Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

1

used, how he was being set up. Another little inconsistency

2 Weinberg said, and I add, he said, "John Stowe wasn't going to

3

get a commission from me. He gets the commission from the
people that he makes the money from."

5

I refer you when you listen to the call of April

6

18, 1978, and you see the transcript or what have you

[blocks in formation]

7

had it in front of you three weeks ago. Mel Weinberg says

8

on April 18 and again on September 6 when he's talking to

9

Stowe, "I'll mark you down for commission." So he's not

[blocks in formation]

You know what's a further scam that he's just

2 perpetually committing? When he comes and testifies.

He

3

4

he was operating.

doesn't wear the outfit that he was wearing at the time that He tells you that he's wearing a three

5

6

7

piece suit with a distinguished-looking goatee. I submit

that's part of the final scam, the scam, the final con.

And I submit that this same man who is now on the Federal

8

payroll that gets probation

-

they didn't even make him

9

make restitution of $200,000 or whatever it was to the

10

victims in Pittsburg, the defrauded people.

If he's going

11

to get probation, the only thing he had to do was work for 12 the FBI and fulfill a certain duty to them. And then they

133

14

15

16

17

18

19

go to bat for him. They didn't even get him to make the

restitution of the people.

MR.

KOTELLY: Objection, your Honor. That's for

the Court to decide at the time of sentencing.

[blocks in formation]

MR. JANUS: Si Pollack, he's a con man. He gets

on and tells you that. But there was a certain ring of

20

truth to what he said, that he knew Mel Weinberg, a certain

ring of truth about where he had met him, the fact that he

21

22

had met him. Why would Weinberg not tell the truth about

[blocks in formation]

And you know something? It was very subtle and

1

perhaps some of you missed it; perhaps all of you missed it

2

but at Page 1784 Mr. Robinson was asking questions about

[blocks in formation]

ABSCAM with Weinberg and at 1784 Mr. Robinson is asking:

"And yet you can't remember how much money you

made in ABSCAM?"

See if you can stretch your memories to remember

his answer, Page 1784.

"In Amsterdam?

"ABSCAM.

"On ABSCAM?

"Yes.

"No.

"What's in Amsterdam? Did that bring up some

thing else to your mind?"

And Weinberg said, "I thought you said Amsterdam."

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

tie in, that trivial little point? Why would he have thought Amsterdam when the man is talking about ABSCAM, when the case

is ABSCAM? Because Si Pollack said that Mel Weinberg had

asked him to take part in a heroin deal with the heroin

coming in from Amsterdam. That shows the guilty mind that he

had at the time.

You heard the fantasy about Bill Bell, that he

shot into a mattress and it just missed him and Mr. Robinson, you will recall, perhaps humorously asked him, "Where's the

1

mattress? I want to take a picture of it. What's the hotel

[blocks in formation]

3

You heard Bill Bell, who was a Government witness,

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

He's a second-rate con man, not a first-rate one and

9

the Government was using him to see who was going to make it.

10

It was like tryouts: Who gets to be the best one gets to be

11 on the higher payroll. He's on the payroll for $150 a week.

127

Weinberg was $1,000 a month.

Who was going to make it.

13 Auditioning for the top job.

14

15

Well, Meltzer got cut. He got shipped back, not

even to the minor leagues. He got shipped someplace worse

16

than that. And you saw him and he didn't tell the truth

17

18

19

20

but he was honest enough when confronted by it to say, "Yes,

I lied." That doesn't make him an honest man. He was a

miserable witness because he's a second-rate con man. But

do you know what Mel Weinberg is? He's a dressed up Joe

[blocks in formation]

He's a Joe Meltzer that made it. Joe Meltzer made

good. $5,000 a month.

23

24

No, I'm not going to dwell any more on Weinberg.

I'm counsel for Stowe. I'm sure, as counsel for Jenrette

25

has mentioned, is satisfied with what you think of

[blocks in formation]

But why do I dwell so long on Mr. Weinberg if he's

2

3

admitted he's a con man?

4

5

Because as you'll be instructed by

the Court tomorrow, you've got to evaluate what inducement

there was on John Stowe to commit a crime, what promises of

6

7

8

9

10

11

122

133

reward, what coercive tactics, and the only person that

dealt with John Stowe was Mel Weinberg. He never even met

Tony DeVito until December 3rd, 1979, he being John Stowe.

You have also got, in order to convict John Stowe,

to be satisfied that the Government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that John Stowe was predisposed to commit a The word predisposed, inclined before

crime, predisposed.

the inducement, at the time of the inducement to commit a

14 crime and who is the only person that can tell you about

15

what John Stowe was saying and doing? Mel Weinberg.

16

17

The Court is also going to charge you tomorrow that even if certain evidence is uncontradicted from one

18 witness, such as Weinberg, if you find it inherently improbable you don't have to accept his testimony. I submit

19

20

21

22

you ought not to accept one single thing that Weinberg says until you are satisfied from the other evidence that it is

corroborated, that it is substantiated.

[blocks in formation]

That's what we

and let me just digress for a second.

Both of them, Amoroso and Weinberg, had the nerve to come in

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »