If you stay up to date on BMG’s “Recent User Posts” list – and you should! – you’ll have seen that EB3, who has in general been displeased with the mainstream media’s account of all things Whitey Bulger, is especially displeased with a recent Globe story in which reporter Milton Valencia wrote that Judge Richard Stearns “recused himself from the case out of concern that he would have a conflict of interest in overseeing the trial.”
Here’s my bottom line on this: I agree with EB3 that Valencia’s article misstates what actually happened. And I also agree that Valencia’s defense of why he wrote the story the way he did is unconvincing. Whether the error is so egregious as to justify four outraged BMG posts, I will leave for others to judge. But Valencia should have simply corrected the story rather than mounting an entirely unconvincing defense that was dramatically undercut by a brief unsigned (“Globe Staff”) piece published two days later that managed to state the facts accurately.
By way of background, here is what actually happened in the Bulger case. All federal cases arising in Massachusetts are randomly assigned to one of the judges in the Massachusetts district. Judge Richard Stearns was assigned the Bulger case when it hit the docket. That was unfortunate, because Stearns had been a high-ranking official in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s office at precisely the time when that office was allegedly using Bulger as an informant, and one of Bulger’s claims is that he was the beneficiary of a blanket grant of immunity from that office. In addition, Stearns reportedly counts FBI director Richard Mueller as a close personal friend, and Mueller might be called as a witness in the case – as might Stearns himself.
Consequently, Bulger’s attorneys repeatedly asked Judge Stearns to recuse himself from the case. Stearns refused. Bulger appealed Stearns’ refusal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and in an opinion authored by retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the Court unanimously ordered Stearns off the case. The Court held that the answer to the question in the case – “is it clear that a reasonable person might question Judge Stearns’s ability to remain impartial in hearing the case?” – was yes. It was a startling rebuke to Stearns – and one with which I agreed, for whatever that’s worth.
Following the Court of Appeals’ order, the case was randomly reassigned to Judge Denise Casper. Judge Casper now has to decide whether to stick with Stearns’s pretrial rulings, or whether to reopen them – especially concerning Bulger’s immunity claim, which Stearns had rejected before being ordered off the case.
Valencia published the offending Globe story on April 9. Here’s what he said:
Federal prosecutors have asked US District Court Judge Denise J. Casper to let stand a court decision that would prohibit James “Whitey” Bulger from raising an immunity defense at his long-awaited trial in June, saying Bulger’s lawyers have tried to resort to “a game of legal Whac-A-Mole.”
Bulger’s lawyers had asked Casper to vacate the decision made by US District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns, who recused himself from the case out of concern that he would have a conflict of interest in overseeing the trial.
Stearns was a prosecutor at the time that Bulger allegedly committed crimes.
In fact, however, Stearns refused to recuse himself more than once, specifically rejecting Bulger’s conflict of interest argument. It was the Court of Appeals that accepted the conflict of interest claim, and ordered Stearns off the case. So Valencia’s story does seem to me to be misleading, because a reader with no background in the case would have no idea from reading that story that Stearns had refused to give up the case and was subsequently ordered to do so.
This problem was called to Valencia’s attention on Twitter in the following exchange:
@mozezmahone 9 Apr
@MiltonValencia regarding the Whitey story…did Stearns recuse himself? Thought he was removed?@MiltonValencia 9 Apr
@mozezmahone forced to recuse himself.@bluemassgroup 9 Apr
@MiltonValencia @mozezmahone Worth correcting the story? Seems like major difference. 1st Cir ordering Stearns off the case was a big deal.
So Valencia is of course well aware of what actually happened. As you can see, I asked Valencia about correcting the story, but received no reply.
Enter EB3, who somehow has access to an email exchange between Valencia and “Waldo” (as far as I know, the exchange is authentic, though I can’t prove it). The key points of the exchange are these:
WALDO: You wrote: “Bulger’s lawyers had asked Casper to vacate the decision made by US District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns, who recused himself from the case out of concern that he would have a conflict of interest in overseeing the trial.”
Judge Stearns did not “recuse himself”; quite the opposite is true. Judge Stearns actually refused to recuse himself in two written opinions. He was removed from the case in a ruling of retired Supreme Court Justice Souter.
VALENCIA: Thanks for writing. I must say I have to disagree with you, however, but I appreciate your points.
It is true that the Appeals Court for the First Circuit granted a petition forcing Judge Stearns to recuse himself. …If your point is that I should be more elaborate for the reader to include the decision, than that’s a different discussion, but the point is the judge stepped aside. For a 250-word bulletin story on the latest Bulger filing, our goal was to be spare and to the point for the reader. Other outlets, including trade publications, have worded it the same way.
I must concur with EB3 that Valencia’s explanation here is wholly inadequate. He’s still saying that Stearns “stepped aside,” when that’s at best misleading; the ordinary meaning of “stepped aside” does not (to me, anyway) include “being forced to step aside after refusing to do so.” And Valencia’s argument that there wasn’t room in a 250-word story to accurately explain what happened makes no sense, because all he had to do was substitute “was removed” for “recused himself” in the bolded sentence quoted above. Moreover, as noted above, an unsigned Globe story of similar length on the Bulger case published a couple of days later had no trouble getting the facts right:
Casper was randomly assigned the Bulger case last month after the Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that US District Court Judge Richard Stearns, who was originally in charge, should step aside because he was a Department of Justice official during part of Bulger’s alleged criminal career.
So, overall, a poor job by Valencia in this matter.
fenway49 says
crap with any names anyone cares about, my post gets bumped down the page? Valencia seems clearly in the wrong on this one. So? A Globe reporter includes something disingenuous in a story about 100 times a day and it’s not, IMO, worth four BMG posts let alone this front page recap.
Talk about squeaky wheel gets the grease.
(For the record, this is mostly snark. I don’t think it’s that big an issue, but I am not actually annoyed that you’ve posted this.)
2weeksy says
good job David (and Ernie)!
Now why doesn’t the media in Boston appeal the Judge’s ruling imposing gag and impoundment orders in this “case of the century”? The press usually fights secrecy orders and the First Amendment always prevails. The very essence of the Bulger case is that federal law enforcement agents misbehaved for decades while protected in a shroud of secrecy. The result was that many people were killed. It’s not the fault of the media that people died, but it is the duty of the press to let the sunshine in. Whitey Bulger is eager to tell all about this era of corrupt law enforcement, but current and former Dept of Justice Officials (including Judge Stearns) are fighting fiercely to keep any law enforcement corruption from being relevant and admissible via an immunity defense. The DOJ alleges Carney’s immunity defense is “absurd” and “fantastical”. Then why do they and Judge Stearns fight it so fiercely? Let Bulger bring it and lose. It’s the fastest route to his conviction!
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
I’m assuming you are Kevin Weeks. Isn’t your brother the big wig democratic fundraiser who put Mile Dukakis in the tank with the helmet on?
And didn’t you and your brother use to play flag football with the Globies like Shelley Murphy?
I’m not sure about the second question but I’m damn sure about the first.
2weeksy says
but just in case you’re right you better not pick up any basketballs in your driveway. That’s how someone I know was supposedly going to snuff Cap’n Carr.
True, big brother Jack Weeks was the political front guy who put Mike Dukakis in the tank. Pure political genius.
And yes Kevin Weeks and Jack Weeks used to play football against the Globe reporters. They were all chummy and sweaty and physical on the grass at Morrissey Blvd. I doubt Shelley Murphy played though, I think she was still working for Howie at the Herald back then.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
that’s gross
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Matt Connolly has really impacted me. I k now you have lots on your plate but it would be great if you subscribed to Matt Connolly’s blog and read his short daily posts. They are powerful. People like you are needed to pay attention.
This is not about the Bulgers, South Boston, or person or place.
This is the historical abuse by certainn element with federal law enforcement that can be explained by the F.B.I. Top Echelon Informant Program started by J Edgar Hoover.
The feds said the stopped it after the Whitey Bulger fiasco hit the fan but thanks to D.A. Jon Blodgett up in Essex County we know it still continues.
Blodgett uncovered this in the Rosetti indictments.
This is major stuff David that could use a look at by eyes like yours and Bob’s.
Thanks again
Christopher says
…not to mention am more confident in his credibility, than that of EB3.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
you shut the fuck up!
Kidding! I’m Kidding. If read with comedic timing its gold I tell ya, gold!
daves says
The involuntary removal of Stearns was reported by the Globe on March 14, March 18, and March 26.
Nothing to see here. Move on.
SomervilleTom says
The Globe also dutifully reported (buried in the back pages, of course) that the accident investigation showed that Tim Murray’s Crown Victoria wasn’t capable of the acceleration needed to achieve the 100+ MPH reading from the black box, that the black box actually measures wheel rotation speed, and that the data actually showed Mr. Murray’s car traveling at about 70MPH with the wheels then spinning — just as he said initially.
Nevertheless, the similarly false front-page stories of Mr. Murray’s “100 MPH crash” are repeated over and over as if they were true. They become part of Massachusetts mythology and contributed to the untimely end of his promising political career. The Globe performed shamefully in handling that story, and some of us remain curious about why.
The Globe, like every newspaper, has an obligation to scrupulously avoid the appearance of collusion between its reporters, its editors, and the government agencies (including political figures) it investigates.
The Globe clearly failed to meet that standard in both the Tim Murray accident report and this more recent episode.
hlpeary says
Somervilletom: So the Stearns mis-story comes as no shock to you or anyone who has followed the Globe’s crusade to destroy Tim Murray’s career. An avalanche of incorrect information, innuendo and rumor purported to be fact by undisclosed sources coupled with suppression of the true facts…that’s what passed for “journalism”…and other publications joined the echo chamber until a good person had his political future diminished. I know times are tough at print news outlets and they need shock headlines to sell papers, but the cozy crap that’s been going on between Globe reporters and state and fed. attorneys and ambitious pols and their marketers is nothing short of a disgrace. The public has been deceived not well served.
SomervilleTom says
We can only speculate about what public figures felt threatened by the ascendancy of Tim Murray, and what sort of relationship those figures have with the Globe. He is a good man done wrong, in a time when we desperately need good men and women in public office.
I agree that the public has been and is being deceived and not well served.
2weeksy says
Milton Valencia even wrote a factually accurate article on March 26. He had two published stories that contradicted each other. Milton got caught cleanly with a reporting error. That’s not a big deal. How he handled it is the story.
Milton’s email confirmed the belief of critical readers that reporters consider themselves beyond reproach. His reporting error was undeniable. Still he denied, obfuscated and hedged. He should have just manned up, THEN there’d be nothing to see here. Instead, Milton provided a very interesting peek at the mindset of reporters who wield the constitutional power of the pen. The public has some control over elected and political power, but we’re left to blindly trust that the power of the unregulated press is wielded with integrity.
Milton exhibited a rather low level of journalistic integrity. It’s only other reporters who are defending him. That speaks volumes about the integrity of the entire media in Boston.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
he chose not to rob all the other people he passed by that day.
David says
is why a reporter who obviously knows exactly what actually happened can’t be bothered (a) to write an accurate story about it, or (b) when the inaccuracy is called to his attention, to make a simple correction. It’s less about the detail, which as you and I both noted has been accurate reported in the Globe on other occasions, and more about the feckless arrogance of mainstream media reporters.
daves says
I don’t get it either. Is it arrogance? Human error? Who knows? I just don’t believe it’s a big conspiracy. Maybe they need a copy of Black’s Law Dictionary.