FBI Malfeasance Destroys The Truth

Where Whitey Met Weeks When He Went To The Big Apple

Ralph Ranalli wrote Deadly Alliance because he sat through the Wolf Hearings. He listened to the testimony of an FBI Supervisor Ed Clark who went with another supervisor Edward Quinn to interview a convicted marijuana trafficker Joe Murray who said he had information about four murders committed by Whitey and Stevie and also information that FBI agent Connolly was taking money to tip-off wiretaps.  They did not ask anything about the murders; nor did they include in their report anything that Murray said about Connolly.

I note in my book Don’t Embarrass The Family the testimony of Edward Quinn as I recorded it in my notes. He said one of the reasons they went to interview Murray in 1989 was because of his statement about Connolly taking money. He said as soon as Murray was asked about it he said there was nothing to it. He said the reason Clark did not include it in his report was that he only included information of a positive nature. You know they don’t include confessions and admissions.

He’d later say he didn’t know why he didn’t include it but would suggest the 302 report is not supposed to be a verbatim transcript of everything. He guessed that  since Murray gave them no basis for believing the allegation it was not included.

Consider this. Two FBI supervisors are sent out to interview Murray because he makes allegations that a fellow FBI agent is taking money from two murderers. They interview Murray.  They come back and file a report of their interview and mention nothing about what Murray said about the agent taking money.

Years later after Murray is dead they say they didn’t include it because he cleared him. It seems to me that if Murray had cleared Connolly that would have been the headline of their 302 report. To compound the deception, the ASAC then closes out the investigation. As for the murders the FBI did not follow up on them or on any other information Murray might have given them.

Also consider this, everyone wants to make this a “Boston FBI Issue.” It isn’t. The only reason we know about it is because Judge Wolf caused the FBI to open up their files on Bulger and Flemmi. This sordid affair didn’t happen under all Boston FBI guys, it was part and parcel of what the FBI is about. The SACs and ASACs that came to Boston were from other parts of the country. They did nothing to change things. I dare say if other FBI offices received the scrutiny Boston received we’d see the common theme running through everything: Don’t Embarrass the Family and If It Isn’t In Writing It Didn’t Happen.  So it followed nothing was put into the FBI report about anything Murray said about Connolly so it must be he said nothing even though that’s why he was being interviewed.

I’ve noted that I came up with the title to my book after attending Connolly’s trial in 2002. I was convinced the FBI was willing to let Connolly retire in peace even though it knew most of what he had done. It would have let things slip by except for Judge Wolf forcing the FBI  to disclosure that Whitey and Stevie were informants. Once that happened it was embarrassed and Connolly had to be put out as a rogue agent.

When I decided on my title, I check to see if anyone else had used it. I found that in 1972 a former FBI Agent Bernard F. Conners had written a novel “Don’t Embarrass The Bureau.”  He knew that was all that is important to the FBI. One way you embarrass the bureau is to expose a fellow agent’s transgressions. That explains the silence on Murray’s statements about Connolly taking money.

But more than that, it shows like I wrote yesterday that the FBI files can’t be trusted. They are not written with an idea of telling the truth but to glorify the FBI and its agents. When you have a system where one party can decide the status of another party, here being an informant, without having something to show that the other party knows that she has been labeled an informant, then the system is ripe for all sorts of fraud.

When we see the FBI carrying Whitey as an informant in 1971, we also see the information about him does not support that designation. When we see the FBI files saying Whitey was an informant in September 1975 we cannot rely upon that as being  truthful. Once you see the FBI files contain lies, how then do you choose what part of them are truthful?

The FBI files on Stevie Flemmi show he was opened in November 1965, closed in 1967, opened in September 1980. Flemmi testified he never knew he was closed. The information in the FBI files like the restrictions set out in its rules and regulations are all nonsense. We have an agency that uses deceitful records so that it can deceive the public.

We know Flemmi was an FBI informant between 1967 and 1980. It was in the late 1970s when Connolly and Morris went to Jeremiah O’Sullivan and asked him to keep him out of the Race Fixing Case indictment because he was an informant.

Judge Wolf seemed to repeat over and over that an FBI report “is another document containing false information.”  The FBI Director Clarence Kelley told  how his subordinates in the FBI deceived him. Judge Wolf found the guidelines the FBI operated under were routinely ignored. What are we to make of all this?

We’ve got a national police force that has filled its files with reports that contain half-truths and agents of that force testifying in court based on these reports. We’ve got people writing books and court decisions picking an choosing which ones to believe. It seems like a madcap comedy or zany Marx Brothers movie and that we should all be laughing but we can’t grasp the humor because the consequences of this malfeasance are so dire.

39 thoughts on “FBI Malfeasance Destroys The Truth

  1. Matt, I think what surprises me the most is that you seem to be buying into the howie hyperbole! Dressed to the nines? More jewelry than the queen? I don’t see what good it does to continue this myth. There were certainly a chance that did not dressed as well as John some came into the office like they just rolled of a park bench. Some look like they came and did come from the backwoods of Tennessee. People are at different stages of their lives have different personalities. A guy with 3 children in school is going 2 different priorities for his money than a single guy that owns some investment property don’t you agree? My point is only that by promulgating this Carr- driven propoganda, you seem to be going against what you have stood for this blog. Comment?

    1. Declan:
      Yes, it may seem like I’m buying into Howie’s stuff but I’m not. I dealt with John on two or three times and thought he dressed quite well. I remember thinking he was wearing too much gold but I don’t remember if it was a flashy watch or bracelet. you’re right to say I shouldn’t have expected him to dress like a typical FBI agent who was supporting a family and had kids when at the time John was single and out scouting about. Billy Connolly makes pretty much the same point as you are making. My hyperbole with respect to him perhaps I should tone down and not fall into the trap of overstating things. Sometime my comments are not as considered as my blog posts. We all have our good and bad days.

  2. 1. What year did Miss Taize (sp?) say she saw uncashed checks? 2. Her testimony in Miami was she opened the draw and saw (ten) checks “spread out!” In Boston she said what? She picked up and examined ten individual checks? That would be inconsistent testimony! 2. When I was working for the government I got a paycheck and expense checks; the expense checks were indistinguishable from pay checks. 3. John had nice clothes; I had thousands of dollars worth of cameras and took trips every year across America or to Europe. So what? 4. When I worked for a small law firm, we had a cash flow problem and I went two months without a paycheck. I didn’t miss it! I was single; I had plenty in the bank. 5. Who said John was depositing cash? If he was, was he being paid his rental income in cash? If there were financial improprieties, why didn’t federal prosecutors introduce that evidence in 2002 and charge him with it? We’re back to square one: he was never charged with taking money for himself from anyone. 6. Repeating number 1 above: For everyone’s info: What year was John alleged to have 10 checks in his draw? Was it in 1990 when he sold one condo for 230,000? 7. How do you account for the FBI agent who testified he and John cashed their paychecks together every payday?
    Just asking!

      1. I have been following the back and forths with respect to former FBI Agent John Connolly. It appears to me that some of your readers have a lot to say about who and what former FBI Agent John Connolly did while he was employed by the FBI, and in his retirement. Perhaps they have information that they would like to share about Mr. Connolly’s relationship with John Iuele, Hamilton Finance (Funding), and Winthrop Realty? Clearly, the implication that was made to me by Mr. Connolly was that Mr. Connolly was in business with Mr. Iuele. I would presume he also made money from those ventures.

  3. Matt, we’ve beaten this issue to a pulp. John did dress better than other agents; he was single; he had rental income; he owned a Southie house whose property appreciated six fold in ten years; by 1990 he was nearing a $50,000 a year retirement package and was negotiating a six figure income at Edison. He had no children until 1990. He easily could afford everything he had.
    Manny Ramirez had months worths of uncashed checks in his locker when he played for the Cleveland Indians. Clark’s restaurant in Boston didn’t process charge cards receipts for months. I know a local politican who kept uncashed checks from campaign contributions in his top drawer for months and months. None did anything illegal. None needed the money. All had plenty of cash in the bank. Wyshak/Durham never showed any improprieties in John Connolly’s bank accounts. All those checks were eventually cashed. If there were financial improprieties, John would have been charged with tax evasion. When Wyshak in Florida tried to show John was living beyond his means, his IRS expert was laughed out of court (figuratively speaking.)
    If Wyshak/Durham believed Weeks was telling the truth about seeing envelopes with money it for Connolly, they would have charged Connolly with taking money. They never did!
    We’ve all hammered this issue enough. We do disagree. That’s all!

    1. Bill:
      Our facts are different. John Connolly was no Manny Ramirez. Money in 1990 doesn’t help you dress well in 1980. You don’t put cash in a bank account. You don’t have plenty of cash if you don’t cash when you don’t cash your pay checks even if you are single unless . . .

  4. I cut myself off..

    I have to agree with William on this.the stories about John living well above his means are greatly exaggerated. His lifestyle was not at all different from many of the agents working at the Bureau during that time.

    1. Declan:
      I have to disagree with you as I do with William. It was common knowledge Connolly was dressing to the nines while the other agents had off-the-rack suits. He did live somewhat differently than the others.

  5. Matt

    I’m surprised that you, of all people buy into some of these silly rumors and legends. I defy you to show me a picture of John wearing “more jewelry than the Queen of England”. It’s just simply not true. More of the media bs that you usually rail agaist also do not believe for a minute that he did not cash his paychecks. That along with the gold is urban myth. The secretary that testified that she saw his paychecks in the drawer most likely was looking at his pay stubs which at the time looked exactly like the checks. Unless she took the time to pull these checks out of his desk in study them carefully there’s no way she could have known the difference. There with no bank records to back up this fact just the testimony of a secretary that never liked John.

    1. Declan:
      The queen of England comment was hyperbole. I heard the evidence about the pay checks. They weren’t pay stubs, they weren’t expense checks. She said she knew the difference. You may not believe her but I listened to her and do. I don’t know if you’ve ever been paid by a pay check but if you have I’m sure you know whether you are getting a check or a stub. There’s no evidence the secretary did not like John.

  6. Matt, I agree with Patty. Always remember the source of the $20,000 a year payoff was Flemmi who first came up with that tall tale sometime around 2003, eight years after he was in jail and almost 30 years after the fact. So please say Flemmi “alleged” Connolly got $20,000 a years. Not one nickel of that money has even been accounted for.
    We who knew John Connolly knew he lived like all of us and well within his means. We disagree!

    1. Billy:
      Flemmi and Whitey say they paid off Connolly. Of course you agree with Patty. I would expect that.

  7. Matt,

    OPINION: I’m not convinced John Connolly was conspiring or associating with Flemmi and Weeks after his retirement. I view Wyshak’s 1994 indictments as pretextual throwaways based on phony and coerced/manufactured testimony. One additional way to view private citizen John Connolly’s interaction with Weeks during this period was that John was attempting to right a wrong. Wyshak’s indictments violated the lawful agreement the FBI had with Flemmi not to prosecute for these types of crimes. Wyshak did the dishonorable and arguably illegal thing by violating the agreement. If John gave any assistance to Flemmi by helping poke holes in the phony indictments, I can’t view that as an unlawful conspiracy. To the extent some of Johns actions crossed the legal line of a private citizen, I trust he was fighting fire with fire.
    Based on the rampant unlawful tactics of Wyshak we have seen go unquestioned for decades, John probably did the right thing. Running bookies is far less harmful to society and the notion of justice than an egomaniacal and power drunk prosecutor committing crimes under color of law.

    1. Patty:
      That’s a pretty strong attack on Wyshak which I feel the necessity to dissent from. But prior to that, let’s talk about John Connolly. If he thought a wrong was being committed by the government and it was not living up to the deal he had with Flemmi and Whitey, which I don’t think he’s ever told us what it was, then why all the intrigue. Why did he have Weeks pose as Chico. Why deny contacting the defense team. Why the meetings with Weeks at the Top of the Hub and the barroom in Cambridge where he brought the informant files to him. Why is he conveying secret informant information through Weeks to Flemmi.
      Why didn’t Connolly come out and say this? He never did as far as I know. He never said I had an agreement with Flemmi that the government has broken. How is Wyshak to know what agreement Connolly had with Flemmi if Connolly didn’t tell him?
      You may not view it as an unlawful conspiracy but I certainly do. The purpose of the Connolly/Weeks/Cabal was to obstruct the hearings going on in front of Judge Wolf and it was done in the most sordid manner, he wrote a letter impugning the integrity of good cops that he didn’t like. The evidence against him was strong. He refused to testify to rebut it.
      As far as Wyshak is concerned, he has been off base in several of the things he had done. His vendetta against Connolly that made him go to Florida was not the right thing to do. Nor is his attempt to push RICO indictments against the probation officers. But none of those are crimes. They might not be wise and I may think he should not have done them but he had the right to do this.

      1. Wyshak has been more than off base.

        He knows Weeks perjured himself in Connolly’s trial about the back seat shooter. Wyshak had already presented that same perjury in Michael Flemmi’s trial and he stood by silently and let Durham further that fraud on the court.

        You’ve even written Wyshak knew Salemme was going to perjure himself in Connolly’s trial and Wyshak still let Durham put Salemme on the stand.

        Wyshak knows Pat Nee was a principal in the murders of Roger Wheeler (Nee admits shipping the murder weapon to Martorano for the purpose of Wheeler’s murder), John McIntyre, Bucky Barrett, Michael Donahue, and Brian Halloran. Wyshak allowed Weeks to commit perjury to protect Nee. That makes Wyshak an accomplice to that perjury. The only way Weeks would commit perjury and not ruin his deal was if he was told it was OK to lie.

        Wyshak made a fraudulent plea deal with Martorano by intentionally excluding, Pat Nee, Jimmy Martoran and Howie Winter from the deal. Further, he padded the deal with the names of a bunch of wiseguys Martorano didn’t even know. Martorano is dumb enough to think he outsmarted Wyshak. Wyshak successfully objected to Judge Wolf asking Martorano for the identity of the back seat shooter during Martorano’s sentencing hearing. His objection conflicts with the responsibilities of his office. The objection was designed to protect a serial killer who Wyshak has bent over backwards to keep free in society. Wyshak does what he prosecutes John Connolly for doing.

        Wyshak prides himself on inventing the concept of charging bookies with money laundering and tax evasion instead of just gambling. He used this over-prosecution tactic to crush bookies with life sentences if they didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear. That extreme coercion and duress is prone to induce perjury. Wyshak is unconcerned by perjury as long as it helps meet the elements of the crimes he charges.

        Wyshak also introduced the concept of “family prosecution” to Boston. It worked well when he charged the elderly wife of a bookie in order to compel the bookie’s cooperation. He went on to prosecute family members of Flemmi, Bulger, Greig, etc

        Ironically he under charged Congressman Tierney’s wife for the same thing. She was laundering illegal gambling proceeds, aiding and abetting her fugitive brother and evading taxes. Wyshak only charged her with tax evasion and argued to the Judge Young that she should get a light sentence with no jail time because ‘she is a congressman’s wife so she has suffered a lot of pad publicity.’ Note that she was represented by Donald Stern, Wyshak’s old boss. In state courts this would be called a broom or bag job and Wyshak would probably prosecute any ADA who did it. He holds himself above the law.

        There is so much more, but I don’t have the time right now.

        1. Patty:
          I don’t think thee is much I can disagree with you and thank you for setting out the things that Wyshak has done in support of your conclusion. I think I am used to your well reasoned comments that keep me in line and clarify my thinking and refresh my memory. I appreciate them. Your prior post was too conclusory in style unlike what you usually post so I had to dissent from it.
          I have a desire to stick up for Wyshak because a prosecutor’s discretion is wide, as you know. But I admit he’s gone perilously close to being hard to defend. You point out some of the things he has done that really don’t stand up to close scrutiny. What does bother me is his relationship with the Boston Globe where there seems to be this “one hand washes the other” agreement whereby he gets the Globe’s support for his doings and he pushes what the Globe wants to be highlighted. I cannot believe he used RICO in the probation case destroying the careers of people who were doing what they were expected to do by judges and legislators. I’m bothered by his attempt to make patronage into a crime. And, as you know by his chasing after Connolly to Florida. Thanks for the post.

  8. Matt, one last point: Morris says he gets a case of wine with an envelope hidden inside it from Connolly in the basement of the garage where they worked. Morris didn’t say that Connolly said then, “Morris there’s something extra inside for you” or “Morris, there’s a thousand bucks inside?” Why didn’t Morris testify: “Connolly winked at me when he gave me the wine and said,’there’s an extra gift inside.'” Morris worked every day with Connolly. Morris says it was some days later that Connolly called and spoke cryptically, allusively about something extra in the case of wine. I think Morris’ testimony undermines not corroborates his story about the wine with money in the basement of the garage.
    But we’ll have to respectfully continue to disagree. The bottom line is I don’t believe a word said by the serial killers, career gangsters, and admittedly corrupt cop Morris, who in about 1988 tried his best to get Bulger and Flemmi killed by leaking their status as informers to the press.

    1. Bill:
      We’ve talked enough about this. One can always come up with a different thing that might have happened. I’m not saying that anyone in this sad play is a good guy but I’m suggesting that Connolly was not much better than Morris because he became buddies with Flemmi and Weeks when there was absolutely no reason he should have been conspiring with them.

  9. Matt, no cops and no other FBI agents were indicted based on Weeks’ testimony. It calls into question all his testimony about expensive clocks and dozens of cops/FBI agents with machine guns being on Whitey’s payroll. Still, with all Weeks’ testimony, Connolly was never charged with taking any money for himself. Federal prosecutors Durham/Wyshak apparently didn’t believe Weeks either. That’s my conclusion.
    Here’s some further info on that IRS agent who testified in Miami. From Shelley Murphy’s article: “IRS special agent Sandra Lemansky testified that Connolly bought a 27-foot Sea Ray for $46,567; a South Boston condo for $63,000, with a $12,000 down payment; a Brewster condo for $80,000, with a $15,000 down payment; land in Chatham for $98,000; and then built a house on the Chatham property for $132,000. During the 1980s, Connolly’s annual FBI salary started at $45,000 and gradually increased to $65,000, she said. The testimony infuriated defense lawyer Manuel L. Casabielle, who requested a mistrial after the jury was dismissed for the day. He argued that the agent’s financial portrait was misleading because it did not take into account additional income Connolly might have earned from other sources – including his wife’s salary. Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Stanford Blake denied a mistrial, but found an error in a chart that had been presented by prosecutors and barred them from showing it to jurors again.” So, you got an IRS agent testifying Connolly bought a 27 foot boat, and Weeks testifying Connolly bought a 40 foot boat.
    THESE ARE MY COMMENTS BASED ON FACTS AS I KNOW THEM: Over the course of his 15 year career in Boston he incurred debts of $400,000: [Registry of Deeds records show Connolly bought the two-story house (on 48 Thomas Park) for $63,000 in February, 1980] Shelley wrote: “Connolly converted the house into two condos in 1988 and by 1993 had sold both for a total of $340,000. In 1990 Connolly sold the larger unit for $240,000 and three years later he sold the other unit for $100,000.” His salary averaged about $55,000 x 15 = $825,000; ($55,000 is probably double what teachers and probation officers got in the 1980s.) He had no children. He probably had some savings from his 7 years as an FBI agent in NY prior to that; the Southie property was a two-family and since 1980 it generated income for him; His car was provided by the FBI. IRS Agent Lemansky did not factor in John’s wife’s salary: John married Elizabeth Moore on Novermber, 5, 1988: she had worked for the federal government for ten years. Lemansky did not factor in the income from John’s two-family in South Boston. Did not factor in the fact that John sold the two-family in Southie and the condo down the cape and pooled his wife’s money with his own to build the house in Chatham and buy a house in Lynnfield. By the time he bought the house in Lynnfield he was making or expecting to make well over six figures working as chief of security at Boston Edison. Connolly in the 1980s knew he was sitting on a gold mine with his property in Southie. Everyone in Southie knew their property values had gone up four times or more. John’s went up six times. John didn’t need payoffs from gangsters and would not jeopardize his career and future by taking money from them.

    1. Bill:
      They believed Weeks because they had him testify.
      Connolly was living way over his head. He wasn’t cashing his pay checks.
      You confuse the time periods when talking about Connolly’s actions. In 1975 when he signed up with Whitey the $20,000 he got was more than half of his salary. It allowed him to flash a lot of cash which Whitey was worried about. Connolly always dressed to the nines and had more jewelry on him than the Queen of England, especially gold.
      You never answer my question when I ask why would Connolly join with Weeks and Flemmi to undermine the federal prosecution and why if he is such a good guy did he and Weeks have a sinister way to communicate. Good guys don’t help gangsters.

  10. The Doherty version sounds correct ( and I therefore stand corrected), but remember Ciulla never provided testimony about any “predicate criminal acts” on the part of Bulger,i.e. Bulger’s name is never mentioned again in 23 days of trial testimony.I suspect that the NJ testimony you refer to may not have been available to the defense team in the Winter trial.Also the same “predicate act” limitation applies.The end result is the same-Bulger is protected from prosecution, and of course never was prosecuted for the ’78 racefixing scheme.

    1. Chaco: Bulger was pulled out of the race case indictment when Agents Morris and Connolly went to AUSA O’Sullivan and asked him not to indict them. They were put in the indictment as unindicted co-conspirators even though the evidence against them was the same as that against the rest of the Winter Hill gang. O’Sullivan tried to explain why he didn’t indict them, he didn’t want to admit he did it because as couple of cops asked him not to do it, and came up with several excuses, none of which held up to closer scrutiny.

  11. It’s interesting that in 23 days of testimony by Anthony Ciualla in the 1978 racefixing trial of the Winter Hill crew Ciualla never mentions Whitey’s name

    1. Chaco:
      From the press reports it seems that he may have done this. It is reported that when he testified in New Jersey which was before the Boston case he said: “The intermediaries were from the Boston area, fellows that were partners of mine. One’s name is Howie Winters.(sic) One name is John Martorano M-A-R-T-O-R-A-N-O, James Martorano, Whitey Bulger, William Barnoski, Stephen Flemmi, Joseph McDonald,James Sims, Neddie Raife, Salvatore Sperlinga.”
      Bill Doherty of the Globe reported on the Boston case that:
      “Under questioning by O’Sullivan Ciulla told of another meeting at Marshall Motors in Somerville which was Howie Winter’s headquarters. Ciulla said Winter’s partners were present. O’Sullivan asked who was present: Joe McDonald, Whitey Bulger, James Martorano, John Martorano, Jimmy Sims was in and out because he was hiding from some law problem. Stevie Flemmi was on the lam.
      Winter spelled out the role each person would play. McDonald and Sims in charge of financing. John Martorano for keeping the books. James Martorano was to invest the profits in legitimate enterprises. Bulger and Flemmi would supply bookmakers who would accept bets on the fixed races. Winter was described as the boss of the operation who would provide financing and round up bookmakers. Winter promised Ciulla protection so he could do business without interference from anyone else.”
      Thanks for commenting.

  12. Dear Matt,
    My brother was the witness interviewed on the CBS program. My brother went from the murder scene to his girlfriend’s house in Dorchester. His license plate was registered to our mother’s house. It took about 20 minutes to drive from the murder scene to the girlfriend’s house. Within 40 minutes of the Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue murders, two FBI agents were at his girlfriend’s house. My mother didn’t know the girlfriend’s address. Either the FBI followed my brother from the murder scene, or one of the Bulger gang followed my brother and contacted the FBI. If my brother knew Whitey, he would have been murdered.

    1. Afraid:
      Thanks for the reply and the information. Like you, I’m amazed that two FBI agents arrived at your brother’s girlfriend’s house to question your brother within 40 or so minutes after the murders of Halloran and Donahue. The only way they could have done it was through the plate or by following him. You say the plate was registered at your mother’s house. Did anyone contact your mother even if she didn’t know your brother’s girlfriend’s address? If she knew her name they could have tracked her down. I didn’t know the FBI was involved in the investigation since thought the report I heard about or read involved the Boston police.
      What happened at that first interview. Who were the FBI agents? There were rumors that Connolly was at the scene. Does your brother have a copy of his report or any report. Can he tell us what is in it that is so secret a federal judge sealed it?
      I know your brother was interviewed again because at that time he was shown a photo array which I found significant because it did not have Whitey — the most likely suspect — in the array. Nor did it have Week, the second most likely one. It did have Pat Nee, I believe. That is the reason why I have speculated that there was only one car at the scene and Weeks’ story about being in a second car was nonsense. If you don’t want a witness to identify a suspect from a photo array you leave the person’s picture out. Also, Weeks in telling about the car he was in, something that you would never forget.
      In his book he said: “there I was, sitting behind the wheel of Jimmy’s Delta 88 at the Mullins (sic) Club staring at Jimmy in his Tow Truck and wig and mustache. . . . The Olds already had a police scanner . . . I kept wishing I had a hat to change my appearance . . . Unfortunately, there were no hats in Jimmy’s Olds.” Don’t you think it is pretty clear what car he is sitting in?
      However at John Connolly’s trial he testified under oath.” I was driving my sister’s Delta ’88. I wasn’t concerned bein in my sister’s car because I wasn’t going to be involved in that shooting. Her car would be one of a thousand in the area.” Now what car was he driving? I don’t think he was driving both cars.
      Your brother doesn’t have to worry about Whitey anymore. I agree back at the time he would have had to but because he didn’t identify him because his picture was not in the array he’s alive today. No doubt had he identified him Whitey would have learned about it. Agent Morris testified that the night of the murder or a night or two after they were at Whitey’s drining beer.
      I don’t think the FBI will hurt him since it has agreed that what happened back then with its agents was bad and the guys working the job now are different. I have to believe that the present agents, and the great majority of former agents who were in Boston are appalled at what happened back then. The only possible danger to your brother could be from Weeks if your brother identified him as the guy shooting from the back seat of Whitey’s car. That is if Weeks is still the type of guy who’d kill someone. The prosecutors are in a bind with Weeks since I’ve just pointed out one story he’s told that a lie but also they know your brother’s statement is public that will also show Weeks lied about the ski mask. They’ll have Weeks spell out the line that Morris used over and over again, “I lied about that back then but now I’m telling the truth.”
      Thanks for the insight. I’d suggest there are too many good Americans on the FBI to be worried about them. Even though the FBI as an institution is set up to breed and hide corruption most of the guys and gals are just hard working stiffs trying to do the right thing.

  13. O.K We’re getting close. In my mind, you can draw several legitimate conclusions from their failing to mention Murray’s allegation; 1: they were hiding something; 2. there was nothing to write about because Murray denied ever saying anything or recanted. 3. They found Murray totally not credible and not worth further mention. 4. They negligently wrote a sloppy, incomplete report. I just can’t impute villainy to those two agents upon what I see as scanty evidence. I understand your reasoning, but I’d just have to say, “Not guilty” on this one.
    As to 1. Flemmi before Wolfe was still saying Connolly was an honest cop; correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think even Wolfe found Connolly had taken any money.
    As to 4. There’s a difference between taking money for yourself, and passing an envelope with money in it to someone else. Even so, the jury acquitted Connolly of two counts of passing money to Morris, but did convict him of just one count involving passing the case of wine with the $1000 envelope in it to Morris. It’s still curious that Connolly was never charged with taking money for himself. I believe Connolly gave Morris a case a wine; I don’t believe he knew there was an envelope hidden inside it with $1000.
    I believe Whitey might have told Weeks he was paying lots of people off; he plausibly told Weeks he was paying Connolly off, so that if Weeks heard Bulger was talking to Connolly, he wouldn’t suspect he was a rat. In other words, it’s likely the stories Whitey told Weeks were to protect Whitey. It’s likely Whitey showed Weeks envelopes with 20 cops names on it, then when Weeks left, Whitey put the money in his own pocket. Weeks was gullible: he said Whitey had six FBI agents with machine guns ready and willing to do Whitey’s bidding.
    Many agents said they purchased wine at Whitey’s liguor store. It was cheap. Even Major Foley said he drank beer purchased there. Also, other agents said it was common practice to accept gifts of wine at Christmastime; some agents disagreed; one testified it was unacceptable and told how he reported even a small gift. After Wolfe’s 1999 decision, the FBI revised its regulations and strictly spelled out that the acceptance of gifts was prohibited.
    I do agree with you that if any FBI agent accepted $1000 or transmitted $1000, he’d be consciously committing a crime.
    It’s important, however, to remember (1) the jury’s verdict; (2) the fact that Connolly was never charged with taking any money himself; and (3) the fact that it’s very hard to distinquish fact from fiction when dealing with serial killers and Morris and Howie Carr and Boston Globe writers.
    We now hear from the Globe writers that Flemmi, in some official report (what year?), said Whitey paid Jimmy Kelly $100 a week for nine years, from 1974 to 1983. Paid him for doing what? Yard work? Jimmy wasn’t a city councilor until 1983. He didn’t become Council President until about 1990. He’d long since left behind his youthful indiscretions and walking on the wild side. Lehr and O’Neil apparently have no doubt that whatever Flemmi says is gospel! They like to smear the reputations of people from South Boston, especially defenseless people who have passed away.
    Anyway, we can disagree without being disagreeable. Thanks again for being receptive to opposing views. Have a good night!

    1. Bill:
      1. There’s only one conclusion to draw. Two close friends of Connolly, experienced FBI supervisors who’ve conducted 1000s of interviews and one of whom said when confronted with the matter “I did what I was told . . . you don’t know what it was like . . . ” go out to interview Murray who accused Connolly of taking money to tip off wiretaps for the purpose of finding out what he knows and return and file a report of their interview and omit what he said. If Murray denied it or they found him not credible they would have said so in headlines. They weren’t negligent under these circumstances. Connolly was their friend. They would do everything to help him. The only way they could do it was pretend it didn’t happen. There’s only one legitimate conclusion to draw. I could add other reasons if I wanted to excuse them like they forgot their pens, or they got in an accident, or they ran out of paper. or the dog ate that part of the report that included what Murray said about Connolly.
      2. When Flemmi testified before Wolf he and Connolly were working together in a conspiracy. Remember Flemmi offered as proof that Morris tipped him off a copy of a tape recording he said he got from Morris. Weeks testified that Connolly gave him that tape to get to Flemmi’s lawyer. People who are conspiring together to blame someone else will do that. The issue before Wolf was not Connolly taking money. It was whether Flemmi had been promised a deal for his information.
      4. Morris and his girlfriend testified how Connolly got $1,000 to fly her to Glencoe, Georgia. The jury didn’t believe them. I did. Morris testified Connolly called him to be sure he found the $1000 in the wine, the jury believed him. That’s what made Morris’s story credible. Connolly was convicted of bribery of Morris on behalf of Whitey. He’s an FBI agent and he’s working with a gangster to bribe another FBI agent.
      5. You say he only took money from Whitey to give to another. That’s not something that good guys do. You say the feds didn’t charge him with taking money. They charged him based on the evidence they had which came from Morris that he took money from the gangsters and gave it to Morris. As to charging him with the other money he got from Whitey, in the Boston trial they did not have Flemmi as a witness. They only charged on what evidence they had.
      6. Weeks sat at a table with Whitey and saw Whitey put $5000 in an envelope for Zip. Weeks testified he saw envelopes, plural, for Zip. One year he said he said Whitey went to Ireland for Christmas and he handed Connolly two envelopes, one marked Z with 5000 and one marked Agent Orange (FBI Agent Newton) for $1000. Weeks also testified Whitey was concerned about Connolly being too ostentatious and flashing too much cash. He said Connolly had bought a 40′ boat with a 9′ beam and twin engines.
      7. Weeks was not talking about gifts of wine at Christmas. He was talking about expensive gifts Whitey bought at upscale stores like Chelsea clocks that he loaded into the back of Connolly’s car for him to give to other agents.
      8. I’m not talking about what newspaper writers are putting in the papers or books. I’m talking about evidence in court or in the FBI files. We disagree, of course which is fine. But whenever you say disparaging things about Weeks and Flemmi you have to keep in mind these were the two guys Connolly was working with to undermine a federal prosecution of gangsters, or as you suggest to help Flemmi in his defense. To do this, they came up with a system to hide Connolly’s participation in it by using false names and reaching out to each other through third parties. Obviously Connolly was doing this because he didn’t want to show his hand and he didn’t want anyone to know he was working with gangsters Weeks and Flemmi. Why was he doing this? Why was he trying to help out Flemmi? Why was he having Weeks call himself Chico? Why was he identifying informants for the FBI and giving the information to Flemmi and his fellow gangsters.

  14. Matt: here’s what we can agree on: (1) Wolf “found” that Connolly, as an FBI agent, leaked information; the Boston jury acquitted Connolly of leaking information while he was an FBI agent. (2) Wolf found that 18 FBI agents violated the law, regulations or procedures. No one, except Connolly, was ever charged or prosecuted. 3. Martorano said he gave Bulger a ring which Bulger gave to Connolly. The Boston jury acquitted him of that. 4. In 2002, federal prosecutors did not charge Connolly with one count of taking money. 5. Flemmi is in prison for 8 years before he first comes up with the story that Connolly was taking money. He first tells that story in October 2003, on the eve of his life-in-prison/death penalty trial, which was three years after Connolly is arrested and almost 18 months after Connolly was convicted. Shelley Murphy broke that story: given to her from Wyshak, no doubt.
    I don’t recall Weeks tesfitying in 2002 that Connolly took money. Even if he did, the federal prosecutors didn’t charge Connolly with taking money, probably because they didn’t believe Weeks. That’s my reasonable conclusion. We both agree they didn’t have evidence to charge him in 2002. You agree that even in 2002, with Flemmi, Weeks, Morris, Salemme, Martorano in prison for years under the Feds control, with triple hearsay allowed, the Feds didn’t charge Connolly with taking a dime. You must concede that that is bizarre or at least raises questions and doubts!
    Here’s where we disagree: (1) You think Murray told the FBI Connolly was taking money and he never recanted, even though FBI agents testified years later that he did recant. I find the FBI’s explanation convincing. 2. You see Connolly as “undermining” Wolf’s courtroom in 1998-99; I see Connolly was a civilian helping Flemmi’s defense. Not a crime for a civilian to help someone’s defense. 3. Weeks said Connolly told Flemmi to lie; I don’t believe Weeks, even though the jury convicted Connolly of that. 4. You believe Connolly took money. I don’t.
    Recall the 2008 trial in Miami, when Wyshak put on the witness stand an IRS expert who testified Connolly was living beyond his means; the IRS expert failed to calculate in Connolly’s rental income, failed to calculate in his wife’s income, failed to calculate in the fact that Connolly bought a 2 family home for $64,000 in 1980 and sold one unit for $230,000 in 1990, and the second unit for over $100,000 a year later. Connolly’s attorney filed a motion that the IRS agent’s testimony, egregiously false and incomplete, be struck from the record. The trial judge refused to do it. The same Miami trial judge who sentenced him for a crime for which the statute of limitations had run and a crime for which the prosecutor failed to prove an essential element. The trial judge himself admitted that!
    A few questions: How did you draw the conclusion that Murray told Clark that Connolly was taking money? Clark’s right: we weren’t there! Clark said Murray recanted and Murray denied he said Connolly was taking money. Both agents confirmed that, didn’t they? How do you draw a negative inference against John Connolly from what someone didn’t write? It seems the simplest and most apparent explanation is (1) Murray recanted; (2) there was nothing to record. O.K., so I agree they should have recorded more about their interview. But you simply can’t conclude that their failure to write something means that Murray confirmed Connolly was taking money. Finally, where did Murray get the information? Neither Murray nor Mrs. Murray ever claimed they paid off Connolly. Did they? They never claimed they knew Connolly personally, did they? Wasn’t Murray, a major drug dealer from Charlestown, making a claim on uncorroborated hearsay? This smells like Martorano’s story about the ring. Martorano never knew Connolly; neither did the Murrays, as far as I know. Anyway, Wyshak and Durham who threw the kitchen sink at Connolly in 2002, never charged him with taking a dime. To me, that speaks volumes!
    Again, I have reasonable doubts about all the gangsters’ stories!
    Hope you enjoy the day. We’ll continue to disagree about these matters!

    1. Bill:
      1. Is true, but the evidence before the Boston jury and Judge Wolf was different. Wolf had Flemmi’s testimony to rely on.
      2. Is correct.
      3. Is correct except I think he said Joe McDonald got Whitey the ring.
      4. Not true. The prosecutors charged Connolly with taking money from Bulger and giving it to Morris. Where do you say that money came from that Morris received? Isn’t Connolly conveying money from Bulger to Morris not something that he should have been doing. Why did Connolly think Whitey was giving Morris wine and money?
      5. True, but most people don’t tell about their full criminal activity until they make deals.
      Weeks did testify he gave Connolly money. He told how Whitey had a package with 5 grand in it marked for Zip. He told how he would load Connolly’s trunk with gifts to give to FBI agents, etc.
      I thought Connolly you said Connolly wasn’t married at the time when the IRS agent said he was living beyond his means. Why would the IRS agent factor in what happened in 1990 or 1991. The critical years were 1975 to 1990.
      Clark and Quinn went to interview Murray for the specific reason he said Connolly was taking money. That’s why they went there. Not to put in their report what Murray said about Connolly can only lead to one conclusion and that is he said things they did not want to write down. Whether it was hearsay or not they did not do the job they were sent to do and the only possible reason is they were covering for Connolly. Suppose I have information Tex Strayhand has information about the Murphy murder. I send two cops out to interview him about that. They come back after meeting him and file a report of the interview and say nothing about what Tex said about the Murphy murder. Do you think I’d take their report and find it acceptable? The obvious reason they hid what Murray said was they didn’t want to put in writing something that would hurt their friend.There is no other true explanation. And who Murray is or where Murray got his information is not germane to the matter. If what he said was not reliable they’d spell out why but they didn’t.
      It’s far from a Martorano story. It is two FBI supervisors covering up what Murray told them about Connolly.
      Why is Connolly so interested in helping the defense of one of the worst people in the world (Flemmi)and using another equally bad person (Weeks) to help him do this and why are they hiding their relationship. Doesn’t the Connolly/Flemmi/Weeks cabal bother you?

  15. Dear Matt, I wrote “I agree with Jean Allan Sovik’s statement: ‘…but as with many private fishing holes it will be protected and perhaps even sealed from the public,’ My brother witnessed the Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue murders. His Boston police witness statement was sealed by a federal judge.” You responded: “It’s difficult to understand why your brother’s statement was sealed..”

    I apologize for not getting back sooner. But the FBI has created much fear in me and especially in my brother. The main reason my brother’s police witness statement was sealed – it differed from Kevin Weeks’under-oath testimony concerning the Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue murders. Instead of indicting Kevin Weeks for perjury, they decided to seal my brother’s police witness statement. Of course, they wanted to use Kevin Weeks as a witness against John Connolly and others. This goes much deeper.

    1. Afraid:
      What is it that your brother saw. We already heard one witness interviewed on a television program who said he saw the man in the back seat of the car was bareheaded. I’ve even opined that it very well could have been Weeks in the back seat of the car and they had to come up with the fanciful story of him being there but just as a look out rather than the gunman so that the deal with him would pass muster.
      Your brother’s statement may be sealed but his lips aren’t sealed. He can tell anyone in the world what he saw and no judge can prohibit a person to a murder telling what he saw. Can you tell us what he said he saw?
      One thing though, the FBI is capable of tracking down the identity of people who communicate on the internet. Right now you are writing under an alias but if it wanted I believe it could discover who you are. However, there’s nothing that you could offer that would make the FBI upset at you. The FBI has done some very wrong things but as far as I know it hasn’t gone after people like us who criticize it. Mostly were ignored since it has little to fear from us when it has Congress and the Judicial Branch in its back pocket.

  16. Matt: the FBI investigated. Murray denied Connolly was taking any money. End of story! I do agree with you that it’s baffling why the FBI agents did not headline their 209 with the statment: “Joe Murray denied Connolly took any money.”
    Wasn’t it Murray’s wife who said Connolly was taking money; she heard it on the street. She was crazy. She later shot and killed her husband. So, wasn’t the crazy wife the initial source of the story? She didn’t have any first hand knowledge!
    Regarding Connolly taking money, remember even at Connolly’s trial in Boston in 2002, the Feds never charged Connolly with taking any money and he was acquitted of taking the ring. So after the Feds interviewed Morris, Martorano, Weeks, Salemme, and all the FBI agents, they never charged Connolly with taking any money himself.
    Wolf hand-picked which 209s he believed; which he didn’t. Wolf was highly critical of the FBI. And you’re right, Wolf did find the 209s contained many falsehoods. That’s his opinion. The Boston jury rejected many of Wolf’s “findings of facts.” The Boston jury rejected Wolf’s finding that Connolly was the source of leaks. Flemmi testified before Wolf in 1998 that Morris was the source of the leaks. It took Flemmi until 2003 before he changed his tune.
    I don’t view the FBI in as harsh a light as you do! I do view the judges and prosecutors in a much harsher light than you do.
    I do agree it’s very difficult to nail down the facts amid all these conflicting stories. That is why, if I were a juror, I’d have more than a “reasonable doubt” about the charges against John Connolly.

    1. Bill:
      The reason Clark did not include what Murray said in his report about Connolly is because he did not like what he heard. He went out to interview him to learn what he knew about Connolly and came back and wrote up a report that didn’t include anything he went out to find out about. When called on it by Ralph Ranalli, he said: “I did what I was told to do. You weren’t there, you don’t know what it was like. You wouldn’t understand.”

      The only one who ever said Murray’s wife was crazy was the FBI agent who went with Clark. He said Murray said his wife was crazy saying things about Connolly. If that had happened, it would have been in the report. Murray’s wife didn’t hear it on the street. She heard it from her husband who confirmed it for the FBI but the FBI agents just didn’t put it in their reports. It might be hearsay but FBI reports overflow with hearsay.

      The Feds never charged Connolly with taking money because they had no evidence at that time that he did. Martorano knew about the ring and they could corroborate that. Morris said nothing about money other than Connolly got it from Whitey and passed it on to him. The guys who gave him money would have been Whitey or Flemmi. Neither one testified at his trial. After Flemmi turned state’s evidence, he said he paid him. Weeks testified that Whitey gave Connolly money. Salemme and Martorano had no dealings with Connolly. Whitey has just come out and said he paid for the information Connolly was giving him.

      Wolf heard the evidence and picked those FBI reports that conformed to his view of the evidence. Many of them seemed total contrary to the facts he heard. Others were inconsistent in themselves. Wolf heard from over 40 witnesses most of them FBI agents. The jury did not hear the same case that Wolf heard so it’s hard to say they rejected his finding of fact.

      You note Flemmi testified it was Morris who tipped him off about the indictment coming down. The reason he did that is he and Connolly were communicating back and forth and they decided upon that strategy. Salemme said Flemmi told him it was Connolly and Salemme told how he turned on Flemmi when Flemmi said in court it was Morris. It is difficult to shut my eyes to the Flemmi/Connolly/Weeks conspiracy to undermine the case in front of Wolf. Flemmi changed his tune when he saw that Connolly could no longer help him out.

      By going slowly through the time period a lot of things become more clear. The FBI is the main culprit after all it was the one who abandoned Connolly when the heat was on and it allowed the situation with Flemmi and Whitey to fester. The prosecutors followed the evidence which they believed. What would you do as a prosecutor believing a retired FBI agent was working with one of the worse men who ever lived, Stevie Flemmi, to undermine your prosecution of him. I’m sure that had a lot to do with the prosecutors view of Connolly. I’d certainly have little patience if I knew a retired cop was trying to undermine one of my prosecutions.

      I cannot overlook Connolly’s association with Flemmi and Weeks and must factor that into my view of things. Connolly and Weeks hung around. Weeks testified that even after Connolly left the FBI Whitey continued to pay him money for information.

  17. There is nothing humorous about the ‘truthiness’ of the FBI’s acts to ‘shred justice’. You write, “and If It Isn’t In Writing It Didn’t Happen.” This has been my family’s personal experience. I was a cooperating witness in an investigation that was opened by the FBI back in the day when many of the banks in New England had failed due to what Professor William Black calls ‘controlled accounting fraud’. One of the suspects that I had complained about, and had been asked to provide information about, was also cohort/business associate of John Iuele.Bank of Boston was one link, among others.

    After providing a good many documents of technical information to the person alleging to be a Boston FBI investigating agent, over a period of years, I was then informed by that same agent that my complaint file had been shredded.

    Therefore, there was nothing ‘in writing’, and so by that same logic, it never ‘happened’. And, it was soon after that I was converted by the FBI into a suspect in the collapse of the insurance industry in Pennsylvania. And, shortly after that I was subpoenaed by the Organized Crime Task Force in the case.

    As I have already reported when it was discovered that I was in fact the victim of a crime by John Iuele and Gene Phillips,among others, the AUSA request to expand the investigation was terminated by FBI HQ. The linkage between Mr Iuele and Mr. Phillips was my lawyers, at the time I made the original complaint, in 1991.

    The senior partner of that firm was appointed to the Federal Bench by President Bush 1, and later the Judge was appointed to sit on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The very same court that has Whitey’s request for recusal under consideration.

    Oh, what a tangled web the FBI has woven, when its practice is to ‘shred justice’. And, you are right there is no humor in the destruction of citizens’ constitutional rights, or the rule of law.

    1. Jean:
      It is sad that we’ll never know what is going on in the FBI offices since it is accountable to no one. Your ex-governor Sununu wrote an article in the Boston Globe telling haw the U.S. has a program where the president can deem an American citizen a threat and order him executed. When Brennan was up for confirmation for Director of the CIA he was asked about the program. He said you just have to trust us. Our executive (President, Dept of Justice, Homeland Security, FBI) is out of control because our Congress has gone astray to the point that what’s good for America has become second to what’s good for my party. We are slowly letting our rights slip away as you have experienced in your own situation.

      1. The article that I believe you have referenced in the Boston Globe was written by John E.Sununu, who was a former US Senator from New Hampshire. In the Globe Opinion, John E. Sununu wrote: “This is a program (drone -emphasis added) as breathtaking in its hypocrisy as it is devoid of respect for due process and the constitutional principle of checks and balances. And it’s one tragedy that the President can’t blame on someone else.” Well, put.

        But consider this: It was Senator John E. Sununu who stood by and did nothing when I wrote to him, time and time again, with respect to my family’s situation, and also the disappearance of my ID files from the US State Department; which, is the proximate cause of my inability to collect upon the social security benefits that are due me, among other constitutional deprivations. One may wonder whether his non action to investigate my complaint was also “breathtaking in its hypocrisy as it is devoid of respect for due process and the constitutional principle of checks and balances.”

        You have opined that “Congress has gone astray to the point that what’s good for America has become second to what’s good for my party”. This appears to be a critical ‘problem’. But, what my family is looking for is who is in charge of the solution? If a citizen can no longer reliably call upon its government representatives to get help, then there is no longer a Republic to rely upon. Then, what?

        1. Jean:
          I stand corrected. He was the senator and not the governor and you correctly identified the statement to which I was referring.

          What is really funny is although I agree with Sununu’s statement I think the hypocrisy lies in his corner because he was a BIG supporter of the President’s opponent and his candidate supported the program that Obama is operating.

          Sununu is an example of people playing political gotchamanship — rather than working to do what is best for most of the hard working Americans. I would like to think his type is dying out but it doesn’t seem likely. As for your case, you saw at first hand Sununu’s actions.

Comments are closed.