THE BLACK HAND FORUM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

B. wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 1:11 pm Who are the majority of sources though?

- Piscopo did believe Ricca was the boss which to me is the most significant source given his relationship to Roselli. He didn't elaborate though and we can't be sure if he was saying Ricca was the official boss or acting, only that Ricca was the "boss" and highest authority in the Family circa early 1940s. Did Roselli tell him "Ricca was official boss" or something more general like "Ricca is the one in charge / calling the shots"? These details matter when examining the formalities.

- Teddy DeRose said Al Capone was boss until he died, then Nitti became boss followed by Campagna for a short time, then Ricca and finally Accardo. His timeline is a mess though and I don't think anyone believes Capone was still official boss until 1947.

- Bill Bonanno's chart listing Ricca as a member of the Commission in 1931 just means Ricca represented Chicago on the Commission after Capone went to prison. I doubt Capone lost his title immediately after going to prison (much as Luciano didn't lose his a few years later) so in addition to other non-bosses serving as Commission representative in the boss's absence, it's unlikely to me that Capone was officially replaced that early. Interestingly, Piscopo in LA said he knew the consigliere could represent a Family on the Commission but didn't give examples.

Most of the other evidence is more anecdotal. And just to be clear, these examples are absolutely worth considering and are part of the conversation. The point is we lack a definite confirmation and there are alternate theories that also make sense as well as info that challenges the idea that Ricca was official boss.

Camo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 12:45 pm

B. wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 12:39 pm I'm not adamant that Ricca was never boss only that it is not definitive like it is with other figures we can confirm were bosses, be it in Chicago or elsewhere. I do suspect Ricca was acting boss when Capone went to prison, acting bosses of course serving as Commission representatives in the boss's absence, but there was some unspecified national issue involving Ricca in the mid-1930s where he was at odds with the Commission and it was serious enough that Al Polizzi in Cleveland lost favor as well for his support of Ricca. This was mentioned in passing by Gentile and unfortunately he didn't elaborate but it could have impacted Ricca's standing if indeed he was in the running to become boss post-Capone. We do have sources who think he was boss and I would not discount them either -- the issue is we lack definitive info.

The point being made was that Chicago had a tradition of official bosses stepping down and taking on another role in the Family and it's important to note that two of the three examples may not have been official boss and we can't say with certainty that Chicago had a time-honored process where bosses step down and become consiglieri / council members / chairmen.

There isn't any definitive consensus on who occupied the official admin positions in the 1930s and first half of the 40s as we lack definitive sources, only passing references. I know that Antiliar for example believes Ricca was boss but that PolackTony and I are more agnostic in that we don't know for sure and are open to the possibility but also have some doubt. Again, by saying "we don't know for sure if Ricca was ever official boss" it should not be read as "RICCA WAS NEVER OFFICIAL BOSS" and my point is that because we can't definitively say he was official boss we can't necessarily use him as an example to prove a point about the boss / consigliere roles in Chicago.

Accardo proves that a former official boss could step down and sit on the consiglio and/or serve as consiglio chairman afterward much as John Alioto did in Milwaukee. We just don't know that this was an ongoing trend in Chicago beyond that.

Could you post the source that says Ricca was never Boss please?

B. wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 12:39 pm I'm not adamant that Ricca was never boss only that it is not definitive like it is with other figures we can confirm were bosses, be it in Chicago or elsewhere. I do suspect Ricca was acting boss when Capone went to prison, acting bosses of course serving as Commission representatives in the boss's absence, but there was some unspecified national issue involving Ricca in the mid-1930s where he was at odds with the Commission and it was serious enough that Al Polizzi in Cleveland lost favor as well for his support of Ricca. This was mentioned in passing by Gentile and unfortunately he didn't elaborate but it could have impacted Ricca's standing if indeed he was in the running to become boss post-Capone. We do have sources who think he was boss and I would not discount them either -- the issue is we lack definitive info.

The point being made was that Chicago had a tradition of official bosses stepping down and taking on another role in the Family and it's important to note that two of the three examples may not have been official boss and we can't say with certainty that Chicago had a time-honored process where bosses step down and become consiglieri / council members / chairmen.

There isn't any definitive consensus on who occupied the official admin positions in the 1930s and first half of the 40s as we lack definitive sources, only passing references. I know that Antiliar for example believes Ricca was boss but that PolackTony and I are more agnostic in that we don't know for sure and are open to the possibility but also have some doubt. Again, by saying "we don't know for sure if Ricca was ever official boss" it should not be read as "RICCA WAS NEVER OFFICIAL BOSS" and my point is that because we can't definitively say he was official boss we can't necessarily use him as an example to prove a point about the boss / consigliere roles in Chicago.

Accardo proves that a former official boss could step down and sit on the consiglio and/or serve as consiglio chairman afterward much as John Alioto did in Milwaukee. We just don't know that this was an ongoing trend in Chicago beyond that.