Because an event that will happen tomorrow, today’s a day for reflecting on the winners and losers of life in the context of the subject matter of this blog. I am looking at it from today’s perspective because life has so many twists and turns I’d suggest the best measurement is done by looking at how the person’s later years play out in the eyes of the public.
Yesterday I wrote about Annie Dookhan to suggest she protect herself from becoming another John Connolly. I’d look at Connolly today and call him a loser. He retired from the FBI with honor in 1990 into a six figure cruise-type job with Boston Edison. He lived well with his new wife and young family for twelve years until 2002. Since then he has been in prison and will likely die there. Annie became a chemist, had a state job for nine years, lost the job and is now the scapegoat for having highly damaged the criminal justice system. I’d withhold judgment on her because she is still young.
Then there’s James “Whitey” Bulger. A big loser. He became 83 on September 3 of this year. He’s been in jail over a year and pretty much in voluntary confinement the sixteen years before that hiding in a two bedroom apartment surrounded by guns and windows closed off to the outside. He’ll die in prison.
Whitey’s partners, losers all. Howie Winter still involved in criminal activity as an old man in his eighties having spent most of his years in jail. Stevie Flemmi has been in prison since 1995 and will die there; Johnny Martorano hid out in Florida sixteen years, then twelve years in prison, and probably facing the rest of his life there when Florida indicts him. Kevin Weeks probably destined to end up in a life ending brawl. Whitey’s Mafia partners Jerry Anguilo spent most of his last 25 years in prison; Larry Zannino didn’t spend that long there since he died in prison. In the end the aphorism crime doesn’t pay seems to be more true than false. There are some criminals who make out all right but most don’t. Bernie Madoff’s easy stint in a federal pen will still end up with him dying there.
Two things made me reflective like this today. One was an article I read on McClatchy news concerned the capture of Colombia’s top drug lord, Daniel Barrera, aka “El Loco Barrera. He had been living in squalor in a Venezuela border town. He had all the money one could ever want but to avoid prison he imprisoned himself. He also is a big loser.
I think the secret of being a winner or loser is what’s in your mind when you put your head down on your pillow at night. A clear conscience is the best sleeping pill. Johnny Martorano despite all his bragging did say living the life of a fugitive was not easy or fun. A criminal never knows when the Law will break in to disturb his peace.
The other thing is the event tomorrow. It is the naming of the Quincy Court House after Francis X. Bellotti on the cusp of his 90th year. I knew of Frank more than I knew him. Our talks over time were little more than “how are you doing.” Here’s the little that I knew of him and why he well deserves the honor that will be given to him. He always remembered my name, would go out of his way to say hello to me, and shake my hand. He did that with everyone he ever met. He had a remarkable memory for names, a kind touch and a gracious manner. He seemed like someone who you’d want on your side in a tussle. You knew he’d stand up and fight for you and with you if needed. As the popular saying goes: “he had your back!” He was tough and loyal, sort of a man’s man.
I recall one night I was at a fund-raiser for a candidate. Frank who was no longer in office showed up to give the candidate his support. I couldn’t help be amazed that ten minutes after Frank arrived over half the people in the place who came to support the candidate had gathered around Frank as if the event was about him. The candidate was standing off to the side with one or two people. Frank had an enormous gift for connecting with people of all walks of life.
Most know of Frank’s achievements as a lawyer, businessman and politician so I’ll pass the matter with a brief comment. As attorney general for twelve years he surrounded himself with a remarkable group of highly talented lawyers who ran an effective and highly respected office. He lost in his attempt to be elected governor but he brushed it off knowing that what counts is the courage to enter the arena and to make the good effort. He knew he’d still have his good friends. He is one of life’s big winners.
I’d like to close there but I’d be remiss. I wasn’t into the political scene as a prosecutor feeling that was my boss Bill Delahunt’s job. Delahunt kept politics out of the office. My job was to tend the shop and as I’m about to show I was quite naïve about politics. When I read Billy Bulger’s book While the Music Lasts I was surprised to see there was some animosity between him and Frank. After I got involved in the matters of my blog I read a very strange FBI 302 where John Connolly in 1980 suggested Bellotti and Delahunt would blame him for leaking information to Whitey (which he did) because they had ill will towards Billy. It seemed among those in the know it was apparent there was no love lost between Billy Bulger and Frank Bellotti.
That surprised and saddened me because I liked both of them and believed they both did honorable work for the people of the Commonwealth. Yet I have a feeling there won’t be any court houses named after Billy. Does that make Billy a loser? I don’t think so. Like with Dookham, the jury’s still out on that one. Billy can still make a comeback and I hope he does.
Congratulations to Frank and his wonderful family. Well done!
I agree with almost all of your post except these minor caveats: you can believe, as I do, the Boston trial was a sham, and applaud the jury for at least throwing out the nine “more serious” counts of the fourteen counts. My views are neither novel nor far fetched, although sadly in Boston’s newspaper and publishing worlds they are a minority view, like my support of the views of Pat Buchanan and Bill Buckley and Thomas Sowell. I share the view of one juror, in fact, who said after trial that he would not have convicted Connolly of anything if he knew he was going to serve one day in jail. That juror thought he should get probation; accepting the jury’s verdict, so did I; but again I don’t believe Morris and Weeks, and I’ve previously stated the issues I have with the five charges Connolly was convicted on. I just think it’s better to say simultaneously that Connolly “transmitted a bribe” from Bulger to Morris, but Connolly was never convicted of taking a dime. So,to move on, we both know he was acquitted of three counts (two allegations from Morris, one from Martorano)of taking a bribe. In Florida, they apparently brought on an expert who said Connolly had to have an outside source of money to finance the house he bought in Lynnfield. The expert forget to add in his wife’s money. Connolly’s lawyers asked that the “expert’s” evidence be struck from the record, as I recall reading about it in the newspapers circa 2007-08. The judge refused to do so. 2. We all know Connolly shared info with his informants, and I believe he did so lawfully and both of us believe he did so pursuant to direct orders of or with the acquiscence of his higher ups.
3. I have to defend myself on a point of correct English usage. The word “salacious” has a second meaning: grossly indecent, grossly obscene, pornographic. It’s Latin root is the same as the word “salient” which means to jut out or gush out or be prominent, but salient is generally complimentary or positive and salacious most derogatory and negative. Salemme’s testimony was grossly indecent and obscene. According to the Hartford Courant, Boston Globe and other online sources he testified that he and Flemmi began killing people in Roxbury in the early or mid sixties; that he planted a bomb in the lawyer Fitzgerald’s car trying to kill him, blowing off his leg; that FBI agent Connolly arrested him for that; that he was head of Organized Crime in Boston; that he was a lifelong killer and gangster; that he first found out in 1992, when he was released from prison, that Connolly was on the take; that in 1993 he began contributing to a gangster fund that channeled money to Connolly—the problem with that testimony was that Connolly had retired fromm the FBI in 1990 and was working at Edison and no money trail ever has been established between Connolly and the gangters—and Salemme denied his involvement in several murders Connolly’s lawyer Tracy Miner asked him about. Salemme also testified that both Connolly and Schneiderman were the sources of the Lancaster Garage leaks. Wyshak and Foley warned Durham not to put Salemme on the stand because he was a known perjurer, according to Boeri. SAlemme was subsequently convicted of perjury. 4. Flemmi did not agree to cooperate until October 2003, according to the Globe and Associated Press; he agreed to “cooperate” on the eve of his trial for ten murders for which he likely would be executed. Connolly had been convicted 18 months earlier, in May 2002. I can’t understand, and never will, how Flemmi, his lawyers, or Weeks could have thought Connolly who retired in 1990 could have helped Flemmi in any way, other than assisting Flemmi’s attorneys in preparing a defense. What could Connolly offer Flemmi? In my informed but humble opinion, Flemmi’s fabrications after he agreed to “cooperate” were entirely self-serving and had nothing to do with whether or not he thought Connolly could help him. Remember Flemmi also said Connolly was receiving $20,000 a year since the 1970s, and not a trace of that money had ever been found. It was like Weeks’ testimony that he saw the names of twenty cops on envelopes Whitey was distributing at Christmas, but couldn’t remember any of the names, or like Weeks’ story that Whitey had “six FBI agents with machine guns” on his payroll who’d kill anyone Whitey told them too. All sheer fabrications. My conclusion: The trial of John Connolly in Boston and Miami were shams, kabouki (sp?) shows, with higher ups in the Justice Department and probably higher ups outside the Department as the Puppet Masters. They were political show trials, aimed not at John Connolly, but his honorable friend, William Bulger. They were political vendettas, and the extent to which political toxic talk poisoned the federal prosecutors’ offices and federal courts is an issue ripe for investigation. One final point I’ve made elsewhere: I’ve mentioned how it was reported Wyshak and Foley urged Durham not to put on the stand the known perjurer Salemme. Well, Wyshak didn’t follow his own advice. He put on the stand in Miami the known perjurer Flemmi.I hope these comments are helpful. I know with the st. par’s case that vigorous honest debate,holding back no punches, helped everyone hone their viewpoints.
Weeks testified Connolly was still getting money from Bulger and others after he retired. Weeks and Connolly became good friends. Connolly had Weeks use a code name to contact him. Connolly would use a circuitous route in contacting Weeks. Are these signs of above board dealings. I know Connolly could associate with anyone he wished after he retired only he choose to associate with Weeks and Flemmi.
You may not understand how Connolly could help Flemmi but he had no problem thinking he had a good chance of doing it. He maintained continuing contact with him through Weeks and his attorney. He wrote a letter trying to undermine the prosecution by alleging that state police were doing gypsy wires which if true would have caused the cases to be thrown out. He also gave Weeks a tape from the wiretap that Weeks gave to Fishman and Flemmi used to say Morris gave it to him. Why is he doing all this if he’s not trying to help him?
How did Connolly have all those uncashed checks in his desk if he wasn’t taking money? Why were his fellow agents referring to him as Canolli? Since when does an FBI agent convey bribes for gangsters. Weeks did remember the names on the envelope: Zip which was Connolly, Agent Orange which was FBI Agent Newton; Vino which was FBI Agent Morris and some Boston cops names. Weeks also remembered transferring the Christmas gifts from his car into Connolly’s car. One juror thought he should receive probation but the sentencing guidelines provided by the probation department said he should have received what he did.
You still call the Boston trials a sham but you want to use them to say Connolly was acquitted of obstruction of justice when it came to the murders.
When you use the word “leak” you are implying criminality. Connolly was acquitted in Boston of any criminality relating to leaks and any crime related to murders. I understand fully well what I’m writing and the implications thereof. Connolly is not an attorney. I am. He may not have raised issues that I see. That does not mean the issues don’t exist. 2. Connolly knew as did every undercover FBI agent and almost every FBI agent who had a Mafia or organized crime-related snitch, that the snitch very likely was a murderer. That’s what Connolly meant when he said he knew he was dealing with murderers. To be a made man in the Mafia, you have to have blood on your hands. Connolly wasn’t dealing with altar boys. You seem to imply that he knew of specific murders which he kept quiet about. He was acquitted in Boston of all charges relating to murder. Between 1970 and 1990 what murders did the Norfolk D.A.s Office know that Bulger and Flemmi had committed and what steps did they take against them. What Boston Globe and Boston Herald stories connected Bulger and Flemmi to any murders before 1990, when Connolly retired? 2. As I understand criminal law, you can’t prosecute a person on May 1, for crime X, then prosecute him on June 1 before a different jury for crime Y, then prosecute him on August 1 for a different crime, etc. if you knew about those crimes at the time you first prosecuted him. You bring all the charges at once, not seriatim. The established practice is that you bring all the charges you want to try a man for on Day 1. Connolly was retired from the FBI for 12 years before he was tried. If the FEds had any evidence that he committed any other crimes during his 23 years as an FBI agent (from 1967-2000), that was the time to bring them: in 2002. They were obligated to bring those charges at his 2002 trial. YOU CAN’T HIDE CHARGES AND SAVE THEM FOR A LATER DAY. The Feds did not bring any other charges against him. Either way, you can’t argue that he was “guilty” of something he was never charged with. That’s un-American. 4. Tauro’s sentencing was “technically” within the guidelines, but considering that Connolly was convicted of the most minor of offenses, Tauro’s sentence was exceedingly harsh. Remember, Connolly was convicted of one count of Racketeering. The two predicate acts that made him a “racketeer” were giving a case of wine with an envelope in it containing $1,000 to his boss, Morris. and telling Weeks an indictment was coming down in 1995. If you want to argue that the third predicate act was lying to an FBI agent about whether he called an attorney’s office in 1999, you can, but I think that argument is faulty because lying to the FBI was a separate charge upon which he was convicted. Even so, if those 3 acts make him a “racketeer” it is a very slim branch we are far out on. When most people think of “racketeering” they think of gun running, drug dealing, gambling, prostitution, etc,not the weak charges Connolly was convicted of. 5. I won’t belabor the points, but “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” means something and the perjurer Flemmi’s sudden about face in 2003, after being held in federal custody for eight years, stinks to high heaven, as do most things connected with the trial of John Connolly. 6. It seems terribly unfair to charge and convict a man in a book; especially a man whose been tried twice for the same crimes in two separate jurisdictions.7. After Connolly retired from the FBI he had every right in the world to help Flemmi’s attorneys. 8. Connolly was never convicted of bribery; he was convicted of passing an envelope with $1000 in a case of wine from Bulger to Morriss. The Boston Jury acquitted Connolly of bribery charges. 9. I believe he mistake you are making is saying that if Connolly shared any information with his informants, that’s somehow a criminal leak. Cops share information with informants all the time. The way their characterizing the word “leak” in the press is that confidential information is being passed to the gangsters regarding the identity of other informants, tnus threatening their lives. 10. David Boeri says the leak at Lancaster Street came from Schneiderman; others have said it came from other sources. CONCLUSION: Good luck with the book. Armed with the same “facts”, we simply do not come to the same conclusions. I see an innocent man sitting in jail, I see a deeply flawed and corrupt system of “justice.”
1. I don’t understand how you call the trial in Boston a sham when you are continually writing that Connolly was acquitted of obstruction of justice with respect to the leaks relating to the murder. To use that jury finding you should also accept the other parts of the jury finding that Connolly did commit criminal acts.
2. Connolly was convicted of bribery by giving the case of wine and thousand dollars to Morris. What do you think the charge was with respect to that?
3. I don’t understand your point about Connolly not being an attorney. He was represented by attorneys.
4. I’ll repeat this again. The feds didn’t charge Connolly with leaking the Lancanster Street investigation because Morris did not give them the evidence to charge him because he would have made himself look sleezier than he is. If they don’t have the evidence they can’t charge him. O’Sullivan said the FBI leaked to Whitey the Lancaster Street. Boeri is wrong about Lancaster Street. If Schneiderhan leaked it to Whitey or Flemmi how did the FBI know about it? Of course I can believe Connolly did things that he wasn’t charged with by the feds.
5. What do you believe Connolly did to protect Whitey and Stevie if it wasn’t to give them information about what was going on against them? Why do you think DEA refused to work with the FBI when they were investigating Whitey? What do you think Connolly’s quid pro quo was with Whitey and Stevie, that is, what was he giving them for the information they were giving him.
6. With respect to Connolly the feds had to bring all the charges that were part of his criminal enterprise. The only requirement is that you bring all the charges that relate to once incident, There is no requirement that you bring all the charges you know about if they areise from different incidents.
7. There was only one RICO charge. It had 14 predicate acts. Connolly was acquitted of nine. All he had to be convicted of were two for it to be racketeering. He was convicted of the one RICO charge.
8. Connolly could do whatever he wanted after he retired. The same jury that acquitted him of leaking about the murders found his actions amounted to obstruction of justice.
9. AS you tell how awful Flemmi is remember he was Connolly’s informant for 15 years and then his buddy when Connolly was helping him when he was incarcerated.
10. Leaks are not limited to identities of informants, it usually linked to law enforcement operations. Connolly leaked lots of information. That is not the issue. The issue is whether he had a right to do that because he was an FBI agent.
I don’t see a deeply flawed and corrupt system of justice. My problem is that I believe the federal prosecutors come up with an idea of the result they want and then work the evidence to that end. The problem I have with the Boston case has nothing to do with the charges relating to Connolly’s actions after he retired it’s with the incident that Weeks talked about at the liquor store between Connolly and him that I don’t think happened. Even so I see little purpose in discussing the Boston trial again and will not do so because it accomplishes nothing.
NC,
I agree with most of your comments but this 1 seems to be from out of left field . are you saying that John was framed only because personal vendetta against him stemming from an argument in a bar? never heard this theory. Can you explain?
I had difficulty with most things he said as you can tell from my response. I’ve never heard his theory before and I would like to see him show that either Delahunt or Bellotti could influence Wyshak. The problem is that making suggestions based on wide theories adds little to our knowledge.
Bill Bulger helped Silber get on the ballot which led to Bellotti’s defeat They were political enemies. Connolly and the FBI investigated Delahunt’s office. There was intense dislike for Connolly by Delahunt and vice versa. They engaged in a public shouting match in a Boston bar. Did Connolly’s 1980 memo reveal the political and personal nature of the campaign against him? Connolly correctly predicted that Bellotti and Delahunt would try to frame him. A jury of Connolly’s peers in Boston found him Not Guilty of leaking. The jury in Florida that couldn’t understand the Boston accents found him guilty on the same facts he was acquitted of in Boston.( The entire leak theory is bogus. The Halloran matter proves the fraudulence of all the leak claims) Could Bellotti and Delahunt prove to a jury of their peers that they didn’t frame Connolly?Are they that petty and vindictive? A special counsel is needed to uncover the truth.
There is no doubt Connolly hated Delahunt and that was because Delahunt was after Bulger. Connolly wrote 302 after 302 complaining that Delahunt had a vendetta against Bulger. Connolly got together with Whitey and Stevie to go after Delahunt because he used Myles Connor to help him recover the bodies of two girls. Why is Connolly, Whitey and Stevie so intent on going after him. I’ll tell you, he was the only DA who was going after them with wiretaps.
How did Delahunt and Bellotti frame Connolly? Are you suggesting they influenced Wyshak? I don’t know of any connection among them. I also think the idea of suggesting Boston accents had something to do with what happened in Florida will get you far. You are the only one that I know of who is suggesting Bellotti and Delahunt framed Connolly. Is your only proof of that a bar argument that happened in 1980 which resulted in an indictment twenty years later.
1. Billy Bulger led an entirely honorable and accomplished life. He has nothing to make good on. His good name was wrongly besmirched by the Boston Globe, Dershowitz and Carr. The contemporary record already fully exonoerates Billy Bulger and the historical record will do so more affirmatively. Carr, Dershowitz and the Globe will go down in history as malicious muckrackers.
2. You say that Connolly “leaked” to Bulger. Connolly was charged in Boston with three counts of leaking information and was acquitted of all counts. Not guilty! If the Feds had any other credible information that he criminally leaked info, they were under an obligation to raise it at Connolly’s 2002 trial. He was tried and acquitted of “Leaking”. What happened in 2008 in Miami was a travesty beyond all measure. The Feds took the known perjurer,Steve Flemmi, and had him a sing a different song in Florida than he had in Massachusetts. Remember in 1998-99, Flemmi testified Connolly was an honest FBI agent who took nothing and leaked nothing. He didn’t change that tune until 2003. Why did he sing a different tune? The Feds told him he’d be executed and his brother would rot in prison. The Feds said “cooperate” which means “tell us what we want to hear”—Salemme confirmed that, as did Connolly himself, and writer David Boerie— cooperate and we’ll give you life in a comfy cell somewhere and we’ll treat your brother, the convicted Boston cop, leniently. For the first time, after eight years behind Federal bars, with the axe hanging over his head and a hell-hole of prison cell facing his brother, Flemmi “remembered” precisely and with crystal clear clarity that Connolly had said in 1982: “If Callahan talks we’ll all be in trouble.” What a genius to remember the precise words someone said over twenty years earlier! Even so, according to David Boeri, Flemmi under oath (a deposition?) again in 2005 said Connolly never said anything intending anyone be killed. By 2008, Flemmi was again singing a differnt tune. The point is it’s not fair to “convict” a man of leaking when he’s been acquitted of leaking. In Boston, Connolly was acquitted of leaking any information that lead to anyone’s murder, including Callahan’s death; Wyshak, ignoring the principles and practices of Double Jeopardy jurisprudence and ingoring the spirit of the law (not the letter of the law) put the known perjurer Flemmi on the stand in Miami and tried Connolly twice for the same crime. (I know the technical differences about two sovereigns, state and federal, but I somewhat know the history that when a person has had a fair trial in one jurisdiction it is not the practice to drag him into a second jurisdiction and retry him on what he’s been acquitted of.) The Miami and Boston trials were both shams. Salemme, a kown perjurer, was put on the stand in Boston and was subsequently convicted of perjury. The US Appeals Court wrongly found that Connolly would have been convicted without Salemme’s perjured testimony. This too was a sham. Salemme had already poisoned the minds of Judge Tauro (reflected in his unduly harsh sentencing of Connolly) and of the jury. Remember, one juror, even with Salemme’s salacious tales, said he would never have voted to convict Connolly on any count if he thought Connolly would do one day in jail.
(3) The big difference between Anni Dookamp, all the other gangsters and Connolly is this: They have all admitted to criminality.(Dookamp has reportedly done so.) Connolly since he was first charged in 2001 and up until today has steadfastly maintained his innocence. Also, hundreds of FBI agents, a federal judge, and hundreds of Connolly’s lifelong friends have attested to his innocence in public and his lifelong friends have done so in private. Who has attested to Flemmi’s, Weeks’, Nee’s, Salemme’s and Dookamp’s innocence? No one that I know.
4. I do know this: Annie Dookamp is “innocent” until proven guilty in a court of law. I also know that every laboratory, private and government run, routinely does Quality Assurance/Quality Control testing. They usually hire outside private firms to do QA/QC testing. It’s beyond comprehension that the “double blind” testing of intentionally spiked samples as part of a typical QA/QC program did not pick-up errors in Annie’s testing for decades. Negligence on a grand scale extends far beyond the state lab!
1. Billy Bulger’s reputation is pretty bad. I’m not suggesting that is right. As I said, I don’t see many people to recognize him for the good he did. You won’t see any public monuments named after him until attitudes are changed.
2. The feds are under no obligation to charge a person with any crime never mind all the crimes it believes a person may have committed. You seem to argue against Connolly himself! Connolly said his job was to protect Whitey and Stevie and that everyone knew they were murderers. He included himself in that. Why do you want not to accept that? If his job was to protect them then he had to leak information to them about what people were doing to get evidence against them. It is part of his job. If he wasn’t leaking he wasn’t doing the job he thought he should have been doing.
3. Connolly was not charged with the Lancaster Leak because Morris who gave him the information to pass it on to Whitey and Stevie did not want to implicate himself. Read my book “Don’t Embarass The Family.”
4. Flemmi and Connolly worked together when Connolly was an agent. They were in a conspiracy together after Flemmi got arrested to undermine the case against Flemmi. You don’t want to accept that but the evidence of Weeks visiting the jail and Connolly passing messages back through Flemmi’s attorney is quite substantial. Flemmi then changed his tune when he saw Connolly could not help him anymore and he saw both Martorano and Weeks were ready to testify against him.
5. Flemmi’s didn’t care about his brother. He only cared about himself. His brother did a good deal of time in federal prison.
6. Unfortunately the Court of Appeals was right, Salemme added very little to Connolly’s conviction. Salemme was a pathetic witness who influenced no one and had no salacious tales. Tauro sentenced within the sentence guidelines set by the probation department.
7. You keep calling the Boston trial a sham. It wasn’t. You don’t help Connolly with that attitude. Connolly didn’t even appeal some of the things he was convicted of in Boston namely the bribery and the events he involved himself in after he retired. You are again complaining about things Connolly isn’t complaining about. I don’t understand this.
8. Connolly’s criminality is clear with the acts he performed after he retired. Whether he admitted it or not there’s little doubt he did them. I don’t know about Dookhan. You confuse what Connolly is saying. He said he did the job he was supposed to do. In his mind there was nothing criminal about it; in the minds of others there was plenty. His protestations of innocence mean nothing. The prisons are full with guys protesting their innocence like the doctor from Wellesley who was convicted of murdering his wife.
Nice article and I agree with on all points.
Mr. Bellotti was an honest, honorable public servant and I believe a former member of the Navy Underwater Demolition Team the father unit of the Navy Seals. A Man’s man is an apt description, today we could use more like him.
Well said.