Search
  • Janet Uhlar

Boston Assistant US Attorney is in a Pickle as the Trial of “Cadillac Frank” Salemme Plays Out

How does AUSA Wyshak convince a jury that confessed serial killer Steve Flemmi had nothing to do with the murder of Steven DiSarro? The script must be presented perfectly. The jury must look beyond Flemmi's cold-blooded (and cold-hearted) murder of his step-daughter and girlfriend (to name only a few). The jury must ignore the fact (or be purposely made ignorant of the fact by the court) that Flemmi received back at least 3 million dollars in tainted assets while serving a "life-time" sentence for numerous murders and other crimes in a luxury federal prison . The jury must also ignore the fact (or be purposely made ignorant of the fact by the court) that for Flemmi's testimony in the Bulger trial a Rule 35 motion was presented by the same AUSA prosecuting Salemme. (A Rule 35 motion is a motion filed by a prosecutor under the authority granted by Rule 35(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It asks a court to reduce a previously-imposed sentence based on "substantial assistance" by a defendant provided after sentencing. ) Word is that Flemmi was no longer listed within the Federal Prison System following Bulger's trial (and Flemmi now had at least 3 million dollars to live off!)

Seems that Flemmi bought his freedom from prison with his "substantial assistance" to Wyshak in Bulger's trial through his testimony. Question is, was Flemmi's testimony true? Does "substantial assistance" mean you tell the truth? Or is it just a means to an end?


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

FOLLOW ME

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