This report is reprinted here with the permission of
John Dowd. The contents are Copyright 1989, 1999 by John
M. Dowd, Esq. and the Baseball Archive. Any public or
commercial use, distribution or duplication of these
materials without written permission from The Baseball
Archive is a violation of federal copyright law. Use of
this site constitutes agreement with these terms.
¤ It is
difficult to square Rose's sworn testimony with the
sworn voluntary testimony of other witnesses, and the
betting records in Rose's handwriting and the
handwriting of others.
¤ Pete Rose
testified he did not recognize the handwriting on the
three betting sheets found in his home. Yet,
according to a handwriting expert, the games of the
Cincinnati Reds are recorded in Rose's handwriting on
the betting sheets.
¤ Pete Rose
testified that he never bet on the Reds or on
baseball with Ron Peters. Yet, his bets on the Reds
and baseball appear in Peters' betting records for
the 1987 baseball season.
¤ Pete Rose
testified that he never bet on the Reds or baseball
with Paul Janszen or Danita Marcum. Yet, the records
of Janszen and Marcum show bets on the Reds and
baseball during the 1987 baseball season.
¤ Pete Rose
did not explain how Ron Peters and Paul Janszen came
into possession of a copy of the $34,000 check to
Gioiosa written by Rose's attorney on March 12, 1987
and kept in Rose's accountant's office. Yet, Janszen
and Peters recalled the check and stated that it was
used by Rose to persuade Peters to resume taking
Rose's baseball betting.
¤ Pete Rose
claims the $34,000 check of March 12, 1987 was to pay
for his gambling losses on the 1987 Super Bowl and
the 1987 NCAA Basketball Championship, not the
gambling losses to Ron Peters in 1986. But, the NCAA
Basketball Tournament had not begun before March 12,
1987.
¤ Pete Rose
denies knowing Ron Peters, the bookmaker from
Franklin, Ohio. But, the records of the Cincinnati
Reds show tickets for Peters were ordered by Rose in
1986 and 1987. Peters' restaurant, Jonathan's Cafe,
exhibits a Rose-endorsed bat.
¤ Pete Rose
admitted that Gioiosa bet for him on other sports
activity, not baseball. Gioiosa is under indictment
and has been unwilling to talk to us. However,
Gioiosa told other people that he bet on baseball for
Pete Rose. The telephone toll records of Gold's Gym
for 1986, when Gioiosa was manager, also show
sixty-five telephone calls to Ron Peters during the
1986 baseball season.
¤ Rose
claimed to have no knowledge of Gioiosa collecting
$37,000 in winnings for Pete Rose from Ron Peters at
Peters' cafe, but he remembered Gioiosa meeting with
Peters in a back room and can remember what he had
for lunch.
¤ Pete Rose
said he entrusted Mike Bertolini with hundreds of
thousands of dollars because Bertolini was an honest
man. However, when Pete Rose heard the unguarded
statements by Bertolini on the April 4, 1988 tape,
describing the payment of those funds to a New York
bookmaker on behalf of Rose, Pete Rose said Bertolini
was lying.
¤ Pete Rose
remembered traveling to Ron Peters' Jonathan's Cafe
in Franklin, Ohio, with Tommy Gioiosa and giving him
an autographed Mizuno bat.
¤ Pete Rose
claimed that he did not know Ron Peters was the
bookmaker used by Gioiosa. Ron Peters called for Rose
at Reuven Katz's office and received a call back from
Robert Pitcairn, who, according to Peters, did not
inquire who Peters was and did not dispute Peters'
statement that Pete Rose bet with Peters.
¤ Pete Rose
testified that he loaned Paul Janszen $10,000 in
March 1988, through his attorney Reuven Katz, for
Janszen's legal fees in a criminal case. But Janszen
never signed a note. In Janszen's letter to Rose's
counsel in 1989, Janszen acknowledged receipt of the
$10,000 as partial payment of Rose's debt to him. In
response, Rose's counsel did not dispute Janszen's
description and did not seek repayment of the $10,000
by Janszen.
¤ Pete Rose
testified that he never owed Paul Janszen $40,000.
Rose testified that he never told Janszen to collect
from Peters the money Rose owed Janszen. But, Peters
testified that Janszen tried to collect the debt from
him and Peters gave Janszen the $6,000 difference
between what Rose owed Peters and what Peters owed
Rose. Rose also told Mark Stowe that he had told
Janszen to collect what Rose owed him from some other
person. In addition, as noted, Reuven Katz paid
Janszen $10,000 on Rose's behalf without receiving a
note or demanding repayment.
¤ Pete Rose
testified that he had never placed bets with a person
named Val, had never spoken with a person named Val
and did not know anyone named Val. Rose stated that
he had never received a call from Chevashore seeking
payment of monies owed to Val. However, the unguarded
statements of Chevashore on the December 27, 1988
tape contradict Rose's sworn testimony. Chevashore's
statements are corroborated by the baseball betting
records in the handwriting of Rose, Janszen and
Marcum, and the telephone traffic for April and May
1987.
¤ Pete Rose
testified that he had not borrowed cash from his
friends and associates to pay his gambling losses.
He-stated under oath that he "owes nobody
nothing," and that he never "stiffed
anyone." In contrast, the evidence from 1986 and
1987 reveals loans from Gioiosa to Rose which Gioiosa
recovered by keeping the proceeds of a $34,000 check
intended for Peters. In addition, the following
transactions also reveal Rose's debts: the $7,500
debt to Chevashore and the April 3, 1987 check to
cash for $7,500 deposited in New York; the $34,000
debt to Peters and the March 12, 1987 check for
$34,000 to Gioiosa; the $44,000 debt to Janszen; the
$17,000 and $30,000 debts to Mike Fry; the $8,000
check to Fry of February 5, 1987 and the $13,790 debt
to Val; the twenty-nine checks to fictitious payees
totaling $227,000 cashed by Bertolini to pay a
bookmaker' and the $70,000 debt to Bertolini.
¤ The
evidence revealed that in order to protect his
stature as one of the most famous baseball players in
Major League history, Pete Rose employed middlemen to
place bets for him with bookmakers and at the
racetrack and to pay gambling losses and collect
gambling winnings, thereby concealing his gambling
activity. Rose befriended, entertained, and promoted
the businesses of friends and through this
arrangement protected his betting from public
exposure.
¤ The
evidence revealed Pete Rose generated cash, which is
difficult to trace or document, at card shows and
through the sale of memorabilia. He cashed checks and
arranged for others to cash checks to generate cash
to pay his debts. He arranged loans for others who
are not credit worthy to generate funds. He wrote
checks payable to cash, to a close associate and to
fictitious persons for amounts under $10,000 so as to
avoid detection by the authorities.
¤ Pete Rose
testified that the very people he carefully chose and
cultivated, and who admitted that they had conducted,
maintained and protected his betting on Major League
baseball and the Reds, could not be believed because
they had been caught, convicted and sentenced for
various criminal activities during the period of time
they were employed, entertained and promoted by Pete
Rose.
¤ Pete Rose
thereby avoids any knowledge of the criminal
activities or the obvious fruits of criminal activity
by Messrs. Gioiosa and Janszen. This is best
illustrated in his testimony when he acknowledged he
was aware of the inexplicable improvement in the
financial condition of Gioiosa and stated he heard
rumors that Gioiosa was involved in cocaine
trafficking. Rose stated that although he raised and
cared for Gioiosa, he did not inquire about Gioiosa's
new found wealth because Gioiosa was not
"bothering" him.
¤ Pete Rose
befriended Janszen, a recently retired barrel
salesman, who Rose acknowledged had unexplained
wealth and who was lowering his public profile. Rose
made no inquiry of Janszen about the source of his
support and unexplained cash; and yet, promoted his
memorabilia business.
¤ Pete Rose
testified that he was ignorant of the activities of
his companions. His ignorance of their criminal
activities allows Rose to use these young men for his
own purposes and' if they are caught -- claim they
are not credible.
¤ The
testimony of Peters, Janszen and Fry has been
voluntary and forthright. Each has stood before the
bar of justice and engaged in the most painful act of
integrity -- the admission of guilt to illegal acts.
Each is now paying the debt society imposed for his
acts a~iinst society. None of them has anything to
gain for his voluntary act of cooperation with this
investigation.
¤ Pete Rose
claimed that Janszen is a blackmailer and is seeking
revenge against Rose and, therefore, is not credible.
However, you should consider the following:
First, during an initial
meeting with the investigators, Paul Janszen
voluntarily disclosed his efforts to collect money
from Rose.
Second, Janszen provided his
correspondence with Rose's counsel evidencing his
efforts to collect from Rose. Nowhere in his
correspondence is there an attempt at blackmail by
Janszen or a claim of blackmail or denial of Rose's
debt by Rose's counsel. Indeed, the letter from
Janszen's attorney to Rose's counsel specifying the
debt has never been answered by Rose or his
attorneys.
Third, Janszen told the
investigators about Rose's payment of $10,000 for
Janszen's attorneys' fees in a criminal case in March
1988. Janszen referred to the $10,000 payment in his
letter of January 1989 to Katz demanding payment from
Rose.
Fourth, Rose admitted that
Janszen was not required to sign a note for the
$10,000.
Fifth, nowhere in their
correspondence with Janszen's attorney did Rose's
attorneys claim that Janszen owed Rose $10,000 or any
other money.
Sixth, the claim of blackmail
arose after Rose was exposed to the evidence during
his deposition on April 20 and 21, 1989.
