Understanding Chicago

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

Moderator: Capos

Post Reply
User avatar
Confederate
Full Patched
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:39 am
Location: Pensacola Beach & Jacksonville, FL

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by Confederate »

Villain wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:01 pm In addition, heres one quite small example on how the top three guys functioned during one period...DeLucia aka Ricca, Accardo and Giancana...also click on the next page...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... 3&tab=page
Good example of a consensus of 3 smart Businessmen rather than a "Dictatorship". More along the lines of "Horizontal".
I like the way they continually refer to Chicago as the "Syndicate". Ovid Demaris who wrote a great book called "Captive City" continually referred to Chicago as "The Syndicate".
" Everything Woke turns to shit".
Villain
Filthy Few
Posts: 5890
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:17 am

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by Villain »

Confederate wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:08 pm
Villain wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:01 pm In addition, heres one quite small example on how the top three guys functioned during one period...DeLucia aka Ricca, Accardo and Giancana...also click on the next page...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... 3&tab=page
Good example of a consensus of 3 smart Businessmen rather than a "Dictatorship". More along the lines of "Horizontal".
I like the way they continually refer to Chicago as the "Syndicate". Ovid Demaris who wrote a great book called "Captive City" continually referred to Chicago as "The Syndicate".
I agree.

Another interesting thing to note is that whenever some boss or chief executive went to prison, besides being replaced, it seems that same individual still held some high authority within the organization.

For example when Battaglia went to prison, reports say that people were constantly carrying messages and that the imprisoned boss still had jurisdiction over his old crew and also kept his vote.

Another example was Giancana, meaning some reports say that besides being replaced in 1965, by 1974 he allegedly still had the authority to order or cancel hits or call for meetings. In fact, some say that after the death of Battaglia in 73 and the murder of Giancana in 75, thats when Aiuppa officially became the boss.
Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God - Corinthians 6:9-10
User avatar
Confederate
Full Patched
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:39 am
Location: Pensacola Beach & Jacksonville, FL

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by Confederate »

Villain wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:28 pm
Confederate wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:08 pm
Villain wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:01 pm In addition, heres one quite small example on how the top three guys functioned during one period...DeLucia aka Ricca, Accardo and Giancana...also click on the next page...

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... 3&tab=page
Good example of a consensus of 3 smart Businessmen rather than a "Dictatorship". More along the lines of "Horizontal".
I like the way they continually refer to Chicago as the "Syndicate". Ovid Demaris who wrote a great book called "Captive City" continually referred to Chicago as "The Syndicate".
I agree.

Another interesting thing to note is that whenever some boss or chief executive went to prison, besides being replaced, it seems that same individual still held some high authority within the organization.

For example when Battaglia went to prison, reports say that people were constantly carrying messages and that the imprisoned boss still had jurisdiction over his old crew and also kept his vote.

Another example was Giancana, meaning some reports say that besides being replaced in 1965, by 1974 he allegedly still had the authority to order or cancel hits or call for meetings. In fact, some say that after the death of Battaglia in 73 and the murder of Giancana in 75, thats when Aiuppa officially became the boss.
It seems to me that Giancana was a high level former Boss who had direct connection to the Top 3 & was suppose to share his overseas ventures with them which never happened. It didn't seem like he had any more power within the Outfit after he left Chicago but I could be wrong?

According to the F.B.I Tapes, Giancana basically didn't think much of Auippa. In fact, when he came back to Chicago, they sent Cerone to talk to Giancana because he probably would listen to him more than Auippa. lol
" Everything Woke turns to shit".
Frank
Full Patched
Posts: 2736
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 1:06 am

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by Frank »

Villain wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 3:28 pm Aiuppa was the last Mohican of the old Capone/Cicero faction. He and Ansani both worked for Ralph Capone and John Moore aka Claudie Maddox. Accardo was Elmwood Park and W Grand Av, meaning he came from a different crew.

Alex played on both sides but he originally came from the old Capone faction aka the South Side Mob. Besides the Loop, Chinatown and South Side, Alex also had many interests around Cicero, especially the southern part where Aiuppa used to be mostly active. When Giancana took over, Alex received interests on both sides

So my point is that Alex probably knew and was more closely connected to Aiuppa rather than to Accardo, and I also bet that he gave his vote for Aiuppa to take the boss position. BUT it seems that Accardo trusted Alex very much and the Greek always had to check with the old man regarding every action, including personal stuff, something only a made man wouldve done.

@Confederate i was thinking more about the CN traditions which they received during the late 70s, and from that point on Alex was no longer in the top three
I was just kidding about the hit, but everything that has come out, Alex and Accardo always seem like they were pretty tight. That's a good guess that Alex endorced Aiuppa to be boss. Haven't seen much of what the relationship was like between Aiuppa and Accardo, but they must have known each other for years. It seems like they were all on the same page from 70 till 86. And also don't cross those old farts.
B.
Men Of Mayhem
Posts: 10692
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by B. »

The FBI report about Alex referring to the organization as "they" is another piece that is very telling. Just like the transcript of Humphreys saying "you guys are the boss" to Ferraro, we have Alex referring to the organization using outsider language ("they" not "us" or "we") despite his important role in the greater underworld network controlled by the Chicago mafia. This shows that both Alex and Humphreys understood they were not part of the same organization even if they had equal or greater functional power to many members of the organization.

The many examples you gave of Alex's importance and the way that his functional power transcended mafia ranks is very interesting and I wouldn't deny any of those examples, but it seems like we're in agreement that he was technically outside of the Cosa Nostra power structure and so far I haven't seen evidence that he was a "member" despite his position in the greater Chicago underworld.

Fratianno says influential Chicago member Roselli used the term "outsider". Love or hate Fratianno, he did nothing to discredit the influence of these non-Italian associates, only described them in context with the Chicago Cosa Nostra family, which maintained a boss, underboss, consigliere, and capodecina. They maintained this structure long after their known contact with other families dwindled and they left the Commission, so it's not just to appease other Cosa Nostra families around the US. Why would they hold a traditional induction ceremony including only Italians in 1983 if their only interest in Cosa Nostra was to keep up appearances?

Broken record: "outfit" appears to be an informal term for midwest and western mafia groups that became a popular way to describe the entire organized crime network controlled by the Chicago Cosa Nostra family. These non-Italians were influential figures who were given specific duties that gave them trust and authority within the entire network. I understand it's much easier just to call this network of relationships the "Outfit" instead of writing paragraphs about it like me, but the problem is people don't differentiate between the Chicago Cosa Nostra "outfit" and the more generalized underworld "Outfit". It seems like everyone here more or less agrees there is a difference, but the language people use is very loose and muddy, i.e. "member".

The average associate of the Gambino family is a "member" of "organized crime" affiliated with the Gambino family, but not a made member of the Gambino family. Joe Watts was an organized crime leader affiliated with the Gambino family whose status and influence was acknowledged by mafia leaders, but he was not a "full-fledged member" or "made guy" -- he was an important associate who ate dinner in Paul Castellano's kitchen alongside captains and had direct access to the next boss, John Gotti. Chicago and NYC are different cities and there is no denying Chicago had unique qualities, but I have yet to see anything that substantiates the idea that non-Italian associates were "members" unless it's used loosely to describe them as part of the overall underworld network associated with the Chicago mafia family.

An associate can range from a pickpocket who lives in his car to a criminal mastermind with ten houses, or even a senator with no criminal history. An associate can be forced to wait outside of a restaurant in the pouring rain to hold an umbrella for another associate, or he can be someone who gets invited to the boss's summer cottage and carries messages to the underboss. Hell, a boss himself can be a former hijacker who gambles all of his tribute money away, or he can be the son of a wealthy importer who runs his own successful business and accepts no tribute. The actual qualities and activities of mafia figures vary dramatically but the ranks and structure remain consistent.

In contrast, someone can be a member of a Cosa Nostra family but not an active "member" of "organized crime", though this is rare in recent decades. A mafia family includes (mostly) criminals but doesn't require criminal activity for membership. Being an important criminal doesn't make someone a member. In the US you can't be arrested for membership/association alone like in Sicily because membership isn't directly related to someone's racketeering activity.

Gus Alex was without a doubt a leader of organized crime in Chicago which gave him immense influence with Chicago mafia figures. Jimmy Coonan, leader of the Westies, was an organized crime leader in NYC, too, but he was an associate of the Gambino family. Alex was more important than Coonan, but in Cosa Nostra terms he was an associate. If you want to call Chicago organized crime "the Outfit", that certainly makes Alex a leader of "the Outfit", but that is different from him being an official leader of the Chicago Cosa Nostra "outfit", as the term was also used by all other midwestern and LA mafia families.
Villain wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 3:28 pm @Confederate i was thinking more about the CN traditions which they received during the late 70s, and from that point on Alex was no longer in the top three
Are you talking about the induction ceremony? Al Capone becoming boss of the family after Loverde and being appointed to the Commission in 1931 is as much of an indication as you could hope to get that Capone traces his lineage as boss to the same organization previously headed by various Sicilians. His affiliation with Phil D'Andrea shows continuity, too, given D'Andrea's mafia lineage. It's like Michael DiLeonardo -- most of the info about him makes him out to be a "Gotti guy" because he was made under John Gotti and close to Junior Gotti, but his bloodline shows continuity with the old D'Aquila regime. He wasn't made into a "new" organization, just like D'Andrea wasn't made into a "new" organization under Capone even if Capone and his people were dominant by then.

As covered in the original post, even the most traditional Sicilian families in the US were inconsistent about the ceremony and some of the traditions, so I'm not understanding the idea of them "receiving" the Cosa Nostra traditions in the late 1970s, a time when they were becoming progressively more distanced from other Cosa Nostra organizations.

The DeCavalcantes being forced to re-induct members with the traditional ceremony in the late 1980s does not mean they weren't Cosa Nostra before that when they weren't using the ceremony. It just means they were loose with the ceremony. The same applies to Chicago -- they were loose with the traditions of Cosa Nostra for all of the reasons discussed in this thread, but they were still a Cosa Nostra organization.

Regardless of the power dynamics and terminology used, we know Chicago had a formal structure that was easily understood in terms that other mafia figures in the US recognized.
CabriniGreen
Full Patched
Posts: 3156
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 6:09 am

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by CabriniGreen »

I think the guys are saying, powerful as a Joe Watts was, he never ran a crew, gave orders to a crew or made man, or was placed in an administrative position like Alex or Guzik....

Is this correct?
User avatar
Confederate
Full Patched
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:39 am
Location: Pensacola Beach & Jacksonville, FL

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by Confederate »

B. wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 5:42 pm
The many examples you gave of Alex's importance and the way that his functional power transcended mafia ranks is very interesting and I wouldn't deny any of those examples, but it seems like we're in agreement that he was technically outside of the Cosa Nostra power structure and so far I haven't seen evidence that he was a "member" despite his position in the greater Chicago underworld.
You are debating "Semantics" at this point.

You are correct in saying that Alex was outside the Cosa Nostra Power Structure, BUT, he was a "Member" & part of the Power structure of the Outfit.
Gus Alex & Murray Humphreys gave orders to made guys in Chicago. Joe Watts never gave "orders" to any made guys in the Gambino Family. The only thing Murray Humphreys & Gus Alex could never do was represent Chicago on the Commission. They were not restricted from being one the top 5 guys in "The Outfit". They were not outsiders TO THE OUTFIT. There is no other way to explain it.
" Everything Woke turns to shit".
B.
Men Of Mayhem
Posts: 10692
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by B. »

If you say someone is in the administration, that refers to a specific position in Cosa Nostra.

Joe Watts is absolutely a valid comparison to associates like Gus Alex:

- Gambino capodecina Michael Dileonardo testified that in 1989, Joe Watts approached DiLeonardo (who was then a soldier), capodecina Jack D'Amico, and proposed member Dominick Borghese and gave them orders from boss John Gotti to kill associate Fred Weiss. Weiss was to be killed because it was feared he would cooperate against an associate of capodecina Jimmy Failla in the garbage industry.

- In context with the above orders, DiLeonardo described Joe Watts as "part of the inner circle", meaning the Gotti leadership, but refers to him as a "close associate". This is a clear example, documented under oath in court, of associate Joe Watts giving orders to a Gambino capodecina and soldier to kill a family associate involved with another Gambino capodecina.

- DiLeonardo also testified that the Westies were "direct" with John Gotti and Joe Watts, showing that Watts had authority over another significant organized crime group that were technically associates of the Gambino family.

- In another incident after John Gotti was in prison, DiLeonardo testified that Watts had "carte blanche" in the construction industry and Junior Gotti, Jack D'Amico, and DiLeonardo took Watts at his "word" in a construction-related beef for this reason, allowing Watts to win the sitdown. Recall that multiple made members of the Gambino family were murdered in construction beefs during the Gotti regime, so this illustrates Watts' power in a highly competitive mafia-controlled industry.

- In his interview with Scarpo, DiLeonardo said that Joe Watts pushed for DiLeonardo to become inducted as a made member. This shows that as a non-Italian associate, Watts had enough influence to help an Italian associate become a made member of the Gambino family.

- Watts' close relationship to Gotti was not a one-off, either, as it has been reported that Watts had a similarly close relationship to boss Paul Castellano and capodecina/underboss Tommy Bilotti. There is a well-known photograph of Watts, capodecina Frank DeCicco, and boss Paul Castellano eating dinner in Castellano's home.

- It's been reported that following the murder of underboss Tommy Bilotti, Joe Watts inherited Bilotti's lucrative loanshark operation on Staten Island.

- A recorded discussion between Gambino soldier Nick Stefanelli and Philadephia capodecina Joe Licata mentions Joe Watts in context with the Gambino leadership.

--

This is not all of the information that outlines Watts' significant position with the Gambino family despite his associate status. He was undeniably a leader within the underworld network controlled by the Gambino family, but nobody refers to him as a made member or assigns him a specific rank in the hierarchy even though he carried orders from the boss to a capodecina and held more influence and power in Gambino family activities than most members if not leaders.
User avatar
Antiliar
Full Patched
Posts: 4371
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by Antiliar »

There's a file in Mary Farrell with a doc discussing John Rosselli refusing to take orders from Murray Humphreys, but either Giancana or Ferraro told him he had to listen to him (MF seems to be experiencing problems right now, so I can't link). So it seems that within the Chicago Outfit that high-ranking non-made members like Guzik, Murray and Alex could give orders to lower-ranking made guys.

As for how the Outfit fits in within the national LCN, I would say that the Chicago Outfit *contains* the Chicago LCN, so it's not an exact equivalent. Humphreys was a high-ranking Outfit member, but he wasn't an LCN member. Guzik, Murray and Alex had their own crews and were considered to be on the level of caporegimes AND advisers.
B.
Men Of Mayhem
Posts: 10692
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by B. »

An important aspect to those politics is that Giancana instructed Roselli he had to listen to Humphreys, so the Cosa Nostra boss was still indirectly giving the order. Even if Humphreys didn't consult with the Cosa Nostra leadership for every order he made, he was authorized by the Cosa Nostra leadership. Vincent Basciano took orders carried by non-Italian lawyer Tommy Lee because it was authorized by Massino. Obviously Humphreys was a powerful Chicago figure and not just a messenger, but the same politics apply.

Like the above example of Joe Watts giving orders to a Gambino capodecina and having "carte blanche" in the Gambino-controlled construction industry over made members, it was understood that Watts was authorized by the Cosa Nostra boss. In essence, that makes it Gotti giving the order even if it was Watts acting on his own, as he did in construction. A similar situation was reported with a lucrative credit card scam where Watts was challenged by capodecina Nick Corozzo and acting boss Junior Gotti, but the situation was handled amicably by taking tribute from Italian associate Frank Cali (who was involved in the scam) rather than challenging Watts outright.

The problem with all of this is that people refer to the Chicago mafia organization as the "Chicago Outfit" and the Chicago "organized crime" organization as the "Chicago Outfit". Everyone seems to agree there is a distinction that was more relevant outside of Chicago but less relevant in Chicago but they use identical language for both the organization and the membership. I don't see evidence that it was completely irrelevant within Chicago, either, given that member Roselli considered them "outsiders" and both Alex and Humphrey themselves both used outsider language about the mafia leadership ("they" + "you guys are the boss") within Chicago. They didn't operate in a vacuum either, and from the earlier member CI and CW accounts I gave, we can see how the Chicago mafia was presented to other mafia groups, including those very close to them -- the same as other mafia groups.

This isn't semantics in my opinion, but a matter of accurately describing the organization. My impression is that the Chicago organization has been poorly represented, if not misrepresented, in most written accounts. The functional side of things seems to be well-researched and presented accurately. I do wonder though if there is an element of tunnel vision, too, that has shaped the way Chicago is written about.
Last edited by B. on Mon Mar 16, 2020 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Confederate
Full Patched
Posts: 3404
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:39 am
Location: Pensacola Beach & Jacksonville, FL

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by Confederate »

Antiliar wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:22 pm There's a file in Mary Farrell with a doc discussing John Rosselli refusing to take orders from Murray Humphreys, but either Giancana or Ferraro told him he had to listen to him (MF seems to be experiencing problems right now, so I can't link). So it seems that within the Chicago Outfit that high-ranking non-made members like Guzik, Murray and Alex could give orders to lower-ranking made guys.

As for how the Outfit fits in within the national LCN, I would say that the Chicago Outfit *contains* the Chicago LCN, so it's not an exact equivalent. Humphreys was a high-ranking Outfit member, but he wasn't an LCN member. Guzik, Murray and Alex had their own crews and were considered to be on the level of caporegimes AND advisers.
100% Spot on. Very well stated.
" Everything Woke turns to shit".
Villain
Filthy Few
Posts: 5890
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:17 am

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by Villain »

B. wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:50 pm An important aspect to those politics is that Giancana instructed Roselli he had to listen to Humphreys, so the Cosa Nostra boss was still indirectly giving the order. Even if Humphreys didn't consult with the Cosa Nostra leadership for every order he made, he was authorized by the Cosa Nostra leadership. Vincent Basciano took orders carried by non-Italian lawyer Tommy Lee because it was authorized by Massino. Obviously Humphreys was a powerful Chicago figure and not just a messenger, but the same politics apply.

Like the above example of Joe Watts giving orders to a Gambino capodecina and having "carte blanche" in the Gambino-controlled construction industry over made members, it was understood that Watts was authorized by the Cosa Nostra boss. In essence, that makes it Gotti giving the order even if it was Watts acting on his own, as he did in construction. A similar situation was reported with a lucrative credit card scam where Watts was challenged by capodecina Nick Corozzo and acting boss Junior Gotti, but the situation was handled amicably by taking tribute from Italian associate Frank Cali (who was involved in the scam) rather than challenging Watts outright.

The problem with all of this is that people refer to the Chicago mafia organization as the "Chicago Outfit" and the Chicago "organized crime" organization as the "Chicago Outfit". Everyone seems to agree there is a distinction that was more relevant outside of Chicago but less relevant in Chicago but they use identical language for both the organization and the membership. I don't see evidence that it was completely irrelevant within Chicago, either, given that member Roselli considered them "outsiders" and both Alex and Humphrey themselves both used outsider language about the mafia leadership ("they" + "you guys are the boss") within Chicago. They didn't operate in a vacuum either, and from the earlier member CI and CW accounts I gave, we can see how the Chicago mafia was presented to other mafia groups, including those very close to them -- the same as other mafia groups.

This isn't semantics in my opinion, but a matter of accurately describing the organization. My impression is that the Chicago organization has been poorly represented, if not misrepresented, in most written accounts. The functional side of things seems to be well-researched and presented accurately. I do wonder though if there is an element of tunnel vision, too, that has shaped the way Chicago is written about.
You are picking up stuff only the ones which fit perfectly for your view and CN perspective. What about Alex telling Giancana to stop fucking Caifanos wife and that it was bad for business? What about Alex giving orders to made guys and capos?

If he was authorized to give orders or kill people, than whats the difference? Made guys did the same thing, they asked for permission. I really cannot see the difference between a guy who went through a ceremony and a guy who didnt, but still they had the same level of power within the organization...thats why the Outfit never had the traditional ceremony and from 1928 until the late 70s, Capone was probably the first and last guy who went through a traditional one...just kidding but who knows?!

Roselli was first an outsider but later when he joined Chicago he obviously had problems with taking orders from a non-Italian but that was the Chicago way and he had to take it.

Yes i agree that many people still look at the Chi Outfit as a simple CN organization like the rest of the families but thats quite far from the truth. I know that right now you are new to the Chi subject and its difficult for you to absorb some things, since that happens with everyone who rarely enters this type of subject. Usually people start to compare them to the Gambinos like in this case but thats where they all make the same mistake
Last edited by Villain on Tue Mar 17, 2020 1:19 am, edited 4 times in total.
Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God - Corinthians 6:9-10
Villain
Filthy Few
Posts: 5890
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:17 am

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by Villain »

This was posted at least a dozen times in the past but it seems that we need to do it again...regarding the traditional inductions....

...now, we dont know for sure if the Chicago Outfit from its formation or beginning was making people in the traditional way or the Sicilian way, with burning photos of saints and pouring blood from their fingers etc., but we can presume that Al Capone was probably made in the old fashioned way by the New York Sicilian Mafia and the ten members which were allegedly made by his own hand, were probably made in the same way, again under the jurisdiction of the Mafia on the east coast. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... pone_ricca

Since during that period the Capone Mob was considered as a crew for the Masseria clan in Chicago, it is also possible that the whole tradition lasted for some time and later possibly transformed to some extent, or until the moment Capone became the boss of the Mafia in Chicago and realized his power of making new members. In plane words, Capone possibly simplified the whole process of making new members by eliminating the traditional elements such as pricking fingers and burning paper, but instead he only preserved the oath of silence and hardcore devotion to the crime family, and this information allegedly comes from one long time made member of the Outfit known as Louis Fratto. So we also know about sponsors like Sam Giancana being sponsored by Louis Campagna and Frank Nitto in 1939
(https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... s%20prison), or even Dominick Blasi who was allegedly sponsored by one Outfit capo known as James Belcastro in 1945, and story goes that he was also not made in the whole traditional way , which later ill explain it (http://www.americanmafia.com/Feature_Articles_143.html). So this possibly lasted until the late 1950's, and during the next period, the whole oath taking ceremony was completely nixed by the new Chicago leaders because of one simple reason. Now I'll try to also explain why and what was the main reason.

This document is from 1963, and one secret informant known only as T-4 indicates that he wasn’t aware of any ritual or taking an oath regarding the membership for the Chicago “family”. He also indicates that one member is sponsored by a district boss or someone from higher stature and then, the new member was simply placed under the payroll of the same boss from whom he worked for. Another interesting thing is that this same informant was aware of all the money flow within the syndicate, especially that one half of the proceedings went “out West”, meaning the top administration from the West Side, and the rest went to the made guy and his district boss.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... 9&tab=page

Another document and informant from 1963, states the same thing, meaning he wasn’t aware of any oaths or rituals during making ceremonies. Even though this might be the same previous informant, here we can see that he was close to Chuck English and that the informant’s father was a member of the old Capone organization and possible member of Cosa Nostra. The informant was also aware that his father wasn’t telling him everything, still he felt that with his childhood and current association with Chicago’s criminal element, he would’ve heard regarding some rituals or oaths.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... 3&tab=page (page 3 and 4)

My point here is that none of the informants ever said something about burning papers or pricking fingers or any kind of Sicilian type of ritual, but instead only one of them mentioned taking an oath of secrecy previous of 1957. I think that this can also be backed by one 1976, New York Times article in which one Peter Diapoulas, an alleged close associate of Joey Gallo, a made member of the NY Mafia during the late 1950's, said that the late mobster has told him that the burning paper custom was no longer used and that a new member just swore to an oath of silence (http://www.nytimes.com/1976/03/21/archi ... ilies.html). The other interesting thing is that in 1957 the books were allegedly closed by the top Mafia commission and no new members were brought in, although they allegedly went along with a few initiations during the 19 or 20 year period of closing the books, but only when it was absolutely necessary, and this was allegedly only for the east coast families.


So if the east coast families closed books in 1957, than that’s the same year when Sam Giancana was elevated to a boss position of the Chicago family, and many evidences point out that Giancana didnt care about the secrecy of taking an oath or any kind of formal initiation, but instead he simply brought new members into the organization by giving them assignments or tasks. According to this next document from 1967 I believe states that there were no formal ceremonies during that period and that one candidate was tested in different ways by giving him various tasks, occasionally contract killings. Later that same candidate appeared before the Outfit’s top leadership which were aware of his background and further questioned him and even possibly gave him few more additional tasks if it was needed. If the candidate was accepted, in the end he was told that he was “in” or “made”. In addition it is also possible that Dominick Blasi was made in the similar way back in the mid 1940's which again shows the continuance of the simplified method. In the end, the informants also advised that even if someone was shelved or retired, still that same member can be called upon by the top leadership at any given time.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... 1&tab=page


So my next point is that the whole nixing of the traditional initiation ceremonies within the Chicago family went on a higher level mostly because the books were closed by the Cosa Nostra “central station” on the east coast at the time, additionally backed with the possible transformation of the whole induction process because of the government heat. In fact Giancana did the same thing, out of the same reason which occurred back during the 1940's. This means that during the closure period, the rest of the crime families, especially the ones from around the Midwest, had to choose on their own if they wanted to keep the traditional way or not. Obviously the Chicago faction chose to continue with the non-traditional way of making people, until the late 1970’s. Here’s one document which shows how one Chicago Outfit big shot known as Joey DiVarco advised one alleged new candidate that he was about to be proposed for membership in near future since the books were closed for long time but were about to be re-opened and that an initiation ceremony was going to take place. Proof for that is during that period, or should I say 1976 or 77 (the New York experts can correct me on this), the books were allegedly re-opened again and possibly the traditional way of making new members was brought back in effect within the Chicago crime family to some extent or maybe even the whole thing.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.htm ... o_ceremony


So it is possible that when the books were re-opened, the Chicago family was forced to adopt the whole traditional Sicilian way with burning cards and pricking fingers. Proof for that might be the wiretapped conversation between Frank Calabrese Sr. and his son Frank jr., which occurred during the famous Family Secrets Operation and during their chatting Frank sr. said something like “Their fingers got cut and everybody puts the fingers together and all the blood running down. Then they take pictures, put them in your hand, burn them. Holy pictures" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ ... hopped-dad). So if Frank Calabrese was made in 1983 by the boss Joey Aiuppa and the acting adviser Al Tornabene, than this confirms my previous statement. This was also confirmed by another informant who came out six years later and was known as William Jahoda. According to him, one Outfit guy known as Rocco Infelice once told him that they (The Outfit) were making people in the "old way", meaning the Sicilian way. So this possibly means that all of the ceremonies which took place during the 1980's were made in the old style.


Sorry guys for all of the edits but i later noticed that none of the links were working
Last edited by Villain on Tue Mar 17, 2020 2:41 am, edited 10 times in total.
Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God - Corinthians 6:9-10
Villain
Filthy Few
Posts: 5890
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2014 12:17 am

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by Villain »

I think we should finish the whole non-Italian debate with the help of one time acting boss Jack Cerone....we cant go higher than this...

Back in 1962 the feds recorded a conversation with the help of a hidden wiretap, between Outfit big shot Jack Cerone and Jewish mobster Dave Yaras. Cerone bragged about some killings that he and his partner Johnny Whales, a Polack, pulled off in the old days. Unfortunately, one day Johnny “went off his rocker” and disappeared. He had become afraid of the Italians and told Cerone he feared that they might kill him. Than Cerone told Yaras “You see, Dave, he didn’t understand that we (The Outfit) got Jews and Polacks also. I told him this but he was still afraid.”
Do not be deceived, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God - Corinthians 6:9-10
User avatar
Angelo Santino
Filthy Few
Posts: 6564
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:15 am

Re: Understanding Chicago

Post by Angelo Santino »

B. wrote: Mon Mar 16, 2020 9:50 pm An important aspect to those politics is that Giancana instructed Roselli he had to listen to Humphreys, so the Cosa Nostra boss was still indirectly giving the order. Even if Humphreys didn't consult with the Cosa Nostra leadership for every order he made, he was authorized by the Cosa Nostra leadership. Vincent Basciano took orders carried by non-Italian lawyer Tommy Lee because it was authorized by Massino. Obviously Humphreys was a powerful Chicago figure and not just a messenger, but the same politics apply.

Like the above example of Joe Watts giving orders to a Gambino capodecina and having "carte blanche" in the Gambino-controlled construction industry over made members, it was understood that Watts was authorized by the Cosa Nostra boss. In essence, that makes it Gotti giving the order even if it was Watts acting on his own, as he did in construction. A similar situation was reported with a lucrative credit card scam where Watts was challenged by capodecina Nick Corozzo and acting boss Junior Gotti, but the situation was handled amicably by taking tribute from Italian associate Frank Cali (who was involved in the scam) rather than challenging Watts outright.

The problem with all of this is that people refer to the Chicago mafia organization as the "Chicago Outfit" and the Chicago "organized crime" organization as the "Chicago Outfit". Everyone seems to agree there is a distinction that was more relevant outside of Chicago but less relevant in Chicago but they use identical language for both the organization and the membership. I don't see evidence that it was completely irrelevant within Chicago, either, given that member Roselli considered them "outsiders" and both Alex and Humphrey themselves both used outsider language about the mafia leadership ("they" + "you guys are the boss") within Chicago. They didn't operate in a vacuum either, and from the earlier member CI and CW accounts I gave, we can see how the Chicago mafia was presented to other mafia groups, including those very close to them -- the same as other mafia groups.

This isn't semantics in my opinion, but a matter of accurately describing the organization. My impression is that the Chicago organization has been poorly represented, if not misrepresented, in most written accounts. The functional side of things seems to be well-researched and presented accurately. I do wonder though if there is an element of tunnel vision, too, that has shaped the way Chicago is written about.
I see it as a box within a box, the Chicago LCN being within the overall Chicago outfit. That's really no different than any other Family. I keep going back to Cleveland because Maishe Rockman was Scalish' brother in law whom the Family elders looked to for succession, Angelo Lonardo goes into this in testimony. Its important to take into account that this wasn't a normal procedure, the boss of 30+ years died, leaving behind an unnecessarily small membership with an even wider pool of associates. It was Maishe Rockman who suggested Licavoli and some believe its because he thought he could control him. Rockman was never an initiated member of LCN, and putting aside what Lonardo said about "everyone looking to him as the boss after Scalish' death", the decision to elect Licavoli wasn't exclusively an LCN affair, to take Rockman out of the story is the same as overlooking anything before 1931 because that's before Luciano formed the 5 families and told men to be more businesslike and shave their staches.

Each of these non-Itals were "with" this group or that group. We've had more NYC informants who come from a Sicilian-centric region who make the distinction between made and associate. Perhaps this comes from their being Five Groups in one city. Chicago on the other hand I've seen 'Made member" and "Cicero Crew Member" to describe people. The terminology is different but its nearly identical in that the "crew member" has not been documented as being made. It's like Henry Hill, if there were any wiretaps of others speaking about while on the street I'm sure we'd hear: "He's with the Paul Vario crew" and not: "He's a friend of ours, he's with Paul." Either way, lacking the button, they still play an integral role in how these families operate, have grown, expanded really since their inception.

Perhaps we need to create a grading system for Associates and and classify different types. Alex and Rockman in one category and go on down from admin to leadership to operational to relational etc.
Post Reply