Genovese and Bonannos strongest

[SonnyBlackstein]

Well Raab in 05 stated 250 each. Capeci has stated numerous times Westside and Bino's strength fluctuates from 200-250 buttons.
Multiple articles from the WSJ, publications and LE sources also concur with those estimates.

Ill go with them vs the attrition theory.

[Pogo The Clown]

Those are just general estimate numbers that get repeated over and over again and never seem to change no matter how many members die or flip. Here is an article from 2002 that gives exact Fed numbers that shows the families being much smaller than we think.


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

New York Post

MAFIA: HELP WANTED : SHRINKING FAMILIES ON RECRUITING DRIVE

By Al Guart

May 19, 2002

Faced with damaging defections and the demise of longtime leaders, local Mafia families have begun opening their arms to a new generation of willing hoods, The Post has learned.

The ranks of New York’s five organized-crime families dropped from 634 soldiers to 570, a loss of 64 wiseguys, between January 2000 and January 2001, according to confidential FBI reports.

The loss of mob muscle came as jailed bosses failed in their attempts to curb a series of defections and undercover operations in recent years that fueled the prosecution of scores of wiseguys.

In response, the Genovese and Luchese crime families “opened the books” to induct new members, sources said.

“You have to inject blood into the family,” one source said.

Many of the inductions into the underworld have included the traditional Mafia initiation, sources said.

The “ceremony” includes burning a saint’s picture in the bleeding palm of an inductee as he takes the oath of omerta – a vow to never divulge details of the family’s business.

According to the most recent FBI reports, the Genovese clan inducted nine new soldiers in the year to January 2001, bringing their ranks to 152 and making them the strongest in the city in terms of manpower.

Evidence of the recruitment was confirmed when mob turncoat Michael “Cookie” Durso secretly recorded talks with Genovese bigs through a watch fitted with a transmitter, sources said.

Durso’s defection resulted in 15 wiseguys pleading guilty last March to extortion, robbery and other charges. It also helped indict Genovese boss Vincent “Chin” Gigante.

The Gambinos, led by cancer-stricken mob boss John Gotti, seem the hardest hit – losing 33 soldiers between 2000 and 2001, but still leaving them second in manpower with 130 soldiers.

The Lucheses added three more goodfellas last year after losing a dozen in 2000, bringing them to 113 and placing them third, according to the FBI reports.

The new members were recruited just in time to hear former Luchese acting boss Joseph “Little Joe” Defede begin singing for the feds last February.

Defede, 68, has revealed the clan’s long-standing extortion of Howard Beach restaurants and helped the feds nail a soldier for a 1995 murder.

The small, New Jersey-based DeCavalcante family, which some believe is the inspiration for television show “The Sopranos,” added eight soldiers, topping off last year at 36.

The Colombos lost 26 soldiers in recent years, dropping to 90, while the Bonannos lost five, falling to 85, according to the FBI figures.

Getting approval for the new recruits also has been time-consuming, sources say.

Normally a boss can only give the nod to a wannabe mobster after his name is circulated among other families, usually at a “commission” meeting involving crime bosses, underbosses and consiglieres.

“With every mob boss behind bars, getting the OK and passing names around had to be tricky,” one lawman said.

[OlBlueEyesClub]

I'd say the ability to win a sitdown is more tied in to relationships than it is manpower and revenue earned. Example, Chin was the "power" on the Commission so to speak, following the death of Castellano, because he knew he could count on the votes of Amuso & Casso, whom represented the Lucchese's, and the Colombo's through whomever was acting on behalf of the Persico's. Gotti wasn't the power because in most cases those guys would against him and vote for Chin. In relation to this, another example would be Gotti backing Orena and advocating for the Bonannos to be placed back on the Commission. With Orena having a permanent Commission seat, Gotti had an ally on the Commission whom he felt I guess, would be obligated to vote on his behalf, same with Massino had Gotti been the one who pushed for the Bonannos regaining their seat on the Commission, had Gotti actually succeeded with that.

[Wiseguy]

Never said they dropped to 110. Just that they significantly shrunk from the mid 80s to the 2000s.

Now that I think about it I'd say both the Genovese and Gambino families are much smaller today than we have come to believe. Each have lost well over 100 members in less than 20 years. I very much doubt that they have come even close to replacing all those lost members during this same period. I'd say they are much closer in size now to the other 3 families.


Pogo

The feds cited 200 members for the Genovese family in court documents after Danny Leo's 2007 arrest. They also had 200 for the Gambinos after Danny Marino's 2010 arrest.

As others said, 88 Gambino deaths over the time period you listed could have been replaced with an average of 5 new members a year. Very doable, even if ceremonies don't happen every year. A NY Magazine article back in 1995 reported how the Genovese family had made 30 new members within the last 2 years. Family memberships certainly fluctuate in the short term but, in the long term, have seemed pretty consistent.

Those are just general estimate numbers that get repeated over and over again and never seem to change no matter how many members die or flip. Here is an article from 2002 that gives exact Fed numbers that shows the families being much smaller than we think.


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

New York Post

MAFIA: HELP WANTED : SHRINKING FAMILIES ON RECRUITING DRIVE

By Al Guart

May 19, 2002

Faced with damaging defections and the demise of longtime leaders, local Mafia families have begun opening their arms to a new generation of willing hoods, The Post has learned.

The ranks of New York’s five organized-crime families dropped from 634 soldiers to 570, a loss of 64 wiseguys, between January 2000 and January 2001, according to confidential FBI reports.

The loss of mob muscle came as jailed bosses failed in their attempts to curb a series of defections and undercover operations in recent years that fueled the prosecution of scores of wiseguys.

In response, the Genovese and Luchese crime families “opened the books” to induct new members, sources said.

“You have to inject blood into the family,” one source said.

Many of the inductions into the underworld have included the traditional Mafia initiation, sources said.

The “ceremony” includes burning a saint’s picture in the bleeding palm of an inductee as he takes the oath of omerta – a vow to never divulge details of the family’s business.

According to the most recent FBI reports, the Genovese clan inducted nine new soldiers in the year to January 2001, bringing their ranks to 152 and making them the strongest in the city in terms of manpower.

Evidence of the recruitment was confirmed when mob turncoat Michael “Cookie” Durso secretly recorded talks with Genovese bigs through a watch fitted with a transmitter, sources said.

Durso’s defection resulted in 15 wiseguys pleading guilty last March to extortion, robbery and other charges. It also helped indict Genovese boss Vincent “Chin” Gigante.

The Gambinos, led by cancer-stricken mob boss John Gotti, seem the hardest hit – losing 33 soldiers between 2000 and 2001, but still leaving them second in manpower with 130 soldiers.

The Lucheses added three more goodfellas last year after losing a dozen in 2000, bringing them to 113 and placing them third, according to the FBI reports.

The new members were recruited just in time to hear former Luchese acting boss Joseph “Little Joe” Defede begin singing for the feds last February.

Defede, 68, has revealed the clan’s long-standing extortion of Howard Beach restaurants and helped the feds nail a soldier for a 1995 murder.

The small, New Jersey-based DeCavalcante family, which some believe is the inspiration for television show “The Sopranos,” added eight soldiers, topping off last year at 36.

The Colombos lost 26 soldiers in recent years, dropping to 90, while the Bonannos lost five, falling to 85, according to the FBI figures.

Getting approval for the new recruits also has been time-consuming, sources say.

Normally a boss can only give the nod to a wannabe mobster after his name is circulated among other families, usually at a “commission” meeting involving crime bosses, underbosses and consiglieres.

“With every mob boss behind bars, getting the OK and passing names around had to be tricky,” one lawman said.

I'm aware of that article, as well as a follow up one done a couple years later. First, I wouldn't make the mistake of focusing on this article alone at the expense of all the other sources available. Second, the wording isn't entirely clear regarding if they're talking just soldiers or all ranks, as well as total members or just active ones. Lastly, I tend to think the feds would sooner or later stop repeating certain figures if they were significantly off.

Anyway, the 2004 follow up article to the one you posted above cited 166 for the Genovese, 189 for the Gambinos, 95 for the Luccheses, 69 for the Colombos, and 149 for the Bonannos. However, like I said, the feds cited 200 for the Genovese a few years later and a 2007 article cited 175-200 members for them as well as the Gambinos. At least 110 were cited for the Luccheses in the 2004 New Jersey OC report and approximately 100 for the family in 2007, 2011, and 2014 articles. The 2004 New Jersey report also had the Colombos at 112 members and the family was said to have about 100 in 2007 and 2014 articles. And, as I mentioned previously, despite the big numbers cited for the Bonannos previously, estimates had them at a little over 100 members in 2006 and 2014.

I should add that, while I think he's one of the better OC journalists out there, Raab's figures have always seemed to be relatively high. Capeci's have been closer to the average. Speaking of which, in an article just last month Capeci was quoted as saying there were "approximately 600 mob members currently operating in the New York area." Even if he's also counting inactive ones in that figure, it apparently wouldn't include those currently in prison. Those added would likely bring the total closer to the 700 figure we often see, ie 200 for the two larger families and 100 for the three smaller ones.

[Wiseguy]

All of that said, I think the whole "ranking" of families is mostly subjective bullshit.

I completely agree with this. Power and strength is not in numbers but within the individuals and members of the different Families. Power and strength is within dedication, motivation and smartness. If a Mafia member knows how to win a sitdown, that would make him powerful. If a small Family with only 30 members all win sitdowns with a Family of 120 members, the smaller Family will be more powerful than the bigger one. It´s at sitdowns power is meassured, not in the number of guns or associates a member has/how many members a Family has.

Huh? Sitdowns? There are several ways to measure power and numbers is absolutely one of them. Others would include stability of the organization, political or labor influence, or diversification of rackets, to name a few.

And not only is numbers a key factor, it's become more of a factor in the present day due to attrition. It's telling we have to go back 50 years to find examples of Lucchese or Magaddino. One of the biggest reasons the NY families are the strongest today is because of their numbers which makes the effects of attrition happen at a slower pace. Beyond that, generally speaking, the bigger a mob family is, the more rackets it will be involved in and the more ground it will cover.

To argue numbers don'the matter is like saying it doesn't matter if a family has 20 members or 200 members. And that's obviously false.

[Wiseguy]

So here's the 2001 article Pogo posted.

http://nypost.com/2002/05/19/mafia-help ... ing-drive/


Here's the 2004 follow up article. Same newspaper and same writer.

http://nypost.com/2004/02/08/mob-wants- ... ly-to-651/


For the sake of brevity regarding the point of debate here, we can look at the Gambinos. The 2001 article had them at 130 members. The 2004 article has them up to 189 members just a few years later, ie very close to that oft-quoted 200 figure. Even if we're only looking at these articles alone, and at face value, it shows the Gambinos are still quite a bit bigger than the three smaller families and, even if they dip down, can make a host of new members pretty quickly.

[Hailbritain]

So in 3 years they made 59 members ?? Or is that including members that where in prison and hit the streets again ? That's what I was saying to pogo , If this is true which I highly doubt there making 20 guys a year in that time period ??

[HairyKnuckles]

All of that said, I think the whole "ranking" of families is mostly subjective bullshit.

I completely agree with this. Power and strength is not in numbers but within the individuals and members of the different Families. Power and strength is within dedication, motivation and smartness. If a Mafia member knows how to win a sitdown, that would make him powerful. If a small Family with only 30 members all win sitdowns with a Family of 120 members, the smaller Family will be more powerful than the bigger one. It´s at sitdowns power is meassured, not in the number of guns or associates a member has/how many members a Family has.

Huh? Sitdowns? There are several ways to measure power and numbers is absolutely one of them. Others would include stability of the organization, political or labor influence, or diversification of rackets, to name a few.

And not only is numbers a key factor, it's become more of a factor in the present day due to attrition. It's telling we have to go back 50 years to find examples of Lucchese or Magaddino. One of the biggest reasons the NY families are the strongest today is because of their numbers which makes the effects of attrition happen at a slower pace. Beyond that, generally speaking, the bigger a mob family is, the more rackets it will be involved in and the more ground it will cover.

To argue numbers don'the matter is like saying it doesn't matter if a family has 20 members or 200 members. And that's obviously false.

"Huh?"??? Wiseguy, read my follow up post. And by your thinking, if let´s say the Colombos would make 150 new members, would that all of a sudden make them the most powerful Family? Power lays within the individuals, not in numbers.

If an individual has the ability to win a sitdown where disputes are settled for example over a specific racket, he is powerful. It has nothing to do with numbers. It´s around the table that matters and disputes are settled. If an individual from a smaller Family is brought to a sitdown to face the Genoveses thinking "I can´t win this because the Genoveses are 250 men strong", then he is in the fucking wrong profession. Sitdowns are an extremely vital part of Cosa Nostra culture and a place where power is accumulated and recognized.

Another vital power factor is friends and connections yes. But if one guy have direct access to one City Mayor, he will be more powerful than a guy with 20 shooters behind him. Again, power has nothing to do with numbers.

Measuring power is extremely complexed thing. A lot of factors has to be considered. And those who do Family rankings just by counting the members are donks. B is completely correct above, ""ranking" of families is mostly subjective bullshit."

[Rocco]

All of that said, I think the whole "ranking" of families is mostly subjective bullshit.

I completely agree with this. Power and strength is not in numbers but within the individuals and members of the different Families. Power and strength is within dedication, motivation and smartness. If a Mafia member knows how to win a sitdown, that would make him powerful. If a small Family with only 30 members all win sitdowns with a Family of 120 members, the smaller Family will be more powerful than the bigger one. It´s at sitdowns power is meassured, not in the number of guns or associates a member has/how many members a Family has.

Huh? Sitdowns? There are several ways to measure power and numbers is absolutely one of them. Others would include stability of the organization, political or labor influence, or diversification of rackets, to name a few.

And not only is numbers a key factor, it's become more of a factor in the present day due to attrition. It's telling we have to go back 50 years to find examples of Lucchese or Magaddino. One of the biggest reasons the NY families are the strongest today is because of their numbers which makes the effects of attrition happen at a slower pace. Beyond that, generally speaking, the bigger a mob family is, the more rackets it will be involved in and the more ground it will cover.

To argue numbers don'the matter is like saying it doesn't matter if a family has 20 members or 200 members. And that's obviously false.

Bigger isn't always better. Sure it will keep them around. Look at the Philly Family. They are still around small and have Never really ventured out of Loan Sharking, Gambling and Drug dealing. No unions, No Stock pump and dump. Only recently did Merlino venture into Healthcare fraud and more then likely it wasn't his idea but someone elses outside of the philly family which explains why no other Philly member was charged.. Sure NY is still around and strongest because of their large member status. Bonanno's pulled out of unions under massino and grew. Were they as large as the Westside ...no. But they escaped many major indictments during his tenure. Can you find indictments under his tenure before the dominos fell...sure. But nothing like the onslaught the Gambino's took their leadership during that same time. The issue here is trying to compare apples to apples. You think you are then you realize you have an apple and an orange...

[Pogo The Clown]

So here's the 2001 article Pogo posted.

http://nypost.com/2002/05/19/mafia-help ... ing-drive/


Here's the 2004 follow up article. Same newspaper and same writer.

http://nypost.com/2004/02/08/mob-wants- ... ly-to-651/


For the sake of brevity regarding the point of debate here, we can look at the Gambinos. The 2001 article had them at 130 members. The 2004 article has them up to 189 members just a few years later, ie very close to that oft-quoted 200 figure. Even if we're only looking at these articles alone, and at face value, it shows the Gambinos are still quite a bit bigger than the three smaller families and, even if they dip down, can make a host of new members pretty quickly.

From the way they read the first article is not counting members in prison (counting members going to prison as losses) and the the second is counting them in the total. Hence the disparity. Either way the exact numbers shows the Gambinos and Genovese being smaller than is generally believed.


Pogo

[SonnyBlackstein]

@ HK.

No one is saying sitsdowns are not important nor an inderviduals ability to negotiate at the table.

What my contention (and if I understand correctly Wiseguys) is, is that size, at the least, plays a part. To state that if the Westside And Philly had a sitdown, the respective sizes of the families would play zero part is just not correct, in my opinion. We're not saying this would be the primary or predominant or deciding factor, but to say it is not a factor at all, is wrong.
What makes someone a strong negotiator? The position they're in, or what they bring to the table. Whether it by large financial weight, the threat of overwhelming physical weight etc etc. These are, at a minimum, factors which play a part in determining ones ability in a sitdown, IMO.

To dismiss membership, size as irrelavent, or earnings, as irrelevant, is not a full understanding of negotiation.
Otherwise, what is power? Dismissing money, force/strength as not forms of power or leverage at the table, then what is?

[HairyKnuckles]

Sonny here´s my point:

Power can not be meassured alone by the number of soldiers a Family´s got. Making a power ranking on the Families using their sizes as basis is foolish and naive. Power lays within the individual and how that individual performs during sitdowns is one way to find out the true power within him.

[Wiseguy]

So in 3 years they made 59 members ?? Or is that including members that where in prison and hit the streets again ? That's what I was saying to pogo , If this is true which I highly doubt there making 20 guys a year in that time period ??

Seems like a lot. Which is why I wouldn't rest my case on those two articles. As I've always done, I look at all the sources and take them into consideration. And it seems the Genovese and Gambino families are still significantly larger than the other three families.

"Huh?"??? Wiseguy, read my follow up post. And by your thinking, if let´s say the Colombos would make 150 new members, would that all of a sudden make them the most powerful Family? Power lays within the individuals, not in numbers.

If an individual has the ability to win a sitdown where disputes are settled for example over a specific racket, he is powerful. It has nothing to do with numbers. It´s around the table that matters and disputes are settled. If an individual from a smaller Family is brought to a sitdown to face the Genoveses thinking "I can´t win this because the Genoveses are 250 men strong", then he is in the fucking wrong profession. Sitdowns are an extremely vital part of Cosa Nostra culture and a place where power is accumulated and recognized.

Another vital power factor is friends and connections yes. But if one guy have direct access to one City Mayor, he will be more powerful than a guy with 20 shooters behind him. Again, power has nothing to do with numbers.

Measuring power is extremely complexed thing. A lot of factors has to be considered. And those who do Family rankings just by counting the members are donks. B is completely correct above, ""ranking" of families is mostly subjective bullshit."

Who is "just counting members?" Nobody said that's the only factor. I said its a far more important factor, especially in the present day with regards to attrition, than you guys seem to realize.

For example, when the feds identify the Genovese family as the most powerful family, part of it is because they are one of the two largest families in the country. Part of it is because they're the most well organized and disciplined. Part of it is because they are the most diversified, controlling the largest bookmaking and loansharking operations, as well as having the most labor racketeering activity left. And so on. Sitdowns are almost irrelevant and beside the point.

Winning sitdowns can depend on something as simple as the strength of one's argument in that particular case or how much clout a guy has. I'm not sure how much the total strength of a family goes into it. And that's what we're talking about.

For instance, former Gambino associate Andrew Didonato talked about a sitdown between Nicky Corozzo and Anthony Casso. It was when a Gambino and Lucchese crew were butting heads, somebody took a shot at Didonato while he was standing next to Corozzo's car talking to him and the bullet hit the window next to Corozzo. During the sitdown, both Corozzo and Casso had good points about the beef but the whole thing ended when Corozzo pointed out that he (a made guy) had almost been hit for a bullet not even ment for him. That shut Casso up. Why? Because Corozzo had the strongest point, not because the Gambinos happened to be a more powerful family than the Luccheses.

From the way they read the first article is not counting members in prison (counting members going to prison as losses) and the the second is counting them in the total. Hence the disparity. Either way the exact numbers shows the Gambinos and Genovese being smaller than is generally believed.


Pogo

If you're talking about active members on the street, I would agree. Those in prison or otherwise inactive probably make up a big chunk of every family. But the total membership figures seem pretty consistent and it appears the feds still have the Genovese and Gambino families at around 200 total members. Of course, that's talking on average. Obviously the membership can dip for a time of they wait to make new guys. That appeared to be the case when, during that meeting in the late 1980's, Gotti reminded Chin the Genovese family had 40 slots to fill. But, as that 1995 article reported, 30 were made within the space of two years.

[B.]

I'm not sure why the focus ended up being on sitdowns. A boss wouldn't be involved in most sitdowns and sitdowns are there to iron out disputes within the membership on a case-by-case basis, with the final decision being based on an interpretation of longstanding rules, most of which have been in place for over a hundred years. Higher ranking members advocate for their underlings on both sides and in most cases there is a clear right/wrong. We've heard reports of sitdowns being manipulated behind the scenes to get a certain result, but for the most part they are entirely situational and based on predefined rules. Certain members understand the rules better and make better arguments, just like in court, but there is no history that I know of where a smaller family gets steamrolled in a dispute just because they are smaller, make less money, etc. Maybe someone else has examples.

There is this obsession with the "most powerful boss", "most powerful family", etc. Lucky Luciano, Vito Genovese, Carlo Gambino, John Gotti, etc. all get tagged as defacto "boss of bosses" during their time. While all of these guys wielded immense power and there are arguments for them being among the most powerful leaders of their time, most of this kind of talk is newspaper hype.

If you want to talk "most powerful family", then sure, there is reason to say that certain groups are much larger, have way more influence over industry, more rackets, and larger territory. But these groups aren't going to war with each other, and even then, look what happened in the 1920s/1930s -- you had two smaller groups, the Bonannos/Luccheses teaming up against the Genovese and the majority of the Gambinos. The latter had more members, money, and territory, but the smaller group won. There are many intangible factors that go into what makes a boss/family influential or powerful.

Look at Billy D'Elia. He had virtually no organization left, but because he was a boss he was awarded a certain level of respect and invited to help mediate disputes with other families. This reminds me of the Vincenzo Troia topic, as he was a Sicilian boss who was awarded a high level of respect in the US through his title and place in the Cosa Nostra network. It didn't matter that he didn't have a large family (or possibly any family) in the US at that time -- he was involved at the highest levels and wielded power based on who he was within Cosa Nostra and his ability to navigate national -- maybe international -- mob politics.

Sure Joe Massino wasn't the boss during the heyday of the US mob and can't be compared to Lucchese and Magaddino, but I brought them up because he is a modern example of a boss with a medium-to-smaller family who is said by multiple sources both inside and outside of the mob to have been a first among equals and his family was apparently held in high-esteem at that time.

[Lupara]

So in 3 years they made 59 members ?? Or is that including members that where in prison and hit the streets again ? That's what I was saying to pogo , If this is true which I highly doubt there making 20 guys a year in that time period ??

Seems like a lot. Which is why I wouldn't rest my case on those two articles. As I've always done, I look at all the sources and take them into consideration. And it seems the Genovese and Gambino families are still significantly larger than the other three families.

"Huh?"??? Wiseguy, read my follow up post. And by your thinking, if let´s say the Colombos would make 150 new members, would that all of a sudden make them the most powerful Family? Power lays within the individuals, not in numbers.

If an individual has the ability to win a sitdown where disputes are settled for example over a specific racket, he is powerful. It has nothing to do with numbers. It´s around the table that matters and disputes are settled. If an individual from a smaller Family is brought to a sitdown to face the Genoveses thinking "I can´t win this because the Genoveses are 250 men strong", then he is in the fucking wrong profession. Sitdowns are an extremely vital part of Cosa Nostra culture and a place where power is accumulated and recognized.

Another vital power factor is friends and connections yes. But if one guy have direct access to one City Mayor, he will be more powerful than a guy with 20 shooters behind him. Again, power has nothing to do with numbers.

Measuring power is extremely complexed thing. A lot of factors has to be considered. And those who do Family rankings just by counting the members are donks. B is completely correct above, ""ranking" of families is mostly subjective bullshit."

Who is "just counting members?" Nobody said that's the only factor. I said its a far more important factor, especially in the present day with regards to attrition, than you guys seem to realize.

For example, when the feds identify the Genovese family as the most powerful family, part of it is because they are one of the two largest families in the country. Part of it is because they're the most well organized and disciplined. Part of it is because they are the most diversified, controlling the largest bookmaking and loansharking operations, as well as having the most labor racketeering activity left. And so on. Sitdowns are almost irrelevant and beside the point.

Winning sitdowns can depend on something as simple as the strength of one's argument in that particular case or how much clout a guy has. I'm not sure how much the total strength of a family goes into it. And that's what we're talking about.

For instance, former Gambino associate Andrew Didonato talked about a sitdown between Nicky Corozzo and Anthony Casso. It was when a Gambino and Lucchese crew were butting heads, somebody took a shot at Didonato while he was standing next to Corozzo's car talking to him and the bullet hit the window next to Corozzo. During the sitdown, both Corozzo and Casso had good points about the beef but the whole thing ended when Corozzo pointed out that he (a made guy) had almost been hit for a bullet not even ment for him. That shut Casso up. Why? Because Corozzo had the strongest point, not because the Gambinos happened to be a more powerful family than the Luccheses.

From the way they read the first article is not counting members in prison (counting members going to prison as losses) and the the second is counting them in the total. Hence the disparity. Either way the exact numbers shows the Gambinos and Genovese being smaller than is generally believed.


Pogo

If you're talking about active members on the street, I would agree. Those in prison or otherwise inactive probably make up a big chunk of every family. But the total membership figures seem pretty consistent and it appears the feds still have the Genovese and Gambino families at around 200 total members. Of course, that's talking on average. Obviously the membership can dip for a time of they wait to make new guys. That appeared to be the case when, during that meeting in the late 1980's, Gotti reminded Chin the Genovese family had 40 slots to fill. But, as that 1995 article reported, 30 were made within the space of two years.

Yet it seems strange that the Bonannos at the time of that article had only 85 active members left on the street. Considering that they most likely had at least 110 members in New York, they would've had more guys in prison than the other two smaller families. That doesn't correspond with the fact that they were left mostly unscathed up until then.