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

[bert]

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

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

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

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

You have problems. Seriously.

[mafiastudent]

As in all fictional movies, the government needed to do a bit of set-up first (kind of like what they did to every defendant in this entire case with Crea being their main “villain.”) It’s called laying the foundation in legalese.

Q. Now, Mr. Evangelista, yes or no. Do you recall a time that Mr. Londonio came back from a court appearance and appeared angry?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, before you tell us about what you discussed, can you describe what made you think that he was, in fact, angry.
A. Because he came back real pissed off. I’m sorry. He came back pissed off from court.
Q. And did he say anything to you?
A. He said come here, I want to talk to you.
Q. And so where did you go?
A. We went outside.
Q. And what did he tell you?
A. No, I’m sorry. We went to my cell. I’m sorry.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. He told me that he went to court. Him and his co-defendants were put in the jury box, and everybody turned their cheek. The old man — nobody would say hello to him.
Q. Now, you said the old man and nobody would say hello to him.
A. Yes.
Q. At that point, did you know who the old man referred to?
A. No.
Q. Did you ask him?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. Madonna.
Q. Now, did you and Mr. Londonio discuss the reason, if any, he believed no one was talking to him?
A. That Mr. Madonna was going around calling him a rat.
MR. DRATEL: Objection, your Honor, as to operation of his mind as opposed to why he believed.
THE COURT: Lay the foundation first. So the question and answer is stricken. Lay the foundation for — well, actually, I think the
question was — let’s just clarify. Did Mr. Londonio tell you why he thought nobody was talking to him?
THE WITNESS: No. He just said that the old man, he’s calling me a rat.
THE COURT: All right. So this was attributed to Mr. Londonio, so the objection is overruled. But, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Londonio’s statement, if you believe it to have been made, that Mr. Madonna was calling him a rat is not admitted for the truth of the fact that Mr. Madonna was in fact calling him a rat, but only for the whatever effect it had on Mr. Londonio. It’s not evidence that Mr. Madonna was in fact calling Mr. Londonio a rat. And it’s not admissible against any defendant other than
Mr. Londonio except to whatever extent you find it reflects on the witness’ credibility.
MS. ROTHMAN: Thank you, your Honor.

What’s interesting is how Pennisi set this “shunning” story up when he talked about what happened to him at that wake before he turned rat. This just confirms that this what happens in a “secret” club…

Q. So just so the record is clear, Mr. Londonio told you that he believed Mr. Madonna had been calling him a rat, correct?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And how did Mr. Londonio appear to respond to the fact that he believed Mr. Madonna had been calling him a rat?
A. Very angry everything. Because he said all the work that he’s been — all the work that he’s done for the guy, Mr. Madonna.
Q. Did Mr. Mr. Londonio tell you what, if anything, he was going to do in response to —
A. Yes.
Q. — his belief that he had been called a rat?
A. Yes.
Q. What was he going to do?
A. That he was going to call Mr. Madonna’s lawyer and tell his lawyer to have him to stop calling me a rat.
Q. Do you know the attorney’s name?
A. I don’t know, no.
Q. Now, did you and Mr. Londonio ever discuss this incident again?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. Well, he came to me. He called me. He got up — he went on the phone. He came to me when he got off the phone and he says I just called Mr. Madonna’s lawyer and told him to tell his client to stop calling me a rat. And I told him I don’t think that was a good idea.
Q. Did Mr. Londonio tell you if anyone else had been calling him a rat?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Stevie Blue.
Q. What did he tell you — do you know who Stevie Blue is?
A. No, I don’t.
Q. What did he tell you about what Stevie Blue was doing?
A. That Stevie Blue was going around telling people that he was a rat.
Q. And did he give you any details about any encounters he had with Stevie Blue?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he tell you?
A. That he went over to the unit one day. He saw Stevie, Stevie Blue. He tried to talk to him and Stevie Blue was like, no, I can’t talk to you right now and everything.
Q. How did he respond to that?
A. He was very upset.

And don’t forget, the government tried to make Londonio look like a rat all the way back in 2015 when he was first arrested and charged with Meldish’s murder. Remember, all those informant stories “leaked” to Gang Land? And now they’re twisting their own tale to manipulate the jury even more..

Q. Now, you testified at the beginning that Mr. Londonio told you he had been charged with murder, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes or no. Did he discuss with you what role he played in the murder?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And what was that role?
A. That he was just the driver.
Q. Did he say who the shooter was?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What did he say?
A. He said his friend Terrance Caldwell.
Q. How did he describe his friend?
A. As a black guy.
Q. And before I go on, Mr. Evangelista, what word did Mr. Londonio use to refer to Mr. Madonna?
A. Boss.

Again with the exquisite detail, Yet, in the beginning, he called Meldish “Meldridge” and couldn’t remember his first name. But he remembers everyone else, their first and last names, nicknames, the color of their skin, titles and positions…everything – except the name of the guy who got murdered.

A major blunder by the government for sure, which they can’t fix without exposing themselves, so they just go with the flow and hope the jury doesn’t notice. How many of these other “witnesses” forgot Meldish’s name, too? Kind of odd, isn’t it?

Q. Now, yes or no. Did Mr. Londonio tell you the reason that Meldridge had been killed?
A. That he disrespected the boss and it couldn’t be fixed.
Q. Yes or no. Did Londonio tell you how he felt about having participated in the murder?
A. He said he felt used.
Q. And can you explain what you mean by he said he felt used.
A. He felt used because all the stuff that’s going around, people calling him a rat and everything, and that they knew that he was close with Meldridge and that he made the phone call to get Meldridge out the house.
Q. Did Londonio tell you who he felt used by?
A. Madonna.
Q. Mr. Evangelista, yes or no. Do you recall another time when Londonio came back to his cell angry?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did he tell you where he was coming from?
A. Yes.
Q. Where was he coming from?
A. From the computer. From the computer area.

Once again the government lies. If you recall, in pre-trial hearings the government claimed that Londonio was angry after a visit with his mother. They didn’t mention anything about Londonio coming back “from the computer area.” Also, notice how many times the government directs its witness to only answer “yes or no.” It’s obvious Evangelista is nervous. Sometimes he backtracks to give more detail in his answers. Sometimes he even apologizes before he fixes his blunder. He doesn’t want to make a mistake because he knows his performance is being rated.

Q. Did you speak with him after he came back to the cell?
A. Yes. He called me in the cell.
Q. And tell us what he said during that conversation.
A. Well, when he went in the cell and everything – his mother e-mailed him that Stevie — Stevie and his son got bail. He went in the cell. He bended down, took out a white piece of paper from a bin and everything, and he was like my mother just told me that Stevie and his son — Stevie Wonder and his son just got bail. He said these pricks had more to do with it than me.
And there you go ladies and gentlemen. A perfect example of what I just described. And the most important example – the very thing and the only thing that ties Steven L. Crea to the murder of Michael Meldish and Evangelista gets it wrong before he corrects himself. He says “Stevie and his son” TWICE before he finally clarifies and says “Stevie Wonder and his son.”

As a side note, in pre-trial hearings the govenment never mentioned that Londonio supposedly said “these prices.” If he truly said that, you can be sure they would have brought it out to prove their point. So, it’s clear this was added to bolster their story to the jury.

So, did the government have some sort of pre-determined facial expressions to let Evangelista know he needed to fix his mistakes?

Or is it possible that the FBI gave Evangelista some sort of earpiece where someone nearby gave the answers as he went along? Is that why he stuttered so much as he spoke? Could that be why he messed up Meldish’s name? He thought he heard “Meldridge” and that’s what he repeated?

Once again, we’ll leave that there. Now, it was the defense’s turn.

_______________________________

[mafiastudent]

First up to bat was John Meringolo who quickly establishes that David Evangelista is nothing more than a liar.

He clarifies that he learned everything about Londonio within the first 30 days of meeting him, although Evangelista originally claimed it was within a week. Maybe he realizes that it sounds like a bunch of bull, but his entire story about Londonio’s “confession” is about to collapse.

Q. Okay. Now, when you were proffering, you proffered about a number of things on your direct testimony, correct? You talked about the Meldish murder, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And Chris Londonio, when did he confess to every single thing that he told you? When did that happen?
A. That was in a matter of time.
Q. Over time, right? Right? Right away or it took time to get to know you or he just loved you from the beginning and said, oh, this and that?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, your Honor.
MR. MERINGOLO: Withdrawn.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Period of time give me. Was it within 30 days or was it after 30 days?
A. When we first started talking, it was a week.
Q. So he says I confess everything to you, Mr. Evangelista, and I want to escape within a week?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustained, Mr. Meringolo.
Q. He wants to get into this escape with you within a week of knowing him, right?
A. He starts talking about it.
Q. And then within a week knowing everything you said on direct testimony, it’s what you’re saying my client told you, right?
THE COURT: Sustained as to form.
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection.
Q. Everything my client told you about the Meldish murder that you told this jury happened within a week?
A. No, no, no, no.
Q. No? When? When did it happen?
A. Within time.
Q. Well, it’s only 65 days. When is the time? Within 30 days? Within 60 days?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection. Compound questions. Badgering.
Q. Was it within 30 days, sir?
THE COURT: That’s fine.
A. Yes, yes.
THE COURT: Everything that you reported you learned from Mr. Londonio. Did you learn it in the first 30 days?
THE WITNESS: Yes. Within the first 30 days, we spoke a lot.

Q. Okay. Now, you talked about my client helping you — my client wanting to escape the prison, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Okay. And you said that he was going to get his father involved, right?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Okay. And you also said that Mr. Londonio said that his father was scoping the area out, right?
A. That’s what Christopher told me.
Q. Okay. And you also said that his wife was dancing, right?
A. That’s what he told me, yes.
Q. Okay. Did you ever see his wife dance?
A. I never saw her personally, no.
Q. Did you ever see a video of his wife dancing in the parking lot?
A. No.
Q. Did you know his wife was in Las Vegas during this period of time? Did he tell you that?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Did he ever say his wife was in Las Vegas?
THE WITNESS: No. He never told me.
Q. Okay. And did he ever tell you that his father had triple bypass surgery in December of ’16?
A. No. He never told me that.
Q. Did he ever tell you that his father had multiple stents put in in the beginning of 2017 and the spring of 2017?
THE COURT: Sustained.
The record should reflect Ms. Rothman rose.

So, the two of them spoke a lot within the first 30 days. But they only talked about the escape and murder and nothing else? If they were such good friends, why wouldn’t Londonio have shared other information with him, like personal information about his father and wife – especially considering the two of them were pivotal in the big escape plan?

Why? Because he’s a liar and a patsy and it wasn’t his story anyway – it was probably Agent Otto’s. What is it with these FBI agents forgetting all the details?

He saw the dental floss that Londonio’s mother supposedly sneaked in the MDC in a balloon, but they never found dental floss in Londonio’s cell(only that big box of sheets.) And he never saw the hacksaw either that the priest was supposed to bring in. In fact, the priest didn’t have anything to do with Londonio at all even though Evangelista denies it:

Q. Okay. Isn’t it a fact that you asked Mr. Londonio — that you told Mr. Londonio that you had suicidal thoughts and he knew a priest and you wanted him to ask a priest to speak with you? Isn’t that true, sir?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: Answer it?
THE COURT: Yes.
A. Never, ever.
Q. Never?
A. Never.

And then the truth is revealed…

Q. Okay. So from June — or say June 1st until August 1st, 60 days, there was no hacksaw?
A. No, sir.
Q. There wasn’t?
A. No.
Q. So then he couldn’t escape — his plan, he couldn’t have an escape plan, correct? If he doesn’t have the hacksaw, how’s he going to get out?
A. He was trying to see how the procedure was for the priest to come in to give him the hacksaw blade. That was part of his plan.
Q. But you said you were so nervous. That’s why of you went to SIS. Right? Because he damaged the window, you said.
A. Yes.
Q. What did he damage the window with?
A. The pipe. The two-inch copper pipe.
Q. But he didn’t have the hacksaw to get out, right?
A. No, he didn’t.
Q. Okay. So why were you — if you knew he couldn’t get out, you were so nervous?
A. Yeah.

He never did get to explain because the prosecution objected and the Judge sustained.

Since the entire murder charge was basically based on a “he says he says” type of premise, the only thing the defense had was to discredit Evanglista. One of the issues, besides the timeframe, was the letter Evangelista wrote to his lawyer before he went to his prison psychologist to tell him about what Londonio had said. Franklin asked him about that:

Q. Now, when you went to speak to this — you wrote your lawyer two letters, right? You wrote him a letter in June that was going to be a letter about your sentencing, right? You remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you wrote him a letter in July, July the 17th, that you were asked about that was going to be about your attempt to cooperate; is that correct?
A. Attempt to cooperate?
Q. Well, you told him you had information about ISIS, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told him you had information about an escape?
A. Yes.
Q. And that’s what you said in the letter?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On July the 17th, when you wrote the letter, that was two months after you had met Mr. Londonio; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Because you met Mr. Londonio in May of 2017, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And as of the June letter, you weren’t telling your lawyer that he was confessing to a murder, were you?
A. I didn’t say nothing in the letter.
Q. Okay. And in the July 17th letter to your lawyer where you discussed ISIS, you didn’t write to your lawyer he told me about a murder, did you?
A. I didn’t get into detail in the letter, no.

Q. The answer is you didn’t write to your lawyer on July 17th about a murder, correct?
MS. ROTHMAN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. You may answer.
A. I didn’t put the details inside the letter, no.
THE COURT: Did you put anything about the murder in the July 17th letter to your lawyer?
THE WITNESS: No, no; I did not.
Q. Not one syllable about that murder in the July 17th letter to your lawyer, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you had been with Mr. Londonio by that time for two months; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And on your cross-examination yesterday, did you tell the jury that either by the time 30 days had gone by or 60 days had gone by, you had all the information about the murder from Mr. Londonio?
A. Yes.
Q. And even though you say you had all of the information about the murder, you didn’t tell your lawyer in the July 17th letter I have information about a murder; isn’t that right?
A. Yes.
Q. In the June letter to your lawyer, you weren’t discussing cooperation at all, correct? You were discussing your sentence?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were telling your lawyer the things that he could say to the judge to get you a lesser sentence, correct?
A. I don’t recall that, sir.

Then Goltzer steps in to try to prove the guy’s a liar with ulterior motives, but Siebel blocks his way.

MR. GOLTZER: May I approach the witness?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. Take a look at what has been marked as TCC for identification.
MS. ROTHMAN: 3502-13?
MR. GOLTZER: Yes.
MS. ROTHMAN: What page?
MR. GOLTZER: The whole letter.
Q. Take a look at that and see if it refreshes your recollection as to what kinds of things you suggested your lawyer might say at sentencing.
THE COURT: I have to say, Mr. Goltzer —
MR. GOLTZER: I’m sorry, Judge?
THE COURT: — I’m not seeing that really to be a fair characterization.
MR. GOLTZER: Well, he agreed with it, Judge. He said that’s what it was.
THE COURT: Okay.
A. I’m just talking about my mistaken release.
Q. All right. I’ll withdraw the question, then.

Later, Goltzer steps up to the plate and Evangelista’s story changed again about when Londonio “confessed”:

Q. And you heard that stuff about Mr. Londonio or it was just he who told you? Did you hear any gossip about Mr. Londonio?
A. He told me his case. He told me.
Q. He told you his case in the first couple of days, first month?
A. Well, the first week.
Q. He told you about his case?
A. He told me about the GEO accident in the first week.
Q. He told you about GEO?
A. Yes.
Q. And he was ticked off?
A. Yeah. Then he said I’m being charged with a shooting I didn’t even have nothing to do with. I was just the driver. Yes.
Q. Well, let me get this straight. In the first week, he told you I didn’t have nothing to do with this, I was just the driver? In the first week?
A. Yes. That I’m being charged.
Q. Well, there’s a difference between saying I was the driver and I’m charged with being a driver, isn’t there?
A. Say that again.
Q. Do you see a difference between somebody telling you I’m charged with being the driver as opposed to I was the driver?
A. No. He told me he was the driver.
Q. In the first week?
A. Yes.
Q. So he confessed to you in the first week?
A. That’s what — yes.

So, first according to Evangelista, Londonio “confesses” within time, then it was a week, then it was back to “within time” or within 30 days or something like that and now it’s back to a week? If this guy can’t even get his dates straight – ala all the Coddington Club Invasion controversy – why should anyone believe that any part of Londonio’s supposed “confession” is accurate?

And then it was time for Rothman to ask more questions, and this time, she felt the need to clarify some points, because after all, Evangelista isn’t anywhere close to being a liar.

BY MS. ROTHMAN:
Q. Now, Mr. Evangelista, do you recall being asked on cross examination about the time you left the halfway house in December of 20 — in November of 2016?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were charged with escape for that conduct; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did your escape from the halfway house involve cutting through any bars?
A. No. No.
Q. Did your escape involve breaking any windows?
A. No.
Q. Did it involve stockpiling sheets under your bed in a box?
A. No.

Okay. I guess it doesn’t matter that the guy was had a history of escape…but let’s just clarify that his escapes were different than the one proposed by Londonio. We shouldn’t take that into consideration at all, but let’s talk about Londonio’s uncle back in the 70s because that’s valid.

Q. Can you explain how it came to be that over the course of the summer you learned from Mr. Londonio about his involvement in the Meldish murder and the escape plan?
A. From him.
Q. Was it all at once or was it over time?
A. It was over time. Period of time.

Again, the government can’t figure out a timeline even though Evangelista testified numerous times and it was presented by the government in pre-trial hearings, that Londonio’s confession happened within a week.

She then goes back to that lawyer letter:

Q. Now, when you wrote this letter, did you put every detail of Mr. Londonio’s escape plan into this letter?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because I didn’t know who was going to look at the mail. I didn’t want to get into detail in a letter.
Q. Did your attorney respond to this letter?
A. No.
Q. Now, during the summer of 2017, was there a time when you agreed with Mr. Londonio to escape from MDC?
A. Yes.
Q. And you pled guilty to that conduct; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You were asked on cross examination about when you reported Mr. Londonio’s escape plan to BOP; correct?
MS. ROTHMAN: We can take that down. Thank you, Ms. Becker.
A. Yes.
Q. You testified you were nervous; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Why were you nervous?
A. That day? Or what led me to talk to the staff people?
Q. What let you —
A. I was — I was nervous to talk to the staff, the regular staff, the security people, the COs, because Mr. Londonio had a lot of them in his pocket. They would tell him who the separation was. They would were going on computers for him. So I didn’t want to get involved with that. So I got in touch with the psych, but it was the night before he started doing that with the window, that’s what made me very nervous.
Q. Nervous about what?
A. They we would get caught.

Q. Now, when you first sat down with —
A. I — I’m sorry.
Q. Go ahead.
A. I knew I couldn’t bring this out earlier, I didn’t want to — I didn’t want to tell Londonio —
MR. MERINGOLO: Objection.
A. All right.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. Go ahead, Mr. Evangelista.
A. I didn’t want to tell Londonio, you know, I didn’t want no part of it because I was scared that I was going to get kicked off the table and other things were to happen, and I didn’t want to go back to SHU because I was suffering a lot in the SHU, in the Special Housing Unit.

He didn’t want to say anything in the letter because he thought Londonio would see it? Okay.

Goltzer returns one more time. He also asks about the letter.

Q. Now, we can still agree, can’t we, that there is not one word in this July 17, 2017, letter about the Meldish murder?
A. No, there’s not.
Q. And that was two months after you met Mr. Londonio?
A. Yes.
Q. That was after you got information from him, what he was charged with and the things you went over on the cross examination I did?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you said you were concerned — in response to the prosecutor’s questions on redirect examination, you were concerned about who would read this letter; right?
A. Yes.
Q. And were you concerned about who would read this letter because it might expose you as a tattletale?
A. Yes.
Q. But the letter by its very words exposes you as a tattletale; doesn’t it?
A. All right; yes.
Q. So if you added a few more details, such as details about a murder, it wouldn’t have changed anything about exposing you as a snitch; would it?
A. I wasn’t looking at it like that.
Q. The answer is it wouldn’t have exposed any differently, you were exposing yourself as tattletale.
A. I would not put names in there.
Q. You would talk about murder without mentioning a name; right?
A. I guess, yes.

And that’s the end of that. It’s clear that Evangelista’s entire story was nothing but a lie.

END of this part --

[mafiastudent]

Petey Bullshit
On October 29, Peter Lovaglio, – aka Petey Bullshit – took the stand to testify about the armed invasion of the Coddington Club (how Robert Franklin described it during cross-examination) that allegedly occurred in 2012.

He told AUSA Cohen, the incident took place after an alleged Lucchese “associate” told alleged Bonanno “soldier” Johnny Joe Spirito at a wake that the Lucchese Family was no longer going to recognize alleged Bonanno “boss” Mike Mancuso because there was a rumor he was a rat.

Q. Did there come a time after you were made captain when there were rumors spreading about Mancuso?
A. Yes.
Q. And in basic terms, what were those rumors?
A. That he might — some people were calling him a rat.

Did he mean to say Massino? Did the government screw up again with their “facts”? Or maybe they just wanted to start a new rumor to see what they could fish out of the pond.

Sometime after the wake, Spirito met with Lovaglio at a Staten Island park to tell him what he had heard and he wasn’t too happy.

Q. What did he tell you?
A. He said he was at a funeral for a Lucchese member, an associate, and he was approached by a member of the Lucchese family and that they stated they weren’t going to recognize Mike Mancuso.
Q. What does it mean to not recognize Mike Mancuso?
A. It means you’re not recognizing the Bonannos.
Q. And what was Johnny Joe’s reaction to what he heard at this funeral?
A. Oh, I wasn’t there when he was at the funeral parlor, but his reaction to me was pretty serious at the park.
Q. What was your reaction?
A. Surprised.
Q. Why were you surprised that Johnny Joe had that reaction?
THE COURT: Were you surprised at Johnny Joe’s reaction or what the Lucchese member —
A. I was surprised both, actually. I was surprised a Lucchese member would make a statement like that and I was also surprised his reaction was pretty emotional.
Q. But why did you think that — why were you surprised that Johnny Joe had an emotional reaction to that?
A. Because I mean, listen, that can happen. I mean, somebody, some knucklehead can make a statement like that. We’d be able to fix it at that point.

The two were then called to a meeting at a restaurant in Throgs Neck where they met with alleged “capo” Joe Sabello, Mike Facita, and alleged “consigliere” Ernie Aiello – all Bonannos – to discuss the perceived slight. There was talk that the response would be “show a strength, show a force” by going into the “Lucchese’s club or headquarters.”

Lovaglio didn’t like the idea and suggested instead that they “go in three captains and we sit down and figure out what this slight was, if there was a slight at all, and work it out.” However, Aiello shot it down. “He didn’t want to hear it, ” Lovaglio said.

They let it sit for a while and then they were all “called back” to the restaurant and “that’s the night we went in.”

Lovaglio said there were about “ten made members and I can’t tell you how many soldiers. There was a lot of people.” Some of them were armed, including Johnny Joe who had “a pistol.” Then they all drove to the Coddington Club, some going in the front door, and others through the back after they arrived.

Lovaglio entered from a back door and the first person he saw was Big John (Castellucci) sitting at a table. Lovaglio said, “John, please don’t do anything crazy. Let’s just make this thing play out.” Everybody else was “just standing around in certain areas of the club” while Johnny Joe and the Lucchese’s Richie DeLuca “were in the middle of the club screaming and yelling at each other.

Nothing serious happened and the Bonnanos eventually left the club, but before leaving, Lovaglio had an interaction with Crea. Previously, Lovaglio had testified that he never met Crea, only knew “of him,” and had only “seen” him this one time in 2012. He described that encounter:

Q. What did you do as you were leaving the club?
A. I looked at Stevie and I just nodded to him.
Q. Why did you nod at Stevie?
A. Well, I kind of let him know that, you know, we were ordered to do it. The nod means a lot in this life sometimes.
Q. Why was it is important to you to nod to him and suggest that you were ordered to be there?
A. Well, the position he held and the respect we had for him.
Q. Did you see Crea do anything while you were in the club?
A. Ah, yes.
Q. What did you see him do?
A. It was an individual with us that I just met that night. Big German kid by the name of Carl, and he pointed to Carl and said, I won’t forget you.
Q. Now, had you seen Carl do anything during the course of the confrontation inside the club?
A. Yeah, when we first walked in there was a guy cutting fruit and he took the knife off the guy that was cutting fruit.
Q. Was it your impression that this knife incident was what caused Crea to point at Carl and say, I won’t forget you?
A. No, I don’t know if he even seen it.
Q. So what was your impression of why Crea had pointed at Carl and said, I won’t forget you?
MR. FRANKLIN: Objection, your Honor. Speculative.
THE COURT: Lay the foundation first.
BY MS. COHEN:
Q. Did you observe the interaction between Crea and Carl?
A. I did.
Q. Based on what you observed with respect to Mr. Crea’s reaction, in general terms, what was your impression of what caused that reaction?
A. There was more to it than just us walking in that club.

Whatever, the “more to it” was, Rothman didn’t delve into it, but she did delve into the ensuing conversation Lovaglio had with Spirito at another meeting on Staten Island. Spirito told him “there was an assassination attempt on the kid Carl” which apparently happened “the next day.”

He didn’t know what happened after, only saying: “To this day, I don’t know if it’s ever resolved. I don’t know if it’s resolved. It just played out. There was an attempt on the kid, Carl, and I believe there was an attempt on one of their guys, meaning, you know, to kill them, and then it just died out at that point.”

So, that was it? That’s the government’s proof? I was expecting so much more. Disappointing, but Lovaglio hadn’t yet been questioned by the defense, so there was more to come.

Since much of this trial was based on hearsay and rumors, it made sense for Franklin (Crea’s attorney) to question Petey Bullshit about what hearsay and rumors meant to him. There is no way to describe Lovaglio’s answers except for you to read it yourself:

Q. You hear about things sometimes they’re rumors or things you just hear. You have no way of knowing if they’re correct or not; right?
A. Yes.
Q. So for instance, you mentioned something about you heard or you heard a rumor about Mancuso being a rat.Do you remember testifying about that?
A. I didn’t hear a rumor about that. I heard Johnny Joe Spirito tell me that it was said by a Lucchese member.
Q. So that means you got information from someone else who had gotten information from someone else, and that’s what they’re talking to you about; is that right, in that instance?
A. No, I don’t agree with that.
Q. It refers to Mr. Mancuso; correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And then someone heard someone mentioned something about him who told it to the person who told it to you; is that right?
A. No, the person that told it to me was told to him by somebody else. He didn’t hear it from somebody else. He was told it. It wasn’t where that person heard it and it was a rumor. That individual told Johnny Joe that Mike Mancuso is a rat, according to the Lucchese Crime Family.
THE COURT: So Johnny Joe told you —
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE COURT: – that he heard from someone else that someone in the Lucchese family said that –
THE WITNESS: He said that’s the Lucchese family’s position.
THE COURT: Said that the Lucchese family is of the view that Mancuso is a rat.
THE WITNESS: Right.
BY MR. FRANKLIN:
Q. So in that instance it’s three – it’s coming from Lucchese to Johnny Joe and then to you; is that right?
THE COURT: No, it sounds like you skipped one. It’s going from Lucchese to the person who spoke to Johnny Joe to Johnny Joe –
MR. FRANKLIN: Oh, that’s right, there’s actually a fourth person.
THE COURT: Is that what you’re saying?
THE WITNESS: No, it went from the person in the funeral home to Johnny Joe to me.
THE COURT: Okay. I misunderstood.
BY MR. FRANKLIN:
Q. When you heard that, you had no personal knowledge that you had witnessed yourself of whether that was true or not.
A. Right. I didn’t hear it myself; correct.

At the time, Lovaglio witnessed the armed invasion of the Coddington Club, Lovaglio was already an informant. However, he failed to report the incident to his NYPD handlers, but he had a good excuse for why he didn’t.

Q. So when you knew that, whenever that first meeting was, you did not think that was important enough to tell the NYPD that something may happen, we’re going to go to a club. Someone is going to have guns, things of that nature? You didn’t think that was worth telling them?
A. I didn’t think it was my obligation to tell them at that time.
Q. What was your purpose in acting as an informant for the NYPD?
A. It was to give historical information and to identify photos.
THE COURT: What were you getting out of it?
MR. FRANKLIN: That’s what I was getting at.
THE WITNESS: Oh, what I was getting was I was not getting 24 months in prison at that point. I was only getting a four-month slap on the wrist with the violation.

I seriously wish I could have heard this testimony because this guy sounds like a moron and hearing his voice would have just added so much more to his, well, bullshit.

Lovaglio did eventually report the incident to the NYPD – reportedly on July 31, 2012, according to NYPD Detective Keller who testified after Lovaglio and said that was the day he took the report. Either way, based on that information and Lovaglio’s testimony, the Coddington Club Invasion had to have happened before July 31, 2012, and the alleged attempted murder of Carl Ulzheimer the day after that. This is an important point to remember when Zoccolillo takes the stand the following day.

Also, consider this. If law enforcement was aware that there was going to be an armed confrontation between Families that were under active investigation, they would have been watching the club, right? But then again they were already watching the club and had been taking photos on a regular basis. Yet, there were no photos of this incident. You’d think that even if they didn’t know about it beforehand – that a bunch of guys storming a club would have gotten their attention and the cameras would have been whirring.

But what do I know?

Then Franklin got into the specifics of the Coddington Club Invasion:

Q. The only time you said you physically saw Steve Crea was that day sometime in 2012?
A. That’s correct.
Q. I think you said when you got there, did you wait for all the other guys to get there as well before anybody went in?
A. A lot of guys got there simultaneously.
Q. And you said you went in the back?
A. Correct.
Q. The back door. And did some of the other people in your group go in the front door?
A. Yes.
Q. And did all of you enter the club? We’ll call it social club?
A. Did all of us enter?
Q. Of all of the people you said between 20 and 25 people, did they all enter the club?
A. No, there was guys outside. About ten of us went inside.
Q. So about ten of you went inside and you came in from the back, did some of the people you were with come in from the front?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it evenly split, five and five, or something else, if you know?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. You don’t remember.
A. No.

Twenty-five guys and the FBI missed it…damn.

Q. Now, the club itself is a long — is it a rectangular room; is that right?
A. Rectangular?
Q. Yes, as opposed to square.
A. It looked square to me.
Q. It had round card tables?
A. I don’t remember what kind of card tables there were. It was tables in the back.
Q. But you remember that there were people playing cards. You testified to that.
A. There was people there and there were some cards on the table, yeah.
Q. Were there people playing cards at both tables?
A. I don’t remember how many people were playing cards.
Q. Other than what I am going to call the Bonannos, which are you people, coming in, how many people were in that club just as you got in there?
A. 10, 12, maybe; maybe more.
Q. So 10 or 12 or perhaps more, and then maybe 10 of your group, so that would be about 20 or 22 people in this club; is that a fair estimate?
A. Yeah. Well, there was — so guys that went in the back stayed in the back, a little area back there, and the guys that went in the front, stayed in the front.
Q. So since you came in the back, you stayed in the back.
A. Correct.
Q. Now, did you know any of the people, non-Bonannos, not the people you came with, but the people who were already there, had you met any of them before that moment?
A. At any time in my life?
Q. Yeah. Any time?
A. Yeah, I knew John. I knew Joe DiNapoli.
Q. You knew two people.
A. Yes.
Q. And were they there?
A. Yes.
Q. Were they in the front or the back?
A. They were towards the back.
Q. So that was closer to where you were?
A. That’s correct.
Q. You said that somebody was yelling, the two people were yelling at each other, or screaming, something like that?
A. That’s correct.
Q. From the Bonanno side, who was it?
A. It was Johnny Joe.
Q. That’s the same Johnny Joe, the one with the gun?
A. Yes.
Q. And the person, the non-Bonanno who was screaming and yelling back at him, who was that?
A. Richie DeLuca.
Q. Had you ever met him before?
A. I think I might have met him once. I don’t remember. I might have met him once.
Q. So you’re not sure?
A. I’m not sure. I might have met him once.
Q. So as you sit here now, your recollection is of the non-Bonannos who are in that club, you had maybe Richie DeLuca and you had known two others. So you knew three of the approximately 10 or 12 non-Bonannos who were in that room; correct?
A. That’s correct.

That’s a lot of people to be in a small square room…how many? 30 or 40? And Lovaglio was able to see everything, even a little knife. Me? I’d be paying attention to the drama between the two guys yelling at each other just to make sure Johnny Joe didn’t pull a gun or that Richie didn’t throw a punch, but…

Q. For how long a period of time did this entire encounter take place. And the starting point would be when you talk walked in, and the ending point would be when you walked out. How much time elapsed?
A. I don’t know, I’d be guessing at this point. Maybe 10, 15 minutes.
Q. And during that 10, 15 minutes, other than the two people you’ve described yelling and screaming at each other, was there any physical contact? Any punches thrown? People thrown to the ground?
A. No.
Q. And you described that a person who you described as Carl, who was a large German kid, took a knife away from someone who was cutting fruit; is that right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And was that in the front or the back?
A. That was in the front.
Q. So the person cutting the fruit, the non-Bonanno, was towards the front of the club?
A. Correct.

OMG. This guy is such an idiot.

Q. And when you say, a knife, is it a big knife or a little knife —
A. No.
Q. — if you recall?
A. Little knife cutting fruit.
Q. I can’t hear you.
A. Little knife cutting fruit.
Q. Was the blade less than three, four inches?
A. Yeah. Probably, yes. I’m in the back. I can’t see the size of the knife, but I don’t assume it to be big.
Q. All right. So you’re not quite sure, but you know it was a knife.
A. Yeah.
Q. So were you actually able to see him take away the knife or were there other people in the way since you’re in the back and he’s in the front, and we’ve got 20 people or so, are they blocking your view?
A. No.
Q. You were able to see that?
A. Yes.

Lovaglio’s powers of observation and attention to detail was outstanding. No wonder the FBI loved him so much.

Q. And other than Johnny Joe and Richie DeLuca, were they yelling the whole time at each other?
A. Pretty much.
Q. Was anybody else making noise and yelling and screaming with them or is it basically them?
A. Just those two.
Q. And everybody else was just standing around?
A. Yep.
Q. The people who had been playing cards, were they seated when you first walked in?
A. Yes.
Q. Did they stand up at some point?
A. No.
Q. So all of the people who had been playing cards remain seated, according to you?
A. Yes.
Q. So when — okay. Now, you said at some point while you were there you said please don’t do anything crazy, or words to that effect.
A. I said that to John, yeah.
Q. That’s what I was asking. Who did you say that to?
A. John, Big John.
Q. So he was there as well?
A. I said that. John and Joe DiNapoli that’s the two I knew.
Q. He was towards the rear where you were.
A. Yes, sitting in the back. Yeah.
Q. Did you yell at him or did you speak in a normal voice?
A. No. No. Very normal, very quiet.
Q. So the entire time, there was no actual violence. Nobody hit anybody. There was nobody fired a gun. There was nothing of that kind; correct?
A. No.
Q. The only actual touching, perhaps, would be the person who took the knife away from the other person?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And as far as you saw that, that was not a violent act. It was just taking it away from him; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. As far as you were able to see?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Did you actually see that or just see the big German kid with a knife in his hand?
A. No, I seen him do it.

As you read the next part, think about this. Lovaglio said he had never seen Crea before this Coddington Club Invasion, so how was he able to identify him in this massive crowd of people?

Q. Okay. At some point you said you were able to see Steve Crea, a person you had never met before; is that right?
A. Right.
Q. And where do you say he was in the club when you were there?
A. Standing in the front.
Q. So you’re in the back and he’s in the front; right?
A. Correct.
Q. Is he right by the door?
A. Not too far from it, yeah.
Q. He was close to the door. Literally the front of the place.
A. Yeah.
Q. And you were asked what was the interaction with Carl and Steve. Can you answer that? What was the interaction, if any, that you saw?
A. I seen Stevie point to Carl and say, I won’t forget you. You I won’t forget, is exactly what he said.
Q. I’m sorry. What did you hear him say?
A. You I won’t forget.
Q. You I won’t forget. And you were able to hear that from the back of the room while he was in the front of the room; is that correct?
A. Yeah.

I guess the yelling must’ve stopped.

Q. And then how did everybody know to leave? Did Johnny Joe say something? We’re done here? What happened? How did you know it was time to go?
A. I don’t remember how we all left, but eventually we all left.
Q. So there was no particular sign or now we can leave? You have no idea why it is that you all left at a particular time.
A. No.
Q. Did you all leave at the same time?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you go out the back door?
A. I went out towards the back door; correct.
Q. And the people who had come in the front, they went out the front, as far as you recall?
A. Yes.

And then, finally, a little more hearsay about Carl Ulzheimer ala Petey Bullshit.


Q. Now, you said afterwards that you — well, this person that you described as Carl, the big German kid — that will be this event; correct?
A. Did I see him afterwards?
Q. You never seen him since then?
A. I have never seen him since then, no.
Q. As far as you know, he’s in good health?
A. I haven’t seen him since then.
Q. Nothing happened to him; correct?
A. Did anything happen to him? Yeah, they tried to kill him.
Q. Did you witness that?
A. No, I was told that.
Q. I’m sorry. You did what?
A. I was told that.

I just can’t stop laughing with this guy..lol.

Q. And how many people — the information that you got, came through how many people, if you recall?
A. Carl to Johnny Joe to me.
Q. From Johnny Joe to you?
A. Carl to Johnny Joe to me.
Q. So Johnny Joe told you Carl told him something.
A. Right. Somebody came to his house and tried to kill him,yeah.
Q. How much after this event did Johnny Joe tell you that Carl told him that something had happened?
A. How much time afterwards —
Q. Yeah.
A. — after he tried to kill him, he got killed?
Q. If that’s what you think he said, how many days passed?
A. The next day.
Q. The very next day. What time did this — going back to the event at the club, what time of day was it when this occurred?
A. I believe it was towards nighttime. I’m not sure exactly what time, but it was towards night.
Q. Towards night?
A. Dusk maybe. It was a little light still but turning dark.
Q. So you didn’t look at your watch and you can’t give me an exact hour, but your recollection is it was getting dark out when this occurred?
A. I believe so. This is a long time ago.

Two points to consider. First, Lovaglio said the attempt on Ulzheimer took place “the next day.” This is an important point to remember when Zoccolillo testifies. Second, Lovaglio is able to recall in stunning detail everything that happened inside the club, including the size of the blade on the knife..or was that just his assumption?

Still, he can’t remember what time of day this invasion took place? If it was that memorable, wouldn’t that detail stay with you, too? But I guess since he didn’t hear the information from someone else, it was bullshit he really couldn’t pass along.

_____________________

[bert]

In 1980 Crea did not want a gambling place in one of his spots, he had too much else going on. He separated himself form the street stuff early on. He did everything he could to distance himself from the street guys He had legit businesses and a few things of his own. He was an LE target for a long time. He wouldn't give a shit about Meldish if he even knew him.

[mafiastudent]

The Star Witness Stars in…a Side Story
On his first day on the stand under questioning by AUSA Cohen, Anthony Zoccolillo spent an exhaustive amount of time talking about the people he knew and dealt with who were alleged to be involved in “organized crime.” He described both his personal and business relationships with many of them although he himself wasn’t a “made” member or even an official “associate.”

He wasn’t on the stand to talk about the murder of Michael Meldish, but the attempted murder of Carl Ulzheimer after the Coddington Club Invasion of 2012. He did talk about Meldish a few times, but nothing in relation to the government’s main charge.

It’s strange that the prosecution would rest their case with a side story rather than the main event, but Zoccolillo was the government’s shining star, and he put on quite a performance. And he seemed to revel in the attention he was getting from both the prosecution and the defense when it came to clarifying the details about his Ulzheimer tall tale – it got pretty heated at times.

Zoccolillo started off doing plenty of name-dropping, picture identifying and talking about his relation to the Genovese Family, who he claimed relatives of his belonged to and also about his connections to the Lucchese Family.

Q. Did members of your extended family also have connections to the Lucchese Family?
A. Yes.
Q. With which Lucchese member in particular?
A. As far as my family?
Q. Yes.
A. Steven Crea Senior, Matty Madonna, I mean, a handful of them pretty much. Most of them.

He knew Joseph DiNapoli when he was “very young” and DiNapoli would have “Fourth of July parties as a kid and I went to, like two or three of them in a row, each Fourth of July, until we got older and then we stopped having them.”

Zocolillo was apparently a popular guy because his name-dropping continued. He met a guy named Joseph Lubrano, who went by the nickname Joey Relay, at a federal halfway house. After they both got released they started “hanging out” with Steven D “probably, four or five days a week.”

Q. What would the three of you do?
A. Go eat, go hang out in some social clubs or cafés. We usually meet up for breakfast at a diner called the Pelham Bay Diner. We’d go there probably a couple of days a week, or the Golden Eagle Diner in the Morris Park section of the Bronx. And then, from there, we’d kind of just bounce around throughout the neighborhood, you know, different social clubs or cafés.

And then the government wanted to confirm to the jury that Zoccolillo did indeed know Steven D by playing an audio recording:

Q. Do you recognize that voice?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. Whose voice is it?
A. Steven Crea Junior.

In 2004, Steven D “put up some money” for Zoccolillo and Joey Relay to open a social club.

Q. What was the club used for?
A. Mainly a hangout for us was — we were always kind of bouncing around. We started doing poker games, blackjack games, and they would have some meetings in there for the Lucchese Family.
Q. Let’s talk about those Lucchese meetings. What was your role with respect to the Lucchese meetings?
A. I didn’t have an actual role when the meetings were taking place, but the night before, or the day of, I would meet Steven Crea Junior there and Joey, and we’d get the place set up and you know, just go pick up some stuff whether it’s plates, cups, and food, stuff like that, snacks.

Notice how every time he talks about Steven D or even some other people, he always makes sure to say their full name. Odd for someone who was such good friends with someone to talk that way when in other testimony he uses more casual terms, calling people by their first name or nickname. Notice, too, that he didn’t have “an actual role in the meetings” even though he owned the club in partnership with Steven D and Joey Relay.

But Joey Relay wasn’t around for the meetings either.

Q. Where would Lubrano be during these Lucchese meetings at this time?
A. Um, he would stay up until the meeting was about to start, and then he would take off, and then I’d kind of shortly follow.
Q. Did you have an understanding as to why Lubrano didn’t say for the meetings?
A. Yeah. He was paranoid because he was on parole or federal supervised release and just feared, you know, being associated,with, you know, that high-level meeting, that he would get violated and sent back.

Since he was there until the actual meetings were about to start wouldn’t he know who was attending those “high-level meeting(s)” The government didn’t bother asking. Strange, considering that would be a major coup for them.

Zoccolillo then took off to California to commit his real estate fraud and Steven D and Joey Relay ran the club themselves. Still, Zoccolillo knew exactly what was going on.

Q. Based on your interaction between Lubrano and Crea Junior that you’ve described, did you reach a conclusion as to whether or not they were affiliated with organized crime?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. And what was your conclusion?
A. That they were Made members of organized crime.
Q. Which family?
A. The Lucchese Crime Family.
Q. And based on the same interactions, did you have an understanding of whether one of them was more senior than the other in the Family?
A. Yes. So, when I first started hanging out with the both of them, Joey Lubrano “Joey Relay” was a soldier in the Lucchese Crime Family, which it was explained to me that Steven Crea Senior really liked him and wanted to do that for him when he came home. And Steven Crea Junior was — I don’t know what his position was when I first came home, but there was definitely some kind of power level there that was — you could see that Joey Relay kind of just really respected Steven Crea Junior a lot, and it looked like he was his superior. But there was a time when Joey Relay was promoted to Captain, so at that point, they were both Captains, but there was still always that level of respect from Joey to Steven Crea Junior.

This was in 2004 – another important date to remember later.

Zoccolillo’s list of friends and acquaintances was extensive. He knew Sal Larca: “Grew up in the neighborhood with him. He’s a little older than me, but knew him most of my life.” And Dom Deluccia. He knew Carl Ulzheimer since he “was probably five, six years old. “We grew up together, me, him, and Dom Deluccia.” He also “grew up” with Paul Cassano, having attended the same grammar school with him.

And there was more. Somehow he met Ernie Aiello and got involved in sports betting with him. He also knew Vincent Basciano Junior and Johnny Joe Junior, who he met through Aiello. With the exception of Larca and Cassano, he hung around with the others “five days a week or so. Maybe a little bit more with Dom and Ernie and a little less with Carl, but I seen Dom and Ernie probably five days a week, four, five.”

I guess after he got back from California, he dumped his old friends Steven D and Joey Relay. And, remember, Zoccolillo wasn’t a made member, but he still hung around everyone – like Pennisi – a shining star.

Then it came time to talk about Vincent Bruno, who he knew “from the neighborhood” and with whom he started doing business.

The date of this alleged Coddington Club Invasion is an important issue in the upcoming testimony. AUSA Cohen is the first to establish it. Larca was reportedly in charge of a pot distribution operation with Zoccolillo, Bruno, and others. They were getting their pot from a supplier in California who Zoccolillo had a previous relationship with. At one point, the supplier was witholding money, so Larca sent Zoccolillo and Bruno to California to resolve the issue by robbing the supplier.

Zoccolillo had taken a picture of Bruno in a ski mask while they were on the way to the robbery which the government proudly displayed to the jury as “proof” of the dates in relation to the Coddington Club Invasion. The photograph was taken July 30, 2012.

Q. Did you and Bruno end up attempting to commit this robbery?
A. Yes.
Q. So let’s put up — I’m sorry. What’s the date of this photograph?
A. July 30th, 2012.
MS. COHEN: Let’s put up Government Exhibit 731T, please.
Q. And Mr. Zoccolillo, what’s the date of this call?
A. August 1st, 2012.
Q. So a couple of days after the photograph of Vincent Bruno?
A. Correct.
Q. Remind us, at the time of this phone call, did you know that law enforcement was listening?
A. No, ma’am.

In that phone call between Bruno and Zoccolillo, they talked about the failed robbery and getting money from “Beef” – aka Paul Cassano – to buy more pot. The money was apparently coming from Steven D. However, Bruno informed Zoccolillo that while they were “gonna get” the money, “Beef said he ain’t gonna be around until Monday anyway.”

Then right in the middle, Zoccolillo brought up the subject of the main event: Michael Meldish, who also, apparently, might have been a reason for the Coddington Club Invasion. Zoccolillo met Michael Meldish once via Sal Larca but had “seen” him twice at a restaurant and “then one time right next door to Patricia’s in a cupcake store.” Meldish was part of the reason for the “bad blood” between the Bonannos and Luccheses.

And like Lovaglio, Zoccolillo learned a lot of his information through hearsay. He learned from Ernie Aiello about an altercation with Meldish at a “feast” of which the date is unknown:

Q. So, focusing on what you learned from Aiello about this altercation between the Bonannos and Meldish, what did Aiello tell you?
A. About the altercation?
Q. Yes.
A. So they were — Ernie Aiello was with Johnny Joe Junior and Tommy Garbage down at the — I forget the name of the feast, in front of Rao’s, the picture that we just looked at of Rao’s with Joey Urgitano. There was a feast there. And Michael Meldish was having some words with Tommy Garbage, and Michael Meldish kind of took a swing at him, and Ernie Aiello and Johnny Joe Junior went to work on him and threw him a beating.

Notice once again the use of full names – “Michael Meldish” and “Ernie Aiello,” so the jury won’t forget, apparently, even though he talked in casual terms about “Tommy Garbage” and “Johnny Joe Junior.”

He then discussed the reasons for the “bad blood” between the two Families and the Coddington Club Invasion. Unlike Lovaglio before him, who said that the incident was caused by a perceived slight by a Lucchese member towards the alleged Bonnano “boss” Mancuso, Zoccolillo related a completely different story:

Q. Did you have an understanding from Aiello at the time as to the state of the relationship between the Luccheses and the Bonannos?
A. Yes. It was not good.
Q. And from Aiello, what did you understand to be the reason that the relationship between the Luccheses and the Bonannos was not good at that time?
A. There was a few reasons. One reason was that the Luccheses were not respecting Ernie Aiello, or most of the Bonannos at that time, because the Boss had flipped and they weren’t really recognizing them as a Family at that point in time, unless it was, you know, guys that they knew directly and well. There was also some situations between Michael Meldish and the Acting Boss of the Bonannos. I guess they were dating the same girl or something like that.

Not only were the reasons for the Coddington Club Invasion completely different from Lovaglio’s but so was what happened during the Invasion:

Q. Did you come to learn whether the issues between the Luccheses and the Bonannos subsequently after the Meldish beating came to a head?
A. Yes, ma’am.
Q. And from whom did you learn about those events?
A. Um, quite a few. Specifically, it would be Ernie Aiello, Dom Deluccia, Carl Ulzheimer, Vincent Bruno, Sal Larca.
Q. Okay. So, focusing on what you learned from Aiello, what did Aiello tell you had happened?
A. He told me that — well, I was told the story first, and then when I bumped into Ernie, I had kind of just brought it up and we spoke in depth about it. He said that he went over to the Lucchese club on Coddington with a bunch of his Captains, and they kind of just went in there and tried to work things out. He didn’t go into the details like I heard from some of the other guys as far as, like, bragging part about it, but they went in there to — to try to get, you know, get everything kind of squashed between each other and you know, put everything to bed, and apparently they did.
Q. Now, when you say “put everything to bed,” what did you understand Aiello to be referring to?
A. Meaning the bad blood that they had between the both of them: recognizing them as a family; recognizing him as, at that time, he was a Captain; also from the beating that they threw or they beat up Michael Meldish at that feast or festival with Michael Meldish being an Associate of the Lucchese Crime Family.

What? So, at the time of the invasion, Aiello was in what position? Lovaglio said he was “acting consigliere” but Zoccolillo said that he was a “Captain,” right after he just said that Aiello went to the club “with a bunch of his Captains”

At this point, there’s not even any need to go further regarding the alleged Coddington Club Invasion because Lovaglio said that Aiello had no interest in coming to a peaceful resolution and “wouldn’t hear of it” when he made the suggestion. But Zoccolillo just testified that Aiello “went in there and tried to work things out.” But it gets better because Zoccolillo heard about the story from everybody.

Dellucia told him, “that he was proud of Ernie, how he went in there and handled himself and kind of put everybody in place and just took control of the whole entire meeting.”

Then Carl Ulzheimer told him about his interaction with “Crea Senior”:

Q. Without repeating what Carl — anything that Carl Ulzheimer said about what happened inside of the club, did Carl describe to you his role in the Coddington Club incursion?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he say his role was?
A. He was to stand outside the door of the club and not — not let anybody inside the club.
Q. Did he identify anybody to you that he prevented initially from getting into the club?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Steven Crea Senior.

It’s interesting that the prosecution didn’t want to hear what Carl had to say about what happened inside the club? Did he have a knife as Lovaglio witnessed? Was everyone just standing around? But even more interesting is that Lovaglio testified Crea was already inside the club standing by the front door and Ulzheimer was by the kitchen grabbing a knife from someone. Yet, Zoccolillo just testified that Crea wasn’t even in the club because Ulzheimer was by the front door to stop Crea from getting in if he tried. And nowhere in the questioning by Cohen does Zoccolillo say anything about Crea supposedly telling Ulzheimer “I won’t forget your face” as Lovaglio testified. Amazing turn of events. And it gets better.

Q. Did you come to learn whether there was a response from the Lucchese Family to what happened in the Coddington Club? Yes or no?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you learn about that from, amongst other people, Vincent Bruno? Yes or no?
A. Yes.
Q. So, how many times did you discuss this with Vincent Bruno?
A. A minimum of two for sure. Could have been a couple of times more.
Q. Where were you when you first discussed this with Vincent Bruno?
A. Um, we were driving in a car. I believe that we were going to Mount Vernon to drop off some marijuana to the guy that we were partners with.
Q. And while you were in the car, what did Bruno tell you?
A. So, we were driving. He says, I got something to tell you, but you can’t say nothing. And I said okay, what is it? And he goes, Remember those guys went to go kill Carl? And I said, Yeah. And he said, Well, that was me and Roast Beef. And I said, Well, why the F would you tell me that? I don’t want to know that. I mean, that’s not my business. Why would you try to drag me in? He’s like, Well, you know, I’m not going to say nothing that I told you. I just wanted to get it off my chest. And I said, You know, Why would they even send you ? And he’s, Like, well, you know, Stevie Junior and the father, they trust me, and you know – they know that I’m close with Roast Beef. And I said, You know – I said I – just – doesn’t make any sense. I said I don’t want to know nothing do with this. You don’t tell nobody that told me. Why would you try to give me information about an attempted murder? I said it’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. And he was, Like, no, no, it’s all right, and he was kind of laughing. He goes, I just needed to get it off my chest.

“Roast Beef” and “Paulie Roast Beef” are other nicknames for Cassano. More importantly, Zoccolillo’s version of events and Bruno’s version of events (via his email letter to Judge Siebel) are completely different. And Bruno’s letter was in December 2018, several months before Zoccolillo’s testimony.

Also, keep in mind that Bruno confessed to Zoccolillo while they were in California doing that robbery Larca sent them on. You also have to wonder why a guy who likes to know everything and shared a lot of everything about what he heard and from who he heard it several times during his testimony would be upset hearing the inside scoop about something as juicy as this. He did have a reality show, after all. Plus, for someone talking about a casual discussion, someone with “connections,” it seems a little odd he used the term “attempted murder” while telling his story. Just sayin’. He goes on to explain why he was so upset:

Q. Now, why did you have that reaction to what Vincent Bruno told you?
A. So, I mean, a few reasons. I think the main and logical reason is why would I ever want to know that — why would I want to be given information about an attempted murder? I mean, that just puts me at risk – forget about the law part about it. But if people are sending people to kill somebody and they found out that I knew about it, then I could be, you know, dragged into that for some reason, so that’s number one. Number two is, I was very close with Chris and Carl. I mean, we grew up together, I mean, literally since, I mean, first grade. So, it’s just not something that I wanted to know. I’m friends with both sides.
Q. When you say you were close with Chris and Carl, who are you referring to?
A. To Chris Ulzheimer and Carl Ulzheimer.

So, the guy was involved in all sorts of criminal activities and even supposedly involved in a robbery against a pot supplier, but he gets bent out of shape after hearing about an alleged attempted murder from his best buddy? He might have wanted to forget about it, but apparently, Bruno brought it up again while Zoccolillo was in the hospital in White Plains. And he also had heard the story from “quite a few” other sources, too, including Aiello, Deluccia, and Larca.

Q. So, once you got back from Miami and you’re in the hospital and you’re talking to Bruno, what do you recall Bruno saying during that conversation?
A. Well, somebody — Vincent Basciano Junior was at the hospital prior, and he was asking me if I heard this rumor that Vinny was the one that went to go try to kill Carl. And I played dumb to the story, obviously. I didn’t want nobody to knew [sic] that I knew it, so I said, No, I didn’t hear anything. He kind of got me up to speed supposedly of what he thought of what happened.
Q. Without saying anything that Mr. Basciano Junior told you, what happened with Mr. Bruno?
A. When he came?
Q. Yes.
A. We had the conversation again. And I said, You know, obviously it’s out. Did you say anything? How is it out? It must have been you that said something. I mean, who else is going to leak the information? And he just kind of kept blowing it off. You know, he was probably just going around bragging about it because that’s what he did.

But the government forgot part of the story, so they had to backtrack a little bit for Zoccolillo to explain what happened the day after the Coddington Club Invasion. Mind you, we still don’t know why an attempt was made on Carl Ulzheimer’s life. Also, at this point, he hadn’t heard the Bruno story yet. He had gone to Ulzheimer’s house before Bruno allegedly told him his role.

Q. Now, did there come a time after what happened at the Coddington Club that you went to Carl Ulzheimer’s house?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you have an understanding of how close in time your visit to Ulzheimer’s house was to when Bruno and Cassano had gone to try to kill Ulzheimer?
A. Yes.
Q. And generally, how close in time was that?
A. Within a few hours the next day.
Q. Why were you at Ulzheimer’s house?
A. So he lived on Radcliffe Avenue , and my mother lived maybe 12 houses past him. So I was driving down to my mother’s house to go pick up some money that I used to stash at her house, and I seen Chris, Chris and Carl outside. I had pulled over and then started speaking with the both of them.
Q. Okay. So, at the time that you get to Carl Ulzheimer’s house, had you had this conversation yet with Vinny Bruno where he told you about going with Paul Cassano?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Without repeating anything that the Ulzheimers’ might have said to you, what did you observe when you got to the house?
A. Chris Ulzheimer, Carl’s brother, was installing security cameras.

The Court then took a short mid-morning break, but somehow in those few short minutes, Zoccolillo’s added more detail: Chris and Carl were “standing outside both of their houses, because they live side by side, and Chris was installing security cameras.” Big difference, because I’m sure at some point, Zoccolillo will talk about his conversation with Ulzheimer.

Zoccolillo goes into more detail about what Bruno and Cassano did that night:

Q. I want to go back to that conversation with Vinny Bruno. How did — what did he tell you about how he became involved in that attempt?
A. He told me that Pauley Roast Beef came and picked him up, they took a ride to — I don’t remember the kid’s name, Pauley Roast Beef and I grew up with him, he was in grammar school with us, Catholic school. They went to his house. I guess Pauley Roast Beef had some guns there . He picked up a pistol, got back in the car and Vinny kind of, like, laughed and said, Give me that, you know, you’re not cut out for that life, like joking around with him, and took the gun from him.
Q. Once they had the gun, where did they go in the car?
A. To Carl Ulzheimer’s house.
Q. Once they got to Ulzheimer’s house, what did they do next?
A. Vincent Bruno said that they pulled up in front of the house, maybe a house or so past the house. Vinny got out, went to the stairway and, like, banged on the door to see if Carl will come out and kind of stood along on the wall, waiting for him. Nobody came out. He didn’t hear anything. They got in the car and left. And then they came back a second time and did the same exact thing, and also, Carl never came out.
Q. What was your understanding from Vinny Bruno about what he was going to do if Carl Ulzheimer opened that door?
A. Kill Carl.

So, what’s not clear here is if Bruno and Cassano went to Ulzheimer’s house the day after the Coddington Club Invasion, and then the Ulzheimers’ installed security cameras, why weren’t they able to pick up Bruno and Cassano returning to the house for another attempt?

Finally, he got around to the whys of it all:

Q. What was your understanding from Vinny Bruno as to why he and Paul Cassano went to kill Carl Ulzheimer?
A. Because Carl Ulzheimer disrespected Steven Crea Senior at the Lucchese/Bonanno little feud that they had at the Coddington Club.
Q. What was your understanding from Vinny Bruno as to how this mission was communicated to him?
A. From Steven Crea Senior to Junior and Roast Beef. They had sent Roast Beef and said to take Vinny with him.
Q. I think you testified to this earlier, but did you have an understanding from — did you have an understanding as to whose crew in the Lucchese Family Paul Cassano was a soldier in?
A. Steven Crea Junior.

Soon after, Zoccolillo became a rat. He began recording conversations on February 21, 2013. For some reason, the government wanted the jury to hear some other alleged murder plot that didn’t involve any of the defendants at the table. Madonna’s lawyer, Joshua Dratel, called for a sidebar.

MR. DRATEL: They’re introducing another murder plot in here, nothing to do with any of the defendants. It’s really prejudicial. I don’t know what the relevance is. I don’t know what the relevance is of the conversation or some discussion with Stevie Crea Junior that’s not here at trial. This is nothing to do with this conspiracy. I don’t understand it.
THE COURT: Is this the Larca conversation?
MS. COHEN: It is, indeed. And I’m shocked to hear Mr. Dratel is not aware of the relevance of this conversation.
MR. DRATEL: The beginning part, the beginning part.
THE COURT: Didn’t we have massive motions about this very conversation?
MS. COHEN: Indeed.

MR. DRATEL: I’m talking about the beginning part of it where they’re killing someone else. They haven’t connected anything.
THE COURT: Was that, at the beginning part of it, for the many months that we’ve been talking about this conversation?
MS. COHEN: It was, your Honor, and it is necessary context for Larca to describe conversation that he had had with Stevie Junior, who is going around saying the same things about Sal Larca, not stepping up because of what Ralph the General did. And the reason that is important is when the conversation then shifts to the attempt to kill Carl Ulzheimer, it’s clear that Larca is referring back to Stevie Junior. You’ve got to have the whole conversation for the context.
MR. DRATEL: I don’t think that has to be in here to be connected up in some way to this case, but you can start where they are talking about Stevie Junior, I don’t see what they lose from that. It’s just, I think it’s not related to that. Sometimes you expect in an arranged representation, that it’s relevant to the conspiracy, and the judge rules, but then you come here, and the witness testifies, and it has no relevance. That’s the problem.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. DRATEL: Thanks.

And what’s the most important point in this sidebar? The government saying, “You’ve got to have the whole conversation for the context.” So, once again, Judge Siebel’s impartiality doesn’t exist and the government can manipulate the rules whenever it sees fit.

The recorded conversation between Larca and Zoccolillo had something to do with Larca’s father but then the conversation turned to Bruno. Zoccolillo told Larca that Bruno had admitted the plot to him – and Larca, in Zoccolillo’s interpretation said the same thing. But remember, the government admitted it had no recordings saying Larca made statements about Steven D being behind the attempted hit on Ulzheimer. However, that didn’t prevent the government from playing that portion of the tape to the jury, complete with Zoccolillo’s interpretation:

Q. So what are you and Larca talking about in this portion of the conversation?
A. About that Vincent Bruno had admitted to me that he was the one that went with Roast Beef to kill Carl. And Sal is saying that he came and told him the same thing.
Q. So, on page 12, when Larca says, I didn’t even want to know, and he told Vinny, Don’t ever effing repeat that, you’ll wind up with a bad problem, what did you understand Larca to be saying?
A. That Vinny just needed to keep his mouth shut, that he would have a bad problem, I mean, probably from the people that sent him. I mean, you don’t go around telling people that. He already told Sal and I. Who knows who else he told , went around bragging about it?

And the bullshit (yes, it has come to that) continues:

Q. What are you and Larca discussing in this portion of the conversation?
A. Sal Larca’s referring to Ernie Aiello as this little Machiavelli, trying to prove himself by going into the Coddington Club and he was real nasty while he was in there.
Q. When Larca is saying, “I love you, you’re my friend, I gotta do what I gotta do,” what did you understand Larca to be saying?
A. Just meaning that if he’s given an order to go handle it, I mean, he’s – friend or not, whatever the circumstance is, he’d have to handle it.
Q. So, on page 14, lines 363 to 367, when Larca says, “I told the same thing to Carl and Dom, don’t be mad at anybody for coming to try and take a shot at you, they’re doing what they’re told,” what did you understand Larca had told Carl and Dom?
A. Meaning don’t take it personal from Vinny being one of the guys that came there to do that, you know, being that he was told to do by Steven Crea Junior and Steven Crea Senior, not to take it personal.

Remember, too, that Larca made it clear through a letter from his attorney to the prosecution that his testimony would only help the defense, and if the government really wanted to, they could have subpoenaed him to testify, but that didn’t happen. So, that should tell you something.

Now, it was time for the defense to set the record straight…

______________________________

[mafiastudent]

Zoccolillo had a lot of stories to tell, but were some of his facts wrong? Crea’s attorney Anthony DiPietro was the first to tackle the task. We’ll have limited interruption during this part, so please, enjoy the show.

Q. When you came into this courtroom — let’s start here, sir. Do you know my client, Steve Crea?
A. Not personally, no.
Q. You never met him, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Oh, when you told that story in the beginning, you didn’t say that on direct, did you?
A. Say what?
Q. Did you say that on direct examination, that you had never met him?
A. I wasn’t asked.
Q. You weren’t asked. Okay. So, you came in and you said that he was relatives to you? He was a relative of ours?
A. No, I never said that.
Q. You didn’t testify to that earlier?
A. I did not.
Q. Okay. But you never met the man?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Never spoke to him on the phone?
A. No, sir.
Q. So would you agree with the statement that he doesn’t even know who you are?
A. I can’t say what he knows.

Q. Now we can agree, you’ve been cooperating since 2013?
A. 2012, the end of 2012, I think it was. No. I’m sorry, 2013.
Q. And during that period of time, you told the government everything that you knew, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. You didn’t leave out any details?
A. No.
Q. No omissions?
A. No, sir.
Q. So when is the first time you learned of this case?
A. Of this case?
Q. Yeah.
A. Probably sometime in 2013.
Q. 2013. This proceeding, this court proceeding?
A. Maybe not this court proceeding. I don’t really understand the question.
Q. I’m sorry. Let me rephrase. When is the first time that you learned about this court proceeding?
A. So you mean the whole case or the few guys that are sitting in the courtroom?
Q. This case.
THE COURT: Well, let’s be clear. Are you talking about the indictment?
MR. DiPIETRO: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you know when the defendants in this courtroom were indicted?
THE WITNESS: Sometime 2013, your Honor.
THE COURT: Maybe we should talk about that later.
Q. You agree you never met the man? You never met Steve Crea?
A. That’s correct.
Q. How did you identify him?
A. I’ve seen multiple photos of him. I just know his photo.
Q. So your testimony is based on photos you’ve seen in the newspaper?
A. Not my photo — well, my testimony is not based on purely of what he looks like.
Q. Well, you identified the man in the court, right, you identified that picture?
A. Correct. I guess if you rephrase your question, I’ll be able to answer accordingly.

THE COURT: Let me interrupt both of you. Please don’t talk over one another. The court reporter is not going to get what either of you was saying.
THE WITNESS: Yes, your Honor.
Q. How did you identify Mr. Crea’s picture today?
A. How did I identify it? I pointed to it, said his name.
Q. What’s the basis of your knowledge?
A. I’ve seen his photo probably 100 times.
Q. You mentioned his name a lot today throughout your testimony —
A. That’s correct.
Q. — as if you knew him?
A. Um, not as if I knew him personally.
Q. You have no firsthand knowledge about anything he testified to?
MS. COHEN: Can Mr. DiPietro let the witness answer his questions.
THE COURT: Yes. Let the witness finish his answer.
Q. Do you have firsthand knowledge about anything you testified to today?
MS. COHEN: Objection to form.
THE COURT: I think it’s been —
Q. In regards to Mr. Crea, do you have firsthand knowledge about anything you testified to today?
MS. COHEN: Still, objection.
Q. Did you witness any of these events, sir?
MR. DiPIETRO: What’s wrong with the question?
THE COURT: The question should be — I think it’s clear, but we’ll make doubly sure. You never had any personal interaction with Steve Crea Senior, correct?
THE WITNESS: That’s correct.
THE COURT: Anything you told us today you learned about him, you learned about from other people?
THE WITNESS: That’s correct.

Q. Did the government ever reach out to you in 2017 and ask you to think more about Steven Crea?
A. To think more about him?
Q. Yeah. Think more.
A. I don’t believe so.
Q. Let me show you something to refresh your recollection. I’m showing you what’s marked 35148-67. Just read the highlighted portions to yourself. Did the government in 2017 ask you to think more about Mr. Crea?
A. Once again, I do not believe so.
Q. Okay. Did you tell the government you will think more about Mr. Crea?
A. That’s what it looks like, sir.

And then Judge Siebel jumps in to attempt to shield the government’s true goal, but DiPietro doesn’t back down…

Q. Did you forget —
THE COURT: Hold on a second. You can’t just read something off the paper. The question is, now that you’ve seen the paper, do you remember saying that?
THE WITNESS: Yeah. That makes sense. I mean, I’m out of the neighborhood for years, but I wasn’t told to think more about him.
Q. Let me ask you this. You don’t know the man, right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What are you going to think more about?
A. As far as what my cooperation was and what I had given information about. Make sure I was correct.
Q. Do you know a gentleman by the name of Peter Lovaglio?
A. Maybe. I don’t know. Sounds familiar.
Q. What about John Pennisi?
A. Sounds familiar.
Q. What about Robert Spinelli?
A. Sounds familiar.
Q. Did you tell them you would think more about them, too?
A. I can’t recall.

Q. Let’s talk about this confession that Mr. Bruno made to you on several occasions. Do you know why he confessed to you more than once?
A. Excuse me?
Q. Why would he confess to you more than once if you didn’t want to know about it? Wasn’t your testimony you said you didn’t really want to know about it. You said don’t talk to me about this; I’m friends with the other guys?
A. That’s correct.
Q. So then he confessed to you again?
A. Well, he didn’t confess again. We spoke about it again after I already knew from the first time.
Q. So you spoke about it in the hospital, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Now, when you interviewed with the government, you tried to be truthful?
A. I didn’t try to be truthful. I was truthful.
Q. Did you ever tell the government that you couldn’t recall the details of what Bruno told you in the hospital?
A. Did I ever tell the government — not that I know of. Maybe a word-for-word verbatim, possibly.
Q. 3514-84. Read the highlighted portion to yourself.
THE COURT: What page?
MR. DiPIETRO: Page 6.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection, sir?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Hold on a second. 3514-84 at page 6.
MR. DiPIETRO: Page 6, five paragraphs down, your Honor.
THE COURT: Hold on one second. You can ask the question.

Judge Siebel seems to be a little flustered…if only there was video…

Q. Sir, did you tell the government that you could not recall what Bruno had talked to you about at the hospital?
THE COURT: We’re talking — I’m sorry. I’m sorry. This is just —
MR. DiPIETRO: I’ll lay a foundation. I’m sorry.
THE COURT: I’m sorry. This is just for my clarification. You’re asking about the second conversation in the hospital.
MR. DiPIETRO: Correct.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
Q. Did you tell the government that you could not recall the details of what Bruno had told you at the hospital?
A. Yes. The verbatim conversation, I could not recall all of the details.
Q. Okay. Is your memory better today or was it better two years ago?
A. Probably the same.
Q. Probably the same. Okay. Sir, you also mentioned that when Mr. Bruno confessed to you in your testimony today, that he had told you this elaborate story about how Crea Senior ordered Crea Junior, and then it went down to Roast Beef, and then to Bruno, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Okay. When you first met with the government, did you tell the government that Mr. Bruno never used the Creas’ names?
A. I don’t recall that.
Q. Okay. Let’s see something to refresh your recollection. 3514-73, page 2 of 5, third bullet point. Does that refresh your recollection?
A. Not really. When was this?

THE COURT: The question was, “Did you tell the government that Bruno never used the Creas’ names?” So if, looking at this, it jogs — and you said you didn’t recall — if looking at this jogs your memory, and now you recall that you did say that, say you did say that. If it doesn’t, then tell us it doesn’t.
THE WITNESS: I honestly don’t remember.
THE COURT: There you go.
Q. When you were speaking to the agents, you were being truthful?
A. Yes.
Q. And they were taking notes during those sessions?
A. Yes.
Q. And your testimony is your recollection today is as good as it was before when you were interviewed by them?
A. I’m sure it would be a little bit more fresher back then, for sure.
Q. Is it possible that you told the agents at that time that Bruno never mentioned the Creas’ names?
A. It could be possible.
Q. Thank you. And then you wouldn’t have added that detail for any purpose today, would you have?
A. No.

And the Coddington Club Invasion ala Zoccolillo:

Q. Also, about this club incident that you spoke — that you testified to, you said that you had learned that Mr. Crea was blocked from coming in the club?
A. Yes.
Q. And that that was Mr. Ulzheimer who was blocking him from coming in the club?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you said you may know Mr. Lovaglio. Do you know Peter Lovaglio?
A. I didn’t say that I know him. I said I heard the name. Sounds familiar.
Q. And the testimony that you gave today was that Crea Senior couldn’t get in the club; correct?
A. That’s correct. Until the end, I think they let him in.
Q. So he wasn’t standing in the back of the club and Carl Ulzheimer was in the front of the club, to your knowledge?
A. Correct.
Q. And they — he didn’t verbalize a message to him across the club saying, I’ll remember your face?
A. Correct.

So who would you give the Biggest Bullshitter award to for their performance? Mama’s Boy or Petey Bullshit? Or would you just give it to the government?

A bit later, Zoccolillo discussed how he learned about the Ulzheimer hit.

Q. Okay. Let’s talk about this supposed confession. What day did Bruno tell you he went to Carl Ulzheimer’s house?
A. I haven’t the slightest idea.
Q. You don’t know?
A. I don’t know the date that he told me.
Q. How many days after the event at the Coddington Club?
A. I also don’t know that.
Q. Didn’t you testify on direct you thought it was the day after?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
A. That he told me?
Q. Well, didn’t you testify on direct that you went to Mr. Ulzheimer’s house and he was putting up cameras the day after the Coddington Club?
MS. COHEN: Objection; mischaracterized the testimony.
Q. Well, sir —
THE COURT: The witness hasn’t had a chance to answer, Mr. DiPietro. If the witness says that’s — if the witness can answer the question that’s not what he said, the witness will say that’s not what he said. The question was whether you testified on direct that you went by the Ulzheimer’s house on the way to your mother’s on the day after the events at the Coddington Club.
THE WITNESS: The answer is yes to that, but the question that I got from him was, did he tell me the day after.
Q. I’ll rephrase it.
A. Please.
Q. Your understanding was that the attempt had happened the day after the Coddington Club?
A. No.
Q. That was not your testimony?
A. No.
Q. Okay. So what is your understanding as to when the attempt occurred?
A. Some time after that situation happened.
Q. Well, how many days?
A. I haven’t the slightest idea.

Q. By the way, did you ever see Mr. Bruno in Mr. Crea’s presence?
A. No.
Q. Would it surprise you that they didn’t know each other in 2013?
A. Not sure.
Q. Well, you hung out with Mr. Bruno every day, you said?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Right? Did you ever see him in Mr. Crea’s presence?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you ever see him field a phone call from Mr. Crea?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever review any phone records between him and Mr. Crea?
A. Not that I remember.

Q. Now, during this time period, did you ever tell people that the whole thing with Carl sounded far-fetched?
A. Yes, it’s possible.
Q. You do. Okay. Did you ever tell Dom Deluccia that the whole thing with Carl, Vinny Bruno was a far-fetched story?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You didn’t testify that it’s a far-fetched story today, did you?
A. Taken out of context because I was cooperating at that time, and I was protecting my cover.
Q. So the inculpatory statements about Mr. Crea you say are true?
A. I don’t know what that word is.
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained, Mr. DiPietro. Come on.
Q. Well, did you also tell —
THE COURT: The jury has been told, and I’m sure they remember, but I’ll remind them again, that what a cooperating witness or an informant says on the recording is not offered for the truth of what the statements are, but just to give context to the answers of the other person.
Q. Did you also tell Dom Deluccia that Vinny Bruno was questioning the rumors about this event with you?
A. Please repeat that again.
Q. Sure. Did you tell Dom Deluccia a month before you talked to Mr. Larca that Mr. Bruno was questioning the rumors about the Carl incident, the same man that confessed to you?
A. I don’t remember that.
Q. Maybe something will refresh your recollection.
A. Sure.
MR. DiPIETRO: We’ll mark this as Crea F.
THE COURT: So the question is, does that refresh your memory on the subject that Mr. DiPietro asked you about?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Did you tell Mr. Deluccia that Vinny Bruno was questioning the rumor about the Carl incident?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And he’s questioning the rumor about an event he confessed to you?
A. That’s correct.

Remember that question we had about Aiello’s status? Zoccolillo, the guy that knows everybody and everything still has no clue.

Q. Okay. By the way, you testified today about Ernie Aiello’s status, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you said he was the Acting Underboss?
A. There was a period of time that, short period of time that we heard that he was.
Q. That you heard he was?
A. Yes.
Q. You never marked the photo identifying him as the Acting Underboss?
A. It’s possible.
Q. Not the Acting Consigliere, correct?
A. I don’t know.

If you recall, Lovaglio said Aiello was the “acting consigliere.” Also remember that Lovaglio reported his version of the Coddington Club Invasion to an NYPD detective on July 31st, 2012.

Q. Now, you spoke about this loan that you were trying to get — oh, you know, let’s start — I take that back. How long were you in California with Mr. Bruno?
A. We weren’t there permanently. We were back and forth.
Q. Okay, but on the night that you had attempted that robbery, remember the ski mask?
A. Uh-huh. Yes.
Q. How long were you there?
A. A couple of days.
Q. So when did you leave after that photo, after the attempted robbery?
A. What were you saying?
Q. On direct examination, you identified a photo with Mr. Bruno with a mask?
A. Correct.
Q. How many days after did you leave California?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Was it one, two?
A. Like I just said, it could have been a couple days to a week.
MR. DiPIETRO: Can we pull up Government Exhibit 1307.
Q. Sir, what’s the date on that photo?
A. July 30th, 2012.
Q. And Mr. Bruno was in California?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree, he can’t be in California and New York at the same time?
A. Yes.
Q. He was with you, right?
A. Yes.

MR. DiPIETRO: Okay. So let’s pull up also Government Exhibit 731, page 4, please. Can you go back a page? I’m sorry, Ms. Becker.
Q. Sir, what’s the date of this recording?
A. August 1st.
Q. 2012?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. And that’s after July 30th?
A. That’s correct.
MR. DiPIETRO: Can we please go to page 4.
Q. Can you please read to the jury, starting at line 86, Bruno’s statement to you — I mean, 85 — no, 86. I’m sorry.
A. To how far?
Q. Yes, please.
A. How far I said.
Q. His whole statement.
A. “Yeah, I’m gonna it, and Beef said he ain’t gonna be around till Monday anyway. He said because he’s goin’ away and he ain’t gonna see these guys till Monday, so he said he’ll catch up with us.”
Q. So he said Beef’s not going to be around till Monday; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree with me that August 1st is a Wednesday?
A. I can’t tell you that. I don’t have a calendar on me.
MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, will you take judicial notice that August 1st, 2012, is a Wednesday?
THE COURT: Well, luckily I have a magic device here. We can check that. August 12th, 2012 — oh, August 1st, 2012?
MR. DiPIETRO: Yes.
THE COURT: You know why? August 12th is my anniversary. August 1, 2012, let’s see. There’s a website that says it was a Wednesday. Yeah. Everybody seems to agree it was a Wednesday.
Q. Sir, we can agree — I’m sorry.
MR. DiPIETRO: I’m showing you what’s marked Crea G, which is a calendar we’d like to offer into evidence, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Crea G is received.
(Defendant’s Exhibit Crea G received in evidence)

Q. You would agree that on the 1st, Mr. Bruno tells you Cassano won’t be around till Monday, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So we’ll put here “VB Beef not around.” And then we’ll draw a line until Monday. Is that accurate, based on that recording, an accurate reflection?
A. Sounds right.
Q. And we can agree that you’re in California because the 31st and 30th come two days before, right?
MS. COHEN: Objection to form.
Q. Well, you just —
THE COURT: Break it down.
MR. DiPIETRO: Okay.
THE COURT: One at a time.
Q. So go to Exhibit 1307, which we just looked at with Mr. Bruno with the mask, that’s on July 30th, 2012, you’re in another state?
A. Sounds right.
Q. So would you agree with me that the 31st and the 30th, come before August 1st, of July?
A. Yes.
Q. Mr. Bruno’s in California?
A. Correct.
THE COURT: Mr. Bruno’s in California on —
MR. DiPIETRO: The July 30th and 31st.
THE WITNESS: I don’t know about the 31st.
THE COURT: I didn’t hear that from the witness. That’s why I’m questioning. He said the photo was taken on the 30th.
MR. DiPIETRO: Yes.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that photo is not authentic?
A. I never said that. I said I can’t confirm about the 31st.
Q. When did you come back?
A. I don’t know, I already said.
Q. You don’t remember that detail. You don’t remember getting on a plane, coming back?
THE COURT: Did you come back with Mr. Bruno?
THE WITNESS: I would assume so.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. DiPIETRO: Can we kindly put back up 731 at page Let’s go back to Bruno’s statement.
Q. When Beef said, “He ain’t gonna to be around till Monday anyway,” your interpretation of that is that Beef’s not going to be around until Monday, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. So the money that he was asking him about couldn’t have been the night before?
THE COURT: Sustained as to form.
Q. Well, if he’s saying Beef is not going to be around, I can’t get an answer, what’s your understanding if he saw him the night before?
MS. COHEN: Objection to form.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Sir, if he saw him the night before, he would have an answer —
THE COURT: I think you just need to lay a little more foundation for the money and who is “he” and “him” in your question.
Q. At this time period, you’re trying to get a loan from Beef, right, Roast Beef?
A. Correct.
Q. And you’re waiting for Bruno to tell you whether Beef’s going to give you the money?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And he’s saying Beef’s not around, I haven’t seen him.
A. He’s saying he’s not going to be around until Monday.
Q. Okay. So we can agree, from the time you get back to California until that Monday, Beef’s not around?
A. From the time I get back from California or to California, you said?
Q. You’re in California on the 30th, correct? You showed us that photo —
A. That’s correct.
Q. — and you said that’s when you were going to do the robbery. You didn’t leave during the robbery and fly home?
A. No. I don’t know if we flew out that night, the next day. I really can’t remember.
Q. Okay, but a day later, you’re talking to Mr. Bruno?
A. Two days later.
THE COURT: Two days later.
Q. Two days later. Okay. Two days later. And he’s saying to you, Beef said he ain’t going to be around?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And what’s your understanding of that?
A. That he’s not going to be around.
Q. Okay. And Beef’s the same guy in the car with Mr. Bruno?
A. Beef’s the same guy in the car?
Q. Yeah. According to you, this confession?
A. When? In the car where I took the photo?
Q. Not when you took the photo. When they supposedly went to attempt to kill, without shooting, Mr. Ulzheimer?
A. That is correct.
Q. Beef is the same guy in the car?
A. That is correct.

So, on Monday, July 30, 2012, Bruno and Zoccolillo made an attempted robbery in California. There’s a dated photo for the proof. On Tuesday, July 31, 2012, according to Lovaglio, the Coddington Club Invasion took place. Then both Lovaglio and Zoccolillo claimed the Ulzheimer hit took place the very next day on August 1, 2012.

But on the August 1, 2012 recording, Bruno tells Zoccolillo that Cassano won’t be around until Monday to get the money they asked for. So, how could the attempted hit have happened if one of the guys ordered to do it wasn’t around? It seems that the story Bruno told in his letter to Judge Siebel in December 2018 was exactly what he said it was: the truth.

Remember that story Zoccolillo told about Joey Relay being promoted? Well, Zoccolillo didn’t know everything like he thought:

Q. You testified earlier about a Joey Relay. Do you recall that testimony —
A. Yes.
Q. — in regard to a social club?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said that — what was the time period of that again?
A. When we had the social club?
Q. Yeah.
A. 2004.
Q. Okay. And you said during that time period, he got elevated to Captain?
A. During — sometime during that time, yeah.
Q. And you said that’s because Crea Senior really liked him, right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know Crea Senior was in prison?
A. I did not know.

Zoccolillo was having a very bad day:

Q. By the way, are you a voice expert?
A. A voice expert?
Q. Yeah?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Well, you testified that you had — your understanding was that a call that was played earlier, that was Crea Junior’s voice?
A. That correct.
Q. When’s the last time you spoke to him?
A. At that restaurant.
Q. So how many years ago was that, sir?
A. Um, six, something like that.
Q. By the way, you showed us many photos of you and other people, you and Ernie Aiello, remember, he was giving the middle finger?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. I think your roll shows about 5,000 photos in one of the photos we looked at.
MS. COHEN: Objection to testifying.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. How many pictures do you have of you and Steve Crea Junior?
A. None probably.
Q. Did he ever call you on the phone?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you reviewed those records?
A. No. This was — we’re going back to 2004 and 2003, I’m answering that for.
Q. So in 2012 when this was the events that we’re talking about here, your phone was tapped, correct?
A. In 2012?
Q. Yeah.
A. I don’t really know exactly when they were tapped.
Q. We just listened to the wiretaps?
A. Right, but you’re not being specific. I don’t know when it started, when it ended. I don’t know any of that.
Q. Any calls with Mr. Crea or Mr. Crea Junior on those calls?
A. No.
Q. Sir, we can agree that you’re not a witness to the alleged attempt on Mr. Ulzheimer, correct?
MS. COHEN: Asked and answered.
MR. DiPIETRO: I have no further questions, your Honor.

And the defense wasn’t even done yet for the day…

________________________________

[mafiastudent]

Londonio’s attorney, John Meringolgo then exposed the trickster even more:

Q. Sir, you said that you were involved with organized crime for many years, right?
A. I don’t remember saying that.
Q. You were involved —
A. You’re talking about earlier today or what?
Q. You were involved with the Genovese Crime Family?
A. Yeah.
Q. You were involved — would you say you were involved with the Bonanno Crime Family?
A. Yes.
Q. And you said you were involved with the Lucchese Crime Family, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And isn’t it true that you told the government that you never had to kick-up money at any time?
A. That’s correct.
Q. That’s correct. So you were involved with three different families and you, as an Associate, never had to give a dollar; correct?
A. That’s correct.

Wow. That’s a new one. Who knew? He must’ve been very special.

Then Zoccolillo talked about how much money the government paid him for his “extraordinary” performances:

Q. Okay. How much money have you received from the government?
A. I don’t know offhand.
Q. Would $232,477.53 be accurate?
A. Sounds like a no. I mean, wish I knew where it was.
Q. Let me see if this will refresh your recollection. I’m going to show you two documents, one is 3514-93 and 3514-94. And I’d like you to go through all of these documents and look. Tell me if —
A. Okay. Repeat your question.
Q. Let me give you the correct number.
A. Yeah. It seems a little off from your original number.
Q. Well, if we can look — if you look — does it refresh your recollection that you got a total, if you look at both documents, a total of $232,477.53?
A. I guess the definition of “got.” I was never handed a total of 200-and-whatever-the-number-was thousand. I’m sure there’s traveling expenses, hotel rooms, different expenses like that bundled up into that number, sir.
Q. Okay. As well as maybe rent?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Electric?
A. No. That’s not correct.
Q. Okay. So, you got 200 — you got a benefit of $232,477. Could we agree with that?
A. That I got a what?
Q. A benefit?
A. If that’s the word you want to use.
Q. What word do you want to use?
A. They were protecting me, for my safety, so I don’t —
Q. In your safety, right, in your safety, they pay your rent, right?
A. In my what?
Q. You say they’re protecting you, right?
A. Correct.
Q. So they pay your housing, right?
A. Yeah. They have to put me somewhere.
Q. And they pay your medical, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And they pay your travel, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And there are other fees that they pay, right?
A. And it’s traveling related to cooperation and showing up to court, not wherever I travel.
Q. How many times have you showed up to court since 2015?
A. Since 2015, twice to court, but then obviously preps and different things like that.
Q. Well, you’ve been prepping for this case for approximately a year, right?
A. I don’t know the exact time.

And how much did he get just to prepare for this case? And remember he wasn’t even discussing the main charge. Imagine how much he would have “got” had he been a witness to that?

Q. If you could look at 3514-94 and read that paragraph, sir?
A. I don’t have that piece of paper. Where am I looking at? Oh. Okay.
Q. So, isn’t it true that over the last year, what’s expended to you has been $61,901.18?
A. No. That doesn’t sound right.
THE COURT: Read it more carefully.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
Q. Well, you have gotten money to help prepare, right?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Read it more carefully.
MR. MERINGOLO: Okay.
Q. You have gotten money for travel and lodging, right, to prepare for this case, trial prep, right?
A. I’ve been reimbursed for travel and lodging.
Q. And in addition to this money, what is child support visitation? Why are you getting money for child support and visitation in 2016?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled. If the witness —
Q. If you remember?
THE COURT: Well, —
A. I never got —
THE COURT: The question contains a premise. If the witness doesn’t agree with the premise, he’ll say, I don’t agree with the premise.
Q. Have you received moneys from the government for child support/visitation?
A. No.
Q. Could you look at 3514-93 there, sir, and if you could go down to 2016 and go over two columns. Does that refresh your recollection?
A. Doesn’t. No, it doesn’t. I don’t know what that is, to be honest with you.
Q. Okay. But we can agree that, with all the money that has been given to you, whether it be rent or other things we just said, you never paid tax on that money, correct?
A. I think it was — I think it was net.
Q. You netted 234 —
A. Well, that’s whatever the net was that they paid for it. I don’t know the inner workings of how they do that sir.
Q. Okay. You’re not curious?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Why would he be curious? It’s tax-free taxpayer dollar-funded money. Better than anything he made committing his crimes.

And why would the government be paying an informant child support and visitation? What does that even mean, and why wouldn’t the government let Zoccolillo answer? Oh, that’s right. He was banned from seeing his daughter because he was having sex with an underage girl. But yet the government is paying him child support? Either the government is sicker than I thought or Zoccolillo is full of shit.

But an even bigger question is why are our taxpayer dollars being spent on travel expenses for this guy (we won’t even talk about all the other things the government is paying for) just to make up stories, while the guys he’s making up stories about get to sit in a cell and have to buy their own soap which is about the size of those bars you find in cheap motel rooms. And I’m sure Zoccolillo wasn’t sitting in a Motel 6. Also, why doesn’t he have to pay taxes on that money? If I made over $200,000 and didn’t pay taxes, I don’t think the government would be patting me on the back as they’ve done with Zoccolillo. It’d be more like cuffing my hands behind my back.

Well, Zoccolillo is someone’s “star” and stars get star treatment….

Q. Let’s talk about your Cooperation Agreement. Do you recall signing a Cooperation Agreement?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you recall the day that you signed the Cooperation Agreement?
A. Um, no. Not the exact day.
Q. Well, let me — isn’t it true that you signed your Cooperation Agreement on November 14th, 2013, approximately?
A. Approximately. I feel like that’s when I — when I turned myself in or —
Q. Well, this is –
A. I don’t know –
Q. This is 3514-48. You could read the whole document. You can look at the first page and the last page.
A. Yes. That makes sense.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection that you signed your Cooperation Agreement on November 14th, 2013, sir?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And isn’t it true that you were facing life in prison?
A. I don’t believe so.
Q. Okay. Let’s see if this will refresh your recollection. 3514-48. And you could read after Count One, the entire paragraph.
A. “Count One of the information carries” —
Q. Read it to yourself.
THE COURT: Read it to yourself.
A. Okay.
Q. So isn’t it a fact that you faced life in prison, sir?
A. I guess you could say that. I didn’t — never knew that. I guess I never —
Q. Did you read this Cooperation Agreement when you signed it?
A. I’m sure I did. Yeah.
Q. And you had a lawyer?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you signed it?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Your lawyer signed it?
A. Yes.
Q. And someone in the government signed it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you, as you sit here today, did not realize you were facing life in prison?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Okay. Well, could we agree that — did it refresh your recollection that now you were facing a maximum sentence of life in prison?
A. Yes.
Q. And isn’t it true, pursuant to that Cooperation Agreement, that you were facing a minimum sentence of 20 years, correct?
A. That’s correct.

And when liars get exposed, they start getting testy…

Q. Can you please tell the jury how much time you got in prison since the Cooperation Agreement, you signed it?
A. About two years, as I stated earlier.
Q. Well, isn’t it true that after you signed the Cooperation Agreement, it was only 17 months that you did?
MS. COHEN: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: If the witness doesn’t agree with the premise, he’ll say, No, that’s not correct.
A. Like I said, about two years. I don’t know the exact to the day.
Q. Let me see if this will refresh your recollection. It’s 3514-62. See if this refreshes your recollection the day that you received your sentence.
A. I know when I received my sentence.
Q. Oh.
A. I just said I don’t know exactly to the day of how much time I did exactly.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection or isn’t it true that you were sentenced on May 1st, 2015?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay. So you signed your agreement on November 14th, 2013, and you were facing life in prison, and then you were sentenced to time served on May 1st, 2015, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. So could we agree that was 17 months?
THE COURT: Time served was 17 months or 17 months from the day —
Q. From the day you signed the agreement —
THE COURT: We can’t interrupt each other. I’m asking you whether you mean was time served 17 months or was it — is it 17 months between November 2013 and May 2015?
MR. MERINGOLO: November 14th to May 1st, 2015.
THE COURT: I guess —
MR. MERINGOLO: November 14, 2013 to May 1st, 2015.
Q. Can we agree that you signed the Cooperation Agreement November 14, 2013 and you were sentenced 17 months later to time served on May 1st, 2015?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, isn’t it true that you told this jury that you were — you weren’t here pursuant to an agreement on direct examination?
A. That’s correct.
Q. But, sir, you’re in the Federal Witness Security Program, right?
A. Correct.
Q. And isn’t it true that you have a deal as a federal witness, that you must fully cooperate and your failure to testify, you’ll lose your benefits?
A. It’s not a Cooperation Agreement.
Q. But it is an agreement, correct?
A. It’s not an agreement of what you’re asking me.
Q. Well, sir, if you decided not to testify, you would lose the benefits that you’re receiving, correct?
A. I don’t receive any benefits.

And then the government got its panties in a bunch again…

MS. COHEN: Your Honor, may we approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
(At the sidebar)
MS. COHEN: I’d ask to make this application to the Court ex parte.
THE COURT: Let me just look at what Mr. Meringolo handed me, which is 3514-63, which is a memorandum from somebody at Main Justice, Witness Security Program, to the government. And it says — it’s dated August 26, 2015. And it says, This memo from Washington to the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorneys Office, it says you should also instruct the witness that failure to fully cooperate with you and your investigation/prosecution, or failure to testify, or any attempt to intentionally undermine the government’s case by providing false or incomplete testimony, is, in and of itself, a violation of program guidelines, could lead to immediate termination of the witness and family members from the program. The document obviously is not an agreement.
MR. SCOTTEN: We need to talk to you ex parte, and it will obviate this.
MR. MERINGOLO: Then I’ll move on.
MS. COHEN: The government doesn’t intend to prevent Mr. Londonio from engaging in cross-examination. If he chooses to withdraw this line of questioning, that’s fine, but we’re not intending to interfere with his right to cross-examine, but we do need to make this application ex parte if he is going to continue down that line.
MR. MERINGOLO: All I wanted to say, and Judge, you can stop me, it’s okay, is that if you don’t come here and testify, you’ll lose your benefits in the WITSEC program.
THE COURT: I gather, the answer to that question is going to be maybe not what you expect. I don’t know. Let me hear from the government outside your presence.
MR. MERINGOLO: I’m not making a big deal of this.
MR. DRATEL: We object; have our objection on record.
(Page 3860 sealed, by order of the Court)
(In open court)
THE COURT: Mr. Meringolo, you should move on to something else.
MR. MERINGOLO: Okay. One minute.

What is ex parte? An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present. So, what was that secret government sidebar about? I guess we’ll never know because Meringolo had to move on.

Court stopped early that day, but next day was Halloween, and the jury was in for a treat.

__________________________

[mafiastudent]

Before the jury was brought into the courtroom, Judge Siebel explained why she, once again, denied Crea’s motion for a severance. Crea was going to call Londonio as a witness so that he could tell the truth about his conversations and interactions with Evangelista, much like Bruno did in his December 2018 letter regarding the attempted Ulzheimer murder.

Here are portions of the Siebel’s ruling:

First of all, Rule 12 says that Rule 14 motions to sever have to be made before trial. The defendants have been aware since shortly after the superseding indictment in May of 2017 that the government’s theory was that Mr. Caldwell was the shooter, and Mr. Londonio the driver, for the Meldish homicide, and that further, the government’s theory was that the order came down from Madonna through Crea Senior and Crea Junior. If Mr. Londonio were going to exculpate Crea Senior, that motion could have been made with Mr. Crea Senior’s severance motion in October of 2018.

Motions to sever under Rule 14 are committed to my discretion…But Rule 14 does not require severance even if prejudice is shown. Instead the tailoring of relief to be granted, if any, is in my discretion.

Mr. Londonio has put in an affidavit saying he would waive his Fifth Amendment rights and testify in a separate trial. Further, while the affidavit says that Mr. Londonio would waive given that he, quote, “has not pleaded guilty” or evidenced an intention to do so, it is unrealistic to think that he would be any more willing to waive his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination when called as a witness at a separate trial than he would be willing to insist on his privilege as a defendant not to take the stand.

Remember, Crea made many motions for severance and dismissal that were denied. In addition, the government did not hand over all the discovery material to the defense within the timeframe the Judge cites. Also remember, that while the government’s “theory” about how the Meldish murder happened never wavered, the government’s own witnesses told a different version of events. Remember, too, that much of the government’s “evidence” they claimed it had to support their theory was either fabricated or manipulated. In legalese, it’s called “misrepresented.

And as noted, the offer to testify coming well into a trial at which the government has offered substantial even abundant evidence against Mr. Londonio looks like a last-minute ploy to get a do-over.

Do-over? Isn’t that what the government did when they were allowed to bring a new “trial” indictment against Crea – the one where the charge of the attempted murder of Sean Richard was dropped?

Also, Crea Junior could testify to some of the same things. And much of what Mr. Londonio says he would say, such as he never dealt directly with Crea Senior, is not inconsistent with the government’s theory. But Mr. Londonio is the only witness who could testify as to his conversation with Evangelista. At the same time, what Mr. Londonio did or did not say to Evangelista is not quite as important as to what the facts of the matter are.

And Mr. Londonio, in his carefully-worded affidavit,has not denied that he drove Mr. Caldwell to shoot Mr. Meldish or said how he would explain away the evidence that he did, or deny that Crea Senior is the Underboss of the Family or address any number of other issues that seem to be more directly on point than whether or not Mr. Londonio confided in Mr. Evangelista.

What’s on point is that Evangelista claimed Londonio “confessed” to him about a murder and the government is using that “confession” to try to bring a conviction against Crea and put him behind bars for life. The other things mentioned in the affidavit have no bearing on Evangelista’s claims and Londonio doesn’t have to admit or deny anything in an affidavit. That’s what a trial is for. Also, this affidavit isn’t about positions or driving a car, it’s an affidavit for him to testify as a defense witness, specifically to rebut the alleged “confession” he made to Evangelista, which Judge Siebel just said Londonio was “the only witness who could testify as to his conversation with Evangelista.” Further, is the judge qualifying the government’s “evidence” as guilt? I thought she was supposed to be impartial?

And whether it would be Mr. Londonio or Mr. Crea who was severed-out, they are charged in a RICO conspiracy together, and basically all of the evidence against one would be admissible in a separate trial against the other, requiring essentially a repeat of the whole trial.

Except for the fact you would have the only other witness to that alleged “confession” testifying about it, which would give the jury a true and balanced picture of what really happened. But why take away time and money from the government when they it could be better spent on informants like Zoccolillo?

Then the fireworks began with re-direct by AUSA Cohen:

Q. Now, you were also asked on cross-examination about moneys that have been paid as part of your participation in the witness protection program. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. And particularly, you were asked about moneys that were paid for travel expenses; do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did the federal government ever pay for you to go on vacation?
A. No, ma’am.
Q. So the travel that the government paid for, what was the purpose of that travel?
A. Reimbursement for either flight and/or hotel.
Q. Flight and/or hotel for what purpose?
A. To come prep for trial. There was some taxi charges, too, or some transportation to and from the airport or something.
Q. All related to preparation for trial?
A. Correct.
Q. None related to personal travel?
A. That’s correct.

Defense never asked about personal travel, so why does the government feel the need to clarify that? It still doesn’t justify the government spending taxpayer dollars to cover travel expense for an informant. And, stupidly (because that’s really what it is), the government revealed that it doesn’t make the arrangements for the informant. The informant makes their own and the government reimburses. So, I can say with confidence, I doubt Zoccolillo was staying at Motel 6 while in New York.

Q. Now, do you recall being asked on cross-examination whether you ever saw Vinny Bruno meeting with Steven Crea Senior?
A. Yes.
Q. In your experience, does the Underboss of an organized crime family regularly meet with all of the Associates in the Family?
MR. DiPIETRO: Objection. He has no experience.
THE COURT: You can lay the foundation.
Q. Mr. Zoccolillo, in the 30 years that you spent in the Bronx, did you have close friends who were Associates of various organized crime families?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you also have friends who were Made members of various organized crime families?
A. Yes.
Q. Based on your experience, does the Underboss of an organized crime family regularly meet with all of the Associates in the Family?
A. Not — not very likely.

Again, this question was never asked by DiPietro and clearly comes from left field as a way for the government to establish some sort of hierarchy. During her direct examination, Cohen asked Zoccolillo what Bruno said to him in the car and Zoccolillo said that, “Stevie Junior and the father, they trust me” in explaining why he was asked to go on the bogus Ulzheimer hit. That is the only time anything was mentioned about anything related to the above questioning.

Q. Do you recall being asked on cross-examination about the Bonannos invading the Lucchese club on Coddington Avenue?
A. Yes.
Q. And do you remember being asked on cross-examination about what Carl Ulzheimer told you about what happened during that confrontation?
A. Yes.
Q. What did Ulzheimer tell you Crea Senior said to him during the confrontation?
A. That he wouldn’t forget his face.

Check the cross by DiPietro. This was not the question that was asked. In fact, during Cohen’s original questioning of Zoccolillo on the Coddington Club events, he never even mentions anything about Crea saying anything to Ulzheimer. She specifically tells him not to relate his conversation with Ulzheimer. The “I won’t forget your face” statement was from Lovaglio’s testimony.

This part we’re including only for the sidebar portion to show you the shady thought process and bias of the prosecution and the judge:

Q. On cross-examination, you were also asked questions about whether Bruno made up the attempted murder of Carl Ulzheimer. Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes or no, do you have reason to believe that Bruno and Cassano did, in fact, go to Ulzheimer’s house and try to kill him?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that belief based on?
A. Based on conversations with Vincent Bruno, understanding how it went down, the things that happened after the fact, the conversations with Sal. I mean, numerous ways.
Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Carl Ulzheimer about what happened that night?
MR. DiPIETRO: Objection.
THE COURT: That’s a yes or no question.
THE WITNESS: Sorry. Repeat that.
Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Carl Ulzheimer about what happened that night?
A. Yes.
Q. Based on your conversation with Carl Ulzheimer —
MR. DiPIETRO: Objection —
THE COURT: Come to the sidebar.

(At the sidebar)
THE COURT: Did this come out on cross?
MS. COHEN: It did not, but Mr. DiPietro opened the door to this when he asked numerous questions suggesting the witness’ only basis for knowledge was Bruno and that Vinny Bruno made up going to Carl Ulzheimer’s house. Ulzheimer told the witness that –
MR. DiPIETRO: You can’t do that.
MS. COHEN: — men in masks came to the house, knocked on his door, and he saw them hiding so they wouldn’t be seen, and he didn’t open the door. We’re not offering it for the truth. We’re not going to stand up in closing and say we know this happened because Ulzheimer said it happened, but he attacked the witness’ credibility and Vinny Bruno’s credibility knowing —
MR. DiPIETRO: I’m entitled to do that.
MS. COHEN: Not when he knows that that’s a false impression.
THE COURT: No. What exactly was said which was implying the witness’ only information came from the unreliable Mr. Bruno?
MR. DiPIETRO: Just to clarify the record, Bruno is a declarant. I’m allowed to impeach him and his credibility.
THE COURT: That is absolutely true.
MR. DiPIETRO: How do I —
THE COURT: The government’s argument only stands if something on the cross suggested that the witness only knew about this from Vinny Bruno. So if you can show me —
MR. DiPIETRO: I don’t know if they have a citation.
MS. COHEN: I do have a citation. Can I get my papers?
THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. MERINGOLO: Before we break from sidebar, I’d like to bring one thing up so I don’t get in trouble on recross.
THE COURT: Good idea.
MS. COHEN: Mr. DiPietro asked, this is page 3834, line 1 through 3, the implication of the question is that Mr. Zoccolillo’s only source is Bruno and Larca —
MR. DiPIETRO: No. I was establishing that Larca’s source was Bruno. That’s not a fair reading of that.
THE COURT: I have to go with Mr. DiPietro on that one.
MS. COHEN: He also asked —
MR. DiPIETRO: If I may, this is improper at sidebar last minute. If they wanted to do this last night, they should have tee’d this up. This is extremely prejudicial to elicit statements by the alleged victim.
THE COURT: I haven’t said they could do it.
MR. DiPIETRO: Okay. Thank you.

MS. COHEN: A couple of things. Number one, page 3836, this is with respect to the Deluccia recording in which Mr. DiPietro elicited Mr. Zoccolillo’s statements about the meeting being far-fetched, the whole thing being far-fetched and that they were, quote, rumors also suggesting that this event did not happen.
THE COURT: The witness said, if I remember, that he said it as part of his —
MS. COHEN: Cooperation.
THE COURT: Cooperation.
MR. DiPIETRO: You could elicit that. I’m not objecting if you say, Sir, when you said this was far-fetched, you were playing a role, that’s fine, but you can’t elicit Carl’s statement. It’s a confrontation issue. I don’t have a right to confront Ulzheimer.
MS. COHEN: Of course, we can’t offer for the truth, the implication of the line of questioning is this event never happened.

THE COURT: The implication is that his testimony is based on what he heard from Mr. Bruno, and Mr. Bruno is unreliable. The one thing I didn’t understand, and maybe this relates to that, is the witness said that his he saw the security camera going in the day after the attempt.
MS. COHEN: Correct.
THE COURT: He didn’t explain how he knew it was the day after.
MS. COHEN: He knows it because of what Carl told him. He’s going to say Carl told him about it the day it happened. He described this on direct examination.
THE COURT: He drove by and saw —
MS. COHEN: Correct. And he gets out and he starts talking to Carl and his brother, and they say we’re putting up cameras. In sum and substance, you won’t believe what happened last night. And they tell him what happened. And then Carl says I called Ernie, and he’s on his way down here now. Subsequent to that, Mr. Bruno makes these admissions to Mr. Zoccolillo.
MR. DiPIETRO: Sorry. I can’t hear you. I’m sorry.
MS. COHEN: Subsequent to that, Mr. Bruno makes admissions, makes these admissions to Mr. Zoccolillo. So when Bruno makes those admissions, Mr. Zoccolillo already knows that this attempt has happened. Now Carl can’t tell him it was Vinny Bruno. He can tell him men came to my house with a gun, trying to kill me.
MR. DiPIETRO: No —

Once again, the government is caught lying. What she asked Zocollillo was this, which you can check back for direct reference: “So at the time that you get to Carl Ulzheimer’s house, had you had this conversation yet with Vinny Bruno where he told you about going with Paul Cassano?” Zoccollillo answers: “No.”

MS. COHEN: If Mr. DiPietro were really just alleging Bruno isn’t the one who did it, it may be different, but the clear implication of his line of questioning was Bruno completely made this up, never happened, we don’t even know if it was a real gun, we don’t even know if it’s a real gun, we don’t know if there were bullets, nobody was ever shot.
THE COURT: That’s fair. It could still have happened.
MR. DiPIETRO: Yeah.

MR. DiPIETRO: I didn’t say that.
MS. COHEN: Bruno is an exaggerator, he’s a pill-taker, you can’t rely on him.
MR. DiPIETRO: He’s the declarant.
MS. COHEN: Of course, Ulzheimer — I’m not going to ask him who did it. We’re not going to rely on his statement.
THE COURT: It’s hearsay. The questioning I think stayed on the side of the line of questioning the declarant’s reliability.
MR. DiPIETRO: I didn’t —
THE COURT: The problem with the Ulzheimer testimony is that it’s hearsay. I think what the government can do, and I think what’s fair, is you can elicit and you may lead through this, you can elicit that the security cameras were going up, but — and then he heard from Mr. Ulzheimer it was based on something that happened the day before, and that’s it.
MR. DiPIETRO: That is improper. I don’t — I can’t confront Mr. Ulzheimer. I didn’t even attack his credibility on direct — on cross-examination. I never attacked Mr. Ulzheimer’s credibility.
THE COURT: You basically suggested they should throw out this witness’ testimony because Mr. Bruno is unreliable.
MR. DiPIETRO: Mr. Bruno — they’re relying on Mr. Bruno’s statement. They’re not relying on what he witnessed. He’s the declarant. I’m entitled to go after him.

MS. COHEN: You’re entitled to go after Mr. Bruno as to whether he participated in it, whether he got the order from the Boss and his Captain. All of that is fair fame, but once you suggest that the event never happened, knowing that there’s a false implication, you can’t use the hearsay rules to create that false implication.
MR. DiPIETRO: For the record, this is completely improper. This is the alleged victim. Your Honor is now offering not for the truth but the alleged victim’s statements. I cannot confront this gentleman.
THE COURT: First of all, what I suggested was only that the alleged victim said he was putting the cameras up based on an incident that happened the day before. That’s it.
MR. DiPIETRO: And how do I impeach that?
THE COURT: I guess you don’t.
MR. DiPIETRO: But I didn’t open the door to Ulzheimer’s credibility.
THE COURT: You know what? Here’s my ruling. Mr. DiPietro is allowed to attack the credibility of Mr. Bruno. He is not attacking the credibility of Mr. Zoccolillo. You can go back over the testimony where that — the cross where he was asked if he thought the story was far-fetched, and you can elicit whether he, in fact, thinks it’s far-fetched, and leave it at that.
MR. DiPIETRO: Thank you.

(In open court)
BY MS. COHEN:
Q. Mr. Zoccolillo, do you recall being asked on cross-examination about a conversation that you had with Dom Deluccia about the attempted murder of Carl Ulzheimer?
A. Yes.
Q. When you had that conversation with Deluccia, were you cooperating with law enforcement?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you wearing a wire?
A. Yes.
Q. During that conversation, did you say things that weren’t true?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you say things that weren’t true?
A. Because I was cooperating and kind of just protecting myself.
Q. During that conversation, did you tell Dom Deluccia that you thought the story with Carl Ulzheimer was far-fetched?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you actually think that the story about what happened with Carl Ulzheimer was far-fetched?
A. No.
Q. When Bruno told you that he and Cassano went to kill Carl Ulzheimer, did you have any reason to disbelieve him?
A. No.
MS. COHEN: No further questions.

But Cohen forgot about how the dates don’t line up, and everything else cited above.

It’s also clear from the sidebar that Siebel put on her prosecutor’s robes (or maybe she never took them off) because she’s strategizing with Cohen, not acting as an impartial party like she’s supposed to be. Note that when DiPietro asks how he would “impeach” Ulzheimer’s conversation, Siebel replies, “I guess you don’t.”

And if you think this is the last time Siebel reveals whose side she’s really on during this trial….just wait. But then again, she’s been doing it all along.

_________________________

[mafiastudent]

DiPietro steps back into the ring…

RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. DiPIETRO:
Q. Happy Halloween, Mr. Zoccolillo.
A. Same to you, sir.
Q. No tricks today, okay?
A. We’ll see.
THE COURT: No treats, either.
Q. I hope I get some treats. You testified that in your experience, it would be unusual for Mr. Bruno to be I guess in the presence of Mr. Crea; is that correct?
A. I’m sorry. Repeat that.
Q. You testified that, based on your experience, it would be unusual for Mr. Bruno to be in the presence of Mr. Crea; is that correct?
A. I think I based it on all Associates.
Q. And you were an Associate, right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you testified about a man named Ernie Aiello?
A. Yes.
Q. And you told us he was an Acting Underboss, correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And you hung out with him every day?
A. Almost every day.
Q. So based on your experience, did Associates hang out with Underbosses?
A. Some. Not all.
Q. Thank you.

So, this guy can’t remember something he said five minutes ago or he’s dumb as a box of rocks. Probably both.

Q. You also testified that you didn’t believe the story was far-fetched; correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Sir, have you testified at any prior proceedings?
A. Relating to this case?
Q. Relating to any case.
A. Yes.
Q. And you were under oath in those proceedings?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Did you omit any facts when you testified in those proceedings?
A. What’s the word “omit”? What does that mean?
Q. Did you leave out any details?
A. Not that I remember.
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: You can ask whether he answered the questions he was asked.
Q. Did you answer the questions you were asked?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you asked in a prior proceeding under oath about the events relating to Carl Ulzheimer?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Were you asked about the events at the Coddington Club regarding the Luccheses and the Bonannos?
A. I honestly don’t remember.
Q. Let me see if something refreshes your recollection.
A. Sure.
Q. Showing you what’s marked 3514-88, pages 32 of 120. Read the highlighted section to yourself.
MS. COHEN: Give me the page number again.
MR. DiPIETRO: Sure. It’s page 32, 3514-88.
THE COURT: Page and line? Page and line?
MR. DiPIETRO: I’m sorry. It is page 2140, lines 15, going to the next page, line 4.
A. Okay.
Q. You see that, sir?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you testify in a prior proceeding under oath about the alleged event at the Coddington Club?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And did you testify —
MS. COHEN: Objection.
MR. DiPIETRO: Excuse me?
MS. COHEN: Objection.

THE COURT: Hold on a second.
MR. DiPIETRO: It’s 3514-88, page 32 of 120, the transcript pages 2140.
THE COURT: Give me a second.
MR. DiPIETRO: Sure.
THE COURT: That was just to refresh his recollection about whether he had ever previously testified about the Coddington Club, and I think the witness said it did refresh his recollection. Now beyond that, I am sustaining, because I don’t see anything inconsistent.
MR. DiPIETRO: Your Honor, on what basis?
THE COURT: Not inconsistent.
MR. DiPIETRO: I didn’t ask a question yet.
THE COURT: Well, I think you started to say “And didn’t you testify” —

Judge Siebel using her magic crystal ball to see into the future…

BY MR. DiPIETRO:
Q. Sir, you testified just now that you didn’t believe the story was far-fetched; is that correct?
THE COURT: He said that Ulzheimer story, not the Coddington Club.
MR. DiPIETRO: Yeah. And I’m getting there, your Honor.
Q. Did you testify under oath that at that meeting, everything was resolved?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you mention, yes or no, an attempt on Carl Ulzheimer?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: If there’s a basis to believe he was — asked about that, go ahead; otherwise, no.
Q. Did you leave out any facts on purpose?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Sir, did you ever exaggerate in your testimony in that prior trial?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Overruled.
Q. Did you exaggerate in your testimony in that prior trial?
A. Yes, I did, about a story about the Yankees or something.
Q. Who is Mickey Mantle, sir?
A. A baseball player.
Q. Did you testify that he’s connected to organized crime?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
Q. Yes or no?
THE COURT: I’ll allow it.
Q. You think this is funny, sir?
A. Yeah.

Clearly an asshhole.

THE COURT: What did you exaggerate, Mr. Zoccolillo?
THE WITNESS: I don’t remember the exact wording, but I think I said, you know, probably he’s connected, too, or something like that. I don’t remember the exact wording.
A. You can refresh my recollection.
Q. Probably not based on facts, are you, sir?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
A. Sorry?
Q. Do you know Mickey Mantle?
MS. COHEN: Objection; out of context.
THE COURT: Sustained. I’m not saying you can’t go here. I’m just saying, don’t argue with the witness. Ask questions.
Q. Did you testify in a prior case that Mickey Mantle was connected to organized crime?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you know that, sir?
A. An assumption.
Q. So you just assume things, but you testify to them?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Q. Can we kindly pull up Government Exhibit 1307.
MR. DiPIETRO: I’m just going to put my calendar on the ELMO.
MS. COHEN: Objection; outside the scope.
THE COURT: This is the document — yesterday, we called it G, but today we’re calling it GG now because there was a G.
MR. DiPIETRO: It’s not beyond the scope. He said the story is not far-fetched, so we’re going to see.
MS. COHEN: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: I don’t like speaking objections. I think I made that clear. Overruled. Or responses to objections that are speaking responses.
MR. DiPIETRO: Kindly put up 1307.
THE COURT: But Mr. DiPietro, based on the conversation at the sidebar, you want to tread carefully.
MR. DiPIETRO: I am. I am, your Honor.
Q. You see the timestamp on that photo?
THE COURT: I actually don’t see what this has to do with what we’re talking about.

So now she must see a problem for the government and backtracks, but it’s too late. DiPietro keeps going.

Q. Sir, you testified that shortly after the event at the Coddington Club, that there was an attempt made, correct, on Mr. Ulzheimer?
MS. COHEN: Objection. Misstates the witness’ testimony.
THE COURT: I think since we have to tread carefully here, I’m going to sustain, but I still don’t see what this exhibit has to do with that.
Q. Sir, were you out at California at the time of this?
THE COURT: Of this photograph?
Q. Of this photograph?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is Rabbit, sir?
A. Somebody that was involved in the case with us.
Q. And when I asked you, Did you know when you came back from California, what was your testimony? Do you recall yesterday?
A. When I came back?
Q. Yeah.
A. That I wasn’t sure.
Q. You weren’t sure, right? Did Rabbit tell you in August 1st, 2012 —
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.

Q. Well, sir, how far is the flight from California to New York?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: I think we all know it’s — if you fly direct, it’s about six hours, give or take.
MR. DiPIETRO: Six hours.
Q. Did you tell Rabbit on August 1st that you were six hours away, sir?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Your phone was wiretapped during that time?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: I’m having difficulty seeing why this is within the scope. So if you need to tell me, come to sidebar. Don’t talk. If you need to tell me, come to the sidebar.

(At the sidebar)
MR. DiPIETRO: In Agent Keller’s testimony, over my objection, and they established that the date of the incident was July 30th, 2012.

Agent Keller was the NYPD officer Lovaglio reported the Coddington Club incident to. The date he took the report was July 31, 2012.

THE COURT: What difference does it make if this guy was in California on the day —
MR. DiPIETRO: With Bruno.
MS. COHEN: To the Coddington Club, not the Ulzheimer —
MR. DiPIETRO: And Mr. Lovaglio’s testimony was the attempt was the day after, because he learned it from Ernie Aiello; that was the testimony in the record.
THE COURT: Take a cleansing breath.
MR. DiPIETRO: I’m sorry. Trying very hard.
THE COURT: The witness being in California on the date of the Coddington Club incursion, what does that —
MR. DiPIETRO: Mr. Bruno is in California with him, and also —
THE COURT: And Mr. Bruno is also not involved in the Coddington Club incursion.
MR. DiPIETRO: Correct.
THE COURT: If we can place the Coddington Club incursion on July 30th or 31st, there might be some relevance to this, which is beyond the scope of recross, which is already in the record.
MR. DiPIETRO: Hold on.
THE COURT: Where do we place the date of the Coddington Club incursion? Let me finish. I remember the agent testified that he learned about it from someone —
MR. DiPIETRO: Correct.
THE COURT: — on July 31st, so it must have been before July 31st.
MR. DiPIETRO: Correct. He said it was the day before. In the report, it says July 30th, was the incursion at the Coddington Club.
THE COURT: That, I don’t think is in the record.
MS. ROTHMAN: It’s not.
THE COURT: Because it would be hearsay.
MS. ROTHMAN: Correct.
MR. DiPIETRO: Now you’re not arguing that’s the date?

Took the words right out of my mouth. I hate to speculate, but maybe there was some collusion between the judge and the prosecution because when the date issue came up in the previous day’s testimony, Siebel wasn’t claiming the dates were irrelevant. She even helped along by looking up on her phone, presumably, the actual days from 2012 that Zoccolillo and Bruno were in California, even telling everyone about her “anniversary.”

Remember, too, that the date of this alleged incident was a huge issue during pretrial hearings

THE COURT: What’s in the record is that somebody told the agent about it on July 31st, so it must have occurred on July 31st or earlier. But since the witness and Mr. Bruno were not in attendance, the fact that they were in California at the time doesn’t seem relevant, unless there’s some —
MR. DiPIETRO: Yes.
THE COURT: — reason to believe — let me finish.
MR. DiPIETRO: I’m sorry.
THE COURT: I know you get excited, but you interrupt all the time.
MR. DiPIETRO: I’m sorry. I apologize.
MR. MERINGOLO: Should I butt-in and say we have to be calm?
THE COURT: It’s only relevant if there’s some evidence in the record that the Bruno attempt was also on — the Bruno Cassano attempt was also on July 31st or August 1st or whenever.
MR. DiPIETRO: And there is —
THE COURT: Right now, you’ve got in the record that Cassano said he was out of town until Monday, which is August 6th.
MR. DiPIETRO: I can go further with that.
THE COURT: Is there evidence in the record as to when the Ulzheimer attempt occurred in relation to the Coddington Club incursion?
MR. DiPIETRO: Yes.
THE COURT: What is that?
MR. DiPIETRO: Peter Lovaglio testified that it happened the day after and that Ernie Aiello had told him that. That’s in the record, sworn testimony, by Mr. Lovaglio. And that’s why I kept asking him, Do you know Peter Lovaglio? I wasn’t doing it just — because I was drawing the connection the jury heard it the day before that Lovaglio said it was the day after. And we said, How did you know that? He said Ernie Aiello. It’s in the record.

MS. COHEN: I don’t think it is. I went back to check. If you know where it is —
MR. SCOTTEN: I brought it over. We’ll check the record.
MS. COHEN: Even if it were Aiello’s statement, it’s hearsay. That’s not admissible for the truth of the matter asserted.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t remember if there was an objection to it. Seems to me, it could be against his penal interest, against Aiello’s.
MR. DiPIETRO: It’s in the record.
Do we have a word search?
THE COURT: Page 3672, line 19.
“Question: So Johnny Joe told you Carl told him something.
“Answer: Right. Somebody came to his house and tried to kill him, yeah.
“Question: How much after this event did Johnny Joe tell you that Carl told him that something happened?
“Answer: How much time afterwards —
“Question: Yeah.
“Answer: — after he tried to kill him, he got killed?
“Question: If that’s what you think he said, how many days passed?
“Answer: The very next day.
“Question: The very next day. What time did this — going back to the event at the club, what time of day was it when this occurred?
“Answer: I believe it was towards nighttime. I’m not sure exactly what time, but it was towards night.”
So it looks like it’s not clear to me the — and this came out on cross, that Carl told Johnny Joe who told Lovaglio that somebody had come to kill Carl the very next day; that’s in there.
MS. COHEN: It’s not clearly in reference to after the Coddington Club incursion. I mean, I have trouble figuring out what it’s in reference to.

But it’s YOUR witness????? Didn’t you prepare him ahead of time like all your other witnesses, but now that you’re being called out, exposed, or getting caught in another lie, you’re backtracking?

I’m sorry, but this is supposed to be a fair and impartial trial and clearly, like what happened during pretrial, it has carried over in an even worse way in the actual trial.

THE COURT: Well, it says — the event seems to be the Coddington Club incursion.
MS. COHEN: Except that they’re discussing the Ulzheimer attempt in the preceding questions. I think the witness is clearly confused.

“Confused.” The government’s excuse for all the witnesses that lie to them and for them. It’s the same thing they said about Pasqua. And again, why is Judge Siebel strategizing with the prosecution? If she wanted to be on the other side of the bench, she should never have accepted her judgeship and taken an oath to be fair and impartial and uphold the Constitution.

And clearly, she is clueless or blatantly ignores, what the duties of a judge are supposed to be in a court of law. The job of the judge in this situation is to listen to the prosecution’s reasoning for the objection – not to help them figure out how to cover up their blunders and lies.

THE COURT: Well, you can argue that, but the witness says the story came from Carl to Johnny Joe to me, and then Johnny Joe told the witness that Carl told the witness that somebody came to his house and tried to kill him. And then the question was how much after this event did Johnny Joe tell you that Carl told him that something had happened, and it says the very next day. Now this event is ambiguous. It could be read as saying how much after the Coddington Club incursion did Johnny Joe tell you that Carl told him this. I think a more fair reading is how much after the attempt to kill him did Johnny Joe tell Carl that it happened.
MS. COHEN: Exactly.
THE COURT: That’s what summations are for.
MS. COHEN: It’s not a basis to now cross-examine this witness beyond the scope.
THE COURT: It’s fine. You’ve already got all this.
MR. DiPIETRO: If your Honor —
THE COURT: I think the government’s read of the line of questioning is stronger, but that’s for argument.
MR. DiPIETRO: Okay. If you Honor is going to let them argue that’s not the correct date, I can take Cassano out of all of August with this guy right now, almost all of August.
THE COURT: Ahead.
MR. DiPIETRO: Okay.
(In open court)

BY MR. DiPIETRO:
Q. Sir, this photograph, you testified that it was taken while you and Vinny Bruno were in California; is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And the timestamp on that photograph is 11:28 p.m.?
A. That’s correct.
Q. What was your plans the next day?
A. I guess what part of the plan, whether it went through or it didn’t go through, I guess there was different plans based on what happened.
Q. Okay. And I asked you before do you know a gentleman by the name of Rabbit?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Who is rabbit?
A. Rabbit was one of the connects that we had in California.
Q. And did you speak to Rabbit during this time period?
A. During which period?
Q. The time period of July 30th into August?
A. Into August?
Q. Yes.
A. It would be possible. Can’t tell you exactly.
Q. Did you tell Rabbit on August 1st, 2012, that you were not around because you were five hours away?
A. You’d have to refresh my memory.
Q. Okay. Did you say to Mr. Rabbit, No, I’m about five hours away right now I’m just trying to handle some other situation? Is the situation the robbery?
A. I really don’t know.
Q. You could agree, though, sir, if you’re in California, you can’t be in New York at the same time.
A. That’s correct.
Q. And Mr. Bruno was with you?
A. When?
Q. When you were in California?
A. I guess it depends on what day that you’re asking and time.
Q. Well, in that picture, is he with you?
A. In that picture, he’s with me; correct.
Q. Did he have the ability to disappear?
MS. COHEN: Objection.
THE COURT: Let’s move on.
MR. DiPIETRO: No further questions.

So, why was this charge even brought against Crea and the others? And the even bigger question is was this entire event inflated or, better yet, dreamed up entirely by the government – ala – Londonio’s bogus escape? And, most importantly, why was the government allowed to get away with it? It makes you wonder what else the government lied about to make their wishes come true.

The government might not have rested its case on the main attraction, but it ended with an eye-opening bang.

END of this part

[mafiastudent]

The Government’s Lifeline
Even though the government had been underhanded and shady throughout the entirety of this case, they didn’t want to leave anything to chance.

So, before Judge Siebel sent the jury off to make their decision, she gave them a special instruction, called the Pinkerton liability, so that even if they believed Crea didn’t have any involvement or knowledge about the murder of Michael Meldish, they could still find him guilty.

Why?

Because if the jury believed he was a member of a “club” (or “enterprise,”) he “could have reasonably foreseen” – consulted his crystal ball – that somebody would have murdered Meldish.

So, think about how the prosecution presented their case, knowing full well they had absolutely no evidence to secure a conviction but told their fairy tale in a way to show that Crea was, indeed, part of a secret club.

Also think about Coffey’s statement to the press that Meldish should have been killed “a long time ago.” Or what Londonio told Pasqua that “anyone could of did this….the list goes miles long.” Even Siebel said that there was a large universe of people who might have wanted Meldish killed. So, in truth, everyone – the entire “organized crime” universe – could have “reasonably foreseen” Meldish’s murder.

But everyone wasn’t the government’s target – only Steven L. Crea. And that’s why Judge Siebel stepped in and gave the government a lifeline and added the Pinkerton liability to the jury’s instructions.

And with a BS rule like Pinkerton – what was the point of having a trial at all?

The Hammer Falls
On November 15, 2019, after a six-week trial and nine days of deliberation, the jury found Steven L. Crea guilty of the murder of Michael Meldish. The jury reached the same verdict for Matthew Madonna, Christopher Londonio, and Terrence Caldwell.

Crea was acquitted of the bogus attempted assault and murder of Carl Ulzheimer. Londonio was acquitted of the bogus escape charge.

Down But Not Out
I just want to establish that I am not a licensed attorney at law, nor do I claim to be well-versed in case law. And I certainly don’t want to come off as some “Philadelphia lawyer,” but I do like to consider myself an intelligent woman, who is both level-headed and clear-eyed when I view and weigh things – especially things that concern a man’s life hanging in the balance of my decision making.

And it just seems to me that it defies all logic and “Newton’s Law of Gravity and Relativity” that with all the vast and very serious inconsistencies in witness testimony, as well as what, in my opinion, is gross negligence, to say the least – if not an outright prejudice – on the part of this court against Mr. Crea, that a conviction could have been sustained and to “float” in this case.

What we have witnessed here is a level of prosecutorial misconduct the likes of which has rarely been seen inside a United States courtroom – unethical and most probably illegal and underhanded behavior and tactics by a prosecution team that had a “win at all costs, take no prisoners” attitude.

The result? Well, if it wasn’t so tragic it would actually be funny!

Crea and his codefendants WILL receive the “mandatory” life in prison sentence on the books for a crime which is highly suspect that they even committed in the first place. No wiggle room! No flexibility in sentencing because of extenuating circumstances or “suspect” evidence…to say it is revolting and stomach-churning would be the understatement of the year.

I am thoroughly revolted by this gross miscarriage of justice. And all true red-blooded true Americans should be as well – not because Crea and the others are choir boys – clearly, they are not – but because if they are allowed to go down the judicial drain today, you or I, or another innocent American citizen may take that spin down the drain of “justice” in the future.

I REST MY CASE!

Crea is scheduled to be sentenced sometime in June and is planning to appeal shortly thereafter. We’re keeping our fingers crossed that he’ll be able to present his case before three judges who value the importance of the Constitution and their judge’s oath to be fair and impartial. We wish him the best of luck.

The Truth in Black and White
Below you can read Anthony DiPietro’s Omnibus Motion submitted to the Court on October 18, 2019, on behalf of Crea which outlines many of the facts discussed above.

THE END....I'm not sure how to post that Omnibus motion here....it's PDF...so if someone can help me out...I'll get it up here

[mafiastudent]

This is Part 8 --- Forgot to Put it in the Thread

[Wiseguy]

Holy hell. First, Campos, and now Crea? What is it with this crusade of your's? And multiple threads on the same thing?

[Dwalin2014]

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

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

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

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

You have problems. Seriously.

So by your "logic", even guys like Carlo Gambino or Tommy Lucchese were completely innocent of any wrongdoing, since law enforcement never had evidence of them ordering any murders. For your information, reconstructions of facts made in a courtroom don't always reflect reality. An acquittal can be as much "wrongful" as a conviction. You can't honestly say you KNOW 100% whether he did it or not, and neither can I.

And again: WE'RE NOT IN A COURTROOM RIGHT NOW. Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

[mafiastudent]

Holy hell. First, Campos, and now Crea? What is it with this crusade of your's? And multiple threads on the same thing?

If you look at the tool of this post...Soliai gave me permission to post multiple threads because of the length. And yea Campos and Crea and whoever else I feel I want to talk about