Membership Counts, 1993

[thekiduknow]

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

Well, 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.

What were the standards in the 60s vs 80s/90s/today?

[Snakes]

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

Well, 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.

What were the standards in the 60s vs 80s/90s/today?

I should have posted this earlier in the thread, but this was the FBI's criteria for identifying LCN members, starting in the early 80s:

I believe in the 1960s, all you needed was a single source identifying someone as made, and I do not believe that they had to be made themselves.

[Wiseguy]

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

Well, 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.

What were the standards in the 60s vs 80s/90s/today?

I should have posted this earlier in the thread, but this was the FBI's criteria for identifying LCN members, starting in the early 80s:

I believe in the 1960s, all you needed was a single source identifying someone as made, and I do not believe that they had to be made themselves.

It's one reason why membership, and intel in general, I give a lot more weight to from the 1980's and forward. It's also why, at least historically, the NYPD's figures were often larger than the FBI's. Not as stringent criteria for identification.

[thekiduknow]

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

Well, 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.

What were the standards in the 60s vs 80s/90s/today?

I should have posted this earlier in the thread, but this was the FBI's criteria for identifying LCN members, starting in the early 80s:

I believe in the 1960s, all you needed was a single source identifying someone as made, and I do not believe that they had to be made themselves.

Thanks.

That makes sense, I noticed that in the Mary Ferrell files, it was more common for members to be identified by a single source, rather than two or three.

Would be interesting to compare if there was a ever a big dump of i redacted files from the 70s/80s, but I dream.

[B.]

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.

[Snakes]

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.

I 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.

Edit: I've seen a file from the 1970s that had the following statement:

Will continue efforts to develop a member-informant within the LCN Rockford "family."

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.

[B.]

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.

I 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.

It came up with LaTorre's sons in Pittston because they were non-members but the FBI made an exception because there were two sons getting their info straight from their Dad who was a longtime member. They had to get official approval for this exception as normally non-member sources couldn't be counted to confirm, otherwise it went in the possible/suspected column. There are docs from the 1960s where they describe the protocol.

It's one of the reasons virtually the entire New Orleans and Tampa Families were ID'd as suspected/possible members, as they only had non-member sources aside from a couple exceptions. They were able to confirm two members in Jacksonville for example because they recorded Santo Trafficante meeting with them but even some guys who were very active in Tampa were left as "suspected" because they only had non-member sources.

If you check the sources they used on confirmed membership lists they almost all correspond to a member informant or a wiretap of members talking where they identify a fellow member. Would be curious if we can find other exceptions like the LaTorre sons -- they might well exist, but this was the general protocol for most of the official lists.

[Snakes]

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.

I 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.

It came up with LaTorre's sons in Pittston because they were non-members but the FBI made an exception because there were two sons getting their info straight from their Dad who was a longtime member. They had to get official approval for this exception as normally non-member sources couldn't be counted to confirm, otherwise it went in the possible/suspected column. There are docs from the 1960s where they describe the protocol.

It's one of the reasons virtually the entire New Orleans and Tampa Families were ID'd as suspected/possible members, as they only had non-member sources aside from a couple exceptions. They were able to confirm two members in Jacksonville for example because they recorded Santo Trafficante meeting with them but even some guys who were very active in Tampa were left as "suspected" because they only had non-member sources.

If you check the sources they used on confirmed membership lists they almost all correspond to a member informant or a wiretap of members talking where they identify a fellow member. Would be curious if we can find other exceptions like the LaTorre sons -- they might well exist, but this was the general protocol for most of the official lists.

I think my confusion arises from the idea that we had "member-informants" in Chicago who were admitting to FBI agents that they were members when in actuality, they weren't. This probably had something to do with the Outfit not utilizing a "traditional" making ceremony for several years, even though there they were certainly still admitting members into the LCN. The "false" member-informants were most likely conflating their idea of being admitted into the Outfit as a structural body with being inducted into the LCN. They were also identifying other "members" who were more than likely not fully initiated themselves. Due to this, there are several members on the older lists that we now know were never made or were made at a later period in time.

[FriendofFamily]

Other than the Forum's latest Pittsburgh Troll I maybe the only one to ask about Pittsburgh's 11+2.
Only because I hate to assume, does this June 1993 FBI report only include members that were alive in 1993?

Still going through the reports but Pittsburgh has:

Dominic Aduitori
Frank Amato, Jr.
John Bazzano, Jr.
[Redacted]
Pasquale Ferruccio (IP)
Michael Genovese
Charles Imburgia
Charles Porter (IP)
Antonio Ripepi
James Salamone
[Redacted]

The only one I knew for sure was Pat Ferruccio. I didn't know them like Friend of Henry

[FriendofFamily]

Great Stuff Snakes , Can you post Cleveland please

The number two spot should be Jimmy Lafatch - Soldier - he died in 1993 - I went to his funeral

[FriendofFamily]

Great Stuff Snakes , Can you post Cleveland please

Thanks Snakes

Joe iacobacci and Russ Papalardo obv the whited out names

Yeah you're right I think they took the Lafatch off the List Jimmy and Tony - Jimmy died in 1993 and Tony had Alzheimer and didn't know who he was and died in 1994.

[Pogo The Clown]

#2 is Joseph Iacobacci. The list is from June so Lafatch could have been dead by then.


Pogo

[B.]

I think my confusion arises from the idea that we had "member-informants" in Chicago who were admitting to FBI agents that they were members when in actuality, they weren't. This probably had something to do with the Outfit not utilizing a "traditional" making ceremony for several years, even though there they were certainly still admitting members into the LCN. The "false" member-informants were most likely conflating their idea of being admitted into the Outfit as a structural body with being inducted into the LCN. They were also identifying other "members" who were more than likely not fully initiated themselves. Due to this, there are several members on the older lists that we now know were never made or were made at a later period in time.

Great points. Chicago is a different story for sure and you reminded me of the Jewish informant with the Italian name who ID'd a huge list of names and seemed to suggest he was made. I have no clue myself who in Chicago was made vs. who wasn't on those lists and if sources lied about being made that's a whole other mess.

Different cities were also subject to their local FBI office and the standards were supposed to be pretty universal but I'm sure certain offices had their own "culture", especially if the supervisors were loose about it.

The 1960s lists for places like New York, Philly, Milwaukee, Bay Area CA, LA, etc. who had extremely reliable member informants were solid for the most part and the official lists for those cities typically only sourced from confirmed member sources/tapes. I wonder if there are other examples like Chicago.

[FriendofFamily]

#2 is Joseph Iacobacci. The list is from June so Lafatch could have been dead by then.


Pogo

Yes Jimmy Died April 11th, 1993

[Snakes]

I think my confusion arises from the idea that we had "member-informants" in Chicago who were admitting to FBI agents that they were members when in actuality, they weren't. This probably had something to do with the Outfit not utilizing a "traditional" making ceremony for several years, even though there they were certainly still admitting members into the LCN. The "false" member-informants were most likely conflating their idea of being admitted into the Outfit as a structural body with being inducted into the LCN. They were also identifying other "members" who were more than likely not fully initiated themselves. Due to this, there are several members on the older lists that we now know were never made or were made at a later period in time.

Great points. Chicago is a different story for sure and you reminded me of the Jewish informant with the Italian name who ID'd a huge list of names and seemed to suggest he was made. I have no clue myself who in Chicago was made vs. who wasn't on those lists and if sources lied about being made that's a whole other mess.

Different cities were also subject to their local FBI office and the standards were supposed to be pretty universal but I'm sure certain offices had their own "culture", especially if the supervisors were loose about it.

The 1960s lists for places like New York, Philly, Milwaukee, Bay Area CA, LA, etc. who had extremely reliable member informants were solid for the most part and the official lists for those cities typically only sourced from confirmed member sources/tapes. I wonder if there are other examples like Chicago.

It may also have something to do with the culture of Chicago and the East Coast Families. Ask an LCN member-informant and a non-LCN member-informant in Chicago if they are in the Outfit (or a member of the Outfit) and you may get both replying "yes." Meanwhile, ask an LCN member and a non-LCN member-informant in New York if they are in the Genovese Family or a member of the Genovese Family and one will say "yes" while the other will most certainly say "no." Chicago also did not go by "[insert name] Family," like the East Coasters did. The Outfit referred to the organization as a whole and non-made members could be "in" it. On the East Coast, non-made members could be "with" a family, but not "in" it.

I hope everyone is now thoroughly confused...