Justice for John Connolly     FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY JEREMIAH O'SULLIVAN ADMITS THAT: CONNOLLY WAS NO "ROGUE AGENT" JEREMIAH O'SULLIVAN'S CONFLICTING TESTIMONY RECENTLY EXPOSED IN HIS DEPOSITION, TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, AND GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS Jeremiah O'Sullivan was the former U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts in 1979. He was the former head of the Organized Crime Strike Force at the U.S. Attorney's Office while John Connolly was an FBI Special Agent. In direct contradiction to the government's underlying theory of their case argued to the court in convicting John Connolly, former U.S. Attorney O'Sullivan has since admitted post-trial through his recent deposition, his testimony before a Congressional Committee, and in government documents recently obtained, that: 1) he knew Bulger and Flemmi were murderers in 1979; 2) he knew that Bulger and Flemmi were FBI informants in 1979; 3) that Bulger and Flemmi were not prosecuted in a race-fixing case in 1979 because of the Department of Justice's exercise of "prosecutorial discretion," and that this decision was based upon their value as informants against the Mafia. However, at John Connolly's trial the prosecution argued the exact opposite of these newly discovered facts, and portrayed Connolly as a rogue agent who was the only person who knew about the criminal activities of Bulger and Flemmi. Jeremiah O'Sullivan inexplicably became "medically unavailable" to offer his personal testimony at John Connolly's trial. However, shortly after John's trial he was available to testify before a Congressional Committee alongside AUSA John Durham. Additionally, despite attempts by the defense counsel of John Connolly prior to John Connolly's trial, O'Sullivan refused to engage in any communications whatsoever with them pertaining to his knowledge of the existence of any of these highly relevant and crucial facts. This refusal to cooperate was for reasons now known, and not having this knowledge effectively eviscerated the main defense strategy. John Connolly was portrayed by prosecutors as a "Rogue Agent" who had given his murderous informants permission to commit crimes, without authority from higher ups. O'Sullivan know admits this was not true, and that not only did he know what was going on, but that such information was disseminated all the way up to the top at the FBI and Department of Justice's offices in Washington. This evidence would have completely exonerated John Connolly. What would have been of paramount importance to John Connolly's defense with respect to Jeremiah O'Sullivan's testimony, amongst other things, was the establishment of the fact that there had been "prosecutorial discretion" exercised on behalf of Bulger and Flemmi. This was a particularly critical element of the prosecutions case in sustaining its burden on the RICO count, but it was also part of the "totality" of circumstances to be considered by the jury. The existence of such "authorization" and "prosecutorial discretion" permeated every aspect of the charged conduct in the indictment. The main theory that the prosecution diligently pursued throughout the course of John's trial was to deceptively establish the false fact that nobody else in law enforcement (FBI, U.S. Attorney's Office and Department of Justice) had any knowledge of the fact that this so-called authority ("Authorized Conduct") had been granted to Bulger and Flemmi. Further, that nobody, other than John Connolly, had any reason to suspect them of involvement in murders, or that they were engaged in criminal conduct of any kind while having the status of Top Echelon Informants. Throughout John's trial in May 2002, AUSA John Durham, continualy dismissed the suggestion that any authorization had been given to Bulger and Flemmi. Additionally, AUSA Durham derided any suggestion that "authorization" of any kind had been extended even on the day of John's sentencing in front of trial Judge, Joseph L. Tauro, when Durham recommended John be given a 10 year sentence. Certainly, maintaing this charade was one of the critical elements necessary for the government to sustain their burden of establishing its case. Unfortunately, it would become clear long after John Connolly was wrongfully convicted and incarcerated in a Federal Prison, that the government knew that Bulger and Flemmi were informants; that the government had ample reason to believe that they were at various times involved in murders, and that such knowledge has been acknowledged and well documented in various documents recently discovered in the discovery of related civil cases; and the government knew full well that Bulger and Flemmi were continually involved in bookmaking and loansharking as "cover" for their informant activities. The discovery of these crucial facts and knowledge would come to late for John Connolly. The government's intent to deceive John's defense team is in full evidence by the fabricated facts appearing in the July 31, 1997, OPR interview with former U.S. Attorney, Jeremiah O'Sullivan. FBI OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (OPR) INVESTIGATION REPORT OF JULY 1997 FUll OF LIES In July 1997, the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) conducted an investigation of the activities of New England Law Enforcement. During the investigation they interviewed Jeremiah O'Sullivan. The investigation interview was recorded in a certain government OPR Report 302. At John Connolly's trial, the government provided his defense with this crucial and pivotal FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report of July 31, 1997, which ostensibly accurately contained the substance of the interview of former prosecutor and former U.S. Attorney Jeremiah O'Sullivan. On July 31, 1997, Jeremiah O'Sullivan was interviewed in the offices at his own law firm, Choate, Hall and Stewart. The interview was conducted by FBI Agents, SSA Walt Reynolds and SA John J. Hess. Also present for reasons that are not logically explained, was AUSA Jamie Herbert who had been hired by O'Sullivan while he was in the U.S. Attorney's Office. O'Sullivan was quoted by the FBI-OPR Investigators in this 302 Report extensively regarding Bulger and Flemmi. However, these recorded numerous statements are now known to be patently false, and in the context of the prosecution of any related criminal case, such a fabrication of a government document had to have been made with the knowledge that it would materially interfere with the conduct of the defense of a defendant, and as such, rises to the level of being tantamount to an obstruction of justice. The two most damaging statements reported to have been made by Jeremiah O'Sullivan, as set forth in the OPR Report, came when he told FBI Agents: "... being an informant does not shield that individual from criminal prosecution." O'Sullivan did and always would prosecute an informant if he became aware of crimes being committed by that informant. This of course, was a false statement but it paled in comparison to the following statement attributed to O'Sullivan that is documented on page 3 of the July 31, 1997 OPR Report: "O'Sullivan thought that Bulger and Flemmi were informants for the FBI, but he was never specifically told while he was a Government prosecutor." Coincidently, O'Sullivan's false statements appearing in this 302 Report conveniently and timely insured that any evidence confirming that Bulger and Flemmi had been authorized by the government to engage in criminal activity, as Flemmi had asserted as his defense during the Wolf hearings, would never be revealed. The FBI Office of Professional Reponsibility concluded in there OPR July 1997 Report that: "There is no evidence that prosecutorial discretion was exercised on behalf of James Bulger and/or Stephen Flemmi." However, after John's conviction, O'Sullivan would admit in his deposition, and in his Congressional testimony, that this conclusion was false. He did in fact exercise his "prosecutorial discretion" on behalf of Bulger and Flemmi. O'Sullivan also admitted his FBI OPR Report of July 1997 was replete with errors. (See O'Sullivan's admissions in deposition below.) EVIDENCE AND PROOF OF O'SULLIVAN'S LIES Below are pertinent sections of the deposition transcript of Jeremiah O'Sullivan taken 3 years after John's trial. In the depostion, O'Sullivan admits he knew Bulger and Flemmi were informants and murderers. And admits he used his "prosecutorial discretion" (with the approval of the Department of Justice in Washington) to not indict them in the race-fixing case. John Connolly's defense counsel took this deposition on October 24, 2005. The deposition transcript was included in John Connolly's Motion for a New Trial as Exhibit B: O'Sullivan's Conflicting Testimony Exposed In Deposition and Government Documents Conflict One OPR Report of July 1997: "O'Sullivan thought that Bulger and Flemmi were informants for the FBI, but he was never specifically told while he was a Government prosecutor" O'Sullivan admits in deposition that he did know they were informants. Jeremiah O'Sullivan Deposition Taken October 24, 2005 See Transcript p. 100-101. To read clearer copy of transcript click photo. QUESTION: In January of 1979, did FBI Agents Connolly and Morris inform you that James Bulger and Stephen Flemmi were FBI informants? ANSWER: At some point they did, but I don't remember the date, but, yes. QUESTION: Would January 1979 be approximately the time period when that happened? ANSWER: I really don't remember. It was before the Winter indictment, so it probably was about that time. The winter indictments were returned in February of 1979. QUESTION: So, it was before then? ANSWER: Yes. QUESTION: In fact, you wrote a prosecution memorandum on January 29 of 1979 in connection with the winter race-fixing scheme; is that correct? ANSWER: Yes. O'Sullian admits in deposition that he also knew Bulger and Flemmi were murderers 1979 See Transcript p. 102-103. To read clearer copy of transcript click photo. QUESTION: And by that time, in other words, February of 1979, did you know that Whitey Bulger had been involved with some murders? By involved I mean in the sense of being responsible for people being murdered. ANSWER: Yes, I remember all the people in the Winter Hill Gang were involved in murder, so I had no specific memory of him being involved in that particular murder, but I believe he was a murderer, yes. QUESTION: And also Stephen Flemmi? ANSWER: Yes. Conflict Two In the OPR Report of July 1997 Investigators Concluded: "There is no evidence that prosecutorial discretion was exercised on behalf of Bulger and Flemmi" O'Sullivan admits in deposition he did exercise "prosecutorial discretion". Jeremiah O'Sullivan Deposition Taken October 24, 2005 See Transcript p. 103, 105 and 106 To read clearer copy of transcript click photo. QUESTION: Flemmi and Bulger were not prosecuted in the Winter race-fixing case as a result of your exercise of prosecutorial discretion; is that correct? ANSWER: That's correct? Transcript p. 105 QUESTION: Now, when FBI Agents John Connolly and John Morris spoke to you about the fact that Whitey Bulger and Stephen Flemmi were informants they asked you not to indict them in the race fixing scheme; is that correct? ANSWER: Yes, that's what they did. QUESTION: And they also asked you for permission to tell Bulger and Flemmi that they had spoke to you on their behalf, did they not? ANSWER: Yes. QUESTION: And what reply did you make to that? ANSWER: I said,"They're informants, they can do whatever they want as informants." FBI OPR Report - Replete with Errors O'Sullivan admits in deposition OPR Report of 1997 was replete with errors. Jeremiah O'Sullivan Deposition Taken October 24, 2005 See Transcript p. 128, 129, and 130 To read clearer copy of transcript click photo. QUESTION: Have you reviewed the FBI OPR 302 report, dated July 31, 1997? ANSWER: I'm not quite sure what that report is about, so I have to -- O'Sullivan is given the report to review ANSWER: I have been through it a little bit, Mr. Lonergan, and it looks like it's replete with errors. (Brief pause taken). ANSWER: I've read it, Mr. Lonergan. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. O'Sullivan. I won't ask you at this moment to review all the errors, since it is replete, but I would ask you to confirm that it is in error where it says "O'Sullivan had no involvement in the Lancaster Garage Title III investigation until after the fact." ANSWER: That's an error. QUESTION: Right. And when it says on Page 3 "O'Sullivan thought that Bulger and Flemmi were informants for the FBI, but he was never specifically told while he was a Government prosecutor," that would be in error; is that correct? ANSWER: That's correct. Conflict Three In the OPR Report of July 1997, investigators: "O'Sullivan thought that Bulger and Flemmi were informants for the FBI, but he was never specifically told while he was a Government prosecutor" O'Sullivan admits in 1980 Government Memo that he wanted Bulger (Flemmi) continued as informants regardless of their current activities 1980 Government Memorandum See paragraph 3 in Memorandum. To read clearer copy of memorandum click photo. "He (O'Sullivan) stated there was sufficient justification for continuing him (Bulger) regardless of his current activities to be able to eventually prosecute LCN members." Jeremiah O'Sullivan's Conflicts Exposed During his Congressional Testimony Congressional Hearing - December 5, 2002 Jeremiah O'Sullivan testified before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Government Reform on December 5, 2002, in Boston. On page 10 of the 108th Congressional Report, Former U.S. Attorney Jeremiah O'Sullvian was asked whether prosecutorial discretion had been exercised on behalf of Bulger and Flemmi, he said that it had. House Report on pages 8 and 9: "When the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility conducted an investigation of the activities of New England law enforcement, it concluded in 1997:'There is no evidence that prosecutorial discretion was exercised on behalf of [James]Bulger and/or [Stephen]Flemmi.' This is not true Former U.S. Atty Jeremiah O'Sullivan was asked at the December 2, 2002, Committee hearing whether prosecutorial discretion had been exercised on behalf of Bulger and Flemmi, and he said that it had. A review of documents in the possession of the Justice Department also confirms this to be true. Had the Committee permitted as assertion of executive privilege by the President to go unchallenged, this information would never have been known. That the Justice Department concluded that prosecutorial discretion had not benefited Bulger or Flemmi - while at the same time fighting to keep Congress from obtaining information proving this statement to be untrue - is extremely troubling. Jeremiah O'Sullivan Embarrassed by his Own Testimony During his Congressional Hearing - December 2002 House Report page 64: "O'Sullivan testified before the Committee on December 5, 2002, that at the time he was considering indictments for the Ciulla race-fixing case, he knew Flemmi was a murderer, but used "prosecutorial discretion"in deciding not to prosecute Flemmi." "O'Sullivan claimed that he did not indict Flemmi because the testimony against him was uncorroborated." However, O'Sullivan testified before the Committee that another reason that he did not indict Flemmi was because Flemmi's role in the race-fixing scheme was limited to receipts of proceeds from the illegal scheme. This testimony was false. When confronted with his own memorandum that Stephen Flemmi and James Bulger participated in a meeting to discuss the race-fixing scheme, that Bulger and Flemmi 'would help find outside bookmakers to accept the bets of the group,' 'that they were financiers of the conspiracy, and that Flemmi appeared to be part of the core working group of the conspiracy,' O'Sullivan replied, "You've Got Me." A 1979 Prosecution Memorandum by Jeremiah O'Sullivan Finally Exposes Truth About Prosecutorial Discretion Being Granted The explosive prosecution memo mentioned above was dated January 29, 1979 and was from Gerald E. McDowell, Attorney-in-charge, and Jeremiah O'Sullivan, Prosecutor, Organized Crime & Racketeering Sextion, Boston U.S. Dept of Justice Field Office, and addressed to Gerald T. McGuire, Deputy Chief, Organized Crime & Racketeering Section, U.S. Dept of Justice, Washington, D.C. The memo contradicted the Government's false claims that no "Prosecutorial Discretion" had ever been exercised by any member of the Boston U.S. Attorney's Office or the Department of Justice and that Bulger and Flemmi were not indicted in the 1979 Race-Fixing Case - because they were not involved in the conspiracy. The McDowell and O'Sullivan memo stated: "That Stephen Flemmi and James Bulger participated in a meeting to discuss the race-fixing scheme, that Bulger and Flemmi would help find outside bookmakers to accept the bets of the group. That they were financiers of the conspiracy and that Flemmi appeared to be part of the core working group of the conspiracy." The prosecution memo mentioned above was written by Jeremiah O'Sullivan, and Strike Force Chief, Gerald McDowell, to their supervisors in Washington, D.C., and confirmed that both Bulger and Flemmi were FBI informants, and had been protected from prosecution by both O'Sullivan and his, then, boss, McDowell. The Department of Justice had hidden this revealing memo from the Congressional Committee, and had only just released it to the committee on Monday, December 2, 2002. Back to Newly Discovered Evidence  click  here Home | Website Mission | About John Connolly | Newly Discovered Evidence | Motion For New Trial | Florida Indictment | FBI Reports | Murderers' Testimony | Post-Trial Testimony |