by Wiseguy » Thu Feb 24, 2022 8:24 am
Snakes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 1:34 pm
Pogo The Clown wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 12:48 pm
I'm wondering if that 400 figure was a typo and they meant to write 300. That would match other figures released from that era.
Pogo
The number from the 1993 list was 206, so significant attrition would have had to occur for the number to drop that far. They didn't have the members broken down for the NY families, so I'm wondering if this was just bad intel or a typo, as you already mentioned.
The fact they had specific numbers for all the other families but just threw out generic, rounded figures for the Gambinos and Genovese makes me think they were just ballparking it on those two families, for whatever reason. Though the 400 for the Gambinos definitely doesn't make sense. Stands out much like when one report had 195 members for the Bonannos during the 1980s.
[quote=Snakes post_id=221474 time=1645648482 user_id=66]
[quote="Pogo The Clown" post_id=221471 time=1645645714 user_id=53]
I'm wondering if that 400 figure was a typo and they meant to write 300. That would match other figures released from that era.
Pogo
[/quote]
The number from the 1993 list was 206, so significant attrition would have had to occur for the number to drop that far. They didn't have the members broken down for the NY families, so I'm wondering if this was just bad intel or a typo, as you already mentioned.
[/quote]
The fact they had specific numbers for all the other families but just threw out generic, rounded figures for the Gambinos and Genovese makes me think they were just ballparking it on those two families, for whatever reason. Though the 400 for the Gambinos definitely doesn't make sense. Stands out much like when one report had 195 members for the Bonannos during the 1980s.