I definitely think they kept him in because he's "dangerous" according to them, but I don't believe he actually plotted anything because of the Asaro, Basciano similarities. It's just too coincidental for me. And like I said, those are the only ones I've come across with the same prosecutors on the case (Asaro and Basciano) which makes all of it suspect. Helps to bolster their case for sure and in the case of Basciano helped push the entire death sentence push which the judge didn't even want and wrote a letter to the AG saying he didn't think it was necessary and AG disagreed. In Basciano's case, I think it had to do with the fact that they were trying their darndest to get him to flip and he refused so what better way to really push the issue than threaten him with the death penalty. And it still didn't work...

With Asaro, their case against him was flimsy from the beginning. They brought it 30 years after the fact or something like that? So, they knew there was a cold chance in hell they'd win. After he was acquitted the govt made their typical excuses when they lose a case and in Asaro's case, their excuse was that they lost because they felt the jury felt sorry for him because of his age. Totally ridiculous. That's why I think when they had the opportunity to bust him on that car fire thing, they hit him hard - as some sort of punishment for embarrassing them on the Lufthansa thing.

The government did the same kind of excuse-making during the Gambino bros (John & Joe) trial in the 90s. I think there were two mistrials and the govt kept saying something was fishy even though they had all these Italian pentitos take the stand like Mannoia and Mutolo. Then they went to Gravano and asked if he could remember anything and that's when the Oliveri murder came out I think and the Gambino bros took off. But even to this day - in Comey's book - he claims that the two mistrials were suspect though he didn't elaborate. And with that, he was talking specifically about a juror in one of the trials who went to the judge and said that another juror was suspect because he wasn't agreeing with the rest of the jurors and she thought there was something wrong but the judge kicked her off because it was ridiculous.

When John Gambino finally pled guilty, the govt made him admit to paying off a juror in someone else's case - I can't remember whose - but I don't believe that either. I think that in their agreement they probably wanted to give the impression that that's probably what happened in the two mistrials though the bribery "admission' wasn't related to their specfic case. But I do believe it was a bogus addition. The other thing that probably burned them up was that Tommaso Buscetta actually came in and testified on behalf of the Gambino brothers - another embarrassment....

That's a really long answer to your question...lol.