Boeri to prove Whitey was an informant said the information that Tommy King left Boston after Buddy Leonard was murdered could only have come from Whitey. The background of this is that King and Leonard were members of the Mullins gang that posed a threat to Whitey. He killed King and then Leonard but put Leonard in the trunk of King’s car where it was found. He buried King at Tenean Beach. To throw the suspicion off himself he suggested to Connolly that King killed Leonard and has fled from the city.
That brings me to another discussion that I will not get into at this time. What is the definition of an informant? Is it as Kelly suggests giving information to an FBI agent? Is one an informant if he is providing false information? Or does it involve more, that the person have to give information that will lead to evidence against others.
Bob Bloom jumped in and said it really didn’t matter if Whitey was an informant. He was a great manipulator and business man. He ran organized crime in Boston for 25 years and corrupted the FBI here. Again we find the exaggeration of Whitey’s scope and dealings and there is no mention that the TEI program is behind all that occurred.
Berlinger said the issue didn’t matter to him but Whitey should have explained what he was doing. Kelly said it didn’t matter to guilt or innocence; he said also whether the information is good or bad does not alter the person’s status as being an informant.
The moderator asked why they let Whitey continue. Boeri said they wanted him to succeed. Kelly said they wanted to advance their careers having a TEI and taking money on the side. Kelly is convinced Connolly took money but all he has in support of this. There’s been no one who witnessed Connolly taking a dime who has testified. It is all second or third hand hearsay. What evidence there has been of money going from Whitey to others is from Morris who told of Whitey giving him five grand. Whitey did this by lingering behind after Connolly and Flemmi had left the room. Why the secrecy if Connolly was on the take? Kelly doesn’t understand how that is the problem with all of this since he’s wedded to the gangsters. He’s only seeing the trees.
Moderator King asked about O’Sullivan. Kelly defended the former prosecutor. Then he too goes over the edge saying the corruption was not limited to a few but evidence showed a lot of corruption but they were limited by the burden of proof or rules of evidence. That’s pretty bogus. If there is a lot of corruption it can be dealt with internally by other than criminal prosecutions. Retirement pay can be withheld, people can be demoted, and the like. I don’t believe Kelly means to say that if the DOJ finds extensive corruption among its attorneys if it can’t prosecute them it lets them continue in their jobs.
The truth is there was little corruption which again like the word informant is quite vague. If as Kelly said there was a lot of corruption where was it? What was done about it? Where is the report Durham was supposed to file to tell us about it? No one seems to ask perhaps because it fits into the theory of everyone in this saga who want to believe there was widespread corruption and that it was limited to Boston.
Kelly then touched upon the topic of Whitey having an immunity deal. He denied it. Carney leaped in awaiting the opportunity and in his Carney=esque manner complained that the judge by denying Whitey the opportunity to bring it up denied him his Constitutional rights. We’ll soon know more about that after the Court of Appeals comes down with its decision.
It was then Carney made the outrageous statement that Whitey had 35 agents on his payroll which allowed him to run his criminal operation for 25 years he ran his criminal operation without being interfered with. This he said shows that he had immunity. I’d suggest it shows the opposite. He wouldn’t have needed so many agents on his payroll if he had immunity. Carney went on to say that Whitey would testify that he had immunity.