Gravano's most insane lie

Discuss all mafia families in the U.S., Canada, Italy, and everywhere else in the world.

Moderator: Capos

User avatar
Ivan
Full Patched
Posts: 3831
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:33 am
Location: The center of the universe, a.k.a. Ohio

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by Ivan »

B. wrote: Fri Feb 25, 2022 5:33 pm Some of us were on the fence about his Fratianno, Demeo, etc. stories but now I question anything he didn't say under oath.
I thought the DeMeo stories were plausible (like the one about Roy wanting to build a gym in the mob club) because Roy was weird enough anyway but the Fratianno one was a big GTFOH moment for me.

Sammy is not immune to being puppeteered by the algorithm. For some insight into what's going on here, this is worth a watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9EKV2nSU8w
EYYYY ALL YOU CHOOCHES OUT THERE IT'S THE KID
User avatar
Angelo Santino
Filthy Few
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:15 am

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by Angelo Santino »

The only thing interesting to me about Gravano is that his family is Portoempedoclese and was in a decina ran by a Portoempedoclese and married a woman whose family is either Portoempedoclese or Agrigentin and yet there's nothing more to it. He didn't know where Zuvito was from, if that was his correct name or possible Zu Vito (Uncle) and he didn't recognize zu as being uncle. Gravano is truly an American product. Bloodlines aside he joined the mob due to criminality and nothing more.

That's why I am hesitant to see early examples of this as mafia-connected. We know by 1963 the family was only 55% Sicilian and within them there likely were alot of Gravanos. Families like Gambino, Castellano, DiLeonardo, Arcuri etc were the minority overall.
B.
Men Of Mayhem
Posts: 10692
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by B. »

I understand the hesitation to assume everyone's life was dictated by the mafia without direct confirmation, but I think it would be an error to use someone like Gravano in the 1960s-80s as counterpoint to the significant role hometown, marriage, baptism, etc. played in these organizations decades earlier and to some degree still play. With many of those relationships, it is difficult to know where the influence of the mafia begins and ends given its influence on their social and professional lives, not only explicit "mafia activity".
bluehouse
Sergeant Of Arms
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 5:49 pm

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by bluehouse »

His podcast went to shit.He keeps repeating himself.At this point all i want is to hear a truthful version of his Arizona ecstasy days
axx
Straightened out
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:30 am

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by axx »

bluehouse wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 4:37 pm His podcast went to shit.He keeps repeating himself.At this point all i want is to hear a truthful version of his Arizona ecstasy days
No go, it would put him in a bad light. I'd like him to talk about various soldiers in his family while he was an underboss. You know, talk about someone else beside himself. Unlike Franzese he usually doesn't shy away from mentioning names. What does he know about Anastasia's murder? There's loads of other stuff to talk about, but he's too much of a narcissist.
User avatar
Browniety86
Sergeant Of Arms
Posts: 908
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:45 pm

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by Browniety86 »

axx wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 2:16 am
bluehouse wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 4:37 pm His podcast went to shit.He keeps repeating himself.At this point all i want is to hear a truthful version of his Arizona ecstasy days
No go, it would put him in a bad light. I'd like him to talk about various soldiers in his family while he was an underboss. You know, talk about someone else beside himself. Unlike Franzese he usually doesn't shy away from mentioning names. What does he know about Anastasia's murder? There's loads of other stuff to talk about, but he's too much of a narcissist.
This is what I'd like to. Stories of the various soldiers and captains in the family during his time in the administration...that time period some of the biggest earners in Cosa Nostra belonged to that family...
B.
Men Of Mayhem
Posts: 10692
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by B. »

Always wanted him to go more in-depth about the Aurello crew in the 1970s. He's never said much about Toddo's history and we know he was deeply tapped into the Rava situation in the 1950s, etc. Maybe he never said much to Sammy about it but Sammy must have heard a few interesting things. That'd require Sammy talking about someone other than himself though.
RamshackleMan
Straightened out
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2021 12:59 am

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by RamshackleMan »

Hasn't someone ever tried writing Massino or others "care of" the WPP and seeing what happens? I'd be surprised if someone hasn't.
User avatar
Angelo Santino
Filthy Few
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:15 am

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by Angelo Santino »

B. wrote: Sat Feb 26, 2022 4:32 pm I understand the hesitation to assume everyone's life was dictated by the mafia without direct confirmation, but I think it would be an error to use someone like Gravano in the 1960s-80s as counterpoint to the significant role hometown, marriage, baptism, etc. played in these organizations decades earlier and to some degree still play. With many of those relationships, it is difficult to know where the influence of the mafia begins and ends given its influence on their social and professional lives, not only explicit "mafia activity".
How about Luciano then? Sicilian from Lercara Friddi. Granted he didn't marry and was instead whoring around but where there's one, there's another. And all I'm saying is we need to just keep that in mind. I will take credit for my part in introducing bloodlines in the mainstream argument but I need to check myself. I once made a statement regarding the majority of members having bloodlines to which Pogo countered me saying no. I couldn't come back with anything because I didn't have the numbers. Now I do, at least for the Gambinos in 63 and he's right. Numberwise, half the family membership didn't have the bloodlines and for those that were born in the towns you and I are focused on, there's bound to be people who were Gravanos. And among these Sicilians, a large majority of them married Anglo women. Don't have the stats but could/will have them.

I understand that "way back" things were different and I agree. The question is when? In 1963 45% of the family was mainland, either they really went on a making spree in the 50's and it was mainland season or/and this goes further back to the very early 1920's and/or earlier. I don't know but its something to keep in mind. We'll get to the answer some day I'm confident.

We should take this discussion to the Random Historic info thread since this here is about whatever Gravano is claiming now and I don't want to deviate it. But we should also have a discussion on "Americanization" which may even warrant its own thread.
B.
Men Of Mayhem
Posts: 10692
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by B. »

I've never known you to assume the majority of the post-1950s organizations to be made up entirely of guys with bloodlines/paesan ties. Even fully American members often recreate those patterns once they become members by bringing their relatives in and around the Family a decent amount of the time, but I think you've always had a balanced take on the different types of members and have never discounted that many guys are recruited through general association just as many come from a "tradition".

Roughly half of a huge Family in 1963 having those kinds of connections (just from what we know -- it would be as much of an error to assume the absence of evidence is evidence) is statistically significant to me and indicates those patterns played a huge role in the DNA of these organizations, which only becomes more apparent as research expands. It also depends on the organization -- it might be true for "only" half the 1963 Gambino Family, but look what's already come out in the Bonanno 1963 thread as far as interrelation goes... there's more than we even knew and we knew about a lot. We have member sources telling the FBI and recalling in memoirs how important these factors were, too.

I'm surprised Pogo's point impacted your view -- I remember his post and for someone who tracks these guys so closely, he seemed oblivious to how many guys actually are related to one another and how far they go back.

Good to be conservative and keep your assumptions in check, but you've always had a great POV that stands up to scrutiny and I think 99% of researchers here agree.
User avatar
Angelo Santino
Filthy Few
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:15 am

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by Angelo Santino »

B. wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 12:26 am I've never known you to assume the majority of the post-1950s organizations to be made up entirely of guys with bloodlines/paesan ties. Even fully American members often recreate those patterns once they become members by bringing their relatives in and around the Family a decent amount of the time, but I think you've always had a balanced take on the different types of members and have never discounted that many guys are recruited through general association just as many come from a "tradition".

Roughly half of a huge Family in 1963 having those kinds of connections (just from what we know -- it would be as much of an error to assume the absence of evidence is evidence) is statistically significant to me and indicates those patterns played a huge role in the DNA of these organizations, which only becomes more apparent as research expands. It also depends on the organization -- it might be true for "only" half the 1963 Gambino Family, but look what's already come out in the Bonanno 1963 thread as far as interrelation goes... there's more than we even knew and we knew about a lot. We have member sources telling the FBI and recalling in memoirs how important these factors were, too.

I'm surprised Pogo's point impacted your view -- I remember his post and for someone who tracks these guys so closely, he seemed oblivious to how many guys actually are related to one another and how far they go back.

Good to be conservative and keep your assumptions in check, but you've always had a great POV that stands up to scrutiny and I think 99% of researchers here agree.
We don't know if roughly half had those connections. We know half of them didn't based on their mainland blood but it would be foolish to assume everyone of Sicilian descent that joined the Gambinos was due to something deeper and not just being a criminal with the right bloodlines in the right place. How many? 10%-15-30% I don't know. But even for those that have the bloodlines, like Joe N Gallo, he married an Irishwoman so we can infer that "keeping the bloodlines" wasn't as important to him and he's far from the only one. We got Gambino-Castellanos inbreeding, we have criminals recruited who happen to be Sicilian and we have a host of mainlanders.

Pogo didn't impact my view, he just caused me to keep his statement in the back of my mind, and looking at the Gambinos circa 1963, he's correct for this family. When I said the majority of mafia membership has blood affiliation and he countered that, for this family he was right and I was wrong. Perhaps the Bonannos will yield different results and if more family lineages are made, it will lead to even more results. If one were to look into the Bonannos and the DeCavalcantes and another into Chicago and Patriarca they'd each come up with different results. But then the next step is weighing all of them.
B.
Men Of Mayhem
Posts: 10692
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by B. »

Joe N. Gallo brought his son into the Family so he did apparently care about keeping it going.

You're not going to find an overwhelming amount of father>son>grandson>great-grandson direct lineage in the US (the Asaros are 5 direct generations deep at least, not including the number of members in each gen) but the amount of people who have relatives involved over multiple generations even post-1950s is statistically significant though many other factors were at play and it doesn't describe the entire membership. We also have no idea one way or another how many older relatives were members so we're capped by that when analyzing the information. We're constantly finding indications that older relatives were at least peripherally involved but as you know we don't have sources to confirm membership.

If your thinking is that these connected families didn't bring all of their relatives in for the sake of tradition, I agree 100%. They absolutely didn't do that most of the time and we have sources who say that certain sons, nephews, etc. were measured for their mafia qualities but membership was in no way guaranteed based on relation even though it heavily helped the process.

If the argument is that kinship, bloodlines, and hometown wasn't a dominant factor in the formation of these organizations and continued to be relevant (though to an increasingly reduced degree), then I just flat out disagree based on the evidence. We can even see that families outside of the "tradition" like the Persicos and Gottis bring in their brothers, sons, and nephews when they gain power and have the opportunity, so patterns often repeat even when someone is brought in from "outside".

With people who come from a mafia lineage, committed crime, and were inducted, I'm not sure that it's possible to separate the chicken from the egg. Did they get involved in crime because their relatives were in the mafia? Did they join the mafia because they committed crime? These influences are so heavily intertwined I don't think they can be separated from a scientific POV.
Southshore88
Straightened out
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:08 pm

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by Southshore88 »

B. wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 1:10 am Joe N. Gallo brought his son into the Family so he did apparently care about keeping it going.

You're not going to find an overwhelming amount of father>son>grandson>great-grandson direct lineage in the US (the Asaros are 5 direct generations deep at least, not including the number of members in each gen) but the amount of people who have relatives involved over multiple generations even post-1950s is statistically significant though many other factors were at play and it doesn't describe the entire membership. We also have no idea one way or another how many older relatives were members so we're capped by that when analyzing the information. We're constantly finding indications that older relatives were at least peripherally involved but as you know we don't have sources to confirm membership.

If your thinking is that these connected families didn't bring all of their relatives in for the sake of tradition, I agree 100%. They absolutely didn't do that most of the time and we have sources who say that certain sons, nephews, etc. were measured for their mafia qualities but membership was in no way guaranteed based on relation even though it heavily helped the process.

If the argument is that kinship, bloodlines, and hometown wasn't a dominant factor in the formation of these organizations and continued to be relevant (though to an increasingly reduced degree), then I just flat out disagree based on the evidence. We can even see that families outside of the "tradition" like the Persicos and Gottis bring in their brothers, sons, and nephews when they gain power and have the opportunity, so patterns often repeat even when someone is brought in from "outside".

With people who come from a mafia lineage, committed crime, and were inducted, I'm not sure that it's possible to separate the chicken from the egg. Did they get involved in crime because their relatives were in the mafia? Did they join the mafia because they committed crime? These influences are so heavily intertwined I don't think they can be separated from a scientific POV.
Great topic and surely is something to look at from a historical perspective as well as looking at the current state of the mafia to see the long-term influence. The topic got me thinking about Carlo Gambino and how he fits into this narrative. Carlo came from a mafia lineage but was one of the most prominent influences to keep the books closed while he was boss - which piqued my curiosity as to how he would view the importance of keeping the lineage of the mafia within his own family.

Was Carlo Gambino dead by the time his son Tommy was inducted into the family? Tommy was the eldest son and married the daughter of a boss, but was there any other reason why his brother Joseph was not inducted? There’s no doubt Tommy’s marriage to Lucchese’s daughter was a major influence in Tommy’s garment center influence and makes a lot of sense for him to get made to protect the empire he inherited but Joseph also worked in the garment rackets and worked closely with his brother. His involvement in the business, mafia pedigree and his brother being made with his uncle as the boss always had me curious about Joseph.

I find it interesting that Carlo, who came from a mafia lineage (obviously) with his brothers and extended in-laws/cousins also being made would end up with only one son made. Especially considering that his cousin/in-law succeeded him as boss but would only make one of his sons.

I realize it’s entirely possible that Joseph didn’t want the button or felt secure enough as the former boss’s son, nephew of the current boss and brother of a capo or that he didn’t need the button.
B.
Men Of Mayhem
Posts: 10692
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by B. »

Southshore -- the best way to understand it is that blood/marriage is historically one of the big factors in someone's candidacy for membership, though the relative should ideally also be seen as a viable candidate. Not necessarily because he's a supercriminal, but because he offers something to the organization. Of course relatives are also made just for being relatives sometimes and can cause resentment.

Funny enough, Gravano said he pushed for Charlie Aurello to be made because he was Toddo's son and didn't want him to feel humiliated. DiLeonardo has said Charlie was a man's man and respected by everyone so obviously a non-issue, but relation played a big role according to Sammy.

Something to remember about Gambino -- a boss (and every member) is supposed to put the organization before themselves. If Carlo Gambino felt it was to the organization's benefit to keep the books closed, he wasn't going to push to open the books just so his son could become a member.

--

Remembered this quote from pentito Leonardo Messina:
"I represent the seventh generation belonging to Cosa Nostra. I was affiliated not because I was a robber or because I was able to kill, but because I was bound to become a member by family tradition."
- Doesn't mean the San Cataldo Family only initiated relatives, but Messina attributes bloodline (7 generations) as the most important factor in his induction. In contrast, we have Buscetta who had no bloodlines in Palermo.

Image

- Detroit informant who stresses blood relation is the biggest factor in membership/influence and also stresses that compaesani factionalism and its politics are extremely important even in 1960s Detroit. Info on the membership supports this. Might not have been true for every Family by the 1960s, but this is the model that helped form the mafia in the US.

Image

- From an FBI summary after interviewing Joe Valachi and other early informants. Emphasizes the class element -- we know Allegra's friend in Alcamo was a lawyer who was arranged by his bosses to marry the daughter of the San Giuseppe boss who was also a lawyer. Countless examples of high-ranking members and their children intermarrying, again an example of class-based mafia marriage.

Image

- The "formal election" part is weird, but the FBI was able to deduce the importance of blood ties in the small Dallas Family. We know most of the members came from multi-generation Families and some were related to members in other cities.

Image

- Freddy Santantonio gave many reasons why someone could made but as above said being a relative could fast track someone and didn't require as much scrutiny as other methods.

Image

- Member informant who says criminal activity isn't a requirement for membership or rank but that most members are inevitably involved in something illegal. My own research has led me to believe blood/marital relation is the biggest factor for non-criminal members. Vinny Asaro said Antonino Bonventre was made despite being a non-criminal because of this.
Little_Al1991
Sergeant Of Arms
Posts: 788
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2021 5:22 am

Re: Gravano's most insane lie

Post by Little_Al1991 »

RamshackleMan wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 7:38 pm Hasn't someone ever tried writing Massino or others "care of" the WPP and seeing what happens? I'd be surprised if someone hasn't.
It would have been great to see Al D’Arco start his own channel but his son Joseph D’Arco from what we know is still alive
Joseph definitely should start his own channel.
Massino for sure
Post Reply