Bulger decides not to testify
BOSTON — James “Whitey” Bulger called his racketeering trial a “sham” Friday as he revealed he would not testify in his own defense, a decision that prompted a cry of “coward!” from the widow of a man he is accused of killing.
After attorney J.W. Carney Jr. announced the decision, Judge Denise Casper asked Bulger if he had consulted with his lawyers and if he was making the decision voluntarily.
With the jury out of the room, Bulger told the judge his decision was made “involuntarily.”
“I feel that I've been choked off from having an opportunity to give an adequate defense,” he said. “My thing is, as far as I'm concerned, I didn't get a fair trial, and this is a sham, and do what youse want with me. That's it.”
Family members of Bulger's alleged murder victims looked dejected over his decision not to take the stand. Patricia Donahue, the widow of one alleged victim, yelled, “You're a coward!” while Bulger was speaking.
“If you think you had an unfair trial, then get up there and tell all,” she said outside the courtroom afterward. “I am so disappointed in this whole trial. I thought that at least he would be man enough to get up there.”
Bulger, 83, is on trial in a broad racketeering indictment that accuses him of participating in 19 murders in the 1970s and '80s as leader of the Winter Hill Gang.
He has pleaded not guilty.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Ground Zero ship dated to 1773
- IRS calls right-wing Republicans ‘crazies’ in emails
- 6 narcotics officers charged with racketeering
- House’s vote to sue Obama is historic foray into checks, balances
- Law enforcement, intelligence agencies want to ‘like’ you on social media
- Tea Party opposition threatens House GOP’s border bill
- Witnesses added for Benghazi hearing
- Flat-out ‘miracle’ spares women on railroad span
- N.Y. opera proposes mediation as lockout looms
- Charges against Fla. mom raise ire
- Senate report to question detention, interrogation practices, secrecy at CIA after 9/11