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 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?

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:]

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 Stat 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:]

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:]

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.

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:]

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 so-called 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.

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 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.

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.

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:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6507.062

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6507.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6507.064

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6507.045

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6507.046

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6507.047

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 follow up 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.

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. 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.

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 representative 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?

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.

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 follow up 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-to-day 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.?

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:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6507.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6507.052

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?

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?

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----

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?

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.

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.

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?

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----

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.

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?

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?

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 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?

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.

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?

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:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6507.056

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6507.057

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 follow up 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.

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:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6507.091

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6507.092

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 follow up 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 far-fetched 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 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.

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----

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 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. 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.