Is Chicago Mob’s Famous Family Secrets Case On Verge Of A Reopening? Miceli Makes It In Front Of Federal Judge In Quest

[PolackTony]

Which stories from his personal experiences are false?

Lol I just pulled up a random video and went to a random spot and found these nuggets. Red said that the clown was the boss in 1982 and could go over aiuppas head on things even a casual observer of the outfit knows this is wrong on so many levels

Ehhhh. If that’s what he’s saying, he wasn’t ever saying it before. A couple of years ago I spoke to Red at length, and was very specific in querying him about what he knew about Lombardo. Red stated that Joey succeeded Alderisio as capo (Red specifically stated “capo”, which he said was what they called it); then, in ‘76, Red stated that Joey was appointed “street boss”. When I asked him if this wasn’t just a synonym for “capo” in Chicago, he was firm that it wasn’t the same thing; per Red, the “street boss” was a capo that served as liaison between the admin and the other capos, as well as the enforcer of the family responsible for ensuring that punishments/hits were carried out. Red was very adamant and clear about this, and never mentioned anything about Lombardo ever getting bumped up further or having any de facto boss status or anything like that prior to going to the can. When I asked him if Lombardo could’ve been a “consigliere” or something akin for the family when he left prison, Red conceded that it was possible but cautioned that he had no knowledge of what happened after he himself left the game. In general, I found Red to be careful to state when he didn’t know a guy or the answer to a question. He’d say “I’m sorry, I wish I could help you, but I didn’t know those guys well (for example, guys in Melrose Park or Cicero). So, when I spoke with him directly, I found him to be honest and straight forward, not embellishing things or exaggerating his own knowledge or role. Sounds like after a couple of years doing these podcasts, he’s getting into “tall tales”.

Thanks he did say specifically street boss in the video but said as street boss Lombardo could go above aiuppa who was the actual boss which makes no sense. Lombardo being street boss would be incorrect though in 82 anyways. There has never been any information saying the other capos went through Lombardo and there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. For instance according to Nick calabrese Angelo lapietra got his orders through aiuppa. Red also stated the last supper photo was taken when Lombardo was made street boss lol. That was just one example I found at random I know the videos are filled with more that’s why I stopped watching that show

I have heard him say that the Last Supper photo was taken when Lombardo was made street boss. He's made that claim pretty consistently. Could you put in a link for the video where you say that he said Lombardo could go over Aiuppa's head?

https://youtu.be/iHijKJfWXyQ

30 minute mark he talks about aiuppa . And Antillar we both know Lombardo wasn’t street boss in 82

Thanks for posting. To me, it sounds like Red is giving his opinion that in the specific circumstance of preventing the Spilotro hit, Lombardo could've gone over Aiuppa "to Ricca" (hard to make out what he says at that last part, but it sounds like he could be saying Ricca). Definitely sounds like he was claiming that Lombardo could've appealed to someone else to step in and stop the hit; if he said Ricca, I'm assuming that Red was confused and meant Accardo. At least to me, it doesn't sound like Red was trying to say that Lombardo could, in general, go over Aiuppa's head.

While there's still a lot we don't understand, Aiuppa was definitely boss, as in the rappresentante of the family. There are, however, indications that he wasn't a lone dictator. At least in the 1970s, a Chicago CI stated that Aiuppa was the boss of the family but "served under" the board of directors or ruling committee (we know from that same period, according to Bompensiero, that Lombardo, Pilotto, and Torello seemed to have been acting as a council with Accardo). From other Chicago intel in the past, we get the picture that this "ruling committee" not only served to advise the boss but also to mediate problems and disputes within the family. There's also the CI claim that Ricca and Accardo were mainly concerned with preventing violence in the family; the sum of these claims to me suggests that the "board" served the same role that an individual consigliere traditionally served in families that had that position -- i.e., not just advising the boss, but also mediating disputes and protecting the membership from arbitrary action from the admin. We don't know for sure whether some form of this "board" persisted until 1986, but we know that Accardo was still in the loop on things, and presumably, could be appealed to as a check on a contract issued by the boss against a member. Whether or not Red is actually aware of the nuances of how the family was run at the top, it does seem to me plausible at least that Lombardo, if he had been on the street, could've "gone over" Aiuppa in exactly this narrow, contextualized sense, to attempt to stop a hit on a made guy. Lombardo obviously didn't overrule the boss, but the boss wasn't an absolute dictator.

FWIW, Red told me directly that Lombardo was promoted to "street boss" at the "Last Supper". When I asked Red how he could've possibly known this, as he obviously wasn't a made guy, he told me that Joey told him the day after when they were hanging out at the pool in Jimmy Cozzo's compound. Red further admitted that these guys weren't supposed to tell him these things -- it was a breach of protocol -- but that some of them liked to gossip; Red opined that they needed to get things off their chest or brag sometimes, and that, as he wasn't really of their world, he thought these guys liked to confide in him.

Just out of curiosity, Pete. What exactly do you think precludes Lombardo from having been "street boss" from '76 to '82? I'm not saying that he was, but want to hear you out, as it could be an interesting discussion. When I say "street boss", I mean in the specific sense that Red described it to me: as a captain who served as a liaison between the admin and the other captains, and, importantly was tasked with ensuring that punishments against the membership were carried out (the "enforcer"). In this light, if Chicago had that role, it was likely not a formal appointment but a set of responsibilities given to a captain who was something of a "first among equals". Are you saying that Chicago didn't have a "street boss" in this sense, or that they did but it wasn't Lombardo? I know that above you cited Nicky C as stating that LaPietra got his orders from Aiuppa, but Nick wasn't made until 1983, so we'd have to be very careful about the specific time period in question.

[Antiliar]

Which stories from his personal experiences are false?

Lol I just pulled up a random video and went to a random spot and found these nuggets. Red said that the clown was the boss in 1982 and could go over aiuppas head on things even a casual observer of the outfit knows this is wrong on so many levels

Ehhhh. If that’s what he’s saying, he wasn’t ever saying it before. A couple of years ago I spoke to Red at length, and was very specific in querying him about what he knew about Lombardo. Red stated that Joey succeeded Alderisio as capo (Red specifically stated “capo”, which he said was what they called it); then, in ‘76, Red stated that Joey was appointed “street boss”. When I asked him if this wasn’t just a synonym for “capo” in Chicago, he was firm that it wasn’t the same thing; per Red, the “street boss” was a capo that served as liaison between the admin and the other capos, as well as the enforcer of the family responsible for ensuring that punishments/hits were carried out. Red was very adamant and clear about this, and never mentioned anything about Lombardo ever getting bumped up further or having any de facto boss status or anything like that prior to going to the can. When I asked him if Lombardo could’ve been a “consigliere” or something akin for the family when he left prison, Red conceded that it was possible but cautioned that he had no knowledge of what happened after he himself left the game. In general, I found Red to be careful to state when he didn’t know a guy or the answer to a question. He’d say “I’m sorry, I wish I could help you, but I didn’t know those guys well (for example, guys in Melrose Park or Cicero). So, when I spoke with him directly, I found him to be honest and straight forward, not embellishing things or exaggerating his own knowledge or role. Sounds like after a couple of years doing these podcasts, he’s getting into “tall tales”.

Thanks he did say specifically street boss in the video but said as street boss Lombardo could go above aiuppa who was the actual boss which makes no sense. Lombardo being street boss would be incorrect though in 82 anyways. There has never been any information saying the other capos went through Lombardo and there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. For instance according to Nick calabrese Angelo lapietra got his orders through aiuppa. Red also stated the last supper photo was taken when Lombardo was made street boss lol. That was just one example I found at random I know the videos are filled with more that’s why I stopped watching that show

I have heard him say that the Last Supper photo was taken when Lombardo was made street boss. He's made that claim pretty consistently. Could you put in a link for the video where you say that he said Lombardo could go over Aiuppa's head?

https://youtu.be/iHijKJfWXyQ

30 minute mark he talks about aiuppa . And Antillar we both know Lombardo wasn’t street boss in 82

I was reading an ELSUR in an FBI file the other day and it said that Murray Humphreys could override Joe B by going directly to Paul, so I don't have an issue with the part about Lombardo having direct access to Accardo to override Aiuppa. As for the rest of his info, accuracy is different than lying. I think he's relaying the information he was told to the best of his ability to remember. Right now I'm looking at Frank Cullotta's last book, where he's talking with Tony Spilotro in the aftermath of the Sam Giancana killing. Frank asked Tony who was going to replace Sam, and Tony told him it would be Jack Cerone "with Lombardo in the second spot." He added that when Turk Torello died in 1979, Lombardo replaced him as Tony's boss.

Even Nick C's info isn't wholly accurate. He claimed that Rocky Infelice was at the house where the Spilotro brothers were slain, but he was actually at home under government surveillance. Plus to him, Joe Ferriola only headed the Wild Bunch, and he wasn't aware that he was the capo who succeeded Torello. I don't think Red, Cullotta, or Nick C were putting out disinformation. They're just imperfect people with imperfect memories remembering past people and events to the best of their abilities.

[Antiliar]

There are questions about the Family Secrets trial

https://www.rrstar.com/story/opinion/co ... 542683007/

Truth under attack at Chicago mob trial
Lonna Saunders
Sept 1, 2007

A shiver went down my spine as the government played six men’s voices in the hushed federal courtroom of the Chicago Outfit “Family Secrets” trial. I was able to identify the voice of defendant James Marcello. There was not a shadow of a doubt in my mind. I was so confident of my identification, I would have bet my house on it.

How well do I know James Marcello? I don’t know him at all. I was not the only observer sitting in that 25th-floor courtroom to correctly identify his voice without having heard it before. How could that be? You didn’t have to be a NASA rocket scientist, although I am the daughter of one, to know which voice the government wanted you to pick. The way the lineup was setup, suggested the answer. Hence, the shiver down my spine.

Five men who were either FBI agents or policemen recorded themselves on a cassette reading a newspaper item. There were no pauses between their individual readings. It was difficult to tell when one voice stopped and the next one began. Then there was a noticeable pause, followed by the defendant’s voice. He was the last one on the tape. Being last in the lineup, together with the pause, gave it away. It was highly suggestive of the answer the government wanted the witness to give.

This was not fair to the ear witness, Michelle Spilotro, daughter of slain mobster Michael Spilotro and niece of slain Las Vegas crime boss Tony Spilotro. After all, she had no part in putting together this poorly designed lineup. It is not fair to the defendant, and it is not fair to the public who has a vested interest in seeing justice is done.

With such a badly botched lineup, who knows whether Spilotro can identify Marcello’s voice when the answer isn’t being suggested to her by the government? Especially when she incorrectly identified a photo of deceased mob boss Joe Ferriola as that of his lieutenant Rocky Infelice, who is also deceased.

Rocky Infelice appears to be a favorite target of mistaken identity. When the government’s star witness, mob turncoat Nicholas Calabrese, testified about the Spilotro brothers’ killings, he said Infelice was there. But Infelice was under government surveillance, and intercepted phone calls showed he was home, checking sports phone scores and making dinner plans with another couple for that night.

Don’t forget Calabrese only agreed to cooperate when his DNA was found on a glove he left when he killed his friend and fellow “made” man, John Fecarotta. Calabrese’s testimony was the impetus for this far-flung RICO trial spanning 40 years with 14 defendants.

Calabrese first told the FBI Fecarotta drove tough guy Jim LaPietra and himself to the Spilotro murders. Then he said it was Jim Marcello who was the driver. (Calabrese’s and Michelle Spilotro’s testimony are what tie Marcello to those killings, immortalized in the Martin Scorsese film, “Casino.”)

Dentist Pat Spilotro under oath contradicted Calabrese, saying Marcello drove his two brothers, not Calabrese and the boys, to the death house. That he heard it from his sister-in-law Anne Spilotro. Only problem is that Anne Spilotro never said that on the stand.

So whom did Marcello drive, if anyone, to the Bensenville house where Calabrese claims the Spilotros were killed? Was Marcello even there? Was Calabrese?

Calabrese has never been able to point out the house to investigators.

In another Scorsese film, “Goodfellas,” actor Joe Pesci is murdered as he enters the basement of a suburban home, believing he is going to a ceremony to become a “made” member of the mob. As another courtroom observer pointed out to me, this is just like Calabrese’s version of the Spilotro murders. Under cross-examination, Calabrese admitted to having seen “parts” of “Goodfellas” but not the film in its entirety.

“Goodfellas” is based on Nicholas Pileggi’s book, “Wiseguy,” a true story, published in 1985, the year before the Spilotro murders. The Spilotros were last seen alive on June 14, 1986. Perhaps the Chicago Outfit read Pileggi’s book and decided to kill the Spilotros in the same way Tommy DeSimone met his demise in “Wiseguy.” I also have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. ...

An attorney government witness had trouble separating fact from fiction, when he referred to the Spilotros as the “Sopranos,” though he quickly corrected his Freudian slip. It’s understandable since this trial began two weeks after the series made its final exit on HBO.

Watching this trial for two months, I am reminded of the old game show “To Tell the Truth” with Kitty Carlisle and other celebs trying to figure out which of three contestants were impostors and who was the one telling the truth.

Three members of the Calabrese family have testified in this trial — a father, his son and a brother. One is a defendant, the other two are government witnesses. All have done time.

Who is telling the truth? Is it somewhere in between? The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. There is the doubt.

[Pete]

Which stories from his personal experiences are false?

Lol I just pulled up a random video and went to a random spot and found these nuggets. Red said that the clown was the boss in 1982 and could go over aiuppas head on things even a casual observer of the outfit knows this is wrong on so many levels

Ehhhh. If that’s what he’s saying, he wasn’t ever saying it before. A couple of years ago I spoke to Red at length, and was very specific in querying him about what he knew about Lombardo. Red stated that Joey succeeded Alderisio as capo (Red specifically stated “capo”, which he said was what they called it); then, in ‘76, Red stated that Joey was appointed “street boss”. When I asked him if this wasn’t just a synonym for “capo” in Chicago, he was firm that it wasn’t the same thing; per Red, the “street boss” was a capo that served as liaison between the admin and the other capos, as well as the enforcer of the family responsible for ensuring that punishments/hits were carried out. Red was very adamant and clear about this, and never mentioned anything about Lombardo ever getting bumped up further or having any de facto boss status or anything like that prior to going to the can. When I asked him if Lombardo could’ve been a “consigliere” or something akin for the family when he left prison, Red conceded that it was possible but cautioned that he had no knowledge of what happened after he himself left the game. In general, I found Red to be careful to state when he didn’t know a guy or the answer to a question. He’d say “I’m sorry, I wish I could help you, but I didn’t know those guys well (for example, guys in Melrose Park or Cicero). So, when I spoke with him directly, I found him to be honest and straight forward, not embellishing things or exaggerating his own knowledge or role. Sounds like after a couple of years doing these podcasts, he’s getting into “tall tales”.

Thanks he did say specifically street boss in the video but said as street boss Lombardo could go above aiuppa who was the actual boss which makes no sense. Lombardo being street boss would be incorrect though in 82 anyways. There has never been any information saying the other capos went through Lombardo and there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. For instance according to Nick calabrese Angelo lapietra got his orders through aiuppa. Red also stated the last supper photo was taken when Lombardo was made street boss lol. That was just one example I found at random I know the videos are filled with more that’s why I stopped watching that show

I have heard him say that the Last Supper photo was taken when Lombardo was made street boss. He's made that claim pretty consistently. Could you put in a link for the video where you say that he said Lombardo could go over Aiuppa's head?

https://youtu.be/iHijKJfWXyQ

30 minute mark he talks about aiuppa . And Antillar we both know Lombardo wasn’t street boss in 82

I was reading an ELSUR in an FBI file the other day and it said that Murray Humphreys could override Joe B by going directly to Paul, so I don't have an issue with the part about Lombardo having direct access to Accardo to override Aiuppa. As for the rest of his info, accuracy is different than lying. I think he's relaying the information he was told to the best of his ability to remember. Right now I'm looking at Frank Cullotta's last book, where he's talking with Tony Spilotro in the aftermath of the Sam Giancana killing. Frank asked Tony who was going to replace Sam, and Tony told him it would be Jack Cerone "with Lombardo in the second spot." He added that when Turk Torello died in 1979, Lombardo replaced him as Tony's boss.

Even Nick C's info isn't wholly accurate. He claimed that Rocky Infelice was at the house where the Spilotro brothers were slain, but he was actually at home under government surveillance. Plus to him, Joe Ferriola only headed the Wild Bunch, and he wasn't aware that he was the capo who succeeded Torello. I don't think Red, Cullotta, or Nick C were putting out disinformation. They're just imperfect people with imperfect memories remembering past people and events to the best of their abilities.

Fair enough antillar. Maybe I was a tad harsh just to my recollection I felt like I had seen a lot of inaccuracies in what he says but to be fair to these guys they are not necessarily mob watchers or historians they just know things the way they remember them from 30-40 years ago, just like Frank culotta would say a lot of historical information that flies in the face of our understood info

[Pete]

Which stories from his personal experiences are false?

Lol I just pulled up a random video and went to a random spot and found these nuggets. Red said that the clown was the boss in 1982 and could go over aiuppas head on things even a casual observer of the outfit knows this is wrong on so many levels

Ehhhh. If that’s what he’s saying, he wasn’t ever saying it before. A couple of years ago I spoke to Red at length, and was very specific in querying him about what he knew about Lombardo. Red stated that Joey succeeded Alderisio as capo (Red specifically stated “capo”, which he said was what they called it); then, in ‘76, Red stated that Joey was appointed “street boss”. When I asked him if this wasn’t just a synonym for “capo” in Chicago, he was firm that it wasn’t the same thing; per Red, the “street boss” was a capo that served as liaison between the admin and the other capos, as well as the enforcer of the family responsible for ensuring that punishments/hits were carried out. Red was very adamant and clear about this, and never mentioned anything about Lombardo ever getting bumped up further or having any de facto boss status or anything like that prior to going to the can. When I asked him if Lombardo could’ve been a “consigliere” or something akin for the family when he left prison, Red conceded that it was possible but cautioned that he had no knowledge of what happened after he himself left the game. In general, I found Red to be careful to state when he didn’t know a guy or the answer to a question. He’d say “I’m sorry, I wish I could help you, but I didn’t know those guys well (for example, guys in Melrose Park or Cicero). So, when I spoke with him directly, I found him to be honest and straight forward, not embellishing things or exaggerating his own knowledge or role. Sounds like after a couple of years doing these podcasts, he’s getting into “tall tales”.

Thanks he did say specifically street boss in the video but said as street boss Lombardo could go above aiuppa who was the actual boss which makes no sense. Lombardo being street boss would be incorrect though in 82 anyways. There has never been any information saying the other capos went through Lombardo and there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. For instance according to Nick calabrese Angelo lapietra got his orders through aiuppa. Red also stated the last supper photo was taken when Lombardo was made street boss lol. That was just one example I found at random I know the videos are filled with more that’s why I stopped watching that show

I have heard him say that the Last Supper photo was taken when Lombardo was made street boss. He's made that claim pretty consistently. Could you put in a link for the video where you say that he said Lombardo could go over Aiuppa's head?

https://youtu.be/iHijKJfWXyQ

30 minute mark he talks about aiuppa . And Antillar we both know Lombardo wasn’t street boss in 82

Thanks for posting. To me, it sounds like Red is giving his opinion that in the specific circumstance of preventing the Spilotro hit, Lombardo could've gone over Aiuppa "to Ricca" (hard to make out what he says at that last part, but it sounds like he could be saying Ricca). Definitely sounds like he was claiming that Lombardo could've appealed to someone else to step in and stop the hit; if he said Ricca, I'm assuming that Red was confused and meant Accardo. At least to me, it doesn't sound like Red was trying to say that Lombardo could, in general, go over Aiuppa's head.

While there's still a lot we don't understand, Aiuppa was definitely boss, as in the rappresentante of the family. There are, however, indications that he wasn't a lone dictator. At least in the 1970s, a Chicago CI stated that Aiuppa was the boss of the family but "served under" the board of directors or ruling committee (we know from that same period, according to Bompensiero, that Lombardo, Pilotto, and Torello seemed to have been acting as a council with Accardo). From other Chicago intel in the past, we get the picture that this "ruling committee" not only served to advise the boss but also to mediate problems and disputes within the family. There's also the CI claim that Ricca and Accardo were mainly concerned with preventing violence in the family; the sum of these claims to me suggests that the "board" served the same role that an individual consigliere traditionally served in families that had that position -- i.e., not just advising the boss, but also mediating disputes and protecting the membership from arbitrary action from the admin. We don't know for sure whether some form of this "board" persisted until 1986, but we know that Accardo was still in the loop on things, and presumably, could be appealed to as a check on a contract issued by the boss against a member. Whether or not Red is actually aware of the nuances of how the family was run at the top, it does seem to me plausible at least that Lombardo, if he had been on the street, could've "gone over" Aiuppa in exactly this narrow, contextualized sense, to attempt to stop a hit on a made guy. Lombardo obviously didn't overrule the boss, but the boss wasn't an absolute dictator.

FWIW, Red told me directly that Lombardo was promoted to "street boss" at the "Last Supper". When I asked Red how he could've possibly known this, as he obviously wasn't a made guy, he told me that Joey told him the day after when they were hanging out at the pool in Jimmy Cozzo's compound. Red further admitted that these guys weren't supposed to tell him these things -- it was a breach of protocol -- but that some of them liked to gossip; Red opined that they needed to get things off their chest or brag sometimes, and that, as he wasn't really of their world, he thought these guys liked to confide in him.

Just out of curiosity, Pete. What exactly do you think precludes Lombardo from having been "street boss" from '76 to '82? I'm not saying that he was, but want to hear you out, as it could be an interesting discussion. When I say "street boss", I mean in the specific sense that Red described it to me: as a captain who served as a liaison between the admin and the other captains, and, importantly was tasked with ensuring that punishments against the membership were carried out (the "enforcer"). In this light, if Chicago had that role, it was likely not a formal appointment but a set of responsibilities given to a captain who was something of a "first among equals". Are you saying that Chicago didn't have a "street boss" in this sense, or that they did but it wasn't Lombardo? I know that above you cited Nicky C as stating that LaPietra got his orders from Aiuppa, but Nick wasn't made until 1983, so we'd have to be very careful about the specific time period in question.

I wouldn’t say anything precludes him necessarily he was certainly qualified but I would find it very hard to believe that this is the first anyones heard about Lombardo being street boss in that time frame. I’ve done quite a bit of research over the years and have never once heard anything to that effect. While I suppose it could be possible it flies in the face of what most of us understand to be the way things went at that time.

And in regards to Lombardo being able to go over aiuppas head and stop the spilotros from getting killed let’s not forget Joey’s own words to pat spilotro. “Doc you get an order you follow it, if you don’t you go too” that doesn’t sound like someone that could overrule aiuppa that sounds like someone who realizes if they tried they would be dead as well.

[Pete]

There are questions about the Family Secrets trial

https://www.rrstar.com/story/opinion/co ... 542683007/

Truth under attack at Chicago mob trial
Lonna Saunders
Sept 1, 2007

A shiver went down my spine as the government played six men’s voices in the hushed federal courtroom of the Chicago Outfit “Family Secrets” trial. I was able to identify the voice of defendant James Marcello. There was not a shadow of a doubt in my mind. I was so confident of my identification, I would have bet my house on it.

How well do I know James Marcello? I don’t know him at all. I was not the only observer sitting in that 25th-floor courtroom to correctly identify his voice without having heard it before. How could that be? You didn’t have to be a NASA rocket scientist, although I am the daughter of one, to know which voice the government wanted you to pick. The way the lineup was setup, suggested the answer. Hence, the shiver down my spine.

Five men who were either FBI agents or policemen recorded themselves on a cassette reading a newspaper item. There were no pauses between their individual readings. It was difficult to tell when one voice stopped and the next one began. Then there was a noticeable pause, followed by the defendant’s voice. He was the last one on the tape. Being last in the lineup, together with the pause, gave it away. It was highly suggestive of the answer the government wanted the witness to give.

This was not fair to the ear witness, Michelle Spilotro, daughter of slain mobster Michael Spilotro and niece of slain Las Vegas crime boss Tony Spilotro. After all, she had no part in putting together this poorly designed lineup. It is not fair to the defendant, and it is not fair to the public who has a vested interest in seeing justice is done.

With such a badly botched lineup, who knows whether Spilotro can identify Marcello’s voice when the answer isn’t being suggested to her by the government? Especially when she incorrectly identified a photo of deceased mob boss Joe Ferriola as that of his lieutenant Rocky Infelice, who is also deceased.

Rocky Infelice appears to be a favorite target of mistaken identity. When the government’s star witness, mob turncoat Nicholas Calabrese, testified about the Spilotro brothers’ killings, he said Infelice was there. But Infelice was under government surveillance, and intercepted phone calls showed he was home, checking sports phone scores and making dinner plans with another couple for that night.

Don’t forget Calabrese only agreed to cooperate when his DNA was found on a glove he left when he killed his friend and fellow “made” man, John Fecarotta. Calabrese’s testimony was the impetus for this far-flung RICO trial spanning 40 years with 14 defendants.

Calabrese first told the FBI Fecarotta drove tough guy Jim LaPietra and himself to the Spilotro murders. Then he said it was Jim Marcello who was the driver. (Calabrese’s and Michelle Spilotro’s testimony are what tie Marcello to those killings, immortalized in the Martin Scorsese film, “Casino.”)

Dentist Pat Spilotro under oath contradicted Calabrese, saying Marcello drove his two brothers, not Calabrese and the boys, to the death house. That he heard it from his sister-in-law Anne Spilotro. Only problem is that Anne Spilotro never said that on the stand.

So whom did Marcello drive, if anyone, to the Bensenville house where Calabrese claims the Spilotros were killed? Was Marcello even there? Was Calabrese?

Calabrese has never been able to point out the house to investigators.

In another Scorsese film, “Goodfellas,” actor Joe Pesci is murdered as he enters the basement of a suburban home, believing he is going to a ceremony to become a “made” member of the mob. As another courtroom observer pointed out to me, this is just like Calabrese’s version of the Spilotro murders. Under cross-examination, Calabrese admitted to having seen “parts” of “Goodfellas” but not the film in its entirety.

“Goodfellas” is based on Nicholas Pileggi’s book, “Wiseguy,” a true story, published in 1985, the year before the Spilotro murders. The Spilotros were last seen alive on June 14, 1986. Perhaps the Chicago Outfit read Pileggi’s book and decided to kill the Spilotros in the same way Tommy DeSimone met his demise in “Wiseguy.” I also have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. ...

An attorney government witness had trouble separating fact from fiction, when he referred to the Spilotros as the “Sopranos,” though he quickly corrected his Freudian slip. It’s understandable since this trial began two weeks after the series made its final exit on HBO.

Watching this trial for two months, I am reminded of the old game show “To Tell the Truth” with Kitty Carlisle and other celebs trying to figure out which of three contestants were impostors and who was the one telling the truth.

Three members of the Calabrese family have testified in this trial — a father, his son and a brother. One is a defendant, the other two are government witnesses. All have done time.

Who is telling the truth? Is it somewhere in between? The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. There is the doubt.

That article is a bunch of nonsense by a reporter who knows nothing. Obviously Nick was mistaken about infelise being there you had a guy recalling something from 30 years earlier with quite a few people in the house.

Sure he didn’t remember the exact house. If I pick you up and take you somewhere you’ve never been before then drop you back off at home would you be able to pick out that house 30 years later?

Pat didn’t contradict nicks testimony. Nick clearly said he was dropped off by marcello and then marcello left to pick up the spilotros and came back.

Nick said fecarotta drove him instead of marcello to protect him because marcello was taking care of his family…. I could go on if You like but I’m guessing you know all this stuff that I’m saying. I’m not sure if you believe this stuff or your just playing devils advocate here as you seem to be a believer in this miceli

[Antiliar]

That article is a bunch of nonsense by a reporter who knows nothing. Obviously Nick was mistaken about infelise being there you had a guy recalling something from 30 years earlier with quite a few people in the house.

Sure he didn’t remember the exact house. If I pick you up and take you somewhere you’ve never been before then drop you back off at home would you be able to pick out that house 30 years later?

Pat didn’t contradict nicks testimony. Nick clearly said he was dropped off by marcello and then marcello left to pick up the spilotros and came back.

Nick said fecarotta drove him instead of marcello to protect him because marcello was taking care of his family…. I could go on if You like but I’m guessing you know all this stuff that I’m saying. I’m not sure if you believe this stuff or your just playing devils advocate here as you seem to be a believer in this miceli

Go read my first comment in this thread if you think I'm a believer in Chuck Miceli. The idea that anyone would think I would give him any credence makes me laugh.

I wouldn’t say anything precludes him necessarily he was certainly qualified but I would find it very hard to believe that this is the first anyones heard about Lombardo being street boss in that time frame. I’ve done quite a bit of research over the years and have never once heard anything to that effect. While I suppose it could be possible it flies in the face of what most of us understand to be the way things went at that time.

And in regards to Lombardo being able to go over aiuppas head and stop the spilotros from getting killed let’s not forget Joey’s own words to pat spilotro. “Doc you get an order you follow it, if you don’t you go too” that doesn’t sound like someone that could overrule aiuppa that sounds like someone who realizes if they tried they would be dead as well.

Yes, it's new to us that Lombardo was the street boss, but the Outfit has been a learning process for all of us. Plus we don't know exactly what is meant by "street boss." Wemette may have had one understanding and Lombardo or whomever told him may have had a different one. It could have just been added responsibilities and it could have been an informal term.

There's also no contradiction with what Lombardo said, "you get an order you follow it," and appealing to the highest authority.

[Pete]

That article is a bunch of nonsense by a reporter who knows nothing. Obviously Nick was mistaken about infelise being there you had a guy recalling something from 30 years earlier with quite a few people in the house.

Sure he didn’t remember the exact house. If I pick you up and take you somewhere you’ve never been before then drop you back off at home would you be able to pick out that house 30 years later?

Pat didn’t contradict nicks testimony. Nick clearly said he was dropped off by marcello and then marcello left to pick up the spilotros and came back.

Nick said fecarotta drove him instead of marcello to protect him because marcello was taking care of his family…. I could go on if You like but I’m guessing you know all this stuff that I’m saying. I’m not sure if you believe this stuff or your just playing devils advocate here as you seem to be a believer in this miceli

Go read my first comment in this thread if you think I'm a believer in Chuck Miceli. The idea that anyone would think I would give him any credence makes me laugh.

I wouldn’t say anything precludes him necessarily he was certainly qualified but I would find it very hard to believe that this is the first anyones heard about Lombardo being street boss in that time frame. I’ve done quite a bit of research over the years and have never once heard anything to that effect. While I suppose it could be possible it flies in the face of what most of us understand to be the way things went at that time.

And in regards to Lombardo being able to go over aiuppas head and stop the spilotros from getting killed let’s not forget Joey’s own words to pat spilotro. “Doc you get an order you follow it, if you don’t you go too” that doesn’t sound like someone that could overrule aiuppa that sounds like someone who realizes if they tried they would be dead as well.

Yes, it's new to us that Lombardo was the street boss, but the Outfit has been a learning process for all of us. Plus we don't know exactly what is meant by "street boss." Wemette may have had one understanding and Lombardo or whomever told him may have had a different one. It could have just been added responsibilities and it could have been an informal term.

There's also no contradiction with what Lombardo said, "you get an order you follow it," and appealing to the highest authority.

Glad we’re in agreement on miceli. To me it sounds like red is confused but we can agree to disagree. I am not sure why you are taking every thing he says hook line and sinker. There is absolutely no precedent for a capo aka crew boss aka street boss going over the actual boss head on a murder contract. Do you have instances of this happening in the past? If so please provide I would be interested to see that. That reasoning just makes no sense based on the structure and order of command but definitely believe whatever you like

[Antiliar]

Glad we’re in agreement on miceli. To me it sounds like red is confused but we can agree to disagree. I am not sure why you are taking every thing he says hook line and sinker. There is absolutely no precedent for a capo aka crew boss aka street boss going over the actual boss head on a murder contract. Do you have instances of this happening in the past? If so please provide I would be interested to see that. That reasoning just makes no sense based on the structure and order of command but definitely believe whatever you like

I don't take everything he says "hook, line and sinker." I think he honestly and sincerely believes what he says, even if it's not always accurate. So my point is that I don't think he's lying as opposed to being confused on some facts, misremembering or being mistaken.

As for a capo going over the acting boss's head to the actual boss, your argument is an argument from silence. The wiretap evidence we have represents a tiny drop in what took place, so to assert that it didn't happen because we didn't have evidence is irrational. What we do have is an example of a high-ranking associate (Humphreys) appealing to Paul Ricca and going over Giancana's and Accardo's heads, and the direct appeal to Accardo by Bill Roemer to cancel a potential hit on Bernie Glickman. The second example is pretty close to the example you're asking for. Aside from that, I don't see what the issue is since capos often sit on panels that advise the bosses. Why wouldn't a boss hear out one of his captains, people who he put in leadership positions and who have his trust?

[Patrickgold]

I will say this about Red. I think he is obsessed with himself and I think he is untruthful is some instances. He does give good info but I do feel like since he’s trying to make money talking about the Outfit now, he might be making claims that are not true.

Some instances where he was untruthful:
He knew about those kids that were killed and claimed he told the feds in the early 70s. He very well might of but why didn’t he tell local authorities or someone else if he really gave a shit. He didn’t for a variety of reasons the number being that he is gay. He is obviously gay but is still in the closet it seems and seems to be in denial. He also claims he was in Vietnam and I heard his story and it sounded like bullshit. I would love to see his DD214. I was in the military so can usually sniff out the stolen valor claims that so many people do. He said Marshall Caifano had a gay lover in prisoner when I’m not sure he would have any proof since he obviously didn’t serve time with him. And let’s not forget his story that Tony Spilotro knew he was a informant and didn’t do anything. Everyone knows that is bullshit. Tony would have personally have killed him if he knew.

[Tonyd621]

I will say this about Red. I think he is obsessed with himself and I think he is untruthful is some instances. He does give good info but I do feel like since he’s trying to make money talking about the Outfit now, he might be making claims that are not true.

Some instances where he was untruthful:
He knew about those kids that were killed and claimed he told the feds in the early 70s. He very well might of but why didn’t he tell local authorities or someone else if he really gave a shit. He didn’t for a variety of reasons the number being that he is gay. He is obviously gay but is still in the closet it seems and seems to be in denial. He also claims he was in Vietnam and I heard his story and it sounded like bullshit. I would love to see his DD214. I was in the military so can usually sniff out the stolen valor claims that so many people do. He said Marshall Caifano had a gay lover in prisoner when I’m not sure he would have any proof since he obviously didn’t serve time with him. And let’s not forget his story that Tony Spilotro knew he was a informant and didn’t do anything. Everyone knows that is bullshit. Tony would have personally have killed him if he knew.

Red was in vietnam? Yeah sure. And women in the infantry didn't change any either. Sarcasm.

[Antiliar]

I will say this about Red. I think he is obsessed with himself and I think he is untruthful is some instances. He does give good info but I do feel like since he’s trying to make money talking about the Outfit now, he might be making claims that are not true.

Some instances where he was untruthful:
He knew about those kids that were killed and claimed he told the feds in the early 70s. He very well might of but why didn’t he tell local authorities or someone else if he really gave a shit. He didn’t for a variety of reasons the number being that he is gay. He is obviously gay but is still in the closet it seems and seems to be in denial. He also claims he was in Vietnam and I heard his story and it sounded like bullshit. I would love to see his DD214. I was in the military so can usually sniff out the stolen valor claims that so many people do. He said Marshall Caifano had a gay lover in prisoner when I’m not sure he would have any proof since he obviously didn’t serve time with him. And let’s not forget his story that Tony Spilotro knew he was a informant and didn’t do anything. Everyone knows that is bullshit. Tony would have personally have killed him if he knew.

Wow. That's a pretty harsh assessment. Seems like your mind is made up, so I won't debate you on it.

[Patrickgold]

I will say this about Red. I think he is obsessed with himself and I think he is untruthful is some instances. He does give good info but I do feel like since he’s trying to make money talking about the Outfit now, he might be making claims that are not true.

Some instances where he was untruthful:
He knew about those kids that were killed and claimed he told the feds in the early 70s. He very well might of but why didn’t he tell local authorities or someone else if he really gave a shit. He didn’t for a variety of reasons the number being that he is gay. He is obviously gay but is still in the closet it seems and seems to be in denial. He also claims he was in Vietnam and I heard his story and it sounded like bullshit. I would love to see his DD214. I was in the military so can usually sniff out the stolen valor claims that so many people do. He said Marshall Caifano had a gay lover in prisoner when I’m not sure he would have any proof since he obviously didn’t serve time with him. And let’s not forget his story that Tony Spilotro knew he was a informant and didn’t do anything. Everyone knows that is bullshit. Tony would have personally have killed him if he knew.

Wow. That's a pretty harsh assessment. Seems like your mind is made up, so I won't debate you on it.

Don’t get me wrong, I think he does bring some good info to the table from his personal experience considering he was involved with the outfit but I found his pettiness to be a little extreme. He will block you on Facebook if you have even a tiny disagreement with him which I find strange. Also, as I said before I think some of the lies help discredit him like him now claiming he saw heavy combat in Vietnam despite never saying it before or him trying to push his friendship with Tony Spilotro a little to far by saying Tony knew he was a CI and did nothing because he liked him so much.

[Antiliar]

Okay, I'll respond a little bit.

- Yes, he does block people, but that's his right. Maybe he feels he's too old for the crap people sometimes throw at him. I like to debate, but when people troll it's often just a waste of time. I'm sure he gets lots of trolls.

- There isn't enough information to debate his service in Vietnam. He didn't write about it in his book. He only wrote when he enlisted and was discharged, and he provided a photo in his book. So neither one of us knows what he did during the period of his enlistment. A lot of combat veterans don't like to discuss their experiences until they feel ready to do so on their terms.

- As for him being gay, that sounds like guilt by association. He's denied that in the past and I think he's said that he's got a wife and kids, so I have no reason to believe it. Yes, some married men are secretly gay, but I would need some solid evidence before I'm convinced.

- Regarding Red telling Spilotro that he was snitching, that's his story. It does sound far-fetched, but I can't make a knee-jerk assumption that it's false without evidence. I'm agnostic on it. I neither believe nor do I automatically disbelieve it. It goes in the category of "Red claims he told Spilotro he was a snitch and Spilotro didn't care because it wasn't about him." Maybe since Red was targeting Frank Schweihs and Spilotro feared Schweihs he was glad to hear that Red is getting him off the street. I don't know, I'm just throwing that out as a possible explanation. Over the years I've heard far-fetched claims being disproven, but I've heard others that were confirmed to be true. Frank Calabrese Jr says his father told him that Accardo pulled the trigger on Giancana. Far-fetched? Yes. Impossible? No. Could it have happened? Yes. Did it happen? Don't know, can't verify. Some may think that the entire leadership of the Outfit killing the Spilotros is also far-fetched. Do we know that it happened? No. Nick Calabrese testified to it, so most of us believe him, but it's *possible* that he lied on the stand. Again, we weren't there, so we will never know for certain one or the other. This is my reasoning, but we're free to disagree.

[Coloboy]

There are some really interesting topics in this discussion.

Much of the back-and-forth is driven by our lack of understanding of the “street boss” role, what it was, who held it, what its purpose was. If it existed in the form that most here speculate, I think the job would have suited Joey Lombardo very well, and it is quite possible he was the guy designated to communicating the top admins orders and enforcing them across crews.

I also believe it is very possible that if Ferriolla had this role in the mid to late 80’s, it was the major contributor to confusion when LE incorrectly identified him as the boss boss, I.E Aiuppas replacement. One could imagine an informant hearing the word “street boss “and relaying what they thought that might mean incorrectly