General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

Forum rules

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 B. » 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. Even if Capone lost his title earlier, like when his mental conditioned worsened, to consider his claim that Ricca was official boss we also have to consider the claim that there was an entire succession of bosses crammed into a relatively short time window.

- 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.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Camo » Tue Jun 03, 2025 12:54 pm

Thanks. I agree it should be part of the conversation but i still believe Ricca was likely Boss in the 30s/40s and was likely the most powerful figure for decades afterwards because that's what the majority of sources point towards. Just my opinion.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by B. » Tue Jun 03, 2025 12:48 pm

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?
I don't have the file on hand but here's an old summary:

- Said he never heard of the "Amafa" using the term Commission, but knew it was "the Round Table" and said they met in 1930 in Cincinatti or Cleveland (probably thinking of the 1928 Cleveland meeting). He said "the Round Table" sanctioned Tony Accardo as boss but said "contrary to popular belief" Paul Ricca was never in charge of "the Family" and always reported to Accardo even though he said Ricca sometimes "acted with all authority but was never sanctioned." Sounds like he believed Ricca was the acting boss but never official.

This source was of course imperfect but he had some interesting observations and his info is certainly part of the conversation. He noted that the local organization was referred to as "the Family", that the wider organization was called "Amafa" [ph. Obviously mafia], and that in addition to the boss being called "patrone" [padrone] there were "capitanos" [ph. the FBI was interpreting the word he said, so it could have been capodecina but it's obvious what's being referred to].

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Camo » 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?

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by B. » 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.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Coloboy » Tue Jun 03, 2025 12:02 pm

FWIW....it's news to me that there is any type of consensus that Ricca was never official boss. I would still assume the majority of folks think he occupied that seat at some point.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Camo » Tue Jun 03, 2025 12:00 pm

Snakes wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:49 am
Camo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:39 am
NorthBuffalo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:35 am
Camo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:32 am Ricca represented Chicago on the Commission surely that would point to him being Boss in the 30s/40s at least? The others we know are Accardo and Giancana right while they were definitely Boss? Or are there others who weren't?
It was my impression that Ricca was always under Campagna, Nitti and guys like that in that era - I don't think being 'represented' at a commission meeting necessarily was reserved for a boss or a 'commission seat.' I think the boss could send an emissary like Ricca. I would find it rare that Chicago's bosses travelled themselves to the East for commission business - I think they often sent messengers.
Okay, there must be new information that has changed the opinion of the Chicago posters here which i've not seen which is fair. I can remember it being discussed whether Nitto was a Captain or Underboss in here, i don't remember Campagna ever being discussed as Boss.

Where is it mentioned that Ricca was sent as an emissary? Also why wouldn't Giancana do that then? Accardo had to convince Giancana to attend Commission Meetings as he had no interest in it.
There is also some doubt about whether Nitto was ever actually the boss, but I'll admit to not being an expert in that time period, so maybe Rick or Tony can chime in.
Yep. I know that it was "common knowledge" for a long time that Nitto was Boss which largely seemed to be a media assumption due to how close he was with Capone, then i think Roemer said it. However posters here like Antiliar and Villain i believe seriously questioned it and at least at one point people were wondering if he was Captain or Underboss instead. I understand this stuff isn't clear and views change all the time it's just if the majority are back to Nitto being Boss that's a definite shift.

I also don't remember Campagna ever being discussed as Boss only as a powerful figure and possible Captain but i could be wrong.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Snakes » Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:49 am

Camo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:39 am
NorthBuffalo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:35 am
Camo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:32 am Ricca represented Chicago on the Commission surely that would point to him being Boss in the 30s/40s at least? The others we know are Accardo and Giancana right while they were definitely Boss? Or are there others who weren't?
It was my impression that Ricca was always under Campagna, Nitti and guys like that in that era - I don't think being 'represented' at a commission meeting necessarily was reserved for a boss or a 'commission seat.' I think the boss could send an emissary like Ricca. I would find it rare that Chicago's bosses travelled themselves to the East for commission business - I think they often sent messengers.
Okay, there must be new information that has changed the opinion of the Chicago posters here which i've not seen which is fair. I can remember it being discussed whether Nitto was a Captain or Underboss in here, i don't remember Campagna ever being discussed as Boss.

Where is it mentioned that Ricca was sent as an emissary? Also why wouldn't Giancana do that then? Accardo had to convince Giancana to attend Commission Meetings as he had no interest in it.
There is also some doubt about whether Nitto was ever actually the boss, but I'll admit to not being an expert in that time period, so maybe Rick or Tony can chime in.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Camo » Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:39 am

NorthBuffalo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:35 am
Camo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:32 am Ricca represented Chicago on the Commission surely that would point to him being Boss in the 30s/40s at least? The others we know are Accardo and Giancana right while they were definitely Boss? Or are there others who weren't?
It was my impression that Ricca was always under Campagna, Nitti and guys like that in that era - I don't think being 'represented' at a commission meeting necessarily was reserved for a boss or a 'commission seat.' I think the boss could send an emissary like Ricca. I would find it rare that Chicago's bosses travelled themselves to the East for commission business - I think they often sent messengers.
Okay, there must be new information that has changed the opinion of the Chicago posters here which i've not seen which is fair. I can remember it being discussed whether Nitto was a Captain or Underboss in here, i don't remember Campagna ever being discussed as Boss.

Where is it mentioned that Ricca was sent as an emissary? Also why wouldn't Giancana do that then? Accardo had to convince Giancana to attend Commission Meetings as he had no interest in it.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Coloboy » Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:35 am

I would also add that there is solid evidence to support the idea that Ricca and Accardo served as co-chairman, or split the top duties, in the period between 1966 and Ricca's death in 1972. I come back to the FBI transcript of the meeting following Ricca's death, where Accardo tells Aiuppa and Gus Alex that "no one will be replacing Ricca in his role", seemingly indicating that it was an offical position. It was supposedly in this meeting where it was laid out (by Accardo, according to the source), that Aiuppa would be running things with help from Gus Alex.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by NorthBuffalo » Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:35 am

Camo wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:32 am Ricca represented Chicago on the Commission surely that would point to him being Boss in the 30s/40s at least? The others we know are Accardo and Giancana right while they were definitely Boss? Or are there others who weren't?
It was my impression that Ricca was always under Campagna, Nitti and guys like that in that era - I don't think being 'represented' at a commission meeting necessarily was reserved for a boss or a 'commission seat.' I think the boss could send an emissary like Ricca. I would find it rare that Chicago's bosses travelled themselves to the East for commission business - I think they often sent messengers.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Camo » Tue Jun 03, 2025 11:32 am

Ricca represented Chicago on the Commission surely that would point to him being Boss in the 30s/40s at least? The others we know are Accardo and Giancana right while they were definitely Boss? Or are there others who weren't?

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Snakes » Tue Jun 03, 2025 10:46 am

A couple of things here as I've been occupied and unable to post. Tony, B, or Antiliar can elaborate and add more, but here are my thoughts:

1) I believe that Ricca, Accardo, and DiFronzo all acted as consigliere, or, especially in the case of Ricca, as "chairman" of the consiglio/board et. al. Basically a de facto consigliere. Chicago seems to have employed the consigliere as it was more "traditionally" used -- a figure of power who was more or less on an equal footing with the boss, but was utilized more for arbitration and important decision-making within the family, while the boss was tasked with the day-to-day running of the family. Like most people, I had previously labeled these guys as "advisors" or some such, and while I do believe some Outfit guys were informally designated as such for operational purposes, I eventually came around to the position of consigliere being used by the Outfit, and even though it's not a word that is found much in Outfit sources (although I do recall Fratianno describing someone as "consligere" -- possibly Accardo?), the organizational function of the role was essentially that of a traditional consigliere.

2) The last "known" underboss was Monteleone. Frank Sr. said on the prison tapes that when Monteleone was promoted to capo, he also "became number 2." Carlisi would have still been boss with DiFronzo as underboss, but both were under indictment, so I'm unsure if this was in an acting capacity, or not. I am unsure if Andriacchi was underboss or capo of EP after Monteleone became boss, but it also wouldn't surprise me if the underboss spot was vacant for a time (or even permanently) due to consolidation within the Outfit.

3) I'm also of the belief that Carlisi was boss until his death in 1997 and DiFrozno was only acting. Carlisi was still actively appealing his sentence, so you would expect that he'd want to stay as boss in the event the appeal was successful. When Carlisi died, DiFronzo abstained from becoming boss and Monteleone assumed the position instead. Nick Calabrese also testified that Monteleone succeeded Carlisi as boss (viewtopic.php?p=272086#p272086). I'm also of the belief that DiFronzo remained in a top role as consigliere, which would explain why later bosses like Sarno would still be sharing proceeds with him.

I feel like I share this a lot, and I don't mean to toot my own horn, but I think it's a good resource for new posters to view when they come on board as I lay out the evidence and sources for some of the above in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=12325.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by Cosmik_Debris » Tue Jun 03, 2025 10:44 am

B. wrote: ↑Tue Jun 03, 2025 10:20 am Ricca may not have been official boss. We have one source who mentioned how powerful he was but said he was never official boss for reasons the source didn't know/understand.
Come on, really? We have multiple sources saying otherwise. I will choose to believe those and not the one apparent source that contradicts that, who appears to be nameless.

Re: General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

by B. » Tue Jun 03, 2025 10:20 am

Ricca may not have been official boss. We have one source who mentioned how powerful he was but said he was never official boss for reasons the source didn't know/understand. As Snakes has outlined (viewtopic.php?t=12325), DiFronzo also may not have been official boss either. So the premise that Chicago had a tradition of official bosses stepping down and becoming consiglieri is not in any way concrete, Accardo being the only definite example in Chicago.

Milwaukee boss John Alioto stepped down and sat on the Milwaukee consiglio, so that's another example in the same immediate region as Accardo / Chicago. A Milwaukee consiglio meeting was even recorded where Alioto, though no longer boss, spoke harshly to Balistrieri about Balistrieri's desire to kill a Bonanno member as the consiglio had the right to challenge the boss. As Sicilian mafia sources have explicitly outlined and US sources have implied, the consiglio was designed to create a democratic leadership body that maintained a balance of power in the Family apart from the boss alone. The chairman / secretary presided over these councils and had additional authority as the representative of this body and therefore the Family as a whole. As I've mentioned before, San Jose consiglio chairman Stefano Zoccoli was recorded discussing how he had the right to go to the Commission himself to have Joe Cerrito taken down as boss.

I'm not sure what's still confusing about the consiglio. Chicago's council appears to have been much like the other formal councils used in the Sicilian mafia and around the early United States. If there weren't so many erroneous assumptions about Chicago's structure that we've had to untangle over the years, we'd just look at it as a fairly standard consiglio and move on.

Top