by Dick Lehr
It is interesting to note that during the 1998 Wolf hearings Flemmi testified that FBI supervisor Jim Ring was the one who called to tip Bulger and Flemmi to the telephone wiretap on George Kaufman’s telephone. “I heard from him in December of 1984,” Flemmi testified about Ring. “It was a telephone call to my mother’s home. Very, very brief conversation. It was Jim Ring telling me that there was going to be a wiretap coming down on George Kaufman’s phone as well as my own, and they advised me of that.” For his part, Ring testified that Flemmi’s “absolutely false” accusation was a bid to spread the corruption at the FBI from Connolly and Morris to himself. In his findings of fact, Judge Wolf ruled
that this is a matter on which the court finds that Flemmi’s testimony is in part accurate and in part false. More specifically, the credible direct and circumstantial evidence proves that Bulger and Flemmi were told of the investigation generally and of the electronic surveillance particularly. It was, however, Connolly not Ring who gave them this information. (“Memorandum and Order,” p. 215)
Wolf found that Connolly constantly leaked information about Operation Beans, ruling that, “armed with information provided by colleagues . . . Connolly contributed to assuring that DEA’s efforts would not succeed by alerting Bulger and Flemmi to the investigation generally and to the electronic surveillance particularly” (p. 197). Regarding the Valhalla, investigators at the time of the incident said they did not have enough evidence to charge Bulger and Flemmi. But following a lengthy probe, Bulger associates Patrick Nee and Joseph Murray of Charlestown were convicted in the gunrunning scheme. Regarding John McIntyre’s disappearance, Judge Wolf commented in his findings of fact: “The evidence raises a question of whether Connolly also told Bulger and Flemmi about John McIntyre, who was providing information about them and their associates, and who disappeared about six weeks after the FBI learned of his allegations” (p. 175). Connolly denied leaking to Bulger and Flemmi the identity of the promising informant.
CHAPTER 13: BLACK MASS
Main sources: The sworn testimony at the Wolf hearings of Stephen Flemmi, August 20, 26, 27, and 28, and September 2, 1998; John Morris, April 23, 27, and 29, 1998; Jim Ring, June 9, 10, and 11, 1998; Dennis Condon, May 1 and 5, 1998; and John Newton, May 22, 1998; Wolf, “Memorandum and Order.”
We also relied on the statements provided by John Connolly, Dennis Condon, and Rebecca Morris to the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility during the summer of 1997. In addition, we relied on Connolly’s 1998 interviews with the Boston Globe, WBZ-AM Radio, WRKO-AM Radio, Boston magazine, and the Boston Tab.
We drew on FBI reports on meetings with Bulger and Flemmi during the mid-1980s; for background information on the case involving former FBI agent Dan Mitrione, we turned to articles in the Miami Herald, March 15 and 16, 1985, October 3 and 5, 1985, and November 14 and 15, 1985.
In his sworn testimony during the Wolf hearings, John Morris said he had “no recollection” of telling Bulger and Flemmi at the dinner that they could commit any crime short of murder. “I have no recollection of ever using that phraseology. I think I would recall that,” he testified. “I recall asking John Connolly, ‘What do these guys want from us?’ And his response was, ‘A head start.’” In his findings of fact, Judge Wolf ruled:
The court finds that the statement, as related by Flemmi, was made. It is possible that Morris merely forgot a comment that he made thirteen years before his testimony. If the matter does not involve a failure of recollection, however, Morris has lied again. Morris acknowledges that he has a long history of lying to protect himself. (“Memorandum and Order,” p. 255)
Regarding the $1,000 Morris took from Bulger, John Connolly denied in interviews that he played any part in delivering the case of wine with the cash in it. In his ruling, Wolf did not address Connolly’s alleged role and referred only in passing to this payment: Morris “received a second $1,000 payment from them, and a case of wine . . . in the spring of 1984” (p. 213).
CHAPTER 14: SHADES OF WHITEY
Court records: The sworn testimony at the Wolf hearings of John Morris, April 28, 1998; South Boston realtor Raymond Slinger, September 23, 1998; John Newton, May 28,I998; Roderick Kennedy, May 28, 1998; and FBI agent Bruce Ellavsky, June 1, 1998.
Interviews: Several with Senate President William Bulger for a 1988 series of articles on the Bulger brothers; with William Bulger on 75 State Street on November 27, 1988; several in 1988 with Old Harbor housing project residents; several with a state investigator on 75 State Street and with a former federal prosecutor on 75 State Street and Harold Brown’s indictment and conviction on bribery of a City of Boston inspector.
Miscellaneous records: William Bulger’s financial disclosure forms for state legislators for 1984 to 1987.
News articles: Boston Globe articles on William Bulger and Thomas Finnerty’s role in the 75 State Street controversy, December 8, 1988; several subsequent Globe articles, most of them by Brian C. Mooney; Globe and Boston Herald articles in 1985 and 1986 about Harold Brown’s indictment and conviction on bribery; Globe and Herald articles on Jeremiah O’Sullivan’s 1989 press conference ending the 75 State Street investigation; Globe and Herald articles on a 1992 announcement by Massachusetts attorney general Scott Harshbarger that he would bring no charges against William Bulger on 75 State Street.
Books: William M. Bulger, While the Music Lasts: My Life in Politics.
Court records: Several filings in 1987 and 1988 by litigants Thomas Finnerty and Harold Brown; Wolf, “Memorandum and Order.”
Wolf addressed the issue of the FBI ignoring its own rules in handling Slinger’s extortion account:
Slinger’s allegations and willingness to testify provided, under the Attorney General’s Guidelines, a quintessential case for either referring Slinger’s allegations to state or local law enforcement, or reporting the desire not to do so to FBI headquarters and the Assistant Attorney General. The guidelines, however, were utterly ignored. Instead, [Lawrence] Potts and [Bruce] Ellavsky evidently decided that no further investigation would be conducted. The FBI did not speak with Slinger again. (“Memorandum and Order,” p. 280)
Wolf also addressed John Connolly’s involvement in the Slinger case:
Slinger testified that in an effort to protect himself, he promptly told O’Neil that he had been visited by the FBI. If this occurred, it would not alone have been enough to deter Bulger, who had for many years been consistently protected by the FBI. Rather, the court infers that Bulger was advised by Connolly to desist. The day after the FBI interview of Slinger, O’Neil told him that he would not have to pay the remaining $25,000 that he owed. (p. 281)
Federal and state investigative records: We relied on the September 5, 1991, report to Attorney General Scott Harshbarger and related documents, including William Bulger’s December 19, 1988, affidavit and a February 28, 1989, statement by William Bulger to the FBI. The 1991 state report and the 1989 FBI interview are reproduced here in their entirety.
MEMORANDUM TO MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL SCOTT
HARSHBARGER ON THE STATUS OF THE AGENCY’S INVESTIGATION OF 75
STATE STREET, SEPTEMBER 5, 1991
I. BACKGROUND
During the past several months we have been reviewing information and documents pertaining to allegations made by Harold Brown that in connection with his development of 75 State Street he paid monies to Thomas Finnerty because of official acts or official influence which Finnerty could provide through his relationship with Senate President William Bulger. Our inquiry has focused upon the prior investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston and a more limited review conducted by the State Ethics Commission.
As you know, we have encountered substantial delays in obtaining access to information and documents gathered during the federal investigation as a result of Department of Justice policies and the restrictions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). In addition, we have been informed that a cooperation ag
reement entered into between Harold Brown and federal prosecutors expressly prohibited disclosure of any information, testimony or documents provided by Brown or derived from his cooperation without his prior express approval. Federal authorities have further informed us that Brown has declined to allow us access to testimony, information or documents in connection with our review. We have been provided with copies of transcripts of grand jury testimony of persons having knowledge of certain aspects of 75 State Street transactions. In particular, we have received and reviewed transcripts of the testimony of Graham Gund, Bruce Quirk, Richard McDonough, and accountants for Thomas Finnerty and William Bulger together with records and documents furnished by those individuals in connection with their grand jury appearances. In addition, selected bank accounts [sic] records and other financial documents of Thomas Finnerty’s law firm, his personal accounts and certain accounts in the name of William Bulger have been furnished to us by the U.S. Attorney’s office with prior court approval.
We have also obtained and reviewed the investigative files of the State Ethics Commission which conducted an initial screening of the allegations to determine whether preliminary inquiry was warranted regarding possible violations of the Conflict of Interest or Financial Disclosure Laws. Based on those files, it appears that the full Ethics Commission declined to authorize a preliminary inquiry into those allegations and also allowed Mr. Bulger to file amendments to his annual statements of financial interests for calendar years 1985 thru [sic] 1988 without initiating enforcement proceedings for omissions in those prior filings. Files have also been obtained from the State Police State Office of Investigations pertaining to Finnerty’s divorce filings and the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office pertaining to Robert and Bruce Quirk. It should be noted that no investigative or other files of this office concerning 75 State Street have been found in the records of the prior Shannon administration.
We have also conducted interviews of Robert and Bruce Quirk, Attorney Robert Frank, Graham Gund and Attorney James McDonough. Counsel for Richard McDonough (Earl Cooley) has thus far failed to reply to our requests to interview Richard McDonough.
II. INVESTIGATIVE FINDINGS
Based on the foregoing it has been established that Brown paid a total of $500,000 dollars to Thomas Finnerty in July of 1985 as a partial payment for Finnerty’s partnership interest in the 75 State Street development. (In 1988, Brown agreed to pay Finnerty an additional sum of $200,000.00 in settlement of a civil suit initiated by Finnerty for the balance of his partnership interest in 75 State Street.) Checks issued by Brown were made payable to the Saint Botolph Realty Trust which Finnerty had recently established and opened an account in the name of that trust at the Bank of Boston. Those funds remained in that account for approximately 1 month at which time Finnerty issued two checks, each in the amount of $225,000.00 dollars, payable to himself and William Bulger which were issued to open separate investment accounts with Fidelity Investments in Boston in each of their names. Two additional $15,000.00 dollar checks were issued to Thomas Finnerty and William Bulger in October, 1985. Bulger’s check was also deposited into his Fidelity Investment account. In November, 1985 a superceeding [sic] indictment was issued by the Federal Grand Jury in Boston that Harold Brown had made illegal payments to an official in the city of Boston building department and further alleging that other public officials had received monies from Brown. That superceeding [sic] indictment was the first public indication that federal prosecutors were focusing upon Brown’s dealings with other government officials beyond the city of Boston building department. Within three (3) days of that indictment being made public, Bulger repaid the Saint Botolph Realty Trust $215,000 dollars via a check drawn against that same Fidelity Investment Trust account. Two weeks later, Bulger made an additional repayment of approximately $39,0000.00 dollars to the Saint Botolph Realty Trust account.
Three years later, in 1988, when Brown’s allegations were made public in Boston media articles in connection with a civil suit between Brown and Finnerty over the balance of the partnership fee reportedly due Finnerty, Bulger publicly stated and filed an affidavit in Suffolk Superior Court claiming that the monies he received from Finnerty via the Saint Botolph Realty Trust in 1985 was [sic] a “loan in anticipation of a legal fee” due to Bulger from Robert and Bruce Quirk in connection with civil litigation between the Quirk’s [sic] and a firm known as Data Terminal Systems of Maynard. Bulger stated that no promissory note or other written memoranda concerning that loan, the interest rate or terms were executed. According to Bulger, his repayment of approximately $254,000.00 dollars to the trust represented the principal borrowed ($240,000.00) plus interest computed by his accountants for the period of time (approximately 3 months) during which he had use of those monies.
Bulger also has stated publicly and, in that affidavit, he has maintained an “of counsel” relationship with the Finnerty law firm and that he has continued a limited private legal practice while a member of the Massachusetts Senate. He utilized Finnerty’s law office facilities and office staff to handle his billings and collect his fees. In addition, Bulger claimed that through the years he and Finnerty made a number of joint “investments” in various enterprises such as real estate properties, stocks and other business ventures. A copy of Bulger’s affidavit and prior interview report by the FBI is attached to this memorandum.
Review and analysis of the bank accounts [sic] records of the Saint Botolph Realty Trust together with account records of the Finnerty law firm and other related Finnerty accounts have confirmed that notwithstanding Bulger’s assertion that he repaid in full with interest all monies he received from Thomas Finnerty in 1985 which he learned were derived from Harold Brown, substantially all of those funds were later returned from that trust to Bulger over the next twelve months. During that time period, monies from the Saint Botolph Realty Trust were periodically deposited into another Finnerty law firm account also at the Bank of Boston before they were then distributed by checks payable to Bulger. By first depositing the Saint Botolph monies into a Finnerty law firm account and then issuing checks drawn on the law firm account to Bulger, approximately half of the $500,000.00 paid by Brown was funnelled [sic] to Bulger without creating a direct link on paper by means of a check drawn on the Saint Botolph Realty Trust payable directly to William Bulger. As an example of these transactions, on June 6, 1986 a check drawn on the Saint Botolph account in the total amount of $61,000.00 was issued by Finnerty payable to “Thomas Finnerty, P.C.” That check was immediately deposited into the Thomas Finnerty law firm account at the same bank. Three (3) days later, a check drawn on that account in the same amount ($61,000.00) was issued and made payable to “William Bulger.” Bulger deposited all of those funds back into the same Fidelity Investment account in his name which ten months earlier, had been used to accept the original Saint Botolph checks which Bulger later repaid. Of particular interest is that the source of those monies ($61,000.00) from the Saint Botolph account in 1986 remained the original Harold Brown checks. Based on Bulger’s prior public statements in the tenor of his previous affidavit, it can be assumed that his and Finnerty’s explanation for those transactions will be that the monies paid to Bulger in the succeeding twelve months were either legal fees or other “loans” in anticipation of legal fees for which Bulger had no knowledge that the indirect source of those funds was the Saint Botolph Realty Trust or Harold Brown.
Review and analysis of Finnerty and Bulger account records obtained thus far also establishes [sic] a number of other transactions involving Bulger and Finnerty. In particular are transactions involving one Richard McDonough, a former employee of the Mass[achusetts] Department of Commerce who is now a registered lobbyist in Massachusetts. Richard McDonough received $70,000.00 dollars of a $280,000.00 dollar legal fee apparently charged to Robert and Bruce Quirk by Finnerty and Bulger in late 1985 for Bulger’s efforts settling a civil suit and obtaining a $2.8 million dollar mortgage loan from the South Boston Savings Bank for
the Quirk’s [sic] in connection with the settlement of that suit. When asked what role Richard McDonough had in connection with those services, neither the Quirks, Bulger nor McDonough could offer any specific information regarding Richard McDonough’s services for which he earned a $70,000.00 “consulting” fee. McDonough was immunized by the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston and testified before the Federal Grand Jury concerning his relationship with Bulger, Finnerty and the Quirks. A copy of the transcript of his testimony is attached to this memorandum.
In addition to the Quirk fee, Richard McDonough and William Bulger each received over $50,000.00 dollars from a firm in California known as Herbalife reportedly for out of state “consulting” activities by McDonough and Bulger on behalf of that firm.
During 1985 and 1986, Finnerty and Bulger also purchased real estate located in South Boston via the Mount Vernon Realty Trust and appear to have made a number of joint investments in cable television companies and other investment firms.
III. ISSUES
Our efforts to ascertain the underlying facts gathered during the prior Federal investigation of Brown’s allegation that he paid Finnerty $500,000.00 dollars for or because of official acts or official influence which Finnerty could provide through William Bulger has been severely limited by the prior cooperation agreement between the Federal authorities and Brown which gives Brown the right to refuse access to his statements and documents. Without having access to Brown’s testimony and information regarding any communications he had with Finnerty, Bulger or their representatives concerning the true purpose of that $500,000.00 payment, it is impossible for us to evaluate whether Brown’s allegations could be successfully prosecuted.
