The Rest of the Kevin Cullen Story: The Lure of the Audience

The experts after discussing the April 16 day after the bombing column which was written on the day of the bombing moved on to subsequent actions by Kevin Cullen. Prior to doing so they reported about the April 16 story: “We find no evidence to support the allegation that Mr. Cullen intended to mislead readers with
his choice of words. To the contrary, to our knowledge Mr. Cullen has never claimed to have been on the scene, either in the hours and days after the bombing, or in subsequent years, in his  writing or in public statements. Indeed, he told several interviewers within hours after the bombing that he was about a mile away inside a restaurant in Kenmore Square.”

These subsequent actions the experts focused on were not matters he wrote about in his column. The great fault the experts found occurred on August 13, 2003, during a panel discussion aired on C-Span five months after the bombing.  As I mentioned yesterday, the experts were under pressure to find something. We’ve gone from noting Kevin erroneously wrote that Martin’s father ran in a race to this panel discussion. Kevin was recalling what happened on that traumatic evening when the air was rife with rumors and the culprits were still at large. I don’t know whether Kevin imbibes or not but you have to keep in mind the Erie Pub is not known for selling soda and recollections from having spent time there may be a wee bit faulty. Kevin says he called in the story of the father around 10:00 p.m. The Globe computer showed the story was added at 12:30 a.m. It was a night of confusion.

On CSPAN Kevin told a story of that night. “I particularly knew Sean O’Brien, he’s a friend of mine… After writing my column, I stopped off at the Eire Pub in Dorchester… As I was walking into the Eire Pub, Deputy Fire Chief Joe Finn, a great fireman, grabbed me. He had his iPhone. He said ‘This is Sean, Sean O’Brien. I can’t get him out of the house.’ “And he goes, ‘Talk to him.’” . . . And I go, ‘Sean, it’s Kevin…. Why don’t you come out? Come out and have a drink with me and Joe.’ .  . . He says, ‘No, I don’t want to come out. I don’t want to come out.’ . . . “And I said to Joe, ‘Joe, was Sean at the scene?’ And he said, ‘Well, Sean found the kid,’ and that’s when I found out that the boy had died. “And I wanted to kill Joe Finn when he put me in that spot.”

The best evidence is none of that happened as best we can tell other than Kevin did meet with Joe Finn at the Erie Pub.

Two months later Kevin wrote: “As I walked toward the pub entrance, I noticed Joe Finn, . . . talking on his cell phone and motioned me over with one hand. He ended the call and said, ‘I was trying to get Sean O’Brien to come out, just to talk.. . .  I knew Sean, so I said, ‘What happened to him?’ “‘He was there,’ Joe Finn said. ‘He was there with the little boy who died.’ “That’s when I first learned of what happened to Martin Richard and his family.”

It is unlikely the best evidence shows most of that happened. Kevin may have seen Finn on the cell phone but Finn was not talking to O’Brien telling him to come out to talk.

The experts found “neither Chief Finn nor Lieutenant O’Brien recall talking to each other by phone that night, although they said it’s possible.” It is possible but unlikely.

The  best we can tell what happened is that Finn talked with Kevin at the Erie Pub and told him of his earlier interaction with Sean O’Brien. Finn recalled talking to and having a beer with O’Brien at another pub, J.J. Foley’s earlier that evening. O’Brien must have been in tough shape because Finn said he told him to go home to his wife. The experts wrote: “O’Brien said he recalled having a beer with Chief Finn and another firefighter at that pub, adding: “I didn’t know what I was doing and they said, ‘You’ve got to go home and see your wife.’ ” It is unclear what role O’Brien played after the bombing but it seems he was not in the best of shape and was suffering some trauma that Deputy Finn was concerned about.

The experts would also talk about the relationship between Kevin and Sean O’Brien. I’ll go on tomorrow.

 

10 thoughts on “The Rest of the Kevin Cullen Story: The Lure of the Audience

  1. I agree with Tadzio: Debating whether Cullen v Globe Investigators have ascertained and told “the truth” is like debating whether Stalin and Trotsky did . . .you’re dealing with leftist, liberal ideologues. Spin suffuses their skins. Leftist Cant contaminates cerebral cortexes, corrupting consciousness. They see through glasses darkly.

  2. Notice how deeply they’ve delved into Cullen’s omissions in his stories of the FBI, Martorano, Flemmi et al. Will the Globe ask why David Boeri reported Flemmi for eight years and twice under oath swore John Connolly was an honest agent, while Kevin Cullen never omitted entirely these salient facts or grossly glossed over them burying them. Will the Globe ask why Kevin Cullen believed every word of the serial killer Martorano while the Boston Federal Jury did not believe one word Martorano said under oath on the witness stand? Of course, not

  3. I am afraid Matt that you are fighting for another lost cause. You may be right as you are in John Connolly’s case but the right wing comments here do not have any substance, just rhetoric.

  4. Kevin Cullen fabricating the truth? No surprise. Cullen and Shelley Murphy’s book on Whitey Bulger was filled with fabrication — most of the “facts” were based on the word of criminals who got away with murder. It was a tale started by the FBI’s John Morris AND the Boston Globe stating that Bulger was an informant. Morris figured Bulger would be killed with the publication of his lie. None of Bulger’s associates believed it.
    The tale continued to be spun with the help of Assistant US Attorney Fred Wyshak, using Morris’ lie to convince heinous criminals Martorano, Flemmi, Weeks, (and Nee) to flip on Bulger. They gave information to Wyshak in exchange for their lives and/or freedom. Many Boston “journalists” reprinted these lies in book after book (like Cullen), and joined in the profit from the tightly woven tale. NONE of them talked to or corresponded with Bulger to fact check any of it. None of them were responsible journalists.
    I have talked to Bulger — and corresponded for many years. His story is worth hearing, but how can “journalists” like Cullen admit they bought into and promoted the tale? How can the Globe do so, since it continues to put forth it’s “facts” on Bulger through various reporters that never asked for Bulger’s view?
    Yes, James “Whitey” Bulger is a criminal. But, the scales of Justice were altered in his trial. How can the combined crimes and murders of Martorano, Flemmi, Weeks, Morris, Nee, et al (close to 100 murdered) weigh less than the crimes of Bulger?
    Why was the DOJ so determined to throw Bulger in prison and attempt to throw away the key? Why did the Globe, and its many reporters, including Kevin Cullen, promote this story for more than 20 years?
    Seems to me that the Globe shouldn’t stop at examining only the professional integrity of Kevin Cullen, since the Globe itself, and quite a few of their journalists took part in creating and promoting the tightly woven tale of Bulger and all things pertaining to him!
    Janet Uhlar
    http://www.janetuhlar.net

  5. ” It is unlikely the best evidence showed most of that happened.”

    CLASSIC !!!

    Paraphrase : He lied .

    You don’t argue with those who are pushing a straight line of bullshit.

    THEY KNOW IT’S BULLSHIT !!!

  6. Apparently, to most of the contributors to this blog, deceit, misdirection and lies are the sole province of the left. Oh, to be so pure.

Leave a Reply

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