“The pangs of dispised Love, the Law’s absurdity, The insolence of Office, . . . “

A Florida Appeals Court decided that former FBI Agent John Connolly should die in prison so it wrote an abomination of a decision to make sure that happened. The issue really isn’t whether Connolly was a good or bad FBI agent. The issue is whether our liberties are safe in America when five judges can sign on to an absurd decision written for the sole purpose of getting Connolly. If it can happen to him, it can happen to you.

Connolly was convicted of second degree murder by gun. The charge of second degree murder would have run up against the statute of limitations and Connolly acquitted had not the gun charge reclassified the penalty and time for bringing the charges. The enhancement brought it within the statute.

The facts most favorable to the state are simple. John Callahan was murdered by Martorano on July 31, 1982. Martorano said he murdered Callahan because three weeks before the murder Connolly passed word to others that the FBI was looking for Callahan. Connolly said if he cooperated he would be able to implicate Martorano and others in a murder committed by Martorano in Oklahoma. He said Martorano should handle it. At the time he met the others in Boston he was wearing his FBI gun.

The Florida enhancement statute states: ” . . .whenever a person is charged with a felony, except . . . , and during the commission of such a felony the defendant carries, displays, uses, threatens, or attempt to use any weapon or firearm, . . . the felony for which the person is charged shall be reclassified . . . . “

The issue was whether wearing the gun in Boston three weeks before the murder in Florida Connolly was carrying a gun during the commission of the murder.

The Florida court stated Connolly’s: “second degree murder conviction was reclassified based solely on the firearm the defendant carried during the commission of the murder, and not some other offense. Further, unlike the defendant in Lemus, he carried his weapon while the crime of second degree murder was ongoing.”

In other words, when Connolly suggested that Callahan be taken care of the murder was ongoing even though it was three weeks before the actual murder took place.

Thus in Florida under this ruling a felony is ongoing, or being committed, at the time someone suggests it be done. Or, a felony is being committed if two people sit down in a room and plan to do it.  It is hard to understand how a murder or any felony could be ongoing if it does not happen.

More simply how can something exist that doesn’t exist. If there is no murder how can it be ongoing. If Callahan was not murdered then how could his murder have been ongoing for three weeks.

I’m not discussing being a conspirator or an accessory before the fact. I’m discussing being the principal, the one committing the act. Although those who plan with, or aid and abet the principal may be punished like the principal they don’t become the principal.

Three thugs sitting in an automobile on Monday planning to rob a bank on the following Thursday have not committed a bank robbery at that point. Nor is the bank robbery ongoing. They may be conspiring to do it. They may if they take steps based on their agreement be accessories to it but they are not robbing the bank. The bank is not robbed until the money is taken. If they are stopped before going into the bank by the cops they can be charges with attempted bank robbery but not the robbery even though the Florida case would have it that the robbery was ongoing at that time.

Common sense tells us that no murder or robbery takes place until it is actually committed. Florida tells us it happens as soon as someone suggests it be done. Hamlet complained about the laws delays; better in deciding whether to be or not to be he complained about its absurdity.

 

 

 

5 thoughts on ““The pangs of dispised Love, the Law’s absurdity, The insolence of Office, . . . “

  1. Matt, your conclusion is correct: Corrupt Judges.
    You embellish, however.
    The only evidence connecting John Connolly to the murder of Callahan was Martorano’s statement that WHITEY BULGER told Martorano that John Connolly said, “If Callahan talks we’ll all be in trouble.” Martorano testified he never met Connolly. He never had any conversations with him.
    Martorano composed this memory of what Whitey said after working with Wyshak for several years. Wyshak then got Flemmi to “remember” that Whitey told him the same thing. “If Callahan talks we’ll all be in trouble.” Flemmi “remembered” this after saying for eight years (twice under oath, according to reporter David Boeri) that John Connolly was an honest agent who never did or said anything intending anyone be harmed.
    Martorano remembered Whitey”s hearsay twenty years after the fact; and Flemmi suddenly remembered Whitey’s hearsay more than twenty years after the fact.

    Secondly, the “Murder by Gun” statute was obviously designed to punish those who brought weapons to the scene of a crime. Not to punish the likely unarmed John Connolly who was on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard when the murder took place 1,600 miles away. That’s why a dissenting Florida judge said words to this effect (paraphrasing): “What if he was in a cabin in Montana and the only evidence of a gun was that there was a shotgun on the wall. Could he still be convicted?” The whole thing is absurd.

    Thirdly, no evidence was introduced at trial about Connolly carrying a gun. Elements of a crime must be proven, not inferred.

    The whole case was a sham staged by Wyshak. A five week trial based on one hearsay sentence,”If Callahan talks we’ll all be in trouble.” I was told that Wyshak staged five state cops sitting behind him everyday during that five week trial. Why? What purpose other than to intimidate or sway judge and jury?

    Moreover, why was a Federal Prosecutor trying a case in Miami on Florida law? Wyshak and his cohorts lost the federal case in Boston relating to Callahan’s murder.

    How did Wyshak reconcile Flemmi’s 8 years of testifying John Connolly was an honest agent who never did or said anything intending anyone be harmed, with Flemmi’s sudden change of memory?

    And we know the obscene deals Martorano, Flemmi and Morris got (early release, lenient sentences, witness protection) for what I and others conclude was patently perjurious testimony: lies. The Boston jury, too, rejected all of Martorano’s testimony of most of Morris’s. Flemmi did not testify at Connolly’s Boston trial, most likely because twice under oath he’d testified Connolly was honest and intended no one be harmed and was told as a condition of being a top echelon informant he was to commit “no violence.”

    Finally, you are correct that the greatest danger is how Prosecutors and Judges can twist reason and contort statutory language and ignore precedents to frame people. The latest example is applying an “involuntary manslaughter” statute to someone who consciously tells someone to commit suicide. Nothing “involuntary” about it; and manslaughter traditionally requires some overt act; not words.

    WYSHAK: Remember John Connolly was acquitted in Florida of conspiracy, was never charged with aiding or abetting, and the “murder by gun” count was added after trial. Did Wyshak hear back from the jury room that the jury was going to acquit Connolly of the other charges, and then feel compelled to add the phony “Murder by Gun” charge? Also, in Boston, Connolly was acquitted of all charges relating to murder, and acquitted of all charges relating to taking any money or taking anything of value. NOT GUILTY.

    Yet, Wyshak, knowing the Boston jury did not believe one word of Martorano’s testimony, took Martorano to Miami to try Connolly on the trumped up charge that Connolly said, “If Callahan talks we’ll all be in trouble.”

    And never forget what Wyshak said after Connolly’s trial in Miami when asked by a reporter,”Where did Connolly go wrong?”, Wyshak replied, “He got too close to the Bulgers.” Bulgers, plural. Those 5 State Cops who sat behind Wyshak every day of the Miami trial were part of Colonel Foley’s team, and Foley at a speech in Somerville in 2013 said that when Wyshak deputized the 5 State Cops they were told there were two villains, two enemies to pursue: Whitey in Southie; and Whitey’s friends in the State House.

    As in the corrupt Probation Officer’s case, Wyshak thought he was a knight on a holy mission to weed out government corruption . . . .he found none . . . . .Wyshak was no knight, he was a Jihadi Javert, and the tactics he used and the deals he and his cohorts cut with serial killers and the corrupt Morris were a disgrace to justice . . . .as were the decisions of the Miami Appellate Judges, the gang of five, and the judges in Massachusetts, Tauro and the Appeals Judges.

    The Rogue Agent theory against two honest men, H. Paul Rico and John Connolly, is as bogus a theory as the Russian Collusion Hoax against Trump . . .two manufactured theories to cover up the crimes and negligence of the deep state . . . .and paradoxically involving some of the same characters in the Justice Department.

    1. Bill:

      When discussing an appeal you must consider the evidence the state offered as proven. You cannot argue the jury was wrong in its factual findings. You can only discuss the law. All the matters you bring up are besides the point.

      It is the scatter gun approach the most hurts Connolly’s chances as shown over the years by his continuing incarceration. There was a basis for the jury’s conclusion. Flemmi testified that he saw Connolly wearing a gun when they met to plan the murder. That is sufficient evidence for the carrying the gun. You seem to think that Connolly being on Martha’s Vineyard is significant. It isn’t. The state never said Connolly was at the murder scene. He could have been on Mars as far as the state is concerned.

      The issue that I addressed is whether he was carrying a gun during the commission of the crime of murder. The Appeals court found that when he wore one three weeks earlier that was a sufficient basis for his conviction.

    2. Bill:

      You wrote: “Foley at a speech in Somerville in 2013 said that when Wyshak deputized the 5 State Cops they were told there were two villains, two enemies to pursue: Whitey in Southie; and Whitey’s friends in the State House.” Do you have the source for that statement that you can provide me?

Comments are closed.