A Carney & Brennan Redux – I

41 thoughts on “A Carney & Brennan Redux – I”

1. Thanks Bob,
   I’m a newbie to this and learning as I go along. I have read Matt’s book and others.
   Hopefully you and Matt can have a discussion on here about the details that together may be cleaned up.

   Also, your comments seem sincere. Many families have been and are being put through hell because of the DOJ.
   Including yours.

   I’m sure we can all agree that John Connolly does not deserve to be serving a 40 year sentence in Florida.
   If so Bob, that’s a nice starting point.

   1. Ernie:
      I’ll let Bob take that.

2. M. Connolly and bloggers: I wrote a blog a while back that was immediately pulled down by you. My attorney wrote you after advising the Patriot Ledger that some of what you said about me was not only erroneous but potentially libelous. Let me clear some air. First of all, I interviewed both Bulgers; I recommended Whitey’s closure (termination) for a number of reasons and testified about why in several courts. I further testified that we (the FBI) had a number of cases investigating allegations of criminality with regard to Bill Bulger. Thirdly, I furnished info to John Morris (later immunized) in reference to the State Street investigation that included potential crimes. Lately, I furnished an affidavit pertinent to the Miami Callahan trial to the Boston USA. Connolly’s defense team complained of certain ‘problems’ around Morris’ testimony and I furnished my recollections in defense of Connolly in this instance. I was not called to testify in the Connolly trial and most certainly would have testified. With regard to corruption at the DOJ/FBI I testified in depth about corruption at the highest levels. I reported my Special Agent in Charge for corruption and was retaliated against. I fought those allegations and a ‘deal’ was struck with the FBI which was later reneged upon. I further countered in MSPB (Merit Systems Board) as a former military veteran spelling out in detail what the retaliation was about; eg corruption at Boston. This corruption, in my testimony involved FBIHQ and DOJ. I wrote the ‘Betrayal’ story to set the records straight! I told a story that is unique as it tells it from the inside. Most other accounts are archival or by ‘gangster’ who testified. I’m sure Bulger will counter Flemmi and others regarding their testimony. If called to the Bulger trial my story will be the same because it is true. Bulger can claim immunity; he can claim FBI/DOJ protection (after all, O’Sullivan testified to this and more importantly how afraid of the FBI he was….was he equally afraid of the DOJ?). When I intervieded Bulger he did mention he was not an informant! I took that to mean he was merely saying he was not a ‘tout’; the worst title for an Irish guy from Southie. I was there to assess him as an FBI informant and told him so. Connolly showed up with Bulger against orders. This was a breach of FBI rules and I reamed Morris as Connolly’s supervisor for this. Finally, M.Connolly has his facts wrong with regard to my ‘walk on the beach’ with Dick Lehr. I was not at that time still an FBI agent. I in fact I had been hired as a private investigator to develop information. When I saw the evidence presented by Lehr I was surprised at his evidence from Morris (another FBI breach) and learned where, in fact, it came from. My job as ASAC of the FBI was to oathfully, I repeat, truthfully, ascertain where the FBI leaks were emanating. I found that out; and more, and reported them to the FBI/DOJ according to my job. The outcome was surprising as my report was, in my opinion and testimony, used to shut me up. My testimony was that I was parachuted into Boston and killed in action. Betrayal, which I found to be anathema, was the ‘straw’ that broke this camel’s back. When an organization loses trust; especially from within, it’s in trouble. I have been watching and testifying all these years and hope the closure will come with Bulger’s trial. Now, while I don’t agree with all M. Connolly says, I applaud some of what he says! He wasn’t there…..I was! I deserve the principle right to set things straight as I have tried to do in testimony. My family and I have suffered through this and we have come close to each other because of it. Just a thought! Bob Fitz

   1. Bob:
      I never knew your attorney wrote to the Patriot Ledger. He never copied me on it. You put out a book and someone writes criticisms of it and you start threatening to sue. Wow! It’s good we have a First Amendment.
      I pulled your comment down, and it was the only one I pulled down, because of your attorney’s letter. If you want to tell the people what he wrote you’re welcome to do it but set out the whole letter. I feel uncomfortable doing it.
      You say you interviewed both Bulgers. I do not believe that is correct. You interviewed Whitey. You did not interview Billy. He invited you into his office with John Connolly for a chat. If you did interview him, please tell us when and where you did it.
      You say you recommended Whitey’s closure. Judge Wolf wrote: “There is no written record indicating that Fitzpatrick ever expressed such concerns to Sarhatt, . . . ” He also wrote: “Morris wrote that Bulger and Flemmi were each: a highly placed and valuable informant. . . . Fitzpatrick reviewed and initialed each memorandum without dissent.” How do those things square?
      You say: “[the FBI] had a number of cases investigating allegations of criminality with regard to Bill Bulger.” I’ve asked you previously to to name them? I’ve also asked you how you could have gone to a social meeting with him if you were investigating him? You’ve yet to answer.
      You say: I “furnished info to John Morris (later immunized) in reference to the State Street investigation.” In your book you said it was after you became a private investigator which was in 1987. The State Street investigation had been going on for a year and a half at that time. You blame O’Sullivan for closing it out. It was done by an AUSA who is now a Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice who recommended it be closed.
      You say when you interviewed Bulger he said he was not an informant. I re-read your book. You don’t mention it there. You said you said you wanted to know what he had done for the FBI “[b]ecause you’re the informant“ You noted “[H]is reaction told me Whitey didn’t really consider himself an informant at all.” I’m wondering because this is important. Did Whitey tell you he was not an informant as you wrote?
      You say Connolly was not supposed to be at your meeting with Whitey and if he’d “had so much as opened his mouth, I’d have his ass right then and there.” Why did you never confront Connolly over being there. You said you reamed out Morris but why not Connolly? Did you do anything to him for that “breach of FBI rules.”
      I never said you were an FBI agent at the time you walked on the beach with Lehr. I said as an FBI agent you had the sacred obligation not to disclose the identity of an informant. That obligation I assumes continues after you leave the FBI. It was important to Lehr to get someone to confirm Morris betrayal of the FBI’s sacred obligation when he disclosed Whitey was an informant. You confirmed for Lehr that Whitey was an informant. You wrote: “I spent the next several hours laying things out for Lehr, about how Whitey Bulger was a liability who’d never given the FBI any information of substance, especially regarding the Angiulo mob my squad had brought down.”
      I’ve said you take credit for taking Angiulo down when you had little to do with it since you weren’t in Boston at the time all the work for the electronic bug was done and when it first started operating. It was O’Sullivan, who you revile, and Morris’s team that took Angiulo down. You say you arrested Angiulo. I’m told that honor went to the affiant for the electronic surveillance Agent Ed Quinn.
      There’s a lot in your book I don’t agree with, there’s parts that frankly astonish me, and there’s some things I don’t know about. You are welcome to participate here. I recognize your position is difficult. I’ve heard lots of things about you that I have refrained from writing. I applaud your courage for testifying since I know that is never a pleasant experience.
      You say: “ My family and I have suffered through this and we have come close to each other because of it.” I understand what you’ve gone through is hard and I’m glad your family is hanging in there. I would not do anything to knowingly cause harm to any man’s family. You should have kept that in mind when you talked about Billy Bulger like you did because I believe you were grossly unfair to him and wrong about him. I do believe that there is a need for a robust discussion of these issues. If you can I ask you to answer some of my questions.
      You suggest you did what you did because you didn’t like what was happening in the FBI an agency that you loved. I’m not so concerned about the FBI because I believe its culture borders on being rotten although the guys and gals who are part of it, including yourself, are dedicated public servants who we owe thank to. I’m concerned not so much about the FBI but about our country.
      Have a Happy Easter.

   2. Bob Fitz,

      Can you help me with this? When you confirmed for Dick Lehr that Whiey was an FBI informant did you do that with the same understanding that John Morris had when he leaked the same to Kevin Cullen, i.e. this was Whitey Bulger’s death warrant.

      Also, when you were telling Dick Lehr this information did you have an understanding that Lehr knew what would happen if the information was printed?
      Can you explain the difference between these actions and those for which John Connolly was indicted?

      Correct me if I am wrong on the facts.

      Thanks

      1. Ernie:
         Morris’s contact with the Globe was Lehr’s partner Gerry O’Neill. Cullen was with them on the Spotlight Team. Morris at Connolly’s trial testified O’Neill was a friend. Your questions to Bob Fitz are appropriate. Hopefully he will answer.

         1. thanks matt,

            the layer upon layer of facts coupled with a few dozen Hibernian names reminds me of high school chemistry.
            We don’t need a organization chart, we need a periodic table of elements, isotopes and all.

            1. Ernie:
               Hang in there. Some strange doings seem to lie ahead of us. And I agree, there seem to be a lot of Hibernian names floating around in this saga but as you might expect we’re not on the same page.

3. This is probably another stupid question (thus my name)but I am curious about something. If the Feds/law enforcement and their informants are wire tapping or listening to a certain subject (say Whitey)and someone slips up by releasing information the Feds/law does not want heard, do they, could they, and would they erase what was said to protect themselves? Or can that be detected?

   I guess my question is how easy is it for law enforcement to erase any conversations which may hurt them during surveillance?

   1. Question:
      If we didn’t ask questions we’d never learn anything. I’ve been involved in well over a hundred wiretaps. Each conversation is recorded with a back up copy. At the end of the day each original is sealed. That’s how we used to do it. Whether the feds do it or not that is what they are supposed to do. I think it would e extremely hard to do it though and would doubt that it is done.
      I’d say it is almost never done in court authorized wiretaps. It’d take the involvement of several people and I don’t see that there could be several FBI agents conspiring to do this. If it could be done by one person maybe it’d be done, but since it can’t it is probably not done.
      My problem with the FBI is in the situations where its agents refuse to record conversations and trust their memories to later write down what was said. Recording is so easy today that there is no excuse for that practice.

      1. I’m glad I asked because your answer explains a lot! It seems a legitimate investigation is done the way you described, therefore it would be hard or impossible to delete or omit certain conversations. I wonder then if warrants are required even for something simple such as listening to phone conversations? I will explain why I asked.

         I was asked to help a certain law enforcement person with a criminal they suspected of committing many crimes.

         During this time I was friendly with many police officers. Well a couple of them told me some things they probably shouldn’t have, but one officer slipped and told me something really bad that the other officers engage in.

         Today he denies saying it but he clearly did. I remember the conversation as if it was yesterday and I can give the exact day and time we spoke.

         So if the conversation was heard which it should have been that tells me it wasn’t a legal investigation because others would be involved. The conversation would have been taped and sealed.

         This officer was able to deny what he said because that whole conversation must have been omitted? So perhaps the officer I was helping was conducting his own investigation and didn’t plan on getting one of his brothers in trouble? I had no idea this other officer would divulge that sort of information to me either.

         I’m not sure how easy it is to listen in on others conversations and hear their conversations when they’re not on the phone but this officer definitely has the know how and tech experience. I’m guessing there was no warrant involved then.

         1. Question:
            Warrants are not required for listening to a phone conversation; For recording it without all the parties consent it is. Under federal law one party consent is enough, under the state both parties have to consent in most cases, there are exceptions.
            There’s no law against listening in on another’s phone call.
            It depends upon one’s training as to how easy it would be to listen in on another’s conversation. All that should be done with a warrant but I’m sure a lot of it isn’t. A cop could lose his job or more important his reputation if he’s secretly recording others.

4. P.S. Matt, here’s another thing you should delete; it’s an unrelated thing, having nothing to do with the blog: At Symphony Hall on April 12, they’re playing Modest Mussorgsky’s Pictures At An Exhibition. Plus they are displaying until April 13, 36 original paintings interpreting the original piano piece now a score by RAVEL; and they have 6 of the original pictures diplayed when the piece first debuted as “a musical art show” in 1874. Thanks for playing some classical when we were young. I’m writing a short story about Symphony Hall, my dermatologist, whose wife and daughters (all BC alum) sat beside me at Symphony Hall while B.C.’s orchestras performed last Saturday,and about Jim&Jane’s musical daughters, BC’s 150 anniversary celebration, et alia. The theme is coincidences. The title will be: “Mussorgsky.” Few will ever read it!

   1. Bill:
      Short off the point comments are always welcome especially if they deal with things people mayhave an interst in. It’s the long ones that repeat previous ones I try to cut down it’s also a product of the time of the day and my Irish moodiness.

5. i am shocked that steve flemi was able to retain all the property that you listed yeterday. why do you think say rolling stone magazine or time magazine has not followed this part of the steve flemi story? as far as the boston herald and boston globe go i have pretty much given up hope of ever seeing hard facts that conflict with how varios books have portrayed events from former and current globe and herald reporters. i have to say i thought maybe a month ago to myself how much more information can come out? it turns a lot more. regards your blog is outstanding

   1. Norwood:
      It shows how anxious the prosecutors were to have Flemmi tell the story they wanted him to tell that they gave him this deal. Flemmi got life in prison but it appears he is not in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. We don’t even know if he is behind bars. He might be living in one of the many properties he owns. I said the same thing to myself several months ago. I though how am I ever going to keep this blog going until the time of Whitey’s trial. I’ve covered everything. But I was wrong. This case just keeps giving one surprise after the other. Just toady, Jean’s comment referred to a site discussing one of the top guys in the DOJ who filed an affidavit in this case named Margolis. Go to her post and read that site. That’s a brand new angle on the whole case.

6. Bob Fitz:

   I agree with Kid Thursday. You still seem to be close to this saga so please enlighten us with the facts. “Right church, wrong pew” isn’t very descriptive for a guy who knows the “whole story”.
   What is Whitey doing to manipulate around his medicine?
   What involvement has Margolis had in the Connolly and Bulger cases?
   As Pouteyblonde asked, what’s up with Pat Nee?
   Are you going to testify in Whitey’s trial?

   Lets hear the whole story. Why hide anything!?

   1. Patty:
      Thanks for replying to Bob Fitz. I wrote to him also. What’s been good about the blog is most people who comment seem to either want to know something about these events, offer another angle on what I posted, point out where I’ve wandered astray, or have a total other take on the subject matter. As was noted it is a discussion as we try to figure out what happened and is happening. Fitz who you would think knows things from a different point of view is like one of the members of Al Capone’s gang driving by the blog everyone in a while and spraying it with bullets. You’d think he’d want to offer some facts rather than conclusions. Who knows, we all might be wrong and Bob can tell us why.

7. Hey bob fitz, care to set the record straight? As you know from reading this blog, this is a respectful and thoughtful discussion taking place about these whitey matters. If you have something to contribute aside from baseless criticism, your opinions would be welcomed here. Join the discussion if you have something substantial to add. Personally, I’d like to hear what you have to say (sans the hostility).

   1. Kid Thursday:
      Thanks for the support. I’ve written back to Bob and your comment influenced my response. I’d like to hear what he has to say also. He has a viewpoint that would be a little different than the rest of us could have since he was on the inside. I’m not sure he can do that in the manner you suggest.

      1. My pleasure Mr. Connolly. You’re doing some very important work with this extraordinary blog (including commentators) I appreciate your unique efforts in ferreting out the truth. I’d like to see bob fitz join the conversation. He seems to imply that he could really clear up some ‘things’. But the dude needs to take a chill pill.

         Question 1: If Whiteys deal came from the DOJ, why is it assumed he only has carte blanch for mahem in a Boston jurisdiction? Wouldn’t a federal deal cover him for the whole country and allow him to kill in Oklahoma and Florida and anywhere else in the USA that his black heart desires? And the silly gun charge in Cali…

         Question 2: As for Pat Nees motivation for hating whitey. I seem to recall a story about whitey providing a faulty machine gun (no firing pin?) to Nee, who subsequently arrived to the crime scene to waiting feds and ended up doing time. I have no idea where I remember that from. In addition, for all whiteys former cohorts, it’s simply good business to ‘hate’ whitey, real or not.

         1. Kid:
            Thanks. Fitz is welcome to join in but may not have the temperament for the give and take. Sometime I wonder if any FBI agent can participate in a civil discussion given the years they were trained to push people around. Fitz has seen a push back when he gets out of line by not understanding that the people who read this blog and those who comment here are busy with full lives but they have a real interest in these matter so they take a little time out to discuss them without animosity accepting others may have a different opinion but the purpose is to seek the truth as best we can. We avoid politics, sports (except for sports analogies), criticism of religious beliefs or people’s personal lives and name calling which provides little light and a lot of heat. We try to stay on point which is things surrounding Whitey Bulger.
            1. If he had a federal deal it would cover him throughout the United States. He’d be free to murder where ever it suited his purpose as long as his action was within the ambit of his deal. His problem with the other states is that if he won here, he’d have to again litigate the issue in each state. The federal government would work with each state against him try the issue again as it did with Connolly after it lost in Boston using such arguments as it was never contemplated the deal would extend beyond the Boston area. That’ll take years to resolve and he’d be held in squalid conditions in the Southern jails. Not something to look forward to.
            2. The only faulty gun I remember is that Martorano complained about his hit on Wheeler that the gun didn’t work as well as it should have done. I don’t see Weeks using the machine gun in any situation where its faulty firing pin would have been such as to damage his relationship with Whitey. Nee was a Marine and I assume would have checked his weapon out prior to going on a job where he intended to use it and clearly would have seen no firing pin. I can’t be sure the story is wrong but I don’t buy it. Nee did time for his Irish exploits and a 1990 armed robbery.
            Nee never was Whitey’s enemy. It’s just that after Whitey was gone for a decade he found it in his interest to put himself up as one of his enemies. No one expected Whitey to come home again. You were right to suggest “it’s simply good business to “hate” whitey, real or not.”

8. M. Connolly: You are in the right church but the wrong pew. Your sources don’t know the whole story otherwise you would not be saying some things that might blowback negatively. Bulger is a manipulative guy particularly around his medicine at the prison. Wouldn’t surprise me that his heart is ‘acting’ up again. Not that he has a heart like everyone else. A lot of what you say is without factual foundation and hearsay. Just a thought.

   1. Bob Fitz:
      Maybe you want to tell the people who read the blog about the lawyer you hired to contact me. When I got that letter I was assured that you were the same person who wrote the book. You wrote about a month or so ago and I did not respond to you because of your lawyer’s request so I held my fire. If you want me to open up and disclose what your lawyer said then tell me you have told him that you are going to authorize me to put it up on the blog. I don’t need either his or your authorization to do it but I’ve been reluctant to hurt you by doing it. You can’t expect to engage with me and expect me not to fire back.
      I notice some of the people who follow this blog have responded to you and asked you to take part in the discussion. You are welcome to do that but writing in conclusions doesn’t help. What do you know that will help us better understand this issue. That’s what this blog is about, a search for the truth. Back it up with some facts. Tell me where I am wrong, I am willing to change my mind if I find that is the case. What pew should I be in? What is it my sources do not know? Tell us what you know about Bulger and his “medicine at the prison?”
      You seem to hint at much but are like the guys who used to stand on the side of gang fights and throw a punch every once and while at someone on the edge of the fight and then scatter away. If you want to get in you’re welcome, if not then stay away. Standing on the side throwing sucker punches adds little to you as a person.
      Just to be clear though, I’ve written about your book before. I will do so again if it fits the moment.

      1. Matt; maybe I can be helpful: one thing that distinguishes us is we knew most of these persons (cops, gangsters, murder victims) personally. Someone questions my facts about Tony Veranis, Eddie Connors, Jimmy Mantiville, Bucky Barret, Suitcase Fiddler, Billy O’Sullivan, Jim O’Toole, Billy Kelly, “Red” the gunman, John Connolly, other FBI, DEA, State, Boston cops, etc, etc, etc, then I say I knew not only them but their brothers, sons and daughters; I hung out with them; grew up with them; drank at the same bars; lived and worked and partied in teh projects and neighborhoods they lived adn worked and partied in; played in the parks and gyms with them; many were and are our friends and neighbors. Who knows the facts better, I respectfully ask BobFitz and others? Those who were there their whole life through? Or those who came to inquire after the fact. Mr. BobFitz: Please share whatever facts you have! “The time to hesitate is through!”

         1. Bill:
            I suggest it’s not so important that you may have know or interacted with these people that matters. Of the group you mention I only knew Tony Veranis but especially his brother Ralphie who I considered a good friend. I knew John Connolly only as an FBI agent and had arms length dealings with his less than ten times, if possibly only twice. I never knew Eddie Connors even though he owned the neighborhood bar the Bulldog after I left the neighborhood. When I left I think it was a Chinese laundry or was it Joyce and Keane’s. Billy Kelly who is on death row in Florida I didn’t know other than as a suspect in the Hamilton murder. I knew Spike O’Toole by sight. Knew nothing of Jimmy Mantiville, Bucky Barret, Red the gunman, Suitcase Fiddler, or Billy O’Sullivan or any of their families. What is important is growing up in the same neighborhoods, the daily interactions on the streets and understanding the culture. I had plenty of opportunity to do that.
            Remember in his book Bob Fitz made a point to note he was not “Boston Irish.” That pretty much tells it all because you could be very much “Boston Irish” if you were Italian (Rumby, Canata), Polish (Gindy & Polsky), Ukrainian (Danny Sullivan), French (Henri Boutan), Swedish (Tod),Lithuanian, Greek, Spanish or even African-American. It’s the countless wasted hours leaning against street posts blocking the sidewalks or the nonsensical games like half ball, off-the-steps, jack knife, or using the utility poles as the two bases and being out when a hard thrown ball stings you off the side of the head on the way to home plate which was a sewer cover.

   2. Bob Fitz, Is Matt in the wrong pew because he believes David Margolis is on the up and up?

      As for Whitey’s medicine, wouldn’t you agree the solitary confinement he’s been put in has been torture and a medicine given by the fed for no other reason than to have him go insane.

      I’m not sure it is reasonable to suggest that Whitey is gaming the system down in Plymouth.

      Bob, do you know what causes this Omerta in the Moakley Building? Judge Stearns was actions were based on reasons only he knows, but they certainly weren’t based on the law or common sense. Is there a “greater good” that men like Stearns owe a loyalty?

      Sounds crazy I know. What can you tell us about this Margolis fellow Bob? He seems to be the black shadow protecting the most nefarious characters ever to work for or with the F.B.I.

      Margolis calls himself the “fixer” and “cleaner”. he’s the guy that unilaterally decides that corrupt A.U.S.A. keep their jobs. He brooms everything.

      He’s been accused of being an informant for La Costra Nostra.

      Bob, there is an obvious cancer in the justice department. So malignant that Congress, the White House, and the Attorney General seem helpless. Scared. Intimidated. I wonder why?

      The F.B.I.’s history is all about fraud and deceit upon the citizenry. Margolis goes back to J. Edgar Hoover days. The F.B.I is institutionally corrupt. They have a history of black mailing politicians and others to h=get what they want. The Hoover way.

      They have corrupted the U.S. Attorneys Office and the Federal Judiciary.
      The fact the new judge assigned to the Bulger case is also a former federal prosecutor in the Boston office.

      Bob, be John Dean. Tell us what you know. Do the right thing.

      What is there left to be loyal to?

      1. Ernie:
         Good comment. It goes along with my post today. I would recommend interested parties to take a gander over at bluemassgroup.com to read another local blog with an independent voice where you write.
         With respect to Bob Fitz you ‘d have to go way back in my posts to see that I wrote about the book he had written. I found it had much in it that just didn’t seem to hold together. He’s written to me to say nasty things and throw bombs, one of the few that didn’t want to discuss the matters. If he can be believed he would be a valuable source but at this point I’d have to suggest anything he says be taken with a huge dose of caution.

9. Not sure if you have answered this already but I’m wondering if you have a idea on the number of murders Pat Née has been involved with. Do you think he may be charged as this trial revels more info on the crimes that took place?

   1. Poutyblonde:
      Pat Nee foolishly wrote a book called “A Criminal and An Irishman.” He did it thinking Whitey would never come back. He portrays Whitey as an odd ball who everyone talked behind his back but no one dared disrespect him to his face. He appeared in a National Geographic special with the caption under his name as “Whitey Bulger’s enemy.” He used to be his friend so I can’t figure out when he decided that relationship ended. Whitey never did anything to him.

      One has to read between the lines to figure out what murders he had a chance to be in. He tells a story about the hit by the Mullens on Billy O’Sullivan that does not conform to the police reports so maybe he was involved there; he writes wonderful things about Kevin Weeks who also came out with a book about the same time saying nice things about Nee which indicates he may have been the man in the back seat of Whitey’s car as some have alleged at the time Halloran was gunned down; he clearly was involved in the murder of John McIntyre since he drove McIntyre to the set-up and helped bury the body — Weeks puts him at the scen for a longer time than he puts himself); he may have been in on the hit of Donald Killeen in Franmingham carried out by the Mullens. I don’t know any of that for sure but that’s four where it is possible he was involved.
      Considering his telling us he was Whitey’s partner, he may have been privy to the murders of the other Mullens who were getting a cut out of his share of the illegal money — Paulie McGonagle, Tommy King and Buddy Leonard. If he were, then that would be at least seven. He’s never been charged with any of them but if one were to speculate one could see how he’d have something to do with them although there’s no proof of most of them since the witnesses to them are no longer with us — perhaps because Nee had his way with them.
      Thee’s no chance Nee will be charged. He has some sort of a deal with someone over these things. The McIntyre murder is the strongest case against him and people have been convicted on less evidence. The problem is the gangsters all have special deals which are really unheard of in the annals of law enforcement where they can pick and choose who to incriminate. They don’t have to tell the whole story but only so much as excites the prosecutors interest.
      So I’m not saying Nee was involved in any murders but there are at least seven where a closer look at the evidence may show otherwise.

      1. Matt,

         Don’t forget Bucky Barrett who Née set up to come to his house where Née helped kidnap, torture, rob, murder and bury Barrett, all in Nee’s own cellar. Weeks only describes him as “another guy” who was present for the Barrett murder.

         The street rumor is that Née lured Paul McGonigle to his death like he did with McIntyre and Barrett. Pure street rumor, but it has endured for decades.

         Née got the best deal of all!!

         1. Patty:
            Yeah, make that eight for Nee where there’s a good possibility he was up to his neck. How do you figure he may have been involved in up to eight murders, possibly more, and nothing has ever happened to him.
            I just re-read his description of the McIntyre murder where he tells about coming back to his brother’s hose and going down to the basement and seeing there McIntyre’s dead body lying there with Whitey and Weeks standing there and Flemmi yanking out McIntyre’s teeth. I got thinking, “how likely is it that Whitey and Flemmi are going to let a guy walk in and see they murdered someone and walk away.” You just have to figure that he was part and parcel of the deal especially since he brought him to the house and said he he said left the house for an hour and Weeks says it took 6 hours to kill McIntyre.
            He did get the best deal of all. I wonder who his godfather is?

10. The more I read of this, the shadier the government seems. Off topic a bit, but is there any way of finding out where Flemmi is? It is amazing how stacked this case (and any case?) is for the prosecution. Flemmi may be in a cushy location, and Bulger is in solitary — that in itself is an advantage. As Carney pointed out, it is hard for an elderly person to hold up in those conditions. Lately I have read so many news reports giving evidence of the extreme psychological hardship of solitary confinement; that is sure to affect the defendant’s ability to participate in his defense.

    Thank you for bringing all of these things to light. As someone recently pointed out, the mainstream media ignores you, although I believe they are reading along with us. I am not blog-savvy enough to research this or even ask the right questions of you, but what kind of readership do you have? If you don’t mind sharing, I’d be very interested to know what you have for numbers of “followers, ” page views,” etc.

    1. Pam:
       Flemmi is not in a federal prison but in custody of DOJ. They won’t tell where he is but you know it is somewhere on easy street or as you say a cushy location. For all we know he is out on the street. Tommy Sperrazza got a first degree conviction out of Norfolk and should have spent the rest of his life in prison. The feds took him and he is back on the street. It seems the sentences mean nothing if you cooperate with the feds. It provides a grat incentive to tell the feds what they want. So Flemmi’s life sentence may not be a life sentence and he may be back on the street before you can say Winter Hill backwards.

       I’m not sure about my following. My son who knows how to do that keeps me posted at times. Over 90 people signed up to be tweeted and about 110 get notified by emails of my posting every day. My daily readership on the blog averages between two to four hundred although it has exceeded that at times when something is happening on the Bulger case. The average time on my site is over 4 minutes with an average of about 60% of the people coming back regularly and 40% new readership. I’ve had over 7,000 unique visits in the past 30 days. I’m not sure what it all means or what it will amount to. I’m please that I seem to have a small core of steady readers and anecdotal evidence from people who have talked to me is that it is much wider known that I believed especially among the legal profession and the media. My son was approached one day by a politician from Quincy and told my blog in the Patriot Ledger which is posted off an on is the most popular blog on the South Shore. I have no way of knowing how many people read that.
       I’m mainly pleased that judging from the comments the people who are reading the blog are interested in discussing the matter rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks or throwing bombs. It’s nice to have people disagree with me and spell out the reasons why since it refines and modifies my thinking. Some have corrected my errors for which I am grateful It’s been a lot of work, I’ve learned a lot more about this than I thought I ever would, and I just hope that people see there is a lot more to the Whitey Bulger matters than meets the eye or has been reported in the mainstream media. Thanks for asking and writing.

11. In the book the Informer re: ADM the FBI makes it clear that anyone co operating with them has to tell the whole truth, can’t hide or omit anything otherwise the deal is off. In the Rico book the same formula is noted. Full co operation, no lies or the deal can be cancelled. If this concept still applies aren’t all the deals with Gucci, Salemme, Weeks and Flemmi subject to termination? All of them lied or omitted facts in one way or another. A future prosecutor could send the whole lot to Florence. 2. Isn’t the fiasco with the Gardner paintings indicative of how unreliable the press is? The Herald gets completely fooled by a gangster ( Mashberg) and they fall for it hook, line and sinker. They run a front page story boasting about their discovery which turns out to be a hoax. How many other hoaxes have the scribes at the Herald fallen for and the public never hears about? We know Carr got totally taken by Martorano. Gangsters always had hangers on and groupies. If you are from Maine, attended prep school and lack local connections one would be susceptible to being bamboozled. 3. At least the FBI in the 80s put the top 150 Mafia guys on the east coast in jail. Over the last twenty years look at the performance of the Feds in Boston. They release seven serial killers. They give three made men in the Mafia $ 75 million. They frame Turner, Rico, Connolly, Gianelli, Murphy and the Probation Officers. They fix the Congressman’s wife case and steal a guys motel. They legalize Heroin through indifference. The moronic judges say Naimovich was guilty, Connolly guilty of taking bribes and people killed by leaks. All findings blatantly false. Keep up the good work Happy Easter.

    1. Neal:
       I like the way you number your comments so that I can address them one by one.
       1. Normally the gangsters have to tell the whole truth and that is the deal. Here the deals are the gangsters don’t have to tell the whole truth. The gangsters and prosecutors have agreed that the gangsters only have to tell as much as suits his and the prosecutors interest. It’s like Specs O’Keefe saying I was in the Brink’s Robbery but I’ll only testify against Jazz Maffie. All of the other eight guys get a pass. It should never happened. In this case it did. No way to go against these guys since they did their part of the deal.
       2. Mashberg was the reporter for the Herald. The guy he was dealing with was under indictment in our county. An ADA Kim G. was handling it at superior court. She was holding out for tough time and the criminal conned Mashberg into thinking he knew about the paintings hoping Mashberg could help him out in his case. It didn’t work.
       3. Wouldn’t it have been better if the FBI not only put the Mafia guys in jail but also put Flemmi and Martorano and Whitey in jail. Happy Easter To You. Go Duke! (I have Duke playing Butler in the championship game.)

12. Matt,

    I have no knowledge of the facts in your post. I am not sure, however, it follows that Margolis could not have aided the Mafia since the Mafia was decimated during his career.

    Isn’t the fact of the Mafia’s decimation just as likely evidence that prosecutors like Margolis deeply infiltrated the Mafia? The DOJ’s primary weapon against the Mafia was the Top Echelon Program. I suggest that the unwritten rules of the program called for protecting the TEI’s from prosecution by various and questionable practices. In sum, I’m not sure I find it hard to believe a Margolis may have employed shenanigans to protect his Mafia assets. Further, I don’t see a 48 year career in the DOJ as a vote of confidence in Margolis.

    These are merely my off the cuff impressions. I’m writing only because your conclusions and rationales usually strike me like a large bell being rung. They fit with my notions of common sense, human nature and history. I’m hoping your next post on this topic rings the bell.
    -P

    1. Patty:
       Well put. Jean’s comment made me pause. My instincts should have told me that no one should be in a job for 48 years. I did put a parenthesis in asking why he didn’t retire and open up the job to younger guys but reading the post I realize he is pulling the strings behind a lot of things. As Carney pointed out in his motion Margolis’s affidavit comes down to “I say there was no immunity deal and if I say it end of discussion.”
       For me the Mafia being destroyed points to no one inside the DOJ having any connection with it. Margolis would have known of the wiretaps, especially the one recording the induction ceremony, and if he were working with the Mafia he never would have let that happen.
       You’re right about the TEI program’s structure which is to protect TEIs. You suggest that the program was designed to protect favored TEIs. I don’t buy it nor was Margolis in any position to have influence on that program.
       48 years coupled with Jean’s referenced cite give you the edge when you suggest “a 48 year career in the DOJ as a vote of confidence in Margolis.” I stand rightly corrected for assuming that was something in his favor. That’ll have to be investigated further. He might be to the DOJ what William Sullivan was to the FBI running covert programs to attack those who dare question his beloved DOJ.
       Thanks for talking about ringing the bell but it seemed you are the one who did it this time with your off the cuff impressions which seem to have been validated by Jean’s post.

13. Is there not a practice in trial court that a lawyer does not ask for something unless he knows what the answer will be? With respect to Attorney Margolis, perhaps Attorney Carney already knows what the discovery answer should be. The attached hyperlink would suggest this to be the case.

    http://www.emptywheel.net/2010/02/21/the-inherent-conflict-in-dojs-opr-and-its-david-margolis/

    As a follow up how would a lay person obtain a copy of Attorney Carney’s discovery motion?

    1. Jean,

       Thank you very much for including that link! It came in handy for finding sources of information about US Attorney David Margolis.

       It is now perfectly clear to me that Mr. Margolis is the primary facilitator of DOJ corruption across our country. His history shows he protects all DOJ officers accused of corruption by burying the facts in his fraudulent and secretive Office of Professional Responsibility. It is also clear he is the hatchet man who whacks anyone who brings embarrassment to the Family. He also spins the media and public opinion away from the Family’s dirty laundry, with mastery. I’d love to see the evidence of his involvement in the scapegoating of John Connolly. Further, I wonder what role he had in backing up the US Attorneys in Boston who repeatedly suborned perjury to make cases against people like Connolly.

       I have no doubt this man was the architect of Wyshak’s prosecutorial fiction that there was one rogue agent in the Boston FBI and one bad wiseguy… beginning, middle and end of story. Don’t look any further.

       Now it is clear why Judge Stearns, when he overzealously denied Whitey’s immunity claim, based his findings of fact entirely on the affidavit of US Attorney David Margolis. Margolis has been the DOJ’s “fixer” for decades. Margolis set his career trajectory by prosecuting the Mafia. I absolutely believe Flemmi when he says Margolis played both sides. It is also clear now that Wyshak, Kelly and Stearns have been fighting against providing discovery materials so fiercely. It would be consistent with Margolis’s history to immunize the unprincipled SAC John Morris. He makes a much more malleable witness than one who is burdened by a principles, like John Connolly.

       Margolis is the piece that makes this whole puzzle fit together!

       -P

    2. Jean:
       Thanks for link. Good work. How did you come up with it. Maybe you caught me jumping the gun in my conclusion today. Reading that post it seems Margolis should have left the DBO a few decades ago. The writers suggest he’s some type of strong arm man ready to suppress the truth and jump on anyone who dares criticize the DOJ. It’s like the days of J. Edgar Hoover. Is he the one calling the shots on all these prosecutions? That’s what Carney should be looking for, the correspondence between Margolis and the prosecutors. Good job.

Comments are closed.