Mid Morning Break – July 31, 2013 – Prosecutors Reveal Themselves

swan lakeIf ever there was a doubt that the prosecutors had an inexplicable animus against Billy Bulger and would do anything to tear down his name it was shown by the  question just asked in this case. Agent Crawford discussed that he was at a retirement party of John Connolly on direct examination.  Prosecutor Brian Kelly got up on cross-examination and asks out of the blue, “Was Billy Bulger at Connolly’s retirement party?”  There is no reason why that question should have been asked. It has no relevance to an issue that has come close to this case. It absolutely proves that the prosecutors are engaged in an ongoing attempt to slander Billy Bulger. They hope by doing this his name is printed in the paper as somehow connected with the trial. I tweeted about it and called it disgraceful. That was the mildest word I could come up with.

The only witness on the stand this morning was retired FBI Agent James Crawford. He is one of those guys who started out working in the FBI office as a clerk, continuing his education, and then upon graduation getting appointed as a special agent.  He was dressed so that it makes me look somewhat of a liar. He had a sports jacket and khaki pants, a bright yellow shirt that was open at the neck and a red tie that was pulled down a few inches, the look that is associated with having had a hard day at work. He leans back in the seat and speaks in a loud voice bespeaking of authority and certainty, sometimes using crisp one word answers.

Crawford testified he had a snitch, P1, who knew this woman who was afraid she’d be killed if anyone knew she was disclosing this information but was assured by P1 that Crawford could be trusted. She met with him and told him that Flemmi knew that the FBI had wired up Halloran and that Flemmi intended to kill him. Crawford went back and told his supervisor. 10 days later he learned that Halloran was murdered.

I didn’t get what Carney was after. Is he putting the murder of Halloran and Donohue on Flemmi? How does he get away from the picture clearly shown in the trial that whatever Stevie did, Whitey did. How does this play into whether Whitey will testify or not?

Crawford took the information back to his office and told his supervisor that he heard Halloran’s life was in danger because Flemmi knew he was wired. The supervisor went in to the bosses and came back and told him to put it in writing. Crawford refused because he gave his word to his snitch’s friend that he wouldn’t do it. It was good to hear this agent being a man of his word.  There are many like him in the FBI but we don’t get to see them.

Carney also had him testify that he met Connolly at his retirement party. Crawford had arrested Pat Nee for his role in an attempted armed robbery which Nee writes about in his book. Connolly came up to him and said, – “sorry to hear that you arrested my buddy Pat Nee.” I’m not sure what that is supposed to prove. It was a party and in my experience people make remarks like that in jest. But aside from that, what does it add to the case. Connolly is not on trial here.

Next we heard from Crawford that he had two wiretap operations he was involved with compromised. One was in 1978. The other in 1982 which was a drug investigation. One of the agents making an arrest while taking the prisoner out of the car left his case file on top of it. It ended up in the hands of Stevie Flemmi. I don’t have any idea how that plays into the case or what inference we are supposed to make from it.

Finally, Carney got in through Crawford something of relevance in the case. Olga Davis, Deborah Davis’s mother, went to him seeking help in finding her daughter. She told him that Deborah had purchased tickets to Mexico because she had entered into a long-term relationship with another man.  She wanted to know if they could find out if she flew to Mexico. They were unable to show that.

Carney tried to get in through his direct examination that Olga told him she thought if her daughter had not gone to Mexico Stevie Flemmi had to be involved in her daughter meeting bodily harm. The judge would not let him do that. Then Kelly brought the subject up on cross-examination for no discernible reason. So Carney got up on redirect and put it in because Kelly opened the door. This again shows the dangers of not knowing what you are doing on cross-examination.

When Kelly got up on re-cross, he made matters even worse. He asked Crawford “well, of course Olga Davis would suspect Flemmi because he was Debbie’s boyfriend.” Crawford replied that was correct but also Flemmi was the last one seen with her when she was alive.

We had an unexpectedly interesting morning before the break. The prosecutors told us a lot about what they are about.

 

 

44 thoughts on “Mid Morning Break – July 31, 2013 – Prosecutors Reveal Themselves

  1. I just mean that this trial is finally starting to get interesting. Some of the things we thought we knew, aren’t necessarily so. As Lewis Carroll would say, it’s getting “curiouser and curiouser”. And Matt, I know from when you started this blog, your mission was to “re-examine” the “facts” surrounding Whitey, and his history. I think you have done an excellent job of that, but wait….there’s still more to come. Stay tuned.

  2. If you are related to Rufus t. Firefly you continue a fine tradition.
    Thanks for the tip on the you tube. Bill Bulger has the broadest strongest back in this town

    1. I forgot his name WAS Rufus T. Firefly:

      Even Groucho himself did not initially think too highly of the film. When asked the significance of the film’s politics, Groucho only shrugged and said: “What significance? We were just four Jews trying to get a laugh.”[5][24] Nevertheless, the Brothers were ecstatic when Benito Mussolini took the film as a personal insult and banned it in Italy.[7][25] Also, the residents of Fredonia, New York, protested because they feared that the similar-sounding nation would hurt their city’s reputation. The Marx Brothers took the opposite approach, telling them to change the name of their town to keep from hurting their movie.[26][27]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Soup_(1933_film)

      Wikipedia’s hilarious!

  3. I thought Steve Flemi would have been asked questions about if in fact Billy Bulger had any knowledge of Whiteys criminal behavior. From 60 minutes on CBS , major motion pictures , and the Boston Globe and Herald the mainstream media has been far away from the facts for decades. The FBI looks like a joke every day Pat Nee walks around a free man. The hardest part in all this is that without this blog most people would read Black Mass, one or two of Howies books and the Globe and think they have the full story. At some time when the trial is over perhaps you can google Federal agent Christopher Deedy who is on trial here for shooting to death a local man after a night of drinking at 3am at a local Mcdonalds here in Waikiki. Your blog has shown that the main purpose of the federal goverment seems to be when one of their own is accused of wrongdoing to protect them and people are not surprised by that anymore.From low bail to letting him be paid while waiting for the trial he has been treated like anything but what your average citizen would go through. regards,

    1. “The hardest part in all this is that without this blog most people would read Black Mass, one or two of Howies books and the Globe and think they have the full story.”

      Norwood: exactly.

      1. Jon, it is true, most people would rely on the drivel, spewed for the masses……. Or their grandparents, their parents, and they themselves could have lived through it. For the record, we don’t believe Howie, Phyllis, English, or the rest of the ghost writers.

      2. This Blog is literally the real story!! WE have some legendary commentators on here with some real EXCELLENT Postings. BIG PROPS to THE SENSEI

    2. Norwood:

      Thanks for the information. We were all brain washed at one time before we started looking closely at these things and seein they made little sense.

  4. I’m another one who is in the dark about some of this questioning, but It seems that the fact that the file is much thicker than the witness remembers is a bombshell. I’m not sure where I read that, but someone was tasked with reviewing the file years ago and remembers it as being significantly smaller. Also, I read a tweet today saying that the file left on the car was that of Mickey Davis, brother of Debbie. I don’t know how that questioning went and why that wasn’t allowed in.

    Lots to digest. Thank you for pointing out what the mainstream media misses entirely, that Wyshak goes to great lengths to put William Bulger in the middle of this. That is truly disgraceful, and I hope that it is not lost on the jury.

    1. Pam:

      Yes, it seems to me that the files have been tapered with – who knows because they have always been in FBI and DJ custody. But Devis had no doubt in his mind that he was not looking at the same file he looked at in 79 or 80.

      The lost file. It was a drug case. It involved the Davis brother. It was my wiretap. I did it with the Mets back around that time. It was the tap I picked up Whitey and Stevie talking in a short conversatin with Whitey calling Stevie and saying he was back in town. The file was not left on a car and taken. Does that make sense? One of three copies of the case file was taken from the Metropolitan Police lower basin station. Joe McCain was the affiant on the wiretap and he went ballistic after that happened. The wiretap was not compromised. It just could not be prosecuted because the case file had in it informatin that would lead to the identities of the informants. McCain got word that if we didn’t go forward with the prosecution, the informants would be left alone. He asked me not to go forward with it.

  5. The last thing Billy Bulger needs is for me to speak for him.

    Here he is talking about his latest book about James Michael Curley on a local television station in the western part of Massachusetts.

    Here we go: Our Town with Host – Chip Harrington:

    Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bana26FVQvY (each part is 11 minutes 38 seconds long)

    Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBYaRpDsplg

    Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_okcV9ZZIo

    If you’re interested on Billy Bulger’s understanding of overly aggressive prosecutors, see Part 3 at the 6 minute mark.

    Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwzObJK13jM

    In Part 4, The Last Hurrah and Frank Skeffington are discussed.

    Tip knew that all politics is local. With an Irish blessing, may you see that all life lived in its fullness is local.

    1. Firefly:

      Thanks for the reference – without looking at it (will do so later) I’m sure you’ll see a man of grace and high intellect; then compare him to the people who are prosecuting Whitey – they couldn’t stand in his shoes which is probably why they seek to vilify him so much.

      1. Well, you got me.
        Okay, I did sneak into Judge Casper’s office and cross out Group with a red Sharpie.
        Yup, I also did write the word Gang above it.

        The Bulger Group?
        If I’m not mistaken they sell bond funds over at International Place.

        Judge, this was a Gang.

  6. Matt,

    As a managing prosecutor, what would you have done if two of your prosecutors let a mass murderer walk free from a courtroom and then they use a trial to smear an innocent man like Bill Bulger with irrelevant attacks?

    Wyshak and Kelly’s ongoing campaign against Bill Bulger truly cheapens this proceeding. It’s obsessive and weird. They seem bent on proving they can say and do whatever they want, and Bill Bulger is at the rop of their “hit list”. That’s precisely the corrupt attitude that prevailed in the FBI’s Boston office that gave rise to this abomination of justice.
    P

    1. Patty, I agree with you 100%. Corruption and character assassination runs deep in the DOJ’s prosecutors’ offices.

    2. Patty:

      Don’t know what I would do to be truthful, would never have let such a situation develop. Would never let a prosecutor with the slightest personal interest in a case near it. I can think of nothing worse than to use the tools of government given to prosecutors to carry on a crusade against a man who had done no ill.

      I’m very pleased Kelly once and for all showed their hand. I’ve been writing all along about the obsession with “the Bulgers and Southie.” Nothing proved it more than that question which the more I think of it is so out of line that I have great difficulty even fathoming how they could have come up with it even though I know they have an abnormal hatred for Billy,

      Neither Wyshak or Kelly should have been allowed to prosecute this case because of their personal desire for vengeance against a man who can’t defend himself and against whom they have not a scintilla of evidence he did anything wrong. The problem is there is no adult supervision over these folks. Think Ortiz, Margolis, and Holder and the next thought is the three stooges.

      1. I remember reading the Black Mass discussion of the State Street affair, and thinking that the authors were trying real hard to imply that something shady went down, and yet all the time I could not figure out what exactly Bulger had done wrong, or where in the exact chain of events Bulger had been caught doing something wrong. It has been a while since I read the book, but I remember it was a frustrating experience as a reader. I thought maybe I wasn’t trying hard enough to think through and understand what I was reading.

        1. Jon- If you read “while the music lasts” it explains pretty good. Black mass authors should give back the EDGAR AWARD they won in 2001 for best true crime book of the year.

          1. Doubting:

            They will give it back after the New York Times gives back its Pulitzer for the greatest scam stories in the history of America by Walter Duranty.

        2. Jon:

          That’s something I have to write on. It was a total smear of Billy Bulger done in conjunction with a team of lawyers who were intent on destroying him Thant and Naimovich I must concentrate on after this.

  7. So, the female rat tells Crawford that she has knowledge that Halloran’s life is in jeopardy because she knows Flemmi knows (Whitey must know too) Hallorans is wired up? Crawford dutifully reports it, honorably refuses to reduce it to writing, and Halloran is dead ten days later? Good job Crawford. Bad job FBI. The “supervisor and bosses” didn’t need the female rat’s identity or statement to step in and save Halloran. They chose not to. Who was that supervisor, and those bosses? Why aren’t they being indicted?

    1. The FBI told Halloran to stay out of Boston, gave him a place to stay on the Cape, and came back to Boston on his own accord. All the gangsters knew that Halloran, arrested for murder and then freed to walk the streets, was cooperating with law enforcement. The FEDs offered him witness protection, he hesitated or refused the FEDs conditions as I understand it. Brian Halloran was killed for the same reason Eddie Connors and Spike O’Toole were: The Gangsters feared they would talk or otherwise turn on them.

    2. Rather:
      I’m trying to figure out who the female is – who is close enough to Flemmi to know on May 1, 1982, what Flemmi is doing. It had to be someone Flemmi was so close to that he would confide in her and tell her pretty secret stuff. She also had to be someone who knew it was dangerous just to speak to anyone in the FBI. She came to him from another law enforcement officer who had 25 to 30 years experience who Crawford had know for about five years and had worked with him. Any cop with that much time in had to have come on the job in the late Fifties adn worked with the FBI. That would have to be Colonel John R. O’Donovan who brought the woman to Crawford. O’Donovan did not trust Connolly or Morris. That’s why Crawford would have given that promise.
      Crawford was in the property crime and fugitive squad. He didn’t know if the woman was telling the truth or not since he had no idea Halloran was an informant. He told his supervisor who went to the SAC Sarhatt and ASAC Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick told how he went to O’Sullivan and to Bill Weld to get him in the witness protection program. Fitpatrick did what he could but the forces were allied against him.

      1. Shelley Murphy tweeted today that #2 was Olga Davis. Shelley should know because she has free reign of Wyshak’s office.

  8. Matt,

    Your first impression of Jim Crawford appears to be good. You’re a good judge of character. He’s a good man. There were more guys like him than Fitzpatrick and Newton, but Jim Crawford doesn’t sell books and newspapers. He had some pretty serious back/neck problems. How does he look?

    1. Declan:

      He seemed to be in fairly good physical condition but I did think he was having problems with his back. He leaned back in the chair and moved his arms like I do when my back goes out. I thought he represented the FBI guys that I knew who were 100% on the level and doing the job the best that they could. Very forthright. Worked hard at his job and then left with his head held high knowing he did a good job. It’s too bad we get a look at the underside of the FBI and think a handful of bad apples represent others. I’m glad you agreed with my analysis of him.

  9. Matt,

    Maybe you can explain this to me;

    Pat Nee is implicated in a number of murders, is an ex-con, makes a video of himself bagging about murdering someone and now admits on a reality show he’s a bookie, loan shark and extortionist and nothing happens to him??

    Now Casper the federal ghost allows him to not be called as a witness!

    Meanwhile the G men make up cases against innocent people.

    What is going on ??

    1. Notoboyo, Welcome to the corrupt Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the corrupt DOJ First Circuit, Mass. Federal District Court; inexplicably corrupt business as usual; same indifference to “justice” as has been amply demonstrated the last forty years since forced busing, or in my personal experience, the last 20-plus years since the St. Pat’s Day Parade Debacle. We’ve got dens of iniquity all over the place in Boston where CEO-types, people with pencils, typewriters and press cards, or with three piece suits or with long black robes, preside.

    2. Notaboyo:

      You’re asking the wrong guy. When I was a prosecutor a case came across my desk of a very weak attempted B&E in a gas station. The defendant had been previously convicted of murder but had been let out by the SJC on some foolish technicality. I indicted him, offered him no deal that if he pleaded guilty he would get the same thing as if he went to trial, I think the maximum was 9 1/2 to 10. Obviously he went to trial. I lost it. But I felt good that I went after him and at a minimum sent a message that no matter what he did we were going to go for the maximum.
      That’s why I don’t understand Suffolk DA not indicting Nee. You can indict him on the admissions he made in his book. You can drag Weeks into a grand jury to get his evidence. It’s time to make a run at him and the other guys involved. If you lose you lose but you’ve got to try.

      As for Casper, she had to follow the law so she had no choice to do what she did. G men make up cases against the people they think are guilty, it doesn’t matter if the are or not, in fact it seems the more innocent they are the more the G men delight in going after them.

      1. They can indict a ham sandwich……When they want to… Or they can choose not to…. Who are we to say?… We’re just tax-paying American citizens….?

      2. Matt,
        I believe you are correct about the two-toilet prosecutors in the US Attorney’s Office. They seem to operate by their old saying, “Any prosecutor can convict a guilty man, it takes a really ‘good’ prosecutor to convict an innocent man.”
        Also, “If you can’t indict em, smear em!”
        Wyshak and Kelly mistake their roles in the same way as Plymouth County Sheriff’s Investigator Kenneth M. Brady mistook his role. Brady is a jailor. The prisoner’s punishment is being locked in the jail by the jailor. Weak men like Brady believe its also their duty to punish and torment prisoner’s. That’s why Brady violated the rules to strip search Bulger up to 8 times a day. It made Brady feel powerful.
        Wyshak and Kelly similarly mistake their role to be punishers, not merely presenters of evidence. They torment Bulger by encouraging their witnesses to call him “Whitey”, “Rat”, “informant”. They obviously asked every last witness if there was any way they could bring in Bill Bulger’s name, even if irrelevant. Their use of the defendant’s brother is a cowardly way to “poke the tiger in the cage”.
        This trial was over twenty witnesses ago, but for Wyshak and Kelly’s sadistic need to fire every last round of ammunition over the rampart, even if it falls on friendlies. They waste the taxpayers’ money and time for the sake of ego.
        Wyshak and Kelly squandered an enormous amount of public justice through their obscene immunity deals and perverse incentives. It was not necessary. They paid such a high price for testimony from a parade of immoral witnesses they could convict anyone sitting in the defendant’s seat, even Pope Benedict or Tom Brady.
        Guess I’m trying to see the justice here and it’s nowhere to be found. I just see thugs reveling in sadistic power at the public’s great expense.
        P

        1. Patty:

          I agree with most but have to disagree with two points.

          Jailer Brady is not a weak man, he’s a sniveling coward who preys on those who can’t defend themselves. He should be removed from any position that gives him power over another person.

          Wyshak and Kelly simply aren’t very good lawyers, I’ve concluded after watching them. In a fair one-on-one battle they’d be taken to the cleaners. You can tell this by their deals to get Martorano and Weeks to testify. They gave away the store and their neighbor’s funiture. Except they played their games in their home court they’d win very few. I can’t tell you how disgusted I was with Kelly asking that totally irrelevent question about Billy Bulger. It goes beyond any conception of normalacy into the realm of idiocy.

Comments are closed.