The prosecutors have a recording in which Whitey said he was never an informant. This contradicts FBI Agent John Connolly who said he opened Whitey as an informant on September 18, 1975. Here’s the problem. Whitey has no idea that Connolly opened him on that date or any other date. The informant relationship is not like a marriage that is done openly and in front of witnesses and acknowledged by both partners. It is not like an official partnership arrangement where both parties sign the documents. It is not like the granting of immunity in a court case where both parties negotiate a written deal in front of other people and sign off on it.
It is an arrangement that is reduced to writing by only one side. The only evidence that Whitey is an informant comes from the paper Connolly filed with the FBI. Whitey is not involved in executing the paper nor does he acknowledge in front of witnesses he’s become an informant. It’s like letting Joe Slow go to City Hall and file a paper saying he’s married to Jane Fast. We wouldn’t let that happen because we’d like to hear what Jane has to say about it. If it were allowed then Beyonce would have thousands of husbands.
Is there any other relationship that is established with only one side stating it exists? I can’t think of any. This is more than someone saying she’s a friend of someone else. It is a serious relationship that imposes upon the FBI serious obligations as we’ve seen which involve protecting the person and keeping her safe. Why is the FBI allowed to do this? Is it because the FBI is particularly trustworthy? If you’ve read my book Don’t Embarrass The Family, you’d know the FBI reports are highly untrustworthy and see the recommendations I’ve made to improve the situation. But don’t believe me listen to Judge Wolf.
Judge Mark Wolf in his opinion talked about the reports FBI agents put into their files. He was talking about a report filed by FBI SAC Sarhatt that concerned a meeting he had with Jeremiah O’Sullivan. Sarhatt wrote that O’Sullivan did not think there was anything wrong with continuing the relationship with Whitey. Wolf wrote, after noting O’Sullivan never saw the report, that: “This, among other things, suggests that the memorandum was written in meaningful measure for the protection of the FBI and raises questions concerning whether O’Sullivan would dispute Sarhatt’s characterization of his comments. Exhibit 3 may be an example of what has been characterized as “Bureau-speak.” It has been written that:
The Bureau employs two separate languages. The first, for internal and interdepartmental communications, may be called Bureau-speak. It is cryptic, telegraphic and routine and its purpose is less to communicate than to anticipate, to make a record for future protection. “You can have a conversation with an agent,” says Edwin O. Guthman, [Attorney General] Kennedy’s press secretary, “and when it is over he will send a memo to the files. Any relation between the memo and what was said in the conversation may be purely coincidental. You would think you were at different meetings.””
O’Sullivan described his meeting with Sarhatt a little differently He said Sarhatt asked him to come to his office. When he got there Sarhatt “berated me up and down, swearing and yelling as loud as he could about how I should never have associated myself with the state police and gone against FBI informants.”
Judge Wolf himself so distrusted the FBI that he consented to an interview only on the condition he could review what the agents wrote down. This, as we know, is a privilege not available to any of us. If we wanted to review the FBI report about what we said we’d be told a flat out “no”, we’d not be interviewed but instead would get a piece of paper making us go to the grand jury.
The written reports filed by FBI agents tell the story the agent wants to tell which may have no relation the truth. There’s an FBI saying throughout the Bureau that “if it’s not written down it doesn’t exist” The corollary of that is what exists is what is written down. The FBI agents are taught that nothing in their reports should embarrass the FBI or as Judge Wolf said they should be “for the protection of the FBI.”
Yet we see in Judge Wolf’s decision that he often refers to FBI reports as if they are truthful when he has expressed his doubt about their truthfulness. In the FBI reports we have the same quandary as we have with the lying gangsters, how do we tell what is truthful when there is no objective evidence to support either the FBI reports or the gangsters?
This is a serious problem we have in this country. Neither the Federal Judiciary or Congress is willing to take the steps necessary to insure the FBI reports are truthful and verified. Because of that all we can say without outside evidence is that the FBI said Whitey was an informant in September 1975 but there is no proof Whitey was one at that time.