Those who have closely followed these matters know that what happened in the Whitey case with John Connolly was supposed to be an outlier. We were told it was one in those once in a lifetime events. It was pointed out that one of the major things was the happenstance that both were boyhood friends. We were supposed to overlook the eleven years in age that separated them. You knew they grew up in South Boston, and you’ve heard all about that place, Southie, which the prosecutor said was one of the reasons for Connolly’s downfall.
You understand that the result of their working together was the reputation of the FBI was unfairly shredded. However we were comforted to understand that once this rogue agent Connolly was rounded up and corralled things would go back to normal. The fetid atmosphere of the FBI Boston office caused by Connolly having been exposed would be cleansed.
It was back in 2002 that Connolly was led out of court shackled. We felt happy knowing we’d never see such a thing again. Books were written to tell us about this. One exclaimed : “The Irish Mob, The FBI and the Devil’s Deal.”
I’ve suggested the above story which has been handed down to us from one newspaper reporter to another on Connolly is basically false. Start with the boyhood Southie stories. They didn’t know each other until Whitey was in his mid-thirties. Go on to the idea that what Connolly did was something unusual, it wasn’t.
What Connolly did was part of the FBI’s plan to fight organized crime. It was based on the idea that if you can’t beat them you join them, or as the FBI likes to think of it, they join you even though they are allowed to continue their criminal ways. The Devil’s Deal had nothing to do with Connolly. It was necessitated by the creation in the late 1960s of the FBI’s Top Echelon Informant program in response to being told it had to follow the law and not break into places and secretly plant electronic listening devices without court authorization.
In response the FBI came up with a harebrain idea to partner up with some gangsters in order to get other gangsters. Those gangsters and the FBI became pals. The FBI gave them special treatment such as making sure they were not prosecuted and were protected and kept safe. They were of no value to the FBI under indictment or in prison. They had to be free to provide information and to commit crimes as they had always done.
This historical part of the Connolly-Flemmi-Bulger relationship is basically ignored. Connolly is written about as if he created the Top Echelon Program. We were fooled into thinking that it was happening nowhere else.
The reason we were led to believe this is that only one FBI office in the nation has been compelled to disclose its Top Echelon informants. That is Boston. We know nothing about the deals done in other FBI offices throughout the nation.
That changed. Very recently we learned about the New York FBI and the Springfield Massachusetts FBI dealings with John Bologna. These FBI offices were not required to open up their files as in Boston. But because Bologna was implicated in serious criminal activity and charged, it had to set out some of his background in a sentencing memorandum in order to come to his aid.
John Bologna was a Mafia associate for many years and then an FBI informant; I assume he was a Top Echelon informant. At some point he became an FBI cooperating witness. The difference between those two categories is the identity of the informant remains a secret but that of the cooperating witness is disclosed.
That’s how the FBI classifies people who cooperate with it. It is an important distinction since the cooperating witness knows at some point she will have her identity revealed where an informant can depend upon the FBI keeping her secret forever. The FBI is good at doing that so we never know the identity of their informants which is as it should be. The problem is the FBI often joins up with the big fish to catch the little fish.
What is needed is some type of outside check on the type of people it uses to join its team. Even though the FBI has rules regarding the use of informant, it routinely ignores them. We need someone to insure that ceases
There are few documented times the FBI has gone back on its sacred promise to an informant who has worked with it. One notable exception occurred in the case involving Whitey Bulger. His status as an informant was first disclosed when two FBI agents, John Morris and Robert Fitzpatrick, turned their back on the long FBI tradition of honoring its promise of secrecy. They were lured by Boston Globe reporters into breaching their commitment and revealed that Whitey was an informant. The Boston Globe printed this in 1988 with the knowledge that it may have led to Whitey’s murder, something Agent Morris hoped would happen.
Unlike Whitey,John Bologna knew when he became a cooperating witness his informant status would be disclosed. I would not have known of him except for a comment by Alex McCoy. We could search high and low in the Boston media before we found anything about him. Maybe it is because Springfield in Massachusetts is west of the Connecticut River that it is difficult to find out what happens out there. Or perhaps, the John Bologna story gives such lie to the Boston media’s presentation of the happenings between Whitey and Connolly as being so unique and outre that it wants to keep the Greater Boston readers in the dark.
I’ll tell more about the light Bologna shines on this case tomorrow.
Matt,
Top Echelon Informant redux in Atlanta, in 2013! Here’s another case of a murderous, Mob informant protected by the FBI from local law enforcement. Margolis, aka “The Cleaner” is probably on his way to Atlanta now. Like cases of Bologna, Scarpa, etc, this case is unmentionable by the Boston media.
The FBI’s statement is simply precious: “We take the allegations very seriously,” an FBI spokesperson said. “The policy on this could not be more clear.”
“Tune in tonight to “World News With Diane Sawyer” at 6:30 p.m. ET and “Nightline” 12:35 a.m. ET for ABC News’ full investigation into The Murder, The Mobster and the FBI.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fbi-agent-gifts-cash-mobster-informant-alleges/story?id=19276048#.UaZh5qL5HSi
Patty:
Thanks for the heads-up. Another Top Echelon informant lives a life of crime while protected by the FBI. I thought that wasn’t suppose to happen after Whitey and Stevie Flemmi. Oh, Mark Rossetti, yeah I forgot about him. It’s really astounding that the FBI continues to use this program and has Russian Mafia hit men in it. The FBI policy on the case is clear: keep doing it boys and girls and pretend we don’t do it. If we’re caught we’ll cover it up with an investigation. Remember it is almost two years they’ve been investigating why Rossetti who was suspected of six murders was being protected.
It appears that Bologna (FBI informant/mob rat) was recently sentenced to “8” years – for his role in killing Bruno.
So let me see if I understand this:
“8” years for a “man” who helped kill someone.
“8” years for a “woman” who did NOT kill anyone.
Can Ms. Greig file an appeal – from her failed appeal – based on charges of obvious, clear “sexism” entering the justices’ decisions?
Please understand, My heart goes out to the victims families but to give Greig 8 years putting her in the same category as Bologna just to “make an example” of “her” under the theory of “let that be a message out there to some women” goes beyond normal sentencing guidelines and given this new decision seems really suspect and excessive.
Alex:
Her sentence is being appealed. She was sentenced because she ran off and protected a murderer even thought there was no evidence she knew anything about Whitey murdering anyone; and even if she had somehow heard that, there was a total lack of evidence showing she believed it.
The sentences was absurd. I’ve written before how all the Mafia kingpins in recent years have received less than Greig even though they lived lives filled with crime and she never committed any crime other than fleeing with her boyfriend.
Grieg had nothing to do with any of Whitey’s murders so it has no effect on the victims’ families even though they testified as her sentencing hearing attacking her as if she was involved in the murders. This sends no message; it is a pure show of the power of the prosecutor’s office to whack someone who associates with a person out of favor. It was nothing but show time and Greig was the one the show ran over. Any conception of justice being served with that sentence was absurd. It’ll be interesting to see what the court of appeals does with her sentence.
As Alex mentioned, her direct appeal was just denied by the 1st, is she seeking a rehearing or attempting to go to the Supreme Court (pretty doubtful she’ll get even a hearing there)?
Either way, I think the decision handed down a week or so ago upholding her sentence will be the final word.
JHG:
Thanks for the information. I missed that. Although I didn’t miss having gone on a nice trip. I’m printing out the decision now. I was struck by a couple of the concluding sentences, <em>”On June 22, 2011, Greig’s many years of harboring Bulger came to an end. Our consideration of her claimed errors has similarly reached its conclusion.”em> It seemed to me a little injudicious. I’m looking forward to what it has to say. Thanks again.
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=12-1752P.01A
Matt,
When I read the First Circuit opinion in the Greig sentencing appeal, I was also struck by that sound bite at the end. Judge Ojetta makes herself clear that she is an affirmative action hire like Carmen Ortiz. Jet actually refers to Attorney Curhan’s legal argument (C) on materiality as Greig’s “GRIPE”. I’ve never seen such sound bite slang in an appellate opinion. Perhaps it is some new legal Ebonics and I am behind the times. I’m shocked that Justice Souter let his name be placed on such a trashy, low level, ‘press release disguised as an appellate opinion.’
The Federal judges have become shameless panderers to the media. Judges are appointed for life for the very reason that they be resistent to shifting political winds and media distortion to blindly apply the law. They have completely abrogated their solemn duty. I don’t expect them to stand up to the corrupted power of a Wyshak or Margolis, but they should be able to withstand the media’s influence. I’m honestly and sincerely embarrassed for our federal judges.
Patty
Patty:
Interesting you mentioned that. I was taken about by the words in the opinion that Bulger and Greig were “holed up” in Chicago. It wasn’t a term I expected in an opinion. Then the expression, “where the two remained for a whopping fifteen years.”
Reading the decision, I came away with a feeling that any simpleton could get around the sentence guidelines because common words have been totally taken our of their normal course of meaning. I don’t blame Judge Thompson for that because she if following precedent, but I have to shake my head when the idea of “harboring a person” is limited to just letting the person hide in the closet (giving him shelter) and if the person does anything else like running errands or getting the fugitive medicine then the base level for harboring can be jumped over.
Judge Woodlock said he had to do this because a “less serious sentence would promote disrespect for the law.” What nonsense. They’re not concerned with giving Mafia killers 4 or 5 years and they worry disrespect will come if that a woman without a record who goes on the run with a guy gets less than 8 years. What really give disrespect is the foolish system of base levels with with two-level increases. Judges should be able to look at the crime and the person’s record and make the appropriate sentence under the maximum for the charge, they shouldn’t be able to take a crime whose true maximum is three years in jail and jump it up to eight.
Then in the decision we get a Connolly deja vu with her getting a sentence jump because she was in “possession of a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) in connection with the offense.” The plain intent of that provision is that the person has the gun on them during the crime; not that the apartment where the harboring took place had a gun or guns in it. In truth, the guns had no relationship to the harboring but that made little difference. The judge offers this explanation that Greig didn’t have to possess a gun herself but that “it just must be reasonably foreseeable that a co-conspirator would possess a weapon in furtherance of the criminal activity.” First, I have a problem with Greig having pleaded guilty to conspiracy to harbor a fugitive. Who is the conspiracy with? It couldn’t be with Whitey since he was being harbored. Don’t two people have to agree to do a criminal act of which each one is capable of performing. Whitey is unable to harbor Whitey so the conspiracy with him to do what he cannot do makes no sense. Then it is really not foreseeable a gun is necessary to further the activity. There’s no doubt Greig knew the guns were in the apartment but they weren’t there in connection with the crime since they didn’t help further it at all.
Finally, the jump in sentence for lying about her assets to a pretrial services officer is sort of a joke. How did that obstruct justice or “willfuly obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice with respect to the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing.” Nothing she said or did at that stage of the proceeding affected the investigation, prosecution or sentencing. But as I said, the judges can make something out of nothing especially if you are a POOF.
Alex:
JHG wrote and told me the appeal was denied. See: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=12-1752P.01A
Also heard mackenzie is voluntarily being detained in somewhere that isn’t Plymouth until late June, any chance he goes there afterward? Must be scared shitless he could potentially run into ‘whitey’ there – even if it is only a verbal lashing he gets from him over that book. He seems like he could be an at risk prisoner anyways after that book he wrote so thatd be an interesting turn of events to see him in the g unit at plymouth…I saw Billy in a recent interview hoping they’d hold ‘whitey’ in Boston during the trial but I just don’t see it happening. Unless moakley has some ad-seg type holding like they do in the g unit at Plymouth (not sure if it’s for solely at risk prisoners or federal detainees)
Jim:
The big question as I asked before is was he working for the FBI. What do you mean by “voluntarily detained.” Is he being held on bail? As for keeping Whitey in Boston during the trial, I seem to think the feds enjoy the idea of having him have to ride over Route 3 everyday. You’ve heard of their prison buses that travel all day with guys locked in their seats. We don’t have the most humanitarian minded people running these prison lockups.
Simply read from Travis Andersen of the globe (so I can’t be 100% sure of its accuracy): MacKenzie, self-proclaimed #Bulger guy, agrees 2 voluntary detention til 6/26 in fed extortion case involving #Beacon_Hill church, records show. I have an inkling he’s been working with the FBI somehow/sometime in the past 14 years.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2010/08/gods-mobsters/ – I was hoping he would get indicted ever since I read this.
Jim:
I read that article and never really connected it later with the MacKenzie book because my interest in Whitey was sort of in the past since he was on the loose. I really was shocked when I read it that he was able to pull of such a great scam without anyone being interested in going after him. You don’t think he was being protected by the FBI do you? In his book he admits becoming an informant. How long did he stay one?
Did not see this comment, he probably still is protected (who is he currently informing on though?) however he hasn’t even been arraigned yet making this all the more suspicious that he’s ‘voluntarily detaining himself’
Remember I said something about the timing bothers me….I was initially thinking the timing of the report vis a vis a recent Bulger decision having been issued around the same time. But the nagging sense of the “timing” that I couldn’t quite put my finger on hasn’t gone away….In fact, and to that end, another dumb question has occurred to me. The Springfield Explosion occurred in the fall a few months before this article appeared. The Springfield Explosion occurred at a “Scores Gentleman’s Strip Club.” It leveled the place. Now, apparently without the press doing much follow up to sift through it, the explosion was due to some “employee” at Columbia Gas. The media dropped the Springfield explosion reports so quickly. The story was “put out” seemingly faster than the fire. When the media quickly moves on from such stories (which they clearly usually love to air over and over), things don’t seem right. Accordingly, the questions that won’t go away are:
1.)Weren’t Scores Gentlemen’s Clubs affiliated with the New York mob (that Bologna was in turn supposedly with)?
2.)Who was that “employee.” Has anyone ever done any follow up to find out what happened to the Columbia Gas employee – was he or she fired?
3.)Was Bologna affiliated with the Scores of Springfield that blew up? If so, then is that odd? Were any “records” in that facility that blew up along with the building?
4.)And seemingly unrelated….maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t it strike anyone as odd that there was a strip club right next to a daycare? I know the laws say that restaurants, bars, wineries, etc can’t be within a certain distance to “schools” and/or “churches”, and that a daycare does not necessarily qualify as a “school,” but c’mon — who on the Springfield planning board and/or local licensing authority said “sure, no problem, put a strip club right next door to a daycare”???
You see Edward MacKenzie’s name in the Boston Herald again today. While the charges brought against him do not include the most heinous, that being sexual assault(s) for which he is notoriously known for, the article(s) do of course cite his notorious association with Bulger. How could anyone settle with MacKenzie, this brutal serial sexual assailant of little girls supposedly having changed his life, to include supposedly having found God, when the very church he supposedly found God in was well known by all in Boston to have been nothing but another of his strong arm con jobs where he accompanied by his attorney Al Nugent, his family and buddies took over the church board and contol of the substantial church bank accounts and real estate. Bulger should be testifying against MacKenzie, the Nugent estate et al. and yes parasites such as Kathleen O’Connor Eckland (who was visited by the FBI regarding MacKenzie) should be held accountable also along with all authorities involved.
Jan:
It’s amazing to me that MacKenzie was able to do what he accomplished. I see that the person who was the co-author of his book alleges she hasn’t seen him in a long time. His case will be interesting to follow. I wonder how he ran afoul of the law, he was after all working for the FBI as an informant and was being protected by it. I wonder how much the FBI helped him in his taking over the church and looting it.
Matt, the thought occurred to me how the DOJ/FBI uses informants to frame people. The send the TEI (gangster, pusher, terrorist) to sit beside a Mark (a guy the FEDS want to frame) in cafes, parks, barrooms: they take pictures; the maybe send a female TEI to seduce the guy; the FEDS take more pictures; the FEDS tell the TEI’s to make up lies about the Mark (“Yuh, i’ve dealt drugs with him before”), then the FEDS bring the MARK in and threaten him with 50 years in prison, bankruptcy, the ruination of his name and his family’s name; then the FEDS have a video of the MARK leaving the scene of a crime (let’s say a GREAT FIRE), they show the video to the MARK’s friends and associates, portraying him as a baddy, a coward; they don’t show the whole video of the guy running to save the life of a mother and child in a baby carriage from falling timbers; then after the FEDS have “disgraced, hindered, laughed at his losses, mocked his gains, thwarted his bargains, scorned his nation, cooled his friends and heated his enemies” the FEDS say to the MARK “lie about Mr. Smith or you’ll do 40 years in prison.” Of course, the FEDS operating word is deniability, and they do this all on the sly, stealthily, cravenly, deceptively, but they do it by hook or crook, in flagrant disregard to US Constitutional principles of fairness, justice, due process and equal treatment under the law. AFter all, the FEDS have a built in excuse for framing innocent AMerican Veterans: “National SEcurity” is their carte blanche to wreak havoc on our constitutional freedoms. HOw about putting five serial killers at L-Street? Someone told me the mass murderer Martorano has a locker at L-Street. LOcker’s are to be assigned by lottery or off a waiting list. How did that killer of my friends and my friends’ relatives get to the top of any list? I hope Mayor Menino issues a decree: “NO MAJOR FELONS ALLOWED IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS INT EH CITY OF BOSTON . .. EVER!!!!”