Price war between two Melbourne greengrocers bore deadly fruit for years
AS a client of murdered lawyer Joe Acquaro, it is to be expected that detectives will question Calabrian businessman Tony Madafferi about his dealings with the executed Acquaro.
Law & Order
Don't miss out on the headlines from Law & Order. Followed categories will be added to My News.
AS a client of murdered lawyer Joe Acquaro, it is to be expected that detectives will question Calabrian businessman Tony Madafferi about his dealings with the executed Acquaro.
It will not be the first time homicide squad detectives have questioned Tony Madafferi after a murder.
They knocked on his door the day after rival fruiterer Tony Peluso was gunned down as he left his home in the early hours of June 11, 1991.
He said he was at home at the time Peluso was killed.
“I have known Tony Peluso for about 15 years,” Tony Madafferi told the then Sen-Det Rod Wilson.
“I don’t know anything about Tony Peluso’s death or who may have killed him.”
Karen Mansfield, the grieving partner of another murder victim, Alfonso Muratore, had plenty to say about the Peluso murder when she gave evidence at the 1993 Muratore inquest.
RELATED: Slain lawyer knew mafia secrets
Lover mourns ‘soulmate’ with heart of gold
Ms Mansfield accused Tony Madafferi of killing Sicilian-born Peluso.
Allegations that Tony Madafferi — related by marriage to the Calabrian mafia Benvenuto family — was a hitman for the Calabrian mafia and a prospective Godfather of the secret society were aired in court during the Muratore inquest.
Tony Madafferi was not represented in court when the allegations were made. He learned about them through news reports and immediately hired a lawyer.
His barrister, Colin Lovitt, QC, angrily told the court the day after the allegations were first made that Tony Madafferi denied all the allegations and was simply an honest man going about his business in a lawful manner.
Mr Lovitt applied for a suppression order on repeating the allegations and on further identification of Tony Madafferi.
The coroner rejected the application and allowed publication of both the allegations and Tony Madafferi’s name and photograph. But the coroner did warn the media that the allegations were simply that, allegations, and should not be reported as fact.
Tony Madafferi has not been charged in relation to any of the allegations made against him during the Muratore inquest.
Mr Lovitt had only been on his feet making his suppression application for a few minutes when the coroner interrupted him, saying a matter had come to his attention that required him to adjourn the hearing for a short time.
That matter was a complaint from a witness that Tony Madafferi had arrived in court and was allegedly acting in an intimidating manner.
When the court resumed, Mr Lovitt said: “Your Worship, we’ve been informed that someone in court has alleged that our client was staring at them in some unpleasant way.
“We strongly dispute that. He’s seated right there and we urge people not to feel, because passions are raised and allegations are being bandied about, that they’re being stared at.
“Our client has only just arrived at this court a short time ago. He, of course, has every right to be somewhat concerned in view of the allegations that are made against him. If he’s looking a bit unhappy I don’t blame him, because, getting back to this application, we’ve given him advice not to even attempt to look at anybody, just in case it’s misunderstood.
“Although it might be said that it’s a little late, nevertheless we want to try and omit the further publicity of identifying his name or his face.
“We repeat that the allegations that (a) he’s committed murder; (b) he was the heir apparent to being the Godfather and (c) that he’s known as ‘The Shooter’ — you couldn’t get more serious allegations or allegations that are more calculated to be sensationalised by the media.
“The situation is that all of these allegations are pure hearsay.”
Mr Lovitt said the allegations were based on conversations Karen Mansfield allegedly had with Alfonso Muratore and as Muratore was dead he couldn’t confirm the conversations.
“The allegations that have already been made and publicised in various forms of the media are allegations that are based on what people were told, say they heard from others’’ Mr Lovitt said.
“No one has suggested that our client was responsible for the death of the deceased in this inquest.
“What has happened is, because this is a wideranging inquest and there’s been a lot of general material about alleged secret societies and Cosa Nostras and Mafias and Godfathers and other colourful expressions have been used, our client’s name has been raised — not in a way that’s directly relevant to the death of Mr Muratore, but just as a side-light, if you like.
“But a side-light that’s been devastating in terms of his reputation.
“He’s a married man, he’s got two young children. He’s a businessman. He deals with a lot of people in the community and we again, rhetorically say, why should he, bearing in mind the central issues in this case, suffer his reputation being totally besmirched.”
Prominent media lawyer Grant Hattam opposed the suppression order on behalf of several news organisations.
“The press have a responsibility to report fairly and accurately all that takes place. They must report any comments made in respect of Mr Madafferi are allegations.
“They also must report Mr Lovitt’s remarks about those allegations, therefore a balance is achieved. Mr Lovitt is here representing Mr Madafferi’s interest,’’ Mr Hattam told the court.
“There is a case which is a hallmark in suppression cases and the right of the media to report and it is called Scott & Scott. It is an English case and it is a court of appeal decision that goes back many years.
“One of the quotes from that case is that ‘Mere feelings of delicacy and privacy are not enough to take away the public’s right to know’. That stands for the proposition that the public’s right to know will always beat interests of privacy.
“It is in the public’s interest that justice be done in an open court with the media being able to fairly and accurately report all that takes place.’’
Counsel assisting the coroner, David Beach, agreed with Mr Hattam.
“There is no basis for saying that the publication of this evidence would be contrary to the public interest,’’ Mr Beach told the court.
“Indeed, in my submission, to suppress the evidence would be contrary to the public interest because it would stultify Your Worship’s ability to properly investigate this matter as contemplated by the Coroner’s Act.
“My learned friend, Mr Lovitt, in the course of his submission, made a submission that some of the evidence — and in particular the evidence concerning the fact that Mr Madafferi might have shot Mr Peluso — was not relevant to the hearing of this inquest. Of course it could be relevant, depending on what other admissible evidence is adduced.
“As to the question of motive, if Mr Muratore was going around saying of Mr Madafferi that he was the trigger man, or had shot Mr Peluso, then it might be, depending on how the evidence ultimately comes out, a basis for alleging a motive against Mr Madafferi to silence somebody who was going around saying that he was a killer and/or the successor or the next successor to the head of the Honoured Society and for those reasons the application should be resisted.’’
The coroner, Mr West, did reject Mr Lovitt’s submission.
“`I am not satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to show that the dissemination of the identity of Mr Tony Madafferi in relation to allegations made against him in this inquest is contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the application is refused,’’ the coroner said.
“I should add as a rider to that ruling that the press should be mindful of the fact that the allegations are simply that and that they are based on hearsay when reporting the evidence.’’
The next day, Mr Lovitt questioned Karen Mansfield about allegations she had made.
In giving her evidence earlier that day, she again claimed Alfonso Muratore told her that Tony Madafferi shot Tony Peluso.
Peluso ran a fruit and vegetable shop in The Kingsway in Glen Waverley.
Tony Madafferi ran a rival fruit shop in the same street and police claimed at Peluso’s 1995 inquest that Peluso and Tony Madafferi were involved in an intense price war at the time.
Peluso, 49, who was married with four children, was leaving his home in Marriott Parade, Glen Waverley, about 4.30am on June 11, 1991 to go to the wholesale fruit and vegetable market to buy produce when two men surprised him and fired five shots from a .32 automatic Colt pistol.
Two shots hit Peluso in the chest and he died almost instantly.
Evidence suggested robbery wasn’t a motive as $5800 in cash was found with his body.
Ms Mansfield said Muratore visited Tony Madafferi prior to starting work in the market again to make sure Madafferi was comfortable with that and that he, Muratore, would be OK.
“I felt that from the conversation that he related to me afterwards that Mr Madafferi seemed to have a very integral part of the fact that he could or could not be OK — because Tony Madafferi is related to Mr Frank Benvenuto.
“And Fonse had on many occasions told me that Mr Madafferi was a man that you feared greatly — that you didn’t cause any trouble to, and that you made sure that you kept a very healthy respect for him,’’ she told the court.
Mr Lovitt’s questioning of Ms Mansfield got off to a very feisty start over how to pronounce Madafferi.
His first question to her was: “Have you ever met Mr Madafferi?’’
Ms Mansfield: “No.’’
Mr Lovitt: “So anything that ...’’
Ms Mansfield interrupted: “It is actually Madafferi.’’
Mr Lovitt: “You are now telling me how my client pronounces his name?’’
Ms Mansfield: “`Well, as far as I am concerned it’s Mr Madafferi.’’
Mr Lovitt then asked Ms Mansfield if she knew anything about the killing of Tony Peluso.
Ms Mansfield: “I’ve stated that Fonse told me that Tony Madafferi was responsible for that killing.’’
Mr Lovitt: “That was a rumour that passed around the market ...’’
Ms Mansfield interrupted: “Well ...’’
But Mr Lovitt held sway: “Just a moment please. Now my client has had this said about him now by three different people. That was a rumour that passed around the market about him simply because he had the misfortune to have a greengrocer’s shop about 10 doors down the road from the man who was killed.’’
Ms Mansfield: “No. That may be an assumption that could be made. The other assumption is that Fonse Muratore, if you have forgotten, was the son-in-law of Liborio Benvenuto, who Fonse was privy to probably 16 to 17 years of amazing information from the Godfather.
“Now he would know a lot more about these things than I would. He knew exactly what kind of roles people played in the Calabrian Honoured Society, or the mafia, as we Australians call it.’’
She told the inquest Muratore’s closeness to Liborio Benvenuto meant he commanded respect.
“I would say that Fonse, because he was the son-in-law of the late Mr Liborio Benvenuto, who was the Godfather of Melbourne, because of his association, and being his son-in-law, that Fonse was a very respected man.
“Very respected by the community, meaning the Italian community and the people in the markets and that that entitled him to be treated with respect and care and honour.’’
Deputy coroner Iain West, who conducted the Peluso inquest, made an open finding.