Frank Calabrese Sr. has developed an interesting strategy as he testifies as to the true meaning of what he told his son during recorded conversations the two had in prison in 1999.
The conversations pose a particular challenge to Calabrese Sr. because they are his own words apparently describing in great detail mob murders he allegedly committed.
Calabrese Sr.'s attorney, Joseph R. Lopez, goes through each conversation and asks him about particular passages.
Calabrese Sr. pauses then give his interpretation of it.
The conversations date to 1999, and Calabrese, at 70, does have to think back on them.
Calabrese Sr., though, has had months to prepare for trial and consider what he said back then.
His strategy gives his testimony a making-it-up-as-he-goes-along feel.
At times, there's a Who's-on-First quality to his testimony.
Calabrese Sr. testifies a certain nickname, say Charlie, could refer to one person.
Then when it appears that makes no sense, Calabrese Sr. says it could refer to another person.
The flip-flopping interpretation has caused the normally stoic prosecutor Mitch Mars to look up from the prosecution table and look at Calabrese Sr. in apparent disbelief at times.
And every so often, U.S. District Judge James Zagel will break into a bemused smile.
If this man gets off because he can't fess up to the truth, I will lose all faith in the Criminal Justice system.
Also if he gets off for killing my Grandfather, I will make sure he loses the rest of his money to my family in a civil suit jut like OJ.
So there has to be an obvious sense of desperation here for the defense? Considering the reports earlier in the trial, it appears Frank Sr., out of all the defendants, has the strongest case against him--recordings, testimony from son and brother and other supporting evidence as well.
Is the defense desperate?
STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: I don't know you could use the word desperate. From Calabrese Sr.'s perspective, he may simply feel he doesn't have that much to lose or honestly believes he can tell the jury his account and be acquitted.
So much for the great Joe Lopez notching this case.
Thanks for replying to my earlier post. I had written you inquiring about how Lombardo said he didn't know the other defendants, which is why he wanted a new trial separate from the other defendants.
You responded by saying they were all in different crews so they didn't have a lot of interaction with each other.
If this is so, who would they report to? Who would oversee all the crews? I would assume that there would be one boss or a few bosses that oversaw all activities. Any insight on this?
STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: It depends what time period you are talking about.
But prosecutors contend that Joseph "Joey the Clown" Lombardo was the head of the Grand Avenue Crew and would have usually reported to Joseph Aiuppa.
Frank Calabrese Sr. was allegedly part of the Chinatown crew who reported to Angelo LaPietra and later, LaPietra's brother, James.
James Marcello was the righthand man to Sam Carlisi, when Carlisi was the top mob boss. When the feds arrested Marcello two years ago they contended he was the boss of the Chicago mob.
Paul Schiro was allegedly the Chicago mob's man in Arizona. The feds have not specified who he reported to.
And Anthony "Twan" Doyle has not been accused of being part of a mob crew but was allegedly a juice loan collector for Calabrese Sr. at one point.
Just a follow up..........so if eaech of these guys reported to someone, was there one Boss that oversaw everything? And is there any indication who is running the Outfit today?
STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: The one boss, the guy referred to as the "old man" on the tapes, was Joseph Aiuppa.
As for who is running the Outfit today, some in law enforcement point to Al "The Pizza Man" Tornabene, an aging reputed mobster who has flown under the radar for years.
Others say top mob boss John "No Nose" DiFronzo still pulls the strings.
Calabrese's trial testimony regarding his recorded conversations are incoherent, but so are the recorded conversations themselves.
Even with government-supplied explanations about what and who he is supposedly talking about in those conversations, they often don't make any sense.
Do you think he may come across to the jury as a confused, yappy old man? Or does he seem more deceitful (rather than confused) on the stand?
STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: There are portions of the conversations that the government hasn't explained fully.
But overall the explanation the feds provide — bolstered by the testimony of Frank Calabrese Jr., who participated in many of them — is pretty coherent.
You want to see poor Feankie blow his cool? ask him about who got R.J his very good friend.
Do you mean, ask Frank Calabrese Sr. about the "alleged" hit of Ronald Jarrett?
Are you implying is to how that might get him worked up?