Archive for the world news Category

International Best Selling author Joe Bruno has 22 of the top 40 ranked ebooks on Amazon in the category “Legal – Witnesses.”

Posted in Book Reviews, crime, criminal, criminals, famous murders, famous trials, Lawyers, murder, Murder in Greenwich Connecticut, Uncategorized, unsolved murders, world news with tags , , , , , , on October 4, 2016 by Joe Bruno's Blogs


“The Mysterious Murder of Martha Moxley: Did the Political and Financial Power of the Kennedy/Skakel Families Trump the Truth?” is ranked highest at #2. Robert Kennedy’ Jr.’s book “Framed,” which says exactly the opposite what of Bruno’s book maintains, is ranked #4.

RFK Jr. says his cousin Michael Skakel was framed, Bruno’s says Skakel should have been arrested and convicted much sooner than the 27 years it took for a conviction.


Leonard Levitt op-ed: Journalist deconstructs Kennedy’s claim Skakel was ‘Framed’

Posted in crime, criminal, criminals, famous murders, famous trials, killers, murder, Murder in Greenwich Connecticut, Uncategorized, unsolved murders, world news with tags , , , , , , , , , , on August 22, 2016 by Joe Bruno's Blogs

By Leonard Levitt

In his recently published book, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. maintains that his cousin, Michael Skakel, was “framed” for the murder of his 15-year-old neighbor, Martha Moxley, by an incompetent lawyer, a “corrupt” detective and prosecutor, and the media — including this reporter.
Martha was beaten to death in the Belle Haven section of Greenwich on Oct. 30, 1975, with a golf club that came from a set found the next day in the Skakel home. The case has become a 41-year legal odyssey, with no resolution in sight.

But Michael Skakel wasn’t framed, as the title of Kennedy’s book alleges. Instead, perpetuating the basest of racial stereotypes, Kennedy has framed two men, one black, the other of mixed race.

“Kennedy also shows how he tracked down the likely killers, whose presence was detected neither by the police nor the press,” reads his book jacket. Kennedy himself writes: “Using the evidence I have cited in this book, prosecutors have sufficient cause to indict Burton Tinsley and Adolph Hasbrouck for Martha Moxley’s murder.”

Kennedy offers no proof for his claims. The closest he comes is to write that Hasbrouck and Tinsley admitted to him they had been in Belle Haven on the night Martha was murdered.

On BizTalk radio he told host Jim Campbell: “Both of the men, Adolph and Burr, acknowledged on tape that they were there that night.”
On the Phoenix-based radio show “House of Mystery” to publicize his book, he told host Al Warren: “I was able to track those two men down and have conversations with them in which they admitted that they had been in Greenwich that night, and they admitted that they had been in the home of Geoffrey Byrne, the boy who helped them clean off after the murder.”

Those statements are lies.

According to court documents, Kennedy secretly recorded Hasbrouck and Tinsley in separate telephone conversations in 2003, the year after Michael’s conviction. But no such admissions appeared on either recording, transcripts of which were made available to me.

At a 2007 hearing seeking a new trial, based on Kennedy’s claims, Michael’s lawyers never offered any admissions as new evidence, a further indication there were none.

Byrne, who Kennedy claims helped Hasbrouck and Tinsley “clean off after the murder,” died a few years after the murder.
Kennedy’s source for his allegations is Gitano (Tony) Bryant, who Kennedy describes in his book as a first cousin to basketball star Kobe Bryant. Last year, Gitano Bryant pleaded guilty in Virginia to under-reporting millions of dollars in his tobacco importing company, resulting in a $6 million tax liability. In 1993 he was convicted of participating in an armed robbery/home invasion in California in which he claimed to have been kidnapped. He was later fired by a Texas law firm after his employers discovered Bryant never passed the bar, as he had claimed.

In 2007, Connecticut Judge Edward Karazin denied Michael’s motion for a new trial, concluding that Bryant’s claims “lacked credibility” and are “absent any genuine corroboration.”

In 2013, as Michael again sought a new trial, claiming his lawyer, Mickey Sherman, had been incompetent, Judge Thomas Bishop found Bryant’s “trail of deceit would likely erode any confidence in Bryant’s credibility.”

However, Bishop ruled Sherman failed his client and granted Michael a new trial. Prosecutors have appealed his decision to Connecticut’s highest court, which is expected to rule in the next few months. Meanwhile, Michael has been released from prison, where he served 11 years.
Bryant came to Kennedy’s notice after Kennedy wrote an article in 2003 in Atlantic Monthly, maintaining Kenneth Littleton, a tutor who moved into the Skakel house the night of the murder, was a more likely suspect than Michael.

Bryant told Kennedy that he, Hasbrouck and Tinsley, who were schoolmates in the Bronx, New York, had been in Belle Haven the night of the murder and that up to 15 people had seen them. At the 2007 hearing, Kennedy testified he was unable to find anyone to corroborate this.
Bryant also told Kennedy that Hasbrouck, who is black and who Bryant described as 6-foot-3 and 200 pounds at the time of the murder, met Martha at a dance in Greenwich a few months before, although no one but Bryant ever reported seeing them together.

Quoting Bryant, Kennedy writes that Hasbrouck “was obsessed with her beautiful blond hair,” and wanted to go “caveman” on her.
“Adolph and Burr, inebriated and ‘out of control’ began making sexually charged comments to some of the girls,” Kennedy writes about their supposedly being in Belle Haven the night of the murder.

“‘Where are the bitches?’ they were now demanding. ‘We’ve just got to get into something.’”

According to Bryant, a day or two later, the two confessed to him they killed Martha. Kennedy writes, “Adolph boasted, ‘Well, I got mine. We got her caveman style.’”

Bryant, however, refused to repeat his story to Connecticut authorities or to testify under oath at the 2007 hearing. Kennedy justifies his refusal, writing, “Michael’s conviction reinforced Tony’s mistrust of the system and validated his reason for not coming forward.”

Kennedy also wrote that “it became clear to me they (Hasbrouck and Tinsley) had been there that night.” As evidence he mentioned that Byrnes’ relatives “were dead certain that no black person could have visited their house. … I subsequently talked with both Tindel (sic) and Burr, who admitted having been to their house. Both of them (had been there) on at least six occasions and then described the interior of the house and other intricate details.”
“Wouldn’t it have been a little more helpful to determine if they were in Belle Haven on the night of Oct. 30, 1975, if you had ever spoken to somebody who had actually said they’d seen them there?” retorted prosecutor Jonathan Benedict.

Another person who claimed Hasbrouck had been in Belle Haven the night of the murder was Skakel’s private investigator, Vito Colucci. At the 2007 hearing, Colucci testified Hasbrouck admitted this in an interview he conducted with his assistant, Kris Steele, at Hasbrouck’s home in Bridgeport in 2003.

Colucci testified he brought Steele to take notes and “mainly to have a witness.” He testified: “Anytime I do something of any magnitude I try to get it on video or make sure I have somebody with me.”

Colucci acknowledged he did not record his interview with Hasbrouck and that Steele’s report, which was part of the court record, made no mention of any admission.

After he telephoned Hope Seeley, one of Skakel’s lawyers, Colucci testified, Steele wrote a second report that included Hasbrouck’s alleged admission. “Kris left out a few things and I just told him what to do.” Seeley, who is now a judge, declined comment through a Connecticut Judicial Branch spokesperson. Colucci did not respond to an email and telephone call.

According to Hasbrouck’s lawyer, Lawrence Schoenbach, “Hasbrouck’s mother had forbidden him to stay out during a school night, much less go to Greenwich. His mom worked in the 40th precinct in the Bronx. She cracked the whip.” Bryant, who attended the same Greenwich private school as Michael before moving to the Bronx, brought Hasbrouck and Tinsley to Greenwich a few times, said Schoenbach, “but always on weekends.”

Hasbrouck, says Schoenbach, graduated from college, served three years in the army and received an honorable discharge. “He has been married for 25 years. He has a daughter in college. He has been a production assistant at ABC for 15 years. He was a decent kid who became a respectable adult. Imagine 30 years later somebody knocks on your door and says, ‘Did you kill Martha Moxley?’ ”

Of Kennedy’s book, Schoenbach says: “His story was rejected by the courts 10 years ago and is now repackaged. Simply because he puts it in a book and gives it a better veneer makes it no more credible.”

In an interview on NBC’s “Dateline,” Kennedy dared Hasbrouck to sue him for libel. Schoenbach said he would wait until Connecticut’s highest court rules before making a decision.

It would be disingenuous not to mention that Kennedy’s book reflects his animosity toward me as a reporter. In part, I suspect this is because of two articles I wrote. The first, published in The (Stamford) Advocate and Greenwich Time in 1991, led the state of Connecticut to reopen its investigation.
The second was a series of articles, published in Newsday in 1995, that described how Michael and his brother, Tommy, lied to the police about their whereabouts the night of the murder. That led investigators to refocus on the Skakels and away from Littleton, then their primary suspect.

I’ve often wondered why Kennedy has committed himself to Michael’s innocence. I suspect he identifies with Michael’s tragic childhood and early adulthood. Like Kennedy, Michael lost a parent as a child. Like Michael, Kennedy became an alcoholic. He was also a heroin addict. Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau fired him and he was disbarred as a lawyer for two years.

But where is it written that a person of privilege and entitlement with a famous name can write lies about innocent people without consequence?

Leonard Levitt was hired by Greenwich Time and The Advocate in the early 1980s to investigate the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley. An article in 1991 helped relaunch the police investigation and led to the 2000 arrest of Michael Skakel. Levitt wrote the book “Conviction” about the Skakel case. A Stamford resident, Levitt runs the website “NYPD Confidential.”

International Best Selling author Joe Bruno’s “JULIUS AND ETHEL ROSENBERG SPIES OR SCAPEGOATS? YOU MAKE THE CALL!” is ranked No.1 on in the category “Emigration & Immigration.”

Posted in crime, criminal, criminals, espionage, FBI, Lawyers, lower east side of Manhattan, New York City, police, Russian Mob, Russian spies, Uncategorized, world news with tags , , , , , , , , , on May 14, 2016 by Joe Bruno's Blogs

Rosenberg Cover

To get your copy, click the link below!


Product information.


This Rosenberg essay originally appeared in “Mobsters, Gangs, Crooks, and Other Creeps – Volume 5 – Girlfriends and Wives.”


Author’s note:

I lived in Knickerbocker Village from 1964-1996, the same Lower East Side housing project where the Rosenbergs resided when they were arrested in 1950.

During the time of the Rosenbergs, Knickerbocker Village housed over 1500 families; most of them of Jewish, Italian, or Irish descent. But, by the time I moved to Knickerbocker Village the demographics had changed significantly. Following the Rosenbergs’ arrests, many Jewish families, for whatever reason, moved out of the neighborhood, and they were replaced mostly by Italian/Americans. Now, Knickerbocker Village, due to the recent increase in New York City’s Chinese population and the close proximity of Chinatown, is predominantly Chinese.

Over the years, I’ve heard people, who lived in Knickerbocker Village at the same time as the Rosenbergs, talk about the Rosenbergs and not always in a kind way. People generally spoke favorably about Ethel . But, as far as I can determine, Julius was disliked by practically everyone.

The $64,000 question is – were both Rosenbergs Soviet spies? Were both really traitors to their country? Or, was being the faithful wife of Julius Rosenberg Ethel’s biggest crime?

The truth, as we shall see, is somewhere in the middle.


Joe Bruno on the Mob – The Taliban – As Dangerous as any Mob in the World

Posted in Gangs, mobs, Uncategorized, world news with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 3, 2014 by Joe Bruno's Blogs

This is from one very sad Vietnam Veteran, for all it is worth.

There’s a good chance this guy Bergdahl went AWOL on purpose to help the Taliban. We can only guess why. But the bottom line is several marines died trying to get him back from the Taliban, and in the stupid exchange Obama made with the Afghans, five dangerous terrorists were released from Gitmo, in exchange for one US Marine who loyalty to the US is dubious.

How can the Obama administration be so naive? Or maybe it’s even worse than that. 

Five for one is a bad swap no matter which way you look at it; even if you’re talking baseball cards. Unless it’s one Mickey Mantle for five Marv Throneberry’s. And even that’s a bad swap. But trading five hardened anti-American terrorists for one apparent anti-American marine is beyond the pale. 

I didn’t vote for Obama, but when he won the first term, I figured, with his intelligence and easy going manner he would be alright as President. I gave him a pass until recently. 

If I was a real suspicious person, I’d be thinking maybe Obama doesn’t have the best interests of our country foremost on his agenda. Maybe he has his own secret agenda. 

Praise be to Allah.


Yet another controversy in the White House

By Bill O’Reilly
It is truly amazing — I have never seen this before. Almost every week there is another intense situation raising questions about presidential leadership. Last week it was the V.A. This week, a trade with the Taliban to get an American soldier released from captivity.

28-year-old Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan on June 30th, 2009. Apparently he slipped out of his camp and the terrorists grabbed him.

Over the weekend the President made a deal with the Taliban to have the Sergeant released immediately. In return, five top Taliban terrorists were held — who were held in Guantanamo were flown to the Gulf station of Qatar where they will eventually repatriated back to Afghanistan. Taliban leadership has proclaimed the deal a huge victory.

So this is yet another troubling situation for the President. First of all, Mr. Obama signed a law late last year that says Congress must be given 30 days notice before any detainees at Guantanamo can be released or transferred.

But there’s some wording in the law that gives the President some discretion. In this case the President says he had to act quickly because Sergeant Bergdahl’s health was deteriorating in captivity.

Second, the Sergeant was captured under very mysterious circumstances. Colonel David Hunt will tell us about that in a moment. Third and this is the most important aspect of the story. By trading one American for five terrorists — that might encourage Americans to be kidnapped all over the world. It has been U.S. policy not to bargain with terrorists but the President made an exception in Bergdahl’s case. Reaction — fast and furious.


MICHAEL LEITER, FORMER SENIOR CORRESPONDENT OFFICIAL: I do think that these five, who were really far on the far end of the spectrum of bad guys in Guantanamo, this is really problematic, for the long term, this is going to strengthen the Taliban. Our hand is obviously weakening there.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: It is disturbing that these individuals would have the ability to reenter the fight and they are big, high level people, possibly responsible for the deaths of thousands.


O’REILLY: They are also war criminals, these men. Some Republicans are also calling for an investigation into Mr. Obama’s conduct citing the new 30 day law. But the Obama administration says it did nothing wrong.


CHUCK HAGEL, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: First of all we didn’t negotiate with terrorists. As I said and explained it before, Sergeant Bergdahl is a prisoner of war. That’s a normal process in getting your prisoners back. In war, things — things are always dangerous. And there are vulnerabilities as there are around the world.


O’REILLY: In addition to politics, there is the emotional part of this story: Sergeant Bergdahl’s parents from Idaho met with President Obama at the White House on Saturday to support their son’s release. Most parents would do that despite the intense political ramifications.

But it is Robert Bergdahl, the father, who is also engendering some controversy. He has learned to speak Pashto the language of the Taliban and looks like a Muslim. He is also somewhat sympathetic to Islam, actually thanking Allah right in front of the President. Mr. Bergdahl in addition had a message for his son who is now in Germany being treated by the U.S. military.


BERGDAHL: I’m proud of how much you wanted to help the Afghan people and what you were willing to do to go to that length. I will say it again, I am so proud of how far you were willing to go to help the Afghan people. And I think you have succeeded.


O’REILLY: So the story is very complicated. A number of reports today imply Sergeant Bergdahl may have deserted his unit in Afghanistan. And there is reportedly correspondents between him and his parents, saying how disillusioned he was with the Afghan war blaming America for much of the carnage over there. Again Colonel Hunt has the inside story coming up.

Talking Points believes there are valid points on both sides of the growing controversy. There is no question that President Obama’s actions will make things more dangerous for Americans abroad, especially in the Middle East and Africa.

But what do you do when you can save an American soldier being held in captivity for five years? Do you walk away? Possibly consigning the soldier to his death? I believe the administration when it says had it to act quickly. A 30 day waiting period with thugs like the Taliban could have easily turned into a fracas, but in war, in war, hard decisions have to be made. And these five Taliban terrorists, war criminals will kill again. There is no question about that. They are extreme haters who will be welcomed back to the jihad with enthusiasm.

Secretary Hagel is wrong when he says this is a simple prisoner of war exchange. It is not. These are top Taliban leaders — enemies who bring death and destruction to thousands. Therefore, if I had been president, I would not have made the deal.

But there is a caveat. President Obama wants to open avenues of negotiation with the Taliban. He wants a cease-fire in Afghanistan. And by opening communications over the Sergeant, the President sees an opportunity.

But if history is any indicator, the Taliban will never stop fighting, because they don’t have anything else to do. They are armed, fed and paid by other jihadists. They sit there in the mountains of Pakistan, plotting death and the reinstitution of an Islamic state in Afghanistan. Why would they ever stop?

So once again America is in a nearly impossible situation with Sergeant Bergdahl caught in the middle of it. Let the debate begin.

And that’s “The Memo.”

– You can catch Bill O’Reilly’s “Talking Points Memo” weeknights at 8 and 11 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel and any time

. Send your comments to:

Transcript Date:
Mon, 06/02/2014
Transcript Show Name:
O’Reilly Factor
Transcript Talent Byline:
Bill O’Reilly