John DiFronzo
Moderator: Capos
- SonnyBlackstein
- Filthy Few
- Posts: 7544
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:21 am
Re: John DiFronzo
Thanks to stroccos and AL.
Snakes: would it be ‘classified’ or would it be released upon simple request?
Snakes: would it be ‘classified’ or would it be released upon simple request?
Don't give me your f***ing Manson lamps.
Re: John DiFronzo
They wouldn't release it even upon request. Identities of CI's are protected under FOIA exemption b(7)d:
https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide- ... emption-7d
https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide- ... emption-7d
- SonnyBlackstein
- Filthy Few
- Posts: 7544
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:21 am
Re: John DiFronzo
Wow. So it could never be know if JD was a CI even post death?Snakes wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 8:05 pm They wouldn't release it even upon request. Identities of CI's are protected under FOIA exemption b(7)d:
https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide- ... emption-7d
What would be the reasons for keeping this info sealed if the party concerned is taking the ‘long dirt nap’?
Don't give me your f***ing Manson lamps.
Re: John DiFronzo
I believe the feds claimed to have an upper level CI since the mid 1980s. I have always thought it strange that if so, how come they didn't know who the boss and underboss was at the time. In other words how high up was this person if they didn't know who was boss and underboss.
Re: John DiFronzo
They don't want to risk retaliation against surviving members of the family. The CI gives information under a presumption of permanent confidentiality. People would be less likely to give information if they knew their names would be revealed even upon their deaths, regardless of whether or not their families are in danger. Some of these guys don't want their names to be "tarnished," which is why they choose anonymity.SonnyBlackstein wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 8:09 pmWow. So it could never be know if JD was a CI even post death?Snakes wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 8:05 pm They wouldn't release it even upon request. Identities of CI's are protected under FOIA exemption b(7)d:
https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide- ... emption-7d
What would be the reasons for keeping this info sealed if the party concerned is taking the ‘long dirt nap’?
Re: John DiFronzo
That depends on their (and our) definition of "upper level."Frank wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 8:09 pm I believe the feds claimed to have an upper level CI since the mid 1980s. I have always thought it strange that if so, how come they didn't know who the boss and underboss was at the time. In other words how high up was this person if they didn't know who was boss and underboss.
- Pogo The Clown
- Men Of Mayhem
- Posts: 14139
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2014 7:02 am
Re: John DiFronzo
If I remember right those two informants began cooperating in the mid-90s (not 80s).
Pogo
Pogo
It's a new morning in America... fresh, vital. The old cynicism is gone. We have faith in our leaders. We're optimistic as to what becomes of it all. It really boils down to our ability to accept. We don't need pessimism. There are no limits.
Re: John DiFronzo
You could be right. I thought they said one from the eighties but I might be remembering wrong.Pogo The Clown wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 8:17 pm If I remember right those two informants began cooperating in the mid-90s (not 80s).
Pogo
Re: John DiFronzo
CI's also aren't under any obligation to provide information. They aren't beholden to any agreement with the federal government and may choose to stop providing info at any time. It could be that these CI's just didn't provide info on the leadership. Either that, or the feds just never released the info. They generally have some type of idea on who the leadership is in the respective families and they aren't necessarily forthcoming with info unless it's tied up in some type of indictment or trial.
Re: John DiFronzo
It was a 2010 article so one had been informing pre-1985. The other since 1994.Pogo The Clown wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 8:17 pm If I remember right those two informants began cooperating in the mid-90s (not 80s).
Pogo
"Confidential Informant One is an alleged upper echelon member of the 'Outfit' and has been providing information to the government for over 25 years" states the court filing.
Confidential Informant Two is "another upper echelon Outfit associate who had been providing information to the government since 1994."
Both snitches are said to have handed federal authorities information about Outfit boss Michael "Big Mike" Sarno of Westchester.
http://abc7chicago.com/archive/7446674/
All roads lead to New York.
- Confederate
- Full Patched
- Posts: 3404
- Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:39 am
- Location: Pensacola Beach & Jacksonville, FL
Re: John DiFronzo
Seems real strange that if DiFronzo was already indicted AND convicted on a head nod in 1993 that the Feds wouldn't have AT LEAST tried to convict him in the Family Secrets Trial. He already was convicted with little evidence in 1993. If Difronzo did not literally quit the Outfit in 2003, then the odds of him never AT LEAST being indicted seem to sway a little more towards him one of those two high level Informants. His main insolation IF he was still active in the background was his brother Pete DiFronzo. He ALSO was never indicted for anything. The whole DiFronzo thing is very strange.Snakes wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 7:50 pm DiFronzo was on the original list of potential defendants for Family Secrets.
I also think that Family Secrets II was more of a media creation than anything.
DiFronzo was always very well insulated through his family members and that whole crew. They were basically unknown until the early nineties. Intelligence always described them as tight knit. Hell, DiFronzo was indicted in the Rincon case on just a head knod and they later overturned it. He was a very cagey guy who took care of his people. They were well entrenched in legitimate enterprises as well, so their need for violence as a means to an end was probably not as important to them as other crews.
IF you want to argue that DiFronzo was NOT one of the two high level informants the Feds had in their pocket, then you have to believe he QUIT the Outfit and backed away completely around 2003 when Marcello got out of Jail and the power shifted towards Marcello etc.
IF you want to argue that DiFronzo was active IN THE BACKGROUND up until maybe 3 years ago, then it is more likely that he was one of those 2 high level Informants.
OR, DiFronzo was the luckiest man to ever live in the entire history of the American Mafia. LOL
" Everything Woke turns to shit".
Re: John DiFronzo
Snakes do you think DiFronzo was a CI. I tend to not believe that he was. I think Joe Fosco started that rumour. Fosco seems to have a few axes to grind with DiFronzo. Like you say DiFronzo kept himself well insulated. I think he only talked to and gave orders to people he could trust.Snakes wrote: ↑Mon May 28, 2018 8:24 pm CI's also aren't under any obligation to provide information. They aren't beholden to any agreement with the federal government and may choose to stop providing info at any time. It could be that these CI's just didn't provide info on the leadership. Either that, or the feds just never released the info. They generally have some type of idea on who the leadership is in the respective families and they aren't necessarily forthcoming with info unless it's tied up in some type of indictment or trial.
- SonnyBlackstein
- Filthy Few
- Posts: 7544
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:21 am
Re: John DiFronzo
No, I don't think he was. I also tend to believe that he stepped back as early as his release from prison and left the day-to-day running of the Outfit to others.
Re: John DiFronzo
I don't think him not doing any time automatically makes him a snitch. You could say the same about Andriacchi, Tornabene, Monteleone, Solano, or any number of high-ranking guys who never served any significant time.