THE BLACK HAND FORUM

by **Confederate** » Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:55 am

If you google "Coffee with Cullotta being a made man", within the first 3 minutes of the video, Cullotta says that while he was in Chicago he was never a "made "man. He says it was offered to him but he turned it down. He further explains that the F.B.I claimed he was a made man during his time in Chicago but they were wrong.
Then, he says that when he went to Las Vegas, he became a "made" man because Tony Spilotro was the only other made man out there. That's all he says about it. He never gives any other details about it which is unlike him since he loves to tell long stories. I never read anywhere that the F.B.I. ever claimed he was made man. IMO, this is something new he is adding into it in order to help the "marketing" of himself.

by **Angelo Santino** » Tue Jun 16, 2020 2:31 am

I'm saying every family is different, they aren't that different. If a family allowed soldiers to make their own members then that family's membership would have been in the thousands and we've never seen any examples of that. Each family has local and regional variations, their own narratives, culture and story. When Natale goes into what a saint Salvie Testa was in the 1980's despite not having been there, he's doing it because that's a story that resonates. For some reason or other, despite being a psychopath Saint Salvie was clipped by Scarfo for the wrong reasons which makes him a martyr and it's something just about everyone likes to touch on, so Natale jumped in on it too.... So yeah, a crutch or whatever you wish to cal it.

by **Pete** » Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:48 pm

Chris Christie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:31 am
PolackTony wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:22 am
TallGuy19 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:27 am Is Cullotta really claiming that he was made by Spilotro?
Yes, while Cullotta still denies ever being made in Chicago, he has stated recently on his YouTube channel that he was "made" by Spilotro in Vegas, and basically served as his underboss.
Maybe, just maybe, Spilotro pulled him aside and said "You're gonna be my underboss here." An associate was told that by a Cleveland soldier over some gambling venture so there's history of people using "underboss" informally to describe number two or lieutenant. If anyone wishes to believe that soldiers now had their own formal boss-approved underbosses in Chicago then you've lost me. It may be different it ain't that different.

Now, as for the membership itself- what value does it have if other members don't know about it? In literally every example in the US, from Valachi up to now, the status upgrade to "made member" involves a mutual recognition with other members, it's why introduction banquets are usually held afterwards or soon after. It's against the rules to approach another member without being properly introduced as such and that protocol appears to still be universally followed. "You're a secret member who only answers to me" is pointless and in fact would be pretty dangerous for the individual, the boss could send you to go out and kill another boss and then deny he knows you let alone made you.

Not to mention, the only way Spilotro could legitimately make Culotta, either through ceremony or saying "you're a member" (non-ceremony makings weren't limited to Chicago but even the Bonannos and other Families in different eras. Galante made Massino a member in a crowded restaurant full of patrons.), would have had to have been on orders from the Chicago Admin. We've never heard of Bosses granting soldiers the rights to make who they want and tell them later. This has never been an issue in the American Mafia. "Hey, I'm boss now and you gotta get your crew in line. You got a guy with you, Friend of Ours, keeps making more Friends, last year this cocksucker got drunk and straightened out 4 people, including his sister. I'm boss now and I'm laying it down, shit's gotta stop." This has never happened in the annals of Mafia history.

Culotta lays out the hierarchy the way outsiders do: "This guy was over this guy and this guy over that guy but everyone listen to this fella here." Contrast his everchanging claims with what the Calabreses, who very clearly lay out a very clear LCN structure, who is an admin member, who is a captain and who is a soldier. We have very few made Chicago informants but the ones we do strongly indicate the hierarchy is very clear-cut to them, including the status of "member." But to us who are not members of this secret society, this Outfit looks confusing and organic and "different" so I think some of these associate Chicago informants are given more leeway to say what they want and have it taken more heavily because "Chicago is different." It needs to stop, especially when things they say defy all American Mafia logic.

Had Natale been a Chicago informant making those same claims applied to Chicago that would have automatically gained him about +20 points of legitimization in many's eyes. "Joe Batters and Paul Ricca pulled me aside, cut our fingers, Batters laughed and said that's a first, but it's the way we want it. You belong to Paul and you belong to me." Thank God he flipped in a family that has enough info spilling out to showcase that he's full of shit.

Hey bud I just wanna understand correctly are you saying you don’t believe chicago was different? Before we debate I just wanna sure I’m understanding correctly or are you saying that’s a crutch some use to further their agenda?

by **Angelo Santino** » Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:44 pm

PolackTony wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:03 pm
Well stated. One thing we can say is that being made seems to have been an even bigger privilege in Chicago than in other places. To be a member of the Chicago "family" was to be in the inner circle of an inner circle, an underworld within an underworld, and an associate like Cullotta simply would not be able to provide us with an insiders perspective on leadership and operations. Just on whatever his take was on whatever facets he happened to see based on who he worked under and with in particular rackets. I think that to Cullotta's credit, he does seem to be careful in saying that he simply doesn't know something when someone asks, because he wasnt made and therefore admits there's a lot he doesn't know. That doesn't mean that he doesn't exaggerate of course, or that his accounts aren't "contaminated" by access to books and the internet, as I think you've so rightly pointed out here. So far as the whole "made in Vegas" thing, maybe Tony did tell him this, regardless of whatever water it would hold among anyone else. I think that goes back to your point also about comparing what someone's says over the years vs their sworn statements when they cooperated. So far as I can tell Cullotta never used to say anything about being "made" in Vegas until recently.

Which he can make work for him by just spinning it with what the knowledge he's gained online: "Chicago was different from the rest of the country, there were made Mafia members but there were Outfit members and... there's a difference between someone who's part of an Outfit crew and someone who's not. Tony went to Joe Batters and said 'I need help' and Batters said: 'I'm placing Frank with you, he's all the help you'll ever need!" Someone like myself read/hear that and roll my eyes but his words would be used as a cudgel in the argument that Chicago has two Formal distinct layers of memberships not to mention how different it is.

This is just going to be a larger issue as time goes on. Look at Dominick Cicale and his book cover containing historical mobsters. The guy's entire mob career spanned 5 years (?) during a turbulent time when I doubt explaining the history was the first thing on the Bonanno's minds, yet Dom Cicale is going to lay it all out for us. Which is fine, there's value in hearing these guys talk about their history but always question it. What would Cicale have to say about Maranzano or Masseria or Galante that really means anything? However, it doesn't change the interesting stories he provided such as the acting boss in speedos or more information on the Bonanno-Montreal relationship. Let's just wait and see if in 5 years he and Vinny Gorgeous were plotting to take over the Family and Vinny made Cicale the go-to go for Montreal, and then later on he starts saying Vinny wanted him to be Underboss saying "He sees the future of the family in him." Just be aware. It's fucking commercialization now.

by **PolackTony** » Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:03 pm

Chris Christie wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:31 am
PolackTony wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:22 am
TallGuy19 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:27 am Is Cullotta really claiming that he was made by Spilotro?
Yes, while Cullotta still denies ever being made in Chicago, he has stated recently on his YouTube channel that he was "made" by Spilotro in Vegas, and basically served as his underboss.
Maybe, just maybe, Spilotro pulled him aside and said "You're gonna be my underboss here." An associate was told that by a Cleveland soldier over some gambling venture so there's history of people using "underboss" informally to describe number two or lieutenant. If anyone wishes to believe that soldiers now had their own underbosses in Chicago then you've lost me. It may be different it ain't that different.

Now, as for the membership itself- what value does it have if other members don't know about it? In literally every example in the US, from Valachi up to now, the status upgrade to "made member" involves a mutual recognition with other members, it's why introduction banquets are usually held afterwards or soon after. It's against the rules to approach another member without being properly introduced as such and that protocol appears to still be universally followed. "You're a secret member who only answers to me" is pointless and in fact would be pretty dangerous for the individual, the boss could send you to go out and kill another boss and then deny he knows you let alone made you.

Not to mention, the only way Spilotro could legitimately make Culotta, either through ceremony or saying "you're a member" (non-ceremony makings weren't limited to Chicago but even the Bonannos and other Families in different eras. Galante made Massino a member in a crowded restaurant full of patrons.), would have had to have been on orders from the Chicago Admin. We've never heard of Bosses granting soldiers the rights to make who they want and tell them later. This has never been an issue in the American Mafia. "Hey, I'm boss now and you gotta get your crew in line. You got a guy with you, Friend of Ours, keeps making more Friends, last year this cocksucker got drunk and straightened out 4 people, including his sister. I'm boss now and I'm laying it down, shit's gotta stop." This has never happened in the annals of Mafia history.

Culotta lays out the hierarchy the way outsiders do: "This guy was over this guy and this guy over that guy but everyone listen to this fella here." Contrast his everchanging claims with what the Calabreses, who very clearly lay out a very clear LCN structure, who is an admin member, who is a captain and who is a soldier. We have very few made Chicago informants but the ones we do strongly indicate the hierarchy is very clear-cut to them, including the status of "member." It's black and white and I think some of these associate Chicago informants are given more leeway to see what they want and have it taken more openly because "Chicago is different." It needs to stop, especially when things they say defy all American Mafia logic.

Had Natale been a Chicago informant making those same claims applied to Chicago that would have automatically gained him about +20 points of legitimization in many's eyes. "Joe Batters and Paul Ricca pulled me aside, cut our fingers, Batters laughed and said that's a first, but it's the way we want it. You belong to Paul and you belong to me." Thank God he flipped in a family that has enough info spilling out to showcase that he's full of shit.

Well stated. One thing we can say is that being made seems to have been an even bigger privilege in Chicago than in other places. To be a member of the Chicago "family" was to be in the inner circle of an inner circle, an underworld within an underworld, and an associate like Cullotta simply would not be able to provide us with an insiders perspective on leadership and operations. Just on whatever his take was on whatever facets he happened to see based on who he worked under and with in particular rackets. I think that to Cullotta's credit, he does seem to be careful in saying that he simply doesn't know something when someone asks, because he wasnt made and therefore admits there's a lot he doesn't know. That doesn't mean that he doesn't exaggerate of course, or that his accounts aren't "contaminated" by access to books and the internet, as I think you've so rightly pointed out here. So far as the whole "made in Vegas" thing, maybe Tony did tell him this, regardless of whatever water it would hold among anyone else. I think that goes back to your point also about comparing what someone's says over the years vs their sworn statements when they cooperated. So far as I can tell Cullotta never used to say anything about being "made" in Vegas until recently.

by **Angelo Santino** » Mon Jun 15, 2020 11:31 am

PolackTony wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:22 am
TallGuy19 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:27 am Is Cullotta really claiming that he was made by Spilotro?
Yes, while Cullotta still denies ever being made in Chicago, he has stated recently on his YouTube channel that he was "made" by Spilotro in Vegas, and basically served as his underboss.

Maybe, just maybe, Spilotro pulled him aside and said "You're gonna be my underboss here." An associate was told that by a Cleveland soldier over some gambling venture so there's history of people using "underboss" informally to describe number two or lieutenant. If anyone wishes to believe that soldiers now had their own formal boss-approved underbosses in Chicago then you've lost me. It may be different it ain't that different.

Now, as for the membership itself- what value does it have if other members don't know about it? In literally every example in the US, from Valachi up to now, the status upgrade to "made member" involves a mutual recognition with other members, it's why introduction banquets are usually held afterwards or soon after. It's against the rules to approach another member without being properly introduced as such and that protocol appears to still be universally followed. "You're a secret member who only answers to me" is pointless and in fact would be pretty dangerous for the individual, the boss could send you to go out and kill another boss and then deny he knows you let alone made you.

Not to mention, the only way Spilotro could legitimately make Culotta, either through ceremony or saying "you're a member" (non-ceremony makings weren't limited to Chicago but even the Bonannos and other Families in different eras. Galante made Massino a member in a crowded restaurant full of patrons.), would have had to have been on orders from the Chicago Admin. We've never heard of Bosses granting soldiers the rights to make who they want and tell them later. This has never been an issue in the American Mafia. "Hey, I'm boss now and you gotta get your crew in line. You got a guy with you, Friend of Ours, keeps making more Friends, last year this cocksucker got drunk and straightened out 4 people, including his sister. I'm boss now and I'm laying it down, shit's gotta stop." This has never happened in the annals of Mafia history.

Culotta lays out the hierarchy the way outsiders do: "This guy was over this guy and this guy over that guy but everyone listen to this fella here." Contrast his everchanging claims with what the Calabreses, who very clearly lay out a very clear LCN structure, who is an admin member, who is a captain and who is a soldier. We have very few made Chicago informants but the ones we do strongly indicate the hierarchy is very clear-cut to them, including the status of "member." But to us who are not members of this secret society, this Outfit looks confusing and organic and "different" so I think some of these associate Chicago informants are given more leeway to say what they want and have it taken more heavily because "Chicago is different." It needs to stop, especially when things they say defy all American Mafia logic.

Had Natale been a Chicago informant making those same claims applied to Chicago that would have automatically gained him about +20 points of legitimization in many's eyes. "Joe Batters and Paul Ricca pulled me aside, cut our fingers, Batters laughed and said that's a first, but it's the way we want it. You belong to Paul and you belong to me." Thank God he flipped in a family that has enough info spilling out to showcase that he's full of shit.

by **PolackTony** » Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:22 am

TallGuy19 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:27 am Is Cullotta really claiming that he was made by Spilotro?

Yes, while Cullotta still denies ever being made in Chicago, he has stated recently on his YouTube channel that he was "made" by Spilotro in Vegas, and basically served as his underboss.

by **Angelo Santino** » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:24 am

Yes, more interviews allow us to gain a deeper knowledge of their pros and cons, but it really only takes one single interview to be compared to their FBI debriefings to see if it's similar or deviated.

Gravano since his debriefing, has written a book, gave a Diane Sawyer interview, been a part of several mob documentaries. His story has not changed.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1535032/

Leonetti was set to release a book but then Gravano was releasing his which pushed Leonetti aside and then he kinda lost interest until recently. During that twenty years and the few interviews he gave along the way, his story also hasn't changed.

DiLeonardo, same thing. He's given a few interviews and there's an unflattering documentary about him from his ex-wife's perspective but I've caught him in no lies. I've managed to get ahold of him and he's got the bloodlines and the info he's supplied with me all checks out. And he, god bless him, isn't afraid to say "I don't know." That's a sign of honesty right there. When you are talking to someone who knows everything I find that suspicious. Leonetti from what I hear is the same way, if he doesn't know something he won't attempt to pretend that he does.

There's a difference between someone's story changing (for an example let's say Gravano begins stating that Chin and him worked out a deal to whack Gotti and install Gravano) and suspecting Gravano may have been involved in drugs in the 80's (as per Casso) or committed additional murders (as per that liar Kulklinksi- more on him). Or listening to Leonetti say he felt bad for Testa while we have Caramandi quoting Leonetti that he's tired of seeing Testa alive. That's not a change in story, it's different interpretations.

OK, Kulklinksi is a great example and wish I'd thought of him sooner, he's an example of someone who probably had access to the prison library. Do they allow for Mafia books? I don't know but anyways... If anyone has watched any of his stuff before the 2000's there was never ANY talk of mafia involvement, the guy was a lone-wolf serial killer. But then in 2001 comes the latest in a long run of docs about him, this time called "Secrets of a Mafia Hitman." Now he's mafia? In Roy DeMeo's crew no less. How convenient. I'm sure it's a coincidence his story changed/evolved around the same time Sopranos became a cultural phenomenon.
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1716913/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_3

by **Pmac2** » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:16 pm

Spell check made trangese oranges lol. Did I read anthony a was on alites podcast and alite was acting like they did business in the 90tys? That would be crazy

by **Pmac2** » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:14 pm

You think about a guy like felix oranges who testified he was inducted in 1982 that's basically 40yrs ago. He never gave a interview or anything. Lives back somewhere around springfield. Maybe hes ashamed he has alot more story's to tell then Anthony A.

by **Angelo Santino** » Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:47 am

Pogo The Clown wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 8:52 pm Interesting perspective. I think it is the opposite. The guys today have to lie or inflate because there so little profit to be made from their stories that they have to overcompensate to try to draw an audience. Guys like Bonanno, Valachi, Frattiano, Hill, Gravano, etc got major publishing deals and books that became best sellers, interviews with major networks, movie deals, etc. Today nobody cares about the mob outside of a dwindling niche audience which is why these guys are relegated to podcasts for nickels and dimes. Natale was able to get a book deal but his book probably sold peanuts. I doubt he made much from it.

Pogo

I completely agree but that's not the main point I'm getting at. I was thinking what happens when a semi-connected or made member gets to looking up information Giacomo Vacari style and then uses that to inflate their importance post-flipping, for the mainstream. For example I'm Chris Gambino-Lucchese-Bonanno who's a relative of all three bosses who was listed as an soldier who flipped. This isn't the year 2000 where informants are hated with vitriol by "the fans," these informants, while likely to be called rats online, will likely develop a following. Henry Hill did it before it became popular. So I, Chris Gambino-Lucchese-Bonanno read books and surfed the wed while serving my time, get out and have decided to use what I learned online to better market myself. For instance, someone asks me about my grandfather Carlo Gambino and what he was like but I was too young to remember Carlo. Instead of saying I don't know him, I can just then go look up what Joey Cantalupo on yt and how he described Carlo and and take that and respond: "He was quiet, he was this and that" etc. Then people would look at what I said and compare it to what others said and conclude it fits with what guys like Cantalupo said... Does that make sense? It's pretty much Steve Lenehan pulling a Steve Lenehan if he had just done it under his own name.

I got kinda spooked. I was talking to someone yesterday who's real. 100% confirmed. But he started saying things that didn't add up. So I dropped some fake information, such as so-and-so's family being from California and he said: "So and so used to go out there and visit relatives." To my knowledge, the individual in question had no ties to California, I just made it up to see what he'd say. And if he's going to bullshit about that what else would he bullshit about? What if I provided him some real obscure info on his former crime family, what's to stop him from taking it and running with it as info that he, as a member, only knows.

Back in the 2000's the idea was these guys are too busy "in the life" to be online. It probably wasn't so black and white but that was the general idea. It's been two decades and the culture has changed. Members, past and present, like the rest of us, likely have access to internet mob knowledge like never before. And before anyone says they, as members have nothing to learn online, didn't some Bonanno capo under Massino think Cosa Nostra translated to Our Friends? I say this because this genre has filtered into the narratives of Natale and Culotta. People tend to use the same wording or narrative that they hear somewhere else, we still see "glorified crew" invoked all these years later. "Make money don't make headlines." "Bruno's a dove, Scarfo's the devil." Etc. When Natale talks about Scarfo's reign like he was there and uses that same narration everyone else does, it's suspicious. The only guy to deviate from the Scarfo-madman thing was Fresolone.

by **TallGuy19** » Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:45 am

Extortion wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:02 am
Chris Christie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:31 am
stubbs wrote: ↑Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:00 am
Chris Christie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:13 pm
For the Genuine Members Club, living guy's who's stories don't seem to evolve over time remain- Caramandi, DiLeonardo, Gravano.
Those with evolving stories- Culotta, Franzese, Natale, Pistone (I'll include him).
Interesting that the people who seem more genuine have given very few interviews, and seem to be kinda hesitant to talk about their past lives.

Whereas the ones who have been inconsistent with their stories are almost professional ex-mafia interviewers. Like they love the attention and need to keep talking about how great they once were. They’re like a bunch of 50 year olds who can’t let go of their high school years.
Not only interviews, but information they were legally required to disclose to the FBI at the time of debriefing. To be perceived/discovered as lying would carry serious repercussions (look at Casso), so its in their best interest to be more honest than they've ever been in their life. Had Natale been discovered to be lying about when he was made or Culotta claiming that he himself was made, they would have lost their deals and served long sentences.

Gravano, Caramandi, DiLeonardo, Gravano, Fratianno, Leonetti and Valachi's future interviews/works didn't deviate from what they told the FBI. Maybe some minor things but nothing that changes the overarching narrative. Gravano didn't go from Underboss to Gotti's Accardo between 2000 and 2020, Caramandi didn't go from a Philly guy to being the only guy recognized by NY, etc etc.

Whereas the other guys? Fanzese went from conflicted acting capo to Allie's Underboss In Waiting, Pistone went from an FBI agent assigned to do a job to "I've always looked out for myself, had Sonny said Joe Schmo's gotta go, fuck it, it'd be him or me." But it's all commercialization now.

Perhaps the more interviews you do, the more people have a chance to poke holes in the story.

The more interviews you do, the more people get tired of hearing the same old stories. Guys like Franzese and Cullotta make a living telling old stories, and they know that once everyone has heard all of their stories, they will lose interest, so they feel the need to change details or flat-out fabricate new stories to keep people coming back for more.

When I first saw Michael Franzese tell his story in a documentary, I was fascinated, but now I don't even waste my time on his new interviews where I know he will either tell the same stories he's told a million times or make up some bullshit.

by **TallGuy19** » Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:27 am

Is Cullotta really claiming that he was made by Spilotro?

by **Extortion** » Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:11 am

TallGuy19 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 8:58 pm
aleksandrored wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:32 pm Great post, which made me doubt: do active mobsters today follow books and forums? Or did even want to be a mobster for reading about some famous bandits like Capone?
There was a Colombo associate arrested recently (I can't remember his name) who had a book on the history of Cosa Nostra in his car.

Thomas Scorcia

by **Extortion** » Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:07 am

Pogo The Clown wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 8:52 pm Interesting perspective. I think it is the opposite. The guys today have to lie or inflate because there so little profit to be made from their stories that they have to overcompensate to try to draw an audience. Guys like Bonanno, Valachi, Frattiano, Hill, Gravano, etc got major publishing deals and books that became best sellers, interviews with major networks, movie deals, etc. Today nobody cares about the mob outside of a dwindling niche audience which is why these guys are relegated to podcasts for nickels and dimes. Natale was able to get a book deal but his book probably sold peanuts. I doubt he made much from it.

Pogo

Id say to some extent you are correct it has decreased interest but it still has a sizeable audience or they wouldnt be making these mob movies still and they are as late as 2018-2019...do they all do well? No but you can bet there are still people wanting another goodfellas. The Irishman did pretty well but I guess they needed all the greats? I think Scorese could have done it with just Pesci.

THE BLACK HAND FORUM

The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.

Re: The fallacy of today's Online Informants.