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".
[quote=Camo post_id=295005 time=1748985208 user_id=398]
I know that and have agreed with it from very early in this discussion. All i was explaining is my opinion on the situation.
[/quote]
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:
[quote=PolackTony post_id=268550 time=1696479938 user_id=6658]
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”.
[/quote]
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.
--
[quote=Coloboy post_id=295006 time=1748986038 user_id=6473]
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.
[/quote]
Yep. Great post, especially about use of the word "boss".