Whitey Bulger’s Rape Defense – Sort of:

There’s a report in the Boston Globe today that the prosecution team will disclose the evidence they have turned over to defense counsel at a status conference scheduled today.  It notes “a judge is also expected to set deadlines for motions to be filed leading up to Bulger’s trial in March.”

One thing we’re waiting for is to see the content of J.W.  Carney’s motion where he’s claiming Bulger had immunity to murder people.  I’ve mentioned before this is really intended for two purposes: a/ pressure the FBI to pressure the US Attorney to give Whitey a deal; and b/ delay.

The issue of Whitey’s immunity has already been decided by the Appeals Court that said:  “Accordingly, we hold that FBI agents lack authority to tender a binding promise of use immunity to an informant. Absent that authority, any promise made to Flemmi was unenforceable.”  

Given that ruling by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, there seems to be a substantial likelihood that Judge Stearns could quickly dispense with the immunity motion without a hearing.  But assuming he lets it pass and allows it to become an issue at trial.  (I say this with the belief that he won’t and there will be no trial.)  How then does Whitey and his lawyer handle this?  Will they fall back to a modified version of the desperate rape defense?  Here’s how that works.

A male defendant against who exists strong evidence that he raped a woman who was a stranger when unable to wiggle his way out of it by making a plea deal and who is left facing heavy time usually will go to trial using a three prong defense.   First, he attacks the woman’s credibility saying that she was making up the whole story and she was never penetrated by anyone in the first place.  That sometimes worked but it was often rejected by jurors who recognized that most women, probably well over 99%, don’t say they were raped unless something happened.

He then tells the jury that if it believes the woman was raped then he was not the one who did it.  He’ll come up with some alibi of sorts or try to show the woman’s ability to properly identify him is impaired by one thing or another.  Not content to leave it there, he jumps to the third part.

He’ll suggest that if the jury finds she was penetrated by him then she consented to it.  It’s the last thin thread he has to hang on to — I met this woman in a wooded area jogging along a path and she decided to have sex with me.  Desparate men will offer desperate explanations at the same time hoping one will stick  — “it never happen, it did happen but it wasn’t me. it was me but she consented to it.”

That’s pretty much what Whitey is now saying except for the first part.  He’ll be hard pressed to deny the people he is charged with murdering weren’t murdered.   He’ has to accept they were murdered but will defend himself saying he had nothing to do with the murders.  He then has to argue to the jury that if it finds he was involved in the murders, then he had the right to do it since he had immunity.

I don’t see it working.  No jury in America will acquit him of the murders of the two young women.  But like the rape defendant who is caught cold, if Whitey can’t get a deal he likes by threatening to hold the FBI up to high embarrassment then he’ll have to go to trial.

 

4 thoughts on “Whitey Bulger’s Rape Defense – Sort of:

  1. Whitey is a better person than Martorano: 1. Every Christmas Whitey gave Billy O’Sullivan’s widow $2000 as a Christmas present. 2 Whitey treated women well, according to Catherine Grieg, her sister, their mother and Theresa Stanley. Unlike Flemmi, Martorano, Sperazza and Karate Pitera, who all killed women. The claim that Whitey killed Flemmi’s girlfriends won’t be proven because who killed OJ Simpson’s wife, who killed Chuck Stewart’s wife, who killed Phil Specter’s wife, because the police will tell you it is almost always the boyfriend or the husband who is the killer.

    1. That’s like saying Hitler was better than Stalin because he didn’t kill the Poles at Katyn Forest. Whitey is a cold blooded heartless murderer who killed dozens of people including Brian Halloran, Michael Donohue, McIntyre, Barrett and on and on. He didn’t just murder some of them but also tortured and mutilated them. So he gave O’Sullivan’s widow two grand, what did he do for the widows of all the guys he killed?
      Martorano by the way the scum bag that he was killed only one woman and that was by mistake.
      Whitey, according to Weeks, killed two, Debra Davis and Debbie Hussey. Weeks’s description of Flemmi and Whitey trying to outdo each other in the latter’s killing is particularly chilling.
      Sure boyfriends kill their girls but I don’t recall Ted Bundy, Charles “Tex” Watson, Richard Speck. Gary Ridgeway, the Boston strangler, or hundreds of others killing just their girl friends.

  2. In my opinion, Martorano killed the innocent bystander girl to prevent her from testifying against him, in the same manner Sperrazzo killed the two girls to prevent their squealing on him. Doesn’t Weeks lack credibility in many regards.

    1. Weeks lacks credibility for sure He made a lot of stuff up to get a deal but he incriminated himself in the murder of Debbie Hussey which gives him some credibility there. The woman Martorano killed was sitting in the back seat of a car during a snow storm. He planned to kill one of the persons in the car but since there were other people with him he decided to take them out. He alleges because of the way they were bundled up with clothes protecting themselves from the cold he did not know one of the persons was a woman. At the Connolly trial he was quite adamant that he had never killed a woman other than that one by mistake. Tommy Sperazza did kill the girls because they saw him kill someone out side a barroom. That wasn’t the only reason he did it. Sperazza liked murdering people. He used to sign the letter he wrote from jail, “Manson.” He also became an FBI witness.
      You are kind when you say Weeks lacks credibility What you should have said is Weeks, Martorano, and all the other gangsters, including Whitey, are pathological liars, narcissists and mythomaniacs. They are incapable of telling the truth since in their warped minds they don’t know the truth. But as Newman Flannagan reminds us, when you go into the jungle that’s all you have to deal with when making a case. Remember, the only one of the three gangsters believed by the federal jury in Boston in Connolly’s case was Weeks, and all that was believed was the one part of his story that was corroborated.

Leave a Reply

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