Good Friday – 2013

Golgotha
Golgotha

Good Friday is a time for reflection. In my early teens we had a custom of not speaking to anyone during the hours of noon to three in the afternoon. This was to keep in mind the suffering of Christ during the three hours He was dying on the cross. From that practice, which I have no memory of successfully completing, I take time on this day to go to church and sit and meditate in the silence for a period of time. I pray a little, reflect a little and let my mind wander.

This year I expect many of my thoughts will turn to the matters surrounding Whitey Bulger which have arisen in conjunction with writing this blog.  I suppose in my thinking the following matters will slide by my mind.

I’ll wonder:

What role has David Margolis played in these matters since the time of the FBI hearings before Judge Wolf. Margolis was referred to in those hearings as the person who was called upon back in 1989 to resolve an issue between the local Strike Force Chief and the FBI about disclosing the identity of an informant to an assistant US attorney. Obviously, as the go-to guy in the Department of Justice (DOJ) he was involved in Judge Wolf’s threat to hold the Acting Deputy Attorney General in contempt during those hearings.

In 2008 Wolf wrote a letter  to the Attorney General after dealing with Margolis in which he noted: “the Department’s performance. . .  raised serious questions about whether judges should continue to rely upon the Department to investigate and sanction misconduct by federal prosecutors. . . . the . . . repeated failures in in a series of matters, . . . to be candid and consistent in its representations to various judges . . . .”

It is said of him: “Margolis is the unofficial liaison for the Deputy Attorney General with the FBI, the Criminal Division and the 93 U.S. Attorneys. He is consulted on ethics issues, such as recusals, on a formal and informal basis.” Perhaps he played a big role in Judge Stearns’s decision not to step down and the prosecutors insistence he keep the case.

Margolis graduated from Harvard Law School in 1964, avoided military service, served no more than 12 years as a trial lawyer and then went to Washington, DC where he’s been in Department of Justice for 37 years operating mostly behind the scenes. What are we to make of a 73 year-old-man who has been working 48 years in the only job that he has ever had, as a lawyer in the Justice Department, who when asked to explain his longevity in the DOJ, “answers bluntly: “I rely on guile, bluff, balls, and the good work of my colleagues, not to mention some luck.” “

A former associate said of him: Fundamentally, individual interests don’t exist for him. He is there to protect the institutional interests of the department. If you were his best friend . . . I’m sure he would feel bad about giving you the ax. But he would not hesitate.” ‘

Was Margolis the hand directing the prosecution of retired FBI Agent John Connolly? Was it he who came up with the “Rogue Agent” theory blaming Connolly for things that were beyond his control like the existence of the Top Echelon informant program.

I’ll think how that monstrosity of a program created by the FBI in a time of desperation mandated that Connolly get involved with the types of persons like Stevie Flemmi and Whitey Bulger, something that Margolis would have known about. The ‘Rogue Agent” theory would have protected the “institutional interests of the department” and would seem to fit a man who survives by guile and bluff.

What involvement would Margolis have had with the decision to try Connolly in Florida? Was it Margolis that decided Connolly should be tried again in a Florida court for the same offense he was acquitted of by a Boston federal jury. Was it he that allowed federal prosecutors to again participate in his prosecution? Did Margolis decide that the DOJ would not object under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution when a state court (Florida) decided to try a federal law enforcement officer (Connolly) for actions performed as part of his duties?.

When I think these I will know that Carney and Brennan will be preparing to examine Margolis on his knowledge of these things. They will want him to disclose to them all correspondence he has had with the Boston US attorney’s office since the mid-Seventies to the present.

Speaking of Connolly I’ll be wondering how he is surviving. He started in prison as a 62-year-old man back in September 2002. He’ll soon finish up his 11th year in prison. If he gets paroled he will be out in 2025 around the time he turns 85. He never fired a bullet in anyone’s head or stood by while it happened liked Martorano who did just 12 years for 20 murders or Weeks who did six years for five murders.

I’ll try to figure out how the Florida Appeals court has so blithely let an erroneous conviction stand without writing an opinion. I’m told those courts are very busy and I can’t expect an opinion in every case. But if a court won’t justify an obviously flawed result where a guy has been sentenced to 40 years because it is too busy then it ought to close its doors and stop pretending it is a place where justice can be found.

I’ll wonder if Margolis was behind the extraordinary recommendation of ten years in prison for a woman without a criminal record who pled guilty to non violent activities. That, of course, is Catherine Greig, who was Whitey’s girlfriend who knew nothing of the murder allegations when she fled with him in 1995 — no one except the murderers knew of those murders until 1997. Judge Woodlock had to triple the probation department maximum recommendation to impose his eight year sentence.

I’m wondering now if I’ll be doing much praying.

 

 

 

35 thoughts on “Good Friday – 2013

  1. It was posted here sometime back that it was a lopsided trade by the DOJ to release seven serial killers to get one low ranking FBI employee. The counter argument was that it was worthwhile to get Flemmi and Bulger. But the trade today appears to be eight serial killers ( add Flemmi) to get Bulger and the FBI agent. Looks like the Sparky Lyle trade. Totally one sided. The DOJ in Boston released the former head of the NE Mafia ( Salemme) and the current head of the NE Mafia ( Limone) and gave the Mafia $ 75 million. Would you agree there are Mafia Deniers on the Bench and in the DOJ? 2. Does Souter’s decision removing Stearns and finding Wolf not impartial invalidate Wolf’s entire 600 page decision? Do Wolf and Margolis know each other? Have they worked together? Isn’t a special counsel needed? If the DOJ and the judges are dishonest what recourse is there? Should one expect the Congress to act or are we living in a semi totalitarian state? 3.When one looks at what happened to Naimovich, Rico and Connolly the whole system looks fixed. If Gertner were a judge in Germany she would have found that the defendants at the Nurenber trials were 20 “innocent” men framed by the U. S. Military and awarded them $ 25 mil each. Keep up the good posts.

    1. Neal:
      1.You’re right on the money with that. It looks like Flemmi is also into the big federal tent. I wrote in my book it was a good deal but the closer I’ve studied the facts I have to agree. I’m glad to admit when I’v wrong but it seems the feds cuddled up to guys each of whom committed ten to the mid-twenties of murders, ran the Mafia, in order to get a guy who murdered less than ten people. But then some of the others had relatives who were real criminals like Mafia Jimmy martorano, or killer Vincent Jimmy Flemmi or Salemme’s did who was into the rackets and making people disappear. The feds though since
      Whitey had a brother who wasn’t a criminal but was a powerful Massachusetts politician (which makes him a criminal in the mind of the feds) they’d want to show to the world that crime does pay if you’ve got the right person to rat out.
      2. I don’t recall Souter saying anything about Wolf. I’ll have to go back and read that. Unfortunately Wolf’s decision reflects his Newton upbringing and the desire to rub shoulders with gangsters. Recently Kevin Weeks was a guest speaker in Newton where the big hit of the evening was when these suburbanites could go up an touch him — imagine the thrill it gave them being so close to a murderer. Yikes, what a story of bravery to tell the grand kids. Wolf’s decision is big of holes you could drive an M1 Abrams through it. Did you know that tank was named after General Creighton Abrams who had such a stellar record eading us in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972. I suppose the next tank will be named after General Arnold of Revolutionary War fame.Wold, Stearns, Woodlock (Greig sentencing judge) all knew Margolis and worked in Justice with him at the same time. Margolis’s influence is seen in the AUSA case of Jeffrey Auerhahn where he was cleared of wrongdoing despite putting a witness he knew was lying on the stand. I’ve got to say there Wolf fought back against Margolis’s sinister influence but was soundly defeated. Thee is absolutely no love lost between Wolf and Margolis. IN fact, he bristles at the mention of his name. What good is a special counsel. He or she would quickly be overwhelmed by the Inside Forces. Their is no recourse short of a French style revolution but the Inside Forces have outlawed revolutions. It’s good they weren’t that powerful back in the 17760s when the people recognized tyranny. Congress would rather bicker than act. It’s a disgrace. It have slid rapidly down hill since Tip O’Neil was able to work with the Gipper.
      3. It does seem that the good cops who chase after the Mafia end up doing more time or having their reputations destroyed in the end by Mafia enablers. But don’t forget, Connolly was involved in trying to destroy Naimovich. I shouldn’t say trying to destroy, Naimovich was destroyed and died two years after his acquittal because so many people turned against him. Gertner, it seemed to me, always had a personal agenda on the bench. It it ludicrous that three Mafia guys got 25 million dollars. Now some state rep from the North End is trying to get Mafia kingpin Henry Tameleo some type of Governor’s pardon. You’ll not in Kevin Cullen’s column the other day he wrote Henry Tameleo was against violence. What a joke. He was the right hand man of Patriarca who handed out violence like McDonald’s hands out fries.
      I struck you out the other day. Today you hit some home runs. Happy Easter.

    2. I don’t think you should include Rico up on that pedestal with Naimovich and J Connolly. I think that some of his actions as a federal agent (with sidekick Condon) set the stage for this stranger than fiction, decades-long saga of lies, murder, mayhem and out of control informants TO EVEN HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE, nevermind his questionable at best post-FBI doings as a private “security director.” He was there from the beginning. The only person more culpable in this mess was J. Edgar Hoover.

      1. Rather Not
        I used to feel about Rico like you did. The book Rico written by two FBI agents has some good points. What I found most telling was that the World Jai Alai of which Rico was in charge of security was a real legitimate organization unlike what it has been portrayed in the media. In fact, the Connecticut State’s attorney’s office had to apologize to it for some of the things it accused it of. When was the last time you heard a state agency apologizing?
        All we know that is bad about Rico comes from Flemmi, a notorious liar, who is backed up in a little part by Frankie Salemme, a Mafia kingpin who loved Raymond L.S. Patriarca who Rico put into prison. Condon seems to have had a spotless record on the FBI and if you read between the lines you see little has ever been said to suggest he was other than a good agent.
        When you examine where the basis for our belief about Rico you’ll see it is not a clear cut as you sometimes believe, at least that is what I have found. As for J. Edgar Hoover, he was for the most part a good guy who had a few quaint quirks in the way he ran his outfit. His instincts told him to keep away from organized crime people because he feared they’d ruin some of his agents. It turned out he was right but what ruined them was the program called the Top Echelon informant program that Hoover started after the FBI could no longer do the illegal wiretaps it had been doing. That program brought about the out of control informants when the FBI decided it could trust top level gangsters.

        1. Matt,…I am sticking to my guns regarding my opinion of the late Harold P.Rico, despite your attempts at dissuading me. I am basing this opinion on absolutely nothing from the mouth of S.Flemmi, rather on some very interesting tidbits contained in a little old document called “House Report 108-414″. It appears that Rico heard a rumor that V.Flemmi wanted to kill Deegan about 5 months before it actually happened,at which point the FBI righteously warned Deegan,and if you read between the lines…Rico commenced recruiting V.Flemmi as an informant (possibly THE first Top Echelon, unless Stevie beat him to it) on orders from the boss, the quirky John E.Hoover) Five months later, V.Flemmi and J.Barboza are caught on an illegal, inadmissible FBI wiretap asking R.Patriarca for permission to kill Deegan. About a week later Rico succeeds in recruiting V.Flemmi, and is assigned as his handler. Later at night, THE VERY SAME DAY, Teddy Deegan is murdered. Mind you, Rico and the FBI have been listening to this unfold on the illegal Patriarca wiretap, but couldn’t use it. Rico already has S.Flemmi as an informant and doesn’t want to lose his new star informant V.Flemmi, so he uses existing informant S.Flemmi to talk to Barboza a few years later, when he’s facing weapons charges and is ripe for recruitment. Lo and behold, Barboza comes up with a story that contradicts 9 previous documented versions of the Deegan murder, most of which put V.Flemmi on the scene. It looks to me like Rico was mandated to go after the Mafia, and prized the Flemmi brothers so much, that he let Barboza run wild at the mouth….and we know the rest of that story and how it germinated the seed that spawned our current dilemma. Curiously, to further cite H.R.108-414, why was it that the DOJ delayed releasing documents proving internal communication and knowledge of these very issues between Rico and Hoover dating back to 1965…..until 2003?? Two years earlier, in 2001 SAC Boston was quoted as saying ” The FBI was forthcoming”, while the actual prosecuter from the Deegan murder trial “was outraged, just outraged” and said he never would have indicted Limone, Tameleo, etc…. I think that shows a clearer picture of the actions of Harold P. Rico. Oh and I’m sure even a legitimate corporation like World Jai Alai isn’t immune to some covert skimming and diversion of profits from some unnoticed peripheral parts of the company, if the “security director” isn’t paying attention. Could even result in murder……..

          1. Sorry, 2 quick points to add to my last post…1. Former agent D.Condon was very forgetful, and almost evasive while testifying before this committee, and we know that he and Rico were all but joined at the hip….2. As far as the first time hearing anything negative about Rico, was from S.Flemmi in 2003?… Like you said, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Best regards, and keep the great work.

          2. Rather:
            I didn’t think Condon testified before the Committee. If he had and his testimony was as you said, I ask you how sure you are about things that happened thirty or so years ago. it was in 1998 that Rico testified and Flemmi testified about the relationship between them. That’s right about the clock but sonsider a clock with a second hand it would mean that Flemmi is right every once in every 43,200 assertions. How do you decide when that happens to be ?

          3. Rather:
            I’m pleased you are standing by your opinions while considering mine. I want to hear the other side of the story. But let me suggest to you that the authors of that House Report were highly biased toward Rico. You’d be better off reading his testimony before that committee rather than reading the summary of people who had made up their minds prior to it, were confused in their questions, and unable to intimidate Rico who appeared without attorney and without claiming the Fifth.
            Never mind reading between the lines about Vincent Flemmi. Rico was asked about him. He answered he was never an informant of his. If there was a scintilla of evidence it was otherwise, Rico would have been charged with perjury,

            New York and Chicago had the first top echelon informants. Barboza was the first person put in the victim protection program. Rico said he told his FBI supervisor about the threat to Deegan’s life as is the customary procedure and expected the supervisor to notify the proper people.

            There’s a lot about the Deegan murder case that is shrouded in mystery. Why is it believed Tameleo who was Patriarcs’ right hand man not involved in the murder of Deegan. I believe it was Barboza’s testimony that he too cleared the hit on Deegan. The FBI is notorious in its refusal to produce any information. That’s because it is out of control not only back in 1965 but even now because it operates outside the US laws as if it were a separate nation that resents any intrusion by the US on its doings.

            The Deegan prosecutor Jack Zalkind was always outraged at something or another. I don’t give much credence to his statements. He’s the one who should have etted Barboza more. He and his detectives were in daily briefings with him for months.

            As for World Jai Alai it was thoroughly investigated and searched by cops based on false information. Its records were seized. The company was totally legit and no skimming was going on. We’ve been constantly told otherwise.

            There’s an accepted line out there that people seem to follow along blindly. There much more involved in it than we were led to believe. Never is it inputted into it that the Mafia and its lawyers were intent on dirtying up Rico to get their little bit of revenge. And if you don’t believe that’s a factor, you don’t know the Mafia.

  2. M.Connolly: You asked for an answer to my queries. I sent my blog to you yesterday and you took it down without letting your audience even read it. Why? this is the second blog you took down. As you said you probably will nor be praying today. I’ll keep you in my prayers. Bob Fitz

    1. Mr. Bob:
      I don’t know how Ernie could have asked you a question based on your comments had I taken it down. I didn’t do that. I did respond to it however. You got to relax. I told you you want to discuss things you’re welcome, you want to throw bombs then go somewhere else. I’ve a good group of people who comment here who disagree with me but they do it in an intelligent manner by discussing it. That’s what the blog’s about.

  3. Since you are in the “wondering”mood, have you ever “wondered” what else attorney Margolis may be protecting? By his acts that have so far been exposed he really has not been protecting the “institution” of the US Government, which is his sworn duty to protect. He has really been a “power broker” for special interests, has he not said this in so many words. He is the “fixer”. Where is the rule of law, when one person for several decades has been “the fixer”.

    All that we may left is prayer, if this situation is allowed to stand. All hope will be lost.

    1. Jean:
      Yes, I do wonder about this person working behind the scenes not on behalf of justice or opening up government but to protect the government itself from the people. He’s worked for several Attorney Generals but seems to survive them all in a position of power. These persons seem to defer to him. He’s bungled some things but he’s able to cover them up. He’s all of what we do not want in a Democratic government that’s suppose to be by, for and of the people. It’s not his duty to protect the Justice Department but the Constitution of the United States which supposedly puts the power in the people. No one should be in such a position of power in a democracy for such a long time especially in such a sensitive position that may affect the everyday rights of all of us. It seems all the attorney generals are in fear of him just like the presidents were in fear of Hoover.
      I’d never heard of the guy until a month ago yet he’s had his fingers on all of these matters for over two decades. Maybe after Carney has a chance to cross examine him we’ll learn a lot more.

  4. Matt:

    The “House of Death” case follows an eerily similar pattern to the Boston FBI/US Attorney saga. The “Rogue Agent” coverup story is actually a pattern of conduct for Margolis and his Office of Professional Responsibility.

    ICE Agent Boncomo sent a wired up CRI named “Lalo” across the border to Mexico to investigate a drug cartel. While wired, Lalo took a man to the House of Death, a middle class home in Suarez. The recording captured The gruesome murder of the man by means of a shovel, strangulation, and beating. Lalo held the victim’s feet down while he was murdered.

    Agent Bencomo then brought Lalo in for debriefing with at least four ICE supervisors. It has been reported that DEA Agents and supervisors and at least one US Attorney (She submitted an affidavit denying this) also met with Lalo for debriefings. Bencomo was told to keep using Lalo as an informant. He claims the continued operation was directly ordered and approved by the ICE brass in Washington DC. The supervisors promised Lalo protection and US Citizenship for him and his family.

    While working for the DEA and ICE, Lalo participated in more murders at the House of Death. By the end of the operation, 12 bodies were uncovered from shallow graves in the backyard of the House of Death.

    After an ICE supervisor blew the whistle on the operation, the very formulaic coverup machine went to work. Margolis’s Office of Professional used FBI agents to investigate the operation. After a 5 year investigation, they decided to take action against only one officer, Bencomo. Bencomo was a twenty year veteran of ICE with a a distinguished career, including numerous commendations. Nonetheless, he was Lalo’s handler and the lowest ranked law enforcement officer involved. He would be the scapegoat just like John Connolly.

    Margolis’s FBI agents employed their traditional tactics to scapegoat Bencomo. They pressured Bencomo’s informants to turn on him. All the ICE and DEA supervisors turned their back on Bencomo. The US Attorney who met with Lalo and approved his continued use denied it via an daffidavit (apparently she was not questioned/cross examined).

    By the end of the OPR investigation, the statute had run on any crimes of the ICE supervisors. Bencomo was fired based on a reporting infringement in another case. He has not been able to convince anyone in Congress to inquire about the House of Death scandal. Lalo was shipped to a solitary confinement cell in Buffalo, NY where he would spend five years. He asserts the ICE and DEA supervisors renegged on all their promises of protection for him and his family. He was eager to be heard in court where he would name the supervisors who debriefed him.

    To summarize: a decorated federal line agent learns his informant is committing murders. The Agent involves his supervisors and the US Attorney. The decision is made in Washington to keep the informant on the street where he is involved in another 11 murders. When the operation is exposed, the OPR does a lengthy sham investigation. They turn informants, supervisors and other agents against the informant’s handler to protect the Family. The informant is locked away in solitary where he cannot name names. The USA renegs on it’s promises to the informant, scapegoats the handler, and covers up all other wrongdoing by federal law enforcement. Lastly, Congress looks the other way. It’s a neat and tidy package.

    It’s becoming clearer that Carney’s claims have historical precedent, if not a clear pattern of conduct.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123385312

    [Former DEA Special Agent Phil Jordan says in Lalo’s case, every federal rule and regulation was broken.

    “Even if the man was John Gotti in his prime, you do not allow an informant to run the investigation; you do not let the informant commit felonies, to commit murder,” he says. “In my mind, he was given a license to kill.”]

    1. But by him being an informant doesn’t this give the law enforcement the right to kill and abuse him? That’s why I’ve seen and heard. Police commit crimes, abuse their informants and get away with it. Not all of them of course – but I can name a few.

      1. Question :
        You don’t lose any right by becoming an informant. Sometimes the police can abuse people who become informants by demanding they do more than they are capable of doing. There’s also the situation with the mandatory minimum laws that minor drug activity can have a person facing double figure time and the only way to work it down is to become an informant and often this involves setting other people up who then to reduce their time become informants. No wonder we have so many people in prison.

        1. Well that explains a lot as well. I used to live next to a criminal informant and I know those he was “informing” for. The police would communicate with him online by using his fake name. If he didn’t respond within an hour or so they would send someone by his place to cause trouble or intimidate him and they did this several times.

          I remember one night he didn’t respond back to them online. (I could tell because they would get angry and their messages meaner). Around 9 pm someone came to our building and I heard a huge crash outside. I ran out to see what happened and I saw the informant picking up all of his trash from the middle of the street. He kept looking around and he was quite scared. As he tried running back to his house he kept looking behind him as if he was afraid he would get shot.

          I actually felt sorry for the guy because maybe he was sleeping at the time they needed him . Within 30 minutes of that trash incident they were online again saying to him. “How does your wife like her kitchen trash thrown all over the street” and other abusive messages.

          That was not the only incident with him so I assumed the cops had the right to abuse their informants, especially if they are criminals. I’m sure it’s not the actual cops destroying his property and causing havoc for him, but other criminal informants they recruit to assist them.

          When he was short on rent he would go to this same forum and say the same thing monthly. “Nice guy here, likes to help, I need money to feed my family”. He would then leave and come back ten minutes later. I once saw him driving to the local PD which was only 5 minutes away. I guess some of these informants make a living doing this?

          Are cops lazy these days? What ever happened to good old fashioned police work? Personally I would find that more interesting. Much more interesting than counting on a criminal who rarely tells the truth.

          1. Question:
            I’ve always thought informants are the tool of lazy cop. Think of how it works. The cop sits back after lining up a person by threat or monetary inducement and directs her to do things. It takes very little effort to do that. Informants used for information are necessary, but as agent provocateurs it is abusing them. Providing informants with money and drugs or weapons to set up other people is a shabby way of doing things. You re right that the hard police work is not done by many of the cops for the simple reason it is hard. It takes a determined cop to involve himself in the tedious work of searching through records or sitting in a lengthy surveillance.

    2. Patty:
      An interesting case that seems to mirror much of the things that happened here. It seems it has received very little notice and what it did receive has passed on three years ago. It’d be interesting to know what Margolis’s role, if any, was in this case. Which brings to mind that DEA debacle where they were sending tons of guns into Mexico. Did Margolis also get involved there? He says he fixes up messes; it seems the right words are covers up messes.

  5. Normally agree with you but take exception to the Tamaleo, Salvati, Greco etal,

    Yes some of them were in the Mafia and absolutely committed crimes BUT the murder they were falsley convicted of was really committed by FBI TE Informants Barboza and Jimmy Flemmi.

    The government then framed six innocent men including Salavati who’s crime was to stand up to The Animal Barboza. Mafia aside Greco was a decorated Marine hero who had been wounded in WWII.

    I find it interesting that many people paint them all with the same brush and are outraged that the government was forced to settle.

    Entire families were destroyed innocent men died in prison, children of these men committed suicide all because the government lied, cheated and manipulated the criminal justice system for their own end.

    I find it hard to believe that intelligent people would condone this type of behavior against an American citizen.

    Is ot ok if your from a group out of mainstream society to be illegally incarcerated and murdered simply because of that association?

    Does every outside group deserve the same? Should we simply illegally incacerate those we may not agree with like members of the IRA, Black Panthers, Muslims because they are not us?

    Thats NOT what this country was founded on, illegally prosecuting and incarcerating your enemies sounds like Nazi Germany.

    The goverment should not only have paid but should have incarcerated all the government officials including Rico that were involved.

  6. Please read the book RICO, get it on Amazon, and see if your views stay the same. The book convinced me and many others that FBI agent H. Paul Rico was framed! The authors, Kerr et al, go over most of the points you raised. Decades ago, Robert Kennedy wrote a book called, “The Enemy Within”; today it seems that federal judges, federal prosecutors, clerks of court, law professors, newspaper people at the Globe and Herald, Howie Carr, Lehr,O’Neill and Cullen (who feed us demonstrable outright lies; gross distortions; misinformation; and propaganda) may all be counted among The Enemy Within. We have seen the enemy’s face and it is our fellow Americans. We saw 16 Mass judges in the St. Pat’s Parade case act “without lawful authority.” What transpired in State court has reared its ugly head in the federal system. What if Margolis is not the tip of the iceberg but only one step among many near the top of a corrupt staircase? What if some Harvard Law Professor, who sees William Bulger as Moby Dick, has played a role behind the scenes in some of this? Remember, Dershowitz’s hatred of William Bulger is long standing; his Boston Globe op-ed piece called upon federal prosecutors to squeeze John Connolly to get dirt on William Bulger? Remember his Boston Magazine article called William Bulger the “godfather” of the Winter Hill gang? Has Dershowitz no sense of decency? Will he stop at nothing to defame? Doesn’t he realize that defamations and vendettas have hisorically led to many innocents suffering?

    1. Rico was written by FBI agents therefore is nothing but spin. Rico and Dennis Condon were the proponents of framing 4 innocent American citizens and ruining countless lives.

      There’s no excuse for that !

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Paul_Rico

      Rico may have been framed for the OK. murder but he admitted to congressional investigators his involvement in the Salvati et al fiasco.

      I beleive his quote was “What do you want from me tears?”

      People are supposed to go to prison for the crimes they commit not go to prison because some government agency doesn’t like them.

      I agree the enemy is us. We the people allow the “system”; Judges, cops prosecutors and their media to manipulate us. They put countless people in prison for political and financial reasons who were and are innocent. The enemy is “US” because most sit by and allow it to continue what they don’t realize is that someday it may be them.

      Salvati, Tamaleo and the others received a considerable amount of money but they and their families were destroyed and innocent of that particular crime.

      What is a life or an entire family worth ?

      I don’t think the millions awarded cover it.

      1. Notaboyo:
        Your right that the Rico book has to be read in the context of who wrote it. I’ve got to learn more about Barboza’s testimony. He never put Tameleo at the scene of the crime (I believe) but said he gave the OK for the hit. If so, that would make Tameleo guilty. I believe I read that Providence cleared the hit. The “tears” quote came after a length battering bullying Congressman Shays from Connecticut. When ever you read it no one mentions that Shays kept asking the same question over and over again. here’s a taste. Rico is asked what it’s like to send an innocent man to jail. Rico who has testified he turned Barboza over to the Boston prosecutors to investigate and make the case said he believed in the jury system. Shays says that is fascinating. Rico then asks him if he thinks he can make a decision as to who is innocent. Shays replies in part that Rico should have been more involve and says:”you don’t seem to give a shit.” (Gives you a sense of the interchange and the dignity of Congress.) As Rico tries to talk Shays keeps talking over him for about a page and a half of the transcript. Shays keeps pushing him asking if he feels any remorse, which would indicate he did something wrong, Rico replies: “I believe the role I played was the role I should have played. I believe we supplied a witness and we gave them to the local police and they’re supposed to be able to handle the case from there on. that’s it. I cannot ——” Shays. “So you don’t really care much and you don’t have any remorse. Is that true?” Rico: “Would you like tears or something? Shays: “Pardon me?” Rico: “What do you want, tears?”
        I give Rico credit for going before the committee knowing they were out to get him against the advice of his lawyer who told him to take the 5th. He felt he did nothing wrong and as he said several times at the time he didn’t know Barboza was lying but afterwards it appeared he did.
        In one sense you are right about the money, the destruction of a whole family is a great tragedy and no amount of money can account for that. However, shouldn’t the guys who joined the Mafia have thought of their families before they decided to live lives of criminals. Didn’t the destruction start there?

    2. Bill:
      The Rico book is good as far as it goes. But as Notoboyo said it is written by two FBI men who only give one side of the story and have a lot of things wrong. Don’t use it as a gospel. I suggest you go way too far in talking about the enemy within who Kennedy a man in his early 30s had as fellow Americans also.

  7. Wikipedia is notoriously false in its facts. For example, for “Tony Veranis” it described his parents as being from a small town in Italy and said Tony had no siblings and falsely recorded his boxing record. The facts were Tony was half-Lithuanian and half-Irish and he had a brother Ralph, whom we knew, and he never fought Pineapple Stevenson; he visited Stevenson in the hospital; another fighter put Stevenson there with a knock-out punch that induced a coma.
    Please suspend disbelief for just a few days: please read the book RICO. Please understand that your Globe reporters and Howie Carr are lying to you. . . . . The quote “What do you want, tears?” is correct as you quoted it, but it was said in response to constant badgering from a Congressman. Paul Rico testified before Congress; he didn’t take the Fifth Amendment; he didn’t heed any lawyer’s advice; he testified on his own because he said he had nothing to hide.
    The premise that these three men were “innocent” of the crime charged is based on an erroneous interpretation by corrupt prosecutors and intellectually corrupt judges that Barboza lied AND that the FBI/RICO not only knew he was going to lie but suborned his perjury, that is, encouraged him to lie.
    I urge you to read also “From Trial Court to the United States Supreme Court: Anatomy of a Free Speech Case” (Walkowski and Connolly) (Branden 1995) to see how corrupt an entire judicial system can be . . . Finally, you know who wrote the “Wickedpedia” article on Tony Veranis? Go to the end of it. There’s the character-assassin-in-chief’s name: Howie Carr. . . . Finally, guess who in 2003—in 2003!— said for the first time that Rico and Connolly were corrupt? You guessed it, the serial killer and known perjurer Steve “The Rifleman” Flemmi . . . Because he was facing a trial that would have resulted in a conviction and consequent transfer to Oklahoma or Florida were he would have faced trial in capital cases and where he would have been found guilty and then executed. So, Flemmi fabricated stories . . . , because Flemmi didn’t want to be executed. His whole life, Flemmi killed people to stay out of jail; he had no qualms about lying to avoid the electric chair!
    Happy Easter! I got up at 5;00 A.M. to go to the sunrise service at Castle Island (starts at 6:28, I’m told). Some guys from Savie and Southie asked me to attend; it is in part in memoriam to our good, lifelong friend Billy McDermott . . . .

      1. (1) Good points! You always have to consider the sources. We all have different viewpoints, backgrounds and experiences. . . . But John Connolly’s case (no matter what you think about him personally or professionally) stinks! Something is terribly wrong there! Something bad happened! I see both sides but mostly throw stones at the judges, federal prosecutors and higher ups in the FBI and DOJ. . . . Here’s the bottom line: Read all the books and articles! Then ask yourself, “Which one rings true?” or “Which ones mostly ring true?” . . .
        (3) Check your sources! Have a healthy dose of skepticism. And let that “tuning fork” that rings true inside us, that we call a conscience, be our guiding light. (Pardon the mixing of sound and light metaphors) And remember: Serial killers, psychopaths, some sociopaths, some obsessives (Captain Ahab in Moby Dick) and some zealots have ill-formed consciences and their words and works cannot be trusted. Consider, if you will, men such as Cromwell, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Himmler, Hussein, Pol Pot, Osama bin Laden, other butchers, other pied pipers leading legions of sycophantic rats (the SS, the SA, the Red Guard, the Reds, the Roundheads, the Taliban, fanatical whirling dervishes). Read the drama “Good” by C.P. Taylor; or re-watch “Cabaret” or “The Sound of Music,” and ask yourselves whether some form of tyranny could arise and consume the good people of America! Maybe, it already has. “There’s a Monster on the loose; he’s got our necks into a noose, and he just sits there watching!” as Steppenwolf sang about it (the Feds) back then in the 60s-70s! Rock & Roll! Abe Lincoln said that if we are to perish as a nation it will be from self-inflicted wounds; we will be the perpetrators of our own demise.
        (4) Hutchy told me Robert Kennedy worked on McCarthy’s Army Subcommittee and was enamored of Hoover. I liked Bobby very much and his wife Ethel and all the Kennedys, but I had fundamentally profound political disagreements with them. I liked Bill Buckley and David Susskind and David Brudnoy! Conservatives, Liberals and Libertarian! There’s good and bad in all!

        1. Billy:
          Keep in mind Woodrow Wilson’s statement: “It depends. If I am to speak ten minutes, I need a week for preparation; if fifteen minutes, three days; if half an hour, two days; if an hour, I am ready now.”

          I will remind you of the words of Polonius in Hamlet: “Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit, And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,I will be brief…”

          Consider the Strunkian elaboration of Rule Seventeen, Omit needless words. “Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a deqing should have no unnecessary lines lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subject only in outlinr, but that every word tell”

          Or as the Prince told Mozart, “too many notes.”

          I’ve suggest before Pascal’s statement: “I have made this[letter] longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter.”

          You make some good points but they could be made more concisely.

          1. Matt, I get your drift, but I don’t have ten hours. Plus, a professsor told me in college, freshman year, “You have a talent for writing!” I never had a gift for gab; so, perhaps I overcompensate. I like the way I write and find all the words necessary. Recall, in the movie Amadeus, the King’s critique of Mozart’s music: “Too many notes!”

          2. Bill:
            You make good points but stick to the subject matter. You seem to wander off into personal stories about your friends or associates who no one knows which are not closely connected to the material. Stick to the relevant and material without getting too repetitious. Limit comments about persons you may be close to, relatives or yourself. People come here to read about Whitey and things related to him. I’m sure the college professor didn’t mean that with your talent for writing if you were asked to write an essay on Julius Caesar he’d be happy to read about Caesar Chavez. You have good insights but make every word count. It takes time to do it but people will be more impressed by conciseness than a comment that is long and incorporates much that is not germane.

    1. Notoboyo:
      We disagree on some things which is good. I don’t want a bunch of toadies reading my posts but people who have a different perspective, like you to come back and point out where you think I am wrong and challenge me. The discussion in a civil manner is what matters and sometimes we will modify or correct our beliefs dependent upon another person’s point of view. I have always appreciated your comments.

    2. Matt,

      As always I have a couple questions for you but I wasn’t sure where to place them.

      I just read on FOX that Whiteys lawyers want the prosecutors informants identified but the prosecutors said this…

      “Prosecutors argue unsealing the record would put the man and his family in danger.”

      Am I correct in assuming that not only can the prosecutors have lying criminal witnesses but they can also keep them confidential? How does one know they even truly exist ? Doesn’t seem fair.

      Also, in another article you discussed how the FBI does not tape their interviews. You said they wanted to question you and you refused to do so unless they put the questions on paper which they did.

      My question on that is does the average citizen have the right to request that if the FBI wants to question them or did they honor your request due to your being a prosecutor?

      1. Question:
        It’s best to put questions here. If you don’t want them to be seen by others send them to uuxq@yahoo.com I don’t go to that email as often as I come here so it may delay the response.

        The Globe mentioned Carney’s filing earlier and the Herald also talked about it . I’ll get to it later this week after I go through the discovery motion which I found more interesting.

        If a person is a witness to a crime, except in some highly sensitive national security matters, the witness’s identity has to be disclosed. When a crime happens there may be lots of witnesses. Any witness who will take the stand has be identified. Others who may have exculpatory evidence, that is evidence that tends to show a person may not have committed the crime charged, have to be disclosed to the defendant. The idea is if you are prosecuting someone and have evidence that may tend to undermine your case you have to disclose it. For example, suppose you are prosecuting MR Nobody for a jewelry store robbery. You have five witness es who say the robber was wearing a blue shirt but one, who you don’t intend to use, said he wore a red shirt. You have to let defendant know about that one.

        Carney is saying that Weeks under oath testified to one thing but there is a witness the Government knows about who knows what he said is wrong. Carney wants to do everything he can to impeach Weeks, that is make his testimony less believable. The more the jury sees that he has lied under oath the less likely it is that the jurors will believe him. The prosecutor never want to give up the identity of informants. Often the court will defer to them because of the belief if a person is promised secrecy by the Government it should honor the Government’s commitment. This is a tough call for Judge Casper. The witness is sort of a side issue although the evidence is important. Here because of Weeks great value to the Government’s case she should be identified.

        You are right when you suggest the witness may not exist. That has been my feeling all alone since the witness was used in an affidavit to deprive Whitey of his lottery gains. Later when the Government wanted to get Weeks to testify, it said its original take on the lottery winnings was wrong and ignored what it previous said that was contained in the affidavit so it could give Weeks back his lottery winnings and induce him to give the Government information it wanted. The original affidavit didn’t pass the smell test for me. I though that informant didn’t exist. If she doesn’t then the prosecutors want to fight to keep that from being publicly known. Ironically, I believe Weeks in this one and never believed the FBI’s informant.

        When the FBI wanted to interview me I was the Deputy District Attorney in Norfolk. When I refused it had the choice to subpoena me to a grand jury or to work out a way to get my answers. They agreed to take them in writing in part because the US Attorney handling the case did not want to go to war with our office again. Whether the FBI would do that for the average citizen, I doubt it. The average person is told either do the interview or come in and tell your story to a grand jury which is both inconvenient and a little bit frightening.

        All FBI interviews should be recorded. All interviews of witnesses like Martorano and Weeks should be recorded. It shows how much power the FBI has that it refuses to do it and no one cares to change a system that is ripe for fraud.

Leave a Reply

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