As things develop in the case I have to interrupt my plans. Yesterday I said I would continue with the reevaluation today but if you’ve read the local morning papers you’ll see the government has filed it position on Whitey’s claim he has immunity.
It has been filed with Judge Stearns. I assume he will withhold a finding on it until the Court of Appeals decides the recusal matter. The thrust of the recusal motion is that Judge Stearns cannot impartially decide whether he will allow Whitey’s evidence on immunity to be presented a jury. That is because the witnesses to that matter are people with whom he worked and are friendly.
In an answer to a comment I speculated on what is taking the Court of Appeals so long to make a decision. if you are interested you can check the comments from yesterday.
Today, I want to examine the government’s response. I’ve suggested earlier there is no validity to Whitey’s immunity claim although I admitted weaving several facts together one could make a conceivable argument for it. Pretty much the bottom line is that without it Whitey is toast.
The prosecutors argument is in two parts. First Whitey has no immunity and second that it is up to the court and not the jury to decide that issue.
To rebut his claim of immunity the prosecutors argue no one has supported Whitey’s claim and O’Sullivan has denied he gave him immunity. This is weak because Whitey may not have told anyone and O’Sullivan was all over the board in his testimony. The prosecutors next say that nothing in Whitey’s informant files talks about a meeting with O’Sullivan or immunity but as we’ve seen those FBI files have as much relation to reality as the reports of UFO landings. The prosecutors go on to say he wouldn’t have been on the lam for 16 years or would have filed to dismiss the original indictments if he thought he had immunity. Those arguments don’t hold water either since the immunity card was a last resort — Whitey even had he been given immunity would not trust the government to honor it.
The final argument the prosecutors present is saying if he “thought he was given immunity in return for information he provided to the FBI [he] would not have engaged in the following conversation” on 9/11/2012 with his brother Jackie:
Whitey: “I’m up to my fudgin’ ears in it. But again, I mean, I was accused — I — I never, I didn’t know that fudgin John Connolly wrote all those reports and
the other guy — what they did is they wrote reports making themself look like Whitey told us what — I never told them a fudgin thing.
WHITEY: I bought fudgin’ information, I didn’t sell it.
WHITEY: I never gave them fudgin’ information. Nothin’. Nothin.’ (Obscenities euphamismized – bold emphasis in original)
That’s Whitey foolishly talking on a recorded line less than six months ago. Not such a good idea. It can’t do much to help his case. Maybe he is loosing his touch on account of his lengthy confinement in a small cell. He should take a lesson from Jackie and should be the one saying “Mmm.”
The prosecutors do not want us to take away from that conversation the idea that a man who had carte blanche to commit murder because he had immunity from a US Attorney would not have paid for that information. That wouldn’t follow. You could have immunity and be willing to pay for information.
What the prosecutors suggest, and i’m at a loss why they made this argument, is why would Whitey be getting immunity if he wasn’t providing any information to the government?
However, you, I, the feds and the lamppost know that Whitey did give information. The files are full of his and his partner Stevie’s information. Are the prosecutors really suggesting they believe Whitey?
We all know that in his conversation with his brother he’s just lying. Why? Remember, he knows the feds are listening. He can’t believe if he denies being an informant that will help his case. Stevie Flemmi based his whole defense on that position. I think it is more he just wants to save face with his brothers. Remember how Billy wrote in his book how much the Irish hated informants — Whitey coming from that culture would never want his brothers to believe he was one. This supports my belief his brothers knew nothing about his relationship with the FBI.
But here’s the one thing I don’t understand: why did the prosecutors mention this conversation? I know they have fallen lock, stock and barrel for the lies of Whitey’s gangster buddies. But I can’t believe that for one second they think Whitey was not giving information to Connolly. Isn’t that part and parcel of their whole prosecution? Isn’t that why O’Sullivan gave Whitey a pass in the Race Fixing case?
I’m troubled by this. Are the prosecutors trying to have it both ways. That’s a defense tactic usually used in rape cases where the defense is “there was no rape, my client didn’t do it, and if you find he did she consented.”
If the prosecutors believe Whitey gave information to the FBI they should not be using his lies to his brother as if they believe them to argue against his immunity motion. If the prosecutors believe Whitey gave no information to the FBI then they must reevaluate their whole case. I’d like to know what the prosecutors believe is the truth in this matter.
I’ve exceeded my word limit. I’ll go on tomorrow to explain a better argument the government should have used.