January 14th, 1979, Queens, New York. Tommy DeSimone got dressed, kissed his wife goodbye, and stepped outside into the cold morning air. Two men he trusted were waiting for him in a car. He got in. He was smiling. He thought today was the day everything changed. The day he finally got what he’d been working toward his entire life. The day he became a made man.
He never came home. His body was never found, and the two men who committed the exact same crimes he did, Jimmy Burke and Henry Hill, both died of old age decades later in their beds. So, what happened? Why did Tommy die while the other two lived? That’s what we’re getting into today, and I promise you the answer goes a lot deeper than most people realize.
Most people know Tommy Wiseau from Goodfellas. Joe Pesci, 5’3, explosive, terrifying, one of the greatest screen performances in cinema history. But, the real Tommy? He was something else entirely. Born May 24th, 1950, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Crime wasn’t something Tommy stumbled into. It was practically written into his DNA.
His grandfather ran mob operations in Los Angeles. His uncle had ties to the Gambino family. By the time his family relocated to Brooklyn, Tommy was already being shaped by that world. He was a teenager when he first got introduced to Paul Vario, a powerful capo in the Lucchese crime family who ran a crew out of Brooklyn and dealing in hijackings, loan sharking, and everything in between.
Henry Hill was already in Vario’s orbit, and now Tommy was too. Here’s one thing the movie actually got wrong, though. Joe Pesci plays Tommy as this short, wiry little fireplug of a guy. The real Tommy DeSimone was over 6 ft tall and built like someone you absolutely did not want to bump into at a bar. Henry Hill said later that Pesci’s performance was 90 to 99% accurate, but the physical reality of Tommy was even more frightening.
He didn’t just have a violent temper. He had the size to back it up, and he used it constantly. His first known murder happened in 1968. Tommy was 17 years old. He shot a man named Howard Goldstein. Not over a debt, not over a territory dispute. Apparently, no real reason at all. Just violence with nowhere to go.
That would become a pattern. Fast forward to June 11th, 1970. A bar in Queens called the Suite Lounge. The kind of place where serious men go to drink seriously. That night, a Gambino family associate named William DeVino, better known on the street as Billy Bats, walked through the door. He just finished a 6-year prison stretch for narcotics.
This was his welcome home party. Billy Bats was a made man. That meant something. That meant he had the full backing and protection of the Gambino crime family behind him. He was untouchable, and he knew it. He also knew Tommy DeSimone. Years earlier, when Tommy was just a kid scratching for money, he’d worked as a shoeshine boy, Bats remembered.
And in front of a room full of people, he decided to remind him, “Go home and get your shine box.” Five words, and those five words effectively signed Tommy’s death warrant. Not just for Billy Bats, but eventually for Tommy himself. Now, understand the position Tommy was in. Bats was a made man. Tommy was just an associate.
In the rigid hierarchy of the mob, an associate doesn’t respond to a made man with violence. You take the humiliation. You swallow it. You walk away. Those are the rules. Tommy didn’t care about the rules. Henry Hill saw the fury building on Tommy’s face and managed to get him outside. They waited. The bar emptied out, and somewhere around 3:00 in the morning, they went back in.
What happened next was savage, even by mob standards. Tommy pistol-whipped Bats until he collapsed. Jimmy Burke joined in, kicking, stomping. By the time they were done, Bats was barely alive. They loaded him into a car trunk and drove toward the Connecticut border. When they stopped and opened the trunk, he was still breathing. Tommy stabbed him.
Jimmy shot him four times in the chest. Then they buried him in the dirt. Six months later, out of paranoia, they dug him up and moved the body. They thought they’d gotten away with it. They hadn’t. Here’s what’s staggering about Tommy DeSimone. After killing a made man from a rival family, which in mob terms is roughly equivalent to pulling the pin on a grenade and putting it in your pocket, he didn’t slow down. He didn’t lay low.
He kept going. Later that same year, Tommy was drinking at another bar. A low-level kid named Michael Gianco, everyone called him Spider, was working there, fetching drinks and staying out of the way. Tommy, drunk and restless, pulled out his gun and shot Spider in the foot. For fun. Because he was bored. Spider recovered. He came back to work.
Weeks later, Tommy was back. Spider made a sarcastic comment, which, honestly, takes a certain kind of nerve when you’ve already been shot by this man once. Tommy shot him three times in the chest. Spider died on the floor. Henry Hill said that was the moment he truly understood what Tommy was. Not a criminal. Not a hothead.
A genuine psychopath. Because Spider wasn’t a threat. He wasn’t competition. He wasn’t a liability. He was a nobody. And Tommy killed him over a wisecrack. Then, in 1974, Tommy murdered a Gambino-connected man named Ronald Foxy Gerote. Details on this one are hazier, but the result was the same. Another body.
Another Gambino connection. Another reason for that family to want Tommy gone. By the mid-1970s, the pattern was undeniable. Tommy DeSimone was an earner. Yes, he made money. He pulled jobs. He was capable. But, he was also a walking catastrophe. Every murder he committed without authorization was a diplomatic incident.
Every body was a bill that would eventually come due, and the Gambino family had a long memory. December 11th, 1978. JFK Airport. The Lufthansa cargo building. Six men walked in armed. When they walked out, they were carrying nearly $6 million in cash and jewelry. The largest cash robbery in American history at that point. Worth roughly $28 million today.
It was Jimmy Burke’s operation. Meticulous, precise, brilliantly executed. Tommy was part of the crew. The plan was for everyone to pocket $750,000 and disappear quietly. Instead, Jimmy Burke started making the crew disappear permanently. One by one, people connected to the heist turned up dead, shot, strangled, stuffed in trunks.
Jimmy was eliminating witnesses and keeping the money for himself. By summer of 1979, seven people tied to that robbery were dead. But, Tommy was never on Jimmy’s list. Because by the time the Lufthansa money became an issue, Tommy’s fate was already being decided by someone else entirely. January the 14th, 1979.
Someone from the Lucchese family reached out to Tommy with the news he’d been waiting years to hear. He was getting his button. He was being made. This was everything. In the mob, becoming a made man meant you were protected. It meant no one could touch you without permission from the very top. It was the finish line Tommy had been sprinting toward his whole life.
He got into a car with two men he trusted, and they drove to Queens, to a house. He walked inside. The room was empty. Not the kind of empty that precedes a ceremony. The kind of empty that means you’ve been lied to. According to Henry Hill and multiple mob sources, what happened next was quick.
Some accounts say John Gotti, then a rising force in the Gambino family, was waiting in that room. Others name Tommy Agro as one of the shooters. The specifics vary depending on who’s telling the story. What doesn’t vary is the outcome. Tommy DeSimone was shot in the head. His body was disposed of so thoroughly that it has never been found to this day.
The Lucchese family didn’t just allow it. They arranged it. They used the thing Tommy wanted most in the world as the bait to deliver him to the people who wanted him dead. So, if the Gambino family wanted justice for Billy Bats, why was Tommy the only one who paid? Jimmy Burke was standing right there when Bats died. He kicked him.
He shot him four times. He helped bury the body twice. Why did he get to die in a prison cell from natural causes in 1996? Two reasons. One practical, one political. The practical reason, Jimmy Burke was Irish. His parents were both Irish-American, which meant under the strict rules of La Cosa Nostra, he could never be a made man.
You needed full Italian heritage to take that oath. Jimmy was permanently locked out. And here’s why that mattered. The mob’s code of silence and retribution operates on a very specific set of rules. When an initiated member kills another initiated member without sanction, that’s an act requiring a response in kind.
It’s the clearest violation in the book. But, Jimmy wasn’t initiated. He existed in a gray zone. Was he guilty? Absolutely. Was he technically subject to the same consequences under mob law? That was murkier. The Gambinos could have pushed for his death, but it would have required the Lucchese family to give up one of their most profitable earners without the ironclad justification they had with Tommy.
The political reason Jimmy was simply too valuable to sacrifice. He was a money-making machine, smart, disciplined, and critically, he knew when to step back. After the Bats killing, Jimmy didn’t brag. He didn’t escalate. He let the heat settle. He was calculating where Tommy was combustible. The Lucchese family could look at Jimmy and say, “This man is manageable.
This man makes us money. This man is an asset.” Tommy was none of those things. Jimmy Burke died on April 13th, 1996 at Wende Correctional Facility, 64 years old, lung cancer. The mob never came for him. Henry Hill is in some ways the most interesting case of the three. Born June 11th, 1943, half Irish, half Italian, which, like Jimmy, meant he could never be made.
He was always an associate, always working adjacent to power rather than inside it. He was at the bar the night Bats was killed. He helped load the body. He helped with the burial. He was there for all of it. But, here’s the thing. In terms of the actual violence, Henry was the least culpable of the three. Tommy was the one who started it.
Jimmy was the one who finished it. Henry was the one who helped clean up afterward. In the eyes of the Gambino family, when they were calculating who owed them blood, Henry Hill was a footnote. You don’t go to war over a footnote. And then, in 1980, Henry was arrested on drug charges and made a decision that made the entire question academic. He flipped.
He became a federal informant. He testified against Paul Vario, against Jimmy Burke, against dozens of associates. His cooperation led to roughly 50 convictions. He entered witness protection and vanished. The mob couldn’t touch him without bringing the full weight of federal law enforcement down on themselves. Even after he was kicked out of the program in 1987 because he couldn’t stop committing crimes, which is very on brand, he lived openly. He wrote books.
He did interviews. He appeared on talk shows. The mob knew exactly where he was. They left him alone because what was the point? He’d already talked. The damage was done. Killing him wouldn’t erase a single conviction. It would only add heat. Henry Hill died on June 12th, 2012, one day after his 69th birthday, heart disease, Los Angeles.
The mob never touched him. Here’s what this whole story actually teaches us and why I think it matters beyond just being a fascinating true crime case. People think the mafia kills for revenge. They don’t. Not primarily. The mafia kills for survival. When the Gambino family demanded justice for Billy Bats and Foxy Giroti, the Lucchese family had to do a cold, unsentimental calculation.
Not, “What does Tommy deserve?” but, “What does keeping Tommy alive cost us?” And the answer was everything. Tommy had killed two Gambino-connected men without authorization. He was the kind of unpredictable, uncontrollable force that threatened peaceful relations between families.
Every time Tommy walked into a room, the risk of him doing something catastrophic walked in with him. He was a liability that had compounded interest for almost a decade. Giving Tommy up wasn’t a punishment. It was a business decision. Jimmy Burke and Henry Hill simply didn’t carry that same weight. Jimmy was profitable and controllable.
Henry was too small a player to be worth the diplomatic cost. Neither of them had created the kind of ongoing, cross-family crisis that Tommy had manufactured through nine years of reckless, self-indulgent violence. There’s also something worth saying about the message Tommy’s execution sent to every associate in every family across New York.
You cannot kill a made man on impulse. You cannot let your ego override the organization. You cannot be so dangerous that your own family has to sacrifice you to keep the peace. Tommy DeSimone thought his reputation made him powerful. In reality, his reputation made him a problem that needed solving. The more bodies he stacked up, the closer he got to the moment when the people who were supposed to protect him would decide that protecting themselves was more important.
On January 14th, 1979, Tommy DeSimone climbed into that car believing he had finally made it. He was about to join the inner circle. He was about to become untouchable. Instead, he walked into a room, realized what was happening, and that was it. No ceremony, no oath, just the consequence of nine years of proving to everyone around him that he could not be trusted with his own violence.
Jimmy Burke survived because he was smart enough to be indispensable. Henry Hill survived because he was savvy enough to run. Tommy DeSimone died because he never once stopped to ask a simple question, “What does this cost the people who protect me?” The real lesson of this story isn’t about crime. It’s about what happens when someone is so consumed by their own impulses that they can’t see the wall they’re walking straight into.
The mafia didn’t execute Tommy DeSimone out of anger. They did it because it was the only logical move left on the board. And Tommy, for all his violence and all his fury, never saw it coming.
QQ4 Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The friendship began on a live television program in November of 1986 in the 11 seconds after Bob Dylan called Keith Richards music derivative on camera. Keith Richard’s response to that assessment, one sentence said without anger, without performance, with the specific directness of a man who has nothing to prove and knows it made Bob Dylan laugh.
Then made Bob Dylan go quiet. then made Bob Dylan say two words that people who know Bob Dylan say he almost never said to anyone. This is the story of those 11 seconds and the 40 years that followed them. The program was a live music interview special broadcast on an American network on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The format was simple.
Two musicians, a host, an hour of conversation about music and the state of it. The producers had assembled the pairing of Bob Dylan and Keith Richards with the specific calculation of television producers who understand that two people with equally strong and potentially incompatible views about what music is and what it should do will produce better television than two people who agree about everything.
The calculation was correct, though not in the way the producers had anticipated. Bob Dylan was 45 years old in November of 1986. Bob Dylan had released Empire Burlesque the previous year and had been on the road for most of the intervening period as part of the True Confessions tour with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.
Bob Dylan was in November of 1986 in one of the most prolific and restless phases of a career that had consisted almost entirely of prolific and restless phases. A career that had moved through folk, rock, country, gospel, and back again, that had been declared finished at least six times by the music press, and at each time continued with the serene indifference of a river to the opinions of people standing on its banks.
Bob Dylan had been redefining what music could be. Since 1962, Bob Dylan had invented and reinvented himself so many times that reinvention had become his defining characteristic, not in the superficial sense of a performer changing costumes, but in the deeper sense of a musician who had never allowed his work to settle into a form that could be anticipated or categorized from the outside.
Bob Dylan understood influence and originality and the relationship between them better than almost anyone alive in 1986. Bob Dylan had spent 24 years thinking carefully and specifically about where music came from and where music was going and what it meant that those two things were always in constant conversation with each other.
Keith Richards was 42 years old in November of 1986. Keith Richards had been playing guitar professionally since 1962. Keith Richards had built a career on a foundation of American blues and rhythm and blues. A foundation that Keith Richards had studied with the systematic devotion of someone who understood that the tradition he was building on was not incidental to the music he was making, but essential to it.
that you could not understand what Keith Richards did without understanding where Keith Richards had come from and what Keith Richards had been listening to since he was a teenager in Dartford with American Import Records and a secondhand guitar and no teacher except the recordings themselves. Keith Richards had never pretended otherwise. Keith Richards had in fact spent considerable energy across his career making the lineage explicit, naming the artists, citing the recordings, insisting on the acknowledgement of influence that the mainstream music
industry had a long history of suppressing or ignoring or crediting to the wrong people. If anything, Keith Richards was more transparent about his sources than most musicians of his generation. Keith Richards had always said openly that the Rolling Stones came directly from the blues, that Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson and the specific tradition of the Mississippi Delta were not background influences, but foundational ones.
The music Keith Richards made was in direct and sustained conversation with that tradition, something Keith Richards considered not a limitation, but a responsibility and a form of respect. The interview had been running for 8 minutes when the host asked Bob Dylan about the current state of rock and roll.
Bob Dylan answered with the density and the indirection that characterized Bob Dylan’s responses to direct questions, turning the question over, approaching it from an unexpected angle, finding his way to what he actually thought through a series of observations that moved like a river rather than a road. Bob Dylan was not a straightforward interview subject.
Bob Dylan had been asked about rock and roll in hundreds of interviews across 24 years and had developed the habit of treating the question as an invitation to think out loud rather than a request for a prepared position. The producer Gerald Sherman said afterward that in the first 8 minutes of the interview, he had been slightly anxious, not because anything was going wrong, but because nothing was going anywhere in particular yet.
The interview had the feeling of two conversations happening simultaneously. Bob Dylan’s internal one and the external one visible to the cameras. And Gerald Sherman was not certain in those first eight minutes that the two conversations would converge into something. Bob Dylan talked about influence. Bob Dylan talked about originality.
Bob Dylan talked about the difference between music that absorbed a tradition and transformed it and music that absorbed a tradition and reproduced it. And then Bob Dylan made his assessment. And then Bob Dylan said with the precision of a man making a musical assessment rather than a personal judgment that the Rolling Stones work, and Bob Dylan was specific, naming Keith Richards as the guitarist whose approach he was discussing was derivative in a way that Bob Dylan found limiting.
Bob Dylan said it without hostility. Bob Dylan said it as a technical observation about the relationship between source material and the work that came from it. Bob Dylan said that Keith Richards played the blues the way the blues had already been played, rather than using the blues as a starting point for something that had not yet been played.
Keith Richards had been listening to this with the specific attention Keith Richards gave to things being said about music by people who knew music. Keith Richards did not interrupt. Keith Richards did not shift in his chair or display any of the visible signals of a person preparing a defensive response. Keith Richards listened to Bob Dylan’s complete observation all the way to its conclusion without interrupting and without displaying any visible signal of preparing a response.
Then Keith Richards said one sentence. The sentence was not a rebuttal. The sentence did not defend Keith Richards music or argue for its originality or challenge Bob Dylan’s characterization of what the blues meant in the context of rock and roll. The sentence was something else entirely, something that required a specific kind of confidence to say.
The confidence of a person who has spent long enough thinking about the same things as the person they are talking to that they can locate the exact point where their thinking diverges and say something useful about that point rather than simply defending their own position. The sentence acknowledged everything Bob Dylan had said, the assessment, the distinction Bob Dylan was drawing, the specific musical concern underlying the observation, and then turned it 90°.
Keith Richards took Bob Dylan’s own framework, the one Bob Dylan had used to analyze Keith Richards relationship to the blues tradition, and applied it back to Bob Dylan’s work with the same precision Bob Dylan had used to apply it to Keith Richards. Spare aimed. The sentence asked Bob Dylan something about Bob Dylan’s own music, about the relationship between Bob Dylan’s sources and Bob Dylan’s output that Bob Dylan had not been asked on television before.
The sentence did not attack. The sentence illuminated. Bob Dylan laughed. The laugh was not the polite laugh of someone responding to a joke. The laugh was the involuntary laugh of someone who has been genuinely surprised. The specific kind of surprise that a person of exceptional intelligence experiences when someone else’s intelligence exceeds their expectations.
Bob Dylan laughed for 4 seconds. Then Bob Dylan stopped laughing. Then Bob Dylan was quiet for 3 seconds in the way that Bob Dylan was quiet when Bob Dylan was thinking rather than performing thought. Then Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” The producer in the booth, a man named Gerald Sherman, who had been working in television for 14 years, said afterward that in 14 years of live television production, he had never heard Bob Dylan say those two words in a public forum.
Gerald Sherman said he had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions and had observed Bob Dylan in numerous other contexts and that you’re right was not a phrase that Bob Dylan deployed easily or often because Bob Dylan had spent 24 years being right about music in ways that other people eventually caught up with. And the experience of being right ahead of everyone else does not generally produce a man who says you’re right readily when someone else makes a point.
The host of the program, a journalist named Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said afterward that the 11 seconds between Bob Dylan’s assessment and Bob Dylan saying, “You’re right,” were the most extraordinary 11 seconds of television she had been present for. Patricia Wells said that what she witnessed in those 11 seconds was not a debate or a confrontation or a celebrity exchange of competing opinions.
Patricia Wells said what she witnessed was one musician recognizing another musician as an equal, which was in the specific context of Bob Dylan in 1986, not something that happened in public very often. The interview continued for another 42 minutes after those 11 seconds. The conversation between Bob Dylan and Keith Richards in the remaining 42 minutes was described by everyone who watched it as fundamentally different from the first 8 minutes.
The host, Patricia Wells, who had been conducting music interviews for 12 years and understood the difference between the performance of conversation and actual conversation, said that at approximately the 9-minute mark, something shifted in the studio. That the formal interview, architecture dissolved, and what replaced it was something less structured and more genuine.
Bob Dylan and Keith Richards talked about influence and originality and the blues and what it meant to build on a tradition without being consumed by it. They talked about specific recordings and specific musicians with the specificity of two people who had spent their entire adult lives thinking about these things and rarely found another person who had thought about them with equivalent care.
They talked about where music came from and where music was going and whether those two questions were actually one question or two. Patricia Wells said afterward that she had asked approximately four questions in the remaining 42 minutes because Bob Dylan and Keith Richards did not require questions. They required only a room and a camera and the shared understanding that what they were saying together was worth recording carefully.
She said it was the best interview she had ever conducted and that she had conducted the smallest part of it. After the program, Bob Dylan and Keith Richards were in the corridor outside the studio when the host Patricia Wells passed them. Patricia Wells said she did not stop because she did not want to interrupt.
She observed them for approximately 30 seconds from a distance. She said they were talking with the ease of people who had known each other for years rather than people who had met for the first time 2 hours earlier. She said that something had shifted between them during the broadcast that the broadcast had made permanent rather than temporary.
She continued down the corridor and did not look back. She said in her account of that evening that she had decided in that moment not to interrupt the conversation because some conversations are more valuable than any question a journalist might ask and that the conversation she had observed for 30 seconds in the corridor outside the studio was one of them.
She had been a music journalist for 12 years. She recognized the difference. Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have maintained their friendship across four decades. They have appeared together at various events, most significantly at the concert for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1995, where people who were present described them as inseparable for most of the evening, occupying the same corner of the backstage area and talking with the concentrated attention of people who only have a limited amount of time together and intend to use it
well. Bob Dylan has spoken about Keith Richards in interviews with the specific thoughtful care that Bob Dylan reserves for musicians whose work Bob Dylan considers genuinely important rather than merely culturally prominent. Keith Richards has spoken about Bob Dylan in similar terms with the specific respect of someone who recognizes in another person a commitment to music that goes deeper than career.
Neither Bob Dylan nor Keith Richards has made a public statement specifically about how the friendship began or about the November 1986 interview. Bob Dylan has not mentioned the 11 seconds. Keith Richards has not mentioned the sentence. The interview exists in the archive. The 11 seconds are there. The laugh is there. The two words are there.
What is also there for anyone who watches the interview from its beginning and pays attention to the shift that happens at the 9-minute mark is the specific moment when two people who thought they were appearing on a television program discovered they were actually talking to each other. What Keith Richards said in that one sentence has never been officially reported.
The people who were in the studio that evening, Gerald Sherman, Patricia Wells, the floor crew, the two camera operators, the makeup artist who was watching from the side of the set, have described the sentence in consistent terms. They have described its effect. They have described Bob Dylan’s laugh and Bob Dylan’s silence and Bob Dylan’s two words.
They have not repeated the sentence itself in the specific understanding that the sentence was said between two musicians on a television program and that its power resided in the specific context of that exchange and would not survive removal from it intact. What can be said is this. Keith Richards said something to Bob Dylan about Bob Dylan’s music that used Bob Dylan’s own observation about Keith Richards as its starting point and arrived somewhere that Bob Dylan had not anticipated.
Keith Richards turned Bob Dylan’s assessment 90° and showed Bob Dylan something about the music they had both spent their lives making that Bob Dylan recognized immediately as true. And Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” Two words said by Bob Dylan in public on live television in 1986 to Keith Richards in response to a single sentence Keith Richards had said about music.
Two words that Gerald Sherman, who had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions, said he had never heard Bob Dylan say in a public forum. Two words that Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said were the most significant two words she had heard in those 12 years. Not because of their content, but because of who said them and what it cost to say them and what it meant that Keith Richards had produced them in 11 seconds from a conversation that began with Bob Dylan calling Keith Richards’s music derivative. And Keith Richards and
Bob Dylan have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The sentence did its work in 11 seconds on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The work has been ongoing ever since. If this story moved you, subscribe and leave a comment below. Have you ever said something to someone that turned a potential disagreement into an unexpected and lasting connection? Tell us about it in the comments below.
Share this with someone who needs to be reminded that the right sentence said at the right moment can completely change the entire direction of a relationship. Ring the notification bell for more untold stories about the extraordinary human beings behind music’s greatest legends.
Disclaimer : This content may be created by AI for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real persons, events, or places is coincidental.
