Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
Today, the Times, Post and Daily News look at one devoted mother's fight to prove her son's innocence. Doreen Giuliano, whose son John Giuca was convicted in the murder of a college student, transformed herself from a 46-year-old married Brooklyn mother to a sexy 30-something California transplant in order to catch the eye of a juror from her son's trial (see before and after pictures at left).
According to the Post, "So [juror Jason Allo] wouldn't recognize her from the courtroom, Giuliano altered her appearance by hitting the gym, visiting a tanning salon, dying her hair and buying a new wardrobe of short-shorts, tight blouses and pushup bras." (Her husband would wait up for her in their Prospect Park South home after her dates.) Now Giuliano said she has Allo saying on tape that he should never have been jury.
In 2003, Fairfield University student Mark Fisher, a NJ resident, was found wrapped in a blanket, shot mutliple times, and dumped on Argyle Road. It turned out he had crossed paths--through mutual friends-- with Giuca and friend Antonio Russo, who were charged with his murder. Prosecutors said they referred to themselves as part of the "Ghetto Mafia" and a jury later found them guilty two years later. But Giuca's family and friends have maintained he was set up and that prosecutors didn't do a thorough job--spurring Giuliano into action.
Apparently Giuliano followed other jurors, but decided to target the 32-year-old Allo and would bike around his Brooklyn neighborhood wearing revealing clothing. A Vanity Fair article details Giuliano's plan, which included months of getting to know Allo, who eventually told her, "Technically, by law, I shouldn’t have even been in that jury. Because they ask you in the beginning when you go to jury duty, they read you a list of all the witnesses.… And if you know or are affiliated with these people in any way you have to let them know," implying he did know some.
Giuliano, who says "I woulda had sex with him if that's what it took," is using her tapes of conversations with Allo to get her son's conviction overturned. And the NY Times spoke to Allo and revealed to him that his old flame "Dee Quinn" was actually Giuca's mother; he said, "There was something about her that didn’t feel right," and denied knowing any of the witnesses at the trial.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
holy shit! this is like old lady mission impossible. If she lost another 30 pounds I might hit it.
L&O episode in 3..2..1..
wait one sec, the juror and her went out for like six months and they didn't have sex????
I remember this case, made fairfield U famous.
Only in New York.
I smell a movie
www.forgotten-ny.com
I thought that was Ozzy Ozbourne in the first photo.
last time I checked the evidence would be inadmissable in court as you have to give consent to be recorded on tape. since this sneaky guido bitch did it on the DL they would throw that shit out.
"last time I checked the evidence would be inadmissable in court as you have to give consent to be recorded on tape."
Uh... where did you check that last time? Surreptitious recordings, both audio and video, are used in court all the time.
In any case, even if what she says is true and even if the juror knew witnesses or other parties in the case, it may provide reason to appeal but does nothing to "prove her son's innocence."
Put simply, a tainted jury doesn't mean he didn't do it.
Couldn't Allo tell the difference between a California accent and that notorious Red Hook accent, and pin her?
Also odd is that her husband would rather have his kid spend years in prison than his wife have sex with the mark.
Only the Dead Know Brooklyn.
"Couldn't Allo tell the difference between a California accent and that notorious Red Hook accent, and pin her?"
@thefacts
Allo isn't the sharpest tool in the shed from my sense. Probably why she honed in on him. Most people try to get out of doing jury, even lie, but this numbnut lie to BE on jury duty so asking him to tell the difference between a Red Hook Bklyn accent and a Cali accent is a bit of a stretch especially since he's using his head between his legs to do most of his thinking.
Re: Surreptitious recordings
"N.Y. Penal Law 250.00, 250.05 (Consol. 1999): It is a crime to overhear or record a telephonic or telegraphic communication if one is not the sender or receiver, or does not have the consent of either the sender or receiver. It also is a crime for someone not present to overhear or record any conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party to that conversation."
#8- only in certain states and in certain circumstances - "Most of the state statutes permit the recording of speeches and conversations that take place where the parties may reasonably expect to be recorded" -depending on how this guido bitch got this guy it could be thrown out.
Damn straight her husband waited up after her dates...all that creepy-ass conniving did her body GOOD.
As a frustrated spook, it was always my belief that - rule of thumb - as long as one person knew it was being recorded, recording a conversation, even telephonically, is legal, and perhaps even admissible as evidence.
^I many states, only one party needs to consent to taping. In states like Maryland, you need the consent of the other person on the line as well. And yeah, she "woulda have sex with him" because she subterfuge had a sexual angle that puts all her motives in doubt.
I tip my hat to the Great MILF Detective.
I'd hit that, videotape it, and post it.
thefacts wrote" As a frustrated spook, it was always my belief that - rule of thumb - as long as one person knew it was being recorded, recording a conversation, even telephonically, is legal, and perhaps even admissible as evidence."
In New York it is legal and admissible.
So anybody -- except lawyers -- can secretly record telephone conversations, so long as they are part of that telephone conversation. I don't know why lawyers are excluded but they are.
Everything is not sexy.
Larry
http://www.Text2store.com
@ #10 "N.Y. Penal Law 250.00, 250.05 (Consol. 1999): It is a crime to overhear or record a telephonic or telegraphic communication if one is not the sender or receiver, or does not have the consent of either the sender or receiver. It also is a crime for someone not present to overhear or record any conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party to that conversation."
Ummm your own post proves this woman didn't break the law.....'It is also a crime for someone not present to overhear or record any conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party to that conversation'
1) The mom was present as was Allo
2) I am sure the mom gladly gave her consent to be taped in order to prove her son's innocence
3) If this was recorded via phone, then guess what the Mom was either the sender or reciever of the calls, so she can record whatever the hell she wants to.
If this kid is innocent then it should be tried again. If this Allo guy knew someone in the trial and lied about it to get on the jury, then he needs to face criminal charges....