Two different Baker Street Irregulars have provided leads that indicated Arthur Aidala did have a very significant connection to the Mark Fisher murder case, which took place on October 12, 2003, but which was not “solved” by the NYPD and prosecuted by the Brooklyn DA’s Office for over a year; resulting in two questionable convictions for the murder a year after that
Arthur Aidala was a lawyer with a client involved in the case less than a week after Fisher was killed on Argyle Road in Ditmas Park, Brooklyn — In fact, Aidala’s client was the first person arrested after being rounded up for questioning in connection with the Fisher case — Jessie Wenzel
____________________________
*Originally, it had been intended that this series would have two installments, because it had been thought that there were two significant cases that tied Aidala, Hynes and Golden together — It turns out that there are three such cases — the third is the Mark Fisher murder case, which actually was the first of the three to happen
____________________________
Thanks to extensive research by one of my newest Baker Street Irregulars for their own projected exposition on the subject in another context than blogging, I was given a link to an early report on the Fisher murder case that appeared in the New York Times. That article in the Times discussed an early police lead that came from an unidentified source indicating that the gun that probably had been used to shoot Mark Fisher had been likely supplied by somebody named Jessie Wenzel, who lived on 86th Street in the Bensonhurst-Bath Beach section of Brooklyn (See “Gun Charges in Case of Slain Student” by Michael Wilson 10/18/03, NY Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/18/nyregion/gun-charges-in-case-of-slain-student.html]).
According to the October 2003 Times report, “The man arrested yesterday, Jessie Wenzel, 22, was not charged in the shooting of Mark S. Fisher early Sunday morning in Prospect Park South. In the course of investigating the killing, detectives were told that the person who shot Mr. Fisher might have obtained a gun from Mr. Wenzel, officials said. *** They began investigating him, and learned that he had three unregistered handguns and a sawed-off shotgun at his home in Bath Beach, Brooklyn, a police official said.... He was arrested on three weapons charges....”
Another report of the Wenzel arrest in connection with the Fisher case appeared in the New York Post, and in pertinent part it said this: “Cops are pursuing all leads, including a tip from a confidential informant who gave them a man’s name and suggested that if someone at the party had a gun, maybe he got it from him, police said yesterday. *** On Wednesday, cops armed with a search warrant went to the home of Jessie Wenzel, 21, at 1661 86th Street and found four illegal weapons – two .380-caliber handguns, a .45 handgun and a sawed-off shotgun, police said....” (See “Tears for Mark; Kin’s Anguish at Party-slay Victim’s Funeral” by Perry Chiaramonte, 10/18/03, NY Post [http://nypost.com/2003/10/18/tears-for-mark-kins-anguish-at-party-slay-victims-funeral/]).
However, even though Wenzel’s October 2003 arrest was made as a result of the Fisher murder investigation, Timesman Michael Wilson made this interesting note about it, “...detectives concluded that Mr. Wenzel had no connection with the [Fisher] killing...” And, Perry Chiaramonte in the Post said this: “Wenzel was arrested on a weapons charge, and cops have determined that none of the guns was the murder weapon, that he was not at the party, and had nothing at all to do with the homicide, police said.” (The oddness of this[these] statement[s] by police officials after questioning Jessie Wenzel for less than one day will become apparent, because of what follows.)
The cops rounded-up Wenzel on October 17, 2003 during their very early investigations in the Fisher case; that was about five days after the murder of Mark Fisher on October 12, 2003. As a result of Jessie Wenzel’s arrest, Arthur Aidala turned up very early in the investigation of the Fisher murder, appearing as the attorney for Wenzel in October 2003.
Jessie Wenzel was arrested again in connection with the Fisher murder case on a Friday night in March of 2004; this time along with his younger brother, William Wenzel, age twenty (20). The New York Post gave this account of those arrests: “Police are putting the squeeze on local toughs who may have information in the killing of Mark Fisher – a popular sophomore at a Connecticut college who was murdered on his first foray into Brooklyn last year. *** Cops swooped on several men this weekend, who are either suspects in the murder of the strapping college football star, or friends of those who police think had a hand in the 19-year-old’s death last October....” (See “Twist in Grid Slay” by Larry Celona, 3/24/04, NY Post [http://nypost.com/2004/03/24/twist-in-grid-slay/]).
Larry Celona’s report in the Post went on to say that another person involved in the Fisher case was also arrested — “John Guica, 20 – who hosted the party where Fisher was last seen alive – got hit with a summons Friday night for drinking. *** The same night, an acquaintance of Guica’s, Jessie Wenzel, 22, and his brother, William, 20, were pinched with drugs near their home in Bensonhurst, police said. *** Jessie Wenzel is already awaiting trial on charges of possession of four handguns found in his home last October. Both Wenzels were caught with marijuana, while the younger brother also had cocaine and Xanax, a criminal complaint charges....” In the same article, the reporter noted that “...[a] lawyer for the Wenzel brothers, Arthur Aidala, argued the arrests were a desperate attempt to get more information on the Fisher murder. ‘I guess the Police Department must be somewhat frustrated because they haven’t been able to make an arrest.... However, you would think at this point they would understand that no one in the Wenzel family had anything to do with the Mark Fisher tragedy.’....” However, it should be noted that Celona's article ended with these provocative lines: “Neither of the Wenzel brothers was at the party the night Fisher [w]as killed. Cops have described them as core members of Guica’s social circle.”
There was a follow-up story in the New York Post about a week later than Celona’s article, which again mentioned John Giuca as a suspect and the Wenzels, as “Giuca friends...” — “The investigation has recently begun to focus on John Guica, 20, whom Fisher met while out drinking in Manhattan last October with classmates from Fairfield University in Connecticut.... [Police Commissioner] Kelly said again yesterday the people who partied with Fisher continue to stymie the probe. *** ‘We’re making some progress in the investigation but it is slow progress hamstrung by an extraordinary lack of cooperation,’ he said. ‘We believe there is more than one person who knows who murdered Mark Fisher.’ *** Police cracked down on the neighborhood toughs last week, hitting several with summonses – including slapping Guica, who hosted the party where Fisher was last seen alive, with a fine for underage drinking..(See “Kelly Hits Wall of Silence in B’klyn Slay” by Patrick Gallahue, 3/21/04, NY Post [http://nypost.com/2004/03/31/kelly-hits-wall-of-silence-in-bklyn-slay/]). In that article by Pat Gallahue, Aidala was again quoted, as follows in the following passage: “A lawyer for Guica friends Jessie Wenzel and his brother William – who were both arrested on drug charges more than a week ago – said, ‘We just don’t want the Wenzel family harassed any further.’ *** ‘If they had useful information, they wouldn’t pass up a $100,000 reward but you can’t make up something that’s not there,’ said the lawyer, Arthur Aidala.”
Some might ask, Galewyn, where’s the connection of any of this to Hynes and Golden ?
Okay, starting with Golden —
Remember the county-wide and city-wide politics in play between October 2003 and in the early part of 2004, then into 2005. Golden was in an election year and needed the good graces of Hynes and other top Democrats to avoid a hotly contested election for his Brooklyn state senate seat in 2004, or possibly any election for that seat in 2004 at all. It is widely known that Brooklyn DA Hynes, several key Hynes supporters and several other key Brooklyn Democrats were helping Golden with all of that.
In 2004 both DA Hynes and Mayor Bloomberg were in their pre-election year, and at the same time, Bloomberg’s cops and Hynes’ DDAs and ADAs were having a very tough time putting together any kind of case in a very high profile Mark Fisher murder case, involving a well-to-do out-of-towner — that was getting almost continuous coverage across the full spectrum of media outlets.
This was all — VERY BAD PR FOR THE NYPD ... VERY BAD PR FOR NYC... VERY BAD PR FOR MAYOR BLOOMBERG... VERY BAD PR FOR BROOKLYN DA HYNES AND THE BROOKLYN DA'S OFFICE... The NYC Police Commisioner, Ray Kelly, even had to do repeated press conferences on the Fisher Case; and after a well publicized meeting with Mark Fisher's parents, DA Hynes had to change the whole Brooklyn DA team working on the Fisher case, putting his Rackets Chief Michael Vecchione in charge of the new team.
What Bay Ridge-Dyker Heights-Bath Beach-etc.- etc.- etc. State Senator was closely identified with all of the above political interests suffering from bad PR from the Fisher Murder case? What Bay Ridge-Dyker Heights-Bath Beach-etc.- etc.- etc. State Senator had Jessie Wenzel, the one named by “a confidential informant who gave [the police Wenzel’s] name and suggested that if someone at the party [where Fisher was killed] had a gun, maybe he got it from [Wenzel]...” in the middle of his State Senate District ? What Bay Ridge-Dyker Heights-Bath Beach-etc.- etc.- etc. State Senator already was aligned closely with DA Hynes and already had interacted many times with Attorney Aidala since 1997 ? What Bay Ridge-Dyker Heights-Bath Beach-etc.- etc.- etc. State Senator was Mayor Bloomberg’s go-to-guy for any political-PR problems in or near Marty Golden’s bailiwick in Brooklyn ? What Bay Ridge-Dyker Heights-Bath Beach-etc.- etc.- etc. State Senator was Brooklyn DA Hynes’ go-to-guy for any political problems inside the Brooklyn GOP that might interfere with any Wilson-Pakula GOP designation for Hynes in 2005 (especially as a trap-door escape-hatch if there was a problem winning the Democratic Primary in 2005) ? What Bay Ridge-Dyker Heights-Bath Beach-etc.- etc.- etc. State Senator very well knew Susan Cleary, Brooklyn GOP Vice Chairperson, who was herself up to her knees with her son, Albert Cleary, who was himself up to his ears in the Fisher murder case ? (There is more, but I’m tired of this trope — and I don’t want to chime in with something more about Jerry Kassar, Golden’s Chief of Staff and Phillip Smallman, Albert Cleary's attorney at this time.)
Suffice it to say, from a political (and even a somewhat personal) standpoint, if there ever was a murder case in Brooklyn that State Senator Marty Golden did have a personal interest in and having it "solved" or "resolved" more than the Mark Fisher murder case — then I, and a lot of other people, would sure like to know what that case might be (and I would surely be writing about that one too). Admittedly, Marty Golden’s connection to the Fisher murder case is quite tangential. However, like everything else in this bizarre Alice in Wonderland case, because of Golden’s interactions with several others having far more skin in the game than Marty, himself, Golden’s active connivance in this or that having to do with the case cannot be ruled out.
Now, finishing off with Hynes and Aidala —
2003-2004-2005 were in the middle of the “good old days” for Hynes and Aidala — even though Hynes was facing a tough primary challenge, upcoming in 2005, from myriad candidates from various communities, from all parts of the political spectrum and with a variety of very impressive professional credentials. Artie Aidala was one of Hynes’ “insiders” and the Hynes team, including Aidala, was still confident of victory if everybody did their part; and one part of that was insuring that Haynes did get the GOP and Conservative Party lines in 2005.
Also remember, that the continuation of Hynes being the Brooklyn DA after 2006 was almost as important to Aidala and several other members of the Brooklyn Defense Bar, as it was to Hynes himself.
So, there it is. A third major case with a certain proven connection between DA Hynes and Attorney Aidala; and with a highly probable connection to State Senator Martin Golden through Brooklyn GOP Vice Chairperson Susan Cleary, as well as through her son Albert Cleary's attorney Phillip Smallman.
What next on this blog about the Fisher murder case ?
Among other matters that might come up in due course, this blog will follow-up to try to determine what part, if any, Arthur Aidala played in the solid wall of attorneys that was built around all the material witnesses and key suspects in the Fisher murder case. Several of these attorneys' names have been mentioned in earlier posts and comments on this blog.
At its high water mark the key witnesses and prime suspects in the case totaled about nine to twelve people, virtually all with legal representation retained or readily available; and in the end, by the time of the jointly conducted trials in this case, that number necked down to about four, five or six, all with lawyers advising them what to do and say every step of the way. Whether and how that might have been coordinated, by whom and why will also be explored in future posts, or possibly even in comments that might soon follow this very post.
There are also pending motions and/or appeals by at least one of those already convicted in the case; there are writers working on at least one more book and at least one movie or TV-movie project that is in development and being pushed by a star player in a current TV hit legal drama, both are about the Fisher murder case; and of course, several journalists are continuing their inquiries into the case. If any of that discloses any new information for those writing posts on this blog, or contributing to it in any way, that will be passed along to those following this blog as soon as it is obtained, analyzed and processed.
In short, the search for justice in the Mark Fisher murder case is still a work in progress.
This is a great example of good old fashioned investigative journalism.
ReplyDeleteREPLY: THE "THANK YOU BUT..." EDITION
ReplyDeleteAny "investigative journalism" was by (an)other(s) than myself. I merely followed trails that had been well-marked for me.
"Among other matters that might come up . . . what part Arthur Aidala played in the solid wall of attorneys built around suspects"
ReplyDeleteI recall reading an eloquent comment on that very point but I cannot seem to find it. Indeed, its conciseness was superceded only by Mr. Massey's masterful writing itself. I wonder where it went. It must be somewhere.
If you just "merely followed trails" than you did a better job than Nightline, Good Morning America, The New York Times, and a dozen other so called investigative journalists.
ReplyDeleteAnybody that gets near this case meets a tragic end.
ReplyDeleteThink about it.
REPLY: THE "THAT ISN'T A THREAT, IS IT ?" EDITION
ReplyDeleteENOUGH SAID...
RESPONSE: THE “MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL, WHO’S THE FAIREST...” EDITION
ReplyDeleteLET IT GO BEFORE YOU START TAKING POTIONS AND MAKING POISONOUS APPLES
To: Anonymous... September 14, 2014 at 1:58 PM
I don’t recall reading any eloquent comments that dealt with any part that Arthur Aidala played in any solid wall of attorneys built around suspects. I do recall a comment by “Anonymous ... September 7, 2014 at 8:00 AM” that mentioned attorneys Aidala and Smallman, who were both mentioned in my post above. The earlier comment was deleted pending vetting of certain claims that it made about various individuals.
Interestingly, your comment above left out a key part of my quoted statement from my post above; the important part of my complete statement reads like this: “...this blog will follow-up to determine what part Arthur Aidala played in the solid wall of attorneys that was built around all the material witnesses and key suspects in the Fisher murder case.” Perhaps with a little circumspection that should have said “...follow-up to TRY to determine what part IF ANY Arthur Aidala played in the solid wall of attorneys ...” In fact, I will make those changes right after I publish this comment.
Its all about the girl.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: THE "WHO'S THAT GIRL -- NOT" EDITION
ReplyDeleteTHERE ARE NO GIRLS MENTIONED IN THE POST ABOVE AND ONLY ONE WOMAN, SUSAN CLEARY
Susan Cleary has long been an intrinsic player in the investigation and subsequent prosecutions connected to Mark Fisher's murder on the morning of October 12, 2003 in front of Susan Cleary's house on Argyle Road in the Ditmas Park section of Brooklyn. Her version of "the whole story" could be very interesting, indeed.
Mrs Cleary kept the GOP in Brooklyn going through hardwork.
ReplyDeleteThink about that Dorothy
ReplyDeleteMrs Cleary wouldn't know hard work if it walked right up and bit her on the leg.
ReplyDelete"the ASSet forfeiture edition"
ReplyDeleteyou really didn't mean leg, right.
stop with all this Guica-Cleary did it or didn't do it bs.
if schneiderman dosent hit hynes in the ASS in the next six weeks with this ASSet forfeiture stuff, it probably will die of old age. if it hits big spreading out to those who got checks, like the larry morrish types, than its gotta drag in more of golden's crew, you know "the bayridge ghetto mafia." it will not hit golden himself, because he has to file an ethics statement so his ASS is covered.
Hello Mr. Grumpy,
ReplyDeletePerhaps it wasn't eloquent but it was concise and within the realm of plausibilty.
You are very right today, Mr. Massey, there are no “GIRLS” in your most recent expose of Hynes, Golden and Aidala.
ReplyDeleteYou and some of your BSI must correct a very big mistake in your analysis of "Who’s Who" in this Fisher Murder Case, however, by failing to properly focus on several strong and not so strong WOMEN who did conspire or passively participated to put a very strangely evolved frame around Russo and Guica.
Meredith Denihan, Angela DiPietro, Susan Cleary, Lauren Calciano and Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi are a roster of stronger and weaker WOMEN, who are the key players to unlocking the chains around Russo and Giuca; and to making right Russo’s and Giuca’s wrongly and wrongfully described part in the Fisher Murder Case.
ADA Nicolazzi is an excellent prosecutor who took a weak case and got a conviction in less than two hours. Do not confuse ineffective assistant of counsel on the part of the defense with an excllent prosecutor doing her job. The present DA sees that. Giuca is NOT a prosecutorial misconduct case. Put the blame where it belongs.
ReplyDeleteSusan Cleary reappeared in Brooklyn Republican politics when she got behind the campaign of Jonathan Judge for City Council against David Greenfield and others in a special election early in 2010. That race and Jonathan Judge’s part in it is discussed in a 2010 webposting by Even MacDonald on the blog, The Brooklyn Ink, http://thebrooklynink.com/2010/11/01/17647-gop-at-crossroads-even-in-brooklyn/.
ReplyDeleteA comment after MacDonald’s article contained this statement, “Isn’t Jonathan Judge the same guy who took money, and signatures from Albert and Susan Cleary two people linked to the gruesome Mark Fisher death you may remember.” Judge, Cleary and others were also involved with an Independent Republican group called “Brick” in 2011 that never got off the ground because of Susan Cleary’s grandiose ideas turning everybody off.
Most of the court house reporters who covered the case do not see this now as a misconduct case at all.
ReplyDeleteMost of the court house reporters who covered "the case" missed the story about how "the most basic facts" about Mark Fisher's murder on October 12, 2003 were completely misrepresented to the juries in the Giuca and Russo cases.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of interesting connections that can lead to conjecture. For example DiPietro represented Vecchione's buddy and co-author Tommy Dades in avoiding homicide charges in Staten Island, and DePietro, Aidala and Vecchione were all deeply involved in the Columbian (Italian) lawyers association. Some nice fodder for an Oliver Stone conspiracy story - but unless there is something concrete it is just irresponsible fiction. Both Nicolazzi and and Gregory have excellent reputations,
ReplyDeleteand while lawyers like Bederow have no scruples, it is
incredible unfair to drag their names through mud
as you play your little games. Have you no shame?
RESPONSE: THE "CART AHEAD OF THE HORSE" EDITION
ReplyDeleteThose are all very interesting connections that I certainly haven't yet made. However, I'm sure that there will be more said about several of the people that you mentioned above, now that WE BSIs are all working on this case.
The only difference between Nicosleezy and Vecchione is about 150 pounds and a cheap bottle of hair dye.
ReplyDeleteWell that was profound
ReplyDeleteI read this blog to keep up on issues and the comments sound like a bad version of "The View".
ReplyDeleteGood woman, weak woman versus strong woman.
Who gives a crap.
The issue in this case is ineffective assistance of counsel. The rest of the claims in Bederow's petition are a diversion from that. The NY standard is meaningful representation and based on his petition for review and the claims made against defense counsel at trial, Sam Gregory is not fit to practice law. As to ADA Niciolazzi, she detested the actions of disgraced ADA Mike Vecchione and would not at any time be swayed by his directions in for example handling witness Avitto.
ReplyDeleteIt is a false equivalence to try to make a connection between Michael Vecchione and Anna Nicolazzi. In doing so, you diminish some extremely valid arguments for vacating John's conviction. This was a homicide case handled by ADA Taub from the beginning until Mark Fisher's parents asked that he be replaced. In deference to that request, Nicolazzi came on. Vecchione was no where near this case and there is absolutely no proof in any documentation that he was. This is important because every media account of this case is trying to present that it is another wrongful conviction due to Vecchione's handiwork. Not true. From my standpoint and based on what I saw, read, and heard, this miscarriage of justice has more to do with what was going on with members of the Brooklyn Bar who wanted to ingratiate themselves with Mr. Hynes for future benefits.
ReplyDeleteThese details about low level prosecutors in former DA Hynes office are not worth examining.
ReplyDeleteHynes was corrupt and the people of Brooklyn kicked him out. All of Hynes cases were bad and that didnt happen because he was handling the trials. It was all of his underlings.
Hynes was corrupt. And the question for Brooklyn Republicans is: Are you at all concerned that this corruption extends to Senator Marty Golden and his associates? With a grand jury empaneled to investigate Hynes' alleged crimes, wouldn't the local GOP want to know before the general election whether Sen. Golden has any involvement? Perhaps the local Republican Party can implore the AG to move with greater haste so as to have a better informed electorate in November.
ReplyDeletePoliticians are CORRUPT, their "LABEL" really has nothing to do with their "CHARACTER"!! Where were all the GOP'ers when Hynes was running Brooklyn like a "Mob Family", IN WITH HIM, thick as thieves!! As well as that infamous Democratic Machine in Brooklyn. My question is this, WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE SO AFRAID OF!!? Who in the hell scared you into this state of complete and utter STUPIDITY!!? It's NOT the Party one belongs to that makes what they do Right or Wrong, Good or Evil, or even Legal or Illegal. It's that "BROKEN" person who has the ability to SCAM, people of reasonable intelligence. That's what scares me!!!! I had a personal run in with "MOE GREEN", aka DA Hynes, and everyone, regardless of their Party affiliation was quite ok with his blatant acts of breaking the Law!! http://mommabear56.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeleteWell there you have it, a photo in the Huffington Post - all the evidence one needs. It never occurred to me to look for photos in HuffPo. I thought the trial transcripts and various appeals would be enough. Thank you for your correction.
ReplyDeleteINTERPOSITION: THE "I'M SORRY TO JUMP IN, BUT I DO THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT" EDITION
ReplyDeleteThis segment by "Anonymous... September 16, 2014 at 3:42 AM" "Niciolazzi [sic]... detested the actions of disgraced ADA Mike Vecchione and would not at any time be swayed by his directions in for example handling witness Avitto...." is vague. It is not clear whether it intends to say that Vecchione did give directions on how to handle the witness John Avitto or not.
In any case, the way the John Avitto and his testimony was handled by trial ADA Anna Sigga-Nicolazzi was at least arguably improper; and Attorney Bederow quite professionally makes the argument as part of his petition to DA Kenneth Thompson on behalf of John Giuca.
Not bad, Gail, good to see that you are not taking the day off while the rest of us read this stuff.
ReplyDeleteNow for a gotcha, your question looks like overly focused legal-speak as in “Objection -vagueness...”
A far more obvious question is this – who the heck is your "Anonymous... September 16, 2014 at 3:42 AM" to know what “Niciolazzi [sic]” thinks about Vecchione or his directions about anything? Unless, of course "Anonymous... September 16, 2014 at 3:42 AM" happens to be “Niciolazzi [sic]” – commenting about herself in the third person (misspelling her name is an obvious attempt at diversion if it is). btw, wouldn’t that technically be, “Objection – Hearsay - Foundation - Immaterial!” ( unless it’s Nicolazzi, then, “Bootstrapping - Immaterial!”).
The segment by Mr. Massey "the way the[sic]John Avitto and his testimony was handled by ADA Nicolazi is at least arguably improper" is not in dispute. This is not contested. We part company, however, when others try to make this a Michael Vecchione prosecution which is untrue. I recall there was even a gratuitous footnote in the Petition referencing Vecchione and an infamous training session. Let the alleged wrongful conduct of the particular ADA stand on the merits.
ReplyDeleteRESPONSE: THE "VAGUENESS IS VAGUENESS" EDITION
ReplyDeleteALSO I WASN'T MAKING ANYTHING LIKE AN "OBJECTION"
If a statement is vague it is vague whether it is in a legal context or not. Also, the "objections" of the kind to which "Anonymous... September 16, 2014 at 2:46 PM" refered are made to questions during trials in court, not answers to questions or comments made on blogs.
How was it that the people that were supposed to be at the Cleary house on the morning of Mark Fisher’s murder, Susan Cleary, Albert Cleary and Angel DiPietro weren’t the key suspects in this case?
ReplyDeleteMark Fisher came to Brooklyn and thought that he would stay overnight at the Cleary house at 1306 Albemarle Road at the corner of Argyle Road. Fisher’s body was found at the foot of the driveway at 150 Argyle Road not far from the back door of the corner house where Susan and Albert Cleary, and DiPietro were supposedly "asleep upstairs."
Two cartridges were found nearby Fisher's body at 150 Argyle Road, and neighbors heard multiple shots and the voices of both a young man and a young woman at that location.
Among many other contradictory statements about Fisher’s murder, Angel DiPietro told one of her college roommates that she was “at the house where Mark was killed.” but that she “fell asleep upstairs and knew nothing.” The house where she stayed and fell asleep upstairs was 1306 Albemarle Road, the Cleary’s house.
The use of "sic" on a blog has the effect that that writer engages in pedantry.
ReplyDelete/s/
Miss Jean Brodie
It sure looks like Aidala was the first brick in the lawyers’ wall around the suspects and witnesses in the Fisher case. A police informant fingered Wensel as the source of the gun. What happened to Wenzel in the end?
ReplyDeleteDon’t forget last year boropark.com said this about another case - “The reversal of Lebovits’ conviction has drawn scrutiny from the outset, as well, sparking charges of impropriety after one of his attorneys, Arthur L. Aidala made incriminating statements about having “influence” in the Hynes’ office where he previously worked as a prosecutor....” In the Fisher case, Aidala’s client, Wenzel, was the first one “in” and the first one “out” of the Fisher investigation, and then he was back “in” when the cops had to make some kind of headway and then he quickly disappeared again, and the prime suspects were Russo and Giuca - think about that.
BACKFILL: THE “ELITE TEAM” EDITION
ReplyDeleteTHERE HAS BEEN SOME DISPUTE BETWEEN THE COMMENTERS ABOVE AS TO WHETHER MICHAEL VECCHIONE WAS OR WAS NOT FORMALLY A MEMBER OF THE SO-CALLED “ELITE TEAM” FORMED BY D.A. CHARLES “JOE” HYNES, SUPPOSEDLY TO PURSUE AND PERSECUTE THOSE GUILTY OF THE MURDER OF MARK S. FISHER — CONTEMPORARY REPORTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS FROM FEBRUARY 2005 INDICATE THAT VECCHIONE WAS ON THE TEAM AS ITS SENIOR MEMBER
According to the Daily News, “...Michael Vecchione, chief of the district attorney's rackets bureau, his deputy Patricia McNeill, senior homicide prosecutor Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi and assistant district attorney Josh Hanshaft made up Hynes' team [for the Mark Fisher case]....” ( See “Full-court Press Broke ‘03 Student Slay Case” by Nancie L. Katz & Alison Gendar, 2/9/05, NY Daily News [http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/full-court-press-broke-03-student-slay-case-article-1.588755]).
It should be noted that Nancie Katz was the courthouse and political reporter for the News in Brooklyn at the time this article was filed. In addition, the article specifically stated that it was the product of “interviews with the Daily News, the investigators and prosecutors behind the arrests of Fisher's alleged killer and his accomplices...” Furthermore, and quite significantly, neither Hynes nor anybody dealing with the press for the Brooklyn DA’s Office or Michael Vecchione ever indicated that Vecchione was not the head of the “Elite Team” on the Fisher case.
In addition to the above, a photo, and the accompanying caption and photo credit, which was referred to in a comment above, "... Charles Hynes, Brooklyn DA, at his offices with team set up to solve Fisher murder case. (L to R) Michael Vecchione, Josh Hanshaft, Charles Hynes, Patricia McNeill, and Anna Sigga Nicolazzi (Photo by Michael Albans/ Daily News Archive via Getty Images)” appeared in a 2013 AP article that was posted on the Huffington Post. The article was about the 2013 TV program, “Brooklyn DA”; and the substantive information in that article was obviously vetted by Jerry Schmetterer of the Brooklyn DA’s Office and Hynes’ 2013 re-election campaign (See “Brooklyn DA' Documentary Drama Is Behind Camera” by Colleen Long, 6/15/13, AP/ Huffington Post [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/15/brooklyn-da_n_3446923.html]; see also NY Daily News file of the same photo, along with this information: “Filename: 73305k0k.jpg - Photo Date: 02/03/2005 - Photographer: Albans, Michael - Caption: Charles Hynes, Brooklyn DA, at his offices with team set up to solve Fisher murder case. (L to R) Michael Vecchione, Josh Hanshaft, Charles Hynes, Patricia McNeill, and Anna Sigga Nicolazzi.- Credit: New York Daily News - Country: USA - Location: Brooklyn, NY [http://www1.dailynewspix.com/sales/largeview.php?lbx=-1&name=73305k0k.jpg&id=90400] ). The photo, photo caption and photo credit mentioned above are not the only photos, etc., of the “Elite Team” that worked on the Fisher case that were taken ( See Photo: L to R are Josh Hanshaft, Patricia McNeill, Michael Vecchione, and Anna Sigga Nicolazzi [Note: Brooklyn D.A. Hynes was not in this photo] at Brooklyn DA's office Charles Hynes, the team set up to solve Fisher murder case. [Photo by Michael Albans/NY Daily News Archive via Getty Images]
[http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/to-r-are-josh-hanshaft-patricia-mcneill-michael-vecchione-news-photo/97261884]; see also NY Daily News file of the same photo, along with this information: Filename: 73305k0n.jpg - Photo Date: 02/03/2005 - Photographer: Albans, Michael - Caption: L to R are Josh Hanshaft, Patricia McNeill, Michael Vecchione, and Anna Sigga Nicolazzi at Brooklyn DA's office Charles Hynes, the team set up to solve Fisher murder case. - Credit: New York Daily News - Country: USA - Location: Brooklyn, NY]).
Dear Mr. Massey,
ReplyDeleteWas it Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."? Your comment reminded me of that. Did you like Pat Moynihan? I did. He also once said "Being Irish means that in the end the world will break your heart." Do you think that's true?
Why in the world would anybody now try to deny that ADA Anna Sigga-Nicolazzi was placed on the separate “Elite Team” handling the Fisher murder case under the direction of Michael Vecchione, Chief of the Brooklyn DA’s Rackets Bureau?
ReplyDeleteNicolazzi has been mentioned over and over in the papers as a member of the “The Elite” team run by Mike Vecchione for more than ten years now. If she was not placed on the separate “Elite Team” instead of under the direction of Homicide Bureau Chief Kenneth Taub, then Brooklyn D.A. Hynes lied directly to Michael and Nancy Fisher, the murdered Mark Fisher’s parents, who were told that Kenneth Taub would no longer be “in charge of” of the case on May 20, 2004. Even if Nicolazzi remained an ADA in the Homicide Bureau for other cases, it didn’t change who ran the “Elite Team” on the Fisher case, and what Nicolazzi did on that “Elite Team” and how she did it.
"and that article was obviously vetted by Jerry Schmetterer of the Brooklyn D.A.'s office . . ."
ReplyDeleteI missed Mr. Massey's reliable reference in the first reading. Jerry Schmetterer. And isn't he ever as honest as the day is long. Charles Hynes' very own yellow journalist up there on 19 ready to tell the press whatever Dino said they should hear. Trust me, both those two would steal the pennies off a dead man's eyes if the widow turned her head. Go back to citing the Tabloids as they are more credible.
/s/
There's no crying in Baseball BSI
Gail, you catch a few and you miss a few, and some go right through your legs and you look ridiculous. Here's one like that. You tried to make a big deal out of Arthur L. Aidala and his connections hither and thither, but you overlooked a "Park Avenue" lawyer with plenty of local Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, Bensonhurst connections that was involved in the Fisher Murder Case, Salvatore Strazzullo. The good old Sal S represented Jason Allo, the juror in the Fisher case that said he knew some of the GM boys and helped to steer the jury to a guilty verdict in the Giuca case. Among Strazzullo's Bay Ridge connections is your favorite punching bag, State Senator Marty Golden. So how's that for connections?
ReplyDeleteYou didn't stop this one very short, so mark your scorecard "E-6"
Its Gale, not Gail
ReplyDeleteHence, we conclude this discussion having determined that yes Arthur Aidala has some allegedly nefarious involvement in the Mark Fisher case an no Michael Vecchione was not a material part of the prosecution.
ReplyDeleteAnd to those of you who are going to continue to make the false claim that Mr. Vecchione was involved: "Mr. Hart here is a dime, Call you mother and tell her there are serious doubts about you're ever becoming a lawyer."
/s/
Professor Kingsfield
Anonymous above, wants everybody to ignore all the reports saying that Michael Vecchione was involved in the Fisher prosecution. Those reports include February 2005 captioned photos of the early back-patting on the Fisher case, showing him with other members of the "...Team," including Nicolazzi, the trial ADA. In addition there is an almost ten year history of the NYC papers and other media referring to Vecchione as the head of the "...Team," including a reference to the 2013 TV "docu-drama" "Brooklyn DA" that had been vetted by top operatives in the DA's Office.
ReplyDeleteMore important than any of that, the "Team..." followed one of Vecchione's prime directives by not keeping notes of interviews with witnesses after he took over the case.
What evidence does Anonymous above have to the contrary? That would be nothing.
It is true that notes were not taken when interviewing certain witnesses and this seemed to have occurred after a specific date which I do not have on hand. There is no evidence, however, that this was a directive from Michael Vecchione. That is important. That was the modus operandi of other high level prosecutors in the office but no so much with Vecchione. I am a supporter of John Giuca and the many who have been victims of the Hynes years - and many we will never know about. But I also think it is important to set the record straight on what is seemingly a minor issue but could very well affect (or is it effect Mr. Massey?)a viable Monell claim for damages down the road. I've seen it in the case law in other jurisdictions. The Giuca case is a slam dunk for Monell liability on three of its four methods - there is no need to embellish and/or sensationalize it by bringing Vecchione in.
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to embellish and/or sensationalize it by bringing Vecchione in. Rackets Bureau Chief Michael Vecchione been IN the Fisher case since Hynes put him in charge of the "...Team" on the case on or about May 20, 2004.
ReplyDeleteWhat part of that don't you get?
If you have any contrary EVIDENCE to the FACT that Vecchione was on the Fisher case, WHAT IS IT?
What part don't I get? The part that isn't true. I would not have expended the energy and put up with the annoyance of the responses to this thread if I did not think it was important to correct this misconception. I also would not make the claim if I did not have first-hand knowledge of the facts surrounding this issue. So perhaps we should just agree to disagree. You have your view and I have mine. That is all. It is now Mr. Massey's job to close this thread and move on to more imminent matters.
ReplyDeleteAs they say on the McLoughlin Group "bye bye"
What exactly are you saying? What are you saying about Vecchione or Nicolazzi? Are they or aren't they involved in the Fisher case?
ReplyDeleteSomebody doesn't know the difference between first hand and secondary "knowledge"...
ReplyDeleteThey either know because they were there, or because they were told or read it.
And somebody else is making an irresponsible assumption. Rule of discussion here: Comment constructively or refrain from doing so.
ReplyDelete