General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

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 Associate Question / Specific CO Question

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by PTown » Wed Feb 19, 2025 8:53 am

B, I appreciate your lengthy replies, and your articles are well-written, and I enjoyed reading them. I still have some questions though, if you don't mind.

You realize Boschetto was a STATE Senator, not a U.S. Senator? In Wyoming? Right after statehood. Before PROPORTIONAL representation? (Before one person/one vote?)

This means he got elected with like 10 votes (exaggerating, but you get the point).

Even if he was in the mob, how does this prove that Italians had mainstream careers open to them? His "career" was like a random Italian getting elected to the Cicero city council in the 1930s.

It's like saying short people can play basketball -- just not the NBA or any of its feeder leagues.

Is your theory that Marcantonio was in the mob replicated by anyone else? If I understand correctly, a communist (Farmer Labor Progressive party) member was a secret member of the mob? Who paid envelopes up the chain from Washington DC? Who advocated for Puerto Rican rights against the oppressive majority?

As for DeCavalcante, you understand he was NOT, in fact, a count? Not, in fact, descended from Italian royalty? That records show he was, in fact, descended from Sicilian peasants?

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by B. » Tue Feb 18, 2025 6:42 pm

PTown wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 3:32 pm
B. wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 1:37 pm Cosa Nostra's rules are and were overwhelmingly consistent between different Families and even countries. Investigations from 19th century Sicily show an incredible amount of consistency with American Cosa Nostra when it came to structure and rules. The boss/capo/rappresentante could interpret rules (it is its own legal system, after all) or install certain policies but in no way did the rules differ significantly from Family to Family nor was the boss allowed to arbitrarily change the universal rules of Cosa Nostra. The ceremony has also been largely consistent going back to the 1800s though at times American Families have done truncated or informal variations of it (Sicilian pentiti have given examples of this in Sicily, too, though).
You seem very opinionated on this point, and I respect that, your knowledge, and your research. I hope you realize my pushback comes from my research and what I have read here and elsewhere, much also posted by respected members.

There were WIDELY different rules between periods and regions. Indeed, many of the rules seeped into popular knowledge and then seeped back into mob families around the country. Some of these "rules" were myths, but that just proves the point. If some family adopted them because they thought it was the "rule", then it shows what I mean.

Let's go into examples: the "rule" against no prostitution. Varied widely by city and family. Indeed, what was the one crew where it was their primary source of income?

The "rule" against facial hair and tattoos. Not a real rule, likely. But one that was noted enough that guys like Valachi thought it was a rule.

The ceremonies. On this board, it's been discussed a lot about how much they varied from city to city, and how even the "burning saint" motif was a relatively recent addition.

The "rule" against drug trafficking. LOL right? Some took it very seriously for a minute; most flaunted it.

The early rules against non-Sicilians. There's a post on this forum right now about the regional family differences!

How many variations in the "rules" proves my point?
Of course rules are broken, punishment is inconsistently carried out, there are amendments/additions, etc. but the general ruleset has stayed basically the same across time and place when it comes to the fundamentals of the organization. There's no basis for saying rules varied "widely" between periods and regions, nor is there basis for saying the mafia adopted certain rules through the influence of pop culture or myths. What examples do you have of a Family thinking something was a rule because they heard about it through pop culture and then adopting it?

- The Sicilian and American mafia has been consistently anti-prostitution throughout its recorded history. This is not true for the Camorra but it is true for the mafia. Mafiosi have been involved in prostitution but it is truly exceptional and there are numerous accounts of mafiosi not only addressing the anti-prostitution rule but disparaging and shunning people who participated. It was one of the reasons Al Capone was controversial to existing mafia members. I don't know what the basis is for saying this varied widely by city and Family although you will find some examples of it happening, typically on the fringes of the organization.

- Facial hair was less of a rule and more of a guideline. Nobody was told in a formal setting, like an induction ceremony, that they absolutely could not have facial hair. Some cities were less strict about it, that's true, while others, especially in New York, outright discouraged it although we do have examples of NYC members sporting mustaches at times and they weren't shelved or shunned. I suspect this guideline came about after the publicity surrounding early arrests like that of Giuseppe Morello and others, where a popular stereotype of the Sicilian mafiosi emerged that included bushy mustaches. Within the mafia itself, we can also see they wanted to distance themselves from the old "Mustache Petes" although that has been exaggerated by outsiders. We start to see a distinct shift away from mustaches in the 1910s and definitely by the 1920s but I don't recall any sources who referred to this as a formal rule.

- There's no reason to believe the burning saint was a recent addition. Religious iconography and the traditional ceremony as we know it is mostly consistent with accounts of Sicilian inductions in the 1800s. There are examples of Families foregoing the traditional ceremony but that is generally later in the timeline and accounts of mafia induction ceremonies have been mostly consistent even down to the blood, knife, and fire ritual throughout most of its history which is why the counter-examples are such an interesting topic of discussion for many of us.

- Around the mid-late 1950s a national rule was issued officially banning drug trafficking. Numerous Families held meeting with members to inform them of the rule. The rule was still broken, sometimes with the leadership's direct or indirect knowledge, but it remained a national rule issued to every Family. Sometimes violation of the rule was ignored while other times members were chastised or punished. The rule existed and the rule was also broken and punishment was handled arbitrarily. It doesn't change the nature of the rule or the universality of the rule, which we know was issued by the Commission primarily for practical reasons rather than moral.

- Yes, around the 1910s some Families began inducting non-Sicilians and this was a major event in the development of Cosa Nostra although it played on existing relationships. We know from Pittsburgh that this required the intervention of the national leadership so it wasn't something that the Pittsburgh Family simply decided to do on their own. Some Families were more reluctant or conservative about bringing in mainlanders and some were very liberal because that was their choice and/or it reflected the local environment. A Family does get to decide who it brings into their organization and if the leadership of a Family and its members preferred to remain primarily or entirely Sicilian they could do that, though in some cases like Madison they didn't have much of a choice anyway given the local population was primarily Sicilian to begin with. There was some kind of rule change that allowed for non-Sicilians to join but it was controversial and ultimately up to individual Families who they would induct. That doesn't mean that all of the rules were arbitrary and a given Family or boss simply chose which ones to follow. It's not as if the national leadership was going around telling Families, "YOU MUST INDUCT SOME MAINLANDERS," it simply became an option available to them.

Most of these examples are the circumstantial sorts of rules or guidelines I mentioned earlier, though, and none of them were the result of pop culture, myths, or random bosses arbitrarily trying to implement them. These aren't the core rules of the organization either.

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by B. » Tue Feb 18, 2025 5:09 pm

There were certainly prejudices and barriers for Italians but it wasn't as simple as "Italians turned to crime due to prejudice and the mafia was their only path to financial success and power, which they then abandoned when they succeeded in America." It was far from one-dimensional and many mafiosi were already socially mobile not only within their own immediate community but also within the larger civic and communal landscapes they existed in.

Here are some of my "claimed" members:

Wyoming Senator Louis Boschetto - Confirmed as a made member by a reliable San Jose member informant who was told of Boschetto's member status by another San Jose member. Believed to have been a member of the Colorado Family. You can read my article analyzing this information here: https://mafia.substack.com/p/the-mafias ... in-wyoming

New York Congressman Vito Marcantonio - Longtime Los Angeles member informant Frank Bompensiero was told of Marcantonio's member status by highly knowledgeable, well-connected members, including the LiMandris. Joe Valachi knew Marcantonio was "with" Tom Gagliano and Marcantonio's relationship to Tommy Lucchese and other mafiosi, including Genovese captain Mike Coppola, is well-evidenced. I wrote an article on this as well: https://mafia.substack.com/p/the-mafias ... ast-harlem

^ Both of these articles also outline the broader context "mafia politicians" operated in and give some other examples going back to Sicily. (Interestingly, neither Boschetto nor Marcantonio were Sicilian, though.)

Canadian Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Ambassador to Denmark Alfonso Gagliano - Confirmed as a Montreal-based member of the Bonanno Family, formally introduced to NYC-based captain Frank Lino. A later example.

Chicago is a realm unto itself with mafia politicians. All of these guys were made members:

Illinois House of Representantives member and Alderman John D'Arco
Illinois Senator Fred Roti (whose father was very likely a Chicago capodecina)
Alderman Vito Marzullo
First Ward leader Pat Marcy

You also have early Chicago bosses like Antonino D'Andrea and Michele Merlo as well as Chicago Heights boss Antonino Sanfilippo who were heavily involved in legitimate politics and well-connected in powerful Chicago area social circles. PolackTony could elaborate at length about the political environment that surrounded and included the Chicago Family spanning generations.

As mentioned, Joe Bonanno also indicated there were formally-initiated members who served in politics within his own orbit along with priests and other esteemed professionals. You have figures like Dr. Gaetano Conti, cousin of the Pittsburgh boss and apparently a high-ranking member himself, who Nicola Gentile knew to be influential in local politics. There are various other examples of US mafiosi mingling and participating in these worlds. There are confirmed examples of priests made into the mafia in Sicily and many doctors, lawyers, and affluent businessmen in both the early US and Sicily. Dr. Melchiorre Allegra, a physician made into the Sicilian mafia, identified a large number of doctors, lawyers, nobleman, and other "alta mafia" figures with mafia membership.

An early Cleveland boss, Dr. Giuseppe Romano, was a physician and mafia boss so this was not unheard of in America. You also have families like the Rizzo DeCavalcantes -- Frank Rizzo DeCavalcante was from Italian nobility, inheriting the title of Marquis, who brought his affluence and upper class background with him to the US, this reputation continuing with his more well-known son.

Sicily is too large of a subject to get into here. There have been mayors, municipal councilmen, senators, Italian Parliament members, a judge, and even a cabinet minister who have been confirmed as made members by reliable pentiti going back generations. It's actually only a modern development that Sicilian mafiosi aren't high-level politicians, it being very difficult to attain these positions in today's anti-mafia climate, though we see even with recent cases that local politicians are still heavily involved with Cosa Nostra.

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by PTown » Tue Feb 18, 2025 3:32 pm

B. wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 1:37 pm Cosa Nostra's rules are and were overwhelmingly consistent between different Families and even countries. Investigations from 19th century Sicily show an incredible amount of consistency with American Cosa Nostra when it came to structure and rules. The boss/capo/rappresentante could interpret rules (it is its own legal system, after all) or install certain policies but in no way did the rules differ significantly from Family to Family nor was the boss allowed to arbitrarily change the universal rules of Cosa Nostra. The ceremony has also been largely consistent going back to the 1800s though at times American Families have done truncated or informal variations of it (Sicilian pentiti have given examples of this in Sicily, too, though).
You seem very opinionated on this point, and I respect that, your knowledge, and your research. I hope you realize my pushback comes from my research and what I have read here and elsewhere, much also posted by respected members.

There were WIDELY different rules between periods and regions. Indeed, many of the rules seeped into popular knowledge and then seeped back into mob families around the country. Some of these "rules" were myths, but that just proves the point. If some family adopted them because they thought it was the "rule", then it shows what I mean.

Let's go into examples: the "rule" against no prostitution. Varied widely by city and family. Indeed, what was the one crew where it was their primary source of income?

The "rule" against facial hair and tattoos. Not a real rule, likely. But one that was noted enough that guys like Valachi thought it was a rule.

The ceremonies. On this board, it's been discussed a lot about how much they varied from city to city, and how even the "burning saint" motif was a relatively recent addition.

The "rule" against drug trafficking. LOL right? Some took it very seriously for a minute; most flaunted it.

The early rules against non-Sicilians. There's a post on this forum right now about the regional family differences!

How many variations in the "rules" proves my point?
B. wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 1:37 pm 2) Are you the author of the e-book you mentioned or affiliated with it? I notice you've been promoting it heavily on here, seemingly from the moment it was released. We definitely encourage authors to self-promote here so if you're affiliated with it please don't feel reluctant to mention that.
No. It was recommended in my Amazon feed as a new release I'd like (doubtlessly from my activity on the web) and I bought a copy. It's the best book I've read on the mob in forever, since some of the Gotti books of the late 1990s and early 2000s. But I am not the author and don't know him; have never met him, etc. I'll shut up about it generally, but it's a source for me on the modern mob, just like the Valachi Papers is one go-to source on the mob in the 1950s.
B. wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 1:37 pm With regards to your second point, it's also inaccurate, at least with regard to Bonanno, Gambino, and the majority of early mafiosi. Country clubs, board rooms, and elected office weren't closed to them and Bonanno even mentions politicians and men with esteemed professions being inducted into Cosa Nostra, something many of us have confirmed through research. Many of these guys were able to mingle with the upper classes, were part of civic organizations, and ran large and successful businesses. I've personally written extensively about politicians in high office who were inducted into Cosa Nostra in both the US and Sicily. In Sicily there were an extensive number of politicians inducted into Cosa Nostra alongside doctors, lawyers, and descendants of the Sicilian Nobility but there were also examples in the American mafia. This is all documented, not speculative.

In addition to them very much wanting to perpetuate the mafia system and enrich/expand their own clans, they saw Cosa Nostra as an end unto itself not just a means to an end. They truly believed in the mafia system and its traditions. Some may have seen it as a means to gain wealth or power with little personal investment in the mafia itself but historically and traditionally that describes very few members. As Nick Caramandi said, who was made in 1980s Philadelphia, joining the mafia was more prestigious than any country club. Members felt that they were part of something even greater than any legitimate fraternal society or club could offer.

The mafia has declined immensely, largely due to the demographic and cultural changes I mentioned along with unprecedented LE pressure, but there have continued to be plenty of "smart, capable" members since 1965 and among the Families who still exist there remain many multi-generational clans and true believers who are not fundamentally different from their mafia ancestors.
I don't mean to sound harsh or politically correct, but are you really saying that no anti-Italian (heck, anti-non-WASP) prejudice and barriers existed in the US in the 1800s and 1900s? Entire entities were formed to like, allow Italians to get judgeships. Thousands wouldn't have marched with Columbo if prejudice and barriers weren't a real thing.

The reference in the Godfather wouldn't have reached that level of cultural awareness if it didn't reflect reality and strike a chord.

Sicily is sui generis.

Which politicians in the U.S. do you claim to have been a member of the mob?

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by B. » Tue Feb 18, 2025 1:37 pm

PTown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 8:01 pm Oh man -- I disagree, so much. On point 1, I understand the early "rules" differed greatly between each family, based on what the "father" (patriarch) of each family felt. And many of the traditions (like the burning saint, etc.) have been shown to have been recent add-ons that were by no means standard or done by each outpost family.

On point 2, I really couldn't disagree more. There is an EXCELLENT chapter in an EXCELLENT new book that I've reviewed on this site. Book is called Mafia Mistaken by J. De Luca. There's an entire chapter about how men like Luciano and Bonanno and Gambino weren't in it to perpetuate Sicilian clans (although Bonanno was a man of tradition). No, it was because the country clubs, board rooms, and elected office was closed to them.

(As always, there was some truth to Puzo's lines in the Godfather - "I always wanted you to be Governor Corleone; Senator Corleone...")

I really don't see how else you explain the dearth of smart, capable people in the mob post 1965. One can't blame it on shrinking Italian communities.
Pueblo still has a huge density of Italian Americans. As does Cleveland, St. Louis, Providence/East Boston, Detroit, even parts of Los Angeles. Still the mob has shrunk precipitously. RICO + other opportunities for an upper middle class life.
1) This is definitely inaccurate. Cosa Nostra's rules are and were overwhelmingly consistent between different Families and even countries. Investigations from 19th century Sicily show an incredible amount of consistency with American Cosa Nostra when it came to structure and rules. The boss/capo/rappresentante could interpret rules (it is its own legal system, after all) or install certain policies but in no way did the rules differ significantly from Family to Family nor was the boss allowed to arbitrarily change the universal rules of Cosa Nostra. The ceremony has also been largely consistent going back to the 1800s though at times American Families have done truncated or informal variations of it (Sicilian pentiti have given examples of this in Sicily, too, though).

2) Are you the author of the e-book you mentioned or affiliated with it? I notice you've been promoting it heavily on here, seemingly from the moment it was released. We definitely encourage authors to self-promote here so if you're affiliated with it please don't feel reluctant to mention that.

With regards to your second point, it's also inaccurate, at least with regard to Bonanno, Gambino, and the majority of early mafiosi. Country clubs, board rooms, and elected office weren't closed to them and Bonanno even mentions politicians and men with esteemed professions being inducted into Cosa Nostra, something many of us have confirmed through research. Many of these guys were able to mingle with the upper classes, were part of civic organizations, and ran large and successful businesses. I've personally written extensively about politicians in high office who were inducted into Cosa Nostra in both the US and Sicily. In Sicily there were an extensive number of politicians inducted into Cosa Nostra alongside doctors, lawyers, and descendants of the Sicilian Nobility but there were also examples in the American mafia. This is all documented, not speculative.

In addition to them very much wanting to perpetuate the mafia system and enrich/expand their own clans, they saw Cosa Nostra as an end unto itself not just a means to an end. They truly believed in the mafia system and its traditions. Some may have seen it as a means to gain wealth or power with little personal investment in the mafia itself but historically and traditionally that describes very few members. As Nick Caramandi said, who was made in 1980s Philadelphia, joining the mafia was more prestigious than any country club. Members felt that they were part of something even greater than any legitimate fraternal society or club could offer.

The mafia has declined immensely, largely due to the demographic and cultural changes I mentioned along with unprecedented LE pressure, but there have continued to be plenty of "smart, capable" members since 1965 and among the Families who still exist there remain many multi-generational clans and true believers who are not fundamentally different from their mafia ancestors.

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by johnny_scootch » Tue Feb 18, 2025 7:49 am

PTown wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 12:30 pm
1) I believe the "associate" stuff was very informal at the time. There were full-fledged members and there were criminals or those involved who just weren't members for various reasons. I believe a lot of the Italian American "rules" that we are familiar with developed later, and the old guys from Italy would have kind of chuckled at the formality of some of these pop-culture-infused rules that developed over the years.

2) Another thing that fascinates me with that era is that the aim appears to have been social mobility more than the mob, by itself, as an end. The mob was more a means... It seems that in several places, from Colorado to Milwaukee, once these guys made their money and made respectability, they simply left. They faded into the woodwork, happy with their lives, which is probably how it should be.
I’m going to have to disagree with pretty much everything you said here.

1) What makes you believe ‘the associate stuff’ was informal at the time?

2) Which ‘Italian American’ ‘pop culture infused’ rules are you referring to that developed later?

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Cosa Nostra if you believe members ‘simply left’ whenever they decided they had amassed enough money and respect.

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by PTown » Mon Feb 17, 2025 8:01 pm

B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 12:54 pm No problem, man.

However, I do disagree with the last two points.

1) It was heavily formal even early on. Most of the rules we know of today outside of some of the circumstantial ones (i.e. no stocks/bonds, drugs) were in place and if anything they were even more rigid when it came to rules and protocol. This was true for affiliation as well.

2) The early / traditional mafia already had social mobility. Many mafiosi were already solidly middle class (or the equivalent, as the modern idea of "middle class" is a more recent phenomenon), some held respectable professions, others owned property and businesses, and the objective was to perpetuate the mafia system and use it to govern the Sicilian and eventually Italian-American communities they existed in. The reason Families like Colorado and Milwaukee faded was largely because the communal infrastructure and demographics needed to maintain the mafia system were changing, not so much that the mafiosi had "made it" and didn't need the mafia anymore. That's not how they viewed it and the idea that these were poor immigrants who turned to crime to uplift themselves is a myth that's been largely discredited. These were multi-generational clans and a significant number of members already had social status, financial stability, etc.
Oh man -- I disagree, so much. On point 1, I understand the early "rules" differed greatly between each family, based on what the "father" (patriarch) of each family felt. And many of the traditions (like the burning saint, etc.) have been shown to have been recent add-ons that were by no means standard or done by each outpost family.

On point 2, I really couldn't disagree more. There is an EXCELLENT chapter in an EXCELLENT new book that I've reviewed on this site. Book is called Mafia Mistaken by J. De Luca. There's an entire chapter about how men like Luciano and Bonanno and Gambino weren't in it to perpetuate Sicilian clans (although Bonanno was a man of tradition). No, it was because the country clubs, board rooms, and elected office was closed to them.

(As always, there was some truth to Puzo's lines in the Godfather - "I always wanted you to be Governor Corleone; Senator Corleone...")

I really don't see how else you explain the dearth of smart, capable people in the mob post 1965. One can't blame it on shrinking Italian communities.
Pueblo still has a huge density of Italian Americans. As does Cleveland, St. Louis, Providence/East Boston, Detroit, even parts of Los Angeles. Still the mob has shrunk precipitously. RICO + other opportunities for an upper middle class life.

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by B. » Mon Feb 17, 2025 5:42 pm

Yeah, you've done great work uncovering some of these other non-Sicilian figures. Whether these were members or associates, Colorado was a surprisingly diverse network, both in terms of heritage and social/professional backgrounds. The apparent induction of an ostensibly legitimate far-northern Italian politician in Wyoming really widens the scope of possibility when considering who Colorado may have made early in their history.

It's very possible too there was a Camorra society (or societies) in Colorado. Roma would fit the bill though I'm not aware of anything definitively linking him to Camorra activity and I've never actually looked into newspaper articles about reported "Camorra" activity in the region. Mike O'Haire did tell me some of the most important Sicilian mafiosi in the area around the turn of the century had close Calabrian associates even that early.

As for Colorado being one of the earlier Families to induct non-Sicilians, we have good evidence the Gambino, Morello (Genovese/Lucchese), and Pittsburgh were doing it by the mid-late 1910s, with Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and even Dallas diversifying by the 1920s if not earlier too. I'd say Colorado was likely doing it fairly early but we have such a lack of inside sources there it's hard to say when it took place. Roma was likely a member so he would have been made by the early 1930s (I'm skeptical of claims that he was the boss) and I've got no clue when Boschetto or the Smaldones were actually made but the Family must have been diversifying fairly early.

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by JoePuzzles234 » Mon Feb 17, 2025 4:08 pm

B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 12:54 pm 2) The early / traditional mafia already had social mobility. Many mafiosi were already solidly middle class (or the equivalent, as the modern idea of "middle class" is a more recent phenomenon), some held respectable professions, others owned property and businesses, and the objective was to perpetuate the mafia system and use it to govern the Sicilian and eventually Italian-American communities they existed in. The reason Families like Colorado and Milwaukee faded was largely because the communal infrastructure and demographics needed to maintain the mafia system were changing, not so much that the mafiosi had "made it" and didn't need the mafia anymore. That's not how they viewed it and the idea that these were poor immigrants who turned to crime to uplift themselves is a myth that's been largely discredited. These were multi-generational clans and a significant number of members already had social status, financial stability, etc.
I think what's really interesting concerning social status is that none of the political figures identified as Colorado affiliates are Sicilian (outside of maybe Sam Brocato, still unsure about his origins past Brazil).

John Cha being from Trinidad and his association with the Carlinos and later Big Bob Dionisio clearly places him as someone under the Sicilians in that area. John Boccaccio is also probably with them as is Cha's political ally Talico Micheliza. However in Denver, Brocato's link is to Joseph Roma and Paul J. Villano is obviously with his Smaldone relatives.

Not sure if ironic is the right word but it sure is something that Villano's nephew Paul Clyde continued to uphold Colorado's place in the network through his interactions with Los Angeles, then headed by a Calabrian and being effectively managed by Gelfuso from Campania.

I've brought it up a few times before but something else I think is worth considering is that Colorado may be among the "earlier" non-NYC families that started recruiting mainland members, maybe as a result of bootlegging starting early in the state as well as all the mining colonies (obviously a super broad and basic statement). Roma, while he could very possibly have been a recent member, is clearly someone of prominence by 1931 and it seems likely that those connections would have been established throughout the previous decade.

Some other notable names pop up later in 1950 via the FBN - Trinidad-based John Pricco (b. 1887, San Martino Canavese, Torino) is described as "mafia leader for the state" while Vincenzo Spinelli (b. 1896, Vena di Maida, Catanzaro) is called the "head of the mafia in Denver." While never formally identified as members, they apparently had some status within these circles.

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by B. » Mon Feb 17, 2025 12:54 pm

No problem, man.

However, I do disagree with the last two points.

1) It was heavily formal even early on. Most of the rules we know of today outside of some of the circumstantial ones (i.e. no stocks/bonds, drugs) were in place and if anything they were even more rigid when it came to rules and protocol. This was true for affiliation as well.

2) The early / traditional mafia already had social mobility. Many mafiosi were already solidly middle class (or the equivalent, as the modern idea of "middle class" is a more recent phenomenon), some held respectable professions, others owned property and businesses, and the objective was to perpetuate the mafia system and use it to govern the Sicilian and eventually Italian-American communities they existed in. The reason Families like Colorado and Milwaukee faded was largely because the communal infrastructure and demographics needed to maintain the mafia system were changing, not so much that the mafiosi had "made it" and didn't need the mafia anymore. That's not how they viewed it and the idea that these were poor immigrants who turned to crime to uplift themselves is a myth that's been largely discredited. These were multi-generational clans and a significant number of members already had social status, financial stability, etc.

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by PTown » Mon Feb 17, 2025 12:30 pm

B. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 9:37 pm There are an endless amount of guys like this. Colorado in particular had seemingly hundreds of mafia affiliates from the Agrigento / Trapani / Palermo interior and outside of the big names it's very difficult to know who was and wasn't a member. If you've researched this stuff deeply enough for a long time, you get a "sense" sometimes that someone was a possible or likely member. In Colorado, if you look at Joe Riggio from Lucca Sicula, he was the uncle of Jim Colletti (boss) and father-in-law of Peter Carlino (suspected boss), described as a leading "black hand" figure in Southern Colorado circa 1910s, committed a murder, his store was a main meeting place for local mafiosi, etc. No sources ever identified Riggio as a made member but I'm confident he was at least a member if not a high-ranking one.

There are a huge number of unknown and unconfirmed members from the pre-1950s era, with even more unknowns the further back you go. I try to be very conservative when speculating about someone's membership, never going further than "possible member" if we don't have an explicit source and even then I'm reluctant to speculate. I'm much more liberal with "associate" though I think that too needs to be looked at critically as there are all kinds of associates. I'd say anyone from Lucca Sicula who was at all involved in underworld activity or crime in Colorado is a safe bet for some level of mafia association haha and even the most stubborn researchers like me aren't going to give you much pushback on it, though I see no reason to consider these guys possible members based on the info you provided.

Along with Sicilian / Italian hometown and underworld activity, which you've already noted, another good indicator is who they were related to, whether they lived near mafiosi, etc. None of that would tell you much about someone's membership status but it would strongly indicate the guy was at least an associate. There are of course varying shades to "associates", too. On one extreme you may have a guy who is "with" a mafioso on the most basic level, a relative or friend of one who can go to him, while on the other you have associates who in Sicily would be called "avvicinati", associates who are a much more integral part of the organization and its operation, many of them likely on their way to membership. An American equivalent might be when an associate is officially registered, where the member he's with takes his name to a captain or even the administration to put him on record; they don't do that for everyone.

There was already a dizzying amount of names in early Colorado but I've been talking to Mike O'Haire who has blown my mind with even more names. A small minority of these guys were possible members, a larger number were likely closer to "avvicinati" style associates, while the majority were probably relatives, friends, and paesans who were part of the mafia environment by default but only peripherally involved with the organization itself. I'd say that principal is true for most historic Families.
THANK YOU so much, B. This is probably the best summary of what I was thinking too, but you put it much more eloquently and in detail.

I also had thought about taking a look at old census records to determine who lived where, as it would also be powerful circumstantial evidence if people were neighbors.

A couple final notes and nuance on that pre-1950s era.

1) I believe the "associate" stuff was very informal at the time. There were full-fledged members and there were criminals or those involved who just weren't members for various reasons. I believe a lot of the Italian American "rules" that we are familiar with developed later, and the old guys from Italy would have kind of chuckled at the formality of some of these pop-culture-infused rules that developed over the years.

2) Another thing that fascinates me with that era is that the aim appears to have been social mobility more than the mob, by itself, as an end. The mob was more a means... It seems that in several places, from Colorado to Milwaukee, once these guys made their money and made respectability, they simply left. They faded into the woodwork, happy with their lives, which is probably how it should be.

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by B. » Sun Feb 16, 2025 9:37 pm

There are an endless amount of guys like this. Colorado in particular had seemingly hundreds of mafia affiliates from the Agrigento / Trapani / Palermo interior and outside of the big names it's very difficult to know who was and wasn't a member. If you've researched this stuff deeply enough for a long time, you get a "sense" sometimes that someone was a possible or likely member. In Colorado, if you look at Joe Riggio from Lucca Sicula, he was the uncle of Jim Colletti (boss) and father-in-law of Peter Carlino (suspected boss), described as a leading "black hand" figure in Southern Colorado circa 1910s, committed a murder, his store was a main meeting place for local mafiosi, etc. No sources ever identified Riggio as a made member but I'm confident he was at least a member if not a high-ranking one.

There are a huge number of unknown and unconfirmed members from the pre-1950s era, with even more unknowns the further back you go. I try to be very conservative when speculating about someone's membership, never going further than "possible member" if we don't have an explicit source and even then I'm reluctant to speculate. I'm much more liberal with "associate" though I think that too needs to be looked at critically as there are all kinds of associates. I'd say anyone from Lucca Sicula who was at all involved in underworld activity or crime in Colorado is a safe bet for some level of mafia association haha and even the most stubborn researchers like me aren't going to give you much pushback on it, though I see no reason to consider these guys possible members based on the info you provided.

Along with Sicilian / Italian hometown and underworld activity, which you've already noted, another good indicator is who they were related to, whether they lived near mafiosi, etc. None of that would tell you much about someone's membership status but it would strongly indicate the guy was at least an associate. There are of course varying shades to "associates", too. On one extreme you may have a guy who is "with" a mafioso on the most basic level, a relative or friend of one who can go to him, while on the other you have associates who in Sicily would be called "avvicinati", associates who are a much more integral part of the organization and its operation, many of them likely on their way to membership. An American equivalent might be when an associate is officially registered, where the member he's with takes his name to a captain or even the administration to put him on record; they don't do that for everyone.

There was already a dizzying amount of names in early Colorado but I've been talking to Mike O'Haire who has blown my mind with even more names. A small minority of these guys were possible members, a larger number were likely closer to "avvicinati" style associates, while the majority were probably relatives, friends, and paesans who were part of the mafia environment by default but only peripherally involved with the organization itself. I'd say that principal is true for most historic Families.

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by PTown » Sun Feb 16, 2025 5:51 pm

JoePuzzles234 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 3:09 am Not intended to offend but you do yourself and the forum a disservice by not mentioning their names, the discussion ends up being more speculative and generalised as a result
I know, and I appreciate the help. Individual One is Michael Galasso, born 1891. PART of the reason I didn't mention that name is because he should NOT be confused with the other Michael Galasso, who IIRC was Lucky Luciano's Brother in Law! :D

Appreciate all leads, gents.

Re: General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by JoePuzzles234 » Sun Feb 16, 2025 3:09 am

Not intended to offend but you do yourself and the forum a disservice by not mentioning their names, the discussion ends up being more speculative and generalised as a result
1. How well-developed do you think our knowledge is of the extent of members and associates in random cities like Pueblo/Denver? Could there be members who despite the American love of all-things mob -- simply flew under the radar?
Our insight is minimal because there aren't any member sources in Colorado. The more "public" resources on the family (i.e., the Smaldone book & Mountain Mafia) already push the narrative that Denver was a separate entity, which doesn't really help things.

A lot of what we even learn about the family in later years comes from Frank Bompensiero's brief interactions with Spinuzzi and Joe Salardino. Gentile's information, while informative, is also pretty limited. There are only about 32 reasonably identified Colorado members overall and given how deep the networks of extended relatives go, both Sicilian & mainland as well as the ties to Wyoming and New Mexico, we are likely missing a significant amount of people.
2. Am I wrong to assume "Sicilian dude owned a bar during Prohibition, had leg shot off, friend owned a brothel" that they were OC-connected? Is it possible they were just criminals who at-most had to pay tribute?
This leads back to the no names thing, any answer would be broad and not really helpful.
3. What else? Any other resources I can and should check?
Your best bet would be newspaper archives, Mary Ferrell FBI documents are pretty much all around the more well-known guys - predominately the Smaldones, then Spinuzzi, Blanda, Incerto, Joe Salardino etc. You can also perform a CBI records check to try verify if they had any arrests, though at times I've received responses that fail to find anything for even established figures.

General Associate Question / Specific CO Question

by PTown » Sat Feb 15, 2025 1:54 pm

Black Handers:

I'm researching two individuals and would love your thoughts.

Both individuals came from Lucca Sicula, Sicily, the hotspot for Colorado Italian Organized Crime.

Individual one owned a "tavern/restaurant" during Prohibition that became a bar the day Prohibition was repealed. I'm 99% sure it was a speakeasy of course. It served beer, wine, and hooch to the mostly Italian population of Pueblo, Colorado.

Individual one had a wooden leg -- supposedly from it being shot off by a shotgun blast in an elevator, reminiscent of one of the scenes toward the end of the Godfather.

Individual two owned a business front that doubled as a brothel. Men could enter the legitimate business, and those in the know could order up a woman upstairs. Individual two was a good friend of Individual one.

Here is where I would love your thoughts. I'm thinking with these guys, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." -- in other words, that they must have been at least Associates. I find it hard to believe that two guys from Lucca Sicula, Sicily could own a speakeasy and a brothel in the 1920s-1940s, without the blessing of the Pueblo mob -- which was overwhelmingly also from Lucca Sicula.

However, both Individuals' names appear in NO documents I'm aware of (from what I can find online) as being members or affiliates. They were never arrested AFAIK. They flew completely under the radar. By the time the FBI charted the Pueblo mob in the early 1960s, their names do not appear. (One appeared to have moved away; the other was getting up in age).

So that brings me to my series of questions:

1. How well-developed do you think our knowledge is of the extent of members and associates in random cities like Pueblo/Denver? Could there be members who despite the American love of all-things mob -- simply flew under the radar?

2. Am I wrong to assume "Sicilian dude owned a bar during Prohibition, had leg shot off, friend owned a brothel" that they were OC-connected? Is it possible they were just criminals who at-most had to pay tribute?

3. What else? Any other resources I can and should check?

All thoughts welcome.

Top