The Underhanded Reason for the Attack on DA Cruz

(`) Liberty CriesThe attack on District Attorney Timothy Cruz by the Boston Globe as I suggested in my post yesterday had no merit. Newman Flanagan the flamboyant district attorney in Suffolk County for many years was also its top trial lawyer prior to becoming DA. He would remind jurors when he argued cases that when they are dealing with crimes committed in the gutter the witnesses to the crimes were not going to come from Ivy League institutions; they also came from the gutter. The Globe’s problem with DA Cruz is that he got his witnesses from the hard streets who were not themselves angels. The alternative to DA Cruz’s vigorous and aggressive attempt to solve murders is to stand back and do nothing about them. The Globe offers no suggestion on what other methods he should have used to solve these crimes yet criticizes him wrongly.

I found the attack on Cruz unfounded and called it made up out of whole cloth. I questioned the Globe’s  motives because what Cruz has done is common to other prosecutors both federal and state. To get some testimony you have to make deals; remember John Martorano (12 years for 20 murders); Kevin Weeks (6 years for 5 murders) and others equally inexplicable deals that were made without a passing comment.

It appears studying the article that the Globe reporter is carrying the water for some disgruntled former employees of Cruz. The reporter on the story Michael Rezendes has written several other stories critical of Cruz. He says Cruz’s “handling of cooperating witnesses has helped fuel an exodus from his staff .” Yet he produces not one person who said he or she left because of his handling of cooperating witnesses. How can he make such a defamatory statement without an iota of proof?

He does offer us a statement from John E. Bradley, Jr. He was fired by Cruz. He is suing him. He said Cruz has been “utterly reckless” and does: not to care what crimes the informant committed in the past or what crimes he might commit in the future.” He never said that at the time he was fired. He offers no examples of Cruz being reckless. He obviously has a strong bias against Cruz as does Rezendes who defamed him without proof.

There is more to Bradley than meets the eye. He is a friend of the Boston Globe. He was featured in a Boston Globe Spotlight team report back in 2011 where he provided almost all of the information for one part of its three-part series.  Michael Rezendes profile reads: “was a member of the Boston Globe Spotlight Team for nearly a decade . . . . “

Those familiar with the matters surrounding Whitey Bulger are aware what the Spotlight Team can do for those who provide it help. Former corrupt FBI Supervisor John Morris was a friend of the Spotlight Team. It was his job to supervise the actions of agent John Connolly. When it came time to charge one of them, Morris, the supervisor got a deal even though he admitted taking money from Whitey Bulger; Connolly who was under him got charged and convicted. Connolly’s still in prison; the supervisor who testified he was friends with a reporter on the Spotlight Team was allowed to retire with full pension.

I have to wonder if the Globe going after DA Cruz because it is supporting the guy he fired who wants to get back at him. It sure looks like it. Although it was not mentioned in the recent attack story on Cruz, Bradley in another article said he was fired “because he assisted The Boston Globe in preparing a story about motorists in drunken driving cases who received lenient treatment from judges.”

The article just referred to related to emails that had been distributed among Cruz’s staff that he was unaware of that reflected a racial bias among some of the prosecutors. Those were discovered because of Bradley’s law suit when the emails of another prosecutor who worked for Cruz for 17 years joined in the suit against him. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

This is truly a tawdry affair. A newspaper going after a DA because the DA fired a guy who helped them out in a story. There’s no other way to look at it because as I pointed out yesterday there was nothing to the story that attacked DA Cruz.

 

 

 

 

5 thoughts on “The Underhanded Reason for the Attack on DA Cruz

  1. Matt,
    Sorry for going off-topic, but do you think Whitey will testify this time? He seems to be softening up a little, as indicated by his letters from prison.
    Thanks,
    Rather

    1. Rather:

      What forum are you talking about? Did he have his conviction reversed? Whitey wants to control the message; he could not do that on cross-examination but there is nothing pending that will require his testimony that I know about.

  2. Just filed Paul McGonagle Family litigation against Government is a serious wild card in a very late night and billion dollar, cumulatively , Stakes Game. ALL HANDS ON DECK 🙂

  3. If James Joseph Bulger is granted his Constitutionally guaranteed right ro present a defense ; And not have that prerogative pre-emptively spirited away by Judges, Prosecutors, Law Enforcement, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, ink stained lovable ” Whitey ” biographers, Pandits, ” Polecats ” ( Moore) , Flemmis’, Weeks ‘ and sundry flim flam artists in the well coached … ” You will speaks as … ” … Then it’s a new deck, same old game. A new deck ; Mark the ” Cards ” that may appear. File rhe idiom of prosecution under …” Don’t ask Mr. Bulger questions that you really do not want answered. ” It is a fatuity to believe otherwise. It is a House Of Cards.

Leave a Reply

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