General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

[B.]

We don't have hard confirmation that Ricca was the secretary/chairman, it just seems likely based on his role and some of the descriptions of him.

However DeRose and "Amafa" CI's account of Ricca suggests Ricca may not have had that position, DeRose saying Ricca's authority was limited in the 1960s and "Amafa" saying Ricca was always under Accardo, but DeRose was an associate and we don't know who the "Amafa" informant was so it's hard to say they knew absolutely who held what formal position. We can see in San Jose that the chairman position changed so the same could be true in Chicago too. It doesn't seem like anyone except Ricca or Accardo could have been chairman/secretary in the Giancana era and later at least.

The chairman was automatically a consigliere because he sat on the consiglio and presided over it. There's reason to suspect this was equivalent to what we call the official consigliere in Families with the singular admin position of consigliere but we can't say for sure this was always the case if it's true someone like Priziola in Detroit was both underboss and council secretary. Cavita found evidence Rockford may have had a consiglio and that the official consigliere presided over it which would be an example of that role being the same. Some of the ceremonial duties of the official consigliere in certain Families without a consiglio are also consistent with the council secretary in consiglio Families which adds to that.

A good way of looking at it is to use the Commission as an example. Someone could be both a boss and Commission avugad and one doesn't negate the other. The consiglio was like a Commission within a Family so holding a seat on it didn't necessarily mean the member's position in the hierarchy changed, he just had an additional role and set of responsibilities.

This def becomes a "who's on first" dilemma, where you can call a consiglio member a "consigliere" but he might not be what we typically call "the" consigliere as it is usually understood but there is some reason to think the chairman was equivalent to that so it's confusing. If someone sat on the consiglio they are by definition "a" consigliere and the FBI listed them as such in San Jose, Detroit, and Chicago charts.

Like the org vs. op discussion, this requires a degree of abstract thinking which is difficult in the mafia where not everything available to us is laid out explicitly. One new piece of evidence could easily force me to update my own theories on this but I believe what I've said so far is a reasonable interpretation of what's currently available.

[Angelo Santino]

We don't have hard confirmation that Ricca was the secretary/chairman, it just seems likely based on his role and some of the descriptions of him.

However DeRose and "Amafa" CI's account of Ricca suggests Ricca may not have had that position, DeRose saying Ricca's authority was limited in the 1960s and "Amafa" saying Ricca was always under Accardo, but DeRose was an associate and we don't know who the "Amafa" informant was so it's hard to say they knew absolutely who held what formal position. We can see in San Jose that the chairman position changed so the same could be true in Chicago too. It doesn't seem like anyone except Ricca or Accardo could have been chairman/secretary in the Giancana era and later at least.

The chairman was automatically a consigliere because he sat on the consiglio and presided over it. There's reason to suspect this was equivalent to what we call the official consigliere in Families with the singular admin position of consigliere but we can't say for sure this was always the case if it's true someone like Priziola in Detroit was both underboss and council secretary. Cavita found evidence Rockford may have had a consiglio and that the official consigliere presided over it which would be an example of that role being the same. Some of the ceremonial duties of the official consigliere in certain Families without a consiglio are also consistent with the council secretary in consiglio Families which adds to that.

A good way of looking at it is to use the Commission as an example. Someone could be both a boss and Commission avugad and one doesn't negate the other. The consiglio was like a Commission within a Family so holding a seat on it didn't necessarily mean the member's position in the hierarchy changed, he just had an additional role and set of responsibilities.

This def becomes a "who's on first" dilemma, where you can call a consiglio member a "consigliere" but he might not be what we typically call "the" consigliere as it is usually understood but there is some reason to think the chairman was equivalent to that so it's confusing. If someone sat on the consiglio they are by definition "a" consigliere and the FBI listed them as such in San Jose, Detroit, and Chicago charts.

Like the org vs. op discussion, this requires a degree of abstract thinking which is difficult in the mafia where not everything available to us is laid out explicitly. One new piece of evidence could easily force me to update my own theories on this but I believe what I've said so far is a reasonable interpretation of what's currently available.

Makes me think about Joe Bonanno's whitewashing of the BOB, he preferred the term capo-consigliere and did his best to articulate it similar to how you described the Chairman of the Consiglio. Might be some truth to it.

-Morello appeared to act in the role as an advisor.
-Not enough information on DiGaetano
-D'Aquila was described by Gentile as very authoritarian.
-Same for Masseria
-Not enough information on Messina
-Maranzano was described as having authoritarian overtures.

These positions allow for alot of flexibility. Each individual who occupies any position at any time does things his own way according to the rules or how to bend or get around them.

[Frank]

This is a great discussion. And the Ricca never being official and having National problems as a possibility is a new wrinkle

[Angelo Santino]

This is a great discussion. And the Ricca never being official and having National problems as a possibility is a new wrinkle

We don't really know. It's part of the discussion.

Fact is, the Chicago Mafia has existed since the 1870's and it took until 2003, after 130 years of its existence, for a formal made member to provide internal information. Calabrese wiped away 5 decades of misinformation and outsider interpretations.

Beliefs and preconceived notions need to be challenged and reevaluated. Same goes for every family. We know more than we did 10 years ago but not as much as we will 10 years from now. Knowledge is evolving, not static.

This consiglio stuff makes things more confusing but there is precedent for it, in SF, KC, Tampa, Scranton, DeCavs, Detroit. However, Chicago being Chicago makes their consiglio likely the most powerful and influential. New York didn't appear to have them, or if they did they disappeared before the 60's. But NY is not the Mafia Norm. Families in Sicily numbered 10-30 members, 40-60 in modern eras. Same for most non-NY cities in the US. But then NY with 5 families composed of 2-300 members each. It's the exception, not the norm.

[chin_gigante]

I had another comment/ question to make regarding member sources and org/ op. Specifically regarding what Calabrese testified about boss succession from the 1980s to the early 2000s:

Q. Mr. Calabrese, you testified yesterday that Joseph Aiuppa was the boss for a period of time of the entire outfit when you were a member of it, do you recall that testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Mr. Aiuppa the boss the entire time you were a member of the outfit?
A. No.
Q. Who succeeded Mr. Aiuppa?
A. Sam Carlisi.
Q. As the overall boss?
A. Yes.
Q. The individual you just identified in Government's Exhibit 12, I believe?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anyone succeed Carlisi?
A. In his position as capo?
Q. Yes.
A. Or as boss.
Q. As boss.
A. John Monteleone.

If Calabrese has the boss position going from Aiuppa to Carlisi to Monteleone, where does DiFronzo fit in? Was DiFronzo's time as boss something that Calabrese was ignorant of or did DiFronzo not formally hold the position? Was DiFronzo's control over the outfit in more of an operational sense?

I'm also reminded of the 1993 FBI membership list that Snakes obtained where Carlisi is carried as the boss and Monteleone as the underboss. I don't recall Calabrese saying anything in his testimony about who succeeded Cerone as underboss. This could be something that's cleared up in his 302s, which we could now request since Calabrese has passed.

[PolackTony]

Question for Chicago experts:

I have already read that Sam Giancana had interests in the Casino du Liban in Beirut in the 1950s and 1960s.

From 1953, Marcel Francisci, Corsican big boss in gambling and very likely involved in the importation of morphine base between Lebanon and France (US & French polices belived it very hard), was one of the main shareholders of this Casino, until he managed it.

I think it is very likely that the two mobsters knew each other, but have you ever seen an official document attesting to this?

(the other day PolackTony was joking about a missing link between Chicago and the French underworld, here's a potential one)

Thanks for bringing this up. I haven’t seen any documentation myself of a direct link between Giancana and Francisci. Given the shared connection to the Casino du Liban, it was very likely that these two were familiar with each other.

That Giancana would’ve had ties to the Lebanese (and hence, French) underworld is underscored by the fact that he had longstanding connection in Beirut. It was revealed around the time of his murder that Giancana had kept an apartment in Beirut for years. In 1972, the FBI was told by one of their informants in Mexico City that Giancana had left Mexico for a period that year and had been staying in Beirut. The FBI was unable to confirm this with the Lebanese government but was actively inquiring about Giancana’s ties during the 70s to the Casino du Liban and the Beirut Golf Club. Mexican sources told the FBI the during the years of his stay in Mexico, Giancana left the country for frequent trips, including to Lebanon and Spain (that he was in Spain in 1971 was confirmed).

As you know, Francisci and Paul Mondoloni were accused by the FBN of being the figures behind the wholesale trafficking of heroin from Marseille to NYC (and Francisci became so notorious that Time magazine apparently featured him as a major narco-trafficker, prompting Francisci to sue). That he may well have had ties to Giancana during this period could be a big deal, as Richard Cain told the FBI (IIRC) that he and Giancana had become involved in narcotics trafficking in these years. Thus, it is at least possible that Giancana’s French connection was THE French Connection.

[Snakes]

I had another comment/ question to make regarding member sources and org/ op. Specifically regarding what Calabrese testified about boss succession from the 1980s to the early 2000s:

Q. Mr. Calabrese, you testified yesterday that Joseph Aiuppa was the boss for a period of time of the entire outfit when you were a member of it, do you recall that testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Mr. Aiuppa the boss the entire time you were a member of the outfit?
A. No.
Q. Who succeeded Mr. Aiuppa?
A. Sam Carlisi.
Q. As the overall boss?
A. Yes.
Q. The individual you just identified in Government's Exhibit 12, I believe?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anyone succeed Carlisi?
A. In his position as capo?
Q. Yes.
A. Or as boss.
Q. As boss.
A. John Monteleone.

If Calabrese has the boss position going from Aiuppa to Carlisi to Monteleone, where does DiFronzo fit in? Was DiFronzo's time as boss something that Calabrese was ignorant of or did DiFronzo not formally hold the position? Was DiFronzo's control over the outfit in more of an operational sense?

I'm also reminded of the 1993 FBI membership list that Snakes obtained where Carlisi is carried as the boss and Monteleone as the underboss. I don't recall Calabrese saying anything in his testimony about who succeeded Cerone as underboss. This could be something that's cleared up in his 302s, which we could now request since Calabrese has passed.

It may be that Carlisi held the official title of boss until his death in 1997 (he was still attempting to have his case overturned on appeal). DiFronzo could have been acting during this time. Chicago FBI also played really loose and fast with titles (Cerone was also listed as underboss on that 1993 list). Frank Sr was recorded as saying "Johnny" was "passed over," with surrounding statements seeming to support "Johnny" being Monteleone and not DiFronzo. This would indicate someone besides Monteleone was boss between 1992 and 1997. There is also an FBI file that states Joseph Andriacchi (redacted, but it's clearly him) was the "new" boss of the Outfit in 1993 (DiFronzo was imprisoned for one year beginning in 1993).

Still a lot of questions to be answered.

[PolackTony]

I had another comment/ question to make regarding member sources and org/ op. Specifically regarding what Calabrese testified about boss succession from the 1980s to the early 2000s:

Q. Mr. Calabrese, you testified yesterday that Joseph Aiuppa was the boss for a period of time of the entire outfit when you were a member of it, do you recall that testimony?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Mr. Aiuppa the boss the entire time you were a member of the outfit?
A. No.
Q. Who succeeded Mr. Aiuppa?
A. Sam Carlisi.
Q. As the overall boss?
A. Yes.
Q. The individual you just identified in Government's Exhibit 12, I believe?
A. Yes.
Q. Did anyone succeed Carlisi?
A. In his position as capo?
Q. Yes.
A. Or as boss.
Q. As boss.
A. John Monteleone.

If Calabrese has the boss position going from Aiuppa to Carlisi to Monteleone, where does DiFronzo fit in? Was DiFronzo's time as boss something that Calabrese was ignorant of or did DiFronzo not formally hold the position? Was DiFronzo's control over the outfit in more of an operational sense?

I'm also reminded of the 1993 FBI membership list that Snakes obtained where Carlisi is carried as the boss and Monteleone as the underboss. I don't recall Calabrese saying anything in his testimony about who succeeded Cerone as underboss. This could be something that's cleared up in his 302s, which we could now request since Calabrese has passed.

It may be that Carlisi held the official title of boss until his death in 1997 (he was still attempting to have his case overturned on appeal). DiFronzo could have been acting during this time. Chicago FBI also played really loose and fast with titles (Cerone was also listed as underboss on that 1993 list). Frank Sr was recorded as saying "Johnny" was "passed over," with surrounding statements seeming to support "Johnny" being Monteleone and not DiFronzo. This would indicate someone besides Monteleone was boss between 1992 and 1997. There is also an FBI file that states Joseph Andriacchi (redacted, but it's clearly him) was the "new" boss of the Outfit in 1993 (DiFronzo was imprisoned for one year beginning in 1993).

Still a lot of questions to be answered.

While Calabrese never stated in his testimony who succeeded Cerone as UB, Fosco has of course stated adamantly that Aiuppa and Cerone both lost their positions upon incarceration and that DiFronzo succeeded Carlisi. Another issue is that Scarpelli was unaware of who Carlisi’s UB was in his 302. He guessed that it could’ve been Ferriola, but it’s clear that this was just Scarpelli venturing a guess and Scarpelli otherwise made it clear that Joe Nick was basically retired by this point due to his severe health problems. Now, this could mean that an official UB hadn’t yet been appointed by 1988 (and as we have noted before, admin position can go unfilled for years), or there was a UB and Scarpelli, who had only been a member for a shift time before flipping, simply hadn’t been appraised of this development (as I’m fond of saying, Chicago didn’t send out memos, and info was on a need-to-knoe-basis).

Calabrese stating that Monteleone succeeded Carlisi as boss is our “gold standard”, obviously”, but it wasn’t made clear on the stand whether he meant that this occurred when Carlisi was imprisoned or when he died in ‘97. I’m inclined to believe, as noted, that Carlisi was very possibly official until he died. It’s likely then that first DiFronzo and then Joey A served as acting bosses during the period that Carlisi was incarcerated but still alive. Monteleone then succeeded Carlisi as official boss after the latter’s death, with Frank Sr’s apparent comments about Montelone being “passed over” on the prison recordings presumably referring to the period when Carlisi was still alive.

Now, I really wonder, did the FBI have a source for carrying Monteleone on that ‘93 list, or were they just inferring it themselves? Had Apes succeeded DiFronzo as UB by ‘93 due to the latter’s incarceration: if so, was this official or acting? Is it possible that as of ‘93, Carlisi was official boss, Joey A acting boss, DiFronzo official UB, and Monteleone acting UB? Lol. There are several plausible scenarios that could fit the little solid evidence that we have here, I think.

[Frank]

Also DiFronzo was said to be running the Outfit before Carlisi was indicted. As Sam spent more time in Florida

[PolackTony]

Also DiFronzo was said to be running the Outfit before Carlisi was indicted. As Sam spent more time in Florida

Yes. If it really were the case that DiFronzo was the official underboss, him serving as acting boss when Carlisi was indisposed would be expected.

[Coloboy]

Let’s also consider the fact that Aiuppa, Carlisi, and Monteleone were dead in 2005-6 when he gave that testimony. Since Difronzo was not indicted, it could have been an intentional oversight on calabrese’ s part.

[Coloboy]

Let’s also consider the fact that Aiuppa, Carlisi, and Monteleone were dead in 2005-6 when he gave that testimony. Since Difronzo was not indicted, it could have been an intentional oversight on calabrese’ s part.

[PolackTony]

Let’s also consider the fact that Aiuppa, Carlisi, and Monteleone were dead in 2005-6 when he gave that testimony. Since Difronzo was not indicted, it could have been an intentional oversight on calabrese’ s part.

You mean in that Calabrese could’ve been leaving DiFronzo out to protect him? If so, seems pretty unlikely to me given that Nick testified that DiFronzo was at the Spilotro murders.

[Coloboy]

Let’s also consider the fact that Aiuppa, Carlisi, and Monteleone were dead in 2005-6 when he gave that testimony. Since Difronzo was not indicted, it could have been an intentional oversight on calabrese’ s part.

You mean in that Calabrese could’ve been leaving DiFronzo out to protect him? If so, seems pretty unlikely to me given that Nick testified that DiFronzo was at the Spilotro murders.

Fair point. Although I would point out that at some point in the testimony they asked him if he thought Joey Andriacchi was an outfit leader of some kind. He responded that he didn’t know….ok Nick.

[Snakes]

Let’s also consider the fact that Aiuppa, Carlisi, and Monteleone were dead in 2005-6 when he gave that testimony. Since Difronzo was not indicted, it could have been an intentional oversight on calabrese’ s part.

You mean in that Calabrese could’ve been leaving DiFronzo out to protect him? If so, seems pretty unlikely to me given that Nick testified that DiFronzo was at the Spilotro murders.

Fair point. Although I would point out that at some point in the testimony they asked him if he thought Joey Andriacchi was an outfit leader of some kind. He responded that he didn’t know….ok Nick.

I don't remember Nick mentioning Andriacchi in his testimony.

There is also a part of the testimony where Nick confesses to not knowing much about what happened between capos and the boss/underboss. Nick essentially admitted that it was his job to work the streets and not necessarily be concerned about the upper-tier organization or operations. Frank -- despite being made at the same time as Nick -- was connected longer, had more responsibilities, and was personally acquainted with some of the more senior members, so it wouldn't be surprising if Frank had a better understanding about the structure and succession of top-level leadership in the organization.