Whitey Bulger’s Immunity Claim: The Argument The Prosecutors Should Have Made

Boston At Night — Whitey Used The Darkness To Conceal His Dark Deeds

A long time ago on August 8, 2012, I spotted how J.W. Carney was going to play the immunity issue when he first mentioned it but refused to disclose who gave the immunity. Initially it was up in the air although we knew it could not have been an FBI agent because the Court of Appeals said in the appeal from Judge Wolf’s decision that FBI agents don’t have that authority. Carney would eventually disclose it was O’Sullivan.

I spotted it in an article by T.J. English in Newsweek Magazine. Incarcerated FBI Agent John Connolly had spoken with him from his prison in Chipley, Florida. Here’s what English said Connolly told him about Whitey and Jeremiah O’Sullivan, the head of the New England Organized Crime Strike Force:

As early as 1977, agent Connolly informed O’Sullivan that he had “turned” someone who could help them make major cases against the Mafia. When O’Sullivan heard it was Bulger, he wanted to meet him. Remembers Connolly, “I asked him, ‘Are you sure? You don’t have to.’” It was highly unusual for an assistant U.S. Attorney to meet face to face with a top informant while an investigation was still ongoing. O’Sullivan insisted. Connolly set up a meeting between the city’s top mobster and its top organized crime prosecutor in a hotel room on a rainy afternoon around Christmas. “I was there,” says Connolly. “Jimmy met Jerry. As I remember it, they were both quite impressed with one another.

English’s article was written in June 2012. At the time I thought there may have been some coordination between Whitey and Connolly relative to this matter. I sensed Whitey was setting up his immunity defense and Connolly would come along and help out his old friend.

If you read my post yesterday, you’ll see that six months ago Whitey was not too happy with Connolly. Whitey says he never told Connolly anything but paid for information that Connolly was giving him. Yet reading through his statements, he also seems to be complaining that Connolly and Morris, “the other guy,” were writing down what he told them. It was Flemmi who said he never thought they were writing down the things he was giving them.

Whitey’s got himself in sort of a bind now. I figured he’d have called Connolly as a witness to support his immunity claim based on what Connolly told English. Remember Salemme telling how Flemmi kept telling the gangsters that Connolly would come in and testify for them but in the end he took the Fifth. Maybe Whitey learned Connolly would not testify for him and that’s got him angry. Anyway Whitey has pushed Connolly away from him by saying he’s been paying him for information all these years. That supports Flemmi’s claim, as the prosecutors note, of paying Connolly “hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash” and Weeks’s testimony of paying Connolly. It sort of leaves Connolly naked in his naked denial of taking money — it’s his word against his top echelon informants, the independent evidence of his life style, and the need not to cash his pay checks.

I’ve digressed a bit since I wanted to explain the most compelling evidence the prosecutors could have used against the idea that O’Sullivan gave Whitey immunity. I’ve been writing about it in my reevaluation of Whitey’s life which I’ve suspended for a few days. I’m dealing with this exact point now in that series. Whitey was of no use when it came to the Mafia. Flemmi was the guy with the Mafia connections. Whitey was only on as an informant because he was Flemmi’s partner. The prosecutors cannot use their best argument because they don’t want to admit this. They’ve made a deal with Flemmi, have made Whitey as the ultimate criminal, so they’ve given up their trump card.

If O’Sullivan would have wanted to meet anyone it would have been Stevie. Whitey was of no use to O’Sullivan or the FBI when it came to the Mafia. There was no way Connolly would tell O’Sullivan and O’Sullivan would believe, no matter what else you want to believe about O’Sullivan, that Whitey “could help them make major cases against the Mafia.” In fact when they made the major case, they did it without Whitey or Stevie’s help.

In 2002 O’Sullivan was questioned by Congressman and former Norfolk County DA William Delahunt about the wiretap he did on the Mafia’s Boston headquarters at 98 Prince Street.  Delahunt asked him whether “Flemmi and Bulger were crucial or were critical in developing the probable cause necessary of 98 Prince Street bug.” O’Sullivan answered: They weren’t.”

Delahunt, who had authorized more wiretap investigations than any other DA in Massachusetts history was keenly aware of what was required for them, later asked:“You had numerous other investigative techniques as well as informants that were assisting you and providing you information that was necessary in terms of the 98 Prince Street wiretap.” Jeremiah O’Sullivan responded, “That’s true, Congressman. As a matter of fact, I met with some of those informants personally to develop the information so I know who has contributed to the 98 Prince Street wiretap.” 

Why then would O’Sullivan even consider giving Whitey immunity for his help in going after the Mafia when he has no need for him? Objective facts show Connolly’s story is pure bull.

The bad news for the prosecutors is they can’t use this argument because it undermines all their deals with the other gangsters to get Whitey. The good news for the prosecutors is no one believes Whitey had immunity in any event.

Judge Stearns or any judge who decides this issue really has no choice but to say there is no evidence Whitey received immunity from O’Sullivan. He’ll have no  choice but to keep the issue from the jury.

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 thoughts on “Whitey Bulger’s Immunity Claim: The Argument The Prosecutors Should Have Made

  1. Matt:I’m never going to believe that Connolly intentionally did or said anything that would lead to someone’s murder. The Boston jury acquitted him of that; Wyshak should have let the case end with the Boston jury’s verdict. I think we both agree on that.
    Callahan and Halloran were killed for the same reasons Connors and Barrett were killed: they had become liabilities. Before the Wheeler murder, when Callahan sat in a room with serial killers and allegedly asked for their help in killing Wheeler, his fate was sealed; he was doomed. Martorano, Flemmi and Bulger didn’t need a green light from the FBI to kill; they killed anyone they suspected might give evidence against them. Of their 40 or so murders, no one claims FBI leaks lead to 37 or so of them. Of the 3 allegedly linked to FBI leaks, the Boston jury rejected those allegations.
    When Connolly said he knew he was dealing with murderers he was saying nothing more than what any FBI agent would say when dealing with top echelon informants, inside the Mafia or not. Their reputation in the community was that they were murderers. Some had been formally indicted for murder or attempted murder. Some had done time! But in saying that Connolly knew he was dealing with murderers, also remember that John Connolly said that if he knew any of them had committed a specific murder, he would have arrested them. He said that in the Miami courtroom in response to a direct question from Fred Wyshak. So, in telling the whole truth include both statements: “I knew they were murderers; if I knew they’d committed a specific murder I would have arrested them.”
    Yes, we’ll always disagree on those “crimes” Connolly was alleged to have committed from 1995-2000, 5 to 10 years after he retired from the FBI. You see: I don’t believe Morris, Weeks and Flemmi; I believe they’re liars. Now who else did Connolly get $ from in his 23 years as an FBI agent. No one! When did Flemmi first tell the $235,000 story? In 2002, 2004, seven to ten years after he was in federal custody? How do you explain Flemmi’s 2006 sworn testimony that Connolly never said or did anything indicating he wanted anyone killed? (The Boeri article) Who were the six FBI agents with machine guns who did work for Bulger as Weeks claimed?
    Nothing wrong with Connolly helping Flemmi’s defense team! Why did Connolly communicate secretly? Because he talked to Weeks on the phone from his office in Boston Edison and he didn’t want his employers and co-workers to know he was talking with a gangster. That’s why! That’s not a crime. That’s being prudent! Also, I don’t believe Connolly ever told Weeks to tell Flemmi to lie! I think Weeks lied!
    To every point, there is a counter point!
    Weeks, Martorano and Flemmi all had very strong motives to lie: their accusations of dozens of cops and agents being on Whitey’s payroll have proven baseless! As I count up the accusations, there are about 24 or 26 cops/agents supposedly on Bulger’s payroll, yet none, except Connolly, have ever been indicted. Why? Did it ever cross Wyshak’s mind that his witnesses were feeding him lies? He has no reasonable doubts?
    It boils down to this: Why did and does Wyshak continue to put on the witness stand serial killers whose testimony jurors have largely rejected?

  2. Matt, you concede Connolly never has been convicted of taking a dime or anything of value from the criminals. Stop and think about the fact that the federal prosecutors at his trial in 2001 did not even accuse him of taking any money. The wine transaction did not benefit Connolly. Plus it was the only thing he was convicted of in Boston during his 23 years as an FBI agent. Plus Connolly never testified. Plus Connolly admitted he gave wine to Morris, but never admitted he knew the case of wine contained $1000. The fact is Morris is a proven liar. Two weeks before Connolly’s trial in 20001 Morris was still withholding information from federal prosecutors including the fact that he’d received money from the bookies. I believe Connolly transmitted a case of wine from Bulger to Morris. I don’t believe he knew there was a $1000 envelope inside. Remember the envelope was hidden between two cardboard separators. Who was Bulger hiding the envelope from? Not from Morris. Morris would open the case. Obviously it was hidden from Connolly.
    Here’s another thing to think about: You know that Flemmi until 2002 said only positive things about Connolly. Your theory is he did so because he thought Connolly would or could help him, even though Connolly was arrested in 2000. Be that as it may, your theory, therefore, is that Flemmi would lie if he thought lying would help him. Why did he come up with the $235,000 bribe story only after being in jail for seven or more years? Because he thought that would help him. It did help him. He was spared the death penalty. He got a cushy cell. He lied to help himself. Why didn’t the prosecutors charge Connolly with receiving money in 2001? Because the prosecutors liked Connolly? No! Because they didn’t have the evidence. They threw everything else they had at him: 14 RICO charges of which the jury acquitted him of the 9 most serious charges.
    Here’s another question: Why when at a 2000 booksigning by Black Mass’s authors, Lehr and O’Neil, I asked them “What was Connolly’s motive?” they never mentioned money or material gain? Why did they hesitate and stall and look back and forth at each other as if they knew they weren’t very sure about a motive? After a few moments, they said, “He wanted to rise in the organization; he wanted to gain respect in the office.” Strange that he already was well respected in the FBI office and stranger still that he left the FBI in 1990, after he got his first promotion to supervisor in 1989. Strange that anyone
    would think they’d rise in the FBI by getting in bed with gangsters, the one thing that would utterly destroy a career. The fact is Lehr and O’Neil didn’t have a motive. The fact is the feds didn’t have a motive. The fact is the Boston federal jury acquitted Connolly of any involvement in any murders and acquitted Connolly of transmitting $3000 and $5000 from Bulger to Morris. The fact is Connolly was tried twice for the same crime: leaking info that led to Callahan’s death: a split decision: acquitted in Boston (the Boston jury found that charge was not proven) but convicted in Miami on a “murder by gun” charge on the same facts: a travesty of justice. The only difference between the Miami trial and the Boston trial is that federal prosecutor Fred Wyshak substituted one known perjurer, Flemmi, for another known perjurer, Salemme. Wyshak once expressed qualms about his colleague Mr. Durham using the known perjurer Salemme, who, true to form, once again perjured himself at Connolly’s Boston trial. But Wyshak had no qualms about using Flemmi who Wyshak believed had perjured himself before judge Wolfe in Boston. Talk about a lack of integrity! It was also the federal government that de facto tried John Connolly twice for the same crime, a crystal clear violation of double jeopardy jurisprudence. Read the Law Review articles and Felix Frankfurter’s words on “tandem prosecutions”; read the trends in double jeopardy jurisprudence. Who put Wyshak up to this double jeopardy scheme, or was it his own invention? What a travesty!
    It’s a complete misrepresentation to use the word “orchestration” in connection with Connolly’s conviction for Callahan’s murder. Connolly’s only link to that murder was Flemmi’s claim that in 1982 Bulger said that Connolly said that if Callahan talked they’d all be in trouble. Never mind that’s triple hearsay; it has nothing to do with orchestrating anything. If the jury believed he orchestrated the murder he would have been convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder, both charges of which he was acquitted. I suspect Wyshak slipped Shelley Murphy and the Boston Globe the word “orchestrated.” I don’t ever recall her using it before. She generally writes that Connolly was convicted of leaking information that led to Callahan’s death, without mentioning he was acquitted of that very same charge in Boston.
    Based on my research, I found that Connolly’s boat was a 26 foot boat that cost him about $43,000. He could afford it! He graduated from BC in 1965. He was a school teacher for three years. He worked at the FBI from 1968 to 1990! He was well paid. He had rental income from a duplex in Southie. The FBI gave him a car. He could afford a big boat. Parents have to come up with $54,000 per year for each child attending BC or Tufts. John had no children before the early 1990s as I recall. When Connolly left the FBI, Edison was paying him six figures! He didn’t need no stinkin’ $10,000 dollars a year from gangsters.
    Where did Connolly put that $235,000 that Flemmi says Bulger gave him over 20 years? In his shoebox? The feds searched and searched and searched for a decade and found no concrete evidence of Connolly receiving bribe money. Connolly never walked around town with thousands of bucks in his pocket. He wasn’t a drug addict, he wasn’t an alcoholic, he wasn’t a gambler. How may state workers do you know with boats, a house in greater Boston, a house down the Cape and who also had children, and who didn’t have rental income? Bob Banks, I’m told, is a great guy, a former DA, a former public defender, who had a home in Falmouth and a home in Boston. Lee Sullivan, a federal law enforcement employee, had a house in Falmouth and a house in Hingham and was raising four or five girls and putting them through college. Connolly, for his first 30 years and for much of the time up until 1990 was a bachelor. He was married in 1970; he got divorced; he had no children. He got remarried when he was about 50. He and his wife pooled their resources to buy the house in Lynnfield. Everything John owned and did is explainable by his legitimate income.
    You don’t deny the quote from the paper that I quoted? Who implicated Connolly? All Bulger said was that he paid for information. He’s mad at Connolly because he read and didn’t like the 209 reports Connolly wrote. He cursed Connolly. You cannot deny the simple fact that in that article and in what you quoted there is no statement that Bulger paid Connolly anything. Bulger’s a serial killer. Who would believe Whitey? Remember what Major Foley said: he said you can’t believe what serial killers say. He said that after hearing Connolly’s lawyers say Bulger, when first arrested, had said Connolly was innocent. Now if Bulger says Connolly was not innocent, is Major Foley going to say that corroborates anything? What about Flemmi’s statement in 2006 that Connolly never said or did anything intending anyone be killed? Was he telling the truth then, or was he telling the truth only when he said negative things about John Connolly?
    Connolly never intentionally leaked any information that he knew would lead to someone’s murder. Connolly never intended anyone be murdered. That’s a malicious smear invented by serial killers to spare their necks from the hangman. We know Morris leaked the fact the Bulger was an informant in 1989 to the Boston Globe, so we know that Morris intentionally leaked information that he knew would lead to Bulger’s murder.
    The bottom line is I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that John Connolly was framed and scapegoated both in Boston and in Miami. He never got in bed with gangsters; he never took a dime; he read both Bulger and Flemmi the rules every year: they could remain as informants, as long as they committed “no violence.” Even Flemmi testified to that fact. Flemmi also said when he asked Morris what “no violence” meant, Morris said in the vernacular, “You can do anything but no murders.”
    I can believe John Connolly probably did some stupid things five and ten years after he left the FBI; some petty things in my mind; I’ve mentioned this often: I agree with the juror in Boston who repeatedly said words to this effect on radio and on television; he was identified and quoted in the newspapers. The juror said after trial words to this effect and the exact quote as I remember it, “If I knew the judge was going to sentence Connolly to jail, I would not have convicted him of anything.” That juror likely believed Connolly was going to get probation. That’s how I remember what he said. I also remember other jurors saying they knew what they were doing. I side with the juror who did not expect John Connolly would be sentenced to prison, never mind ten years in prison by Judge Tauro. I can live with the jury’s decision that Connolly committed one crime in his 23 years as an FBI agent: the wine from Bulger to Morris deal.
    So, the bottom line is that I have many people who share my point of view: the 12 jurors who found Connolly committed one crime during his 23 years as an FBI agent: transmitting a case of wine with money in it from Bulger to Morris; the 200 who wrote letters on JOhn’s behalf; Judge Harrington and other federal and state law enforcement personnel who testified on John’s behalf in Miami; the hundreds of lifelong friends and coworkers of John who have defended him against the vitriol of the Boston Globe, of Howie Carr and of overly zealous and unscrupulous federal prosecutors. We believe the serial killers have perjured themselves and will continue to do so. We believe the federal prosecutors will continue to put on the stand known perjurers. The perjurers have their motives: to remain free or to spare themselves life in prison and to escape execution.
    What was the motive for a proud, succesful FBI agent from a great family, with great lifelong friends, with a stellar career behind him and a stellar future before him? What was the motive for such a man to sell his soul and jump in bed with the gangsters? What in his life indicates a motive to “orchestrate” killings? It’s absurd! Would he sell his soul for $10,000? $20,000? Fancy cars? Drugs? Gambling? Was he in desperate need of money? Was he a heroin addict? A wretched alcholic? None of those things! There was no motive! If you think he’d kill, why wouldn’t he lie? All he had to do to get himself free was to agree to make up lies about other FBI agents or about Bill Bulger. So, if you maintain he orchestrated a killing so Callahan wouldn’t squeal and put him in prison, why wouldn’t he simply lie to avoid further time prison? Wyshak offered him a five year sentence, if he’d make up dirt on other FBI agents. A man who wouldn’t lie, wouldn’t “orchestrate” killings. I heard John tell the courtroom in Miami in a clear and convincing voice, “I never intentionally said or did anything that would lead to Mr. Callahan’s death.” I believe John Connolly.
    What is the motive for the serial killers to lie? To escape the death penalty or Life in prison or to remain free on the streets of Boston? Obvious motives for unscrupulous men, for serial killers to lie.
    It’s late. I’m repeating myself. The blizzard will hit us with two feet of snow. Good night. Sleep well. Don’t worry! The reason we care so much about our opinions is that we believe the truth matters. John Connolly believes the truth matters, too. The truth matters to us. To the Globe writers and the serial killers and the federal prosecutors, not so much.

    1. Two Connolly’s for the price of one on this post! Seems to me that in these type of matters that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

        1. My opinion would be the same as yours regarding Connolly taking payments; I was referring to some of the more sinister deed(s) he has been accused and/or convicted of.
          That and his character.

          1. John:
            I agree. Depending on what you believe he can be a really, really bad agent or one trapped in a system that makes him a look like a bad agent. The whole idea the FBI has, and still operates under, is that you can join hands with these real bad gangsters (like Mark Rossetti) and keep them safe and not become corrupt. This means you can tip them off about other investigations against them. The top echelon program has led to similar results in other cities where the agents end up being the tool of the gangsters believing that it their job. When you think you have to protect a person from other law enforcement agencies because the person gives you information then you are condoning and encouraging committing criminal acts. More simply, it’s OK for your guy to commit crimes but not for other guys. Everything about Connolly tells me these gangsters became his friends, he took money from them not in the sense it was a “bribe” but as a gift between friends. He was doing what the FBI urged him to do. How involved he was beyond what was expected of him from the FBI will be difficult to figure. The FBI had written rules that were routinely ignored and the idea was to pretend you were following the rules when everyone knew you weren’t. Connolly has said he knew Whitey and Stevie were murderers. I’d like to know what he knew about Whitey because as best I can tell Whitey began his murders after he became involved with Connolly. There’s still a lot to find out. But my bottom line is that he was rightfully convicted in Boston but the Florida trial, even if he did take money, was overkill.

    2. Bill:
      Connolly has been convicted of bribing Morris with money and a case of wine he got from the criminals. The prosecutors presented evidence from Morris that he took money from the gangsters and gave it to Morris. He was convicted of one count. The prosecutors did not have anyone who could testify that they gave Connolly money at that time. Subsequent to his 2002 trial they have Flemmi and now Whitey saying they paid him money.
      You want to retry the issue of the case of wine and money. The jurors found otherwise. The evidence at the trial which may have convinced the jury was that after Morris got the case of wine Connolly called him up to see if he found what was inside it. I don’t think he was referring to the wine.
      Flemmi told nothing about Connolly until he got his deal from the feds. Obviously before that time he would not be telling any tales on anywone that timplicates himself.
      I can’t comment on your personal interaction with Lehr and O’Neill or on the rest of the things that you have repeated before. I have difficulty with believing Connolly took no money from these gangsters who were so closed to him, or that he only took money and passed it on to others. I know that he concocted a scheme with a gangster named Weeks whereby he would use Weeks as person who would act as the go between for him and Flemmi who was in jail. They came up with a code name for Weeks and a secret way to communicate between themselves. Those don’t sound like things an innocent guy would do. He communicated with Flemmi’s lawyer, all of which he had a right to do, but it shows me he had a closeness with Flemmi that was unusual. He wrote a letter trying to undermine a prosecution of Flemmi. These are not stupid acts but willful acts that one would not expect from the normal FBI agent who retired. For 15 year he was close to these two who he said he knew were murderers. You have to remember these criminals who you suggest are lying about Connolly are the people who for 15 years as an agent and several years after that he worked with on a daily basis. They were his friends who he wined and dined and otherwise socialized with. He’s now telling stories that make no sense of O’Sullivan wanting to meet Whitey in a hotel room and the prosecutors doing a hit on him.
      You’re never going to believe Connolly did anything wrong. I have reasons to believe otherwise.

  3. Matt, Whitey’s exact quote was “I bought information; I didn’t sell it.” See Shelley Murphy’s Globe article of yesterday. We know Whitey bought information from Morris. Morris admits it. It’s never been proved he gave Connolly a dime. Connolly has steadfastly denied taking a dime. In fact, in Boston, Connolly was acquitted of taking anything of value.
    As I recall, in September 2012 Connolly’s lawyers were saying Whitey signed an affidavit exculpating Connolly from any wrongdoing. I remember Major Foley then saying, “You can’t believe anything these serial killers say.” Ironically Foley did believe Martorano, et al. Parenthetically, I also remember State Cop Foley justifying Grieg’s harsh sentence because “she helped a serial killer remain free on the streets.” Foley forget that he helped put four serial killers back on the streets –Martorano, Salemme, Weeks, Nee.
    Remember, too, that from 1995 to 2002, Flemmi, even under oath, testified Connolly was an honest cop and Morris was the source of all the leaks. According to David Boeri, even as late as 2006, Flemmi under oath said Connolly never did or said anything indicating he wanted anyone murdered.
    This is the problem I have with Shelley Murphy’s writing: She writes that Connolly was convicted of “orchestrating” businesman Callahan’s murder. False: Connolly was convicted of second degree “murder by gun.” He was acquitted of first degree murder and acquitted of conspiracy to commmit murder, the original charges brought against him. Orchestrating would be subsumed under a first degree (pre-meditated) or conspiracy charge. The “murder by gun” charge was an afterthough added at the end of the trial by Wyshak. Even the trial judge said the statute of limitations had run on that charge and that he gave the jury improper instructions on that charge (you had to have the murder weapon in your hand to be convicted on that count; Connolly was in Martha’s Vineyard at the time of the murder) but the Miami trial judge said Connolly’s defense team had raised their motion to dismiss too late. This was clear error on the judge’s part as the statute of limitations defense can be raised at anytime.
    You and Shelley mention Flemmi’s testimony in 2008 in Miami: that Connolly receieved $235,000 in payments over 20 years. No record of that money was ever found. Shelley fails to mention that Connolly was acquitted in Boston of taking anything of value.
    You mention Connolly’s lifestyle: Connolly owned a duplex in South Boston, which generated rental income for him; he owned a cottage down the Cape; he owned a 26 foot boat. He was single in his forties; he had no children; he was well paid; he had a car from the FBI; he sold his duplex and he and his second wife pooled their resources to buy a house in Lynnfield. “His lifestyle?”, When we flew down on a charter flight to the Miami v. BC football game in 1984 (the “Miracle in Miami”game), John was on that same, discount, crowded charter flight with 300 of us, he stayed in the same modest hotel in Fort Lauderdale as the rest of us;he ate at the same restaurants and drank at the same bars. His lifestyle was no different than dozens of our friends (state workers, cops, firemen, teachers, mbta carpenters and electrians) who owned a house in Boston, a cottage down the cape, and a boat. Plus, all the ones I’m thinking about had two, three or four kids. Off the record I’ll tell you their names; you know all of them. In the 1980s I jogged every day with a Boston cop (younger than me) who had a house in Squantum, a cottage down Chatham, a big boat, two kids, and his wife didn’t work. He was as honest as you make them; a man of the highest integrity.
    Flemmi’s allegation (first made in 2008) had as much credibility as Weeks’ allegation that Bulger had 20 Boston police officers on his payroll. Not one Boston Police officer was ever indicted; not one was ever charged or convicted. Weeks also said Whitey had 6 FBI agents on his payroll with machine guns who would do anything Whitey asked. Is that credible?
    I also fault Shelley for not saying that Connolly was acquitted in Boston of the same crime he was convicted of in Miami: leaking information that lead to Callahan’s murder. Not guilty in Boston! I also fault Shelley for describing Callahan as a “businessman” and not mentioning Callahan was allegedly involved knee deep in the Wheeler murder in Oklahoma.
    It boils down to this: If you don’t like John Connolly you believe what the serial killers and the Boston Globe say about him; you paint and portray him in the blackest light possible. If you do like John Connolly, you don’t believe a derogatory word out of the mouths of the serial killers, whose only interest is their selves.
    Everyone should take everything the Boston Globe writes about people from South Boston with a high degree of skepticism.
    Brothers John and Jim Connolly were two honest guys we knew over the lifetime and they were no different that the O’Leary brothers, Ryan brothers, Costello brothers, Maher brothers, Westifield brothers, Walsh brothers, Hutchinson brothers, etc. The Connolly brothers of South Boston were no different than the Connolly brothers of Savin Hill. As you are aware, you have many relatives who knew John Connolly personally and who attest to his integrity. We believe John Connolly was a good guy and an honest cop who was framed. The whole sham is reminiscent of the Dreyfus Affair!
    Historically we’ve seem how courts, prosecutors and newspapers can frame innocent people!
    I thought you were moving in our direction, Matt, but today you are backtracking and claiming you believe Connolly took money, claiming you believe the words of the serial killers, relyiing on the words of the historically dishonest Boston Globe.
    So, as we await getting clobbered by the blizzard of 2013, we admit we respectively disagree on John Connolly. Our favorable view of John Connolly is based on a lifetime of knowing him personally, socially interacting with him, knowing his close-knit family, knowing his close friends like Franny Joyce, knowing his good reputation among his friends and those who knew him personally, and having closely observed his character and lifestyle over the lifetime. We don’t credit serial killers’ claims nor the claims of Water Duranty types in the Boston Globe! Remember Duranty: the guy who claimed there was “no evidence of famine” in the Ukraine! Remember that the Globe tried to destroy the St. Patrick’s Day Parade and maligned the characers of the Parade organizers! Remember how the Globe defamed the people of South Boston during the debacle of forced busing! Remember how the Globe painted Bob Quinn as a crook and portrayed him with a wheelbarrel full of money leaving the State House.
    So, we strongly disagree!

    1. Bill:
      The Boston jury believed Morris when he said he received a case of wine from John Connolly that contained $1000.00 which Connolly said came from Whitey and Stevie. It’s well proven he gave Connolly that wine and money to give to Morris since he was convicted of it.
      The only issue of Connolly taking things during his trial was the testimony about the items Morris said he received from him and the ring. He was convicted, as I mentioned, of giving the wine and money which he took from Bulger to give to Morris.
      The quote in the prosecutor’s submission to the court has Whitey saying: “I didn’t know that f..n’ John Connolly wrote all those reports and the other guy. . . . I bought f . . .n’ information, I didn’t sell it.” Your suggestion that Whitey was buying information from Morris and not buying it from Connolly, who was his main handler I cannot accept.
      Connolly’s conviction of murder by gun was based on the evidence that he orchestrated Callahan’s murder.
      Gangsters don’t keep records of cash payments.
      Connolly’s boat was a 43 foot boat.
      I don’t agree with you about whether you like or dislike Connolly is how you arrive at your conclusions. I think most people looking at the evidence would suggest that Whitey would not have implicated him if it hadn’t happened. He had nothing to gain by doing that. In fact, he had a lot to lose because he would drive him away as a witness who could help him. My best take on what happened is Connolly was feeding Whitey information over the years and Whtiey was giving him money for the information. Whitey would also give Morris money when he gave Connolly information to pass on to Whitey. Connolly can protest his innocence as much as he wants, it’s something I’d expect him to do. I didn’t think Whitey would ever have said he paid him for the information which is exactly what he is saying now.
      As far as gangsters saying one thing and then another I agree with that. They only speak to what they believe is in their best interest. How is it in Whitey’s interest to lie about his dealings with Connolly?

Comments are closed.