I can’t say it was a good week for the prosecutors. (I know I said that before.) Last week I wrote the case was a lock at least as far as the convicting Whitey. I told how the prosecutor had the machine guns, the obliterated serial numbers, the defense counsel’s opening saying Whitey was a big bookie, and that he also led a drug empire.
All he had to do was to connect Whitey to the guns taken from Stevie and those charges were a lock. I pointed out the federals had gone a long way toward doing that because the pictures of the Lancaster Street Garage and Bobby Long’s testimony showed Whitey and Stevie Flemmi were always together; the two bookies who testified Jimmy “the Sniff” Katz and Evil Dickie O’Brien spoke of Whitey and Stevie being together all the time. It was driven into the juror’s head that was the case.
Then early in the week Martorano puts them together all the time — he says Whitey told him talking to Stevie is like talking to him. It’s believable because all we’ve seen is they are together. Another gangster comes on and says pretty much the same thing. You admire how clever the prosecutors have been making this obvious. Then at the last minute of this week they put on Billy McDermott who has been watching Stevie Flemmi from the mid-Eighties whenever he came into Brookline. This has been eight to ten years he testified. He never saw Whitey together with him in Brookline during that time. How can they always be together when they are not seen together for such a long time?
If the jury remembers Billy McDermott’s testimony they’ll have a hard time accepting that just because the guns are stored behind Stevie’s mother’s house in a type of out house that Whitey had possession of them. Maybe the jury will figure Whitey had his own arsenal, like that found when he was arrested in California. The latter cuts both ways: the government will use it to show Whitey liked to keep a lot of guns around so he had a connection with Stevie’s guns; but defense will say why did he need Stevie’s when he had his own.
What we have then is two of the major knots that seemed to have been tied by the prosecutors in the first week come apart in week two. This was not because of any brilliance by defense counsel, rather by the prosecutors own doing in putting on a witness that undermined those two critical points.
When the week ended we were listening to a person from the Department of Justice’s office of investigative services putting in FBI records. Why, I’m sure the jurors are wondering aren’t the FBI putting in their own records. The purpose of this witness is to show that Whitey was an FBI informant.
I scratch my head over this issue. I don’t see whether he was an informant or not has anything to do with the charges pending against him. I don’t want to give away defense secrets but it looks like Carney and Brennan (C&B) have the prosecutors chasing after their tails trying to prove Whitey was an informant for John Connolly and to my way of thinking when it comes to whether Whitey murdered these people that doesn’t matter one way or the other. Informant or not he can’t murder people especially when the idea O’Sullivan gave him permission to murder people has been ruled out of the trial.
It shows how easily the prosecutors have been led astray. 10 of the murders happened before Whitey became an informant so with respect to them the issue makes no sense. Wyshak said he wants to show Connolly leaked information to Whitey which resulted in some of the murders. Someone ought to tell him Connolly isn’t on trial here; he’s been tried twice on these issues and acquitted the first time. Is Wyshak looking at this as a rubber match with Connolly then he better look at the old guy in the blue shirt with two pairs of glasses sitting between C&B and figure out who is on trial.
Martorano testified he murdered Richard Castucci because he was an informant. He said Whitey got the information from Connolly. He said Whitey was there at the time of the murder and participated in it. Stevie will also put Whitey there. How is it important where the information came to murder a guy. Castucci was murdered. If Whitey was there and participated in it, it doesn’t matter where the information came from, even if Martorano said it was a message from a Martian.
I’ve said before I don’t see any prosecution strategy which cuts to the core, tries the case hard on those issues, and gives it to the jury. I’m seeing a case that’s running in all directions and every bit of bait that defense counsel drops the prosecutors run after. I suggest these prosecutors have a team back and figure out what is going on.
I had a friend who is very knowledgeable in these matters. I told him it would take months to try the case. The friend said he could try it in six weeks. I laughed. I now see he is right. This case properly prepared and analyzed could be over that quickly.
Hey Alex just wanted to let you know def not relating to Enron, but a lot of the wall street big ceo thiefs were not prosecuted because Lanny Breur is a man who declined to go forward with justice, he now works as some big shot at some firm he was connected to. I was to young for Enron.
Doubting:
Nice to know.
I believe you really would need to take a 4 year course at your nearest college To understand all this. The story is just to large and wide and evil. Also the story is not yet complete so it is difficult to grasp it all.
Doubting:
You’ve already earned an A so don’t drop out on us.
Just read that former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling had his sentence reduced 10 years because of a mistake the judge made in interpreting sentencing guidelines. Any chance this could happen to Connolly?
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/prison-sentence-of-ex-enron-ceo-skilling-cut-by-10-years-2/?_r=0
Jon:
No – Skiling had money to get good lawyers – Connolly is destitute with no deep pockets.
Mtc9393 – You responded back with respect to the Enron CEO’s sentenced being reduced that he had money to get good lawyers and that Connolly is destitute with no deep pockets. First, know that I agree that your assessment is 100% on. However, as I am fundamentally naïve about all this court stuff and still cling to some sense of foregone nobility in the system despite repeated clubbings over the head to the contrary, I need to ask this – when a corporate CEO like the Enron guy was arreseted, convicted, etc.; how come all of his assets and funds weren’t seized? In other words, why or how does he still have money when he should have paid back all those who screwed including the “economony” itself. Doesn’t it stand to reason with our vigilante IRS operating the way it does that absolutely nothing would be left over for his attorneys? In other words, does he get away with it because he is part of the “top-echelon of society” club? How does he get to keep his money when Bulger, Connolly don’t? Same for Martarano – how does he get to keep his hundreds of thousands of dollars, essentially profiting from his corrupt relationship with the FBI and the Herald together, without paying the victims families in any way? Have the counsel for the victim’s families ever sought civil “wrongful death” damages from Martarano specifically? Can they?
The article says Skilling had to give up $42 million, distributed to the victims.
Jon:
We don’t know how much he kept though.
Alex:
He gets away with it because he can. Jon points out that he had to give up $42 million but I’m sure he had plenty more spare cash floating around that he was far from broke.
You may remember POOF – well if you are out of favor the government wants to bankrupt you – if you’re a white collar guy the government doesn’t want to go after you too hard because you have dogs (lawyers) that will fight back – it’s nice to go after people who can’t defend themselves too well.
I’m sure the families of Martorano’s victims are out of luck because the statute of limitations has run out. They should though push the DAs for murder indictments against Martoranos friends and force him to testify againt them.
Thank you! As you know, I think you do a great job with your blog, especially exposing the realities of the trial as well as the realities of the larger system at work. The people who comment on your blog have also provided a great education. In case you don’t hear it, thank you for the job you do encouraging others and the public to “think for themselves” by considering and sifting through multiple viewpoints, including some of the more outlier views that may drift (such as my own on occasion.) You have always treated your readers with respect, whatever their apparent echelon level is in society, and that is truly appreciated and, well, rare. Again, thank you for listening.
Alex:
Thanks for the nice words. I’ve been lucky since the people who come here all have been respectful and trying to sort out the truth with me. I think all of us will get closer to the truth than anyone else as time goes on. I grew up with a motley crew and knew the guys with the least education had as much brains as I did but preferred to do things their way. We all treated each other equally and well, which you have to do hanging on corners so much. It was a great lesson. The street sports was a main binding factor. One thing we always knew is there was a tougher and smarter guy just around the corner.
Matt, what happened to the theory that if Martorano planned and actually killed—the final death blow administered in the Blue Hills—Tony Veranis’s killing; or if the shooting and beating were in Dorchester by Tony died in Milton’s Blue Hills—what happened to the theory that the Norfolk D.A., not a party to any immunity agreement for Murderman, could and should prosecute him for that murder. It seems the autopsy report and the contemporaneous words of the Medical Examiner indicate the smaller 5-6 inch Martorano shot and mercilessly beat (desecrated the lifeless or dying body) of the taller (5-8 to 5-10 Veranis (Tony was officially listed as 5-8 in his professional boxing records, but he turned pro when he just turned 18 years of age; it’s likely he added a half inch or so by the time he was 26-27, when he was killed. We know Carr’s Hitman’s version of Tony Veranis’s killing is a complete lie and inconsistent with the science etc. So, what’s up? Can Norfolk arrest and prosecute John Martorano and maybe his brother JImmy who may have accompanied him on the killing of Tony Veranis who was half Irish and half Lithuanian. I mean even Martorano admits he killed Tony Veranis because Tony beat up his brother and another hoodlum in a fair fight. Reason enough to kill someone in his twisted mind: to avenge his brother’s loss of fist fight.
William:
On second thought I was wrong when I suggested that Morrissey should look at prosecuting the Veranis case because his death may have occurred in Norfolk. I think because the first shooting happened in Suffolk, the Suffolk DA under the law could also prosecute the case. That the Suffolk DA has that power, and if he has decided to give Martorano a break and not prosecute him on that and Martorano relied on that agreement I don’t see that the Norfolk DA can now do it.
I’m confused too Matt so I can’t imagine how the jurors are feeling. SO if Whitey was an informant for the FBI doesn’t that give him immunity to the drugs and gambling charges? Is that why Carney admitted Bulger was involved in those activities and not murder? I agree with you on the gun issue as well, hopefully the jurors can see this as well.
If I were one of those jurors I would be really insulted that the GOVT would use these witnesses and lets these killers walk the streets just for one guy.
Why is it that they are after Whitey as opposed to the others who did a lot more? I find that confusing.
Also, is it possible the FBI could just type up a FBI card today stating Whitey was an informant or do they have a lot of files on him? In the world of cover ups and the GOVT I’d guess it’s not too hard for them to type a card up.
I guess I’m also not understanding why they choose to admit Whitey was an informant if that grants him immunity for some of what he is charged with. It’s all too confusing. LOL Enjoy your weekend.
Question:
Perhaps you could argue being an informant gave him immunity but Flemmi argued that and the court said the FBI can’t give immunity so being an informant offers no benefit. Plus Whitey denies he was an informant.
I’m sure yo would be insulted but it’s hard to figure out what jurors are thinking. A lot depends on their background and intelligence.
They’re after Whitey because to get them any of them they made an atrocious deal with Martorano – Wyshak had his pocket picked by Martorano’s lawyer – plus Wyshak has a fixation on “the Bulgers and Southie” – it is his goal to destroy them and to change the culture of Southie – I understand the newer residents call it So Bo – watch for the Globe to start saying that.
The FBI’s pretty much stuck with its files and would not be into fabricating evidence although it is big on hiding evidence. They have 700 plus pages on Whitey – he was an informant by any definition of the word –
If you’re confused ask questions and I’ll try to answer you.
Matt,
What would happen if one of the jurors stood up and said “I’m disgusted and insulted that the Govt would have us sit here and listen to a witness such as Martorano boast about his killings” What if the juror said they could no longer listen to it. Would the juror get excused and replaced or would the juror get in trouble for speaking out?
That’s what I would definitely do if I were there. There is no way in hell I could sit and listen to these lying criminals and those who support them. However, I know what some in the Govt. do and perhaps these jurors do not.
I’m not rooting for Whitey either but to let all the other murderers go for one guy is wrong. I guess I’m rooting for something to happen in Whiteys favor so the prosecutors stop using guys like Martorano for witnesses.
The juror would b replaced.
JHG:
Agreed. he or she would be taken off and the case would go on with 17 jurors.
Question:
No juror would ever do that but if it happened the juror would be dismissed and the judge would have a motion for a mistrail by defense counsel saying the juror’s outburst unfairly prejudiced his right to a fair trial. The judge would poll the jury individually and the trial would probably go on. You present a telling problem; I’m certainly not rooting for Whitey but a win by the prosecution will put a stamp of approval on some of the things they did and are doing. Bottom line is no way will Whitey ever get out again since he’ll be convicted of many things, perhaps if he beats some of them the prosecution will revisit its mistakes in this case/
Matt
I feel that there will be a conviction on a number of counts, after all his defense attorney basically pled him to some counts in his opening, resulting in a sentence satisfactory to the government.
I don’t see the DOJ revisiting how they try cases like this because, to them, this method works. Take a bunch of flips and put them on the stand, corroborate them the best you can and just take the beating in front of the jury re the deals the flips got. The more flips the better.
Time and again this method has yielded results for the DOJ. The few cases where it has failed (see the excellent book The Boys From New Jersey) almost always eventually turned out to be a result of jury tampering by the defendants (including the NJ boys after the book came out). The Willy and Sal trial in Miami (biggest importers of cocaine up to that time and including many murders of informants, competitors and innocent bystanders) was initially thought to be a jury repudiation of this method and due to the fine work of the top notch defense counsel including Roy Black and Albert Krieger. The US Attorney of Miami himself was so distraught by the acquittals he went to a strip club, over imbibed, bit a stripper on the breast and eventually lost his job over this escapade. Eventually not one but three jurors admitted to taking bribes to throw the case. The Feds pulled a few other charges out of the hat and “The Boys” as they were known in Miami during their heyday got their due.
JHG:
Agree there will be many convictions and agree that DOJ as presently constituted will not change. I’m surprised at your information on the jurors being involved in taking money. That’s what allegedly happened when Gerry Angiulo was acquitted when Barboza testified against him. Unbelievable that three jurors were bribed. (Maybe that’s what I can think happened on the cases I lost as a prosecutor.) Very good an interesting information. Thanks for sending it along.