THE BLACK HAND FORUM

Snakes wrote:

Stroccos wrote:

SonnyBlackstein wrote:How hard is it to buy a newspaper and flip to the obits? It's not like they need to trail the guy with a squad, do a B n E, plant a listening device etc etc.

You just need $1.35 for the Post.

You really think agents sit around flip the obits for some bust out wiseguy in a nursing home. You want some land in Tennesse I have for sale?

When a suspected member of a family dies, notification is sent to the FBI's index file referencing all known made members for a particular family. The feds don't sit around flipping through the obituaries but they have sources connected to or within the family that provide information concerning deaths in the family. I'm sure they also have people who periodically vet the lists to determine if there is anyone that needs to be removed.

Good post. Yeah, they do this all the time and have done this since the 1960s.

Stroccos wrote:

SonnyBlackstein wrote:How hard is it to buy a newspaper and flip to the obits? It's not like they need to trail the guy with a squad, do a B n E, plant a listening device etc etc.

You just need $1.35 for the Post.

You really think agents sit around flip the obits for some bust out wiseguy in a nursing home. You want some land in Tennesse I have for sale?

When a suspected member of a family dies, notification is sent to the FBI's index file referencing all known made members for a particular family. The feds don't sit around flipping through the obituaries but they have sources connected to or within the family that provide information concerning deaths in the family. I'm sure they also have people who periodically vet the lists to determine if there is anyone that needs to be removed.

do the Genovese still enforce the strip naked rule before getting made?

SonnyBlackstein wrote:How hard is it to buy a newspaper and flip to the obits? It's not like they need to trail the guy with a squad, do a B n E, plant a listening device etc etc.

You just need $1.35 for the Post.

You really think agents sit around flip the obits for some bust out wiseguy in a nursing home. You want some land in Tennesse I have for sale?

How hard is it to buy a newspaper and flip to the obits? It's not like they need to trail the guy with a squad, do a B n E, plant a listening device etc etc.

You just need $1.35 for the Post.

SonnyBlackstein wrote:The Feds also have very strict rules on verifying 'made' men.

They don't just pluck numbers from their ass. They're numbers based on a good deal of evidence.

Except apparently they forget the black sharpie when someone cashes in their chips.

how do you know this?
Say a low level made member in his 80's goes ina nursing home for 5 years and dies , is inactive you really think the feds are tracking that guy?ad

The Feds also have very strict rules on verifying 'made' men.

They don't just pluck numbers from their ass. They're numbers based on a good deal of evidence.

Except apparently they forget the black sharpie when someone cashes in their chips.

SonnyBlackstein wrote:

Pogo The Clown wrote:Keep in mind that there are likely several members on my list who have died and we haven't heard. We also have to keep in mind that sometimes guys are listed as members in articles when they are actually not made. If I had to make a prediction I would put the current membership of the Colombos somewhere in the 70s range today.


Pogo

Do you genuinely not think that the Feds haven't thought of this?
IE members dying?

I just think it a little strange that you're acting as though this could be new found information which would change the way the current families are understood to be in size by Federal authorities and professional observers. IE Bizarrely all of them havent for some unknown reason factored in members dying.

Genuine question. I know it may sound like the above is derogatory but Im genuinely surprised that'd you'd think this wasnt already factored in.

the goverment agencies may want to inflate the numbers them selfs , if the famlies get to small they will slash the budgets.

All I'm saying is that the math better supports the lower exact numbers that have been released versus the higher estimate numbers that have been released. It also not out of left field either since Capeci had the Colombos at 75-85 members in 2005 which is supported by the math for this period.


Pogo

Pogo The Clown wrote:Keep in mind that there are likely several members on my list who have died and we haven't heard. We also have to keep in mind that sometimes guys are listed as members in articles when they are actually not made. If I had to make a prediction I would put the current membership of the Colombos somewhere in the 70s range today.


Pogo

Do you genuinely not think that the Feds haven't thought of this?
IE members dying?

I just think it a little strange that you're acting as though this could be new found information which would change the way the current families are understood to be in size by Federal authorities and professional observers. IE Bizarrely all of them havent for some unknown reason factored in members dying.

Genuine question. I know it may sound like the above is derogatory but Im genuinely surprised that'd you'd think this wasnt already factored in.

Keep in mind that there are likely several members on my list who have died and we haven't heard. We also have to keep in mind that sometimes guys are listed as members in articles when they are actually not made. If I had to make a prediction I would put the current membership of the Colombos somewhere in the 70s range today.


Pogo

I recognize the difference between a seemingly specific figure and a general estimate, though those general estimates I've mentioned in this thread have come from articles citing law enforcement sources or experts like Capeci. The 112 member figure for the Colombos in the 2004 NJ OC report always stuck out to me because it seemed to be an exact figure and not a general estimate.

Beyond that, you can look at the Colombo chart on this forum. I count 89 members listed, as well as 4 other possible members. And one has to assume there are always some members who have not been identified. So the chart you've compiled seems to match up well with the figures we generally see.

Also for the sake of argument let's say there were some ceremonies missed. We also must add the members made since early 2011. So let's be really generous and double the 23 number to 46. It still doesn't come close to replacing the well over 70 members who were lost during the same period.


Pogo

A lot of those articles just keep repeating the same general estimates that never change. I tend to go more with exact numbers that match up with the math.


We know the Colombos were barred from making any new members from 1992-early 2000. We also know from the informants that from February 2000-early 2004 9 new members were made. Even if we want to make an allowance for more members being made it is clear that it still doesn't come close to replacing the 50 or so they lost during the same time period.


It also not that hard to believe since we know that by the end of 1975 the family had dipped to only 76 members before the books were opened again.


Pogo

Except I'm not sure that was an exact fed number. It was one article from 2004. That same year, the New Jersey OC report cited 112 members. There also approximately 100 members cited in articles in 2007, 2009, and 2014. I suppose it's possible the family could dip down considerably if they fail to make enough members to keep up with deaths over a certain period of time - though its almost impossible to believe the Colombos made only 9 new members from 1991 to 2004. Considering all the evidence, I don't see much reason to give that one article with a 65 member outlier figure so much weight and assume that's where the Colombos generally are now.

And like I said before, you can go back and look at those two articles from the same writer in 2002 and 2004. In 2002, he had the Colombos at 90 members. Two years later, in 2004, he has them at 65. Well, 69 if you count the 4 guys listed in the administration. So that means not only would the family have had over 20 members die in the space of two years, they also didn't make any new members during this time.

This is why I always try to look at all sources and evidence and weigh it in the balance and not focus too much on one source or figure.