Andrew Scoppa

[OcSleeper]

Oh wow, that could explain what Larouche & Renaud wrote the other day in the article regarding Cherfan's murder.
https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/just ... -laval.php

the victim is Bernard Cherfan, an entrepreneur who allegedly had links with members of organized crime, including Stefano Sollecito, considered until recently as the leader of the Sicilian mafia clan in Montreal.

Though, when I asked Larouche if he could expand on that he said the translation was off and what he really said was "the last he heard Sollecito was considered the leader. Pretty big difference.

Thanks for this AM

[PogueMahone]

Thanks Antimafia! Can’t wait to read more.

[antimafia]

- In the book they mentioned a story Scoppa told them about a guy who was kidnapped in 2008 from a gas station and was tortured and the body was never found. If I'm not mistaken, the details given matched to Mario Marabella. So did they ever make the connection and if so why didn't they add it to the book? Did they ask Scoppa if it was Marabella?

- Who did they believe "the mafia of Toronto and and Italy" was?

- A few Lapresse articles have predicted a busy summer due to tensions in the mafia, have Seguin/Thibault heard this from their sources as well? What's causing the tension?

1. The book's co-authors said you were absolutely right about this unnamed person in the book being Mario Marabella. They, the book's editors, and the publisher (ECW Press for both the French and English editions) felt uncomfortable naming Marabella because there was no corpse (my note: the absence of a corpse always has a number of negative effects on, and consequences for, the decedent's surviving family members).

Also my note: We know that Paolo Renda and Giuseppe "Joe" Renda, whose bodies have never been found, have been named in a number of articles and books quite some time after their respective disappearances; so there does seem to be some contradiction in the rationale for reporting on missing-and-never-found mobsters or mentioning them in books. What there is no contradiction about is that law enforcement and the media will not, as a rule, divulge the name of a person who has been killed until the person's next of kin have been notified.

2. I did not directly ask the authors to elaborate which mafia groups in Toronto and Italy gave their approval of Scoppa as an interim leader or -- if all went well -- as a permanent leader of the "Montreal Mafia." Rather, I thought I would elicit more information by asking Séguin and Thibault about what they thought Scoppa's formal mafia affiliation was or whether Scoppa even had one. As background to my question, I mentioned that I have read in the Quebec press and in a couple of French-language organized-crime books that Scoppa was un homme d'honneur indépendante -- I told the authors how, for years, I found this description absolutely frustrating till I realized that the writers likely had good reason to describe him by using an oxymoron and that, in La source, Scoppa's own description of how he ostensibly joined a mafia group in Montreal raises grave questions about whether he was made into the Bonannos.

Séguin and Thibault each honestly answered that they too are unsure what Scoppa's formal mafia affiliation was; and that the description of Scoppa as an independent man of honour is apt for the time being. The authors don't know him to have been a member of the 'ndrangheta, at which point I mentioned that the recently sentenced Dominico Scarfo said that his grandfather was in the 'ndrangheta but didn't say that he himself (or his father) is an 'ndrangheta member.

I mentioned to Séguin and Thibault that before Buffalo Family member Paul Volpe was murdered in 1983, police had belatedly detected a flurry of telephone calls that went to Montreal, New York, and Italy in relation to some plotting against Volpe -- all this to tell the authors I am not entirely surprised by mafia groups in Toronto and Italy providing input on who they wanted as the next leader of the "Montreal Mafia."

3. I didn't ask Séguin and Thibault whether, based on the police's prediction of a printemps chaud (hot spring) in Quebec, they predicted a hot summer, i.e., one marked by violence over the next four months, more or less.

[antimafia]

Did Scoppa give any indications as to who pulled the trigger on Nicolo Rizzuto?

With whom from NY, was Scoppa directly familiar with? Bonnanos, or otherwise?

Is Miriarchi made?

1. Séguin and Thibault said that Scoppa did not hint at who shot and killed Nick Rizzuto Sr. When I told the authors that on another organized-crime forum, a bilingual poster who was reading La source interpreted one passage in the book about Rizzuto's murder as an admission by Scoppa that he himself pulled the trigger, Thibualt answered that he could understand how the reader could think that but that Scoppa was not the triggerman. Thibault reiterated that Scoppa was a loyal confidant of Vito Rizzuto and had helped Vito's son Leonardo and Rocco Sollecito's son Stefano to safety by hiding them in various places.

When I then asked the authors whether Domenico Violi could have been the assassin, Thibault laughed. Thibault did, however, mention the speculation that the triggerman is a French-Canadian.

2. I did not ask the authors whether Scoppa was familiar with Sal Montagna, other Bonanno members from New York, or other New York City mafia members. You and I know, as do others who have read La source, that Scoppa seemed to repeat about Montagna what was printed in the newspapers or published online about Montagna's time in Montreal; therefore, I have concluded -- perhaps wrongly -- that Scoppa did not have knowledge of Montreal's ties to the Bonannos in NYC and to other mafia families in NYC. If I remember correctly, Scoppa described Montagna as being charismatic and having leadership qualities -- both of which are true.

3. When I asked the authors about Mirarchi's formal mafia affiliation, they again honestly answered they did not know.

Because they had said they didn't know Scoppa to be a member of the 'ndrangheta, I mentioned I had doubts about Mirarchi being one. I explained that there are divergent accounts by 'ndrangheta experts about whether every newborn Calabrian male inherently has 'ndrangheta membership conferred upon him and whether there are initiation ceremonies when the male is older; and that words like "made," "inducted," and "initiated" may have no meaning when describing one's 'ndrangheta membership.

I also pointed out that even seasoned mobwatchers forget that a Calabrian man just can't join any 'ndrina he wants, even here in Canada, as blood ties and family lineage are paramount for membership.

[antimafia]

I'd be curious if they heard any intel about Montagna being known in Montreal before his deportation and anything about his earlier role as liaison. Scoppa said Montagna had known the Arcuris for "a long time".

Thank you.

Before I even got to ask your two questions, Séguin and Thibault mentioned Montagna and their interest in knowing under whose auspices he was when in Montreal, i.e., under whose protection and support; they were also interested in determining whether Montagna served a specific role, either formal or informal, that someone else in Montreal previously held.

I'll write more later today about a) what the authors were essentially asking, and b) what I told hem about how I thought Montagna garnered support in Montreal via people he already knew in Quebec and perhaps by people he didn't know but who knew people he did. Sorry, it's a little past 4:00 am here, and I'm just bushed.

[chin_gigante]

That's fantastic stuff, antimafia

[OcSleeper]

Wonder how much Scoppa told them that they weren't able to add in especially from the 2015-2018 period.


Thanks for asking them all these questions. I'm curious, what were your own questions you asked them? Couldn't have just been our 3 you asked

[chin_gigante]

I'd be curious if they heard any intel about Montagna being known in Montreal before his deportation and anything about his earlier role as liaison. Scoppa said Montagna had known the Arcuris for "a long time".

Found something relevant to this. From a conversation Massino recorded with Basciano at MDC Brooklyn on Jan 3, 2005:

BASCIANO: You know what happen to Nicky [Sanora]? You know the situation that Nicky been in? Him too would have a problem with me. You want to know why? You know the first thing he wanted to know?

MASSINO: Why?

BASCIANO: Should we send anybody up to Canada. What’s happening in Canada?

MASSINO: Oh yeah, what’s happening with Canada?

BASCIANO: What’s happening with Canada? Nothing’s happening with Canada?

MASSINO: Okay.

BASCIANO: Nothing’s happening with Canada.

MASSINO: Okay.

BASCIANO: What’s happening in Canada. Sal wanted permission to go up there because there was a cousin for some work. I gave him permission to go up there. I says go ahead up there. I says you can’t cause any

MASSINO: What’s the story with the kid Sal?

BASCIANO: … Sal the iron-worker? He’s alright, but he’s a little fuckin’ ah ah—He he’s alright.

MASSINO: He’s got that kid Vinnie Vituchio.

BASCIANO: I put Vinnie Vituchio. I told Michael to take Vinnie Vituchio. I told Michael to take Vinnie Vituchio.

MASSINO: You know, that’s another thing you shoulda sent word to me.

BASCIANO: About what?

MASSINO: About Vinnie Vituchio. He’s with me. Nobody asked me anything.

BASCIANO: I but I—Listen, I don’t know this.

MASSINO: Where do, who do you think he was around?

BASCIANO: Well, I sent word to you with Vinnie Vituchio.

MASSINO: I never got it. I got no problem. Let me tell you what happened. -Eh if I remember…

BASCIANO: If I’m (UI) you told before. I told Michael get two thousand or six thousand.

MASSINO: … When when I was in here you was in the street. He report to Louie Restivo.

BASCIANO: Correct.

MASSINO: You’s guy sent me word Canada wanna put Vinnie

BASCIANO: Correct.

MASSINO: Vitucchio with Sal iron-worker.

BASCIANO: Correct.

MASSINO: And I said no.

BASCIANO: Correct.

MASSINO: Alright?

BASCIANO: Correct. That’s correct.

MASSINO: I got a good memory. But I didn’t fuckin’ go senile yet.

BASCIANO: That’s absolutely correct. That’s correct.

MASSINO: But you can’t take my guys and do what the fuck.

Then Canada and Frank Cotroni come up in a conversation on Jan 7.

JM: How many guys we got to do? We got two for this year.

VB: Just two, and uh, uh, that guy up there in uh, uh, Canada.

JM: Which guy in Canada?

VB: What’s his name.

JM: Frank, uh, Catrone (ph)?

VB: Whatever his name was, the guy that died.

JM: The guy that died?

VB: Yeah.

JM: Frank Catrone (ph).

JM: We got three. They don’t have the three seats to fill ‘em, Bo, anyway.

JM: Oh, oh.

VB: There’s no three seats right not to fill ‘em.

JM: Oh.

[nizarsoccer]

I'm getting the feeling the authors were not aggressive enough with Scoppa. These questions that they are wondering, those would have been best to ask Scoppa. Even if he wasn't willing to answer, just recording his expressions or tone could have given people here some clues to figure things out further.

[antimafia]

Wonder how much Scoppa told them that they weren't able to add in especially from the 2015-2018 period.


Thanks for asking them all these questions. I'm curious, what were your own questions you asked them? Couldn't have just been our 3 you asked

In terms of posting in this thread, I have been prioritizing answers to your, CabriniGreen's, and B.'s questions. I still have to write more about B.'s two questions.

Apart from my also wanting to post here the answer the authors gave to the question I had about the murder of Paul Cotroni, I also have handwritten notes I took at the event that I'll eventually type and post here. In the Q&A portion of the event, I was the only one to ask a question at the microphone (I asked a question about just how curious law enforcement was about Scoppa's divulging to the authors some very specific details about what were considered cold-case homicides in the eyes of the public). I also plan to post notes about the answers Séguin and Thibault gave to the interviewer's questions.

[antimafia]

I'm getting the feeling the authors were not aggressive enough with Scoppa. These questions that they are wondering, those would have been best to ask Scoppa. Even if he wasn't willing to answer, just recording his expressions or tone could have given people here some clues to figure things out further.

Or maybe I wasn't aggressive enough with the authors.

I didn't interview the authors after the event -- I'm neither a journalist nor an author. After the event I spoke with them for two hours -- this almost didn't happen -- and although they knew I had questions for which I wanted to post answers on this forum, I also wanted to have a discussion with these men that flowed naturally.

I'll write more about what I learned regarding Scoppa's very controlling nature -- Séguin talked about this when answering one of the interviewer's questions during the event -- but I'll provide now an excerpt from a Summer Books preview of the book that was published in The Globe and Mail this past weekend:

Inside the Montreal Mafia: The Confessions of Andrew Scoppa, Félix Séguin and Eric Thibault (ECW, June) When Scoppa, confidant of the late mob boss Vito Rizzuto, first met with Séguin and Thibault in 2014, it was the first time in Canadian history a high-ranking mafioso had broken the code of omerta to talk to journalists. Over five years, Scoppa simultaneously spilled the beans and fished for counterintelligence in a series of high-risk clandestine meetings. He also (creepy or heartwarming, take your pick) started calling Séguin on his birthday every year.
______________________

The authors met with Scoppa over a period of five years. Scoppa wanted the authors to write in their book and articles (before and after his death) his version of history and his assessment of certain individuals, e.g., Stefano Sollecito. We all wish that organized-crime reporters and authors revealed more details in their articles and books when the information comes from underworld sources, but this isn't how writing about this subject -- publicly, at least -- works in the real world. What is very possible is that the more questions Séguin and Thibault asked Scoppa, the more Scoppa would have both embellished his answers and steered the conversations in particular directions. The more bullshit detected by us, the more we would have been inclined to not believe any of what Scoppa told them.

For mobwatchers like us, our sense of when even a high-level source is slightly or outright lying often leads to dismissing the source altogether because we tend to amplify this in-our-eyes "misinformation" provided by the source. In my opinion, what's even worse is when we totally dismiss a journalist or author's entire body of work because of a single factual error in their articles and books, an error that might not have been picked up by an editor or fact checker or perhaps is what the writer knew to be the truth at the time.

To be candid, there are so many posters on these types of forums that fail to augment their knowledge of and research about organized crime by choosing not to directly correspond with organized-crime reporters and authors -- establishing trust with these individuals will lead to learning more and better information than you would ever have imagined or were seeking in the first place, the type of details that you are tempted to post here but don't because you realize the power and exhilaration that derives from knowing something that other people don't.

[nizarsoccer]

I'm getting the feeling the authors were not aggressive enough with Scoppa. These questions that they are wondering, those would have been best to ask Scoppa. Even if he wasn't willing to answer, just recording his expressions or tone could have given people here some clues to figure things out further.

Or maybe I wasn't aggressive enough with the authors.

I didn't interview the authors after the event -- I'm neither a journalist nor an author. After the event I spoke with them for two hours -- this almost didn't happen -- and although they knew I had questions for which I wanted to post answers on this forum, I also wanted to have a discussion with these men that flowed naturally.

I'll write more about what I learned regarding Scoppa's very controlling nature -- Séguin talked about this when answering one of the interviewer's questions during the event -- but I'll provide now an excerpt from a Summer Books preview of the book that was published in The Globe and Mail this past weekend:

Inside the Montreal Mafia: The Confessions of Andrew Scoppa, Félix Séguin and Eric Thibault (ECW, June) When Scoppa, confidant of the late mob boss Vito Rizzuto, first met with Séguin and Thibault in 2014, it was the first time in Canadian history a high-ranking mafioso had broken the code of omerta to talk to journalists. Over five years, Scoppa simultaneously spilled the beans and fished for counterintelligence in a series of high-risk clandestine meetings. He also (creepy or heartwarming, take your pick) started calling Séguin on his birthday every year.
______________________

The authors met with Scoppa over a period of five years. Scoppa wanted the authors to write in their book and articles (before and after his death) his version of history and his assessment of certain individuals, e.g., Stefano Sollecito. We all wish that organized-crime reporters and authors revealed more details in their articles and books when the information comes from underworld sources, but this isn't how writing about this subject -- publicly, at least -- works in the real world. What is very possible is that the more questions Séguin and Thibault asked Scoppa, the more Scoppa would have both embellished his answers and steered the conversations in particular directions. The more bullshit detected by us, the more we would have been inclined to not believe any of what Scoppa told them.

For mobwatchers like us, our sense of when even a high-level source is slightly or outright lying often leads to dismissing the source altogether because we tend to amplify this in-our-eyes "misinformation" provided by the source. In my opinion, what's even worse is when we totally dismiss a journalist or author's entire body of work because of a single factual error in their articles and books, an error that might not have been picked up by an editor or fact checker or perhaps is what the writer knew to be the truth at the time.

To be candid, there are so many posters on these types of forums that fail to augment their knowledge of and research about organized crime by choosing not to directly correspond with organized-crime reporters and authors -- establishing trust with these individuals will lead to learning more and better information than you would ever have imagined or were seeking in the first place, the type of details that you are tempted to post here but don't because you realize the power and exhilaration that derives from knowing something that other people don't.

I'm not at all critiquing you, and I don't think you were the problem. I'm very thankful for your contributions and look forward to reading anything else you have or came away from that discussion. I also agree with you in trying to create more meaningful dialogue with reporters/authors who are talking or reporting on these individuals. Otherwise you just bread a forum echo-chamber where everyone just circle-jerks each other.


I also realize Scoppa was cagey and obviously very anxious about what was going on in his life. I can never image what it is like living, thinking (or knowing) that you are going to get killed at some point in the near future. The reason, I don't think I your lack "of aggression" was the problem because I have asked questions that OCSleeper mentioned or talked to Felix and other reports on Twitter and generally they don't know the answers since they either didn't ask Scoppa about it or didn't get a satisfactory answer. Other times, they can be pretty evasive too. Still, it is great just to ask them questions, get their insights, and as you said try and foster more informed dialogue with them.

[Slumpy]

I'm reading the English version now and it's definitely frustrating how few pointed questions they seemed to ask Scoppa. They're less interested in the status, structure, etc, and more interested in fleshing out the details of the murders that occurred after Vito went away. it's still interesting to read about the politics behind things like the Gervasi hits and the dynamic with the biker world, but those aren't really the burning questions I have about Montreal. I have a feeling they approach these stories from a much different perspective than the mob enthusiast community does.

I'm not getting much more out of it than what was analyzed from the french version on here, tbh. I'm only about half way through, though.

[antimafia]

Sale alert, which I received just this morning via email, re: the newly released English translation; I don't know whether this is a 1-day sale or not. I'll check again tomorrow and report back.

Available on Kobo Canada for $4.99 ($4.49 if you have a VIP membership):
https://www.kobo.com/ca/en/ebook/07aaad ... 1eceb20338

Available on Kobo US for $4.99:
https://www.kobo.com/us/en/ebook/inside ... real-mafia

-------------------------

Not sure whether the $9.99 USD price on Amazon US is the regular price, but it's still a good deal -- see below.

https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Montreal- ... B09MXG35TW

[antimafia]

Still on sale today (Sunday) on both the Kobo Canada and Kobo US sites.