Chicago and the Camorra

[CabriniGreen]

I would also say that the " Rural" Camorra is much more " Mafia" , more organized than the inner city clans and gangs...

The Nuvolettas, Licciardis, and Casalesi all have rural bases. The Nuvolettas and Licciardis have power bases on farms...... they based the Levantes on these type of clans....

[CabriniGreen]

Actually, thinking about it a little, DiLauros clan was kinda like the Outfit with territorial bosses, but that's a very new organization...

[Villain]

Actually, thinking about it a little, DiLauros clan was kinda like the Outfit with territorial bosses, but that's a very new organization...

Do you think they adopted some old type of hierarchy, besides they being new and stuff?

[PolackTony]

I would also say that the " Rural" Camorra is much more " Mafia" , more organized than the inner city clans and gangs...

The Nuvolettas, Licciardis, and Casalesi all have rural bases. The Nuvolettas and Licciardis have power bases on farms...... they based the Levantes on these type of clans....

Hey thanks for the commentary. To be clear, my points on the rural vs urban Camorra were specific to the late 19th and very early 20th centuries, as this was the era that would've shaped any Napoletano influences on the early Outfit. In the 19th century it is my understanding that the urban Camorra of Napoli -- la Bella Società Riformata -- was formalized and had a two tiered structure with an "upper" and a "lower" organization. The rural Camorra of the period seems to have been much less formalized and looser and mostly centered on regulating land disputes and dealing with brigandage. Again, would love to know more details on Camorra type groups outside of Napoli in this period. From what I understand, the Bella Società Riformata was dismantled and in its wake much less organized Camorra clans formed over the 20th century in urban Napoli.

[Villain]

I would also say that the " Rural" Camorra is much more " Mafia" , more organized than the inner city clans and gangs...

The Nuvolettas, Licciardis, and Casalesi all have rural bases. The Nuvolettas and Licciardis have power bases on farms...... they based the Levantes on these type of clans....

Hey thanks for the commentary. To be clear, my points on the rural vs urban Camorra were specific to the late 19th and very early 20th centuries, as this was the era that would've shaped any Napoletano influences on the early Outfit. In the 19th century it is my understanding that the urban Camorra of Napoli -- la Bella Società Riformata -- was formalized and had a two tiered structure with an "upper" and a "lower" organization. The rural Camorra of the period seems to have been much less formalized and looser and mostly centered on regulating land disputes and dealing with brigandage. Again, would love to know more details on Camorra type groups outside of Napoli in this period. From what I understand, the Bella Società Riformata was dismantled and in its wake much less organized Camorra clans formed over the 20th century in urban Napoli.

The old Outfit was also less formalized and looser and was also mostly concentrated on regulating territorial and operational disputes (dozens of examples out there), meaning thats how they kept all of the factions in their place and the organization in one piece for such a long time period

[Antiliar]

What's the problem? You want to have a discussion but then you get mad when somebody challenges you to produce some evidence & your answer is that you possibly choose not to reveal it. So, you don't debate in good faith? When people debate things, they produce evidence. They don't get mad & say "Maybe I have evidence but don't want to share it". What's the point of debating it? I am truly surprised by your reaction.

In addition, You have no idea what Nick Calabrese would say to some guy from New York & I'm NOT telling you he never heard of those terms. I'm telling you he never used those terms under oath in describing the Outfit. I did not mean to offend you in anyway & I would look forward to reading your book.

I'm not mad, but I am frustrated because despite me using different explanations and analogies you still don't seem to follow what I'm saying. Instead you double down and put words in my mouth that I didn't say or even think (like the nonsense that I WANT the Outfit to be Sicilian - Whaaaat? I don't "want" the Outfit to be anything. I want to learn the truth about the Outfit because it's fascinating history.). That's not debating. That's straw manning. The problem is that you keep on switching the topic. It isn't about me producing evidence, it's about whether evidence exists EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE IT.

To put it another way yet again, if I don't have evidence for something IT DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for something. It only means that *I* don't have the evidence. That's it. If you don't have evidence for X, it does not follow that someone else also doesn't have the evidence.

Here's another explanation by hypothetical example. Let's say (A) that there's an old FBI recording of Paul Ricca saying that Frank Nitto was a "capodecina." That would be evidence that Nitto was not the boss of the Outfit but a capodecina/captain/skipper/group leader/capo of a crew. Let's also say (B) that you not only don't have a copy of this recording, but you're not aware of it. Also, (C) I'm not aware of it, Villain isn't aware of it, B isn't aware of it, John Binder isn't aware of it, no Outfit researcher is aware of it. So what can we conclude? This evidence (A) does exist even if (C) no researcher is aware of it. So it's FALSE to say that there "is no evidence Ricca called Nitto a capodecina." It is ACCURATE to say, "I am not aware of any evidence Ricca called Nitto a capodecina."

You also make these assertions for which YOU have no evidence. "I'm telling you he never used those terms under oath in describing the Outfit." How would you know what words were used under oath UNLESS YOU WERE THERE or UNLESS THEY TOLD YOU? [Caps used for emphasis, not for shouting.] The fact is that you don't KNOW. You may BELIEVE that, but you don't KNOW it. Maybe you think this is semantics, but it's not. Words mean things and if we don't communicate correctly then those words will probably be misunderstood. If someone writes a book and something gets misunderstood, that misunderstanding could go viral and then bad information becomes common "knowledge."

[Confederate]

What's the problem? You want to have a discussion but then you get mad when somebody challenges you to produce some evidence & your answer is that you possibly choose not to reveal it. So, you don't debate in good faith? When people debate things, they produce evidence. They don't get mad & say "Maybe I have evidence but don't want to share it". What's the point of debating it? I am truly surprised by your reaction.

In addition, You have no idea what Nick Calabrese would say to some guy from New York & I'm NOT telling you he never heard of those terms. I'm telling you he never used those terms under oath in describing the Outfit. I did not mean to offend you in anyway & I would look forward to reading your book.

I'm not mad, but I am frustrated because despite me using different explanations and analogies you still don't seem to follow what I'm saying. Instead you double down and put words in my mouth that I didn't say or even think (like the nonsense that I WANT the Outfit to be Sicilian - Whaaaat? I don't "want" the Outfit to be anything. I want to learn the truth about the Outfit because it's fascinating history.). That's not debating. That's straw manning. The problem is that you keep on switching the topic. It isn't about me producing evidence, it's about whether evidence exists EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE IT.

To put it another way yet again, if I don't have evidence for something IT DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for something. It only means that *I* don't have the evidence. That's it. If you don't have evidence for X, it does not follow that someone else also doesn't have the evidence.

Here's another explanation by hypothetical example. Let's say (A) that there's an old FBI recording of Paul Ricca saying that Frank Nitto was a "capodecina." That would be evidence that Nitto was not the boss of the Outfit but a capodecina/captain/skipper/group leader/capo of a crew. Let's also say (B) that you not only don't have a copy of this recording, but you're not aware of it. Also, (C) I'm not aware of it, Villain isn't aware of it, B isn't aware of it, John Binder isn't aware of it, no Outfit researcher is aware of it. So what can we conclude? This evidence (A) does exist even if (C) no researcher is aware of it. So it's FALSE to say that there "is no evidence Ricca called Nitto a capodecina." It is ACCURATE to say, "I am not aware of any evidence Ricca called Nitto a capodecina."

You also make these assertions for which YOU have no evidence. "I'm telling you he never used those terms under oath in describing the Outfit." How would you know what words were used under oath UNLESS YOU WERE THERE or UNLESS THEY TOLD YOU? [Caps used for emphasis, not for shouting.] The fact is that you don't KNOW. You may BELIEVE that, but you don't KNOW it. Maybe you think this is semantics, but it's not. Words mean things and if we don't communicate correctly then those words will probably be misunderstood. If someone writes a book and something gets misunderstood, that misunderstanding could go viral and then bad information becomes common "knowledge."

If you read the transcripts from the "Family Secrets Trial", Nick Calabrese never used the words "Consigliere" & "Capodecina". I didn't have to be present in the Courtroom to hear him give his testimony to know it.

Okay, According to the evidence, that is "available", the old Outfit under Capone was NOT structured exactly like the other Mafia Families & those common "Sicilian terms" were not used by them. If some hidden verified evidence comes out later that is different, then so be it. However, I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for it.

When will your book be released? I would like to read it.

[Antiliar]

Calabrese wasn't asked every possible question, only what was relevant to the Family Secrets case. It's just like Mickey Scars testified what was relevant, but he gave answers to other questions here in the forum that weren't asked during trials. Same with Sammy Gravano. Compare what he said in his testimony to all the additional info he gave in his book and podcasts. Trials aren't meant to be exhaustive.

At any rate, you now get what I was getting at with regard to evidence. It's all part of taking a more cautious approach to researching history by not jumping to conclusions. If you get a chance, I really recommend that book I suggested to Villain by David Hackett Fischer.

As far as publication, can't tell yet.

[Pete]

Calabrese wasn't asked every possible question, only what was relevant to the Family Secrets case. It's just like Mickey Scars testified what was relevant, but he gave answers to other questions here in the forum that weren't asked during trials. Same with Sammy Gravano. Compare what he said in his testimony to all the additional info he gave in his book and podcasts. Trials aren't meant to be exhaustive.

At any rate, you now get what I was getting at with regard to evidence. It's all part of taking a more cautious approach to researching history by not jumping to conclusions. If you get a chance, I really recommend that book I suggested to Villain by David Hackett Fischer.

As far as publication, can't tell yet.

Sorry antillar but calabrese laid out the hierarchy and succession. And was asked specifically accardos position. If there was a consigliere he would have said it. And not all of it was relevant to the case. What did John monteleone being boss have to do with family secrets? He talked about that. If your saying well they didn’t ask him specifically if there was a consigliere so that means there could be one I think your grasping. Why would he name boss underboss captains various other roles and leave that out? Doesn’t pass the smell test

[Pete]

What's the problem? You want to have a discussion but then you get mad when somebody challenges you to produce some evidence & your answer is that you possibly choose not to reveal it. So, you don't debate in good faith? When people debate things, they produce evidence. They don't get mad & say "Maybe I have evidence but don't want to share it". What's the point of debating it? I am truly surprised by your reaction.

In addition, You have no idea what Nick Calabrese would say to some guy from New York & I'm NOT telling you he never heard of those terms. I'm telling you he never used those terms under oath in describing the Outfit. I did not mean to offend you in anyway & I would look forward to reading your book.

I'm not mad, but I am frustrated because despite me using different explanations and analogies you still don't seem to follow what I'm saying. Instead you double down and put words in my mouth that I didn't say or even think (like the nonsense that I WANT the Outfit to be Sicilian - Whaaaat? I don't "want" the Outfit to be anything. I want to learn the truth about the Outfit because it's fascinating history.). That's not debating. That's straw manning. The problem is that you keep on switching the topic. It isn't about me producing evidence, it's about whether evidence exists EVEN IF WE DON'T HAVE IT.

To put it another way yet again, if I don't have evidence for something IT DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for something. It only means that *I* don't have the evidence. That's it. If you don't have evidence for X, it does not follow that someone else also doesn't have the evidence.

Here's another explanation by hypothetical example. Let's say (A) that there's an old FBI recording of Paul Ricca saying that Frank Nitto was a "capodecina." That would be evidence that Nitto was not the boss of the Outfit but a capodecina/captain/skipper/group leader/capo of a crew. Let's also say (B) that you not only don't have a copy of this recording, but you're not aware of it. Also, (C) I'm not aware of it, Villain isn't aware of it, B isn't aware of it, John Binder isn't aware of it, no Outfit researcher is aware of it. So what can we conclude? This evidence (A) does exist even if (C) no researcher is aware of it. So it's FALSE to say that there "is no evidence Ricca called Nitto a capodecina." It is ACCURATE to say, "I am not aware of any evidence Ricca called Nitto a capodecina."

You also make these assertions for which YOU have no evidence. "I'm telling you he never used those terms under oath in describing the Outfit." How would you know what words were used under oath UNLESS YOU WERE THERE or UNLESS THEY TOLD YOU? [Caps used for emphasis, not for shouting.] The fact is that you don't KNOW. You may BELIEVE that, but you don't KNOW it. Maybe you think this is semantics, but it's not. Words mean things and if we don't communicate correctly then those words will probably be misunderstood. If someone writes a book and something gets misunderstood, that misunderstanding could go viral and then bad information becomes common "knowledge."

If you read the transcripts from the "Family Secrets Trial", Nick Calabrese never used the words "Consigliere" & "Capodecina". I didn't have to be present in the Courtroom to hear him give his testimony to know it.

Okay, According to the evidence, that is "available", the old Outfit under Capone was NOT structured exactly like the other Mafia Families & those common "Sicilian terms" were not used by them. If some hidden verified evidence comes out later that is different, then so be it. However, I wouldn't hold my breathe waiting for it.

When will your book be released? I would like to read it.

Your correct nick did not use those terms. He did use capo boss and underboss that was it. See my other post for my other thoughts

[Pete]

I don’t know if I’m getting the argument but it looks like you could both be right. Antillar said New York could have referred to people chicago with their terms. Entirely possible. Confederate says the outfit didn’t use those terms also true or possible. Is there a part I’m missing? It’s a discussion over two different things at least that part. I don’t understand why no one will challenge me on the consigliere thing even tho people on this forum say Chicago had one. That makes me think confederate is correct with some people trying to put the outfit in a box even knowing it’s wrong. Otherwise someone would challenge and put up evidence that consigliere existed? Oh well no one wants to argue with me so I’ll stay out

[Antiliar]

Calabrese wasn't asked every possible question, only what was relevant to the Family Secrets case. It's just like Mickey Scars testified what was relevant, but he gave answers to other questions here in the forum that weren't asked during trials. Same with Sammy Gravano. Compare what he said in his testimony to all the additional info he gave in his book and podcasts. Trials aren't meant to be exhaustive.

At any rate, you now get what I was getting at with regard to evidence. It's all part of taking a more cautious approach to researching history by not jumping to conclusions. If you get a chance, I really recommend that book I suggested to Villain by David Hackett Fischer.

As far as publication, can't tell yet.

Sorry antillar but calabrese laid out the hierarchy and succession. And was asked specifically accardos position. If there was a consigliere he would have said it. And not all of it was relevant to the case. What did John monteleone being boss have to do with family secrets? He talked about that. If your saying well they didn’t ask him specifically if there was a consigliere so that means there could be one I think your grasping. Why would he name boss underboss captains various other roles and leave that out? Doesn’t pass the smell test

This is what I wrote in my original post in this thread: "Titles have to be used at least to explain what rank a person has to a member of a different Family." In the follow-up posts "capodecina," "captain," and "consigliere" were examples. I didn't mean that Calabrese had to say that the Outfit used those terms for themselves, just that they had to be aware of those terms and there were situations when they were used. They also had to use terms that would be understood as having some equivalent to the other Cosa Nostra Families. Which terms they used for themselves was up to them. So I think you misunderstood what I was getting at.

[Pete]

Calabrese wasn't asked every possible question, only what was relevant to the Family Secrets case. It's just like Mickey Scars testified what was relevant, but he gave answers to other questions here in the forum that weren't asked during trials. Same with Sammy Gravano. Compare what he said in his testimony to all the additional info he gave in his book and podcasts. Trials aren't meant to be exhaustive.

At any rate, you now get what I was getting at with regard to evidence. It's all part of taking a more cautious approach to researching history by not jumping to conclusions. If you get a chance, I really recommend that book I suggested to Villain by David Hackett Fischer.

As far as publication, can't tell yet.

Sorry antillar but calabrese laid out the hierarchy and succession. And was asked specifically accardos position. If there was a consigliere he would have said it. And not all of it was relevant to the case. What did John monteleone being boss have to do with family secrets? He talked about that. If your saying well they didn’t ask him specifically if there was a consigliere so that means there could be one I think your grasping. Why would he name boss underboss captains various other roles and leave that out? Doesn’t pass the smell test

This is what I wrote in my original post in this thread: "Titles have to be used at least to explain what rank a person has to a member of a different Family." In the follow-up posts "capodecina," "captain," and "consigliere" were examples. I didn't mean that Calabrese had to say that the Outfit used those terms for themselves, just that they had to be aware of those terms and there were situations when they were used. They also had to use terms that would be understood as having some equivalent to the other Cosa Nostra Families. Which terms they used for themselves was up to them. So I think you misunderstood what I was getting at.

I don’t think I misunderstood that’s what I thought you were saying I just didn’t get the argument

[Antiliar]

It was an explanation about belief claims and knowledge claims about evidence.

This is Accardo and Giancana discussing their interactions with other leaders

FBI Su Anthony Accardo ELSUR (1959) - Commission.jpg

Here Fratianno used the word "captain" but the FBI added "capo"

FBI Su Richard Cain - Fratianno.jpg

[Pete]

It was an explanation about belief claims and knowledge claims about evidence.

This is Accardo and Giancana discussing their interactions with other leaders
FBI Su Anthony Accardo ELSUR (1959) - Commission.jpg

Here Fratianno used the word "captain" but the FBI added "capo"
FBI Su Richard Cain - Fratianno.jpg

Was capo or captain disputed? I got nick c referring to difronzo and lapietra as capos or captains. Some guys used Italian more than others. When Angelo went to jail he told nick his brother jimmy was sotto capo while he was away. Fratianno also said when he met with aiuppa and cerone they were boss and underboss and cerone referred to spilotro as a soldier.