Mark Fisher murder: Another perspective on John Giuca by Marley Davis

This is the post I (Bonnie, blog owner) made:
Mark Fisher murder 10/12/2003 Brooklyn, NY *John Giuca and Antonio Russo convicted of his murder; sentenced to 25 years to life in prison*

***For the record, I have read more on this case since I posted it back in April. Closer review of the case shows that things do not add up. I have not seen the evidence or read everything, but I am disturbed by it enough to believe that John at the very least deserves a new, FAIR trial. I find it horrendous that a prejudice man was allowed on the jury. One who made up his mind BEFORE the trial even started. Video of juror (embedded below also) That is unconstitutional, to say the least. I urge each of you to read everything on this case. John Giuca’s appeal is on the judge’s desk now and will be ruled on at the beginning of September. I will be sending the judge a letter urging him to grant the appeal for a new, fair trial, if there is really even enough evidence to show him guilty. I don’t think there is. More and more I am leaning towards innocence of John Guica (but not Antonio Russo – I do believe he is guilty). Yes, innocent people get convicted, and that should always be investigated. And as we all know, “everyone” in prison is innocent! Well, sometimes they are. Most are right where they belong, however. In this case, more investigation needs to be done. And no matter what, a new trial with fair and impartial jurors. Our Constitution GUARANTEES that. John Guica did not get that. I will be adding a copy of my letter to the judge on here in the next day or so and all are welcome to use it. Also, Marley has offered to collect the letters and send them to the judge to show support for the new trial. So, if you want to send a letter, either copy the one below (after the video) or write your own. Send them to: ***

My name is Marley Davis. I, like most of you, have a passion and a deep interest in crime. I went to school for criminal justice and psychology, and have interned/worked for multiple law enforcement agencies. In my spare time, I basically watch Investigation Discovery. I love every show on that channel. But, when I watched a show about the murder of Mark Fisher, something changed for me. Maybe it was because the show was supposed to be about a gang initiation that went awry. Maybe it was because I expected to find, as one usually does by the end of these types of shows, a clear connection between crime, perpetrator, and victim. But this particular time, with the murder of Mark Fisher, and the case of John Giuca, I found that wasn’t the case. I was confused- I felt like I had missed something. So, I watched it again. And this time I realized, I hadn’t missed a thing. It just wasn’t there. I felt like I was watching the Swiss cheese channel- a show full of holes. And it was unsettling.

This was the first time I had ever heard the name John Giuca. It certainly wouldn’t be the last. What would start as an inquiry has quickly become a mission. I currently find myself gazing into pandora’s box in a quest to find the truth, a quest that has opened my eyes to a world of injustice, and has changed my life.

So about this show..

First of all, there was no gang initiation at all. According to the prosecutor, the crime was perpetrated by two men who were already members of this gang. The only new member of this situation was the murder victim. So, who exactly was being initiated?

You may say, “OK, who cares? The fact is that there was a murder committed by gang members.”  But who exactly was in this gang? Well, I did a little research, and spoke to the other men who were labeled in court as members of this gang. What I found was a group of guys who used to barbeque together, play basketball together and watch Knicks games together. Men that grew up together, who went on to college, get good jobs, get married, and some even have children. They aren’t now, nor were they ever gangsters- they are productive, honorable members of society and they resent the fact that they were ever labeled as anything else.

Then, the show implies that the murder was over a girl. Then it says it was a robbery gone wrong because at some point the victim went to the ATM- and got out $20.00. Plus, he went back to the party for a few hours. So, which is it? Was this a gang initiation of no one? A robbery for $20 (that’s $10 a piece, mind you, if two people are conspiring to commit this crime)? Jealousy? By now, my head was spinning. I thought it was weird that no clear motive was being established- and I felt like the show focused far too much on giving background on the people involved (by people, I mean John Giuca; I heard hardly anything about Antonio Russo at all, even though he was the alleged gunman) and not on the crime itself. I was only hoping that by the end, it would all make sense. This, unfortunately, turned out to be a pipe dream.

So, I started looking into the case more, and what I found was astonishing. The show also suggested that the host of this party, John Giuca, was upset because the victim sat on a table (motive number four), however trial documents suggest that it was another party goer, not John, that told him to move. Finally, one of the prosecutors (whose name I recognized as one of the prosecutors involved in the wrongful conviction of Jabbar Collins) says that Mark had no idea where he was going when he was murdered. Well, a quick Google search suggests that wasn’t the case. In fact, Mark was murdered about 50 feet from another boy, Albert Cleary’s, house- the house where his friend from school had spent the night, and likely his intended destination.

By now, I had had enough. You just don’t find this many unanswered questions for no reason. All I knew for sure is that John Giuca had a party- a party planned because multiple people were stranded in Manhattan and would have otherwise had nowhere else to go.

The show also states that John was involved in a crime with a gun not long before this murder took place. I pulled those records, as most of you can too. There was nothing to substantiate John’s involvement in that situation either (a fact the show does point out, if only fleetingly). In fact, the police didn’t even investigate it because when they got to the scene, they found absolutely nothing to investigate. The police talked to John, found out it was nothing, and let him go. Case closed.

John was only arrested for that incident almost a year after Mark Fisher’s murder. On top of that, he wasn’t even told why he was arrested; when he asked the police- oh, I mean the “dirty tactics squad,” as they affectionately refer to themselves- the police would only say “a warrant.” Some of those officers, who took a trip down to Florida to arrest him, even admitted that this was an attempt to confuse him, scare him, and a ploy to gain information on the murder. I would even go so far as to assert that they also needed to establish a criminal history- a gangster with a clean record? Now that just won’t do.

Upon further research, I found other facts about this case rather compelling. For one, in the trial against John, the prosecutors “star witness,” Albert Cleary, lied multiple times to police, changed his story from grand jury to trial jury, and was one year into a five year probation sentence for beating a man’s head in at a bar not long before this (Mark Fisher was also badly beaten in a similar fashion).

In addition, Albert took a polygraph test not long after the murder. The questions were 1) do you know anything about the murder and 2) are you hiding anything from police? He said no to both questions, and he passed. How then, could he somehow be the “star witness” to this crime? You can draw one of two conclusions from this- either this kid lied under oath, or he is a good enough liar to fake a polygraph test. Either way, not such a credible witness. Cleary- Table Reference Proof

The other witness against John, a jailhouse informant, said he heard John’s father ask him about the crime. However, John’s father had a stroke about a year before and could not speak. Never happened.

But what most astounded me about this show is that it completely fails to mention one of the most important facts of this whole case- the fact that one of John’s jurors had known of John, knew people on the witness list, failed to disclose any of this during voir dire, AND had reason not to. What was his reason? Well, listen to the video and hear for yourself.

But I’ll summarize it for you. Basically, this juror told John’s mother (unbeknownst to him) that “then he found out that kid was a Jew”, and that he wanted to convicted because, and I quote “I hate Jews” and “I’m prejudice.”

Whether you feel that John is guilty or innocent, there is one thing that no one can really deny, and that is this: when a juror is given a witness list, asked whether he knows anyone on it, and says “no” even though he does, and does this knowingly and purposefully, that is juror misconduct. There is really no way of getting around this fact- he even says “by law, I knew I shouldn’t have been on that jury“. When they read you a list of witnesses, you are supposed to tell them if you know somebody on it.” And he then goes on to explain how he knew the people on that list. At the very least, an inquiry into this jurors actions and his affect on the decision of the others should have been conducted. And yet, nothing.

If a juror fails to disclose or misrepresents potentially important information during jury selection, the party moving for a new trial must show:

the juror concealed material information during voir dire;
the moving party exercised due diligence during voir dire to uncover the information; and
the juror demonstrated actual bias or bias implied as a matter of law that prejudiced the moving party.

State v. Maske, 358 N.C. 40 (2004). If the party meets this burden, the trial judge must grant the motion. (

If you are wondering what happened when this juror misconduct was uncovered- I’ll tell you. In true “Brooklyn Justice” fashion (Google Charles Hynes and read any of the recent articles about him, or Jabbar Collins for that matter, and you’ll see what I mean), John’s appeal wasn’t even looked at. Instead, the judge who oversaw it held a press conference to chastise John’s mother- even though what she did was 110% legal. As of yet, all of John’s appeals have been denied.

I implore you to please take a closer look at the case against John. In doing my research, I have gone to jail and spoken to him multiple times. The John Giuca I have met is nothing like the John Giuca the media portrayed. When I first saw him, I couldn’t quite put my finger on why he was so different than I expected. Sure, after eight years he has aged slightly; his hair was a bit longer. But that wasn’t it. It wasn’t until after I got home that I realized why John surprised me so. It is because the pictures that have circulated of him over the years show a John Giuca that is menacing, scary even. A man with cold, dead eyes and a constant look of disdain. The gang leader with no regard for human life.

The John Giuca I now know is none of those things. He is kind, appreciative, and answers my questions without hesitation. The letters I have received from him are insightful, intelligent, and eloquent.

Ask yourself a question- most of you have taught your children to be kind to everyone you meet, right? No matter what their background, race, religion, etc. You want your children to be accepting of all people, as my mother taught me and as I plan to teach my children. But what do you do when, because of this, the newspapers say you “hang out with the wrong crowd.” It’s not so much of a leap, is it? But the interesting thing is, knowing that this trait of his played such a large role in his conviction, he refuses to stop being so accepting and kind to others. Even in jail, which he told me is quite segregated, he knows and acts no different.

Before I watched this show, I was not a friend of John’s, nor did I have any connection to Brooklyn. I am just a person who knows when I am being fooled. The more I dug into this case, the more I became convinced of John’s innocence. In the three hours I spent with John on that first day at Green Haven, he went from an abstract figure from the ghost of news reports past to someone I regard quite highly; someone whose safety I now fear for, and for whose freedom I now fight.

There is far more to this case then can be written in a single blog entry, which is why I am currently in the process, with Doreen and John’s assistance, of writing the official book about this case. But Bonnie has so graciously allowed me to include the other side of this compelling and complex case on her site.

I know there are plenty of people out there who have a specific opinion and no amount of information (or dare I say it, logic), will convince them otherwise. That is fine-I can accept that. But for those of you with an open mind who are willing to look at this from a different perspective, I urge you to please look into this case. Or, at the very least, buy my book when it hits stands next year :).

My goal is not to sling any mud, but it is far more likely that two other people were involved in this crime. If you don’t believe me, would you believe Michael Fisher, the father of the murder victim? Below is a quote from the New York Times from October 20, 2005:

I think there’s still a guy and a girl involved in this killing,” Mr. Fisher said outside the courtroom. “Until they’re brought to justice, our family’s not going to have closure.”

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me. I have found that, with every single question I have ever had about his case, there has been a logical answer to it. Ever single time.

Read these links:

Mother Justice
The John Giuca Case
Hynes Wins a Fiercely Contested Primary Race for District Attorney
Citing Misconduct, Lawyer Seeks Review of Conviction in ’03 Brooklyn Killing
Petition Seeking to Void Brooklyn Murder Conviction Calls Verdict a ‘Sham’



The Honorable Judge Frederic Block
Brooklyn, NY 11201
August 11, 2012

Honorable Judge Frederic Block:

I am writing this letter today about John Giuca and his appeal. John Giuca was convicted of the 2003 murder of Mark Fisher, as was Antonio Russo, the shooter. There have been numerous theories and scenarios about this murder, but thus far, it seems that the “facts” do not completely add up in this case. Several witnesses lied and/or gave several different stories about the night in question.
One thing I should say up front is that I have no personal attachment to this case. I have read information on this case that comes from court records, news articles, etc. Convicting the wrong person(s) or unfairly gaining convictions is NOT justice. Sometimes in the zeal for justice, integrity and ethics can be shoved aside, just to “have someone, anyone” pay the price. This is not what the Forefathers of our Country wanted when they wrote the Constitution.
Having said this, after reading several things on this case, I do not believe that John Giuca received a fair trial. One glaring issue is the misconduct of juror Jason Allo. He was videotaped admitting perjury in this case. (This video is easily found on YouTube and there is a link on one of my blog posts) He deliberately made sure he got on this jury to convict Mr. Giuca, since he believed Mr. Giuca was Jewish. It should not matter how the video was done, since it was not done illegally. He was not coerced, either by police or by Doreen Giuliano, Mr. Giuca’s mother. He said it free and clear, even laughing about what he had done. This is a disgrace to a fair trial. In my opinion, this is not a minute detail that did not matter. It is a mockery of justice. I believe that for that fact alone, besides the other inconsistencies, John Giuca deserves a new trial. I also believe that Mr. Allo deserves to be charged with perjury or obstructing justice for his deception.
Thank you for your time.

Name: ___________________________________ Date:______________________

23 Responses

  1. Saw your comment at Room 8 – anything I can do to help, please feel free to ask.


  2. I just saw the show and I am not as confused as you are. In the show they never implied that it was for robbery or sitting on a table or I forgot what else you mentioned. It was about getting the body to raise the profile of the gang this Giucca had started. Mark fisher was alone and nobody could connect him to these people that initiated the murder and that’s about it. The only question I have is that who was this Mary and where did she vanish after the murder. When these people were harassing her date how come she didn’t get up and leave with mark. Other then that I believe that this Russo and John are guilty


    • Absolutely guilty. Another smart ass group of babies with guns. Just out looking for trouble and trying to be cool. They should rot in hell. Cowards


      • what are you basing that on? She actually makes some interesting points here, I think. Those are strong words, but they don’t address anything written in this blog, which I actually think is a pretty compelling argument towards innocence. Just curious.


  3. Ok, so I just rewatched the show because I have it saved, just so I didn’t misspeak, but you are wrong when you say they didn’t mention it- because they mention both. I don’t know whether you just don’t remember it being from months ago, or maybe you got up to get a snack during those parts, but she does say it- she even calls it a robbery gone wrong. Here’s the thing- and if you can think of an argument for this, please do- because I will sincerely be interested in what you have to say about this. Let’s say for a second that the gang theory was more than a theory- that the prosecutors had substantial evidence of this being a murder meant to up the street credentials of gang members- and that this was the only motive behind this murder. well, that be a murder in which there was an intent to kill- wouldnt it? That would mean these guys set out to kill him (intent). Well, if that were the case then WHY wouldn’t the prosecutors have charged them with 1st degree murder?! Why charge John and Russo with felony murder- one of the most controversial criminal charges in our country- so much so that less than half the states in our country even use it. Do you know how many states have first degree murder statutes? 50. Felony murder is also one of the hardest charges to substantiate because it is so ambiguous- which is the main reason why half our country sees it as unconstitutional. It’s not really a “go to” charge, especially if one of your motives- the one you seem to find most substantial- would technically prove intent and bump it up to a much easier charge to provw. also, although this show made it look like the gang as a motive was a huge part of this case- it wasn’t. The prosecutors only focused on the gang stuff to make the point that John was a bad guy- they did not focus on it as a motive for killing Mark Fisher.

    after researching this case and pealing back layer after layer, I see this more clearly than when I originally wrote this blog. The main thing here is this: the prosecutors did something in their approach to this case that is not all that uncommon- they deflected. It’s a tactic they used during the trial and it’s a tactic they used in this show. Instead of discussing facts surrounding the murder, the investigation into the murder, etc., they put the focus on character assassinating John. They did this because in reality, they don’t really know what happened to Mark- thats why the prosecutor even says “well, maybe John was there, maybe he wasn’t- we dont know.” They painted with broad strokes so that they wouldn’t have to get into the hows and the whys- questions they still to this day don’t have answers to. Unfortunately, this isn’t an uncommon thing for prosecutors to do. They did that to you on purpose- and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

    the only other thing I have to say is that the only thing you said was you don’t think the show mentioned 2 of the 30 points I made, and that you agreed with one- that they killed him to up their creds. Then you asked what is actually a good question about Meredith, and if you ever find the answer please let me know, then you said other than that I think they’re guilty. So, are you basing that conclusion on the incredibly convincing testimonies of the prosecutors in this show? Did you already know this story and that’s why you believe his guilty? also, what about the rest of the things I said? Did you read them? Did they speak to you at all? also, how are the things that can’t be proven more convincing to you than the cold, hard, facts? Is it b/c they are prosecutors and I am a nameless, faceless person? what if I were a cop, or a lawyer, would that make my facts more credible than their smoke and mirrors?

    Sorry this was so long- but I was being sincere in my questions to you. I am always fascinated by how two people can see the same thing and come away with two opposite feelings. Vince, Bonnie, anything to add?


  4. Hi, nice blog and posts you have put forth. Its refreshing to see energy and an unjaded/non-cynical attitude about hope and justice and so and so forth. I’m an attorney but I don’t have any involvement in criminal law practice(maybe something I’d do) but I read the true crime book about this case and I am well aware of the inclination of overzealous prosecutors. Honestly, I would have to reread the book or other available information regarding this case, because I don’t remember much with regards to the complaint against Mr. Giuca, other than the juicy tabloid stuff regarding “gang initiation”. Btw, Mr. Giuca was a member of the actors guild………No point to that, other than I wasn’t aware that actors liked to be gangsters on the side. But, I’ll give you a higher profile case to illustrate: the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman tragedy. The prosecutor in that case is a real pow(piece of work) and she is basically charging the defendant with crimes of which there is no evidence just to please people who want “justice” here for 100s of years of racist behavior against black people by white people. That case is and was a tragedy, but not murder in any degree. So, my long, rambling point is I applaud your efforts to shine a light on wrongful prosecutions. I’ll buy your book when it comes out too!


  5. The truth always has a way of finding its way to the surface, eventually. I applaud your efforts and I agree, it is so refreshing to see this kind of passion, especially towards a stranger. wish you lots of luck and I too will be reading your book!


  6. I just watched the show and I googled it for some updates, hoping they already gave him a new chance, a new trial, but I was so wrong and I am in shock and asking myself, how much justice (judges, police, etc) care about people and finding out the truth or they just want to solve the case and sending into jail a person even if they are innocent? sigh..
    how blind they are if the truth is in front of them,
    I hope John gets a chance, he seems a good guy, what his mother did it was the right thing to do, what a mother will do for their kids if she knows they are innocent, and investigators need to open their eyes and find the guy who murdered Fisher, someone is out and if he killed once he could kill again…
    My prayers for John and his mother, and all the group that is helping them..
    I am so disappointed by the judge, juror, and investigators in this case, they could make it better and find justice for John and FIsher
    keep up with your great investigation..
    Im not from the States, tell John there are people outside the States that believe he is innocent


  7. He is so guilty as is Antonio.They tried to be gang members and now
    they will not be so tough without a gun and the comfort of their own home.


  8. To be respectful of others not necessarily accepting. You can’t just befriend anybody. That could get you in trouble. I know we’ve all heard of guilty by association. It’s a harsh reality. Unfair but very real. Obviously he did not get a fair trial but that doesn’t mean he is automatically innocent of the crime. I know you feel as though he is innocent and perhaps he is, but to think you always know when your being fooled would be a bit naive to say the least. I understand it would be difficult for you to be unbias having taken such a strong interest in this case. And yes, I agree he deserves a new trial. That’s what this blog should be about. Not his guilt or innocence, thats for a jury to decide. And I’m not saying that he doesn’t deserve anyone in his corner but come on. You are pouring it on a bit thick. From new trial at least to leaning innocent now convinced he is innocent. Thats what you want to believe. I mean would you still be fighting for a new trial if you had any inkling of him being guilty? I highly doubt it. And it is pretty generic to imply that gangsters former or current don’t go to college, get good jobs. No, they couldn’t have been in a gang because they grew up playing basketball and cooking out together. Gimmie a break! Or he is too polite and intelligent to be guilty of murder. Again, I am nobody to determine his guilt or innocence obviously but geez. You have a slant on this whole thing just like the media has theirs.


    • Honestly, if everyone were as intelligent as you seem, I wouldn’t have to make my points to clear. The problem is though that there are many, many people out there that say “so what if he didn’t get a fair trial, he looks guilty to me” and that kind of nonsense. It’s the just world hypothesis at it’s finest. The ends justifying the means. There are a lot of people that do not care whether or not he got a fair trial unless they believe he is innocent. And so yeah, I do need to drive the point home that he is innocent- especially since as you said the media has their slant. If I’m to counter balance the media, then I need to be vocal and absolutely have to have the courage of my convictions, which I believe is what you were referring to by “laying it on thick.” I’m not saying that my voice or opinion should be in lieu of a jury- I’m saying he’s innocent so lets get him back into the court room so he can prove it.


      • Hi there,

        I’m from South Africa and I’ve just watched the show on Discovery. Basically, I believe there was too much doubt to convict him, however, I understand why the jury was misled. Even though they were required to only assess the guilt of John and Russo, they undoubtedly tried to solve the crime with whatever details they were given. In the absence of any other plausible scenario, they deduced that John and Russo must have been guilty. I have a few questions:

        -How does John explain the phonecalls to Russo, especially the one just before his death and the one just before the atm withdrawal?
        -How does John explain the phonecall to Albert? The show indicates that Albert claimed to have forgotten this one but what does John have to say about it?
        -Did John have any guns in his house at any point? The show wasn’t too clear about this.
        -Is John suggesting that his girlfriend lied when she told police that he confessed to her? Why would she lie?
        -What happened to Mary? If she was smitten with Mark, surely she would have been at his side all night and she would have a pretty solid version of events.
        -Mark was shot in a suburban community early in the morning, I’m sure many people would have heard something, peeked out the window and possibly seen someone running away. Did the police interview the residents?
        -Since we’re unsure of what happened, what is the most likely explanation for the events that morning?

        Hopefully, my questions will provoke some thought. Thanks.


        • Allow me to answer your questions, ill go through each one. if you have any more feel free to email me at ok so here goes:

          -How does John explain the phonecalls to Russo, especially the one just before his death and the one just before the atm withdrawal?

          Answer: John did not call Russo before, after, or during the ATM visit. I do not know if that was said in the show or not, but I have seen the phone records and that is untrue. He also did not call Russo after Marks death. In fact, John’s phone doesn’t start showing any activity until 1pm the next day.

          -How does John explain the phonecall to Albert? The show indicates that Albert claimed to have forgotten this one but what does John have to say about it?

          Answer: John’s phone call to Albert was to tell Albert that Mark was on his way to his house to get Angel. Mark had planned to get Angel and for them to get on the train together. Mark didn’t have his phone, so John called Albert to say “Hey, Mark is on his way to your house. He wants to get Angel and go home.” THAT is why Albert doesn’t remember that call- because it brings Mark Fisher right to his doorstep.

          -Did John have any guns in his house at any point? The show wasn’t too clear about this.

          Answer: No. John did not have any guns in his house at any point in time. In fact, during the trial, many people testified that they SAW Russo with a gun frequently before this took place. Someone even testified that he carried it in his waste band.

          -Is John suggesting that his girlfriend lied when she told police that he confessed to her? Why would she lie?

          Answer: Lauren did not testify that John confessed anything to her, nor have I ever seen a police report of hers that states that. Lauren’s testimony was basically fluff, in fact she actually REFUTED a lot of the things Albert said she was there for. She got up on the stand and said “they are trying to get me to say things I didn’t say.”

          -What happened to Mary? If she was smitten with Mark, surely she would have been at his side all night and she would have a pretty solid version of events.

          Answer: Mary went to sleep around the same time as Mark. She woke up around 11am, got up and went home and that was it. Angel and Albert both changed their stories regarding what times Angel spoke with Mary the following morning- but they claim it was later in the day and according to testimony she went home and went back to sleep.

          -Mark was shot in a suburban community early in the morning, I’m sure many people would have heard something, peeked out the window and possibly seen someone running away. Did the police interview the residents?

          Answer: Of course they did- I created a map that shows who was home and who heard what on his facebook page (there’s also a map connected to this blog). There were nine 911 callers. People peaked out their window and saw a dark colored vehicle-a larger size- fleeing the scene. John didn’t have a car. Russo didnt have a car. Al had a dark colored van. Also, people told police they heard one male and one female voice just before the shots.

          -Since we’re unsure of what happened, what is the most likely explanation for the events that morning?

          Answer: The best way for me to answer this question is to just summarize the facts relevant to this answer, and tell you what did NOT happen. And what did happen is this:

          -Mark Fisher was on his way to Albert Cleary’s house when he was killed (the way he was found indicates that he was crawling away from the direction of Albert’s house- he was right across the street from it facing away from it)
          -MULTIPLE people testified under oath that they saw Antonio Russo with a gun prior to this incident.
          -The ONLY person who testified that they saw John with a gun prior to this incident was Albert Cleary (same person who doesnt remember the phone call, changed his story multiple times, got caught lying under oath, was on probation for a violent crime, swore he never heard anything even though people down the block every which way did, etc. etc. etc.)
          -John Giuca was asleep in his house when this murder took place

          What did NOT happen is this:

          -John did NOT yell at Mark for sitting on the table (he wasn’t even in the room- you can see from the attachment to the blog it was someone else)
          -John did NOT give Russo a gun (testimony shows it was his)

          I hope my answers were helpful. Please feel free to ask any questions you may have- either through the email I gave up top or if you want you can ask them here- I don’t mind answering any questions as long as they are real questions and not offensive.


  9. I have watched and read about this case & John Guica is innocent. The only thing he is guilty of is hanging out with Antonio Russo


  10. I am not American but I watch a lot of American TV shows. After reading the story of John Giuca, I feel so disappointed, even betrayed,by how hypocritical the American TV cop & crime investigation stories are. In the American TV shows, you always see the cops and the authorities fight for justice. And get the real bad guys. So I used to think that the American justice system is cool. But then why, in real life, they convict someone like John Giuca? There is no one shred of factual evidence that link him to Fisher’s murder. In fact, I think Albert Cleary is involved with the murder. I check the Internet today, hoping to find news that Giuca has gotten a new trial or something; I am so disappointed he is still in jail. I pray that Giuca will be freed soon.


  11. I think these bad seeds are ALL participants in the murder of this poor, young man who, through some spectacular bad luck (and poor decisions) fulfilled their fantasy of carrying out a hit. Guica is where he should be.

    And I wish the mother of John Guica would acknowledge that her son has a rotten side, even if he is the apple of her eye.


  12. He is guilty and a great liar


  13. A desperate mommy looking for a loop hole to get her guilty as sin gang banger son out of jail, hell she is so desperate would cheat on her husband to get anything, her morals and values remind of me of a saying, ” apples do not fall far from the tree” her son has the same morals she does. She needs to suck it up and deal with it, wh.en she said that her sons gang was just neighborhood kids having fun, I lost all respect and she lost all credibility, her and her son make the juror look like an angel!


  14. I would not be surprized if Albert Cleary was the one who did it, Russo could not identify the correct gun used. I also have a sneaky suspicion Alberts mother deliberatly made sure through her own political powers to get her son off the hook. Then there is Dipietro. Her dad is a mob defence lawyer. Cannot have daddys precious involved in a murder now can we? Maybe he called on his mob guys for a favour? help get his daughter off the hook. So they use Sigga Nicholazzi to do their dirty work. Hynes pulled the strings…the Clearys and Dipietros did the bribing. Witnesses who heard two voices male and female and loud gun shots were dissmissed. If this had happened in the UK. it definatly would not of gone to trial the way it did in America. I am just gob smacked at the sear stupidity and lack of logic by the jurers and the prosescuters just so they can win even if they set up an innocent. If Anna Sigga ever did that to any members of my family god help her. Such a nasty parasite.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: