Federal Prosecutor John Durham and American Justice. 4 of 10

The Charges Against Connolly

As usual with the federal prosecutors they loaded up on charges against Connolly. It is necessary to spell them out for a full understanding of the situation and the deals given to those murderers and his supervisor.

There was a racketeering count that had 14 different acts that the prosecutors alleged Connolly had committed. If only two of these acts were proven then Connolly would be convicted of racketeering. There were 4 counts of bribery, 1 count of extortion, and 9 of obstruction of justice.

The bribery involved receiving a ring from gangsters, giving $1,000 to Agent Morris’s girlfriend to meet him on a trip; giving his FBI supervisor a case of wine; and giving his FBI supervisor a case of wine with $1000 in it. The jury found only the last one was proven.

The extortion count of a liquor store was not proven.

The obstruction charges involved not reporting the extortion; two charges of leaking the identity of informants who were later murdered; one charge of leaking the identity of a person (Callahan) who was to be questioned, and one of leaking information about a telephone wiretap. These were considered the most serious charges. The jury found none were proven.

Four other obstruction of justice charges under the racketeering charge were found to be proven: sending a fraudulent letter to Judge Wolf; causing Flemmi to testify falsely before Judge Wolf; telling Bulger the indictment was coming down; telling Flemmi the indictment was coming down.

There were also three substantive obstruction of justice charges and one making a false statement to the FBI. Three were repeats of those under the racketeering indictment. He was found not guilty of telling Flemmi the indictments were coming down; guilty of causing Flemmi to testify falsely, and guilty of sending fraudulent letter to Judge Wolf. Finally, he was convicted of making false statements to the FBI agent.

The reason Salemme was used as a witness is because his testimony was needed to support several of the charges against Connolly. Under the Racketeering case the charges against Connolly that were proven were: (a) bribery, $1,000 in case of wine; (b) tipped of Bulger to flee; (c) tipped off Flemmi to flee who tipped off Salemme; (d) sent fraudulent letter to Judge Wolf; and (e) persuading Flemmi to testify falsely. 

Salemme testified that Flemmi had told him that it was Connolly who tipped him off. He said after Steve Flemmi said it was Morris who did it, Salemme testified he was furious. He confronted Flemmi in the holding cell. Flemmi told him he had to say it was Morris because Connolly could hurt him and Jimmy Bulger. Salemme’s evidence was the only evidence that supported (e) above.

Salemme testified he gave Flemmi money to give to Connolly  and Flemmi told him he was getting grand jury information from Connolly. Flemmi said Connolly told him he was the subject of a federal wiretap. This testimony added to the blackening of Connolly’s character.

Salemme testified he met with Connolly to see if he would share information with him. Connolly told him he would let Stevie Flemmi know when the indictments were coming down. Salemme’s evidence was the only evidence that Connolly said that. Salemme said he met Flemmi who told him Connolly told him the indictments were coming down on January 10. Obviously this testimony greatly supported (b) and (c) above.

There were other similar statements. Salemme was a crucial witness on three of the obstruction charges under the racketeering indictment. If the jury disbelieve Salemme because of his active participation in a recent murder the only charges left proven on the racketeering indictment was the $1,000 with the wine box and the fraudulent letter to Judge Wolf. But even there, Salemme having run rough shod over Connolly’s character one of those also may have been put aside if Salemme had not testified.

As to the three substantive counts on which he was convicted, one causing Flemmi to testify falsely would be compromised leaving only lying to an FBI agent and the letter to Wolf. The issue is had the jury knew Salemme committed the more recent Stephen DiSarro murder and the circumstances surrounding that murder would it believe any of his testimony especially that relating to the warnings. An insight into this is that the jury totally rejected the testimony of John Martorano.

 

 

10 thoughts on “Federal Prosecutor John Durham and American Justice. 4 of 10

  1. Morning mail drop for the uneducated and the uneducable

    https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-vp-police-prosecutor/

    Why We’re Demanding No Cops for Veep
    If Joe Biden wants to signal his commitment to the message of the Black Lives Matter movement, he shouldn’t pick a former police officer or prosecutor.
    By Jennifer Epps-Addison

    https://gizmodo.com/adam-schiff-accused-of-protecting-a-suspected-fbi-surve-1844617109?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=eac7c144-1279-43d1-aae0-e9e510453ac6

    Adam Schiff Accused of Protecting a Suspected FBI Surveillance Dragnet

    https://patch.com/massachusetts/malden/everett-man-scaled-fence-threw-rock-fbi-headquarters-feds

    Man accused of scaling fence at Boston FBI headquarters, damaging property
    August 3, 2020 at 6:57 p.m.. A man accused of scaling the perimeter fence of the Boston FBI headquarters in Chelsea and repeatedly throwing a ..

  2. The Abomination: When John Connolly appealed his Boston conviction on Racketeering-related charges, the Appeals Court used as “evidence’ of John being involved in a continuing racketeering “enterprise” both (1) actions for which John had been found not guilty (leaking information that led to the deaths of Callahan, Collucci and, Halloran) and (2) actions for which John had not been charged (allegations by Martorano and Weeks that John Connolly was receiving money.) John had been acquitted of Morris’s and Martarono’s allegations of receiving money and a ring. John was convicted of transmitting that case of wine with an envelope in it to Morris in the early 1980s and was convicted of telling Kevin Weeks in December 1994 that he heard an indictment was coming down. No other convictions linked the early 1980 act and the December 1994 act, so there was no continuing racketeering enterprise. Connolly’s attorneys argued convincingly on appeal.

    With sheer sophistry the Appeals Court discarded the sacred principle “presumption of innocence.” A bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system is that a defendant accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This protection comes from the due process guarantees in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.”

    See U.S. v Connolly, decided August 14, 2003, Judge Lipez, Portfilio, Howard. Lipez begins section “2. Evidence” citing Kevin Weeks’ “allegations” (never proven) that John Connolly received money from the gangsters, then Lipez cites Martorano’s “allegations” (rejected by the jury) that John leaked information that lead to Callahan, Collucci and Halloran murders.

    Later, on Lipez “explains” that even though the jury found certain racketeering related charges against John Connolly were “unproven” the jury “could have” concluded or “might have” concluded Connolly nevertheless accepted money or leaked information.

    Imagine having a racketeering conviction upheld on what a jury “could have” or “might have” thought.

    For you lawyers out there, read the sophistry for yourself. And pardon me if I spit on this sheer sophistry.
    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1411032.html

    John Connolly was convicted of five charges (denying calling a lawyer’s office; writing a letter to a judge; telling Weeks to tell Flemmi to lie; telling Weeks an indictment was coming down; (these four occurred while John was a private citizen, five years retired from the FBI) and giving Morris a case of wine with an envelope in it (about 1982, the only crime convicted of during his 23 years as an FBI agent.) John was acquitted of nine charges; three related to murder (that he leaked names) and all charges he took a bribe, anything of value for himself (money or a ring) and he was also acquitted of any involvement in the sale of that package store.

  3. Matt

    Don’t you think you are being a dight unreasonable?

    In 2011 I went down to New Bedford to videotape and
    interview Diane Wilson for my doc on Robert Shetterly’s
    Americans Who Tell the Truth Portraits..

    https://www.americanswhotellthetruth.org/portraits/diane-wilson

    Biography
    When she called a meeting in 1989 to discuss how a plastics manufacturing plant might affect the environment in her coastal Texas county, fourth-generation shrimper Diane Wilson had no idea how her life would change. She just wanted to have an honest discussion about things people who lived in Calhoun County would care about: the impact of a Formosa Plastics expansion on the health of the people who lived there and on the livelihood of those who fished the bay.

    Wilson couldn’t know that her dog would be shot in her yard, she would become a pariah in her own community, and someone would attempt to sink her boat—with her on it. She couldn’t know that she, with just a high-school diploma and a dislike of chemistry, would become conversant in chemical compounds and their health risks, file her own legal briefs, and learn more about the corruption of public officials than anyone wants to believe. She couldn’t imagine that she was setting out on a new life path that would fortify her sense of purpose and draw international networks of support. Wilson wrote in her 2005 book, An Unreasonable Woman, “Risking one’s life can be strangely liberating.”

    The expansion of the plastics plant got the green light despite Wilson’s campaign. After a lot more work and four hunger strikes, she persuaded Formosa Plastics to sign a zero-discharge agreement—and then neighboring Alcoa to sign one too. After visiting India, she came home and went after another neighbor, Dow Chemical, which had bought Union Carbide after its massively lethal, Bhopal chemical spill in 1984. Wilson pressed the company to make fair reparations to the affected families in Bhopal, India.

    When Wilson told her story at the 2001 Bioneers Conference of environmental activists and scientists, she challenged listeners to become “unreasonable” in their defense of the Earth. A new group, Unreasonable Women for the Earth, immediately formed, and Wilson says members in eight countries supported her hunger strike against Dow. With Medea Benjamin, Wilson co-founded another network of women activists, Code Pink for Peace, in 2002.

    In December 2005, Wilson began serving a four-month jail sentence for civil criminal trespass when she chained herself to a Dow Chemical tower in August 2002. The jail term opened a new chapter in her activism, as she advocated for better conditions for other women imprisoned in the Victoria County jail.

  4. Writing a letter to a judge is not a crime as long as it is not a threat. Americans have a Constitutional Right to petition the government to redress a grievance. There was and could not be an obstruction of justice. It was a made up crime comparable to the Probation case. Calling a lawyers office is also Constitutionally protected. Every American has a right to contact any lawyer of their choosing. Yet on these flimsy non crimes the crooked, corrupt, indecent Judge Tauro gives Connolly 10 years. What a pathetic person. 2. Tried a case years ago where my client and others were charged with Manslaughter and Assault with a weapon. The jury found the defendants not guilty of the homicide count and guilty of the lesser charge. Fortunately we had an honest judge in Quirico who didn’t punish the defendants for the crime they were acquitted of. The DA wanted 5 to 10 years in States prison . The judge gave them a year in the House of Correction. That is the type of sentence Connolly should have gotten at the most but Tauro was part of the media-government cabal helping the Mafia and trying to portray them as victims. The Mafia were the good guys and the Rogue Agent caused all the problems. So said the press.

  5. This from Shelley Murphy’s article, May 29, 2002. Headline: “Connolly convicted, but jury acquits ex-agent of most serious charges.”

    Shelley Murphy writes: “Part of the jury’s verdict did appear contradictory when it came to the question of whether Connolly, who retired in 1990, warned his longtime informants, Bulger and Flemmi, and their codefendant, New England Mafia boss Francis ”Cadillac Frank” Salemme, to flee on the eve of their January 1995 indictment. . . .
    In finding Connolly guilty of racketeering, jurors found that he had tipped off Bulger, Flemmi, and Salemme in advance of their indictment. But jurors found Connolly not guilty of a separate obstruction-of-justice charge of tipping off the gangsters to their indictment.”

    The “guilty” verdict of tipping off to flee was based on Kevin Weeks’ phony account, which was contradicted by Theresa Stanley’s testimony that the first Whitey heard an indictment was coming down was when he was driving back from New York with her and they heard it on the radio. The phony “tipping off” allegation is further refuted by the fact that Flemmi never fled.

    We know Salemme subsequently admitted he perjured himself at Connolly’s trial, and your assessment is correct, if you subtract the perjurious Salemme’s testimony . . . .(and Durham supposedly was warned even by Wyshak not to put the perjurious Salemme on the stand) . . .then you are left with Connolly being convicted of writing a letter to a judge and denying he called a particular lawyer’s office.

    What is problematic is the Media never reports these inconsistent verdicts: That John Connolly was both acquitted of tipping off Bulger and Flemmi to flee, and convicted of the same thing. Courts usually throw out inconsistent verdicts. Judge Tauro did not.

    1. The jury refused to believed only one of Morris’s several allegations, that Connolly gave him the case of wine with an envelope inside that contained some cash. I’ve read that Morris could not recall exactly where that envelope was, and Morris testified Connolly said nothing about the envelope when he handed the case to him. From what I’ve read, Morris, whose office was next to Connolly’s, testified that two weeks after Connolly handed him the case of wine, Connolly telephoned Morris and asked Morris, “How did you like what was in the case?” Seems to me if Morris is to be believed, and I don’t believe a word he said, Connolly was simply referring to the wine, but Morris apparently concluded Connolly was referring to the envelope.

      1. Two other perplexing things: Why is it a crime for a private citizen (John Connolly was retired 5 years from the FBI in 1995) to tell someone he heard through the grapevine an indictment was coming down? It isn’t. Moreover, I’m convinced the Kevin Weeks’ story is a fabrication.

        John Connolly served 23 years as an FBI agent. In his Boston trial, he was convicted of one crime during those 23 years. Transmitting a case of wine with an envelope in it to his boss John Morris. John has never been convicted of accepting a nickel.

Comments are closed.