THE DEATH OF "CRAZY BILLY" SULLIVAN
Michael Parks
The following article was sent to me by John Armstrong. It came from The New Times, 7/24/78.
Enjoy.
Michael Parks
Start quote
SPECIAL REPORT
THE DEATH OF "CRAZY BILLY" SULLIVAN
By: Jeff Goldberg and Harvey Yazijian
On November 10, 1977, the New York Times printed a story headlined "William C. Sullivan,
Ex-FBI Aide, Is Killed In A Hunting Accident." It ran on the obituary page -- a routine death
announcement.
Sullivan was the FBI's former assistant to the director, the number-three man in J. Edgar
Hoover's bureau. The day before, he had been hunting in Sugar Hill, New Hampshire, about a mile
from his home. Just after daybreak he was shot in the back and killed by Robert Daniels, Jr., a
21-year-old local man, who later said he had mistaken Sullivan for a white-tail dear.
The case was handled as a simple accident -- even though it was the first hunting fatality in
Sugar Hill in over 20 years. On November 19, Daniels pleaded nolo contendere to Fish and Game
violation number 207:37, the misdemeanor charge of carelessly shooting a human being. He was
later fined $500 and his hunting license was suspended for 10 years. Through a spokesman, the
Sullivan family said it accepted the shooting as an accident and forgave the hunter. Case
closed.
But there remains nagging questions -- the circumstances were too puzzling, the investigation
too casual, the victim too important for them to go away.
Through the 1960s, Sullivan had been chief of Division Five, the Bureau's super-secret
intelligence branch. Division Five handled much of the FBI's investigation of John F. Kennedy
and Martin Luther King assassinations. It also ran the infamous Cointelpro (Counter
Intelligence Program), an attempt to "neutralize" leftist organizations through such tactics as
infiltration, monitoring of mail, burglaries and illegal bugging. So "Crazy Billy" Sullivan, as
he was called for his maverick style, had been privy to the FBI's most sensitive secrets. He
was forced out by Hoover in 1971 (the director feared Sullivan was angling for his job), but
because of what Sullivan knew, even in retirement he remained a powerful and controversial man.
At the time of his death he was scheduled to testify before the House Select Committee
investigating the Kennedy and King assassinations. He was to be questioned in more than a dozen
civil suits concerning FBI abuses that allegedly took place under his command. He was to be the
star defense witness in what was billed as the most important criminal proceedings ever brought
against the FBI -- the case against New York City Special Agent John Kearney. And he would have
testified for the government in its unprecedented prosecution of former Acting FBI Director L.
Patrick Gray and two other Bureau officials. Careers, reputations and the integrity of the FBI
would hang in the balance if Sullivan chose to tell the courts and congressional committee what
he knew.
His death at such a moment, and by such violent means, could not fail to startle
knowledgeable observers into wondering if there may have been foul play. It made one remember
the other key witnesses that died violently in recent years just as they were about to be
quizzed in Congress about the Kennedy assassination: mobsters Sam Giancana, John Roselli and
Charles Nicoletti; ex-Cuban President Carlos Prio Socarras; and Lee Harvey Oswald's confidante,
George DeMohrenschildt.
But the leftist attorney William Kunstler has been willing to publicly question whether
Sullivan's was an accident. In a letter to Attorney General Griffin Bell, Kunstler has called
for a new inquiry: "....I am not suggesting that murder took in New Hampshire on November 9,
1977, but simply that there is sufficient smoke to indicate there might have." Privately he
adds, "I have no smoking gun, just a lot of questions. In my heart I think Sullivan was
murdered. But I'm not sure if Daniels did it."
The arguments that the death was accidental are powerful: poor visibility; white clothing
mistaken for the white tail dear; local youth known to the police chief immediately turns
himself in, appearing distraught and genuinely sorry.
But that, in part, is the problem. Because the shooting looked like an accident, it was
investigated like one. The probe was entrusted to the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department,
an agency qualified to investigate only hunting accidents. Its one-page report is a bare and
uncritical narration of the shooting. "You've got to realize that Fish and Game are trained in
conservation," says John Rolli, the Grafton County prosecutor who tried the case. "Animals and
stuff like that. They're not trained to investigate criminal cases. They spend their time
studying deer herd propagation." Despite the victim's stature, neither the Justice Department
nor prosecutor Rolli investigated.
A spokesman for the New Hampshire State Police originally told New Times his department would
not become involved because Daniels' father was a state trooper (he has since retired from the
force). However, it was recently learned the State Police did investigate. But while insisting
the shooting was an accident, the department refuses to release its official report.
New Times' investigation of the case has uncovered no smoking gun of conspiracy. But there
are enough contradictions and flawed evidence in the official version of the shooting to warrant
further examination.
Robert Daniels is an average young whose life was uncomplicated before the shooting. He is
thin, of medium height, with blond hair and a barely visible blond mustache. He has lived all
his 21 years in Lisbon, New Hampshire, a working-class town just down a hilly road from the
affluent vacation village of Sugar Hill. Daniels works as a ski patrolman at nearby Cannon
Mountain. Prior to the shooting, he had never been arrested.
Daniels hesitatingly agreed to be interviewed only if the conversation was taped and a copy
sent to his lawyer. He says he was hunting alone that morning, armed with a 30-06 Remington
automatic rifle equipped with a four-power scope. Daniel says a friend, Randy Heath, whom he
had planned to hunt with, had overslept and did not come with him. Thus the only account of the
shooting is Daniels': "At approximately 6:10 a.m., I stood up....and saw a motion on the other
side of the field. I picked up my rifle and through the scope I saw brown. I dropped my rifle
down and saw a flicker of white. I'm not sure what it really was, but I thought it was a flag
(the tail of a deer). When I saw the white it appeared to move a little further and I thought
it had smelled me and was running. I picked up my rifle and through the scope I saw brown again
and I squeezed the trigger."
Two hundred and forty-three feet away, according to authorities, a bullet slammed into
Sullivan's right shoulder blade, exited through the left side of his neck, and vanished into the
woods.
After Daniels' emergency medical procedures failed to revive Sullivan, he raced to the home
of his good friend Gary Young, the chief and sole member of the Sugar Hill police. They called
authorities and returned to the scene of the shooting. Shortly, Daniels' father (who was then a
corporal in the State Police) arrived, followed by an ambulance and officials from the Fish and
Game Department, the State Police and the FBI.
Daniels hunted nearly every day in season. As with most experienced hunters, he was normally
very careful about what he shot at. "During the year before the accident, I saw about 15 or 20
deer," he says. "I didn't shoot at any of them because I didn't think it was the right shooting
time. I consider myself a sportsman, not a person who goes out to kill as many deer as he can."
Why did he drop his guard that morning? "I'm really suspicious of the hunting accident," one
Lisbon resident says, "not just because Sullivan was involved, but because this guy (Daniels)
knows how to hunt, and I don't care what they say, he knows how to hunt. Local hunters don't
make mistakes like that."
The official version of the accident rest on two conclusions:
Daniels view of Sullivan was obscured and fleeting.
Sullivan's clothing, in a sense, made him look like a deer.
These are the basics of the case. But on closer examination, neither can be judged now as
certain.
Daniels was positioned in the backyard of an expensive summer home that was vacant at the
time. It sits in the middle of a handful of other houses tucked away with Currier and Ives
grace in the White Mountains. The backyard is roughly a rectangular shaped field, approximately
100 yards wide and 90 yards deep and bordered on three sides by woods. It is clear except for a
cluster of a half-dozen small, leafless apple trees that would not have impaired Daniels' view
of Sullivan. About half of the field is visible from the roadway in front of the house.
How did both men, surrounded by miles of woods, happen to collide in someone's backyard?
Daniels says he had previously scouted the field and that deer gravitate to it to munch on the
apples lying on the ground. Sullivan's familiarity with the yard and his intentions remain
unknown.
The shooting took place about 15 to 20 minutes before dawn. Daniels says visibility was
impaired by "gloomy" weather, but that there was light.
From Daniels' location 80 yards away, Sullivan was partially obscured by a three-foot rise in
the middle of the field. They were at opposite sides of the backyard. Authorities claim
Sullivan would have been visible only from the shoulders up. But from New Times' reconstruction
of the scene, it appears that Daniels would have seen Sullivan from almost the waist up.
Denials says he was stationary in a corner of the yard behind the house. Sullivan, he says,
walked towards him -- across the empty lot abutting the other side of the property and through a
slender section of the woods. Daniels says he heard a sound as Sullivan passed through. Then
Sullivan turned and proceeded along the field's tree line, away from the house and Daniels. How
long Sullivan was visible is unclear, but he had been facing Daniels as he approached the field,
was in view of the field as he partially traversed Daniels' line of vision, and was actually
walking away from Daniels when he was shot. Sullivan was visible long enough for Daniels to
sight him several times, both through the scope and with his eye. When asked about the duration
of Sullivan's visibility, Daniels replies, "It seemed like a long time, but it was probably just
several seconds."
A hunter must "lead" his shot by firing slightly ahead of the animal if it is moving and some
distance away -- usually aiming to hit the chest or shoulder area. As one gun shop owner says,
"An experienced hunter never shoots at just part of the animal; he shoots at the whole animal."
But after identifying only what he thought was the tail of a deer, Daniels fired directly at
it, attempting to hit what was certainly an unlikely spot to make the kill. Had he led his
target, the bullet would have passed in front of Sullivan.
Another detail nagging for explanation is how Daniels was able to spot movement with the
naked eye and fail to better identify it through his rifle mounted scope (which would make his
quarry appear about four times larger). William Kunstler can't believe this: "A four-power
sight, at that distance, would enable him to see a pimple on a man's neck." Yet Daniels says
that with the scope and without, he saw only "a brown and white flicker."
The "brown and white" is the real cause of the accident, prosecutor John Rolli said at first,
because Daniels mistook white clothing for a deer's tail. Even as he approached Sullivan's
fallen body Daniels thought he saw white, according to his signed statement to Fish and Game.
He wrote, "I was about 50 yds. when I saw white and thought it was a deer." So we must assume
Sullivan was wearing white that morning. Was he?
Rolli stated in court last November that Sullivan was wearing a brown hat and a green and
black jacket, over a white turtleneck shirt. (He failed to mention that Sullivan was also
wearing a wool shirt buttoned to the neck.) Six months after the shooting, Joseph Casey,
Sullivan's Washington lawyer, corrected this version: Sullivan, he said, was wearing a white
T-shirt, not a turtleneck. Casey said the T-shirt was bunched up on Sullivan's neck and visible
under the flannel shirt and mackinaw. On the other hand, the autopsy report says Sullivan was
clad in a "red and white checked mackinaw" with no mention of a turtleneck or T-shirt. On the
one page form report of the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, the prominence of the color
in the victim's clothing is checked off as "unknown." Asked about these contradictions, Richard
Dufour, Fish and Game's investigating officer, responded that Sullivan was wearing no white at
all. "Nothing that I saw would have shown white," Dufour said. Recently, Rolli admitted he had
been in error in court and misidentified Sullivan's white T-shirt as a turtleneck. When it was
pointed out that in either case, a T-shirt or turtleneck bunched up under winter clothing would
hardly be visible from the rear, he agreed and hypothesized that the white Daniels saw was
Sullivan's Irishman-pale face!!!
Then there was a pair of gloves officials found near Sullivan's body. Daniels said they
weren't his, nor did he remove them from Sullivan's hands. Whose were they? Detective David
Lennon of the State Police, who received the gloves and other exhibits, would not comment.
There are other troubling questions. For example, was anyone else out hunting near that
backyard that morning? Did anyone know of Sullivan's intentions or direction?
After the shooting, the New York Times reported that Sullivan had been on his way to meet two
"hunting companions" when he was killed. The probable source for this report was Charles
Brennan, Sullivan's close friend and former assistant in the Bureau. He says Marion Sullivan,
the victim's wife, told him Sullivan had been en route at 6:15 to an unknown location to go
hunting with Gary Young, the police chief, and Tim Casey, a retired FBI agent who lives in the
area (no relation to Sullivan's lawyer). Yet both Daniels and Young say the chief was asleep at
6:30, a mile or so from the field, when Daniels stormed into his bedroom to report the shooting.
Young acknowledges he was to go hunting with Sullivan that morning, but he insists they were to
meet at his house at 9:00 a.m. Young says he has no idea where Sullivan's wife got the
impression the three were to meet at 6:30.
New Times has learned from Thomas Hannigan, senior resident agent of the FBI's Concord
office, that Tim Casey spent the night at Young's house, a fact that Young confirmed.
Asked where Casey was at 6:30 a.m., Young told New Times that the retired agent was already
hunting then and did not return until several hours later. Prosecutor Rolli, who was unaware
until recently of Mrs. Sullivan's claim that her husband planned to meet Casey and Young, says
he has learned that Casey had been hunting on the other side of the hill from Daniels and
Sullivan.
Did Casey know of Sullivan's plans that morning? Was he close enough to hear the shot? Tim
Casey declines to comment, saying only, "I refuse to get involved." Mrs. Sullivan also declines
to comment. Sullivan's lawyer, Joseph Casey, says, "Sullivan wasn't going to meet anybody. He
was out on his own."
Inconsistent accounts do not necessarily indicate foul play. But these inconsistencies makes
some observers wonder if the investigation was thorough enough. The extent of the
investigation, of course, cannot be known without the State Police report, which remains
confidential.
Chief Young, who had jurisdiction over the matter, properly removed himself from the inquiry
because of his close associations with the principals. However, it was Young who decided to
assign the inquiry to Fish and Game, thereby concluding beforehand, in effect, that the shooting
was accidental.
The investigation was limited to the perimeter of the field. Even then, how precise was the
official reconstruction of the events? For example, Sullivan's body had already been moved
before authorities saw it -- Daniels says he dragged it 15 feet in a vain effort to get it to
his truck. Did authorities try to determine Sullivan's exact location at the time of death? Or
did they just take Daniels' word? And was Daniels' position independently confirmed? Was an
effort make to locate his footprints, tire tracks or other evidence of Daniels' and Sullivan's
movements, or those of others? Were neighbors interviewed? On all of these questions,
authorities gave unsatisfying or imprecise answers. And although the autopsy report makes no
mention of it, did authorities seek to medically confirm the time of death? None of the doctors
would comment.
A State Police spokesman says the department's report is confidential because it is policy
not to release such reports -- and because, in this case, civil proceedings may follow.
However, the shooting has been adjudicated an accident, and six months later the Sullivan family
has not brought civil charges against Daniels. In fact, Chief Young, speaking on behalf of Mrs.
Sullivan, told the court, "The family holds no animosity towards Bobby Daniels. They would like
any leniency on sentencing that the court could offer."
If the State Police report resolves, or at least grapples with, some of the unanswered
questions, then its release could put the Sullivan case to rest. Otherwise, the doubts will
continue until there is a thorough public investigation.
As William Kunstler says, "There was never more of a motive to kill a man."
End quote
Pearl Gladstone
Michael Parks wrote:
>
> The following article was sent to me by John Armstrong. It came from The New Times, 7/24/78.
> Enjoy.
>
> Michael Parks
>
> Start quote
>
> SPECIAL REPORT
> THE DEATH OF "CRAZY BILLY" SULLIVAN
> By: Jeff Goldberg and Harvey Yazijian
>
> On November 10, 1977, the New York Times printed a story headlined "William C. Sullivan,
> Ex-FBI Aide, Is Killed In A Hunting Accident." It ran on the obituary page -- a routine death
> announcement.
> Sullivan was the FBI's former assistant to the director, the number-three man in J. Edgar
> Hoover's bureau. The day before, he had been hunting in Sugar Hill, New Hampshire, about a mile
> from his home. Just after daybreak he was shot in the back and killed by Robert Daniels, Jr., a
> 21-year-old local man, who later said he had mistaken Sullivan for a white-tail dear.
>
Thanks for posting this.
All those white-tailed deer shot down or murdered in a variety of ways
through the years....And it's still going on....because they get away
with it...
It's just a chapter from "I. Claudius" in the USA.
Steve Keating
Pearl Gladstone wrote:
> Thanks for posting this.
>
> All those white-tailed deer shot down or murdered in a variety of ways
> through the years....And it's still going on....because they get away
> with it...
Unfortunately, the whole looooooong story that Michael posted was a waste of time. Most anyone that
has ever hunted deer (at least in the western part of the U.S.) knows that you had best be wearing an
orange vest and/or hat while hunting, or even being in a hunting area. Sullivan is just as much to
blame for being shot as the poor bastard is that shot him.
Steve K.
Michael Parks
In article <350FED1F...@lucent.com>, jkea...@lucent.com says...
=>
=>Unfortunately, the whole looooooong story that Michael posted was a waste of time. Most anyone
=that
=>has ever hunted deer (at least in the western part of the U.S.) knows that you had best be
=wearing an
=>orange vest and/or hat while hunting, or even being in a hunting area. Sullivan is just as
=much to
=>blame for being shot as the poor bastard is that shot him.
=>
=>Steve K.
Steve, sorry you feel laying the facts on the table is a waste of time. Darn, that sounds like
the WC of '64.
MP
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: THE DEATH OF "CRAZY BILLY" SULLIVAN
>From: mpa...@cyberramp.net (Michael Parks)
>Date: Sun, Mar 22, 1998 11:26 EST
>Message-id: <6f3e2q$2og$2...@newshost.cyberramp.net>
Don't pay any attention to the squawking and screeching from the
lunatic Parrot.......
If he had half a brain he would know that most hunting "accidents" are
questionable? They are chalked up as accidents because it's nearly
impossible to prove that many of the "accidents" are nothing but wanton cold
blooded murder......
Wearing blaze orange clothing only makes you a easier target for the drunken
louts who think hunting season is simply a good excuse to stay drunk for days
at a time.
Once again Keating reveals his shallow thinking.......
Walt Cakebread
Vern Pascal
Let me quote-Oswald Talked-pg.433-"the former FBI man (Sullivan) was
cooperating
with Gentry on what would be his widely admired J.Edgar Hoover: The
Man and the Secrets( 1992 ) . Among the book's revelations: the Bureau
destroyed in the hours after Kennedy was assassinated some dozens,
perhaps even over a hundred Documents concerning threats on the life of
the president, which the FBI had failed to report to either the Secret
Service or the Kennedys- and certainly would never mention to the Warren
Commission".- Jeff
HANKMAN879
>Wearing blaze orange clothing only makes you a easier target for the drunken
>louts who think hunting season is simply a good excuse to stay drunk for days
I live in New Hampshire not far from the Sullivan murder site. I am an ex cop;
experienced with firearms; and have done a fair amount of deer hunting here in
NH. I will not go into the woods or even near the woods during hunting season
without a fair amount of blaze orange on my body - particularly orange
headgear.
People with ' buck fever ' will shoot at anything that vaguely resembles a
whitetail deer's ' flag '. Add a case of brewskis to that equation; factor
in a carload of city slickers shooting at goats, cows, horses, and dogs and you
have a recipe for disaster.
I cannot believe that an experienced hunter like William Sullivan would be in
the NH woods without major blaze orange covering his body. If that was true
then he bears at least some of the blame for his death.
Hank Cavaretta
WCAKE
>Subject: Re: THE DEATH OF "CRAZY BILLY" SULLIVAN
>Date: Sun, Mar 22, 1998 20:34 EST
>Message-id: <199803230134...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>I cannot believe that an experienced hunter like William Sullivan would be in
the NH woods without major blaze orange covering his body. If that was true
then he bears at least some of the blame for his death.
Hank Cavaretta
Thanks Hank........
I'm pleased that you wrote ........." I cannot believe that an experienced
hunter like William Sullivan would be in
the NH woods without major blaze orange covering his body."
You're saying that William Sullivan WOULD NOT have been out in the woods
without wearing Blaze Orange.......... If you are correct.......... then it's a
good indicator that Sullivan may NOT have been hunting when he was killed.....
Perhaps he was lured to the woods for a secret meeting ...........
But you go on to say........ "If that was true ( he was in the woods sans Blaze
Orange ) then he bears at least some of the blame for his death.
That would seem to indicate that you believe it was simply an accident........
I donno....... Sullivan is shot ......Colby falls out of a canoe and
drowns....... accidents??
Walt Cakebread
HANKMAN879
>That would seem to indicate that you believe it was simply an
>accident........
>I donno....... Sullivan is shot ......Colby falls out of a canoe and
>drowns....... accidents??
Walt,
Excellent point ! I believe that Colby was the second CIA man to fall out of a
boat in the Chesapeake. Guess bullets are expensive in Virginia huh ?
Hank
jack white
HANKMAN879 wrote:
>
> >Wearing blaze orange clothing only makes you a easier target for the drunken
> >louts who think hunting season is simply a good excuse to stay drunk for days
>
> I live in New Hampshire not far from the Sullivan murder site. I am an ex cop;
> experienced with firearms; and have done a fair amount of deer hunting here in
> NH. I will not go into the woods or even near the woods during hunting season
> without a fair amount of blaze orange on my body - particularly orange
> headgear.
>
> People with ' buck fever ' will shoot at anything that vaguely resembles a
> whitetail deer's ' flag '. Add a case of brewskis to that equation; factor
> in a carload of city slickers shooting at goats, cows, horses, and dogs and you
> have a recipe for disaster.
>
> the NH woods
HE WAS IN HIS OWN BACK YARD WHEN THE COP*S SON SHOT HIM. WHY WOULD A HUNTER
BE HUNTING IN SOMEBODY ELSE*S BACKYARD?
SKeat97
>Subject: Re: THE DEATH OF "CRAZY BILLY" SULLIVAN
>Date: Sun, Mar 22, 1998 13:42 EST
>Message-id: <199803221842...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>>Subject: Re: THE DEATH OF "CRAZY BILLY" SULLIVAN
You are out and out paranoid, Walt. Most hunting accidents are caused by
carelessness, drunkenness and stupidity.
They are chalked up as accidents because it's nearly
>impossible to prove that many of the "accidents" are nothing but wanton cold
>blooded murder......
Paranoid. I bet you are not a hunter, eh? Well, I used to be. That is how I
learned to shoot so good, remember. LHO was a better shot then me, but I could
still shoot the asshole out of a rat at a thousand yards.
>
>Wearing blaze orange clothing only makes you a easier target for the drunken
>louts who think hunting season is simply a good excuse to stay drunk for days
>at a time.
Only a minority of hunters act the way that you describe. Its just sour grapes.
Sullivan made a huge mistake by not wearing orange. He'd be alive today had he
worn it.
>
>Once again Keating reveals his shallow thinking.......
Wow. I haven't heard my real name for a while, Walt. You must be slipping. But
you might as well lump them blankin hunters in with the rest of the folks that
you disparage. I mean, they are only wearing orange just to be better targets,
eh?
Steve K.
>
>Walt Cakebread
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
