Mafia Hitman Joseph Barboza had become known throughout the New England underworld as “The Animal.”
He relished his new alias and his reputation as a temperamental killer.
Everyone who dealt with Barboza—including Mafia Boss Raymond Patriarca—feared his explosive temper.
Granted an audience with Patriarca, Barboza was transfixed by the capo’s diamond ring. Later, he bragged that he had thought of biting off Patriarca’s finger to get the ring.
“He’s crazy,” Patriarca often told his closest associates. “Someday we’ll have to whack him out.”
Only one other mob gunman could match Barboza’s reputation for deadliness: Steve Hughes, the top triggerman for the McLaughlins.
Barboza spent more than a year trying to eliminate Hughes, until his chance finally came on September 23, 1966.
On that day, Hughes and a loanshark friend, Sammy Lindenbaum, went for a drive along Route 114 in Middleton, Massachusetts.
They paid no attention as another car—carrying Barboza and a crony, Joseph Amico—rapidly closed on them.
With Amico behind the wheel, Barboza aimed a high-powered rifle out the window and dropped Hughes and Lindenbaum in their seats.
Barboza’s moment of supreme triumph was short-lived. His rising notoriety disturbed Patriarca, who believed in taking a low profile and avoiding the antagonism of the press and police.
Patriarca began searching for an excuse to part with his top muscleman. He found it on October 6, 1966, when Boston police arrested Barboza and three companions.
Inside Barboza’s car, police found a loaded .45 automatic and an M-1 carbine. Barboza, then out on bail on a stabbing charge, was shipped off to Walpole State Prison for parole violation.
There he waited vainly for the Patriarca Family to post the $50,000 bond demanded for his release.
Tired of waiting, two of his fellow enforcers decided to lend a hand: Thomas DePrisco and Arthur Bratsos began raiding Patriarca gambling dens to collect the money.
Their fund-raising efforts ended violently one night when their intended victims drew pistols and shot Bratsos and DePrisco to death.
When he learned of the deaths of his friends, Barboza exploded. He damned Patriarca as a “fag” and swore to kill several of the capo’s top associates, whom he blamed for the slayings.
Word of this outburst reached Patriarca, who sent back a threat of his own: Barboza was a dead man, in or out of prison.
Fearing for his own life, Barboza yielded to the proddings of two FBI agents seeking evidence against Patriarca. He agreed to act as a federal witness against his former mob cronies.
In exchange, he demanded protection for himself, his wife and young daughter, and the dropping of his parole and all charges now facing him.
Although Barboza’s terms were stiff, Boston District Attorney Gary Byrne and the prosecutors of the Justice Department felt they were getting the best of the bargain.
They saw in Barboza a dramatic, unprecedented opportunity to strike down a powerful crime cartel.
This, in turn, would enable federal lawmen to recruit new informants and witnesses for additional—and successful—prosecutions..
To achieve these goals, however, the Justice Department had to prove it could protect Barboza against mob reprisals.
As a first step in this process, Byrne released the ex-hitman to the protective custody of the FBI. But the FBI found its budget and manpower strained by the assignment.
Realizing that a combined effort was necessary, the Bureau called in a handpicked security detail of sixteen deputy U.S. marshals.
Heading the detail was Deputy Marshal John Partington, a former agent with the IRS Intelligence Division and a specialist in organized crime.
John Partington (on right)
Equally important, Partington understood the criminal mentality: Not only did Barboza need to be protected, he needed to be kept in a proper state of mind to testify in court.
The marshals transferred Barboza to Thatcher’s Island, an isolated lighthouse station off the coast of Gloucester. Occupied by two houses and approachable only by sea, the island seemed a perfect security spot.
Every two weeks, a new detail of marshals arrived to relieve the sixteen men on duty. Food and supplies were regularly shipped in aboard Coast Guard vessels.
Eventually, the press learned of the security detail on ”Baron’s Island”—so nicknamed because “Baron” had once been a Barboza alias.
The disclosure led to a series of attempts by mob hitmen to eliminate Barboza.
Thatcher’s Island
The first attempt came in September, 1967. Patriarca ordered a 325-pound stock swindler named Vincent Teresa to take a crew of hitman, infiltrate the island and dispose of Barboza.
But the FBI learned of the plot and tipped off the security detail.
When Teresa’s $112,000, forty-three foot yacht, The Living End, cruised around the island, the hitman couldn’t find an unprotected spot to land.
Everywhere they looked they saw deputy U.S. marshals, armed with pistols and carbines, patrolling the beach. Barboza never appeared in sight.
Then a Patriarca assassin, Maurice “Pro” Lerner, thought of making a one-man, commando-style assault on the island. An experienced skindiver, he brought along his own scuba gear for just such an attack.
But he quickly dropped the idea: he estimated the odds of getting a successful shot at Barboza were a million to one.
Copyright@1984 Taking Cover: Inside the Witness Security Program, by Steffen White and Richard St. Germain


"1984, ABC NEWS, ASHLEY WARDEN, CBS NEWS, CENSORSHIP, CHILLI'S, CNN, EMPLOYEE RIGHTS, FACEBOOK, FIRST AMENDMENT, GEORGE ORWELL, HARALSON COUNTY MIDDLE SCHOOL, JOHNNY COOK, JOSEPH MCCARTHY, NBC NEWS, POLICE, SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
FIRST AMENDMENT DANGERS
In Business, Law, Social commentary on June 13, 2013 at 12:07 amWARNING: Believing that the First Amendment gives you the legal right to express your opinion may be hazardous to your career.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Of course, that refers only to Congress. It says nothing about employers–and especially those self-appointed pseudo-gods who claim to be the personification of virtue and infallibility.
If you doubt it, just ask Johnny Cook, who until recently worked as a bus driver for the Haralson County Middle School in Georgia.
In late May, a sixth-grade student boarding Cook’s school bus said he was still hungry. Cook asked why, and the student said he hadn’t been given any lunch.
The reason: He had been forty cents short for buying a reduced lunch. So he hadn’t been given anything, not even the peanut butter offered to everyone else.
Furious, Cook vented his spleen on his Facebook page on May 21:
“This child is already on reduced lunch [program] and we can’t let him eat. Are you kidding me? I’m certian there was leftover food thrown away today.
“But kids were turned away because they didn’t have .40 on there account. As a tax payer I would much rather feed a child than throw it away. I would rather feed a child than to give food stamps to a crack head.”
Just two days later, Cook was fired over that post.
Johnny Cook and friends
The “official reason,” as given by Superintendent Brett Stanton, was that Cook had violated the school’s social media policy by daring to express his opinion publicly.
The policy states:
“Students who post or contribute any comment or content on social networking sites that cause a substantial disruption to the instructional environment are subject to disciplinary procedures.
“Employees who post or contribute any comment or content on social networking sites that causes a substantial disruption to the instructional environment are subject to disciplinary procedures up and including termination.”
This is similar to the policies–and atmosphere–of the Joseph McCarthy “smear and fear” era of the 1950s. You didn’t have to actually be proven an actual Communist, or even a Communist sympathizer.
All that was neeeded to condemn you to permanent unemployment was to become “controversial.” That way, the employer didn’t have to actually prove the employee’s unfitness.
The Almighty Employer need only declare: “Your usefulness to me is over.”
Consider the statement offered by Superintendent Stanton: “I can assure you it did not happen,” he told the CBS affiliate in Atlanta.
And how could he be so certain? Because, said Stanton, he had thoroughly investigated the incident.
“The video surveillance footage clearly shows that the student never went through the lunch lines at the county middle school,” Stanton said.
Therefore, Stanton said, the boy couldn’t have been offered the bagged lunch for students in his situation.
When asked if someone should have noticed the boy wasn’t eating lunch, he had a ready excuse for that: “When you have almost 1,000 students, it’s very difficult to notice.”
Stanton wouldn’t discuss Cook’s termination because it’s a personnel matter, but did say the school district has a strict Facebook policy.
CBS Atlanta contacted the sixth-grader’s family–who backed up Cook’s story.
Cook, who is married and the father of two kids, told CBS Atlanta that he felt in his “heart of hearts the kid was telling the truth.”
A petition has been posted to Change.org demanding that Cook be reinstated. It has so far gained more than 10,000 signatures.
Nor is Cook the only victim of employers who have no regard for the First Amendment.
Ashley Warden, a waitress at an Oklahoma City Chili’s insulted “stupid cops” on her Facebook page. In 2012, her potty-training toddler pulled down his pants in his grandmother’s front yard–and a passing officer gave Warden a public urination ticket for $2,500.
Warden was quickly fired. In an official statement, Chilli’s gave this excuse:
“With the changing world of digital and social media, Chili’s has Social Media Guidelines in place, asking our team members to always be respectful of our guests and to use proper judgement when discussing actions in the work place. After looking into the matter, we have taken action to prevent this from happening again.”
Put more honestly: “We have taken action to prevent” other employees from daring to exercise their own First Amendment rights.
Employers need to be legally forced to show as much respect for the free speech rights of Americans as Congress is required to.
Until this happens, the workplace will continue to resemble George Orwell’s vision of 1984–a world where anyone can become a “non-person” for the most trivial of reasons.
Share this: