The Outfit on trial

Steve, it looks like both these guys (Lombardo and Calabrese) are angling for a mental competency examination before sentencing if they really believed they could present this testimony to the jury.

Judge Zagel will end up sending them to Springfield, MO to make sure they're all there and then he'll add his own enhancer to their sentences for blatent and stupid perjury.

What's been the jury's reaction if you can tell.

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: It's always tough to read juries, but let me give it my best shot.

With Calabrese Sr., the jury, pretty much as a whole, did not take notes during his testimony.

And most of these jurors are avid note takers.

Several jurors also sat with their arms crossed during his testimony.

One juror sighed loudly as Calabrese Sr. started his account of what he meant in a recorded conversation.

For Lombardo, the jury seemed to have more patience, but they didn't exactly warm to him either.

If this is the best testimony Calabrese Sr can give then you might as well have him sit down and shut up!

If he thinks the jury is buying his twisted distortion of the facts, and ignore what evidence is against him, then he is reaching for a rainbow!

I can say that I believe both him and the Clown will spend the rest of their days in the joint where they both belong.

No doubt most of the persons Calabrese killed were probably no better then he was but he should have known that talking about his deeds to even his son was taboo!

Its too bad that Mr Calabrese and the rest of the bunch are in there seventies, because what time he spends in prison will not be enough!

The theory crime does not pay did not quite fit this bunch but the ending will justify the means, LIFE IN PRISON or whatever life these gangsters have left!

I have watched Senior's testimony thus far. Two major observations: On Day 1, Calabrese identified Gerry Scarpelli and James Torello, including Torello's nickname "Turk". On Day 2, he stated that he forgot Scarpelli's first name and then got Torello's name wrong. That is enough to disregard all of his testimony.

All of these guys have gotten away with literally murder for far too long. It is about time that justice is done.

What is disturbing is the extent that the mob still is active in the city today. I would assume that there are a whole host of strip clubs, and other more legit businesses that are paying kickbacks or completely owned and run by mob figures. Would that be overstating it, or correct? Have any of these businesses been identified during the trial?

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: We've chronicled a number of so-called legitimate businesses in the Sun-Times that have connections to the Outfit.

They haven't really come up at trial because that really hasn't been the focus of the government's evidence.

Bottom Line: Franky, jesus christ could have gotten up there for you, and it wouldn have a made a damn difference.

Your saying you aint no mobster, and you hire a lawyer who calls himself SHARK, and wears pink socks.

Cmon, Frank, u were dead in the water. Why didnt you save yourself, and whatever dignity your family has left and cop to a plea beforehand.

Did you think you even had a 1% chance for an acquital. The guy became CAPO because he EARNED, but surely thru force and not brains.

The real dilema is his testimony is going to SINK Lombardo.

Calabrese's testimony was so far fetched, that it will cast doubt over Lombardo's as well.

At the end of the Day Steve, the case against Lombardo was legit, but very weak compared to Calabrese and Marcello.

Partial print is very circumstantial even with a conspiracy charge.

All Halprin had to say: Listen, Joe lombardo wasnt anywhere near the scene of the crime of the seifert murder.

And secondly admit that Lombardo was a outfit player, albeit not as powerful as the press has lead us believe.

Howver, since serving his debt to society and being released, Joe lombardo has had zero involvement in any criminal activity and we challenge the state to present any substantive evidence to the contrary.

Putting him on the stand was a mistake. Im suprised.

Halprin is sharp and understated.

Why open yourself to having to explain ecvents and pictures that dont necessarily pertain to the charges?

Can of worms. Furthermore, since the basis of your defense challenge is WITHDRAWAL, why goes as far as to explain that you by chance met up with and a took a picture with 8 of the most reputed organized crime figures in the midwest, while getting a sandwich after a wake?

If you re foolish to take the stand, why not testify that it was a dinner nite out amongst old friends. I drove for mr cerone.

It was a world and a group I was involved with as a young man many years ago. Those men are dead, and i am no longer involved in that world, nor have i been in 25 yrs.

Although the jury would have felt the pressure to convict a name like LOMBARDO, i really think LUMBY had a real good chance to walk on these charges. The only think going for him, is he is undeniably likeable on and off the stand. But i doubt its enough.

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: Thanks for your insight.

There's one thing I'd point out. The withdrawal defense isn't necessarily hurt by the 1976 Last Supper photo.

To counter the withdrawal defense, the prosecution has to show Lombardo's mob activity past 2002. The 1976 photo doesn't go to that.

Also, keep in mind Lombardo is limited by what he can say about that 1976 photo. He already offered up his account of why he was there

But here's the point that many folks are missing. Even if the jury doesn't find Lombardo accountable for the Seifert murder, he could still be found guilty in the case, if they find him guilty of the other elements - other mob-related crimes - of the racketeering conspiracy.

It's just with a conviction relating to the Seifert murder, it's automatic life in prison, and he goes to a much worse prison.

Let me get this straight Stevie: Paul Schiro can be indicted, tried, and possibly convicted in a federal court of MURDER because some self confessed hitman/cooperating witness said he did?

I mean, im mot reading the transcripts, but it appears as if there has not been any other corroborating or physical evidence presented in putting Schiro at the scene of the VACI hit.

HAs there been any other compelling evidence steve presented by the FEDS that implicated Schiro. Otherwise, system is a joke, and call me amoral or psychoticaly cynical, but i wish they all could be acquitted.

Reality is I doubt N Calabrese was even at the site of the Spiltotro slayings.

The Outfit never used more than a 2-3 man crew to follow thru with a HIT.

Never.

Tony was prolific, a well publicized organized crime figure.

Thats assignment went to a capo, whose reponsibility was to carry out in a quieta and discreet fashion.

And he is using the best of the best. Not a dozen guys.

Not nobodies like N Calabrese, a low level soldier in 86', whose expertise could not be relied on, and whose reputation and resume was not large enough to be trusted.

I thought besides the info he shared with the Feds and jury in regards to the CALABRESE family drama and struggles, i found him to be one of weakest turncoats in recent organized crime history.

Unlike gravano in New York, Caramadi & Leonetti in Philly, he wasnt assured or convincing on the stand, and also lacked the position of power to be in the know on important matters.

If these guys could have gotten their cases severed from that LOSER, Frank, they all got good shots of walkin. Why couldnt they steve? Cuz its a RICO charge?

Anyway, my hats off to you Steve. Up early coverin the trial, and coming home late to finish copy, and still having the dedication to follow up and reply to the posts here. Im in awe of your devotion, and envious of your obvious love of your work. Once again, thanks.

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: No doubt about it, the government's case against Schiro is its weakest or least strong, depending on your perspective.

A point of clarificaiton: Schiro wouldn't be convicted of murder. He would be convicted of a racketeering conspiracy of which murder is one of the elements. ( A fine point, but one, I think, worth makng.)

Youi're absolutely right that the only witness the feds have linking Schiro to the Vaci murder is Nick Calabrese.

I understand what you're saying about Nick Calabrese, but I've got to tell you, most of the people in the gallery I talked to, from all walks of life, found him to be pretty compelling.

The guy wasn't exactly Mr. Personality in his testimony, but he did stick to his account of the murders, and later trial testimony has, for the most part, corroborated the details he gave.

As for severance, it's a conspiracy charge, and so they are tried together. The defendants don't like it, since they worry that the evidence against another defendant can make them look bad.

Steve,

Are you saying that Paulie may be convicted of murder if the jury decides he was part of the overall racketeering charges? It seems that murder shouldn't be just "thrown in " to the charge without discretion.

If i am reading this correct..should the jury find Paul to be part of the outfit they will find him guilty of murder simply by association? Hardly seems fair.

I read your write up about how the jury will approach the deliberations, I dont envy them ..it seems there is quite a bit of stories,testimony,evidence to decipher and it has to be almost impossible not to be influenced by testimony of or about a separate defendant when you have heard it.

The influence of information is the precise reason that the judge tells the jury not to read the paper or watch the news...where are they supposed to draw the line?

Are they all fairly intelligent people? I dont mean education wise but from a life perspective ? What are the age groups, economic situations, how etc. of the jurors, if you know.

Also what are the genders of the 12 jurors?

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: Paul Schiro will have to be found accountable for the murder separately from the first charge against him, according to the way the judge has set up the deliberation process.

The jury will not find him accountable by the murder just by finding he was part of the Outfit. It's a separate process.

The murder charge isn't just thrown in.

The prosecution said in its closing arguments that there was evidene and testimony during the trial that Schiro was the Outfit's man in Phoenix, that he was a burglar for the Outfit, that he paid money to Tony Spilotro and that Schiro's boss was Joseph Lombardo, in addition to the murder of Emil Vaci.

The jury has to find him guilty of direct or indirect participation in two or more racketeering acts, such as murder, gambling, juice loans, obstruction of justice or traveling in interstate commerce to further the Outfit, for instance.

The jurors do have a tough job in the sense that they have a lot of evidence to go through concerning 18 murders and five defendants.

I don't know their educational backgrounds. The questionnaires they filled out are sealed. But in general the jury seems like a bright bunch. Many of them have taken notes throughout the trial.

In a RICO charge, isn't one of the elements that the criminal conduct resulted in ongoing profit? That being the case, I haven't seen any mention of Doyle profiting from his relatinship with Calabrese. Do you think the government failed to prove RICO in his case?

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: You might be confusing honest services mail fraud with RICO.

There's no element in RICO that says the prosecution has to show a financial gain by a participant.

The prosecution has reviewed the elements of RICO with the jury, and the defense hasn't objected or quarrelled with any of them.