I've been quiet for a while. With the coronavirus, as a nurse, I've been exposed time and again, and continue to fear bringing it to my immunocompromised daughter.

A month ago, I experienced the sudden and unexplained death of a beloved brother.

I've been quiet as coped with the disruption we all face.

In my uncommunicative state, I've been observing. Casey Sherman and Dave Wedge as they promote their newly released book on Whitey Bulger.

I met Casey Sherman on October 5, 2018 at an event on Cape Cod. Aware that he had written about Joe "The Animal" Barboza, I told him about my unique connection to Bulger; about the 75 personal letters I had from him; and about the 15 hours of face-to-face conversation with Bulger. I asked Sherman if he could direct me to someone that might be interested in helping me publish Bulger's story based on the letters/communication.

Sherman seemed taken aback, and to my great surprise didn't ask or comment at all about the letters/communication with Bulger. He took my contact information, along with a letter I brought with me addressed to him, reiterating all that I told him and more. He said he'd call.

A few months later, Sherman announced he was writing a book about Bulger... Strange thing is, though he knew I had these personal letters and private communications, he never contacted me. Never.

Certainly this puts into question the accuracy of his research. Did he ever tell his writing partner Dave Wedge that I approached him with information about the letters and communication? Why did he chose to ignore detailed primary source information? Who does that when writing a work of nonfiction? Why, seemingly, was he afraid of it. Might it have changed the narrative he was determined to put forward? Is that true journalism or historic writing?

Casey Sherman is described as a "renowned journalist" by the Boston Herald. The term journalist once had ethical attributes attached.

Knowing that Casey Sherman ignored unique primary source material for his latest book, I can't help but wonder how accurate his former publications have been.

The Truth Be Damned.

Mr. Isikoff interviewed Stephen Kinzer about Whitey Bulger's involvement in the MKUltra Project--yet, sadly, Kinzer knew little to nothing about Bulger's involvement. Any info he now has, he received from me through his friend Michael Rezendes, AP investigative journalist.

Bulger didn't understand the full intent of MKUltra and his own victimization until after his trial in 2013. He discovered it through me. I was the juror in Bulger's trial that told Rezendes that I would not have found Bulger guilty of any of the murders had the truth of MKUltra been presented. I do not blame his attorneys for not presenting it--they represented their client and his wishes at the time. Though they are bound by attorney/client privilege, I am not. Bulger told me why he didn't want it presented. He told me what he experienced for the 15 months he was used as a subject. He came to realize, through me, the depth of the damage done to his mind.

My disappointment is this: Kinser failed to connect the dots on the CIA's portion of the project that would attempt to make subjects homicidal and their use of Bulger, Kaczynski, and quite possibly Charles Manson. (How many others? We can only guess.)

Not one "investigative journalist" has been curious enough to consider all Bulger had to say regarding stories told of him. Is it truth an investigative journalist is after? Or sensationalism? Is Yahoo News another tabloid outlet?

I understand why the Boston Globe hasn't reached out to discover what they can about James Bulger through the many letters I have -- after all, they staked their reputation on and made money off the tales of the Boston US Attorney's Office's key witnesses against Bulger. Tales tall enough to save them from the electric chair and earn them get out of jail cards and hefty profits. Certainly the Globe doesn't want to confuse it's readers with the truth now...

But why wouldn't Isikoff reach out to me to get to what Bulger actually said in more than 70 letters and our 15 hours of conversation? Bulger's story of MKUltra is paramount to understanding the degree to which the CIA would go. And, what of Ted Kaczynski -- only 17 when the CIA destroyed his mind? What of Charles Manson? What of the CIA's connection there?

Bulger's planned murder indicates the government, with the help of the media perhaps, is still trying to control this story. I have proof in letters, and in my visual assessment as a nurse of Bulger's physical deterioration. The government said his health "Improved" and therefore they decided enroute to a medical prison not to send him--but instead sent him immediately, unguarded, to a prison with a violent history.

Guess what? The government lied. Bulger's health could not improve without surgeries. Will Michael Isikoff and Yahoo News sweep this under the rug too? Or, will they be an example of journalistic ethics in leading the way on this story?

In 1977 US Senate Hearing on MKULTRA Project, Kentucky Senator Walter "Dee" Huddleston asked key question of Admiral Stansfield Turner, director of CIA regarding manipulation of subjects' minds to make them violent and homicidal. Huddleson later lost his Senate re-election campaign to Mitch McConnell. Huddleson's insightful question was paramount to shed light on the encompassing darkness of this human experimentation--not only for the unwitting subjects, but the victims and families of those they maimed and killed! Seemingly, Admiral Turner's answer was quickly forgotten and tossed into the deep chambers of America's secret history.

August 3, 1977, Washington, D.C.

Senator Huddleson:

Was there any evidence or any indication that there were other motives that the Agency might also be looking for drugs that could be applied for other purposes, such as debilitating an individual or even killing another person? Was this part of this kind of experimentation?

Admiral Turner:

Yes; I think there is. I have not seen in this series of documentation evidence of desire to kill, but I think the project turned its character from a defensive to an offensive one as it went along, and there certainly was an intention here to develop drugs that could be of use.

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Amazon Social Icon
  • YouTube Social  Icon


© 2019 by Janet Uhlar American Revolution Books. Proudly created by Kharysma Kreations.