What do we say about federal prosecutor Fred Wyshak who has information that FBI agent Robert Fitzpatrick who was the assistant special agent in charge at relevant times believes that FBI Agent John Connolly had nothing to do with the murder for which he will spend the rest of his life in a Florida prison but he fails to disclose this information to John Connolly but instead hides it.
Here’s what Wyshak knew:
On Thursday, July 6, 2006, at 4:37 p.m. A memo was sent from James Marra from the Office of the Inspector General to Fred Wyshak and Mike Von Zamft the prosecutors of Connolly. It read:
“Fred/Mike:
Bob Fitzpatrick voluntarily called me this afternoon.
Bob stated that he may have a potential terrorist financing matter that needs federal investigation. I referred Fitzpatrick to the FBI and/or ICE. He stated that he would call FBI SAC Ken Kaiser directly.
Fitzpatrick also stated that it was his personal “opinion” that John Connolly was not responsible for the Halloran and Callahan murders. However, he offered no specific information to support his opinion and agreed that he was not privy to all the evidence in the Connolly murder prosecution case in Florida. Fitzpatrick added that he has no information that Connolly did or did not reveal FBI informant identities to Bulger/Flemmi.
Fitzpatrick stated that he never heard that Connolly was leaking information while he was the ASAC (approximately 1/81 – 9/86) in Boston. In contrast, while serving as an ASAC and later as a SA (9/86 – 12/86) he did hear that SAC Ahearn and SA Hargraves were leaking information. Fitzpatrick added that Hargraves was never properly investigated by the FBI.
Fitzpatrick stated that he did not believe that Flemmi or Weeks were telling the truth about Connolly. Fitzpatrick stated that he would re-contact me if he recalled anything specific that would exonerate Connolly.
I informed Fitzpatrick that he may be a potential witness for the government or the defense in the Connolly murder prosecution in Florida.
Jim”
Why was Connolly not provide the opportunity to follow-up on this. Isn’t this crucial evidence that would support his defense that he had nothing to do with leaking the information? Shouldn’t he have been given the opportunity to see what was it that made Fitzpatrick believe two major witnesses against Connolly were not telling the truth. Of course it should have been provided to him to use in whatever way he wanted. What does it say about Fred Wyshak that he hid it from him? How can he live with himself knowing Connolly will most likely die in a Florida prison and he deprived him of information to contradict witnesses against him.
Remember that Agent Robert Fitzpatrick would testify in the trial of Whitey Bulger for the defense. After the 2013 trial he was indicted for perjury by Wyshak. He would eventually plead guilty to the charges – I never thought that he would because the alleged perjuries had no bearing on the trial and were far from material and Fitzpatrick stated he would fight all the way – because at age 75 he did not want to serve time which he would get if convicted but by pleading could hit the street with probation.
All seemed surprised at the charges. They seemed out of course since Bulger had been convicted. But now one has to wonder if the charges were motivated by keeping Fitzpatrick silent about the memo he had sent.
Five years after the memo date on July 7, 2011, and after Connolly was convicted in Florida, Fitzpatrick was interviewed by WBUR in Boston. He may have forgotten about the memo. He was writing a book. He said about the killing of Brian Halloran who was an informant for the FBI: “But in the interim, the information was leaked — I don’t think it ever came out in court positively who leaked it, although I think Connolly was named . . . . And this would go on, incidentally, I would have four of my informants killed in this way, and as it turned out, all by Bulger.”
Yes, Fitzpatrick is all over the place. He impugns Connolly to sell his book; prior to that when he has no monetary motive he clears him. None of that matters though. The prosecutor is obliged to give all evidence that may exonerate a person to him for him to decide what to do with it. This was not done here. Why?
I would like to hear more about the FBI gumshoes
who called themselves the Jiminy Crickets.
Boston SAC James Ahearn and Boston SAC
James Greenleaf.
How come these “ dickless tracys” avoided
prosecution?
in other news
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/28143-court-documents-show-mueller-involved-in-9-11-cover-up
Saturday, 27 January 2018
Court Documents Show Mueller Involved in 9/11 Cover-up
Court Documents Show Mueller Involved in 9/11 Cover-up
Recently uncovered court documents related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s time as FBI Director show his lack of anything resembling credibility. The man who is responsible for investigating allegations of Trump/Russia collusion was involved in releasing deceptive statements that helped cover up a Saudi family’s involvement in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that shocked America and helped launch the modern surveillance state.
Mueller led the FBI from September 4, 2001 to September 4, 2013. One week after Mueller assumed his new job, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airliners, using three of them to destroy the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and severely damage the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Nearly 3,000 people lost their lives that day and more than another 6,000 were injured, many of them later dying from their injuries.
Fifteen of the 9/11 terrorists were citizens of Saudi Arabia.
Over the years, evidence of Saudi involvement has continued to come to light. In September 2011 — 10 years after the attacks — Florida Bulldog, a non-profit watchdog news group based in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, published an excellent piece of investigative journalism revealing the existence of the secret FBI investigation of a Saudi family living in Sarasota, Florida, with apparent ties to the 9/11 attackers.
Mueller — who was still at the helm of the FBI at the time the article was published — was involved in the “public release of deceptive official statements about” that secret investigation, according to a recent article from the Bulldog. As the recent article says:
The misleading statements, issued by FBI officials in Miami and Tampa, were made within days of a September 2011 Florida Bulldog story disclosing the existence of the investigation and reporting that Congress had been kept in the dark about it.
The statements sought to discredit the story, asserting that agents had found no connection between the Sarasota Saudi family and the 9/11 plot. In fact, the FBI’s own files contained at least three reports that said the opposite: that agents found “many connections” between the family and “individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001.” The FBI released those reports later amid continuing Freedom of Information (FOI) litigation brought by Florida Bulldog.
The New American reached out to the Bulldog and spoke with Dan Christensen, the founder of the organization and writer of the article. Christensen is no newcomer to investigative journalism. After an award-winning career as an investigative reporter with the Miami Herald, he started the Bulldog in 2009 as a “nonprofit, independent and nonpartisan news organization that seeks to provide authoritative reporting in the public interest while upholding high standards of fairness and accuracy.”
When asked to what degree Mueller was responsible for the “deceptive statements” that “sought to discredit the story,” Christensen said, “We do not know for sure or completely that Mr. Mueller ordered the release of these deceptive statements.” Christensen added, “What we do know is that he was the FBI director at the time, we do know that this was called to his attention — that’s something we’ve just recently learned.” Not only was Mueller aware of the memo released by FBI agents, there is also a matter of “the timing,” Christensen said. “We do know that the timing of the memo of which he was apprised about that contained further inaccuracies was the same time — the same day — that at least one of these misleading statements was put out by the FBI in Tampa,” he told The New American.
As part of its efforts toward investigative journalism, the Bulldog engages in litigation — particularly filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and court documents. The Bulldog website lists the documents referenced in its investigative reporting, and those documents are very revealing. For instance, the FBI — under the direction of Mueller — released a statement claiming, “At no time did the FBI develop evidence that connected the family members to any of the 9/11 hijackers as suggested in the article, and there was no connection found to the 9/11 plot.” However, the Bulldog website lists documents showing that this FBI statement is false.
As the Bulldog reported:
The same day the white paper was prepared for Director Mueller, Sept. 15, 2011, FBI Tampa Public Affairs Officer David Couvertier sent a similarly worded email to the Tampa Bay Times on behalf of Special Agent in Charge Steven E. Ibison: “At no time did the FBI develop evidence that connected the family members to any of the 9/11 hijackers as suggested in the article, and there was no connection found to the 9/11 plot.”
Florida Bulldog’s Miami attorney, Thomas Julin, filed court papers last week asserting a “red flag” has been raised in the case by disclosure of the FBI director’s involvement.
“That Mueller received a briefing about the Sarasota investigation suggests that the issues the Bulldog raised required the attention of the FBI’s highest authority,” Julin wrote.
The circumstances further suggest that Director Mueller approved the deception in which the FBI engaged.
Mueller did not respond to questions emailed to his office on Tuesday.
The two-page white paper, not attributed to any individual, is likewise interesting for what it did not tell Mueller. For example, it made no mention of the 2002 FBI reports stating that “many connections” were found between the al-Hijjis and the 9/11 hijackers. Nor did it discuss whether the FBI withh
Let’s call the ” Ditto Fitzy ” view , a Devil’s Advocate one . For purposes of fair investigation one must cite in Agent Fitzpatrick’s defense different features .
Bob Fitzpatrick is a likable sort of cop . Lot of Billy Bluster about him and underlying that a serious , loyal , and committed FBI Agent . The 2006 memo certainly did not “exonerate” John Connolly . This is hyperbole . It does insinuate, though , that not only may Agent Fitzpatrick know ” more than some ,” but he may know much more than he was going to do anything but hint at . In that case he is in league with a roll call officially of 100 , and unofficially many more , FBI Agents who knew how the game worked .
When the fix is in . When the fixers are folks you have reverenced since childhood . OO7 may not fit Carter Page . He did not , from the FBI , have a license to kill . Someone in Boston did . Robert Fitzpatrick did what he could for John with that memo in 2006 . He prudently pulled back from the edge of the seventh floor roof on the Hoover Building when push came to shove . I guess he considered it a hill worth savin.’
True, JKM, the memo itself does not “exonerate” john, but the fact that Wyshak, Sterns, the FEDs, the prosecutors WITHHELD IT, did not disclose it, give it to John’s defense team, does exonerate him (no fair trial constitutionally) and inculpates them in the FOULEST OF FOUL PROSECUTORIAL DEEDS AN AMERICAN PROSECUTOR CAN DO . . .TRY TO FIX A CASE AGAINST AN AMERICAN CITIZEN BY WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE . . .WYSHAK ET AL WENT FAR BEYOND THAT, WE KNOW IN PUTTING ON SERIAL PERJURERS ARE CAREFULLY FOR YEARS SOMETIMES SCULPTING AND SHAPING THEN FORM-FITTING THEIR EVER-SHIFTING STORIES
AFTER CAREFULLY FOR YEARS SCULPTING . . .THEIR STORIES
Agreed . Personalizing it to Wyshak , however , marginalizes the actions of those he reports to . Fred is the messenger .
It is a
New Year’s Eve party favor . It is not a ” bombshell .” In 2006 we have a story about a story that ” Fitz ” an FBI Agent into a loop he claims he was never in. In 2006 all that is wrong and ” Fitzy “( Globe writer Shelley Murphy’s pet name for our intrepid self-promoter in Federal tweeds ; the ” Fitzy – Ditzy Connection thus finally exposed ) as opposed to right and fitting , about his credibility as a witness emerges . Fitzy does not take the Fifth . He does not have to . He knows as much as most , but not more than many, and clearly less than some . His story , in his self-interest , changed . If indeed he had one worthy of telling .
Robert Fitzpatrick is Carter Page .
Yes , it can be verified by the FBI that Carter Page had Agency affiliation and was in a country , and that country was indeed Russia . After that , all bets are scoffed at that he was a significant player on the board . Ditto ” Fitzy . “
In * 2013 all that is wrong and ” Fitzy ” …..
I’m late to the party: Where, when and how did this “Sunday bombshell” come to light?
Briefly on the killing of Tony Veranis: Howie Cur wrote that John Martorano was taller than Tony Veranis and shot him in the top back of the head after a struggle; from Cur’s book and his talk show, we learn two slightly different versions: (a) Martorano beat Veranis on the draw (both allegedly had guns…a falsehood.) AND (b) Martorano beat Veranis during a struggle (a fight) then shot him during the fight.
Both are lies: Boxrec has Tony at 5’9”, a 26-2-2 record, almost 50% knockouts for a welterweight, over 50 amateur fights, retired at 20 (concussion) working at construction, clean, sober, out of jail, helping mom and dad at home, now 26 when killed. No way fat slimey slob Martorano could beat that man on a draw or in a struggle.
B. Father Peter Hart, one of the most beloved priests in St. Williams Parish (Dot AVe, Savin Hill) said at the time (it’s in writing) Tony Veranis was out of prison (short sentence) had been an altar boy in prison, and Father Hart said Tony was now hanging with the right bunch of guys (his pals were good guys) they were taking priests to boxing matches, Tony was sober, helping his mom and ailing father, and Father Hart could understand why anyone would kill this 1966 Mark Wahlberg type kid, doing so much good in life.
Sports columnist Bud Collins wrote contemporaneously virtually the exact same facts. A great athlete on the straight and narrow killed for no apparent reason.
The coroner described the killing not as a “quick draw” or “struggle” but “a professional hit.” . . .shot in the top back of the head, like the Martorano brothers shot all their victims.
So, why do we know Martorano lied to Wyshak, or they both cooked up this story, because of Father Hart, Bud Collins and the Coroner.
Most telling, I think . . .although what’s said is enough to re-arrest Martorano . . . .is this: Martorano claimed he was taller than Tony Veranis . . .
I think that’s false
I think Martorano’s brother, Jimmy, may have been as tall or taller, and Jimmy told John how he killed Tony Veranis (half-Lithuanian, half-Irish; Tony’s mom was a Dillon) and John told the gullible or guileless or conscienceless Wyshak that it was he John who killed Tony to get his brother Jimmy off the hook.
Of course Wyshak and the five State Cops under Major Foley all went along with the story because they had a big fish to fry . . .he was at the state house, the enemy of Al Dershowitz, Bill Bulger . . . .yuh, they all went along . . .
Now, with this compelling evidence, I ask (1) will Martorano be arrested, at least John for perjury and probably Jimmy, as the most likely suspect, you see the reason the Martorano Brothers came after Tony with guns was because Tony beat Jimmy and another mobster in a fair fist-fight with his bare hands . . .both at the same time, I’ve heard on the streets . . .and that was there motive to kill him and they killed in the most cowardly way their cowardly bullying satanic minds could imagine . . .an ambush from behind.
Oh, and about John Martorano’s witness: He said, Billy O’Sullivan was there . . Bill happened to be dead . . .he was the youngest of 4 O’Sullivan Brothers who served during World War II . .three O’Sullivan brothers were on Guadalcanal.
Billy and Bobby O’Sullivan were living in Savin Hill and raising their families there in the 1950-1960s-1970s, If BILLY O’SULLIVAN had seen one of the Martoranos pull a gun on Tony Veranis, Billy would have shot John or Jimmy or both dead.
Tony lived right down the street from the O’Sullivans; they each lived on opposite sides of the bridge together, attended same parks, beaches, woods, drank at the same barrooms, Moakley’s then Connors, Joyce & Keane’s which became Bulldog’s Lounge, Eddy Connors, the Connors brothers barrooms: Bulldogs and Connors. As long as I live I’ll always remember with gladness and fondness, and a tinge of shared sadness, Billy Connors, Jimmy Connors and Eddie Connors
and I’ll try to forget the dogs, Martoranos and Howie Carr and their ilk, that fouled our fair land.
Great post. You are 100% correct about Fitzpatrick’s comments. It isn’t his opinion but the underlying facts that formed that opinion that count. He may recall specific events that led to his opinion. His ability to undercut the credibility of Flemmi would alone be vital to the defense’s cause. All exculpatory information has to be turned over to the defense and they decide how to use it. To withhold it deprives the defendant of a fair trial. Connolly’s Constitutional Rights were patently violated here. He should immediately file a pro se habeas corpus petition with every Federal Judge in Florida demanding his release. No honest judge could examine his case and not see numerous constitutional violations. He is convicted of a crime that requires possession of a gun as an essential element. Yet at trial no evidence is produced on that issue. The crooked Fla. courts invent facts after the trial. A total sham. 2. What does this say about the Director of the FBI in 2006. Mueller withheld this memo also. He participated in framing Connolly and Rico. In 2002 as Director the FBI filed numerous false statements to the FISA Court. Later he hid the payoffs and bribery by the Russians in the Uranium One deal. In 2013 he and Comey lied to America about the Tsarnaevs and the Boston Marathon bombing. As special counsel he falsely indicted Flynn thus joining the conspiracy against Trump when he should have charged the leaker of the classified signals intel that appeared in the Post and led to the framing of Flynn. Mueller is a crook. 3. Sen Joyce was recently indicted under RICO. They said his law firm was an Enterprise under that law. It follows that the DOJ in Boston was an Enterprise under that law and anyone e. g. Wyshak who conspires to deprive a citizen ( Connolly)of their Constitutional Right under the color of law is culpable under RICO. The prosecution of the Probation officers which took place recently was a RICO violation as was that of Swartz. No problem with the Statue of Limitations. You have a multi decade criminal Enterprise operating out of the Moakley Courthouse. A Special Counsel is needed in Boston as well as well as D.C. to clean up this mess.
‘ No honest judge could examine his case and not seen numerous constitutional violations .”
Well, Yankee , down here at the ol’ FSC we calls a statement like that an … Oxymoron . Conviction of Felony by Gun with no gun is just another trick in the FBI conjuror’s box . That last to be … very … sharply distinguished from the juror’s box . In the latter lies the potential for Justice . In the former lies the bones of John Callahan and a host of the silenced ones . It is not a perfect World . Or is it ?
not * see numerous constitutional violations .
The wrong man IS in prison! Get a rope.
The list of corrupt practices by Wyshak & Company at the DOJ is long . . .very long . . .
https://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/oh-the-injustice/
“The Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment guaranties of due process, no seizure of property without just compensation, an impartial jury, prompt justice, access to counsel (which courts have interpreted as counsel of choice), and reasonable bail, have all been put to the shredder. The greatest single problem in the American legal system is the hideous deformation of the plea bargain, where prosecutors can extort almost anything from witnesses with threats of prosecution and guaranties of immunity to perjury charges if they cooperate. Prosecutors are not responsible for their actions even when, as in Mr. Root’s case, they are exposed as frauds. The conviction rate of over 90 per cent in the U.S., 97 per cent without a trial, compares to 61 per cent in Canada and 50 per cent in the United Kingdom, with only about 20 per cent without trial. The United States has six to twelve times as many incarcerated people per capita as comparable, prosperous democracies: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom. The United States has five per cent of the world’s population and 25 per cent of its incarcerated people.
“The whole legal system is a gigantic and corrupt cartel, sustained by endless invocations of the land of the free and the rule of law. It is the supreme irony of current times that the world owes the United States homage and gratitude for the near-global triumph of democracy and the free market, while the United States is not now one of the world’s better functioning democracies.
Right on, Henry!
1. If that Memo were withheld from Connolly defense team, Wyshak and all others in DOJ should be in prison. Under that circumstance alone, they would have clearly, deliberately, knowingly and with malice aforethought have violated his Constitutional Right to a Fair Trial. The Supreme Court has MANDATED that Prosecutors provide Exculpatory Evidence to the defense. They are the Duty Bound to do so.
2. We ask where the entire DOJ in Boston and DC was a corrupt RICO Organization during the extraordinary singling out persection and prosecution of John Connolly all in a readily apparent attempt to somehow get Billy Bulger, either by phony criminal prosecution or by at least publicly debilitating and weakening his Political Clout and Standing and Damaging its reputation.
3. Oh what a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive.
4. The Decietiful, Duplicitous DOJ, under Sterns, Wyshak, Durham, led on by cheeleaders Dershowitz, the Boston Globe, Howie et al has sunk to depraved depths unimagined in a free society.
5. FINALLY, THIS IS NOT HISTORY. . . .this is current events. THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION, THIS ABUSE OF POWER AND LEGAL PROCESS FOR POLITICAL ENDS, THIS IS A MATTER OF THE PRESENT AND RECENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN AMERICA AT THE SO-CALLED DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ITS INTELLIGENCE (SPY AGENCIES) IN BOSTON.
6. THE SILENCE OF THE PRESS, ACADMIA, AND OTHER WINGS OF THE FEDS IS DEAFENING . . .VERY DEFINITELY DEAFENING . . .
7. Maybe, the late great New York Catholic League Lawyer Andrew McCauley had it right when he said circa 1994 about the St. Pat’s Parade cases in Boston and New York City and the radical leftst attempt to destroy FREE Speech and FREE association. “It’s time to take the muskets off the walls.”
It is unclear at this time how the document came to light. It is not unreasonable to assume someone in the Boston US Attorney’s Office or the FBI office leaked it. Washington is not the only town which has a new sheriff. It would not be inappropriate to point out Wyshak’s serious professional misbehavior to United States Attorney for Massachusetts Andrew E. Lelling with a cover to Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions with the aim of disciplinary action. There should be accountability.
The present incumbent of the office that allowed Wyshak to travel to Florida to prosecute John Connolly might be sensitive to the deception. No one likes a house guest who befouls the hospitality given. Whoever this is could be a potential, influential ally.
This information has been available for nearly a week and yet the local media has not picked up on it. Any friends in the news business can be contacted. Phones call to Howie Carr during his Monday afternoon show might be helpful. The point could be made that the issue here is the same as was made in the FISA Memo. Hold Wyshak’s feet to the fire.
Howie Carr is an enemy. He sold out John Silber, Bill Bulger, most conservative Catholics, mocked their families and faith, wrote books mocking the deaths of my friends from Savin Hill, befriended a serial killer, calls himself Captain, never served anyone but his own pocket book.
You Tadzio are smart on some accounts, but do not know a Quisling, Fifth Columnist, Benedict Arnold, Turn-Coat when you hear one daily.
FOR FORTY YEARS HOW CUR, THE DOG, HAS PILLORIED THE CONSERVATIVES IN MASSACHUSETTS POLITICS SIDING WITH HIS BLOOD-BROTHER PAL AL DERSHOWITS, for forty years The CUR has called Billy Bulger “Corrupt Fatso” . .and mocked his family, friends, neighborhood and achievments.
Howie Cur cheered on the false prosecutions of H. Paul Rico and John Connolly; Howie Cur sat behind Bill Bulger in Congress and tried to mock him and only mocked himself as the jokester he truly is . . .Howie Harr the Harlequinn . . .he’s worse than a joke, . . .he’s a malicious jokester who delights in others’ suffering . . .he runs a Death Pool on his shows and celebrates when someone dies
A lower life form maybe even God could not have imagined . . .that’s why He left room for Satan’s minions
Howie Cur made money off the mass murderer Martorano and filled his books with knowing lies, calumnies and detractions, all to make himself more money and to make himself look better. If that’s not a low life . . .
Below, I’ll post a few thought on Martorano’s phony story about killing Tony Veranis which Wyshak bought or helped form and which is patently false . . .contradicted by percipient living witnesses.
Was thinking in terms of rubbing Howie’s nose in it. He could be useful in raising public awareness. He has a large audience. He may disagree with a caller but the caller is getting the word out. It is a suggestion rooted in pragmatism. Have no illusions about Howie Carr.
Noted
makes sense, from that perspective
Does personal “opinion” count in Court or afterwards? It’s my personal “opinion” that Sacco was guilty but Vanzetti innocent.
Too late for those dead men, but not for the historical record.
Henry:
That isn’t the issue. The personal opinion is not relevant, however, the reasons for the personal opinion may be relevant. That is why the information should have been presented to defense counsel so that it can pursue it. You are charged with armed robbery. A guy comes forward and says his personal opinion is that you weren’t the one to have committed the crime. Wouldn’t you as a defendant like to know what the guy had to say about it and why he thought you could not have done it.