General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.

BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by PolackTony » Tue Jun 03, 2025 4:18 pm

Camo wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 3:35 pm Chicago is a mess because while there were CI's there weren't many CW's whose deal was tied to their testimony making it difficult to parse through the information and come to a conclusion on what was happening. Especially on issues like official positions which likely weren't spelled out as much as we'd hope.
More to the point, Chicago had *no* member CWs who actually testified until Nick Calabrese did so in 2007, and few of the associate CWs who did testify over the years were either in the position to clarify substantive questions about the organization of the Family, per se, or provided testimony that would have been relevant to these questions anyway (as opposed to testimony that largely focused on specific criminal acts and operations). A (partial) exception was Lenny Patrick, though the most that he really gave us with respect to the organization itself was confirming that Carlisi was boss. Gerry Scarpelli flipped and, of course, died before he could testify, but he he was only made for a short time before he began cooperating and the 302 that we have from him mostly deals with murders rather than organizational matters (though Scarpelli also, again, confirmed that Carlisi succeeded Aiuppa as boss, and not Ferriola, as LE and the press had incorrectly theorized at the time, a point that Nick Calabrese later reiterated on the stand).

And while the CI accounts that we otherwise have to rely on from FBI files leave much to be desired (as only some were members or associates in the position to have any real insight into the organization itself and even these often were vague and sparse in the intel that they provided), the period when we actually have the most insight into Chicago is the ~30 year window stretching from Giancana’s tenure through that of Aiuppa. And even here, many questions remain unanswered and unanswerable. We have little solid intel for the period after the Carlisi case, while the period before the mid-1950s, when Giancana was installed as boss, is shrouded in accounts composed of layers of myth, hearsay, and outsider speculation/confabulation such that much of what people think they “know” about Chicago ranges from outright BS to, at best, garbled distortions of fact.

Things could be worse. Other Families, such as the STL outfit, had no member CIs that we are aware of. Springfield, IL, the Feds basically just had some vague wiretaps and a smattering of accounts from CIs from other cities to go on.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by B. » Tue Jun 03, 2025 3:53 pm

Yeah we don't have those definitive member CIs like we do for other Families who broke the formalities down and put them in proper context.
Valuable formal intel did come from people like Bompensiero who was not a Chicago member but was close to them and could properly outline things to the FBI after visiting Chicago members. Bomp for example was told about the consiglio (referred to as a "consignu" [ph] in the report) during a 1969 meeting with Alderisio and was also able to shed light on Alderisio's formal position, which went against some of the assumptions about Alderisio's rank.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Camo » Tue Jun 03, 2025 3:35 pm

B. wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 3:31 pm The consiglio always includes the boss. In every Family who has a documented consiglio (which is a lot of them), the boss is always part of it.
Okay, i thought the Boss reported to it i thought that was the entire point. I didn't think he was on it. That's also what i took from your prior example of Accardo having to go in front of the Consiglio and them asking him to step down likely headed by Ricca.

All very interesting thanks for the discussion but all i'm largely taking from this is what i already believed, Chicago is a mess because while there were CI's there weren't many CW's whose deal was tied to their testimony making it difficult to parse through the information and come to a conclusion on what was happening. Especially on issues like official positions which likely weren't spelled out as much as we'd hope.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by B. » Tue Jun 03, 2025 3:31 pm

The consiglio always includes the boss. In every Family who has a documented consiglio (which is a lot of them), the boss is always part of it.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Camo » Tue Jun 03, 2025 3:29 pm

B. wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 3:15 pm
Camo wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:13 pm I know that and have agreed with it from very early in this discussion. All i was explaining is my opinion on the situation.
No worries -- I didn't mean to sound terse, I was just trying to clarify the context since it was about the formal boss rank not so much the way they interacted or what their dynamic was like. I think everyone agrees that as men they regarded each other as equals.

One interesting aspect of this though is we have Accardo on tape saying he got in serious trouble for the way he conducted himself as boss and how once you make a mistake people start looking for you to make other mistakes. He was likely referring to the consiglio calling him on the carpet for his conduct as boss and encouraging him to step down, Ricca probably being a part of that if not the main one calling him out (which would be his right as a consigliere). As mentioned earlier, the San Jose consiglio was in a similar situation with Cerrito at one point.

Another angle though is DeRose said something about Ricca not being on the council for a time. It's been discussed on here before but I'd have to look at what he specifically said and the period he was referring to.

EDIT: Here is a post Tony made about the last point:
PolackTony wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2023 9:25 pm Worth noting again here that DeRose told the Feds in 1964 that Ricca was “acting in an advisory capacity” to the Consiglio and that he had “never quite regained his position of authority due to his pending deportation”. He also advised that “although Accardo and Ricca no longer head ‘The Family’ their influence is tremendous and they are part of the Committee”, which he stated was “headed” by Giancana, who was “in control” of the body. DeRose gave the other Consiglio members as Cerone, Buccieri, Battaglia, Accardo, and (likely) Prio, with Ricca, again, reported as serving in an “advisory capacity”.
--
Coloboy wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:27 pm So much of what can be gained from CI's or even folks who testify is really hard to decipher, because the family was very good at concealing it's actual hierarchy, even from the lower ranks of the organization. The word "boss" can be so messy, as someone could use it to to refer to the actual position of boss, or perhaps the one with the most defacto power (such as a Ricca or Acccardo). For example, Ken Eto in the mid 80's, fingered Accardo as "boss", Aiuppa as the "underboss", and Cerone as the "#3", whatever that means. I"m not saying he was right, just that these things can be very hard to decipher. Also, a made guy could be referred to as a boss, or a captain, etc.

I'm on board with what B. is explaining, in that with Accardo we have plenty of first had evidence of him actually being boss, and with Ricca it is all primarily second hand. I'm not arguing one way or the other, just stating that which is verifiable.
Yep. Great post, especially about use of the word "boss".
Giancana was on the Consiglio in 1964? Who was Boss then? Am i misreading that because it sounds like it's saying Giancana was Chairman but you are assuming it was Accardo?

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Camo » Tue Jun 03, 2025 3:26 pm

It's fine. Thought you may have missed me agreeing with it and thought i was arguing somehthing i wasn't, just a misunderstanding.

Maybe he wasn't on the Consiglio during the whole deportation situation. In the late 50s i think?

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by B. » Tue Jun 03, 2025 3:15 pm

Camo wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:13 pm I know that and have agreed with it from very early in this discussion. All i was explaining is my opinion on the situation.
No worries -- I didn't mean to sound terse, I was just trying to clarify the context since it was about the formal boss rank not so much the way they interacted or what their dynamic was like. I think everyone agrees that as men they regarded each other as equals.

One interesting aspect of this though is we have Accardo on tape saying he got in serious trouble for the way he conducted himself as boss and how once you make a mistake people start looking for you to make other mistakes. He was likely referring to the consiglio calling him on the carpet for his conduct as boss and encouraging him to step down, Ricca probably being a part of that if not the main one calling him out (which would be his right as a consigliere). As mentioned earlier, the San Jose consiglio was in a similar situation with Cerrito at one point.

Another angle though is DeRose said something about Ricca not being on the council for a time. It's been discussed on here before but I'd have to look at what he specifically said and the period he was referring to.

EDIT: Here is a post Tony made:
PolackTony wrote: Wed Oct 04, 2023 9:25 pm Worth noting again here that DeRose told the Feds in 1964 that Ricca was “acting in an advisory capacity” to the Consiglio and that he had “never quite regained his position of authority due to his pending deportation”. He also advised that “although Accardo and Ricca no longer head ‘The Family’ their influence is tremendous and they are part of the Committee”, which he stated was “headed” by Giancana, who was “in control” of the body. DeRose gave the other Consiglio members as Cerone, Buccieri, Battaglia, Accardo, and (likely) Prio, with Ricca, again, reported as serving in an “advisory capacity”.
DeRose was an associate so may not have known the finer details but if true it would indicate Ricca and Accardo were on the consiglio in the 1960s but Ricca was not the chairman. Presumably Accardo was in that role.

I swear there was also something about Ricca not sitting on the "committee" for a time but I'd have to dig if indeed that's what he said. I may be misremembering the "never quite regained his position of authority" part too.

--
Coloboy wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:27 pm So much of what can be gained from CI's or even folks who testify is really hard to decipher, because the family was very good at concealing it's actual hierarchy, even from the lower ranks of the organization. The word "boss" can be so messy, as someone could use it to to refer to the actual position of boss, or perhaps the one with the most defacto power (such as a Ricca or Acccardo). For example, Ken Eto in the mid 80's, fingered Accardo as "boss", Aiuppa as the "underboss", and Cerone as the "#3", whatever that means. I"m not saying he was right, just that these things can be very hard to decipher. Also, a made guy could be referred to as a boss, or a captain, etc.

I'm on board with what B. is explaining, in that with Accardo we have plenty of first had evidence of him actually being boss, and with Ricca it is all primarily second hand. I'm not arguing one way or the other, just stating that which is verifiable.
Yep. Great post, especially about use of the word "boss".

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Coloboy » Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:27 pm

So much of what can be gained from CI's or even folks who testify is really hard to decipher, because the family was very good at concealing it's actual hierarchy, even from the lower ranks of the organization. The word "boss" can be so messy, as someone could use it to to refer to the actual position of boss, or perhaps the one with the most defacto power (such as a Ricca or Acccardo). For example, Ken Eto in the mid 80's, fingered Accardo as "boss", Aiuppa as the "underboss", and Cerone as the "#3", whatever that means. I"m not saying he was right, just that these things can be very hard to decipher. Also, a made guy could be referred to as a boss, or a captain, etc.

I'm on board with what B. is explaining, in that with Accardo we have plenty of first had evidence of him actually being boss, and with Ricca it is all primarily second hand. I'm not arguing one way or the other, just stating that which is verifiable.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Camo » Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:13 pm

B. wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:11 pm
Camo wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:05 pm
B. wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:01 pm Not sure I understand. I think you're getting fixated on the term "reporting" which is a very general term. I'm not sure offhand if that was the exact term used in the FBI report either but the general idea being communicated is that Accardo outranked Ricca in the formal hierarchy.
You edited after i replied, fair enough if it's different wording that could change my understanding and opinion.
Either way, what the source was communicating is that "despite popular belief" Ricca was never "sanctioned" as official boss while Accardo was. And we do have definite confirmation Accardo was the official boss while info about Ricca's formal position is less definitive.
I know that and have agreed with it from very early in this discussion. All i was explaining is my opinion on the situation.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by B. » Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:11 pm

Camo wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:05 pm
B. wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:01 pm Not sure I understand. I think you're getting fixated on the term "reporting" which is a very general term. I'm not sure offhand if that was the exact term used in the FBI report either but the general idea being communicated is that Accardo outranked Ricca in the formal hierarchy.
You edited after i replied, fair enough if it's different wording that could change my understanding and opinion.
Either way, what the source was communicating is that "despite popular belief" Ricca was never "sanctioned" as official boss while Accardo was. And we do have definite confirmation Accardo was the official boss while info about Ricca's formal position is less definitive.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by VC2 » Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:08 pm

https://ibb.co/gLZZkvZ5

above is a link to a very basic, black and white text only outfit chart i have been well, working on for a bit. it covers the regime of john monteleone 1997-2001. i have not even begun to separate made men from associates, as that is another ball of wax. i will say as well i have similar charts covering time period starting arbitrarily jan.1 1992 and progressing into the 2020s with what evidence i have.
again, comments, critiques, anything all welcome.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Camo » Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:05 pm

B. wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:01 pm Not sure I understand. I think you're getting fixated on the term "reporting" which is a very general term. I'm not sure offhand if that was the exact term used in the FBI report either but the general idea being communicated is that Accardo outranked Ricca in the formal hierarchy.
You edited after i replied, fair enough if it's different wording that could change my understanding and opinion.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Camo » Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:02 pm

Actually, if Ricca did always report to Accardo couldn't that suggest Accardo was the one on the Consiglio going by your second paragraph?

Your source at least as you reported it said Ricca always reported to Accardo, if there's examples of the opposite then that's not true. I'm more focusing on the word "always" than "reporting".

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by B. » Tue Jun 03, 2025 2:01 pm

Not sure I understand. I think you're getting fixated on the term "reporting" which is a very general term. I'm not sure offhand if that was the exact term used in the FBI report either but the general idea being communicated is that Accardo outranked Ricca in the formal hierarchy.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Camo » Tue Jun 03, 2025 1:59 pm

B. wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 1:54 pm
Camo wrote: Tue Jun 03, 2025 1:43 pm The part i had issue with is him always reporting to Accardo. Don't we have examples of the opposite, Accardo reporting to Ricca about his various issues in the 50s when he was Boss? I don't think what certain sources said about RIcca and Accardo make sense alongside the idea that Ricca was reporting to Accardo. Again just my opinion i'm willing to change it if there's further corroboration. Funnily enough i already did change my view on this issue as i initially believed the Roemer, Accardo was the forever Boss and Ricca was just a figurehead narrative.
There are a lot of issues with the way people interpret a term like "reporting" when it comes to the mafia. It doesn't mean Accardo was barking orders at Ricca or that Ricca behaved like a subordinate, only that Accardo may have formally outranked him in the hierarchy. Beyond that it doesn't tell us anything about their relationship or Ricca's actual role.

I'm not sure which examples we have of Accardo "reporting to" Ricca when he was boss in the 1950s, but that would be consistent with the role of consigliere / chairman of the consiglio. Much as Giancana sought Accardo's counsel when he was boss, I'm sure Accardo met with Ricca under similar circumstances. The same arrangement was true of other Families with a consiglio or official consigliere. Civella in KC for example was official boss but informant Crapisi said senior members Filardo and Cusumano were actually the final authority and Civella ran things by them, there being reason to believe KC had a consiglio.
If Accardo reported to Ricca then Ricca didn't always report to Accardo which is an issue with that source.

Top