MOB LEAK Defends how marshal was questioned
The griller got grilled.
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, known for his skill in interrogation, came under aggressive questioning himself Wednesday as he defended how he handled his interactions with a deputy U.S. marshal accused of leaking secret government information to the mob.
The deputy, John Ambrose, contends he was in custody when Fitzgerald and the head FBI agent for Chicago, Robert Grant, laid out the government's case against him and tried to get him to cooperate at FBI offices in Chicago last year.
But Ambrose says he wasn't read his Miranda warnings, so anything he told them shouldn't be allowed against him at trial.
Ambrose was at times closely guarded by FBI agents, such as when he went to the bathroom.
Investigators said they were concerned that Ambrose might kill himself, but Ambrose's attorney, Francis C. Lipuma, suggested that was nothing but an excuse.
Fitzgerald appeared to bristle at that, saying he never would want investigators to approach a suspect in such a way that the suspect would hurt himself.
"I did not want to see him kill himself," Fitzgerald said of Ambrose.
Lipuma at one point cut off Fitzgerald, but the prosecutor shot back: "Let me finish because you said something pretty serious."
Ambrose is accused of lying to the feds about leaking information about Nicholas Calabrese, a prolific mob killer who turned government witness.
Ambrose allegedly passed on information about what Calabrese was telling investigators, facts that wound up in the hands of Chicago mob boss James Marcello and his half-brother, Michael.
Ambrose contends that he was in custody when he was lured to FBI offices in September 2006 on a ruse. Wednesday's hearing was to determine whether Ambrose's statements would be allowed in a trial.
Fitzgerald testified that he told Ambrose he wasn't under arrest, but Ambrose denies that happened
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/706220,CST-NWS-mob20.article
2 comments:
All a person has is his/her word in a court of law. Trust is one of the most important factors in getting to the truth. Officers who take an oath are given the edge as truthful. This case will be decided on honesty and who do you trust is telling the truth. With both men knowing the law and how the loop holds work we'll see.
On one hand we have a proven honest official and on the other hand an official who is shaky in the honesty department. Motive and opportunity must be looked at. Does the Defendant have a motive to lie and has the loop hold given him the opportunity. What's Pat's motive to lie and where was the opportunity. The proof of this case is Pat's history made public of how he handles his investigations. Each one is the same and one has to question why would that change with this case and not others.
What a case...my money is on Fitz, of course
Post a Comment