Search the Site
Books By Author
Great Sites to Follow
- Pro-trash "No on Question 2:" recycling has eliminated trash in MA
- Indexing: More economic literacy, please
- Detectives recover stolen items from Town Creek robbery - Bay Net...
- Washington Times Settles With DHS in Case Involving Improper Seizure - The New American...
- Luis Estuardo Vanegas-Ramirez, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., United ... - New York Law Journal (registration)...
- A few thoughts on Heien v. North Carolina - Washington Post...
- Ray McGovern Triumphs Over State Department - Antiwar.com (blog)...
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
Monthly Archives: October 2012
Billy Bulger’s Adversaries In The Media Hid Their Knowledge Of The Truth To Present A Sinister Picture.
I’m trying to go back and reconstruct the 75 State Street story which some (many?) have used to suggest Billy Bulger is corrupt. Billy served from 1960 to 1970 in the House of Representatives, from 1970 to 1996 in the Senate and of those years as the longest-serving president of the Senate from 1978 to 1996, and as president of the University of Massachusetts from 1996 until 2002. Most of those who suggest he did something corrupt while in public office for over 40 years point to the 75 State Street story.
I’ve already stated there was no extortion involved in his actions. Harold Brown could not be extorted. Two U.S. Attorneys and Attorney General Scott Harshbarger concluded no crimes were committed after their investigations.
Tipping My Toe Into 75 State Street And Wondering About Whitey Bulger’s Lawyer J.W. Carney’s Next Step
Yesterday, I mentioned we should know who the characters are who are involved with Billy. I suppose the ones I should initially talk about are those who were involved in the 75 State Street episode, the one matter that is the ace card of all those who suggest Billy is corrupt.
Alan Dershowitz in one of his diatribes against Billy wrote: “Billy, who was suspected of extorting a quarter-million-dollar bribe from the Boston developer who was building a skyscraper at 75 State Street. Business as usual.”
Dershowitz’s uses words loosely so it’s best we define extortion. Here’s what one site says: “Most states define extortion as the gaining of property or money by almost any kind of force, or threat of 1) violence, 2) property damage, 3) harm to reputation, or 4) unfavorable government action. While usually viewed as a form of theft/larceny, extortion differs from robbery in that the threat in question does not pose an imminent physical danger to the victim.”
Only His Closest Associates Knew Of Whitey Bulger’s Murders Before Murderman Martorano Made His Deal
I began writing about Billy Bulger on Sunday. Before going on, I want to discuss two things that are important to know when judging Billy. First, we should know the characters that are part of his story; and, we should judge him and his actions by what was known in the past and not by what we know now.
Knowing about the background of characters who are involved permits you to make a more informed decision about the person’s veracity and to better judge a person’s actions.
When you interact with a stranger you go through a process to determine whether the person should be believed. You listen to see if the thing he is saying makes sense and you try to judge the person’s character. The greater understanding you have of a person’s background, the better your decision as to his or her veracity.
The Portrayal Of Whitey’s Bulger’s Brother Billy As Being Corrupt Is Based On Self-Serving Desires More Than Fact
Sunday is a good day to start a discussion of William M. Bulger, born February 2, 1934, who I will call by the name he is commonly known as Billy. He is the younger brother of Whitey Bulger, born September 3, 1929, who, as we know is called Jim or Jimmy in his family and by those who talk to him face-to-face.
Billy spent most of his career in politics. He represented his section of South Boston, Ward 7, in the Massachusetts House of Representative starting in 1960. After ten years doing that in 1970 he moved onto the Massachusetts Senate after Joe Moakley resigned to make a run for Congress. He was elected president of the Senate in 1978 and held that position for 17 years until he went on to become president of the University of Massachusetts in 1996, a position that he held for six years until he was forced to resign because he was the brother of Whitey.
Whitey Bulger’s Claim of Immunity Is Backed Up By The Ongoing Immunity Given To His South Boston Crime Partner
Over the last three days we went into Whitey Bulger’s claim that Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeremiah O’Sullivan gave him immunity. We’ve seen that the only people who would know about this are Whitey, his handler, FBI Agent John Connolly, and O’Sullivan. The prosecutors have made much of O’Sullivan’s denial that he gave immunity but the actions of O’Sullivan when viewed in a critical light, beyond the self-serving denials, show that it is quite probable that he had that arrangement with Whitey. I expect Whitey will testify he got immunity and from press reports John Connolly will testify to the same thing.
The media reported last Thursday that J.W.Carney, Whitey’s lawyer, filed papers making this claim. One person in the media went out to the usual contacts, some of the families of the victims, seeking their opinion. As expected, it was reported that they scoffed at the idea the federal government would give people immunity for murdering people. It would seem to be a far-fetched notion to persons not familiar with the operations of the Justice Department and FBI. It is not to us who have seen them operate in the matters surrounding Whitey.
I noticed yesterday that it was reported in the news media that Whitey was going to claim Jeremiah O’Sullivan gave him immunity. Readers of this blog knew months ago that he was going to make that claim. J.W. Carney has also raised the issue of Judge Stearns sitting on the case. He asked him to recuse himself saying that he was an associate of O’Sullivan during the time in question. Judge Stearns has already denied a prior request that he recuse himself. I’ve suggested before that his denial under the circumstances may not have been the wisest move especially since Carney suggests he will call him as a witness.
The FBI agent that has the information that O’Sullivan gave Whitey immunity is John Connolly. He is spending the rest of his life in a Florida prison. He is, of course, the handler of Whitey Bulger and the one who would know. His involvement with Whitey is spelled out in my book, Don’t Embarrass The Family.” In a recent interview he asserted that O’Sullivan did request a meeting with Whitey. I wrote about this and suggested there is some type of coordination going on between Whitey’s lawyers and Connolly’s lawyers. Connolly’s claim came out about the same time as Whitey’s lawyers were making their claim. That doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with those parties being in contact. If Whitey’s lawyers learned during a debriefing of Whitey that he was making that claim, they would by necessity want to verify it through Connolly. That is the only thing that makes sense. It would not have arisen as an issue until Whitey’s capture.
Whitey Bulger’s Secret Deal With A Federal Prosecutor For Immunity In Exchange For Betraying His Associates
Yesterday I wrote about Whitey’s one way to freedom. It is not through being acquitted before Judge Stearns in Boston of all the murder charges. That would help but it doesn’t spring him because the southern states of Florida and Oklahoma are waiting to try him and fry him for murder. His one way is to convince the jury that Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeremiah O’Sullivan gave him immunity for all his crimes in return for being an informant for the FBI. If he had the federal immunity, he not only gets off on the federal murder charges but the states will be unable to prosecute him.
J.W. Carney and Whitey are going for the whole ball of wax. They know that 90% is not enough, it has to be an outright win. That’s why Carney is taking such a dogged approach to this case, probably more so than any other case he handled. He has to take a two tiered approach. spread doubt about Whitey’s involvement in as many murders as he can and convince the jury Whitey had immunity.
You’ve heard that the courtroom seems more like the Groundhog Day movie with Judge Bowler and J.W.Carney agreeing he is sounding like a broken record. The issue is still over discovery which should have been settled months ago with a little more cooperative effort — or at a minimum with a court appointed referee who could sit down and separate the fluff from the rest of the stuff.
We’re all of the mind that Whitey is guilty and the show should get rolling along. That certainly is the mindset of the prosecution team which just wants to get this over. So one concludes that J.W. Carney, Jr., is standing in the way. That is the right conclusion but isn’t that his job. Despite the overwhelming condemnation of his client, as I recall, he is not guilty of any of these crimes unless found guilty by a jury after a fair trial. No matter how despicable we find Whitey to be, he is entitled to that under our Constitution, at least he was the last time I looked.
All the parties were in court by 2:30. As usual the prosecution team of Kelly and Wyshak were there first; just before kickoff time Carney and Brennan entered. The courtroom was not that filled, probably about 60% at this time.
US Magistrate Judge Marianne Bowler is on the bench just after 2:30. She asks so what’s happening with the discovery. Prosecutor Brian Kelly said he filed his response to the discovery request last Friday. He said the defendant is interested in nothing but delay. He then had two exhibits to offer to the court, A: which was a form that was redacted; and B: the same form as A, but with no redactions on it. He said the defendant complained about the redactions in A and he already had the unredacted form B in his possession. Kelly said he received 2,200 forms from defendant complaining about redactions and 1,500 or so were like exhibit A, that is, they had already provided unredacted copies of the forms the defendant was complaining about. He said the defendants want the prosecutors to do their work and they are falsely raising problems where there aren’t any.