U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–507 PDF 2001

THE FBI’S CONTROVERSIAL HANDLING OF ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATIONS IN BOSTON: THE

CASE OF JOSEPH SALVATI

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 3, 2001

Serial No. 107–25

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

DAVE WELDON, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

——— ———

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 3, 2001 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Bailey, F. Lee, esquire, attorney for Joseph Barboza; and Joseph Balliro,

Sr., esquire, attorney for Vincent Flemmi and Henry Tameleo ................ 122

Garo, Victor J., attorney for Joseph Salvati; Joseph Salvati; and Marie

Salvati ............................................................................................................ 29

Rico, H. Paul, retired FBI Special Agent ........................................................ 158

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Barr, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia,

exhibits 15, 8 and 7..................................................................................... 61, 177

Burton, Hon. Dan, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana:

Exhibit 4 ..................................................................................................... 166

Exhibit 7 ..................................................................................................... 160

Exhibit 10 ................................................................................................... 163

Exhibit 24 ................................................................................................... 5

Letter dated May 3, 2001 ......................................................................... 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Delahunt, Hon. William D., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Massachusetts: ..........................................................................................

Exhibit 6 ..................................................................................................... 171

Various letters ........................................................................................... 73

Garo, Victor J., attorney for Joseph Salvati, prepared statement of ........... 34

LaTourette, Hon. Steven C., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio:

Exhibit 11 ................................................................................................... 54

Exhibit 35 ................................................................................................... 132

Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Maryland:

Exhibit 10 ................................................................................................... 191

Exhibit 12 ................................................................................................... 209

Salvati, Joseph, prepared statement of .......................................................... 40

Salvati, Marie, prepared statement of ............................................................ 44

Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Connecticut:

Exhibit 11 ................................................................................................... 87, 99

Exhibit 13 ................................................................................................... 103

Exhibits 11, 12 and 13 .............................................................................. 138

Exhibit 15 ................................................................................................... 147

Exhibit 26 ................................................................................................... 151

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 15

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 24

Wilson, James C., chief counsel, Committee on Government Reform:

Exhibit 7 ..................................................................................................... 108

Exhibit 8 ..................................................................................................... 111

Exhibit 15 ................................................................................................... 113

Exhibit 24............................................................................................... 118, 218

(1)

THE FBI’S CONTROVERSIAL HANDLING OF

ORGANIZED CRIME INVESTIGATIONS IN

BOSTON: THE CASE OF JOSEPH SALVATI

THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:25 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dan Burton (chairman

of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Burton, Gilman, Morella, Shays, Horn,

LaTourette, Barr, Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Putnam, Otter, Kanjorski, Norton, Cummings, Kucinich, and Tierney.

Also present: Representatives Delahunt, Frank, and Meehan.

Staff present: Kevin Binger, staff director; James C. Wilson, chief

counsel; David A. Kass, deputy chief counsel; Mark Corallo, director of communications; Thomas Bowman, senior counsel; Pablo

Carrillo, investigative counsel; James J. Schumann, counsel; Sarah

Anderson, staff assistant; Robert A. Briggs, chief clerk; Robin Butler, office manager; Michael Canty and Toni Lightle, legislative assistant; Josie Duckett, deputy communications director; John Sare,

deputy chief clerk; Danleigh Halfast, assistant to chief counsel;

Corrine Zaccagnini, systems administrator; Phil Schiliro, minority

staff director; David Rapallo, minority counsel; Michael Yeager, minority senior oversight counsel; Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk;

Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk; and Teresa Coufal, minority

staff assistant.

Mr. BURTON. Good morning. A quorum being present, the committee will come to order. I ask unanimous consent that all witnesses’ and Members’ statements be included in the record. Without objection so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that all articles,

exhibits, and extraneous or tabular material referred to be included

in the record. Without objection so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that a set of exhibits which have been prepared for today’s

hearing be inserted into the record and without objection, so ordered. I ask unanimous consent that Representatives Barney

Frank, Bill Delahunt and Marty Meehan who are not members of

the committee, be allowed to participate in today’s hearing and

without objection, so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that questioning in this matter proceed

under clause 2(j)(2) of House rule 11, and committee rule 14 in

which the chairman and ranking minority member may allocate

time to committee counsel as they deem appropriate for extended

2

questioning, not to exceed 60 minutes equally divided between the

majority and minority and without objection, so ordered.

Today’s hearing is going to focus on an injustice done by the FBI

that went on for nearly 30 years. We’re going to hear about a terrible wrong that was done to one man and his family. As terrible

as this story is, it’s only one small part of a much larger picture.

I have always supported law enforcement. I remember I used to

watch ‘‘I Led Three Lives’’ on television, and I used to watch the

FBI programs and I thought that the FBI Director walked on

water. And my great faith in Mr. Hoover has been shaken by what

I have learned in just the last few weeks. Over the years, I have

worked with Director Louie Freeh on a number of issues, and I

think Louie Freeh has done a terrific job, and I’m sorry to see him

leave this summer.

I think that, on the whole, the FBI has done great work protecting the people of this country. But we are a Nation of laws and not

of men. In this country, no one is above the law. If a Federal law

enforcement agency does something wrong, they have to be held accountable. That’s why we held hearings on the Drug Enforcement

Agency last December. I have a lot of respect for the men and

women of the DEA. They have a tough job and they do it well. But

there was a very important drug investigation going on in Houston,

TX. It was shut down because of political pressure that was

brought to bear. And then the head of the Houston office for the

DEA came up here and mislead the Congress about it. That cannot

be tolerated. What the FBI did to Boston 30 years ago cannot be

tolerated.

We will hear today from Joseph Salvati. Mr. Salvati spent 30

years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit. 30 years. Think

about that. That is 1971. Do you remember what you were doing

in 1971? Think about it, what it would be like if you were in prison

for 30 years. It was a death penalty crime. He went to prison in

1968. He had a wife and four children. His oldest child at the time

was 14, his youngest was 6 and he wasn’t released from prison

until 1997, 30 years later.

The reason Joe Salvati went to prison was because an FBI informant lied about him which is unthinkable. But the reason he

stayed in jail was because the FBI agents knew their informant

lied and they covered it up, and that’s much worse. Documents

we’ve received show that this case was being followed at the highest levels of the FBI in Washington. J. Edgar Hoover was kept informed on a regular basis. It is hard to believe he didn’t know

about this terrible injustice. The informant who put Joe Salvati in

prison was Joseph ‘‘the Animal’’ Barboza. He was a contract killer

in Boston. He was also a prized FBI informant. He was considered

so valuable that they created the Witness Protection Program to

protect him.

Most of the evidence now indicates that Joseph Barboza and his

associates planned and executed the murder. Barboza pointed the

finger at Joe Salvati because Salvati owed him $400. Because of

$400, Joe Salvati spent 30 years in prison. Joe Salvati and his wife

Marie are going to testify today. And I want to express to both of

you how deeply sorry we are for everything that has been taken

away from you and that you have had to go through over these

3

past 30 years, and I want to thank you for being here today. And

I intend to participate in making sure that you are compensated

for—money can’t pay for what you went through—but you should

be compensated for what you went through and the time you spent

away from your family. We will try to make sure that happens.

Joseph Barboza was a criminal. You would expect him to lie, but

the FBI is another story. They are supposed to stand for the truth.

The FBI had a lot of evidence that Joe Salvati didn’t commit that

crime and they covered it up. Prior to the murder, the FBI was told

by informants that Joseph Barboza and his friend, Vincent Flemmi,

were planning to commit the murder of Teddy Deegan. Two days

before Deegan was murdered, J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the

FBI, got a memo about Vincent Flemmi: One the FBI’s own informants was going to kill Deegan.

The author was H. Paul Rico, who will testify later today. He

was a member of the FBI at the time. After the murder, the FBI

was told by informants that Barboza and Flemmi had committed

the crime. J. Edgar Hoover was told that Barboza and Flemmi had

committed the crime. FBI memos spell all of this out. The FBI was

compelled to make these documents public just in the last few

months. They had all this information but they let Joseph ‘‘the Animal’’ Barboza testify anyway and put Mr. Salvati away for life.

Originally it was the death penalty. But that wasn’t the end of

it. In the 1970’s, Barboza tried to recant his testimony. The FBI

pressured him not to do it. Mr. Barboza’s lawyer was F. Lee Bailey,

and Mr. Bailey is going to testify about what happened later today.

Mr. Bailey told the Massachusetts attorney general’s office that his

clients had lied and the wrong man was in prison. He was ignored.

Mr. Bailey asked Joe Barboza to take a lie detector test to make

sure he was telling the truth this time. Barboza was in prison at

the time on a separate offense. When the FBI got wind of this, they

went to the prison and told Barboza not to take the polygraph and

to fire his lawyer, Mr. Bailey, or he’d spend the rest of his life in

jail.

So the FBI once again was trying to protect their tails and cover

this thing up. I think that is just criminal. Not only did the FBI

conceal the evidence that they had on Joe Salvati that Joe Salvati

was innocent, they went out and actively suppressed other evidence. To say what they did was unseemly was an understatement.

It was rotten to the core.

And this is just one small part of the story. Joe ‘‘the Animal’’

Barboza wasn’t the only mob informant the FBI official cultivated

in Boston. There was James Whitey Bulger, who was a killer.

There was Steve ‘‘the Rifleman’’ Flemmi, and there were others.

While they worked with the FBI, they went on a crime spree that

lasted for decades. There were dozens of murders. There were predatory sexual crimes. They committed all of these crimes with virtual impunity because they were under the protection of the FBI.

When informants emerged that tied these men to crimes, they were

tipped off by the FBI and the informants were murdered.

So the FBI were complicitous and involved in the murders of

some of these people that were informants. It was apparently a

very cozy relationship. We understand there were FBI agents that

got cash, they got money from the mobsters. Then got cases of

4

wine, tickets for girlfriends and other favors, and we’ll get to those

issues in later hearings.

Joseph Barboza committed a murder while he was in the Witness

Protection Program. Paul Rico, who will testify today, actually flew

out to California to help Barboza’s defense, and so did a man who

is now a Federal judge. I have issued subpoenas to two of the principal FBI agents who were involved with Joseph Barboza: Paul

Rico and Dennis Condon. Mr. Condon is not here today. I understand he is in very poor health, but that does not excuse the things

he is accused of doing and we have still have a lot of questions to

ask him.

I can assure everyone that one way or another, we will be interviewing Mr. Condon. Mr. Rico is here. I understand that there is

a possibility he may take the fifth amendment because he’s under

criminal investigation. I hope that will not be the case. We have

a lot of questions, and I think that Joe Salvati and the American

people deserve answers. Years ago FBI agents would heap scorn

when organized crime figures took the fifth amendment. I hope Mr.

Rico does the right thing today and testifies.

One thing that really troubles me about our third panel comes

from the document we have just received. Paul Rico and Dennis

Condon interviewed Joseph Barboza in 1967. That report is exhibit

24, which we will show later. Barboza told him he would never provide information that would allow James Vincent Flemmi to fry but

that he will consider furnishing information on these murders. Mr.

Rico and Condon had lots of evidence that Flemmi was in on the

Deegan murder. They knew that Barboza would not incriminate

Flemmi, yet they stood by while Barboza protected his partner and

put Joe Salvati in a death penalty crime.

[Exhibit 24 follows:]

5

6

7

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t know how they can sleep at night when they

do things like that. I think this whole episode is disgraceful. It was

one of the greatest, if not the greatest failure in the history of Federal law enforcement.

If there is one institution that the American people need to have

confidence in, it’s the FBI. I think that 99 percent of the time the

men and women of the FBI are honest and courageous, and I don’t

want to tar the entire organization with the misdeeds of a few. But

if we’re going to have confidence in our government, we cannot

cover up corruption when we find it. It needs to have a full public

airing, and that’s what we’re going to try to start to do today.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here, and I will

now yield to my colleagues for opening statements. Do you have an

opening statement, Mr. Tierney?

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dan Burton follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some opening remarks. First of all, I think what happened to Mr. and Mrs. Salvati

is just a disgrace. I look forward to hearing your comments today

and know that this is hopefully just the beginning of what we’re

going to do with this. I think it is important to get your remarks

on the record and to talk about some of the things we will discuss

today. This is not in any sense of the way a partisan hearing, and

that is a good thing for this hearing, but I hope we use this as a

basis to go forward and talk about the FBI’s practice of using confidential informants and what that means for the future.

I know that we’ve been asked for the present to not delve in that

area too deeply because it would interfere supposedly with the Justice task force work that is going on. But I don’t think we can allow

that to go neglected, and I hope this sets just the foundation for

inquiring as to what that practice is, what the FBI intends to do

going forward, and whether or not they have a set of proper procedures so we do not see this case of disgrace happen again.

Mr. Garo, I just want to say I think you are a credit to the legal

profession for what you did, and I thank you for that. I know that

there are other lawyers, some who will join us today and others in

the profession that do that. I think you shine to the public on that

and you let the public know there are good lawyers out there who

do the right thing for people.

My remarks to the Salvatis are that it is shameful what you

went through, I think, Mrs. Salvati, particularly of your strength

and your support, and I am glad things are working for a change.

I don’t know how it is that society will make it up to either of you

and your family for what went on. But I appreciate and thank you

very much for participating in today’s hearing, and hopefully some

good will come of this in terms of going forward. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Tierney. I might point out Mr.

Tierney made reference to it, but Mr. Garo worked pro bono for 25,

30 years trying to get Mr. Salvati exonerated, and that is really

something.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for

holding these hearings. Under our Constitution, we are a Nation

founded to secure the blessings of liberty. The power we have in

government to take away a citizens liberty, strictly prescribed by

the bill of rights and is vested only in those sworn to enforce and

uphold the law. Yet before us today is Mr. Joseph Salvati, a citizen

whose liberty was stolen from him for 30 years by his own government.

So profound an injustice is almost unimaginable. But it takes

very little imagination to reconstruct the sordid saga of official malfeasance, obstruction, brutality and corruption that brings us here

this morning. In this tragic tale, ends justified means, cascading

down a legal and ethical spiral until both the ends and means became utterly unjust. Protecting criminals in the name of catching

criminals, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], became criminals, willing accomplices in the problem they have set

out to solve, organized crime.

Thomas Jefferson said, the sword of law should never fall but on

those whose guilt is so apparent as to be pronounced by their

13

friends as well as foes. Only Joe Salvati’s foes pronounced his alleged guilt for a crime sworn law enforcement officers from the Director of the FBI to the local police knew he did not commit.

Solely on the basis of false testimony from a known killer, Joseph

‘‘the Animal’’ Barboza, with conclusive exculpatory evidence suppressed and ignored, an innocent man faced the death penalty; the

death penalty. Because he made the mistake of borrowing money

from a thug, local, State and Federal law enforcement officers

joined the thug in a criminal conspiracy to take Joseph Salvati’s

life. And they did, 30 years of it; 30 years. A generation.

His young wife, Marie Salvati, suddenly on her own, raised a

family. She visited her husband every week. Their four children,

then ages 4, 7, 9 and 11 grew up seeing their only father in prison.

Birthdays, first communions, proms, graduations, weddings, the

birth of grandchildren, priceless events in the life of a family, forever denied him because the FBI considered his freedom an acceptable cost of doing business with mobsters.

The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. observed that injustice

anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Joseph Salvati is not

here today because of a local ethnic turf battle between Boston’s

Irish and Italian gangs who corrupted a few rogue FBI agents. Joseph Salvati is here today after spending 30 years in prison because he is the victim of a corrupted State and Federal criminal

justice system. The protection of confidential informants by law enforcement in what can amount to a nonjudicial street immunity

and an official license to commit further crimes is a national practice and national problem.

The Federal Witness Protection Program was created to shield

the same man who falsely accused Joseph Salvati. The tentacles of

Joseph ‘‘the Animal’’ Barboza, FBI’s protected criminal, stretched

well beyond Massachusetts, from Connecticut to California. New

Federal guidelines on the use of informants might help prevent the

abuses that put Joseph Salvati in prison. But they will not necessarily break the self-justifying protective culture of some law enforcement agency that allow this gross miscarriage of justice to

occur and to persist for 30 years. Only an official apology from the

FBI will do that; only compensation from the State of Massachusetts and the Federal Government will do that. Only bringing those

responsible before the bar of justice they swore to defend, but betrayed will do what must be done to right this wrong.

Mr. and Mrs. Salvati, thank you for being here. As a fellow citizen of a land that holds liberty sacred, let me say that I am profoundly sorry for what has happened to you. We can never replace

what has been taken from you, but we are grateful for your openness and your willingness to share what you have. Your story of

faith, incredible faith, Marie, incredible faith, family, your story of

faith, your story of family, your story of courage and perseverance

is a gift to your Nation, and we cherish it.

Your testimony will help ensure no one else has to endure the

outrageous indignities and injustices you, Mr. Salvati and your

family, Marie, and your family have suffered.

14

Mr. Garo, let me say something to you. You are a hero. You are

an absolute hero, and you share that with some in the press who

wrote this story up for years and years and years. I have just

wished we heard it sooner.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]

15

16

17

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Shays. With the approval of the

committee, I would like to read one paragraph from the statement

of FBI Director, Louie Freeh, we just received this this morning.

It says,

The allegations that have been made concerning the circumstances of Mr.

Salvati’s conviction and 30-year incarceration speak directly to the need for integrity

and commitment in the pursuit of justice under the rule of law. These allegations

that the law enforcement personnel turned a blind, including the FBI, eye to its exculpatory information and allowed an innocent man serve 30 years of a life sentence

are alarming and warrant thorough investigation.

Under our criminal justice system, no one should be convicted and sentenced contrary to information known to the Federal Government. As with the conviction earlier this week in the Birmingham civil rights bombing case, we cannot allow the

egregious actions of 30 years ago to prevent us from doing now what is right and

what must be done to ensure justice is ultimately served.

I would like to insert into the record the rest of his letter. With

that we’ll go to Mr. Kucinich and then to you, Mr. Delahunt.

[The information referred to follows:]

18

19

20

21

22

23

Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I applaud you for

initiating these hearings.

I just want to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Shays.

I think, Mr. Salvati and Mrs. Salvati, that his eloquence, his obvious emotion really reflect the sentiment of everyone on this panel

and I am sure most Americans. I want to congratulate my colleague from Connecticut for seeing it as it is.

I recently read a newspaper piece describing your story, Mrs.

Salvati; and in that story you have indicated that no one ever had

said sorry to you. You have heard that here today, and let me also

state my profound sorrow for what you experienced.

And, Mr. Salvati, you should know that you and your family and

your splendid attorney are making a real contribution to the

United States. As Mr. Shays indicated, justice is something very

special in a democracy; and your testimony and your story has

opened up many, many eyes. We thank you for that and also express profound sorrow for what you experienced.

And, yes, Mr. Garo, you are a hero. I am proud that I am an attorney, that we belong to a profession that represents often, often

those causes that are so unpopular, but that are so righteous. In

this particular case, I am confident that if it had not been for the

literally tens of thousands of hours that you have spent on this

case, your persistence, your perseverance, that Joe and Marie

Salvati would have never been reunited and that this injustice

never would have been redressed. You are a hero.

Victor, we met recently in your office. You provided the muffins

and the coffee. You know my background, that I served as the district attorney in the metropolitan Boston area for more than 21

years.

I would be remiss at this point in time not to note at this point

on the second panel two of America’s finest lawyers will also testify, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Balliro. All of you reflect such great credit on

our profession. In an era when sometimes attorneys are held in low

esteem, you represent the very best.

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by thanking you for allowing me

to participate in this hearing.

I know my two other colleagues from Massachusetts who served

with me on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Meehan and Mr. Frank,

will also be here during the course of the hearing.

Also, let me indicate that I have been informed that Mr. Waxman, who is the ranking Democrat on this committee, is tied up

with a hearing in the Commerce Committee dealing with the issues

of energy in California; and since he represents California he will

obviously be there for a considerable portion of this hearing. But

I do have a statement that I have been asked to submit into the

record on behalf of Mr. Waxman.

Mr. BURTON. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

24

25

26

Mr. BURTON. We will now go to Mr. Barr, but, before we do that,

let me just thank Mr. Shays for being so diligent in bringing this

to the committee’s attention and making sure we had this hearing.

If it hadn’t have been for all of his hard work, we wouldn’t be here

today.

Mr. SHAYS. You were not a hard sell.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for not only

convening this hearing today but also for the outstanding work of

the staff. They have, over the past weeks, put in tremendous effort

in both quality and quantity of effort, and I appreciate very much

the dedication of Mr. Wilson and his fine staff in pursuing this evidence.

I appreciate your reading into the record part of the letter from

FBI Director Freeh. He makes reference in his letter to the case

earlier this week in Birmingham involving the civil rights bombing

where four little girls were killed many years ago. Just in that

case, the inference of those who would not let injustice sleep as in

this case, even though very, very late and after a tremendous injustice has been done, at least some folks have stepped forward, including yourself and Mr. Shays and our witnesses here today and

others, to try and see that at least at some point, at some level justice is done.

While this, the letter from the Director, is important, I would

like to refer also to the very last sentence of Director Freeh’s statement in which he says that he looks forward to working with the

committee to ensure that not only the troubling allegations raised

by Mr. Salvati’s case but each of the allegations is investigated

fully.

We certainly look forward to working very closely with the FBI,

even though Director Freeh is leaving; and we certainly wish him

well. We have tremendous regard for him. We hope that his successor is equally committed to pursuing this case so that all vestiges

of it are aired.

The purpose of it, as you have indicated, Mr. Chairman, go far.

I don’t understand simply the injustices that were done to this family, these individuals, that alone would justify this action. But it’s

important that we also recognize that, in trying to correct the injustices in this case, we are taking some steps to ensure hopefully

that similar cases will not arise in the future, both through the example of these hearings and, hopefully, further action by the Federal Government and the local authorities in directing these injustices but also perhaps through looking at legislation, perhaps looking at legislation too, that deals with how informants are dealt

with by the government.

We certainly recognize that the use of informants is an essential

law enforcement tool, but it must be done within the bounds of the

Constitution, the same as all the other things law enforcement

does.

So this hearing today is not certainly the end of either correcting

the injustices in this case, nor is it looking at the ways—the very

specific ways, Mr. Chairman, that we can help ensure that these

kind of things will not happen in the future, if not through legislation then certainly policy changes at a bare minimum.

27

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing and for the

work of the staff; and I want to testify, beginning here, thank very

much the witnesses here today and for what they represent. Thank

you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Barr.

Mr. Kanjorski—or did you want to make a comment? Mr.

Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members

of the committee, to the Salvati family.

Franz Kafka once wrote a book called ‘‘The Trial’’ in which an

individual was prosecuted, didn’t even know why. I don’t think that

Franz Kafka, even with his great skills as a writer, could have

countenanced the kind of trial and tribulations that Mr. Salvati

and the Salvati family had to go through for decades.

The scriptures say that blessed are they who suffer persecution

for justice’s sake. The persecution of Mr. Salvati is a cautionary

tale about the American justice system, and it shows the importance of attorneys who are willing to support the cause of justice

without failing, without flagging but with persistence, with integrity, with the willingness to take a stand. It shows the quality of

character of a family whose name was smeared, who endured trials

that are of biblical proportions and yet who today come before this

committee of the U.S. Congress fully vindicated and standing for

all of America to see as a family in triumph, with a wonderful

name as a family whose name will always be remembered for its

perseverance, for its endurance and for its love of country. God

bless you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. Horn.

Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing and withhold any comment for the question and answer period.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Horn, thank you.

Mr. Kanjorski, do you have any comment?

Mr. KANJORSKI. No.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be, I think,

brief.

There is no doubt in my mind, as I look at this case and others,

that back in the 1950’s and 1960’s organized crime was a scourge

upon the landscape of America; and it isn’t surprising to me that

law enforcement used ordinary and extraordinary measures to

bring those who would rape, murder and extort others to justice.

However, as Mr. Delahunt has mentioned and others I think will

mention, prosecuting officials, be they enforcement or prosecuting

attorneys, have a different responsibility than the defense attorney

or those lawyers who are hired as advocates. Those individuals are

bound by ethical considerations and confidentialities. But a lot of

people who get into the business of prosecuting and law enforcement think it’s about winning and whether or not you can rack up

a conviction. It’s not. It’s about doing justice.

I have always believed prosecuting officials have a higher responsibility than others who engage in the practice of law. I think the

saying is, the power to indict is the power to destroy. Simply by

taking a good person to the grand jury and causing an indictment

28

to be issued with faulty evidence, let along convicting and placing

that person in prison, you can ruin literally a person for life.

That is why, built into the system are a number of safeguards,

beginning with the Brady decision in the 1960’s. The Federal rules

and I think State rules have something known as rule 16 that indicate that prosecuting officials have a responsibility and a duty to

hand over exculpatory materials so that all facts are known when

a jury or judge makes a consideration as to a defendant’s guilt or

innocence.

If this hearing develops the facts that we believe they will over

the next few hours, this represents a failure of the system. It represents a failure of the responsibility of the prosecuting officials involved. It represents a failure of ethics; and, more basically, it represents a failure of human decency to those who have been involved. And I am glad you are here, Mr. Salvati.

Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. Frank.

Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, along with my colleague, we very

much appreciate the initiative you have taken of having this hearing. I hope there will be further hearings here and in the Judiciary

Committee because I think we have a very serious problem of

abuse by law enforcement. Abuse that is the result of good motivation and a desire to do good is also abuse. It is clear by what has

been brought out by Judge Wolf in Boston, by the media, that some

agents in the FBI violated their oath and, in fact, perpetrated injustice, having started out to bring justice to people.

My view is that it is unlikely that what we are now dealing with,

either here or in the case that Judge Wolf talked about, are isolated instances. The nature of bureaucracy is such that it is not at

all persuasive to me that these are the only instances of this. So

I think we need a systematic investigation so that the important

essential and very well-performed work of the FBI in general is not

called into question by a certain pattern of actions by a few people

that causes problems. I think it is important for us to find out what

and how high up people in the FBI knew and what they did about

it. So I appreciate your giving us the chance to begin this.

I will now apologize for the fact that the Housing Subcommittee,

which I am the senior ranking Democrat, is meeting simultaneously down the hall, so I will be in and out. But I leave with the

confidence that my colleague from Massachusetts, my former State

legislative colleague who spent more than 20 years as a first-rate

prosecuting attorney in Massachusetts and has a good deal of firsthand information about this, will be here. Because this is a matter

about which I have a great deal of confidence in his judgment and

his knowledge.

But I do appreciate your beginning this process, and I think it

is very important for us in the nature of the integrity of law enforcement to do a very thorough study to why this sort of event

happened, again growing out of the zeal to do right. But just because bad things were originally motivated by the zeal to do right

does not in any way justify them or mean that they should be overlooked.

29

I will say that, in closing, that I have been disappointed over a

series of events in what seems to me an unwillingness on the part

of the FBI to be self-critical. We still have the Wen Ho Lee case

where an FBI agent admittedly gave false testimony in court that

was material to the outcome that led to a man’s confinement in

part. That happened well over a year ago. The FBI still has not

dealt with that.

So I appreciate your being willing, Mr. Chairman, to take this

on.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Frank.

Mrs. Davis. No opening statement?

If not, I think we have covered the panel.

Mr. and Mrs. Salvati and Mr. Garo, would you please rise to be

sworn.

I’m sorry. Mrs. Morella, do you have an opening statement?

Mrs. MORELLA. No opening statement.

Mr. BURTON. Would you please rise?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. BURTON. I guess we will start with Mr. Garo. Would you like

to make an opening statement? Then we’ll go to Mr. Salvati and

Mrs. Salvati.

STATEMENTS OF VICTOR J. GARO, ATTORNEY FOR JOSEPH

SALVATI; JOSEPH SALVATI; AND MARIE SALVATI

Mr. GARO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the very outset, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and

the members of your committee for holding this hearing and with

the promise of other hearings, because it is a story that has to be

told. We live in America, not Russia.

In trying to find the opening remarks that I wanted to say, I

thought very deeply as to how I wanted to begin; and I would like

to begin as follows, if I may, Mr. Chairman: With liberty and justice for all. Those are famed words from our Pledge of Allegiance

to our flag. Many dedicated men and women gave their lives for

those words. Those words are the foundation of our country.

However, the FBI’s investigation and participation in the Deegan

murder investigation has made a mockery of those words. The FBI

determined that the lives of these people were expendable; that the

life of Joe Salvati, my friend and client, was expendable; that the

life and future of his wonderful wife and my friend, Marie, was expendable; and that the four young lives of their children, at the

time ages 4, 7, 9 and 11, were expendable.

From the very beginning, I said, no, they were not expendable.

I don’t believe a life is expendable.

What has gone on here, and as you will find out from the evidence as presented and the herculean efforts of counsel and his

staff of putting together these documents, that this is probably the

most classic example of man’s inhumanity to man.

We are a system of laws. We are supposed to be a system of justice. Only justice failed Joseph Salvati, justice failed Marie Salvati,

and justice failed their four young children.

As was just indicated, the FBI has always had a gloried background. What happened here in the big view of what was going on

I think is important to understand.

30

The FBI determined that it was important to bring down organized crime in the Northeast area. At that time, the alleged organized crime figure in Massachusetts was Mr. Angiulo. The alleged

organized crime boss of the New England crime family was allegedly Raymond Patriarca. In the Deegan murder investigation there

was the right arms of Mr. Angiulo and Mr. Patriarca and other

people that they wanted off the street. And with one witness, Joseph ‘‘the Animal’’ Barboza, who gave uncorroborated testimony in

three cases, the government had what they wanted. The Federal

Government had what they wanted. They wanted the press and the

recognition that they were crime fighters, and based on that

premise they issued propaganda to the press and to anyone who

would listen to them.

There’s more than just an apology that should be made to my clients. There is an apology that should be made to the citizens of the

United States and to the premises of the United States. Because

you were all taken in by the name of the FBI. It was more important to the FBI that they protected their prized informants than it

was for innocent people not to be framed.

The truth be damned. It didn’t matter, the truth. We want convictions. We don’t care what happens to Joe Salvati. We don’t care

what happens to Marie Salvati. We don’t care what happens to

their four young children.

I care. I have cared for over 26 years.

The entire saga here can be summed up like this: The FBI determined who got liberty, the FBI determined who got justice, and

justice was not for all. It was for they who determined that justice

was for.

What Constitution? What Bill of Rights? What human rights?

What human decency? We’re the FBI. We don’t have to adhere to

those principals so long as we have good press and so long as we

get convictions. That will show that the ends justify the means.

Many defense lawyers like myself have through the decades

fought difficult battles because the whispering campaigns would

begin, such as, yeah, right, Salvati is innocent? He comes from the

north end, you know what I mean? Right.

The mere fact that they were the FBI and those are the type of

comments that they would make, it was all done with a purpose

in mind so that the press that is here today would not get involved

with the stories. They didn’t want anyone investigating the investigators. Because they couldn’t pass the smell test of honesty. No

human rights, no human decency.

From the evidence that you will have before you, Mr. Chairman,

and the evidence that I have, I believe it allows me to say the following: It is my opinion that J. Edgar Hoover, former Director of

the FBI, conspired with FBI agents to murder Joseph Salvati. The

manner of means by which that murder was to be committed was

by way of an indictment on October 25, 1967 where the penalty

was death by the electric chair.

J. Edgar Hoover knew the evidence of his prized informants, and

he allowed Barboza to commit perjury in that first degree murder

case. In my opinion, the date of October 25, 1967, will go down in

the annals of the FBI as their day of infamy. Because it was on

31

that day that the Director of the FBI crossed over the line and became a criminal himself.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we’re not here to

paint with the same brush all of the FBI and agents of the FBI or

law or law enforcement. Because they do a good job. Because we

need them to protect us from those that would harm us.

But they who are under sacred oath and trust of allegiance to

our country have to be accountable for their actions. And it isn’t

just the role of a few. It was known from the agents to those who

were in charge of the Boston office of the FBI and with the evidence that you have that J. Edgar Hoover himself knew exactly

what was going on. The truth be damned. Convictions are what we

want.

What has been very worrying to my clients, who are my friends,

is that there is a complete denial in the Boston office of the FBI

that they have done anything wrong. Now the flip side of that argument would be, we haven’t done anything wrong, so therefore

we’re going to continue and keep doing the same things over and

over.

That’s unacceptable to us. In saying those words, they are

trivializing my client’s 30 years in prison. They are trivializing his

wife’s 30 years without a husband. They are trivializing the four

young children growing up without the love and companionship of

their father. And we won’t allow that to happen.

When did the FBI stop having a heart? When did our justice system stop caring for our citizens? When did they stop caring about

a loving family being broken apart?

On the date of January 30, 2001, Mr. Chairman, I was asked by

many reporters, you must feel very vindicated, Mr. Garo, and you

must feel very happy that your client has walked out a free man.

And it was just the contrary, Mr. Chairman. It was a very sad day

in my life.

Because everything that I had been saying for all those years, 26

of them, came to be true. That means that the government stole

my client’s life for 30 years, his wife’s life for 30 years and the children’s lives for 30 years. The FBI acted like a god. They determined liberty and justice for all. Not our justice system. The FBI.

In closing, I would like to just make some examples of the emotional part of this case.

I used to have meetings, Mr. Chairman, with my client’s children

and Mrs. Salvati. I would meet with them every 3 or 4 months to

bring them some type of hope. Because H-O-P-E, those four letters,

that’s all they had. They had this fat bald guy. That is all they had

to try to explain, we’ll try a new way to do it. We’ll find another

door maybe we can open. We will find another way. Maybe we can

do this. But we’ll do it.

I said to the son, Anthony, the youngest of the children, in one

of our meetings, I said, Anthony, when I get your dad home, you’re

going to say I created a monster. Because he’s going to follow you

around, and he’s going to want to know everything you have done.

Anthony is a rather emotional young gentleman, and gentleman he

is. And he came over, and he sat beside me on the couch, and he

said, no, Victor. He says, I have never seen my father get up in the

morning, I have never had breakfast with my father in the mornVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:05 Jan 22, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\76507.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
32

ing, I’ve never taken a walk with my father, and I have never gone

to a ball game with my father. I sure do want to do that in the

future with my dad.

A second example is their daughter, Sharon. In returning from

one of the visits before the trial of her father, she came home and

asked her mother and then asked her father, daddy, what’s the

electric chair? They say you’re going to get the electric chair. Are

they giving you a present?

Tell me how a father and tell me how a mother explains that to

a young child around 8 or 9 years old.

Finally, there is a story about love, commitment and devotion, of

good people. When I used to visit Marie Salvati and her children

at home, small one bedroom apartment, I always used to see a card

on top of the TV stand, on top of the TV; and I saw it many times.

I never asked a question, but I always noticed when I got there it

was always a different card. I said one time, Marie, can I go over

and look at that card? She said, yes, Victor.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say to you that when I went there and

I saw it, a tear came to my eye. Because she never, ever mentioned

this to me for decades, and neither did my client. How Joe and

Marie kept their love and life together was by small, little things.

Every Friday Marie Salvati would receive from her husband beautiful love cards. And inside those cards was always a statement of

Joe Salvati to his wife. What else can I say? I love you. I love you.

I have everything. I miss you, and I love you, Joe.

Marie Salvati has said to me, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes her

life has been lived in a shoe box. Mr. Chairman and members of

the committee, they have several shoe boxes of all the cards that

she has saved over the years of his incarceration.

I bring those out, Mr. Chairman and members of committee, and

I know maybe I have taken a little bit more time, and I’m sorry.

But these are stories that people don’t want to have told. They

don’t want you to understand the pain and the suffering that this

family has endured. It is inhuman.

So I say to you, Mr. Chairman, in closing, that I think when you

have this hearing and the other hearings that you’re going to conduct, I have an opinion. It came true in the Joe Salvati case, and

I have an opinion that I would like to share with you, Mr. Chairman and members of committee.

It is my opinion, when you discover all of the evidence in this

case and the hearings, that you are going to hold that this is a

scandal that is bigger than Watergate. It is broader than Watergate. It deals with people’s lives, whether they get killed or not

killed. It depends on whether you go to jail or not to jail. They determined, as God, who lived, who died and who went to prison. Out

of control. That’s what was happening in four decades in Boston.

So I say, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot thank you enough for allowing us to come here today to share with you our thoughts and

evidence. God bless you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Garo.

33

I understand you have a chronology of events that you want to

go into. Why don’t we have Mr. Salvati and Mrs. Salvati make a

statement, and then we’ll come back to you. And if you could quickly go through the chronology I would appreciate it.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garo follows:]

34

35

36

37

38

39

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Salvati.

Mr. SALVATI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank this committee for holding this hearing. This is

a story that needs to be told so the country can know what awesome power the government has over our lives.

When I was arrested on October 25, 1967, for participating in the

Edward ‘‘Teddy’’ Deegan murder, I was devastated. How do you

prove that you’re innocent? There were constant stories in the

media that I was a very bad person and one not to be respected.

The government stole more than 30 years of my life. Just the

statement of 30 years in prison can run shivers up and down your

spine. My life as a husband and father came to a tumbling halt.

In order to clear my name, it has been a long and frustrating

battle. Yet, through all the heartbreak and sometimes throughout

the years, my wife and I have remained very much in love. Prison

may have separated us physically, but our love has always kept us

together mentally and emotionally. Our children have always been

foremost in our minds. We tried our best to raise them in a loving

and caring atmosphere even though we were separated by prison

walls.

More than once my heart was broken because I was unable to

be with my family at very important times. However, through love

and courage, all of us have battled back through times of adversity.

We were strong in bad times, and we are still strong in good times.

I am here to talk about our most precious possession of all: Freedom.

As you know, I have served 30 hard and long years in prison for

a crime I did not commit. However, I still consider our justice system to be the greatest system in the world. But sometimes it fails,

as in my case. I became a casualty in the war against crime.

The justice system has finally worked for me, although it has

taken over 34 years. I wouldn’t be here before you today if it

weren’t for an honest, dedicated assistant U.S. attorney by the

name of John Durham. The FBI agents working for him found documents, and these documents were sent to my lawyer. We need

agencies like the FBI, because there are many out in the world

that want to hurt us; however, when the FBI or any other similar

agencies break the law, they must be held accountable for their

crimes.

Finally, I’d like to say a few things about my wife. She is a

woman with great strength and character. She has always been

there for me in my darkest hours. She brought up our four children

and gave them a caring and loving home. When God made my

Marie, they threw the mold away.

Mr. BURTON. It’s OK. Take your time.

Mr. GARO. Mr. Chairman, may I please finish those last two sentences for Mr. Salvati?

Mr. BURTON. Sure.

Mr. GARO. When God made my Marie, the mold was thrown

away. I am one of the luckiest men in the world to have such a

devoted and caring wife, my precious Marie.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Salvati.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Salvati follows:]

40

41

42

43

Mr. BURTON. Ms. Salvati, do you have a statement?

Mrs. SALVATI. Yes, thank you.

Mrs. SALVATI. Chairperson and everybody here, it’s just overwhelming. OK. At the very outset, I want to thank this committee

for holding this hearing and for asking us to participate in order

that we can tell our story.

From October 25, 1967, the date my husband was arrested, until

January 30, 2001, when all the charges were dropped, my life was

extremely difficult. The government took away my husband and

the father of our four children in 1967. My world was shattered.

This wonderful life that we shared was gone. I was looked down

upon by many. As we all know, children can sometimes be cruel.

Other children in our neighborhood would make fun of the fact that

their father had been arrested for murder, and they would taunt

some of them and say, shoot you, bang-bang. Your father is going

to die; you know, things that would really hurt the family. And my

children would come home crying to me. And I did my best to comfort them in bad times, but I had no one to comfort me when my

children went to bed. Many a night I cried by myself, and I suffered in silence.

When my husband was arrested on October 25, 1967, I found out

that the punishment for the crime was death in the electric chair.

That potential sentence weighed heavily on me until he was sentenced on July 31, 1968, and received a life sentence without parole.

The government stole 30 years of my life. I was unable to share

with my husband the joys of being a husband and a wife. The government stole 30 years from my children, because they grew up

without their father. However, the government was never able to

break our spirit. Our love grew stronger, and I always knew my

husband was innocent. I know the moral character my husband

possessed. I did not accept as my destiny that my husband would

never come home again. I always had faith and love.

Our lawyer, Vic Garo, always instilled in us that the glass was

half full and not half empty. We gathered strength from this fact

and that he believed Joe was innocent from the very beginning of

his representation of my husband and my family.

While my husband was in prison, the pact between us was I

would not inform him of the problems at home. You know, I used

to say to my husband, you take care of yourself on the inside, and

I’ll take care of the family on the outside.

From the very beginning of imprisonment, I knew that it would

be important for the children to have constant contact with their

family, with their father. And every weekend, you know, I’d dress

up, pack a little lunch, and we’d go off to see him for their hugs

and their kisses and whatever went on. And he would give them

a father’s guidance, even though he was not home with them.

Sometimes it took hours to get there, and every time you got there,

you were all nervous.

My husband and I have endured many hardships. As we grow

older, we still have the cherished feeling that a husband and wife

can have. We love each other very much. God bless you all.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Salvati follows:]

44

45

46

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say to both of you, Mr. and Mrs.

Salvati, this has got to be a very difficult time to bring all of this

out, but I’ll tell you, it’s important for not only the Congress, but

the American people to see the emotion and the heartache that you

guys had to suffer through for 30 years. And so I apologize for you

having to make these statements, but I think you’re doing an awful

lot of good, because it’s going to show the country that we must

never allow innocent people to suffer like you folks have.

Mr. Garo, you want to go through that real quickly, the chronology of events?

Mr. GARO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said in the beginning,

it is a very emotional case, and I thank you for allowing us to make

those statements.

My representation of Mr. Salvati began in 1976 when I was

asked to come down to see him by a client of mine who was in prison. I met Mr. Salvati. It was a dark, dreary, rainy day, and I went

down to see him, and he told me the facts upon which that he was

convicted. From the very facts he told me, I said, this doesn’t seem

correct to me. How could you be convicted on those facts?

I then did my own independent investigation, Mr. Chairman, and

I found that what he said was so, not that I did not believe him.

I just had to check the facts. I agreed to represent him and help

him to gain freedom, and they gave me a retainer. Shortly after

that, I found out that this family did not have a lot of money. I

returned the money back to him, Mr. Chairman, and I said that

I would stay with you. It’s true, I never thought it would be 26

years later and over 20,000 free hours of my time, but I was

brought up that when you make a commitment, you keep a commitment, and I’ve kept that commitment.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to go over just for a few minutes,

if I may, about the facts that were told in court by Joe ‘‘the Animal’’ Barboza concerning Mr. Salvati. On or about January 20,

1965, Barboza testified that one Peter Limone offered him a contract for $7,500 to kill one Teddy Deegan. Barboza then said it took

from January 20th until March 12, 1965 to put together his death

squad. He went around the country, he said, to go get participants

in this murder. They were going to do this through a setup, Mr.

Chairman, of Mr. Deegan being involved in a breaking and entering in the Chelsea alley of a finance company, and it was supposed

to be set up by certain people. Deegan would go in the alley and

would be shot to death.

On March 12, 1965, the day of the killing, Barboza in the middle

of the afternoon said, Salvati has got to be involved in the killing

tonight. As a matter of fact, he’s going to be my getaway car driver,

and he’s going to wear three disguises. He’s going to wear a wig

to make him look bald. He’s going to wear a pair of sunglasses and

a mustache. Later that night, at about 7:30, Barboza testified that

when he went to the Ebb Tide Restaurant and Lounge, which was

a hangout for organized crime, he saw Joe Salvati at the bar, and

he said to Joe Salvati, go outside and warm up the car, Joe.

Now, mind you, that night, they did not know if the breaking

and entering was going to happen. The murder would depend on

whether or not there was going to be a breaking and entering that

night. Since they didn’t know that was going to happen, no one

47

knew the time that it would happen or if it would happen, but Joe

Salvati is still warming up the car. It’s 7:30. At 9 o’clock, Barboza

receives the nod from a Roy French, indicating that the breaking

and entering was going to take place and that Deegan would be

there. That was the signal for Barboza to leave and to go and kill

Teddy Deegan.

Barboza goes out to the car sometime about quarter past 9 and

gets in and drives the car, tells Salvati to get in the back seat.

Barboza then says, we go to the area and we bend the license

plates—in those days you had a front license plate and a rear license plate—and they bent it in half to hide their identity. As they

were in the car, a person was walking toward them, and Barboza

said, I think it’s the law. And it was. It was a captain of the Chelsea Police Department. Barboza saw him and said he took off at

a high rate of speed. The captain later said that he saw a man in

the back seat with a bald head, bald spot, and he was able to find

the first three numbers of the license plate, 404.

Barboza then said he went back to the Ebb Tide. He told Joe

Salvati, go throw away the guns, throw away the disguises, and

meet me in the bar. He then said that he split up the money with

Salvati the next day. All that testimony came from Joe ‘‘the Animal’’ Barboza, uncorroborated, no other witness, just him.

Three things that always bothered me, Mr. Chairman, from the

first time I ever heard the story: Timing. Why would Barboza hire

someone to be involved in a killing that afternoon when it had

taken him 2 months to put together his death squad? It didn’t

make sense to me. Two, he was going to be my getaway car driver.

Getaway car driver? Salvati and Barboza never hung with each

other, never associated with each other, were not partners. Barboza

was a killer. Salvati was never. Barboza was a hit man. Salvati

was not. And they knew who Barboza’s partners were. Salvati

never hung with Barboza, never associated with Barboza, other

than a year later when he borrowed $400 from one of Barboza’s associates. And we said, wouldn’t there be a dry run? Salvati came

from the north end of Boston. This was a killing that was supposed

to take place in Chelsea, and I said, wouldn’t a getaway car driver,

at that—want to know the street that you could go up and down?

That bothered me, Mr. Chairman.

And the third one is that of all the killers in this case, Salvati

had to wear three disguises, and the three disguises were a wig to

make him look bald, a pair of sunglasses and a mustache. Now,

from what I understand of law enforcement is that the reason why

you wear disguises, because everybody knows who you are. Mr.

Salvati had one criminal conviction in 1956. He was not known to

the police, not known to the Chelsea Police Department, not known

to the Boston Police Department as a driver or somebody for

Barboza; didn’t hang with Barboza. And I said, why would Barboza

want somebody to wear three disguises?

Well, now, of course, you know from the evidence that you have

seen and that your counsel Mr. Wilson and his staff so ably has

put together, you have come to find out that story was all made

up and a fabrication. But one thing wasn’t a fabrication. They did

do a dry run. Can you imagine Mr. Salvati at 7:30 warming up the

car, quarter of 8 warming up the car, 8 o’clock warming up the car,

48

quarter past 8 warming up the car, 8:30 warming up the car, quarter of 9 warming up the car? They didn’t know what time this was

going to be. That was the best heated car in the world. This could

have ran anyplace. They almost ran out of gas. Did that make

sense to anybody? It didn’t make sense to me.

Now, what is it that has happened? The biggest break in this

case happened in 1989 when we were receiving a commutation

hearing that took place in August 1989. About 3 weeks before that

event, I obtained a copy of a hidden Chelsea Police Department report. In that report it had an informant who mentioned who left

the Ebb Tide that night, who went out to do the killing, and then

when they came back, he said, we nailed him.

Now, under the law at that time under Rowe v. United States,

if they knew there were informants and that defense counsel would

have known it, they could have made a motion for the name of the

informant. But, of course, the FBI was protecting informants, because, lo and behold, who were their informants back at that time?

I had always said that Barboza was hiding a friend or a close associate. Yeah, Vinny Flemmi was his partner. Vinny Flemmi was

bald. Vinny Flemmi had a bigger criminal record than Joe Barboza.

He was a killer, a known thug, and known as a driver for Barboza

90 to 95 percent of the time, because he was his chauffeur, because

he trusted him.

When I received that report, I then went out and did my own investigation, because I was not an organized criminal defense attorney. Most of my work was in white collar crimes. When I looked

at it, I had my investigators go out and check out who these people

were. Lo and behold, Mr. Chairman, we find out that one of the

men mentioned was Vincent Flemmi. I went out and checked who

Vincent Flemmi was. He was bald. I found out his record. I said

my God, that’s who was there that night. It wasn’t Joe Salvati. It

was Vincent Flemmi.

When I brought that to the attention of the parole board in 1989,

we received the unanimous vote of the parole board. The only problem is, Mr. Chairman, from 1986 to 1989, the FBI told the parole

board that my client was going to get indicted, so don’t give him

a commutation hearing. Four years went by, and they said, don’t

you understand it’s all phony information you’re receiving? I appeared in 1989, Mr. Chairman, before the parole board. Mr.

Salvati, after the unanimous vote of the parole board, finally gets

out on his commutation on March 20, 1997.

Make no mistake about it, the Federal Government and the

State government never wanted Mr. Salvati ever to get out of prison, because dead men tell no tales, and we wouldn’t be here today

before you if they had succeeded. Three of the six, though, have

died in prison. Mr. Salvati is here today before you because he survived 30 hard years in prison.

Now, in 1993, Mr. Chairman, I obtained new evidence, and finally I was able to obtain coverage by the press in this case because of an event that occurred on the commutation, Mr. Chairman. On January 20, Governor William Weld at that time denied

my client’s commutation because of his long criminal record, one

criminal conviction in 1956. I said, I need some help. And I did get

that help from a reporter back in Boston by the name of Dan Rea,

49

CBS affiliate, channel 4, WBZ, and he became my advocate

through the press of our story. And through the years, he did

many, many stories, and we found much, much evidence, as you

have here documented before you. But no one wanted to listen to

it. No one wanted to see it, because, you know, Salvati, yeah, he’s

innocent, right, yeah, right, all those words.

In 1997, we obtained a commutation, and probably the most important day in the history of this case occurred in my office, Mr.

Chairman, on the date of December 19, 2000. And that was when

an assistant U.S. attorney named John Durham, who was in

charge of the Justice Task Force in Boston that is investigating

criminal activities of FBI agents, called me and said, Mr. Garo, I

have some evidence for you. I’d like to come over to your office and

see you. He delivered those documents that you have, Mr. Chairman, and it showed a shocking, shocking story that now we know

the entire story that Mr. Barboza made up was untrue. When we

saw that evidence, Mr. Chairman, it was shocking to me, and I just

sat down looking at it.

On January 18, 2001, Mr. Chairman, the Suffolk County district

attorneys on its own motion made a motion to vacate the judgment

and the sentence and requested a motion for new trial that was allowed. On January 30, 2001, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Salvati walked

out of the courtroom a free man for the first time since October 25,

1967.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Garo.

We will now go to questioning. We’ll start—Mr. Shays, would you

like to start?

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays. We will proceed under the 5-minute rule

today, so every Member that wants to ask questions will be able

to quickly.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Salvati, I love your gentleness, and I love your

wife.

Mr. Salvati, has anyone in the government ever told you or your

children that they’re sorry for what happened to you?

Mr. SALVATI. No, they haven’t.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you think people knew all along that you were innocent?

Mr. SALVATI. A lot of people did, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Garo, why does this case mean so much to you?

You told me a story about your mother. Real short, tell it to us.

Mr. GARO. My mother was brought up as an orphan from age 3,

and my father was born into abject poverty. When I passed the bar

exam on November 9th, and when I was sworn in as an attorney

on November 9, 1965, my mother and father took me to afternoon

lunch that day. They were very proud, as I was, about the accomplishment. And my mother and father said to me that day, Congressman, that, look, now that you’re a lawyer, you can go out and

help people. Go help people. Don’t do it for the money. Do it to go

help them. The money will come, but don’t do it just for the money.

And I followed certain values I believe that my mother and father

instilled in me.

I had a one-man law office, and the only way that I would keep

business was to have personalized service. My mother for years

50

talked to Joe Salvati, and they became friends over the phone, and

my mother knew all the evidence that we had and were trying to

do for Joe Salvati. And my mother was very sickly toward the end

of the 1980’s, and shortly before she passed away, my mother said

to me as follows: ‘‘No one will represent Joe Salvati in this matter

unless you stay with him. So I want you to promise me that you

will stay with Joe Salvati until you walk him out of prison.’’ On March 20, 1997, with the wonderful help of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections, they allowed only two people to

walk out of prison that day, and that was Joe Salvati and myself.

After we left the prison and went to the parole officer that Joe had

to go to, Joe and Marie, my father and myself all went to my mother’s gravesite, and I placed roses on her grave, and I said, ‘‘Mommy, I kept my promise.’’ Mr. SHAYS. Thank you for keeping your promise.

Mrs. Salvati, I am amazed at your strength. I am amazed at the

love you had for a man who was in prison for 30 years. I would

love to know how you did it.

Mrs. SALVATI. You know how I did it. We were always a happy,

loving couple, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. My family values, my children, it was so important for me to keep it all together.

You know, and when I went to visit him, like on the weekends, my

children needed the hugs. They needed the kisses from their father.

They needed all that stuff. So I tried to put it all together the best

I could.

I reevaluated myself, you know, and I put my goals and my objectives, and I feel like I’ve done the right thing in life. I’ve worked.

I went on to be a program director of the Head Start Program, and,

you know, you do what you have to do. And we always believed in

his innocence, and it was just, you know, like I said in my opening

remarks here, you know, it wasn’t hard to do. In a way it wasn’t,

because we had the love of my husband. I had my family, and I

was just a—I don’t know. I was driven. It was something that I felt

like I could never give up, and that’s how I felt about it.

And then, like, 10 years came, and we put in appeals, and then

you get some—you know, get some good reports, and then you still

have——

Mr. SHAYS. You still kept hope alive?

Mrs. SALVATI. Yes, yes. Never gave up.

Mr. SHAYS. I have other questions, but I won’t get to them now.

Mr. Salvati, I want to know about your first attorney. I want to

know if you were under a jury trial. I want to know why you didn’t

win that case in the first time around, and I’ll ask that later, but

it’s not now.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Did the gentleman yield his time or——

Mr. SHAYS. I finished.

Mr. BURTON. Oh, you finished. OK.

Mr. Kanjorski.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Garo, being a lawyer, you make me proud of the profession.

That doesn’t happen too often when you’re sitting on this side of

the aisle and dealing with—— Mr. GARO. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

51

Mr. KANJORSKI [continuing]. This profession in Washington.

Let me ask you this, though. Looking at the statement of facts

and the evidence, is this peculiar to the Boston area, or is it possible that this is occurring in other American cities and in other

FBI offices across this country?

Mr. GARO. That’s a good question, Mr. Congressman, and I guess

my best answer that I can give to that is this, that if you have a

cookie cutter and it works one place, that it should be able to work

a second place, a third place and the fourth place. I have a distinct

feeling that this is not just a situation that happens only here in

Boston. I think there are those and many around that would like

us to believe that it was only happening in Boston, and when these

actions and these events were allowed to happen by the Director

of the FBI, I just don’t believe it just happened in Boston. And I

think that the good that can come out of this hearing and other

hearings will be that maybe other people will come forward with

similar situations and would have the courage to face up and say

what they have to say.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Do we in the Congress have a process of oversight of the FBI and to look through these complaints that may

have occurred across the country, or is this a unique situation?

Mr. GARO. I think, Mr. Congressman, that if you people don’t

have this type of power, then who is investigating or watching over

the investigators? Because there has to be some accountability,

there has to be some checks and balances, and that’s one of the

reasons why we ask this honorable committee in all of your power

and wisdom that you might be able to help us so that another family doesn’t go through this again.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Garo, a lot of discussions are occurring in

the country right now on the question of capital punishment. At

this time the State of Massachusetts—or the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts did have capital punishment—— Mr. GARO. At that time, yes, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. KANJORSKI. If, in fact, Mr. Salvati had been sentenced to die

in the electric chair or by lethal injection, 30 years he would have

been executed; is that correct?

Mr. GARO. That’s correct.

Mr. KANJORSKI. So this is another very strong piece of evidence

for us to reexamine the whole concept of capital punishment, particularly many cases of convictions of uncorroborated testimony.

Mr. GARO. Absolutely. And you hit the nail right on the head,

Mr. Congressman, when you’re dealing with the uncorroborated

testimony of a person who is more of a killer than anything else,

because the FBI, Mr. Congressman, at that time made the determination that it was far more important for them to protect the integrity of the informant system than it was to see innocent people

go to prison or to potentially die in the electric chair.

Mr. KANJORSKI. I’m aware of some of the investigations of organized crime that have occurred in the Northeast and the Philadelphia area, and I am aware of what I tend to believe is selective

prosecution; that when you read the wiretap evidence or other material, there are a host of crimes against sometimes very involved

and very impressive people that seem to be totally ignored, and the

FBI and the Federal attorneys seem to narrow in and focus in on

52

their hunt, if you will, or their bait. Do you find that in Boston to

be the factor?

Mr. GARO. I would say that whatever you can think of, you’ll find

it in Boston. If there’s any type of corruption that hasn’t come forward and it hasn’t been prosecuted, when you still have the FBI

in Boston, Mr. Congressman, still maintaining today that they did

nothing wrong, and a superior court judge has already discharged

the cases, and the district attorney’s office refuses to retry them because of what they have done, then we’re out of control.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Garo, I complimented you as a lawyer in the

legal profession, but it’s almost impossible for me to believe that

Federal prosecutors and members of the Justice Department and

the FBI were not aware of this miscarriage of justice. Has any disbarment or prosecution of any of the professionals involved in this

case taken place?

Mr. GARO. Mr. Congressman, I would say to you that other than

certain investigations that are being conducted by John Durham,

assistant U.S. attorney in Boston, especially assigned to the Justice

Task Force, he is trying to get to the bottom of what FBI agents

and what the statute of limitations problems are and the prosecution of those agents is really about.

You will find, Mr. Congressman, if you check in the newspapers

and in the records in Massachusetts, that we have been saying

things about this case for decades, Mr. Congressman, and no one

has bothered to ever investigate any part of this. There are State

crimes, Mr. Congressman, that have been committed here, and

there’s been no grand juries held for accountability of what local

law enforcement officials did. Let us hope, Mr. Congressman—and

that’s our hope here, Mr. Chairman, is that through your committee and through your hearings that maybe the truth will finally

come out.

And it’s interesting that my pastor at my church has said it well:

The truth will set them free, but no one wants to tell the truth.

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you, sir.

Mr. GARO. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Garo.

You described in your testimony—your written statement that

your first big break, I think you called it, was the delivery to you

of the Chelsea police report, and that was in 1989 at the——

Mr. GARO. That is correct, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. LATOURETTE [continuing]. Commutation hearing. Have you

had a chance to talk to the lawyer that represented Mr. Salvati at

this trial?

Mr. GARO. Let me just say about this very eminent counsel here,

Mr. Balliro, who was a lawyer at that time and representing the

case, that case was stacked, Mr. Congressman; that God could have

come down and tried that case, and he would have never won that

case. The chicanery that was involved with the evidence in this

case, and the hiding of the evidence, and the wheeling and dealing

behind the scenes, no one had an opportunity to win that case. And

that’s why, if I may just——

Mr. LATOURETTE. Sure. Sure.

53

Mr. GARO. That’s why I have never and will never, ever say anything about legal counsel at that trial. They tried their damnedest,

but they were up against an insurmountable wall.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And by asking that question, I wasn’t meaning

to disparage the trial counsel.

Mr. GARO. I understand.

Mr. LATOURETTE. But my question was, do you feel comfortable

and confident that this 3-page—it’s exhibit 11 in the book in front

of you, but do you feel comfortable and confident that no one in the

defense had access to or—— Mr. GARO. Absolutely not.

Mr. LATOURETTE [continuing]. Knew of the existence of this report?

[Exhibit 11 follows:]

54

55

56

57

Mr. GARO. Absolutely not. As much as the judicial opinions in

the case have tried to place it in the hands, through unbelievable

miscarriage of the facts in the case, no, it was never had.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And just for the purposes of the record, the

reason that the report, I think, written by a lieutenant in the Chelsea Police Department, was significant, on page 3 of the report, it

mentioned confidential information as to who the murderers were

eventually?

Mr. GARO. That is correct. As a matter of fact, from the evidence

that you have in your pamphlets, provided by chief legal counsel

and the staff, you will see that the exact killers that were mentioned in the Chelsea police—hidden police report were the same

as the killers that were mentioned on March 13, 1965 by Vincent

Jimmy ‘‘the Bear’’ Flemmi to a prized informant of the FBI, who

I say, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, was his brother Steven

Flemmi.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Did you have the opportunity to chat with

the individual prosecuting authorities about this Chelsea Police Department report after it was discovered to you in 1989?

Mr. GARO. Yes, I did.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And who was the prosecuting—— Mr. GARO. The prosecutor in the case was an attorney Jack

Zalkind.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And can you relate to the committee what the

substance of that conversation was?

Mr. GARO. Surely. In fact, he has filed an affidavit that I have

filed in court, and Mr. Zalkind said that he had never known that

Chelsea police report ever existed as to whether or not there was

an informant in there. He said if he had known that there was an

informant there that night that did not see Mr. Salvati, that he

would have done a more thorough investigation, and Mr. Salvati

may never have been indicted.

Now, what’s interesting to note, Mr. Congressman, is that when

I filed my motion for new trial in 1993, the District Attorney’s Office of Suffolk County filed that affidavit by a Mr. McDonough, who

was the legal assistant to Mr. Zalkind, who stated in his affidavit

that that police report was in the files when he was there as a legal

assistant to Mr. Zalkind. So what we have, Mr. Congressman, is we

have prosecutors saying, I didn’t have it, a legal assistant who said

that it was there. I don’t care who had it or what had it. If they

said it was there, they didn’t do anything with it, and you’re going

to have people die in the electric chair. My God. Don’t you think

you have a duty to go and investigate that? It’s unconscionable, Mr.

Congressman.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Did you—it was written by a Lieutenant

Thomas Evans. Did you ever have a chance to chat with him about

when it was prepared or anything of that nature?

Mr. GARO. No. Lieutenant Evans had passed away.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Had he? OK.

Mr. GARO. But what I did do, Mr. Congressman, and that’s an

excellent point, is that when I found out Lieutenant Evans had

died, I then sent my investigators out to go find out if he had a

partner. Lo and behold, I found he had a partner. I contacted their

partner, and he said, sure, we worked on that together, and we

58

filed it. As a matter of fact, we knew who the killers were that

night. They had—— Mr. LATOURETTE. Did he say who he had filed it with?

Mr. GARO. Lieutenant Evans.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. And the last question that I have for you,

who is John Doyle?

Mr. GARO. I don’t think I’d have enough time probably to answer

that question, but suffice it to say he was the liaison at the Suffolk

County District Attorney’s Office, Garrett Byrne, with the FBI at

that time. And he was the head detective that would put together

the cases on organized crime. That’s who he was.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Cummings, did you have a question?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And, Mr. Garo, from one lawyer to another, I’m very glad that

you do what you do and that you take your job as seriously as you

do, and I wish more people had an opportunity to hear the testimony. And I understand you’re just doing what you believe what

you should be doing, and this is your job.

Mr. GARO. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, I really wish that more people would

have an opportunity to hear this testimony, because so often I

think what happens is that when someone lands in prison and they

declare their innocence, although they have come through the

criminal justice system, there are some who believe that the criminal justice system in our country does not—I mean, there’s some

that believe that it’s perfect. And one thing is very, very clear, and

that is that one of the things that will get us as close to perfection

as we can get is that if the people that we trust, such as FBI

agents and others and judges, it is important that they do their job

in an honest and truthful manner, because I think that’s what

leads to the trust of the public.

And that leads me to my first question. You know, in reading

your testimony, Mr. Garo, you seem to have kind words about John

Durham, the prosecutor heading up the Justice Department’s Task

Force.

Mr. GARO. I do.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Why is that, sir?

Mr. GARO. He is the first prosecutor, in my opinion, that I have

met in the entire investigation of this case for over 26 years that

had as his motive in this case to let the truth come out, and that

it would have been very easy for him, Mr. Congressman, to have

thrown away these documents, and that the FBI agents that were

working for him found these documents, and they found them because they were misfiled in other files, Mr. Congressman, and they

were in the Boston office. All of the regular files had already been

destroyed at that time, Mr. Congressman. This was all done—Mr.

Congressman, if you throw away the evidence, it can’t come back

to haunt you. The only problem is that it had been misfiled, and

they spent hours and days and weeks and months poring over

these documents to give me those documents.

And that’s why we say, Mr. Congressman, that we still have the

greatest justice system in the world. And when you have a person

59

like John Durham, and you have a person like Judge Mark Wolf

in the Federal court who took on the investigation here of informants back in Boston, they’re heroes. They’re the ones who have

fought the system, and they have let come out the evidence that

we have. And it makes us feel good, because we don’t paint all the

FBI with the same brush, and we say we need them, but, darn,

when you break the sacred oath of trust—when I represent defendants in court and it’s a public official, the first thing that the prosecutor says is, because he was a public official and he broke his sacred trust, we throw the book at him. Conversely in this case, no

book has been thrown at any of the Federal officials.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you think the book should be thrown at

them?

Mr. GARO. Absolutely. For those that are guilty, for those that

took part in this, because how can anybody be so inhuman? Because we wanted, Mr. Chairman, you to see how much this affected

this family.

That’s what people don’t want you to see, Mr. Congressman, and

that’s why this is difficult for the three of us. We’re not here for

publicity. I don’t practice criminal law. I’m not looking to get referral cases. But we’re here—when we first got approached by Mr.

Wilson, who I have the deepest respect for and his staff, both on

the Democratic side and the Republican side, and the work and the

hours that they have put into this, we knew that sooner or later

this is important to say, and this has never been about money,

power, prestige. Those that know me know that I’m not like that,

but if we can help you out, we have pledged that we will be here

for you at any time. I said that I would give and help Mr. Wilson,

Mr. Yeager behind the scenes on anything that your staff wants,

Mr. Chairman, and I’ll be here for you all the time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Garo, your client was facing the death penalty. Is that what you said?

Mr. GARO. Yes, sir. That’s true.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And, Mrs. Salvati, how did that affect you?

Mrs. SALVATI. I became numb. I just couldn’t believe it that our

lives could be so shattered with all this here, and, you know, it’s

devastating. It’s just devastating. You get yourself in a state when

the verdict came in, and I just—you know, I had a horrible night

that night. Especially when the verdict came in, my children were

my first priority. I went to get them from school, you know, because I didn’t want them to hear nothing in the street. So I took

them home, and I told them what had happened to, you know, Dad.

We call him Dad. And he said—you know, I said, you know, you’re

going to hear a few things. You’re going to read things in the

paper. You know, families talk when they go home. You know how

people are. So I tried to comfort them and tried to, you know, not

tell them more than what I had to because they were little, you

know, especially the young—the 4-year-old.

And we got through that. Then the very next day, my husband

had the chaplain call me, and he wanted to see me right away. So

we needed that bonding between us to go through the sorrow, this

heartache together. All I could think of him was the night before

being shackled in jail. I had no concept of what jail was about or

how anything was, and, you know, we needed each other, too, but

60

you have to be there for each other, and we had that bonding with

us all the time.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, just one quick statement. I just

want to express to you and your husband, you know, something

that Mr. Garo said. We do have an outstanding system of justice.

It does fail. We have a lot of great people in our justice system, but

I hope and I pray that God will give you the strength and the courage to continue on. You both have held up tremendously. I mean,

a lot of people would not have held up under these circumstances,

and I thank God for you and for your lives, and certainly you’ll be

in my prayers.

Mrs. SALVATI. Thank you.

Mr. SALVATI. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Congressman.

Before I yield to Mr. Barr, one of the things that I will ask our

legal counsel and our staff to investigate is whether or not there

were some other injustices done as well. I understand that Mr.

Barboza testified in some other criminal trials, and people were

sent to jail. I don’t know if anybody was sent to death or not, but

we’re going to investigate that as well. And so what you’re telling

us here today is not going to just reflect on the injustice done to

the Salvatis, but also we’re going to look at other things as well.

Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could the staff prepare exhibits 15, 8 and 7, please, beginning

with 15.

Counsel, when I first started learning about this case from counsel and from the chairman and from Mr. Shays, probably, as most

people, I was skeptical. You know, it reads like a novel. And then

as you get into it, you say, yeah, well, maybe this sort of stuff did

happen, but certainly the head of the FBI didn’t know about it. He

would have stopped it. But the fact of the matter is that there appears to be documentation that indicates very clearly that the Director of the FBI, Mr. Hoover, knew exactly what was going on,

and that’s very, very disturbing as a former U.S. attorney, as a citizen. You don’t have to be a former U.S. attorney or an attorney to

be disturbed by that. It’s disturbing deeply as a citizen.

Document exhibit No. 15 is an airtel—this is back in the days

before all the technology. We didn’t have e-mails and so forth—

dated March 19, 1965, which was, I think, about a week after the

Deegan murder, and that document is to Director, FBI. In your

knowledge, which is certainly extensive, my understanding is that

Mr. Hoover kept very close tabs on what happened in the FBI.

[Exhibits 15, 8 and 7 follow:]

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

Mr. GARO. He was getting information on a weekly basis, Mr.

Congressman, on exactly what was happening back in Boston, because Boston in the 1960’s was going through a gang war, and

there were approximately 50 to 60 people who got killed. And they

weren’t able to get any convictions on a lot of the murders, and he

wanted to be on top of everything that was happening in the Boston area during that period of time. So he was being informed on

a weekly basis. This is only one of the documents that was left as

misfiled. Other documents that Mr. Durham believes has either

been destroyed or may even be around in other places and have not

surfaced yet.

But there are documents, also, Mr. Congressman, that show that

the Director knew exactly what was going on. What happened here,

if I can, Mr. Congressman, that in March 1965—if I could do just

a little chronology of this, in February 1965, Steven ‘‘the Rifleman’’

Flemmi had been targeted as a top-echelon informant. On March

9, 1965, his brother was being targeted as an informant. On March

10——

Mr. BARR. When you say targeted as an informant, you mean by

the FBI?

Mr. GARO. Yes. Absolutely.

Then on March 10th, they received information that Flemmi and

Barboza might be going to kill Teddy Deegan. On March 12th,

Teddy Deegan was killed. On March 13th, Vincent Flemmi told the

same informant that he and Joe Barboza killed Teddy Deegan the

night before with three other guys, told them how it happened, how

they were going to get in and do the B&E, how it happened, who

was there, who did what. And they did a very sloppy job.

On March 19th, all this information now is given to the Director

of the FBI. Now what happens is—now you have to go 2–1/2 years

later, because in March, April or May 1967, Barboza becomes a

witness for the Federal and State governments on various defendants that I’ve talked about previously.

Now, when Barboza was willing to take down and give false and

perjurious statements on first degree murder cases, and it’s all

uncorroborated testimony, now—in my opinion, what happens now

is between March, April, May 1967 and October 25, 1967, when the

indictments came down as a result of Barboza’s testimony on October 25th, the previous information just got in the way of the prosecution of these three cases. So now they let Barboza tell another

story. No one is ever going to find out about these documents, because we’re going to bury the documents and destroy them.

Mr. BARR. In your view, are there sufficient checks and balances

and access to information now that weren’t available back in the

1960’s——

Mr. GARO. No.

Mr. BARR [continuing]. So that you would have a confidence level

that this sort of thing would not happen?

Mr. GARO. No. I have no confidence right now that won’t happen,

because this has been happening in the 1960’s, 1970’s, 1980’s and

the 1990’s. It’s occurring right up today, Mr. Congressman, because

there’s still a denial at the FBI in Boston that anything was wrong,

they have done nothing wrong.

68

Mr. BARR. But I don’t mean just in this case, in other cases. I

mean, we have additional safeguards that have been put in place,

both statutorily as well as is in guidelines for the use of informants, as well as court decisions that have come down in the intervening decades. Do you have a confidence level that with all of

those safeguards that we have in place now, that this sort of thing

could not happen again?

Mr. GARO. None whatsoever.

Mr. BARR. Do you have some recommendations for us on specific

steps that could be taken to help raise your comfort level?

Mr. GARO. I think that should be done, Mr. Congressman, with

the defense bar. When everybody makes guidelines determining

what’s going to happen within the FBI or the government, they go

to government. They don’t go to the criminal defense bar. I think

that the criminal defense bar, as over here, are two of the finest

criminal defense lawyers that there are in the country. I think that

they ought to be sitting down around the country and determining

what legislation is necessary. I don’t practice criminal law anymore, Mr. Congressman, and—other than for the Joe Salvati case

for all these years, so I’m not maybe the best person in the world

to tell you how to do that, but I know that the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers would make themselves very

available to sit down and talk, either with you or the committee,

to find what can be done with the legislation and checks and balances to make sure that something like this, Mr. Chairman, will

never happen again.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. It’s really troubling to think that this has continued

to go on. As I understand it, the assistant U.S. attorney up there,

they’re working on this right now to dig out all the dirt that they

possibly can. Is that not correct?

Mr. GARO. That is correct.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Thank you.

Mr. Tierney.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is not out of lack of

respect that I keep leaving, and I apologize for that. Like Mr. Waxman, I have another Committee on Education that is marking up

a bill.

Mr. GARO. We understand, Mr. Congressman. Thank you.

Mr. TIERNEY. I appreciate that.

I would like to yield my time to Mr. Delahunt, who I know is prepared to go forward on that at this time, and so I would yield to

Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes. I thank you. I thank my colleague from

Massachusetts for yielding, and I thank the Chair again, for allowing us to participate.

Mr. Garo, you stated that it is your belief that the informant alluded to, in the various reports that have come to your attention— the report by the FBI, by a Special Agent Paul Rico; a Chelsea Police Department report authored by a captain—or a Lieutenant

Evans; and a Boston police report authored by one William Stewart; a State police report authored by a Lieutenant Cass—refer to

69

the same individual when they reference an informant. Is that correct?

Mr. GARO. No. No. I say that there are several different informants, Mr. Congressman. On the Chelsea police report, that is one

informant. The informants on the FBI documents that were handed

to me by Mr. Durham, that’s a second informant, in my opinion,

and in the documents that were provided on the others, I think

that in the Detective Richard Cass’s report from the State police,

that he had further information that no one else had, and I say

that there was another informant.

Mr. DELAHUNT. OK. Let me go back then again. I know you mentioned the name of one Steven—— Mr. GARO. Flemmi.

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. Flemmi. And it’s your belief that he

was the informant referred to in the report by Special Agent Paul

Rico?

Mr. GARO. That is my opinion.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Are you aware of any documents or any reports

whatsoever that exist that reveals the name of that informant?

Mr. GARO. No, I do not. As a matter of fact, Mr. Durham in his

investigation was unable to find that, because the informant documents had already been destroyed.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, that answers my question, because I was

going to request the Chair of this particular committee to inquire

of the FBI to reveal the name of that particular informant.

Mr. GARO. Mr. Congressman, though, I would say this to you,

that I wish you would still make that request, because I have a

feeling that there’s still information—— Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, then—— Mr. GARO [continuing]. That’s around.

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. I will make that request then.

Mr. GARO. Because I think it’s an excellent request.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the Chair.

Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman will yield—and I thank you for

yielding. We certainly will contact the head of the current—acting

head of the FBI and whoever his successor is, and we’ll ask for any

documents pertaining to this investigation and what’s going on in

Boston.

Mr. GARO. I think that’s an excellent point.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I just simply can’t imagine any basis, in terms

of what has gone on in Boston, pursuant to the proceedings presided over by Judge Wolf, why the name of that particular informant cannot be revealed, because it’s simply my opinion that would

remove some of the mystery surrounding the case against Mr.

Salvati.

We spoke, as I indicated earlier, last Saturday regarding the case

of Mr. Salvati, and I took a particular interest in your explanation

of the efforts that you made to seek a commutation on behalf of Mr.

Salvati. Could you just repeat them once more for members of the

panel? And maybe, Mr. Garo, you could start with explaining to

members of the panel what the commutation process is and how

one proceeds and its significance in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. If you could start there, please.

Mr. GARO. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.

70

In Massachusetts when you are convicted of murder in the first

degree, you have no right to parole. The only way that you have

the right to parole is if you receive a commutation, and a commutation is considered to be an extraordinary legal remedy. In order to

get a commutation, three votes have to be taken, one by the parole

board sitting as the advisory board of pardons, the second vote by

the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the

third by the Governor’s Council, not legal council, the Governor’s

Council, a duly elected body. The three of those votes have to be

situated for you to get a commutation. It is not easy to obtain.

So that I had filed for a commutation in 1986, but I was told by

the then current chairman of the parole board that they weren’t

going to hold the hearing. In granting, Mr. Chairman, a commutation hearing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by a parole

board, that means that they are very seriously contemplating giving you your commutation, because they don’t do it to raise the

hopes of an inmate that you’re going to get out. They don’t do that.

So it’s—Mr. Salvati’s really to lose—95 percent for him to win it,

5 percent for him not to win it.

The chairman of the parole board said to me in 1986 that he was

contacted by the FBI that they were doing an investigation, and

Salvati was part of it, and that he was going to get indicted.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Will you just repeat that slowly? You were contacted by the chair—or the Massachusetts Parole Board was contacted by the FBI, indicating that they were conducting an investigation that implicated Mr. Salvati?

Mr. GARO. That is correct, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Proceed, please. Do you know the name of the

FBI agent?

Mr. GARO. No, I do not. No, I do not.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Could you identify the individual on the Massachusetts Parole Board who—— Mr. GARO. Yes. Jim Curran, who is now currently a judge out in

the western part of the State.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And Mr. Curran was the Chair at the time?

Mr. GARO. Yes, sir.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And he indicated—— Mr. BURTON. If the gentleman will yield. We will contact the

judge, and we will ask who the FBI agent was that informed him

it was an ongoing investigation.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chair.

Would you proceed, Mr. Garo?

Mr. GARO. Thank you.

I was very well known to the parole board, because I used to

knock on their doors all the time for many years. As a matter of

fact, when they heard I was in the building, they would say, hey,

Vic, come on and have a cup of coffee with us, because I believe

that I’ve always conducted myself as a gentleman. I believe I’ve always conducted my representation of Mr. Salvati always on another level.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But what happened to that investigation, Mr.

Garo——

Mr. GARO. Nothing.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Nothing?

71

Mr. GARO. After 3 years—— Mr. DELAHUNT. After 3 years nothing happened?

Mr. GARO. That is correct.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And what did you do then, Mr. Garo?

Mr. GARO. I went to Mr. Curran and I said, they are trying to

prevent you from ever having a hearing on Mr. Salvati.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And what did Mr. Curran say to you?

Mr. GARO. He said, you’re right, we’re going to hold a hearing.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And did he hold a hearing?

Mr. GARO. Yes, they did, sir.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And what was the conclusion of that hearing?

Mr. GARO. It was held in August 1989, and at a date that I still

don’t know, Mr. Congressman, they voted unanimously for the

parole—— Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Garo, how many members on the parole

board?

Mr. GARO. At that time I had five members that were present

at——

Mr. DELAHUNT. And each and every one of them voted in favor

of commuting the first degree murder sentence of Mr. Salvati, and

that was in 1989?

Mr. GARO. I don’t know the date they—— Mr. DELAHUNT. You don’t know—— Mr. GARO. It’s always been hidden from me because—— Mr. DELAHUNT. It’s been hidden from you?

Mr. GARO. And I would explain—— Mr. DELAHUNT. And I would hope that the Chair of this particular committee would request the documents from the Massachusetts Parole Board relative to when that unanimous vote was

taken.

Proceed, Mr. Garo.

Mr. GARO. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. At that time when—I

received a phone call from a member of the parole board who said

to me, Mr. Garo, I have some good news and bad news for you. You

have received the unanimous vote of the parole board, but the documents are not going to be placed on Governor Dukakis’ desk; and

I said, can you tell me why? He said, because of the Willy Horton

scandal that had happened and other matters, that they really

don’t want to deal with your commutation. And that was a major

blow to us, Mr. Congressman, because I then had to meet with my

client Mr. Salvati and his wife and four children, because at that

time—— Mr. DELAHUNT. Are you aware of any communication between

the then Governor Dukakis’ office and the Chair of the parole

board regarding concern about the Willy Horton case?

Mr. GARO. Only what I was told by the parole board themselves.

Mr. DELAHUNT. At some point in time, could you give the names

of the——

Mr. GARO. Yes. I will be glad to give that to you at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman—I mean, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And what happened then, Mr. Garo? If I could

indulge the Chair for the additional time.

Mr. GARO. What happened then——

Mr. SHAYS. I’m happy to yield the gentleman my 5 minutes.

72

Mr. BURTON. We’ll give you time. Without objection, we’ll—— Mr. DELAHUNT. There’s a particular line of questioning I want to

pursue.

Mr. SHAYS. You just stay right at it, sir.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Garo, please.

Mr. GARO. We had a very difficult decision, Mr. Congressman, as

you well know, that if I filed a motion for new trial, I’d lose my

unanimous vote of the parole board, and knowing the history here

of the judicial handling of these cases, I told him, we’re not going

to overturn this case.

Mr. DELAHUNT. So that’s when you made the decision not to pursue the motion for the new trial?

Mr. GARO. That is correct.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Fine.

Mr. GARO. We gave that up because we had a unanimous vote

of the parole board, and we said, let’s keep what we have. Why go

into waters where we don’t know what we’re going to get?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right.

Mr. GARO. 1992, then came Governor Weld. On January 20,

1993, Mr. Salvati’s commutation was turned down by Governor

Weld.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And what was the reason expressed by the then

Governor for rejecting the unanimous recommendation of the parole board?

Mr. GARO. My client’s long and involved criminal record.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can you relate to us how long and involved Mr.

Salvati’s criminal record was?

Mr. GARO. A conviction in 1956 for breaking and entering and

possession of a precarious implement and a couple of traffic tickets.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You referenced earlier that one Jack Zalkind was

the prosecutor in the case against Mr. Salvati?

Mr. GARO. That is correct.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And during our conversation last Saturday, I requested any documents that you might have relative to this commutation process?

Mr. GARO. That you did, sir.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And I have a bunch of them here, and I will ask

the Chair to submit them.

And if I—— Mr. BURTON. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

Mr. DELAHUNT. Back on March 12, 1979, Mr. Garo, did you receive a letter from Jack Zalkind?

Mr. GARO. Yes, I did.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And if you could read—if you have it before you,

if you could read the second paragraph for the benefit of the committee, please.

Mr. GARO. Surely. And this is a letter dated March 12, 1979.

To whom it may concern, Re Joseph Salvati.

Second paragraph: During the investigation of this case, prior

similar activities by Mr. Salvati never came to my attention, and

it was my belief at that time that it was Mr. Salvati’s first serious

criminal involvement.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can you repeat that again for the benefit of the

panel?

Mr. GARO. It was my belief at that time that it was Mr. Salvati’s

first serious criminal involvement.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And that was a letter dated to you on March 12,

1979?

Mr. GARO. That is correct, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And back in 1979, did you also receive the communication from a Frank Walsh?

Mr. GARO. Yes, I did.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Could you inform the panel who Mr. Walsh is?

Mr. GARO. Mr. Walsh was a detective in the Boston Police Department assigned to organized crime activities and homicides, and

he was involved in the investigation and arrest of Joseph Salvati.

Mr. DELAHUNT. OK. Referring—if you have before you a letter

from Mr. Walsh, dated March 15, 1979, and if you would refer to

the third paragraph. Could you read it to the committee?

Mr. GARO. Certainly, Mr. Congressman.

During my investigations prior to his indictment, subsequent

sentencing, unto this date I have never become aware that Mr.

Salvati has been even remotely connected with firearms or physical

violence.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. And both of these letters—and they

were subsequent letters similar in nature. Is that a fair

statement——

Mr. GARO. That’s a very fair statement.

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. Recommended—from the prosecutor

and the investigator, recommended a commutation for Mr. Salvati;

is that accurate?

Mr. GARO. That is very accurate.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And yet we have the then Governor of Massachusetts in 1992 making a statement that it was because of his long

criminal history. And I also remember reading something about his

association with organized crime. Is that——

Mr. GARO. That was part of it also, yes, Mr. Congressman. That

was in 1993, January 20, 1993.

That was January 20, 1993.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Did you ever have any communication with anyone from Governor Weld’s office?

Mr. GARO. No, I was like persona non grata. No one would talk

to me.

84

Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you have any reason to believe that anyone

from the Federal Bureau of Investigation would have communicated with the Governor’s Office relative to the commutation of

Mr. Salvati?

Mr. GARO. May I, Mr. Congressman, do that with an old evidence

trick that we were once taught in law school, that when it snows

during the night and you wake up the next morning and you see

footprints around the building—I can’t tell you who the footprints

belonged to, but I can tell you that the footprints are there. The

footprints are all there that no doubt Governor Weld was talked to.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. I think this is important. I know Governor Weld.

I think he relied on some staff people for this.

Do you know who at the Governor’s Office would have been contacted about this?

Mr. GARO. I have no idea.

Mr. BURTON. You have no idea. We will contact former Governor

Weld and ask him who gave him that information.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think that is very important. Because I presume, given what I have read in newspaper reports, that the FBI— and even today in—the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI office,

one Charles Prouty, has indicated that, while they had this information, they did transmit it to local authorities. It would seem

that, at least in terms of Mr. Prouty’s statements, that it’s his opinion that terminated any obligation that the FBI had relative to providing this exculpatory information about Mr. Salvati.

But it’s clearly different if the FBI took an active role and involvement in impeding the process of the commutation of Mr.

Salvati, extending those years for maybe 10 or 15 years, that is

clearly a significant injustice, to some 30 years. It’s disgraceful, and

I hope the Chair proceeds to examine that matter very closely.

Mr. GARO. Mr. Chairman, may I make one comment? Maybe you

are now beginning to get the flavor of what I was going through

all of these years. Because no one was listening.

Mr. BURTON. Well, we’re listening; and we will contact Governor

Weld to find out what transpired.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I hope Mr. Delahunt continues to participate in

these hearings that we will be having.

I have a close friend named Austin McGuigan, who is the Chief

State’s Attorney in Connecticut; and 20 years ago he predicted to

me that some day there would be a story about the corruption that

existed in the FBI operation in New England. Part of what motivated him to say that is that he was questioning witnesses that

were being—in dealing with the World Jai Alai, and they were

being murdered. And he was puzzled by the fact that so many retired FBI agents were working for organized crime in Connecticut.

I have such a difficult time understanding the early stages of

this. Mr. Salvati, I need to ask you a question, too, and I’m sure

I will understand it after you tell me, but, first, was this trial a

jury trial or was it a trial by a judge?

Mr. SALVATI. Jury trial.

85

Mr. SHAYS. Jury trial.

Mr. SALVATI. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Was it pointed out that the witness had an incredible, despicable record? Was it made clear to the jury?

Mr. SALVATI. Yes, and they used that to say that you need the

bad guy to catch the bad guy.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Didn’t you have an alibi?

Mr. SALVATI. No, I did not.

Mr. SHAYS. Explain that to me. You were somewhere.

Mr. SALVATI. I don’t know where I was that night.

Mr. SHAYS. That is because—— Mr. SALVATI. Because I wasn’t there. Why do I need an alibi?

Mr. SHAYS. What you don’t have is what I have. I have a Franklin planner, and I can tell you where I was. Obviously, we didn’t

have Franklin planners then, and you didn’t have one. But I’m

smiling because I am so incredulous. Because there was such a

timeframe between—it would be like asking me what I did—— Mr. GARO. 21⁄2 years earlier.

Mr. SHAYS [continuing]. So I would have had to have identify

now what I did 21⁄2 years earlier on a particular day.

Mr. SALVATI. Right.

Mr. GARO. And, Mr. Congressman, that’s what is so unbelievable,

is that Joe Salvati did not invent an alibi and did not create an

alibi. He just said, look, I wasn’t there. I don’t know where I was,

but I certainly wasn’t there, because I had nothing to do with that

situation.

Mr. SHAYS. The problem for me is someone who—this is causing

me——

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAYS. It makes me wonder about so many things I have

read and heard.

Mr. BURTON. Let me ask you about one question that needs to

be asked, but I hope it’s not too uncomfortable for you. But in your

first trial there were a number of defendants along with you, and

others who were innocent of this crime as well as you, and we have

been told that that the head of the Mafia up there paid the legal

expenses for everybody that was involved in that case. Is that correct?

Mr. SALVATI. No, it’s not.

Mr. BURTON. Who paid for your legal expenses?

Mr. SALVATI. I paid whatever I had saved, and they ran a benefit

for me, and that was it.

Mr. BURTON. So you paid for your own legal expenses.

Mr. SALVATI. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. So the information I have was erroneous then.

Mr. Shays.

Mrs. SALVATI. Excuse me. I can attest to that. Because we had

a fundraising in the community, and the little money we had we

put toward legal counsel for him, and he didn’t have the best.

Mr. BURTON. OK, thank you very much.

Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. I would like to make mention to exhibit 11 which Mr.

LaTourette had showed earlier. I’d love to have you turn to the

third—and it’s the third to the last paragraph.

86

Just explain to me, first, Mr. Garo, what this exhibit is. It is my

understanding this is the Police Department of Chelsea’s statement

by the officer, Lieutenant Thomas Evans, of what he saw when he

investigated this crime.

[Exhibit 11 follows:]

87

88

89

90

Mr. GARO. What this document represents, Mr. Congressman, is

the investigation done by Lieutenant Evans and his partner Bill

Moore on the night of the murder and the next day of the murder

and what they observed and what they have found out from all different sources.

Mr. SHAYS. And the Chelsea Police Department is a small police

department.

Mr. GARO. Not that small. A good size.

Mr. SHAYS. How big is the town, the community of Chelsea?

Mr. GARO. I can’t tell you.

Mr. SHAYS. Is it part of Boston?

Mr. GARO. Yes, it is a suburb of Boston.

Mr. SHAYS. But it is its own entity, its own community.

Mr. GARO. Yes, it is.

Mr. SHAYS. But this was the report of the officer who was investigating.

Do I have your permission to proceed, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And this is a document that was not made available

to the prosecutor or the defendant.

Mr. GARO. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. And this is a document that at one time people denied even existed?

Mr. GARO. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. What I don’t understand, though, is Lieutenant

Evans knew it existed because he wrote it.

Mr. GARO. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. So when Mr. Evans says in this paragraph—excuse

me, it’s not Mr. Evans, he’s Lieutenant Evans—I received information from Captain Renfrew—did he work in the department?

Mr. GARO. Yes, he did.

Mr. SHAYS [continuing]. That an informant of his had contacted

him and told him that French had received a telephone call at the

Ebb Tide at 9 p.m. on March 12, 1965; and after a short conversation he left the cafe with the following men. And then it lists six

people: Joseph Barboza, Ronald Cassesso, Vincent Flemmi, Francis

Imbuglia, Romeo Martin and Nicky Femia, and a man by the name

of Freddie, who is about 40 years old and said to be a ‘‘strong

man.’’ They are said to have returned at 11 p.m., and Martin was

alleged to have said to French, we nailed him.

Now this was actually in a police document.

Mr. GARO. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. What I don’t understand is there is more than one

person who is aware of this document.

Mr. GARO. Correct.

Mr. SHAYS. Who did you ask this document for and who denied

it existed?

Mr. GARO. Well, first of all, I obtained a copy of this document,

Mr. Congressman, about 3 weeks before the beginning of the commutation hearing in August 1989.

Mr. SHAYS. August 1989.

Mr. GARO. I received it about 3 weeks before.

Mr. SHAYS. Where did you receive it from?

Mr. GARO. I would rather not disclose that, Congressman.

91

Mr. SHAYS. Was it in the possession of the Chelsea Police Department.

Mr. GARO. That’s an interesting story, and if I could answer that,

Mr. Congressman. When I had obtained a copy of this document,

I used it on the commutation hearing of Mr. Salvati. And when

Governor Weld denied the commutation back on January 20, 1993

because of his long criminal record, etc., I said I needed someone

in the press to start helping me. And I found a wonderful ally who

has done a wonderful job, Dan Rea, who is here today in chambers,

and Dan has done wonderful investigative reporting in the case,

also.

When I showed him the report in March 1993, he then went out

and did his own investigation also. He went to the Chelsea Police

Department, and he said, do you have an old file on the Deegan

murder case? And they said, I’ll go look for one. Lo and behold,

they came back with a folder. The first document he opens up is

the original of this document. So that the original of this document

was in a small file folder on the Deegan murder case.

Mr. SHAYS. I thought you said they didn’t have the document.

Mr. GARO. That’s what they said.

Mr. SHAYS. They is what—— Mr. GARO. If what you’re being confused about—and I know

you’re not confused—is this: Are you saying the Chelsea Police Department conspired with the FBI in this case, the answer is yes.

Do I think that the Boston Police Department conspired with the

FBI office in this case? Yes, I do. Do I believe that certain police

officers associated and did things with the FBI concerning this

case? The answer is yes. Because for this document to come out,

Congressman, then they would be coming out with information

about informants.

Mr. SHAYS. Why weren’t you able to get the document when

someone from the police was able to get the document? Explain

that to me.

Mr. GARO. No one ever looked at that time.

You have to understand, Congressman, no one wanted to talk

about this case.

Mr. SHAYS. In other words, when you asked, they didn’t even

bother to look.

Mr. GARO. When was that? I was not the trial counsel.

Mr. SHAYS. Didn’t you ask for this document earlier?

Mr. GARO. No, no. I obtained a copy of it 3 weeks before my commutation hearing.

Mr. SHAYS. I’m sorry. If I can just make sure. I am confused.

Mr. GARO. I’m sorry. I’m confusing you.

Mr. SHAYS. It’s not your fault.

I want to know this. You would have clearly gone to the Chelsea

Police Department to ask for any record they had. You did that before, correct?

Mr. GARO. There were no documents that were ever turned over

to me from the Chelsea Police Department having anything to do

with Salvati’s case.

Mr. SHAYS. And you did ask for it.

Mr. GARO. The lawyers had asked for it. There were motions

filed, and the request made. It would almost seem, Mr. CongressVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:05 Jan 22, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\76507.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
92

man, didn’t it, that maybe somebody had been keeping that document hidden for a lot of years.

Mr. SHAYS. I’m saying you didn’t specifically ask for it. It didn’t

come into your possession, and you didn’t feel you had to ask for

it. You would have thought it had to have been given to you. And

it just so happens that someone asked for this document, and they

were handed it.

Mr. GARO. What happened, Mr. Congressman, in reading the

8,000 pages of transcript, you would come to find out that all the

reports they had were in evidence. This was an additional document.

Mr. SHAYS. I hear you. I hear you. This is something totally—— Mr. GARO. That is correct—out of the blue. That is why I said,

Mr. Congressman, the most important document that I ever received in the case, because this hidden Chelsea Police Department

shows who the real killers were.

Mr. SHAYS. What strikes me is that Lieutenant Evans didn’t

somehow feel compelled to come forward. But also Captain

Renfrew, did you ever speak to him?

Mr. GARO. Captain Renfrew would not speak to me.

Mr. SHAYS. And he’s living today.

Mr. GARO. He died.

Mr. SHAYS. And evidently Lieutenant Evans—— Mr. GARO. He passed away.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, I will say to all three of you that I rejoice in

the fact that, Mr. Salvati, that you’re out and, Mrs. Salvati, that

you get to hug your husband without anyone watching. But I wonder now who else is like you, Mr. Salvati, who is still there, and

maybe he doesn’t have a lawyer like Mr. Garo, and I wonder how

many people died in prison who were in your circumstance and

were not able to celebrate their being out.

Mr. GARO. More than a few, Congressman, more than a few.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Let me just say to my colleague we will, as far as

we can—we can’t cover every case that took place up in the Boston

area, but any case involving Barboza and others we will try to get

information, and if we find that there are similar circumstances we

will look into them.

Mr. Meehan.

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, Mr. Chairman, I

want to thank you for holding this hearing. This is a critically important case. The revelations about the relationship between the

Boston FBI agents and Boston area underworld figures are obviously are a matter of concern to us in Massachusetts but really to

the entire country.

To get back to what Congressman Shays has just indicated, this

isn’t just a question of what happened in this case or what happened in a series of cases but a culture in the FBI that may be taking place or have taken place not only in Boston but throughout

the country.

I want to go quickly to this 1993 report. You had indicated that

WBZ’s Dan Rea had a police report that was found in a file in

1993.

Mr. GARO. Yes, Mr. Congressman.

93

Mr. MEEHAN. Where had it been all these years?

Mr. GARO. I don’t know.

Mr. MEEHAN. Does anybody know?

Mr. GARO. You will probably have to ask somebody on the Chelsea Police Department, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. MEEHAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, Congressmen Frank and Delahunt, and I appreciate the fact that we

can participate here.

We had called for congressional hearings not because we wanted

to cripple the FBI. We respect what the FBI does on a daily basis

to protect people from violence and terrorism and fraud. But I

think, at a minimum, we want to find out the truth. Because sunlight and accountability ultimately prevent a repeat of the mistakes that have severely tarnished the FBI here.

We also want the truth to come out so that Mr. Salvati and others whose lives have been shattered at least can be heard. They deserve so much more than that, but, at a minimum, they deserve to

be heard.

Actually, I called for hearings as far back as the summer of 1998

when the relationship between the FBI agents and two particular

Boston area gangsters was revealed. In general, this isn’t a new

story for us from Boston, but the revelations that have been leaking out over the 4 or 5 years with Judge Wolf’s 260-page opinion

being, from my perspective, a watershed event in pulling back the

curtains of decades of the incestuous relationship between the

agents and the informants and the destructive consequences. I

didn’t know much or focus back in the summer of 1998.

The most tragic part of this story, the most tragic thing of all is

one that we hear today. It’s hard to believe that this could happen

in America. It is hard to believe that FBI agents could know of a

murder in the making and not stop it from happening. It’s hard to

believe that FBI agents could know a man was innocent of a crime

yet allow him to be jailed for what was to be life.

We’ve heard about the process with the Governor—first, Governor Dukakis and then Governor Weld, and to allow him to be

stripped from his family, his life, his liberty—and the FBI says

they were forthcoming. They say they didn’t conceal information indicating Mr. Salvati’s innocence, and they didn’t attempt to frame

anybody. Well, there is plenty of dispute here over how the FBI

handled the information it received in this case, the information exonerating Mr. Salvati.

But one way or the other, I think that we deserve better than

‘‘we didn’t attempt to frame anyone.’’ It is the FBI’s job to protect

us. Obviously, it failed miserably here.

Ultimately, we can never undo the pain and suffering inflicted in

this case. At least we can offer apologies. We can ensure that this

doesn’t happen again.

One of the issues is the so-called guidelines that the Justice Department has reported. But I can’t help but look back to early in

the Ford administration, I think it was Attorney General Levi went

through a process of guidelines at that time, but they didn’t seem

to have much in effect here. The guidelines didn’t affect the culture

of the FBI.

94

I would add, Mr. Chairman, that at the time, the early 1970’s,

it was a congressional hearing shedding light on that process of

guidelines that resulted in getting the new guidelines and resulted

in putting some guidelines that at least took into account—so that’s

why these hearings are so critical, Mr. Chairman.

But I wonder if you have a perspective, Mr. Garo, as to how you

change this culture. It is one thing to make guidelines and to have

hearings and continue—I am happy to hear the chairman is going

to continue this process, get information and get to the bottom of

it. How do you change the culture, notwithstanding the attempt to

have guidelines?

Mr. GARO. I don’t think you can just do it, build guidelines. I

think there has to be some checks and balances that are in there.

What I’d offered earlier, Mr. Congressman, is this, is that whenever guidelines or anything comes down of the government doing

its own checks and balances, that never works. What happens is

we have in Massachusettes a wonderful organization called the

Massachusettes Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; and it

would seem to me, Mr. Congressman, that when and if this committee or if your committee in the future investigates further, that

some of the more practicing attorneys—because I don’t practice

criminal law anymore, Mr. Congressman—— Mr. MEEHAN. The case burned you out, huh?

Mr. GARO [continuing]. And I’m not looking for more business

like this.

But Mr. Balliro is here. Mr. Bailey is here. They are wonderful

criminal defense lawyers. Actually, they’re the ones that should be

part of any process in the future because that is where the tire

meets the road. They’re out there every day fighting the system.

And we were told in law school that the system has to work for

the very worst of us to work for the very best of us.

Mr. MEEHAN. I was detained earlier. You think this case has

been frustrating. I was in a meeting. We are trying to get campaign finance reform passed, and I am reminded of the frustrations

trying to do that with a lot of the frustrations you have had.

But I wanted to ask you, the Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland, Rivero v. the United States, held the government had certain

obligations to give exculpatory information to defendants in criminal cases; isn’t that right?

Mr. GARO. Absolutely.

Mr. MEEHAN. Could you explain in general terms what that

means?

Mr. GARO. What it means in the general sense is the government

is a human being. It doesn’t just look to convict. It looks for justice.

What they’re looking for there shouldn’t even have to be a rule

of law like Brady. If there’s a situation and you have evidence of

a person as being innocent and you’re going to put him to death

in the electric chair, you would think that human rights and

human decency—forgetting the law—would make the government

want to comply with that. But, as we know, they didn’t obey the

law, they didn’t obey their conscience. It is, the truth be damned,

full blown speed ahead for convictions only.

Mr. MEEHAN. In the Rivero case, the court stated specifically

where the disclosure of an informer’s identity or the content of his

95

communication is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused

or is essential for a fair determination of a case, the information

must be disclosed or the case must be dismissed. Now is that your

understanding what the law was at the time of Mr. Salvati’s trial?

Mr. GARO. That was a 1959 Supreme Court of the United States’ decision. I had used it successfully many times in the past. I don’t

have to tell Mr. Balliro or any of the good criminal defense lawyers

that were involved in the Deegan murder case at the time. They

knew all about those laws. That’s the reason why, Mr. Congressman, it was withheld from them that there was informants.

Because, under Rivero, the law is, if you make a demand from

an informant during trial and you can show it will be relevant and

helpful, you will get the name of the informant 95 to 99 percent

of the time. And if the government doesn’t give it to you, the

charges are dismissed.

Can you imagine how the chicanery was going on in the Boston

office of the FBI, the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office, the

Boston Police Department, the Chelsea Police Department, the U.S.

attorney’s office? If anybody finds out that we have informants and

we don’t give the name of the informants, we’re going to blow the

cases. I think that’s a pretty big incentive not to come forward with

the fact that there were informants in this case.

Mr. MEEHAN. So in this case the government failed to disclose

this information to the defense because—— Mr. GARO. It could have—since they would have never given

away the names of informants, they would have had to dismiss the

cases. I had done that myself about a year earlier in 1966. I understood the Rivero case very, very well because I used it many

sucessful times.

Mr. MEEHAN. So if the system had worked correctly in this case

how should the government have handled the information received

from the confidential informants?

Mr. GARO. If they’re looking for the truth and you don’t want to

put someone in prison or to die in the electric chair, you would

think that the common decency is that—let me give them this evidence. But if I am bent only on convictions and I have an agenda

that I don’t want to share with anybody else, I am looking to hide

all the good evidence, conjure and perjure and make up the bad

evidence and let’s go with the convictions—because, as has been

stated, the criminal—the Witness Protection Program began with

Joseph Barboza. I say it was a misnomer. I say it was the criminal

protection program, and it wasn’t the Witness Protection Program.

When Joe Barboza went out to California under the Witness Protection Program, he killed three to five more people. He’s in the

Federal Witness Protection Program, and he is killing people in

California.

As a matter of fact, he goes to trial on a first degree murder case

in 1971 and is still in the Witness Protection Program. And the

head of the organized strike force and two FBI agents go out to

California and help the defense of Barboza in his 44-day trial of a

first degree murder case by saying he was a good guy and he

helped us with crime back here.

Mr. Bailey will be able to tell you more about that because he

was going to be a witness out there, and that’s what caused—it

96

was said—Barboza to finally plead to second degree murder while

in the Federal Witness Protection Program and get a sentence, I

believe, that is 5 to life. And he has killed others, and no one wanted to investigate it. No one wanted to talk about it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Would the gentleman yield for a moment?

Mr. MEEHAN. Sure.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Garo, I’m aware of the fact that two FBI

agents testified on behalf of Mr. Barboza in that capital case. Could

you identify them for the record?

Mr. GARO. H. Paul Rico and Dennis Condon.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you.

Mr. MEEHAN. What’s really repulsive about the behavior in this

case is, before I got elected to Congress, I was a first assistant district attorney in Middlesex County up in Massachusetts. We take

young lawyers and we take them into the office and train them, basically a training ground; and we teach the ethics of making sure

that they balance the enormous power that the prosecutor has with

making sure that the police are getting it right, making sure that

they always maintain their responsibility, their integrity to disclose

exculpatory information and to get it right. I know that’s the way

Mr. Delahunt’s office operates, and to see that it can get this bad

is just very very concerning.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to participating with you

further.

Mr. BURTON. I hope you gentleman will be able to be with us for

the next panel. We have some interesting testimony coming there

as well. Thank you.

Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Garo, I want to go back to exhibit 11 just to clean up some

stuff, if I can. Those of us that have been involved in prosecutions

and law enforcement know that there are informants and there are

informants. I think you were talking to Mr. Delahunt earlier about

that fact, and I think you indicated that in the various reports you

think there may have been up to three different informants supplying law enforcement with information concerning this homicide.

Exhibit 11 to the layman is startling because it indicates very

early on, even though it’s not dated, very early on Lieutenant

Evans had information from an informant as to who the murderers

of Mr. Deegan were. My question is, given the fact that there are

informants that are good informants and there are bad informants,

did you ever discover who the informant was that supplied this information to the Chelsea Police Department back in 1965?

Mr. GARO. No, the identity of that informant has not been made

known yet.

Mr. LATOURETTE. When I had the chance to talk to you before

in my 5 minutes, I asked you who John Doyle was. It sort of

brought a smile to your face, and you sort of indicated it was a long

story, and you identified what his position was. But I want to

spend the rest of my time, if I could, talking to you about what it

is he did or didn’t do in this case; and, specifically, the staff of this

committee has indicated to me that after this document came to

light that it may have been offered or brought to his attention. Is

there such a story you can relate to us?

97

Mr. GARO. Yes, there is; and I’ll gladly share it with you. Dan

Rea, who was the only voice that I had for this case from 1993, had

been talking to—we call him Commander Doyle, and he wanted to

know from Doyle—he had a relationship with Mr. Doyle for many

years, and Dan told him that he was getting involved in the case

with me. And he says, why do you want to do that? That’s a dead

end case. Why don’t you just forget about it and go on home? And

Dan said, no, I think it’s a story that I’m going to follow. He says,

I think you’re barking up the wrong tree. Dan at that time had

then found the original of the police report in the Chelsea Police

Department.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Was there a public record law that was passed

in Massachusetts when all of this took place?

Mr. GARO. Yes. And at that time when Dan found it and he told

me all about it and he was very surprised and I was shocked, and

with that document what he did was he called up Commander

Doyle. And he said to Commander Doyle—this is what has been relayed to me, now.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Sure.

Mr. GARO [continuing]. And the Commander said to him, what

is it that you’re bothering me about now? And he said, well, he

said, that Chelsea police report. Yeah, there was no Chelsea police

report. He said, yes, there is. As a matter of fact, I found the original Chelsea police report, and I have a copy of it. I would like to

come over and show it to you and discuss it with you. I don’t want

to see you. Don’t call me anymore. And that was the end of conversation.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Was that in 1989?

Mr. GARO. No, that happened in 1993.

Mr. LATOURETTE. 1993. OK. But at that time you had a copy of

it.

Mr. GARO. I had a copy of it for 4 years.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And your client had been in prison for over 20

years.

Mr. GARO. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And still an additional 4 years went by before

he was released from prison.

Mr. GARO. That is correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much. I don’t have any other

questions.

Mr. BARR [presiding]. Ms. Holmes Norton, did you have some

questions for the panel?

Ms. HOLMES NORTON. No.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Shays, do you have some additional questions?

Mr. SHAYS. I do.

Mr. BARR. The gentleman from Connecticut is recognized for 5

minutes.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I have a few, yes, sir.

I would like to go through this fairly quickly. I would like exhibit

11 to be put up. Exhibit 11 is the report of the Chelsea Police Department, Lieutenant Evans. There is a report of the city of Boston.

And what’s very interesting about it is this is a report of the murder of Teddy Deegan in Chelsea on March 12.

98

It’s dated March 14, and it says, ‘‘From a reliable informant the

following facts were obtained to the murder: Informant states that

the following men’’—and it goes through the list of men, and here

it identifies Freddie as being Freddie Chiampi, and it goes on and

on and on. But basically it confirms what was pretty much in the

memo, the report from Thomas Evans. So they had an informant.

The city of Boston had their informant.

Now is this a document that you were provided years ago.

[Exhibit 11 follows:]

99

100

101

102

Mr. GARO. I have never seen that document I think until Mr.

Wilson showed it to me.

Mr. SHAYS. So even as we proceed in this case this is a document, and—is there a name identified, Mr. Wilson, with this document? Other than the city of Boston, we don’t know who it is. This

is December 12.

Mr. WILSON. If I could, this was a document that was provided

to us by the FBI on Friday night of last week.

Mr. SHAYS. So the FBI had this document, and we have been

provided it, and you have got it.

Then if you could look at exhibit 13. So we have the Chelsea Police Department and the Boston Police Department; and, Mr.

Salvati, your name doesn’t show up in this—in either one. And before—they knew it a few days before your trial, they knew it a few

days after the murder that they had these informants.

Now this one is from the Department of Public Safety. Is that the

State police?

[Exhibit 13 follows:]

103

104

105

106

Mr. GARO. State police.

Mr. SHAYS. And this is dated March 15. The murder

occurred—— Mr. GARO. March 12.

Mr. SHAYS. So this is a pretty fresh document. It is not something they discovered a few years later.

I am looking at No. 9; and it says, on the second page, ‘‘During

the evening of Friday, March 12, French was at the Ebb Tide’’—

and it goes on, and it basically mentions the same name, and really

what—in this case, they seem to have gotten the report from the

Chelsea Police Department. But the point is there is someone in

the State police department that also was aware of the Chelsea report, because they mirror it almost perfectly.

Mr. GARO. Absolutely.

Mr. SHAYS. This is a document you got when?

Mr. GARO. This is a document that I received when the Suffolk

County District Attorney’s Office in October 1993 filed a brief in

opposition to my motion for a new trial.

Mr. SHAYS. So just to reiterate, that was in 1993?

Mr. GARO. 1993.

Mr. SHAYS. But the report by Lieutenant Thomas Evans, Chelsea

Police Department, wasn’t dated, but it appears to be fairly current

but—so we have the Chelsea Police Department, we can make an

assumption it was done shortly after, if not right after—— Mr. GARO. The partner said that, Bill Moore said that.

Mr. SHAYS. And then we have the Boston Police Department

talking about what informants it had, and then we have the

Massachusettes Police Department—excuse me, State police on our

document 13. And there it was dated March 15.

So, just a few days afterwards, this was made available to not

just one person or two people, not just one department, but you had

three different departments, two communities, plus the State police.

Mr. GARO. What you are having here, Congressman, that we

never knew is that there were parallel investigations going on in

the Deegan murder case shortly after it happened within March

12th to 15th, and none of us knew about this Cass report of the

State police because in it they talk about a different motive.

If you were to look on page 3 of the Cass report, it says, on No.

11 at the top of the page, ‘‘Further information was received that

about 3 weeks prior Deegan had pulled a gun on Barboza, aka

Baron, at the Ebb Tide and forced him to back down and that this

was the cause of Deegan’s death.’’

Now Barboza had said that the motive for this was to get $7,500

from Peter Limone to kill Deegan. The State police at that time

had another informant that was giving them information as to the

real motive that Deegan was killed, and they sat on it.

Mr. SHAYS. But I would like to think that there is a fail-safe system that we have in, that somebody is going to step forward. It

would seem to me that someone would want to think that someone

else might show up and reveal what happened and then be made

to look bad. So your concept of the conspiracy becomes almost inevitable. It seems like you have no other way to come to any conclusion.

107

Mr. GARO. That is correct, Congressman; and let me say this.

You know, this is not easy for me to come here before Congress and

to belittle the enforcement of the laws in the Commonwealth of

Massachusettes. But if things are going to change you have to first

find out what the evidence really was and to say how do we prevent this from ever happening.

Because it looks like, Congressman, you have hit the nail right

on the head. Because what you’re saying, there is a Chelsea police

report, there is a State police report, there is a Boston Police Department report and god knows how many other reports that have

been hidden or destroyed over the years that all say the same

thing. Joe Salvati was innocent. He was never mentioned. You people knew who it was, and you all sat back and were happy enough

that Joe Salvati could die in the electric chair. My God, what are

we coming to?

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. BARR. All Members having concluded their questioning, the

Chair now recognizes the counsel for 30 minutes.

Mr. WILSON. I won’t take the full 30 minutes.

First of all, Mr. and Mrs. Salvati, thank you for being here and

thank you for extending courtesies to myself and my colleagues

when we have talked to you. It has meant a lot to us that you have

spoken with us and spoken with us freely. You have made our jobs

a lot easier by being willing to cooperate with us, and we appreciate that. It’s something that we don’t always get in this line of

work, and we really do appreciate what you have done for us.

I will just take a few minutes right now, because there are some

documents we should work through fairly quickly. Because we have

submitted documents for the record and because there is a transcript of this, I want to get a few things down so we all understand

what was going on right at the time of the murder, and I want to

explain some of the initial documents that we have put in the

record.

If you could please put up exhibit No. 7 on the screen. Exhibit

No. 7 is described as an Airtel to the Director of the FBI. It’s dated

March 10, 1965. That would be 2 days before Teddy Deegan was

murdered.

On the second page of the exhibit which you have in your book,

in the first full paragraph, it says, ‘‘According to Patriarca, another

reason that Flemmi came to Providence to contact him was to get

the OK to kill Teddy Deegan of Boston who was with’’—and there

is a redacted name, and then it goes on. It says, ‘‘It was not clear

to the informant whether he received permission to kill Deegan.’’

Now this is 2 days before Deegan was killed, and the document

we have indicates that the FBI was in possession of information

that Deegan was to be killed. Mr. Garo, is it fair to say you did

not know about this document until December 2000?

[Exhibit 7 follows:]

108

109

110

Mr. GARO. December 19, the year 2000. That is correct, Mr. Wilson.

Mr. WILSON. Now, the next document—if we could go to exhibit

8, please. Exhibit 8 is also titled Boston’s Airtel to Director and

SACS—that’s special agent in charge of the offices in Albany, Buffalo and Miami. So this is a document that was disseminated not

only to the Director of the FBI but to the head of offices to Albany,

Buffalo and Miami. The date is March 12, 1965. That’s the date

Teddy Deegan was murdered.

We don’t know when this was tranmitted, but presumably, because Mr. Deegan was murdered late at night, this was the document that was transmitted before the Deegan murder on the same

day of the murder. It says in the third paragraph, Flemmi stated

that Deegan is an arrogant nasty sneak and should be killed.

So this is the second important document on the day of the murder in the FBI’s possession.

Now, again, Mr. Garo, again you did not know about this information until—— [Exhibit 8 follows:]

111

112

Mr. GARO. December 19 the year 2000.

Mr. WILSON. If we could move to exhibit 15, please.

Exhibit 15 is a memorandum to the Director of the FBI from the

man in charge of the Boston FBI office. It’s dated March 19, 1965,

and this is the document that Congressman Barr was referring to

earlier.

It states,

The following are the developments during the current week:

On 3/12/65, EDWARD ‘‘TEDDY’’ DEEGAN was found killed in an alleyway in

Chelsea, Mass. in gangland fashion.

Informants report that RONALD CASESSA, ROMEO MARTIN, VINCENT

JAMES FLEMMI, and JOSEPH BARBOZA, prominent local hoodlums, were responsible for the killing.’’

Now this is another one of the documents that was released in

December 2000, is that correct?

[Exhibit 15 follows:]

113

114

115

116

Mr. GARO. That is correct, Mr. Wilson.

Mr. BARR. Excuse me, if I could—this document says, the following are the developments during the current week. Were there

weekly updates that were being furnished?

Mr. WILSON. It’s our understanding from the documents that

there were weekly updates that were going to the Director of the

FBI. They were not voluminous. They were the highlights of what

was happening, and we have other documents of this sort.

Mr. BARR. Thank you.

The gentleman from Connecticut.

Mr. SHAYS. So we have Chelsea, and we have the Boston Police

Department, and we have the State police. This is from the FBI,

basically saying the same thing that were in the other three documents.

Mr. WILSON. Yes. Although these are different in that these documents actually talk about the Deegan murder before it occurred.

They actually had information that the Deegan murder was to

occur.

The one thing I can say, having reviewed all the documents produced to us and we received, we made a document request for all

documents related to the murders of Teddy Deegan and anything

related to Teddy Deegan, and we got about a linear foot of documents from the FBI last Friday night. That would probably be

1,000 pages of documents. And in those 1,000 pages of documents

there was nothing contemporaneous that mentioned Mr. Salvati’s

name, nothing. The other people were described in the different reports and seem to be accurately described.

Mr. SHAYS. Just one last question. When I see this blacked-out

area, what is that? What did they black out?

Mr. WILSON. There are a number of conventions that the FBI

used when they redacted documents. The most consistent

redactions go to the names of the informants. The FBI never

shared the names of informants or information about informants

with anyone, including the Attorney General.

Mr. SHAYS. Is it possible they blocked out a signature of someone

who made notes that they read it or anything like that?

Mr. WILSON. This we just don’t know.

Mr. SHAYS. I would like to know if we have the ability to have

counsel go to the FBI and see what was redacted. It would be

amazing. We can only speculate. Sometimes when people read documents they check them off and put their initials next to them and

so on.

Mr. WILSON. We have gone through three documents, one before

the Deegan murder, one the day of the Deegan murder, one 7 days

after the Deegan murder.

Now I would like to turn, if we could, to exhibit No. 24.

Now bear in mind that all the documents we’ve seen identify

Vincent Flemmi as a participant in the Deegan murder, and these

are the documents that we’ve just put up, the one before the murder where Vincent Flemmi went and asked permission to kill

Deegan and afterwords where he was identified as in fact a person

who participated in the Deegan murder.

117

Exhibit 24 is a write-up of an interview of Joseph Barboza. The

interview took place on March 8, 1967. It was conducted by Dennis

M. Condon and H. Paul Rico.

The important point that I think we need for the record here,

that on the second page of this exhibit there is a section that was

redacted so we don’t know what it says, but then the one bit that’s

left in says, Baron—Baron is another name for Joseph Barboza— Baron knows what has happened in practically every murder that

has been committed in this area. He said he would never provide

information that would allow James Vincent Flemmi to fry but that

he will consider furnishing information on these murders.

Now, the easy question we’re asking, Mr. Garo, is, did you know

anything about this statement ever until—— [Exhibit 24 follows:]

118

119

120

Mr. GARO. Never.

Mr. WILSON. When did you first see this statement?

Mr. GARO. I don’t recall.

Mr. WILSON. Now, one thing we know from reviewing the document was that in 1965 when Mr. Deegan was murdered Vincent

Flemmi was an FBI informant.

Mr. GARO. That’s correct.

Mr. WILSON. His brother Steven was also an FBI informant.

Mr. GARO. That is correct.

Mr. WILSON. If you could provide an explanation to us in the context of all the things we have heard today, what this means, and

specifically Mr. Barboza has told two FBI agents in 1967—that’s

before the Deegan trial, correct, the Deegan murder prosecution?

Barboza has told two FBI agents that he will never provide information that would allow Vincent Flemmi to fry. Is it fair to say

that all of the evidence that was in the possession of prosecutions

at the time or investigators at the time indicated that Vincent

Flemmi was at the crime scene?

Mr. GARO. From the very beginning when the Chelsea Police Department, Mr. Wilson, investigated the case that night with the information—if you remember me telling you that there was a number 404 on a license plate that had been turned over. And from the

statements by Captain Kozlowski that he had come upon the scene

and that he had seen the red car and that it had been a registration plate 404, and from the informants’ statement that they had

left the Ebb Tide that night and mentioned the people, the Chelsea

Police Department from that very night knew who the killers were.

They had a good notion as to who the killers were.

Mr. WILSON. And there was eyewitness identification—or at least

eyewitness identification of a bald man.

Mr. GARO. Absolutely. That is why the ridiculous story about Joe

Salvati—about him having to wear a wig to make him look bald

is because Vincent Flemmi was bald. Isn’t it interesting that

Barboza would give the story to have Joe Salvati look like his partner? Doesn’t that make a lot of sense?

Mr. WILSON. I will finish here, and I will ask for your opinion

on this.

Mr. GARO. Surely.

Mr. WILSON. What I would like to know is that, in your opinion,

do you think it was fair or appropriate for the FBI to put a witness

on the stand in a murder trial to testify when he had told them

in confidence that he would never provide information about somebody who they had information had been at the crime and had

committed the crime?

Mr. GARO. In my opening statement you heard what I said, the

truth be damned. This was never a search for the truth, Mr. Wilson. It has always been a search only for convictions and to help

the propaganda of the FBI during that period of time to show that

it was the ultimate crime-fighting force in the United States and

in the world. And in order to keep that up they have concocted and

perjured testimony to show that, what they were, that they were

the FBI.

121

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Garo. And again, Mr.

and Mrs. Salvati, for all the courtesies you have extended to us,

thank you very much.

Mr. GARO. Mr. Acting Chairman, may I make a statement at this

time?

Mr. BARR. Yes, sir, Mr. Garo.

Mr. GARO. Thank you. What I’d like to say is this, that I wanted

to thank everybody that’s here. I’d like to thank the chairman, Mr.

Burton. I’d like to thank the Congressmen who have gone out of

their way to do an awful lot of work in this case.

Some time ago, I met Mr. James Wilson. He calls me up on the

phone and said, Victor, I would like to talk to you. And I said sure.

When he told me about the Deegan murder case, I said, I have

been known to talk for a few minutes about that case; and I met

his staff, Mr. Bowman and Mr. Schumann.

Then Mike Yeager from the Democratic side called me up, Mr.

Rapallo, and I have never seen a group of people work so hard and

so diligently for any type of organization in my life time. The dedication that they have shown here in putting together a very, very

difficult story—folks, it is a very difficult story. I guess maybe I am

said to be the master of the facts because I’ve been around it so

long. But just to have people on your staff knowing that when they

do their research they have done a damn good job, I am proud to

be associated and to know them. And I say this in front of this

committee and, Mr. Wilson, especially to you, thank you so much.

We’re here for you whenever you need us. We thank you for giving

the attention to this case that it really needs.

Congressman Delahunt, thank you so much for the kind statements. Thank you for coming to my office for the muffins we enjoyed for over 5 hours.

And the final statement that I would like to make is this, there

is a country for the people. It is a country where we have as our

most prized possession freedom. It is an awesome responsibility to

make sure that freedom stays where it belongs, with those that

were innocent. The job that you are doing is God’s work.

Because here you have seen in actuality pain, emotion and feelings. When you were reading the documents, they were only pages.

I have lived with these people 26 years. And I say to you that a

gentleman and a lady and four good young kids, I knew them then.

It isn’t right that their lives were taken away from them and stolen

from them. So we thank you for giving us the opportunity here

today to speak to our case. We thank you so much, and God bless

all of you.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Garo, Mr. Salvati, Mrs. Salvati.

Thank you very much for being here today. We know it has been

very difficult, and we look forward to being in further contact with

you. I know I speak for the entire committee, those that are here

and those that could not be with us, in wishing you godspeed.

Mr. SHAYS. I wonder if either one of them wanted to make a closing comment. This may be the last time you are before this committee.

Mr. GARO. Say that once more.

Mr. SHAYS. If either one wants to make a closing statement.

Mr. GARO. You mean Mr. or Mrs. Salvati.

122

Mr. SALVATI. My family and I would like to thank you for giving

the opportunity to tell our story. I get very emotional when I speak

about my family, but that’s the way I am. Again, thank you very

much.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mrs. SALVATI. To add to that, my husband speaks from his heart.

That’s the kind of people we are. Thank you for the opportunity at

least to hear the story, and I know all good would come out of this

here. OK. Thank you.

Mr. BARR. Your faith is inspiring. Mr. Garo, we can’t thank you

all enough for what you have done. Thank you very much.

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. I don’t know if anybody needs about a

5-minute break. We’re ready for your next panel. Mr. Bailey, are

you ready to go or do you need to take a break?

Mr. BAILEY. I am ready.

Mr. BURTON. We’ll bring the next panel up. It’s F. Lee Bailey and

Joe Balliro.

Would you both please stand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. BURTON. I think we’ll start with you, Mr. Bailey; and if you

have an opening statement we will be glad to hear you say it.

STATEMENTS OF F. LEE BAILEY, ESQUIRE, ATTORNEY FOR JOSEPH BARBOZA; AND JOSEPH BALLIRO, SR., ESQUIRE, ATTORNEY FOR VINCENT FLEMMI AND HENRY TAMELEO

Mr. BAILEY. I do not have a prepared opening statement. Mr.

Wilson suggested that a quick recap might help the committee.

I was admitted to practice in Massachusetts in 1960, have been

trying cases in the military from 1954 and defended Joe Barboza

on an unrelated crime in 1965, the year of the Deegan murder.

Later, I was contacted by a contractor named Frank Davis that

said Barboza wanted to recant his testimony both in the Federal

case against Cassesso, Imbuglia and Raymond Patriarca and in the

Deegan murder case. He was afraid that he would go away for life

for perjury in a capital case because that is the punishment in

Massachusetts. But he had, surprisingly, been acquitted—surprising to him at least—in 1965 and thought that I might have some

magic scheme that would enable him to vindicate the victims of his

perjury and at the same time leave him with a whole skin.

I flew down to New Bedford by arrangement and was picked up

by someone and went to a two-story wood frame home where I was

confronted with more machine guns than I ever saw in military

service. I spoke with Mr. Barboza and essentially learned that he

now wanted to say what we in Boston had always known. That although Cassesso and French were in fact involved in the Deegan

murder with him and Vincent Flemmi, that Tameleo and Mr.

Salvati and Peter Limone and Louie Greco had nothing to do with

it whatsoever; and Greco, in fact, was in Florida when the murder

occurred.

And he wanted to say that his story about Patriarca, Tameleo

and Cassesso was at least, in large measure, fabricated, and I

asked him if he had any help in putting these false stories together, and he told me that he had quite a bit of help that came

from two agents in the FBI. I did not name them in my affidavit,

123

but the agents he named to me were Paul Rico, then known as ‘‘the

Spaniard’’ in Boston, and Dennis Condon who has been the subject

with Mr. Rico of some fairly fiery testimony in the proceedings before Judge Wolf, where Stevie Flemmi, the brother of Vincent

Flemmi, is defended by my colleague, Ken Fishman on a court appointment.

This, I believe, has been the genesis of smoking out most of this

dirt from the FBI files, because some of them have testified extensively, and I think some of the questions you have may be answered in that record; for instance, who was the informant. You

were asking a while ago—there are papers here that show and that

it has been independently shown that it was Stevie Flemmi who

told the FBI.

One of the things that puzzled me was how Barboza’s testimony

was able to switch. Flemmi, who had been seen in the back seat

by a Chelsea police officer who couldn’t identify him but knew he

had a bald spot, ‘‘the Bear,’’ Jimmy Flemmi, was a person about

5 foot 81⁄2 inches tall, very burly and strong. He had a bald spot

in his crown, which was prominent and everybody knew about it.

And he said that in order to fit to those facts, because no one knew

when that police report was going to come up, that he had to put

someone else there since Flemmi was his partner and he wasn’t

going to rat him out, as he put it, and that he didn’t like Salvati

anyway, because Salvati had been rude to one of his shylock collectors and Salvati was about the right size. So he made up a story,

with encouragement, that a wig had been obtained that simulated

a bald spot, because Joe Salvati had and he knew he still has a

full head of hair. That struck me as highly corroborative of what

Barboza was saying.

However, I have long been an advocate of protecting one’s self

against chronic liars. He certainly was one, had been one all his

life, and the condition I had made to the man paying the fee, Frank

Davis of HiLo Construction, was that I wasn’t going to go forward

with the case unless Barboza would agree to take a polygraph, because recanting witnesses are never looked on with favor, but buttressing his testimony would at least make me more comfortable

before starting to name names.

While that program was in progress, Barboza managed to get

himself caught with a weapon in his car. He was clamped in jail,

violated on probation, but did not give up his effort. I arranged for

Charles H. Zimmerman, then the probable dean of all polygraph

examiners in the United States, certainly in Massachusetts, much

revered by the courts in years when we used polygraph, to test

Barboza on the truthfulness of his statement and whether he was

being paid any money under the table by anyone connected with

the case, innocent or guilty. That test was scheduled for, I believe,

July 30, 1970. I saw Barboza in the prison, and although I cautioned him, he would recklessly describe his crimes, and he had no

hesitation at all about describing the most cold-blooded, ruthless

killings—he claimed more than 20, largely in the McLainMcLaughlin gang wars of the fifties—as if he were eating a piece

of apple pie. And cell mates were within earshot.

Mr. Harrington—who I hasten to interject is one of the best Federal judges on the bench, he was then a strike force lawyer—and

124

an assistant named Barns went to Walpole, and somehow the polygraph test went away. We later learned, of course, that the FBI

said, fire Bailey and don’t take the polygraph test or you’re here

forever. And I’m quite satisfied that happened, since I was terminated.

Unfortunately for Mr. Barboza, one of the killings that he boasted about in Santa Rosa, CA was within earshot of another inmate,

who then went to the authorities, caused Barboza to be indicted in

Santa Rosa, and I was summoned as a witness. And I said, I have,

I’m afraid, attorney-client privilege. The judge out there ruled no;

Barboza knew there were people not within the umbrella of the attorney-client privilege present when he talked about this, and you

can be called and will be called as a witness. And I said, all right,

but I want you to order me to answer any questions that relate to

conversations, whether anyone was there or not.

It was agreed by the prosecutors that would happen.

When it was known that I was going to appear as a witness in

the case and that he would face more than a cell mate on the prosecution side, Mr. Barboza began to negotiate, with considerable

help from the Federal Government, and walked away with second

degree murder, 5 to life, and was hustled off to Montana to some

country club to serve his time.

In 1976, in January, Barboza was out, once again with Federal

help, roaming the streets of San Francisco as I was engaged in defending Patty Hearst, and I believe in February of that year, was

gunned down by someone with a machine gun. The curious twist

to Mr. Barboza is that he was, at the end of it all, not a tough guy.

When he first came to me to get me to defend him in the unrelated

charges in 1965, which were felonies and of which he was acquitted

by a jury, I took an immediate dislike to him. I was to defend him

as a favor to a man named Howie Winters, who’s still alive and

was a gang member at the time, and Wimpy Bennett, who was

simply murdered later on. And I told Barboza to take his hat off,

and he exploded, because I didn’t make Bennett take his hat off.

And I frankly put my hand in my drawer, where I had a 38, because this man’s reputation was fearsome. And I said, Wimpy Bennett is bald, he can keep his hat on; take yours off or get out. And

he left the room and broke down in tears and came back in crying,

saying if you don’t defend me, I’ll go to jail. That was the beginning

of a relationship which later evolved into the meetings of 1970, and

that is most of my knowledge from Barboza that I can disclose.

Mr. BURTON. I have a question, but we’ll defer that till we hear

from Mr. Balliro. Mr. Balliro.

Mr. BALLIRO. Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to thank you and

members of the committee for the privilege of appearing here

today. I suppose, almost as much as the Salvati family, I am just

thrilled to see what this committee is attempting to do, because for

some 30-odd years of the 50 years that I have been practicing law

and defending people accused of crime, I’ve had to carry with me

the knowledge that Joe Salvati, Henry Tameleo, who was my direct

client, Louis Greco and Peter Limone, who also had a very young

family at the time, were in jail, had suffered the almost expectation

of being executed for crimes that I was satisfied from the get-go

that they did not commit.

125

Now, during the course of the 50 years that I have been practicing law, many people have asked me how can you do that day after

day, because all of my practice is on the criminal side of the court.

And I’ve always told them that which I believe as much as I believe

in anything in this world, that everybody is entitled to a defense,

no matter how bad anybody else might think they be. And as a

matter of fact, I feel so strongly about it, that I feel that our very

form of government, our system of government depends upon due

process and the right of everybody who’s accused by the government of having committed a crime to get a fair trial.

During the course of my career, I’ve represented clergymen, politicians, lawyers, judges, the old, young, male, female, people of all

kinds of lifestyles. And in all of those cases, except one kind of

case, the government always has the burden of proof, and they’ve

got to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, except when it

comes to an organized crime figure. I’ve lectured at seminars

throughout this country, and I’ve always told lawyers, especially

young lawyers, don’t ever walk into a courtroom defending someone

who’s been labeled as a part of organized crime and ever expect

that those things that you learned in law school are going to hold

true.

Now, I’m not at all defensive about the fact that I was the lead

counsel in the Deegan murder case. And a young colleague in my

office, Chester Paris, who was an excellent lawyer, I designated to

represent Joe Salvati. And, by the way, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, all of the defendants paid for their own fees

in that case. And much to the contrary of what the public may

have an expectation or deception of believing, the fees were not

very large. As a matter of fact, I have a daughter and a son in

practice, and they accuse me, even today, of charging less money

to represent people than they charge to represent people.

But the Congressman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, asked earlier

on today, how could you lose that case? Well, we lost it for a number of reasons, but I think the principal reason was expressed

somewhat in the chairman’s earlier remarks this morning—his

opening remarks this morning, when he talked about what his feelings were toward the FBI back in those years of the 1950’s and the

1960’s and the 1970’s, the tremendous amount of respect he had,

and understandably so, because I myself had, other than for the

fact that I knew things that perhaps others didn’t about some of

the agents of the FBI.

But, you know, the star witness in this case really wasn’t Joseph

Barboza. The star witness in this case was the FBI. And I don’t

mean that just figuratively. I mean it literally, because what the

government did in that case, in addition to putting Joe Barboza on

the stand, totally, completely uncorroborated, as far as his testimony was concerned—there was no other corroboration in the

case—except the fact that they put on the stand Dennis Condon.

There was no legitimate reason for putting Dennis Condon on the

witness stand. The only reason he was put on the stand was to

project up there on the board, so to speak, the image that everybody respected of the FBI at that time.

And I was reminded earlier today of some of my cross-examination, obviously, not very successful, but I think very significant, as

126

far as the work that this committee is starting to do. I was trying

to undermine through my cross-examination of Dennis Condon the

credibility of that which Joseph Barboza had testified to. And I

sought to do that by pointing out that over the period of time that

Barboza was in the custody of the government, preparing for trial,

a whole raft of different law enforcement people had access to him.

And in doing that, I was trying to convey to the jury the fact that

his testimony had been shaped and molded. And the only thing

that I could get Dennis Condon to agree to was how essential it

was to have the purity of a witness’ testimony.

He agreed with me in this case, knowing about all of these intels

and all of these memorandums that we have no clue about, of

course, at all, he agreed with me how essential it was to the administration of justice, the due process, that a person’s witness’ testimony be pure. And he did that as his testimony was being monitored by a whole sheave of law enforcement officers that had participated in the preparation and the prosecution of that case.

So, Congressman Shays, I’m not defensive, as counsel in that

case. We never had a chance from the get-go, but that’s what we

were up against. That’s what these defendants, these innocent defendants, were up against during the course of that trial. I’ll be

happy to answer any questions that the committee might have.

Mr. BURTON. I only have one question at the outset, and then I’ll

yield to Mr. Barr, and then we’ll come back to Mr. Delahunt. And

that is, when you met with Mr. Barboza when he was

incarcerated—— Mr. BALLIRO. Mr. Flemmi.

Mr. BURTON. Beg your pardon?

Mr. BAILEY. Barboza.

Mr. BALLIRO. Oh, I’m sorry. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. When you, Mr. Bailey, met with Mr. Barboza when

he was in prison—I think it was in prison—you said that within

earshot, there were other inmates who overheard the conversation.

Did he say anything about the Deegan murder to you? Did he say

that he was involved in it or that—who the other members were

that were involved in that murder?

Mr. BAILEY. Oh, yes. He was involved—Vincent Flemmi was involved. Nicky Femia, who was a Barboza sidekick, was involved.

Chico Amico, his other sidekick, I do not believe was involved. Roy

French was the trigger man, and Cassesso was involved. When it

came to adding names, he dealt with the FBI this way: You let me

put in a couple, and I’ll put in a couple that you want.

Mr. BURTON. But when you talked to him, did he mention Salvati

at all? Did he say, you know——

Mr. BAILEY. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. What did he say?

Mr. BAILEY. He said Salvati was innocent, had nothing to do

with the case.

Mr. BURTON. So he flatly told you Salvati was innocent in that

meeting, and you wanted him to take a polygraph about that issue

as well as the others that you talked about?

Mr. BAILEY. He signed an affidavit, which although not this specific, was the first step. And I wrote a letter to Attorney General

Quinn telling him what was up.

127

Mr. BURTON. Did you send the affidavit with the letter?

Mr. BAILEY. Oh, sure. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. So he got the letter from you saying that Salvati

was innocent, plus the affidavit, and nothing was done?

Mr. BAILEY. Nothing was done. All of this was mentioned in my

memorandum to Mr. Balliro in 1970 after I was fired.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Barr. You want me to

go to Mr. Shays first? Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. I would like Mr. Delahunt to go, and then I’ll—— Mr. BURTON. Mr. Delahunt, are you prepared? Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. First of all, let me welcome two gentlemen for

whom I have great respect, that I consider friends, people whom

I had dealings with, Mr. Chairman, during the course of my 20

years as an elected prosecutor in Massachusetts. These are people

of great talent, great skill, and in my dealings with them, I can tell

you now that their integrity was unimpeachable. It’s good to see

you both here, Lee and Joe. I can tell you this, too. They’re very

formidable adversaries, but I think that they both know that in

their dealings with my office—— Mr. SHAYS. ’Fess up. They whipped your butt every time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. No. We had some wins. We had—in fact, the first

case that was ever televised in Massachusetts, the case of the Commonwealth v. Prendergast, Mr. Balliro was the counsel for the defendant in that case. So we’ve made some history together, and,

again, this is not just hyperbole or saying good things about good

people. It’s the truth, and their remarks today I think are very important, because, again, my experience has been as a prosecutor.

But I always remember, and I think they both would verify that

I had a group of prosecutors that were exceptionally talented. In

some cases, their abilities far exceeded mine in a courtroom. But

my only admonition was to remember that they had delegated to

them the most single awesome power in a democracy, which was

to deprive people of their liberty and that one thing I would never

tolerate would be the abuse of that power. And I hope that’s my

legacy of 21 years.

I would pose it to either of you, it’s interesting that with all the

attention given to Mr. Barboza, in the end what did he really

produce for the U.S. Government, if you know? I think Mr. Garo

indicated earlier that he testified in three cases. Well, in one of

them, it’s now overwhelmingly clear that he put four innocent people in jail. If either one of you know, what did he contribute to public safety in Massachusetts and in New England by virtue of his

involvement in the other two cases?

Mr. BALLIRO. Well, it’s my view that not only did he not contribute anything toward public safety, but the use of his testimony,

like the use of many other jailhouse informants or cooperating witnesses who are testifying solely for reward, does much to damage

terribly the administration of criminal justice in this country.

Mr. DELAHUNT. What you’re saying, then, is that in the end,

when we find people who are innocent in jail because of a result

of this kind of testimony, that in the end it really erodes the confidence of the American people and the integrity of the system?

Isn’t that really what we’re talking about here?

Mr. BALLIRO. And in a very expensive way.

128

Mr. DELAHUNT. And in a very expensive way. It’s my understanding in my conversation with Mr. Garo that on the other cases

that he testified that resulted in convictions, what we’re talking

about were sentences of some 5 years, and who knows what the veracity, the credibility, of his testimony was in that case. But after

all this, all this money, all this effort, Joe Barboza did absolutely

nothing in terms of justice and in terms of protecting the people.

It was an egregious mistake to recruit him as an informant to

begin with.

Mr. Bailey, you said something that was very disturbing to me.

It’s clear to me that the position of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reading from just newspaper reports, is that when they receive this information—and if you had an opportunity to review the

exhibits, you see the correspondence back and forth from the special agent in charge in Boston and the Director of the FBI, who at

that time was J. Edgar Hoover, as well as reports filed by Special

Agent Rico and in some cases by Special Agent Condon, that they

concluded that by simply disseminating the information, that was

the end of their legal obligation.

Now, I don’t know whether failing to produce that information or

insist upon it being brought to the appropriate court of jurisdiction

would violate any criminal statute. I find it offensive on a moral

and ethical basis. But what you said earlier about Mr. Barboza’s

testimony being helped, were you suggesting that his testimony

was manipulated, was agreed to, was suggested by Federal agents?

Mr. BAILEY. I’m quite certain of that. And before more FBI bashing, let me say I am a big fan of the FBI. Judge Webster and Judge

Sessions are friends. But the FBI is like the little girl with the curl;

when they’re bad, they are horrid. In this case I believe that the

testimony was furnished. When the FBI decided who they wanted

to target, it just happened to be the right-hand man of Raymond

Patriarca, the reputed right-hand man of Jerry Angiulo. They suggested those names. Barboza threw in Greco, because Greco beat

him up once, and he threw in Salvati, because he had to replace

Flemmi. They knew all about that. And one particular agent not

only did it in this case but did it again with another——

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know, that’s a very serious statement.

Mr. BAILEY. It is.

Mr. BURTON. Could the gentleman yield real quickly? You said

they did it in another case?

Mr. BAILEY. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. Would you care to be a little bit more specific? I’ll

grant the gentleman the time.

Mr. BAILEY. Certainly. As these people were indicted, Mr. Balliro

and I were engaged in defending what Congressman Delahunt will

remember as the Great Plymouth Mail Robbery, then the largest

in the history of the country. All these men were acquitted. The

purported leader, John J. Kelley, whom I defended, was caught a

year later, in a Brinks truck robbery, nailed cold. And he was

told—and I talked with Mr. Kelley about this extensively. He was

told, you are such a big fish, that to get a deal you’re going to have

to give us somebody bigger. And there are only two people we can

think of, F. Lee Bailey and Raymond Patriarca. He chose Mr.

Patriarca, was helped to make up a story about Mr. Patriarca orVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:05 Jan 22, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\76507.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
129

chestrating a homicide, testified falsely in Federal court and obtained a conviction. The manager of that witness as well was Paul

Rico, who came to my office attempting to intimidate me after

Kelley turned, and I threw him out.

Mr. BURTON. Any information you have about that case we’d like

to have. Anything——

Mr. BAILEY. I can only tell you, because——

Mr. BURTON. We’ll check with the FBI to get documentation on

that as well.

Mr. BAILEY. You should. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. I’m sorry, Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chair. I just would note that this

goes far beyond simply the withholding of exculpatory evidence,

which is—what you’re suggesting here is that in a capital case——

Mr. BAILEY. Well, I said, ‘‘now, Joe, could you have done it by

yourself?’’ And he said no, he wouldn’t have known how to arrange

his facts so that he could testify falsely to them.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, again, in the Deegan case, this is suggestive of subornation of perjury, Mr. Bailey.

Mr. BAILEY. It is, the penalty of which is life.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And that particular statute does not have any

statute of limitations, does it, Mr. Bailey?

Mr. BAILEY. It does not. And it suggested strongly to me of a conspiracy to cause murder to happen. If these men had not been

saved, not by the judicial process in the United States, which endorsed the death sentences, not of Salvati and French but of the

other four, had they not been saved by the U.S. Supreme Court’s

widespread—effective the Furman v. Georgia decision of striking

down capital punishment, they would have been executed, and nobody would have come forward on——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Bailey, you seem to be convinced that one

Stevie Flemmi was the informant in the reports of the FBI.

Mr. BAILEY. He is mentioned not by name but because we know

that he was the owner of a certain property, and that’s how he’s

described in the memo which I saw a little while ago. But please

understand, the FBI had, we now know, a nest of ruthless, coldblooded psychopathic killers, two Flemmis, Barboza and Whitey

Bulger. They left them on the streets, they protected them at all

times. They were killing people left and right and committing all

kinds of other crimes. And who gave them information in a given

case is hard to say, but Vincent Flemmi has admitted that he was

that person in the back seat with the bald spot.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Balliro, could I ask you just in terms of how

do we remedy this situation? Let me just give you my own theory.

Mr. BURTON. Can I clarify?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Certainly.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Balliro, I want to make sure we don’t miss that

point. You’re saying your client was Mr. Flemmi. Did Mr. Flemmi

admit to you that he was the fellow with the bald spot in the back

seat?

Mr. BALLIRO. Oh, yes.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Well, I think that’s very important that we

make sure that’s clear to everybody. I thank the gentleman.

130

Mr. BALLIRO. Not only did he admit to me that he was the fellow

sitting in the back seat, but he also told me that Barboza had sent

him a message explaining that he had substituted Salvati for him,

and that Limone, Tameleo and Greco had nothing to do with it; but

since they didn’t give him, Barboza, the proper, what he called respect, he was very concerned about being respected by the people

in the north end of Boston, all of whom were of Italian heritage,

and he wasn’t getting that respect, so he was going to get even.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I posed a question earlier, but I’d like to ask another question of Mr. Bailey. Can you identify the law enforcement

agents that told Barboza, according to Barboza’s conversation with

you, that you’re here forever if you continue to insist upon recanting your testimony?

Mr. BAILEY. No, because he didn’t tell me that. It has since come

out, and I don’t have personal knowledge of that, but I do know

this: Whenever Barboza was on the move doing anything, Rico and

Condon would pop up as they did in Santa Rosa.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Balliro, in the State, some offices, including

mine when I was the district attorney, adopted a policy of full discovery, an open file policy. Can you describe for members of the

committee the discovery procedures in the Federal system and

whether, in your opinion, there is difficulty securing exculpatory

evidence?

Mr. BALLIRO. It’s like pulling teeth. That’s what it’s comparable

to. You know, they boast—most U.S. attorney’s offices—about how

much discovery they give to defense counsel in criminal cases, and

they’re prone to sending you banker boxes full of discovery, really

without identifying what in all those thousands upon thousands of

pages really is important, what’s significant and what isn’t significant. But when it comes down to the real nitty-gritty of what you

need to effectively represent your client and to do a competent

cross-examination, it’s like pulling teeth. They fight it all the way.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you. Just indulge me, Mr. Chairman, for

one more question. You referenced earlier Stevie Flemmi and

Whitey Bulger, and I know you were present earlier when I inquired of Mr. Garo about his problems with the commutation, securing the commutation, despite having in his possession documents that were clearly exculpatory. Now as I sit here and I reflect, if Stevie Flemmi, one could theorize, was the informant in

this case, given his role and position in the criminal element in

Massachusetts, it certainly wouldn’t be to his advantage to have

Limone and Greco and Tameleo out on the street, would it, Mr.

Bailey?

Mr. BAILEY. I don’t think Stevie was ever accepted as a member

of the so-called Angiulo group. The two Flemmis——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, in fact, it was his testimony that did lead

in the late 1980’s, early 1990’s, to the conviction of Gennaro

Angiulo and others. Am I correct in stating that? He played a role

in it. Not only did he play a role—— Mr. BAILEY. The Federal prosecution of Gennaro and Angiulo,

yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes. But I guess my point is, if you will listen

to me for one moment—— Mr. BAILEY. Yes.

131

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. And just reflect on this premise, it

was as if Stevie Flemmi and his associate, Mr. Bulger, were acquiring a monopoly in terms of organized crime in the greater Boston

area. There was no competition.

Mr. BAILEY. Well, they had their own organization, but they had

a very powerful partner, called the FBI.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. We’ll come back, if you have more questions. Mr. LaTourette. Then we’ll go to Mr. Shays. And Mr. Horn,

you have questions, too? We’ll get to all of you in just a minute.

Mr. LaTourette.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bailey, I come

from Cleveland, OH, and my mom put together a scrapbook and

this doesn’t have anything to do with it, but I was born in the

month of July 1954, the month Marilyn Sheppard was murdered,

and your name is certainly emblazoned in a lot we’ve done, and

there are some parallels. As a matter of fact, I just heard Sam Ray

Sheppard on the radio the week before I came back and his continuing travails to clear his father, but it’s a pleasure to be in your

company.

Mr. Balliro, it’s a pleasure to be in your company too. I don’t

want to exclude you, but you didn’t have anything to do with

Marilyn Sheppard.

I am concerned, Mr. Balliro, about an exhibit that’s in our book,

exhibit No. 35, which is an affidavit that I think you executed earlier this year in connection with the release of—dealing with representation you had. You’re conversant with that affidavit and—— Mr. BALLIRO. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. And I think that the chairman was talking to you before about the fact that—whether or not you had a

conversation with Vincent Flemmi about the murder of Teddy

Deegan, and you did in fact have such a conversation. And in that

conversation, as I understood not only your previous observations

but the affidavit as well, he basically told you what had happened

to Teddy Deegan.

[Exhibit 35 follows:]

132

133

134

135

Mr. BALLIRO. He told me it in the context of the attorney-client

relationship. As a matter of fact, he started off by saying—I had

gone up to see what information I could get from him that might

undermine the credibility of Barboza—— Mr. LATOURETTE. Right.

Mr. BALLIRO [continuing]. In the upcoming trial. And he started

off by saying that he was very concerned about giving me any information, which kind of stunned me, because I knew what his relationship was to other people in that whole group, and the expectation was that he would be very happy to be of help, if he could

be of help. But he said he couldn’t and that he was concerned about

Barboza, because as close as he was to Barboza, he didn’t trust

Barboza for one moment. He felt that he might turn on him and

might implicate him in the Deegan killing. And if so, he wanted me

to represent him. I represented Jimmy on previous cases. As a matter of fact, I represented him on a case that he was in jail for at

that time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Right. But this conversation which I think I

want to get to, this conversation took place, according to the affidavit, at least, in the summer of 1967?

Mr. BALLIRO. Correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. The trial for the Deegan murder took place in

1968?

Mr. BALLIRO. Correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. So at the time that you were representing

one of the codefendants, I guess, in the Deegan murder, you had

information from another client that the client you were representing had nothing to do with the Deegan murder, and in fact, it was

Vinny Flemmi and ‘‘the Animal’’ that had actually been the bad

people. Is that right?

Mr. BALLIRO. Correct. It was a lot more complicated than that,

because one of the co-counsels who represented Joe Salvati was a

fellow who I had put into the case. He was in my office at the time.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, that was the next thing that I was going

to ask you. Mr. Salvati’s lawyer came from your firm as well?

Mr. BALLIRO. Correct.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And it’s been—I haven’t practiced law, obviously, since I’ve been here, but it seems to me that there was some

rule that what was knowledge of—— Mr. BALLIRO. Conflicts.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Well, we’ll get to conflict in a minute maybe,

but what was the knowledge of one person within the firm was imputed to be the knowledge of the law firm, I guess. Is that——

Mr. BALLIRO. I think that’s a fair statement, yeah.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. So at the time your associate was representing Mr. Salvati, your firm had institutional knowledge, at

least, that Vincent Flemmi and Mr. Barboza were the murderers?

Mr. BALLIRO. We didn’t set up Chinese walls in those days.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I’m not trying to cast stones here. I’m trying

to just indicate that this is a pretty intense web that was weaved

back in 1968, and I think that it’s intense, because when your client was found guilty on July 31, 1968, you knew it was wrong.

Right?

Mr. BALLIRO. Oh, absolutely.

136

Mr. LATOURETTE. And you didn’t know it was wrong because

they had just done a nice job of the prosecution. You knew it was

wrong because you had another client who was the murderer?

Mr. BALLIRO. Sure.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And that applied to Mr. Salvati as well?

Mr. BALLIRO. Absolutely.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You know, we’re going to deal with how the

government handles informants and things of that nature, but— and I also understand that the fact that the attorney-client privilege is inviolate. But I guess I would solicit an opinion from you

as to that’s a pretty big pickle you’ve found yourself in.

Mr. BALLIRO. Sure.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And do you think that there is no ethical way

out of—not just you, but—— Mr. BALLIRO. Well, there is now, and there is in Massachusetts

anyway, because the Supreme judicial court in Massachusetts, effective January 1, 1998, opened the door for counsel to invade the

attorney-client privilege if, among other things, it would result in

preventing an unlawful incarceration. That’s one of the phrases

that’s in the rule now. So you can do that today, and that’s—— Mr. LATOURETTE. But that change only took place—— Mr. BALLIRO. Which led to my finally divulging the name of

Flemmi. It says ‘‘may.’’ It doesn’t say ‘‘has to,’’ and in an exercise

of caution, I asked for a court order, and I did get that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And as we look at changing that, what do you

think about making it mandatory, the ‘‘shall’’? If you have information as a lawyer, or I had information or Mr. Delahunt or Mr. Bailey, that a fellow is going to go to jail, face the death penalty—and

thankfully the jury showed mercy and he only got—only, I say, life

in prison, but he spent 33 years—do you think making it mandatory would have—— Mr. BALLIRO. Well, I think that—I’m a little hesitant about making it mandatory, because there are too many shades sometimes,

you know, having to do with those kinds of revelations. But I do

think that an acceptable alternative would be to have the attorney

at least make an in camera presentation to a judicial officer and

then let the judicial officer in the exercise of his discretion determine whether or not he should—— Mr. DELAHUNT. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATOURETTE. The red light is on. If you want me to yield,

Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield.

Mr. BURTON. Well, we’re being very lenient, because we don’t

want to break up the train of thought of those who are doing the

questioning, but I’d just like to say, we don’t have a Federal statute

that deals with that. Do you think it would be advisable to have

a Federal statute that’s similar to the statute in Massachusetts

that would allow a defense attorney to divulge that kind of information if there was somebody wrongfully convicted?

Mr. BALLIRO. I think it’s extremely important, Mr. Chairman

and, you know, this isn’t the first time that I’ve had a client tell

me about someone else’s innocence in a case that I was representing, you know, somebody on, and it’s not the first time that the person that’s told me was the person who actually committed the offense that I was defending somebody else on.

137

Mr. BURTON. I think Mr. Delahunt and others on the Judiciary

Committee, I’ll be happy to cosponsor a bill like that. Would

the——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yeah. The question that other—again, the observation by Chairman Burton and your informing the committee

about the change in Massachusetts rules, I think it’s something

that this committee, in conjunction with the Judiciary Committee

and the full Congress, ought to give serious consideration, and any

ideas that either one of you or any members of the bar, whether

it be prosecutors or defense counsel. I think this particular case

highlights the need to have some discretion. I concur, Joe, with

you. I think making mandatory might cause some real problems,

given the various degrees, if you will, of culpability and involvement, but I think it’s an excellent suggestion, and I’d welcome

working with the Chair and Mr. LaTourette on that.

Mr. BALLIRO. Whatever my committee in Massachusetts can do

to be of help. I want you to know, Congressman, that we’d be very

happy to set up a liaison relationship in that regard.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Joe.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I thank you. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, it’s very nice

to have you both before this committee. You’ve sat very patiently

listening to the first panel, and so we don’t need to bring forward

those exhibits. But just to quickly go over them again quickly without bringing them up, exhibit 11 was from Lieutenant Thomas F.

Evans, Chelsea Police Department, in which it was fairly clear they

had identified the perpetrators of the murder.

Exhibit 12 was the city of Boston Police Department of March 14,

1965, in which they basically had similar information. Then you

had the Department of Public Safety, March 15th, Massachusetts

State Police, exhibit 13, that confirmed what the first—what the

Chelsea police had been told and what the police department in

Boston had been told. None of this information, Mr. Balliro, was

made available to you. Correct?

[Exhibits 11, 12 and 13 follow:]

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

Mr. BALLIRO. You know, one needs only to look at the transcript

of the record of the trial in this case. If anything, a glimpse of all

of that information had been furnished to defense counsel, it would

have resulted in a flurry of discovery motions and days of cross-examination of Mr. Barboza and other witnesses that we would then

put on the witness stand.

Mr. SHAYS. You would have had an absolute field day. Exhibit

15 was the Airtel to Director of the FBI from the special agent in

charge, dated March 19th, which was actually dated after the murder, but described what they had been told would be the murder— what was going to take place, and in fact the murder did take

place. And, again, your witness was not mentioned in any of these

as well.

[Exhibit 15 follows:]

147

148

149

150

Mr. BALLIRO. Absolutely not.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Bailey, you had—I now would like to turn to exhibit 26. This is an affidavit that Joseph Barboza signed in front

of a notary, and this was at your request. Is that true?

[Exhibit 26 follows:]

151

152

Mr. BAILEY. Yes. And the notary was my law partner.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Would you read No. 1 and No. 2, ‘‘that

I am the same’’?

Mr. BAILEY. You mean Paragraphs 1 and 2?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes. Thank you.

Mr. BAILEY. OK. ‘‘That I am the same Joseph ‘Baron’ Barboza

who testified in the trial of the Commonwealth v. French,’’ with

numbers.

No. 2, ‘‘That I wish to recant certain portions of my testimony

during the course of the above-said trial insofar as my testimony

concerned the involvement of Henry Tameleo, Peter J. Limone, Joseph L. Salvati and Lewis Grieco in the killing of Teddy Deegan.’’ Mr. SHAYS. So basically, he is acknowledging—and he was in fact

the only witness in their—he was the witness against these individuals. Is that correct?

Mr. BAILEY. The men were sentenced to death on the sole basis

of Barboza’s testimony.

Mr. SHAYS. And he is saying that he did not testify accurately.

Is that not true?

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, he certainly is.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So you have this document, and walk me

through again what you did with this document.

Mr. BAILEY. I believe I sent it to the attorney general.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. And the attorney general at the time was?

Mr. BAILEY. Robert Quinn.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, in the State of Massachusetts, the attorney

general does criminal as well as civil? In the State of Connecticut

it’s only civil but—— Mr. BAILEY. He has a supervisory role and can take over most

any case, as Senator Brooke did the strangling cases that were

being handled by several jurisdictions.

Mr. SHAYS. And it’s not like frankly you’re a lightweight attorney. It’s not like you aren’t well known. It’s not like this would

have just passed through his desk and somehow slipped through.

I mean, this came with your signature, and this was the affidavit.

And in your letter, did you outline what was said in the affidavit?

Do you remember?

Mr. BAILEY. I believe I said generally that Mr. Barboza was looking for a vehicle to make the truth known without being penalized

too heavily.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So the bottom line to it is, though, you got what

kind of a response?

Mr. BAILEY. None.

Mr. SHAYS. By none, you got no thank you, or you didn’t get a

no thank you?

Mr. BAILEY. No. I got no response.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. I just need to know what you would do after

that. If you got no response, is it kind of case closed or——

Mr. BAILEY. Well, bear in mind on the day this affidavit was

signed, I believe according to other documents you have, Barboza

was visited by the Federal prosecutors, and that ended my relationship with him.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. BAILEY. And the lie detector test was canceled.

153

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So this relates to the lie detector—— Mr. BAILEY. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. In other words, all of this is related to the same—— Mr. BAILEY. He was to take the test to verify the fact that he was

now truthfully saying these four men had nothing to do with it and

that he lied in the Federal case against Raymond Patriarca and

others.

Mr. SHAYS. So you seem to not just imply, but you’re saying quite

strongly that the FBI, aware of this affidavit, was basically saying

you shouldn’t have any more relationship with Mr. Bailey?

Mr. BAILEY. Well, after their visit, I never did.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. What is the penalty in Massachusetts—I don’t

know if either of you qualify—for giving false testimony in a trial?

Mr. BAILEY. Well, there’s a penalty for perjury, which I believe

carries 5 years or more, but there’s a special statute for perjury in

a capital case, and life is the punishment, and was then.

Mr. SHAYS. So for me, the nonattorney, if Mr. Salvati was going

to be sentenced potentially to capital punishment—and receive the

death penalty, then if someone else gave false evidence, they could

be subject to the same penalty?

Mr. BAILEY. Not the death penalty, but life.

Mr. SHAYS. Life. OK. What is the penalty for helping a witness

give false testimony?

Mr. BAILEY. Well, perjury and suborning perjury are usually

treated equally in the eyes of the law, and I would say that if I

were the prosecutor, a good case could be made for the architects

of perjured testimony to suffer the same penalty as the perjuring

witness.

Mr. SHAYS. And what is the penalty for a law enforcement officer

withholding evidence important to a case?

Mr. BAILEY. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, it is no greater

than the average felon marching down the street. I believe there

should be much stiffer penalties for those entrusted with great

power and respect who choose to abuse that power, as was done

here.

Mr. SHAYS. In the third panel, we have Mr. Paul Rico, retired

FBI special agent. We also requested that Dennis Condon, retired

FBI special agent, testify. Mr. Condon, I believe, will not be able

to show up, and I believe—— Mr. BURTON. We will question him. He, on the advice of his physician because of health reasons, couldn’t be here.

Mr. SHAYS. So we will be having Mr. Paul Rico after you testify.

Would you describe to me—both of you gentlemen, would you describe to me what you think their involvement was in this case?

Mr. BAILEY. My only personal contact with Paul Rico was when

he came to my office shortly after John Kelley had become a government witness and been incarcerated in the Barnstable County

Jail. Prior to testifying in the Federal case, which he appeared as

a witness who had organized an escape route for a murder requested by or ordered by Raymond Patriarca, and he later told me

that story was one that he was told he would have to tell. Since

he was unwilling to implicate me in my felonies, Patriarca was the

only acceptable trade for his freedom, which he got. But I saw him

many times after the trial was over.

154

The only other knowledge I have of Mr. Rico’s activity was one

of which I am highly suspicious, and that was in the attempt to

convict your colleague, Alcee Hastings. He was up to his ears in

that.

Mr. BALLIRO. May I say this, Congressman?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

Mr. BALLIRO. It’s, to me, unconscionable, given what we know

now, seeing these internal documents that were going up the line

to the Justice Department to just before, during, and after the

Deegan killing, many of them authored by Special Agent Rico. I

mentioned the testimony of Agent Dennis Condon during the

course of the Deegan trial. And to sit by and just let that happen,

I don’t know that there’s any penalty for that, but I can’t imagine

anything worse for a law enforcement officer to do. Talk about obstructing justice, much less a perjury. This is fashioning the obstruction of justice with a determined purpose to frame people, and

that’s happened. They were framed.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, we won’t have Mr. Condon here today to ask

questions, but I do look forward to asking Mr. Rico a number of

questions that are the result of our two panels. I thank you both

for being here. At this time I have no more questions.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Shays. Do you have questions, Mr.

Barr? We’ll come to you in just a minute.

Mr. BARR. I think both of you gentlemen are aware of the Justice

Task Force on this and related matters that was formed in January

1999. Are you all familiar with that?

Mr. BALLIRO. I have a peripheral awareness of it, Congressman,

but——

Mr. BAILEY. I am aware of Mr. Fishman, who is partly responsible for smoking out this mess.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Bailey, has the task force contacted you and communicated with you to gather information?

Mr. BAILEY. They have not.

Mr. BARR. And they have not contacted you, Mr. Balliro?

Mr. BALLIRO. They have not.

Mr. BARR. Well, the Justice Task Force was formed in January

1999—2 years ago. And the investigation, its history and a brief

synopsis of its work, is contained as an attachment to the Director

Freeh statement that he furnished to us. Was that included, Mr.

Chairman, in the earlier—— Mr. BURTON. In the record?

Mr. BARR [continuing]. Record?

Mr. BURTON. Yes. We included not only Director Freeh’s letter

but the contents of the attachment.

Mr. BARR. OK. There is a case that has risen out of the Justice

Department’s task force in this case involving John Connolly, Bulger, Whitey Bulger and Flemmi. Are either of you aware of the status of—I know there has not yet been a trial, but are you aware

of the status of that case?

Mr. BALLIRO. It’s in its very early stages, I would suggest to you.

I know the counsel for John Connolly, Tracy Minor from Mince,

Lever, and they’ve just begun to scratch the surface, both defensewise and prosecution-wise. So it’s going to be a long time before

that case goes to trial.

155

Mr. BARR. Now, Mr. Bailey—I’m not sure which one of you is better qualified to do this, but could you just briefly describe—this fellow Bulger’s name keeps surfacing in all of this. What role does he

play in these goings-on? I know he’s part of this case, in which an

indictment and then a superseding indictment was brought by the

Justice task force, but how does he fit into all this, if at all?

Mr. BALLIRO. Well, he was the handler, of course, for both Bulger

and for Steve Flemmi, the handler in this—— Mr. BARR. Connolly?

Mr. BALLIRO. Connolly was—John Connolly was. My understanding from his remarks to the media at or about the time that he was

indicted was that he didn’t know what bad people they were, and

as far as he knew, Steve Flemmi was just—well, maybe a bookmaker and perhaps a loan shark. So they were willing to give him

a pass on those kinds of activities.

But I can tell you this, Mr. Congressman. I’ve lived in that area

my entire life and got a pretty good street sense of everything that

is going on. And I can tell you that every kid in south Boston,

which was their area, understood very, very clearly what violent

people both Flemmi and Bulger were. They terrorized that area.

When they walked into a place of business, people actually quaked.

John Connolly comes from that area. It’s just unconceivable to me

that he didn’t know what every kid on the street in south Boston

knew, much less all the rest of law enforcement, both State and

local, in Massachusetts knew.

And, by the way, I’ve had many, many cases involving

shylocking, and time and time again at sentencing I’ve heard prosecutors stand up and tell judges what a terrible, violent crime

shylocking was. So for John Connolly, an FBI agent, to demean it

and deprecate its importance or its lack of violence is just

unconceivable to me.

Mr. BARR. And Bulger was an FBI informant for a fairly long period of time, too, wasn’t he?

Mr. BAILEY. Until he became a fugitive, yes.

Mr. BARR. For over 20 years he was an informant?

Mr. BAILEY. So far as we can sort out, because Flemmi knows all

about it, and Flemmi has made that known to the court as his defense in a racketeering case. In other words, he says I was set in

motion by the government. You can’t now turn on me; I have, in

effect, immunity. And that is the defense he has raised. He has

since been indicted for murders all over the country, and they’re

still digging up bodies as of this time to indict Flemmi.

Mr. BALLIRO. And, Mr. Congressman, may I just say this in addition, because I think this may be important to counsel as a source

of information. Back in the early 1980’s, between 1980 and 1985

when the Anguilos were prosecuted, there were—I don’t want to

exaggerate it—but carefully, I say, many, many, many hundreds of

hours of wiretapping in two different locations in the north end of

Boston conducted by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

and you don’t have to get into too many pages to start hearing

Bulger’s name and Flemmi’s name being mentioned in connection

with the most violent of offenses.

Now, apparently Agent Connolly, Agent Rico, agent whoever,

didn’t know what those wiretaps contained. Everybody in the world

156

knew it in 1985 when they were finally released. They had all been

put by Judge Nelson, who handled that case, in my custody until

the court proceeding, the actual trial took place. So we knew about

it in between 1983, 1984 and 1985 when the trials began, but then

the public knew, and those were open for anybody’s examination.

Mr. BARR. I’m not personally yet familiar with this case that the

Justice task force has brought, but according to the material furnished by Director Freeh yesterday, this brief synopsis indicates

that the December 1999 indictment was returned against retired

FBI Senior Special Agent John Connolly, Bulger and Flemmi. Do

you all know what the nature of the charges against Connolly were

or are?

Mr. BALLIRO. Included in them, I believe, are accessory to murder charges.

Mr. BAILEY. I think that was a—— Mr. BARR. So arising out of the dealings with these gentlemen

as—or these men as informants?

Mr. BALLIRO. Well, they claim—Connolly claims, of course, that

he didn’t know anything about murders. I mean—— Mr. BAILEY. I believe, Congressman, that the first indictment affecting John Connolly was for obstruction and related offenses and

that a new indictment was brought, dragging him in as being responsible in part for murder.

Mr. BALLIRO. What happens is the government keeps flipping

people, and between the first indictment and the second indictment, they flipped a confidante of Bulger and Flemmi, a man by

the name of Kevin Weeks, who now is a cooperating witness with

the government. He was able to tell them about many of these

murders, because he participated in things like hiding the bodies

and burying the bodies and digging them up and reburying them.

You know, like some movies that we’ve seen recently, this all happened, and they found those bodies. And the government has gone

in, they’re digging up places, and these bodies keep coming up now,

all of which Kevin Weeks tells them exactly where they are, and

that’s why you’re getting these—and I’m not sure the indictments

are all finished either. I believe there may be superseding indictments in those cases.

Mr. BARR. Thank you very much. I appreciate both of you gentlemen sharing both your history in these cases, as well as your vast

expertise on these type legal matters with us and look forward to

continue to work with you as we try and fashion some additional

safeguards to avoid these things happening in the future. Thank

you.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Barr.

Mr. Delahunt, did you have one more question?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I do. I just wanted to make a note, too,

that—I don’t know whether it was Mr. Bailey or Mr. Balliro that

indicated that Mr. Connolly was the so-called handler for both

Bulger and—Flemmi.

Mr. BALLIRO. Steve Flemmi.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Steve Flemmi. Are you aware—obviously both

had been informants prior to Mr. Connolly’s coming to the Boston

office of the FBI? Are you aware of—whom the FBI handler was

for Mr. Bulger or Mr. Flemmi, Mr. Steven Flemmi? Maybe you——

157

Mr. BALLIRO. Well, whether he can be named as a handler or

not, I don’t know, but from the materials that I’m now reading just

recently in late December that have been revealed, it appears that

Special Agent Rico very well could be categorized as a handler, at

least of Steven Flemmi.

Mr. DELAHUNT. So it’s a——

Mr. BALLIRO. I don’t know if there’s anything about——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. I reviewed those too, and I reached the

same conclusion. But I guess it’s a fair statement to say that Steve

Flemmi went from the supervision of Mr. Rico to the supervision

of Mr. Connolly?

Mr. BALLIRO. It appears to be that way.

Mr. DELAHUNT. He was passed in that direction. Joe, if I can just

ask this question, because I think when I listen to the questions

of my colleagues here, particularly Mr. Shays, I think it’s important to try to clarify how a homicide investigation, which is a State

prosecution, is conducted in Massachusetts, specifically in the case

of Deegan. Am I correct when I say usually it is the local police

department, and sometimes there is assistance from the State police; and rarely, but sometimes, it does occur there is assistance

from the FBI?

Mr. BALLIRO. This was highly unusual. It’s a very rare case that

the FBI, in my experience, has been participating so intimately in

the preparation, investigation and prosecution of a criminal—of a

State case of homicide. But they were all over this one.

Mr. DELAHUNT. So they were intimately involved in the trial

preparation. They were witnesses. They were present when this

case was being prosecuted?

Mr. BALLIRO. That’s correct.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you.

Mr. BURTON. Well, let me just thank both of you very much.

You’ve been very, very helpful. We realize that you’re very prominent attorneys. And Mr. Wilson, with whom you’ve worked, and I

and the rest of the panel wants to thank you very much for being

here, because I know that it took time out of your busy schedules,

which in your income brackets is pretty expensive.

So we really appreciate you very much being here and giving us

information. We would like for you if we have additional questions

to respond to them in writing if you wouldn’t mind.

Mr. BAILEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much. We will now go to our third

panel, which is Mr. Rico. Would you come forward, please?

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. BURTON. Do you have an opening statement, Mr. Rico?

STATEMENT OF H. PAUL RICO, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT

Mr. RICO. I have no opening statement.

Mr. BURTON. We will go directly to questions then.

You have heard the statement about the murder which took

place which involved the conviction of Mr. Salvati. Were you aware

that he was innocent?

Mr. RICO. I was aware that he was on trial and he was found

guilty. That’s all I know. I have heard what has transpired and I

158

believe that it’s probably, justice has finally been done. I think he

was not guilty.

Mr. BURTON. Were you aware——

Mr. RICO. I am saying that until I heard the facts, which is the

first time I have heard the facts is today, that I was not convinced

that he was innocent until today. I’m convinced he was innocent.

Mr. BURTON. Well, you were one of the FBI agents in the Boston

office at the time. Were you not aware of any of the statements or

documents that we have been able to uncover during our investigation?

Mr. RICO. I think I caused some of those documents to be written. I think I wrote some of those documents, and when I identified

who I knew from an informant who committed this homicide, but

as someone has said before, the information is a lot different than

testimony.

Mr. BURTON. You knew—according to the record, you sent a

memo to FBI Director Hoover, as I understand it, saying that you

had been informed that Mr. Deegan was going to be hit or murdered?

Mr. RICO. That’s probably true, yes.

Mr. BURTON. And you knew before the fact that was going to

occur?

Mr. RICO. We have had several of those things happen in the

past. I have been involved in warning some of the people that have

been targeted in the past.

Mr. BURTON. Did you or anybody in the FBI let Mr. Deegan

know that he was going to be hit?

Mr. RICO. It’s possible because——

Mr. BURTON. Wait a minute.

Mr. RICO. I want to say to you that normally when we hear

something like that we try to figure out how we can do something

to be able to be of assistance, like make an anonymous phone call

or call the local police department or something along that line. I

don’t know what happened in that case. Whether or not someone

did notify him or not, I don’t know.

Mr. BURTON. Did you know Mr. Barboza?

Mr. RICO. I came to know Mr. Barboza.

Mr. BURTON. Did you know him prior to the Deegan murder?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. BURTON. Did Mr. Condon know him prior to the Deegan

murder?

Mr. RICO. No, I don’t think he did.

Mr. BURTON. So he was not working with you and he was not

an informant or anything?

Mr. RICO. That’s right.

Mr. BURTON. How about Mr. Flemmi?

Mr. RICO. At one time I had Steven Flemmi as an informant. He

has admitted that before Judge Wolf and all of the contacts were

exposed between my contacts with him and those contacts that

were written—were introduced before Judge Wolf.

Mr. BURTON. Did you know he was a killer?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. BURTON. Did you not know he was a killer?

159

Mr. RICO. I knew that he was involved in probably loan sharking

and other activities but, no.

Mr. BURTON. Well, it’s testified here by several witnesses, including the last two, that it was fairly well known on the north side

of Boston that he was to be feared and that he was killing people,

but you in the FBI didn’t know about that?

Mr. RICO. Are we talking about Steven Flemmi or Vincent

Flemmi.

Mr. BURTON. Vincent Flemmi, Jimmy Flemmi.

Mr. RICO. Oh, Vincent Flemmi. I think when I was in Boston I

would have known that Vincent Flemmi had committed homicide.

Mr. BURTON. Did you have any dealings with him?

Mr. RICO. Not really, no.

Mr. BURTON. Did Mr. Condon have any dealings with him?

Mr. RICO. I think at one time he might have opened him up as

an informant, I don’t know. I don’t personally know.

Mr. BURTON. But neither you nor Mr. Condon knew anything

about his involvement in the Deegan murder prior to the murder?

Mr. RICO. I can only speak for myself, and it’s possible that I had

information that he might have been involved or going to be involved.

Mr. BURTON. Well, there was a memo from you to FBI Director

Hoover that was 2 or 3 days prior to the killing that said that you

had information that Mr. Deegan was going to be hit or killed?

Mr. RICO. Yeah.

Mr. BURTON. Did you not know who was going to be involved in

that? You did not know Mr. Barboza or Mr. Flemmi was going to

be involved?

Mr. RICO. Is that document before me?

Mr. BURTON. Where is that document, Counsel? He would like to

look at that real quickly, the document that went to FBI Director

Hoover informing him that there was—it’s exhibit No. 7, in front

there.

[Exhibit 7 follows:]

160

161

162

Mr. RICO. Seven.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, sir. It’s on the second page, the relevant part.

I think it’s right at the top, isn’t it? ‘‘according’’——

Mr. RICO. ‘‘according to’’—this reads like it’s a microphone, not

an informant report.

Mr. BURTON. But it was sent by you to the FBI Director. And I

guess while—— Mr. RICO. I don’t see where, I don’t see where I sent this. I can

see what it says, but I don’t see where I sent it.

Mr. BURTON. It’s exhibit No. 7. It was from the head of the FBI

office there in Boston.

Mr. RICO. Yeah, right.

Mr. BURTON. So that would not have been you at that time?

Mr. RICO. No, I have never been the head of the FBI office.

Mr. BURTON. Did you know that Mr. Deegan, was it not discussed in the FBI office that Mr. Deegan was going to be killed?

Mr. RICO. I believe it was discussed in a small group, probably

the supervisor.

Mr. BURTON. So it was discussed?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. I can’t understand if it was discussed—— Mr. RICO. It probably was discussed as to who should notify the

police or who should try to contact him.

Mr. BURTON. If you knew that there was going to be this hit on

Mr. Deegan, would you not have discussed who the proposed assassins were going to be? You knew of Barboza and you knew of the

others, Mr.—— Mr. RICO. Vincent Flemmi.

Mr. BURTON. Vincent Flemmi. You knew of them. Did you not

know they were out planning the killing? If you knew and the FBI

office up there knew enough to send this memo to the FBI Director,

would you not have known who was going to be involved in this?

Mr. RICO. I’m not sure.

Mr. BURTON. Let me go to exhibit No. 10 real quickly and I’ll

yield to my colleagues. OK. Exhibit No. 10. It says,

Informant advised that Jimmy Flemmi contacted him and told him that the previous evening Deegan was lured to a finance company in Chelsea and that the door

of the finance company had been left open by an employee of the company and that

when they got to the door Roy French, who was setting Deegan up, shot Deegan,

and Joseph Romeo Martin and Ronnie Casessa came out of the door and one of

them fired into Deegan’s body. While Deegan was approaching the doorway, Flemmi

and Joe Barboza walked over to a car driven by Tony Stats and they were going

to kill Stats but Stats saw them coming and drove off before any shots were fired.

Flemmi told informant that Ronnie Casessa and Romeo Martin wanted to prove

to Raymond Patriarca that they were capable individuals and that is why they

wanted to hit Deegan. Flemmi indicated that what they did was an awful sloppy

job.

[Exhibit 10 follows:]

163

164

165

Mr. RICO. All right.

Mr. BURTON. That was written by you?

Mr. RICO. Right, right.

Mr. BURTON. So you had firsthand knowledge about all of these

individuals?

Mr. RICO. I did at that time, right. But I didn’t know Barboza

at that time. I’m talking about from the standpoint of—— Mr. BURTON. Did you have dealings with him after that?

Mr. RICO. Yes. Oh, yes.

Mr. BURTON. And you knew that he was involved in this murder?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. And you used him as an informant?

Mr. RICO. No, I never had him as an informant.

Mr. BURTON. Who did?

Mr. RICO. I don’t think anyone had him as an informant. We had

him as a witness.

Would you like me to tell you how he became—— Mr. BURTON. Yes, while we’re looking for exhibit No. 4, and then

I’ll yield to my colleagues. But go ahead.

[Exhibit 4 follows:]

166

167

168

169

Mr. RICO. He was arrested and was held on $100,000 bail. And

the organized crime people in New England told the bondsmen not

to give him the bail money. So they told two of his associates if

they can collect the money if they need a little money to finish it

off, to come to a nightclub and they would make up the difference

so that he could get bailed. When they showed up at the nightclub

they waited until closing time, they counted out the money, it was

$85,000 of money, money that they had collected. This is allegedly.

And they killed Barboza’s people that were collecting the money.

The bodies were found over in south Boston and eventually—the

Boston police went to the nightclub and found a mirror being repaired and they went behind the mirror and found where a shot

had gone into the wall. They matched the bullet that had gone

through the glass and into the wall and fallen down with the bullet

in one of Barboza’s associates. So that’s why when we went to

Barboza he was interested in trying to find a way to help us and

probably hurt organized crime. That was his reason for becoming

a witness.

Mr. BURTON. Because he wanted to hurt organized crime.

Mr. RICO. Well, he felt that that was his money, the $85,000 was

his money. I thought he would be more concerned about the two

people that were killed. But he was more concerned about the

$85,000.

Mr. BURTON. It seems incredulous that anybody would think this

guy was concerned about getting rid of organized crime when he

was a major—— Mr. RICO. No, what he was concerned about—— Mr. BURTON. Was his money.

Mr. RICO. Is that he had been told that they were going to make

up the difference, the bail money, that he was going to get bailed

out.

Mr. BURTON. Let me make one more statement. Then I will yield

to my colleague. The Justice Task Force search determined that

around the time Deegan was murdered Vincent James Flemmi was

an FBI informant. According to the file maintained in the FBI, efforts to develop Flemmi as an informant focus on Flemmi’s potential as a source began about March 9, 1965. So you folks were

working with him well before the murders?

Mr. RICO. I don’t recall working with Vincent Flemmi at that

time.

Mr. BURTON. Do you remember anybody talking about that,

working with him before the murder? I mean how did they find out

there was going to be a hit on Deegan and Flemmi did it and you

guys had him as an informant if somebody in the FBI didn’t know

about it?

Mr. RICO. There’s two brothers, Steven Flemmi and Vincent

Flemmi.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, but Jimmy Flemmi was an informant before

this?

Mr. RICO. Well, he wasn’t my informant. He wasn’t my informant. He might have been Dennis Condon’s informant.

Mr. BURTON. But the point is you guys did talk; it wasn’t that

big of an operation that you didn’t confide in each other?

Mr. RICO. No, that is true.

170

Mr. BURTON. But you didn’t know Jimmy Flemmi was an informant?

Mr. RICO. Because that is a clerical matter whether a guy, you

write him down as an informant or you don’t write him down as

an informant.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rico, I am going

to direct you to exhibit 6. It’s entitled U.S. Government Memorandum and it’s to SAC, and then there’s a redaction and it’s from

Special Agent H. Paul Rico. The date is March 15, 1965.

[Exhibit 6 follows:]

171

172

Mr. RICO. Yeah, all right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you see that, Mr. Rico?

Mr. RICO. Yes. And may I inquire a moment maybe of counsel

and the Chair, but I can’t understand why all of the material from

the FBI has substantial redactions. I would again respectfully request the Chair and counsel to inquire of the FBI to determine

whether this committee should receive, in my opinion, but could receive the original materials without redactions. It seems earlier in

a question posed by Chairman Burton that there was some confusion on the part of Mr. Rico as to whether he was the author of

an error, and this is very important obviously.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But I am just going to ask you just one question.

I want you to read thoroughly the body of the report.

Mr. BURTON. Which exhibit?

Mr. DELAHUNT. This is for my colleagues exhibit 6. It is a socalled 209, and it is authored by the witness before us and it is to

the Special Agent in Charge in Boston whose name was somehow

redacted. For what reason I fail to comprehend. The date of the report is March 15, 1965. The date of the contact presumably with

the informant is March 10, 1965, 2 days prior to the murder of Mr.

Deegan. And I would ask Mr. Rico to read that, take a moment,

reflect, because I’m just going to ask him several questions.

Mr. RICO. All right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You have read it and you have had an opportunity to digest?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. The question I have for you is, and let me read

the first sentence. ‘‘Informant advised that he had just heard from

Jimmy Flemmi, that Flemmi told the informant that Raymond

Patriarca had put the word out that Edward ‘‘Teddy’’ Deegan is

going to be hit and that a dry run has already been made and that

a close associate of Deegan’s has agreed to set him up.’’

My question is who is that informant, Mr. Rico?

Mr. RICO. I can’t tell.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You can’t tell?

Mr. RICO. I mean, I don’t know.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, you authored this report, is that correct?

Mr. RICO. Right, I did.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would suggest that this is information that is

significant. Would you agree with that?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Is it reasonable to conclude that if you received

this information, even albeit back in 1965, that this is something

that would stick with you?

Mr. RICO. I would have known who it was in 1965, I’m sure, but

I don’t know who that is right now.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I suggested Stevie Flemmi.

Mr. RICO. I don’t think Stevie Flemmi would give me his brother

as being——

Mr. DELAHUNT. You’re sure of that, you’re under——

Mr. RICO. I’m under oath and I am pretty confident that Steve

would not give me his brother.

173

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, could I request a recess of some

4 or 5 minutes.

Mr. BURTON. Yes, I think that all of the members of the committee and the guests here can discuss this real quickly. Can you come

up here to the front? We will stand in recess for about 5 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Rico, we’re now back in session and we want

to make absolutely sure that you understand everything thoroughly. Do you understand that if you knowingly provide this committee with false testimony you may be violating Federal law, including 18 U.S.C. 1001, and do you also understand that you have

a right to have a lawyer present here with you today?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. You understand all that?

Mr. RICO. Yes, yes.

Mr. BURTON. And you prefer to go on answering questions with

your testimony? You’re subpoenaed here?

Mr. RICO. I have had advice of counsel and I’m not taking my

counsel’s advice. I am going to explain to you whatever you want

to know.

Mr. BURTON. Let me make sure I understand. Your counsel has

advised you what?

Mr. RICO. My counsel advised me to take the fifth amendment

until you people agree to give me immunity. I have decided that

I have been in law enforcement for all those years and I’m interested in answering any and all questions.

Mr. BURTON. Very well.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Rico, have you consulted with your lawyer in

terms of changing your mind and testifying? Have you consulted

with your lawyer?

Mr. RICO. Since this hearing has begun?

Mr. MEEHAN. Since you decided to testify.

Mr. RICO. I am not going to get my lawyer to change his mind.

His opinion was that I should not testify.

Mr. BURTON. And take the fifth?

Mr. RICO. And that I should take the fifth.

Mr. MEEHAN. But have you consulted with him?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. BURTON. But you consulted with him prior to that?

Mr. RICO. I used to have Jack Irwin.

Mr. BURTON. But you consulted him and he advised you to do

that prior to you coming here today?

Mr. RICO. He advised me to take the fifth.

Mr. BURTON. And you have decided to testify?

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. BURTON. Very well.

Mr. RICO. And also I would like to say that in relation to the

question that Mr. Delahunt had asked about whether Flemmi had

provided information on that case, if Steven Flemmi had provided

the information, I think that before Judge Wolf in Federal Court,

Steven Flemmi had admitted that he was an informant, I took the

stand and admitted he was an informant and we produced every

FD 209 that I had during the period of time I was in contact with

Steven Flemmi and I don’t think this was in there. So that’s one

174

of the bases for my answering you that I don’t think Steven

Flemmi would provide the information about Jimmy Flemmi.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But let me just revisit that.

Mr. RICO. All right.

Mr. BURTON. Go ahead.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You don’t think but

you’re not certain?

Mr. RICO. Well, I don’t have formal certitude, but I am pretty

sure that this is not Steven Flemmi.

Mr. DELAHUNT. OK. If you look back on your career, I’m sure you

developed a number of informants—— Mr. RICO. That’s right.

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. That would have information regarding activities of Mr. Deegan and others?

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You have had some time, maybe 20 minutes,

have you given any more thought to—— Mr. RICO. I don’t know who that is. I really can’t tell you right

now. I don’t know. I really don’t know.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You really can’t tell us?

Mr. RICO. No, I don’t know.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, when you got the information, which would

have been 2 days before the murder, and again I’m referring to

that one page, Mr. Rico.

Mr. BURTON. This is exhibit No. 6.

Mr. DELAHUNT. This is exhibit No. 6.

Mr. BURTON. Excuse me, let me interrupt here, Mr. Delahunt.

Exhibit No. 6, the date on the top is March 16 and the date of contact is March 10. It’s down at the bottom. It says exhibit 6.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. BURTON. Go ahead.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Obviously at that point in time you had information through this informant whose name you can’t remember?

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That Edward Deegan was going to be hit?

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. What did you do with that information at any

time on the 10th.

Mr. RICO. I believe that the supervisor would have had the person handling Chelsea Police Department disseminate the information.

Mr. DELAHUNT. What did you do, Mr. Rico?

Mr. RICO. I would bring it to the attention of my supervisor and

we would discuss how we could handle this without identifying the

informant and provide the——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me go back a bit. You would discuss it. Did

you discuss it with your supervisor?

Mr. RICO. I would think I did, yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Who was the supervisor?

Mr. RICO. I think it was Jack Kehoe.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Jack Kehoe. Is it the same Mr. Kehoe that after

he left the FBI became the Commissioner of the Massachusetts

State Police.

Mr. RICO. Yes, yes.

175

Mr. DELAHUNT. And what was his capacity in the FBI at that

time as your supervisor?

Mr. RICO. That was his capacity. He was my supervisor.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Was he in charge of the Organized Crime Unit?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. What was the conversation you had with Supervisor Kehoe relative to this information?

Mr. RICO. It’s a long time ago and I don’t remember. I don’t remember the conversation in any detail. I just know that this is the

type of information that—— Mr. DELAHUNT. It was good information, wasn’t it, Mr. Rico?

Mr. RICO. I think it was.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it was proven 2 days later that it was

very good information?

Mr. RICO. Yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, right.

Mr. BURTON. Excuse me. If I could interrupt. The date of this

memorandum is March 15, after Deegan was killed. But the date

of the contact was March 10. So when you sent this memorandum

it was after the fact, after Mr. Deegan had been killed. It seems

to me that it would really ring a bell if you had the contact with

your informant who in this memo was Jimmy Flemmi and then 2

days later he is killed and the memo is then sent on the 15th to

your supervisor. It seems like that would all resonate, one, because

you had an informant tell you someone is going to be killed.

They’re killed 2 days later and you’re sending the memo 3 days

after that and you can’t remember?

Mr. RICO. Well, I don’t know whether these dates are accurate

or not. I don’t know right now whether or not this is an actual correct reflection of what happened or not.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Rico, did you type up this memorandum?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Did you dictate it?

Mr. RICO. I think I did.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Would that account for the date of March 15 that

you dictated it or was that the day that whomever typed it would

have memorialized it as we now see this copy?

Mr. RICO. I can’t truthfully answer that. I have no way of knowing that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You don’t know?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. BURTON. Can we come back to you, Mr. Delahunt, and we’ll

go to Mr. Barr and come back to you in just a minute?

Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Rico, the Department of Justice in January 1999

created a joint task force, a Justice Task Force. Are you aware of

that?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. BARR. Have you spoken with them?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. BARR. Have they attempted to speak with you?

Mr. RICO. I’m not sure whether they have or not. I mean they

may have contacted my attorney. I don’t know.

Mr. BARR. Would he be obligated to tell you that?

Mr. RICO. My attorney? I would think so.

176

Mr. BARR. Has he?

Mr. RICO. I don’t recall. I don’t recall him specifically telling me

that.

Mr. BARR. Have they sent any letters?

Mr. RICO. No, not that I’m aware of.

Mr. BARR. This fellow Barboza, did you ever meet him?

Mr. RICO. Yes, I did.

Mr. BARR. Did either you or Mr. Condon receive awards or letters

of commendation for your work with him?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know, I don’t know.

Mr. BARR. You don’t know?

Mr. RICO. No. It’s possible, it’s possible. I don’t know.

Mr. BURTON. Would the gentleman yield real quickly? Did you

ever receive any gifts or money or anything from Mr. Barboza, Mr.

Flemmi or any of those people?

Mr. RICO. No, no.

Mr. BURTON. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BARR. Did Mr. Condon receive an award or any commendation or his work on the Deegan case?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know.

Mr. BARR. The communications that we have seen here for; example, exhibit 15, I think 7 and 8, but these are what are called

Airtels between the FBI field offices and headquarters here in

Washington, DC, and some of these, such as 15, indicate that Mr.

Hoover himself was aware of this murder before it happened and

who the suspects and likely perpetrators were after the fact. Were

you also aware of this murder before it happened and who the apparent perpetrators were almost immediately following the murder?

[Exhibits 15, 7 and 8 follow:]

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

Mr. RICO. You say it’s exhibit 15?

Mr. BARR. That’s one of them.

Mr. RICO. Yeah.

Mr. BARR. No. 7 and No. 8 also.

Mr. BARR. They’re the same ones we have looked at earlier today.

Let me just ask you the question.

Mr. RICO. All right.

Mr. BARR. You were aware of the fact that Mr. Deegan was going

to be murdered, correct?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. BARR. Did you take any steps to prevent that murder from

occurring?

Mr. RICO. I believe the office did something to try to do something, whether they had called the local police or whether they

tried to make an anonymous phone call to him, I don’t know.

Mr. BARR. Is there any record of that?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know, I don’t know. But that’s normal procedure, although we’ve had procedures where we’ve gone out and actually told people that they’re going to get hit. I have done that.

Mr. BARR. But that didn’t happen in this case?

Mr. RICO. Not in this case, no.

Mr. BARR. Some of these documents also indicate very clearly

that FBI headquarters was aware of who the perpetrators of the

murders were. Were you aware of that?

Mr. RICO. Aware that headquarters was aware or was I aware

who the perpetrators were?

Mr. BARR. That headquarters was aware of that.

Mr. RICO. If I sent them the information, I suppose they would

be aware of that, yes.

Mr. BURTON. Could I followup on that, please? Were you aware

who the murderers were; who were the people who participated in

the hit?

Mr. RICO. After it happened?

Mr. BURTON. Yes.

Mr. RICO. Well, I know that we had versions from informants

and then we had the Joe Barboza version.

Mr. BURTON. Well, here before us on this March 19, exhibit 15

that we’re talking about—can you help him find exhibit 15,

please—it states very clearly to FBI Director Hoover, it states very

clearly that the people who were involved in the killing are named.

And what I can’t understand is if this was known by the FBI office,

you and the other people there, then why was Mr. Salvati tried and

convicted and went to jail for 30 years and was convicted and supposed to be electrocuted? Why didn’t somebody at the FBI say in

every report that we had there was evidence that Mr. Salvati had

nothing to do with this? I mean you had all these FBI agents, obviously they knew all this information. They went to J. Edgar Hoover

at the Bureau’s head office and yet this innocent man and some

other people innocent of this crime went to jail for life and some

of them died in prison.

Mr. RICO. Well, informant information is difficult to handle and

it depends on a lot of different circumstances as to how to handle

it. It’s very easy if you just take whatever comes in and you immediately disseminate it.

184

Mr. BURTON. Let me just interrupt to say that Mr. Barboza was

a known killer.

Mr. RICO. Oh, yes, right, he was.

Mr. BURTON. He was the only person who testified at the trial

that put these people in jail for life and they were going to get the

death penalty. The FBI had information, you had information that

other people were involved in the killing and yet that never came

out in the trial.

Mr. RICO. That was disseminated to the Chelsea Police Department.

Mr. BURTON. Wasn’t there an FBI agent that testified there? Mr.

Condon.

Mr. RICO. I didn’t testify in the case and witnesses were sequestered. I never saw Mr. Salvati before today.

Mr. BURTON. You didn’t know Mr. Salvati was innocent of that

crime because of the information that you had in your office?

Mr. RICO. We come up with a witness that’s going to provide information to local law enforcement. We turn the witness over to

local law enforcement and let them handle the case. We don’t have

any jurisdiction.

Mr. BURTON. Was this memo turned over to the local police along

with the informant, Mr. Barboza?

Mr. RICO. I can’t tell you that the information was furnished

to——

Mr. BURTON. This is exculpatory information. This could have

kept Mr. Salvati out of jail. I think this alone would have created

doubt in the mind of the jury that he would have gone to jail for

30 years.

Mr. RICO. Do you think we can send people away on informant

information alone?

Mr. BURTON. You certainly sent him away on Barboza and he

was a hitman?

Mr. RICO. That’s not an informant. That’s a witness.

Mr. BURTON. He’s also a killer who didn’t have much credibility.

Mr. RICO. I’m not one of his biggest boosters.

Mr. BURTON. I’m sorry. I took your time. Did you have more

questions, Mr. Barr?

Mr. BARR. No.

Mr. BURTON. Let me go to Mr. Shays. Do you have questions? I

was talking about the gentlelady.

Mrs. MORELLA. I do, but I will defer to Mr. Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. This is just the first round. And Mr. Rico, I have

been watching you for the whole day. I have known about you for

20 years. You are a person who basically worked for the FBI and

then worked, in my judgment, for organized crime when you

worked for World Jai Alai. That is my view of you. My view of you

is that you sent an innocent man to jail.

Mr. RICO. Your what?

Mr. SHAYS. My view is that you sent an innocent man to jail and

you knew it. I’m just telling you what I believe. You can tell me

anything you believe that you want to. I’ll tell you what I believe.

You have been a person on my radar screen for years. I never

thought you would come before this committee. Now you have been

here all day long. You have heard what the Chelsea police knew.

185

You heard what the Boston police knew, you heard what the State

police knew. You heard what the FBI, and I’m assuming it was

you, but frankly I don’t even care, told Hoover, and I want to know

how you think you fit into all of that.

Mr. RICO. I think we supplied the information that we had available to the local police department and I think that should be our

way of disseminating the information.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask you this. What does it feel like to be 76

years old, to have served in the FBI and know that you were instrumental in sending an innocent man to jail and you knew it.

What is it like? What do you feel? Tell me how do you feel. I asked

what it was like for Mr. Salvati to be in jail. I asked what it was

like for his wife to know her husband was in jail. I want to know

what it’s like for you.

Mr. RICO. I have faith in the jury system and I feel that the jury

should be able to decide the innocence.

Mr. SHAYS. This is what’s fascinating.

Mr. RICO. Why? You think you can make a decision as to who’s

innocent?

Mr. SHAYS. What’s fascinating to me is that if I were you I would

get down on bended knee in front of this family and ask for eternal

pardon because even if you somehow didn’t know about the report

of the local police, of the Boston police, of the State police, of some

documents in the FBI that are extraordinary since they come from

your office, even if you didn’t know that then, you know it now, and

you don’t seem to give a shit. Excuse me. You don’t seem to care.

Mr. RICO. Is that on the record?

Mr. SHAYS. You know what? I’m happy to have what I said on

the record. I just hope everything you say is on the record.

Mr. RICO. Sure, sure.

Mr. SHAYS. Because the one thing is you don’t seem to care. I

have been looking at you. You have no remorse about your involvement even if you think you weren’t guilty. Where is your remorse?

Mr. RICO. I have been in position where I have taken people out

of jail and to me——

Mr. SHAYS. You don’t care. Tell me how you feel about Mr.

Salvati and his wife. I would like to know.

Mr. RICO. How do I feel about what?

Mr. SHAYS. You hold on a second. Let me explain why I’m asking. You can shake your head. You can just wait. I wanted to know

how a retired FBI agent feels about the facts that you learned

today. Let’s assume you didn’t know anything about it.

Mr. RICO. I didn’t.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. RICO. I never——

Mr. SHAYS. I’ll make that assumption for this moment in my

question. I learned about it in the past few weeks. I know what it

does to me. Why doesn’t it affect you the same way? Why wouldn’t

you feel incredible remorse that you had a role to play, and you’re

saying it’s ignorance but you had a role to play in the fact that an

innocent man spent 30 years of his life in jail. Why no remorse?

Mr. RICO. I feel that we have a justice system and however it

plays out it plays out. I don’t think we convict everybody that is

guilty and I don’t think we let everyone go that is innocent.

186

Mr. SHAYS. You don’t care. Does it bother you that this man was

in jail for 30 years?

Mr. RICO. It would probably be a nice movie or something.

Mr. SHAYS. So you don’t really care about this guy. I’m getting

to learn a lot about you right now. You don’t really care that he

was in jail for 30 years. Do you care about his wife, that she visited

him for 30 years?

Mr. RICO. I do not know everything that Joseph Salvati has done

in his lifetime. I do not know that he is completely innocent of everything. I don’t know.

Mr. SHAYS. What I didn’t understand was that I thought that if

you were a law enforcement officer and you had that training and

you carried the badge of an FBI agent, I thought that you would

care about the fact that you could be guilty of something he feels

but if you weren’t guilty of that crime then you’re not guilty of that

crime. And you’re seeming to imply that somehow maybe there’s

something else in his past which is typical of what we heard about

this case.

But I’m going to get right back. I’m not going to give up quite

yet. I just still want to understand. Do you have any remorse that

Mr. Salvati spent 30 years of his life in jail?

I can’t hear your answer.

Mr. RICO. There isn’t an answer.

Mr. SHAYS. You have no remorse. Do you have any remorse that

his wife spent 30 years visiting him in prison even though he was

innocent of the crime? I want a word. I want something we can put

down on the transcript. I don’t want ‘‘nods’’ or something. I want

a word from you. Do you have any remorse that his wife had to

visit him for 30 years in jail even though he was an innocent man

and even though he was framed by someone who testified who was

trained by the FBI, was the FBI’s witness?

Mr. RICO. Joe Barboza was not trained by the FBI.

Mr. SHAYS. I’ll retract that. I’ll get to that in a second. Do you

have any remorse about Marie?

Mr. RICO. Well, I feel sorry that anything like that ever happened to anybody.

Mr. SHAYS. So you don’t feel sorry for the husband?

Mr. RICO. I feel sorry for anybody that went away——

Mr. SHAYS. Do you have any remorse?

Mr. RICO. Remorse for what?

Mr. SHAYS. For the fact that you played a role in this.

Mr. RICO. I believe the role I played was the role I should have

played. I believe that we supplied a witness and we gave them to

the local police and they’re supposed to be able to handle the case

from there on. That’s it. I cannot——

Mr. SHAYS. So you don’t really care much and you don’t really

have any remorse. Is that true?

Mr. RICO. Would you like tears or something?

Mr. SHAYS. Pardon me?

Mr. RICO. What do you want, tears?

Mr. SHAYS. No, I want to understand a little more about an FBI

agent who served his country. I just want to know how you feel.

It will teach me something about the FBI. You’re going to be a repVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:05 Jan 22, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\76507.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
187

resentative of the FBI. And so there’s really no remorse and no

tears; is that correct?

Mr. RICO. I believe the FBI handled it properly.

Mr. SHAYS. Why don’t you tell me why you think they handled

it properly?

Mr. RICO. Because they take whatever information they have

that is pertinent and they furnish it to the local law enforcement

agency that has the jurisdiction and let them handle it.

Mr. SHAYS. You just made a claim that I just don’t believe is

true. How did you disclose this to all the public—how do we know

and tell me how you disclosed this to the courts and the public officials?

Mr. RICO. Not me, not me personally.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask you this. The witness on behalf of the

FBI against this individual, you and your partner Mr. Condon, you

were both partly responsible for having this witness, isn’t that

true?

Mr. RICO. For what?

Mr. SHAYS. Pardon me?

Mr. RICO. I’m responsible for what?

Mr. SHAYS. Aren’t you responsible for the witness that testified

against Mr.—— Mr. RICO. We supplied a witness, right.

Mr. SHAYS. You supplied a witness.

Mr. RICO. We supplied a witness.

Mr. SHAYS. And that witness didn’t tell the truth, did he?

Mr. RICO. Well, it’s easy to say now but it wasn’t that easy then.

Mr. SHAYS. But the witness didn’t say the truth, right, the witness you supplied did not tell the truth; isn’t that correct? That’s

not a hard question to answer.

Mr. RICO. No, but it’s easy to say that now. It’s not that easy to

say that when it was happening.

Mr. SHAYS. But you haven’t answered the question. Answer the

question first.

Mr. RICO. What question?

Mr. SHAYS. The question was simply that you have supplied a

witness who did not tell the truth? Isn’t that true.

Mr. RICO. We supplied the witness. And now that everything is

said and done it appears that he didn’t tell the whole truth.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Shays, can we come back to you?

Mr. SHAYS. You sure can. I’m waiting.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Clay, before I yield to you could I ask a question or two?

Mr. CLAY. Yes.

Mr. BURTON. The two attorneys we had up here, Mr. Bailey and

Mr. Balliro, they testified that the FBI had taped a great many

phone conversations by reputed members of organized crime in the

Boston and north Boston area. Is that true?

Mr. RICO. I would imagine it would be true. If anyone knows

about organized crime, it would be Joe Balliro.

Mr. BURTON. I am asking you, did the FBI tape any phone calls

of organized crime figures up in the northern Boston area?

Mr. RICO. I was not in the Boston area at that time.

Mr. BURTON. You were not?

188

Mr. RICO. No. I was in Boston in 1970. I left in 1975.

Mr. BURTON. Well, I’m talking about back when—— Mr. RICO. You’re talking about 1980, when they were involved

in——

Mr. BURTON. I’m talking about back during the time that these

crimes took place, when Mr. Deegan was killed, when Mr. Barboza

was killing these people, when Mr. Flemmi was killing people.

Were there any wiretaps that the FBI was conducting? Do you

know of any wiretaps that were conducted?

Mr. RICO. You’re talking about legal wiretaps?

Mr. BURTON. Legal wiretaps. You don’t know?

Mr. RICO. You’re asking the wrong agent.

Mr. BURTON. Do you know if there were any wiretaps by the

agency out of that office? Do you know of any wiretaps out of that

office by the FBI.

Mr. RICO. During which period of time? When I was there?

Mr. BURTON. No, during the time when Flemmi and Barboza

were there and Deegan was killed, do you ever remember any wiretaps?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know whether we had a wiretap at that time.

I don’t know. I have no idea. I wasn’t involved in the wiretapping.

Mr. BURTON. You don’t know if there were any wiretaps out of

that office for organized crime up in that area? J. Edgar Hoover,

nobody ever authorized wiretaps in that area? We’ll find out if anybody authorized wiretaps.

Mr. RICO. I’m not trying to tell you if there wasn’t any. I just

don’t know myself personally the timing of wiretaps.

Mr. BURTON. But you don’t know if there were any wiretaps out

of that office? Do you know if there were any? You don’t have to

be involved. Do you know if there were any?

Mr. RICO. I can’t remember the timing. This is 35 years ago. I

can’t remember whether they had the wiretaps in 1963 or 1964 or

when.

Mr. BURTON. This isn’t the Stone Age we’re talking about. They

did have wiretaps back then.

And you don’t recall the FBI ever using a wiretap to try to nab

organize crime figures?

Mr. RICO. The FBI used some wiretaps for intelligence information during the period of time that I was in the Boston office.

Mr. BURTON. OK. Was it being done on any individuals out of the

Boston office?

Mr. RICO. I would think that it’s the timing. I cannot understand

the timing. I cannot comprehend——

Mr. BURTON. Well——

Mr. RICO [continuing]. The timing of why it——

Mr. BURTON. Well, I think you do comprehend.

Mr. RICO. Well.

Mr. BURTON. And it was pretty well known, according to legal

counsel we had and others, that wiretaps were taking place, because they were trying to nab organized crime figures, and Barboza

and Flemmi were two of the biggest contract killers in that place,

and yet you guys had him as a witness to put innocent people in

jail, and you’re saying you didn’t know anything about it. You

thought that Barboza was a legitimate witness at that time.

189

Mr. RICO. I’m not a big supporter of Joe Barboza, and I’ve never

been a big supporter of Joe Barboza, but he was the instrument

that we had. He was a stone killer, and he was put in a position

where he decided he wanted to testify. So we let him testify.

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rico, what an incredulous story. This is truly amazing just sitting here listening to

some of the details and facts. Just to followup on Mr. Shays’ questioning, first, did you know beforehand that Teddy Deegan had

been targeted to be killed?

Mr. RICO. Evidently, I did.

Mr. CLAY. Evidently?

Mr. RICO. From the informant.

Mr. CLAY. You did know. And did you know also that Mr. Salvati

was not involved in the murder itself?

Mr. RICO. I had never heard of Salvati being involved in this

case, and so——

Mr. CLAY. That he——

Mr. RICO. Until he was indicted, right. I never heard of him.

Mr. CLAY. You had never heard of him?

Mr. RICO. I had never——

Mr. CLAY. But you also knew that he did not play a role in the

murder; correct?

Mr. RICO. I can’t say that.

Mr. CLAY. You cannot say that. Is this standard operating procedure for the FBI to withhold evidence from a court of law, to know

that someone is going to trial and is going to face criminal incarceration and to withhold that evidence? Is that standard operating

procedure?

Mr. RICO. Standard operating procedure is to take whatever information you have and supply it to the local police that have the

authority in whatever manner is coming up.

Mr. CLAY. But think about the circumstances of Mr. Salvati

going to trial, facing, I assume, murder charges and being convicted, and all the while, the local FBI office, you in particular,

knowing that this man did not commit that crime. I mean, did that

ever cross your mind that maybe we should intercede to ensure

that justice prevails?

Mr. RICO. There is a time when you’re involved in a case and you

know what’s happening, but there are many cases, many things

happening, and I would say that thinking of Salvati on a day-today basis probably did not happen.

Mr. CLAY. Well, I’m going to stop there, Mr. Chairman, and if I

can, can I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Delahunt? Is that

permissible?

Mr. BARR [presiding]. The gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. DELAHUNT. We thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let’s talk about

bugs for a minute, Mr. Rico.

Mr. RICO. Sure.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And let’s use a timeframe of 1960 to 1970.

Mr. RICO. OK. That’s when I was there.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. Are you familiar with a bug that was

placed in the office of Raymond Patriarca, Jr.?

190

Mr. RICO. Absolutely not. I was familiar with a bug placed in

Raymond Ellis Patriarca, Sr.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Senior. I thank you for correcting me.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Did you have anything to do with placing that

bug there?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. DELAHUNT. No. Do you know who did?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You don’t know. But you knew that there was a

bug?

Mr. RICO. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. I knew that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Was that particular bug authorized by a court

order?

Mr. RICO. I can’t tell you that. I don’t know. I don’t know whether it was a court order or not. I can tell you when it was removed.

Mr. DELAHUNT. When was it removed?

Mr. RICO. Oh, God. A new attorney general came in, and they removed them all across the country. I don’t remember who it was

right now.

Mr. DELAHUNT. So a new attorney general could very well have

made the decision that it was a black-bag job, it was an illegal

wiretap?

Mr. RICO. I think that the new attorney general wanted nothing

to do with these bugs.

Mr. DELAHUNT. These bugs. I’d request counsel to—if he could,

to supply us with what available documents the FBI has regarding

the Raymond Patriarca, Sr. bug and who was responsible for planting this bug within that office.

You know, in terms of the—you’re right, and I think there’s some

misunderstanding relative to terms that we’re using here today.

Barboza was not an informant——

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. For you?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But Barboza was—I think your words were, you

supplied the witness, and the witness was Joseph Barboza.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Now——

Mr. BARR. Excuse me. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has expired. We’ll come back to Mr. Delahunt in just a few

minutes. The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Maryland for 5

minutes.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rico, I’ve been looking at some of the evidence that has been

put together in some of the booklets that we have, and I was noting

that on exhibit 10, there is a memorandum from you, which describes the Deegan murder and identifies the killers. Were you satisfied that the informant provided accurate information to you? I’ll

give you a chance to look at that, sir. 65.

Mr. Chairman, don’t count that on my time.

[Exhibit 10 follows:]

191

192

193

Mr. RICO. Yes. Yes. I consider that accurate.

Mrs. MORELLA. You do.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mrs. MORELLA. You do not? You do consider that accurate?

Mr. RICO. I consider—it seems to be accurate information. Right.

Mrs. MORELLA. Do you believe that the informant correctly identified Deegan’s killers?

Mr. RICO. The problem with being absolutely certain on the informant information is that the informant may be telling you exactly what he learned. You see, the informant advised that Jimmy

Flemmi contacted him and told him, when you get into Jimmy

Flemmi telling something to an informant, you’re now a step away

from having the certitude that you would have if the informant

learned this from somebody else. Jimmy Flemmi, I would say,

would not be that reliable an individual and has a propensity to

put himself involved in crimes.

Mrs. MORELLA. But because of the information that you had received since October 1964 regarding Vincent Flemmi wanting to

kill Deegan, was there any doubt in your mind that Flemmi was

involved in Deegan’s death?

Mr. RICO. I’m sorry. I don’t understand.

Mrs. MORELLA. I just wondered was there any doubt in your

mind that Flemmi was involved in Deegan’s death because of the

information you received after October 1964? I mean, did you have

any doubt—— Mr. RICO. It seemed logical to be involved, yeah.

Mrs. MORELLA. OK. Right. So you really didn’t have any doubts

that Flemmi was involved.

Mr. RICO. Well, I always had some doubts when Flemmi was involved in anything.

Mrs. MORELLA. Remote. Few doubts. Did you have information at

this time that Joe Salvati was involved in Deegan’s murder?

Mr. RICO. I never received any information that Salvati was involved in the Deegan murder.

Mrs. MORELLA. Did you or anyone else in the FBI office question

any of the individuals that were identified as participants in

Deegan’s murder?

Mr. RICO. I’m sorry. I’m not getting it.

Mrs. MORELLA. Now, did you or anyone else in the FBI office

question any of the individuals that were identified as participants

in Deegan’s murder?

Mr. RICO. Let me see.

Mrs. MORELLA. Did you question any of the individuals that were

identified as participants?

Mr. RICO. Only Joe Barboza.

Mrs. MORELLA. Page 2 of the memorandum you wrote, you wrote

that this information was passed to Captain Robert Renfrew of the

Chelsea Police Department.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mrs. MORELLA. Did you did pass this information to Captain

Renfrew?

Mr. RICO. No, Don Shannon did that.

Mrs. MORELLA. So he did that. Was Captain Renfrew given any

additional information that was not included in this exhibit 10?

194

Mr. RICO. Was he given any additional information?

Mrs. MORELLA. Right, additional information that was not included.

Mr. RICO. I don’t know. I don’t know whether he was or not, because if Shannon gave it to him, he might have given him other

information—— Mrs. MORELLA. The FBI office in Boston has recently claimed

that your statement proves that the FBI shared this information

with local law enforcement. Do you agree with this statement?

Mr. RICO. Yes. I think that pretty well covers it.

Mrs. MORELLA. Exhibit 11 is a Chelsea police report about the

Deegan murder. On Page 3, the report identifies seven men who

left the Ebb Tide Restaurant around 9 p.m. on the night of the

murder and returned around 11 p.m. One of those identified,

Romeo Martin, allegedly said to Roy French, ‘‘we nailed him.’’ The

report said, this information came from Captain Renfrew, who was

also supposed to have received the information from the FBI. Have

you seen that report before?

Mr. RICO. I haven’t seen the report before, and I wouldn’t know

if he is still in the Chelsea Police Department or not.

Mrs. MORELLA. So did you mention anything about the Ebb Tide

to Captain Renfrew?

Mr. RICO. I’m aware of the Ebb Tide. We used to—it was there

when I was around, but I don’t—can’t tell you about Renfrew and

the Ebb Tide.

Mrs. MORELLA. Did you talk to Captain Renfrew that Francis

Imbuglia, Nicky Femia or Freddy were with the others the night

of the murder?

Mr. RICO. I have seen Captain Renfrew on a number of occasions,

but I don’t recall having any discussion about this case with him.

Mrs. MORELLA. I wanted to kind of set up that list of questions,

and I’ll get back to you, Mr. Rico, but I do want to say from having

been here at the beginning, that I wish we could give back 30 years

of life to a happily married couple, and my heart goes out to

them——

Mr. RICO. Sure.

Mrs. MORELLA [continuing]. For—they represent the old school

virtues that I think I grew up with, too: that you make the best

with what you’ve got and always remember family. Thank you. I

yield back.

Mr. BARR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for

5 minutes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I asked you earlier

about the fact that you stated that Barboza was not your informant?

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But that you did cultivate him as a witness?

Mr. RICO. Actually, that’s true. We——

Mr. DELAHUNT. That’s fine—— Mr. RICO. Comes from a period of time where he wants to be an

informant. We don’t want him as an informant. We want him as

a witness.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. I understand that, and you were successful in convincing him to be a witness?

195

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. What induced him to become a witness?

Mr. RICO. The fact that they banged out two of his partners and

stole $85,000. They had collected for his bail. He stopped by the

Night Light for them to make up the difference, and they counted

it out and killed them.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And that was the exclusive motive for his cooperation with law enforcement?

Mr. RICO. Well, I thought he was going to be angry because they

killed his two friends, but——

Mr. DELAHUNT. But it was the money?

Mr. RICO. But he was angry, because it was his money——

Mr. DELAHUNT. It had nothing to do with the fact that he seemed

to escape prosecution for a variety of crimes?

Mr. RICO. Well, he wasn’t really being held on a very serious

crime, because it was—the bail was $100,000, but I don’t think——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Did he do——

Mr. RICO. I don’t remember what the crime was.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But given his record, in fact, he—let me suggest

this.

Mr. RICO. Yeah.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That at one point in time, the Suffolk County

district attorney’s office brought—before filed a charge, charging

him with being a habitual offender.

Mr. RICO. Could have been, yeah.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Now, you know and I know, Mr. Rico, that that

carries with it a substantial penalty.

Mr. RICO. Sure.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Did you ever have any conversations with Joe

Barboza, relative to recommending that he not be prosecuted, or at

least he serve no time for crimes that he had been charged with?

Mr. RICO. On that matter, Gary Byrne, as you know, is the district attorney of Suffolk County at that time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Uh-huh.

Mr. RICO. Told me that I could tell him that whatever cooperation he gives will be brought to the attention of the proper authorities.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right.

Mr. RICO. He says you can’t tell him anything more or anything

less. That’s exactly what you can tell him, and that’s what I told

him.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And that’s what you told him?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Was Dennis Condon with you?

Mr. RICO. I am sure he was.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Because the practices of the FBI is such that

there are always two agents working together.

Mr. RICO. Hopefully right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. In terms of interviewing witnesses.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, you did supply the witness to the appropriate authorities?

Mr. RICO. I didn’t——

196

Mr. DELAHUNT. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk

County district attorney’s office?

Mr. RICO. Right. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Did you supply the report that you and I discussed earlier that you filed as a result of a contact on March 10th?

Did you provide that report to the appropriate authorities?

Mr. RICO. I think we did. I think we notified Chelsea. I think

that was the appropriate authority at that time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, let me go back to a question that I posed

to Mr. Balliro earlier. While the Suffolk County district attorney’s

office was prosecuting the case, given the very high profile of that

case, it was a headliner back in the mid 1960’s, because it obviously had charged a number of individuals alleged to be major organized crime figures. You played, and Dennis Condon played, and

State police played, and Chelsea Police played, and Boston Police

played an active role in the investigation at preparation for trial?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. DELAHUNT. No?

Mr. RICO. We were not involved in the—to my knowledge, in the

preparation of the trial or in the investigation. I had never been

to the scene of the homicide. I had never——

Mr. DELAHUNT. When you say we, do you mean yourself and

Dennis—Mr. Condon?

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Are you aware that Mr. Condon testified at the

trial?

Mr. RICO. Oh, yes. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And you’re telling me and members of this committee that he wasn’t involved in the preparation and the trial of

the case? Why don’t you take a moment and refresh your memory.

Mr. RICO. Well, it depends on what you’re talking about preparation. I think that we made Barboza available at a time when they

came to interview him, we would be there, but it wasn’t as if we’re

directing the investigation——

Mr. DELAHUNT. But you heard——

Mr. RICO. It’s a——

Mr. DELAHUNT. I——

Mr. RICO. And we’re trying to be cooperative with him.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I understand it’s their investigation, but let’s be

very candid. The FBI and the director of the FBI, Mr. Hoover, had

a major interest in organized crime in New England?

Mr. RICO. Eventually, he did. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And the people that were indicted, with the exception of Mr. Salvati, were alleged to be major organized crime

figures. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. RICO. They were organized crime figures.

Mr. DELAHUNT. They were organized crime?

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And you mean to tell myself and members of this

committee that you followed this case from a distance, and you

really weren’t intimately involved in one of the cases that the Director of the FBI had prioritized?

197

Mr. DELAHUNT. And, Mr. Rico, you were a well-known agent. You

were decorated. You spent your career with organized crime figures, developing information.

Mr. RICO. In a different way than Bear did, right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I’m going to ask that that statement be

struck from the record and expunged, because the Bear isn’t here.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I’m asking you the questions——

Mr. RICO. Right. OK.

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. Mr. Rico, OK?

Mr. RICO. I am not——

Mr. BARR. Excuse me, Mr. Rico. Statements can’t just be struck.

Mr. RICO. What’s that?

Mr. BARR. I’m saying that statements just can’t be struck from

the record. Just because somebody isn’t here who’s name is mentioned. Your time is expired, and we’ll now turn to the gentleman

from Ohio. Mr. LaTourette is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rico, I want to

pick up where my friend from Massachusetts left off, and that is,

not only did—and Mr. Condon—Special Agent Condon testify, but

also Special Agent Bolin testified at the trial of these defendants.

Are you aware of that?

Mr. RICO. What trial?

Mr. LATOURETTE. The trial that brings us all together here, the

Salvati trial, the trial involving the murder of Deegan. Did you

know a Special Agent Bolin?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Apparently——

Mr. RICO. I think I do.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Apparently he’s credited with discrediting the

alibi of one of the co-defendants in the case, and that letter, I

think, after everyone is convicted on July 31st, a report goes up to

headquarters, recommending commendations for you, Special

Agent Condon, and Special Agent Bolin. Does any of that ring a

bell to you?

Mr. RICO. Well, I can remember Special Agent Bolin now, but I

didn’t know what degree he was involved in the case.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. There came a time when you and Special

Agent Condon went up to—is it Walpole prison?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. To interview Mr. Barboza?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And that was before the trial of Mr. Salvati

and the defendants in the Teddy Deegan murder, was it not?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And during the course of that interview, you

wrote a report back to your superiors, and in that report, you indicated that Mr. Barboza, as kind of a valuable witness, or could be,

because he knows anything on any murder that’s occurred in the

minority east but he makes clear to you and your partner during

the course of that interview that he’s not going to give up Jimmy

Vincent Flemmi. Do you remember that?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

198

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. And the question I have to you is, then,

that at the time that Mr. Salvati and his co-defendants go to trial,

you have, as a result of your investigation, the information that

you have received—and if not you personally, I assume that you

just didn’t gather information as a special agent and keep it to

yourself. There would be dialog in Boston office, wouldn’t there?

You and Mr. Condon certainly talked, did you not, Special Agent

Condon?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. At the time these fellows went to trial,

you had received confidential information from an informant that

James Vincent Flemmi wanted to kill Deegan. Isn’t that correct?

Or said that he wanted to kill him. Right?

Mr. RICO. Yes. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. You also had information that Vincent

Flemmi—or the claim was that Vincent Flemmi did, in fact, participate in the killing of Teddy Deegan.

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. You also had information in your position or

the office did that Joe Barboza participated in the homicide of

Teddy Deegan?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Prior to the trial. And then you also had information from this interview at Walpole Prison that Barboza would

never give up Jimmy Flemmi.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. OK. Given all that information—and I understand what you said that you handed it over to the local police and

the prosecuting agencies and so on and so forth, but going back to

Mr. Delahunt’s question, or maybe it was Mr. Barr, certainly the

FBI office in Boston is not just a casual observer of this—you know,

it’s not—while it’s interesting that there’s a trial going on and we’ll

get back to you, it was so interesting that the minute it’s over on

July 31st, a report goes to headquarters saying that all are convicted.

Given all of those things that were within your knowledge, I

mean, did you have any qualms back in 1968 about putting Joe

Barboza or knowing that Joe Barboza was going to be the sole and

only testimony against Joe Salvati, and potentially put him on

death row? Did that cause you any—I’m not talking today. I’m talking back in 1968.

Mr. RICO. I was not aware of all of the ramifications of the case

itself.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Maybe not, but you were aware of all of the

things I went through—the five or six things I just went through

with you.

Mr. RICO. Right. Right.

Mr. LATOURETTE. And none of that caused you any concern or

qualm about the witness that you supplied—not you personally,

but your office, and you were the handler, that this was the only

testimony against not only the other court defendants but Mr.

Salvati, who we now know had nothing to do with it?

Mr. RICO. Uh-huh.

199

Mr. LATOURETTE. That he could go on death row on the basis of

this testimony? As an experienced law enforcement officer, isn’t

that shaky, even by confidential informant standards?

Mr. RICO. Well, there isn’t any good answer to that.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I don’t think there is a good answer to that,

because I think that the answer is that it was real shaky. The last

thing I want to ask you is that I think I saw you sitting here during the course of the hearing today, and you’re pretty much aware

of the theory of this hearing, if you will, or the observations that

people are making, and that is that the FBI office in Boston, MA

was willing to sacrifice 33 years of a man’s life, separate him for

33 years from his wife and his children, to protect a guy nicknamed

‘‘the Animal,’’ a cold-blooded killer, so that the mob could be penetrated and brought down. And I just would like to have your observation as to the accuracy of that theory.

Mr. RICO. I don’t think that the FBI was interested in saving Joe

Barboza from anything. Joe Barboza was an instrument that you

could use. If he was involved in a crime and it was something that

could be prosecuted, that was fine, but there was no—we didn’t

think he was a knight in shining armor.

Mr. LATOURETTE. I know you don’t but—— Mr. RICO. We did not think he should have been in the foreign

service or anything. We just tried to use him—— Mr. LATOURETTE. Right.

Mr. RICO [continuing]. For obtaining information and evidence of

crimes.

Mr. LATOURETTE. If Mr. Barr would just let me complete this

thought. But when you say ‘‘weren’t interested in protecting him

from anything,’’ the testimony before the panel is that the Witness

Protection Program in the U.S. Government was established and

begun for Mr. Barboza.

Mr. RICO. Well, the—also I’d like to clear up that Santa Rosa situation. We did go out there and testify that he had been a witness.

That’s all we testified to.

Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Barr.

Mr. BARR. The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Shays, is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t understand a lot of things, Mr. Rico. I don’t

understand your lack of remorse. It just seems cold. It’s kind of

what I think in other people, not an FBI agent. But with Mr.

Salvati, because of your star witness, your prized witness, he was

found guilty of a crime he didn’t commit, and you ended up deciding to go to California, you and Mr. Rico and Mr. Harrington and

Mr. Condon. Why did all three of you go to California?

Mr. RICO. We were subpoenaed.

Mr. SHAYS. You all three were?

Mr. RICO. We were subpoenaed and the Attorney General of the

United States authorized us to testify.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. RICO. And that’s what—— Mr. SHAYS. What was your testimony? Are you under oath telling

us that you just went to say he was a witness, or were you here

to say he was a good witness? Did you characterize him in any way

at that hearing?

200

Mr. RICO. I think we indicated that he had been a witness in

three separate trials back in Massachusetts, one of which everyone

was found not guilty.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. And isn’t it true that besides saying that he

was a witness, you were also saying that he was a reliable witness?

Mr. RICO. No. No, no.

Mr. SHAYS. So you didn’t, in any way in California, characterize

the quality of his testimony?

Mr. RICO. My memory is that we just testified that he was a witness on three different cases back in Massachusetts.

Mr. SHAYS. Tell me what you thought of him as a witness.

Mr. RICO. As a witness?

Mr. SHAYS. Yeah.

Mr. RICO. Well, the case that we’re interested in here, I was

not——

Mr. SHAYS. Just in general. Just in general, tell me what you

thought of Mr. Barboza as a witness.

Mr. RICO. I thought that he was convincing, that he was there

at the scene of a crime. If he was a participant in the crime.

Mr. SHAYS. What would have convinced you that he would have

told the truth? I mean, he was a notorious contract killer. That you

knew. Correct? You knew he was a contract killer?

Mr. RICO. He testified to that.

Mr. SHAYS. And you knew that he was a—see, the thing is even

though he—if he testifies to that, I don’t know if you’re willing to

acknowledge he knew it. You knew he was a contract killer?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know if I knew he was a contract killer before

he testified. I knew he was a killer, but I knew he was a contract

killer till after he testified.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you have any doubts that he was a contract killer?

Mr. RICO. Not after he testified, no. Convincing——

Mr. SHAYS. And what you’re saying to us is that when you all— didn’t you have conversations with Mr. Barboza before he testified?

Mr. RICO. Sure. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Of course. Of course you did.

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And you’re not a naive FBI agent. That’s the one

thing I’ll give you credit for.

Mr. RICO. I’m not a what?

Mr. SHAYS. You’re not a naive FBI agent. You’re a pretty wily

guy and you knew a lot of stuff, so I’ll give you credit for that and

so did Mr. Condon. So in the course of your conversation, you were

testifying to us that in all your conversations with Mr. Barboza,

you did not know that he was a contract killer until he testified

under oath?

Mr. RICO. Well, no. When he told us the contract that he was

asked to execute for Raymond Patriarca, that’s when I became

aware.

Mr. SHAYS. So you knew before he testified that he was a contract killer?

Mr. RICO. Yes. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. But before you said you didn’t know until he testified. And so I just want to see which story——

201

Mr. RICO. It was until——

Mr. SHAYS. No. Which story——

Mr. RICO. Came up.

Mr. SHAYS. I didn’t say when the subject came up. I didn’t do

that. You’re starting to say things that I didn’t say. I asked you a

question.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. Of whether you knew he was a contract killer, and

under oath. You said you didn’t know until he testified. And now

you’re saying something different. Now you’re saying you knew before, and the reason you’re saying you knew something before is because I happened to ask you the question, and it conflicts with

what you said earlier. The fact is, you had many conversations

with this gentleman; correct?

Mr. RICO. I had some conversation with him. Yeah. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. More than two or three?

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. He was a witness that you turned against organized

crime and be supportive of going after organized crime. He was one

of the witnesses you turned. He was a crook, and now he was going

after crooks. Isn’t that true?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. And the FBI took some pride in the fact that

they had this witness who was now—we had successfully turned to

go after organized crime, and the fact is, Mr. Rico, you knew he

was a contract killer before he testified. Isn’t that true?

Mr. RICO. From interviewing him, I knew, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes. OK. Well, it’s just good to have you say that. So

I should believe that testimony, not the part when you answered

the question and said you didn’t know until after he testified. So

OK.

Mr. RICO. After he agreed to testify?

Mr. SHAYS. Pardon me?

Mr. RICO. After he agreed to testify. After he agreed that—to testify, then——

Mr. SHAYS. So now you’re——

Mr. RICO. The debriefing him comes out——

Mr. SHAYS. So you knew he was a contract killer, and you knew

this contract killer was—had testified against Mr. Salvati; correct?

You knew he testified and five other individuals. Isn’t that correct?

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So you knew he had testified—you knew this

contract killer was testifying against these six witnesses. What

made you think he was telling the truth?

Mr. RICO. Because I think the—I thought that the fear of

perjury——

Mr. SHAYS. Excuse me. You need to get close to the mic.

Mr. RICO. I would think that the fear of perjury would prevent

him from lying.

Mr. SHAYS. Why would you think the fear of perjury would prevent him from lying?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know. I had to think something. So that’s what

I thought.

202

Mr. SHAYS. No. I think that’s an honest answer. I think your

character is coming through. You think you had to say something.

So in fact you really couldn’t be certain he was telling the truth?

Mr. RICO. No. I don’t think I could be certain that he’s ever telling the truth.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. OK. But he was a witness, and you and Mr.

Condon were involved in turning this witness around; correct?

Turning him against the mob, whereas before he worked for the

mob?

Mr. RICO. I don’t think it was us as—that turned him. I think

the fact that they killed his associates and took his money.

Mr. SHAYS. Right, but you——

Mr. RICO. Turned. But I happened to be there when——

Mr. SHAYS. Were you the FBI agents that basically were responsible for convincing Mr. Barboza that he would be better off testifying against organized crime?

Mr. RICO. All we’re trying to convince a lot of people that, yes,

and he was one of them.

Mr. SHAYS. I know that and he was one of them and you succeeded with him and failed with others. Isn’t that true?

Mr. RICO. Well, we succeeded with some others too.

Mr. SHAYS. OK you succeeded with some others too. In the end,

the answer to the question—the answer to the question is, yes, you

succeeded——

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS [continuing]. In turning him around? OK. What made

you feel comfortable that the testimony that he gave against these

six individuals was accurate, given the fact that you had information that it was people other than these six? Or at least four of

them weren’t guilty. Given the fact you knew of information that

never brought Mr. Salvati into this case and three others, what

made you think that he was telling the truth?

Mr. RICO. I had no way of knowing he wasn’t telling the truth,

except informant information.

Mr. SHAYS. No. No, but——

Mr. RICO. And informant information, I don’t know whether

that’s true.

Mr. SHAYS. So—but you acknowledge that you had informant information, not Mr. Barboza, but informant information that conflicted with what Mr. Barboza said on the trial——

Mr. RICO. I can tell you—I’m under oath and can tell you that

I have known some informants that have supplied information that

hasn’t been true.

Mr. SHAYS. I understand that. I understand, but that’s not what

I asked. So you answered something you wanted to answer, but you

didn’t answer the question.

Mr. RICO. What’s the question?

Mr. SHAYS. The question was that you had information from informants that conflicted with the testimony of Mr. Barboza?

Mr. RICO. Right. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. Why did you decide to go along with Mr. Barboza and

not with the testimony from—excuse me, the information you had

from your informants?

203

Mr. RICO. I was not handling the case. This was a local case that

was being handled by the local authorities.

Mr. SHAYS. You’re not testifying under oath, are you, Mr. Rico,

that you had no conversations with Mr. Barboza about this case?

So your testimony, you had no discussion with Mr. Barboza about

this case?

Mr. RICO. About this case?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

Mr. RICO. I had conversations in the past about this case.

Mr. SHAYS. October. You had many conversations.

Mr. RICO. Right?

Mr. SHAYS. Isn’t that true? So when you say you weren’t involved

in this case, you had conversations with Mr. Barboza about the

case informing Mr. Salvati and five other witnesses. You had conversations. So you can’t say you weren’t involved in the case. How

can you say that? This is your witness. So tell me how you can

make that claim?

Mr. RICO. Because we indicate to the Boston Police Department

that we have this witness, and they come and interview him.

Mr. SHAYS. No. But you also told me something more. You told

me something more. You told me that you had a witness that had

spoken to you about this case. Correct?

Mr. RICO. I have a witness that spoke—— Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Barboza talked to you about this case?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes? Correct? And then you supplied this witness to

the local authorities and the State authorities. Isn’t that true?

Mr. RICO. We—— Mr. SHAYS. I want an answer to my question.

Mr. RICO. I didn’t hear the whole question.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, I’ll say it again.

Mr. RICO. All right. Say it again.

Mr. SHAYS. You spoke with Mr. Barboza about this case involving Mr. Salvati and five other witnesses. You had a number of conversations with Mr. Barboza about this case. You’ve already said

that’s correct. And I am asking you the question now, isn’t it true

that you then contacted local authorities and State authorities and

said you had a witness who had information about this case?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. What I want to know is why were you willing

to supply only that part of the information and not the part to the

State and local authorities about the informants you had?

Mr. RICO. I’m not sure we didn’t say something about that also.

We might have said something about that.

Mr. SHAYS. You might have said it. Is that your testimony that

you did?

Mr. RICO. What?

Mr. SHAYS. Is your testimony that you did notify them about the

informants who had a different story than the witness? You’ve got

an informant and you’ve got a witness. What——

Mr. RICO. I have no—I actually have no clear recollection of telling the local authorities of that informant information——

Mr. SHAYS. Why not? Why didn’t you tell them about what the

informant said that conflicted with what your witness said?

204

Mr. BURTON [presiding]. Would the gentleman yield? Well, the

thing is, he has, as you know, selective memory loss.

Mr. SHAYS. But—— Mr. BURTON. But he’s continuing to say that, you know, he

doesn’t remember, that he can’t remember—— Mr. SHAYS. No. But what he did say under oath is very clear. He

said that he had information about what the informant said and

he had information about what the witness said. He had both two

different stories, and I want to know why you decided to give the

local police, the State police information that your witness had and

not provide information about what the informant had that you

knew of. It conflicted—— Mr. RICO. Because the informant told me that 2 years—2–1/2

years before, this witness arrives on the scene.

Mr. SHAYS. So what?

Mr. RICO. So—— Mr. SHAYS. So I would believe their story more. You’ve already

told me that your witness is a notorious criminal. You acknowledge

the fact that he killed people. You acknowledged the fact that he

was a hit person. He, in fact, even told you that. You told me that

you couldn’t be sure he—no. Hold on. You already told me you

couldn’t be sure he would tell the truth, and yet you decided to only

supply some information to the authorities that were going to prosecute. And then you give this incredible lame comment that the informants told you 2 years earlier. To me, that’s even more important. They told you 2 years earlier. Why didn’t you give them that

information 2 years earlier?

Mr. RICO. 2 years earlier we supplied that information to the

Chelsea Police Department. They had jurisdiction over this case.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, the bottom line is, you have no remorse. You

didn’t provide information you should have. I think you should be

prosecuted. I think you should be sent to jail. That’s what I think.

I’d like to ask a few more questions, if I might. I’ll be happy to take

my time.

Mr. BURTON. OK. You said a minute ago that you did supply this

information to the Chelsea Police Department—— Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. BURTON [continuing]. About the informant as well as the witness. Right?

Mr. RICO. Yes. It was supplied by Don Shannon to Robert

Renfrew.

Mr. BURTON. So you’re saying that the Chelsea Police had information that would have created doubt in a jury’s mind about

whether or not Mr. Salvati was guilty? I mean, if they had that information from the informant as well as the witness, obviously

there would have been some conflicts there, and it would have created doubt. Why is it—can you explain to me and to the committee

why is it that the Chelsea Police didn’t use that in the trial? Why

it wasn’t brought up in the trial?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know.

Mr. BURTON. Well, your partner, who was your partner, he was

your partner. As I understand it, you two worked very closely together. Your partner testified as to the veracity of what Mr.—of

what Barboza said at the trial. He testified that he thought he was

205

a credible witness. Now, you were his partner. You had to know

that the informant said something else and Mr. Condon had to

know that as well. So why in the world didn’t they say that at the

trial? Why didn’t Mr. Condon, as an FBI agent—he’s your partner.

Come on. Don’t tell me you didn’t know—you didn’t talk about this

stuff. You had dinner together and everything else. Why didn’t he

just say, look, here’s what Mr. Barboza is saying, but we have information contrary to that from an informant? This exculpatory

evidence, why in the heck wasn’t that brought up? Why did Mr.

Condon not say that at the trial?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know. I don’t know if Mr. Condon said that at

the trial or not. I don’t know. I wasn’t there at the trial.

Mr. BURTON. And you guys never talked about that? You weren’t

partners? I mean, you weren’t together a lot?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know what he said at the trial, but I have a

transcript here, if I can find it. Do you think he testified——

Mr. BURTON. He did testify.

Mr. RICO [continuing]. That this is a credible witness?

Mr. BURTON. He testified at the trial and——

Mr. RICO. He testified he was a credible witness? What page is

that on?

Mr. BURTON. Well, we’ll get the exact language for you, Mr.——

Mr. RICO. Yeah. If you would. Sure. I appreciate that.

Mr. BURTON. We’ll get that for you. We’ll come back to that.

Mr. RICO. I know you wouldn’t want to mislead me.

Mr. BURTON. No. I wouldn’t mislead you. We’ll come back to that.

Who’s next? Mr. Delahunt, do you have any questions?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Going back to the

conversation you had with Jack Kehoe, is Jack Kehoe still alive?

Mr. RICO. The last I knew, he was. That’s fairly recently.

Mr. DELAHUNT. OK. I would suggest that the committee, Mr.

Chairman, should interview Mr. Kehoe, relative to the conversation

he had with Mr. Rico.

Would it be fair to say that you would have disclosed the name

of that informant to Mr. Kehoe?

Mr. RICO. It would be fair to say that Jack Kehoe would know

the identity of the informant.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you.

Mr. RICO. Without my disclosing it to him, because of this stuff

that’s blocked out here. He would recognize who it was.

Mr. DELAHUNT. So Jack Kehoe would. Would it be fair to infer,

given the fact that you and Mr. Condon were partners—and, by the

way, how long did you and Mr. Condon work together as partners?

Mr. RICO. Oh, probably 8 years to 10 years.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And you were close?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And you still are?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You’re close personal friends?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Is it a fair inference that Mr. Condon, if he read

the report that was authored by you, would know the name of that

informant?

206

Mr. RICO. I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t know the name. I can’t

tell you who it is. I don’t know who it is. Right now I can’t remember who that would be. I have—— Mr. DELAHUNT. As we were discussing earlier in terms of your

role in cultivating in Barboza as a witness and discussing the

Deegan murder, did you supply any information from any source

about the murder?

Mr. RICO. Absolutely not.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Not at all? Before he was to testify, did either

you or Mr. Condon, working with the assistant district attorney in

charge of the case or with local law enforcement, review his testimony?

Mr. RICO. I don’t recall doing that, and I don’t know whether

Dennis did. I don’t think so.

Mr. DELAHUNT. So your memory is that you never

participated—— Mr. RICO. I can’t recall—I can’t recall that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Now, one of the problems that I have, Mr. Rico,

is that when you develop a witness and as you said, you supply a

witness, particularly a high profile thug like Joe Barboza, the key

to having him as an effective witness is to establish his credibility.

Is that a fair statement?

Mr. RICO. It sounds good.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I mean, use an agent, myself as a former prosecutor, particularly when you’re dealing with somebody like a

Barboza—— Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. Your biggest concern is, he’s going

to be impeached. They’re going to get him on the stand and they’re

going to supply documents as to his convictions, review bad acts.

You know the drill and I know the drill.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. See, what I find difficult is to vet his credibility,

is to establish his credibility, when you’re the author, you, Paul

Rico, are the author of a report that implicates neither Salvati nor

Greco nor Limone nor Tameleo, why wouldn’t you, because he’s

your witness, you cultivated him, you flipped him, why wouldn’t

you and Dennis, working with Jack Kehoe, because he was considered an FBI witness, and he ended up being responsible for the

genesis of the Federal Witness Protection Program, why wouldn’t

you conduct an exhaustive and an intensive investigation to evaluate and assess his credibility?

Why wouldn’t you go and have interviewed all of the players that

were around in that point in time, determine whether Barboza was

lying or telling the truth?

Mr. RICO. It’s because in our interviews with him, we were discussing who might have done different crimes, mostly he had

swayed a lot of hits in the Boston area, as you remember. And he

was on the money on—from the standpoint of—from—— Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me—— Mr. RICO. What we knew and what he knew.

Mr. DELAHUNT. He was responsible or the prime witness who

testified in three different cases?

Mr. RICO. Right.

207

Mr. DELAHUNT. Earlier you indicated on one case that everyone

was found not guilty.

Mr. RICO. His—— Mr. DELAHUNT. Correct?

Mr. RICO. His first case.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Everyone found not guilty?

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And on this case, he managed to put four innocent people in jail. How did he do on the third case, Mr. Rico?

Mr. RICO. Well, the first case was handled—— Mr. DELAHUNT. I’m asking about the third case.

Mr. RICO. Well, I just—— Mr. DELAHUNT. Did he ever—— Mr. RICO. This is the third case. This is the third case.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I’m not asking you to go chronologically.

The second—please, because—— Mr. RICO. He went State, Federal and State.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right.

Mr. RICO. He got a not guilty on everything in State court.

Mr. DELAHUNT. OK.

Mr. RICO. Guilty in Federal court, and then this was the third

case.

Mr. DELAHUNT. OK. He got a guilty—and the third case, of

course, is—what we know now is a horrible injustice?

Mr. RICO. Right. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And on the Federal case, what happened then?

Mr. RICO. Guilty.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Guilty. And what were the sentences that were

meted out?

Mr. RICO. Small.

Mr. DELAHUNT. So in all this—— Mr. RICO. What?

Mr. DELAHUNT. With all the effort, the resources—— Mr. RICO. Yeah.

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. And the time devoted to cultivating

this witness.

Mr. RICO. Uh-huh.

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. We get a couple of soft sentences in

the Federal court. That’s it. But you still haven’t answered the

question that I posed to you earlier. You had to know that guys

like Bear and others that were there were going to attack his credibility, and if you supplied the witness—— Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. But you didn’t supply the report

that would have devastated his credibility, that’s the problem.

Mr. RICO. Yeah.

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. Isn’t it, Mr. Rico?

Mr. RICO. That’s probably true.

Mr. DELAHUNT. It’s probably true.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. BURTON. Then why didn’t you supply it?

Mr. RICO. What?

Mr. BURTON. Why didn’t you supply the report?

Mr. RICO. Why didn’t I supply it?

208

Mr. BURTON. Yeah. Why wasn’t the report supplied? I mean, you

just admitted to Mr. Delahunt that if it had been supplied, it would

have changed the whole outcome. Why wasn’t it supplied? You

guys had it. Why did you choose to keep that?

Mr. RICO. I assume that they must have had it. They must have

had it. We had given it to Chelsea. Chelsea is the original crime

scene—— Mr. BURTON. But you guys were involved in the case when you

gave the information to the Chelsea Police. You knew what was

going on. It was in the newspapers. You had to know. Why would

you not make sure that kind of evidence was given to them? And

your partner testified at the trial. We’re getting that evidence right

now—that information right now. But he testified you guys knew

all this stuff and you didn’t give it to him.

Mr. RICO. Has he given me the—what do you say that he indicated?

Mr. BURTON. We’ll get that.

Mr. RICO. OK.

Mr. BURTON. We’ll have that. Mrs. Morella.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Back to that police report that was discussed. There’s a report that we have, from the

Boston Police Department on the Deegan murder. Did the FBI

share any information on the Deegan murder with the Boston Police Department? I guess I could also expand that, too, and add, did

you see any of the police reports from either the Boston Police Department or the Chelsea Police Department during the time of the

Deegan murder?

Mr. RICO. I cannot tell you right now.

Mrs. MORELLA. Uh-huh.

Mr. RICO. Up.

Mrs. MORELLA. There’s a report—city of Boston report on exhibit

12.

[Exhibit 12 follows:]

209

210

211

Mr. RICO. Exhibit 12.

Mrs. MORELLA. Roy French was questioned by the Chelsea Police

the day after the murder. Besides French, do you know if any of

the other individuals identified, either in your report or the Chelsea report, who were questioned about the Deegan murder? For instance, was Vincent Flemmi questioned?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know. I have no knowledge of that.

Mrs. MORELLA. You don’t remember, or you just don’t know

whether any of them were questioned?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know whether—other people were questioned at

that time.

Mrs. MORELLA. Was Vincent Flemmi ever questioned by anybody

about the Deegan murder?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know. I didn’t question him.

Mrs. MORELLA. You don’t know. Around the time of the Deegan

murder, what evidence had you developed, either on your own or

from other law enforcement agencies, regarding Joe Salvati’s role

in the Deegan——

Mr. RICO. I never received any mention that was derogatory on

Joe Salvati ever.

Mrs. MORELLA. You never have?

Mr. RICO. I have no information on Joe Salvati. I don’t think I

ever heard the name before.

Mrs. MORELLA. You know, I understand that FBI Director Louis

Freeh has issued a statement saying that there is a task force that

is ongoing that is looking at this issue. It’s called a Justice Task

Force. It’s now been in operation since, I think, early 1999.

Mr. RICO. Uh-huh.

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Rico, have they ever questioned you?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mrs. MORELLA. They have not questioned you at all about this?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mrs. MORELLA. Have you received any communication from them

about it?

Mr. RICO. What?

Mrs. MORELLA. Have you gotten any communication?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mrs. MORELLA. From the FBI that they’re interested at all? Don’t

you think——

Mr. RICO. I appeared before Judge Wolf in Federal court about

a year and a half ago, and I think that’s part of the whole system.

Mrs. MORELLA. Were you asked about the Deegan——

Mr. RICO. No. At that time I was asked about Flemmi, Steve

Flemmi, not——

Mrs. MORELLA. Not Vince?

Mr. RICO. Not Vincent.

Mrs. MORELLA. Very interesting. I would guess you would expect

that we’d be asking you some questions.

Mr. RICO. Fine.

Mrs. MORELLA. Maybe as a result of this hearing.

Mr. RICO. Sure.

Mrs. MORELLA. I think we certainly think they should. Well, Mr.

Chairman, I’m going to yield back to you the remainder of my time.

212

Mr. BARR [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Shays, we’ll

conclude with 5 minutes from you.

Mr. SHAYS. I may just go slightly over, but I’ll try to be as punctual as possible. Mr. Rico, when did you join the FBI?

Mr. RICO. What?

Mr. SHAYS. When did you join the FBI?

Mr. RICO. I think it was 1951, beginning of 1951.

Mr. SHAYS. And when did you retire?

Mr. RICO. 1975.

Mr. SHAYS. And when you—during that time that you were in

the FBI, how long were you in the New England area?

Mr. RICO. I was there from the early 1950’s to 1970.

Mr. SHAYS. Is that unusual for someone to be in one place basically for most of their time?

Mr. RICO. Not really, no. Well, it could be.

Mr. SHAYS. So the bottom line is you spent a good—maybe almost 20 years of your experience in the New England area?

Mr. RICO. That’s right. That’s right.

Mr. SHAYS. What did you do after you retired?

Mr. RICO. I went to work for World Jai Alai.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you know at the time that there were concerns

that World Jai Alai was—well, let me ask you this. Who hired you?

Mr. RICO. I was hired by a head hunting group. Well, I was

interviewed by a head hunting group, and eventually was hired by

John Callahan.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. Now, did you have any information that John

Callahan was involved in organized crime?

Mr. RICO. Not till late in—not till later.

Mr. SHAYS. Later. Explain later.

Mr. RICO. Later was later, several years later.

Mr. SHAYS. 2 years later, 1 year later.

Mr. RICO. It was shortly before he left the company.

Mr. SHAYS. And so how long was that after he had hired you?

Mr. RICO. After he hired me?

Mr. SHAYS. Yeah.

Mr. RICO. 3 or 4 years probably.

Mr. SHAYS. Why wouldn’t you have known that he was involved

in organized crime?

Mr. RICO. Why wouldn’t I know?

Mr. SHAYS. Yeah, you work for FBI.

Mr. RICO. Because there was nothing in the files of the FBI indicating that John Callahan was in any way connected with organized crime.

Mr. SHAYS. So we have a retired FBI agent who is hired to work

at World Jai Alai and hired by an organized crime figure. Did any

of your colleagues question the advisability of you working for an

organized crime figure?

Mr. RICO. I don’t think anyone knew he was an organized crime

figure until later.

Mr. SHAYS. The State officials knew.

Mr. RICO. What?

Mr. SHAYS. The State officials knew in Connecticut. They were

rather surprised that you would choose to work for someone involved in organized crime.

213

Mr. RICO. The reason he left was because he was seen with organized crime people. And I reported it to the board of directors, and

he was asked to resign.

Mr. SHAYS. You weren’t the one who reported it.

Mr. RICO. I wasn’t?

Mr. SHAYS. You were the one who discovered he was involved

with organized crime? Your testimony before this committee is that

no one knew in the organization that he was involved in organized

crime until you told them?

Mr. RICO. No one in my company knew that until I told them.

Mr. SHAYS. That is your testimony under oath?

Mr. RICO. No one in my company knew.

Mr. SHAYS. What is the company—— Mr. RICO. Huh?

Mr. SHAYS. Tell me the company.

Mr. RICO. World Jai Alai.

Mr. SHAYS. Your testimony under oath is that nobody in World

Jai Alai knew that he was involved in organized crime?

Mr. RICO. That I knew of, yeah.

Mr. SHAYS. Who is Roger Wheeler?

Mr. RICO. He is the person who eventually bought World Jai

Alai.

Mr. SHAYS. And you worked for Roger Wheeler?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. What happened to Roger Wheeler?

Mr. RICO. Roger Wheeler was a homicide victim.

Mr. SHAYS. Who committed that crime? Who killed him?

Mr. RICO. I believe they have a witness that said he did it. I

think his name is James Martorano.

Mr. SHAYS. John Vincent Martorano?

Mr. RICO. Martorano.

Mr. SHAYS. Have you ever heard of the individual?

Mr. RICO. Yes. He was with Callahan. It was like a St. Patrick’s

Day night. He was at the Playboy with John Callahan and two

other people, Martorano was.

Mr. SHAYS. He was killed in a club, wasn’t he, in Tulsa?

Mr. RICO. What?

Mr. SHAYS. He was killed in Arizona?

Mr. RICO. Oklahoma.

Mr. SHAYS. Oklahoma.

Let me just ask you another line of questions. In 1988 the Supreme Court of Rhode Island found that FBI Special Agent H. Paul

Rico, you, suborned the perjury of John Kelley, the State’s principal

witness in the 1970 murder trial of Maurice Lerner. Apparently at

your instigation, Mr. Rico, Kelley altered two facts directly dealing

with the murder and the extent of the promises that you made in

exchange for Kelley’s testimony. When asked why he perjured himself, Kelley said my life was in the FBI’s hands, and this is in

brackets, Special Agent Rico, end of brackets, said I had no alternative.

Mr. Rico, why did you suborn the perjury of the State’s main witness John Kelley in the gangland killing of Anthony Melei?

Mr. RICO. Anthony who?

Mr. SHAYS. Anthony Melei.

214

Mr. RICO. I don’t know who that is.

Mr. SHAYS. Isn’t it true that you were found, the Supreme Court

of Rhode Island found you to have perjured—suborned the perjury

of John Kelley? Weren’t you cited in 1988?

Mr. RICO. I’m unaware of that.

Mr. SHAYS. You’re unaware of any perjury, any order, any decision—I want you to be real careful about this because you did have

a conversation with one of our staff. So I want you to think this

through for a second. I just read you something that was pretty

clear. I want you to tell me what your answer is to that.

Do you know who Maurice Lerner is?

Mr. RICO. Yes, oh yeah, Maurice Lerner.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you know who John Kelley is?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. You know who those two people are?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Who are they?

Mr. RICO. John J. Kelley is an individual that’s been involved in

different forms of crime over a long period of time, including numerous bank robberies and armored car robberies on a national

basis.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. And you have had contact with them, haven’t

you?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And you had a circumstance where you spoke to him

about the testimony he gave before the Supreme Court in Rhode

Island—I mean, excuse me, before the court in Rhode Island, not

the Supreme Court.

Mr. RICO. I had a conversation with John over that?

Mr. SHAYS. John Kelley.

Mr. RICO. I’m not trying to be evasive. I think that John J.

Kelley—— Mr. SHAYS. John. If it’s John J. Kelley, I know it’s John Kelley.

Mr. RICO. It’s the person that was tried in the Plymouth mail

robbery. He became a government witness.

Mr. SHAYS. Could you put the mic a little closer to you, please?

Mr. RICO. He was a principal in the Plymouth mail robbery, was

tried and F. Lee Bailey represented him and he was found not

guilty. He later became involved in another robbery of a Brinks

truck and he was awaiting trial on that matter when he decided

that he would become a government witness. And he became a government witness. And once his testimony was over and his sentencing was over he decided to change his testimony.

Mr. SHAYS. He perjured himself, and he claims that you were the

reason he perjured.

Mr. RICO. That’s right. That’s what he claimed. That’s true.

Mr. SHAYS. You just seem——

Mr. RICO. Because I thought you were saying that I had been

found guilty of perjury. I wasn’t involved in being convicted. He alleged it, that I did this?

Mr. SHAYS. Right. And weren’t you cited by the Supreme Court?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know if I was. I don’t think so.

Mr. SHAYS. What was the claim that he made? How had he perjured himself?

215

Mr. RICO. You ask him, Maurice Lerner. Maurice Lerner had a

shooting gallery in his basement and he was, according to Jack

Kelley, this guy was a very competent killer and Jack was very

afraid of him and I think that after Jack Kelley got his legal problems squared away that he decided he would help Lerner and he

changed his testimony and said that he had only testified the other

way because I had insisted on it.

Mr. SHAYS. I am going to ask you two questions. Mr. Rico, why

did you suborn the perjury of the State’s main witness John Kelley

in the gangland killing of Anthony Melei.

Mr. RICO. Why did I do that?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

Mr. RICO. I did not suborn perjury.

Mr. SHAYS. Did you also perjure yourself in that case by corroborating Kelley’s false statements concerning promises you made to

Kelley in exchange for his testimony?

Mr. RICO. I have always been able to say to everybody that was

a witness or a potential witness the same thing, that we will bring

whatever cooperation you bring to the attention of the proper authorities. There’s nothing else that I have ever said concerning eliciting testimony.

Mr. SHAYS. Two points. Isn’t it true that Mr. Kelley perjured

himself?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know that.

Mr. SHAYS. You don’t know if Mr. Kelley perjured?

Mr. RICO. If he changed his testimony from the first time and

changed it to something else the second time, he obviously was

wrong in one of those instances.

Mr. SHAYS. Isn’t it true that he claims you were the reason that

he had given false testimony the first time?

Mr. RICO. That’s probably true. That’s probably what he said.

Mr. SHAYS. No, not probably. Isn’t it true?

Mr. RICO. It’s probably true.

Mr. SHAYS. Don’t use the word ‘‘probably.’’ Isn’t it true that he

said that you encouraged him to perjure himself and give false testimony?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, you know I realize that he may be an unsavory

character but why shouldn’t I believe him more than you were willing to believe your star witness Joseph Barboza and send someone

to jail for 30 years? Why should you be incredulous about my question?

Mr. RICO. No, no, no. He would be very interesting if you would

talk to him.

Mr. SHAYS. This has been a fascinating day for me, Mr. Rico. I

think the thing I’m most surprised about is that it’s clear to me

that the FBI became as corrupt as the people they went after and

it’s clear to me that you have the same insensitivity that I would

imagine in someone who is a hard and fast criminal. No remorse

whatsoever. Cold as can be. The fact that a man spent 30 years in

jail, no big deal. No tears. No regret, and yet you were responsible

for that man being in jail for 30 years. You have gotten just like

the people you went after. What a legacy.

Mr. BARR. The Chair recognizes the counsel, Mr. Wilson.

216

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Rico, there are a number of questions that need

to be answered but there’s one that sticks out in my mind right

now and it’s this. We’ve learned that on many occasions you talked

to Joe Barboza. He was a witness that you were handling, went

into the Witness Protection Program. You worked with him after

he was in the Witness Protection Program. When you asked him

the question where was Vincent Flemmi on March 12, 1965, what

did he tell you?

Mr. RICO. I don’t think we ever asked him that question. We

never asked him that question.

Mr. WILSON. The only reason I ask that is because it’s the only

question that you could not have failed to ask. It’s inconceivable

that you wouldn’t ask that question. I’ll tell you why it’s inconceivable to me. In 1964 you learned that Vincent Flemmi wanted to kill

Teddy Deegan. That was on October 19, 1964, you knew that Vincent Flemmi wanted to kill Teddy Deegan. On March 10 you

learned from the informant that Deegan was going to be murdered.

On March 13, 1965 you learned from an informant that Vincent

Flemmi told people that the Deegan murder was committed by Joseph Barboza and himself. So in 1964 you knew Teddy Deegan was

going to be killed and Vincent Flemmi wanted to kill him or at

least you learned that Vincent Flemmi wanted to kill him. The following year you learned that Flemmi had said that he had killed

him. A little bit later in April, April 5, 1965, you had your first reported contact with Vincent Flemmi trying to get information from

him. We’re told by the task force head that on April 15 you opened

an informant file on Vincent Flemmi. You started working with

Vincent Flemmi’s brother in 1965 to obtain informant information.

And then you finally start working with Barboza, with all this

knowledge in the background of what Vincent Flemmi wanted to

do with Teddy Deegan, and you had the perfect opportunity to ask

Barboza where was Vincent Flemmi. I mean that’s the only question that you would think you would want answered. You knew you

testified that Vincent Flemmi was a killer, right?

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. WILSON. And here’s the possibility that there’s a murder to

be solved and you have got information that Vincent Flemmi might

be involved in the murder. Did you purposefully want to leave him

on the streets?

Mr. RICO. No, no, no. I arrested Vincent Flemmi.

Mr. WILSON. Well, you had an opportunity to followup and at

least ask the question of your principal witness about Vincent

Flemmi. Where was Vincent Flemmi on the day that Teddy Deegan

was killed? That’s to me the one question that you would have had

to ask him.

Mr. RICO. Yeah.

Mr. WILSON. And you didn’t ask him that?

Mr. RICO. I don’t remember asking him that, no.

217

Mr. WILSON. Now the most important document I think in this

whole series of documents we have is exhibit No. 24 in our book

and if you would turn to that, take a moment to look at it, please.

It’s a two-page document. We talked about it in a previous panel.

It was prepared by yourself and your partner, Dennis Condon. It’s

dated March 8, 1967. Apparently it’s information that was obtained

at Walpole, which is a prison in Massachusetts. And on the second

page—— [Exhibit 24 follows:]

218

219

220

Mr. RICO. I don’t find it.

Mr. WILSON. Do you have exhibit 24?

Mr. RICO. I have 25, OK. Coming up. 24. OK. This has to be 24.

Mr. WILSON. It’s a two-page document. It’s a write-up of your

interview and Mr. Condon’s interview with Joe Barboza, and on the

second page the FBI has redacted most of the information on the

second page so we don’t know what’s there, but it does say, the one

bit of text that’s left on the page, Baron, now Baron was Barboza’s

other name, ‘‘Baron knows what has happened in practically every

murder that has been committed in this area. He said that he

would never provide information that would allow James Vincent

Flemmi to fry but that he will consider furnishing information on

these murders.’’

Now, given the fact that you had all the information about Vincent Flemmi wanting to kill Teddy Deegan and then after the fact

having killed Teddy Deegan, given the fact that you had that information and given that Joe Barboza told you that he wasn’t going

to give you any information about Vincent Flemmi, did you have

any concern that Barboza was going to protect Vincent Flemmi in

the trial for the Deegan murder?

Mr. RICO. I probably had concern over it at that time.

Mr. WILSON. What did you do, what concrete steps did you do to

express your concern.

Mr. RICO. Well, I think I indicated to John Doyle the possibility

that this guy would not provide information on Jimmy Flemmi because he’s his friend and I think that should be borne in mind

when you interview this guy.

Mr. WILSON. But now he’s your witness. You’re the one taking

the interviews here. Why didn’t you ask him the question for your

own peace of mind? This was a death penalty case. You apparently

were his handler.

Mr. RICO. Well, he’d already said that he will not tell us, right?

Mr. WILSON. Pardon.

Mr. RICO. He already said that he would not give us anything

that would be harmful to Jimmy Flemmi.

Mr. WILSON. So that was it; you wouldn’t even followup and say

I need to know, I need to know to move forward? Tell me what happened. Well, let me just ask you a couple of other related questions

because a trial took place, and in hindsight, obviously hindsight is

helpful but there was this extraordinary testimony about a guy

wearing a wig to make him look bald. Did you know that Vincent

Flemmi was bald?

Mr. RICO. Yes, yes.

Mr. WILSON. OK. What did you think about the testimony at

trial?

Mr. RICO. I didn’t hear that testimony until today. That’s the

only time I ever heard that testimony was today.

Mr. WILSON. It seems to us that it had to have been as farfetched in 1967 and 1968.

Mr. RICO. I don’t remember it happening at that time, you know.

Mr. WILSON. Your partner testified at the trial, Barboza was

your witness. Weren’t you following what he was saying. That

would have ramifications for Federal trials. You were going to put

221

the guy on the stand in other trials. Didn’t you need to know what

he was saying in that trial?

Mr. RICO. No, that was the last trial.

Mr. WILSON. But he’s still in the Witness Protection Program. Is

that it? There was no possibility that he would ever be able to give

up information again?

Mr. RICO. I think that was it. I didn’t think he was going to give

us information that we could use on anything else. He was cut

loose.

Mr. WILSON. Did you ever debrief Barboza again? Did you ever

talk to him about any other matter after?

Mr. RICO. Yeah, I did. I talked to him in Santa Rosa and he told

me that somebody from Massachusetts had visited him, and I told

him that person was really not a friend of his and he should be

careful. And when he got out of jail he visited that person and

when he walked out the front door he got hit with a shotgun. That

was the end of Barboza.

Mr. WILSON. And that was in 1976, correct?

Mr. RICO. I don’t remember the year. I just know that’s what

happened.

Mr. WILSON. Right. Now, one of the other things that’s of some

concern to us, and we’ll just try to make sure we understand this

fully, Vincent Flemmi was being used as an informant in 1965, correct?

Mr. RICO. I don’t think I used him at all.

Mr. WILSON. I remember you said that before in answer to one

of the Congressman’s question. I think you said that you didn’t

know that Vincent Flemmi was an informant at all.

Mr. RICO. I don’t think I had him as an informant. I had—— Mr. WILSON. The question is did you know he was an informant

for the FBI?

Mr. RICO. Well, somebody could have opened him as an informant.

Mr. WILSON. But the question is did you know he was an informant for the FBI ever prior to today?

Mr. RICO. We’re talking about somebody that most of the informants you have to certify their emotional stability and it would be

difficult to certify James’s emotional stability. So I don’t know

whether or not someone decided to open him. I don’t think I did.

Mr. SHAYS. Could the gentleman yield for a second? I don’t understand. You have to certify?

Mr. RICO. You want to make sure that whoever you have is emotionally stable. Not a nut.

Mr. SHAYS. You also want to make sure they tell the truth, too,

right?

Mr. RICO. You want to make sure whether you can determine

that they tell the truth.

Mr. SHAYS. I want to make sure I understand this. You care

about a witness to make sure he’s emotionally credible but you

don’t care about the other things that a witness might say?

Mr. RICO. Yes, of course you do.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, you didn’t seem to—well, thank you.

Mr. WILSON. Well, I’m just a little concerned that we didn’t get

a clear answer to the question.

222

Mr. RICO. Well, do you have Vincent Flemmi as my informant?

Mr. WILSON. I don’t, but that’s not my question. My question is

did you know that Vincent Flemmi was being used as an informant

by anybody in the FBI?

Mr. RICO. At the present time I don’t know whether he was being

used as an informant. I doubt that he was being used as an informant.

Mr. WILSON. Did you know that anybody was considering using

him as an informant?

Mr. RICO. If you work in organized crime the Bureau expects you

to come up with sources and informants, so it’s very possible that

somebody could consider him. I don’t know that.

Mr. WILSON. Well, that is the answer. You’re saying you did not

know that?

Mr. RICO. I can’t recall that. OK.

Mr. WILSON. You did know, I believe you testified that Steven

Flemmi was being considered as an informant.

Mr. RICO. I had him.

Mr. WILSON. Now one of the problems that we face here is when

you interviewed Barboza and he said he wasn’t going to give you

any information that would—and I’m paraphrasing—but would

lead his brother, would lead Vincent Flemmi to fry, at that time

you have got knowledge that you’ve been using Steven Flemmi as

an informant. It seems to me there is a terrible conflict there. If

you had asked Barboza probing questions about Vincent Flemmi,

which seems to me a fairly logical thing to have done, you would

have put yourself into trouble with your informant Steve Flemmi.

Did that ever occur to you?

Mr. RICO. That is a possibility.

Mr. WILSON. Well—— Mr. RICO. It wouldn’t have prevented us from asking. We try not

to be married to informants.

Mr. WILSON. But to try to put it as simply as possible, one of our

concerns is that in order to keep your relationship with Steven

Flemmi you’re turning a blind eye to what Vincent Flemmi is

doing.

Mr. RICO. No, no. I mentioned before I ended up arresting him,

including with my partner Dennis.

Mr. WILSON. But not for the Deegan murder?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. WILSON. And you didn’t ask any questions about Vincent

Flemmi’s possible participation in the Deegan murder, none at all?

Mr. RICO. Well, I think John, I think John Doyle was pretty

much aware that Vincent Flemmi and Joseph Barboza were very

close. And I think that was brought out in conversations between

us, John Doyle, myself, Dennis, yeah.

Mr. WILSON. I guess this is a very important question that we’ve

not asked yet. But in 1965, given that you knew there was a bald

guy allegedly in the Deegan murder and that Barboza did commit

the murder, did you suspect that that person was Vincent Flemmi?

I’m asking whether you suspected that.

Mr. RICO. I can’t answer that now. I can’t answer that at the

present time. I can’t think of what I thought back then.

Mr. WILSON. Did——

223

Mr. RICO. Vincent was capable of doing anything though.

Mr. WILSON. Given what we now know, it’s obvious to us but it

would have been obvious to you in 1965 and 1966 and 1967. You

told us you ultimately arrested Vincent Flemmi. But what you had

in 1964 is information that Vincent Flemmi was going to kill Teddy

Deegan and then you had informant information in fact that Vincent Flemmi was going to kill Teddy Deegan. In fact, you sent

memos to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, your

ultimate boss, that Vincent Flemmi is going to kill Teddy Deegan

and then there is a bald guy that ends up helping to kill Teddy

Deegan and you told us you don’t know about the testimony but

you just don’t remember. That’s your testimony, that you just don’t

remember?

Mr. RICO. That’s right, I don’t remember.

Mr. WILSON. What your suspicion was?

Mr. RICO. And I don’t think I sent a communication. Oh, yes, I

did. OK.

Mr. WILSON. There are a number of memoranda—— Mr. RICO. I see it.

Mr. WILSON [continuing]. That you authored here. Some went to

the Director.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. WILSON. Did you have any verbal conversations, any conversations with the Director of the FBI about the Deegan case?

Mr. RICO. No.

Mr. WILSON. Did you know the Director of the FBI?

Mr. RICO. I only knew who he was. I didn’t know him.

Mr. WILSON. If you could give us a little sense of memoranda

that were being prepared. Did you prepare more than one memorandum a week for the Director of the FBI?

Mr. RICO. I don’t think so. I don’t think so. I don’t even think

it was, I don’t recall it being my responsibility.

Mr. WILSON. From our perspective, looking at the documents

we’ve been provided, it doesn’t appear to be something that you did

frequently. Is that fair to say?

Mr. RICO. Right, I would think it would be fair to say.

Mr. WILSON. I think you have had a chance to look a little bit

through the binder here. Do you know of any other memoranda

that you prepared that discussed Vincent Flemmi, and let me put

that in context, Vincent Flemmi in the Deegan case?

Mr. RICO. I would like to take a break.

Mr. WILSON. OK.

Mr. RICO. Which way is the nearest men’s room?

Mr. BARR. We’ll stand in recess for 5 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. BARR. I think Mr. Wilson has finished his questions. Mr.

Delahunt, you had one other area of inquiry that you wanted to go

into before we conclude?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.

Mr. BARR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for

5 minutes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Rico, you never inquired of or ever made any

recommendation to the Massachusetts Parole Board on any matter

relating to a commutation for either Mr. Salvati or anyone else who

224

was convicted as a result in the Deegan murder case; is that correct?

Mr. RICO. That is correct.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You indicated that Steve Flemmi was your informant and you ran him as an informant until you left the Bureau?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know the date. No, I think—no, I think that

I ran him until he was indicted on—I think he was indicted on the

bombing of John Fitzgerald’s car, and I closed him then.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me ask you this. You closed him then but

you introduced him to John Connolly, is that correct?

Mr. RICO. That is not correct.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is not correct?

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Did you participate in any way in encouraging,

either directly or indirectly through Dennis Condon, Steven

Flemmi to cooperate again with the FBI?

Mr. RICO. I think Dennis was the ultimate agent on with Stevie

Flemmi. And I think when Stevie Flemmi was no longer under indictment I think Dennis may have handled him for a period of

time.

Mr. DELAHUNT. OK. You’re familiar that Frank Salemme—you’re

familiar with Frank Salemme?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know Frank Salemme was arrested in New

York City?

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. By John Connolly.

Mr. RICO. Yes.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Are you aware of the details of how Mr. Connolly

developed that information?

Mr. RICO. I believe that Dennis Condon sent a photograph of

Frankie Salemme to New York City through John Connolly because he thought he was there and that the New York agents

weren’t paying much attention to it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But Steve Flemmi never provided any information relative to the whereabouts of Frank Salemme in New York

City.

Mr. RICO. I think Frank—excuse me, I think Steve Flemmi was

a fugitive at the same time so that he wasn’t available to provide

anyone with information.

Mr. DELAHUNT. So it was simply a coincidence?

Mr. RICO. Lucky is what I think.

Mr. DELAHUNT. You know, just for a minute touching on the

Wheeler case, and we all have coincidences in our lives, but the

witness you referred to, John Martorano, who has admitted killing

Wheeler——

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT [continuing]. Has testified under oath that he was

instructed or contracted for the hit by Steve Flemmi and Whitey

Bulger.

Mr. RICO. I understand that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. It’s a coincidence that you were the handler for

Steve Flemmi and that Steve Flemmi ordered the hit on Mr.

225

Wheeler, who was the CEO of a company that you were employed

by.

Mr. RICO. Right.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That’s just a coincidence.

Mr. RICO. You want to tie me into Bulger. I can tie myself into

Bulger for you.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Go ahead.

Mr. RICO. Bulger.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Rico, I think I need full disclosure here because somebody will, I’m sure, discover that years and years ago

I went to Saint Agatha’s Parochial School with John Martorano.

Mr. RICO. I knew that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I figured you did know that. So I really wanted

to be forthcoming. And you should also know that John Martorano

and I served mass together for Cardinal Cushing back in the

eighth grade. So there are coincidences in life.

Mr. RICO. OK.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If you want to proceed, Mr. Rico.

Mr. RICO. The last time that Jimmy Bulger was arrested I arrested him. I arrested him for two bank robberies and he pled

guilty to three bank robberies. And that’s my Bulger experience.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, thank you for that information. We’ll just

conclude with a—to elicit a response from you to a statement that

was made by your counsel that appeared in the Boston Herald

dated January 10 of this year. ‘‘Rico cannot be blamed for men— referring to the innocent individuals that were convicted in the

Deegan case.’’ Those are my parentheses. That’s not part of the

quotation. It goes on. The former agent’s attorney said yesterday

orders laid down by then FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover kept information in the murder of Edward Deegan locked away in FBI files

all these years, Cagney said. He was bound by the hierarchy, Cagney said. All that went to Rico supervisor—all that, rather, went

to Rico supervisors and he can’t release that without permission of

his supervisors.

Is that your position as well?

Mr. RICO. I don’t know where that came from. I hear what you’re

saying but it doesn’t sound—I’m sorry, I have got a cold. But it

doesn’t sound like Cagney and it doesn’t sound plausible to me.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield back.

Mr. BARR. I thank the gentleman. That concludes this hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Rico.

Mr. RICO. Thank you. Am I dismissed?

Mr. BARR. Yes, sir.

Mr. RICO. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 5:34 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

[Exhibits used for the hearing record follow:]

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

Æ