General Chicago Outfit Info Dumping Ground

[Angelo Santino]

Both Disney and Tesla have CEO's and a board of directors. Elon Musk shines high above the board but is still beholden to them. Disney's board recently desposed their CEO and Michael Eisner returned.

Personalities and influence, not to mention seniority, play a part in all this. Falls under operational.

In the 1960's, Detroit's "operational" relationship was a boss and his lifetime friends and relatives whose role in the "organizational" spanned 30 years unaffected. Cut to Chicago, you had a boss and those he came up under, he wasn't their equal "operationally." Back to Detroit, had Zerilli followed through on his plans and vacated boss to Polizzi and became the "consig of power," Detroit's operational dynamic would have changed and Polizzi's relationship with the board may have reflected or mirrored Giancana's relationship with the board.

Detroit and Chicago are Sister Cities, in mafia terms.

[Antiliar]

Regarding Zoccoli, if I recall correctly it was said he had the power to go to New York to remove the boss. In other words, he required outside assistance. It seems little different than Milwaukee asking for Chicago's intervention, and it could easily backfire. From what I understand about Ricca is that he had the power on his own. He didn't need outside help. That indicates two different levels of authority.

[Coloboy]

I don't think there's necessarily disagreement over the basics here, but I want to make it clear how I see it.

Like Angelo said the chairman of the consiglio had authority to challenge or depose a boss like Zoccoli in San Jose. If "the Bakery" in KC was a consiglio, the description of Filardo fits the chairman -- Crapisi said Civella deferred to Filardo and sought his approval in high-level matters. Crapisi saw Filardo holding an advisory position that was above even the boss. It looks like Priziola in Detroit may have been the chairman/secretary (Tony Zerilli was recording saying he had to go to Priziola to organize a council meeting for a judgment) and he was a factional head the Zerilli leadership had to contend with.

With the official consigliere in some Families we also see he wasn't subservient to the boss, as Rugnetta in Philly was the "rappresentante of the Calabrians" (according to Bruno) and Scafidi said he had total authority over his faction which comprised half the Family. He could stop Bruno from holding a making ceremony -- the Commission told Bruno to honor Rugnetta's demands before going through with the ceremony. Magaddino said he didn't have a consigliere because it meant the boss had to split his power. Like the Piscopo reference said, it depended on the individual involved and there was a range to what the consigliere could be. From what I see Ricca and/or Accardo aren't inconsistent with the highest end of that range and depending on the Family or individual there could be some differences.

The descriptions of Ricca and Accardo reported by the FBI show them to be high-level mediators trying to stop factionalism, prevent violence, and keep the Family together while acknowledging their immense influence/power, especially when they stepped out of "retirement" to direct the Family post-Giancana and pre-Aiuppa. The FBI labeled them "consiglieri" then continued to list Accardo as the consigliere for decades, a role Fratianno also said Accardo had. I don't know what the members typically called them aside from using their names but evidence / context has surfaced showing them to be consistent with consiglieri as the FBI described them and I haven't seen specific reports where they were shoehorned into that role, most of these reports only describing their role via CI accounts.

With the consiglio itself, DeRose's description of the "committee" fits some of the functions we see of the consiglio in other Families and Ricca / Accardo's role on the consiglio also fits what we'd expect of them even though different variables are at play depending on the Family and individuals involved.

My interpretation of all the FBI intel lends me to agree with your assessment of Ricca and Accardo’s roles. However, it’s my impression that their authority was a little more firm and official than you indicate, and less “ceremonial” or simply influence based. I.e. the ability to dispose of a boss, overrule a decision, etc. I believe their roles were formal. I think back to the 1971 meeting between Accardo, Aiuppa, and Gus Alex. Accardo indicates that no one will be “taking Ricca’s position.” Meaning it was official, and not just ceremonial. At least that’s my take on it. Great discussion all around here everyone

[Snakes]

From the information I've seen, it appears that the consiglio functioned in the same fashion as a "consigliere" in other families -- resolving disputes between members or other families, etc. The chair or head of the consiglio could arguably be referred to as consigliere (which is the direction the FBI seemingly went in). Whether they ever went by "consigliere" or not is up for debate as the word very rarely shows up in files of the time. Then again, the paucity of member-sources at this time and consigliere being a very LCN-specific term may account for why it wouldn't show up in documents or files.

Additionally, the consiglio seemed to dissolve by the early seventies with the death of many senior members and Accardo seemed to take on a consigliere-type role by default. The other two remaining senior members from the 60s and 70s -- Aiuppa and Cerone -- became boss and underboss respectively. Scott has mentioned the consigliere position as being used by Chicago since Accardo's death but his inclusion of Marco D'Amico (who evidence strongly indicates was not made) as having the role for some time leads me to highly question the sources which provided this information.

[PolackTony]

I don't think there's necessarily disagreement over the basics here, but I want to make it clear how I see it.

Like Angelo said the chairman of the consiglio had authority to challenge or depose a boss like Zoccoli in San Jose. If "the Bakery" in KC was a consiglio, the description of Filardo fits the chairman -- Crapisi said Civella deferred to Filardo and sought his approval in high-level matters. Crapisi saw Filardo holding an advisory position that was above even the boss. It looks like Priziola in Detroit may have been the chairman/secretary (Tony Zerilli was recording saying he had to go to Priziola to organize a council meeting for a judgment) and he was a factional head the Zerilli leadership had to contend with.

With the official consigliere in some Families we also see he wasn't subservient to the boss, as Rugnetta in Philly was the "rappresentante of the Calabrians" (according to Bruno) and Scafidi said he had total authority over his faction which comprised half the Family. He could stop Bruno from holding a making ceremony -- the Commission told Bruno to honor Rugnetta's demands before going through with the ceremony. Magaddino said he didn't have a consigliere because it meant the boss had to split his power. Like the Piscopo reference said, it depended on the individual involved and there was a range to what the consigliere could be. From what I see Ricca and/or Accardo aren't inconsistent with the highest end of that range and depending on the Family or individual there could be some differences.

The descriptions of Ricca and Accardo reported by the FBI show them to be high-level mediators trying to stop factionalism, prevent violence, and keep the Family together while acknowledging their immense influence/power, especially when they stepped out of "retirement" to direct the Family post-Giancana and pre-Aiuppa. The FBI labeled them "consiglieri" then continued to list Accardo as the consigliere for decades, a role Fratianno also said Accardo had. I don't know what the members typically called them aside from using their names but evidence / context has surfaced showing them to be consistent with consiglieri as the FBI described them and I haven't seen specific reports where they were shoehorned into that role, most of these reports only describing their role via CI accounts.

With the consiglio itself, DeRose's description of the "committee" fits some of the functions we see of the consiglio in other Families and Ricca / Accardo's role on the consiglio also fits what we'd expect of them even though different variables are at play depending on the Family and individuals involved.

My interpretation of all the FBI intel lends me to agree with your assessment of Ricca and Accardo’s roles. However, it’s my impression that their authority was a little more firm and official than you indicate, and less “ceremonial” or simply influence based. I.e. the ability to dispose of a boss, overrule a decision, etc. I believe their roles were formal. I think back to the 1971 meeting between Accardo, Aiuppa, and Gus Alex. Accardo indicates that no one will be “taking Ricca’s position.” Meaning it was official, and not just ceremonial. At least that’s my take on it. Great discussion all around here everyone

To be clear, that intel about Ricca not being replaced came from Ralph Pierce in 1972. We don’t know what Accardo actually said, and was the case generally, don’t even know what Pierce actually said. The account that we have was not a verbatim quotation but rather Roemer’s interpretation of what he was told. Not that it matters, IMO, with respect to any discussion of what consiglieri were in Chicago, as the report made it clear that the “position” in question was acting boss of the Family. After Ricca’s death, Accardo was sole acting boss and no one else was replacing Ricca as acting boss along side Accardo, an arrangement that apparently pertained until 1975 or ‘76, when Aiuppa became official boss.

I’m personally of the opinion that Ricca and Accardo’s actual power during Giancana’s tenure has long been assumed to have been greater and more formalized than it was in reality. DeRose, while not a member of course, was very explicit that Giancana was the head of the Family and so far as I can recall was not the source of that “the Man vs the Boss” account. DeRose did not depict the Consiglio as “above” Giancana, but rather Giancana as the head of the Consiglio.

[Angelo Santino]

Regarding Zoccoli, if I recall correctly it was said he had the power to go to New York to remove the boss. In other words, he required outside assistance. It seems little different than Milwaukee asking for Chicago's intervention, and it could easily backfire. From what I understand about Ricca is that he had the power on his own. He didn't need outside help. That indicates two different levels of authority.

That's a good distinction. We know that the boss of Philadelphia, at least under Scarfo, had to get his picks for underboss approved by the Genovese, it seems Philly was deferential to New York. Cleveland as well post 70's.

But the fundamental still stands. A boss wants to take down his underboss, if it's a NY boss post-Commission he's going to just do it, if it's a Philly boss pre-90's he's going to seek NY for permission. The bottomline is they had the power to demote, regardless of which route it took for them to get there. With this consiglio business, one could argue that we don't know if Chicago had to ask New York. Now I don't think they did, Chicago was America's Secondary City and enjoyed a fair degree of autonomy in the sense that it doesn't appear that they deferred to New York like Philly did. These relationships really deserve a deeper study. Philly and New England deferred to New York, St Louis deferred to Detroit while that city was, apparently on par with NY and Chicago who were the ultimate political powers.

But aside from whether external politics, there's also internal politics to consider: the Consiglio members including the Family Admin and the capidecina. Zoccoli mentioned his power to go to New York, but it's debatable that he would attempt this upon a Family boss who was well-liked. It's possible Zoccoli was a local operational power in his own right. Everyone, from boss to member, is beholden to one another and when actions are made, the members have to justify them, usually by connecting their actions to precedent.

[Angelo Santino]

Segue waying back to Chicago's "darkness," here is an interesting take from Gentile about D'Andrea: (not my translation)
This occurred some time between 1915 and 1919.

Not a lot of time that I went to Cleveland to make visit to one friend of mine gone by, the Doctor Romano, also him <<brother>>. Not as soon as he/she saw me, dismissal all of his/her patients and he/she immediately took apart me to confide me that Paolinello had been condemned to death by the honorable society in Chicago, which, to send forth the verdict, they sent a out a letter, to all the brethren, to eliminate Paolino in any place he was seen. So Romano thought in duty immediately to perform the order. I intervened and he abstained from doing it. Insofar it imposed me not to say they didn't have to bother with the head in Chicago, D’Andrea, the fiercest man in the whole United States.

I just learned about the death sentence of Paolino, I was amazed and also grieved because I knew that a sentence of the kind was final. My first impulse, after the state of uncertainty in which I was fallen, was that to try the everything to save my picciotto. Also because Doctor Romano told me: --Cola, only you can save him!

I immediately returned to Pittsburgh and exposed how much had been confided to me by Romano.

Since I was affectionate to Paolino and, in consideration of the services he had made, I felt it was my duty to save him at any cost, asked the meeting to admit him among the associates. The answer was positive and he was welcomed into the breast to the family. Then I begged the head to designate a Pittsburgh member to go to Chicago from the signor D’Andrea, to ask clemency for Paolino. Unless in his name there were no such errors that had stain the honor of the Mafia. Being the family of Pittsburgh composed of wealthy people, all well-off people, the head told me:

-- I don't personally know D’Andrea and I don't feel sure to conduct this mission.

None of the bystanders, both because they were wealthy people and because were not adventurous, they felt the degree to acquit such a delicate mission, especially to D’Andrea, fierce and wild man.

It was to this point that the head told me:

-- Why doesn't you go to D’Andrea? Your name is already very known and you know <<the environment>> in the whole United States.

I accepted. However I did present that Paolino come with me. All opposed him given that Paolino had a death sentence. They feared that the same fate would happen to me. But me, being firm in my intention, I said:

-- I will go with Paolino, I assume the whole responsibility of it.

The evening we departed for Chicago. The following morning, we took a taxi and went to find a brother, Domenico Catalano, fellow townsperson of Paolino, that managed a shop. Catalano was amazed and didn't hide his fear. He called me into the back office and told me:

-- Who have brought you! Don't you know that Paolino has a death sentence?

-- Be calm,--I responded,--this I know and therefore I have come, on behalf of the family of Pittsburgh. I beg you to go to find D’Andrea. You will tell him that Signore Gentile, of the family of Pittsburgh, desires to have a meeting.

Catalano brought word from the D’Andrea who fixed the appointment at 7 pm, three days after my application.

In the meantime I went to Chicago Heights where I knew the representative of this town, my friend trusted, Phillip Piazza. I submitted him Paolino recommending he keep him hidden indefinitely if I did not return.

I embarked to Milwaukee, place of residence of Vito Guardalabene, native of Porticello Bagheria, my old friend, of rather advanced age, venerable in the aspect and descendant from illustrious family. To him I told the unfortunate case of Paolino and the intention to go to confer with the D'Andrea. He didn't have hesitations: --Only you can try to save him; however I will come with you--. Also the deputy-head of the village, Piddu Vallone, came with us, enthusiastic of the good action that I was about to complete. We departed for Chicago and, to the arrival, we took lodging in a hotel.

To the established time with my two friends, we went to the house of D’Andrea. They received us in an office that was completely dark. A rather marked and devoted voice to the command, manifested: --We will hear what the representative of Pittsburgh asks.

I began to speak and, after having told the case that was me dear to my heart, specifying not to know the motives that had brought the sentence of Paolinello, so concluded:

-- If there are motives that have injured the honor of the family, then I will be the first one to kill him, but if such serious motives don't subsist and the prejudicial facts committed by Paolino are attributed to some robbery, I ask in the name of clemency the family of Pittsburgh.

To this last word, the cavernous voice answered:

-- You're both pardoned! We now see this nightingale that you are known for so well and how you patronize your favorite causes.

Suddenly the room illuminated and I had the possibility to see the man who made the United States tremble. We embraced, he manifested his gratification for the rather rash action that I had completed days before.

To this point I asked him for a second appointment to introduce him to Paolino.

-- But is he here? Why have we not seen him before?

-- Before or later it's the same thing,--I answered.

Good, uncle Cola! - he told me. - I have felt to speak of him very well, and I must say that he is really a young wise man and mature.

We had another appointment in his office, where I introduced Paolino that him as brothers.

D’Andrea told Paolino: --You have found a good defender,--and added: --True it is that you wanted to come to raise me the rings from the fingers?

And Paolino, boldly:

-- Sure, if I can come I will rais you the rings before and later the dollars.

D’Andrea smiled:

-- Good I, like Paolino.

Paolino asked to D’Andrea to stay to Chicago where he had relatives. Then it returned in Pittsburgh.


Chilanti: Wasn't Catalano who was the head of the Mafia in Chicago Heights scared? They depended on the head in Chicago, D’Andrea, who wanted to kill Paolinello and anyone found in his company?
Gentile: I was not afraid this because Catalano and Phillip Piazza constituted my strength.
Chilanti: In your memories she speaks of <<friendship>>; were they friends or were they afraid?
Gentile: They knew my strength, they knew.
Chilanti: But don't your famous friendship count for anything more?
Gentile: It counts for strength.

- Pittsburgh made someone who was sentenced to death by Chicago with the urging of Gentile.
- Gentile described Pittsburgh as wealthy and lax.
- Gentile travels to Chicago and makes a formal appointment with D'Andrea.
- Gentile describes D'Andrea as one of the most feared bosses in the United States.
- He meets the boss of Milwaukee and the boss of Chicago Heights who go with him to the meeting.
- Gentile describes going to a darkly lit office and apparently has the entire sitdown in the dark.
- Once it's concluded, the lights come on and Gentile can see D'Andrea.
- A meeting is made for D'Andrea and Paolino to meet, they do and it's agreed that he can stay in Chicago. This isn't my translation which I can't find at the moment, but the last topic of conversation sounds like he may have transferred his membership from Pittsburgh to Chicago.

I bring this up because the "dark office sitdown," somehow jives with modern things we see in Chicago like the seriousness of the ceremony where members were required to let the card burn their hands while the bosses watched to see if they flinch. Also, seems like it's always had a deadly reputation.

[B.]

We lack contemporary inside accounts who can confirm Ricca's official position in the 1930s-40s or explain the "Amafa" CI's belief that Ricca was never recognized by the Commission as official boss, but we have a vague statement from Gentile's memoir:

In another period in Cleveland there was another act of vengeance: the murder of Dr. Romano, and this time Mangano, who was a friend, was saddened by this and it hit him personally. Vincenzo Mangano was convinced that until I had been replaced from Cleveland, Al Polizzi would have never have been allowed to kill Romano. The other reason why Al Polizzi would have never been allowed to kill Romano, because he knew of the relationship with Mangano, and he dreaded the tremendous reaction that would be directed against him for having supported Paul Ricca, nicknamed Comporello.

- Romano was murdered in 1936 and his death upset Mangano, who believed Al Polizzi wouldn't have carried it out if Gentile was still with Cleveland.

- Another reason Gentile says Polizzi waited to kill Romano was not only Romano's relationship with Mangano but that killing Romano would bring on a "tremendous" response for having supported Paul Ricca. This potential response was serious enough that Polizzi "dreaded" it -- Ricca must have been in a precarious position himself.

It's not entirely clear if Gentile is saying Paul Ricca was behind the Romano murder / connected to it somehow or if he is saying that Polizzi was already on thin ice for supporting Ricca in an independent matter. It is clear though that the Polizzi / Ricca situation predated the Romano murder so their problems weren't because of the murder itself.

Either way it's talking about high-level national politics: a Cleveland leader had to worry about drawing the ire of an NYC boss and he was already in the national doghouse due to an alliance with Paul Ricca.

What did it mean to "support" Paul Ricca and why would this negatively impact a Cleveland leader? If Paul Ricca himself was in disfavor with the Commission circa mid-1930s, that could play into "Amafa" CI's belief that the Commission didn't support Ricca as official boss if indeed he ever sought the title.

The excerpt implies too that Vincenzo Mangano (chairman of the Commission according to Bonanno) and Paul Ricca were on opposite sides of a national political conflict.

We know Ricca sought alliances during the Castellammarese War with Magaddino and Gentile. He then apparently had an alliance with another Cleveland leader, Polizzi. All Western Sicilians too interestingly. What we know of early Ricca is that national relationships were very important to him but it apparently wasn't smooth sailing in the 1930s.

[B.]

DeRose's succession for the Chicago "head" or "leader:

Capone until his death in 1939
Nitti until his suicide in 1943
Campagna for several months until his death (which actually occurred in 1955)
Ricca until ?
Accardo stepped down in 1956 or 1957
Giancana

Timelines are always one of DeRose's biggest issues. You have to alter not only the timeline here but also the context to make it work, i.e. Campagna had to have stepped down more than a year before he died, possibly over ten years earlier, and Ricca then had to have become boss during or after the Hollywood extortion case/sentence.

We have Accardo on tape saying he was boss for ten years, so he was boss from around 1946 to 1956. To use DeRose's succession, we now have to fit Campagna, Ricca, and Accardo in as bosses between 1943 when Nitti dies and 1946 when Accardo takes over otherwise we have to alter more of his info and say Nitti either wasn't boss, was boss but didn't die as boss, and/or that Capone wasn't boss until his death. He's obviously mistaken about Accardo's reign too, as he misremembers the 1940s war taking place in the immediate years before Accardo stepped down in 56-57.

Even though he mentioned Lombardo as a one-time boss he jumped straight to Capone and didn't mention LoVerde or candidates like Aiello or Lolordo. He was around back then but his historic boss timeline has issues all around. I'm a DeRose fan and his take is valuable but there are more than just timeline discrepencies with his overall boss succession.

Other issue is DeRose doesn't say whether someone was acting or official, only uses general terms.

--

Piscopo is the best source we have for Ricca as boss of what he called the Chicago "brugad" (borgata), as Piscopo was a member CI close to Roselli and he places Ricca in the position by 1943. The reference is brief and Piscopo was several years away from becoming a member circa 1943 which has to be considered but it's a valuable report.

Only problem is he doesn't elaborate. Did he mean Ricca was the official boss? Did he mean acting boss, but because the anecdote was focused on the extortion scheme did he generalize about org details just to make the point that Ricca was in charge? He does that with the other conspirators, calling them only "leaders" of the "brugad". Was he in a position to make the distinction between an official or acting boss in 1943 and if so, did he think it was necessary to his story about the extortion? Could go either way.

--

Bill B has Ricca as "rappresentante" on a chart of late 1931 Commission members. If he meant Ricca was official boss with his own Commission seat in late 1931, it means Capone lost his title and national seat immediately after he went to prison and before the year ended. Did Bill mean that, or did he mean Ricca was simply running the Chicago Family and representing them on the Commission as soon as Capone went away? Or did he know that Ricca was official at some point but just placed it too early in the chronology on the chart? He makes some inconsistent statements about Giancana's rank before becoming official boss in the book and says Jim Colosimo was under Masseria so the nuances of his Chicago info is open to question.

He says Ricca attended the 1941 Commission meeting but doesn't say what his official rank was. He says Socks Lanza and Willie Moretti also attended as representatives of Luciano and that the 1941 meeting involved recognizing Frank Costello as acting boss (not official). This is an interesting reference given other sources like Valachi have Costello as acting boss much earlier and I defer to Valachi on this. Bill isn't wrong about Costello becoming acting boss but if it happened at a Commission meeting it should have been the 1936 one not 1941. That aside, it's hard to infer much about Ricca from his attendance given the Genovese Family was represented by a captain (Moretti), soldier? (Lanza), and acting boss (Costello). It does however fit the same period when Piscopo said Ricca was boss.

--

Like I said earlier, I could easily believe Ricca was official boss for a time pre-Accardo based on these sources and some circumstantial evidence. We don't have that smoking gun though like a contemporary member who can say definitively that Ricca was the official rappresentante and there are reasons to question some of the details.

I could just as easily believe the "Amafa" informant too that Ricca was everything except official and not recognized by the Commission, especially since "Amafa" was well-aware of a "popular belief" that Ricca was official boss and acknowledged that Ricca came across that way at one time but pointed out two separate times in his interview that he was never the recognized boss. We don't have enough info on who the "Amafa" guy was to dismiss him as an associate of an associate or do anything except evaluate what he said on a point by point basis.

[Antiliar]

Angelo Lonardo's testimony can shed a little light on this event.

- Dominic DeMarco, Angelo Lonardo's cousin, developed appendicitis and wanted Dr. Romano to operate on him. Lonardo believed Romano was involved in his father's murder. John DeMarco didn't want Romano to operate on his brother. Dominic DeMarco died.

- Lonardo and John DeMarco decided to kill Romano, the retired Cleveland boss.

- After they killed Romano, Al Polizzi, the Cleveland boss, contacted them. Polizzi said, "Jeez, you should have said something to me about this before you did anything. You got us in a spot now, you know. The way you did it, the way you guys did it, the same thing could happen to us."

- Jim Mangano of New York raised hell about it. Polizzi had to go to NY and explain what happened. He had to explain to the Commission. Mangano wanted DeMarco killed because he was a member.

- Another meeting took place in Miami Beach between New York, Chicago and Cleveland leaders, and DeMarco was allowed to live.

So according to Angelo Lonardo, Ricca and Chicago weren't involved in the Romano murder, but did help arbitrate. As the dominant borgata outside the East Coast it's likely that Chicago was there to support Cleveland. Since Cleveland and Chicago were both tied in with the (then) Luciano Family, I think it's possible that Frank Costello was there too.

Gentile tells us that Vito Genovese sought Ricca's help to murder Saverio Pollaccia around 1932, and apparently no issues resulted from that. That was the same year Luciano and Lansky were arrested with Ricca in Chicago. Chicago's takeover of the film unions began around 1935 and involved Luciano, so from that end there were no apparent problems. There's no mention anywhere of any conflict between Mangano and Ricca, so whatever issue it was is a mystery. I don't see anything to suggest Ricca was in disfavor with the Commission nor anything about his position as a boss or an acting boss.

[motorfab]

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)

[B.]

What's strange about Gentile's comment is it indicates an issue involving Polizzi supporting Ricca may have existed before Romano's death and/or that killing Romano would otherwise be seen as support for Ricca which would put Polizzi in "tremendous" political disfavor. Did he believe Ricca was influencing these events in Cleveland or was the Ricca issue completely independent and Polizzi just happened to be involved in both situations? It doesn't tell us anything about Ricca's involvement or what was going on other than him being involved in a treacherous situation with Polizzi that had national implications.

1936 is the year of the Commission's first five year meeting and Bill Bonanno said this meeting is where Mangano was elected chairman. It's also the same year Mangano and Profaci went to Sicily together which I posted about. It was a very important year for national politics but it's when Gentile's info gets more vague/thin and Joe Bonanno jumps past this period in his book unfortunately.

What was going on in Chicago itself in 1935-36? Palazzolo of Gary was killed in 1935 which was probably a major event. Anything else come to mind?

Lonardo's account tells us the Romano murder was an "in house" Cleveland matter and there's nothing obvious pointing to Ricca being behind it but something happening in the mid-1930s gave Gentile the impression that Ricca was involved in a controversy that impacted Polizzi in Cleveland and he was cautious about killing Romano for this reason.

[PolackTony]

Piscopo’s claim about Ricca being the “Boss” of the Chicago “Brugad” could be read as referring to the entire period covered by the Hollywood Extortion scheme, so from the mid-30s through 1943. Piscopo’s account here (or, more accurately, the FBI’s summarization of what Piscopo told them) is vague and while “Boss of the Brugad” seems pretty firm, B has raised good points regarding acting vs official and whether Piscopo would’ve been in the position at the time to know the difference. Here’s the account from the report:



It wouldn’t seem that Piscopo’s claim about Ricca being “Boss” was solely motivated by the desire to explain the Hollywood Extortion scheme from an operational standpoint, as it is also part of the context for Nitto’s downfall. Piscopo’s paints him as a “leader” but not the “Boss”, who sticks up for the life of his associate Bioff and thus winds up taking the responsibility for Bioff flipping, leading directly to Nitto’s suicide (presumably, there were men preparing to help him out with that if he didn’t do it himself).

DeRose’s Boss succession timeline has such serious errors, not just of simply chronology but events, that it can’t be taken literally, of course. It is interesting to me, however, that DeRose believed Capone to have been boss until his death. DeRose erroneously puts this in 1939; while Capone of course didn’t die until 8 years after, it is worth noting that 1939 was the year that Capone was paroled from prison due to his failing health and mental state. If people hadn’t been aware of just how grave Capone’s situation was prior to this, it would’ve been clear by this point that he was an invalid.

[Dwalin2014]

leading directly to Nitto’s suicide (presumably, there were men preparing to help him out with that if he didn’t do it himself).

But what would they have gained by killing him? I thought they needed Nitto alive as a scapegoat to save everybody else from jail, while after Nitto's suicide it took almost 4 years for them to get out.

[PolackTony]

leading directly to Nitto’s suicide (presumably, there were men preparing to help him out with that if he didn’t do it himself).

But what would they have gained by killing him? I thought they needed Nitto alive as a scapegoat to save everybody else from jail, while after Nitto's suicide it took almost 4 years for them to get out.

To be clear, this was Piscopo’s account, but it makes sense to me. Circella was supposed to have been the fall guy who pled out to his charges and took his sentence. Piscopo says that Nitto was blamed by Ricca and the rest of the Chicago leadership for them getting convicted, as Bioff had been Nitto’s personal associate form the get-go and Nitto spoke up for him and saved him when Chicago wanted to whack Bioff for fear that he was weak and would roll under pressure. When Bioff did just that after Nitto vouched for him, if Piscopo is correct and the events occurred in this way, it isn’t hard to believe that Nitto’s death warrant would’ve been sealed.

Also worth keeping in mind that Piscopo was a longtime close associate of Roselli and thus his account of the Hollywood Extortion saga was likely heavily informed by Roselli as well as his own familiarity with some of the men in question.