Whitey Will Not Tell Story

IMG_4483Whitey disappoints the media.

He will not testify. He does it involuntarily.

He calls the trial a “sham.”  He said he did not have a chance to present his side of the evidence.

He said he did not get a fair trial.  He wanted to show that O’Sullivan promised him immunity because he guaranteed to protect him from any harm.

Do with me what you want, he tells the court in a soft steady voice.

 

66 thoughts on “Whitey Will Not Tell Story

  1. THAT SUCKS!!!! Pardon my french but that was what i was waiting for this whole time….. wow, I dont understand if he thinks its a “sham” and he wants to present his side of the story and his evidence…….why would he not want to get up there if the verdict is a forgone conclusion? He obviously is content with his demise in a 6×6 box so again……why the hell not? Book deal i guess would be the logical explination i imagine. Thats it then huh? Thank you for everything Matt and i will miss your blog immensely. Enjoy your time away from the circus.
    All the best

    1. SJM

      Thanks for all you assistance during this time – I’ll keep on blogging about this and that even after Whitey is trying to settle into ADX – I think he realized there wasn’t a kind ear in the local media and everything he testified to would be distorted or explained away – the book is his way of getting some of the money for his life of crime back to his family = maybe Howie Carr gave him the idea. If you move on to other pastures, I can’t tell you how much I appreciated your input. Thanks.

  2. If anyone is keeping a timeline; Did Mr. Carney ever state that his client was looking forward to testifying AFTER the immunity ruling?

    1. Another:

      Good point. I don’t know. But if Carney is to be believed it was only recently he changed his mind. Maybe after reading this blog 🙂

  3. I like how the day went down.
    First with Whitey “giving” the 822K to the Hallorans and Donohues.
    Next, with good final witnesses for the defense.
    Finally, with Whitey telling the courtroom the trial was a sham (because he was denied the immunity defense) and, as @JimArmstrongWBZ reported “Do what yas want with me,” #Bulger says

    Matt, I hope you have time to write up what you think will happen in the closing arguments. I enjoy learning from you, especially where you point out all the pointless time spent on matters unrelated to the 19 murders …

    1. Margaret:

      Thanks for dropping by – I think all things considered the day went well – got to avoid traffic and make it here before they even loaded Whitey in his van for his trip to Plymouth – I’ve got to give some thought to your suggestion that I give a shot at writing up how they will give their final argument – maybe my early morning report on Monday will be the time to do it – enjoyed your comments.

  4. Oh well, now we are left with the penultimate verdict and then the ultimate even more punishing one where they take you and break you but never forsake you. This man will be an exception that will test the rule.

      1. Jan:
        Penultimate is the moment in time that exists just before you make a decision – it’s the last time you have a chance to change your mind.

    1. Hopalong:

      As Flemmi said as long as I’m alive there’s always hope – he was referring to his deal with Wyshak to get him out on a Rule 35 motion that he hopes he has; so although we’ve all thrown in the towel on this case, thinking of hope, who knows whether or not there’s one onery juror who is so disgusted with this case that he’ll or she’ll refuse to find him guilty. Where did you ever learn that big word “forsake?” 🙂

        1. Jan:

          Did I use that? If so I must have just learned it. 🙂 Thanks by the way for all your posts. Keep after McKenzie – I like your style.

  5. Bulgers’s playing it out, down to the last card in his hand. Does he have grounds for relief on appeal? What error(s) in procedure did the judge commit? Seeing the odds stacked against them at trial, did Bulger’s attorneys present his case with one eye on the appeal?

    1. Khalid:

      The judges will give him no relief. He’s caused them no amount of aggravation. They want him out of their hair.

      Carney and Brennan rolled all the dice in this case and did an excellent job given that they had their hands tied behind their backs.

  6. Matt

    Thanks Very Much for this blog. One question I have…Is there anything that has come out in the trial so far that was not known prevously ? I have tried to read as much as I can on this but I leave that question to the experts.
    Thanks

    1. I am not an expert but I can tell you that I learned that a title search is different that a deed search, oh, and when a secretary is asked to destroy a document there could either be another copy OR it can be recreated.

      1. Another:
        I’m told that Brennan thought that the title examiner had done a full search but since she dealt with a para legal the message got mixed up and she just came in with an ownership search. But bottom line, even a full title search doesn’t give the true value of a property because there are also many intangibles that go into it. The value of any item is only what a willing buyer and a willing seller agree on as to a things value.

        Sometimes a destroyed document back in the 1970’s prior to the time of computers may not be recreated.

        1. One of todays witnesses was the one who secretly hid S.O.G’s secret files immediately after his death, according to a seemingly credible biography that I read a few months ago.

          1. Rather:
            The witness was Desi Sideropolous. I referred to her as Helen Gandy. The latter was J. Edgar’s secretary. Desi ran only the Boston Office.

    2. Trial:

      A few things were new to me. I was surprised at how involved Pat Nee was in so many murders. I was also surprised that the FBI agents distrusted Connolly as much as they did and how these men, who I think represent what we expect from our FBI agents, were trapped in a system that made them unable to do anything about it. I was surprised that Agent Fitzpatrick is so much of a victim of the FBI when you consider his crime was to try to clear up the corruption so they went after him making him look like he was a few pennies short of a dollar which he wasn’t. Those are some things I can think of off the top of my head, Oh, one other, I was surprised listening to Whitey speak how soft his voice seemed; and I was surprised how the jailers in Plymouth tried to torture him by continually strip searching him (I’d hoped those brutes were no longer in the system) There’s more,of course the informant question which I pooh-poohed comeing in but became convinced he was not an informant; the idea that the FBI opens files on people as informants that may not be informants; seeing the great interest of the DOJ in prosecuting these people that they take an agent from the OIG and assign him full time to work the case.

      Yes, there were some things and I need to get away from the daily routine to think about it. Thanks for asking. Excellent question.

      1. Yes, excellent question, Trial, and great answers from our esteemed blog writer and expert. Thought provoking stuff.

  7. cant wait for whiteys book to come out maybe I should check amazon for the pre date discount. I wonder on the jurys judgement sheets will it ask do you think whitey was a informant. 6 to 6 split. also we didn’t hear anything about juror misconduct, usually theres always a nutjob on the gangster jurys. what about a mistrial, maybe 11-1 guilty. 1 holdout.

    1. Pat –
      It will be one that will tell the truth. That is the only consolation I take out of him not testifying. Those who have lied about him can no longer do it. All those planning to write books can only repeat the half-truths that have been put out over the years. The only thing new in Whitey’s case is what is in Whitey’s mind.

      You know the jury will never tell us whether it believed Whitey was an informant or not. Carney tricked Wyshak into bringing the issue into the case, had Wyshak not fallen for his trick then Carney would have had to do it and it would have flown like a lead balloon. He also had Wyshak take on the FBI which give Carney a good issue to argue in his final argument. Carney’s forte might be his ability to spot the weaknesses in opposing counsel and then have his case directed to exploit those weaknesses.

      No juror misconduct. No sign of a nut job. However, there may be one or two right thinking jurors who will be disgusted with the government and refuse to vote for a conviction.

  8. Matt-I enjoyed the blog immensely. Having represented a couple of the left-over Winter Hill guys early in my career I had the chance to experience the arrogance of the USDA’s office first hand, and the pleasure of forcing their hand and causing a mild capitulation in two matters (watching them pull faces like they’d just bitten into a bad lemon as they made concessions was a true, if not immature, pleasure.)
    Your larger point that justice in the Federal system is no justice at all is well taken.Help James write that book. It’ll be a great read and maybe, just maybe, something like the truth will be forthcoming. Best of luck, Boyo. Good on ya!

    1. Chaco:

      Appreciate your input. Drop back every once in a while. I loved your description of them having been beaten down toward reality a bit. Good job. It’s hardly immature to enjoy that.

      James needs no help with the book – there is a lot of good brain power and literary ability in his family. When it comes out it will be well written and best of all true.

      You know with a little humility the federals could do a much better job. I don’t know where they get those dudes but they seem too far removed from the pull and tug of everyday life. Your example of them not liking it when you forced them to face the truth is an example of what’s wrong. I had cases as you might expect where defense counsel showed me my error or other things wrong with my case, I appreciated it because I always thought the bottom line was to do right and not to win. Thanks for coming by and for your thoughts.

      1. Do you really think Whitey’s book would be true? The guys a criminal predator and a multiple murderer, he wouldn’t tell self-serving lies in a book?

        1. Mrsmithee:

          No – no one writing about themselves tells the truth. We will just have to take it as another piece of evidence in what happened over the years. I don’t think any one source has the truth but they leave little bits of tell tale signs that we can follow in deciding what we believe is th truth.

  9. Wait!
    What is going on?
    Are you all drinking?

    Now listen, they’re saying Camuti acted alone, right?

    Right?

    Okay, I get it.

    Gin and tonic

        1. Oh my,
          Not sure if this is true,
          but I think my heart my be a little bit broken.

          I didn’t mean to to buy anyone a drink that was an insult.
          (I ordered it for my virtual self)

          It’s been a terribly long day.

  10. Matt- Just got done listening to Cardinale & Cullen speaking about him not getting up on the big boy seat, Cardinale speaks with such hatred and loves to brag about how smart he is and how dumb everyone else is. Cullen seemed actually enraged, I suspect his next book deal just crumbled to pieces without whitey on the stand. The sun is starting to set on the old mick. Won’t be long now till ADX Co.

    1. Cardinale –
      Not a bad guy – represented the Mafia big wigs – a good lawyer – looks at the case from a Mafia perspective – “kill the Irishman”

      Cullen – planning to use Whitey’s words in his new book – as you said – now that is dead – all his “smart” comments taunting Whitey for naught – guess Whitey outsmarted him again –

      Don’t let the door shut on Whitey just yet – Carney may have done just enough to get one or two jurors to hold out – he’d gladly take a mistrial –

  11. Does everyone on this blog completely rule out jury nullification resulting in an acquittal? All C & B need is one person offended by the FBI’s opprobrious conduct to vote GUILTY AGAINST THE FBI by NG Mr. Bulger. Remember, Johnnie Cochran pulled off the last high profile example of jury nullification against insurmountable evidence, and those were simply racist cops. These FBI’s guys picked who lived and died.

    Stranger things have happened.

    1. Jim P:

      It’s in the air there may be jury nullification – I didn’t think enough evidence that would put off the jury had been submitted until Carney did an excellent presentation of Marion Hussey’s testimony about her daughter being sexually abused; and then having Murderman tell how Flemmi lied on the stand about Debbie Davis’s death which the prosecution had to have known about and let him testify to the lie. Today the idea of at least one juror not wanting to go along with the government reared its head; plus, Wyshak is making the final argument for the government and he is plainly unlikeable by the way he talks down to people. Stay tuned – there may be a surprise.

  12. C and B should start their argument with a quote from Hawthorne about the witch frenzy in Salem in 1692 “The terrible delusion should teach us that the influential classes are fully liable to all the passionate error that has ever characterized the maddest mob. Clergymen, judges, statesmen- the wisest, calmest, holiest persons of their day stood in the inner circle of the gallows loudest to acclaim the work of blood, latest to confess themselves miserably deceived”. Claim that this prosecution that released all the serial killers to try to get this one defendant is just as miserably deceived and susceptible to error. There was no WMD in Iraq as the Feds told us and there is no WMD in Southie. 2. Point out that Desalvo and Charles Manson would be as believable as Gucci, Flemmi and Weeks. Those three are blatant liars, serial killers and career criminals totally lacking in any credibility. All three had motives to lie, obviously did and had sweetheart deals. Point out what Demasi said about the Feds unbalanced approach. Argue that the fifty year old murder by Desalvo was solved through DNA. Where are the forensics in this case? No DNA, no fingerprints and no ballistic testimony. Remember the timeline. No one blames WB for any murders until fiteen years afterwards. And four years after he left the area. All the bodies are buried in Nee’s brothers basement. Flemmi wanted to kill Halloran and did with Nee and Weeks.3. Could anyone believe Flemmi accidently strangled his girlfriend? Is the prosecutor really asking you to believe that? This entire case and all the wrongdoing attendant thereto by government actors ( Morris and the false files) should cause one pause. How could any fair minded person call this justice? How could anyone sanction or approve their conduct? Remember it’s the government’s witness who murdered his two girlfriends and reaped a two million dollar reward. It’s the governments witness who shot three unarmed, innocent Blacks in the back of the head and obtained his freedom. It’s the government’s witness who put the bomb in the lawyers auto. Didn’t Weeks demonstrate that he was a brute and a goon? His only truthful response was that he always lies. Don’t adopt, countenance or condone these deals. Don’t ratify and endorse all these misdeeds by the prosecutor. Just say no to this entire distorted, fraudulent case by finding the defendant not guilty. Don’t accept this case . Don’t put your fingerprints on this sordid mess. Just sat NO. On behalf of all of Flemmi’s and Martorano’s victims. Just say NO.

    1. N:
      1. Good opening – as you infer there is always hope for if the glove don’t fit type verdict or at least one juror buying into it.

      2. Good points – maybe you should send a note to J.W. I didn’t think he’d have a chance to argue like that because I was so sure Whitey was going to testify but I’ve heard people close to Carney monitor this blog as the only one that has a group of commenters who know what is going on so don’t be surprised if your suggestions which I endorse are not followed.

      3. Another good point – sure to grab a couple of jurors is done well.

      3

      1. Matt,

        Thank you so much for this experience.
        You are the Charles Dickens of trials.

        C and B,
        Messrs. Carney and Brennan et al.,

        I am inspired.

        Sincerely yours,
        Firefly

  13. Why/who would kill O’Sullivan and be able to get away with it? What dirt did he know or what was he involved in on top of the race fixing scheme? It might’ve just been Jim B creating a problem and solving it, that part I want to hear. Guess we’ll just have to wait for his niece to put out that book. Still holding out hope for the 60 minutes interview to promote it.

    1. Jim:

      O’Sullivan died of natural causes. He had a heart attack/stroke just before having to testify in the 1997/98 Wolf hearings.

      1. I should have been more specific, Carney made a statement outside the court today that Bulger’s agreement had to do with promising O’Sullivan he wouldn’t be killed. Nothing more or less, never knew any specifics regarding the deal. That’s where my questions regarding that came from. Bombshell piece of information which is why i’m wondering how deeply corrupt of a prosecutor he was. Why would someone want him killed? And how could whitey help him stay alive? Sounds like a classic make a problem and solve it scenario.

    1. N Connolly- I think you hit it all in your post. PAT NEE”S BROTHER”S BASEMENT WAS THE CEMETARY FOR THESE VICTIMS. That part really bothers me. He walks around like he doesn’t have a care in the god damn world!

  14. Many thanks, Matt. After soaking in every possible information outlet covering this case, after about eight court days, your blog was the only coverage/analysis I’d read.

    You provided a real public service here… I wish you a good summer and well-earned rest.

    1. Kristi:
      Thanks for coming around and participating. It’s not over yet so drop back once in a while. I’ve got to mend a lot of fences back home for my long sabbatical but hope to continue the blog for there are still matters to discuss but not with the urgency we’ve been doing.

  15. While I’m still holding out hope that a rogue juror will penalize this out-of-control federal gov’t./F.B.I./ DOJ for all of its egregious misconduct …. Mr. MATT, a very sincere THANK YOU to you and all the participants of this blog. I’ve learned so very much from all of you. Thank you.

    1. Gus:

      Thanks for coming and appreciate your comments I hope we can continue along but not at such a frenetic pace. If Whitey goes away it doesn’t mean the problems with the federals will go away. Come and visit when you feel up to it.

  16. Your better half,the speaker of the house, she who must be obeyed will understand that you did it for the greater good. However, don’t push your luck.
    We need to think about some of the distasteful animus that has been directed at those of Irish heritage in this town. In the court, in the papers, on the radio clear indications of antihiberianism.

    1. Hopalong:

      It is one of the last acceptable biases – it exists because we let it exist – I remember one of the few times I talked to my grandfather – I had very little contact with him – my fault being too obtuse when I was young and into my adult years – but I said to him on this occassion something to the effect that the Boston Brahmins were really mean to the Irish – he said – the worst enemy of the Irish is the Irish – I never knew what gems of wisdom he was conveying.

  17. Gassoon:
    with all due respect to your Grandfather, you don’t seem to be the apocryphal Irishman that climbed the ladder of success while contending with a fellow Irishman pulling him down by each ankle. The Irish in America have nothing to be ashamed of except for often forgetting how hard it was coming up and not giving a hand to the next guy facing discrimination and prejudice.
    Speaker O’Neill used to say the Democrats gave us social security, old age, the GI Bill, FHA, medicare et cetera and then we got two shares of Pepsi stock and became Republicans.

    1. Hopalong:

      The only one who pulled me down was myself – I knew where to look for my failings as I looked back and they all lie on my lap – I was too busy to be pulling other people down – and fortunately the people I knew were also of that mind – I was lucky I always worked with good people – some very ambitious but they pushed ahead based on their hard work and ability not by tearing others down.

      I like Speaker O’Neil’s quote since it has a lot of truth in it. It’s not just the Irish but most immigrant groups once they get established or a few extra bucks in their pockets want to stop others from doing the same. I call them the begrudgers. No society will ever be perfect; people with money will always want more and complain if any is taken from them; they’ll always be a large number of layabouts or people who think they deserve something because they breath and not because they work for them. I like the idea that JFK said once that life is not fair so there will always be things to complain about. In every society there will be those in need and they have to be cared for – there will be those not in need who will want to be cared for – and there will those not in need who will not want to care for others.

  18. Matt–

    Kudos once again for a hugely informative, entertaining blog on the trial. It’s especially such a relief with the background of Boston’s major bugles choosing not to take a hard look at the way the Feds– including but not limited to the FBI– have made extraordinary moral compromises in their long hunt of Whitey. To pick one example from Friday, fighting the Donahues tooth and nail to keep them from being compensated– allowing Whitey today to try to play Robin Hood.

    Anyway– my main impulse to write involves Whitey’s stated belief he’s lost the immunity defense. While I’m sure he’s been driving the bus where his lawyers are concerned, I wonder if in the end C&B simply held him down and insisted that these purportedly unfair court rulings simply made it impossible for Whitey to testify. In other words, I suspect his lawyers may’ve weighed in very, very strongly in the end to keep him off the stand.

    1. Steely:

      Just posted on the subject. My take is the lawyers knowing how the matter would be treated and they way the prosecutors would question him advised him of those things. Whitey would be a hard guy to control but he did seem to bind with Carney & Brennan – probably Brennan even more than Carney from the way it looked in court although Brennan would clearly have been guided by the more experienced Carney. Your suppositions I’d suggest are right.

  19. Oops, PS– re Cullen et al.: if there’s any news, any way to advance the story flowing from this trial, it has to do with Patrick Nee. I read Cullen as selectively dialing down the outrage, the better to suck up to his friends/sources in the US Atty’s office.

    1. It seems if they go after Nee, they’ll have to go after the guy that killed Nee’s brother and so and so on……

      1. Jan:

        Didn’t they already get that guy or was that the guy Nee shot and crippled for life. All they really have to do is to just go after Nee but for some reason they won’t.

  20. I believe the guy who killed Nee’s brother was never prosecuted and Nee has no desire to have him prosecuted….with the passage of time it sounds like he accepts that they were all in it together.

Leave a Reply

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