Mid Day Report – Tuesday July 30, 2013

IMG_4446Today we started off with Robert Fitzpatrick. When I left you last I told you I was getting to like the guy a lot more because he stood up well to what one person said was a “withering”(sic) cross-examination. It was much less than that. So I looked forward to seeing what would happen today.

Fitzpatrick unlike the other FBI agents who I have seen testify did not show up yesterday wearing the expected FBI court dress: conservative suit, white shirt, and conservative tie. He wore a gray sports coat with black lines, a black shirt with gray stripes and an open collar. I notice in his picture I put on my blog he seems to have a penchant for black and gray shirts. Today he wore light gray suit with a black jersey.

Yesterday a few things happened that I didn’t mention. Fitzpatrick never got a pension from the FBI for his more than 20 years service; both Morris and Connolly have received pensions. It shows you that the worst thing you can do in the FBI is embarrass the family by suggesting that other agents are otherwise than perfect.

The other thing a commenter name Declan pointed out was the use by the prosecution of a document, a letter from the Director of the FBI saying dreadfully negative things about Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick said he had an agreement with the government that would be sealed. Prosecutor Kelly said the agreement didn’t cover that and went to retrieve it but couldn’t find it.  Today Fitzpatrick said he was retaliated against when he was on the FBI for doing his job in telling the truth and when he testified yesterday and today he was again retaliated against by Prosecutor Kelly using the documents against him that were supposed to be sealed. Kelly never produced the agreement.

However, today we saw a strange Fitzpatrick. The case started with him putting forth an extraordinary suggestion. He said that what he wrote in his book were things that he remembered but that does not mean they were necessarily true.

He said what he wrote was a memoir. Whenever it was shown that what he wrote did not comply with actuality he’d say well that is what I remembered. Following his logic he could write that on 9/11/2001 it was a very quiet and peaceful day in New York City. When told that was the day the terrorists attacked America and the World Trade Towers were destroyed, he’d just say well I remember it otherwise.

He refuses to have an independent memory of anything. He did not remember what he testified yesterday. When asked about something he’d say do you have a memo regarding that? Kelly would hand him the memo. He then read the memo that Kelly gave him. After he does Kelly tries to pin him down to what he said before as being contrary to what he said today. He’ll rationalize it into suggesting that opposite statements actually are the same thing.

He tells us he is going to write a memoir of the trial. How can someone write a book that he will allege to be factual but have as a bottom line whatever he remembers in his mind is factual?

Kelly had him pinned down in a trap with iron teeth and he’d manage to escape. But it was like he was wearing a nice shirt of truth when he came into the court and each time he escaped a little bit of the shirt was torn away. There was no killing blow but Kelly did enough to make one scratch her head at what the guy was all about.

It’s seems axiomatic that the difference between being an informant and a cooperating witness is the former will not testify and the latter will. Ask Fitzpatrick about it and he says that is not his understanding. The question is does the jury know his understanding runs against what is the fact.

He wrote he was paid by the Gardner Museum to do work in looking into the heist that occurred there; Kelly asked him if he can show any evidence of that. He said that someone else paid him but he assumed it was the Gardner Museum.

Kelly tried to point out that some of the things he was now saying he did not say back in 1998 when questioned. He asked him if his memory was better now than back then. He said in some things his memory is better today. I guess in his new book the story line will depend on what day it is written.

When Whitey told him he had paid people, he was asked what he did about it. He said there were more important things to do. He did not necessarily think that if Whitey was paying cops or agents it was necessarily a bribe.

Kelly asked him if he was the Fitzie who was drinking Beck’s beer with Whitey as set out in Whitey’s memoirs. Fitzpatrick said he didn’t drink Beck’s beer and denied he socialized with Whitey. I was hoping he’d introduce the memoirs – no such luck.

Overall I’m tempted to say the testimony neither moved the case forward or backwards. Let’s just put it this way: Fitzpatrick had no evidence relating to any of the crimes that were charged such as the murders, extortions, gaming, drug dealings or stuff like that.

So what purpose did he serve? It all was about the way the FBI operated and his relation to Connolly. But neither those issues are on trial. It did touch upon the issues of Whitey being an informant but that came out muddled. He kept talking about closing him out and Washington DC headquarters wanting to keep him open which would lead to the conclusion Whitey was an informant. This was good for the government. But the government pushed him on the issue that there is no evidence he wanted to close him out.

Why does the government care? Whether he tried to close him or not, it seems that he is an informant and that’s what the government wants to show.

This case easily gets thrown off track. We’ve wasted a day and a half paddling at two miles an hour against a current running at two miles an hour. You know how far that will get us.

28 thoughts on “Mid Day Report – Tuesday July 30, 2013

  1. Two questions in follow up: did the defense get into evidenc the financial benefits bestowed on Flemmi. And, have you ever made a roster of players the government has sold out to in an effort to get Whitey?

    1. Tommy:

      The defense will have a property appraiser in tomorrow or the next day to talk about the values of the properties Flemmi was allowed to keep.

      At times I have listed them, it’s quite astonishing although bear in mind it was necessary to get Whitey.

  2. Hey, quick thought. Pat Nee is to be called as a witness today and tomorrow and will likely take the 5th. However, if was given transactional immunity for his crimes, then there is no danger of self-incrimination. Can whitey make the argument that the government must now disclose any deals with Pat Née? I think so. Even if in camera, Casper needs to know.

    1. Jim- Pat Nee has bragged about his life so much and also wrote a book that all B&C have to do is play all his youtube interviews, short documentaries about a day in the life with pat nee. The Moron is going to claim the 5th on basically what is public knowledge from his own big fat mouth.

      1. Doubting:
        He did claim it and it was his right. The disgrace in the Nee case is the failure of the state prosecutors to make a case against him.

  3. Just curious – before Flemmi got off the stand there was a tweet from you about Wyshak trying to get a grip on the assets Flemmi got to keep after his 2000 plea agreement. What assets did that murderous thug have returned to him by Wyshak?
    Also, not being from Boston haven’t the victims’ families been raising hell about the murderers walking the street. I have to say, I’ve always believed in the antiseptic nature of trials in bringing daylight to a courtroom. Whitey going to trial has certainly exposed the terribly unjust world of the Boston FBI and U.S. Attorney ‘s Office. People murdering dozens and walking the streets – unbelievable – maybe DOJ should have brought in some Texas Rangers to investigate !!

    1. Tommy:
      Good questions.
      Flemmi got to keep more than two million dollars worth of assets including condos, a ongoing business, houses, and bank accounts that came from his evil life. In 2001 he pleaded guilty to some RICO charges and got 10 years in prison. The government had all his assets tied up probably worth 4 million or so but agreed as part of the plea deal to let him keep a portion of them, the 2 million plus.
      Then in 2003 Flemmi made another deal with the govenement to plead to the murder charges. As part of that deal he didn’t get the death penalty and got into the Wit Sec prison population which is better than other places.
      Wyshak has tried to keep out any evidence that shows his 2 plus million had any part of his deal in 2003. He said the government already made the deal in 2001 so it had nothing to do with 2003. Of course that is absurd, after he admitted to 10 murders the government should have taken every cent the man had rather than leaving him as a millionaire. It clearly could have been taken in 2003. What’s bothersome about it all is the government won’t commit to not filing a Rule 35 motion that will let him out of prison earlier. This most vile man who should have been executed may be back on the street before the year is out.

      The victims families have been conned into thinking that Whitey is the real bad guy and without him the others may not have been as bad. A few have spoken out complaining the government has not even gone after others implicated in this scheme. But Whitey is the government’s big white whale so their voices are not heard.

      Boston has more known serial murders walking its streets than are doing that in the rest of the world. That’s what happens when the press and government becomes too cozy.

      1. Honest:

        It’s too bad that during the trial of a real bad guy the government is running neck and neck with him.

    1. Notoboyo:

      I knew Billy Johnson. I’ve always doubted that what happened at the airport had anything to do with his problems.

    2. NOT- the man he threw the bag to was fortnight..I always wondered what billy bulger’s role was in that?

      1. Doubting:

        The Bill Johnson story about the airport confrontation has been investigated by Congressional investigators and nothing has been substantiated. I knew Billy and talked to other people who knew him. He was a good kid who was beset with demons which took over him.

  4. To one and all: Keep plugging away; the good will out and the truth will come out, someday. Maybe in the next left, where, God help us, we all may get our just desserts; (2) For those who mock the answer, “I don’t recall” please allow me to ask you twenty-five questions about what you said, did and heard in 1998. Unscrupulous lawyers ask those stupid, unanswerable and unmemorable types of questions, not to plumb the facts and truth, but to make a witness look shakey. What did you have for dinner on the night of May 14, 1998?”I don’t recall; I haven’t the foggiest.” Well let me refresh your memory; we have a picture of you at McDonald’s that night, “I don’t recall being there!!!” Liar, liar, of course we all recall what we did, said, heard and where we ate 25 years ago. Who wouldn’t. Congress played that same crooked game with Senate President Bill Bulger: “Did you meet with FBI agent Joe Smith in 1981?” Who? I met with hundreds of new people weekly when I was Senate President. “Answer the question! what did you say to Mr. Smth?” I don’t recall ever speaking with him! HEADLINES IN THE BOSTON GLOBE: “WITNESS EVASIVE”; Subheadline: DODGES SIMPLE QUESTIONS; CLAIMS ‘MEMORY’ LAPSES”

    1. William:

      That’s a good point but Fitzpatrick was not recalling what he said the day before.

    1. Firefly:

      Yes, it’s better. NECN doesn’t have all the baggage to carry around that the others do.

  5. Matt- Have you heard anything concrete with the Rakes death? No one has reported anything of substance.

    1. Doubting:

      It seems to have fallen off the radar. Waiting for the toxology reports, I guess.

      1. Matt- As we predicted it would. Not to be a dick, but is Fitzpatrick dying his hair RED/Orange? He looks like Greg Brady when Bobby gives him that shampoo that turns his hair a fireball orange color. Well just a little levity to digest this shit sandwich of a trial. RIP STEPHEN RAKES

        1. Doubting:’

          I thought he did a good job on his hair – it had a rakish look to it but not having much hair myself maybe if I criticised anything he did to it I’d be accused of being jealous. The Rakes mystery continues. I hope someone is doing something about it.

  6. Matt, no manuscript introduced, not yet. We’ve already seen the FBI embarrass themselves, a rogues gallery of degenerate murderous witnesses, and Wyshak obsess on trivialities irrelevant to the case (not to Whitey) to the point I really don’t believe he was an informant anymore, as I have since the Wolf hearings in 98. We’ll probably hear Nee take the Fifth all day long(that can only help Whitey), and then Marion Hussey validating the evilness and vileness of Benji(further casting doubt on Whiteys role in the murders of the two Debbies) and maybe a few more witnesses to bolster his non-informant and non-female murderer status, and then…James J. “Whitey” Bulger will take the stand (for the first time in his life?) I hope accomplishes 3 things up there..1. Apologizes to the families of all the victims(but I know he won’t, or will he? Maybe he reads Matt and us.) 2. Reads his(hopefully finished in Plymouth) manuscripts. 3. Sheds some light on Gardner. I know that’s a long shot but Gardner happened in March of 90 when Whitey was at his peak of power, and if anyone had their pulse on the criminal underworld of Boston (from both sides of the fence) at that time, it was him. Bucky, Clemente, Doherty, etc. hit Depositors in 80, I believe, and Whitey and Benji had him down the basement within a couple three years. Gardner was a MUCH bigger score, so if my personal criminal profiling of Whitey is correct, he would have been working double-overtime to find out who did it (if he wasn’t involved originally). he had almost five full years to identify and extort whoever did it. To, me it looks like he is accomplishing his goals at this trial, non-informant, non-female murderer, and now if he has some info about Gardner .. he can get his girl out of the clink too.

    1. Rather:

      Very good comment.

      1. Not sure of the apologies – maybe to the family of the innocent victims – but none to any of the gangster families – he would feel this is a war and it was either him or them. He may not read us but I have a feeling our thoughts get to him by phone or carrier.

      2. Will testify in conformity with his manuacript so we won’t have to wonder what it says.

      3. If he knew Gardner then Catherine would be out – rememember the FBI said it knows who did it – I agree that he would have shaken the heavens to find out but they weren’t locals. Too many rats around here for it to be kept quiet.

  7. No wonder the Bureau had trouble with Fitz, the man sartorially speaking has a mind of his own, a mortal sin. However did he remind you a little of Professor Irwin Corey. I think I’ll pretend I read his book and send you a review.
    Does Kelly’s bit about the never produced document sound a bit McCarthyesque or is that an acceptable courtroom maneuver?

    1. Hopalong:

      I don’t see him as an Irwin Corey or as an absent minded professor. He’s just walking a little out of step with the a lot of people. I think the guy is absolutely honest but sees the world through different lenses. In what he call a “para-military type organizaton” – the FBI – one is expected to go along with the way things are done. Fitzpatrick did at times and then at other times he waned things done his way. He tells us on one hand the worst thing an FBI agent can do is diclose the identity of an informant yet after he retired that’s what he did. It seemed he came to Boston planning to clean the place up – he reminded us in his book he was Irish but not Boston Irish – implying something was sinister about being the latter. So he was probably looked upon as something of an odd ball and he complained FBI headquarters kept telling hi to shut up but he insisted on shouting. He may have been an honest guy but he was just as he said someone from headquarters called him, a pain in the butt.

  8. Did Fitzpatrick write he he had been paid by the Gardner museum? I thought Kelly asked whether by writing that he had ‘worked for’ the museum, Fitzpatrick was claiming he had been paid directly by them.

    Fitzpatrick responded that he was hired by someone representing the museum and was sure he was paid but didn’t remember the details of who cut the check. Kelly waved that off as you only worked on ‘some documentary’. I don’t know Kelly caught him in a lie. Fitzpatrick worked on behalf of the museum to investigate the theft even if only for ‘some documentary’. Did he say the museum cut the check or is that a Kelly inference? So muddled.

    More generally, I agree that all anyone seems to be tweeting about are the rude, mocking, sneering, face pulling, sauntering, look-at-me, Kelly questions. Would the jury be more disgusted by that than by the answers?

    And lastly, is it against the law to use that sealed document? It seems someone should be punished for that violation. The guy says the govt retaliated against him, it seems by retaliating against him in this way the govt only makes him more credible.

    1. Snowflake:

      My sense was that he wrote or said he had done work for the Gardner Museum. Kelly wanted to know if he was ever paid by the museum. He said he was a private eye and he was hired by someone to do some work up in Maine for the museum. The museum did not cut the check or from what I can see had any involvement in the matter at all. He was hired by an independent party to look into something related to that theft. Kelly’s point was it wasn’t the museum and by suggesting that it was he was engaged in more puffery.

      The jury would see his answers are evasive. I’m not sure they would warm up to Kelly’s accusatory style of questioning which he seemed to have been able to get away wth but had defense counsel done it he might have been shut down. The problem with the whole exercise was it was just a side show that had little to do with the main event.

      It is a breach of the agreement, not the law. I suppose Fitzpatrick could seek to undo the agreement as a remedy but that would accomplish little. He could sue for damages if he could prove what the governmment did caused him damages. But in reality, things like that are done based upon the belief in the good faith dealings of the other party.

Comments are closed.