General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

[Angelo Santino]

I mentioned this in the op / org thread, but there's an assumption sometimes that only Sicilians valued Cosa Nostra's system and network while mainlanders were seeking to undermine Cosa Nostra and fundamentally change it. There's very little evidence to support this narrative in most cases beyond some individuals having different personalities and biases. There's plenty of counterevidence too. Even Calabrian Pittsburgh members with their own network transferred to otherwise Sicilian-centric San Jose and immediately applied themselves to high level mafia administration and protocol despite that Family having little organized crime activity -- they were interested in maintaining the system for its own sake because it gave them status, resources, and maybe because they simply liked what it was.

We can see that non-Sicilians and Italian-Americans around the country had no issue taking on Cosa Nostra as their own and this was not a "nod" to its Sicilian roots but simply the way the mafia environment evolved in some locations. If Paul Ricca was the consiglio chairman it doesn't mean he was in love with the Sicilian mafia, it just means he saw the value in participating and perpetuating the system for his and Chicago's own reasons much as Stefano Zoccoli did when he moved to San Jose. John Gotti didn't believe in the traditional ceremony because he loved Sicilians -- we know he actually tried to limit Sicilian influence -- it was because Cosa Nostra came to mean something to him personally as an Italian-American in Queens. It meant something slightly different to DiLeonardo but he and Gotti had common ground in that both valued the system. John Gotti had common ground with the DeCavalcantes too even though they were very different.

This has been one of my areas of expertise that I've looked into and you're 100% correct. A page back Tony described it using a house analogy. It's the same as what I described as "taking off their shoes," meaning they respected it. In every Family that included mainland bosses early on starting in the 30's, here is what I found:
1 They made no structural changes.
2 They were on good terms with Sicilians due to relationships that spanned decades back.
3 They were more dogmatic about rules and protocol than some Sicilians.

Despite this, there were cultural differences under the service between members of Sicilian and mainland heritage who joined the mob. We get a Sicilian account from Joe Bonanno who didn't so much hate mainlanders but he was of the belief that they could never truly appreciate it. He goes into the whole "process not a thing" stuff and really tries to portray it as a semi-legal association which included lawyers and doctors.

In contrast, we can get a mainlander account in Jimmy Fratianno. While he doesn't directly name the Sicilians, he almost exclusively has problems with them. He looks down on members' sons who entered the organization, regarding them as "deadheads," and Fratianno seemed to weigh a members' weight in their ability to murder.

In the center, men like Gentile, Gravano and Valachi didn't seem to care or at least make a strong point of it beyond mentioning where someone was from. I take this as a sign that during any time in its history, mafia members were diverse in their thinking because it allowed for that to an extent. You've have wildcards, traditionalists, reformers, invigorators, corporate climbers, etc. It's not a hive mentality.

The Family that was most-Mainland influenced was the Genovese Family. By the time information started being gathered, Frank Costello, a mainlander which meant something to him, a de facto leader of the Liberal wing on the Commission had been boss for two decades. Vito came in and there's no evidence that he switched things up, he wasn't around long enough. So what we see in the 60's and 70's is:
1 Larger crews compared to other families.
2 Less Captains, I think the Gams had at least ten more captains then the Gens.
3 Mixed crews with primarily a Companian-dominant demographic. There weren't Sicilian-centric crews by the 1960's like there were with the Gambinos.
4 A long term Acting Administration that still reflected the mafia hierarchy.

The Gambino and Genovese Families are true opposites in their make-up and operandi. I imagine in the Gambinos they have made semi-legitimate members based on their bloodlines or origins with the expectation that they'll "grow into it." With the Genoveses I get the impression that they have to show they are capable of it before getting their membership. I imagine one side may see the other as more-gangster driven while that side sees the other as more lax or soft in who they make. Both serve as prime examples of mafia at work. On one side you see the same bloodlines from 100 years ago, on the other you see "the system" transplanted on those without mafia-backgrounds who adhere to it, respect it and continue it.

I agree Chicago needs to be tackled in the same way NYC has been as far as narratives and myths. It doesn't mean there weren't changes in the Family's mindset / approach when Capone took over, as obviously there were some, but they weren't total and we can see the Family continued to include more "traditional" Sicilians alongside other types of members. It was a highly disciplined Family and Cosa Nostra is first and foremost focused on maintaining order and discipline whether this is applied to the social environment or organized crime. That's why a Pittsburgh member was shelved for not committing an honor killing after his wife had an affair and it's also why the Bonannos shelved a guy for stealing numbers profits even though one was purely a personal matter and the other was organized crime. In Chicago it meant Ross Prio felt the need to whisper about the organization at a location where his crew otherwise talked openly about other underworld gossip.

Indeed, Chicago needs to be moved from "most liberal" to "most conservative" Family list. Everything Calabrese described seemed to indicate that. And unlike New York where we have examples of members being made because they're simply friends with someone (Ally Persico), I don't get the sense that guys in Chicago were easily made. Using the fact that they had good working and interpersonal relationships with people of other ethnicities as an indicator that they didn't care about their ethnicity or the mafia itself is a fallacy. Detroit had similar arrangements with Greeks, Syrians and later Chaldeans. We see it less in York but I wondered it it perhaps got less reported on. I have evidence of Italians in business arrangements with non-Itals in the 1890's-1920's. I imagine that continues to this day. But unlike Chicago and Detroit, they didn't have a Valachi who was able to describe it and clear up any and all misconceptions.

A theory sometimes comes up on here over the years that Chicago was less traditional pre-1970s and decided to reinvigorate the Cosa Nostra system later. A lot of this comes from the references to Chicago not using the traditional making ceremony then Calabrese testifying that in 1983 he was given the full blood and fire. We know now that incredibly traditional Families didn't do the full ceremony and this didn't mean abandoning the larger system / framework and there's no hard evidence Chicago was different whether there was some lapse in ceremony or not (we really don't have enough evidence on pre-1983 inductions to draw conclusions). The problem with a lack of intel is all we can do is draft theories based on what we currently know but we have to remember these are just theories.

With the idea that Chicago was less traditional earlier and became more traditional in the 1970s or early 80s, it just doesn't seem logical though. Their Sicilian and Italian identity was stronger, with many immigrant members who not only came from Sicilian mafia backgrounds but also mainlanders with their own organized underworld networks. Why would these guys see no value in the system while guys born and/or raised in Chicago did? Maybe some later guys were more like Gotti who emphasized ceremony while some earlier guys didn't, but I see no convincing evidence that Chicago sought to abandon the system and then later generations reversed this. It's not an intuitive theory and it isn't supported in any substantial way.

A big hang-up in Chicago discussions is also language. Too much emphasis has been placed on euphemisms and terms used locally in Chicago as if that changes what's being referred to, but we've learned those weren't the only euphemisms and terms used. As we've learned about other non-NYC American Families we can see Chicago used similar/same language though so these arguments aren't relevant any longer. Because Chicago and Milwaukee didn't use the term "Cosa Nostra" (which Joe Bonanno said he didn't either), it doesn't mean they weren't using the system we know as Cosa Nostra. Nick Gentile didn't use "Cosa Nostra" either but when he said the "Honored Society" he meant the same system.

I agree and I think it's hard to break that habit when that's been the general consensus since the 1980's. Outside of Fratianno, I don't think there are many books that describe the Chicago Mafia's organization in an accurate way. What Chicago had was Roemer, relatives and non-member associates who wrote books. And they all usually agree that Capone wasn't a member and that he created the Outfit. We also have Ricca and Accardo who were influential for 40 and 60 years despite there being an official boss. Outsiders tried to make sense of it and did their best to accurately describe what they were seeing. What they were seeing was the operation, not the organization, which they didn't get an inside glimpse of until the 2000's.

Re lingo, in NY it's called Soda, in the midwest they call it Pop and on the west coast they used to call it Soda-Pop, presumably we're talking about the same thing. But like terms such as boss, things can get confusing because it can refer to your boss, the boss of a racket, a capodecina, or the actual boss. Like Rick pointed out, people don't always speak like they're in a courtroom. And when it comes to a secret society, we can expect to use slang whenever they can. Frank Calabrese Sr was quite the expert in speaking in code.

[B.]

Coloboy -- I don't think being a captain automatically meant joining the "board". Now that we know it was a formal consiglio, we can compare it to other councils which were typically made up of a chairman / secretary (akin to official consigliere), the boss, underboss, and select captains and / or senior soldiers or "retired" leaders.

We have some different accounts of who was on the "board" but this is what DeRose indicated at the time he cooperated:

- Paul Ricca
- Tony Accardo
- Fifi Buccieri
- Sam Battaglia
- Jack Cerone
- Ross Prio (possibly)
- Presumably Giancana was on it, making 7.

- Either Ricca or Accardo would be the chairman and the other one may have technically been a soldier but as a member of the council would be a consigliere as all council members were consiglieri if they had a seat. The others look to have been the admin and select captains. Most Families with a known consiglio typically had 5 seats but Chicago was a more significant and possibly larger Family which could have led to them having 7.

- What we don't know is whether these seats periodically changed or what the circumstances of that were. I've been operating from the belief that Ricca was the chairman and if it still formally existed post-Ricca this position was held by Accardo. I'm not sure if that's substantiated by any hard evidence offhand but Ricca or Accardo was no doubt the chairman / secretary at any given time during the periods we know it existed.

- Obviously being a captain in Chicago was a uniquely powerful position. In some small Families it could be an honorary title with little or even no operational influence (Infusino in SF) or in large NYC Families it could vary considerably and Families like the Gambinos had 20 to 25 captains which creates a much different power structure. In Chicago from the 1960s onward though it looks to have been both a major formal and operational force so whether a captain sat on the council or not it was not an arbitrary position. We can see that captains tended to be responsible for proposing members too which happened elsewhere as well but from what's available it looks like they put extra emphasis on the admin and captains taking responsibility for admitting new names.

One possible piece of evidence against the Ricca = chairman line of thinking is the "Amafa" CI who indicated Ricca was never recognized by the Commission as an official boss "for reasons unknown" even though he "acted with all authority". Interestingly he said Ricca was always under Accardo and not the other way around, which could suggest Accardo was the council chairman and not Ricca but the CI didn't acknowledge/discuss the consiglio/board so it's hard to say and some of his info is imperfect. It's part of the discussion though.

[cavita]

And for the same reason "Gumba" Saladino was never boss of Rockford as I've been saying all along. Nick's "threat assessment" which included Gumba, stated that information indicated he was boss of Rockford but as I've stated, that's what Nick believed or was led to believe. I knew Frank, knew he was made and that he was afforded much respect around Rockford but he never had the intelligence to be boss. Now, I believe at the very least he was a capo, street gambling boss, or what have you after Sebastian Gulotta died.

Cavita, any idea when Gumba was made? Was he made with Rockford or Chicago?

Not 100% sure but I think he was made by 1986 and that being in Rockford. I definitely remember by the late 1980s he had gained a lot of respect around Rockford and that's my basis for that.

[B.]

Indeed, Chicago needs to be moved from "most liberal" to "most conservative" Family list. Everything Calabrese described seemed to indicate that. And unlike New York where we have examples of members being made because they're simply friends with someone (Ally Persico), I don't get the sense that guys in Chicago were easily made. Using the fact that they had good working and interpersonal relationships with people of other ethnicities as an indicator that they didn't care about their ethnicity or the mafia itself is a fallacy. Detroit had similar arrangements with Greeks, Syrians and later Chaldeans. We see it less in York but I wondered it it perhaps got less reported on. I have evidence of Italians in business arrangements with non-Itals in the 1890's-1920's. I imagine that continues to this day. But unlike Chicago and Detroit, they didn't have a Valachi who was able to describe it and clear up any and all misconceptions.

I think the liberal vs. conservative mafia politics as defined by Joe Bonanno are crucial and I use that all the time to discuss this stuff but it's obviously not black and white.

Look at St. Louis for example which as far as we know was close to 100% Sicilian and ultra conservative in many ways but then you have the Syrian Jimmy Michaels. A former boss put a contract on Michaels but he killed two made members in retaliation and the contract was eventually lifted. By the 1960s he was partners with boss Tony Giardano in a vending machine business and when Bompensiero visited he was introduced to Michaels by Giardano who praised him as "the toughest Syrian to ever live."

If we looked at St. Louis as a Family, they were one of the oldest US Families and operated like a Sicilian cosca almost 100 years later but there was also a Syrian in their midst who they initially had severe problems with and even though he killed two of their members they ultimately aligned with him and he had direct access to the boss both personally and in business. This was a Family who didn't like to induct new members and an informant said they still had a caste system based on compaesani (Favarotta Terrasini was still seen as distinct from neighboring Cinisi in STL) but they made room for "the toughest Syrian".

St. Louis was also very close to Chicago associate Buster Wortman in East St. Louis. He was a liaison with the Chicago leadership and high-ranking STL members served as pallbearers at his funeral.

[Angelo Santino]

Indeed, Chicago needs to be moved from "most liberal" to "most conservative" Family list. Everything Calabrese described seemed to indicate that. And unlike New York where we have examples of members being made because they're simply friends with someone (Ally Persico), I don't get the sense that guys in Chicago were easily made. Using the fact that they had good working and interpersonal relationships with people of other ethnicities as an indicator that they didn't care about their ethnicity or the mafia itself is a fallacy. Detroit had similar arrangements with Greeks, Syrians and later Chaldeans. We see it less in York but I wondered it it perhaps got less reported on. I have evidence of Italians in business arrangements with non-Itals in the 1890's-1920's. I imagine that continues to this day. But unlike Chicago and Detroit, they didn't have a Valachi who was able to describe it and clear up any and all misconceptions.

I think the liberal vs. conservative mafia politics as defined by Joe Bonanno are crucial and I use that all the time to discuss this stuff but it's obviously not black and white.

Look at St. Louis for example which as far as we know was close to 100% Sicilian and ultra conservative in many ways but then you have the Syrian Jimmy Michaels. A former boss put a contract on Michaels but he killed two made members in retaliation and the contract was eventually lifted. By the 1960s he was partners with boss Tony Giardano in a vending machine business and when Bompensiero visited he was introduced to Michaels by Giardano who praised him as "the toughest Syrian to ever live."

If we looked at St. Louis as a Family, they were one of the oldest US Families and operated like a Sicilian cosca almost 100 years later but there was also a Syrian in their midst who they initially had severe problems with and even though he killed two of their members they ultimately aligned with him and he had direct access to the boss both personally and in business. This was a Family who didn't like to induct new members and an informant said they still had a caste system based on compaesani (Favarotta Terrasini was still seen as distinct from neighboring Cinisi in STL) but they made room for "the toughest Syrian".

St. Louis was also very close to Chicago associate Buster Wortman in East St. Louis. He was a liaison with the Chicago leadership and high-ranking STL members served as pallbearers at his funeral.

I think the problem is that people view Sicilian or Italian pride alongside having a close relationship to those that aren't as being in conflict with one another. They see non-Italian relationships as equating to "Americanization." I guess on the opposite side there's this belief that Sicilians or Italians who prefer to only and exclusively be around their own equates to being a "traditionalist." Since we don't have Accardo talking Italian history on wiretap reports people assume that Italians in Chicago "didn't give a sh-t where they were from and that the only color that mattered was green."

Like Org and Op, outsider views on traditionalism and Americanization needs to be reevaluated.

For one, I would regard Gotti as boss as a traditionalist. He had a slavish devotion to mob protocol which involved forcing the DeCavs to remake their members the traditional way. He spent the last decades of his life in prison for it. But people will mostly focus on his clothes and braggadocio and move him to the "liberal wing." Same could be said for Scarfo or Merlino and how they are portrayed when they appear to be more traditionalists than Stanfa was. And while their idea of tradition isn't the Bonanno or Bruno's idea of tradition was, these two opposing views have existed in the fabric of the American Mafia since it was first documented and its a trait that likely extends back to Sicily where you had mafia-aristocrats and those more on the criminal side of things. I think that duality has always been there.

[PolackTony]

Coloboy -- I don't think being a captain automatically meant joining the "board". Now that we know it was a formal consiglio, we can compare it to other councils which were typically made up of a chairman / secretary (akin to official consigliere), the boss, underboss, and select captains and / or senior soldiers or "retired" leaders.

We have some different accounts of who was on the "board" but this is what DeRose indicated at the time he cooperated:

- Paul Ricca
- Tony Accardo
- Fifi Buccieri
- Sam Battaglia
- Jack Cerone
- Ross Prio (possibly)
- Presumably Giancana was on it, making 7.

- Either Ricca or Accardo would be the chairman and the other one may have technically been a soldier but as a member of the council would be a consigliere as all council members were consiglieri if they had a seat. The others look to have been the admin and select captains. Most Families with a known consiglio typically had 5 seats but Chicago was a more significant and possibly larger Family which could have led to them having 7.

- What we don't know is whether these seats periodically changed or what the circumstances of that were. I've been operating from the belief that Ricca was the chairman and if it still formally existed post-Ricca this position was held by Accardo. I'm not sure if that's substantiated by any hard evidence offhand but Ricca or Accardo was no doubt the chairman / secretary at any given time during the periods we know it existed.

- Obviously being a captain in Chicago was a uniquely powerful position. In some small Families it could be an honorary title with little or even no operational influence (Infusino in SF) or in large NYC Families it could vary considerably and Families like the Gambinos had 20 to 25 captains which creates a much different power structure. In Chicago from the 1960s onward though it looks to have been both a major formal and operational force so whether a captain sat on the council or not it was not an arbitrary position. We can see that captains tended to be responsible for proposing members too which happened elsewhere as well but from what's available it looks like they put extra emphasis on the admin and captains taking responsibility for admitting new names.

One possible piece of evidence against the Ricca = chairman line of thinking is the "Amafa" CI who indicated Ricca was never recognized by the Commission as an official boss "for reasons unknown" even though he "acted with all authority". Interestingly he said Ricca was always under Accardo and not the other way around, which could suggest Accardo was the council chairman and not Ricca but the CI didn't acknowledge/discuss the consiglio/board so it's hard to say and some of his info is imperfect. It's part of the discussion though.

Yeah, the "amafa" guy in 1965 is an interesting account which should be part of these discussions. As his account was in Battaglia's file, both the informant code and interviewing agent were redacted under FOIA release, so we really don't know who he was. He was giving info at the same time as DeRose but was clearly not DeRose, as DeRose explictly stated that Ricca had previously been boss of "The Family", while Amafa Man denied it. Amafa Man (for the reader, this CI told the FBI in 1965 that prior to 1958 he had always heard LCN referred to as "amafa" -- clearly a' mafia, i.e. "the mafia" -- while in Chicago the term "The Family" was also used but not "Cosa Nostra") was of course also the guy that the FBI transcribed as stating that a number of "capitanos" [sic] answered directly to Giancana as "the head of 'The Family'"; as the FBI noted this was their phonetic rendering of the term used by the CI, it can be inferred that he was quite possibly saying "capodecina" and the agent, very likely not Italian, misrendered it.

DeRose did explicitly state that Giancana, as boss, was part of the Consiglio, but also stated that Ricca did not actually have a formal seat on it but served in a sort of provisional or advisory status to it. In that DeRose also did not believe that Prio had a seat, he gave the number as 5. Note that the report uses the term "committee" but does not put it in quotation marks and thus tis was presumably the FBI's term for the body that DeRose was describing, not DeRose's own term:




As we've noted before, DeRose mistakenly believed that Cerone was "Siciliano". This may tell us something important however, as DeRose apparently noted Ricca and Buccieri as not mainlanders, per se, but as "Camora" [sic]. Though Cerone was Lucano, he came up under Accardo in the Grand Ave Patch, which had many Sicilians and a strong Sicilian mafia history going back at least to the 1890s, and thus was likely seen in factional terms by a guy like DeRose as belonging to the Sicilians (that these ethno-factional lines remained salient in Chicago as late as the 1960s is of course indicated by the fact that DeRose framed the balance of power on the Council around a "Siciliano" majority and claimed that the ethnic dimension still had a role in influencing what rackets guys were involved in, e.g., prostitution and narcotics). Ricca and Buccieri were not just Mainlanders in terms of ancestry, but were from Taylor St, and likely seen by DeRose as stemming from the old Capone faction which DeRose clearly understood as having originated in the Camorra (as he also noted Capone, of course, as having been "Camora" [sic]).

[B.]

Oh wow, I misremembered what he said. So he specifically said it was five (consistent with other Families) but his info about Ricca and Prio suggests it could have been seven though that wasn't as definitive.

His info on Ricca could be taken a couple different ways. On one hand he says Ricca "never quite regained his position of authority" and said he acts "in an advisory capacity" on the consiglio but later does say he was on the consiglio when he says he had a Camorra (Neapolitan) background. It fits what the "Amafa" informant said about Ricca being under Accardo though since he says explicitly Ricca didn't regain his position of authority and Accardo's role on the council is much more definitive according to DeRose at that time.

It does suggest the seats were open to change and by 1969 we know Ricca was on the consiglio with Accardo.

[Angelo Santino]

So it sounds like there's a possibility that Ricca was never official boss?

If I may segue way back to something else, I recall the deceased Frank Culotta when he tried to describe the Outfit's hierarchy, it was very informal, very outsider-ish. "This guy was over that guy, these two guys were over this guy and..." Towards the end of his life he claims Spilotro secretly inducted him. For one, he never mentioned that when he flipped and it's certain he would have but second, knowing what we now know about Chicago, I would strongly guess that making members without the admin's permission would probably be a capital offense. The implications are that only captains can sponsor people and Spilotro was never a captain.

[PolackTony]

Oh wow, I misremembered what he said. So he specifically said it was five (consistent with other Families) but his info about Ricca and Prio suggests it could have been seven though that wasn't as definitive.

His info on Ricca could be taken a couple different ways. On one hand he says Ricca "never quite regained his position of authority" and said he acts "in an advisory capacity" on the consiglio but later does say he was on the consiglio when he says he had a Camorra (Neapolitan) background. It fits what the "Amafa" informant said about Ricca always being under Accardo though since he says explicitly Ricca didn't regain his position of authority.

It does suggest the seats were open to change and by 1969 we know Ricca was on the consiglio with Accardo.

Yeah, as you noted previously also, what we can say we know about this is still greatly overshadowed by how much we don't know. There could've been official seats as well as members who participated in unofficial or provisional ways, as perhaps Alderisio seems to have said he was doing in 1969 in attending Council meetings. The official Council seats may have changed or revolved and if so we'd have no idea when or for what reason (on a set basis, as the Commission technically did every 5 years, or when a new boss took power?).

[PolackTony]

So it sounds like there's a possibility that Ricca was never official boss?

If I may segue way back to something else, I recall the deceased Frank Culotta when he tried to describe the Outfit's hierarchy, it was very informal, very outsider-ish. "This guy was over that guy, these two guys were over this guy and..." Towards the end of his life he claims Spilotro secretly inducted him. For one, he never mentioned that when he flipped and it's certain he would have but second, knowing what we now know about Chicago, I would strongly guess that making members without the admin's permission would probably be a capital offense. The implications are that only captains can sponsor people and Spilotro was never a captain.

If Tony ever "made" Culotta, it was, as you note, probably unsanctioned and could've been part of what led to him getting clipped. If it happened, which I also very much doubt because as you note Cullotta didn't start saying that shit until many years after he flipped and once he was a YouTube figure, then Cullotta was not being introduced to other guys and clearly knew 'u cazz' from a member's standpoint, so it's a moot point so far as I'm concerned (i.e., even if he was "made" by Spilotro this would've clearly been BS and he wasn't a real member anyway). In earlier interviews, Frank was careful to note that he really didn't understand the hierarchy in the 60s. Later, with his own show, he started trying to make it seem like he had firm info on these things when he clearly did not. It's clearly not an NYC situation, where actual members who flipped are also on YT and would be in the position to call out Frank for making stuff up.

With respect to Ricca, we have one unknown guy who seems to have known a few things and claims that Ricca was never an official boss. This is, however, counterbalanced by DeRose, Piscopo, and Bill Bonanno. Piscopo told the Feds that at least by the 1930s Ricca was the boss.

[B.]

So it sounds like there's a possibility that Ricca was never official boss?

If I may segue way back to something else, I recall the deceased Frank Culotta when he tried to describe the Outfit's hierarchy, it was very informal, very outsider-ish. "This guy was over that guy, these two guys were over this guy and..." Towards the end of his life he claims Spilotro secretly inducted him. For one, he never mentioned that when he flipped and it's certain he would have but second, knowing what we now know about Chicago, I would strongly guess that making members without the admin's permission would probably be a capital offense. The implications are that only captains can sponsor people and Spilotro was never a captain.

The captains sponsoring people is a definite trend but we don't know that it was a rule. Since Michael Spilotro was proposed I'd be curious if his sponsor was supposed to be his brother or somebody else. But since Tony was going to be promoted to captain at the same ceremony I don't know that it made a difference in this case.

With Ricca, we do have certain sources who say he was the boss but the "Amafa" informant says it wasn't sanctioned by the "round table" (his term for the national Commission). "Amafa" CI said this went against "popular opinion" given how Ricca was viewed and basically acknowledges that Ricca was everything but the official boss as he says it was for reasons unknown to him that Ricca never had the official title. His info would lend itself to Ricca at least being the acting boss and he doesn't devalue him or anything.

The CI is at least schooled in how formal politics work, i.e. that the Commission has to ratify the election of a boss. He may or may not be correct but he believed Ricca was not recognized as the official boss by the Commission while also making it clear Ricca was everything but that.

The CI (or the FBI interpreting him) made some mistakes but he's hard to gauge without knowing who he is. One candidate could be Marshall Caifano who provided some info that had similar wording to the "Amafa" informant and he in my opinion crossed the line by breaking down how gambling was organized in Chicago but there's not enough to say it's him. It does seem to be someone who was very aware of the organizational / formal side of things given he used the term "Family", "capitanos" (ph, possibly capodecina), discussed the term "Cosa Nostra", and called it the mafia, not to mention his acknowledgement of the national "Round Table" (Commission) and its authority to recognize bosses. That's not info we'd expect from some of these low-level Chicago CIs but someone like DeRose would know it so it doesn't guarantee he was made.

[PolackTony]

So it sounds like there's a possibility that Ricca was never official boss?

If I may segue way back to something else, I recall the deceased Frank Culotta when he tried to describe the Outfit's hierarchy, it was very informal, very outsider-ish. "This guy was over that guy, these two guys were over this guy and..." Towards the end of his life he claims Spilotro secretly inducted him. For one, he never mentioned that when he flipped and it's certain he would have but second, knowing what we now know about Chicago, I would strongly guess that making members without the admin's permission would probably be a capital offense. The implications are that only captains can sponsor people and Spilotro was never a captain.

The captains sponsoring people is a definite trend but we don't know that it was a rule. Since Michael Spilotro was proposed I'd be curious if his sponsor was supposed to be his brother or somebody else. But since Tony was going to be promoted to captain at the same ceremony I don't know that it made a difference in this case.

With Ricca, we do have certain sources who say he was the boss but the "Amafa" informant says it wasn't sanctioned by the "round table" (his term for the national Commission). "Amafa" CI said this went against "popular opinion" given how Ricca was viewed and basically acknowledges that Ricca was everything but the official boss as he says it was for reasons unknown to him that Ricca never had the official title. His info would lend itself to Ricca at least being the acting boss and he doesn't devalue him or anything.

The CI is at least schooled in how formal politics work, i.e. that the Commission has to ratify the election of a boss. He may or may not be correct but he believed Ricca was not recognized as the official boss by the Commission while also making it clear Ricca was everything but that.

The CI (or the FBI interpreting him) made some mistakes but he's hard to gauge without knowing who he is. One candidate could be Marshall Caifano who provided some info that had similar wording to the "Amafa" informant and he in my opinion crossed the line by breaking down how gambling was organized in Chicago but there's not enough to say it's him. It does seem to be someone who was very aware of the organizational / formal side of things given he used the term "Family", "capitanos" (ph, possibly capodecina), discussed the term "Cosa Nostra", and called it the mafia, not to mention his acknowledgement of the national "Round Table" (Commission) and its authority to recognize bosses. That's not info we'd expect from some of these low-level Chicago CIs but someone like DeRose would know it so it doesn't guarantee he was made.

Given his use of language, we can at least assume that Amafa Man was Italian. Thus, even if he wasn’t a member, he may have been privy to information or had insight that a non-Italian was less likely to have (excluding really important and trusted exceptions like Alex or Schweihs, for example). DeRose, of course, successfully “passed” as Italian, which I don’t think was incidental to his high level of insight despite not being a member.

[B.]

Agreed. I don't think his info should be dismissed outright even if some details deserve scrutiny. He was aware of a meeting of the "round table" circa 1930 which he believed happened in Cleveland or Cincinatti which is is probably a reference to 1928 Hotel Statler even though that was pre-Commission.

He did say the Commission sanctioned Accardo as boss unlike Ricca.

He also identified Al Capone as the "patrone" (ph) and said his "capitanos" (ph) included Nitti, Capezio, the Fischettis, Ricca, and Accardo. He doesn't mention the underboss rank or the council.

[Antiliar]

I have low confidence in the Amafa CI, and while I consider some of his information interesting I don't think much of it is useful. For one thing, the "capitanos" under Capone seems to be equivalent to the informal use of "top lieutenants." Capezio wasn't a capo until after Accardo, and neither were capos when Capone was on the street. There is evidence that suggests that Charlie Fischetti was one, but not his brothers Rocco or Joe.

Regarding Ricca, I don't think there should be any doubt that he was an official boss. The preponderance of the evidence is too strong. Bill Bonanno makes it clear that he was on the Commission in its earliest years, and as far as we've seen every boss until the early 1960s was recognized. Nick Gentile also placed him on the "Grand Council," probably reflecting his knowledge prior to going on the lam in 1937. Maybe the CI believed that Al Capone retained the title until his death. There were a number of newspapers in the 1930s and 40s that reflected this idea, so it's possible he read some story and incorporated it into his understanding of Chicago mob history. I can also cite a meeting Willie Bioff had with Outfit leadership where Frank Nitto, who was considered to be the boss by most LE sources in the 1940s, deferred to Ricca. FWIW Chuck Giancana (who may or may not have been made, but had access to leadership through his older brother) said Ricca was the boss.

Just to make clear, I'm not saying the CI's info isn't useful at all, but he's definitely not the best source out there.

[B.]

I'm of the belief that Ricca was the highest authority in the Family during certain periods, be it as the one-time boss or chairman of the consiglio, but the most interesting thing about the Amafa informant is he references Commission recognition. That's something we don't get a lot of insight into with historic Chicago and it doesn't mean the informant was correct that Ricca was never recognized but it does add a different angle to the idea given those political details are crucial to understanding official arrangements.

Is there hardline info about who many of the captains were pre-Accardo or Giancana? I don't buy the idea that the names mentioned were all Capone-era captains but I'm curious what info exists.