The Dowd Report

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.


VII. Summary of the Evidence

B. Summary Of The Testimony Of Ron Peters

1. Summary of Corroboration of Peters' Testimony

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by the testimony of James Eveslage who voluntarily told us that he arranged for Peters to accept Pete Rose's betting through Gioiosa.

Ron Peters' testimony is also corroborated by Mike Fry. Fry observed Gioiosa placing bets for Pete Rose while Gioiosa was the Manager of Gold's Gym, which Fry owned. Fry voluntarily admitted loaning Pete Rose $17,000 and $30,000 in the fall of 1985, after the baseball season, to pay Rose's gambling losses. Fry admitted cashing checks for Gioiosa in February 1986 in order for Gioiosa to pay Peters. Fry's endorsement appears on the checks. Fry further stated Gioiosa and Janszen could not have afforded to bet $2,000 per game with Peters. Fry stated that he went with Pete Rose and Gioiosa to visit Jonathan' s Cafe.

Ron Peters' testimony is also corroborated by Lance Humphrey, the daytime manager of Gold's Gym. Humphrey testified that Gioiosa told him that he was betting for Rose on baseball, basketball and football with Ron Peters at $1,000 to $5,000 per game. Humphrey testified that Gioiosa could not afford to place bets of that size.

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by the telephone records of Gold's Gym for 1986 which show sixty-five telephone calls from Gold's Gym to Ron Peters during the 1986 baseball season, when Tommy Gioiosa was manager of Gold's Gym.

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by the three $8,000 checks signed by Pete Rose on February 5, 1986, endorsed by Fry and cashed by Gioiosa.

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by Rose's $34,000 check, dated March 12, 1987, signed by Reuven Katz, and endorsed and cashed by Tommy Gioiosa.

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by the phone records of Rose, Janszen and the Cincinnati Reds, and by the hotel bills of Pete Rose during May, June and July 1987. These records show a pattern of telephone traffic prior to the beginning of each Reds game -- home or away, night or day -- between Janszen, Marcum, Rose and Peters.

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by the sworn admissions of Pete Rose during his deposition. Rose testified that he gave his bets to Gioiosa to place with a bookmaker; that he had Gioiosa pay his gambling losses and collect his winnings; that he signed the three $8,000 checks on February 5, 1986 for Gioiosa to pay his gambling losses; that he directed his attorney, Reuven Katz, to give a $34,000 check to Gioiosa to pay his gambling losses; that he cannot explain how a copy of the $34,000 check was in the possession of Ron Peters and Paul Janszen in May 1987; that he did send Mike Bertolini eleven checks totaling $88,000 in October, November and December 1986, which is the time when Gioiosa told Peters that Pete Rose was unable to pay Rose's $34,000 debt to Peters due to Rose's indebtedness to a Mafia bookmaker in New York; that he visited Jonathan's Cafe with Gioiosa, where he gave an autographed bat to Ron Peters for his restaurant and Gioiosa met with Peters in a back room; and that he ordered tickets to Reds games for Peters in 1986 and 1987, which he explained by saying that someone else must have asked him for the tickets.

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by the transcript of his conversation with Rose's counsel, Robert Pitcairn, on March 13, 1989, prior to any publicity about Peters. Pitcairn returned Peters' call to Katz and made inquiries about the Commissioner's investigation without asking Peters who he was and without disputing Peters' statement that Pete Rose bet with him.

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by the voluntary sworn testimony of Paul Janszen and Danita Marcum who testified that they placed bets of $2,000 per game at the request of Pete Rose with Ron Peters on the Reds and other baseball games during May, June and July 1987.

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by betting sheets obtained from Rose's home and found by an expert to be in Rose's handwriting. The betting sheets contain a listing of Major League Baseball games, including the games of the Cincinnati Reds, with the results.

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by the voluntary sworn testimony of Jim Procter and Dave Bernstein. Procter overheard Rose betting on baseball games with Paul Janszen, and Bernstein was advised by Janszen in the spring of 1987 that Rose was betting on baseball and the Reds with Ron Peters.

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by his own betting records, which show bets on the Reds and other baseball games. The records also indicate that Peters had only one baseball betting customer in 1987. These records also bear the names of "Pete" and Janszen in Peters' handwriting.

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by the report of the gambling expert who authenticated and verified Peters' betting records for 1987. His report states that Peters had only one customer during that season.

Ron Peters' testimony is corroborated by the telephone toll records from Pete Rose's home and hotel room during May and June 1987. The records reveal telephone calls to Ron Peters' telephone number before the start of the games of the Cincinnati Reds.

It should be noted that Ron Peters bears no animus toward Pete Rose -- Peters recovered his 1986 losses on baseball betting by not paying Rose the $34,000 in 1987. Ron Peters gained nothing by his voluntary sworn statements against Rose. Ron Peters gave this testimony about Pete Rose against Peters' penal interest, that is, Peters' statements were incriminating and exposed him to prosecution for conducting an illegal bookmaking operation. Admissions against penal interest are considered trustworthy under the Federal Rules of Evidence. His testimony and his voluntary pleas of guilty to federal offenses are acts of integrity.

I find Ron Peters worthy of belief in view of the independent corroboration of his testimony.


[ Previous Page ] [ Next Page ]