Freddy’s Dilemma: What Liar Do I Believe

patriarcaThe reason I wrote yesterday about Freddie Wyshak and his actions in putting Steven Flemmi on the stand to testify to what was an obvious falsehood was spurred by the recent incident involving the indictment of Francis Salemme for murder of Steven A. DiSarrio.

Freddie Wyshak is handling this case as you might expect. But should he be? Freddie is the one who has already made deals with Francis Salemme for his testimony. Good deals. How about this one. “Hey, Frankie, you testify against a former FBI Agent John Connolly and we won’t ask you any questions about your Mafia buddies and we’ll do all we can to get your sentence reduced.”

That’s right – Salemme who was the head of a Mafia crime family taking over from the Patriarca father and son (pictured above) – got a deal from Freddie who would help him get out of prison early if he’d come in and make up some stuff about John Connolly. Freddie was not interested in any of the murders committed by the Mafia but wanted to get some evidence against this former FBI agent. Nor was Freddie interested in learning who it was who gunned Salemme down at the IHOP in Saugus.

The gross part of the deal was that while Salemme was confined in prison he met another Mafia guy who happened to be an FBI informant. He told this Mafia guy that he was coached by Freddie’s investigators into giving the testimony they wanted and not what actually happened. He was given a book to read that spelled out the theory the prosecutor was following. After being coached he testified to these lies against Connolly.

It gets worse. It was obvious Salemme lied during his trial with Connolly and Freddie would subsequently charge him with lying. He would again make a deal with him so that he got a slap on his hand for this false testimony. Freddie has a half-dozen murderers out on the street with his sweetheart deals.

I thought it would present some sort of conflict for a guy to have a relationship with one guy and to be prosecuting the same guy. We already saw how it happened when Salemme got one deal, lied, and then got another deal. Freddie is involved in undermining the justice system since he is prosecuting a guy who has done him favors so he has to return the favors to him.

You see the major problem that exists in using these murderers as witnesses is that they lie all the time. They lie for one purpose which is to benefit themselves. They have no interest in telling the truth; all they want is to please the prosecutor who can give them a deal. They then get on the stand for the federal prosecutors and lie again. The biggest lie they tell is that they are then going to tell the truth because they fear if they lie they will be charged with perjury for doing it. That’s the biggest lie because they know if that happened the prosecutor would have to try the case over again and that is the last thing he would want to do. They know they can lie with impunity as long as they tell the lies they have already told to please the prosecutor.

Freddie now finds himself in a real dilemma. According to the story here  Robert DeLuca a Mafia captain who in 2011 made a deal with the federal prosecutors so he only did one day in jail on an extortion charge (can you believe a Mafia guy got only a day in jail) is believed to have lied when he made the deal. He allegedly did not tell them he knew who murdered DiSarrio and that he helped bury him.

Again DeLuca, 71, has again made a deal. He pled guilty to obstruction of justice and lying to the federals in exchange for testifying against Frankie Salemme. Frankie is 83 and he will die in prison like Whitey and John Connolly. Freddie is handling the case. He told the judge who used to work with him in the prosecutor’s office about DeLuca only spending a day in jail because he cooperated against fellow mobsters and denied any involvement in murder or other violent crimes. He went on to say: “That would, of course, not have happened if Mr. DeLuca was truthful”

First off the bat for a federal prosecutor to suggest he believed a Mafia captain had no involvement in murder or other violent crimes has to make you scratch your head and ask what bag has he been living in. Second, he has a guy who has already lied to get a deal getting another deal. We know that because he would not have pleaded guilty and agreed to testify if he didn’t. How does Freddy know he is not lying again? How can he continually be prosecuting guys who were witnesses for him by using guys who have already lied?

Is there anyone who can protect us against this foolishness? Doesn’t this undermine all his prior prosecutions?

 

22 thoughts on “Freddy’s Dilemma: What Liar Do I Believe

  1. Matt: Excellent analysis: Wyshak repeatedly used witnesses who perjured themselves, without consequences to Wyshak. I hold Wyshak in the utmost contempt. As I do the federal courts in Boston and the courts in Florida that let him get away with putting known perjurers on the stand.

  2. “Is there anyone who can protect us against this foolishness?”

    Matt, you write ‘foolishness,’ but isn’t this also an extremely deep form of–I dunno–corruption of the soul, moral turpitude, moral bankruptcy, failure to serve the public interest, etc.?

    We believe Ortiz will be gone in a few weeks, but what about Freddy? What’s his date of departure?

  3. Sessions has to drain the swamp at the Federal Court house in Boston. All who participated in the frameup of Connolly, Rico and Fitzpatrick should be prosecuted. Lock them all up. Put all OC murderers in jail. 2. It has been two and a half years since the Probation officials were found guilty. The Appeals Court has yet to render a verdict. Why are they stalling? If they uphold the conviction every Federal judge US Attorney in America could be indicted on the same principle of not hiring the most qualified person. Will they give Sessions that blank check? If they overturn it do the Probation people have an abuse of process or malicious prosecution claim against Ortiz and the Feds, Coakley and the State and the Globe? 3. Are war crimes being committed in Yemen by the Saudis and those supplying the planes and bombs to them. A Democratic Congressman has said as much. Are the Brits and Americans implicated?

  4. ‘ Keep your eye on that balloon in the sky ” … From Donnie The Ringmaster’s much anticipated Tome, HYPNOTIC INDUCTIONS AND SEDUCTIONS UNDER THE BIG TOP 🙂

  5. Hello to All. Fred M. Wyshak, Jr., is now the “Fox” in the chicken coop. How can USA Ortiz allow Wyshak to prosecute Frank Salemme for the murder of Steven DiSarro? I would like to point out a few facts about Wyshak and his minions, a DEA Agent, Two Mass State Troopers and of course, John Durham, who was the lead prosecutor in John Connolly’s 2002 RICO trial. First, Frank Salemme was coached before he testified against John Connolly. He was told —suggested—to answer any questions posed to him while he was on the stand relative to his association with John Connolly. Well, Salemme’s testimony resulted in John Connolly being convicted of four [4] predicate acts out of the fourteen [14] that were brought against him. Fast forward to 2003; Stephen Flemmi was debriefed by Wyshak, DEA, Mass State Police and Florida State Prosecutor[s] centering on a myriad of subject matters relative to John Connolly, Steven DiSarro, Thomas Timmins, Peter Poulos, Robert Donati, and several other murder victims at the hands of Frank Salemme and Steven Flemmi. Specifically, in 2003, Flemmi stated that he was present during the murder of Steven DiSarro and he witnessed the strangulation of DiSarro by Frank, Jr. while Frank, Sr. and Flemmi watched. My point is, here lies the problem, Wyshak KNEW about the death of Steven DiSarro back in 2003 and he did nothing to investigate this murder. Now he is going to lead the prosecution of Frank Salemme. He better watch out as Frank Salemme will through Wyshak under the bus if he is allowed to take the stand. I suspect that Salemme, will insist on taking the stand to shove it right up Wyshak’s ass and the members of his corrupt investigative staff. It should be noted, no FBI Agent was ever invited to assist in the debriefing of Flemmi; not one agent! The nightmare is just beginning for Wyshak; he has to figure out how he can explain away the fact that he knew about DiSarro’s murder, again, back in 2003, and did nothing. That is because he made a deal with Salemme so that he could prosecute John Connolly for crimes he never committed or was involved in. As a reminder to all of Matt’s readers and responders, the FBI and the Rhode Island State Police, through their respective investigations, determined the whereabouts of DiSarro’s remains and exhumed his body. Wyshak and the Mass State Police had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RECOVERY OR PARTICIPATED IN THE INVESTIGATION! Wyshak may survive the cut when the “Donald” takes charge. AUSA usually stay onboard after a new USA takes over — strictly for convenience purposes. A new USA wants continuity in his staff. Just my thoughts. DB

  6. Thought provoking . I have yet to buy the notion that Senior would ever countenance his namesake doing that sort of wet work, particularly right in front of him. Senior is a capable man, and a Traditional one. Frankie Jr. freelancing mischief is one thing. Strangling Mr. DiSarra right in front of his Father is not incredible, it is simply not believable.

    Like so many other scripted lines in this sordid saga : ” The balloon is in the air ” … ” I looked at Kevin as we were digging Bucky’s grave, leaned on my shovel and said ‘ that could be us in there ‘ ” ….. ” Whitey jumped on her back and started strangling her ” … ” After he kulled her he went into the living room to take a nap, and told us to bury her body ” … ” I don’t know why I stood there as he murdered her, I never took orders from him, but I guess he was in charge on that one ” …. ” This guy pulled up that Halloween night as Jimmy was down in the hole digging . He got out to take a piss. I fingered the trigger on my machine gun. After he finished and drove off, Jimmy roared up out of the hole and yelled at me ‘ Why didn’t you shoot him?’ there’s plenty of room in that hole for the both of them! ” … ” Jimmy asked MacIntyre if he wanted to be strangled or shot in the head, MacIntyre said ‘ shot in the head ‘ and Jimmy shot him! “… ” FRANKIE JR. TOOK CARE OF THAT ! ” ( Seniors ALLEGED quote regarding a kid who looked like a Movie Star and was the apple of his eye, as Bobbin’ Bobby DeLuca says Frank Salemme Sr. refers to his Son Frank Salemme Jr. regarding Mr. Steven DiSarra.

    This last morsel of meretricious fabrication of Federal testimony has yet to debut in Joe’s Place on Northern Avenue, THE MOAKLEY FEDERAL COURTHOUSE. But you know what? Roughly paraphrased all of the other cited phrases of prostituted verification have tricked their way as FEDERAL TESTIMONY across the Moakley Stage, And ……. CRICKETS !!!!!!!!

    It is all starting to unravel . Let’s send out for some Chinese, and enjoy the Show … It has only just begun .

  7. Matt
    You say in the opening sentence that “THE REASON I WROTE YESTERDAY ABOUT FREDDIE WHYSHAK AND HIS ACTIONS ………” but I see no article on 12/9/21016 where you wrote about this situation. Did you write a post and forget to post it on the blog?

    Will you be attending the Francis Salemme trial in 2017 (if it goes to trial)?

    1. Dear mr Baker ,Matt, Bill C, your articles are well taken but now there are a lot of unanswered questions. Why did it take 13 yrs for the DiSarro body to be dug up?
      Obviously unlawful tactics were used to convict John Connolly in both trails, so how do we correct that? How do we get a innocent FBI AGENT OUT OF PRISON.? Why don’t
      one of those Honorable Judges that presided at trial(s) stop this injustice before
      It gets worse? The wrong people are in prison! HOW DO WE STOP THIS INJUSTICE?

  8. Dear mr Baker ,Matt, Bill C, your articles are well taken but now there are a lot of unanswered questions. Why did it take 13 yrs for the DiSarro body to be dug up?
    Obviously unlawful tactics were used to convict John Connolly in both trails, so how do we correct that? How do we get a innocent FBI AGENT OUT OF PRISON.? Why don’t
    one of those Honorable Judges that presided at trial(s) stop this injustice before
    It gets worse? The wrong people are in prison! HOW DO WE STOP THIS INJUSTICE?

  9. Dear Matt, As you well know, Fred Whyshak allowed Kevin Weeks to commit perjury concerning the Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue murders. This serial killer is enjoying freedom while his victims are rotting. The last chapter of my “Gaga” book begins by mentioning Stephen Rakes’ killer (William Camuti) has never faced justice and it ends by requesting Congressional hearing concerning the Halloran and Donahue murders. It takes an interested public to get things moving. My next book (which I hope to soon put on Amazon) will also request Congressional hearings concerning the Halloran and Donahue murders, and the next book, and the next book, and the next book. Of course, these books will also state William Camuti should face trial for murdering my friend Stephen Rakes in cold blood with cyanide. I’ll send Fred Whyshak a copy of each book. Below is the “Gaga” book’s last chapter.

  10. Boston FBI Corruption

    My lawsuit states:

    “55. On or about May, 2006, Jon Stuen-Parker went to the Boston office of the Justice
    Department to obtain Jaime Parker’s May, 1982, Boston Police Incident Report. A Justice Department official informed Stuen-Parker that a Federal Seal was placed on the Police Incident Report by Jaime Parker concerning the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders. The Justice Department official gave Stuen-Parker three case citation numbers that were ‘related to the sealed information.’ The case citation numbers revealed the Halloran, Donahue, and Rakes/Dammers civil lawsuits…

    70. Among the numerous crimes perpetrated by the Bulger Group was to compel Stephen Rakes and Julie Rakes Dammers to sell them their liquor store.

    71. ‘Rakes and Dammers brought suit against the United States under the Federal Torts Claims
    Act (FTCA). Because the extortion took place in 1984, and Rakes and Dammers did not file an
    administrative claim until May 11, 2001, the FTCA’s two year statute of limitations would bar this action if the claim had accrued on the date of injury.’12
    12Rakes v. U.S., 442 F. 3d 7, p. 2 (1st Cir. Mar. 23, 2006).

    72. ‘The question on appeal was whether, under the discovery rule or under any tolling principle, the FTCA claim at issue accrued before or after May 11, 1999. Finding that the claim accrued more than two years before Rakes and Dammers filed their claims, and that the statute of limitations was not tolled on grounds of duress or fraudulent concealment, the court affirmed ‘the decision of the district court dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.’’13
    13Ibid, p. 3.

    73. ‘We note that Dammers in fact argues two distinct tolling doctrines in support of her position. Specifically, she argues that she was delayed in filing her claim because 1) she was under duress as a result of being threatened by members of the Winter Hill Gang, and 2) the government fraudulently concealed or misrepresented information vital to her claim.’14
    14Ibid, p. 35.

    74. ‘The district court thought that, in order to find Dammers’ claim tolled on the ground of duress, it was necessary for Rakes and Dammers to allege sufficient facts to permit an inference that the United States ‘used coercive acts of [sic] threats against them.’ Rakes, 352 F. Supp. 2d at 81. This may overstate the rule, for we think that a claim of duress levied against the United States during the period in which Connolly was actively engaged in protecting Bulger and Flemmi from oversight by law enforcement might conceivably have been made out.’15
    15Ibid, p. 36.

    75. ‘In order to prevail under this rule, Dammers must be able to demonstrate duress caused by the government continually until May 11, 1999. By that date, however, Connolly had long been out of the business of partnering with Bulger. ‘Equitable tolling is based on concealment or other misconduct by the defendant.’ Crawford v. United States, 796 F. 2d 924, 926 (7th Cir. 1986). Once the misconduct ceased, and the United States began actively seeking to frustrate rather than further the Winter Hill Gang’s criminal activities, the government was, under the facts in this case, no longer responsible for ongoing threats made by members of the Winter Hill Gang. We therefore agree with the district court that Dammers’ duress argument fails.’16
    16Ibid.

    76. Information concerning the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders, information the Justice Department deemed was ‘related’ to the Rakes/Dammers civil lawsuit, was sealed by a federal judge. This Federal Seal has allowed Winter Hill gang member, Kevin Weeks, to avoid perjury prosecution for his under-oath testimony concerning the murders of Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran. Thus, the Federal Seal on information concerning the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders helped further the Winter Hill Gang’s criminal activities.

    77. The Boston Police Department Incident Report by Jaime Parker concerning the Michael
    Donahue and Brian Halloran murders, public information a federal judge cited a compelling
    government interest and good cause for secrecy, public information the Justice Department deemed was ‘related’ to the Rakes/Dammers lawsuit, was sealed before Rakes v. U.S., 442 F. 3d 7 (1st Cir. March 23, 2006). Thus, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals was prevented from allowing justice to prevail concerning the Rakes/Dammers civil case.’”

    The lawsuit also states:

    “41. Two FBI agents interviewed Parker in his girlfriend’s apartment at 13 Greenwich Street, Dorchester. Parker resided at 29 Puritan Avenue, Dorchester. His car was registered to that address.

    42. It took Jaime Parker approximately 20 minutes to drive from the murder scene to 13 Greenwich Street, Dorchester. Within 40 minutes of the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders, two FBI agents arrived at 13 Greenwich Street, Dorchester. Either the FBI followed Parker’s car to 13 Greenwich Street, Dorchester, or the Bulger Group followed Parker’s car and contacted the FBI.”

    Kevin Weeks testified about the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders. Kevin Weeks testified Whitey had a light brown wig and a floppy moustache. He testified Whitey’s accomplice wore a mask. Jaime Parker was the closest witness. Neither of the killers had light brown hair, a moustache or a mask.
    On May 11, 1982, Jaime and I enjoyed a boat ride. He was returning to my boat moored in the Fort Point Channel when Michael Donahue’s car was machine-gunned. The car drifted across the street and hit a parked car. Jaime couldn’t drive around it because a dark car boxed him in.
    Whitey and his accomplice walked past Jaime’s car. After the murders, they again went past his car. Jaime was with his girlfriend and her two children. Jaime drove into the adjacent alley and temporarily blocked Whitey’s getaway car. He followed the getaway car up the viaduct to Summer Street. The dark car followed behind. Upon reaching Summer Street, the two cars headed towards downtown Boston. Jaime drove in the opposite direction.
    The FBI agents located Jaime at his girlfriend’s Dorchester apartment. They asked what he witnessed. The next day, Jaime was taken to Boston FBI headquarters and shown numerous suspect photos. The agents didn’t show Whitey’s photo. They kept pointing to James Flynn and insisted he killed Brian Halloran.
    The FBI agents instilled fear in my brother. They told him gangsters lived near his house. Jaime was offered the protective witness program and a credit card if he would testify James Flynn killed Brian Halloran. Jaime went from being a normal citizen (plumber) to a state hospital mental patient.
    When James Flynn was arrested, they took Jaime from the state hospital and brought him before a grand jury. Again they wanted Jaime to identify James Flynn as the killer of Brian Halloran. Unlike the FBI, he couldn’t send an innocent man to prison.
    Jaime’s car was registered to our mother’s house. No one contacted my mother and she didn’t know the girlfriend’s address. There’s no statute of limitations for accessory to murder. The FBI agents locating my brother at his girlfriend’s apartment should be indicted.
    In 1985, the FBI asked me for criminal information. Whitey didn’t kill all FBI informants, but he killed all Southie FBI informants. Since I lived in South Boston, giving the FBI information meant my death. Jaime and I filed federal lawsuits. These lawsuits have never been mentioned by any press.
    Jaime’s lawsuit was assigned to Judge Reginald Lindsay. His lawsuit was dismissed for not attending court. FBI headquarters was located in the courthouse. Jaime was simply too afraid.
    Judge Lindsay ruled John Connolly told Whitey that Brian Halloran was an FBI informant. Two lawyers wanted Jaime to testify at the hearing to determine family compensation for the Halloran and Donahue murders. It took the two lawyers, a special investigator employed by the law firm, and myself to bring Jaime before Judge Lindsay. The first words of his testimony: “I don’t want to be here!”
    Jaime’s testimony was completely different from Kevin Weeks’ previous testimony. Jaime had no reason to commit perjury. Kevin Weeks had a major reason to commit perjury – it would increase his government witness status.

    In 2002, Kevin Weeks testified:
    “Question – Had he changed his appearance in any way from the last time you had seen him?
    Answer – Yes.
    Question – In what way?
    Answer – He had a light brown wig on and a floppy mustache.
    Question – What happened when Halloran came out of the Pier?
    Answer – The small blue car pulled up and he entered the vehicle, passenger.
    Question – And did you see Mr. Bulger then arrive?
    Answer – Yes.
    Question – Was he still driving the tow truck?
    Answer – Yes.
    Question – Now, what could you see from where you were positioned as Bulger’s car approached the small blue car that Halloran was in?
    Answer – He pulled up beside the car Halloran was in, passenger door to passenger door, one car facing one way, the other one facing the other way. James Bulger leaned across the passenger’s seat, yelled out, ‘Brian,’ and then started shooting him with a carbine.
    Question – When you say ‘carbine’ can you describe the carbine for the jury?
    Answer – The carbine that was used, semiautomatic/fully automatic weapon, had a selector switch on it, had a stock with a clasp pull wire that you pull out to use as a shoulder.
    Question – After Mr. Bulger shot in the car, what happened to the blue car?
    Answer – The blue car drifted across the street and crashed into the front of a building.
    Question – And what did Mr. Bulger do then?
    Answer – He made a U-turn, circled around, pulled in the street and started shooting into the car.
    Question – Did you see him shoot into the blue car again?
    Answer – Yes.
    Question – All right. At some point was your vision blocked?
    Answer – Yes.
    Question – And then what did you do?
    Answer – A white van pulled up, and I lost sight of what was going on, and I pulled out into the street.
    Question – And as you pulled out, were you able to see Mr. Bulger again?
    Answer – Yes.
    Question – Was he still shooting Halloran?
    Answer – Yes.
    Question – Did you leave at the same time as Bulger?
    Answer – No.
    Question – What did you do?
    Answer – I waited about a minute or so.”
    Under cross examination by John Connolly’s lawyer, Tracy Miner, Kevin Weeks maintained he was telling the truth. Kevin Weeks admitted joking to the government that he would “confess to killing Kennedy” in exchange for immunity.
    Kevin Weeks helped kill Bucky Barrett, John McIntyre, Deborah Hussey, Michael Donahue, Brian Halloran and more. Twice South Boston residents protested outside the federal courthouse. During both protests, fliers were distributed requesting Kevin Weeks be questioned about the Joseph Ingemi and Brian Watson murders. The fliers also stated Kevin Weeks committed perjury concerning the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders.
    After the first protest, the State Police Task Force woke my brother. A task force member said, “Don’t worry. We just want to ask you one question. Did you see a mask?” Jaime answered, “No.”
    FBI agent Gerald Montanari was in charge of the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murder investigation. He testified during the McIntyre civil lawsuit trial. Judge Lindsay asked, “Was Mr. Bulger a suspect in the murders?” Gerald Montanari answered, “Yes.” Judge Lindsay asked, “Was the witness shown Mr. Bulger’s picture?” Gerald Montanari answered, “No.” He was referring to a female witness. There was no mention of my brother.
    During the court recess, I informed a McIntyre family lawyer Jaime was within 10 feet of Michael Donahue’s disabled car. When the trial resumed, the lawyer asked Gerald Montanari, “Was this (the female) the closest witness?” Gerald Montanari answered, “Yes.” Clearly, he committed perjury.
    The policeman that spoke to fatally wounded Brian Halloran testified before Judge Lindsay. His testimony was video-taped because of a pending vacation. The policeman lived in South Boston. He testified Brian Halloran said James Flynn was the gunman who shot him. Every policeman living in South Boston knew implicating Whitey in murder was a death sentence. The policeman appeared full of guilt. Not looking directly at the camera, his downcast eyes shifted from side to side.
    Who machine-gunned Michael Donahue’s car? Kevin Weeks told reporter David Boeri: “I told them what I’m telling you. (Bulger) used to say he had six agents up there. Basically, (Bulger) claimed he had six FBI agents up there that he corrupted. (Bulger) used to claim that they had six (agents) he could call on anytime and they would willingly hop in the car with him with the machine gun.”
    The 2004 report by the House Committee on Government Reform “Everything Secret Degenerates: The FBI’s Use of Murderers as Informants” states:

    “Beginning in the mid-1960s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’ or ‘Bureau’) began a course of conduct in New England that must be considered one of the greatest failures in the history of federal law enforcement. This Committee report focuses on only a small segment of what happened. It discusses primarily the 1965 murder of Edward ‘Teddy’ Deegan, the subsequent prosecution of six defendants for that murder, and the actions of federal law enforcement officials to protect cooperating witness Joseph ‘The Animal’ Barboza and government informants Jimmy ‘The Bear’ Flemmi and Stephen ‘The Rifleman’ Flemmi.

    In order to understand the FBI’s misuse of informants in New England, it is essential to examine the Deegan murder prosecution. The story of this trial and subsequent events provides a foundation to assess what happened during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, when Stephen Flemmi and James ‘Whitey’ Bulger allegedly murdered at least 19 individuals while serving as government informants. It is now clear that FBI Special Agent John Connolly developed an improper relationship with Whitey Bulger and others who served as government informants.
    Connolly now stands convicted of obstruction of justice for his role in helping Whitey Bulger escape by tipping him off to his impending indictment. Stephen Flemmi, as part of his plea
    agreement, has also implicated Connolly in providing information that resulted in the murder of others.

    The results of the Committee’s investigation make clear that the FBI must improve management of its informant programs to ensure that agents are not corrupted. The Committee will examine the current FBI’s management, security, and discipline to prevent similar events in the future.

    This report finds that:

    Federal law enforcement personnel appear to have tolerated, and perhaps encouraged, false testimony in a state death penalty prosecution. When Joseph Barboza testified in the 1968 trial of six men for the murder of Teddy Deegan, his testimony was contradicted by a compelling body of evidence collected by federal law enforcement. Most of this evidence was kept from defendants and prosecutors. In all probability, this happened because informants were being protected and some officials at the FBI adopted an ‘ends justifies the means’ approach to law enforcement. To date, there have been no adverse consequences for those who permitted the false testimony.

    As a result of Barboza’s false testimony, four men were sentenced to death and two men were sentenced to life in prison. Evidence provided to the Committee indicates that four of these individuals did not commit the crime for which they were convicted. Two died in prison and the other two spent in excess of thirty years in prison. Furthermore, federal officials appear to have taken affirmative steps to ensure that the individuals convicted would not obtain post-conviction
    relief and that they would die in prison…”

    The report ends with:

    “C. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION

    During the course of the Committee’s investigation, federal and state prosecutors requested that the Committee refrain from compelling the testimony of certain witnesses that would complicate pending criminal prosecutions. Out of deference to these prosecutors, and because important witnesses such as James Bulger remain fugitives, the Committee’s fact finding focused mainly on the Deegan murder trial and other early events of the 1960s and 1970s.

    As the report acknowledges, many questions remain about the FBI’s handling of confidential informants and cooperating witnesses after this time period, and the inquiry remains substantially incomplete. At the earliest opportunity, the Justice Department should make a public accounting of its investigation into the allegedly corrupt relationship between Mr. Connolly and James Bulger. Finally, the committees of jurisdiction should continue to review the FBI’s human source
    program and ensure that appropriate systems are in place to prevent similar abuses in the future.

    Hon. Henry A. Waxman.
    Hon. Tom Lantos.
    Hon. Major R. Owens.
    Hon. Bernard Sanders.
    Hon. Elijah E. Cummings.
    Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich.
    Hon. Diane E. Watson.
    Hon. Stephen F. Lynch.
    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

    ADDITIONAL MINORITY VIEWS BY HON. JOHN F. TIERNEY, HON. STEPHEN F. LYNCH, HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, AND HON. BERNARD SANDERS

    This Committee’s work is not done concerning any determination of facts relevant to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) conduct toward informants’ testimony. The Justice Department has withheld potentially significant information, and several potentially significant witnesses have not been fully interrogated due to the assertion of on-going investigations or prosecutions, or because they, at least at this time, are unwilling to testify.

    The Committee should, and we believe it has the obligation to, continue its work by pursuing as yet unavailable records and other information from the Department and by interviewing relevant witnesses once the Department’s investigation and/or prosecutions are complete or if the circumstances occur that encourage heretofore unwilling witnesses to testify. We believe further important and helpful information could certainly be available, and it should be pursued.

    More thorough inquiry should have been made on behalf of the Committee about the relationship between the FBI, informants, and members of the informants’ families and whether those relationships impacted FBI investigations outside the scope of Patriarca, Barboza, Flemmi, or ‘Whitey’ Bulger’s activities. The Committee should consider whether further and more in-depth investigation would tend to inform the goals of its subject hearings or would instead serve only to gather information, however indicative of improper activity, outside the scope of purpose for this particular inquiry.

    The Committee needs to conduct further efforts aimed at examining what, if any, Department and Bureau corrective actions have been undertaken since this scandal first came to light and the adequacy of same, as well as what actions must be taken legislatively, through regulation, by oversight activity, or some combination in order to prevent a continuation or recurrence of similar events in the future.

    Finally, this Committee would be well served, and would serve Congress well, if it conducted follow-up hearings on the disgraceful conduct of the Justice Department in its lack of forthrightness and cooperation. If Congress is to assert its role as a co-equal branch of the government, and fulfill its responsibilities of oversight, it must be able to obtain honest, responsive, and timely information from Executive departments and agencies, barring some privilege justifying any failure to appropriately respond to Congress’ requests.

    The Committee’s work should not be considered complete until the foregoing is accomplished.

    Hon. John F. Tierney
    Hon. Stephen F. Lynch.
    Hon. Elijah E. Cummings.
    Hon. Bernard Sanders.”

    My lawsuit compares Joseph Barboza to Kevin Weeks:

    “B. Joseph Barboza And Kevin Weeks Demonstrate The Difficulty Of Manipulative Informers

    6. a. When Joseph Barboza was in federal custody, he was the subject of intense interest at the highest levels of the Justice Department, he was a witness in a federal trial, and his testimony in one case would undoubtedly have ramifications for other cases. In order for Barboza to be a federal witness, and to merit protection by the federal government, federal officials would have known his testimony regarding the various matters about which he was prepared to testify. They also would have known the details of his testimony in order to develop their own cases and investigations.
    b. When Kevin Weeks was in federal custody, he was a witness in a federal trial, and his testimony in one case would undoubtedly have ramifications for other cases. In order for Weeks to be a federal witness, federal officials would have known his testimony regarding the various matters about which he was prepared to testify. They also would have known the details of his testimony in order to develop their own cases and investigations.

    7. a. When Joseph Barboza testified before a Suffolk County grand jury, the information he provided was contradicted by information known to federal officials, which rendered Barboza’s testimony suspect.
    b. When Kevin Weeks testified in federal court, the information he provided was contradicted by information known to federal officials, which rendered Weeks’ testimony suspect.

    8. a. Joseph Barboza testified in three trials.
    b. Kevin Weeks testified in three trials.

    9. a. Joseph Barboza falsely testified that Joseph Salvati wore wig.
    b. Kevin Weeks falsely testified that one of the gunmen killing Brian Halloran and Michael
    Donahue wore wig.1
    1J.M. Lawrence, LITTLE WHITEY LIES; HIT WITNESS TALKS, Boston Herald, p. 7, May 25, 2005.

    10. a. Joseph Barboza’s testimony contained a handgun discrepancy (.45 caliber pistol).
    b. Kevin Weeks’ testimony contained a gun discrepancy (handgun absent in Michael Donahue’s murder).2
    2Ibid.

    11. a. The failure to press Joseph Barboza regarding [Vincent] Flemmi’s involvement in the Edward Deegan murder supports the conclusion that Barboza’s false testimony was acceptable to some law enforcement officials.
    b. The failure to press Kevin Weeks regarding the ‘masked’ killer in the Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue murders supports the conclusion that Weeks’ false testimony was acceptable to some law enforcement officials.

    12. a. Justice Department records do not show a single instance of Joseph Barboza being confronted with the discrepancies between the record compiled by law enforcement and his proposed testimony.
    b. Justice Department records do not show a single instance of Kevin Weeks being confronted with the discrepancies between the record compiled by law enforcement and his proposed testimony.

    13. a. Joseph Barboza’s parole-bid communique by the Boston FBI stated: ‘[Barbosa’s] defection from the organized underworld and his decision to become a government witness against his former associates constitutes the single most important factor in the success of the federal government’s campaign against organized crime in the New England area.’
    b. Kevin Weeks’ presentencing memorandum, signed by the Boston Field Office of the FBI, stated: ‘Kevin’s cooperation is Unprecedented in this District and Indeed Ranks on a par With Major Instances of Cooperation in all Federal Districts…Kevin has cooperated in a way unparalleled or at least not exceeded in the history of federal criminal justice in a matter involving such widespread, serious criminal activity and causing such pervasive injury to the Metropolitan Boston community…No one could have done more than Kevin Weeks has done to assist the Government in gathering the important convictions it has obtained in what are indisputably highly significant organized crime and law enforcement corruption cases which attracted national media coverage and attention…The significance of Kevin’s Weeks cooperation is momentous, and it’s great importance to the criminal justice system cannot be denied…At the end of the day it was Kevin Weeks’ cooperation and testimony that opened the door to healing the deep wounds caused by law enforcement corruption and to restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system.’

    14. a. Joseph Barboza’s parole-bid communique was obtained after his testimony obtained four murder one convictions in the Edward Deegan trial.
    b. Kevin Weeks’ presentencing memorandum was obtained after his testimony resulted in four murder one indictments against the Bulger Group.

    15. a. While a federal witness, Joseph Barboza withheld information from authorities (Vincent Flemmi’s involvement in the Edward Deegan murder).
    b. While a federal witness, Kevin Weeks withheld information from authorities (those present at Paul Dooley’s residence for Whitey Bulger’s 1996 phone call).3
    3Shelley Murphy, Hunt for Whitey Bulger still targeting Hub kin, Boston Globe, January 15, 2007.

    16. a. Joseph Barboza is a serial killer – 26 murders.
    b. Kevin Weeks is a serial killer – 5 murders.

    17. a. Joseph Barboza received a 4 to 5-year prison sentence. When released, he murdered at least one person and was murdered in 1976.
    b. Kevin Weeks received a 5-year prison sentence. He agreed to cooperate with authorities and testify at upcoming trials.

    18. a. ‘The murder of Clay Wilson by Joseph Barboza, and the ensuing prosecution for this homicide present one of the more bizarre stories in the annals of federal law enforcement.’4
    4Everything Secret Degenerates: The FBI’s Use of Murders as Informants, Report of the House Committee on Government Reform, November 20, 2003.
    b. The Federal Seal placed on the Boston Police Department Incident Report by Jaime Parker concerning the murders of Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran (committed by Kevin Weeks and other Bulger Group members) presents one of the more bizarre stories in the annals of federal law enforcement.

    19. a. Joseph Barboza wrote a book dedicated to the FBI.
    b. Kevin Weeks wrote a book dedicated to the FBI.

    20. In short, the Boston FBI created a new ‘Joseph Barboza.’”

    Federal law enforcement personnel continue to tolerate, and perhaps encourage, false testimony. When Kevin Weeks testified about the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders, his testimony was contradicted by compelling evidence. The evidence was kept from defendants and prosecutors. In all probability, this happened because Kevin Weeks was being protected and some officials at the FBI adopted an “ends justifies the means” approach to law enforcement. There have been no adverse consequences for those who permitted Kevin Weeks’ false testimony.
    Many questions remain concerning the FBI’s use of confidential informants and cooperating witnesses. The House Committee on Government Reform should continue pursing facts relevant to the FBI’s conduct toward informants’ testimony. The Committee should discuss the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders. Individuals that should be interviewed include Jaime Parker, Kevin Weeks, FBI agent Gerald Montanari, the FBI agents finding Jaime Parker at his girlfriend’s apartment and the Boston policeman speaking to fatally wounded Brian Halloran.

  11. Dear Matt, I’m feeling slightly shocked. The beginning of the above “Gaga” book’s last chapter – concerning Stephen Rakes’ murder and William Camuti never facing justice – has vanished! I must have mistakenly deleted it.

  12. Dear Matt, Here’s the beginning of the “Gaga” book’s last chapter. Very strange that I would have deleted something so important! But mistakes happen.

    Boston FBI Corruption
    Steven Rakes was cut from the Whitey trial prosecution witness list. That very same day, William Camuti poisoned him with potassium cyanide. The press reported William Camuti owed Steven Rakes money. Except for his family, I knew Steven better than anybody. I was his best friend. Steven never lent money.
    Steven told me about William Camuti. He explained this man was convicted of fraud and served a federal prison sentence. The allegation that William Camuti killed Steven because owing him money is outrageous. Arrested August 2, 2013, William Camuti has never faced justice!
    The day he was murdered, Steven was nervous about dropping “a big bombshell (see Daily Mail July 19, 2013).” Steven was terrified of the FBI. Numerous times, he read my federal lawsuit (07-CV12165-RCL). It states: “437. On or about 2003, former U.S. Attorney Jeremiah O’Sullivan testified to Congress, “[I]f you go against [the FBI] they will try to get you. They will wage war on you…”
    Steven’s bombshell was the federal seal on Jaime Parker’s police witness statement that protects Kevin Weeks from perjury prosecution and prevented justice in the Rakes/Dammers lawsuit. Steven’s last communication with me (email): “Jon, you’re making me do this alone!”

  13. Dear Matt, Here are two quotes from Stephen Davis (Daily Mail, July 19, 2013) mentioning Stephen Rakes planning to drop “bombshell” at Whitey’s trial. The day he was cut from the trial – the day the press would listen to his “bombshell” – William Camuti conveniently kills him. Do you think – or do any readers think Freddie could be helping William Camuti avoid trial?

    “Rakes, who had previously refused to testify against Bulger, had told Davis that he was ‘nervous’ about the ‘bombshell’ he thought he was going to drop on the stand at the feared mobster’s trial.”
    “’He was looking forward to taking the stand. He told me over and over he had a big bombshell to drop,’ said Davis.”

  14. Jon Steuben Parker: You are wrong about John Connolly. Theresa Stanley testified that when she and Whitey were driving back from New York City, that’s the first time Whitey heard about the indictments. He heard about it on the car radio. He then dropped Theresa off, and picked up Catherine at Malibu Beach and fled. Theresa had no motive to lie. The serial killers had motives to lie: Wyshak’s promises of leniency.
    John Connolly was framed by the serial killers, Martorano, Salemme, Flemmi, Weeks, etc, who were promised deals by Wyshak for their perjurious testimony.
    John Connolly had been retired from the FBI for five years when those indictments came down against Whitey, Flemmi, etc.

  15. The real problems with John is that he wrote that letter fot Kevin on some sort of official stationary. In those … rapidly thickening … circumstances, it did not pass the … reasonablly disinterested. … FBI HANDLER TEST.

    However, a man who many consider an official FBI patsy, has now served many years. ANCIENT HISTORY … unless we foresee … that Boston Deal … cracking wide open, if they really try to put it to Frank Salemme Sr ..is ONE … thing. The focus for John now needs to be that he is stil being incarcerated . This, after he won on Appeal … on one of the most blatant judicial railroadings ever perpetrated in the American Justice System, let alone the Florida Courts.

    That Florida has gone to such … illegal and unprecedented … measures to nullify John’s Appeal, and straight out and unashamedly deprive him of his constitutional rights, only underscores that there are extremely powerful forces to whom his freedom is a serious threat .

Leave a Reply

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