The Whitey Bulger Murders: The Elimination of John McIntyre. 3 0f 4

mWe know from his own mouth that Pat Nee is capable of murdering people. He was a member of the Mullen gang in South Boston . He was born in Ireland, reared in South Boston, and served in Vietnam. He wrote a book with two co-authors called “A Criminal and An Irishman” which was published in 2006 while Whitey was on the lam. It was full of omissions and lies but not totally.

There was a kernel of truth in it. For instance in 1969 Pat’s brother Peter was shot in the head by another guy from South Boston Kevin Daley. Pat said it happened after an argument in a bar. He said: Daley was shooting “randomly and continuously.” Others have said it was a case of mistaken identity – the shooter was out to hit Pat and mistook his brother for him.

Pat decided it was his job to revenge his brother’s death. He waited for him. He tells how when he called out to him as he got out of his car. Nee then says he “smiled when [Kevin] understood what was happening.”  He told how Kevin had a look of fear and started to run. He said he squeezed the trigger on the .38 twice which brought Kevin down onto the pavement. He goes on to say: “I walked slowly over to him. With no hesitation, I squeezed out two more shots, one above the heart and one below. . . . I kicked him in the face; I can still hear Kevins’s teeth shattering on the end of my boot.” He stood over him and spit. Kevin would survive the attack and refuse to identify Pat as the person who shot him.

Do you have any doubt Pat Nee was capable of murdering someone?

Pat Nee also wrote: “You just can’t kill for the sake of killing – there has to be a good reason.”  He gave three good reasons for trying to murder Kevin: his brother’s death, his mother’s grief, and his father’s grief.

Nee certainly had a good reason to murder McIntyre. He would eliminate a rat in Murray’s organization and be able keep his freedom by preventing McIntyre implicating him in the Valhalla matters.

Nee told how his gang the Mullens entered into a gang war with the Killeens in South Boston saying the Mullens were tough guys with their fists or a baseball bat but “it’s another [thing] to use guns.  It takes a certain type of personality to squeeze a round into a man’s chest or head and watch his tissue explode in front of your face. Not many guys have that ability.” From what he has already told us we know that he has it.

Paulie McGonagle and Pat Nee were both leaders of the Mullens. Nee tells how Donald, the brother of Paulie McGonagle, was mistakenly murdered by Billy O’Sullivan a gunman for the Killeens. O’Sullivan thought Donnie was Paulie.

Pat Nee writes that Paulie waited outside O’Sullivan’s house one night by himself. He said he gunned him down. Pat Nee, removes himself from the scene, by writing, “this story is only what I was I’ve been told. Paulie gave me all these details. I have no idea if its bullshit . . . . ‘  Of course he knew it was bullshit. It was his.

O’Sullivan’s neighbors saw at least three guys chasing Billy O’Sullivan down the street as he fled. He tripped and fell. One of the men went over, like Pat Nee did to Kevin, and pumped a few in him as he was lying on the ground. Paulie wasn’t by himself. He was with a guy who like Pat Nee had the ability to do that type of thing.

Pat Nee protests too much. Like with the McIntyre murder he conveniently removes himself from a scene where one of the shooters acted exactly like he had shown himself capable of doing.

Nee also tells how he saw Whitey looking in his apartment window. He picked up his .45 caliber pistol but then exchanged it for his 30.06 rifle in an attempt to kill Whitey. He also will write that two guys who were dead at the time he was writing, Jimmy Manville and Tommy King, murdered Donald Killeen at his Framingham home in May 1973. He moves himself away from that.

 

5 thoughts on “The Whitey Bulger Murders: The Elimination of John McIntyre. 3 0f 4

  1. Matt
    Any theory as to why McIntyre was not placed into Witness Protection program after spilling the beans on everyone. How could law enforcement hear McIntyre disclose so much sensitive information and not think his life would be in danger? Puzzling part of the story for me.

  2. Excellent analysis. It shows how totally dishonest the DOJ, FBI, DEA and State Police were. They had to know Flemmi, Weeks, Salemme, Nee and Martorano were manufacturing stories yet they swallowed those bogus yarns. The North Korean media has more integrity and curiosity than what passes for the press in Boston. The courts in Russia are more honest than the Federal Court in Boston. No one questioned the obvious falsehoods disseminated by the FBI surrounding the Boston Marathon bombing. Innocents are imprisoned and serial killers are freed. What a system.

  3. the question is does Matt
    appreciate how bad the Criminal Justice System
    Crime Family is, Horatio?

    in other news

    Meryl Nass MD is a friend in Maine.
    I met her by inviting her to a meeting of activists
    who had their homes burnt down by the FBI.
    Other people attending the meeting included
    Earth First member Mike Vernon, attorney
    activist Russ Christensen, author Mitch Lansky.

    Unable to attend were Abby Shahn, daughter of
    artist Ben Shahn ,activist /Green Party candidate for Governor Nancy Oden.

    http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2016/06/why-did-does-lawrence-livermore.html

    Here is an article just posted by Dr. Nass.

    Thursday, June 2, 2016
    Why did the DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Lab produce a 2015 study suggesting that anthrax was NOT used as a bioweapon in Rhodesia’s civil war?

    Rhodesia is no more, having been renamed Zimbabwe after it became a majority-ruled black nation in 1980. Rhodesia was a British territory before 1965, when the 5% white minority seized control to preclude Britain granting majority rule.  A civil war ensued, with the two sides divided by race.  By the war’s end in 1980, the black “guerrilla” “terrorist” “communist” side had been attacked with chemical and biological weapons including organophosphate “nerve gas,” rat poison, cholera, anthrax and arguably other chem-bio agents.

    I was first to publicly identify this anthrax epidemic, which killed at least 182 people and affected 10,000, to be an act of biological warfare, in 1992.  Subsequently much literature (scientific, historical and memoir, originating from Zimbabwe, South Africa, the UK and US) has amplified the evidence base and added details, though much remains hidden. Of interest, this confirmatory literature includes a report from the US Naval War College and US Air War College, and a book and related episode of BBC TV’s Panorama.  The history of anthrax biowarfare in Rhodesia seemed incontrovertible.

    US DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory takes aim at this history, misses widely

    I was forwarded a report produced in 2015 by a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), disputing that the Rhodesian anthrax epidemic was due to biological warfare. The study was published by LLNL, rather than in a peer-reviewed journal, yet it required considerable resources to produce. The report ran to 43 pages and 56 footnotes.

    To make the case the epidemic occurred naturally, the report’s author, Stephan P Velsko, employed a method he termed “opinion calculus,” by which he transmuted the actual facts of the epidemic into opinions and (often incorrect) assertions. He then assigned weights to the opinions and assertions (the weights being his opinions) and used a mathematical construct, Dempster-Shafer theory, to impart a scientific veneer to the gobbledygook calculations.

    Unable to marshall any evidence to support his conclusion that biological warfare did not occur, Velsko jettisoned all the existing evidence to instead favor the absence of evidence, claiming,  “Many items of evidence that have been proffered over the years are shown to be nearly irrelevant to the final conclusion, while the absence of certain expected types of evidence plays a critical role in the assessment.” 

    Here are three examples of Velsko/LLNL’s arguments:

    1.  Although anthrax cases were required to be reported in Rhodesia, Velsko disputes the meaning of the huge size of the epidemic, suggesting it was inflated by poor quality reporting.  While reporting rates for any rare disease always increase as doctors become more familiar with it, Velsko never mentions the fact that the Rhodesian event remains, by far, the largest anthrax epidemic in world history.

    2.  Velsko denies that the epidemic jumped from district to district in a geographic and temporal pattern unknown to other anthrax epidemics, twisting the history. He claims instead that the epidemic was localized to one epicenter, with nearby peripheral cases caused by transport of meat.  In order to make this claim, he omits the considerable evidence of when and where cases occurred.

    However, I previously recorded the dates and locations of cases using Zimbabwe’s public health records and other sources.  Below is a new photo of the map I annotated in 1992 with multicolored stars for reported anthrax case locations, and numbers of cases, where known.  Some of the stars have gone missing, but it should be obvious that cases were identified widely within Zimbabwe’s borders (marked in yellow).  Visible, but more difficult to see, are the case numbers which, despite Velsko’s claims, were considerable from east of Harare to northwest of Bulawayo. Additionally, the star colors indicate the temporal movement of the epidemic to new areas over a 2 year period, a feature unique to this epidemic.

    3.  Velsko challenges the validity of an ex-Rhodesian intelligence officer’s report, simply because anthrax spores were referred to as “spoor.” Velsko writes, “the mistaken use of the term “spoor” instead of “spore” leads one to suspect that the author of the letter did not have direct experience with B. anthracis, and was at best quoting others.”  However, “spoor” is the correct term in the Afrikaans language (spoken by the white Afrikaaners of South Africa) for spore, and in common use to denote anthrax.  While I don’t expect Velsko to know Afrikaans, his argument encapsulates the confluence of ignorance and flawed reasoning that characterize the entire report.

    Although I could go on about the misleading claims and suppositions in this “study,” the real question of interest is why did the DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a storied federal center for studies of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, including anthrax, choose to dispute that anthrax biowarfare took place in Rhodesia?  Why now, 37 years after the event, and 23 years after my paper was first published?

    Velsko is a math and microbial forensic guy who has written on techniques for establishing the forensic origin of disease.  He has also written on the anthrax letters, and on scientific validation in microbial forensics.  I don’t think he is a fool.  Is he a knave?

    Did Velsko/LLNL simply choose to experiment with a new technique, and picked the Rhodesian anthrax epidemic to study, randomly?  If so, why choose a technique that heaps guesswork on guesswork, while ignoring the available data?  That ain’t science and I’d wager Velsko knows it.

    Why was this report written?

    The report’s conclusion, that Rhodesia’s anthrax epidemic was probably a natural occurrence, may be the first volley of an effort intended to alter history.  Why would a US government lab want to do this, unless the US government had some involvement in that history?

    Here’s another scary possibility:  the US government finds itself stymied by the existence of a method that can distinguish whether an epidemic is deliberately caused, or a natural occurrence.  A major reason to use a biological weapon is that the resulting epidemic will be assumed to be natural, and go undetected as an offensive act.  A further reason to use a biological weapon is that it is almost impossible to detect who did it.  [Consider the anthrax letters attack and that we still lack proof of their perpetrator.] Velsko and LLNL know this:  this is their field, after all.

    Might Velsko and his employer LLNL/DOE/USG be trying to weaken the scientific underpinning of biowarfare epidemic analysis, an analysis that could be used outside US Government-approved channels, to make the investigative techniques appear much softer and less reliable than they really are? Might this be an effort to prevent their future use to detect a biological weapon attack?

Leave a Reply

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