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
- The Law and You: When can the police stop me and ask for ID? - Plattsburgh Press Republican...
- ATM bandit ordered to repay his victims - Vail Daily News...
- 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)...
- October 2014
- 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: July 2013
Here’s what the FBI is really about. James Crawford and Fred Davis. Two retired FBI agents who had the misfortune to be assigned to the Boston FBI office during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Two well spoken witnesses, totally credible, who had no agendas. They were subpoenaed to testify; they appeared in court and swore an oath to tell the truth to the best of their ability; and that’s what they did.
They didn’t suffer memory lapses, they didn’t seek to please one side over the other, they simply did their best to answer the questions asked. The spoke with authority. It was like a breath of fresh air coming into the court room.
If ever there was a doubt that the prosecutors had an inexplicable animus against Billy Bulger and would do anything to tear down his name it was shown by the question just asked in this case. Agent Crawford discussed that he was at a retirement party of John Connolly on direct examination. Prosecutor Brian Kelly got up on cross-examination and asks out of the blue, “Was Billy Bulger at Connolly’s retirement party?” There is no reason why that question should have been asked. It has no relevance to an issue that has come close to this case. It absolutely proves that the prosecutors are engaged in an ongoing attempt to slander Billy Bulger. They hope by doing this his name is printed in the paper as somehow connected with the trial. I tweeted about it and called it disgraceful. That was the mildest word I could come up with.
I’m coming out of the courthouse yesterday and I bump into this guy who knows a ton about what is going on in the case. He’s one of the few guys I really respect. He’s an independent thinker. We disagree on some pretty important things but like with the people who come to this blog we discuss them in an open manner without rancor and remain friendly.
He says “Whitey’s not going to testify.”
I’m surprised because immediately prior to him saying that I was walking down the steps from the second floor to the lobby and I experienced the first shadow of a doubt pass over my mind about whether he would testify. The first thing I hear as I’m trying to get out from under the shadow was his voice as if he was reading my thoughts.
Ex-FBI Agent Robert Fitzpatrick finished up his testimony, retired FBI Agent Joseph L. Kelly began and finished his. The latter testified that he was in the FBI office in Boston between 1972 and 1975, that he knew John Connolly, was on the C-3 organized crime squad with him, and that Connolly carried a lesser case load than the other agents. The reason for that was that Connolly was the informant coordinator for the office.
Kelly said he had informants. He said other agents had informants. No one knew who his informants were, and he didn’t know the identities of other informants. He said there was only one agent in the office who had access to all the informant files. Not just those in the C-3 unit, but thanks to the government’s cross-examination (pointing out the danger of asking a question when you don’t know the answer) we learned he had access to every informant file in the Boston division. That agent was John Connolly.
Today we started off with Robert Fitzpatrick. When I left you last I told you I was getting to like the guy a lot more because he stood up well to what one person said was a “withering”(sic) cross-examination. It was much less than that. So I looked forward to seeing what would happen today.
Fitzpatrick unlike the other FBI agents who I have seen testify did not show up yesterday wearing the expected FBI court dress: conservative suit, white shirt, and conservative tie. He wore a gray sports coat with black lines, a black shirt with gray stripes and an open collar. I notice in his picture I put on my blog he seems to have a penchant for black and gray shirts. Today he wore light gray suit with a black jersey.
After the jury went home the judge went over some of the outstanding matters that had to be considered before the case concludes. She went over her jury instructions with counsel and a few other matters. Then she brought up the issue that she postponed during the cross-examination of Fitzpatrick by Kelly, the entry into evidence of certain documents, including the photograph of Fitzpatrick standing at the grave site across from Florian Hall in Dorchester where the three bodies were unearthed.
To get a sense of this madness, you have to understand that the discussion of the matter of the photographs admissibility went on for over ten minutes. Put that in perspective of what this trial is about.
Fitzpatrick was on the stand all day. The best that can be said is he stood up pretty well on cross-examination, not backing down from any of his assertions even though Kelly kept hammering away at him accusing him of making things up and reinventing reality.
I’m not sure how the jury is understanding this. Kelly seems to have information showing that he is not telling the truth, FBI reports saying something totally opposite, and he says in effect: “I didn’t write the report. I was there. I know what happened no matter what some report says.”
We started off with the arrest of Gerry Angiulo. Fitzpatrick claims that he was the one who did it; Kelly shows that the 302 says Agent Quinn and another one did it. Fitzpatrick suggests Quinn wrote the 302 and it is wrong (something we’ve heard before which should not give us a great deal of confidence in the FBI reports) and repeats that he was there and he made the arrest. Kelly reminds him that Agent Quinn is still alive (remember you are testifying under oath) and thus available to come in and contradict him. It doesn’t affect Fitzpatrick.
We heard from ex-FBI agent Robert Fitzpatrick age 73 who came to Boston in January 1981. He was in charge of among other things the C-3 unit. When he came to Boston the C-3 unit was just starting up the wiretap on Gerry Angiulo’s Mafia group along with that of Larry Baione. This wiretap would run into April, 1981. Morris testified that the whole C-3 unit was involved in doing that wiretap as would be the case considering what was being done. Fitzpatrick testified about his time in the office during this period and he had not mentioned this.
On Sundays I’m writing my little story about Trooper John Naimovich. In that you will see the tactics used by the U.S. attorneys office and the FBI. These are repeated time after time. They jam someone in who is not the target, scare the hell out of the person, and tell her if she gives them something on the target they’ll give her a break.
The incentive to get oneself off the hook by hook or by crook is so great that the likelihood of a crooked tale is almost a certainty. A civilized society would outlaw such tactics. Evidence obtained by threat of having one’s family impoverished and telling the person she will do an outlandish amount of prison time for non-violent acts should really be barred as we do with torture evidence. But it remains the tried and true tactic used by the US attorneys in Boston, and elsewhere in the country.
(This is being published each Sunday in serial form. For full view of past postings go here. )
As Captain Mattioli was watching and trying to set Naimovich up from inside; Tom Foley and his partner were tracking his every movement outside. While they were busy doing this, the FBI was readying an affidavit to go up on the telephone of McIntyre.
The affidavit with respect to Naimovich shows that he is in contact with McIntyre. It talks about a wiretap on Vanessa’s Restaurant in the Prudential Center and how it was tipped off noting McIntyre’s name was mentioned as paying rent. Mattioli would testify in the grand jury on February 2, 1988, that Naimovich being in the same unit that did Vanessa’s would have had information on that wiretap but that was later proven to be false. The affidavit mentioned the incident Foley talked about that kicked off the investigation of Naimovich that he had leaked the report to Vinny Ferrara another falsehood.