Robert Francis Kennedy and James Riddle Hoffa
Not Sociable Acquaintances

Everyone knows what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.

And yet no one knows what happened to Jimmy Hoffa.

Ha? (To quote Shakespeare.) We'd like to know what you mean by that.

I thought you would, as Captain Mephisto said to Sidney Brand. It's very simple really.

What we mean, of course, is that no one really knows what happened to Jimmy Hoffa from an epistemological standpoint. After all, philosophers will tell you that there's a big difference in believing in what happened and knowing what happened.

But first, what do we know about James Riddle Hoffa?

We know that on July 30, 1975 at about 3:00 p. m., a car pulled into the parking lot of Detroit's Machus Red Fox Restaurant where Jimmy was waiting. He got in and was never seen again.

And we know that Jimmy was born in 1913 in Brazil, Indiana. After his father died, the family moved to Detroit. Then when he was only 14 years old, Jimmy left school to support his mother.

The pay was low and the hours long, and at age 19, Jimmy organized his first (and successful) labor strike. From then on he rose in the ranks, and in 1957 he was elected as president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

Unfortunately Jimmy's ascent to power occurred at a time when the Teamsters were accused of widespread corruption. And when Jimmy was in charge the accusations continued. In fact, when he was elected he was actually on trial for federal charges.

Some may feel that Jimmy was just getting a bad rap from a union-busting Federal Government. But there were many in the labor movement who didn't care for him, either. George Meany, the cigar-chomping president of the AFL-CIO, said they didn't want people like Jimmy in their organization. Coincidental with Jimmy's election, the AFL-CIO gave the Teamsters the boot.

Despite George's rather acerbic judgement, it's incorrect to label Jimmy as a labor racketeer à la Frank Nitti or Dutch Schultz. These latter gentlemen were simply gangsters who didn't give a flying hoo-hah about the union members. Frank and Dutch not only extorted money from the unions, but extracted dough from the members themselves. Keeping wages low was also a mob priority since they could use the promise of cheap labor as leverage to get kickbacks from the company owners.

Jimmy, though, was always an elected union officer who worked for higher wages and better contracts for the members. During the 20th century many Teamsters members went from being in the lower income brackets to comfortably middle class. The Teamsters, we should point out, was not (and is not) a union limited to truck drivers but now also represents maintenance workers, nurses aides, school system police, bridge operators, housing security workers, correctional facility guards, medical technicians including, highway patrol, law enforcement, court system deputies, public defenders, elderly care workers, cooks, red cross workers, probation officers, marshals, principals, x-ray technologists, elevator mechanics, cafeteria workers, toll collectors, EKG technologists, medical transport drivers, city hall clerks limited professional staff, school custodians, hospital technical limited support services staff, hospital non-professional staff, secretaries, law enforcement, food service managers, radiography technologist, court clerks, wastewater treatment employees, emergency medical technicians and paramedics, security officers, cooks, juvenile offenders counselors, nuclear medicine technologist, road crews, food service managers, EEG technologists, courthouse support staff, nurses, court reporters, cafeteria limited lunchroom workers, ultrasound technologist, transportation, bus drivers, municipal police, state police, cafeteria workers, housekeepers, drivers for the mentally ill and physically disabled, sanitation workers, city attorneys, county jail employees, special officers, state workers, and drug and alcohol counselors.

To name a few, that is.

Jimmy could never shake the unsavory reputation of being, well, "connected" to the mob. This idea became cemented into the mind of the populace when the story got out that much of Las Vegas's post-War casino construction was funded with loans from the munificent Teamsters Retirement Fund. In principle these loans were perfectly legit and really beefed up the Teamsters retirement monies. But what caused Jimmy his problems was that many of the people running the casinos had [alleged] mob ties.

So starting in the 1950's it became almost de rigueur to haul Jimmy before various grand juries and investigation committees. Naturally all this brouhaha pushed Jimmy and the Teamsters even further into the national spotlight and not in a particularly positive manner. The hearings were also broadcast on television, and the public saw Bobby Kennedy's tough questioning and Jimmy's indignant responses.

Robert Francis Kennedy was the antithesis of Jimmy. Born in 1925 into a wealthy Boston Brahmin family with strong political connections, Bobby got his first job out of the University of Virginia School of Law working for - get this - Senator Joe McCarthy. Joe McCarthy, for those not versed in 20th century American history, has become the epitomical image of the quintessential bad guy opposing individual liberty and freedom of thought. But Joe also happened to be a friend of Bobby's dad, Joseph P. Kennedy.

After Tail Gunner Joe went down in the flames of a senatorial censure, Bobby continued working for senators and senatorial committees. One of these was the United States Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management. Abbreviatedly known as the McClellan Committee, Jimmy thought the committee was a bit misnamed since the senators spent most of their time investigating labor and not management. On a personal note Jimmy made no bones that he thought Bobby was just a rich kid who got where he was by his dad's wealth and connections.

It was during the presidential debate of 1960 that things came to a head. On the nationwide broadcasts then-Senator John Kennedy (Bobby's brother and a former member of the McClellan Committee) was debating then-Vice President Richard M. Nixon. Among JFK's comments were:

I'm not satisfied when the Soviet Union is turning out twice as many scientists and engineers as we are. I'm not satisfied when many of our teachers are inadequately paid, or when our children go to school in part-time shifts. I think we should have an educational system second to none. I'm not satisfied when I see men like Jimmy Hoffa in charge of the largest union in the United States still free.

The almost off-hand inclusion of Jimmy when talking about education in the United States seemed strange to many, Jimmy not the least. Jimmy replied that it was a disgrace that a presidential candidate would say he wanted to jail an American citizen who was not the subject of current investigations and had no outstanding indictments against him.

No investigations? No indictments? Ho! Ho! JFK could fix that. Once Jack got elected by one of the slimmest majorities in history, he appointed Brother Robert as Attorney General. Bobby then organized what has been called the "Get Hoffa Squad".

And by golly, they did. In 1965, Jimmy was convicted of jury tampering and fraud. The sentence was eight years for the first and five for the latter. The sentences were also to run consecutively rather than concurrently as is usually the case.

Now it's a comment on Jimmy's reputation that today few people are concerned that the government's case may indeed have edged past proper practices. Bobby had an informant planted in Jimmy's organization who was present when Jimmy and his lawyers were discussing trial strategy. This has prompted some legal experts to say that the presence of the informant may have interfered with Jimmy's ability to obtain full counsel during his trial.

The concerns were not just from Jimmy's friends looking for - quote - "legal technicalities" - unquote - to get him sprung. One scholar who disagreed with the government's tactics was the former Governor of California, Earl Warren - who just happened to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And even the prosecutor at the trial, James Neal, years later said that the government could get anyone - including himself - if they tried hard enough.

Unfortunately (for Jimmy) it's only the number of votes in the Supreme Court that counts and the Chief Justice's dissent carries no more weight than any of his colleagues. So the conviction stood and Jimmy began serving his sentence on March 7, 1967. It looked like Jimmy was going to be in the slammer until 1980.

While Jimmy was residing at the Federal Penitentiary in Lewisburg Pennsylvania, one of his fellow inmates was Anthony "Tony Pro" Provenzano (pro-ven-ZAH-no). Tony Pro had been the leader of the Teamsters in New Jersey and so knew Jimmy. And - yes - Tony Pro was an [alleged] mob boss.

While in the slammer, Jimmy and Tony Pro got along well enough - at least at first. Then Tony started grousing that the Teamsters should have paid him more money. Tony Pro was perhaps irritated that even in prison Jimmy was still the Teamsters president and continued to draw his reported $100,000 a year salary. He, Tony Pro, wasn't even getting a pension. Jimmy retorted that it was people like Tony Pro who had gotten him thrown in jail in the first place. The argument became heated and literally came to blows. From then on as far as Jimmy was concerned, Tony Pro was a "bum".

Like most first time offenders, Jimmy was hoping for a parole. But he was told that as long as he was still the union president he had no chance. So reluctantly Jimmy resigned his position, and Frank Fitzsimmons, a long-time friend of Jimmy, officially assumed the reins.

Richard Nixon paroled Jimmy in 1971 with the proviso - of which Jimmy claimed he was never informed - that he stay out of union politics for nine years. But by 1975, he was challenging the parole conditions and was planning to run for the Teamsters president again.

You'd think that the boys would be agreeable. After all, what about all those Las Vegas loans? Without Jimmy, there'd be no Vegas.

The truth is Jimmy's loans were pretty chintzy compared to what the boys had wrangled from the Teamsters once Jimmy was in prison. If Jimmy was back in charge, the loans might not be so generous.

But what really began to bother some of Jimmy's - ah - "associates" - was when he began appearing on television, including sit-down talk shows. It was clear that Jimmy was shocked! shocked! that the union was now being controlled by [alleged] gangsters. You could bet if he was back with the Teamsters he would - to borrow a phrase of follicularly sparse residents of a Quaint State of the American Southwest - "straighten them out".

Jimmy began receiving warnings to cut it out. And the admonitions didn't come just from the mob guys. The current Teamsters leaders and their buddies also pitched in. Even Jimmy's well-meaning and long time friends suggested he retire.

To [heck] with that, Jimmy thought, and he kept up his campaign to recover the Teamsters presidency. To show he was a changed man he began cooperating with the government investigators. In May 1975, he even testified before a grand jury and some researchers are convinced he had become a full-blown informant.

Retaliation was at first bureaucratic. Jimmy's friends and relations - including Jimmy's son, Jimmy, Jr., and Jimmy's wife, Josephine - who were employed by the Union lost their jobs. And when one of Jimmy's friends refused to resign his elected position, his boat was blown up. Yet another of Jimmy's friend was attacked in the street and beaten until he was unconscious.

Of course, violence can be a two-way viaduct. The son of Frank Fitzsimmons had his car bombed. Jimmy's enemies expressed indignation. But Jimmy's supporters snorted that the bombing was clearly just a crude attempt at a frame-up as Frank's son wasn't harmed.

It was evident that Jimmy wasn't going to go gently into that good retirement. So word got out that Tony Pro wanted to meet Jimmy - to soothe things over.

Now some of the stories say that Jimmy also wanted to meet Tony Pro to get his support - and so the votes - of the New Jersey locals. But if so, earlier meetings were not very productive. One encounter led to nothing except another fight which was followed by horrible threats against Jimmy's family. But by July Tony Pro was asking for another "sit down" to patch things over.

Jimmy kept saying no. He refused to meet with the "bum" and wouldn't budge even after intervention from his friend Anthony Joseph "Tony Jack" Giacalone (jack-a-LONE-ee).

Tony Jack was one of the, yes, [alleged] mobsters from Detroit. Nevertheless throughout all the difficulties Tony Jack had remained friendly with Jimmy. He told Jimmy that he should meet with Tony Pro. He, Tony Jack, would also be there to make sure everything would be on the up-and-up. Jimmy kept saying no.

Then at the last minute Jimmy did a volte-face so abrupt that it perplexed even the FBI. Jimmy agreed to a 2:00 p. m. meeting on July 30, 1975.

To keep everybody relaxed, everyone agreed to meet at the Machus Red Fox Restaurant, one of Detroit's fancy and popular emporia. Although it closed down in 1996, there is still a restaurant there, and from all appearances it's in the original building.

Jimmy, who was always punctual, got to the Red Fox on the dot of 2:00. No one was there. Jimmy waited, increasingly fuming, and about 2:30, he made two phone calls, one to a friend and another to his wife saying no one had shown up. Then after waiting fifteen minutes longer, Jimmy was getting ready to leave when a car drove up.

Witnesses identified the car as a maroon Mercury Marquis, a "luxury" car that had just come out that year. Later testimony confirmed it was a car owned by Tony Jack's son, Joseph "Joe" Giacalone, and there were three men in the car. Two of them were at least tentatively identified by eyewitnesses.

The driver [allegedly] was Charles O'Brien. Charles - usually called "Chuckie" - had lived with Jimmy and his family as a kid and was sometimes referred to as Jimmy's foster son. For his part, Chuckie admitted he had been driving Joe's car that day but he denied that Jimmy was ever in the car.

The other man picked out was Salvatore "Sally Bugs" Briguglio (brig-OOL-yee-oh). Sally Bugs was, well, we'll call him a "close associate" of Tony Pro. He was in the back, sitting behind Chuckie.

And sitting next to Chuckie was a man who was not identified at the time. But later Francis Joseph "Frank the Irishman" Sheeran admitted - among other things - that he was the third man.

Frank had known Jimmy a long time and considered himself a close and trusted friend. He was also huge - 6' 4" - and hard to miss, particularly if he stood next to Jimmy. Years later Frank gave a detailed account of what transpired in the Red Fox parking lot.

There is some thinking that Jimmy knew the meeting was not to be at the restaurant itself. The management required a coat and tie - a mandate that is rare today but was common enough back then. And Jimmy wasn't wearing a tie. On the other hand perhaps the fancy dress code only applied to dinner and not lunch.

Informally attired or not, Jimmy looked in as the car pulled up. When he saw Chuckie, he expressed his surprise.

"What the ! are you doing here?" Jimmy asked. "Who the ! invited you?"

But before Chuckie could answer, Jimmy turned and saw Sally Bugs who was a stranger. Jimmy requested supplemental information.

"Who the ! is he?" Jimmy asked.

Sally Bugs said he was with Tony Pro.

"What the ! is going on here?" Jimmy asked. "Your !ing boss was supposed to be here at 2:30!"

Now this is the quote given by Frank - that Jimmy said they were supposed to meet at 2:30. And yet, all other sources tell us that the meeting was set for 2:00. A small discrepancy, perhaps. But seemingly slight errors may be important when we start putting everything together.

But - and this shows us how difficult it is to sift through the multiple documents and references - there is an indication that Jimmy had been told the meeting was at 2:30. At his home the FBI found a note that had the slightly miswritten address of the Red Fox Restaurant and an annotation "230 Wed". So Jimmy may have shown up too early.

But for the moment Jimmy's inquiries had been drawing the attention of some of the Red Fox's departing customers.

"People are staring at us, Jimmy", Sally Bugs said.

Sally Bugs then pointed out Frank - a good friend, remember - who was sitting next to Chuckie. Frank gave Jimmy a brief wave.

Frank then said there was a change of plans, and they had decided to meet at a private residence. That made some sense as they could discuss confidential matters without the possibility of being overheard. Finally Jimmy was convinced everything was OK and got in behind Frank.

In the car Jimmy mused upon the irregularity of the proceedings.

"Who the ! is Pro sending a !ing errand boy?"

"We'll be there in two minutes", Chuckie [allegedly] soothed.

It's at this point where there's controversy - or at least disagreement - amongst the Hoffa scholars and intelligentsia.

For years - decades, even - a quite credible scenario was that Jimmy was then taken to the home of an [alleged] mobster that was only three miles from the Red Fox restaurant. This house was a favorite meeting place of Jimmy with Tony Jack and his friends. So Jimmy would have had no qualms about going there.

And once at the house, Frank, Jimmy, and Sally Bugs went in. Chuckie drove away, thinking he had simply delivered everyone to the sit-down.

Then once they were in the house, someone shot Jimmy.

The question was - and is - who?

Tony Pro and Tony Jack had suspiciously iron clad alibis. Not only was Tony Pro back home in New Jersey, but he spent the afternoon playing cards at the Teamsters Union Hall. Tony Jack was hanging out at Detroit's Southfield Athletic Club where among other things he got a massage and a haircut. He was also quite out of character. Usually taciturn and aloof, he greeted both friends and strangers effusively.

As far as what happened next, here's where the tellers really get creative. A favorite story is that the deceased Jimmy was put in some kind of container - a 55 gallon drum, maybe - and driven to a landfill. Or he was taken to New Jersey where a new stadium for the New York Giants was being constructed and was buried in the end zone. Or he was fed to alligators in Florida. No, he was taken to a car compactor and compacted. Or maybe he was buried on a farm. Or he was buried under a driveway. Perhaps he was taken to a sausage factory or run through a wood-chipper. Or he was taken to an incinerator and burned up.

So say various aging [alleged] mobsters, associate [alleged] mobsters, and just plain old [alleged] mobsters.

It hardly needs to be pointed out that many of these scenarios must needs have be horse hockey, bullshine, and poppycock. C'mon. If the mob wants to get rid of someone they've just gotten rid of, they don't use over-dramatic methods so outlandish no Hollywood scriptwriter would dare craft. They get rid of them quickly and completely. There are, as they say, ways.

It's the last suggestion - the incinerator - that makes most sense. At least it's not complete horse hockey, bullshine, and poppycock - particularly when you realize the owner of the house in question, Calogero "Carlo" Licata (lih-CAH-tah), also ran a municipal waste business - complete with industrial grade incinerator.

Fair enough. But was this the house?

Well, to quote Arte Johnson, here things get verrrrryyyyyyyy interesting.

On the sixth anniversary of Jimmy's disappearance, literally to the day, Carlo was found dead - at the house - with two gunshot wounds in the chest.

The official ruling was suicide.

We see, then, that the scenario just described makes inimitable sense. Tony Pro and Tony Jack set up a meeting with Jimmy at the Red Fox. Then after they make sure they are somewhere else and seen by numerous witnesses, they have Jimmy driven to Carlo's house where someone took care of him. And then on the anniversary of Jimmy's demise and - the official ruling notwithstanding - someone takes care of Carlo.

But for many Hoffa buffs, such generalized knowledge doesn't really solve the mystery. They won't rest contented until they know who actually pulled the trigger.

Now some researchers have fingered Sally Bugs as the killer. And Frank Sheeran confirmed the story.

Weeeeeelllllll, that is Frank confirmed the killer was Sally Bugs in 2001. But by 2003, the year of his death, Frank had changed his story.

The real killer, according to Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran was ....

.... Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran.

And he gave full details.

Frank tells us he drove to a small airport in Port Clinton, Ohio with his [alleged] mob mentor, Russell Bufalino. The official story was Frank and Russell were in Detroit to attend a wedding and on the way to the airport they had dropped two lady companions off at a restaurant.

Frank left Russell snoozing in the car. Then he boarded a small plane to Pontiac Airport. From there he drove to the house where he met Sally Bugs and waited for Chuckie to arrive.

Chuckie was [allegedly] a little late. Then after Frank and Sally Bugs climbed in, Chuckie drove to the restaurant where they picked Jimmy up.

Frank confirmed that Chuckie didn't know what was going on. He just drove back to the house and let everyone out. Sally Bugs got in the seat next to Chuck and the two men drove off. Frank followed Jimmy into the house.

But as soon as he walked in the door, Jimmy knew something was wrong. The house had an empty feel - no conversation coming from the other rooms, no sign of expected refreshments, no Tony Pro stepping forward to offer a hearty handshake.

Frank said Jimmy understood at once what was going on. But he also thought that Frank - who had drawn his gun - was going to act as his bodyguard. So Jimmy immediately turned around and went for the door. Then Frank shot Jimmy twice behind the right ear.

At that point, Frank dropped the gun and walked out. His job was done. Division of labor was the rule for mob hits. One person would do the shooting and others take care of the evidence. Later Frank said he heard Jimmy was taken to a local mob-controlled funeral home and cremated.

Today an increasing number of people have accepted Frank's story as the true one. What recommends Frank's account is that 1) he was a major suspect in Jimmy's disappearance from the first, 2) he was confirmed to be in the Detroit area at the time, 3) his story of how they disposed of the body makes sense, and 4) he tells the story consistently in a manner which held up to repeated questioning.

And what will ultimately cement Frank's legacy as the complete and immutable truth is that there's now a motion picture telling his story. And in the United States if you can see it in the movies then that's - quote - "what really happened" - unquote.

Still, we have to admit not everyone buys Frank's story. They maintain that far from being consistent, Frank changed his story over the years. He is simply not, they say, to be believed.

In fairness, then, we'll elaborate on the doubters' arguments. First, remember that Frank had earlier claimed he did not kill Jimmy himself. Instead, he said it was Sally Bugs. So Frank was either lying then or he was lying now.

Or both.

But not only did Frank switch his story on who shot Jimmy, there are also internal discrepancies in his telling. In some places he seems to be combining more than one account into a single tale.

For instance, at one point Frank did not say that once in the house "I shot Jimmy." Instead he said - and pardon us if we shout - "JIMMY HOFFA GOT SHOT".

"Jimmy Hoffa got shot" is not what anyone would say if they had actually pulled the trigger. But it is what someone would say if the job was done by someone else.

Also remember that Frank said that Chuckie [allegedly] told Jimmy that the drive would only take a couple of minutes (actually it's about five if you stick to the speed limits). Then after Jimmy kept grousing, Chuckie [allegedly] said they would be there soon.

It seems, then, that Chuckie was [allegedly] talking about going to Carlo Licata's house which was indeed only about three miles away.

But the house that Frank identified was not Carlo's. And it was not only "two minutes" away. It was nearly ten miles from the Red Fox Restaurant. So once more we have what appears to be a story with a two-minute drive combined with one where they drove to a more distant location.

Another problem with Frank's story is what we can call creaky credibility by historical omnipresence. In other words, Frank seems to have had a hand in just a bit too much other stuff - a red flag for historical researchers.

But before we detail how Frank's ubiquitousness in history causes problems, we should illustrate the principle by using an example of someone who also knew a bit too much for his own credibility. We refer to a gentleman named Joseph White Cow Bull.

Joseph White Cow Bull was a Lakota warrior who fought at the Little Big Horn. He was later interviewed by David Humphreys Miller, a 20th century historian who gathered a number of the native accounts of the battle.

Now it's true that many historians accept White Cow Bull's stories and point out that his tales have remarkable corroboration with other accounts. On the other hand others have expressed considerable doubt about how first-hand White Cow Bull's accounts really were - because his tales have the remarkable corroboration with other accounts.

If White Cow Bull is to be believed, he was everywhere - particularly if someone else had already told the story. If one warrior reported seeing a fleeing trooper being shot down, White Cow Bull said he was there as well. When a young fighter saw a Lakota with a warbonnet get killed on Custer Hill, well, White Cloud Bull saw it, too. Then there was the story that a trooper nearly got away only to pull his gun and shoot himself. And White Cloud Bull was also an eyewitness.

And then of course, White Cloud Bull said he shot a buckskin clad soldier off of a sorrel horse which had four white stockings.

Yep. White Cow Bull claims it was he who killed George Armstrong Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.

It isn't just his ubiquity on the battlefield that causes suspicion with White Cow Bull's story, but it was also the late date at which he told his tales. He was first interviewed in 1937 - sixty-two years after the battle. And it's no secret that six-decade old memories are not the most reliable.

But what is the problem? If other warriors corroborated White Cow Bull's stories, shouldn't we believe him?

Not necessarily. The problem is that because warriors fought as individuals it's rare to have even two of the survivors see the same thing. But White Cow Bull saw everything - as long as someone else saw it, too. So it's not just that the late date of White Cow Bull's accounts means his memories could be hazy. He might be combining his own memories with what he had heard from others.

Frank, too, seems to have been on the spot when earth-shattering events happened. Frank not only said he killed Jimmy Hoffa but he was also the hitman who shot Joseph "Crazy Joey" Gallo at Umberto's Clam House on April 7, 1972. This was one of the most famous mob hits in the post-World War II era gangsterdom.

Then there's Sally Bugs. He was also killed in a gangland style murder less than three years after Jimmy disappeared.

And who claimed to be the hitman?

Yes, it was Frank "The Irishman" Sheeran.

But you think that's something? In 1963, Frank says he was asked to ship some guns off for the mob.

That is, to ship some guns off for the mob that had to arrive in Dallas.

To ship some guns off for the mob that had to arrive in Dallas before November 22, 1963.

Yep, according to Frank he was involved in the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

This, to some Hoffa scholars, is just too much to take. Besides, some things just don't make sense.

Why would you ship guns from New Jersey to Dallas? There were plenty of untraceable rifles in Texas. If not Dallas or Texas, you could find plenty of guns in convenient neighboring states.

As for Crazy Joey's demise, true, there are indeed contemporary reports that Crazy Joey was killed by a lone gunman. This was the original theory the police worked from, and one witness even identified Frank as the killer from a photograph.

But here we encounter similar problems to the story of White Cow Bull. The witness who identified Frank did so over thirty years after the event. Also the investigator - at least the one on a popular television show - used only a single photograph and the presenter asked if the person in the photo was the killer.

This is not proper protocol. Instead what should have been done was to include Frank's photo with a number of others - including other suspects and other people present at the restaurant. The investigator should then ask the witness if any of the photographs are of the individual involved. Proper selection in that case would have been much more convincing.

Part of the problem with any researcher - and in any field - is eventually they may end up with a favorite theory. At that point, they can fall into the trap of looking for evidence until you get the answer they like. But historians should also examine contrary evidence as well.

In particular, two witnesses who we know were involved in the shooting of Joey Gallo was the driver of the getaway car, Joseph "Joe Pesh" Luparelli (loo-par-EL-lee), and Crazy Joey's bodyguard, Peter "The Greek" Diapoulas (dee-AH-poo-las). Their testimony was not only more contemporary than some of the other witnesses - Joe Pesh gave his story only two weeks after Crazy Joey was killed and Pete gave his account in 1975 - but they personally knew the people involved. So mistaken identity is unlikely. But when naming the killers they never mentioned Frank.

We see then that support for Frank's involvement in other famous crimes comes from decades old memories plus accepting selective testimony. Now this does not mean that Frank's advocates are deliberately attempting to deceive. What is called "memory deterioration" and "hindsight bias" are normal psychological phenomena that happen to everyone. As time goes on there is a tendency to blur memories from other events into others and what has been gleaned from other sources.

And memory deterioration and blurring begins almost immediately. One of Jimmy's friends was interviewed by the FBI soon after Jimmy's disappearance. Although the witness was cooperative, the agents cautioned that they were afraid his memories had been colored by what he had read in the papers.

But the biggest problem with Frank's story is that the house where he said they took Jimmy has been identified. And yes, there was human blood in the floorboards exactly where Frank said.

Ha? (Again Shakespeare). That's a problem?

Well, yes. At least in this case.

Now it is certainly true that the odds of randomly selecting a house and finding blood in the hallway as described by a (alleged) mob hitman are extremely low. So from probabilistic considerations alone, the blood findings would be strong corroboration of Frank's story.

But ... (you knew there would be a "but").

The site was later - about thirty years later - visited by reporters from a Network We Will Not Name. How much this visit may have compromised the physical evidence isn't known. But it's certainly not advisable to fiddle about a potential crime scene of a still open case. Nevertheless, the police later came in and conducted an official investigation.

And here was the problem.

After the inevitable flurry of contradicting stories, the final reports have been firm that, yes, there was blood in the house and in the hallway exactly where Frank said he shot Jimmy.

But DNA testing has shown that the blood was not - that's not - that of James Riddle Hoffa.

Well, how good are those tests.

Actually quite good. We must remember that in 2009, the National Academy of Sciences issued a rather stern rebuke about forensic methods. With the exception of DNA analysis, the NAS said that no method - that is no method - has ever been shown to reliably connect evidence with a source or individual.

So putting the most reliable evidence - the blood analysis - at the top spot and taking what else Frank said, we come up with an alternative yet credible scenario.

Yes, Frank was in the car that took Jimmy from the Machus Red Fox restaurant.

And he did hit someone in the house exactly as he said.

But that someone was not Jimmy Hoffa.

That is Frank told the truth, as Mark Twain said, mainly. He first cited the truthful tale of how he flew to Detroit, and went with the others to the Red Fox restaurant to reassure Jimmy and get him into the car.

Then Frank switches stories to an equally truthful hit at the other house. He just changes the name of the victim.

So by combining the details of his involvement in Jimmy's disappearance with another Detroit area hit, Frank provides a version of Jimmy's demise which passes muster with the basic facts and also bears up in the details to repeated cross-questioning. It also explains why Frank's account seems to arise from two separate events.

But why, people ask, would Frank lie and claim he was the murderer?

That's easy. Money. One of Franks' critics pointed out that Frank had been trying to get a book deal for years. But the people who interviewed him found his tales too contradictory and the negotiations always fell through.

In the end, Frank found himself old, broke, and dying and with a family to support. Despite the tales of overflowing Swiss bank accounts, many retired mobsters end up - as one admitted - "dead broke".

And what would sell better? A book saying you were a low level mob "associate" used as bait to lure Jimmy into a car? Or a book that said you were the actual killer?

We know the answer to that one.

No one was ever arrested regarding Jimmy's disappearance. But almost everyone who the FBI thinks were criminally involved ended up being dealt with by other mobsters or did long stretches. Frank was sentenced to 30 years on various mob-related crimes and was released on legitimate medical grounds after 15 years.

Tony Pro and Tony Jack also went to prison. Tony Pro was sentenced to life for murder and died in jail. Tony Jack was released after seven years but was about to be indicted for other crimes when he died. Certainly for Tony Pro, Tony Jack, and Frank Sheeran, crime did not pay well enough.

Frank's champions, on the other hand, will point out that what they are accused of - selectively choosing information until they get what they want - is exactly what Frank's detractors are doing. To - quote - "prove" - unquote - Frank was not Jimmy's killer, you must also pick and choose until you get the answer you want.

Frank was not the last person to claim the credit for Jimmy's demise. Six years after Frank died, a famous Mafia killer - sorry, that's [alleged] Mafia killer - Richard "The Iceman" Kuklinski, claimed he was the real killer. However, Richard's story also talks about the 55 gallon drum and burying Jimmy. Later another former mobster, Anthony "Tony" Zerilli, said he wasn't involved in the killing - he was in prison at the time - but he knew where Jimmy was buried. Needless to say when the police dug where Tony said to dig, they found absolutely nothing.

So what, as Flakey Foont asked Mr. Natural, does it all mean?

It means that in - quote - "figuring out" - unquote - the events of July 30, 1975, you will always have to pick and choose some facts and discard others. And these facts - a loose term, by the way - that you have to pick, choose, and discard happen to come from some of the most deceitful, treacherous, and murderous criminals in history.

So from an epistemological standpoint, it is increasingly remote that anyone will know what happened to Jimmy Hoffa. But certainly a lot of people will believe they know.

Who knows? Maybe Frank was telling the truth. But we should also remember there's one statement that Frank made that is most important when evaluating anyone's veracity.

Frank claimed that as a young man he was completely opposed to what Dr. John Harvey Kellogg - yes, the Dr. Kellogg of the Famous Kellogg Family of Battle Creek, Michigan - called the loathsome "solitary vice".

So presumably we must believe that even as an adolescent Frank never once ...

Well, you decide.