I agree, very good observation, and it makes sense for the most part. These lists are still great, thoughcavita wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:22 amSpot on observation.Snakes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:20 amWell, remember, if they were on some of the membership lists in the 60s, they may not have carried over to the ones of the 80s and 90s after the standards were revised. Some of the old-timers were grandfathered in because the source information from the 60s still met the revised criteria but I imagine some were never validated as the more modern sources were probably not familiar with their status or level of activity.Timmoffat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:03 am Redaction notwithstanding. There are a few bonafide instances of definite made men missing from where the should be on the list. San Jose’s list should be a little longer, for instance. I spent like two hours poring over this the other day but been up all night in Miami and my short term memory isnt treating me well
Membership Counts, 1993
Moderator: Capos
Re: Membership Counts, 1993
Re: Membership Counts, 1993
True, the FBI highly desired a Rockford member-informant but were unable to develop one. They had Milwaukee LCN member Augie Maniaci that gave them a ton of info but he was hazy on a lot. Three or four years after he started informing he told the Bureau he had overlooked a couple Rockford members because he hadn't seen them in a long time so there were other members he was forgetting about or simply didn't know about.Snakes wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:09 pmI have read it described as LCN members had to be identified only by a "reliable source." Seeing as how the revised criteria allows for inclusion of intelligence by non-members (albeit multiple, independent accounts), I think we could safely say that a reliable non-member could be considered a source for identifying LCN members at the time.B. wrote: ↑Thu Jan 06, 2022 9:13 pm In the 1960s they still required a member source or wiretap to list someone as a confirmed member. They would list others as suspected/possible when they didn't have member source confirmation. They wouldn't include someone as confirmed if an associate or non-member source ID'd them.
Edit: I've seen a file from the 1970s that had the following statement:
This leads me to believe that there were no existing member-informants in the Rockford Family at the time this memo was produced, however, there is an attached list that names 16 individual members.Will continue efforts to develop a member-informant within the LCN Rockford "family."
Mike Iasparro who was high up in the sheriff's department also gave member info but this was from a LE standpoint. He seemed to be playing both sides of the fence because he was alleged to be one of the bagmen between the mayor and LCN boss Joe Zammuto. Iasparro was also forced to resign because he often gambled with LCN members and associates which came out during a 1974 corruption probe into the department.
Re: Membership Counts, 1993
Likely it’s the same list from the 1985 or so chart from that Valachi thing . Lafatch wasn’t on that either . Dominic Lonardo wasn’t listed either go figure
"if he's such A sports wizard , whys he tending bar ?" Nicky Scarfo
Re: Membership Counts, 1993
Looking at this again, it stands out how the FBI had 233 confirmed Gambino members.
Meshes well with DiLeonardo's estimate of ~250 members less then a decade later. Easy to imagine there were at least a dozen+ unknown members even after Gravano's cooperation -- DiLeonardo said for example the admin in the 1990s didn't know the identity of all the members in the Arcuri crew... that alone could account for a few people. Some of those old crews like Traina's once allegedly had a huge number of members, most of them obscure, so could have been a few there as well.
When Gotti told Gigante the Genovese Family had a big chunk of empty slots to fill, the implication was that the Gambino Family had been filling their slots. Gotti seems like the type of guy whose ego would want as many new members as possible, so the Gambinos probably operated at or near their cap under Gotti.
Meshes well with DiLeonardo's estimate of ~250 members less then a decade later. Easy to imagine there were at least a dozen+ unknown members even after Gravano's cooperation -- DiLeonardo said for example the admin in the 1990s didn't know the identity of all the members in the Arcuri crew... that alone could account for a few people. Some of those old crews like Traina's once allegedly had a huge number of members, most of them obscure, so could have been a few there as well.
When Gotti told Gigante the Genovese Family had a big chunk of empty slots to fill, the implication was that the Gambino Family had been filling their slots. Gotti seems like the type of guy whose ego would want as many new members as possible, so the Gambinos probably operated at or near their cap under Gotti.
Re: Membership Counts, 1993
As an aside, if you look at the specific counts (i.e. not some generic rounded estimate) over the past 20 years, and then average those out, both the Genovese and Gambinos are below 200 now.B. wrote: ↑Tue Jan 25, 2022 8:58 pm Looking at this again, it stands out how the FBI had 233 confirmed Gambino members.
Meshes well with DiLeonardo's estimate of ~250 members less then a decade later. Easy to imagine there were at least a dozen+ unknown members even after Gravano's cooperation -- DiLeonardo said for example the admin in the 1990s didn't know the identity of all the members in the Arcuri crew... that alone could account for a few people. Some of those old crews like Traina's once allegedly had a huge number of members, most of them obscure, so could have been a few there as well.
When Gotti told Gigante the Genovese Family had a big chunk of empty slots to fill, the implication was that the Gambino Family had been filling their slots. Gotti seems like the type of guy whose ego would want as many new members as possible, so the Gambinos probably operated at or near their cap under Gotti.
All roads lead to New York.