Surprisingly few people were in court for the video broadcast of the judge’s speech to the jury. Outside the court as I approached were five Homeland police cars; inside the court things went on without any indication something different was happening. The usual array of deputy marshals checked identifications and cleared people into the courthouse.
Judge Casper told the jurors that the trial was expected to go from early next week, June 10 if the jury is selected by that time to the end of September. The court will sit for four days a week from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm but on Thursdays until 3:30 pm. She suggested the schedule was made that way so that the jurors would not be too inconvenienced.
She seemed especially concerned that the jurors understand what they are getting into. She noted how jury duty in a case like this would be an inconvenience to all the jurors but it was necessary that she be able to come up with a cross-section of society to sit as jurors. She said that even though some might not want to sit she may have to require that they do if others have greater reasons for not doing that.
She handed out questionnaires to the 200 some odd jurors to fill out. They could then go home and they should check back with the court by phone tomorrow night to see if they have to come back Thursday. She explained when they came back they would be subject to more questioning and some may be dismissed for cause. After that was done, the attorneys could use their peremptory challenges to eliminate a handful more. She said she would sit 18 jurors but only 12 would be sent out to deliberate. 6 would be alternates who would step in if one of the 12 could no longer serve.
Judge Casper emphasized at least twice that the jurors must not discuss the case with each other, their friends, family, or acquaintances about what had happened today nor are they to read, watch or listen to any media coverage of the case. If anyone asks them about it they can just say they were called to be part of a jury panel.
I’m told Judge Casper will go through the same speech today at 1:00 pm and again tomorrow morning to other jurors. In total there will be over 650 jurors who will go through this process in an attempt to get 18. No one felt confident that the opening statements would begin on Monday. Time will tell.
After Judge Casper left the jury room she then held a hearing on the case in another court room. Present again were only a handful of people, mostly media members. Most of this hearing was conducted up at the judge’s bench so what was discussed was kept confidential. The highlight of the hearing was the appearance of Whitey. This was my first time seeing him.
He looks younger than his 83 years unlike what he did with his beard. He is trim and walks without difficulty. He wore blue jeans with a belt and a long sleeve light black sweatshirt-type shirt. He was watched over by two men in civilian clothes who sat a short distance from him. His hair was cut short Marine style and he wore glasses. Throughout the hearing he sat quietly watching the proceedings with the only movement when the bench conference was ongoing was his changing of the position of his arms from having his hands clasped in front of him resting on the table to folding them across his chest. Both before and after his lawyers went to the bench, he conversed freely with them.
The hearing lasted 15 minutes and then recessed. Carney and Brennan talked informally to the members of the press outside the courtroom. I’m led to believe that now that the jury is being impaneled their ability to talk more freely is more restricted. I said hello to both.
I’ll head back into the court to see what happens with the next group of jurors. I don’t expect things will be much different. But this time I’ll be in what is called the overflow courtroom. I don’t think they’ll be much to report on the case until opening statements next week.
Did Judge Wolf play a role in the 75 state street? I thought I read he was a prosecutor who lost the ability to get beyond the grand jury…..
Dirk:
Wolf was the Deputy United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts and Chief of the Public Corruption unit in that office under Weld from 1981-1985. The 75 State Street came to public notoriety in 1988 although it had been investigated by the FBI prior to that time. The matter was investigated under Frank McNamara who served following Weld from April 1987 to January 1988, and then by Jeremiah O’Sullivan. My best conclusion is he had nothing to do with it however it is likely he was well aware of it.
Afraid, thank you for your great courage and, of course, I thank you for your lifelong service in the health fields; I count you with pride as a friend. I HAD NO IDEA YOU WERE FOLLOWING MATT’S BLOG. I know of your heroic work helping others in need of essential health services. I admire your bravery in speaking truth to power. Keep on punching. Thanks for sharing. Stay strong!
Matt, once again you have given all of us food for thought. We all feast at this table where people of integrity, with disparate views sometimes, can share their honest, heartfelt, considered opinions.
William:
And we count you among those who have contributed mightily to the blog. Keep up the good work.
Dear Matt,
My civil lawsuit was held before Judge William Young. During the lawsuit, I sent Judge Young the below letter. As you would expect, nothing was done. Is it too late to keep Kevin Weeks from testifying?
“Judge William G. Young
Boston U.S. District Court
1 Courthouse Way
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
April 28, 2009
Dear Honorable Judge Young,
I appreciated speaking with you at Boston University Law School. This letter concerns media reports and several cases previously assigned to Judge Lindsay. It also concerns government corruption.
November 20, 2003, the Committee on Government Reform approved a report entitled, ‘Everything Secret Degenerates: The FBI’s Use of Murders as Informants.’ The report’s ‘Executive Summary’ states:
‘Edmund Burke said: ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ No truer words could have been written about federal law enforcement in Boston from the 1960s until the mid-1990s. While it is undoubtedly true that some things done by federal law enforcement in Boston can be cited with justifiable pride, it is also true that there was an undercurrent of failure and corrupt practices. Unfortunately, that undercurrent traveled to Washington and through the highest levels of the FBI. It also had significant negative consequences for many states.’
‘Perhaps the greatest tragedy of the Boston debacle is the doubt cast on the integrity of the men and women who work for the Justice Department and, particularly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The United States Department of Justice is, without a doubt, the finest federal law enforcement organization in the world. The men and women of the Justice Department are dedicated, professional public servants. The integrity of the vast majority of these men and women is beyond reproach. Nevertheless, what happened over a forty year period raises doubts that can be dispelled only by an obvious dedication to full disclosure of the truth. It is the greatest strength of our democratic system that the mistakes of the government can be assessed and placed before the American people. This report attempts to serve this end, not only for the purpose of informing, but also as a preamble to future legislative action.
At a time when the United States is faced by threats from international terrorism, and a number of law enforcement tools are being justifiably strengthened, it is particularly important to remember that Lord Actons words are true: ‘Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice.’ Federal District Court Judge Mark Wolf began the landmark decision U.S. v. Salemme with Lord Acton’s words, and it is fitting that they be repeated here because Judge Wolf began the oversight process that led to this Committee’s investigation. He is owed a significant debt of gratitude by everyone devoted to law enforcement in a democratic society.’
Recently, the media reported you will review the transcript of the four-day hearing Judge Lindsay held last year on the evidence of the fatal shooting of Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue. At that hearing, Jamie Parker gave vivid testimony of a gunman shooting Brian Halloran. Judge Lindsay asked from what distance did he witness the shooting? Jamie Parker answered, ‘Twenty-five feet.’ The Boston policeman speaking with fatally wounded Brian Halloran also testified. His testimony had been earlier video-taped.
While preparing for that hearing, Jaime Parker read an FBI report obtained by discovery. This report stated Jaime Parker described the individual shooting Brian Halloran as having ‘curly brown hair.’
I am enclosing a notarized affidavit from Jamie Parker that states:
‘I, Jaime Parker, hereby swear that on or about March 3, 2008, I read the FBI document concerning my witnessing the Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue murders. This FBI document stated that I described one of the two killers as having ‘curly brown hair.’
I never made that statement to the FBI or anyone else. None of the killers had curly brown hair. May 4, 2007, I filed a federal court civil lawsuit (07CV10863-RCL) related to the Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue murders. That lawsuit describes the two killers and does not mention ‘curly brown hair.’
During the June, 2006, John McIntyre estate lawsuit trial, former-FBI agent Gerald Montanari testified he supervised the Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue murder investigation. Gerald Montanari testified that two females witnessed the fatal shootings. Judge Lindsay asked, ‘Were these the closest witnesses?’ Gerald Montanari answered, ‘Yes.’ There was no mention of Jaime Parker.
Following the John McIntyre trial, Jaime Parker filed a civil lawsuit (07CV10863-RCL) that revealed he witnessed the Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue murders. Jaime Parker’s Boston Police Incident Report concerning those murders was sealed by a federal judge.
During the Boston University Law School motion hearing, you described the importance of your courtroom stenographer Donald Womack. You said simply reading a transcript of recorded court testimony could be misleading. As an experienced federal judge, you understand how witness nuance and body language can help interpret testimony. The Boston policeman’s videotaped testimony reveals down-cast and shifting eyes. That Boston policeman resided in South Boston.
At the Boston University Law School motion hearing, I explained ignoring James Bulger information by saying, ‘When living in a pit of vipers. You don’t face a snake.’ Of course, doing so would draw attention and might bring harm.
When Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue were murdered (1982), every Boston policeman residing in South Boston knew implicating James Bulger in murder was a death sentence. The Boston patrolman that gave video-taped testimony reported Brian Halloran told him James Flynn did the shooting.
At last year’s hearing, Jaime Parker testified that both Brian Halloran and the gunman yelled obscenities. After dropping Brian Halloran with bullets, the gunman started shooting the ankles and slowly moved up to the chest area. Jamie Parker testified the shooting of Brian Halloran took two minutes. It seems incredulous that such brutal torture would result in the victim implicating the wrong gunman, especially when Brian Halloran (shot at least twenty times) was a former associate of James Bulger and was fatally wounded.
Jaime Parker’s lawsuit, and my lawsuit, state the FBI appeared at Jaime Parker’s girlfriend’s house within 40 minutes of the Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue murders. The automobile driven by Jaime Parker was registered to our mother’s home. My mother was not contacted by any law enforcement agency. The FBI followed Jaime Parker to his Dorchester girlfriend’s apartment, or the Bulger Group followed Jaime Parker, and contacted the FBI.
In 1982, James Flynn had curly brown hair. Jamie Parker’s lawsuit, and my lawsuit, state the FBI tried convincing Jaime Parker to testify that James Flynn murdered Brian Halloran. Jaime Parker refused and James Flynn was acquitted.
The November, 2003, Committee on Government Reform report, ‘Everything Secret Degenerates: The FBI’s Use of Murders as Informants’ states: ‘Beginning in the mid-1960s, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’ or ‘Bureau’) began a course of conduct in New England that must be considered one of the greatest failures in the history of federal law enforcement…Federal law enforcement personal appear to have tolerated, and perhaps encouraged, false testimony in a state death penalty prosecution. When Joseph Barboza testified in the 1968 trial of six men for the murder of Teddy Deegan, his testimony was contradicted by a compelling body of evidence collected by federal law enforcement.’
Jamie Parker’s lawsuit, and my lawsuit, state Kevin Weeks committed perjury when giving under-oath testimony concerning the Brian Halloran and Michael Donahue murders. Kevin Weeks stated that James Bulger was wearing a curly-brown hair wig when murdering Brian Halloran. Our lawsuits describe similarities between Kevin Weeks and Joseph Barboza. Like Joseph Barboza, the Department of Justice has used Kevin Weeks as a prosecution witness in several mob-related trials. In short, the Department of Justice and the Boston FBI created a new ‘Joseph Barboza.’
Recently, you combined the cases of Bulger Group victims Deborah Davis, Debra Hussey, and Louis Litif, telling the attorneys for their estates to be prepared for trial on July 6th. Any Bulger victim lawsuit trial before full disclosure would only further darken the failure of New England federal law enforcement.
Robert Mueller was the Boston U.S. Attorney during the height of Boston FBI corruption. My lawsuit recommends: ‘Congress needs to conduct hearings aimed at examining what, if any, involvement FBI-Director Robert Mueller had in the Bulger Group scandal.’
Edmund Burke’s quote: ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ seems extremely relevant.
May, 2007, Judge Lindsay was assigned the Jaime Parker lawsuit. November, 2007, Judge Lindsay found the government guilty for complicity in the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders without trial. Judge Lindsay admonished the Department of Justice for not settling the Bulger Group victim cases.
The Boston policeman testifying again, with an offer of immunity, could help that happen.
Jon Stuen-Parker MPH
cc Judge Mark L. Wolf”
Afraid:
Thanks for all that information. Jaime Parker filed a complaint in May 07 with the federal court. He alleged in it that he was within 10 feet of a small blue car when a man “with a handgun rushed forward. This gunman was medium-sized, stocky with dark brown hair. The gunman fired several bullets through the blue car’s window.” He then said “At the same time, Brian Halloran fled from the small blue car’s passenger seat. A second gunman walked past [his] car carrying an AK-47. Parker recognized teh rifle becaue he legally owned an AK-47. This gunman was medium-siaed, with receding-blond hair and gold-framed glasses. Parker watched the second gunman shoot Halloran.” Parker further described how the cars left the scene and how the FBI later tracked him down mysteriously and then tried to make him identify Jimmy Flynn as the witness. Later in the complaint he says in 2001 he met with John Connolly’s attorney, Tracy Miner, and told her this story and she had a Boston police department report that corroborated Jaime’s story. That report has been under court seal.
You know Kevin Weeks testified to a totally different story about the shooting. The people who murdered Halloran/Donohue never left their car and one of the men wore a mask. It would seem to me that his testimony differing so substantially from that of Weeks’s it would be important for the defense to use him as a witness. Yet I don’t see him on the witness list. I’m also at a loss why Tracy Miner did want to use him to show Weeks was lying although the issues were a little different in her case. Can you shed any light on that?
Dear Matt,
Two days ago, WBUR published “Former Top Prosecutor: As Bulger Goes On Trial, So Does FBI.” Former U.S. Attorney Donald Stern was asked, “Do you think there are more corrupt agents to be rooted out?” He answered, “I think probably that’s true. I’d be very surprised in any of them are either still alive or can be prosecuted within the statute of limitations.”
There are no statute of limitations for accessory to murder, and former-FBI agent Gerald Montanari, who supervised the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murder investigation, is still alive.
The same day, WBUR published “On The Run For 16 years, Bulger About To Start Trial.” Here is the comment I wrote after that story:
“Dear David,
What about a federal judge sealing my brother’s Boston Police Witness Statement concerning the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders? My brother (Jaime Parker) saw Whitey and his partner on foot as they hurried to murder those two men. Kevin Weeks testified Whitey never left his car when he shot into Michael Donahue’s car.
Instead of indicting Kevin Weeks for perjury, they put a federal seal on my brother’s Boston Police Witness Statement. It would take a very powerful man to sway a federal judge to seal a public record. Robert Mueller was working in the Boston Office of the U.S. Attorney at the time of those murders and during the murder investigation.
Kevin Weeks is scheduled to testify against Whitey. American taxpayers had to pay a $100 million dollar settlement because the government used Joe Barboza, someone they knew committed perjury, as a witness.
The government knows Kevin Weeks committed perjury, but they still plan to use him as a witness. The media knows a federal judge sealed my brother’s Boston Police Witness Statement. Why isn’t this in the news? Why is this being “forgotten?”
In 1985, the FBI asked me for criminal information. I was with my brother the morning he witnessed the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders. I lived in South Boston. Whitey killed all South Boston FBI informants. I filed a lawsuit against the FBI. The media knows about my lawsuit, but it has never been mentioned by any press.
40 minutes after the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders, two FBI agents appeared at my brother’s girlfriend’s Dorchester home. His license plate was registered to our mother’s house. No police authorities contacted my mother. Either the FBI followed my brother from the murder scene, or one of the Whitey gang followed my brother and contacted the FBI.
The two FBI agents tried hard convincing my brother that James Flynn murdered Brian Halloran. They put fear into my brother, telling him that gangsters lived near his house. They offered my brother the protective witness program and offered him a credit card if he would identify James Flynn as the killer.
My brother went from being a normal citizen (plumber), into being a state hospital mental patient. When James Flynn was arrested in 1984, they took my brother from the mental hospital and tried hard to have him implicate James Flynn. My brother refused to agree with the FBI and indentify James Flynn as the killer.
My brother filed a lawsuit against the FBI. The media knows about his lawsuit, but it has never been mentioned by any press. Both our lawsuits mention the FBI agents finding my brother shortly after the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders.
Is the FBI corruption still so powerful that a federal judge sealing a public record can be swept under the rug? Is the FBI corruption still so powerful that it can happen when concerning Kevin Weeks, a serial killer who is free while his victims are rotting? Is the FBI corruption still so powerful that Kevin Weeks will be used as a government witness when the FBI knows he committed perjury?
We worry that North Korea and Iran may someday push the nuclear button and destroy civilized society. How can we hope to prevent that destruction, when our own government is allowed to destroy us from within?
Will the truth ever be told? Will you cover this extremely important story?”
I don’t believe anybody will cover this story – except you. My brother was the hidden person on that CBS news story. You wrote a powerful article in the Patriot Ledger concerning the CBS news story. Your article mentioned Kevin Week committing perjury concerning the Michael Donahue and Brian Halloran murders. Whitey didn’t wear a wig. The other killer didn’t wear face mask.
I look forward to your response.
Afraid:
Stern was U.S.Attorney when everything we know what happened in the FBI came out. The follow up question to him should have been “why didn’t you do anything about it?” So take what he says with a grain of salt, if there was corruption he was the man who should have rooted it out and he didn’t. How does he get a pass?
Your brother’s story is fascinating. We have no way of knowing what other witnesses to the Halloran/Donohue murders said about the men in the car. Why a judge would seal your brother’s statement is beyond me. I’m sure C&B have got a copy of it. Weeks clearly appears to be lying. He’s already told the story of the man with a mask under oath. I’m not sure whether he can change it now but the feds should never have let him tell that story. I thing the feds may have jumped the shark with Weeks, they gave him back his lottery winnings by disbelieving an affidavit that an FBI agent filed about how he won the lottery.
They disbelieve it when it came to Weeks but believe it when it comes to whitey.
ADA Durham who prosecuted Connolly told us to expect more indictments, none came. Just like Ortiz tole us more indictments would be coming in the probation case, none came. It seems to me there was a great deal made at higher places to boil Connolly for all the FBI misdoings and go on. Trouble is, the FBI is still doing what it did when Connolly was with it but what was corrupt back then is now OK>
The full truth will never come out because the FBI has all the records and we saw after J.Edgar died it destroyed many of them. I’ll be covering the trial and will keep in mind this incident. Sources tell me Weeks won’t be called to testify until July (probably on the evening of the 4th when everyone is busy watching the fireworks.) I expect C&B, probaby C, will do a tap dance on him since he is the witness who can most hurt Whitey. I’ll report on his testimony as well as I can. Maybe you’ll get some relief from seeing how his cross-examination goes. By the way, you can come to the court and watch it since there will be an overflow room which should accommodate those who come early. Pretty sad the federal courts don’t let TV’s into their courtrooms. What’s all the secrecy about?
Afraid,
This is the essence of the trial. The smoking gun if you. There is much evidence strongly suggesting that Kevin Weeks has perjured himself and will perjure himself regarding the specifics of the Halloran/Donahue murders.
Carney should be able to show through prior statements and witness testimony that Weeks is a protected perjurer.
It’s a twofer for the defense I think. ( I adhere to Matt on these things)
Discredits the witness on material facts and discredits the government. Because of Wyshaks’ deep involvement the witness may be able to point to him as the person they dealt with.
Matt,
I added my comment before I saw Ernie’s so I didn’t intend to pile on. Ernie made similar points and more dispassionately.
William, myself and Ernie seem to share a reasonable outrage here. We recognize “there is no greater tyrrany…”
I have no doubt during your career you wielded the immense power of a prosecutor conscientiously and with compassion. I hope that doesn’t blind you to the fact there are some prosecutors who have no conscience or regard for truth and justice. Such prosecutors exist, and they are more likely to thrive in an institution with no oversight and no objective media.
Matt, FED Wyshak said the fully disclosed (and I bet highly redacted and purged)informant files of Whitey Bulger (I wonder if the FEDS creatively added any papers, photos, notes, emendations of their own/) Wyshak said they’d reveal: “Bulger flourished, Flemmi flourished, and Connolly flourished.” It’s not a crime to “flourish” so does that mean they reveal no criminal activity. We all know what flourished in greater Boston on Wyshak’s watch: narco-trafficking, heroin, oxycontin O.D. deaths and terrorism. We know the “Bulger-Martorano-Flemmi et al serial killers haven’t killed anyone we know of since what 1984. Funny Wyshak didn’t mention John Connolly was found guilty of only one crime—transporting a case of wine with a dubious $1000 bill from Whitey to the corrupt FED Morris–one crime in 23 years as an FBI agent according to the Boston Federal jury that tried JOhn Connolly in 2002. Will Wyshak tell the jury that JOhn Connolly was acquitted in Boston of leaking any information that led to anyone’s death? Will Wyshak explain the Constitutional principles of fairness, equal treatment, fair trials, due process and double jeopardy to the jury? Will he explain a Federal prosecutors’ solemn duty to tell the truth and put on witnesses he firmly believes are telling only the whole truth and will he explain how his cohorts on the FEDS and DOJ make every effort not to defame, slander, impugn the integrity of, mistate the record and not to bear false witness against accused persons or suspects. AFter all, what do we espect from our federal prosecutors and federal courts but the most stringent adherence to the simplest of virtues: honesty; rigorous honesty; vigorous honesty? I heard that the television program, the Discovery Channel, put on a totally false history of the FBI, wherein they, as the DOJ before them, falsely portrayed JOhne Connolly as being guilty of leaking info that led to persons’ deaths. He was acquitted of that in Boston,but not the death of Castucci and others were laid at his feet. Of course, no corrupt reporter in Boston will tell you that the Boston jury found JOhn Connolly nnot guilty ofleaking any information adn in the rigged CIVIL CASE the FBI was found liable for leaks and JOhn Connolly, not represented by counsel, was thrown under the bus by both the FEDS and their co-conspirators, I mean, their colleagues on the plaintiffs bar, both of whom portrayed Connolly as a Rogue AGent. How nice! EVen OJ Simpson at his civil trial was represented by counsel. At the Civil Trial in Boston no one I repeat no one represented John Connolly. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn’t it? The Miami trial of John Connolly? A circus, a farce, a veritable lynching by a kangaroo court, a grotesque travesty of justice, where a man was found guilty of a crime for which the statute of limitations had run and an essential element of that crime was never proven and, apparently, the judge never instructed the jury on what the law and constitution required under such circumstances. I repeat by observation based on 40 plus years of professional experience: Once again, the FEDS have disgraced the nation. I guess you had to live during the Vietnam War to witness that fact. The Feds disgraced the nation. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, USPHS, Coast Guard and Merchant Marine served nobly, proudly and heroically. The FED bureaucrats disgraced the nation then and now!!!!
William:
Differing opinions does not equate to corruptness. There are many views one can take of this case. I’ve explained this before from my experience. In any prosecutor’s office, you run the gambit from hard ass to easy going. A defendant that drew the former type was going to get a big whack, one that drew the latter type was going to get less than she deserved. One that drew prosecutors between the extremes would receive a sentence that was just about right. I’m suggesting is that we invest our prosecutors with discretion to decide how to handle cases.
Wyshak and Kelly would come down on the hard side. Their view of this case is Whitey is the ultimate evil and Billy, his brother, may have some involvement with him and the Southie connection between Whitey and Connolly was something sinister. I happen to think they are wrong but I would never say they are corrupt. They are a couple of prosecutors doing what they think is right. That does not make them corrupt because they make different inferences from the evidence that you do. It’s best not to label people but to point out the facts that support your belief they are wrong. No one can make a judgment or be educated on things by conclusions, they need evidence and facts upon which to build their castles. As William of Orange your namesake said prior to his victory which is celebrate each July in Northern Island “I want facts. Conclusions come when the fighting is over. In preparing for war I just want facts.”
Matt,
isn’t their method of gaining some evidence corrupt. At what point is it corrupt to when the prosecutor hides the truth from the jury?
Yes there are times that the evidence is a red herring that a defense attorney will use to her benefit. But a a half-decent trial attorney should be able to get beyond that.
But what about instances where the prosecutor does keeps turning the wheel on the rack until a witness gives the story needed?
I suggest you are being too kind or perhaps diplomatic/political. You are going to be in the courtroom everyday and no need to poke the bear anymore than you have to.
But Matt, shouldn’t a young prosecutor, trial attorney, or law student be shown that certain actions are, no matter how much you believe the greater good is being accomplished, are corrupt?
Prosecutors routinely hide exculpatory evidence. It’s an epidemic. I suggest that is corruption.
Many times they do it just to feather their own nests.
William, Ernie and Patty:
I’ve delayed responding to you since I wanted to consider your suggestions for a longer time. You all took umbrage with my suggestion that Wyshak is just one end of the prosecution scale and should not be called corrupt. I have reflected on what I wrote and what you replied.
I do not believe either Wyshak or Kelly suborned perjury. I believe they came up with a theory s to what they thought happened and sought to prove that theory. I would be aghast if they knowingly put a person on the stand they thought was offering perjured testimony. We might think the person is committing perjury but I don’t think they do although I don’t know how they can actually consider using those people or in the case of Weeks how they can believe his story.
Their error which I believe they arrived at in good faith is that somehow Billy Bulger was corrupt and he had a corrupt relationship with Whitey. This, of course, is nonsense. They had nothing to base it on other than the Boston Globe’s outrageously false tale of 75 State Street where they suggested Billy did something wrong despite two federal and one or two state investigations saying otherwise. They were urged on by the Howie Carr’s “corrupt midget” drum beat and the vile attacks by Alan Dershowitz on Billy because of his inexplicable hatred of Billy. This is known because Wyshak when asked why Connolly went wrong responded “he got too close to the Bulgers and to South Boston.”
It reminds me of another federal case involving Judge W. Arthur Garrity who also was influenced by similar type people and false fables who set back the Boston public schools for generations. I would never say Garrity was corrupt even though he was totally wrong.
Having come up with a faulty conclusion, they sought to prove it. They had the right guys available to them to prove it, wily gangsters who could figure out what the prosecutors wanted to know and give it to them. If you truly believe the getaway car was black and the witness says it was white and you say “are you sure it wasn’t black?” and the person agrees you say to yourself “well the person is finally telling the truth” rather than “the person is lying to agree with me.” Don’t we all delude ourselves to things we want to believe?
Ernie suggests certain matters are corrupt no matter how much you believe a greater good is being accomplished. I agree if those matters are done knowing they are wrong. I also agree that hiding exculpatory evidence is also wrong. But I just can’t accept these prosecutors are doing anything knowingly wrong. They believe what we don’t and what we can’t figure out how they could believe it.
When I talked about defendant’s drawing the hard vs. soft prosecutor I intended to include cases where a prosecutor picked the case. There is no doubt Wyshak picked this case and he did so with the idea in mind that I already spoken about. I have no doubt he worked the witnesses and twisted the evidence to prove his theory. That’s why he can say Flemmi lied here there and the other place but he’s now telling the truth about this, that and the other thing. Wyshak believes he knows the truth and whatever runs against it is a lie but that which confirms it is the truth.
Patty asks me if I agree with what Wyshak has done. I don’t. I think what he is done is wrong but I don’t think he knows he is doing a wrong.
Long ago I railed at the idea that putting a Flemmi or Morris on the stand who can testify in effect I’ve been lying all my life but now I’m telling the truth and asking a jury to try to figure out something most saints couldn’t discern. But the courts allow this evidence and if the prosecutors believe them, as apparently they do, even though we find it incredible, then they can do this. I believe admitted perjurers should not be allowed to testify.
You may find it incredible the prosecutors believe this but you know people can believe strange things like the best way to worship God is to handle snakes or to engage in some types of human sacrifice. Once Wyshak and Kelly decided what they believed is the truth they believe everything that supports their belief even no matter how incredible
One thing that surprises me is they have been unable to substantiate their belief the Bill Bulger was corrupt. They were able to get Martorano to come up with a triple hearsay story saying Connolly wanted to help Whitey because Billy helped him get into college or the FBI both of which reasons made no sense. I expect Flemmi will throw in some dirt on Billy and it will be the headlines in the newspaper. But back to the issue.
I don’t agree with Wyshak on much what he has done because I don’t accept the theory he has been following. John Connolly does not deserve to die in jail; Morris should have been disowned as a witness after he hid his payments from Berkowitz (it shows you how these gangsters start running the show once you depend on them); Bulger was not worse than Martorano, Flemmi or Salemme, but he was their buddy; I’ve already spoken of my belief that Billy Bulger was subject to libelous attacks.
William’s conclusions speaks not of actual corruption but intellectual corruption or corruption of thought. He comes to those ideas because of his experience in the South Boston gay parade matter where the MA courts against black letter law tried to force the organizers of the parade to change their message. I’m sure those judges believed what they were doing was right like Wyshak believes he is doing right. Some may say it shows you can convince yourself of anything.
Here I say Wyshak and Kelly are acting according to their beliefs as irrational as they may appear to us. There are many who agree with them namely the main stream media, their leaders in the Justice Department, the federal judges who have considered these matters. Nothing they have done as far as we know has been hidden from public view. In that circumstance, it is difficult to call them corrupt.
Matt,
you went a little too far there defending Wyshak and Kelly. Maybe you were primarily tempering William’s remarks, but you went too far in the other direction and lost me. William is on track. Wyshak and Kelly are corrupt in the most strict and sober sense of that over-used word. I’ve pointed out the evidence supporting that conclusion before so I won’t do it again here. I am absolutely confident the government’s own trial evidence will reveal indisputable evidence, unless Casper the Friendly Judge suppresses it, proving Wyshak and Kelly suborned perjury in the proffer process with Flemmi, Martorano and Weeks, among other corrupt acts.
To your point that some defendant’s draw a hard prosecutor and some an easy one. It was Wyshak who chose this case, not the other way around as you state. It was not luck of the draw at all. He decided the targets, the timing, the charges, the witnesses. Wyshak chose who to immunize, he chose who to protect like Pat Nee, who to praise in the press, who to smear in the press, he manufactured the evidence he wanted through the proffer process, and he even chose the judge.
To your other point, Wyshak is the one who started with a conclusion. Then he made up the facts to suit his conclusion.
Do you really agree with Wyshak’s conclusion that John Connolly deserves life in prison while John Morris deserves freedom and a cushy retirement?
Do you really believe Wyshak’s conclusion that Bulger was worse than Martorano? Flemmi? Salemme?
Do you really believe that Billy Bulger was the “real head of the Mob” as Wyshak’s friend Dershowitz trumpets to the media?
Wish I had more time because I’m just getting started with this. Yes you should be objective, but don’t be naive about these US Attorney’s. They put an entire career into this show and they will do whatever it takes. The embarrassment of the family is at stake.
Hi Patty, mtc9393, et al… Patty good to see you back. You dropped out of commission for a few days if I am not mistaken. I love your phrase “Casper the Friendly Judge” by the way.
Just want to throw out a question to “Ace” and you and others who commented on Wyshak….Please understand, I don’t know Mr. Wyshak at all so when I say this, please take it with a grain of salt. Here it is: is it possible, given all that we know about that agency and the working style of the DOJ under Holder, that Mr. Wyshak himself has not been told the whole story- and that the directive to “follow orders” “ask no questions of the higher ups” and “just do as he is told” is part of the process going on here? In other words, who is to say whether Wyshak and Kelly have been given the whole story from the powers that be from within? What are the chances that Wyshak and Kelly are also simply on a “need to know basis” and that the information given to them has been “compartmentalized.” Just a thought….
Of course, mtc9393, and you and the other Mr. Connolly (william I think it is) all probably have a better handle on the real Wyshak than I do, so if you think he is evil, maybe he is.
But all that said, as far as Wyshak and his friend Dershowitz trying to paint the former Senate President Billy Bulger as “the head of the mob” -I don’t think that will pass muster. Even a monkey can tell that Billy Bulger does not have enough money to be “the head” of “the real mob” and never did.
Alex:
Wyshak and Kelly existed long before Holder came into power. This is totally their baby.
I’m not up to the evil idea – I think overly aggressive and misguided.
I don’t know why Dershowitz hates Billy so much. It seems to me to be irrational. I know Billy make him look foolish at a hearing before the judicial nominating committee but the hatred predated that by a long time. I’m sure something personal happened between them. Dershowitz’s friends Silverglate and Andrew Good were behind the 75 State Street matter.
Patty:
See reply to Ernie.
Matt, I’ve had 40 years of being fed up with FEDS. That’s experience; my experience; hard facts, not rash judgments. I call a spade a spade. Wyshak is intellectually corrupt and a craven bully who twists the law and facts to his own liking. Equivocation in the face of evil, in the face of “intellectual corruption, a corruption of thought”, as Walkowski and I have coined the phrases in From Trial Court to the United States Supreme Court, is no virtue. You see mere differences in opinions; I see a prototypical FED run amuck, abusing power and authority. You too have conceded the persecution and prosecution of John Connolly in Miami for a crime he was acquitted of in Boston was beyond the pale. FEDS operating beyond the pale are intellectually, constitutionally corrupt and ethically challenged in my humble opinion. Speak truth to power. Rage against the dying of the light. Call a spade a spade. No apologies. No truces with intellectual bullyboys!!! Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile; give them an inch, they’ll end up lynching! There’s a difference between a hard prosecutor and hollow, hateful bullyboy, a tough cop and a brute, a Navy Seal and a Storm Trooper.
William:
See reply to Ernie.