The Outfit on trial

So what? Im not F Lee Bailey or Thurgood Marshal, but what does the partial print really mean?

Does it mean that Joseph Lombardo shot Dan Seifert with a gun?

Does it mean he directly planned or orchestrated the assasination of Seifert?

Does it all mean that Uncle Joey, without a reasonable doubt, is responsible fir the violent death of Dan Seifert?

No. No. & No.

All it means is that his hand may have come in contact with a piece of paper?

This is a court of Law. Evidence has to correlate to near certaintites. This isnt the case.

And as for Seifert, i dont expect his family to portray the truth, but i do expect you steve and the media as well.

Lets not keep portraying Seifert as some innocent happy go lucky small businessman gunned downed by gung ho rebels.

Seifert was a friend, and close acquiantance of several reputed organized crime figures. He had them in his house.

He decided to even go in business with them, and agreed to allow them to use him as a legit front.

When the FEDS smelled the whiff, and brought down some heat on him, he decided it was time to sell his new friends out, and his fear of jail overcame his greed for money.

HE paid for his flaws and poor decisions, and so did his family whom he should have considered when he befriended the OUTFIT . Its like Nick "the crow" Caramadi from Philly said: Show me a greedy, immoral low-life, and i ll show you a victim of the mob

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: The Sun-Times has documented more than any newspaper Daniel Seifert's relationship to various mobsters.

In fact, the Sun-Times first reported that one of Seifert's sons is named after Joseph "Joey the Clown" Lombardo.

I read in the paper today that Joey Lombardo said that he was on the lam and hiding because he didn't want to be tried with 4 of the other 5 defendants because he didn't know who they were.

How can this be true and if so, has the prosectution pointed this out? I'm assuming the feds have something that would prove that they all know each other. Thoughts?

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: You've got two pieces of testimony combined.

Lombardo testified that he did want a separate trial from the other defendants, and that's why he didn't turn himself in right away.

And he did testify that he didn't know three of the four other defendants.

Prosecutors may not be able to show a direct link between some of the men because they worked for different crews.

Let me say the it is obvious that the person that posted "common sense" has none !!

The evidence in this case proves that "Lumbo" or Dumbo or whatever was part of the crew that killed my father !!

Without question my dad was friends with one of the men Mr. Weiner besides that he was not friends with these people and NEVER HAD THEM IN OUR HOUSE !

As for the business Lombardo was put in the business not welcomed in a choice was not given my dad did not not agree to let them use the business for a legit front !

So Mr. Common no Sense dont write comments on things you dont know the half about and next time dont be a coward like your friends on trial and use your really name. Have a great day YA BOZO !!

So wait a minute, common sense, you seem to think that we should ignore the preponderance of evidence presented against the Clown, but when it comes to Seifert, the fact that he was known-associates with the mob means it's OK that he gets killed? You seem to have a double standard.

Obviously, the print doesn't stand alone, anymore than the Last Supper picture, the purchase of police radios, etc. Taken together, they start to mean something.

The evidence against Lombardo is very compelling, but circumstantial.

I don't know that the jury in this case will be guided strictly by the confines of the letter of the law, but in criminal cases the burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" not a "preponderance of the evidence."

The latter is for civil trials. The burden of proof is much greater in criminal, but I think that Lombardo will ultimately be convicted along with his co-defendants although I do think Schiro has a good chance of walking considering the govt's case against him is fairly weak.

This may seam like a dumb question at this point but have you heard any reason once so ever why they collected DNA from any of these defendents?

STEVE WARMBIR RESPONDS: Not a dumb question at all. There was various physical evidence left behind at a few of the hits, such as the Seifert murder.

But there apparently wasn't enough trace DNA left behind to be valuable enough to make a match on any of the defendants, except, of course, for the one involving Nick Calabrese.

What people don't understand is how orginized crime works,the Bensenville police has plenty of evidence of things that had happened prior to my fathers death,that would link Lombardo to it but the judge and the system won't allow certain thing as evidence.Their is a tromendance amount of things that go on behind the curtains in many murders that the general public nor jurors are allowed th hear. not just my fathers murder but many high profile murders for example does the american people really feel that oj simpson was inocent? come on think about it.

I agree with Nick, it seems information for example the FBI may have which could help the local police is stashed away in some informents file.

Some information comes out at trial some never comes out and dies with the source. I would bet any family who has delt with a mob related murder will tell you the same.

Hell, try FOI'ing a file on a guy dead for thirty years as I have and it still comes back full of redactions. It really makes you wonder why we spend all this money on enforcement and never do anything with it.