The Meeting That Never Happened: Halloran’s Lies

smoking-gunHere’s a major problem in telling Whitey’s story. Gangsters lie. Gangsters in a jam tell big lies. FBI agents, prosecutors and authors believe the lies because that is what they want to hear. They don’t pause to examine them closely. Authors are the worst, because once one writes the lie as being true others pass it on without any critical thinking. The seminal book on the Whitey saga, Black Mass, set the stage for a ton of misinformation. Here’s an example.

In Back Mass (page139 to 143) pubished in 2000 the authors wrote that John Callahan, at a meeting at his apartment with Brian Halloran, Whitey Bulger, and Stevie Flemmi, “got right to the heart of the matter. He said a serious problem had come up at the World Jail Alai company in the form of a new owner . . . Roger Wheeler.  The hard-driving CEO . . . “had discovered something was not right “. Wheeler, he said, had figured out someone was skimming one million dollars a year from the overflowing company coffers.” He was going to replace the top financial officers, conduct an audit, and Callahan might end up in jai.”

They went on: “Callahan also had a solution. Brian Halloran . . . could “take {Wheeler] out of the box,” which was to say shoot him in the head.” He said a “hit” was the ony way  . . . to end any possibility of an embezzlement charge against him. He added that Winter Hill’s seasoned hitman, Johnny Martorano, should probably get involved.”

The authors divert from the meeting into talking about how Whitey was doing well with John Connolly watching his back. Things were going good with no signs of trouble even after having killed Debbie Davis. They said Whitey had to decide whether leaving his comfort zone and killing a business executive in Tulsa, Oklahoma was worth it. They wrote “but as 1981 dawned over Boston, Wheeler was just another guy in Whitey Bulger’s way.”

They then noted Halloran: “got darty-eyed, cleared his throat, and asked if there was any alternative to “hitting the guy.” This brought him one of Bulger’s patented cold glares. The hour long meeting broke up with Bulger saying he would think about it some more . . . “

I knew little about the matter so I bought into all of that when I first read it. Now I see I should have had several questions. The most obvious were:  What’s in it for Whitey and Stevie? Why would they get involved in a plot kill a guy because Callahan might have stolen some money? How is Callahan embezzling money in 1981 since he’s been out of World Jai Alai (WJA) since 1977 when he stepped down as president?  How many guys have ever been killed because they ordered an audit of their company’s books? Why is the ever cautious Whitey bringing into a murder scheme a guy he thinks is a drug addict and drunk who’d rat him out in a second? Why does anyone believe Halloran was capable of planning a murder in Oklahoma since he wasn’t a hit man?

The authors got the information they used for this story from what Halloran told two FBI agents. He went to them because in October 13, 1981, he murdered George Pappas. He had been indicted for first degree murder in Suffolk County. He was facing life in prison without parole. He was desperately looking for a way out, a deal to get him off the hook. He went to the FBI. He would give the FBI agents anything he could so that the charge would be dismissed and he could go into the Witness Protection Program. He was so in need of an escape he would cheat, lie, double-deal, wear wires or anything he could to save his life. He did wear wires but nothing come of it since the word on the street was he was cooperating.

The truth is that Halloran and Callahan hung around together at times. Callahan had been seen in the company of Halloran and Jimmy Martorano at the Playboy Club in Boston. That’s why he had to resign from WJA.

Callahan carried money to Florida that he got from George Kaufman a Winter Hill associate for John Martorano who was a fugitive. Callahan let John Martorano use his Florida condo and Cadillac during the off season. They were good friends.

The meeting that is highlighted never took place. It is a total fiction created by Halloran and embellished by the authors. This is obvious because Callahan arranged the murder through the man he knew was capable of doing it, his close friend, John Martorano. There was no need for Halloran when Martorano had already agreed to do the job.

Martorano was the man who murdered Wheeler. He tells us how it all came about. He said Callahan wanted to buy World Jai Alai from Wheeler. They could not come to terms. Callahan then figured if he murdered him he could buy it from his widow.  He asked Martorano to do the job. (Hitman – pgs 315 to 219) He told Martorano he would give him $50,000 and when he took over would hire the Winter Hill gang at $10,000 a week to protect the fonton in Connecticut from the New York Mafia. That’s the story of the guy who did the murder.

There was no need for a meeting in Boston looking to hire Halloran. That was a Halloran creation to increase the likelihood the FBI would give him a deal. It never happened. Stepping back for a minute would suggest it made no sense.

How then did Halloran know what happened?  Wheeler was murdered on May 27, 1981. He and Callahan were buddies. Callahan told FBI Agent Montanari that shortly after the murder he ran into Callahan in a bar in Boston who told him Johnny had done it, Stevie was driving the car, and Whitey was in the backup car. With that he just put himself into a meeting with them which he knew he needed to suck the FBI into giving him a deal and saving him from life in prison.

22 thoughts on “The Meeting That Never Happened: Halloran’s Lies

  1. Matt, I’m still trying to get a video of that first conference about whitey which I thought took place last night. But I just found in my email a 9-4 announcement from BC Chronicle which indicates 9-16 as the Conference Time. Will try to figure out by MOnday.

    “CNN chief national correspondent John King will moderate a panel discussion on Sept. 16 at 5:30 p.m. in Robsham theater to discuss the new CNN Films documentary “WHITEY: United States of America v. James J. Bulger.” The panel and a screening of the film, which begins at 4 p.m., are open to the public. Joining King will be Bulger defense attorney J.W. Carney, JD ’78, Boston College Law School Professor Robert Bloom ’76, former federal prosecutor Brian T. Kelly, WGBH-FM reporter David Boeri and film producer Joe Berlinger.”

    1. CONFIRMATION: “Newton, MA— On September 16, 2014, Boston College Law School is partnering with CNN FILMS to present a special early screening of the upcoming documentary WHITEY: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. JAMES J. BULGER. The screening will be followed by a panel discussion featuring the prosecution and defense team, reporters who covered the case, the film’s director, and BC Law professor Robert Bloom ‘71. The panel will be moderated by CNN’s chief national correspondent and anchor of Inside Politics, John King.
      The event is free and open to the public, and will take place at Robsham Theater on Boston College’s Chestnut Hill campus at 4 pm. CNN will air the US premiere of the film on the network on Thursday, September 18 at 9 pm, two days after the BC screening.”

    2. Matt and anyone else planning on attending
      the film screening keep you eyes open for
      the interview with forensic investigator
      Angela Clemente. This 5’1″ light welterweight
      almost put NY City FBI agent Lyndley DeVecchio
      down for the count when she succeeded in having
      murder charges filed against him.
      Lo and behold what followed what can only
      be described as the John Zip Connolly FBI
      plausible denial miracles. Yes, soon to be
      released John Boy because of a statute of
      limitations technicality not the facts of
      the crime happened in the Lyndley DeVecchio
      trial. It was like watching a slow motion
      clip from a Sam Peckinah western.I knew
      the fix was in from day one and was not
      surprised the murder trial never went forward
      because of a technicality.
      Until voters and taxpayers understand the
      FBI -Mafia collaboration started in the
      1920’s and continues they will never explore
      how that relationship thrived.
      google earl clark jowers FBI mlk assassination

      1. MS;

        Can’t disagree with you more. No such FBi-Mafia collaboration; John Connolly should not have been prosecuted twice for the same act.

  2. Matt et al: Here’s a second BC conference in October about Whitey:
    http://bcalumni.bc.edu/s/1627/index01.aspx?sid=1627&gid=1&pgid=1076&content_id=868
    This woman lawyer, reporter, says she’s done a ton of research but hypes her conference with hyperbole about Whitey’s “machine guns” and “terrorizing Boston.” From the git-go I take her with a ton of salt.
    Last night’s conference with Kelly etc, I’m still trying to track down at BC.EDU their Media Center

  3. Halloran ran to the FBI after he ran to the BPD to implicate whitey in the litif murder. The BPD detective didn’t believe him so then he ran to the feds.

    Also interesting how his handler claimed he told him whitey had a gravedigger on the payroll that would bury bodies underneath legitimately buried bodies. Doesn’t add up, seeing that the winter hill crew (well, weeks and nee) did their own digging.

  4. I have a question thats kinda off topic, WHY would ANYONE in their right mind (which most politician’s arent) want to be president today, in this day and age???? with all the scrutiny etc and dirty politics to boot. but yet they are the most egotistical beings.(political elites)

  5. THIS is why this website/forum has become my Favorite place to read/visit on the web, its always factual or looking into discovering the truth, not taking OTHER’S shotty work as FACT!! love it and matt, continue the great work, im so glad you didnt stop after the trial!!!!

  6. P.S. Callahan was most likely murdered because Bulger saw from reading the Boston papers after Halloran’s killing, that Callahan had told Halloran way too much. Highly doubtful that former SA John Connolly had anything at all to do with Callahan’s murder.

    1. Connolly was acquitted on two counts in Boston and now in Miami on 3 counts of having anything to do with John Callahan’s murder. The FEDs twice tried JOhn Connolly (once in Boston and once in Miami) on allegations he said something that led to Callahan’s murder and both the Boston jury and the Miami jury rejected those murder and conspiracy charges (the tipping off the gangster charges were also wholly rejected by the juried.) The MIami jury did wrongly convict Connolly of “murder by gun” a charge for which the Statute of Limitations had run out 24 years earlier and for which an essential element of the crime was never proven at trial and for which the trial judge improperly instructed the jury on the law of the case and law of that particular charge. It took six years for a Florida Appeals court to overturn the grotesquely erroneous decision of the trial court and its misinformed jury; John Conolly has now been found not guilty of any murder related charges both in Boston and in Miami. In fact, the Boston jury found him guilty of just one crime during his 23 years as an FBI agent: Passing a case of wine from Whitey Bulger to Connolly’s supervisor John Morris, who said the case had $2,000 in an envelope inside. Morris is an admittedly corrupt FBI agent and proven perjurer. The FEDs put him in the witness protection program for his false testimony. It’s the only case I know of where deals were cut to let a suspect’s bosses and serial killers off the hook to go after a lowly cop, the man on the bottom rung of the Totem Pole. Of course, all along the FEDs were after another innocent man, William Bulger. A grave travesty of justice worst than the Dreyfus Affair: That’s what happened to John Connolly and without cause the Florida courts still hold him in solitary confinement, despite the fact that he’s been acquitted and despite the fact that he poses an absolute zero flight risk at 74 years of age. That’s what passes as “justice” in America today. And behind the scenes we smell the rat-Feds still trying to manipulate the courts against innocent men.

  7. The FBI never believed Halloran’s story–which is one of the reasons Halloran was not put in WITSEC. Halloran showed up at Callahan’s apt in Boston while Callahan was meeting with Bulger & Flemmi.

    Halloran never made it past the front door & Bulger warned Callahan not to tell Halloran anything, commenting, “I wouldn’t steal a hubcap with that guy (Halloran).”

    1. You are correct the FEDs didn’t put Halloran in witness protection–some say he wasn’t fully cooperating—but the FEDs did find him a “safe” cottage down the Cape and told him to stay out of Boston, which advice he ignored. The FEDs, the gangsters and lots of people knew that Brian Halloran, a career criminal and drug abuser—he couldn’t stay straight, like many others wrestling with addictions—was a potential target of organized crime, because he knew a lot; he’d been arrested for killing Pappas and was free on the streets which all the gangsters knew meant he was cooperating with the FEDs or local law enforcement. He was a marked man. John Connolly had nothing to do with his death.

  8. Matt:
    Hands up don’t shoot.
    no mas no mas
    I have been to the canvas
    to many times from all
    the lies.

    news from the whisper stream

    see link for full story

    http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/10/669623 … tment.html

    Misconduct at Justice Department isn’t always prosecuted

    Published: Wednesday, Sep. 10, 2014 – 1:49 pm
    Last Modified: Wednesday, Sep. 10, 2014 – 2:29 pm

    WASHINGTON — Dozens of Justice Department officials, ranging from FBI special agents and prison wardens to high-level federal prosecutors, have escaped prosecution

    or firing in recent years despite findings of misconduct by the department’s own internal watchdog.

    Most of the names of the investigated officials, even the highest-ranking, remain under wraps. But documents McClatchy obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal for the first time a startling array of alleged transgressions uncovered by the department’s inspector general.

    These include:

    – Investigators concluded an assistant U.S. attorney “lacked candor” when interviewed by FBI agents investigating her husband’s “embezzlement activity.” The prosecutor also “made misleading and contradictory” statements to other investigators who were asking about her husband’s criminal activities. She was “verbally admonished” this year, but the Justice Department opted not to prosecute.

    – A U.S. attorney violated federal laws and regulations by accepting a partially paid trip to a foreign country by a nonprofit organization, according to investigators. The unnamed presidential appointee was given a written admonishment and he was ordered to reimburse the organization. Prosecution was declined.

    – Two FBI supervisory special agents accepted free tickets to the NBA All-Star Game and gave them to family members. One agent “lied under oath” about his actions, and was found to have misused government resources to “engage in extramarital affairs with three women.” That agent resigned after the bureau proposed his dismissal and the other was suspended for three days. Neither was prosecuted.

    – An FBI assistant special agent in charge sexually harassed female subordinates, retaliated against a female special agent who refused to have a relationship with him and used his FBI-issued BlackBerry to pursue romantic relationships with 17 FBI employees, nine of whom were direct subordinates, as well as 29 other women. In January, the FBI told the inspector general it had issued an undisclosed disciplinary action. No charges were brought. In a statement to McClatchy, the FBI said it couldn’t comment on an “ongoing personnel matter.”

    The records, which cover the period from January 2010 to March 2014, detail some 80 cases, only a few of which appear to have been previously made public. The accused officials work for agencies that include the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    In at least 27 cases, the inspector general identified evidence of possible criminal wrongdoing but no one was prosecuted.

    These previously undisclosed cases, and dozens of others like them reviewed by McClatchy, reveal more than an underside to federal law enforcement. The cases underscore how much discretion federal prosecutors have in deciding whether to press charges, and they raise questions about when and why this discretion is applied.

    “I think it’s fair to ask why some of these cases weren’t prosecuted,” Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz said in an interview. “That’s clearly a concern we have: To make sure there are not two standards of justice at the Department of Justice.”

    However, he said it’s understandable in many cases that criminal charges aren’t filed. His office presents a case for prosecution in every instance where there’s “credible evidence that could support elements of a crime, even when it’s weak.”

    The reports come, however, amid an overall decline in public corruption prosecutions during the Obama administration. So far this year, records obtained by the nonpartisan Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University show that 34 percent of investigators’ referrals of public corruption allegations were accepted for prosecution.

    During the George W. Bush presidency, records show, 41.6 percent of the official corruption referrals resulted in prosecution.

    Gauging the reasons behind an individual prosecutor’s decision-making is nearly impossible, because the Justice Department and inspector general’s office won’t release most of the names or discuss the details of the cases.

    Justice Department records show that federal prosecutors nationwide declined a total of 25,629 criminal matters during fiscal year 2013. The reasons most commonly reported included weak or insufficient evidence and lack of criminal intent.

    Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, said prosecutors followed federal rules when deciding whether to initiate or decline charges in a case.

    Carr pointed to the U.S Attorney’s Manual, which says, “Federal law enforcement resources and federal judicial resources are not sufficient to permit prosecution of every alleged offense over which federal jurisdiction exists.”

    “Public corruption cases are very fact-specific, and statistics fluctuate routinely year by year,” Carr said Tuesday. “The decision to bring a case involves a number of factors, all covered by the Principles of Federal Prosecution, which may include the seriousness of the allegation, the admissible evidence and whether there is a substantial federal interest in pursuing charges.”

    The inspector general’s summary of unprosecuted cases was provided to Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and independently obtained by McClatchy through a FOIA request.

    Grassley said he agreed that not all cases warranted prosecution. However, he called for more transparency in the decisions “because of the obvious appearance of a conflict of interest.”

    “The public needs to be reassured that the department doesn’t have one standard for its own employees and another standard for everybody else,” he said.

    Other cases federal prosecutors declined that were cited in the documents obtained by McClatchy include:

    – Allegations against an unnamed prosecutor who was recused from involvement with a criminal investigation because of a personal relationship with a criminal target. The inspector general, however, concluded the prosecutor had disclosed information about the investigation and the wiretap to her spouse, “who subsequently disclosed it to the target.” The prosecutor initially denied revealing the information to her spouse, but subsequently acknowledged that she might have “said something” about the investigation. The prosecutor retired last November.

    The husband of former Assistant U.S. Attorney Paula Burnett in New Mexico was convicted last September of leaking details of an investigation to Mexican drug cartel members. Burnett retired late last year, according to news accounts. The inspector general and the U.S. attorney’s office in New Mexico wouldn’t confirm whether it was the same case. Burnett declined to comment.

    – The inspector general’s review found $211,000 in questionable purchases at a district U.S. marshals’ office, including “ceremonial and promotional” items previously banned by headquarters, personal or other wasteful items. The investigators concluded that the marshal and the chief deputy marshal had misspent funds, knowingly misused the government purchase card program and violated public service laws. Disciplinary action was still pending this year.

    – Investigators concluded that an immigration judge had solicited attorneys to purchase jewelry from her, borrowed money from a lawyer and interpreter, and failed to recuse herself from cases that involved lawyers representing her relatives in criminal matters. The Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees immigration judges, “proposed disciplinary action” in January. Spokeswoman Kathryn Mattingly said her office “does not comment on personnel matters.”

    Several cases also involve prosecutors misusing their positions, including one who’d sent emails on behalf of her boyfriend, disclosed sensitive information to him without authorization, used government databases to conduct legal research for him, gave him access to government computer accounts and sent a gift to an attorney to get her boyfriend legal assistance. In December 2011, she received a letter of suspension for 14 days.

    In the interview, Horowitz wouldn’t comment on specific cases but he added that he’s personally appealed to U.S. attorneys to consider prosecution in some instances.

    “I pick up the phone and call them,” said Horowitz, a former longtime federal prosecutor who handled corruption cases in New York.

    Horowitz’s role is not to make the prosecution decisions, but to ensure that prosecutors get the information they need .

    “There are some where I might have pulled the trigger. But I’m not a prosecutor anymore so I respect the discretion not to. I can’t think of any case where a decision was made not to prosecute that I thought was unreasonable,” he said.

    Some of the misconduct cases may not be pursued because they involve “low-dollar” waste or abuse, Horowitz said. Or cases may be seen as too tough to prosecute, sometimes for the wrong reasons, he added, such as the sexual abuse of prisoners. Prosecutors can view prisoners as unsympathetic witnesses.

    Before Horowitz took over in 2012, the inspector general’s office disagreed with a federal prosecutor who didn’t want to file charges. In that case, a correctional officer had accepted $1,300 from an undercover agent in exchange for agreeing to smuggle tobacco into a correctional facility. After prosecutors from the federal district based in Houston declined to pursue criminal charges, a local district attorney took the case. The officer later pleaded guilty to bribery, was sentenced to probation and was fined $2,000.

    Earl Devaney, a former inspector general for the Department of Interior, said a decision not to pursue criminal charges didn’t necessarily mean investigators or prosecutors were pulling their punches.

    “There are always a lot of good reasons to not prosecute,” he said. “Also, you can have a thousand little crappy cases that just make you look good and just one case that has enormous impact.”

    Devaney nonetheless added that he’d found the Justice Department’s public integrity unit, which is set up to prosecute cases of high-level corruption, to be “risk adverse” in the past. He worked with it as part of a federal task force that investigated superlobbyist Jack Abramoff and his influence peddling.

    Sometimes, alleged misconduct by prosecutors and investigators might be handled less aggressively because of concern that it would taint criminal cases, Devaney said. At trial, defense attorneys are permitted to learn of serious misconduct of the agents and prosecutors involved in their cases.

    According to the most recent report by the office, the Justice Department’s inspector general received nearly 5,900 allegations of misconduct, opened 195 investigations and was involved in 32 arrests and 38 convictions from October through March.

    This year, for instance, a former federal correctional officer in Missouri was sentenced for trying to hire an inmate to murder his wife’s ex-husband.

    However, the Justice Department’s inspector general doesn’t break down details on prosecutions. As a result, McClatchy couldn’t determine the prosecution rate for the office’s cases.

    At least one other inspector general does report such statistics. The Interior Department Inspector General’s Office opened 742 cases in the year that ended March 31. During the same period, the office reported referring 44 cases for possible prosecution. Nineteen cases were declined.

    During the same year, the Department of Homeland Security opened 551 investigations, referred 322 for prosecution and had 196 declined.

    Horowitz is one of some 72 federal inspectors general, spanning myriad federal agencies. They are auditors, in part, scrutinizing government agencies in hopes of rooting out waste and inefficiencies. In fiscal 2013, for instance, the inspectors general identified $44.9 billion in funds that could be “put to better use.”

    Inspectors general also investigate criminal allegations. In fiscal 2013, their work led to 6,705 successful criminal prosecutions.

    The agencies make the calls on disciplinary action.

    In the Justice Department cases, Devaney said he was struck by instances of weak punishment.

    “An oral admonishment is not a deterrent,” Devaney said.

    One case was triggered by a complaint by Grassley about FBI Assistant Director Stephen Kelly. Kelly, who managed the bureau’s Office of Congressional Affairs, told Grassley’s staff that the FBI knew that the senator planned to attend the wedding of a “subject” of an FBI investigation, according to the inspector general’s report.

    “He assured Senator Grassley that he was not a focus of the FBI investigation,” the documents say.

    “The OIG concluded that Kelly did not have the authority to disclose nonpublic information about an ongoing criminal investigation to Senator Grassley or his staff, and in doing so exhibited poor judgment,” the report states.

    Grassley’s office said the senator never planned to attend the wedding and was invited by the son of the target of the investigation. The target was Russell Wasendorf Sr., founder of Peregrine Financial Group Inc., who pleaded guilty to embezzling more than $100 million from customers.

    “Senator Grassley and the staff member who spoke with Mr. Kelly both thought the disclosure was inappropriate, and could have been intimidating to somebody who hasn’t dealt with the FBI like Senator Grassley and his staff have,” said Grassley spokeswoman Beth Levine.

    This year, the FBI concluded that the allegation Kelly had violated internal policy was “unsubstantiated” and gave him “nondisciplinary counseling.”

    “FBI concluded that Kelly’s disclosure of nonpublic information derived from an ongoing investigation was improper, for which he received nondisciplinary counseling,” the bureau said in a statement. “The FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs must be afforded some measure of latitude and flexibility in dealing with members of Congress. As this instance did not result in harm to the ongoing investigation, and was done with good intentions, the matter did not constitute official misconduct.”

  9. Was Tierney’s defeat a result of his voting record or is it directly attributable to his and his wife’s illegal activities? Was the vote a rejection of the dishonest, corrupt plea deal orchestrated by Whyshak. Is it a reflection of widespread disgust with the Moakley Courthouse? Ortiz and Whyshak were giving a special deal to a powerful congressman. Now he is a nobody. Can O’Briens lawyers ask for 30 days in jail because he isn’t married to a congressman? Whyshak looks foolish again. He’s the same genius who claimed he put the two worst members of the Winter Hill gang ( WB and Connolly ) in jail. He can’t figure out Winter, Salemme, Flemmi, Nee,Gucci et al were all admitted serial killers and Connolly was found NG of murder nine times. He was as weak minded as all those authors in believing the fanciful stories of gangsters. Your take on moving WB to Fla. is correct. It’s a last ditch effort to influence the Courts in the Connolly matter. It is a most despicable act. B.Bulger,WB and Connolly are to Whyshak what the whale was to Captain Ahab. They torment him. He is obsessed by them. They tear at his psyche. They afflict him continually. There is no relief in sight for his most disturbed mind. 2.If one employs a diversity program or affirmative action program aren’t they by definition hiring for work or admitting to school not the most qualified person. Aren’t they doing exactly what the Probation Officials were convicted of. Should all employers and College Admission officers using those systems be in the dock? Isn’t there a concept called Equal Protection of the laws?

  10. Matt, I second Jerome’s questions and recommendations. A great deal of sunlight has to shed on this sordid chapter in the long history of Massachusetts judicial, prosecutorial and journalistic malfeasance and misfeasance.

    1. “has to be shed” my brain oftentimes doesn’t register (read) what I write until later. Alas, one of my favorite five word sentences is “Oops, I made a mistake.” I think and utter it frequently, then without apology move on to whatever’s next in life. “Focus on the moment,” is may mantra. It’s sorta Buddhist, Einsteinian, malarkey, you know the past = history, the future= mystery, the present=the gift, that’s why they call it the present. We write/read history, we want to get the past correct, to more preparedly enjoy the present and look forward to future generations.

        1. MsFreeh, I don’t believe in reincarnation. I believe in an afterlife, that the present life is impacted by prayer, that the soul is eternal and unconquerable so long as Christ is still with us and he is, whenever two or more are gathered in his name, and I believe in the Communion of Saints. All else is malarkey except love, which Pope John Paul II said, is God. “God is love.” And I like what Pope Francis said about ISIS: it must be destroyed, it is an agent of Satan, a Satanic movement. As far as supporting with arms and supplies the Free Syrian Army, this is grave error and will result in more children being killed. The US, Israel, Muslims, Christians and Jews must be held to the same high standard (ISIS has no standards, nor do terrorists) and that standard is this: “You are presumed to intend the natural and logical consequences of your acts.” Arming FSA will cause more Syrian children to be killed by all sides; FSA, Syrian Army and ISIS through increased shelling, missile fire and gun fire. As with Hiroshima, destroying ISIS will save lives. Truman was right then; Pope Francis is right now. Obama is half-right. The War Hawks, War Mongers, Imperialists McCain and the Neocons are mostly always wrong when it comes to urging American military or cia-type loafer on the ground Interventionism!

  11. Great article. I am looking forward to reading your book on this Whitey saga as it will connect many dots. Have you any idea why Whitey would kill Halloran and is the only evidence that he did so is Weeks testimony? When you write the book on the Whitey saga I am hoping you write about the backgrounds and crimes by other including Joe McDonald, Howie Winter, John Martorano, Jimmy Sims, etc etc. I think it would add more juice to the book to get a better understanding of the criminals mind and day to day behavior.

Comments are closed.