Early Morning Post: July 31,2013: A Crack In The Wall of Certainty


I’m coming out of the courthouse yesterday and I bump into this guy who knows a ton about what is going on in the case. He’s one of the few guys I really respect. He’s an independent thinker. We disagree on some pretty important things but like with the people who come to this blog we discuss them in an open  manner without rancor and remain friendly.

He says “Whitey’s not going to testify.”

I’m surprised because immediately prior to him saying that I was walking down the steps from the second floor to the lobby and I experienced the first shadow of a doubt pass over my mind about whether he would testify. The first thing I hear as I’m trying to get out from under the shadow was his voice as if he was reading my thoughts.

I said smilingly: “You’re wrong again. It’s a lock,” but I didn’t have the conviction that I had up until minute before.

He frowned saying: “Didn’t you see the coverage of Fitzpatrick?” I knew what he was referring to, it was all one-sided.

“Why would Whitey want his story to be all twisted like that?”

He had a point. Much of the media is so maniacally one sided that with Fitzpatrick it was reporting the prosecutor’s questions without the defendant’s answers as if the questions were evidence. The public was getting a skewed picture.

I said, thinking of my suggestion that he testify to his story and return to the defendant’s chair and refuse to answer questions, “there’s a way to avoid what happened to Fitzpatrick.”

He’s quick – so he fired back, “you mean he’ll do what Weeks told me he would do, tell Wyshak “F.U.” whenever he asks a question?”

I replied, “something like that.”

He said: “won’t work. The media will still write the story the way it wants – it won’t need the cross — every assertion Whitey makes they will editorialize about it and give the other side – you’ll read something like ‘Whitey denied he was an informant but the overwhelming evidence showed that he was.’ None of Whitey’s favorable evidence will be reported but all the government’s negative stuff will be repeated over and over.”

I knew he was right. I’ve watched it happen. Yet in rebuttal I said, “yeah, that’s a chance he has to take but he’s got to tell his side of the story. This is about his legend. I’ve said that.”

He said, “Didn’t you post in your blog to him telling him that when testifies “the media will mock your every answer “ and said he would be “a laughing stock.:”

I admitted it: “I did say something like that. But then I wrote about what he wanted – that he’s not an informant and didn’t kill the women.”

“Maybe he figured your first suggestion was best and he’s come around to your way of thinking.”

Then he paused and looked around as if to see if anyone was in ear shot. He said, looking me square in the eyes, “Don’t you know what this trial is all about?”

I said, “Come on, Come on” indicating I hope he wasn’t serious. How could he think I didn’t know what it was about. Hell I’d been writing about it for over a year.

“From Whitey’s perspective, not the government’s,” he said.

“What do you mean?” I asked perplexed.

I think you’ve missed it,”  he said.

I doubt it,” I replied a little defensively and feeling a little stupid.

“You’ve been talking about figuring it out all along. You said you had to study defense counsel’s cross- examination to figure it out. Did you do it?”

“Not really,” I said, “I forgot about doing it.”

“Don’t you think that’d give you a clue to whether Whitey will testify?”

“Wait,” I said, “now that you mention it I did look at some of it. I remember they were staying away from all the murders and that was one of the reasons I thought he would take the stand.”

“Your focus was too narrow, you should have broadened it. If you did you’d see that the cross was not for the purpose of having the jury acquit Whitey – he knows he doesn’t have a chance, in fact his lawyer conceded as much in his opening – the cross was done to fill in the gaps in the book he is writing.”

“He’s writing a book?”

“Absolutely, as you’d say it’s a lock.”

“They won’t let him – the Bureau of Prisons won’t let him get his story out.”

“It’s too late, he’s just about got it done, by the time all this is over Carney and Brennan will have gotten him everything he needs to fill out his tale.”

“So you’re telling me the trial was all about getting information for his book and the book will be his legacy,?

“Can you think of anything better?”

“BOP won’t let him publish it.”

“Won’t matter, he won’t be the author. Someone in his family will.”


“No, he’s got a big family – lots of nephews and nieces – all quite well-educated and skilled. They’ll write it. It’ll be the only book worth while that comes out of the trial.”

All I could say was, “Even better than Fitzpatrick’s planned book.”

He laughed and said he had to go. So did I. I had to sit down and try to figure this out again.




28 thoughts on “Early Morning Post: July 31,2013: A Crack In The Wall of Certainty

  1. Thanks for the continuing legal education lesson, Matt– I didn’t realize you can testify on your own behalf at a criminal proceeding, then refuse to take questions on cross.

    1. Steely:
      Normally you can’t testify on direct at your own trial and refuse to take questions afterwards. If you are not in prison the judge could declare a mistrial and revoke your bail; if you are serving time and expect to get out some day the judge can hold you in contempt and impose a sentence on you from and after whatever you are serving; if you had something worthwhile to say the judge could order it stricken from the record. There may be other things that can be done.

      Whitey’s circumstances are unique in that he knows he will die in prison no matter what happens so he has the freedom to do that – it may be the last free choice he will ever have in his life. I watch him in court and he really seems intimidated by his jailers – afraid to move without them giving him the OK.

  2. Perhaps he has enjoyed all of the books that have been written about him. I knew a man once who said he did not care what was written about him as long as they spelled his name right. A person such as that only listens to his own words. And, if he has a tale to tell, it will be in his own words. All we can hope for is that there is some other proof to back up his words. If institutional corruption is also on trial here, then who better than he to testify. It’s the deal with the devil that we really need to understand . Then, just maybe there will be some policy changes made. One can hope.

    1. Jean:

      One would hope but to do so would be irrational in light of all we have seen. I think he used this trial and all the discoery from the government to back up all his claims. He may still testify but don’t see any upside to it; even though a week ago I was 100% positive he would.My how the winds of change blow through my mind. Good to hear from you.

  3. If Mr. Bulger is not prepared to testify under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, then his book will not be worth the paper it has been written on.

    1. With all due respect, JEAN …. If that were truly the standard by which ALL parties to this story and trial were really held to account, i.e., former agents of the F.B.I., WEEKS, MARTORANO, FLEMMI, etc… then not too much that has been put forward thus far would be worthy of your attention and readership !

    2. Jean:
      You of all people should know that what he testifies to will be crushed, pressed, squeezed and maneuvered in such a manner by the time the public gets to read it that it will bear little resemblance to what he said. Further, all the people who have been wrongly writing about him will take his testimony and put it ?into their books and make more money off of him. You expect him to enrich those who have already damned him.

  4. Mr.Dark White lived by the golden rule “what’s in it for me “where’s mine”

    Following Billy Connolly’s logic no matter what the defendant says it will be spun the other way. If he is the stand up hoodlum that he is purported to be I would think he would have to tell his side of the story on the stand notwithstanding the dynamic clearly identified by Billy. I think he needs to have his shootout in Judge Casper’s court in the Joe Moakley Courthouse. He will never see the light of day and I don’t think his relatives’ pain can ne mitigated with money. Not to say there won’t be a book or a movie pitch. It seems like every thug that walked West Broadway has a story to sell. It is a shame that the small seedy side has been overblown and manipulated at the expense of the hard earned accomplishments and clean living values of the people from the peninsula. The defendent should stand his ground or go down as a tough guy poseur.

    He can still write his book along with everybody else. The man is a mean little man that with his ilk caused a lot of damage. He is the latest in a long line of social perverts that inhabit the underworld that for the same reason capture the public’s attention, molls,murder and mayhem that sells papers and ads and fills the cash register for the media corporations.
    In this tale the real losers are law enforcement and the public. More and more we have to work harder to tell the bad guys from the good guys and the DOJ squanders our tax dollars on their ego trips and delusions of grandeur.

    On the other hand what would be the chance that the defendant might clam up on the behavior of the Bureau in exchange for letting the light of his life out of the hoosegow?

    1. His book has zero credibility unless he takes the stand. He can explain his testimony and answers on cross. (If he does answer anything on cross).
      He has to testify more so if he is writing a book.
      Also give him opportunity to blast press on the selective reporting on his testimony. Setting them up for his book.

      1. Ernie:
        He testifies and his friends in the media will have books out about what he says in two weeks. His book only sells if people don’t now what he is going to say. If he blasts the media the people will cheer for the media. He’s got to thumb his nose at convention and the court and not testify.

    2. Hopalong:

      Good post. I agree with much of it except him wanting a shoot out. He wants to write his own story. He knows others will write it for him if he testifies. His book is only of value if the many people sitting around the courthouse have no idea what he is going to say. If he testifies they’ll all have it in their books and by the time his comes out it will be yesterday’s news.

      There’s noting he can do to the Bureau so he can’t help Catherine. Where he has bad things to say about all the agents he has on the payroll everyone will just yawn. All his in court revelations will be distorted – he just can’t win anything testifying.

  5. I never thought of that, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that he may not take the stand and just write a book. Him writing a book and making sure his family will/can profit from it would definitely be ingenious and a perfect way for him to go out. This story gets better and better and I am very glad you ran into that guy yesterday Matt. I strongly believe everything happens for a very specific reason in life. I am still blown away by what you posted. Unreal ! If Whitey does what your buddy suggests ( which makes sense ) he is definitely one of the craftiest SOB’s I’ve ever known about. It really kills me that we may never hear anything directly from the man himself considering his story has got to be one of the craziest and most interesting I’ve ever followed.

    1. Craig:
      I never thought of it either until I met that guy. I would have been disappointed by him not testifying but when I saw how the media distorts what is happening in court by making the allegations of the prosecution which are denied sound like they have been proven I realized in the face of a wilfull media intent on keeping up the facade of Whitey being all evil Whitey can actually accomplish nothing by testifying.

  6. If WB were to testify he could have Carney comprehensively cover every detail in the direct examination. He could blame all murders on Nee, Flemmi, Weeks, the Gucci brothers and others. Claim that the extortions were exaggerated and were just bluffs. When the prosecution cross examines him he can reply to every question ” Asked and answered”. Mock Whyshak’s rude behavior. The jury will get a laugh out of it. He can write his book whether he testifies or not. 2. Fitzpatrick went to the Connolly trial in Fla. and would have testified that Morris was the leak not Connolly but was not called by Wyshak. Didn’t the prosecution have to disclose this information to the defense? Was that done? If not shouldn’t Connolly get a new trial? If not what does it say about Wyshak’s character? 3. Did the FBI treat the whistleblower Fitzpatrick the way the State Police treated Naimovich? Total abandonment.

    1. Mr. N.CONNOLLY, I wholeheartedly agree w/ you that “he can write his book whether he testifies or not”. What better advertisement, or promotion for a book that is to follow, than to get up and testify in court in his own words to gin up interest for the future book/movie ? He can definitely do BOTH – testify and write a book – for they are not @ all mutually exclusive and may in fact be complimentary !

      1. Gus:

        Theorhetorically you are right, both can be done. Wisdom dictates otherwise. Everything he says from the stand will be copied down and will be put into the books of others before he could get his book out. Then why buy his book if you already know what he will say. The more I think of it the more likely he won’t testify.

        1. Good points, Mr. MATT. On the other hand …. Immediately following Whitey’s capture, and in all the time he’d been held leading up to trial, I for one had very serious doubts as to whether he would even be ALIVE to see the inside of the MOAKLEY Courthouse for his trial. Once the trial is over and he’s been found GUILTY, and the possibility of a Whitey tell-all book is rumored to be in the works ? Remember STIPPO RAKES ? My guess is that there’d be lots of folks from both sides that would love for this book project by Whitey to NEVER come to fruition. Take the sure thing and TESTIFY while you can !

          1. Gus:

            I think the book is done. I think he has been writing it since he’s been in Plymouth. He just needed his attorneys to tie up the loose ends during the trial.

            You are absolutely right that that very powerful people do not want that book to come out. But it’s too late for them to stop it.

            Whitey doesn’t expect he’ll be around too much longer. He’ll be 84 next month. He’s some medical conditions. His jailers will harrass him. I, like you, didn’t think he would last this long.

            Next thing to expect from the DOJ boys after trial is over is the leaking of the manuscript he wrote to some reporters. This they hope will blunt the sting of his book.

    2. N:
      1. And what was he doing hanging around with these fine fellows? If he testifies he has to tell the truth. What you suggest isn’t.

      2. Absolutely. Can’t get more exculpatory than to have the guy who is in charge of both men say you got the wrong guy. Should have been disclosed if not Connolly should get a new trial but he has no lawyer representing him so he’s out of luck. What does it say about Wyshak’s character to use a witness who murdered two women he had relations with and lies about it and it also turns out he had abused the sisters of both women when they were young children and those two girls ended up using drugs and overdosing aside from other horrendous things like yanking out the teeth of people he just murdered and blaming Catherine Greig a dental assistant for providing him with the implements. You need not need anything more than that to assess his character.

      3. FBI totally turned on Fitzpatrick who reached the position of ASAC of a top ten office early in his career; they weren’t able to manufacture up any crime to destroy him because that would mean indicting him and opening up the FBI to embarrassment but it did it in house when the upper levels devised a plan to drive him out so he would keep quiet.

  7. I disagree that the total audience is wider for the trial. In an immediate sense, yes, the initial burst will be larger. Books however, are archival, there could be Southie kids, CJ students, crime buffs, etc. reading a book written by whitey for as long as books are available. With the internet and e-books, the permanence is further solidified. In 100 years, the audience for a book will be far larger than this trial is now, IMHO. His book will be telling the story long after the talking heads and fishwrap columnists stopped telling the story. However, it is a trivial point to debate in light on the larger issue.

    If the defendant is planning on writing a book then I agree that he will not take the stand, why would he? As you and your friend pointed out, his testimony will not be told by him but by the media. If the court case was recorded or televised, I can see the argument that he would testify.

    When/If he makes it to trial in FL or OK and that case is recorded, we could all get what we are waiting for, the truth through Jim Bulger’s mind.

    Fascinating post that has my mind churning this morning, thank you for that.

    1. Another:

      It will be interesting to see what happens. I just was surprised that I knew of the probability that he was writing a book yet I did not consider how that would be a better way for him to tell his tale than getting on the stand and it took me running into that guy to make me realize it. Then there is another benefit to it, if he keeps it in the family then his enemies will not be profiting from his story but his relatives. That might be the greates incentive to stay off the stand.

    2. If he was going to write a book his actions on the stand could damage some of the content. If he didn’t answer a certain question about some sensitive issue people might see that as him protecting his own version of that story. They would call him on it. And why would he want to be cross examined. They could go over and over and over some of his heinous actions that we all know are true and he would have to just sit there and take it. How many times could he claim that putting a shotgun barrel in someone’s mouth was just to scare them? No harm, no foul? We don’t but that crap.

      If he IS going to write it there are too many ways it could be tainted, and right from his own mouth, if he takes the stand.

      That said, I think he will take the stand. Too many of his friends can’t read, and nothing rings truer than the human voice.

      1. Honest:

        I loved you analysis explaining why it is absolutely foolish for him to take the stand and then saying he has to do it because “too many of his friends can’t read.” I sometimes need a good laugh and you gave me one. Thanks.

        Oh, I would mention, what you say makes sense but in the federal system no one outside a very few people hears his voice, it is all filtered through the media that hates him. If the proceedings were recorded or televised that would mean something, but here they aren’t.

    3. What is IMHO? (2) Why not Matt’s take: He testifies; refuses to be crossexamined and (3) the ghost-writer finishes his book. (4) A number of FEDs in the DOJ at the top get fired or at least raked over the coals and forced to resign in disgrace. (5) All the serial killers get arrested and put back behind bars where they belong. (6) As 100 FBI agents requested about 4 years ago (?) finally someone investigates the prosecution of John Connolly and the use of known liars, perjurers and serial killers as paid (e.g. bribed) witnesses: i.e. paid with short sentences and allowed to keep some part of the ill-begotten proceeds and property acquired during their murderous lives of crime (7) Fire all the prosecutors, court clerks and judges in the DOJ in New England, and start from scratch building a relatively honest, less politicized DOJ in the First Circuit. We can dream, can’t we, or is that still legal in America, with its corrupt press, corrupt media, imperial city and imperial, interventionist, spying Fed gov’t?

      1. 1. A humble person with an opinion.
        2. Bad idea – he’ll have given his story to his enemies to write and cheapen his own telling.
        3. No ghost writer – it will be done by someon in his family – that will add authenticity to it.
        4. Whitey’s testimony against the federals will have no effect, it won’t be believed.
        5. Dream on.
        6. Connolly is the big loser in this trial – all the evidence seems to point to him being corrupt.
        7. That would be a mistake – most are doing a good job but are overshadowed by a few big bad apples.

  8. That would explain all of the note taking… The only downside that I see is that the audience may be much wider during the trial.

    1. John:

      I’m not saying he won’t testify, he might do that and write the book. The audience may be wider but he will have only a selected part of his story that will get out to that audience. So he may do both. It’s just I was so sure he was going to take the stand now I see there is a compelling reason for him not to do that/

Comments are closed.