Red Sox Still Racists: and John Walsh and Phil Johntson in Bed with Gene O’Flaherty.

I thought I was hearing an April Fools joke.

John Walsh and Phil Johntson threw a high priced fund raiser for our friend State Representative Gene O’Flaherty.

I know, I didn’t believe it either.. Didn’t Johnston publicly call for O’Flaherty to step down from his chairmanship?

Didn’t O’Flaherty publicly chastise candidate Deval as a throwback to Dukakis days?

Isn’t O’Flaherty one of the most conservative Democrats on the Hill who actys as if he could not care less about state Democratic Party?

BTW, Gene-O became a chairman because Sal DiMasi wasn’t paying attention. Here’s what happened.

Sal was sitting in his office one night deciding who gets what. He said to his aide, “read the list to me again.” And the aide read out the list.

“Deleo” and Sal said “Chairmanship”

“Murphy” “Nothing”

“Petrocelli”   “Chairmanship”

“Torrissi”  “Chairmanship”

“Kaprilean”  “Nothing”

“Micelli”  “Chairmanship”

“Sanchez”  “Nothing”

“Pedone” “Chairmanship”

“Gene-o” ” Chairmanship”

You see what happens when you’re not paying attention? Sal has ordered a new nick name for Gene-O.

                 —————-

       ————————

New England School of Law should do something about Oliver Wendy Murphy. If that was my law school and she was out there promoting herself as a law school professor I would stop sending money and send a letter. (I understand some have already done that). I have watched her as a talking head for years and now i catch her on Finneran’s show. (Before I change the station)

She is a disgrace to the law profession. She does not argue facts. Rather she makes personal attacks against those not in complete agreement with her and dismisses the counter point with a roll of the eyes and explicit statements that the other side is on the take. The lawyers opposite each other on Row v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, Murphy v. Wedge, Smith v. Jones, etc. show respect for the attorneys on the other side. Instead this self-appointed, self- aggrandizing, narcissistic, obtuse excuse for an attorney disgraces the profession in so many ways. She is not O’Reilly. She is a lawyer. The profession holds her to a higher standard.

I almost drove off the road yesterday when Oliver Wendy declared more than once that she knows more about being a prosecutor than Martha Coakley and knows more about the legislature than Tom Finneran. According to Wendy we are not to trust Coakley about prosecuting cases. Oliver Wendy knows more. According to Wendy we are not to trust Finneran on how the legislature works. Oliver Wendy knows more. Wendy is all about Wendy, which is fine. But she has no substance and lashes out with personal attacks and self-aggrandizing claims because she cannot hold her own in an intellectual discussion.  

Wendy talks like the mentally disturbed homeless guy that corners you on the subway. You listen, you nod your head and you leave knowing the guy is harmless. Wendy spits out crap like the homeless guy. Only she is a lawyer and a law professor with a forum. She is not harmless. She is dangerous.

Judge Lawton should be rolling in his grave. (he was big honcho at New England Law School)  

                ——————-

Here is my concise view of the Judge Murphy/Herald battle. It is a little different than Dan Kennedy’s concise view.

Judge Murphy sued the Herald saying at no time did he say “tell” the victim to “get over it”. Murphy says he didn’t. Murphy was a lenient judge with a bad demeanor.

The Herald’s view is that telling some to tell the child victim ‘to get over it” is the same as having a bad demeanor towards prosecutor when lobby conferencing the case.

This was one of the first issues the jury addressed in the  20 plus questionnaire.  In the rough and tumble world of criminal justice a judge routinely gets snippy at prosecutors and defense attorneys. That is not the same as telling an attorney to “tell her to get over it”.  Did this statement, if true, have no effect because of the other stuff he said?

I say NO. It did have a different effect.  Dan Kennedy and herald says yes. No effect.

The jury and appeals court agreed with Murphy.

Since that issue was determined in Murphy’s favor they had to decide if Wedge acted properly in reporting what he did. So Wedge told where he got the information. (Assiatant District Crowley, and only Crowley).  If Crowley confirmed that he gave Wedge what was reported then Murphy does not have a case. Crowley, howver denied reporting the inform,ation to Wedge as Wedge reported it.

So now it became  a he said/she said situation with the burden on Murphy. Who does the jury believe? The jury is told to they can consider many factors in determining truthfulness. Incleding Wedge’s other misstatements of fact in the story and facts which cast aspertions on his credibility. (such as the victim weeping during her testimony when the truth was she never testified at all. Or that Wedge destroyed his notes)

Wedge did not protect himself and made serious errors in judgment and this hurt his credibility with the jury.  The jury just had tough time believing him. That is why he lost. If it was a draw and the hury did not who to believe. Wedge and others or Crowley and others it would be a draw and Murphy loses. By a preponderance of the evidence they did not believe Wedge.

The SJC basically said, “you can’t blame the jury for not trusting Wedge. You can blame Wedge and the herald for nor trusting Wedge.”

Now of course the Herald and the Globe wants Murphy to pay for using judge’s stationary to write a bizarre letter to Pat Purcell arranging payment of the jury’s verdict, plus costs and interest.  To me, Murphy, already an emotional wreck, was like the parent of a rape victim who beat to near death the rapist. Sure he has to pay. But the media seems like the rapist association wanting the death penalty. And defending the rapist. All for one and one for all..

Note to journalism students: Do your job correctly and you will have nothing to worry about. This case was not an attack on the First Amendment. It is a road map on how not to be schmuck reporter and protect yourself from what happened to Wedge.

Note to Dan Kennedy: When arguing this matter or any other, you hurt yourself when you argue that the attorneys representing the other side said so and they are wicked smart.

The attorneys you point to in this case were paid by the insurance companies, the trade associations, and the herald. They all have financial stakes in the matter and therefore “hired” lawyers to plead their case. Like the tobacco industry does. Don’t suggest that good lawyers like Jon Albano showed up one day and decided to right this wrong for the good of humanity. Rather this case was ‘assigned” to them if you will. It fell on their desk and they had to write something. They had to work with what they had. BTW They must have been thrilled when they learned Wedge destroyed his notes and the victim never testified.

           ———————-

Question.  

Was there any conversation between Martha Coakley and Patrick administration before she went out to warn the public not to trust the information given on the Dept. of Insurance web site?

I would assume there would have been. Coakley doesn’t play that game. She would have made I phone call and worked it out. Brought it to their attention. Professional courtesy. Nuff said.

Did Deval administration tell he to screw? I don’t know. But it was weird. Especially both being Democrats and all. There must be a history there.

If I was a political journalist I would inquire as to what communication occurred prior to Coakl
ey’s press conference calling the Insurance Dept a joke.

          ———————–

Dale Arnold did a great job announcing a few Red Sox games. I could listen to him no problem.

         ————————-

How do you like this Globe Sports Will MicDonough bolding the names thing. I probably won’t do it again. Too much work. 45 seconds at least.