Found Deceased NY - Joseph Comunale, 26, Manhattan, 12 Nov 2016 #2 *Arrests*

[Momoffourboys]

Do we have any info from the girls?

WE don't. I'm sure the NYPD does. Nothing has been released.
But a good reminder that much of the investigation is hush hush. Hopefully, enough to charge someone/s with this horrible crime.

 

[Momoffourboys]

LD has next court appearance tomorrow 1/31.

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/we...cordType=C&recordNum=MvJ4aa8HyVrpaTrAdZP3VA==

 

[johnjohn24]

anything from court today ?

 

[Momoffourboys]

anything from court today ?

I haven't seen anything yet.

 

[robin8]

I've been following the case since it was posted JC was missing, I posted a bit at the start but just wanted to say thank you to everyone who is keeping us updated on the facts and with back up links.

I found the court documents on MG interesting and understandable, the best thing for this case is for his involvement to be separated from that of JR and LD as it could lead to more evidence against them being given. MG may feel more compelled to provide insight in what happened if he is not worrying about the trio as a whole.

Agree there appears to be a lot of confusion and lengthly questioning but we have to remember that these situations are not as clear cut as they can seem. Especially in a fast moving case involving multiple individuals and many external influences, also with three crime scenes - the apartment, the car and where the body was found. There would have been a lot of evidence to process.

 

[Momoffourboys]

http://www.greenwichtime.com/police...otective-order-in-Stamford-man-s-10898079.php

A New York judge has issued a temporary protective order keeping all court filings related to the stabbing death of Stamford’s Joseph Comunale confidential.
Judge Charles Solomon issued the ordered at the request of state prosecutors, who were concerned that the release of certain information could “jeopardized the pending homicide investigation,” said attorney Michael Pappa, who represents co-defendant Lawrence Dilione.
Pappa said he filed a motion in court Tuesday afternoon, but he could not discuss its content because of the protective order. The order will be reviewed on Monday, Pappa said.
The prosecutors’ concerns appear to stem from a motion that was made public earlier this month detailing gory details about the moments leading up the Nov. 13 murder.
That motion — filed by attorney Mark Bederow, who represents co-defendant Max Gemma — describes a night of drinking and snorting cocaine inside a posh New York high-rise apartment owned by James Rackover, the third defendant in the case.

 

[Inthedetails]

http://www.greenwichtime.com/police...otective-order-in-Stamford-man-s-10898079.php

A New York judge has issued a temporary protective order keeping all court filings related to the stabbing death of Stamford’s Joseph Comunale confidential.
Judge Charles Solomon issued the ordered at the request of state prosecutors, who were concerned that the release of certain information could “jeopardized the pending homicide investigation,” said attorney Michael Pappa, who represents co-defendant Lawrence Dilione.
Pappa said he filed a motion in court Tuesday afternoon, but he could not discuss its content because of the protective order. The order will be reviewed on Monday, Pappa said.
The prosecutors’ concerns appear to stem from a motion that was made public earlier this month detailing gory details about the moments leading up the Nov. 13 murder.
That motion — filed by attorney Mark Bederow, who represents co-defendant Max Gemma — describes a night of drinking and snorting cocaine inside a posh New York high-rise apartment owned by James Rackover, the third defendant in the case.

Filed by prosecutor.

Interesting development.

 

[Momoffourboys]

Snip

After an apparent fight over cigarettes, according to the motion, Dilione and Rackover kicked Comunale unconscious before stabbing him in the head and torso. The motion also states that the two men used a serrated knife in an attempt to dismember the victim’s body in a bathtub.

Police said Comunale’s body was later buried in a shallow grave behind a flower shop in Oceanport, N.J.

Authorities had originally charged Dilione and Rackover with second-degree murder, but the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office dropped the murder charges as detectives have continued to investigate. The two men have each pleaded not guilty to charges of hindering prosecution, tampering with evidence and concealing a corpse.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/pol...otective-order-in-Stamford-man-s-10898079.php

 

[Inthedetails]

Snip

After an apparent fight over cigarettes, according to the motion, Dilione and Rackover kicked Comunale unconscious before stabbing him in the head and torso. The motion also states that the two men used a serrated knife in an attempt to dismember the victim’s body in a bathtub.

Police said Comunale’s body was later buried in a shallow grave behind a flower shop in Oceanport, N.J.

Authorities had originally charged Dilione and Rackover with second-degree murder, but the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office dropped the murder charges as detectives have continued to investigate. The two men have each pleaded not guilty to charges of hindering prosecution, tampering with evidence and concealing a corpse.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/pol...otective-order-in-Stamford-man-s-10898079.php

BBM

That's news to me.

I repeat myself: interesting development.

 

[icantbelieveit]

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/we...cordType=C&recordNum=iRN3yxt67DW45q6xZvsUKw==

Both Gemma & Rackover next court date Feb 6.

 

[cvaldez1975]

sounds like stuff is coming together finally

 

[Lawdini01234]

temporary protective order for all court filings...Let's see what happens Monday when it's reviewed. Nonetheless if it stays that way I believe it will be fairly quiet until prosecution builds that case for murder charges.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[BUcriminologist]

http://www.greenwichtime.com/police...otective-order-in-Stamford-man-s-10898079.php

A New York judge has issued a temporary protective order keeping all court filings related to the stabbing death of Stamford’s Joseph Comunale confidential.
Judge Charles Solomon issued the ordered at the request of state prosecutors, who were concerned that the release of certain information could “jeopardized the pending homicide investigation,” said attorney Michael Pappa, who represents co-defendant Lawrence Dilione.
Pappa said he filed a motion in court Tuesday afternoon, but he could not discuss its content because of the protective order. The order will be reviewed on Monday, Pappa said.
The prosecutors’ concerns appear to stem from a motion that was made public earlier this month detailing gory details about the moments leading up the Nov. 13 murder.
That motion — filed by attorney Mark Bederow, who represents co-defendant Max Gemma — describes a night of drinking and snorting cocaine inside a posh New York high-rise apartment owned by James Rackover, the third defendant in the case.

Anyone with any ideas why the prosecutor would file this order? I mean it makes sense while they build their case but I would think the defense would be more likely to want to keep incriminating details hush hush?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Doreen510]

I think there might be certain "personal" information about Joey that the family would rather not get out there. Anyone else?

 

[Momoffourboys]

Anyone with any ideas why the prosecutor would file this order? I mean it makes sense while they build their case but I would think the defense would be more likely to want to keep incriminating details hush hush?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

IMO Gives the prosecution time to collect more info and analyze what they have. Just a stall tactic. And I'm fine with it. They get one chance. With the conflicting and confusing stories from the three POI's/suspects the truth must be in there, somewhere.

 

[Satchie]

Anyone with any ideas why the prosecutor would file this order? I mean it makes sense while they build their case but I would think the defense would be more likely to want to keep incriminating details hush hush?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think if the information is made public it gives the suspects and witnesses the chance to tailor (or invent) their statements in such a way as to cover for themselves or others they are loyal to.

Police catch people out in lies by keeping quiet about what they know or have been told.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[BUcriminologist]

I think if the information is made public it gives the suspects and witnesses the chance to tailor (or invent) their statements in such a way as to cover for themselves or others they are loyal to.

Police catch people out in lies by keeping quiet about what they know or have been told.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

I think what's throwing me off a little is that generally protective orders are filed against actually people... like a restraining order. The article says the order was filed by the State on behalf of court documents... I tried doing some research and I can't seem to find anything about filing protective orders on court documents.

I don't want to jump to any conclusions, which can be kind of easy given what I know about protective orders, so I'm trying to connect the dots in the criminal justice system.

Perhaps there are other cases, that someone might know of off the top of their heads that I can reference that where prosecutors did the same thing?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Momoffourboys]

Very little that I've found about the protective orders for docs.

Protective orders properly denote court orders over information exchanged during discovery.... Protective orders over discovery materials and orders of confidentiality over matters relating to other stages of litigation have comparable features and raise similar public policy concerns. All such orders are intended to offer litigants a measure of privacy, while balancing against this privacy interest the public's right to obtain information concerning judicial proceedings. Also, protective orders over discovery and confidentiality orders over matters concerning other stages of litigation are often used by courts as a means to aid the progression of litigation and facilitate settlements. Protective orders and orders of confidentiality are functionally similar, and require similar balancing between public and private concerns.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/SealingOrder.aspx

Confidentiality and protective orders are "an everexpanding feature of modern litigation." In re Mirapex Products Litigation, 246 F.R.D. 668, 672–73 (D. Minn. 2007). Indeed, they are often a necessity for defendants and plaintiffs alike due to the enormously important need to protect sensitive information, such as trade secrets and other confidential financial information, from the public eye and competitors. Confidentiality and protective orders recognize this need and prevent parties from sacrificing the privacy of their proprietary information simply because they have filed or been named in a lawsuit. Id. On the other hand, litigating parties must balance the need to protect sensitive information with the general principle that the public should have open access to judicial proceedings . As a result, when drafting and negotiating a protective order, counsel must ensure that the order provides a client with the privacy that it needs without going so far that a court will not approve it.

http://www.smithmoorelaw.com/Confidentiality-and-Protective-Orders-08-05-2013

 

[cvaldez1975]

I would assume it is similar to a gag order.

 

[BUcriminologist]

Very little that I've found about the protective orders for docs.

Protective orders properly denote court orders over information exchanged during discovery.... Protective orders over discovery materials and orders of confidentiality over matters relating to other stages of litigation have comparable features and raise similar public policy concerns. All such orders are intended to offer litigants a measure of privacy, while balancing against this privacy interest the public's right to obtain information concerning judicial proceedings. Also, protective orders over discovery and confidentiality orders over matters concerning other stages of litigation are often used by courts as a means to aid the progression of litigation and facilitate settlements. Protective orders and orders of confidentiality are functionally similar, and require similar balancing between public and private concerns.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/S/SealingOrder.aspx

Confidentiality and protective orders are "an everexpanding feature of modern litigation." In re Mirapex Products Litigation, 246 F.R.D. 668, 672–73 (D. Minn. 2007). Indeed, they are often a necessity for defendants and plaintiffs alike due to the enormously important need to protect sensitive information, such as trade secrets and other confidential financial information, from the public eye and competitors. Confidentiality and protective orders recognize this need and prevent parties from sacrificing the privacy of their proprietary information simply because they have filed or been named in a lawsuit. Id. On the other hand, litigating parties must balance the need to protect sensitive information with the general principle that the public should have open access to judicial proceedings . As a result, when drafting and negotiating a protective order, counsel must ensure that the order provides a client with the privacy that it needs without going so far that a court will not approve it.

http://www.smithmoorelaw.com/Confidentiality-and-Protective-Orders-08-05-2013

Thank you... this was exactly what I was looking for. Just some kind of legitimate definition/description that could be referenced to further support facts


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk