Justice for John Connolly        Justice for John Connolly     POST CONNOLLY TRIAL TESTIMONY EXPOSES WITNESS PERJURY Three of the government's main witnesses against John Connolly were exposed as having perjured themselves at John Connolly's trial thanks to Post-Trial Proceedings before the Congressional Committee on Government Reform, civil depositions and the Government's own witnesses (Vella;"CS" and "Individual" through statements provided to the FBI.) The serial killing "Hitman," John Martorano, who admitted he murdered 20 people, confessed that he had never even met John Connolly. He didn't have to be exposed, the jury didn't believe a word he said and John was acquitted on every charge he testified to. Kevin Weeks, Former FBI Supervisor, John Morris and Frank Salemme were exposed in their Post-Trial Proceedings as having committed perjury. TESTIMONY OF KEVIN WEEKS Weeks' perjury is best displayed by contrasting his trial testimony with his Post-Trial Deposition testimony and the statements he provides to Justice Task FOrce Investigators as reflected in his DEA-6 Report of 1-24-01. Weeks' Trial Testimony, May 14, 2002, Tr., 202, 17-19 QUESTION: Would it be accurate to describe yourself as Bulger's right hand man at the time? ANSWER: Yes. However, that's not the answer he provided later under oath at his civil deposition! Weeks' Deposition of August 8, 2004, Tr., 16, 13-17 QUESTION: Would you be fairly described as Bulger's right hand man? Would you agree with that? ANSWER: No. Weeks' Deposition Tr., 17, 4 QUESTION: Did you ever consider yourself his [Bulger's] right hand man? ANSWER: No. Or on Weeks' association with the Winter Hill Gang. Weeks' Trial Testimony, May 14, 2002, Tr., 204, 21 QUESTION: Now at some point Mr. Weeks, did you come to consider yourself as part of the Winter Hill organization? ANSWER: Yes. Weeks' Deposition Testimony, August 24, 2004, Tr., 14, 23-24 QUESTION: Were you ever a member of the Winter Hill Gang? ANSWER: No. Kevin Weeks' perjury is magnified even further in his materially critical testimony given at the Connolly trial when he said, that while acting as the lookout during the murders of gangsters, Halloran and Donahue, he observed the shooting take place and its actual participants. On cross-examination Weeks' states on May 15, 2002, Tr., 135-136 Weeks' Trial Testimony on Cross-examination, May 15, 2002, Tr., 135-136 QUESTION: Now you say that Bulger was in a car with another person; isn't that right? ANSWER: Correct. QUESTION: Mr. Bulger was in the front and another person was in the back? ANSWER: Yes. QUESTION: Who was in the back? ANSWER: He had a ski-mask on. QUESTION: Are you testifying that you didn't know who was in the back seat of Mr. Bulger's car? ANSWER: I could speculate who was in the back, but I didn't see their face. QUESTION: Didn't that person wave to you? ANSWER: Yes. QUESTION: Didn't you see that person's eyes? ANSWER: Yes, I saw the eyes. QUESTION: Didn't you know who it was? ANSWER: No, I could speculate who it was, but, no, I couldn't tell you who it was. If I could tell you who it was, I would. QUESTION: You know to a fair degree of certainty who it was. ANSWER: I have a pretty good idea. QUESTION: Who was that? Mr. Bulger: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: What is the objection? MR. DURHAM: He said he couldn't identify the person in the matter of that nature. THE COURT: I thought he said he had a pretty good idea. THE WITNESS: Yes. THE COURT: I will let her have it. Go ahead. ANSWER: It was Jimmy Mantville or Pat Nee. QUESTION: And you knew both of these individuals, did you not? ANSWER: Yes. However, prior to the trial in Weeks' DEA-6 Report of Jan 24, 2001 when asked the same question about who the shooter in the back seat was, Weeks' coughed up Pat Nee. DEA-6 Report of Jan 24, 2001 "I believe it was Pat Nee." There is no mention of any James "Jimmy" Mantville, and Weeks knew that Bulger had kicked Mantville out of his crew at least a decade earlier in the early 1970's. At the time of Weeks testimony, Mantville had died of natural causes. Also, in his DEA-6 of Jan 24, 2001 it states on Page 10: "Hurley told Bulger that Halloran was then at the Pier Restaurant on Northern Avenue." According to Weeks, Bulger immediately began looking for Stephen Flemmi and Pat Nee. More importantly, on Page 12 of his DEA-6 Report, Weeks is quoted as stating that he ran into Jimmy Montville the next morning after Halloran's murder at a breakfast restaurant in Sout Boston. The report state: "Weeks indicated that Mantville was claiming responsibility for the Halloran shooting,even though he had nothing to do with it." The inescapable conclusion is that Kevin Weeks perjured himself in his trial testimony regarding Pat Nee's involvement in the murder. IT defies credibility that Weeks could be involved in a gangland murder as co-conspirator and not know the identity of one of his co-perpetrators in the murder! In addition to the testimony and statements of Kevin Weeks placing Pat Nee directly as a shooter in the Halloran-Donahue murders, Weeks' criminal associate, Stephen Flemmi, in his deposition testimony of April 28, 2005 (Tr., 132) also corroborates the involvement of Pat Nee in these murders; proving Weeks' perjured himself at the Connolly trial. Flemmi Deposition Testimony, April 28, 2005, Tr. 132 QUESTION: And Mr. Bulger was involved in the Halloran murder? ANSWER: In Halloran's murder? QUESTION: Yes. ANSWER: Yes. QUESTION: And Weeks was involved in the Halloran murder? ANSWER: Yes. QUESTION: Was anyone else involved in the Halloran murder? ANSWER: Well, I don't know if it came out on the record, but we discussed that, yes. QUESTION: Who was the other person? ANSWER: Pat Nee. MR.ROSE: Pat Nee. QUESTION: How do you know Pat Nee was involved in this? ANSWER: It came up in conversation afterwards. I knew about it. It is apparant that Pat Nee was debriefed with regard to these murders and other murders that he was involved in and was "cooperating" with the government as a government witness, yet, no reports were ever produced to the defense counsel for John Connolly. Witness Jamie Parker There also appeared in the May 25, 2005 Boston Herald an article written by J.M. Lawrence entitled "Little Whitey Lies: Hit Witness Talks." The article contains even more "newly discovered evidence!" The article identified a man named, Jamie Parker, as a close eye witness to the Halloran Donahue murders. The article states that: Click here to Read entire article "Bulger's Lieutenant, Kevin Weeks, who became a government witness, testified in 2002 (Connolly trial) that Bulger and a masked-man murdered Halloran and Donahue as Weeks watched from a nearby car." In contrast to the self serving testimony of Kevin Weeks, Jamie Parker is quoted as stating that he was in his mother's car with lobsters: "When he saw a 'white Irish guy with glasses' execute a man who tries to run from a car on Northern Avenue. He also saw another shooter kill the car's driver with a pistol." The Boston Herald article further states: "About two years ago, State Police interviewed Parker about whether the gunman he saw wore ski masks.'there were no masks, he told them." Additionally, the article noted that a 1982 Boston Police Department report listing Parker as a witness to the hit was under seal in Federal Court. It is clear that what Jamie Parker told State Police investigators after John Connolly's trial is at material and disturbing odds with both Kevin Weeks' trial testimony and his January 24, 2001, DEA-6 Debriefing Report. John Connolly has now presented to the court the affidavit of an individual identified as "John Doe #1" for purposes of insuring his safety. It is now obvious that Kevin Weeks perjured himself during his trial testimony in an attempt to protect his good friend, Pat Nee, so that Weeks would have a criminal ally to protect him when he resumes his criminal activities now that he is back on the street. A similar scheme by Weeks is also underway to secure the release of Weeks' close pal, Freddie Weitchell. For the purposes of joining Weeks and Nee in controling the criminal rackets in the South Boston, Dorchester area. Weitchel and his brother are both serving life sentences for murder. What is especially disturbing about John Doe #1's affidavit is that it appears that the government itself may have been inexclusably complicit in this scheme between Kevin Weeks and Pat Nee in arranging for Weeks' testimonial fiction. This new, credible and material evidence supports the fact that Kevn Weeks was indeed accorded certain undisclosed "special benefits" by prosecutors who provided the incarcerated Kevin Weeks the opportunity to communicate in private with Patrick Nee, "to straighten everything out." This embarrasing disclosure would have been of enormous value and importance during the cross-examination of Kevin Weeks. How could the government explain arranging and permitting Kevin Weeks, an admitted serial killer, to directly communicate with a fellow gang member, and fellow serial killer, at any time while in custody? For what possible reason if not to rehearse Kevin Weeks trial perjury? Testimony of Former FBI Supervisor John Morris John Morris admitted to accepting $7,000 in cash from Bulger and Flemmi. He claimed initially that this money was a "loan" that he intended to pay back, but never did. But, after debriefings with prosecutors, his story changed. Morris then claimed that following a threatening phone call from Whitey Bulger- 8 years latger - in which Bulger told him that he (Morris) "was going down" if Bulger did. Morris decided that the loans must have been bribes! This fanciful conclusion is hard to swallow, in light of the fact that Morris, as supervisor, of the "public corruption" squad, was putting Boston Police officers and other Public Corruption Officers in prison for accepting bribes - and Morris didn't know he was being bribed until 8 years later? Morris testified that John Connolly, never, to his knowledge ever accepted any money but had delivered two thousand of the seven thousand dollars to him. John Connolly was charged with Obstruction of Justice for allegedly delivering bribes to Morris. John Connolly was convicted of one charge of delivering a case of wine to Morris from Bulger and Flemmi which supposedly had an envelope with $1,000 secured at the bottom. As it turned out, the government couldn't use that conviction in showing a "Pattern" of Racketeering activity because it was the only charge John Connolly was convicted of while he was an FBI agent and it was 12 years old and outside the statute of limitations. John was acquitted of everything the government charged him with based on Morris' allegations with the exception of the case of wine. The government was trying to blame John Connolly as the reason for John Morris' accepting of these supposed "bribes." That "fiction" came crashing down when Morris' ex-wife told John Connolly's defense counsel shortly before the trial was to begin, that John Morris had accepted another $5,000 and trips to stay at another Top Echelon Informant's condo in West Palm Beach. In addition, Morris' lives "rent free" in an apartment owned by the Top Echelon (Identified only as "MR.X" during the trial) and accepted "other" gifts fromt he Top Echelon informant. When counsel for John Connolly issues a subpoena for the former Mrs. Morris testimony, Morris was "smoked out" and had an "11th hour epiphany" - admitting accepting the money, trips, and gifts in additional to admitting that he lied under oath, in his divorce agreement - claiming the $5,000 he received from "Mr. X" were loans! The prosecutor's "theory" that John Connolly was responsible for Morris' having been led astray, blew up in their face when Morris was forced to admit that John Connolly knew nothing about "his taking money from "Mr.X" what was curious was that the government never really proved that Morris had done anything wrong to earn his "bribes" from Bulger and Flemmi! When asked on cross-examination why he didn't disclose these monies and gifts from "Mr.X" regarding part of this plea agreement as required, Morris said his attorney, himself a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, told him not tos ay anything about "Mr.X" unless specifically asked." Morris' attorney had worked out the "plea agreement' with AUSA Fred Wyshak, who obviously knew that any admission by Morris as to his accepting money, trips and gifts from "Mr.X" would preclude Wyshak from sustaining the fiction that John Connolly was a the epi-center of Morris wrongdoing. Ironically, it would be AUSA Wyshak's latest "serial-killing government witness" who would expose Wyshak and Morris' fiction when Stephen Flemmi testified at his October 12, 2004 deposition (Tr. 109) that the $5,000. loan to John Morris, mentioned in his previous affidavit submitted to Judge Mark Wolf should be changed from a "loan" to a "gift!" In other testimony, Flemmi confirmed that none of the monies paid to Morris were loans and were, in fact, gifts and they arranged for the payment of these "Gifts" in a meeting at Morris' condo! What is critically important about this revelation is that it demonstrates that John Connolly should never have been charged with being involved with any bribes that now are shown to have been "Gifts." Flemmi testified that the "Gifts" given to Morris were to help him defray some medical expenses Morris incurred in connection with his daughter's illness. The problem for John Connolly comes because of a decision made by the First Circuit of Appeals who ruled, in denying John Connolly's appeal, that the jury was entitled to consider "acquitted conduct" in coming to a verdit. But now it is clear that they shouldn't have ever been considering any of the "acquitted conduct" in respect to bribes that never took place! John was prejudiced by these "considerations." Similarly, at the trial, John Connolly was charged by the government of participating in an extortion of the South Boston Liquor Mart. John was also acquitted of that false charge and now we find out that there never was an extortion in the first instance. But, John Connolly was, again prejudiced by the ability of the jury to be allowed to consider the "acquitted conduct" in arriving at their verdict. The alleged "victim" of the liquor store extortion was "Stippo" Rakes. Rakes' sister, Mary Rakes O'Malley, told the Justice Task Force that it was her brother, "Stippo," who asked her to approach "Whitey" Bulger to ask him if he was interesed in purchasing the liquor store due to the fact "Stippo" had gotten himself over his head in debt. She said her brother was a liar and that nobody extorted anything from "Stippo." This interview was reflected in an FBI Report 302 that John Connolly never saw before his trial. Rakes' other sister, Patty Rakes, has corroborated her sister's information. But more importantly, both Weeks and Flemmi in their recent depositions, have both said there was no extortion. Weeks testified that at the last minute, Rakes tried to hold-up Bulger for more money. Rakes had already accepted $100,000 cash "under the table" so his wife, (who he was planning to divorce) wouldn't know how much he received for the sale of the store. Since $25,000 was the only amount shown on "paper," Rakes told his wife that he was extorted! Weeks actually was at the meeting when Rakes tried to increase the purchase price at the last minute. In his deposition of October 24, 2004, Flemmi (who wasn't present at the meeting with Rakes) confirms that there was no extortion in the purchase of the liquor store, but if there were, it was only at the "11th hour," and only because the owner may have tried to then back out of their previously agreed upon business deal. John Connolly was excoriated in the Boston media because of his supposed involvement in an extortion, that it turns out, never took place! SALEMME PERJURY It is clear that John Connolly sits in a Florida prison, in large measure, thanks to the perjured testimony of Frank Salemme. One question that cries out for an answer is why wasn't "Cadillac Frank" Salemme subjected to a polygraph examination before the prosecutors would be comfortable enough to use him as a witness against the FBI Agent who arrested him? Prosecutors do it for other witnesses in other cases when they are in doubt. FBI Agents themselves are subjected to polygraph exams in the course of "administrative inquiries" and OPR Personnel Investigations. If they give it to an FBI Agent or a CIA Agent, why wouldn't they use it on Frank Salemme? Because the Government knew that "Cadillac Frank" would "Blow-up" the machine-and they were so "obsessed with getting" John Connolly for threatening to tell the truth about "authorization" having been granted to Bulger and Flemmi - that they didn't want to know that Salemme was lying. And now, the Government's own new "star witness," Stephen Flemmi, in his testimony of October 12, 2004 (Tr. 26-32, 41-44, 83-89, 94, 266-267, 302-303) testifies that Morris and Ring gave Bugler and he specific "authorization" to commit crimes, except for murder. On April 28, 2005, Flemmi (at Tr. 72) testifies that Rico, Morris, Ring and Connolly gave him assurances that they would not be prosecuted by the FBI for non-violent gambling and loan sharking. This testimony puts an exclamation point on former U.S. Attorney Jeremiah O'Sullivan's perjury and the Government's false denial that Bulger and Flemmi were "authorized" to engage in criminal activity for the benefit of the Justice Department. Prosecutor's Knew Salemme Lied Finally, it is clear, from the volume of evidence provided by three Government witnesses, and from Flemmi’s testimony in his depositions, that Salemme is a perjurer. The Government knew all along that they were offering a known liar as a witness against John Connolly, but did so as a defense mechanism against their own considerable wrongdoing with respect to preventing discovery of Jeremiah O’Sullivan’s “authorization” and “prosecutorial discretion.” For instance, the Government knew that Stephen Flemmi would never dare to admit to “Cadillac Frank” Salemme that he had any relationship of any kind with John Connolly, after John Connolly had personally arrested Salemme in 1972 for the same Fitzgerald car bombing for which Flemmi avoided arrest. Salemme spent 16 years in prison because of John Connolly. Flemmi did not spend 16 minutes behind bars! Salemme’s bitterness towards Flemmi was also evident from Salemme’s April 10, 2003 testimony before Congress in which he testified that he believed that Flemmi had “given him up” when he was arrested by the FBI in 1972. Salemme was also bitter that his former partner, Flemmi, had never once offered to help his family financially while Salemme was locked up despite having promised to do so. Salemme told the Government Reform Committee that Flemmi went to see Salemme’s first wife after returning to Boston from his fugitive status, after charges against Flemmi were dropped in the car-bombing case. Salemme told the Committee that Flemmi’s charges were dropped when his criminal associates in the Winter Hill Gang paid the same witness who testified against Salemme-Robert Daddeico-to disappear. Salemme’s resentment towards Flemmi is revealed when he told Congress: “He (Flemmi) went to my house and saw my first wife when he got bailed, and I’ll never forget this, strictly the dog and pony show, “He’s my man. He’s this and that,” he broke down crying. And there I was saying (to Mafia Boss, Raymond Patriarca) “He’ll do the right thing, L.S.,” and him (Patriarca) telling me, “He’s a pony, you’ll see it.” But he did go to the house and make the appearance because he knew it would get back to me, through her, and I’d take the attitude, “Well, at least he’s back, maybe he’ll do something now,” but nothing. More evidence of his perjury at John Connolly’s trial occurred when Salemme told the Committee of a chance meeting he had with John Connolly at the Prudential Center (four years after John Connolly retired from the FBI) in what Salemme described as, “a strictly by chance meeting.” Salemme testified: "He (Connolly) struck up a conversation about, ‘Jeez, it’s good to see you, you look great,’ that type of thing.” Salemme testifies he said: “Good to see you, John.” Salemme stated John Connolly said, “You know, no hard feelings, I did what I had to do” (referring to Connolly’s arrest of him), “and shook hands.” If, as Salemme claimed, there was an on-going corrupt relationship between them and he was paying Connolly money why in 1994, would there be any need for Frank Salemme to be telling John Connolly, “there were no hard feelings;” or for John Connolly to be telling Salemme, “no hard feelings, I did what I had to do.” The truth is that Salemme never had a relationship of any kind with John Connolly, a fact he confirmed to Roger Vella, Jr., as reflected in his FBI report. Additionally, Kevin Weeks testified that Flemmi swore to Bulger that he had “nothing going” with Salemme! Vella told the FBI: “Salemme didn’t find out that Bulger and Flemmi were ratting Salemme out to Connolly until the Boston case against Connolly was publicized. Salemme was in a county jail somewhere in Massachusetts when he learned (in 1997) of Bulger and Flemmi’s cooperation with the Government.” (FBI-FD 302 report, 9-16-04, page 8). Also, Vella stated: “Salemme concluded that it was Bulger who told Connolly where Salemme could be located when Salemme was arrested on the run (in August of 1995). Why would John Connolly be tipping Salemme off to an indictment in January of 1995-then get him arrested 7 months later? Of course, Connolly did neither. Vella also said: “Salemme couldn’t believe Flemmi was a rat all those years. Flemmi found out Flemmi was a rat when they were in a country jail (1997)… Salemme told Vella he wanted to kill Flemmi when he found out that he was a rat.” AND: “Salemme told Vella there was no way he could have been friends with Connolly and know what Connolly was doing because Bulger and Flemmi were ratting out Salemme to Connolly ... Salemme said he never gave Connolly anything, including money… Salemme figured out what the prosecutors wanted him to say. Salemme then told them that he had given money to Connolly. Salemme was told by the prosecutors that this was the most important part of his testimony. Salemme felt that his whole deal with the Government hinged on him testifying that he paid Connolly money.” This account for Salemme admitting to Vella that he should have gotten “A thousand years” in prison for his testimony against John Connolly. With respect to the impact, that Salemme’s perjury had at John Connolly’s trial. Perhaps the honorable First Circuit Justice, Torruella captured it best when he citied United States v. Cuffie, 1996 D.C. Circuit Cast. The Cuffie Case said: “The Court reasoned that although the witness was impeached on other grounds. None of the impeachment that defense counsel conducted…Related to perjury [,] .. an infirmity in [the witness] testimony that is almost unique in its detrimental effect on a witness credibility.” The case against John Connolly should be thrown out on the basis of “Cadillac Frank” Salemme’s wholesale perjury alone. With Connolly Conviction Jeopardized Prosecutors Respond With Bogus Murder Indictment Every Government prosecutor has a legal and ethical obligation to seek out the truth as the ultimate goal of the judicial process. As officers of the Court, it is their constitutional duty. Winning a case must always be seen as the discovery of the truth of the underlying facts and applying the law. It must never be accepted as the blindly obtaining of an unjustifiable conviction through coerced and extorted, uncorroborated perjured testimony in the interests of enhancing one’s professional career, or the carrying out of some ulterior personal vendetta. By November of 2004, AUSA Wyshak knew he was in trouble. The “Newly Discovered Evidence” John Connolly was able to obtain primarily through the “Discovery” process in numerous related civil cases made it clear that John Connolly had not had a fair trial. Wyshak knew it. He knew Connolly now had: A)   Specific evidence that totally discredited Kevin Weeks in general, and in particular his testimony that John Connolly had “tipped” him on December 23, 1994 of the so-called “imminent indictment;” B)   Proof that Connolly was not acting as a “Rogue Agent” and evidence that former U.S. Attorney, Jeremiah O’Sullivan did indeed know that Bulger and Flemmi were murderers and FBI informants, and notwithstanding such knowledge, had specifically authorized and exercised “prosecutorial discretion” by protecting them from prosecution in the 1997 Race-Fixing Case for the purpose of using them against the mafia; and, C)   Evidence that Bulger and Flemmi both received specific authorization for their criminal conduct related to non-violent gambling activity by John Connolly’s direct supervisors. A De Facto “authorization” sanctioned by the Justice Department and understood all the way to Washington, D.C. Salemme Admits He Lied At Connolly Trial On top of that, the FBI, had produced an FBI 302 report of an interview with a Mafia associate of Frank Salemme’s revealing that while in prison Salemme had candidly admitted: A)   That all of his material testimony at John Connolly’s trial was perjuros; B)   That he falsely denied at the trial his true intent and motivation in providing the incriminating false evidence against John Connolly; C)   That he was encouraged and threatened by the Government to provide false testimony relative to the existence and timing of certain events material to the Government’s case; D)   That he received substantially more benefits and rewards than he admitted to under oath. Specifically he was allowed to keep all the hundreds of thousands of dollars he had acquired through his criminal control of the New England Mafia. They never fined him five cents; E)   That his cooperation was secured through the means of certain unlawful coercion, intimidation and duress, including the threat that the prosecutors would make sure that he would “Die in prison” if he did not cooperate against John Connolly. Wyshak and other Government prosecutors launched a three pronged deceptive effort to cover-up their own prosecutorial misdeeds and cover up the miscarriage of justice. It would be a desperate attempt at damage control. Salemme Indicted For Lying First, within a matter of days of when they claimed they first learned of Vella’s FD 302 Report, they arrested Frank Salemme and indicted him for obstruction of justice and furnishing false information on his “plea agreement” in connection with the murder/disappearance of Westwood, Mass, businessman, Stephen DiSarro. The prosecutors finally had no choice but to admit that Salemme’s testimony at John Connolly’s trial was indeed perjured, including his denying any knowledge and/or participation in any murders while boss of the New England branch of the La Cosa Nostra. In essence, in their desperation to now discredit “Cadillac Frank” Salemme, the Government reluctantly was forced to admit what they knew all along – that Salemme did, in fact, provide the perjured testimony they requested of him at John Connolly’s trial. Therefore, the Government had also De Facto admitted that they did not disclose to John Connolly all of those material and significant issues regarding Salemme’s criminal past for which they indicted him or which information they knew about prior to trial. Second, the Government immediately understood that the disclosures in the Vella FD-302, coupled with the corroboration from two additional Government witnesses (“CS” and “Individual”), jeopardized their conviction of John Connolly, and indeed provided an additional source of professional and personal embarrassment to their respective careers. Third, in a panic, Wyshak and others began to strategize. The Salemme 302 Report was kept under wraps for months and months. Revealed to the press and public in August of 2005, the prosecutors, Wyshak and others knew about the 302 Report in 2004. See list of Dept of Justice personnel who were notified of the Vella-302. If John Connolly went forward with a motion to the court to prove his innocence they would once again smear him in the media with a bogus indictment calculated to generate the necessary negative publicity that would prejudice him in the eyes of the public and, more importantly, influence the outcome of any judicial decisions John Connolly might seek. The prosecutors waited to see what John Connolly’s reaction would be to the startling disclosures of Salemme’s perjury in the Vella 302 Report and the discovery of the suppressed evidence proving it was federal prosecutor Jeremiah O’Sullivan at the U.S. Attorney’s Office itself who had “protected” Bulger an Flemmi. On Day After Connolly Files For New Trial Wyshak Unseals Murder Indictment On April 29, 2005, John Connolly filed what’s called a 2255 Motion. The motion was brought pursuant to new Supreme Court decisions that deemed it unconstitutional for a Court to punish a defendant for crimes never charged or proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The five changes for which John Connolly was found guilty of, called for a 30-37 month sentence according to the appropriate “range” within the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. An unconstitutional interpretation of the guidelines had resulted in a ten year sentence, seven years of which were for crimes for which he was not convicted of. On May 3, 2005, John filed a motion to stay his 2255 motion so that he could pursue a new trial which called for a Rule 33 Motion. John requested the Court that: “The 2255 proceedings…be stayed until such time as there is final adjudication before this Court on the Rule 33 Motion for a new trial to be filed on or before May 23, 2005… That was it:   John Connolly had telegraphed his intention on May 3, 2005 to seek a new trial based on the multiplicity of constitutional violations and perjury he had discovered since his wrongful conviction. The next day, May 4, 2005, Wyshak unsealed the indictment, he had sealed for some time previously. AUSA Wyshak was on hand in Florida for the press conference announcing that John Connolly had just been indicted for conspiracy to murder John Callahan. Was it coincidence the indictment was announced the day after John Connolly filed his motion for a new trial based on startling new evidence of prosecutorial misconduct? The Weak Case For Indictment At the time of the unsealing of the indictment, Wyshak knew but likely never told the Miami Florida authorities that both of the witnesses the Florida authorities would be relying on in their prosecution, had already in testimony, in effect, exonerated John Connolly! Moreover, John Connolly, had already been acquitted of exactly the same charges in his federal trial. They had charged him with obstruction of justice wherein it was alleged that he tipped Bulger and Flemmi that the FBI were seeking to put John Callahan before a federal grand jury. It turned out that there wasn’t even a federal grand jury sitting at the time John Connolly was supposed to have committed this crime. Wyshak repackaged the same charges John Connolly was found not guilty of and changed the title to conspiracy to murder. However, Wyshak’s own new “star” witness would be the one to expose the fraudulent indictment as the hoax it was when Stephen Flemmi made two appearances before civil depositions – under oath! Flemmi Depositions October 24, 2004 Stephen Flemmi Deposition (Tr. 319) Stephen Flemmi testified as follows: Question:  “Did anyone from the FBI ever tell you to kill anyone?” Answer:  “No, not to me directly, or indirectly.” He is more definitive when he again testified, under oath, at another civil deposition on April 25, 2005: April 28, 2005 Stephen Flemmi Deposition (Tr. 377) Stephen Flemmi testified as follows: Question:  “Agent John Connolly, did he ever suggest to you directly or indirectly, that certain people get killed?” Answer:  “No.” (Tr. 377) On April 28, 2005, (Tr. 315-318) Stephen Flemmi admits: 1)   They were never protected from murders by the FBI in connection with their informant activities; 2)   They had never told Connolly or anyone in the FBI that they had ever been involved with murders; 3)   And that it would be “unthinkable” to discuss murders with anyone in Law Enforcement, or for that matter with someone in his own criminal group. April 28, 2005, (Tr. 356) Stephen Flemmi testified as follows: Question:   “You never told Mr. Connolly that you had ever been involved in a murder or participated in a murder at any time; is that right?” Answer:   “I never said anything to him of that nature, no.” Question:   “Did you ever tell anyone at the FBI that you had been involved in a murder or participated in a murder?” Answer:   “No. Never did.” This testimony of Flemmi was given just 6 days before AUSA Wyshak caused the unsealing of the Florida murder indictment that he knew to be a fraud. Flemmi’s testimony illuminates the fact that the murder indictment of John Connolly was designed to distract attention from prosecutorial misdeeds. Second Witness Never Met, Communicated With Connolly Murdered 20, Sentencing Deal: 6 months per victim Martorano Free October 2006 Furthermore, the other “witness” the Florida authorities were being asked by Wyshak to rely on is John Martorano, who will be back out on the streets in October 2006 – despite pleading guilty to 20 murders! He will have served approximately 6 months per murder! Martorano, however, like Flemmi, hurts, rather than helps, the Government’s case. He has already pled to the murder of John Callahan and had admitted, under oath, that he and Joseph McDonald (deceased) were the ones who murdered John Callahan. He also admitted, under oath, that he never met nor had any communication, whatsoever, with John Connolly. Martorano, in his prior testimony, never, at any time, has said that John Connolly was ever involved in any murder or conspiracy to murder anyone, never mind John Callahan. The question that one cannot help but pose is: How does one conspire to commit a murder with alleged co-conspirators, who never even told the person accused, that they ever killed anyone in the first place? Wyshak’s Boss Blasts Flemmi’s Credibility The hypocrisy of Wyshak’s indictment, brought to conceal prosecutorial misconduct, can best be seen by the statement of Wyshak’s boss, AUSA Herbert, in his attack on Stephen Flemmi, the very “star witness” Florida authorities will rely on. Herbert’s attack on Flemmi came in an affidavit submitted May 13, 2003 in connection with a civil action; Stephen M. Rakes, et al., v. United States, et al., “Flemmi is capable of abusing Federal Rules of Procedure, and capable of obstructing justice, in a variety of ways, including perjury and witness tampering, and is willing to do so." "This is not a matter of speculation…. Judge Wolf found that Flemmi had lied during his testimony in the 1998 evidentiary hearings in the Salemme case….Flemmi is currently charged In the RICO case pending before Judge Stearns with having perjured himself and obstruction of justice during the Salemme hearings, and also with having tampered with evidence In the year 2000 bearing on the than ongoing RICO murder investigation and prosecution. Flemmi is also charged with murdering individuals ….” Wyshak and Herbert attack Flemmi as a liar, a perjurer, and an individual who has had no regard for Federal Rules of Procedure and who is willing to obstruct justice. Now they advocate that this same liar and perjurer be offered to John Connolly’s Judge and Jury in Florida as a credible witness? This would be almost comical if someone’s life was not at stake! Flemmi’s Outrageous Allegations Against, Boston Globe, John Kerry, FBI Prior to embracing his latest psychopathic, serial-killing cooperating witness, Wyshak and his associates in the Boston U.S. Attorney’s Office had cut unconscionable “deals” with Salemme (killed 19), Martorano (killed 20) and Weeks (5), who collectively were responsible for (44) murders! It is ironic that these are the same prosecutors who maligned the FBI for cutting deals with Top Echelon Informants allowing them to engage in a gambling business. Gambling is a far cry from murder. However, in cutting the deal with Flemmi they got more than they bargained for. Two of the 10 plus murders Flemmi admitted to were women. One was his girlfriend and the other was his stepdaughter whom he had been sexually molesting since she was 12 and whom he murdered when she was 26. Flemmi cut their fingers and toes off and extracted their teeth to prevent identification. However, it was not until Flemmi appeared for his two depositions that Wyshak exposed the Government’s “deal” as a colossal blunder. Flemmi in his depositions made a series of outrageous scatter-shot allegations. Flemmi accused Senator, John F. Kerry, of accepting $5,000 case from a fellow gang member “When Kerry was running for office in the mid-1960’s” The only problem with that tale is that Senator Kerry wasn’t even in “Public Office” during the mid-1960’s – he was in Vietnam fighting for his country! Even the gangster, who allegedly made the illegal payment, Howie Winter, denied he had ever done such a thing. Accused Boston Globe of Larceny Flemmi did not stop there; he accused the Boston Globe newspaper of stealing electricity from the Boston Edison company by using an engineer to fix their electric meters. The Boston Edison Company, now NStar Corporation, said this was untrue. Finally he claimed that he paid money to every FBI Agent he ever met including accusing, former supervisor, James “Jim” Ring of tipping him off to a wiretap and accepting a $500 Meerschaum Pipe. Flemmi said that he paid several other FBI Agents as well. Finally, somebody had the courage to speak up. Boston FBI boss, Ken Kaiser, branded Wyshak’s witness as a liar in a Boston Herald article CLICK HERE TO READ( ) The Boston Globe also questioned Flemmi’s credibility and a spokesperson for Senator Kerry branded Flemmi as a liar. Connolly Refuses Wyshak Deal Wouldn’t Corroborate Lies In the Spring of 2004, Wyshak was desperate to validate Flemmi’s lies. Wyshak and Herbert again attempted to get John Connolly to “cooperate” by threatening him with being charged with murder. They wanted him to corroborate the lies of Flemmi. In order to get his “deal,” John Connolly would have to allege that innocent FBI Agents accepted money, that Senator Kerry accepted cash from gangsters and that the Boston Globe was stealing electricity. John Connolly refused, saying none of Wyshak’s and Flemmi’s absurd allegations was true. It is obviously long past the time for the Florida authorities to re-evaluate their wrongful indictment of John Connolly. It is patently obvious that AUSA Wyshak badly misled them into bringing a bogus indictment for the sole purpose of hiding the truth of the overwhelming evidence of perjury in John Connolly’s trial.    Home | Website Mission | Newly Discovered Evidence | About John Connolly | Motion For New Trial | Florida Indictment | FBI Reports | Murderers' Testimony | Post-Trial Testimony |