04/07/2024
Re: DiFronzo, John (revised on 08/02/2024)
As ANP remains on hiatus for a while, we have decided to post (solely on our page) a piece regarding the federal government's 2007 Family Secrets case.
As a sidenote, the comment threads on our actual website have long been deactivated because of spam abuse.
For those who have a sincere desire to formulate a clear and accurate understanding of some of the aspects of the Family Secrets trial, you are encouraged to participate publicly or privately.
We believe that serious researchers will most likely be more inclined than others to participate, as we are welcoming help from our audience.
During ANP's occasional periods of hiatus, which have occurred a number of times over the last approximately 16-years, our viewership numbers tend to fluctuate accordingly.
Therefore, please know that we will be very patient as we look forward to receiving helpful information that you may consider offering in the spirit of establishing accurate history and appreciating true justice.
You may share helpful information in the comment thread beneath this post or via ANP's private messenger.
Please take your time. As indicated above, our hiatus times mean slow traffic to our page. That said, please be clear in knowing that we are wishing for an unhurried process.
The piece we are presenting is below.
The Family Secrets piece:
We'll begin by asking you to pardon our declared and obvious ignorance on the aspects of the 2007 Family Secrets trial in which we have made our primary focus for this piece.
ANP will now be asking for some of your time in what is our attempt to better understand what little knowledge we have on some aspects of the Family Secrets trial.
If we recall correctly, in 2007 the Spilotro daughter testified about a phone call that she purportedly recieved and answered from inside of her family home around the time of her father's disappearance in 1986.
Perhaps she believed the caller was a man asking questions about her father.
Note: Please correct us if we are incorrect about anything indicated herein, as accuracy and fairness remains steadfast for ANP. Pardon our digression.
We believe the daughter identified the voice of the 1986 telephone caller as being one of the defendants on trial in 2007.
We currently understand that the 1986 telephone call was described by prosecutors as corroboration regarding their star witness, Nick Calabrese (who of course testified in the 2007 trial), who supposedly help prove the person identified via the Spilotro daughter's then 21-year old ear witness recollection of the 1986 phone caller was indeed one of the defendants on trial in 2007 and that said caller was certainly present at the Spilotros' murder scene in 1986.
We are confident this purported corroboration scenario (indicated in the above paragraph) was referenced publicly in a post trial press release by prosecutors as an example as to why John DiFronzo wasn't indicted and tried for the Spilotro murders in the 2007 Family Secrets case.
It's important to note that despite the testimony from the government's star witness putting DiFronzo at the Spilotros' 1986 murder scene, nothing else whatsoever could be relied on to support their star witness in any way whatsoever. The fact that DiFronzo was the under-boss of the criminal enterprise known as the Chicago Outfit apparently meant less than a flimsy and unverified 20-something year old phone call. In other words, because of no other corroboration, not even a flimsy corroboration such as a memory of a then child of an unverified 20-something year old circumstantial (and hearsay) phone call, the government's star witness was not to be trusted.
Since when are two eyewitness (or more), or one eyewitness and a supposed ear witnesses claiming to have supposed relevant circumstantial evidence, the necessary components to convince prosecutors to try a murder suspect?
To be clear, we believe to recall that in 2007 prosecutors went on in their post trial public statements to explain that Nick Calabrese's eyewitness testimony about DiFronzo's presence at the Spilotros' 1986 murder scene wasn't good enough for the purposes of indicting DiFronzo because of some sort of process "policy" on corroboration.
In essence, prosecutors emphasized that a star witness that was good enough to rely on in 2007 for his direct eyewitness account of a double murder crime scene, though for "policy" reasons, needed to be corroborated despite the weakness of what prosecutors considered corroborating factors to be, such as a 21-year old memory from a then child about the sound of a caller's voice that was purportedly heard during a supposed (circumstantial) conversation over the phone in 1986 that likely lasted for a very short period.
Does anyone know if 1986 local landline phone records of the Spilotro girl's household were entered into evidence by prosecutors or by the defense for the 2007 Family Secrets case?
Does anyone know or recall if in 1986 the relevant phone company was able to provide information on itemized local landline calls in 1986?
ANP believes phone companies had the capability in 1986 to determine and itemize incoming and outgoing local and/or long distance phone calls. Again, please help us if we are incorrect.
So, we are almost certain that outgoing local landline telephone calls were discoverable in 1986. Again, we are very confident the same went for incoming local landline calls, but we are not certain at this time.
However, we do suspect that actual incoming local landline phone numbers may not have been identifiable in 1986, though we are confident that terminology indicating that an "incoming call," (without the incoming phone number listed) was discoverable in 1986.
Does anyone know with certainty if what we have illustrated above regarding 1986 incoming and outgoing local landline phone calls is correct? Please share your feedback.
If we are correct about incoming and outgoing local landline phone calls in 1986, we would be very curious if the incoming 1986 phone call in which the Spilotro girl testified about in 2007 was corroborated with a phone bill and/or itemized call log of incoming and outgoing local landline phone calls for the Spilotro household in 1986.
At the very least if such a phone log from 1986 was available and/or entered as evidence in 2007, any incoming calls to the Spilotro house in 1986 in connection with the Spilotro daughter's testimony would have provided great value for justice in 2007.
If any 1986 Spilotro household landline local incoming phone calls weren't entered as evidence by prosecutors or defense attorneys in 2007, did any defense attorneys make arguments in 2007 about a lack of any 1986 Spilotro phone records as evidence necessary to analyze? Additionally, if so what exactly were the defense arguments in 2007 regarding a possible lack of 1986 phone records as evidence?
Did any defense attorneys make any attempts to discover 1986 phone records in preparing for the 2007 trial date? If so, exactly what attempts were made by the defense? Were any attempts to obtain 1986 phone records made by prosecutors for the 2007 trial? If so, exactly what attempts we made by prosecutors?
Of course if such itemized phone calls in 1986 were discoverable, ANP would be curious if whether the call log would've indicated the time span of the incoming and outgoing phone calls to the Spilotro household.
If so, it would have been easy to find an incoming local call on the day in question in 1986 that lasted as long as the phone call had purportedly taken to occur and conclude in accordance with the Spilotro daughter's 2007 testimony.
We certainly realize that 1986 phone records would probably not be stored for multiple years by any phone company, which would have made it impossible for Family Secrets prosecutors to discover 21 year old phone records through subpoena power during the 2000s, especially 2007.
However for the roughly 1-week or so that the Spilotro brothers were first considered missing in 1986, we believe law enforcement would've had a duty to then gather all possible phone records at the time of the reported disappearances in order to properly investigate the then double missing person's case.
If law enforcement somehow dropped the ball in 1986 and failed to check Spilotro household phone records regarding the then missing person's investigation, we would think that law enforcement would've increased and/or improved their investigative efforts when the investigation changed in 1986 from a double missing person's case to a double homicide investigation.
If so, the phone records would have been gathered and held as evidence in 1986, especially since the double murder investigation remained unsolved and/or as an open investigation and/or case until it was prosecuted in the Family Secrets trial in 2007.
So, we believe no reasonable excuse would exist for a lack of forensic analysis of said 1986 phone records for the 2007 trial, nor would a reasonable excuse exist for any lame or defective defense arguments in 2007 regarding a lack of such a forensic analysis of said 1986 phone records.
ANP intends to obtain the relevant facts. However, pardon our current ignorance on these matters.
ANP certainly understands that we may learn that the facts in which we are seeking may have already been sought after and proven or dismissed at the appropriate time. If so, please let us know. Again, pardon our current ignorance on these matters.
Any information that you wish to offer ANP via the comment thread below or through ANP's private messenger would be greatly appreciated. Additionally, contacting us through our website is also possible.
Lastly, please know that any helpful information that you offer will be thoroughly vetted and follow-ups may very well be necessary. Thank you.
P.S.
You must follow ANP's fb page in order to comment if you wish to comment publicly. Otherwise, email or instant messaging will suffice.
