An Example of How Much Dick Lehr and Gerard O’Neill Hid the Truth to Get Billy Bulger:

morrisYou have to read this article.  It was written by Dick Lehr of the Globe staff. Gerald O’Neill of the Globe staff contributed to it. It has to be one of the most dishonest articles ever written for what it leaves out. It tells us a lot about the mindset of the people who wrote it. These people also wrote a couple of books on the subject. You can just imagine how truthful they must be.

The article was written on June 14, 1998. It talks about a bribe that FBI Supervisory Agent John Morris admitted taking. Morris does not recall the date but did recall the incident to which it was related. It happened shortly after he told Whitey and Stevie Flemmi that his unit was going to do a wiretap on John Baharian. In the context of his testimony it was clear to me he connected the payment to his tipping them off about that.

One of Morris’s lawyers, according to the article, said it happened “in late 1986.” It seemed strange the lawyer would know the date and not his client.

It was important to these writers to tie this in to the investigation of 75 State Street so that they could suggest that Whitey gave him the money as a bribe to help his brother. The first sentence in the article reads: “As an  FBI supervisor, John Morris was overseeing an investigation of then – Senate President William M. Bulger in 1986 when a gift arrived from the politician’s big brother, gangster James J. ‘Whitey’ Bulger.”  The clear intent of the article is to smear Bill Bulger which they had been continuously doing since 1988.

There is one huge thing that Lehr and O’Neill fail to mention in their article. It is that they knew the gift had nothing to do with Bill Bulger but they wanted to lie about it. They did so by connecting them in one sentence.

They knew that because FBI Supervisor John Morris had been feeding them information since before 1988. He was an informer to the Globe who violated one of the FBI’s most sacred rules by revealing to it that Whitey was an informant. He continued to provide them information over the years.

At the John Connolly trial in 2002 he would testify that Gerry O’Neill was his friend and that “when the investigation into the sale of 75 State Street that involved Senate President William Bulger was ongoing I told the Globe about it.” When asked by FBI agents whether he had done so he lied.

In the Whitey Bulger trial he would tell how he kept O’Neill apprised of the 75 Street investigation as it was occurring. He testified that after he told O’Neill there was nothing to be found against Bill Bulger O’Neill urged him not to stop the investigation but to continue it.

There was nothing about the 75 State Street investigation that the Globe did not know because Morris was feeding them information about what he was doing. Morris was another Mark Felt,a deep throat who revealed FBI secrets to a newspaper. I suppose we could call him Boston’s Dirty Throat.

Morris conducted the investigation of Bulger so that he could please his friends at the Globe. Morris knew the five thousand dollars was for Baharian. His litany of events leading up to the payment is he had a dinner party with Whitey, Stevie and Connolly where he tipped them off about the Baharian wiretap. Connolly refused to do this. Then at the next dinner party shortly after that Whitey gave him the $5,000 after Connolly and Stevie left the room .

Nowhere in the article does Lehr correctly identify who Morris is. There is no mention he had been feeding them information on the matter, or that he was their informant and their friend. In the article they would label Morris ”a corrupt FBI superivisor” but they had no problem over the years using his information and basing their books on what he told them.

Keep this in mind when you consider these matters. Lehr and O’Neill were intent on destroying Bill Bulger. Forget that and you miss the real truth behind the Whitey saga.

 

19 thoughts on “An Example of How Much Dick Lehr and Gerard O’Neill Hid the Truth to Get Billy Bulger:

  1. Lehr and Oneill were going to get their Pulitzer by doing whatever was necessary to get William Bulger for his alleged ties to 75 State St. That their efforts caused this investigation to proceed for as long as it did is shameful.
    P

  2. Do you really believe that Bulger had nothing to do with 75 State Street, and just “happened” to split the proceeds 50-50 with Finnerty?
    Do you think there was anything suspicious about Bulger’s attempt to get his brother’s FBI handler a job as Boston Police Commissioner? Even if he wasn’t aware of the exact relationship, Bulger knew his brother was quite likely under investigation by the FBI. Do you think it is appropriate for him to be trying to do favors for FBI agents?
    Why would Lehr and O’Neill not be justified to be suspicious of Bulger?

    1. I believe what the U.S. attorney and the Attorney General believe when they found no reason to proceed against Bulger since there was nothing to go forward on. I believe there is no crime for splitting a fee with a partner. If there was attempt to help anyone it was not when that individual was with the FBI. Lehr and Oneill have every right to have reasonable suspicion.And they have every obligation to print the truth.

    2. Bob:

      Your animus towards Bill Bulger based on believing the lies that have been put out about him stuns me. Do you for one second think – especially in light of all the people in public life indicted by the Boston U.S. attorney that had there been a smell of criminality about any of his actions he would not have been prosecuted for it?

      There were four separated investigations of 75 State Street. The last one was conducted by the man who is now the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court a man of utmost integrity. Do you think he was interested in clearing Bill Bulger if there was any information that he was involved in criminal activity. 75 State Street was created by Lehr and O’Neill and was full of absurd conclusions tot he point they blamed the guy they wwere working with, Morris, for not doing enough.

      When Bill Bulger sought to have Connolly appointed Boston Police Commissioner he was looked upon all who knew him as a man of integrity who had worked in the FBI and had a stellar record there. There is no evidence, none, that Bill knew Connolly was his brother’s handler. Not even the guangsters testified to that outside of Martorano saying Whitey said that Connolly said that Billy said which was a total fabrication backed up by none of the other rats. Where is your evidence he knew Agent Connolly was his brother’s handler.

      How would Bill know his brother was under investigation by the FBI? Who would have told him? Stop indulging in fantasies.

      What favors did Bill do for FBI agents? Did he get them jobs? If he did what were the circumstances of doing it. If a university or business was looking for someone in security and Bill recommended and FBI agent that certainly would be fine by me. I know I recommended cops for jobs in the private sector after they retired because I thought they were good cops who would do a good job in the position they applied for? Obviously if a guy comes to you and asks for help in getting a job you do it unless you live in some strange world that has not yet existed.

      Lehr and O’Neill had no basis to think Bill Bulger did anything wrong. They were told by their buddy Morris an FBI supervisor he did nothing wrong. They knew that was the case yet they write, as I showed in my post, scurrilous things suggesting against the facts they knew that he did. You need a basis to be suspicious. They had none.

      at was not i

      1. To provide support for DOJ cover stories, the US Attorney and DOJ were to deploy PsyOperator security contractors for CIA/DoD JIOWC to conduct domestic Information Operations propaganda campaigns.

        These IOs are usually restricted to overseas operations in support of regime change, i.e., Capstone. One of the then prominent companies were Strategic Alternative Influence (SAI), San Diego.

        1. Bruce:

          The FBI has been engaged in something similar to that for years. It is why it can get away with letting Clinton off the hook with a specious presentation of legal reasoning.

      2. Do you really want to use the word animus, after running posts two days in a row entitled the “Clinton Sleaze Factor?” And previously running a post where you use the name “Viper Lady” to describe Mrs Clinton? And use it over and over, like an eight-year old bully in a playground.
        Matt, do you really want to talk about “evidence” when the entire basis for you two posts about “Clinton Sleaze” is the fact that Bill Clinton was alone with the Attorney General for a few minutes?
        Senator Bulger may or may not have known the exact relationship between his brother and the FBI, but there is testimony that was at Mrs Flemmi’s house when both his brother and FBI agents were there.

        1. Bab:

          I do not hide my animus toward the Clintons. I think they are bad for America. My point about the Clinton Sleaze was about the meeting but it also included the history of the Clintons and their lies and the lives they have ruined and the criminals with which they have associated.

      3. You ask, ” Where is your evidence he knew Agent Connolly was his brother’s handler.”
        From the Congressional Report, “James Ring, former Supervisor for the Organized Crime Squad, testified that William Bulger walked in on a dinner at Mrs. Flemmi’s house. The dinner was attended by Ring, Connolly, James “Whitey” Bulger, and Flemmi.”

        1. Bob:

          You have to believe Ring on that story. Others denied it ever happened. Ring was the supervisor who brought about the investigation of John Naimovich for leaking things to the Mafia. When they discovered the leak was coming from a secretary in the FBI office they decided to continue the investigation of Naimovich anyway. They would do a tap on a local bookie, have him testify under threat of losing his home and assets that he gave Naimovich a couple of hundred dollars. they would indict Naimovich who just happened to be the most effective state trooper against organized crime gambling groups and as we know that meant Whitey. Naimovich was acquitted but he was put out of action. Ring was identified by Weeks as “Pipe” one of the agents that received gifts from Whitey. He denied that. You can decide how much you want to believe Ring but he was scrambling for his life knowing he had been named as a gift recipient, he had wrongly set up Naimovich, and he was willing to say anything to satisfy the prosecutors who were hot after Billy. Of course, there is no independent report of this anywhere in the FBI files that I have seen.

          1. Sorry Matt, you asked for evidence and I cited sworn testimony. You can decide not to believe it, but you can’t pretend it doesn’t exist.
            Contrast it with your “evidence” that something illegal happened between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch. (Lynch, like the SJC justice you mentioned has never had her integrity questioned.) All you have is some fantasy about spousal immunity and secret messages.
            Contrast it also with your casual smear of Olga Davis, based on hearsay from an anonymous source.

          2. Bob:

            I did not ask for evidence. I said there was no evidence Bill knew Connolly was Whitey’s handler. You mention a meeting that took place when Agent Ring said Bill walked in to Martorano’s mother’s house when Connolly, he, Whitey and Stevie were there. I pointed out that others said that never happened and I had trouble believing Ring because he was jammed in trying to save his own butt like the other criminals. You come back at that again saying it is evidence. Even if you believe Ring it is not evidence that Bill knew Connolly was Whitey’s handler. All it shows is Bill saw Whitey and Connolly together at the house along with other FBI agents. Where is there evidence he knew Connolly was Whitey’s handler?

            No one questioned Lynch’s integrity as you suggest I did. I said she was put on the spot by sleaze Bill Clinton who went out of his way to go on her plane and meet with her five days before her people were to question his wife. You want to believe it was a social meeting feel free. I happen to think it was the usual Clinton method of compromising people.

            Now tell me about the smear of Olga Davis. By the way I notice you have totally walked away from denigrating Bill Bulger since you were shown to be completely wrong in your assertions about him.

    1. You don’t have to believe in Harold Brown’s integrity to think that there was something fishy about 75 State Street.
      It is hard to escape the conclusion that Brown thought he was buying influence when he hired Thomas Finnerty. From what I’ve seen in the public record, there was nothing in Finnerty’s background to suggest that he was especially qualified to get a major real estate project approved by the BRA.
      The question is why Brown thought this. There are all kinds of possibilities. Brown could have imagined it; he could have received bad advice, or conceivably, someone could have “extorted” him–ie. told him, hire the right law firm or no project.
      There is really no way of knowing. All a reasonable investigator can do is to look at the circumstances of the deal. As Matt points out, it’s no crime for Finnerty to split the fee with his partner, but it does tend to support Brown’s version, ie that Finnerty was selling influence with the BRA board ( you should check out who was on the board at that time).
      You can disagree with me, but I don’t find Senator Bulger’s explanation of why he gave back the money very credible. Brown’s reputation was as a bad landlord. But he had sophisticated PR people working for him, and he got as much good publicity as bad. I don’t think it was Brown, as a “remote source” that was a problem.

      1. Bob:

        I never said that the money Bill Bulger received was a fee split from his partner Finnerty.

        Brown filed an affidavit that Bulger had nothing to do with his deal with Finnerty. You choose to disbelieve it but imply that somehow he did.

        You write that Brown thought he was buying influence. Did you ever hear of K Street in Washington, DC? What do you think those people are being paid for? All lobbyists are hired for the influence they can bring on behalf of the person hiring them. Is that “fishy?”

        What do you know about Finnerty’s background? Did you know he was a former DA? Did you know he was well-like by many in public service in the city and the state? Did you know what the terms of his contract were? Are you aware that Brown needed someone who could make sure the project ran on schedule and that all the permits he needed were given swiftly. Brown was a shrewd business man. He was not a guy who could be extorted as you have suggested in the past.

        You suggest Brown: “could have received bad advice, or conceivably, someone could have “extorted” him–ie. told him, hire the right law firm or no project.” You do not really believe a man of Brown’s power was subject to such a thing do you? What Brown did was of his own free will as he says in his affidavit. What he did was make an assessment of the best way to get his project through and that was to hire a guy who knew his way around. Eddie McCormick made his living knowing how to get things done. None of it was criminal. Lobbyists do the same thing. Brown figured Finnerty could do for him what others have done for others without anyone thinking it was fishy.

        I suggest you get over the poison that has been shoved into your brain by those who hate Bill Bulger. Brown was a tough guy and clever business man. He knew what he wanted and Finnerty gave him it. Read the article that Harrow referred to and see that there were five investigations of this matter and all concluded there was no criminal activity. You want to follow along with the discredited filing by the attorneys connected with Dershowitz who alleged there was extortion without a scintilla of proof. All I can say is you are not alone because that became the common theme which many others believe.

      2. Bob,
        Looks like the “remote source” that was the problem was the Globe.

        And according to testimony I just read, ….Bulger had just won the “Quirk” case and a $350,000 fee, due the firm, was late. He then, innocently asks his friend, law associate and former partner to front him some money. Later, learning the source of it was Brown, he decided to give it back to avoid the appearance of impropriety, something quite natural for a man in his position.

        https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108hhrg89004/html/CHRG-108hhrg89004.htm

    2. Tom:

      Thanks for that. I was amazed at the work that went into that article. It is along the lines I have been writing about but the writing there is superb and telling and I wish I could have presented it like that. I’ll use it in the future.

  3. There is strong evidence to suggest
    FBI Assistant Director Mark Felt
    blew the whistle on Watergate when
    Nixon passed over him to
    replace J Edgar Hoover when Hoover died.

    1. MS:

      Felt was a man with a grudge and a mission. He spent his career in the FBI sucking up to J. Edgar Hoover undermining other people and when he expected that his skulldrugery would get him the top spot he turned on Nixon and the FBI and undermined both of them. He became a hero to the media. Another man like John Morris.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *