.
Q. And there’s a bar called Grumpy Jack’s on Long Island. Is that where you used to go?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did Steve Crea always treat you as a gentleman?
A. Yes.
MR. SCOTTEN: Objection.
Q. Was he always a gentleman to you?
MR. SCOTTEN: Objection.
THE COURT: I’ll allow it. As far as you know.
MR. FRANKLIN: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear, Judge.
THE COURT: The witness can answer, as far as he knows.
Q. Sure.
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you.

So, Steve Crea was a gentleman, even to an ex-son-in-law. No wonder Scotten objected to the question – that image didn’t quite fit into the government’s narrative.

[Extortion]

I don’t like how you say with certainty that Crea did not know. He was the underboss, this is what they do. They are not captains. The admin approves the murders usually, sometimes just the boss but let’s be real here. We have no proof he didn’t know. Why are you defending this guy? He has most certainly committed murder in the past anyways, he is an underboss of a major crime family but that still doesnt give the G to wrongly convict.

[mafiastudent]

I'm talking about three specific charges....if you read the entire story, it will lay out the evidence the government claimed they had which they didn't...It was all bullshit which is why they threw in the Pinkerton rule. The government lied in so many ways....look at what I presented. It's all in black and white. Testimony from both sides...and you can see.

[mafiastudent]

And he's innocent. Period. End of story. In my opinion...so is Londonio for this charge.

[Dwalin2014]

And he's innocent. Period. End of story.

"Innocent" and "not enough evidence" is NOT the same thing. There is no way you can KNOW whether he is innocent. By that logic, you can say for example that most of the major gangsters before the 80s were innocent of murder.

[Peppermint]

And he's innocent. Period. End of story.

"Innocent" and "not enough evidence" is NOT the same thing. There is no way you can KNOW whether he is innocent. By that logic, you can say for example that most of the major gangsters before the 80s were innocent of murder.

What about innocent until PROVEN guilty? Or is that just not a thing anymore. They weren’t proven guilty, and therefore are assumed to be innocent.

[Dwalin2014]

And he's innocent. Period. End of story.

"Innocent" and "not enough evidence" is NOT the same thing. There is no way you can KNOW whether he is innocent. By that logic, you can say for example that most of the major gangsters before the 80s were innocent of murder.

What about innocent until PROVEN guilty? Or is that just not a thing anymore. They weren’t proven guilty, and therefore are assumed to be innocent.

We're not in a courtroom right now. There have always been plenty of gangsters who got away with murder. You don't have to personally believe they are innocent even if you acknowledge there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

[Peppermint]

And he's innocent. Period. End of story.

"Innocent" and "not enough evidence" is NOT the same thing. There is no way you can KNOW whether he is innocent. By that logic, you can say for example that most of the major gangsters before the 80s were innocent of murder.

What about innocent until PROVEN guilty? Or is that just not a thing anymore. They weren’t proven guilty, and therefore are assumed to be innocent.

We're not in a court of law right now. There have always been plenty of gangsters who got away with murder. You don't have to personally believe they are innocent even if you acknowledge there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

Yes, you’re right. But a big part of innocent until proven guilty, is to prevent witch-hunts from forming. As much as you may think they likely committed said murder, because evidence is circumstantial. You have no way of actually knowing if they are actually guilty, therefore the person is to be assumed innocent until their guilt is proven otherwise. Which did not happen here due to insufficient evidence, so as far as the courts, you, I, and everyone else on these forums are concerned he’s innocent of the crime he was accused of committing. There would be no point in having courts and trials if we just assumed everyone was guilty because of some circumstantial evidence is to arise against them.

[mafiastudent]

And he's innocent. Period. End of story.

"Innocent" and "not enough evidence" is NOT the same thing. There is no way you can KNOW whether he is innocent. By that logic, you can say for example that most of the major gangsters before the 80s were innocent of murder.

What about innocent until PROVEN guilty? Or is that just not a thing anymore. They weren’t proven guilty, and therefore are assumed to be innocent.

Exactly. Look at the EVIDENCE. it's not there.

[Dwalin2014]

But what about Madonna? Do you think he didn't order this hit, or did he do so without informing Crea?

[John W]

The title of the thread says part 4, where’s part 3?

[dack2001]

Couple points. Crea has been found guilty by a jury so the innocent until proven guilty argument is a little late. I think you guys are really arguing about writing styles. Clearly the author is passionate in his belief that Crea got railroaded and it comes through in the writing. I'm sympathetic with that position as well. Reminds me of the convictions 15 years ago of Carmine Pizza and the other guy that D'Urso put together. That said he can't know whether Crea really was involved or not because maybe only 2 or 3 guys could know for sure and they are cooperating with the writing of this article. It wasn't proven and the verdict is dead wrong? Sure. He's innocent and I'm certain of it...well that's a bridge too far. A more measured writing style may make the story more assessible to a wider audience. Nobody likes a bromide but I think the point is worth mentioning.