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

[dack2001]

Aren't* cooperating...

[mafiastudent]

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

Honestly? From what I had - and I was focusing on Crea - Crea and Londonio for sure but I don't think the other two were involved either - almost positive on that. That's why I included that sidebar about what the government (well I have posted that part up here) about how the government didn't want to include portions of a conversation Spinnelli had with Brian Vaughan about Madonna telling Vaughan to stay away from Madonna. They didn't want to include what came after which clearly shows that it had nothing to do with a potential "hit" from Madonna...but if you look at what the government was able to present the jury without the rest of that conversation...that's what they were able to imply it was a Madonna ordered hit. You'll see when I post up that part. It's in Spinelli's testimony.

[mafiastudent]

Stay away from Meldish I mean....and I haven't posted that part up yet here

[mafiastudent]

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.

I'm presenting what was shown in evidence...what the testimony was and included the sidebars so people can see the truth of what was and wasn't presented before the jury.

He was convicted based on the Pinkerton rule -- which again I explain at the end of the article. The only evidence they had was based on hearsay testimony from cooperating witnesses. And in the case of many of them, they were able to interpret what they really meant at the time they took the recordings. So when Spinelli says Crea didn't have anything to do with it on a recording...in court he interpreted that as well that's not what I meant ... I really meant this and I only said that at the time because I was playing a "role"

In addition, I'm giving my opinion and I can write that opinion any way I want and by the time I had completed my research I was thoroughly disgusted with it all. Plus other than me calling Zoccolillo an asshole for laughing in court at a question....most all of my opinion and analysis is based on the facts of the evidence and testimony. There is nothing in this piece that isn't based on fact and evidence whether it's court documents, police reports or whatever else.

[mafiastudent]

In addition, this is all about the trial...and the job of the prosecution was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Crea was involved --- which they didn't.

[mafiastudent]

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

I messed up...Pt 4 is Part 3....I just made a typo

[mafiastudent]

This is really part 4 -- I made a typo....but this is Spinelli's testimony and it's long...4 pages...so I'll post it all in this thread

Spineless Spinelli
Robert DeNero Spinelli took the stand for two days to talk about his part in everything Crea – the Meldish murder, Sean Richard, and many other topics as well. No matter what his role was, Spinelli took pride in everything he did whether it was lying for the government or stealing from the government, he played his part.

Not even a minute into his questioning, And Spinelli was already telling lies when Rothman asked him the following:

Q. How far did you go in school?
A. Twelfth grade.

The first thing we have to ask is what happened to his degree from Rutger’s? Was he lying in New Jersey? Or is he lying in New York? Does he even know what a lie is? Or is that his general state of being — liar 24/7? And while it might not seem that lying about a college education would be a big deal, he didn’t lie about it on a job application or while boasting to a friend. He lied about it in a document to a court of law. That kind of lying is a bit more serious, especially when “telling the truth” is part of a cooperation agreement. Remember, that New Jersey incident resolved only two months before the start of this trial – and it wasn’t in his favor.

When Spinelli was sent to prison for his attempted murder conviction, he was housed with Vic Amuso, the alleged “boss” of the Lucchese Family in Big Sandy, Kentucky. When he arrived there a year before his release, he had asked to be roomed with Amuso, who supposedly knew of him from the Cappozalo murder attempt. Later, Spinelli learned about Matthew Madonna, who Amuso said was the “acting boss” of the Family.

Before Spinelli got into the details about his involvement with Madonna and what caused his seething hatred that he became an informant “to get back at Matty,” he talked about meeting Michael Meldish and James Maffucci at a Cuban restaurant in Harlem in January 2012. He also met Terrence Caldwell.

What’s strange about his testimony is this when questioned by Rotham:

Q. Okay. Who were you with when you met Mr. Caldwell?
A. I was with Jimmy Maffucci and Mikey.
Q. When you say “Mikey,” who are you referring to?
A. The Mikey that got killed. I don’t remember his last name for a sec.

A bit later during that same line of questioning, he suddenly remembers. What’s strange is that considering Meldish is the main charge in this trial, how is that so many people can’t remember the guy’s name?

Q. So at that time, Mikey and Mr. Caldwell were roommates?
A. Yes, ma’am. And his last name was Meldish. I was just stuck for a second. Sorry about that.
Q. That’s okay. Thank you, Mr. Spinelli.

Since he was at the end of the day, there wasn’t much more to ask him. However, there was a controversy brewing behind the scenes between the defense and prosecution regarding the next day’s testimony. The government only wanted to play portions of Spinelli’s recordings for the jury that he took while he was an active employee for the government- the ones that would best fit their narrative, of course.

In addition, those recordings weren’t supposed to be viewed by the jury as “truth” – only what he said on the witness stand which was his interpretation several years later of what he really meant at the time.

Both parts of this are wrong. First, the government flip-flopped on the context issue several times throughout the trial. Sometimes they’d want to show everything whether it was emails or recordings for context. And other times, such as this, they only wanted to play certain portions. Plus, the idea that someone can interpret what they really meant four years after the fact, doesn’t seem very fair. The government’s reasoning was that when Spinelli made those recordings, he was playing a part – performing a role.

Still, not only is that wrong, but even if you think that’s reasonable, why not play the entire recording, let Spinelli interpret it and then let the jury decide the truth of the matter. That would seem like the most fair thing to do, right?

Well, that’s not how the government saw it. Sometimes the true story of what really happened is best told through the sidebars as is the case when it comes to Spineless Spinelli.

MS. ROTHMAN: I think the biggest question – issue is what the defense is permitted to do with recordings that Mr. Spinelli made that the Government does not intend to offer and, specifically, Mr. Spinelli’s statements on those recordings. The Court has been clear that Mr. Spinelli’s words are not for the truth. He is acting at law enforcement’s direction and the jury should not credit what he says in those recordings. Of course, his testimony here is different, but those recordings. We understand from conferring with at least counsel for Mr. Crea that they intend to point to Mr. Spinelli’s statements in recordings as an attempt to impeach him. We don’t think that’s proper. And I haven’t heard a compelling reason as to why they should be allowed to do that.

MR. DiPIETRO: So essentially, Your Honor, what we had proposed was, if the Government is going to elicit (Spinelli’s) opinion as to certain statements — for example, that Datello says, “They just clipped somebody,” and if the Government is going to elicit that he believes that to be Steven Crea, we feel that it’s fair game to then elicit statements when he says, “Stevie had nothing to do with the murder,” because it goes to the information that he’s receiving in forming his opinion.

So we don’t see why that wouldn’t be fair game if he’s going to testify that he has an opinion as to what certain statements mean and the universe of what he’s receiving should be fair game. If he’s receiving information from Maffucci, if he’s receiving information from Vaughan, if he’s receiving information that would lead him to say on tape “Stevie had nothing to do with this,” it’s not fair — it’s misleading for him to come here now and say, “Oh, I took that one statement and that meant Steve Crea,” and the jury doesn’t get to know that he is actually saying quite a few times that Stevie had nothing to do with the murder.

So, here, in a nutshell, is the answer: Because the government has a target and his name is Steven L. Crea. And anything that makes it look like he wasn’t involved doesn’t work for the government. They want their man and no one is getting in their way. And the government doesn’t play fair.

THE COURT: Let me just make sure I understand. He’s going to testify, I gather — if he’s not, maybe we don’t have a problem, but if (Spinelli’s) going to testify that when he heard Datello say, “They just clipped a guy,” it was his understanding that they included Mr. Crea.
MR. SCOTTEN: Correct.
THE COURT: And your theory, Mr. DiPietro, is that his understanding has been informed by what he was hearing from other people, and therefore — what?
MR. DiPIETRO: Well, it’s also changed. It’s changed over time. So he’s going to come here in 2019 and say, “Oh, I thought I that was – that meant Steve Crea based on the information I’m receiving.” But when he’s on tape in 2017, 2016, he said, “Oh, I agree with you, Stevie had nothing to do with the murder.”

MR. DiPIETRO: Okay. So also, there is conversations between Maffucci and Spinelli, and they’re talking about who they believe to be involved in the murder, and when Stevie’s name comes up, both of them unequivocally says Stevie had nothing to do with this. They have already shown that the – Maffucci is an alleged soldier. He has a basis of knowledge. He’s communicating with all of these people. I just don’t think it’s fair if they get up there and Spinelli says, “Oh, I believed it was Steve Crea in 2019,” and the jury has no clue that there’s tape recordings out there before his testimony where it’s not clear-cut he’s saying Stevie had nothing to do with it. So how could that not be a prior inconsistent statement from his testimony on the stand, not just the recording date. But he’s going to come in here and say, “I believe that to be Steve Crea.”

Why should the jury be able to listen to a guy who ‘s allegedly in the Family and would be in the know when you have someone like Spinelli – a guy with no standing and only known as “Mike’s brother” – tell the jury that what he recorded himself saying four years ago isn’t really what he meant? Makes sense right? Not a chance.

Surprisingly, Siebel agrees, at least for the moment.

THE COURT: Well, is he going to say anything more than “When I heard this from Datello, I understood him to mean Steve Crea”? Is he going to – I don’t understand how he gets to express an opinion on the stand.
MS. ROTHMAN: Your Honor is correct. He is going to interpret as he understood in that moment when Datello said, “He clipped him,” who he understood that to be in reference to. Later statements in recordings – I mean, he’s baiting witnesses. He’s playing a pretend role —
THE COURT: And why can’t he just say that?
MS. ROTHMAN: Your Honor, I think it’s – it’s improper. I mean, if these statements are not offered for the truth, they can’t properly be used to show that it is an inconsistent statement.

“He’s baiting witnesses”…again, why is that okay? It’s not. It’s shady and should be illegal.

THE COURT: … I’m not going to let the defense play the recordings. They can ask the witness, “Isn’t it true that in the recording you made with such and such, you said Stevie had nothing to do with it?” And he’ll say yes and then on redirect, you’ll say, “Why did you say that?” And he’ll say, “Because Agent Otto told me to to get the guy in the conversation.”

But the government doesn’t want that either, because that’s just as shady and would prove the point that Crea is a target.

Siebel was going to make her ruling the next day, but the prosecution wasn’t done yet because they needed to take things out of context again when it came to Meldish’s murder.

MS. ROTHMAN: There is one additional issue which relates to a recording tomorrow… This is the conversation between Mr. Spinelli and Mr. Vaughan in which Mr. Vaughan says, “Meldish F’ed Matty out of a lot of money and then Matty told me to stay away from him.” And then Vaughan goes on to opine that, “(another Family was responsible) which the Court ruled was inadmissible….Last night we advised defense counsel that we only intend to offer the first statement from Mr. Vaughan, which is that “Meldish F’ed Matty out of a lot of money,” and not the second statement that “Matty told me to stay away from him.”

THE COURT: All right. And what is the part that the defense wants to offer?
MR. DRATEL: The rest of the conversation, Your Honor. “But, you know, he was around Matty.” We’re talking about Meldish. “He was best friends with Matty. Then he fucked Matty out of a lot of money.” That’s the Government’s theory. But on the next page…Mr. Vaughan says, “But I don’t think it was them because I think it was (another Family’s) crew.”

But the other thing is also that at the end of it, see, he goes on and explains why he believes that because Meldish was on a construction sites and the (another Family’s) sites without permission or did things that were wrong and the (other Family) were upset with him. And then at the,,,very end… Mr. Vaughan explains why it’s important that he – that Mr. Meldish and Matty, Madonna are not in good graces. It’s because – because Mr. Madonna is no longer protecting him and that’s why (the other Family’s) crew was allowed to kill him.

THE COURT: So the statement is “Yeah, when he was with Matty, they all know Matty’s crew. You can’t touch him. Once he fucked up with Matty, plus he did a lot of bad, they were — they were bad kids.”
MR. DRATEL: Yes.

THE COURT: If the beginning of the conversation is a statement against interest because it shows that Mr. Vaughan is an insider, why isn’t the rest of the conversation a statement against interest?
MS. ROTHMAN: Your Honor, because it’s blame-shifting. It’s pointing the finger for the Meldish murder on someone else, the (other Family) as opposed to his own boss of the Family.
THE COURT: But the declarant isn’t shifting blame off himself. He’s not being accused of anything, so it’s not – it’s not blame-shifting.

MS. ROTHMAN: He’s shifting it off someone who he is very close with, Matty Madonna, who he has a financial relationship with…He’s shifting the blame away from someone he cares about to someone he doesn’t care about, the (other Family.)
THE COURT: Why would he say it if he didn’t believe it?
MS. ROTHMAN: Because he doesn’t want to be the person spreading the word that Matty Madonna ordered the hit on Michael Meldish, which is exactly what he insinuates in the second portion that we’re not keeping in, that “Matty told me to stay away from him.”

Blame shifting. Didn’t that come up with Pappas? And the government’s theory is bogus. Why can’t the prosecution just let the jury decide because the way they’re presenting it and what the whole context of the conversation is are two very different things.

THE COURT: If I understand correctly, you’re putting in the part where he says he screwed Matty out of a lot of money and
you’re not putting in the part where he says, “Matty told me to stay away from him.” If I understand the significance of that, that’s Vaughan saying Matty told me to stay away from Meldish because Matty knew Meldish was going to get whacked and he didn’t want me to be around when that happened. Is that the significance of that comment?
MS. ROTHMAN: Matty ordered him to be whacked, but sure.
THE COURT: Okay. So “Matty knew that Meldish was going to get whacked. Matty’s my buddy. Matty doesn’t want me to be around Meldish and get caught in the crossfire.” So he’s implicating Matty at least two ways so far. And then you’re leaving out the part where he’s saying, “But I think it was (Another Family’s) crew.” That doesn’t seem fair.

At least here, Siebel is thinking like a judge is supposed to think. But, as usual, she comes to her senses the next morning when she makes her ruling at least when it came to Spinelli and Maffucci.

THE COURT: So, the Government can ask the witness if he said, in his capacity as an informant, things that he didn’t believe, including that Stevie had nothing to do with it. The defense can ask that question if it doesn’t come out on direct or it doesn’t come out clearly. 613(a) doesn’t require that the witness be confronted or be given — be shown the document or be given
the opportunity to explain. Before I admit any recording, those conditions must be met, but as I said yesterday, I don’t expect the recording to be played.

But when it came to Madonna and Vaughan, it’s a completely different story.

MS. ROTHMAN: Part 1 is —
THE COURT: — Meldish screwed Matty out of a lot of money…Part 2 is, “Matty told me to stay away from Meldish.” And Part 3 is, “I think the (another Family’s) crew did it.”
MR. PATEL: There’s a bit more in the conversation, Your Honor, about the (other Family) doing it. Vaughan – Spinelli asked him why he thinks (another Family) did it. And, and Vaughan goes on to explain what Meldish was doing to disrespect (that Family). And then he says that the falling out with Matty essentially left Meldish unprotected. So, it’s not just an accusation that the (other Family) did it. It’s an explanation of Meldish’s behavior and his relationship or his deterioration of his relationship with
Mr. Madonna that results in the (other Family) being able to hurt Meldish.
THE COURT: I have to agree with the Government on this. So, that’s going to stay out.

So, the jury isn’t going to see the whole picture. If you remember, there was an issue with calling Otto to the stand to ask him about why he didn’t follow up on other Families who might have been involved in Meldish’s murder. That never happened, so Siebel decision on this fits with what she did earlier. Wouldn’t want the truth to come out.

_______________________

[mafiastudent]

When Spinelli took the stand, he boasted about some odd things including how he was roomed with Vic Amuso at Big Sandy, Kentucky, just one year before Spinelli was to be released from his sentence for the attempted murder of Cappozalo.

As it always is with these informants, Amusu reportedly told him all about the Lucchese Family operations, including who was “acting boss” and “underboss.” By the way, Spinelli had asked his counselor to be roomed with Amuso so that’s how he found out all this information. And just to keep with the theme of Spinelli’s fascination with “Stevie,” here’s the first time he mentions his name.

Q. Did Amuso also tell you who was the underboss of the Lucchese Family?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was that?
A. Stevie Crea.

“Stevie” – just like he knew him personally.

The next day the government knew it was going to look like the shady enterprise it was when Spinelli continued his day on the stand and they wanted Siebel to read a jury instruction that the “government is not on trial.” It’s usually something that’s read at the end of informant testimony, but the government wanted it read before. Siebel decided to do it only if it warranted, and at some point, it was going to be warranted.

However, Scotten had something to say about it because he was starting to feel attacked by the defense’s questioning of his informant witnesses. He seems to think that if the jury gets the instruction then it’ll open their eyes as to why what happened needed to happened – and also help the government not look so shady.

Siebel then explained to Scotten how she understood exactly how he felt:

THE COURT: Well, I will wait and see what happens. I will tell you, I remember what it’s like to sit where you’re sitting, and when those sorts of accusations are made, they loom large because they’re personal, and they always outraged me too, but I will tell you, they do not land the way you’re worried that they land. The percentage of the cross on that topic is, from where I’m sitting in the middle, very small, and I don’t think the impact is, from where I sit as a neutral person, nearly what it feels like to you as the person on the receiving end of the implicit accusation in the question.

Thanks, mom. But also, she forgets she’s not really neutral in this.

There was another concern by DiPietro about Spinelli’s recordings when it came to the subject of Sean Richard:

MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor already ruled on this, so I’m just, for record purposes, that we just maintain our objection. The Government intends on eliciting about the Sean Richard’s attempt in 2016 and they’re also going to be playing some recordings. Your Honor ruled them in as a declaration against penal interest for Datello. But I do think…this line of inquiry should be limited, because it’s pretty clear that Crea had nothing to do with this, or any of the trial Defendants, and it’s misleading to the jury and it’s prejudicial to make them think that — and especially in light of the Government’s claim yesterday that Spinelli is lying and just interjecting things — that any of these people on trial were involved in this 2016 plan to kill Sean Richard and it’s
highly prejudicial. So, we would just maintain our objection. Your Honor did rule it in, though, at the time – but at that time the new Indictment had not come down. And, also, when I reached out to the Government last night, they explained to me this is absurdly late, but I’m just maintaining the objection, not saying that – you know, just for the record, we are not waiving that this should not come in.

Then it was time for Spinelli to take the stand again.

Right before Spinelli was released from Big Sandy, Amuso had given him a job, and this job is what led Spinelli to his disdain for Madonna. Apparently, Amuso wanted Spinelli to deliver a letter to Madonna to extort $4 million from Sal Avellino, a former alleged Lucchese Family “capo”, who had apparently been shelved, with the premise that if he wanted to be reactivated, he’d need to cough up the money. Plus, Amuso apparently told Madonna that Spinelli was to be made.

But the most surprising thing about this all was that Amuso was going to let Spinelli keep half the money – $2 million as a reward for his role in the attempted Cappozalo hit, you know the one where he was only the switch car driver – a mile away. Amuso’s wife was to get $1 million and Madonna the other million.

When Madonna told him to forget about Avellino and “get a job” because he was out on parole, Spinelli was incensed. Spinelli also didn’t like the idea that his job wasn’t going to be with the union he had worked for previously, but one that Brian Vaughan was involved with. Then, he heard from someone that Avellino was reinstated which infuriated him even more because he figured that Avellino paid the money and he didn’t get his part. Plus, Spinelli had never been “made.”

And that’s the basis of why he hated Matthew Madonna and made him his target when he became a rat.

He also talked about how he stole some pot from a Bonnano guy named Guido and he was called out on it by Big John Castellucci who told him Matty said he had to pay the money back. But Spinelli laughed in Castellucci’s face and this interaction also gives us inside into Spinelli’s state of mind:

Q. What did he say to you about the debt?
A. He told me I had to pay the loan back.
Q. How did you respond?
A. I told him it wasn’t a loan.
Q. What did you mean by that?
A. I told him I robbed Guido.

Later, he got a call from Meldish that he had “bought the loan”:

A. Soon after, I got a call from Michael Meldish.
Q. Had you met Meldish before?
A. No, I haven’t.
Q. What did Meldish tell you?
A. He called me on the phone and he told me he bought the loan.
Q. How did you respond?
A. I laughed at him.
Q. Why did you laugh?
A. I just — I told him, like this is a joke.
Q. What do you mean, it was a joke?
A. You want me to pay back something when I robbed the guy.

Spinelli discussed how he made between 200 – 300 recordings between 2012 and 2017 and explained a bit about why he did what he did, and it just makes us dislike him even more. Why is it that the FBI relies on total scumbags – and in this case a complete mentally defective one – to do their job for them?

Q. When you started working with the FBI, were you going to 8 be investigating people who were not associated with the Mob?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Generally, through your work, what were you hoping to do?
A. Gather information.
Q. Gather information about what?
A. About extortion, drugs, murder.
Q. Any other crimes?
A. Robbery. Everything that the Mob was involved with.
Q. Okay. Now, if the recordings — and you made recordings, Mr. Spinelli?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. If the recordings you made were just of you talking, would that have been helpful to the FBI?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Why not?
A. Because I wouldn’t be giving them no information.
Q. So, what did you try to do when you worked for the FBI?
A. Gather as much information as I can.
Q. How would you do that?
A. By recording people. Going out, meeting people.
Q. During the recordings, would you sometimes say things that weren’t true?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Why would you do that?
A. To entice them to tell me things.
Q. Okay. And how would saying false things help you gather information?
A. Because they would tell me, oh, no, you’re wrong about that; this is the way that happened.

And some how this is an acceptable method of operation? From a guy who obviously has a vendetta who is more than willing to do the FBI’s bidding because they share a common goal of “getting” somebody.

Later, Spinelli starts talking about Datello and how that related to “Stevie.” What Rothman is bringing up here is the recording where Spinelli forgot to turn off his tape recorder. Again, the tone of this guy:

Q. Okay. I now want to talk about a recording from August 2014 involving Joseph Datello. Let me first ask you a few background questions.
How did you get connected to Datello when you were working for the FBI?
A. Through Jimmy.
Q. Through Jimmy Maffucci?
A. Yes.
Q. And between 2013 and 2017, what were you and Datello 19 doing together?
A. Selling drugs.
Q. And you were doing these deals at the FBI’s request?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know why Datello was engaging in this drug dealing?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Because he was desperate. He had to pay Stevie back money, a loan that he had with Stevie.
Q. That’s Stevie Crea?
A. Yes.

Of course he fails to mention that these “drug deals” were set up by Spinelli and Pete, but it’s good that he admits the reason why they felt Datello was the perfect guy to help them get closer to their main “guy.”

Spinelli goes on to talk about Sean Richard in depth despite the fact that the charge of attempted murder against Richard had been dropped in the new indictment. So, the only purpose of bringing that information into this trial was to paint Crea as the bad guy the government wanted the jury to think he was. We’ll get more into that when we get to the defense side of things.

For now, let’s see what Spinelli has to say about the Meldish muder:

Q. When Datello says, “I mean, this guy — this guy just clipped a guy because of a $100,000,” who do you understand “this guy” to be in reference to?
A. At that point, I — I believed it to be Stevie Crea.
Q. Why do you believe that?
A. Because he said “this guy,” he was going to see him directly, and I know he wasn’t seeing Matty. He told me he 15 wasn’t seeing Matty.
Q. Now, based on your involvement in Cosa Nostra, where would the order to have killed Meldish come from?
A. Matty Madonna first.
Q. And then when you say, “I know — I know it wasn’t house,” and Datello responds, “Yeah,” what do you understand Datello to be acknowledging?
A. Acknowledging that in-house killed Meldish themselves. It wasn’t outsiders. It was among us.
Q. Meaning the Luccheses?
A. Meaning the Lucchese Family, yes.

Q. So, Mr. Spinelli, I had asked you — I had begun to ask you, when Datello says, “They clipped Meldish,” who do you understand that to be in reference to?
A. Matty Madonna.
Q. Anyone else?
A. Stevie Crea.

And the government continues to paint it’s dirty picture of Crea. Later, Spinelli goes into Datello’s supposed other financial troubles saying that he owed money to people in other Families as well, but that at least one other Family reduced his debt – but Crea never did.

Q. And as you understand Datello telling you, what did the (other Family) do with respect to Datello’s debt?
A. They told him if he — they cut it in half because he came home from jail.
Q. Did Stevie ever agree to reduce Datello’s debt?
A. Absolutely not.
THE COURT: That you heard of? Did you hear — ever hear anything about that?
THE WITNESS: Yes. He told me that Stevie wouldn’t take a dollar off. He wanted every dollar he owed him.

He then gives his interpretation of a statement, claiming that Londonio was “made” after Meldish was killed. Something that would be completely contradicted later. Also something to consider is this particular recording wasn’t played for the jury, it was taken off a government-produced transcript.

THE COURT: Again, this is – this is what the – what the witness says is not evidence, but you may consider what the witness says to interpret Mr. Datello’s response.
MS. ROTHMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
Q. And so after you say, Mr. Spinelli, “They were like good friends,” and Datello responds, “Yeah, yeah, were very close,” who do you understand Datello to be saying was very close?
A. Michael Meldish and the kid, Chris Londonio.
Q. And now turning to the next page, when you say, “Jimmy said supposedly right after that happened, the kid Chris got made like the next day,” and Datello responds, “Yeah,” what do you understand Datello to be acknowledging?
A. That right after that happened, Matty made that kid a made member in the Family.
Q. And that’s Chris?
A. Right, Chris, yes.

Getting back to “Stevie”…

Q. So, Mr. Spinelli, you testified that to your knowledge, Datello gave the money that he earned from these drug deals to Stevie Crea, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Where would he go to pay him?
A. To the club in the Bronx.
Q. How often would he go?
A. He had to go every month.
Q. How would he know when to go?
A. He got the phone call.
Q. How frequently would you and Datello discuss the money that Stevie — the money that Datello owed to Stevie?
A. A few — a few days a week. He constantly complained about it because it — it kept him broke. He had nothing because of it.

And more…

Q. When Datello says, “Listen, Stevie — Stevie, he don’t wanna know nothing about nobody, you know, he just wants to know one thing about me,” what do you understand Datello to be saying there?
A. What day are you bringing my money every month.

His testimony continues…

[mafiastudent]

Now, what’s happening here is Rothman is playing select recordings, shotgun style, for Spinelli to give his interpretation. There is no context, just as the government wanted, to show the whole gist of the conversation. It’shard to follow along, so imagine if you were the jury who just had to “hear” what was happening?

Q. When Datello says, “I wouldn’t go against that guy for nothing,” who do you understand him to be referring to?
A. I understand it to be Stevie.
Q. And then when he says — he goes on to say, “He’s a boss, I don’t go against bosses, their decision is their decision,” who is he referring to?
A. He could refer to Matty.
MR. PATEL: Objection.
THE COURT: What was your understanding at the time? And if you don’t know, just say you don’t know.
THE WITNESS: On — on the first part, I understood it to be Stevie. On the second part, I understand that to be Matty.

Q. So what have you asked Datello to do in this portion, Mr. Spinelli? And it may be easier to look back on Page 26 when you say, “I’d like you to say something to Stevie a little, just to see what he says.” What did you ask Datello to do?
A. Just to basically put me on record with him.
Q. Okay. And then turning to the next page, when you say, “I mean, he’s equal to the other guy, like, you know, he ain’t under nobody,” and Datello responds, “Yeah, but he ain’t gonna, he ain’t gonna go against him,” when Datello says, “He’s equal to the other guy,” who is Datello referring to there?
A. Him and Matty being equal to each other.
Q. And “him” is in reference to who?
A. Stevie Crea.
Q. Now, on the next page, when Datello says, “Because that guy wouldn’t go against his wishes, what he’s thinking, so they’re not going to go against one another” – this is on Page 28 — what do you understand Datello to be saying there?
A. They’re not going to — Stevie is not going to go against Matty for anybody.

And then Spinelli goes on and on about Datello’s debt to “Stevie” and they finally get to Sean Richard and that bogus FaceBook scheme he and Secret Agent Pete dreamt up. And remember, the Sean Richard charge is off the table, so think about why this is being presented at all. But mostly think about how the government thinks it’s okay to set a guy up for murder, even though he doesn’t admit that they’re the ones who sent Datello the FaceBook message.

Q. All right. The last set of recordings I want to discuss with you, Mr. Spinelli, relate to Steven Crea, Joe Datello and the attempted murder of Sean Richard. In 2017, did you learn from the FBI about an attempt to kill Sean Richard?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Who committed the attempt?
A. Joe Datello.
THE COURT: I’m sorry. This is something the witness learned from the FBI?
MS. ROTHMAN: Your Honor, we’re offering it as background, not — to explain what sets up this recording, not for the truth.
THE COURT: Anything that the witness was told by the FBI is not evidence.
A. I learned from the FBI that Joe Datello had found his witness from his previous case.

So, in this case what the FBI says isn’t the truth? That’s funny.

Q. Who was that witness?
A. Sean Richards.
Q. Okay. We previously discussed him, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. What did the FBI want you to do in connection with that information?
A. They wanted me to gather information to find out what his approach was, what he wanted to do, was he going to attempt to kill him.
Q. Okay. So, what did you do to get this information from Joe, from Mr. Datello?
A. I made up a story. I had a scenario, I had a witness who testified against me in my trial. And I told him that my witness was Upstate New York, that he had a Christmas tree farm. He was selling a lot of Christmas trees up there. And Pete located him for me and found out, and that I was going to go up there and kill him. So, I told Joe, “Jimmy told me that you had a situation where you found the guy who ratted you out on your previous case.”
Q. Now, was it true that someone had cooperated against you in the trial involving Patricia Cappazzolo?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it true that you were planning to go attempt to kill that individual?
A. No, it was not.
Q. Okay. Now, as part of your work for the FBI, what were you trying to uncover specifically about this plan to kill Sean Richard?
A. I wanted to find out if Joe was going to kill him, and I wanted to find out if Stevie was part of it.
Q. Was part of it?
A. Yes.

Now, as you read this next part, think back to the pre-trial hearings when the Sean Richard attempted murder charge was on the original indictment and how Steven D was denied bail because of these recordings. And think about what the government said then compared to what is said now.

How does that change so drastically? They found against bail so vehemently and then when Siebel gave them their do-over, the charge disappeared into the government’s black hole. Remember, too that this is when Crea’s counsel wanted to inspect the grand jury minutes and was denied.

So, based on the below testimony, doesn’t it make you wonder that maybe the evidence that was presented to the grand jury to bring that original indictment was false. And if so, could that mean that other supposed evidence the government had was all a lie, too?

Q. Now, were you successful in finding out if Stevie Crea had approved the hit on Sean Richard?
A. No, I was not.
Q. So, what do you mean, you were not successful?
A. Joe didn’t tell me that Stevie ordered him to do that.
Q. What did Joe tell you in these recordings?
A. Joe said that Stevie said basically leave it alone.

And then back to Londonio and those idiotic “rat” rumors…just so the government can justify their theories about Londonio’s “confession” to Evangelista later on. This recording, by the way, was taken March 22, 2017 after Londonio had already been arrested and indicted for Meldish’s murder and was dealing with the additional bogus “informant” rumors the government “leaked” to the press.

Q. And then when you say, “That the” — this is Line 390 – “That the kid, Chris, was under his son,” and Datello says, “Yeah, I think so,” who — when you say “under his son,” who are you referring to?
A. He was under Stevie’s son.
MS. ROTHMAN: We can keep playing.
(Audio playing)
MS. ROTHMAN: Pause it right there.
Q. When you say in Line 385, “If he goes bad, can he hurt Matty?” and Datello responds, “He could hurt everybody,” who is the “he” in reference to?
A. Chris Londonio.

And then he talks a bit about his vendetta against “Matty”:

Q. Mr. Spinelli, when you first sat down with the FBI in 2012, were you facing any State charges?
A. State charges, I had.
Q. What were they for?
A. Aggravated assault of a police officer.
Q. Tell us what happened.
A. I left my house and I was a passenger in a vehicle, and the cops pulled us over. And the cop went to my side to pull me out of the car, we had a little scuffle, and –
Q. And what happened? Was the police officer injured?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you attempt to resist arrest?
A. Yes, I did.

Please go back to our Robert Spinelli background and see for yourself how much the government allowed him to lie in this specific instance. It wasn’t a “scuffle” and the cops only pulled him out after he tried to flee…and so, so much more.

Q. What type of sentence were you looking at in connection with those — how many years were you looking at in connection with those State charges?
A. Four years.
Q. At that time, did you want to go back to jail?
A. No.
Q. So, what did you decide to do?
A. I tried to cooperate.
Q. Okay. And specifically — withdrawn. Was there any other reason that you agreed to cooperate at that time?
A. I wanted to get Matty back.

And there you have it. The FBI probably had a little party when Spinelli walked through their doors. Nothing like a guy with a vendetta to help their cause. And it’s pretty sick, too. What a way to waste taxpayer dollars.

Also, even though Spinelli gives the reason for why he wants to get back at Madonna, do they really think that justifies their actions? Does it really mean anything when Spinelli said he had no issues with any of the other guys on trial except Madonna Does the government think that washes away the shadiness of it all?

Quite frankly after just this short amount of testimony from this guy, the government should put itself on trial. Here’s the rest of that testimoy:

Q. Why did you want to get Matty back?
A. Because of him not fulfilling the agreement he was supposed to fulfill when I got out of jail.
Q. What was that agreement?
A. He was supposed to give me the $2 million after he made Sally active again.
Q. Now, at that time, when you sat down with the FBI, were you mad at someone named Chris Londonio?
A. I didn’t even know Chris Londonio.
Q. Were you mad at someone named Terrence Caldwell?
A. Didn’t even know him either.
Q. Were you mad at someone named Stevie Crea?
A. No, I was not.
Q. Did you make recordings only about Matthew Madonna or about all members of the Lucchese Family?
A. I made recordings about all members of the Lucchese Family.

Finally, Spinelli and the government were done with spinning their tales and it was the defense’s turn to unravel the lies. They mostly focused on Spinelli’s lies and deceit while working for the FBI, which we detailed in our Spineless Sinlli background section, but there’s something we’d like to highlight that Meringolo brought up up during his cross:

Q. Okay. And I believe in the Witness Security Program, there’s — there’s federal agents, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Like marshals, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you’re not supposed to lie to them, right?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Okay. Isn’t it a fact that you lied to them about your wife using heroin?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay. While you were in the Witness Security Program, did you provide heroin to your wife?
A. No.
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Maybe something will refresh your recollection.
THE COURT: He hasn’t said he forgot. He said no.
MR. MERINGOLO: He said no?
Q. So you didn’t lie to the marshals and say that you did not provide your wife with heroin and that you did provide your wife, you don’t recall that.
A. I don’t —
THE COURT: Sustained as to form. Try it again, Mr. Meringolo.
MR. MERINGOLO: Okay.
Q. Did you ever tell — eventually tell the marshals that you were providing your wife with heroin?
A. No, I don’t remember that. I can’t recall that.

The government once again getting nervous about their lying witnesses. It seems Spineless Spinelli got a little twisted in the wind with even more twisted tales unraveled by Meringolo.

Q. Maybe something will refresh your recollection? Okay. You can read the entire document, but I’m going to point you to the highlighted section.
MS. ROTHMAN: Your Honor –
A. I said that she did not – that I did not provide her with heroin?
THE COURT: The question is, now you’ve read that, does that jog your memory?
THE WITNESS: Yeah. I never said that. I never -it don’t say that I said that.
Q. Okay. Okay. While you were in the Witness Security Program, did you ever — you saw doctors to get prescriptions filled, correct?
A. While I’m in the Witness Protection Program?
Q. Yes.
A. I never — I never received medicine while I’m in the Witness Protection Program. What are you referring to? I never received heroin from a doctor while in the witness protection –
Q. What about any other medications?
A. Only thing I received was be Suboxone for a few months.

Little big man finally getting knocked back down to size, slapped with a little reality, so to speak..

Q. Okay. But didn’t you testify that you — you believed that Vic gave you the approval to get made?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that was another letter, right?
A. That was a letter that I took out.
Q. Right. And you read that letter, right?
A. That’s right.
Q. And — and the letter, you gave it to Mr. Madonna?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that was from Vic Amuso?
A. That’s right.
Q. And Vic Amuso said that you were supposed to get made?
A. That’s right.
Q. And you didn’t get made, right?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Okay. And when did you give Mr. Madonna this letter?
A. About two weeks after I got in the halfway house.
Q. Two weeks after you got — were you caught on surveillance with Mr. Madonna?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Okay. Did the Government ever show you surveillance with you and Mr. Madonna?
A. No, they did not.

Now getting to Spinelli’s second favorite subject…actually, he has more “affection” for “Stevie” than he wants to admit…

Q. Okay. Now, you also testified against Mr. Crea many 12 times here, right?
A. I spoke about Mr. Crea.
Q. I mean, there were — we are not going to go into the tapes, but there was about 20, 30, references to Mr. Crea that you analyzed, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you knew — did you ever speak to a guy by the name of John Pennisi?
A. John Pennisi. I may have.
Q. You may have, right? Okay.
And you said that you were talking about Mr. Crea in his capacity as underboss in 2017, right?
A. That’s right.
Q. Okay. Did anybody from the FBI tell you that that just wasn’t true, sir?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I’m sorry, that…
MR. MERINGOLO: All right. Withdrawn.
THE COURT: — what the witness may or may not have told the FBI.

Nothing more than hearsay and manipulations of the truth.

Q. Okay. So, it’s your — it’s your testimony that in 2017, when you were just analyzing all these tapes, Mr. Crea was the underboss? That’s your testimony, right?
A. As far as I knew.
Q. Okay. But, in fact, you really didn’t know much but for talking to Joe Datello, right?
A. That’s what I — I knew from Joe Datello talking about it.
Q. You know — I mean, listen, you were talking to Joe Datello for three years, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Right. And you — a lot of gossip in those calls or those consensuals, right?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If the witness agrees with the characterization, he’ll say so. If he doesn’t, he’ll —
A. I wouldn’t say gossip. I would say he was pretty nervous. I was worried about him every time he went up to there to see him.
Q. The whole time you were worried about him, right? 2015, 2016, 2017, right?
A. I was starting to worry about him.
Q. Right, okay. And he never had a scratch on his body, correct?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And you knew Mr. Datello. He was like a brokester, right?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: He was a what?
MR. MERINGOLO: Brokester.
Q. He was broke, right? He was broke.
THE COURT: Oh, he was broke. Okay.

MR. MERINGOLO: Depends where you grow up, right?
Q. That’s our jargon, but you understood me, right, Mr. Spinelli?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: All right. You gotta bring the rest of us along.
MR. MERINGOLO: Sorry.
Q. You knew he was broke, right?
A. I seen that, yes.
Q. Right. From the first conversation with him, you knew he was broke, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And I think even in the first conversation, if you recall, he — he didn’t even have a few hundred dollars, right?
A. No, he didn’t.
Q. Okay. And then you came along with these cigarettes, right? Correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And that was supplied by the Government?
A. Yes.
Q. The ones that you kicked up an extra few dollars for yourself, right?
A. That’s right.
Q. Okay. And then he started to make a few dollars, right?
A. That’s right.
Q. And then originally, he didn’t even wanna sell cocaine, right?
A. He — I don’t believe he had too many customers.
Q. Okay.
A. But he had a person to get it from.
Q. Right.
A. He nobody to sell it to.
Q. But he — he didn’t wanna do it, correct?
A. I wouldn’t say that. He wanted to do whatever he can to pay Stevie back.

Q. Well, didn’t one of the conversations — and we are not going in — didn’t he say, “It’s not worth it to go get a life sentence to make a thousand dollars”? Do you remember that conversation that you —
A. I remember that recently, that conversation, yes.
Q. Okay. And he — was he lying to you?
A. He was joking about that, referring to talking on the phone and getting busted to make a thousand dollars, you know.
Q. Right. He was — but that was a consensual recording. You were recording him.
A. Right.
Q. Right?
A. Right.
Q. So he didn’t think you were wearing a wire, right?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Okay. So he said, “I don’t wanna do life for a thousand dollars,” right?
A. He’s telling me to be careful because he don’t wanna go to jail for a thousand dollars.
Q. Exactly. But he was just — he was trying to make a living, right?
A. He was trying to pay Stevie back.
Q. Well — but he was just trying to make — he had never paid Stevie back for — for ten years and then you’re all worried about him?
A. Do you know that?

Cocky ass bastard. “Do you know that? Are you serious? And then Super Agent Ted Otto exposed..

Q. Well, when — he’s talking to you in 2014 —
A. Okay.
Q. — about a supposed debt that was from the ’90s, correct, before they went to jail, right?
A. Right.
Q. So in 2017, in the late ’90’s, that’s about — that’s about 18 years, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And there wasn’t one hair removed from his body, right?
A. That’s right.
Q. Okay. But did you — you were playing a role there, right?
A. That’s right.
Q. And every time you went out to talk about Stevie and Matty, you talked to Ted Otto, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And you — you had some sort of a script, right?
A. I wouldn’t say a script. I wouldn’t say it was a script.
Q. Okay. You would say you were prepared, right, for the conversation, for things that may come up, may not come up?
A. I was — I was on my — I mean, I was on my game.
Q. Okay. You were on your game, right?
A. Yeah, that’s true.

Q. Okay. And you knew that my client, Mr. Londonio, was charged with the Meldish murder in 2015, correct?
A. I found out.
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. And there were times during your conversations that you would inject — you would inject things about the Meldish murder, correct? Inject statements about the Meldish murder, right?
A. I may have.
Q. Okay. You have no firsthand knowledge of what happened, right?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Okay. And neither does Mr. Datello, right?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, Your Honor.
Q. To your knowledge?
THE COURT: Did he ever indicate to you he had firsthand knowledge of who killed Mr. Meldish?
THE WITNESS: He told me that Chris killed him.
THE COURT: Did he say whether he had firsthand knowledge?
THE WITNESS: No, he did not say “I have firsthand knowledge.” He didn’t say those words, no.

Think of all the money spent on this guy…new cars…cashmere sweater..new phones..tax-free salary…just so they can get their “target.” Taxpayer dollars spent on trash…

Q. — you met with Mr. Madonna, he told you to go get a job, right?
A. That’s what he said to me.
Q. Okay.
A. He gave me Brian Vaughan’s number. He told me that “He’ll put you to work at Local 20.” I told him I wanted to go back to my local and he said, “Brian will help you do that,” and that’s what he did.
Q. Okay. But he told you to go work. He didn’t tell you to go be a gangster, right?
A. He told me to just go to work when he —
Q. Go to work, right? Go to work. And you didn’t — you didn’t like that, right? You didn’t want to go to work?
A. Well, we had — I gave him a letter —
Q. Did you want to go to work —
THE COURT: Mr. Spinelli, finish your answer, and then it will be Mr. Meringolo’s turn.
A. I gave him the letter, told me he’ll see me in a few weeks. He told me to reach out to Brian. That is what I did. Told me, “He’ll put you to work back with your local and he will be in touch.” That’s what he told me.

Hearsay and rumors…that’s all the government’s go so far.

Q. Okay. Isn’t it true that you testified — or not testified. Isn’t it true that you debriefed that Mr. Londonio got made right after the murder?
A. I was told that.
Q. Okay. Who told you that?
A. Jimmy Maffucci and Joe Datello.
Q. Okay. So Jimmy Maffucci and Joe Datello told you that my client got made right after the murder, right?
A. Within the next week is what they —
Q. Within the next week, right?
A. That’s what they said.

And that was that…for this day at least.

[mafiastudent]

The following day on October 18, 2019, Gang Land’s “exclusive” story about Londonio’s bogus escape (from a 10-page detailed report he got from the FBI and which Gang Land had posted about) made headlines across the world.

But it was a story that appeared in one New York paper that caused the most concern for the defense. The entire defense team asked a mistrial, which of course, Siebel denied. But, what needs to be highlighted is Scotten reaction to that nasty and unnecessary article and the sidebar before the jury came into the courtroom.

MR. SCOTTEN: — I just want to make clear that -make clear, after the Defendants were all asked if they wanted any redactions, for a bunch of Defendants who have all opposed everything the Government is trying to do to say, “hey, there’s media attention here.” So, I don’t think the Court should be too indulgent of efforts to get a redo on the trial, which is where they seem to want to head, with a Post story that they all wanted.
THE COURT: Well —
MR. FREEMAN: Your Honor, that’s, that’s a little —
THE COURT: — I don’t know —
MR. FREEMAN: — a little bit —
THE COURT: — if they —
MR. FREEMAN: — extreme.
THE COURT: I don’t know —
MR. SCOTTEN: It’s not a little extreme.

Makes me think that perhaps Scotten was in on the “leak” of that report to Gang Land.

Crea’s attorney Franklin questioned Spinelli about the debt Datello owed to Crea and Spinelli was forced to admit the same things he said to Meringolo the day before – that despite the alleged amount, Crea never harmed a hair on Datello’s head.

Spinelli even testified that when he was a shylock and if someone owed him that kind of money, whoever the debtor was would probably have had some sort of repercussions for not making good on his payments. But it nothing ever like that ever happened to Datello – even after eight years.

If I was a juror, what I would have gotten out of all of that testimony was that Crea wasn’t this evil villain the government tried to make him out to be, but more like what Datello said in that one recording the government “misrepresented” we talked about towards the beginning of this article – that Crea was a “pretty good guy.”

And while we’re not going to get into all of Spinelli’s other testimony this day, we did want to share this little diddy from Rothman’s re-direct.

Q. Do you remember being asked on cross-examination today by Mr. Franklin about you putting — attempting to get Stevie and
Matty’s name out of Joe Datello?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Whose — as part of your work for the FBI, what were you trying to do, Mr. Spinelli?
A. I was trying to get all information about Lucchese members.
Q. And, to your knowledge, are Mr. Madonna and Mr. Crea members of the Lucchese Crime Family?
A. To my knowledge —
Q. If you can just back up a bit.
A. To my knowledge, they are the Boss and Underboss of the Lucchese Crime Family.
Q. Do you recall also being asked on cross-examination by Mr. Franklin if you had ever met Stevie Crea? Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Based on your involvement in the Lucchese Crime Family, what do you understand to be the reason that you never met Stevie Crea?
A. Because Stevie Crea is an Underboss.
Q. And what about that fact makes it unlikely that you personally would have met Stevie Crea?
A. That’s correct.
Q. I’m sorry. I’ll — what about that makes it unlikely that you would have met Stevie Crea?
MR. FRANKLIN: Objection, Your Honor, as to his opinion.
THE COURT: Overruled.
A. Because I’m not a made member.
Q. In your experience, do underbosses of organized crime families typically meet with nonmade members or associates of those families?
A. Not usually, no.

So, what was the purpose of Spinelli always trying to get a meeting with “Stevie”? if this was the tactic the government tried to use to slap back at the defense? I call it stupid meeting stupid.

And that’s the end of that tall tale…and basically nothing learned, once again, about the murder of Michael Meldish.

END of this section

[mafiastudent]

Richard Remembers
Although the charge of attempted murder of Sean Richard was dismissed when the government brought their new indictment against Crea in July 2019, it didn’t stop the government from bringing Richard in to testify on their behalf. Richard’s only purpose was to talk about his prior dealings with Crea back in the 1990s. This had no relevance to the current case except that it involved the construction industry and was a way for the government to “connect the dots” in relation to the labor racketeering charge against Crea in this case.

But one thing to remember is that Crea had already taken a plea deal and served his time for that 2000 case which meant that what the government was doing here was basically “taking a second bite of the apple,” once again, by using “background” information to try to prove a “continuation” of the charges in Crea’s current case. And Richard’s testimony also included information about his relationship with Datello and how it related to Crea.

The government needed to paint a picture and although there were plenty of arguments between the prosecution and defense counsel beforehand about the relevance of Richard’s appearance, Judge Siebel allowed him to be called as a witness anyway. She even allowed the prosecution to play recordings Richard had taken in December 1999, after he became an informant that helped paint their picture

Of course, one of the very first things the government wanted to establish were those non-existent nicknames of Crea’s, which, by the way, Richard never brought up at any previous trial or proffering session he had with state or federal government.

Before getting into those magical nicknames, Richard talked about his past history, including marrying John Riggi’s daughter and forming a construction company with her, which is how he ended up getting involved with Crea. He failed to mention, however, how he dumped his wife after becoming an informant, nearly leaving her penniless and running off with a stripper who went by the name of Lola. He also got remarried, It ended badly, but he was more than happy to discuss what happened.

One final note is to “listen” to Scotten’s tone not only during his questioning of Richard but also during the sidebars. It gives an insight into how the government really felt about Crea. While you can say that’s to be expected, when it came to Crea it was more than excessive and blatantly “improper” as Scotten likes to say.

After forming his company with his wife, he started to get bigger and bigger jobs, mostly, he said, because of who his father-in-law was. At one point, he claimed he was receiving threats because his business was booming, including this one:

A. There was another time where I found a large ham in front of my front door, which was perplexing to me.
Q. Like a large piece of pork?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you later come to understand the significance of the ham?
A. I went to visit my father-in-law in prison, and I asked him, you know, what did he think this was, and he said it was basically a message that I was being a pig.
Q. In what sense were you being a pig?
A. Just trying to push the company and gather more work and become more successful.

Well, he’s definitely a pig – but not for the reasons he stated.

Eventually, Richard partnered up with Datello and started meeting with Crea at various times, so apparently, he knew things – especially about those non-existent nicknames:

Q. Having met with Crea regularly, do you know whether he was known by any nicknames at that time?
A. Yeah. He was called Herbie by a few people that were associates of his, and also Stevie Wonder.
Q. Do you have any idea what the basis for the Stevie Wonder nickname was?
A. He had — the Wonder Boy nickname came about because he had made so much money going back into the ’70s. They called him Wonder Boy. He was a huge earner for the family.

It’s odd that Richard claimed some of his associates called him every nickname in the government’s book. Yet, in all of the recordings the government possessed no one is ever caught on tape using them. The only people who could testify to those nicknames were the government’s own witnesses. Ponder that one.

Afterward, Scotten started asking questions about events from 1998 without clarifying the dates in question. When Crea’s lawyer asked for a date clarification, this is what happened:

MR. DiPIETRO: Can we get a date, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. When was this?
THE WITNESS: This was in 1998.
THE COURT: Can we move into the period covered by the indictment, which is 2000 and forward.
MR. SCOTTEN: We can, your Honor, although this is part of the methods and operations that I think your Honor has admitted.
THE COURT: Let’s move into the period covered by the indictment.
MR. SCOTTEN: Your Honor, I think I need to approach, then.
THE COURT: Okay.
(At the sidebar)
THE COURT: Now I’m confused. I don’t understand why we can’t just talk about whatever occurred in 2000. Why do we need to move into doing the same thing in 1998?
MR. SCOTTEN: Because, in 2000, Mr. Richard is, in fact, on the run. He’s not on the job site. So this is specific examples of Crea doing business with the same people in the same manner that, for example, Randy Silverstein and all the people in the 2014 period are going to testify about. His personal interactions there are in ’98, ’99.

Scotten’s arrogance shows through every time he uses his “in fact” clarification. It must come with his Harvard education. And yes, I’m “characterizing” him.

THE COURT: You lost me. If the witness doesn’t know about what Mr. Crea was doing in 2000, then this is 404(b) evidence.
MR. SCOTTEN: I think you remember we also offered it under those grounds. So there’s elements of his testimony that are clearly direct evidence, such as Crea being the underboss of the family in ’97 up through 2000, and there are elements that are modus operandi, intent, knowledge with respect to conduct of the construction business…
THE COURT: I have no memory of ruling on this with an understanding that this guy has nothing that’s within the timeframe of the conspiracy.
MR. SCOTTEN: It’s not that he has nothing. It’s just this stuff, which is also important, is not within the timeframe of the conspiracy.

Who wants to make a bet that sometime in the near future, Scotten is going to run for public office?

MR. DiPIETRO: This is clearly propensity evidence. And, your Honor, taking the government’s proffer here, are they saying that Randy Silverstein is going to testify that there were unions that were bribed and similar conduct as this? Because I don’t think he is. I’ve reviewed the 3500 material and it’s not there. This is a far leap. This is to show that Crea did it then and, therefore, he’s
doing it again now, and it’s improper. And we’re spending almost two hours on this.
THE COURT: What’s the evidence going to be of what occurred within the 2000 to 2017 period? Is it going to be bribing union officials? Is it going to be strongarming union officials?
MR. SCOTTEN: Ms. Cohen can do that because she’s putting in that evidence.
MS. COHEN: So there will be testimony regarding use of organized crime to resolve union and coalition disruption of job sites. There will be testimony of using bribes in order to obtain obstruction — sorry — construction contracts on which mob-associated subcontractors were either employed or getting first and last look and Mr. Crea’s involvement in obtaining
lucrative development contracts and securing necessary political approvals in order to engage in development and construction contracts.
THE COURT: So that sounds like pretty standard labor racketeering. Why is this MO? Why isn’t it propensity what you’re getting out of Richard?

MR. SCOTTEN: I don’t think there is such a thing as propensity to engage in labor racketeering.
THE COURT: This is he did it before, so it makes it more likely he did it again.
MR. SCOTTEN: I think when you’re doing the same thing with the same people, that’s a continuation of a conspiracy. It’s also knowledge and intent because, correct me if I’m wrong, their major defense was, I think, all this bad stuff was going on at Sparrow, for example, and Bronx Lebanon Hospital and, yes, I had a million-dollar loan to them at 16 percent interest, but I had no idea and I had nothing to do with any of this funny business. Now, if I’m wrong about that, it does become less relevant to knowledge and intent.
MR. DiPIETRO: But how does that connect to what he’s testifying to that there was a promissory loan for someone else that had filed bankruptcy and could not get the bond? How does this line up?
MR. FRANKLIN: He got a performance bond, period.
MR. SCOTTEN: I don’t care about the bond. I know they’re very fascinated with that. The fact that Steven Crea is getting a huge amount of money, I don’t think they have an argument that this is an innocent loan. The criminality of the loan is not what’s important. The criminality of all the other stuff that Steven Crea’s profiting from is relevant. And the fact that he’s going to say I had no knowledge, but, yet, here’s a witness who is going to say here is how he, in fact, plays a role in construction contracts —
THE COURT: You really need to let whoever is speaking finish, and that was Mr. Scotten.

Because she’s fair and impartial…

MR. SCOTTEN: My point is when you have the same people doing the same thing in the same industry — if you just have doing the same crime, that may be propensity issue evidence. Fine. If you have the same organization with the same personnel doing the same kind of construction fraud, that is knowledge and intent, which is extremely relevant in a case where as I understand the main defense on this predicate is knowledge and intent.
THE COURT: But the defense is whoever did it had knowledge and intent, but I didn’t do it. The knowledge and intent is not an issue. Whoever bribed a union official would, by definition, have knowledge and intent, but if he’s saying I didn’t do that, the knowledge and intent are not in issue.
MR. SCOTTEN: In a racketeering conspiracy where the question of one of the predicates is did he agree that others would do something, the fact that he does business through others who are doing this thing absolutely goes to knowledge. Here, the question isn’t intent to defraud. I understand the case law your Honor’s referring to. It’s not as though we’re trying to prove Crea’s specific intent to defraud someone. The point here is where you claim ignorance and, yet, you have used the same people to do the same thing in the past, you can no longer claim ignorance. When the Lucchese Family is doing all this at his direction in 2000, he cannot show up in 2014 and say the Lucchese Family’s doing this and I’m the underboss, but I didn’t know what they were doing.
THE COURT: And who are the same people.
MR. SCOTTEN: Joe Venice, the DiSimones.
MS. COHEN: They’re not involved in Bronx Lebanon, but they are involved in other ways with Sparrow. It will include Larry Wecker. It will include Walter Steever.
THE COURT: And which of these people is this witness going to talk about?
MR. SCOTTEN: He’s going to talk about Larry Wecker at considerable length. He will also talk about — and correct me if I’m wrong here. He’s going to talk about Larry Wecker. He is going to talk about Wayne Cross, who is already in evidence through the business e-mail between Londonio and Maiorino. He’s going to talk about a company called Al-An Elevator, which is controlled by Anthony DiNapoli, which is already in evidence through the e-mail found on Londonio.

At this point, Scotten was a little upset he wasn’t going to get his way and threw one of his many sidebar temper tantrums (he also did it a few times in front of the jury, by the way):

THE COURT: Look, I’m ruling on this at a sidebar. This should have been tee’d up better than it was tee’d up. But this, under 403, has a massively prejudicial effect outweighed by the probative value. And the waste of time, the confusion of the issues. There’s no MO here. The inference you want the jury to draw, which is he was a labor racketeer back in the ’90s, therefore, when other people in the family were doing it in 2014, he must have been involved, I don’t think is proper …And even if he were, the amount of time it’s going to take and the confusion of the issues that’s going to cause, since it’s all before the time frame of our conspiracy…I think it should stay out. If you want him to set up who is Larry Wecker, whatever, that’s fine, but I’m not going to have an hour of what happened in the ’90s on this.
MR. SCOTTEN: So two things, then. I do want to do the specific issue of last look and change orders. I do think that’s a very specific MO issue.
THE COURT: It sounds like he was doing this himself. He’s already testified that he himself was using nonunion labor and why that’s a great thing. That’s all fine. If he was doing scummy things with change orders, he can explain how that works. That’s fine.
MR. SCOTTEN: So you just want me to leave out the defendant’s role in it? I’m not sure I’m understanding. Or you just want to move on faster and minimize?

Can’t you just hear the whining in Scotten’s voice? And it’s certainly proper for a fair and impartial judge to use words like “scummy.”

THE COURT: No. I want you to leave out the defendant’s role. If you want to use him as somebody who knows — not as an expert, but somebody who can explain how construction works in a labor racketeer and what ways you can steal money in that business because he did it himself, he can explain.
MR. SCOTTEN: I mean, I do think it is certainly appropriate and sort of necessary for him to testify, for example, that the Lucchese Family is how he got — it’s not just I did it, because he couldn’t have done it by himself, but it’s through organized crime I got last looks at bidding projects. In return for that, there’s a price you pay. You pay that up the chain of command.
THE COURT: He can say he got that through his association with the family. That’s how he was able to do it.
MR. SCOTTEN: But his association is with Crea, and it does continue into the charged period.
THE COURT: That’s what I’m keeping out. No, it doesn’t because he was a cooperator before the charged period.
MR. SCOTTEN: They are still doing — cooperators can testify as to continuing enterprise. They’re still doing business in 2000. He’s talking to them.
MR. DiPIETRO: ’97 and ’98. You just talked about a deal in ’98.
THE COURT: Anything that’s occurring in 2000 is fair game.
MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, can we get an instruction to the jury to mitigate this evidence?

Scotten doesn’t even want Judge Siebel to frame all the previous testimony for the jury because that just wouldn’t help out his underhandedness. And he backtracks and manipulates what he actually said previously…using the Judge’s own words.

MR. SCOTTEN: There’s nothing that’s coming in that — he’s talked about himself so far.
MR. DiPIETRO: I think the jury’s going to get confused.
THE COURT: Yes. I mean, I will tell them that charges in this indictment allege an enterprise going from 2000 to 2017.
MR. DiPIETRO: Thank you.
THE COURT: And that sometimes evidence regarding matters before then is appropriately admitted as background, but it can’t be a substitute.
MR. DiPIETRO: That’s perfect. Thank you.

For a short time, Scotten followed the Judge’s rulings, then he started sneaking in other information related to the timeframe Siebel had ruled out. It was testimony about profit splitting from a construction job. While defense counsel tried to interject, this time Siebel ignored defense’s requests until she could no longer justify what Scotten was doing. Let’s listen in:

Q. And do you know how that ten percent was divided?
A. Yeah. It was split between the DeCavalcante Crime Family, the Lucchese Crime Family and the Genovese Crime Family.
Q. And what role, if any, did you play in making those splits?
A. Well, we received the money once a month from Mr. Crea, and then we would — we would — it was turned into him, and we would divvy up the money accordingly.
MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, can we get a date again?
MR. SCOTTEN: I believe he testified it was throughout his period. This is a subject of the recording your Honor has already admitted.
MR. DiPIETRO: What’s the date?
THE COURT: What is the time frame that this money is changing hands?
THE WITNESS: This went on from 1997 until I left in late ’99.
Q. And in late ’99, did you — yes or no — did you make a recording concerning the payment of this money?
A. I did, yes.

And then Scotten got testy with Richard because he knew he was deep into the red zone (bolded for your viewing pleasure,) but Siebel still let it continue.

Q. Did monies continue to be due from Larry Wecker to Crea continuing into 2000?
A. I know that Mr. Crea’s been associated with Mr. Wecker for —
MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor —
Q. Just answer the question.
A. I can’t say.
Q. I’m asking you, as of your last meeting in December of 1999, did Mr. Wecker still owe the money?
A. Yes. In ’99, he did, yes.
Q. So continuing on, what was the typical amount of these payments?
A. They varied because they were ten percent per job. It could be anywhere from, you know, eight to twelve thousand dollars a month.
Q. How was that money divided?
A. As I said, it was divided between the DeCavalcante Crime Family, the Lucchese Crime Family and the Genovese Crime Family.

Siebel finally put a stop to it. However, she changed her tune so everyone was aware of whose side she was really on – as if we didn’t already know. The fair and impartiality she had shown previously was clearly a temporary lapse in judgment:

MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, can we have another
sidebar, please?
THE COURT: Okay.
(At the sidebar)
THE COURT: Why is this not what I just ruled out?
MR. SCOTTEN: This is exactly what you ruled in. This is literally the subject of the December 1999 recording that your Honor reviewed in detail, looked at the transcript. It was in our enterprise letter.
THE COURT: You have to remind me. What is the December ’99 conversation?
MR. SCOTTEN: Okay. So we disclosed two recordings before we obtained the additional recordings from them. The December 1999 recording is between Crea, Datello and this witness. It’s the only meeting he has with Crea when they’re cooperating. He goes to Crea’s restaurant, Il Boschetto, and they discuss the payment of the Larry money, which is what he’s getting at. At that point, Larry was falling behind. He also had an additional debt to Crea which Datello and Richard were supposed to collect, and they have this discussion about, Joe, you need to go see Larry. They count out some different money there to divvy up. And that is exactly what’s continuing on when Mr. Richard refuses to meet anymore. I think when we argued this, we pointed out, and I think your Honor agreed, that, one, an indictment that covers from in or about 2000 to 2017 would cover this in December of 1999 even if it didn’t continue into the charged period. But in light of your Honor’s more recent ruling, I also made a point to elicit this debt still outstanding at the end of that meeting, 20 days before the beginning of the charged period. Also, just to not come over here again, I’m going to get into the subject of Datello’s debt to Richard, which — sorry — Datello’s debt to Crea, which is going to continue forever.
THE COURT: That’s within the time period.

Which is going to continue forevvvver is probably how Scotten said it.

Clear manipulation of the issue which DiPietro tries to point out below. Also, remember that Crea already served his time for those past events. If the government won’t allow the defense to question informants on their past history because it has no bearing on “credibility,” then why does the government get to bring up a defendant’s prior history – especially one for which he’s already paid his debt to society?

And, once again, Judge Siebel shows her true colors.

MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, just so the record is clear, the witness has testified that he does not know what happens after 1999. He’s also interjecting the Colombo Family, Genovese Family. I mean, this is hours spent on stuff before the indictment.
MR. SCOTTEN: This has been five minutes of testimony spent.
MR. DiPIETRO: No, it’s been a continuation. We haven’t had anything in 2000 yet.
THE COURT: If we include the sidebars, it’s an hour.
MR. SCOTTEN: I’m going in chronological order.
THE COURT: It’s not your fault. I think Mr. Scotten’s answered my question why this isn’t what I just ruled out because if he’s having a conversation in the end of ’99 about this money that has to be collected on behalf of the family and it’s outstanding at the end of the meeting. I think it’s a fair inference that — aside from the fact that he disappears from the scene, I think it’s a fair inference generally that the relationship continues. But even apart from that, if he’s in a meeting in December 1999 and the money is outstanding, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the money’s outstanding in January of 2000.
MR. DiPIETRO: But what’s the corroboration of any of that? What is going to connect this? Or they’re just going to leave it hanging?
MR. SCOTTEN: I don’t understand what he means by corroboration.

The Harvard-educated Scotten doesn’t know the meaning of corroboration? Clearly, he’s just being an….well, I’m not even going to say it.

MR. DiPIETRO: You’re making an inference.
MR. SCOTTEN: There’s a tape recording of him talking about it with Crea.
MR. DiPIETRO: That’s ’99.
MR. SCOTTEN: Corroboration that that continues?
MR. DiPIETRO: Yes.
MR. SCOTTEN: The end of the conversation when they’re complaining about Larry still owing money and Datella says I’m going to go grab him up and your client says that sounds like a good idea to me. At the end of the meeting, when they’re discussing what to do with this issue with Larry, Datello’s conclusion is I’m going to go grab him up, and Crea says that sounds like a good idea to me. They don’t conclude Larry just paid me. Actually, he can testify that he never received any of that money, as he should have, so it’s more than just an inference.
THE COURT: He disappeared from the scene, too. Look, I think that that conversation relates directly to a scheme that bled into the charged period, or certainly on or about the charged period.

Sort of like the government’s version of Choose Your Own Adventure. No corroborating proof – just a corroboration for the government’s lies.

MR. DiPIETRO: So, your Honor, just for the record, the interjection of all these other crime families, is that going to connect up with the scheme at Bronx Lebanon because the Colombos, the DeCavalcantes? I mean, this is far afield.
MR. SCOTTEN: The involvement is attached to the entire case. There’s been a wealth of evidence that the Mafia is a single enterprise that does business with each other.
THE COURT: There’s nobody from the DeCavalcantes or the Colombos on trial here.
MR. SCOTTEN: Well, he’s from the DeCavalcantes. He can’t help but talk about them.

No, Scotten, you got it wrong. He was married to a woman whose father was an alleged DeCavalcante. Where did you get your information? From Petey Bullshit who heard it from Zoccolillo who heard it from your Mafia Encyclopedia John Pennisi?

THE COURT: No, but my point is a different one. My point is if it’s the fact, and that depends on whether you believe this guy, but if it’s a fact that these defendants were involved in something with these other people and it’s otherwise relevant, you know, we can’t just sanitize these other people out.
MR. DiPIETRO: But, your Honor, that’s the problem, the relevancy of things happening in ’97, ’98, and then saying, oh, the Bronx Lebanon Hospital, Randy Silverstein. If the government’s going to connect this all up and it’s going to look clean, then that’s fine, but if they’re not —
THE COURT: What’s the evidence going to be about what Wecker did in 2014?
MS. COHEN: So Sparrow continues to use a stable of subcontractors that are referred to them by Crea. And there’s a standard practice that Sparrow uses with respect to this, what Randy will call preferred subcontractors, and these are subcontractors that came from Crea.
MR. DiPIETRO: You’re saying Wecker worked at the Bronx Lebanon?
MS. COHEN: I’m not going to say that he worked at Bronx Lebanon. I’m going to say that he worked with Sparrow on the basis of being sent there under Crea during the charged time period.

More truths revealed…

MR. DiPIETRO: Did he get the job?
MR. FRANKLIN: No, no. That’s wrong. Excuse me. That’s false. Larry Wecker dealt with Randy Silverstein’s father. And Randy Silverstein said I kept whoever we were using, I kept using them because they were pretty good workers. So he didn’t have nothing to do with — Crea had nothing to do with it after his father, Silverstein’s father, died in ’97. They grandfathered them in.
MS. COHEN: They can cross-examine Mr. Silverstein if they want to. There’s clearly a disagreement about what he’s going to testify to. But I’m telling your Honor we intend to elicit on direct examination there is a stable of subcontractors that were developed during the time that Randy’s father ran the company. That stable of contractors continues to be the “preferred set” for Sparrow for certain trades. And that continues whether or not they actually end up accepting work on the projects. They continue to be in that stable of subcontractors that get preferred treatment from Sparrow, and then that preferred treatment is the direct result of decades of relationships with LCN; specifically, Stevie Crea.

MR. SCOTTEN: And if I can, this will be both relevant currently, but I think the government will also want this on appeal, God willing. It is our position that the indictment does not charge a count of conspiracy to defraud Bronx Lebanon Hospital. It charges a conspiracy to commit racketeering. And so, for example, the fact of a debt being collected through the family in 1999, even if Mr. Wecker never appeared in the case again, would be highly relevant. We understand the Court’s ruling, and I’m not disagreeing with it, but to extent there’s some argument in the future about, oh, this is unfairly prejudicial, your Honor used
exactly the right word when you said continuing scheme. The whole thing is a continuing scheme. There’s a continuing racketeering enterprise that does business by these methods. Now, I understand your Honor’s ruling that there’s a 403 concern, and we respect that, but the fact that a debt being paid into the charging period – and Mr. Richard is going to talk about talking to Datello and Truscello into literally the charged period – I don’t actually think that’s a terribly close call.

God willing. So, he’s just drooling at this point…

MR. DiPIETRO: The association with Mr. Wecker which the government proffered was why the debt was relevant. If he doesn’t get the job at Bronx Lebanon —
THE COURT: I understand Bronx Lebanon is a big piece of the labor racketeering, but there’s RICO conspiracy here. They can throw in the kitchen sink.
MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, they also had the discretion to charge this from ’97 on if they wanted to bring in this stuff.

And there it is….with RICO you can throw in the kitchen sink. That seems fair, right?

But at least one side of the aisle is polite even if Judge Siebel still doesn’t know what the words “fair and impartial” mean.

THE COURT: This particular objection is overruled.
MR. DiPIETRO: Thank you.
(In open court; jury present)

Later, Richard testified that he had gotten remarried, It ended badly, but he was more than happy to discuss what happened because it supported the government’s bogus theory about how Datello found Richard. Remember, even Gang Land thought the whole situation was odd. And there was no one to corroborate Richard’s story, but I guess since Scotten didn’t know what that meant, well, he could just play dumb:

Q. And during the time you lived in New Hampshire — well, let me ask you this. Were you living there under your real name?
A. No. It was a new identity.
Q. And while you were living in New Hampshire, did anyone learn your true identity?
A. Yes. My wife at the time.
Q. And do you know how she learned your identity?
A. I had some papers, briefcase, with publicity in things in the house, and she had found it and asked me about it. I was truthful with her.
Q. You said your wife at the time. Are you no longer married?
A. No. That’s correct.
Q. And how would you characterize the breakup?
A. It wasn’t good. I had to get a restraining order.
Q. Was anything said that caused you concern?
A. She promised me that she would make sure that my former cohorts wouldn’t know where I was. And, apparently, she made
good on that promise, so —

By the way, the government also failed to mention Richard’s relationship with other informants, including one that he was even neighbors with (an attached townhouse) and formed a business partnership with – which apparently is against the rules. But the government can bend their rules and usually do whenever it suits their needs.

When Meringolo, did his cross, he only wanted to find out information about how Richard made those recordings back in 1999. Previously, Joseph Foti had testified how he didn’t always wear the wire and some of the evidence the government presented was Foti’s recollection about conversations with no recorded evidence of them.

In Richard’s case, he did wear a wire, but like other informants before him, he steered the conversation to the topics the government wanted him to talk about. Meringolo just wanted to highlight that fact, but Scotten wasn’t having any of it.

Q. You said you were cooperating with the District Attorney in Manhattan, correct?
A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. And at the same time you were cooperating with them, you were working with the NYPD on that case?
A. They were — they were together. It was one in the same.Q. So the NYPD and the New York District Attorney were part of that investigation, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you put a wire on, correct?
MR. SCOTTEN: Objection. Can we have a sidebar on this?
MR. MERINGOLO: Judge, I’m not going into anything.
THE COURT: Need be?
MR. SCOTTEN: Yeah, I think so, your Honor.
(At the sidebar)
MR. SCOTTEN: To the extent that the Court intends to allow it all, Mr. Richard is not an appropriate impeach-the-investigation witness, nor is he an appropriate witness for general procedures of wiretapping, nor has he said a single thing about Mr. Londonio. So I don’t see the relevance of this line of questioning.

Anything that might make the government look like the schemers they are – well, that’s not relevant. But, why is there so much of that in this trial – with almost every witness and procedure? Doesn’t that suggest that perhaps something might be wrong here?

THE COURT: Where is it going?
MR. MERINGOLO: It’s going — when he said the NYPD were surveilling him while he went to wire up on Mr. Crea. That’s it. They had a crew outside when he put the wire on and went in to surveil him. He testified to that already. I’m just going to highlight it.
MR. SCOTTEN: So if he testified to it, one, it has no relevance to him, but there’s no I get to cross-examine to highlight.

The attitude on this guy. How come Siebel never yells at Scotten the way she always does at Meringolo?

THE COURT: Well, they get to — since they’re all together in a RICO conspiracy, they get to protect each other if they want.
MR. SCOTTEN: I don’t think he’s protected.
MR. MERINGOLO: Well, this is for Foti.
THE COURT: Let me just understand. What about Foti?
MR. MERINGOLO: Well, particularly, he said on direct that he was wired up by the NYPD and they were surveilling him.
THE COURT: That’s what this witness said or that’s what Foti said?
MR. MERINGOLO: No. Foti said there were times they did and times they didn’t. So I just want to get — I want to confirm again that, this time, the NYPD was surveilling him. I cannot see how this is a problem. I’m not going to impeach him. I’m not going to do anything. I mean, I’m just asking him a few questions.
MR. SCOTTEN: It’s still completely irrelevant.
MR. MERINGOLO: Judge, you want me to just proffer to you?
THE COURT: It’s fine. Overruled.
(In open court; jury present)

Siebel wasn’t a fan of Meringolo’s, so it’s even more surprising that she sided with him on this issue. It’s just too bad we don’t have any video of Scotten’s reaction to the ruling. Did he stomp away or sulk back to his table?

BY MR. MERINGOLO:
Q. I’m back. So when you put a wire on and you went to see Mr. Crea that day, you said that the NYPD was somewhere close, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And prior to — did they put the wire on you or you did it yourself?
A. No, they placed the wire.
Q. They placed the wire and you went in — you know, preliminary, you had discussions with them, correct?
A. Yeah. Well, yeah, of course.
Q. With the wire?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Okay. And you went in. And you knew they were somewhere around, correct?
A. Yes.
MR. MERINGOLO: No further questions.

And Mr. Meringolo proves his point.

__________________________________

[mafiastudent]

“Stevie Wonder” Reborn
David Evangelista was the jailhouse snitch that Christopher Londonio reportedly “confessed” to about his role in the Michael Meldish murder and his plans to escape the MDC. This witness was the government’s backup after the failure of Frank Pasqua. He was the only witness that could tie Crea to the murder – and the only “proof” that tied Crea to the murder was that “Stevie Wonder and son” statement. Remember, by this time, Steven D has already made his plea bargain but had not agreed to the Meldish murder charge, taking an additional three years for refusing to bend to the government’s demands.


Chrisotpher Londonio’s attorney, John Meringolo
In addition, that alleged statement was also the only “proof” that directly tied Londonio to the murder as well. Londonio had never “confessed” to anyone else, including Pasqua and numerous other wired-up informants, that he had a role in the murder – not even during that November 11, 2014 phone call he made from jail to his own voice mail account, which was reported by Gang Land News on September 5, 2019.

But the government put on their thinking caps (and maybe joined Otto in a bit of hookah smoking to free up their minds) and came up with a fantastical theory about why that was so – which we’ll learn about shortly.

Evangelista testified for two days, but on the first day of testimony, Judge Siebel set the tone. Like she had throughout the entirety of the case, she wasn’t about to show impartiality when it came to the most important charge against Crea and the other defendants.

Londonio’s attorney, John Meringolo, had requested in a motion on October 14, 2019, to call the wondrous Agent Otto to the stand to testify during their presentation of the case. It wasn’t going to happen in ten thousand blue moons, but before the jury came into the courtroom for the day, Siebel went into an incredibly lengthy reason why she was shooting the request down.

She started with this:

First, Mr. Londonio points out that Otto is the case agent, he was the main witness in the grand jury, he was a key player in the investigation, he was Mr. Spinelli’s handler, and he participated in the investigation of third-party culpability. And they say this alone justifies calling him. I don’t agree with that. There’s no independent relevance of those facts, and those facts alone couldn’t assist the jury in deciding whether or not the government’s proven its case.

Hate to cut you off so soon, Your Honor, but the testimony and “evidence” presented to the grand jury for the original 2017 indictment was never verified back in 2018 when defense counsel demanded an inspection of those minutes after the government’s numerous misrepresentations during pretrial hearings. Siebel refused to inspect the minutes, instead giving the government an out by introducing a new “trial indictment” against the defendants. What that means is that the government cleaned up their bogus evidence, perhaps created new bogus evidence, and recharged the defendants – except in Crea’s case, they dismissed the attempted murder of Sean Richard charge. So, no one really knows what Otto testified to at that original grand jury hearing – and no will ever know because those minutes disappeared into a governmental black hole.

But moving on to the more specific things the defendant asserts, he next says the testimony is necessary to prove that Agent Otto misrepresented facts in the grand jury, specifically that CW-3, who, I gather, we’re going to meet today and Mr. Londonio were cellmates and that the prosecutor picked up on that testimony and incorporated it into a question and reinforced it and that is not the fact, they weren’t cellmates, they were unit mates a few cells down.

Separately, the defendant moves to dismiss Count Ten for the knowing use of perjurious testimony in the grand jury. I’ll get to that at the end. In terms of whether that is a ground for questioning Mr. Otto at this trial, that he, Agent Otto, said in the grand
jury that CW-3 and Mr. Londonio were cellmates when really they were a few cells down from each other has no bearing on the
issues the jury has to decide. If CW-3 says they were a few cells down and the defendants want to ask him if he ever told Agent Otto they were cellmates, they can ask him that, but that Otto misrepresented something in the grand jury, inadvertently
or intentionally, doesn’t assist the jury in assessing any testimony here.

Remember, Agent Otto’s original “star witness” was Frank Pasqua, who was Londonio’s cellmate. It could be, as we’ve pointed out previously, that Otto couldn’t remember which snitch was which because the government’s story was in a state of constant rewrite. Count Ten, by the way, was the escape charge.

She goes on to say that “The motion also states that another reason to bring Otto to the stand was because he didn’t investigate” another organized crime Family “as an alternative suspect” in the “murder of Mr. Meldish.” “They go on to say that Mr. Otto ‘failed to timely investigate information implicating members’ of this other Family “‘and only followed up on those leads after the defendants requested disclosure of such information in this proceeding.'”

Here, of course, there’s no evidence at all of a rush to judgment. The murder was in 2013, the Bronx charges were brought in 2015, and the federal charges in 2017. We’ve already seen from the NYPD officers that they were doing — I don’t mean this to come out the wrong way because I think they did a terrific investigation, but they were doing a standard homicide investigation. There was certainly no leaping to conclusions that I can see.

However, that’s inaccurate because the government started leaking information to the press prior to the 2015 indictment. In addition, as shown in the pretrial portion of this article, the government brought the indictment against the defendants based on the testimony of Frank Pasqua who was then dismissed for Evangelista.

The fact that the government, in the runup to this trial, followed up with sources who had given information in the past hardly shows that the FBI did not consider the (the other Family) a suspect or did not thoroughly investigate. The government confirmed yesterday, with respect to two of these sources in court and the third one by e-mail to all of us, that the three individuals with whom the government followed up recently were not Agent Otto’s sources. There’s no indication he had spoken to them before. That he followed up with them in 2018 and 2019 simply does not suggest that nobody followed up with them at the time or that their information did not go to the right people at the time.

But this was Agent Otto’s case so you’d think he’d want to be thorough. Then again, since he only wanted to “get the guy” – aka Crea – in every informant conversation, it wouldn’t matter if there might be evidence pointing to other suspects because those other suspects weren’t Otto’s target.

Further, as a practical matter, I’m not sure what more could have been done with their information given that, apparently, at least two of them had no personal knowledge and were just reporting what they heard on the street.

And, yet, here we are with David Evangelista who will be reporting what he heard in jail – plus every other informant who told their tales. None of which, by the way, had any “personal knowledge.”

So I don’t think the evidence that the defense would elicit from Agent Otto shows a shoddy investigation or that anybody ignored the possibility of the (other Family) being responsible, but even if the evidence better showed a shoddy investigation, that doesn’t mean it gets in.

So, what does that mean? If there was proof someone else was behind Meldish’s murder, the evidence won’t get in because it doesn’t fit with Otto’s goal of getting “the guy.”

As I said a moment ago, the purported evidence of a shoddy investigation does not even show a shoddy investigation, so its probative value is low and it’s substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect from waste of time, confusion of the issues and misleading the jury. That’s in part because it shifts the focus away from the charges against the defendants and whether or not there’s sufficient proof of those charges and on to the agents.

Not quite. What Otto’s testimony would show was that Crea was innocent of the murder charge – and probably everyone else, too. And it wouldn’t be for Siebel to decide, anyway – that decision is supposed to be the jury’s. But, then again, as both Scotten and Siebel pointed out before Spinelli testified – the government isn’t on trial no matter what kind of shady practices they do behind the scenes. Still, it begs the question that if the government had nothing to fear, why not lay it all out for the jury to see?

Likewise, here, plaintiff has not pointed to trial evidence the reliability of which would be undercut by the evidence regarding Otto’s follow-up that they want to introduce, nor have they suggested how Otto’s investigation is otherwise material to the defense. In these circumstances, evidence attacking the investigation would waste time, mislead the jury and confuse the issues.

Because when the government has nothing to fear, it needs to make clear that laying out all the facts might “mislead the jury” and “confuse the issues.”

Defendants next argue that Otto’s testimony is necessary because his prior murder cases resulted in acquittals or hung juries and that Charlie Carnisi reported Mr. Otto to the FBI for misconduct. This is the same Charlie Carnisi who, if I remember recently, was accused of being a criminal himself. I don’t think he was a criminal himself. But that’s irrelevant to anything going on at this trial.

Wait, what? If she didn’t believe that then why even say it? Was the clarification because she remembered she was on the record? And why is it irrelevant that someone reported Otto for misconduct? Those cases Carnesi worked on involved a lot of the same issues present in this case. And again, Siebel isn’t being very impartial when she’s calling Londonio’s former attorney a “criminal,” whether she means it or not. And the fact the man has died by this point makes her statement even more disturbing.

It didn’t matter, anyway, because Otto was never called to testify.

Later, there was an argument regarding the escape charge against Londonio and how Evangelista’s testimony would affect the other defendants, specifically, Madonna. Joshua Dratel is Madonna’s lawyer.

MS. ROTHMAN: I think that the general corroboration is useable against all defendants. CW-3 is going to make statements that do implicate Mr. Madonna, Mr. Crea, Mr. Caldwell, and so that corroboration and his testimony should be applied to all defendants. As to this particular statement, we recognize that its primary focus is Mr. Londonio.
MR. DRATEL: Its only relevance is to that count, so it would only come in against Mr. Londonio.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, the government just said that Evangelista is going to testify about things relevant to other counts, and to the extent this shows that he’s a trustworthy witness —
MR. DRATEL: That wouldn’t come in without Count Ten. And it’s only against Mr. Londonio. They wouldn’t be able to bolster him with that without content, so it only comes in against Mr. Londonio.
THE COURT: But everybody’s going to stand up and say Mr. Evangelista is a liar.
MS. ROTHMAN: Except the government, your Honor.
THE COURT: Good point.

We can already see how this day is going to go…

Crea’s lawyer, Anthony DiPietro, brought up an issue regarding the Londonio emails that were going to be a significant part of Evangelista’s testimony and the government’s “proof”:

MR. DiPIETRO: Just to avoid a sidebar right away, and I’m not going to rehash yesterday’s arguments about the e-mails, but I had reached out to the government last night and asked them to proffer as to how Chris’ e-mails with his mother are admissible, under what hearsay exception. They said they’re not being offered for the truth. The second part of the problem now is, in those
e-mails, it has that your Honor has denied my client bail, which then gives the inference to the jury that he’s in custody.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, Evangelista is his cell buddy.
MR. DiPIETRO: Not my client.
THE COURT: Oh, I’m sorry. Mr. Crea. I’m sorry. I always get your back table mixed up. I mean, there’s already evidence that he was convicted of a crime fairly recently, so —
MR. DiPIETRO: No. That was 2006.
THE COURT: Yes.

The flippancy. Maybe she hadn’t yet had her morning coffee, but after nearly four years of hearings and days of testimony, you’d think she’d know which lawyer and defendant was which. Either that or just didn’t care. We’d put our money on the latter. And didn’t she say previously that she took the case because she knew it would be well-lawyered?

But also, she said Evangelista was Londonio’s “cell buddy.” Not true (that was Pasqua) and she should have remembered this because it was a huge issue in pre-trial hearings.

MR. DiPIETRO: All I’m saying is, if he’s going to testify to a story, like I said yesterday, these e-mails are just there to improperly bolster him, and now we have issues of hearsay and we also have the issue of my client now being denied bail by you, and the jury’s goings to say, wow, the Judge denied him bail. Why is that? Is he dangerous? I mean, I don’t think this is — it’s 403 balancing. It shouldn’t come in. I made my objection yesterday. And now it’s just gotten worse. And the government hasn’t offered any good reason as to why —
THE COURT: Haven’t we been talking for months about this issue of Mr. Londonio being ticked off when he was erroneously informed that your client erroneously got bail?
MR. DiPIETRO: Yes, but your Honor had ruled this statement out and the sequence of how it happened as of a couple days ago, and now we have the issue where they’re trying to introduce the e-mails, and the e-mails are now going to bolster the idea that your Honor denied my client bail. And it’s hearsay. And they’re just saying, oh, it’s not offered for the truth. But it has serious 403 issues here. And I don’t see why he can’t just testify to his story, why we need these e-mails to come in to bolster his account.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, to the extent there’s a problem, it’s the same problem with the testimony as the e-mails. Why isn’t it prejudicial because it’s telling the jury that Mr. Crea’s been detained?
MS. ROTHMAN: So, to be clear, the defense has pointed to the second e-mail in the chain, which is after Mrs. Londonio tells Mr. Londonio that they are home or something. I’ll pull up the exact wording. Something a little ambiguous.
THE COURT: Jr. and Sr. are in house.
MS. ROTHMAN: Are in house. And then Mr. Londonio, the next day, responds interesting wow that’s great for them. And they’ve argued don’t believe CW-3, who’s going to tell you that Mr. Londonio was fuming when he learned that Crea Sr. and Jr. got bail because look right here, ladies and gentlemen, he’s happy about it. And then the entire chain shows that it’s a bit more complicated than that.

THE COURT: The rest of the chain shows that they’re in jail.
MS. ROTHMAN: The chain shows that there’s uncertainty for about two days, whether they’re in, whether they’re out. Mr. Londonio keeps asking what did you mean by that. And then it’s finally, only at the end, on the 14th of July, two days later, that Mrs. Londonio says they are in custody. So if the defense is not going to cross-examine CW-3 on the purported inconsistency between CW-3’s testimony and what e-mail number 2 suggests, then I think we could talk about removing sort of everything but maybe the first e-mail, but if they’re going to go down that line to question his credibility based upon these e-mails and what he says, then we’re allowed to introduce the whole picture. Again, your Honor can instruct the jury that they should not infer one way or another whether or not Mr. Crea and his son were on bail or not on bail, the jury should not use that fact in determining the guilt or innocence of any defendant, but I think we’re allowed to anticipate and respond to we expect to be a pretty extensive cross-examination of CW-3 today.

THE COURT: Look, I think I will tell the jury none of this is admitted for its truth, they shouldn’t infer anything about whether a particular defendant did or did not get bail and should not consider that fact in any way, but I don’t think it’s a huge surprise – I don’t think it’s – in the scheme of the evidence that’s been introduced, I don’t think it’s a huge surprise that somebody who’s an underboss of a crime family and who has a prior conviction for enterprise corruption might not be given bail. So I don’t think the jury’s going to say, whoa, now that I heard that he was detained pending trial, that changes how I look at him.
MR. DiPIETRO: I respectfully disagree. I think there’s a string of case law on this issue. I also think the fact that it is your Honor who denied him bail is extremely prejudicial for this jury to draw that inference.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t think that —
MR. DiPIETRO: And I think that’s why we have the marshals here and they’re dressed, because we try to avoid that substantial prejudice.
THE COURT: I mean, I agree, as a general matter, we do try to avoid that, but sometimes it comes in. Like, you know, all this evidence about the escape is coming in. I understand why someone would want to use the July 13th, 2017 7:46 a.m. e-mail to impeach Mr. Evangelista. Why is it that the government thinks that opens the door? So what if it later turns out that Mrs. Londonio was incorrect. The point is that Mr. Londonio said it’s great for them that they got bail.
MS. ROTHMAN: Your Honor, it’s the duration of the time period in which there’s uncertainty as to whether or not Mr. Crea Sr. and Crea, Jr. have received bail.
THE COURT: And what’s the importance of that timing?

Rothman then goes on at length (almost three pages worth) to explain and have a mini-strategizing session with the judge regarding the government’s theory. We’re not going to include it because it will be brought out in testimony. However, DiPietro finally got a word in before Siebel’s ruling:

MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, could I interject on this? I think there was a motion filed sometime prior. There’s also a phone call on June 21st with Ann Meldish where she reports to Londonio that they got bail and he says holy shit, great for them, that’s great. So the chain that my client’s in custody and you denied him bail is not relevant. He’s on notice that they got bail. His reaction is that it’s favorable. And now the government wants to get in that, no, he wasn’t really given bail and he’s now in custody and your Honor denied bail, and that’s the whole problem with this summary chart. It’s prejudicial.
THE COURT: And the whole problem is I’m learning this the morning he’s supposed to testify and neither side has given me the law. I know there’s law on how we should try to keep it from a jury that someone’s detained, but there are exceptions. I don’t know what the exceptions are. I don’t know what standard I’m supposed to apply. And that’s the problem with this whole trial.

Wrong again. The defense provided law which Siebel rejected, the government didn’t, throughout the “whole trial.” And then Scotten joined in because, well, he’s Scotten.

MR. SCOTTEN: Wait a second, your Honor. These e-mails have been marked as exhibits for weeks. If they wanted to move to exclude them, they should have moved to exclude them. The summary chart is a defense protest that, all of a sudden, the evidence is clear and the jury’s going to understand it.
THE COURT: Well, the summary chart’s fine.
MR. SCOTTEN: That’s right.
THE COURT: If the underlying evidence is fine.
MR. SCOTTEN: So they had it weeks ago. This isn’t a both sides issue.
MR. DiPIETRO: Let’s just be fair here. This was four days ago, and your Honor ruled that’s it’s coming in as of Monday.
THE COURT: What did I rule on Monday?
MR. DiPIETRO: That these statements were coming in about Crea. These weren’t coming in as of a couple weeks ago, it this issue — a few days ago.
MR. SCOTTEN: But they were coming in for like eight months.
MR. DiPIETRO: Well, you haven’t even authenticated the records under 902. We never got certification. So I don’t think they’re coming in anyway.
THE COURT: Well, that’s a separate problem.
MR. DiPIETRO: That’s a separate point. So we’ll see if that happens now. But, under 902, they’re probably not coming in. But we didn’t know —
THE COURT: I don’t remember what I —
MR. DiPIETRO: You ruled that the statement in which the Creas were implicated about this whole bail thing —
THE COURT: Oh. Right. That was on Tuesday.
MR. DiPIETRO: That was on Tuesday or Monday of this week. So the idea that I’m going to make all these arguments on the fly, you know, is really not that fair. We’re trying our best.

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. As it turns out the complete e-mails stayed in as did the chart only showing Londonio’s side of the e-mail conversation with his mother. Also, the statement that was talked about that Siebel forgot was the “Stevie and son” statement that was the crux of the government’s case against Crea. It was the statement Siebel had ruled out before the trial began and then changed her mind about after Carillo’s testimony and the government’s “evidence” that Spinelli would corroborate.

Plus, every other witness thereafter corroborated the nicknames, too, which is odd considering the government never mentioned any of that in pre-trial hearings or even in their argument after Carillo’s testimony. Also concerning is Siebel’s lapse of memory regarding such an important ruling that only happened a few short days ago as DiPietro stated. Take that as you will.

Let’s move on to the main event.
____________________________________________-

[mafiastudent]

Before Evangelista took the stand, the prosecution called Special Agent Timothy Geier who worked at the MDC at the time of Londonio’s bogus escape and was part of the investigation.

He testified to a lot of things, mostly about emails and money transactions for the prosecution, and a lot more interesting things for the defense.

But first, the prosecution decided that in order to prove its case, it needed to bring up something from Londonio’s uncle’s past. Yep, you read that right – his uncle’s past. completely irrelevant, but since tensions were high already, why not just take it up a few more notches.

MS. ROTHMAN: Your Honor, the government offers Government Exhibit 505.
THE COURT: It’s received.
(Government Exhibit 505 received in evidence)
MR. MERINGOLO: Judge, one minute. Can we see it?
THE COURT: Sure. You don’t have it?
MR. MERINGOLO: No.
(Pause)
MR. MERINGOLO: Judge, we would object. These are records from —
THE COURT: No speaking objections. One second.
MS. ROTHMAN: I have another copy, your Honor.
THE COURT: I got it.
(Pause)
THE COURT: Well, why don’t you go ahead and use it, but don’t put it up subject to potential future redaction.
MS. ROTHMAN: I’m not sure I fully understand your Honor’s ruling.
THE COURT: There’s some — all right, come to sidebar.
MS. ROTHMAN: Sure.
(At the sidebar)

MS. ROTHMAN: Mr. Goltzer has explained your Honor’s ruling to me. I think there are some things that are prejudicial in this.
THE COURT: I assume the problem is that it lists all of the crimes that Mr. Londonio’s uncle committed.
MS. ROTHMAN: All we’re looking to get in is the escape, the ’77 escape, which is consistent with the testimony that CW-3 will provide and, also, that’s already in the record from Mr. Foti from a few days ago. I can have him read that one piece of information off the form and then we can redact the other information. That’s fine.
MR. MERINGOLO: For the record, we would object that the escape from the ’70s comes in as to Mr. Londonio if he supposedly told Mr. Evangelista there’s no reason for the BOP to go back and get records to show that this happened. It’s just so prejudicial. It’s not relevant. The balancing test —
THE COURT: It’s corroboration of Evangelista, and to whatever extent it’s prejudicial to Mr. Londonio that his uncle is a crook, I think there’s already evidence of that to the jury. I don’t think the jury needs to know — it talks about narcotics and bribery and — I don’t think that all the details of Mr. Malizia’s prior crimes — but the fact of the escape, the probative value of that argument outweighs the prejudicial effect. The probative value of the other crimes does not. So, subject to the redaction of the other crimes, the government should just go ahead and question the witness about what it shows about the escape without putting the document up.

“His uncle is a crook.” Wow. She couldn’t have thought of a better and more impartial way to say that? That’s just so wrong in every way. And while she might not say that out loud to the jury, the fact she says it behind the scenes just shows how two-faced she is in relation to her job as a judge.

MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, just quickly, we want to make an objection because the escape is not relevant to me, but if the government’s going to keep offering prior consistent statements as to what Evangelista told him and then he acted on it, I would object because that’s improper.
THE COURT: I sustained the objection to what the witness was told by Evangelista. Then there were some questions about whether what you found was consistent with what Evangelista told you. That’s bolstering and I would have sustained an objection had there been one.
MR. DiPIETRO: I know, but I didn’t want to highlight it. I just want to avoid it happening again. The escape is not my count by Evangelista is are relevant I just don’t want the jury to.
THE COURT: You can just elicit from him what the facts are and argue at summation that what the witness found was consistent with Evangelista said, but you can’t do it ahead of time.
MS. ROTHMAN: I would just note that I don’t think it’s — we’re not going to go beyond anything else. He’s done testifying about Mr. Evangelista, but I will say that, in opening, Mr. Meringolo called this a government-created crime. I think that is a sufficient basis for us to introduce prior consistent statements of Mr. Evangelista. We’re moving on. Nothing else to say. But I will note that for the record.
THE COURT: I don’t even know what a government-created crime is. Maybe the jury does.
MR. MERINGOLO: We’ll see.

They should just call themselves The Untouchables.

MR. PATEL: Your Honor, just briefly, this material is not actually being offered to corroborate Mr. Evangelista. It’s actually being offered to corroborate Mr. Londonio, who Mr. Evangelista is an echo chamber. And we would ask your Honor — and, at best, it shows a genetic predisposition to escape, so it’s really pretty questionable —
THE COURT: It might show where he got the idea.
MS. ROTHMAN: Exactly, your Honor. Thank you.

Couldn’t have gotten the idea from Evangelista who had a prior history of escape. But let’s just go back to the 70s and bring in Londonio’s uncle. At this point, it is my firm opinion that the government is doing this specifically to get under Londonio’s skin because he didn’t bend over for them and flip despite everything they did to try to get him to do so. So, they bring up his brother (who had been killed by cops) and why not just throw in the “kitchen sink” by including his uncle, too?

MR. PATEL: Because no one ever thought of escaping from jail before, as your Honor noted the other day. Your Honor, we would again request the instruction that this has nothing to do with Mr. Madonna
MS. ROTHMAN: I don’t think that’s appropriate here, your Honor.
THE COURT: I don’t think anything this witness says could conceivably be considered against Mr. Madonna.
MS. ROTHMAN: So just where we left off, the government offers 505, but will not publish it to the jury yet.
THE COURT: Received subject to redaction.
(Government Exhibit 505 received in evidence)

BY MS. ROTHMAN:
Q. Agent Geier, looking at Government Exhibit 505, what is the name of the inmate for whom these records relate?
A. Ernest Malizia.
Q. And I only want to ask you one question. Looking at the —
THE COURT: You may lead if you need to.
MS. ROTHMAN: Thank you, your Honor.
Q. Looking at the bottom of the record, which begins CCMRMKS, there’s an entry that reads 77-CONSP escape, escape, and then(,ESCFM fed DETNCTR) What does that entry mean to you, Agent Geier?
A. The entry means to me that, in 1977, this inmate was charged with conspiracy to escape from a federal detention center.
Q. And was the inmate sentenced for that escape?
A. Yes. Five years.

So, again, if anyone can explain to me how this is relevant to anything, please do explain. And wouldn’t the inference to the jury, despite the redaction of Malizia’s offenses, tell the jury anyway that Malizia was in jail for something…thus painting a prejudicial picture as defense said?

But then Meringolo got his shot…and…well, it was a very hot courtroom for a while.

Geier testified that he only interviewed Evangelista for a half-hour after he confessed about Londonio’s planned escape. However, he didn’t interview Londonio. So, right there, it’s odd because you got a guy who’s a known liar and they don’t even take the time to “corroborate” the story he’s telling – especially since the guy was on a suicide watch?

A few hours after Geier talks with Evangelista, he calls the FBI and talks to Agent Chris Munger. And even though there are cameras in the cellblock and the footage is kept for two weeks, the FBI doesn’t ask for any footage or any other evidence to substantiate Evangelista’s claims.

Because what he claimed was that Londonio had gone into Evangelista’s cell and was working on his window to escape. So, wouldn’t checking out the camera footage be a quick way to verify whether or not Londonio had actually gone into Evangelista’s cell? But the FBI doesn’t want to verify that because they know the whole “confession” is a bunch of bull.

Plus, there were cameras in the parking lot, which they could have checked just to verify the outrageous claim that Londonio’s wife was dancing in the lot to see if anyone was watching? Because after he climbed out the window he was going to run through the parking lot where his dad would be waiting to whisk him away to freedom. But they didn’t bother checking for Londonio’s dancing wife, either.

So, the only evidence the prosecution had was a box of sheets that were supposedly found under Londonio’s bed which they proudly displayed for the jury. No dental floss, no hacksaw, no pipe, no razors…nothing else to prove this bogus escape. If you think about it, what did Londonio do with all these other tools he supposedly had and which Evangelista saw?

And it gets better.

Now, if you remember the story about this bogus escape, one of the things the media talked about was that Londonio had lost lot of weight beforehand so that he could fit through the window. But what was never discussed was the fact that Londonio was put into the SHU (special housing unit) after Evangelista told MDC officials about Londonio’s escape plan. This was on August 1, 2017. And this was when Londonio lost all that weight, not because he was planning to escape.

Meringolo is able to get Geier to testify about that a little bit, but the government is getting testy…and then they just explode.

First there was this:

Q. And do you know how much he weighed the day you put him in the SHU on August 1st, 2017?
A. You’re asking me if I know his exact weight?
Q. You know, he was a big guy, right?
A. No. He had lost a considerable amount of weight from the picture I saw of him.
Q. Oh, oh. Really? Okay. So your testimony is that, on August 1st, 2017, he lost a significant amount of weight?
A. I’m saying that, from the picture that I saw of him, he had lost a significant amount of weight.

Ant then a short time later this:

Q. Do you know my client was placed in the SHU for 19 months?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, your Honor.
MR. MERINGOLO: They put the evidence in. They put the evidence in.
MR. SCOTTEN: What does that mean?
MS. ROTHMAN: Relevance.
MR. MERINGOLO: They put it in. Want to pull it up?
THE COURT: Overruled. If it’s in, it’s in.
Q. You put my client in the SHU for 19 months, right?
A. I did not place him in the SHU for 19 months.
Q. Well, you know he was in the SHU for —
A. I have no idea how long he was in the SHU.
Q. Okay. And let’s describe what the SHU is. Tell the jury what the SHU is.
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Now, when Mr. Evangelista came to talk with you. Did you do an investigation on him?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q, Well, you went and got these bed sheets, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. Did you ever retrieve dental floss from my client’s cell?
A. Not that I can recall.
Q. Do you recall Mr. Evangelista telling you that my client wanted to cut the window with dental floss?
MS. ROTHMAN: Your Honor, objection.
THE COURT: Yes. I mean — well —
MR. MERINGOLO: He’s doing an investigation.
THE COURT: Yes, but the investigation is not what the trial is about, Mr. Meringolo. And as you know and as I would have told the jury at the end, but I’ll tell them now, too. It’s not the government that’s on trial, and the issue here is whether they’ve presented you with enough proof for you to find beyond a reasonable doubt that any defendant is guilty of any count. That’s what the trial is about.

And once again, the government is not on trial. Why do they have to keep saying that over and over and over? But then Meringolo doesn’t even get a question out before Rothman realizes things are going a bit haywire.

Q. During the meeting with Mr. Evangelista, did he tell you my client —
MS. ROTHMAN: Your Honor, can we have a sidebar, please?
THE COURT: Okay.
(At the sidebar)
MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, we have a serious issue.
THE COURT: Okay, but right now —
MR. DiPIETRO: Sorry, sorry.
THE COURT: Right now, the government has an objection. I’ll rule on it and you’re next.
MS. ROTHMAN: I have several objections, but I’ll deal with the one that brought us here and I’ll be as quick as possible. We were instructed and there was an objection to us eliciting statements from Mr. Evangelista on Mr. Geier’s direct examination. I don’t think it’s proper for Mr. Meringolo now to insert Mr. Evangelista’s statements into his cross-examination. You can ask Mr. Geier if he found dental floss.
MR. MERINGOLO: Let the Judge tell me, please.

Ah, but Mr. Meringolo, don’t you know they’re a team…they’re one and the same.

MS. ROTHMAN: You’ll have a chance to cross-examine Mr. Evangelista —
MR. MERINGOLO: I know you’re going to say the same thing, Judge, but —
THE COURT: You tell me why the question is proper.
MR. MERINGOLO: Why I believe the question is proper is that it’s relevant to what Evangelista told them was in the cell, meaning the bed sheets. Evangelista also has said we were going to use dental floss, we were going to use a saw, we were going to use this. So those things were not found.
THE COURT: So you can ask him if any of those things were found.
MR. MERINGOLO: I asked him if they found dental floss and they went crazy.
THE COURT: No.
MS. ROTHMAN: First, I didn’t go crazy. You should be more respectful. I objected to asking him if Mr. Evangelista told you those things.
THE COURT: You can ask about dental floss, an axe saw or whatever.

Somebody should write a book…

MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, I’m moving for a mistrial again because Mr. Scotten voiced to Mr. Meringolo something about him being a liar in front of the jury, and this is totally improper. And these things are just building up. My client has a very minimal amount of evidence in this case, and the prejudicial overspill of all these things is really denying him a fair trial. And the fact that Mr. Scotten voiced something like that — and the jury heard it — and I confronted him about it on the side just to make sure. He said I may have said he lied or something. This is improper.

Apparently, Scotten called Meringolo a “liar” under his breath, as reported by defense counsel..

What kind of soldier was Scotten? I’m having a hard time believing he was Special Forces because his immaturity is way out of control – not being able to control himself like that…but this sidebar is all sorts of juicy…

MR. SCOTTEN: I don’t think the jury heard it. So Mr. DiPietro is absolutely correct. It was improper. I don’t think the jury heard it, although I’m concerned now if Mr. DiPietro heard it. It was directed towards him. I certainly was wrong. I just – he’s out of control and it caused me to be out of control. It was inappropriate.

Seriously…WTF.

THE COURT: That was a little more out of control than Mr. Meringolo. Mr. Meringolo I do feel is disregarding my prior rulings from time to time. I ruled on the fingerprints, for example, and you are obviously trying to influence the jury with asking questions that you know are improper, and I’m going to start calling you out on it more directly. I’m just letting you know.
MR. MERINGOLO: It’s my fault for not knowing. I wasn’t here. I’m sorry.
THE COURT: I am just letting you know.
MR. MERINGOLO: I wasn’t here at the last pretrial conference, Judge.
THE COURT: You can —
MR. MERINGOLO: No, I got a list of some of the rulings. It’s my fault. I’m not blaming anybody else.
THE COURT: I’m just letting you know that I haven’t been calling you out as directly as I might, but if I see that again, the jury’s going to hear that you know perfectly well that I ruled that that was completely improper. So don’t do it.

And, Mr. Scotten – this actually applies to both of you. Your passion is commendable. The way you’re behaving is not. You, Mr. Scotten, you have to know that it’s completely out of line to say something like that whether or not in the jury’s presence. It is not what we expect from professionals, let alone Assistant U.S. Attorneys, number one. Number two, you shake your head yes, you shake your head no, you smile, you frown. Stone face.
MR. SCOTTEN: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: That is what we expect.

Okay, mom.

MR. SCOTTEN: Understood.
THE COURT: Write it on a sticky note and give it to Ms. Cohen if you need to vent. Don’t let it happen began.
MR. SCOTTEN: So this is my concern, and if I bring it to the Court, maybe I will do a better job of not venting. We actually had a conversation with both Mr. Meringolo and Mr. Freeman before trial. We spoke to Mr. Freeman in particular, and he assured me that he would inform his colleague of all of the Court’s pretrial rulings. And it should not be said in front of the jury. It is not that
he’s wrong. If you find the term unprofessional. He is consistently speaking untruthfully to the Court. He knows perfectly well what the rulings are. There’s no accident or mistake when he tries to insert, for example, you didn’t investigate a guy who was on suicide watch. And I do think, at some point, we have to stop pretending that’s he’s sorry and acknowledge that that is just an untruth he is telling the Court to cover blatant disregard.

Folks, this is my article, and I’m going to say it like it is…what a whiny little child (and believe me there’s a much stronger term I can use here.) How did Scotten become a U.S. Assistant State’s Attorney? Did he whine so much that the powers that be just gave him the job because they wanted to shut him up? I mean, I just don’t get it.

THE COURT: As I’ve said before, this shtick, it’s very entertaining, but Mr. Meringolo is way more sophisticated and smart than he pretends to be. So I am going to make sure testimony, if you continue to disregard my rulings and do things that could be regarded as —
MR. MERINGOLO: Improper. I know.
THE COURT: I’ll say improper. I’m going to call you out. I do not think that Mr. Scotten’s equally improper remark caused any prejudice to Mr. Crea.
MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, my concern is Mr. Crea only. And the way the events have proceeded since yesterday, I think the right word is pretending that he’s getting a fair trial. There’s a lot of things happening here between the late ruling, between the stuff that came in for two hours yesterday, the comment of the AUSA now in front of the jury and the cumulative effect of that, that he’s being deprived a fair trial. I’m not involved in these back and forths and I’m worried about Crea Sr. only.

THE COURT: Well, I’m here and I’m trying to evaluate the effect of all these things, and I don’t think any of it comes close to depriving Mr. Crea of a fair trial. I’m going to instruct the jury that they need to disregard the personalities of the lawyers and any comments they may make to each other, and I’m going to instruct them that any such comments are improper.
MR. GOLTZER: Judge, they may like a couple of us.
MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, I would rather you not highlight it.
THE COURT: I’m not doing this when the jury is here.
(In open court; jury present)
THE COURT: Before we continue, let me just instruct you, ladies and gentlemen, that sometimes lawyers get a little worked up. You are to disregard the lawyers’ personalities or anything they may say to one another. As I’ve said before, comments are improper. I hope all counsel will keep their comments to themselves. The only evidence comes from the witnesses and the exhibits and the stipulations. So I hope all the lawyers will be on good behavior and I won’t need to address this any further.
Let’s proceed, Mr. Meringolo.

Meringolo never got back to the SHU and Londonio’s weight loss, asking instead about logistical matters at the MDC in regards to visitors. But before he ended his turn with Mr. Geier, he asked this in regards to an email exchange between Londonio and his mother:

MR. MERINGOLO: Could we blow up this part. If you can kindly blow up that part. Thank you very much.
Q. And, sir, do you see Christopher Londonio writes on July 30th, 2017 at 9:35 p.m.?
A. Yes.
Q. He’s writing to his mother, Mrs. Londonio?
A. Yes.
Q. And isn’t it true he says see you tomorrow get me 2 hot dogs and 2 burgers please love ya goodnight? Right?
A. Yes.
Q. That’s not someone who’s trying to lose weight eating two hot dogs and two hamburgers. We could agree?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. Save it for your closing argument.
MR. MERINGOLO: No further questions.

Boom. There it is….

___________________________________

[mafiastudent]

That was pretty exciting, wasnt it?

The jailhouse snitch finally takes the stand. As expected, Evangelista tells a very detailed and interesting story about the events that happened when he met Christopher Londonio at the MDC. Rothman breaks it down.

Q. During what time period were you and Mr. Londonio together at MDC?
A. May to June, 2017.
Q. Were you with him —
MR. MERINGOLO: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.

May to June 2017? Huh. Interesting. I thought it was until August 1?

Q. What crime did you and Mr. Londonio commit together?
A. We were planning to escape.
Q. And how did law enforcement learn about the escape plan?
A. I told them.
Q. When did you tell law enforcement about the plan?
A. I told BOP staff.
Q. When?
A. In August, August 2017.
Q. And so for what period of time were you and Mr. Londonio together prior to you telling BOP staff about the escape plan?
A. Roughly three months.
Q. That would be May, end of May, June and July?
A. Yes.
Q. 2017?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, after you spoke with BOP staff, who did you speak with about the escape plan?
A. FBI.
Q. Now, whose idea was it to escape from the MDC?
A. Mr. Londonio.

Evangelista then describes how when he arrived at the MDC, he ran into a guy he knew from the MCC – an Albanian guy named RB who introduced him to Londonio. They were playing cards and he learned that Londonio was on the same cellblock as him. Even though Londonio had several other friends at the table, he apparently took a liking to Evangelista, so much so, that later “towards nighttime” Londonio invited him to come see him in the morning so he could should Evangelista “where we sit down for breakfast.”

After breakfast the next day, Londonio couldn’t stay away from his new friend and while they were playing basketball, Londonio inquires about Evangelista’s accidental release from the MCC which apparently Londonio had heard about. Then, according to Evangelista, Londonio says, “I wish that happened to me. I wish they made that mistake with me.”

So then, because this is how the government presents its questioning, Londonio finally gets around to asking about his new friend’s background:

Q. Now, before you discussed — you and Mr. Londonio discussed your accidental release from MCC, did he ask you any questions about your background?
A. Yes. Like where am I from, what neighborhood I’m from.
Q. And what did you tell him?
A. I told him the Sheepshead Bay area.
Q. And at that point, what did he ask you?
A. He asked me if I knew a few people.
Q. Who did he ask you if you knew?
A. Tommy Karate, Louie Daidone and Spinelli.
Q. Did you know any of those people?
A. I just heard of Tommy.

So, this guy doesn’t know anyone that Londonio knows, but yet two years after the fact, he remembers all these guys’ names, including Spinelli, which, by the way, he doesn’t even bother mentioning his first name. Now, I’m going to pull a little government trick here. Back when Rothman was trying to establish how Evangelista and Londonio met, she had asked about the people sitting at the table playing cards with RB. This is what he says:

Q. Who was he playing cards with?
A. Mr. Londonio, a guy Tony and a guy named Michael.

Tony and Michael who? Apparently it doesn’t matter to the prosecution unless it was Tony Montana and Michael Corleone. Who knows maybe Evangelista and Otto watched Scarface and The Godfather the night before and that’s how he came up with those names.

So while playing basketball – that next day after they met – Londonio goes into detail about being placed in the GEO facility. You need to think about the logic here and why this would be the next topic of conversation considering Londonio was in jail since 2015. Why would he speak about this specific incident? Well, we can tell you why, but we’ll play along with the government for a while.

Q. All right. So after Mr. Londonio asked about your accidental release from MCC, did you and Mr. Londonio discuss where he had been placed?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. He said the government — the government made a mistake and they put me in a GEO facility.
Q. And by me, you mean put him in a GEO facility?
A. Yeah. They put him in a GEO facility for eight days.
Q. Mr. Evangelista, do you know what GEO is?
A. I didn’t know at the time, but I found out.
Q. What is GEO?
A. It’s a place where they hold cooperating witnesses.
Q. And what, if anything, did Mr. Londonio say about his time at GEO?
A. He said when he was leaving, it was only a old man at the front desk and it was only one gate. It would have been easy
to escape from there.
Q. So after that day, did you and Mr. Londonio continue to speak?
A. Yes.
Q. How frequently would you speak with him?
A. Mostly the day.
Q. Who would you eat your meals with at MDC?
A. Him, Mr. Londonio, Alex, Michael. A few people.
Q. Is it fair to say you became friendly over time?
A. Yes.

Who’s Alex? And what happened to RB? Did Evangelista really mean Tony and just forgot?

Then “with time,” Londonio goes into even more specifics about himself. Notice, the government doesn’t want to get into the specifics of time because it probably wouldn’t look good if Londonio bares his soul to the guy he just met all the nitty gritty details of why he’s at the MDC.

Q. Now, just yes or no, Mr. Evangelista. With time, did you learn the reason that Mr. Londonio was in jail?
A. Yes.
Q. Who told you?
A. He did.
Q. What crime did he tell you he had been charged with?
A. Murder.
Q. Did he tell you the name of the victim?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What was the name of the victim?
A. Meldridge.
Q. Meldridge?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember his first name?
A. No.
Q. All right. Did Londonio ask you why you were there?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did you tell him?
A. The escape. And I told him the old case.
Q. The old case and the escape?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you tell him the details of your escape from the halfway house?
A. No. I just told him escape.
Q. Now, did you later tell him — withdrawn.

So, let’s analyze this for a moment. First, Evangelista can’t remember what Meldish’s name is, calling him Meldridge. And he doesn’t remember Meldish’s first name. But again, Evangelista can remember all sorts of specific details about every other conversation he had with Londonio. And when he talks about why he’s at the MDC, he just happens to mention the escape. That’s sort of logical, but, remember, they had already discussed Londonio being at the GEO facility and him mentioning he could have escaped, and Londonio already knew Evangelista had been accidentally released from the MCC. So wouldn’t it be more logical to think they would have had that escape conversation then?

And no other detailed conversation like who Meldridge was or something? I guess that’s coming later, but before we move on to the next section of testimony, consider this. If they had already established such a strong relationship in just two days with Londonio sharing all kinds of information, why would it take so long to talk about other stuff? I mean, they were best buddies by that time…why later in the summer? Ponder those questions as we continue with Evangelista’s story. Oh, and think about why the government only prefaces specific questions with “yes or no?”

Q, Yes or no. During that summer in MDC, did Londonio discuss with you his plan to escape from the jail?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Now, before we get to that, did Londonio tell you who, if anyone, he knew had previously escaped from a jail?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. He said his uncle escaped from a west side jail in the ’70s, that he had a priest help him escape.
Q. Do you recall the uncle’s name?
A. No; I do not.
Q. And what, if anything, did Londonio tell you about the fact that his uncle had used a priest?
A. Say that again.
Q. Sure. Let me rephrase that. Did Londonio say anything about a priest —
MR. MERINGOLO: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Don’t lead.
Q. Did you and Londonio ever discuss —
THE COURT: What else did he say about the uncle’s escape?
THE WITNESS: That he had a priest help him smuggle a key in and he went out the side door.
MS. ROTHMAN: I can move on, your Honor.

Evangelista can’t recall the uncle’s name but remembers that it happened back in the 70s and that it included a priest and a key. Yeah. Okay.

The detail in these informant’s stories just blow my mind:

Q. So let’s talk about Mr. Londonio’s escape plan. Without giving us all the details yet, through what – withdrawn. How was Londonio going to get out of MDC?
A. He was going to use the priest —
Q. Okay.
A. — to come see him to bring him an ax saw blade.
Q. Before we get to that, what was he going to physically go out of?
A. He wanted to go out — he was thinking about going out the vent first, but he said he couldn’t fit through it, most likely he couldn’t fit in the vent.
Q. So what did he is settle on what he was going to go out of?
A. The window.
Q. Was there a particular window that he picked?
A. Yes.
Q. Which window?
A. My window.
Q. Do you know why he picked your window?
A. He said the window was messed up. There was rubber popping out of the window.
Q. Describe how he — did he tell you how he knew that?
A. Yes. He said because he knew — he knew — he said that he knew people that helped build the jail, that it was a rush job. He knew some of the Gambinos that build the jail and it was a rush job.
Q. And so he knew there was an issue with your window?
A. Yes.

Now, seriously. Two years later and Evangelista remembers Londonio told him it was the Gambinos who built the jail, but yet couldn’t quite remember the name of the guy Londonio supposedly told him he killed?

Also, how the hell would Londonio even know that Evangelista’s window had an issue? Did he ask someone for the blueprints to figure out that it just happened to be his new best buddy’s window? I honestly have to say that if I was sitting on that jury, I’d have an extremely hard time keeping myself from laughing out loud.

Oh, by the way, that story about the Gambinos building the MDC came from another informant named Frank Fappiano who testified about that Family’s involvement during Peter Gotti’s 2004 conspiracy trial. And do you know who Fappiano’s FBI handler was? None other than Ted Otto. So, no wonder Evangelista was able to recall such specific detail on that point.

And Evangelista’s (or should we say Otto’s) story continues:

Q. All right. What materials did Londonio need to escape from jail?
A. Well, he was going to have the priest —
MR. MERINGOLO: Objection. Time frame.
Q. During the summer of 2017, what materials did Londonio need to escape from jail?
THE COURT: What did he tell you?
A. He was going to have the priest bring in a hacksaw blade. His mother was going to bring in dental floss for him and everything. And he was going to go through the window.
Q. Anything else?
A. Yes. He was going to have people outside waiting for him.
Q. Before —
A. And he needed sheets.
Q. Sheets. Before we get to the people outside, any other physical materials he needed — that he told you he needed to get out of
the jail?
A. He needed the sheets. He needed the hacksaw blade. He needed the dental floss. And he was using a pipe and a razor.
Q. All right. So I want to go item by item, Mr. Evangelista. You mentioned that he needed dental floss.
A. Yes.
Q. What was that for?
A. To go through the window.
Q. Did he tell you where he got the dental floss from?
A. His mother, he said.
Q. Okay. Did he tell you how his mother had brought in the dental floss?
A. Through a visit, visitation.
Q. Did you —
THE COURT: Let me just clarify something. Did he say he had gotten it or he was going to get it?
THE WITNESS: He had gotten it.

Q. Did you see the dental floss?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you recall where he stored it?
A. In his cell somewhere. I don’t know exactly where.
Q. You also mentioned that a metal pipe was part of the plan. What was the metal pipe for?
A. To go through the window. To chip out the window.
Q. Did he tell you where he got the pipe from?
A. From the kitchen area.
Q. And did you see the metal pipe?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Can you describe it?
A. It was like two inches long. It was a copper pipe. And it was like pinched — pinched on the bottom to make it look like a flat -like a screwdriver.
Q. And did Londonio tell you where he stored that metal pipe?
A. No.
Q. And before going on to the next item, can you describe what Londonio told you he was going to do with the dental floss?
A. To saw through the window.
Q. And specifically how was he going to —
A. I’m sorry. He was going to make two holes, one on each side, and put the dental floss through and saw through the window.

Just FYI something similar to this happened in upstate New York in 2015 when two guys used a hacksaw to escape from jail. But they didn’t cut through solid steel bars on a window. Instead, they cut through a metal steam pipe and then crawled through it to get to freedom. And in 2012 at a federal prison in Chicago, a couple of guys escaped using tied-up bedsheets to get out of a window. It was a bit more complex than Londonio’s plan, though.

But in regards to Londonio using dental floss to cut through the steel bars… In a 2009 MythBusters episode, they conducted an experiment to see how long it would take using that same exact scenario. Their results:

“Grant built a flossing robot, applied toothpaste to the bars (the grit used to clean your teeth, they reasoned, could be used to aid the floss), and let it run for a week. After a week, the bar had been worn away a fraction of an inch, which, by Grant’s calculations, mean that you can cut through one bar in less than 300 days if you flossed 8 hours a night.”

This was a robot sawing away continuously for 8 hours a night and it took almost a year to get through one bar.

We’ll just leave that there.

___________________________

[mafiastudent]

Amazingly, Evangelista’s story wasn’t quite done yet. And we’re still only hearing the prosecution’s side!

Q. Now, you also testified that he would use a blade.
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that going to be used for?
A. To go through the — there’s a — like a metal guard. There’s metal guards. To saw through it.
Q. Did Londonio tell you where he would get the blade from?
A. Yes.
Q. Where?
A. In his basement where his tools were.
Q. And how would he get that into the prison?
A. With the priest.
Q. Did Londonio tell you what, if any, steps he took to have a priest bring in the blade?
A. Yeah. He had to write — he had to e-mail the chaplain’s office and find out the protocol for his priest to come see him.
Q. Now, you also mentioned that a razor was part of this plan.
A. Yes.
Q. What was the razor going — what did Londonio tell you the razor was going to be used for?
A. For the side of the window. There’s caulking in the side of the window.
Q. And I think, finally, you mentioned sheets. What did Mr. Londonio tell you he was going to use the sheets for?
A. He was going to braid them up and put them out the window to go down the window. Sorry. Braid them up and wet them and put them down the window, out the window.

Whoops. Forgot a little detail there. They weren’t just sheets. they were wet sheets. You know, makes them stronger.

Q. Do you know how many sheets Mr. Londonio had collected?
A. I would say anywhere from eight to twelve.
Q. Do you know — did Mr. Londonio tell you where he was keeping those sheets?
A. Under the bed in a box.
Q. Did Mr. Londonio tell you where he obtained those extra sheets from?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. When people – when people get transferred, they got to – they got to put their sheets by the CO’s office, all the extra linen. He would walk over there, get the sheets and go back to his cell.
THE COURT: What does CO stand for?
THE WITNESS: Correction officer.
Q. Now, aside from collecting these materials, what else did Londonio tell you he needed to do before going through with his escape plan?
A. He had to lose weight.
Q. Now, give or take, how much did Mr. Londonio weigh during that summer?
A. I would say 240.
Q. And could you observe any changes happening in his weight?
A. Yes.
Q. Describe those.
A. He was losing a lot of weight because he was just running up and down the stairs, eating bran flakes all the time, getting people’s bran flakes. He was on a very strict diet.

Getting people’s sheets. Eating people’s bran flakes. Londonio was determined. So, if you were a CO at the MDC and you notice some guy making a major change in his behavior, wouldn’t that raise a red flag in your mind? I mean, he changes his eating habits, he starts exercising…and no one notices? And even if they didn’t notice that odd change of behavior, wouldn’t they have at least noticed how much weight Londonio was losing and question that? Why would he be doing that? Wouldnt’ you be curious if you were a CO? Aren’t they trained to notice details? It’s not like Londonio was in jail for something minor? He was being charged with murder. So, wouldn’t that raise an even bigger flag?

And, of course, all the players involved in this elaborate escape plan still needed to be identified:

Q. Was anyone assisting in the escape plan —
A. Yes.
Q. — from outside the jail?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. His father.
Q. What did Londonio tell you his father had done?
A. That he canvassed the area and, at 8:00 – past 8:00, there was no guards in the guard booths.
Q. You testified that Londonio’s mother brought in dental floss, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Aside from Londonio’s father and his mother, anyone else from the outside involved in any way in the plan?
A. His girlfriend. His wife. I’m sorry. His wife.
Q. What had his wife done?
A. He told her to go in the parking lot and dance. So she went into the correction officers’ parking lot where only they can park, where they park their cars. She went in there and she started dancing and nobody went over there to escort her out. No correction officers went over there to escort her out the parking lot. So he knew the security was lax.
MS. ROTHMAN: And, Ms. Becker, if we can pull up Government Exhibit 500, please.
Q. What did your windows at MDC look out on, Mr. Evangelista?
A. The correction officers’ parking lot.
Q. And is that what you see in the photograph?
A. Yes.
MS. ROTHMAN: Okay. We can take that down.

Of course, there had to be an after plan:

Q. Now, did Londonio, Mr. Londonio, have a plan for what he was going to do once he got out of MDC?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us about that plan.
A. His father was going to meet us across the street up the block. And he had money. He had $150,000 waiting. And he had guns. And his father knew somebody within the vicinity, a few blocks away. We were going to go to that house and lay low.
Q. So let me ask you about those guns. Did Londonio tell you where the guns were being stored?
A. In the basement.
Q. The basement of what?
A. The father’s house.
Q. And did Londonio tell you where his father lived?
A. In the Bronx.
Q. So after you and Mr. Londonio spent some time at a nearby house, where were you going to go next?
A. To Montecello. He had a house in Montecello that nobody knew about.
Q. What was going to happen up there?
A. We were going to stay there for a year. And he was going to get surgery done on his nose because his nose is noticeable and get some tattoos removed.

And here is the set-up to Londonio’s state of mind ala the federal government.

Q. Now, from the beginning, Mr. Evangelista, did you think that Londonio was serious about his plan to escape?
A. Yes.
Q. Why was it that you believed he was serious about his plan?
A. Because he was talking about it every day. And he was angry with a lot of people. And his – and his mother – his mother – what he told me, because she – he lost a brother to a shooting and everything, and his mother did not want to lose another son and everything, so she would rather see him on the run than spend time in jail.

So, you might be wondering why Evangelista waiting until August of 2017 to tell MDC prison officials about Londonio’s escape plan. Well, the government need to make sure there no gaping plot holes so Evangelista told the jury that he had first wrote his “lawyer a letter. I never got a response back. I was trying to go through him first.” But then one day in August:

Q. So what was it in August 2017 that prompted you to report this to BOP?
A. Because he called me — he came in from the rec. He called me into my cell.
Q. Let me pause you. You who is he?
A. Christopher Londonio.
THE COURT: Can you back off from the microphone just a little bit. That’s good.
Q. Go ahead, Mr. Evangelista.
A. He called me into my cell. Christopher Londonio called me into my cell. He told me to put the towel up. I put the towel over the door because it’s a window that you can’t see in and everything. He said just listen for noise. He went by the window. He took out the pipe out of his shirt and he went by the window and he went to the side of it and he started cracking at the window, on the sides of the window.
MS. ROTHMAN: Ms. Becker, can you please pull up Government Exhibit 501.
Q. Do you recognize that photograph, Mr. Evangelista?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that?
A. That’s my cell.
MS. ROTHMAN: We can go to 503.
Q. Can you describe what you see in this photograph?
A. Yes. The window.
Q. And particularly what can you notice about the window?
A. That it’s cracked.
Q. Do you see any damage to the window?
A. Yes.
MS. ROTHMAN: We can take that down.

Q. So after Mr. Londonio started chipping away at the caulking on the window in your cell, what did you do?
A. That’s — I got — I got scared. I got nervous.
Q. What did you do?
A. The next day, I wrote — because I was afraid to go to correction officers because Mr. Londonio was friends with a lot of them. They used to tell him who the separation was in the building. So I was afraid to go to the correction officer inside the unit. I wrote — I wrote the psychology services.
Q. What did you —
A. And I told them I need to see you; if you don’t come see me, I’m going to hurt myself.
Q. Mr. Evangelista, was the statement that you were going to hurt yourself true or false?
A. It was false.
Q. So if it wasn’t true, why did you say it?
A. Because I wanted to get their attention to come see me.
Q. What happened after you sent that e-mail?
A. They came about — I would say a hour later, they called me out, Mr. McCabe called me out, and he took me to the side office, to the case manager’s office.
Q. What happened there?
A. And I told him what was going on about the escape plan.
Q. Did the case manager ask you to do anything?
A. It was the psychologist. It was the case manager’s office.
Q. Did the psychologist ask you to do anything?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he ask you to do?
A. He asked me to go back in.
Q. Into what?
A. Into the unit.
Q. Did you agree?
A. I said — I said no.
Q. Why did you say no?
A. Because there was already — there was two Bloods that saw me go into the side office already and I was scared.
Q. So instead of going back to your unit, your cell, where did you go?
A. I went upstairs to 82 unit. There was nobody in the unit.

So, prisoners at the MDC can go into whatever unit they want and no one notices? And although Londonio had already detailed his elaborate plan, Evangelista just somehow realized that maybe Londonio would go through with it? He’s talking about dental floss, guns, razor blades, $150,000 cash, nose jobs a, tattoo removal and all this other juicy stuff, and that didn’t alarm Evangelista at all? He had already seen the dental floss and the bedsheets, and he said earlier he had also seen the pipe, so why did he just now realize Londonio was serious? Did Evangelista think Londonio was just collecting these things because he had some extra time on his hands?

Plus, all these things and nobody at the MDC notices? How is that possible? Was it like something from an Alice in Wonderland movie where things would shrink and grow in size? You know what this magical fantasy tale is missing? A soundtrack. So, we suggest queuing up White Rabbit by Jefferson Airplane and then reread this tall tale. It really sets the mood and gives the entire thing a new meaning.

The “very next day” Evangelista talked about Londonio’s escape plan with other staff at the MDC, eventually discussing it with the FBI. But, well, maybe Evangelista had too many magic mushrooms before he testified to this:

Q. Did there come a time after your conversation with Agent Geier that you spoke with the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. Now, Mr. Evangelista, prior to that time, had you ever met with the FBI to discuss Mr. Londonio?
A. Never, never.
Q. Had you met with the FBI to discuss anything?
A. Never, no.
Q. What did you tell the FBI during your meetings with them?
A. I told them about the escape plan and what Londonio wanted to do.

This is all a complete lie as proven in our background information on Evangelista.

Now, however, it’s time for the feature presentation – David Evangelista Testifies about the Murder of Michael Meldish.