Don’t Embarrass The Family The Trial Of Whitey Bulger’s Hander Is Published: An Explanation of Its History and Content

I finally published my book about the Trial of Whitey Bulger’s handler on Amazon called “Don’t Embarrass The Family”.  It costs $20.00 for the hard copy and $7.50 for the Kindle edition. I had no idea it would cost that much for the hard copy but I guess Amazon wants to get its pint of blood for doing all the publishing work. I can’t blame them because they made it easy for me on Createspace, which will do all the printing, etc.

I wrote the book almost ten years ago. It consisted of two parts: the trial itself which flows nicely because the testimony of each witness was similar on direct and cross-examination so it was easy to combine the testimony into a smooth whole. I also offer comment to make the evidence more understandable, or at least to indicate how I understood it. I also tell of the atmosphere in the court and the conversations I had with John Connolly and others.

The other part was the appendix where I spell out a lot of my thoughts about what was happening at the time that I knew about in areas that came up in the trial. This includes my take on Lancaster Street, Billy Bulger, Jeremiah O’Sullivan, Myles Connor, the FBI, and John Connolly.

I sat on the book going back to it from time to time never really being comfortable with what I had written. I needed time to think about things and to talk to people. I needed to read other books and watch other things happen that impacted some of the people. Even then I sat on it.

When Whitey was arrested in the summer of 2011, I was disappointed with all the news that came out.  It seemed that few people remembered what really occurred. That prompted me to go back at the book again. I left the first section alone for the most part. I dealt mostly with the appendix until I finally felt comfortable about what I had written.

It is a book that may appeal to the small audience of those who really want to understand the issues. They will have the opportunity to read the testimony of all the major witnesses who will testify against Whitey, except Steven Flemmi, his partner, who had not turned state’s evidence when John Connolly was put to trial in 2002. They will understand the testimony in the light of the ongoing happenings at the time and in light of events that predated the trial. Those who take the time to read it will understand as much, if not more, than any other person who is interested in the trial of Whitey Bulger outside of the legal teams.

There are many people who support John Connolly who don’t have an idea what evidence the government used against him. There are many people, law students too, who could benefit from seeing how the evidence unfolded from the opening statements of counsel to their final argument. They can decide whether they would return the same jury verdict as the jury in the courtroom. They can see how the events in the courtroom were reported in the media and how even when wrong become the gospel truth.

A reader will understand why the so-called corrupt FBI agent John Connolly was acquitted on all counts that involved any violence; will get a sense why the jury disbelieved most of the gangster evidence; and will see that except for one instance, Connolly was convicted of foolish things he did after he retired from the FBI under the misguided notion that he still owed some allegiance to Steven Flemmi, who, as all gangsters do, turned against him when he couldn’t extract himself from the charges that were pending against him.

There’s much more but what is best about it is the reader is provided with the facts and is let free to make his or her own determination. I’m not sure who’ll agree with me. I have three brothers who I’ll never convince. Whether you agree with me or not, the purpose in writing the book is so that those with a real interest in the upcoming trial of Whitey Bulger will be able to set aside the chaff and concentrate on what is important not only with respect to Whitey but with our whole system of justice including the operations of the FBI.

The books provides the opening and closing statements and the testimony of the witnesses as it occurred without change.  I add my two cents where I see it appropriate but let the witnesses and lawyers speak for themselves. The more we are aware of what is going on in the corridors of power, the better we will be able to speak out against the natural tendencies of the government to infringe on our rights. The Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution by our forefathers who knew of the tendencies of those in power to accrete  more power.

John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902), more familiarly known as Lord Acton reminds us: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”

If you read Don’t Embarrass The Family, I hope you enjoy it and come away with a better understanding of the matters surrounding Whitey Bulger and a desire to remain alert to the ongoing encroachments on our liberties..


10 replies on “Don’t Embarrass The Family The Trial Of Whitey Bulger’s Hander Is Published: An Explanation of Its History and Content”

  1. Excellent info, I look forward to reading your book.

    The problem with our system is exactly as you point out; absolute immunity for prosecutors. They do what they do for political reasons and send innocent people to prison with no fear of any retaliation for their actions. The CIA agents case is a travesty, he was undercover for our government then our government incarcerates him for crimes he never committed all the while knowing the truth!

    If the public only paid attention these misscarriages of justice might end, maybe.

    1. I agree. We see only the glaring miscarriages but what else is going on we have to wonder. I believe most prosecutors at every level are honest and trying to do a good job. There seem to be a few who have the “win at all costs” gangster mentality that somehow this is a pick up basket ball game. No one likes to lose but it is better to lose doing it right than to win doing things wrong. AG Holder said the goal is not to win but to do justice. As far as absolute immunity I think it has to exist, but there should be some exception to it similar along the line that is used to through out a case when there is outrageous government activities as we see in the cases Patty referred to.

  2. Sorry to clutter up your blog, but here are 4 cases illustrating the absolute impunity with which federal prosecutors ply their evil with impunity. They are brought to your attention as an FYI.

    “There is no greater tyranny….”

    Case: U.S. v. Wilson

    Former CIA officer Edwin P. Wilson spent 20 years in prison for smuggling tons of plastic explosives to Libya. At his 1983 trial, Wilson said he was still working for the CIA when the shipments were made. The government said that the CIA had no contacts with him at the time. Wilson sought to vacate his conviction after his lawyers learned that CIA officials and the prosecutors had misled the court and that, in fact, there were more than 80 contacts between Wilson and the CIA.
    Outcome: In 2003, a federal judge threw out Wilson’s conviction and blasted both the CIA and the Justice Department, writing that “in the course of American justice, one would have to work hard to conceive of a more fundamentally unfair process. .. than the fabrication of false data by the government, under oath by a government official, presented knowingly by the prosecutor in the courtroom with express approval of his superiors in Washington.” Wilson was released from prison in 2004 and now, at 82, rents a room from his brother in Seattle. “Even McDonald’s wouldn’t hire me,” he said. He tried to sue the government, but the suit was dismissed because of the prosecutors’ immunity. “I lost my family, lost my property. But more important, I lost my good name,” Wilson said.

    Case: U.S. v. Eastridge
    Defendants Joseph Wayne Eastridge and Joseph Sousa, both members of a white motorcycle gang, were convicted in the 1974 slaying of a black man outside a Washington, D.C., bar. Eastridge served 29 years in prison, Sousa 20 years. In 2005, a U.S. District Court threw out their convictions, in part because prosecutors had failed to turn over evidence that could have implicated other men in the crime.
    Outcome: The federal court ultimately exonerated both Eastridge and Sousa, saying: “Based on the full record, no reasonable juror would now find petitioners guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court finds that this is the rare case in which petitioners can prove their ‘actual innocence’ of the crime as well as violations of their constitutional rights.” They sued the prosecutors, but a court threw out their lawsuit because of the prosecutors’ absolute immunity. The only legal avenue left open is a pending U.S. Court of Federal Claims lawsuit against the government. Filed in January, the lawsuit seeks payment under a statute enacted by Congress 10 years ago to compensate those who were wrongly imprisoned. The law pays up to $50,000 per year of imprisonment. The case is scheduled for trial in January 2011.

    Case: U.S. v. Sterba
    James Sterba, a bus driver, was charged with soliciting a minor online for a sexual encounter. A U.S. District Court in Florida dismissed the charges against him because prosecutor Karen Schmid Cox allowed a government informant to lie about her identity in court, concealng her criminal history. Defense attorneys discovered that the informant, who had pretended to be a 13-year-old girl online, had been convicted earlier of filing a false police report and making false statements in court. The trial judge said the informant had “severe credibility problems” and that Cox “wanted the defense to know none of this.”
    Outcome: Sterba attempted to sue Cox and others for violating his rights, but the district court dismissed the case against her, finding she was protected by absolute immunity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the lower court. In 2001, the Florida Supreme Court ordered that Cox’s law license be suspended for a year because of misconduct. Cox now works for a law firm in Florida.

    Case: U.S. v. Koubriti

    The Justice Department in 2004 asked a U.S. District Court in Michigan to dismiss terrorism charges against Karim Koubriti and other defendants who had been convicted in the nation’s first terrorism case after 9/11. The court did so, ruling that “at critical junctures and on critical issues” the prosecution failed to turn over to the defense evidence that pointed to the defendants’ innocence. “The prosecution materially misled the court, the jury and the defense as to the nature, character and complexion of critical evidence.”
    Outcome: The chief prosecutor,Richard Convertino, was indicted in 2006 for concealing evidence and allowing witnesses to lie. A jury acquitted Convertino, who remains a member in good standing of the Michigan bar. Koubriti attempted to sue Convertino over the misconduct, but the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in February 2010 that the prosecutor was protected by absolute immunity. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the case.

    1. Patty, you’re not cluttering. You comments are good and necessary. The cases you write about are well hidden from public knowledge. So maybe you’ve answered the question you posed to me earlier as to why Wyshak does what he does — there is no downside to it. Him having absolute immunity gives him a free pass to whatever he wishes to do. So even if he knows his witnesses are committing perjury he can put them on the stand since nothing will ever happen to him. There’s also the case of Alaska Representative Ted Stevens who was in the same boat as the defendants you refer to above. What I don’t understand is why a prosecutor would want to do anything that would put a person in jail unless it was crystal clear the person was guilty. If you put the wrong person in jail, the real culprit is still wandering the streets.
      I’m intrigued by your suggestion that Pat Nee is a top echelon informant; that might be something that Carney will want to pursue. I think in the case against Whitey it is particularly material. Do you think to get around this Wyshak will try to make a deal with Conley, the Suffolk DA to give Nee, if he’s the shooter, immunity? That would really mean you could get away with murdering people if you become a federal informant. Stay in touch and thanks for writing.

  3. I just saw the video of the man who witnessed the Halloran and Donahue murder on Northern Ave. He describes the two men in he car: one with “black hair, short”; the other with “glasses, light brown, dirty blonde hair.” NO SKI MASK! Putting the lie to Weeks’ account. He then said he was shown a list of suspects and pressured by the FBI to identify Jimmy Flynn, which he apparently refused to do. I stopped the video and took down the names of suspects numbered 1 to 7 which appeared on the screen. Here are the names 1. James Murphy 2. Steve Flemmi 3. Joey Bonaventura 4. Jimmy Melvin 5. Tommy Nee 6. Pat Nee and 7. James Mantville. Did the reporter say the list contained 15 names? I’m sure they showed him mug shots. the reporter says, “conspicuously absent” from the list was the name James Whitey Bulger.

    1. Bill, I hope to post on that issue soon. I heard about it from
      Patty” who wrote a comment to me yesterday which I recommend that you read as well as my response to it. Thanks for keeping me up to date.

    2. I heard of the video from “Patty” as I mentioned. It doesn’t surprise me. I too copied down the names of the people. I think the reporter said there were just 7 names. Those are the names you mentioned. I’m not sure who was showing the pictures. Patty indicated and FBI report surfaced about the matter but the papers the reporter was holding did not seem like FBI report papers. I didn’t recognize Joey Bonaventura. James Murphy or Tommy Nee. Pat Nee I’ve suggested may be the person in the back because in his book he was profuse in his praise of Weeks. Mantville and Melvin are well known (Melvin was just arrested with Howie)
      The kids in the first grade at the J.L. Motley would figure out that Weeks was lying about who was in the back of the car. Even if the guy was wearing a ski mask he’d have talked to him over and over again about the hit. Weeks pretends Whitey picked up Crazy Red who was hanging outside the South Boston Savings bank wearing a ski mask and asked him to come and ride with him over to Northern Ave because he needed to kill someone. Weeks whole depiction of Whitey as being very cautious “the idea behind committing a crime is to get away with it” would mean the person in the back seat was a close friend of Whitey and Weeks who was well known to him. The feds letting him pass on that put him on the stand to lie since he did not tell “the whole truth.” I suggest that is a matter of grave concern especially since they are using paid witnesses.

      1. Matt, when Weeks testified the back seat shooter was wearing a ski mask, he didn’t just violate the duty to tell the “whole truth”. Weeks knowingly lied about a material fact in John Connolly’s trial. Furthermore, his lie obstructed justice by withholding that identity.

        Wyshak HAD to know Weeks was committing perjury. In fact, Wyshak would have had to know in advance that Weeks was going to lie because Wyshak knew from the report there was no ski mask.

        1. Why would Weeks risk his immunity deal and a life in prison to lie about the identity of this man?

        2. Why would Wyshak agreeably suborn this perjury on this particular point…. a murderer’s identity?

        The answer to both questions is the same: THE BACKSEAT SHOOTER IS CURRENTLY A TOP ECHELON INFORMANT. Of course the shooter was Pat Nee. Everybody knows that. What everyone may not know is that Pat Nee now runs all the rackets in South Boston and beyond with absolute protection from the federal government. In other words, federal law enforcement today is leaving an informant on the street, whom they know killed at least five men, so he can run the rackets and provide information about the LCN and others. Furthermore, they subporned perjury in Connolly’s trial, among others, just to protect this informant, Nee.


        There is substantial evidence in the public realm that Nee is a TE Informant. Much of that info can be provided in a response here.


        1. Thanks for writing Patty. You made me rethink the evidence at the Connolly trial — I initially didn’t think the ID of the guy in the back was a material fact — now I recognize you are right. Connolly was charged with obstruction of justice by tipping off Whitey that Halloran was an informant which led to his murder. The man in the back seat would have material evidence on that issue, what did Whitey tell him, etc. Connolly’s counsel should not have been deceived. I wonder did the feds withhold any files surrounding that shooting; or whether the Boston police or state police have those files.
          Here’s what we know, the witness saw the guy in back did not have a ski mask on. Weeks lied when he said that. The reason for lying was to cover up the identity of the person who must be alive. That information was put into a police report. The witness was shown pictures. We don’t know if the prosecutors knew about it. If they didn’t, aside from being negligent, they now are obligated to charge Weeks with a perjury rap. (Weeks lied to them giving them evidence in the Connolly trial, he failed a polygraph, then gave another story. I also suggest in my book he lies about his meeting with Connolly that gave the feds the act within the statute of limitation to bring the RICO charges.) Weeks from what I can tell is a very smart guy. He’d not be risking anything unless he’s had the OK from the prosecutor to lie. If that is shown, the prosecutor should be losing his ticket and facing criminal charges for suborning perjury. Wyshak’s reasoning I can’t figure. Maybe he’s been in the job too long and thinks the goal is to win the case at all costs rather than insuring the truth comes out.
          I suggested to someone else that a first grader at the Michael J. Perkins school would know Weeks was lying. Imagine someone saying they went in to rob a bank with two other guys but one wore a mask and I didn’t know who he was. It really is absurd.
          I would love to be able to verify that Pat Nee is a top echelon informant. Reading his book it seemed to me he got a slap on the hand for his involvement in running the guns to Ireland. I have to read his book again for clues. I’d love to see any evidence on Nee being top echelon. You are absolutely right, if that is the case it is worse than the Connolly/Whitey situation. No one had evidence Whitey killed anyone, although it was suspected, until 1997; here if Nee is the guy in the back seat the FBI and Wyshak knows Nee is a murderer and refuses to act on the information. I agree about Connolly. He’s going to die in jail unless he gets some people interested in him. His lawyers from what I can see are not doing much and I think they are deceiving Connolly into what he should be doing. I have my reasons for not particularly liking the guy but I feel bad for him and think he should get the help to be freed.

  4. Here’s a copy of an email I received from our first cousin, Jim A, as distinguished from cousins Jim C or Jim R. He, as well as your three brothers, knew John Connolly well and we all know him as an honorable, decent man who was twice railroaded by the Feds. One correction: there are many , many things—most things—-that you, your brothers and cousins see “eye to eye” and agree on. As Jim says, Semper Fi, and keep up the good work. We’ve ordered the book and look forward to reading it:
    Here’s Jim’s email and a link your readers may be interested in:

    HI Bill, i’m currently reading matt’s book on kindle, can’t put it down. i came across this news item on fox, something i didn’t know about. what’s matt’s e-mail ? send this along to him but i suppose he’s already on top of it. semper fi, cousin jimambros

Comments are closed.