FRANK LOCASCIO HAS SAID IT ALL ALONG, HE DIDN"T CONSPIRE TO KILL DIBONO

Maybe this is a trend, and then again maybe not. Frank Locascio, 84, former alleged Consigliere of the Gambino crime family under John Gotti, had claimed that he tried to talk "Gotti out of killing Louis DiBono," not conspiring to "whack" Louis DiBono, for which he was ultimately convicted and sentenced to a life term.  It's also not to say he lays the blame solely on Gotti either, in fact he never ever said Gotti killed DiBono, despite Jerry Capeci's attempts to say otherwise.

Locascio has claimed, and for a long time, that the infamous tape from 1982, where he and Gotti were discussing Louis DiBono, that he never "agreed to," or participated in the murder of DiBono. In fact, the transcripts literally show Locascio saying "I predict he will bring you fifty," which was meant to say that DiBono knew he was in trouble and was going to bring Gotti a large sum as a piece meal.  Whether Gotti would have accepted that or not, or depending on what you believe the Governments interpretations of that conversation were, the fact is, is that the Government has had a history of editing tapes for the sake of one charge over another, and the entirety of those tapes, and said enhancements are never made.  If said enhancements were used, it's often only used for one particular section where a crime is being discussed and usually the crime that the Government feels best slams the door shut on the person they want to convict.

Locascio's contention is that while that conversation took place, there were other facets to that conversation that were either muffled or denied enhancement by the FBI, that would in effect corroborate what he's said all along, that he tried to stifle the dialogue about Louis DiBono and that he was "opposed" to any such action.  Opposed or not, the jury never heard the entire tape.

In 2015, Locascio moved to sue the United States Federal Government, because on those 1982 tapes where Louis DiBono was discussed the section of the tape where Locascio swears he acknowledged his opposition at the murder of DiBono, the transcripts were marked as "inaudible," by the prosecution.  The other contention is that new audio equipment could actually enhance that very conversation proving that Locascio was against any such action against DiBono.  A request was made on behalf of the Freedom of Information Act, to acquire 644 reels of that very conversation, but it was denied by the Federal Government citing "law enforcement records exemption."  Locascio's attorney's filed an appeal and they were denied.

Following those motions, the FBI said that the tapes in question were ruined by Hurricane Sandy, due to flooding in New Jersey where the tapes were stored, and that even if they were not damaged beyond repair, that they didn't "have to allow access to them," despite the freedom of information act request.  Making this even more disillusioned is that the very transcripts from those tapes(which were published)have been sealed by the Government, and no longer a part of public domain.

Months later the Government handed over a CD copy of one tape, which was seriously redacted, only to change there minds days later asking for the tapes claiming a "mistake" had been made.  Locascio would simply like an audio expert to listen to the tapes, and make his own assertions which the Government refuses to allow given two facts.  1) The transcripts of those tapes were given to attorney's before and during the trial, and 2) That Gravano's testimony that "no murder could have taken place without Locascio's agreement.  Those two hurdles alone make Locascio's bid for a new trial or at least new exculpatory evidence almost impossible.

If Frank Locascio had been convicted of just racketeering and not for the murder of Louis DiBono, he would have likely served a twenty year sentence and been out of prison, instead of rotting away inside a dank prison in Massachusetts.   We can argue both sides to this legal matter, and despite what you may think about Frank Locascio, you have to admit, in many to ways there isn't any harm releasing tapes, unless of course you actually believe the tapes were lost to said "flooding".  The FBI's contention that these said tapes, and Judge Leo Glasser's assertion that they would in effect "make no real difference," based on Gravano's testimony, despite Locascio saying "I objected," then the burden of proof sadly falls to the wayside because the Government won't budge an inch on this.  From the Government's perspective this is an example of a "convicted criminal, trying to get a new trial based on information that cannot be proven," which is a misnomer because they refuse to release even the most minuscule of evidence(transcripts--redacted ones).

Louis DiBono

It's my contention that to be found guilty of a crime on the words of anyone, no matter who that person is, is pretty shallow at best.  Even if we plays devils advocate here and say that Frank Locascio was culpable in the murder of Louis DiBono, then we also have to take pause and remind ourselves that Salvatore Gravano killed 19 people, and got a joke sentence, only to come back out of prison and sold drugs to kids.  I'm not justifying one murder vs. 19, but come on.  Serial killers have 19 murders, yet because Gravano testified against John Gotti and Frank Locascio and hundreds of others, he's given a pass.  In the grand scheme of things, even if Locascio was guilty, the statutes didn't call for a life sentence.  Racketeering alone would have carried a 20 year sentence, but a life sentence for murder?  Perhaps the bigger issue in all of this, no matter what evidence supports what, is that the federal Governent rewards those who chirp, and allows them to repeatedly violate parole, and commit crimes, and the only requirement is that they talk, and tell on others.  It's lopsided at best, and always has been a rigged game.

In final, in my opinion, just based on Locascio's word, those tapes should be released if they exist.  The transcripts should be released, un-redacted. Like DNA tests, if they are found to have committed a crime, then they should be given every resource to prove there innocence.  If the tapes are released or the transcripts are released and it's found he never mentioned his objections, then fine, leave him in prison, but if those tapes or said transcripts exist what's the harm in ensuring that they made the correct charges.  An example, would be these guys who have served 30 years for a rape they didn't commit.  They do a DNA test, they are found to be not guilty, and guess what? They still have to register as a sex offender and still have a felony.  Why is that?   If the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, why can't they be objective?  They have a moral obligation to conduct themselves in that fashion, but it's my belief that a conviction rate is more important to them then the moral obligation to ensure that the right person is convicted.

 In the end, it's Locascio's word versus the Governments. Salvatore Gravano lied on the stand about a lot of things. He was a greedy, money hungry guy and would kill anyone who stood in his way of keeping him from taking over a business. He killed his own brother in law.  He blamed everything on John Gotti.  John Gotti took Sammy's word for a lot of people talking "subversive,"  and "not showing up."  Gravano ultimately became an informant for the same reasons they all do.  They can't do time.  He can lend his excuse to "John Gotti talking too much," but the fact is, many of the murders committed by Salvatore Gravano were on his own behest, for his own gain, and as long as the FBI was willing to say "that's okay Sammy, give us Gotti and you can go home," then he would point the finger as much as possible.  Locascio was convicted because of those said tapes, and Gravano's testimony.   At some point, we have to stop rewarding those who tell, and force them to be held morally accountable for there actions.  Morality however, is not something the Government subscribes to.  Locascio deserves a chance, despite the words of a rat, and despite the Governement's stance.