Judge Stearns will hold a hearing next Wednesday on the prosecutor’s motion to keep Whitey from presenting evidence that Jeremiah O’Sullivan, now deceased, but who was a AUSA head of the Organized Crime Task Force in the late 1970s gave him carte blanche immunity to commit as many murders as his heart desired. The Court of Appeals is considering whether Stearns should handle the case. I assume the delay in the decision means they will allow him to sit. For all practical purposes, Judge Stearns is as fair, impartial and wise judge as Whitey could hope for. I’ve suggested he step down but that’s not because I believe he won’t do as good a job as any other judge but it’s because there will always be a perception that he was not impartial which can be avoided. I think it is best that when Whitey is convicted everything be done so that we won’t have some type of Sacco and Vanzetti questions lingering on into the future.
I can’t be at the hearing because I will be in Florida. After all, the pitchers for our home team report on Tuesday and the full squad on Friday so someone has to be in Florida to welcome them. I’m not sure my failure to be a the hearing will cause me to miss anything. Each side will verbally present the argument already made in their submissions, Judge Stearns will take it under advisement.
The one curious thing I will miss is whether the prosecutors will argue that Whitey never gave any information to the FBI as they have in their submission. I would suggest Judge Stearns may want to know the prosecutors position on this issue. He would not look too good if he made his decision on the basis of the prosecutors assertion that Whitey did not provide information and then the evidence at the trial shows that there is no doubt he did that. In other words Judge Stearns has to know what is the prosecutor’s position. A judge denying defense counsel’s motion to suppress an admission made by a defendant who relies on the state saying the defendant made no admission isn’t going to be too happy if at trial the state seeks to introduce into evidence the defendant’s admissions.
Whitey’s lying to his brother that “I bought . . . information, I didn’t sell it . . . I never gave them . . . information. Nothin’ Nothin’” was merely for the edification of his brother so he can save face and proclaim he was not an informant. The prosecutor’s position since the first day of this matter is that Whitey gave information. He is supposed to have given information to save the life of a state trooper and FBI agent. There is a question as to its value, but it has constantly maintained that he did. Weeks said when he went through the files he saw Whitey was continually informing on his friends in South Boston. How now does the prosecution shift horses? And, if it’s not shifting horses, what was the purpose in putting that argument in its brief?
Whitey’s alleged denials of knowing his information was being reduced to writing also does not make much sense. He’s trying to suggest that the information which he didn’t give, but if he did, was not supposed to be reduced to writing. It’s like we go out with some friends for a night and talk about everything under the sun. We don’t expect our friends to go home and record what we said. Whitey wants us to believe that is the type of friendship he had with Connolly whereby he did not expect him to be reporting everything he told him.
What give lie to Whitey’s new tale is his interaction with other FBI agents. Why if he thinks his information is being held in confidence by Connolly is he meeting with FBI ASAC Fitzpatrick at his Quincy condo? Why does he have a sit down meeting with FBI SAC Sarhatt who is considering terminating his status as an informant? Why does he have another sitdown meeting with FBI agents who are investigating the Wheeler murder? If Connolly is his buddy and keeping things under his hat, then all these meetings are unnecessary.
The whole episode of Whitey denying he gave Connolly or any other FBI agent information is a lie. Whitey, like all gangsters, plays loose with the truth. It means nothing to them. That is the problem with the whole case, it involves gangsters who lie as easily as blinking their eyes. Solomon in all his wisdom couldn’t figure out where the truth lies among them. It is right that all of their testimony be viewed with a great deal of suspicion especially if they have received great benefits.
I think it was Newman Flanagan, the Suffolk DA, who used to argue to juries when he was an assistant DA that if a crime is committed in a jungle you have to go into the jungle to get the evidence. The prosecutors to get their evidence of what happened in the sordid underworld of these gangster have to go into it and do their best. Very often when that is done truth turns out to be the real victim.