United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 04-2466

MARY JANE CALLAHAN, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Torruella, Circuit Judge,

Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

James P. Duggan, on brief, for appellants.

Steve Frank, Attorney, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, with

whom Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michael J.

Sullivan, United States Attorney, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Deputy

Assistant Attorney General, and Robert S. Greenspan, Attorney,

Appellate Staff, were on brief, for appellee United States of

America.

William A. Brown, with whom Kate Miller Brown, were on brief,

for appellee Robert Fitzpatrick.

October 18, 2005
-2-

TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, we consider

Plaintiff's claim against the United States under the Federal Tort

Claims Act. The district court found that it did not have subject

matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff's claim accrued more than two

years before she filed her administrative complaint and that the

doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not toll this requirement.

Plaintiff contests these findings of the district court. We

affirm.

I. Background

Mary Jane Callahan ("Plaintiff"), individually and as

administratrix of the estate of John B. Callahan ("Callahan"), and

members of her family filed suit for wrongful death and emotional

distress arising from the murder of her husband. The suit is

founded in a long and sordid history between Boston FBI agents and

the Winter Hill Gang, an organized crime syndicate in Boston.

Defendants are the United States and individuals who were once

members of the FBI, the Winter Hill Gang, or both. This corrupt

relationship produced many unfortunate victims, several of whom

have already sought relief in the federal courts. See generally

McIntyre v. United States, 367 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2004); United

States v. Salemme, 91 F. Supp. 2d 141 (D. Mass. 1999), rev'd in

part, sub nom., United States v. Flemmi, 225 F.3d 78 (1st Cir.

2000).
-3-

This appeal concerns only Plaintiff's claim as

administratrix of Callahan's estate against the United States. The

district court dismissed all claims by individual plaintiffs for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction for their failure to file an

administrative claim. Callahan v. United States, 337 F. Supp. 2d

348, 350 n.1 (D. Mass. 2004). In an order dated September 28,

2004, the district court also dismissed all claims against

individual defendants for expiration of the statute of limitations

or want of prosecution. Plaintiff does not appeal those

dismissals.

The claim against the United States is through the

Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), under which the United States

consents to suits against it in tort. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b); 28

U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680. One condition of the FTCA is that a plaintiff

must file an administrative claim within two years of the accrual

of her claim. Id. § 2401(b). Below, the government did not

dispute the Plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations, and the

district court accepted Plaintiff's allegations as true. Even

accepting the Plaintiff's allegations as true, however, the

district court found that her claim accrued more than two years

before she filed her administrative complaint. The court below

thus dismissed the remaining claim for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Callahan, 377 F. Supp. 2d at 370.
-4-

We present a summary of the factual events surrounding

Callahan's murder as alleged by the Plaintiff and supplemented by

uncontested facts from news reports and court documents. See

Valentín v. Hosp. Bella Vista, 254 F.3d 358, 363 (1st Cir. 2001).

A. The Winter Hill Gang and the FBI

The Winter Hill Gang was the name for the dominant

organized crime syndicate in the Boston area in the 1970s and

1980s. The Gang's activities included murder, bribery, extortion,

loan sharking, and illegal gambling. James "Whitey" Bulger

("Bulger") and Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi ("Flemmi") were two

prominent members of the Gang.

In 1967, FBI Agent H. Paul Rico ("Rico") recruited Flemmi

as an FBI informant. In 1976, Agent John Connolly ("Connolly")

recruited Bulger as an informant. Connolly and Bulger were

childhood neighbors in South Boston. Eventually, both Bulger and

Flemmi were promoted to the status of "Top Echelon" informant. The

Winter Hill Gang's main rival in crime was the Boston branch of La

Cosa Nostra, another organized crime syndicate. The FBI wanted to

bring down La Cosa Nostra and Bulger and Flemmi were very pleased

to help it do so.

This convenient relationship eventually took a turn for

the worse. While they were informants, Bulger and Flemmi were

responsible for multiple murders, including those of Roger Wheeler,

Brian Halloran, and Callahan, to be discussed below. The FBI,
-5-

intent on keeping its informants happy, turned a blind eye to their

crimes and failed to follow FBI guidelines for dealing with

informants. For example, FBI agents interfered with the

investigation of Bulger and Flemmi for the murder of Callahan by

preventing Oklahoma FBI agents from interviewing them. The FBI

also informed Bulger and Flemmi of a "bugged" location to prevent

them from incriminating themselves. At the same time, Bulger and

Flemmi ingratiated themselves to the FBI by assisting the agents.

For example, when FBI Agent John Morris ("Morris"), Agent

Connolly's supervisor, was in Georgia for training and he wanted

his secretary to fly to meet him for a romantic tryst, Bulger and

Flemmi paid for her plane ticket. This cozy relationship created

a protective shield around Bulger and Flemmi that emboldened them

in their criminal activities -- so much so that at one point Flemmi

stated that the FBI gave Bulger and him free reign to commit any

crime short of murder.

Eventually, this cozy relationship between the FBI and

Bulger and Flemmi broke down when more reputable law enforcement

agents charged Bulger and Flemmi with numerous crimes. Agent

Connolly tipped off Bulger, who, to this day, is in hiding from law

enforcement authorities. Agent Morris was granted immunity for his

testimony, and he testified against Flemmi.
 Plaintiff stated rather cryptically in her complaint that 1

"[c]omplaints of this activity fell on deaf ears." From this we

presume that Callahan complained to Wheeler even though other

sources portray Callahan less innocently. See Salemme, 91

F. Supp. 2d at 208-09 ("Wheeler suspected that Callahan was

skimming money from World Jai Lai for members of the Winter Hill

Gang, including Halloran, Bulger, and Flemmi. Thus, he fired

Callahan . . . and began an audit.") (internal citations omitted).

 Plaintiff does not admit that Callahan partook in any illegal 2

activity or had any involvement with the Winter Hill Gang. Agent

Morris did not believe Halloran's implication of Bulger and Flemmi

and thought Halloran was lying. We will presume that Halloran was

-6-

B. Callahan's Death

Callahan was chief executive officer of a business called

World Jai Alai ("WJA"), owned by one Roger Wheeler ("Wheeler").

WJA operated "frontons" where customers could place bets on the

outcome of jai alai matches. In an unusual coincidence, Callahan

hired Rico, now retired from the FBI and the one who had recruited

Flemmi as an FBI informant, as head of security for WJA. Around

1981, Callahan learned that individuals were skimming profits from

WJA. He was concerned and reported his suspicions to Wheeler. In 1

response, Wheeler began an audit of WJA. To prevent Wheeler from

discovering their profit skimming, Bulger and Flemmi wanted Wheeler

killed. At their direction, John Martorano ("Martorano"), another

member of the Winter Hill Gang, murdered Wheeler in May 1981.

In January 1982, one Brian Halloran ("Halloran") began

cooperating with the FBI while being prosecuted for an unrelated

murder. He told the FBI that Bulger, Flemmi, and Callahan had

asked him to murder Wheeler but that he had declined the offer.2
lying and that Callahan was an upstanding citizen.

Both contentions are nothing more than conclusory allegations 3

with no support in the record.

-7-

Halloran also stated that Bulger, Flemmi, Callahan, and Martorano

were ultimately responsible for Wheeler's murder. Agent Morris

relayed this information to Agent Connolly, who in turn informed

Bulger and Flemmi. In May 1982, Bulger and Flemmi had Halloran

killed to prevent his further cooperation with law enforcement

authorities.

In August 1982, Callahan's body was found in the trunk of

a car at the Miami airport. Plaintiff makes two allegations as to

a direct connection between the FBI and Callahan's death. The 3

first is from Plaintiff's complaint in this suit, and the second is

from her administrative complaint.

The first allegation is that the FBI's investigation of

the Wheeler murder eventually turned to Callahan. Around June

1982, Connolly informed Bulger and Flemmi that Callahan was under

investigation. Although it is not clear how Callahan could have

any incriminating information about the Wheeler murder, Bulger and

Flemmi directed Martorano to kill Callahan to prevent him from

cooperating with law enforcement authorities.

The second allegation is that Callahan told Rico that he

feared that Wheeler's death was related to Wheeler's knowledge of

the profit skimming at WJA. Rico told this to Morris and Connolly
-8-

who in turn told Bulger and Flemmi. Bulger and Flemmi directed

Martorano to kill Callahan because he knew of their profit

skimming.

C. News Reports of FBI Misconduct

As early as March 1996, Boston newspapers reported

possible FBI complicity in the Callahan murder. A March 1996

article reported that Callahan, Bulger, and Flemmi had asked

Halloran to kill Wheeler; Callahan told Halloran that Martorano had

killed Wheeler with Flemmi's help; investigators were probing

whether the Wheeler, Halloran, and Callahan murders were related;

and "sources and published reports have long said that Bulger was

an informant for the FBI." Ralph Ranalli, The Jai Alai Murders,

Boston Herald, Mar. 10-11, 1996. A July 1997 article stated that

the FBI kept using Bulger and Flemmi as informants even though they

were suspects in the murders of Wheeler, Halloran, and Callahan.

Ralph Ranalli, FBI Used Whitey Despite his Ties to Three Murders,

Boston Herald, July 7, 1997. A December 1997 article reported that

federal court hearings will "probe whether FBI agents and federal

organized crime prosecutors violated any federal laws or guidelines

in the way they handled informants" like Bulger and Flemmi, and

that Florida police investigating the Callahan murder are "hoping

[the] hearings . . . will lead to a break in the case." Ralph

Ranalli, Police Reopen Mob Murder Probe, Boston Herald, Dec. 15,

1997.
-9-

National television broadcasts reported similar

information. On March 15, 1998, the broadcast "CNN Impact"

reported that Bulger and Flemmi were FBI informants and that

possible connections existed between Bulger and Flemmi and the

murders of Wheeler, Halloran, and Callahan. On May 10, 1998, the

television program "60 Minutes" reported that Flemmi stated that

the FBI gave Bulger and him "free reign to commit just about any

crime." The broadcast also referred to the Callahan murder and

stated that the FBI might "have allowed [Bulger and Flemmi] to get

away with murder."

D. Agent Morris's 1998 Testimony

Agent Morris testified in April 1998 that the FBI had

informed Bulger and Flemmi that Halloran was implicating them in

Wheeler's murder and that he believed that Bulger and Flemmi may

have killed Halloran. Salemme, 91 F. Supp. 2d at 209. Agent

Morris also testified that he informed Bulger and Flemmi of a

location bugged by Massachusetts State Police to prevent them from

incriminating themselves. Id. at 202. Boston newspapers reported

his sensational testimony. See Shelley Murphy, Worst Fears Came

True as Informant Lost Race for his Life, Boston Globe, Apr. 23,

1998; Ralph Ranalli, Ex-FBI Honcho: Agent Tipped Mobsters on

Stoolie, Boston Herald, Apr. 23, 1998.
 The portion that remained sealed listed individuals Martorano 4

would testify against in exchange for his plea. Callahan, 337 F.

Supp. 2d at 352 n.4.

-10-

E. Martorano's Plea Agreement

Long before Martorano agreed to plead guilty to a score

of murders, Boston newspapers reported that Martorano was a suspect

in the Callahan murder and that a possible plea bargain was in the

works between Martorano and federal prosecutors. See Ralph

Ranalli, Gangster's Mob Testimony Held up by Agency Fighting,

Boston Herald, Nov. 16, 1998; Ralph Ranalli, States Close in on

Deal to Hear Mobster, Boston Herald, Feb. 4, 1999; Andrea Estes &

Ralph Ranalli, Reputed Mobster on Verge of Plea-Bargain Deal,

Boston Herald, May 13, 1999.

On September 9, 1999, portions of Martorano's agreement

to plead guilty to a number of murders, including the Callahan

murder, were made public. Boston newspapers heavily reported the 4

plea agreement, including that he would plead guilty to the murder

of Callahan. A September 12 article also reported that Martorano

would implicate Bulger and Flemmi, even though this portion of the

plea agreement remained sealed. Andrea Estes, Outraged Hit Man

Turned Rat for Revenge, Boston Herald, Sept. 12, 1999. The same

article quoted Mrs. Callahan as trying to forgive Martorano for

killing Callahan. Id. The article also stated that Wheeler had

"suspected the Winter Hill Gang was skimming profits" from his

company and that "Martorano believes the FBI told Flemmi and Bulger
-11-

about Wheeler's suspicions." Id. See also Andrea Estes, Notorious

Mobster Strikes Plea bargain with Feds, Boston Herald, Sept. 9,

1999 (reporting that Martorano agreed to plead guilty to the murder

of Callahan and that "Callahan . . . helped Bulger and Flemmi

orchestrate Wheeler's murder and had to be killed to prevent him

from squealing"); Andrea Estes, Murderous Rats Mobster Ties Bulger,

Flemmi to Murders, Boston Herald, Sept. 10, 1999 ("[Martorano] will

. . . accuse [Bulger and Flemmi] of ordering the murder of John

Callahan . . . ."); Shelley Murphy, US Attorney Defends Deal with

Hit Man, Boston Globe, Sept. 10, 1999 (reporting that Martorano

would "plead guilty to the murder of Callahan").

On September 30, 1999, Martorano admitted to the murders

of ten persons, not including Wheeler and Callahan, in federal

court. Boston newspapers reported this event and also noted that

Martorano would later plead guilty to the murders of Wheeler and

Callahan. Andrea Estes, Hitman Cops to Killings in Squeal Deal,

Boston Herald, Oct. 1, 1999.

On March 20, 2001, Martorano pleaded guilty in Florida

state court to murdering Callahan.

F. Judge Wolf's Opinion in United States v. Salemme

On September 15, 1999, Judge Wolf issued his opinion in

United States v. Salemme, detailing the corrupt relationship

between Bulger, Flemmi, and the FBI. Of particular relevance here,

the opinion contained a section titled "The Wheeler, Halloran, and
-12-

Callahan Murders" where Judge Wolf discussed the connections

between the three murders, Bulger and Flemmi, and the FBI.

Salemme, 91 F. Supp. 2d at 208-13. For example, he noted how FBI

agents protected Bulger and Flemmi from prosecution for the

Callahan murder by preventing Oklahoma FBI agents from interviewing

them. Id. at 211-13. In addition, he discussed how Bulger and

Flemmi paid for Agent Morris's secretary to fly to meet Morris for

a romantic tryst. Id. at 210. Boston newspapers reported the

sensational details the next day. Shelley Murphy, Bulger Tip-off

Gains Credence; Judge Believes FBI Agent Told Gangster of

Indictment, Boston Globe, Sept. 16, 1999; Andrea Estes, Judge

Blasts FBI Over Deal with Killers Whitey and Flemmi; Judge Says Hub

FBI Broke all the Rules, Boston Herald, Sept. 16, 1999.

G. FBI's Interactions with Plaintiff

Soon after the murder of Callahan, FBI agents met

Plaintiff and told her that Callahan's murder "was not a

professional hit" and that he was "probably killed by Cuban

gangsters." Several times between 1982 and 2001, when Martorano

pleaded guilty to the murder of Callahan, Plaintiff asked FBI

agents about the murder of Callahan, and FBI agents refused to tell

her anything.

On August 30, 1999, Plaintiff met with FBI agents at the

agents' request. The agents told her of a possible plea agreement

with the man who murdered Callahan, but they refused to state his
-13-

name. Plaintiff specifically asked FBI agents "whether certain

newspaper accounts involving [Callahan's murder] and John Martarano

[sic] were true," and the agents responded that she "should not

rely on newspaper accounts" and that "the reports were inaccurate."

H. Plaintiff's Administrative Complaint

On May 14, 2002, Plaintiff filed an administrative

complaint with the FBI on behalf of Callahan's estate claiming

in April of 2001, one John Martorano admitted

to killing Callahan. Claimant then learned

that Martorano was hired to kill her husband

on behalf of [Bulger and Flemmi]. Bulger and

Flemmi learned that the victim had information

that they were "skimming" profits from World

Jai Alai in Miami. Bulger and Flemmi learned

this from H. Paul Rico . . . . The

information was passed from Rico to FBI agents

Morris and Connolly who in turn alerted Bulger

and Flemmi.

II. Accrual under the FTCA

"It is 'elementary' that the United States, as sovereign,

is immune from suit unless it has consented to be sued." Skwira v.

United States, 344 F.3d 64, 72 (1st Cir. 2003) (citing United

States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980)). "Moreover, a waiver

of the Government's sovereign immunity will be strictly construed,

in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign." Lane v. Peña,

518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996). The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)

waives sovereign immunity by giving consent to suits "for injury or

loss of property, or personal injury or death caused by the

negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the
-14-

Government while acting within the scope of his office or

employment." 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680. One

condition of this waiver is that a claim "shall be forever barred

unless it is presented in writing to the appropriate Federal agency

within two years after such claim accrues." Id. § 2401(b). "[T]he

general rule under the [FTCA is] that a tort claim accrues at the

time of the plaintiff's injury." United States v. Kubrick, 444

U.S. 111, 120 (1979).

A. Discovery Rule

In Kubrick, the Supreme Court recognized a discovery rule

for medical malpractice claims under the FTCA. Id. at 113. Under

the discovery rule, the plaintiff's claim accrues when she "knows

both the existence and the cause of [her] injury." Id. We have

previously considered the Supreme Court's reasoning in Kubrick and

applied the discovery rule to claims under the FTCA involving

theft, Attallah v. United States, 955 F.2d 776, 778-79 (1st Cir.

1992), and wrongful death, Skwira, 344 F.3d at 75. For claims

other than medical malpractice, we apply a more forgiving rule

because "the identity of the individual(s) responsible for an

injury may be less evident." Id. at 77. In such cases, a

plaintiff's claim accrues only when she also knows "that there is

a causal connection between the government and her injury." Id. at

78.
-15-

The "knowledge" standard under the discovery rule has two

qualifications. First, "something less than definitive knowledge

is required." Skwira, 344 F.3d at 78. Accrual is triggered by

"the discovery of sufficient facts about the injury and its cause

to prompt a reasonable person to inquire and seek advice

preliminary to deciding if there is a basis for filing an

administrative claim against the government." Id. Second, a

plaintiff is charged with knowledge of facts which "in the exercise

of reasonable diligence [she] should have discovered." González v.

United States, 284 F.3d 281, 288 (1st Cir. 2002). This is an

objective standard. Id.

Plaintiff filed an administrative claim with the FBI on

May 14, 2002. The United States argues that her suit is barred

because her claim accrued more than two years before this date. We

must therefore determine (1) what facts relevant to her claim

Plaintiff knew or should have known, and (2) whether Plaintiff had

sufficient facts about the existence of her injury (that Callahan

was killed), the cause of her injury (that Bulger and Flemmi had

Callahan killed), and a causal connection between her injury and

the government to prompt her to "inquire and seek advice

preliminary to deciding if there is a basis for filing an

administrative claim against the government." Skwira, 344 F.3d at

78. Plaintiff clearly knew of her injuries soon after Callahan's

death. Thus, we must determine the facts relevant to showing that
-16-

Bulger and Flemmi had Callahan killed and showing that the

government was causally connected to the murder.

The dismissal of the complaint in this case was not based

on what facts Plaintiff actually knew. Rather, the district court

concluded, in light of a variety of uncontested facts, that

Plaintiff should have known of her claim by October 1, 1999. Here,

as below, the facts themselves are not at issue. We determine only

whether the judge was correct to conclude, as a matter of law, that

the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff

objectively should have known of her claim by October 1, 1999.

While review of Rule 12(b)(1) dismissals requires deference to a

judge's factual findings, our review of this case, which involves

only a question of law, is de novo. Valentín, 254 F.3d at 363.

See also Skwira, 344 F.3d at 71-72.

Plaintiff's complaint describes two possible theories of

causation. The first theory is that the FBI created a "protective

shield" around Bulger and Flemmi. This protective shield not only

allowed them to escape prosecution for past crimes but emboldened

them to commit future crimes. The second theory, and the one

emphasized on appeal, is that the FBI told Bulger and Flemmi

information that prompted them to kill Callahan. The information

was either that the FBI was seeking information from Callahan

regarding the Wheeler murder or that Callahan knew that Bulger and

Flemmi were skimming profits from WJA.
-17-

These two theories roughly correspond to the two theories

this court considered for the two groups of appellants in McIntyre

v. United States. 367 F.3d 38, 53-54, 57-58 (1st Cir. 2004). For

the Wheeler appellants (family of the same Wheeler referred to in

this case), we addressed the claim that the FBI "provided Bulger

and Flemmi with a 'protective shield' against prosecution and

investigation that gave the two criminals the opportunity to commit

crimes and emboldened them to do so, proximately causing Wheeler's

murder." Id. at 58. For the McIntyre appellants, we addressed the

claim that "the FBI caused McIntyre's death . . . by leaking his

confidential informant status to Bulger and Flemmi, in violation of

a special duty of non-disclosure owed to him by the government."

Id. at 54. Although the two theories are "fundamentally

different," id. at 57, the dispositive issue for the Wheelers and

the McIntyres was not the theory itself, but when the plaintiffs

knew or should have known of the facts supporting the theory, id.

at 54-55, 59.

In McIntyre, we specifically reserved the question of

whether a plaintiff could put forth multiple theories of causation

for the same tort. Id. at 54 n.6. We now hold that although a

plaintiff is free to put forth multiple theories of causation, the

only relevant theory for purposes of tolling the statute of

limitations is the first one in time to establish the requisite

causation. A plaintiff's claim accrues at the time when she knew
Since the date of accrual determines the power of this court to 5

hear the case, we need not accept any of plaintiff's theories and

could interpose our own theory consistent with the facts of the

case.

-18-

or should have known of a causal connection between her injury and

the government. Thus, a claim accrues if there is any causal

connection. Putting forth a specific theory of causation based on

particular facts does not help a plaintiff, because only the

earliest theory of causation matters for accrual analysis.5

In this case, Plaintiff is emphasizing her second theory

on appeal, presumably because it will create a later accrual date

than her first theory. The second theory, however, cannot change

the fact that causation could have been known at an earlier date

under the first theory. Even if Plaintiff discovered tomorrow a

new, crucial fact related to causation -- e.g., that Agent Connolly

gave Martorano the gun used to kill Callahan -- Plaintiff could not

change the fact that she should have known of causation at an

earlier date. We will thus determine accrual under Plaintiff's

first theory.

We now turn to when Plaintiff's claim accrued. The court

below held that Plaintiff's claim accrued no later than October 1,

1999, this date being soon after the news reporting of Martorano's

plea agreement and Judge Wolf's Salemme opinion. On appeal,

Plaintiff contends that her claim could not have accrued until

after May 14, 2000 and points to the fact that Martorano did not
-19-

formally plead guilty to the murder of Callahan until March 20,

2001. We agree with the court below that Plaintiff's claim accrued

no later than October 1, 1999.

We must address what Plaintiff should have known

regarding the cause of Callahan's death and the causal connection

between the government and his death. We will consider national

and Boston news reporting because "[w]here events receive

widespread publicity, plaintiffs may be charged with knowledge of

their occurrence." McIntyre, 367 F.3d at 60 (internal quotation

marks omitted). Numerous articles in Boston newspapers, as early

as 1996, speculated that Bulger and Flemmi killed Wheeler,

Halloran, and Callahan and that the FBI was somehow involved. See

supra Part I.C. In 1998, two nationwide news broadcasts, "CNN

Impact" and "60 Minutes," also speculated that Bulger and Flemmi

killed Callahan, possibly with the acquiescence of the FBI. Id.

Most importantly, Boston newspapers heavily reported

three events from federal court proceedings connected with the

Callahan murder. The first event was FBI Agent Morris's testimony

in April 1998 that the FBI had informed Bulger and Flemmi that

Halloran was implicating them in Wheeler's murder and that he

believed that Bulger and Flemmi may have killed Halloran. Agent

Morris also testified that he informed Bulger and Flemmi of a

bugged location that they should avoid. The Boston Globe and

Boston Herald reported his testimony the next day. See supra Part
-20-

I.D. While his testimony was not directly connected with the

Callahan murder, the Wheeler, Halloran, and Callahan murders were

long thought to be related. See supra Part I.C. For example, a

December 1997 article reported that federal court hearings will

"probe whether FBI agents and federal organized crime prosecutors

violated any federal laws or guidelines in the way they handled

informants" like Bulger and Flemmi, and that Florida police

investigating the Callahan murder are "hoping [the] hearings . . .

will lead to a break in the case." Ralph Ranalli, Police Reopen

Mob Murder Probe, Boston Herald, Dec. 15, 1997.

The second event, made public on September 9, 1999, was

Martorano's agreement to plead guilty to a number of murders,

including the murder of Callahan. In the following days, Boston

newspapers published several articles about Martorano's plea

agreement and his willingness to implicate Bulger and Flemmi. See

supra Part I.E. Further, Plaintiff was quoted in a September 12,

1999 article, saying that she was trying to forgive Martorano, the

killer of her husband. Andrea Estes, Outraged Hit Man Turned Rat

for Revenge, Boston Herald, Sept. 12, 1999. The same article

clearly indicates that Bulger and Flemmi were involved in the

Callahan murder and that Martorano would implicate them. Id.

The third event was the publication of Judge Wolf's

opinion in United States v. Salemme on September 15, 1999. As we

have already noted, his opinion discussed in depth the corrupt
-21-

relationship between the FBI, Bulger, and Flemmi. That Judge

Wolf's opinion contains a section titled "The Wheeler, Halloran,

and Callahan Murders" where he discusses the connections between

the three murders, Bulger and Flemmi, and the FBI is particularly

relevant. Salemme, 91 F. Supp. 2d at 208-13. He details specific

instances of clear misconduct, including attempts by the FBI to

protect Bulger and Flemmi from prosecution, and attempts by Bulger

and Flemmi to curry favor with the FBI agents. See supra Part I.F.

Given the extensive news reporting and the close

connection of the events to her husband's death, we find that

Plaintiff should have known the basic facts underlying these three

events. Further, the reporting on these three events should have

prompted Plaintiff to obtain certain publicly available documents,

namely Morris's 1998 testimony, Martorano's plea agreement, and the

Salemme decision.

The facts that Plaintiff should have known would have

"prompt[ed] a reasonable person to inquire and seek advice

preliminary to deciding if there [was] a basis for filing an

administrative claim against the government." Skwira, 344 F.3d at

78. John Martorano's plea agreement and Judge Wolf's opinion

easily provide the requisite knowledge under the discovery rule

that Bulger and Flemmi were responsible for the murder of Callahan.

Moreover, Agent Morris's testimony and Judge Wolf's opinion easily

provide the requisite knowledge that the FBI protected Bulger and
-22-

Flemmi from prosecution and emboldened them to commit crimes,

including the murder of Callahan.

 Plaintiff argues that conflicting information reasonably

prevented her filing an administrative claim. First, she

emphasizes that the FBI would not release the name of Callahan's

killer as late as April 2000. Given Martorano's plea agreement,

made public on September 9, 1999, we find this argument unavailing.

Second, she contends that the FBI told her that she "should not

rely on newspaper stories" and that "reports were inaccurate."

However, such statements do not specifically contradict any

relevant information and even if they did, Plaintiff could surely

rely on publicly available court documents for accurate

information. Third, plaintiff argues that in the face of

conflicting newspaper stories, she did not have sufficient,

reliable information. Although she does not cite the newspaper

articles, she claims that as late as 1997 newspapers reported

government denials of a corrupt relationship between the FBI and

Bulger and Flemmi. However, the lack of conflicting stories in

1998 and 1999 and the publicly available court documents allow us

to easily dispose of this argument. Finally, Plaintiff makes much

of a statement in Judge Wolf's September 15, 1999 opinion:

As a result of the delayed disclosure of the

Halloran documents by the government and of

the failure of the adversary system to operate

fully and effectively on this issue, questions

remain regarding the role, if any, played by

Bulger and Flemmi in the Wheeler, Halloran,
-23-

and Callahan murders, and the full degree to

which the FBI in Boston has, from 1981 until

recently, attempted to keep and such role from

being discerned and demonstrated.

This statement, however, hurts Plaintiff more than it helps her.

Certainty is not required for a claim to accrue. Rather, Judge

Wolf's statement would prompt a reasonable person to further

investigate the matter by seeking legal advice in order to

determine whether action should be taken against the government.

This is all that is required for accrual. Skwira, 344 F.3d at 78.

B. Fraudulent Concealment

Like the discovery rule, the doctrine of fraudulent

concealment is a means available to plaintiffs seeking to toll the

statute of limitations. In order for a plaintiff to prevail on a

fraudulent concealment claim, the defendant "'must have engaged in

fraud or deliberate concealment of material facts relating to his

wrongdoing and the plaintiff must have failed to discover these

facts within the normal limitations period despite his exercise of

due diligence.'" Torres Ramírez v. Bermúdez García, 898 F.2d 224,

229 (1st Cir. 1990) (quoting Hernández Jiménez v. Calero Toledo,

604 F.2d 99, 101 (1st Cir. 1979)). During the course of this

sordid affair, the FBI almost surely engaged in fraudulent

concealment by denying any FBI complicity in the criminal

activities of Bulger and Flemmi. We need not specifically address

this, however, because we find that any fraudulent concealment by

the FBI ended no later than October 1, 1999.
-24-

Plaintiff claims that the FBI engaged in fraudulent

concealment when agents refused to tell her who killed Callahan.

Any purported fraudulent concealment of this fact ended when

portions of Martorano's plea agreement were made public on

September 9, 1999. The public portion of the plea agreement stated

that Martorano would plead guilty to the murder of Callahan. Even

if after this date FBI agents refused to tell Plaintiff who killed

Callahan, this fact was no longer concealed.

Plaintiff also claims fraudulent concealment as a result

of FBI agents' statements to her that she "should not rely on

newspaper stories" and that "reports were inaccurate." Such

general statements cannot rise to the level of fraudulent

concealment because they do not even indicate which newspaper

stories are inaccurate or should not be relied upon. Further, the

statements have a non-fraudulent explanation. The FBI agents could

simply have been evading Plaintiff's questions because they did not

wish to discuss a pending criminal prosecution.

We have already decided in considering the discovery rule

that Plaintiff should have known of sufficient facts by October 1,

1999 to prompt a reasonable person to file an administrative claim.

The reason that Plaintiff should have known of these facts is that

they were easily discoverable had she diligently (or even not so

diligently) kept herself informed of the legal proceedings and news

reporting of events closely related to Callahan's murder. Thus,
-25-

Plaintiff had either discovered the purportedly concealed

information or was not diligent in seeking to obtain it. Either

way, we find no fraudulent concealment.

III. Conclusion

Because we find that Plaintiff's claim accrued no later

than October 1, 1999, which was more than two years before she

filed her administrative claim, and we find that any fraudulent

concealment by the government ended before this date, we affirm the

district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

under the FTCA.

Affirmed.