Carson Beach
The little lie about Whitey being an informant adds to the picture of his evilness. Not content with fabricating this conclusion, the media then reached out for another gangster to tell him Whitey informed against him back in the Fifties. The method of doing this was eye-opening.
But what tipped the scale was the scurrilous attack on Father Drinan, the Dean of Boston College Law School, who Whitey reached out to in the first few months after starting his 20 year prison sentence. Then the media contacted past associates of Father Drinan and suggested he was somehow in league with Whitey duping these naïve people into expressing horror that Father Drinan had so acted. All of this press hysteria spreading and cementing a belief in Whitey’s evilness and the suggestion that it was aided and abetted by members of the Catholic clergy showed its ability to turn a piece of straw into a castle when it came to Whitey.
I began to sense something with the whole Whitey story is not right. The over-the-top attack on Whitey was made clear when Dick Lehr who posits himself as Whitey’s biographer absurdly opined that the Bulger brothers (Billy was then in college) were making a “beachhead” with Father Drinan. When a simple act of a young man reaching out to a priest for help is turned into a conspiracy to set up an evil empire, I had to stop and ask whether I was being snookered.
Maybe it wasn’t the light tapping of a far off drum but a big bass drum banging boldly on my brain that made me stop. I began to think that if these people could make such serious errors out of so simple situations what have they done in the past with their writings. There is almost total unanimity that Whitey Bulger is Public Enemy Number 1. He was put on the FBI’s Top Ten Criminals next to Osama bin Laden. How did he ever get to deserve this notoriety to climb so high?
I never stopped to ask this. It was only when I saw this extremely biased reporting that I have to question my basis for believing he is so infamous. Up to now I’ve just accepted it. I figured J.W. Carney was giving it a good shot but we all know his client is Mr. Evil but even if so, being magnanimous, I’d suggest he deserved his day in court and a fair trial, if one is possible. One of the persons who wrote a comment to me suggested Whitey should be taken out and shot. I understood where she was coming from and hardly winced at her suggestion. I’ve been there myself having accepted this common theme: Whitey is the worst of the worst.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m far from suggesting Whitey is Mr. Clean. I do happen to believe in the idea of birds of a feather and all those old saws, you know, you are judged by the company you keep. Whitey sure dwelled with a hellish group and as sure as the day is long one must accept that so many murders were committed by his associates that he must have been involved in some of them. But that doesn’t make him a genius among criminals. Rather, just another low life, exactly like the people the prosecutors are now utilizing as witnesses and who have, unlike Whitey, bragged about their exploits in books and on television.
I’ve been told how bad he is but I have not really examined the evidence to support the propaganda I have been fed. I’ve seen how it is in the interest of some to build up his reputation like a house of cards with one story building on another. I recognized I am fully capable of making my own determination as to how bad he really is. I have to stop and ask what is the basis am I using to make him so infamous? What did he do to deserve this great infamy? What is our evidence that Whitey is a mythical figure rather larger than life when he may be just a run of the mill cold-blooded killer.
I am going to try to jettison all the prior beliefs I have had pounded in my head by the media and story tellers about Whitey. The media’s false take on what happened in 1956 enlightened me. It demands that I go back to see what I can learn of Whitey’s criminal life after he served his time on the Rock and was released from Lewisburg federal prison in 1965.
I need to put it in context of the gangsters with whom he was involved. I have to understand it in relation to what was happening in those times. In doing this I want to see what other people knew or should have known about Whitey at the time. For instance I have suggested that FBI agent John Connolly had to know he was murdering people. I have to find out what basis and sources I have used to conclude that. Are they reliable or trustworthy in light of what I now know?
Many have suggested Billy Bulger should have known his brother was a murderer. I have to examine whether that is true. I have to ask who knew and when did they know Whitey was murdering people. How widespread was that belief. What about the gangsters he hung around with? What was believed about them back at that time?
It is important to see how Whitey fit into all the murders in relation to his fellow gangsters. I believed him Father Evil because people needing to make him larger than life for their own gain told me he was that. It is time for me to examine the matter with a more prosecutorial eye as if I were preparing the case for trial. I’ll then see where this music takes me.
(continued tomorrow)
This is blog is not only a public service that cannot go unnoticed by the main stream media as they ramp up the trial coverage but it certainly won’t go unnoticed (perhaps Mr. Connolly needs to put a few bucks aside for perpetual internet after he passes) by legal scholars, historians, and future “journalists” as they piece this thing together.
If only the Bulger trial could be televised for public consumption. Perhaps the audio will be available.
Or maybe actors re-creating the transcripts on a nightly basis.
That was done about twenty five years ago with the Oliver North trial I think.
Ernie:
The main stream media has already created a story for the public which we have all accepted. I include myself in that. Only when I started to write the blog and had to look at things again did I begin to think that maybe things aren’t what we are led to believe.
It would be something if Bulger’s trial could be televised but the federal courts don’t like to have too much exposure. Your idea about actors is a good one.
I could imagine a TV station hiring actors for each of the positions and running an hour or so synopsis every trial night with re-runs on the weekend. It is easily done since I understand Stearns just runs his trials from 9 to 1 so if the show ran at 10 at night you’d have nine hours to get ready. I’m sure it wouldn’t cost too much to produce and would drag in a big audience and good advertising revenue.
merry christmas author, i thank you so much for writing your book and taking so much time out of your life to do this blog. i will never for the rest of my life look the same way again on the use of informants and the fbi and their place in american society. best wishes for your good heath and a great 2013 regards,
Norwood Born:
Merry Christmas to you. I appreciate your kind words. I’m glad you are looking at things anew. You’re not alone. I find myself doing the same things. A person I met with said “you’re really supporting Whitey Bulger.” I had to explain that I’m not doing that. I recognize he’s a bad guy who will spend the rest of his life in jail. I’m just trying to look at the evidence again to see what I can decide for myself and present my thought process. As I told you before, I appreciate that you read me and have different thoughts which you should have. Best wishes for you and thanks for the writings.
I believe that a reasonable reader would agree that to date you have made a compelling case that the government’s witnesses are all known liars…ie ‘if their lips move they are lying’.
And, the Court’s Rules require that the Officers of the Court have a duty to be candid with the tribunal. If we all have been ‘snookered’ to date, as you question, is it not the duty of the prosecutors to set the record straight with the tribunal, which should include ‘we the people’ as well? And, if the government does not comply with the courts’ rules, then what sanctions should, or will, be meted out to them?
Jean:
I think everyone rationalizes lying. Some believe all lies are wrong, others believe only black lies are wrong and white lies are all right. The prosecutors know their witnesses are natural born liars. You have to be to be a career criminal. Even Murderman Martorano admitted as much. I think somewhere in his book he says being on the lam is tough because he was involved in continual lying. The prosecutors arrive in their minds at what they believe to be the truth. Then if the witness tells tales to confirm their opinion of truth they feel that it is all right to use that liar because in this limited instance he is telling the truth.
These aren’t court rules but are general rules of most civilized societies and are treated as perjury if done under oath and to a material aspect of the trial. That’s another out prosecutors use, they rationalize that their witness lied but it was not to something material in the case. Therefore, they don’t do anything to him.
You’ve experienced the court system pretty well so you have a fairly good idea how things work.
You write that “The prosecutors arrive in their minds at what they believe to be the truth. Then if the witness tells tales to confirm their opinion of truth they feel that it is all right to use that liar because in this limited instance he is telling the truth.
These aren’t court rules but are general rules of most civilized societies and are treated as perjury if done under oath and to a material aspect of the trial. That’s another out prosecutors use, they rationalize that their witness lied but it was not to something material in the case. Therefore, they don’t do anything to him.”
If, however, the issue IS one of “material fact”, and the prosecutor finds this to be TRUE at a later date, then does not the prosecutor have a duty to JUSTICE, and is not the prosecutor obligated by common law as well as the courts’ rules, to correct that statement to the tribunal?
And, further I did not realize that prosecutors should be predisposed to a so called ‘truth’ before they gather the facts. Is that not putting the ‘cart before the horse’? And, you are correct in that my experiences with the court system has certainly been a ‘cart before the horse’ one.
Jean
When I say prosecutors arrive in their minds what they believe to be the truth I did not suggest they did that before they get the facts. Usually it is done after getting as much facts as possible from examination the physical evidence and looking at the witness statements, etc. A simple example is if they know the murder was done with stabbings and a guy looking for a deal said he shot the victim, then they’re not going to use him. It’s not a negative. Here the prosecutors are at a disadvantage because of the age of the murders. They have no independent way of knowing who was with Murderman Martorano when he committed his crimes in the ’70s. They have assumed to worst of him so when Murderman says he was driving a crash car at a murder scene then they are predisposed to believe that since it fits into their perception of what was occurring at the time.
I don’t mean to beat a dead horse here, but what if the facts only fit because this is the predisposition of the prosecutor, at that time…everyone is human.
But, what if after all the ‘rest of the story’ is told that those facts are no longer believable. Then, what is the responsibility of the prosecutor?
But, that answer is for another day. Today, those of us who celebrate the Birth of the Christ Child, will pray for peace on earth and good will to all. Merry Christmas to you and your family. Jean