I see what you're saying but there are problems with it in terms of practicality. By the definition you see to be using, Thomas "Sonny" Ciancutti is still a family even though he may very well be the last living member in Pittsburgh. Yet, one retired FBI agent said back in 2013, "There's no real structure anymore. There's no real family. It's gone in Pittsburgh.” But how can that be if Ciancutti is still breathing and could, theoretically, be introduced to members of other families as a member or even the boss? Nobody is saying he isn't still a member. But he's a member of a family now gone.B. wrote:There is a fundamental difference in the way some of us view a family versus the way that others do.
If there are made members from a particular group, with even a nominal boss, underboss, etc. that is by its very definition a Cosa Nostra organization. They may be retired, inactive, or fully legitimate, but throughout the history of the organization, these qualities do not mean that someone is not a member nor that they are not part of a Cosa Nostra organization.
What Wiseguy tends to focus on is the criminal viability of families. When LE says that a family is no longer active, they are referring to criminal viability. In the United States, men can't be charged with simple mafia association, so LE assesses them based on their criminal operations. It sounds like the KC family is absolutely a shadow of what it once was, with only a minor underworld influence.
However, criminal viability does not define a Cosa Nostra family. If all of the members were 100-year-old retired doctors with clean records, but they had gone through the ritual and recognized each others' membership and have a nominal boss, they are still very much a family, if one that is on the verge of completely dying out. That is something that really can't be argued.
Maybe you think that example is too extreme. What about Los Angeles? They have perhaps 7 or 8 members still living, some with nominal titles. Technically speaking, the guy with the highest rank is Tommy Gambino, who was identified as the underboss back in 2002. And you have Louie Caruso who is a captain. But he lives in Arizona. In fact, it seems half of the handful of members still living don't even live in California anymore. And there hasn't been a case involving the family since the late 1990's. But this is still a family?
When it comes to definitions and discussions on these forums, viability is a major part of what everyone is talking (or arguing) about when the question comes up. The other part is structure. Those are the two components that essentially make up the definition of a RICO enterprise. Obviously what's left of the mob in Pittsburgh or Los Angeles has neither and can't seriously be called "a family."
Now what about Kansas City? Comparatively speaking, there really hasn't been any more mob activity (as seen by cases) in Kansas City than in Pittsburgh in recent years. Yet, it does appear Kansas City does have more members still living, some with at least nominal titles. But at what point do they cease to be seen as a family by your definition? And if we go by your definition, there are also still families in Buffalo/Rochester, NE PA, Pittsburgh, Tampa, New Orleans, St. Louis, Denver, and Los Angeles. Yet you won't see these families, or Kansas City for that matter, on any list of those still recognized by either the feds or OC experts over at least the past 15 years.
Yes, it's good that somebody is focusing on what's left of the mob in the Midwest. But Scott's Detroit charts are really where the problem started. I understand early on it was probably a learning process for him as he researched and gathered information. Probably why his charts on the RD forum over the years ranged anywhere from about 30 to almost 60 members. But that inconsistency in itself was an eyebrow raiser for at least some of us. Especially when, at least with the later charts, the figures he was posting were so far off from published figures from the feds during the GamTax case in the mid-1990's. Basically showing the family bucking the trend, particularly that region of the country, and actually growing in size. All while staying under the law enforcement radar for the most part.B. wrote:I think it's great that Scott focuses on small market families, especially around the midwest, as it's an area i know very little about both currently and historically. Sometimes I believe he hypes things up for his own sake and makes things out to be more grandiose than they are, especially in Detroit, with their alleged panel of retired consiglieres, Jewish consigliere, etc. But I'd like to believe he has an honest interest in sharing information about these groups.
The "syndicate" and "don" talk definitely rubs me the wrong way because I associate those words with all of the myths and media creations that have plagued these subjects. I hope that he uses that kind of language because it makes his work more marketable to the common person and not because he believes it himself. I'm not so sure he really does know, though, which is unfortunate as it would really expand the scope and quality of his work if he got beyond the myths and Godfather-pandering.
Then he compounded the problem by making his charts overly hierarchical with almost every rank he could think of - boss, underboss, acting boss, street boss, consigliere, a few advisor emeritus or whatever, plus several captains. Given what we know about A) the FBI estimate of the family's size in the 1990's, B) the lack of cases brought against the Detroit family after the GamTax bust, and C) looking at other smaller families elsewhere, that had far more activity, and weren't nearly has hierarchical, it was almost insulting that Scott expected us to take those charts at face value. Yet many were only too happy to for whatever reason. Anything Scott said about Detroit was gold and there was no need for info on that family from any other source. And they were quick to go on the attack if anyone questioned what he said. As many will remember, this caused a lot of arguments. And it was only later on that Scott admitted that he didn't differentiate between members and associates on his charts, even though that was the implication all along. The only reason I could think for him doing this, as you said, was "hyping things for his own sake." Taking the subject matter he had and, finding the reality a little dry and boring, dressing it with lots of bells and whistles to make it look "more grandiose" than it is. And that can be held against him as a journalist.
In hindsight, maybe I was a little too hard on him about the Kansas City article in particular. But the above has sort of made me cynical and dubious when it comes to Scott. Though, like I said, I try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
