The killing of The Gentle Don

Why was Angelo Bruno whacked?
I've always thought he was whacked because he didn't want to go in the drugsbussines.
But Lefty Ruggiero told Donnie Brasco that Bruno was whacked because he wanted whole Atlantic CIty for his own.

Why was the Docile/the Gentle don whacked?

Bruno's opposition to drug trafficking was one reason he was whacked--his underlings wanted some of the riches available through drugs. But another reason was that when casino gambling was legalized in Atlantic City, NJ, in 1977, Bruno, whose territory included AC, declared that AC would be an "open city," meaning that all the Mobs could claim some of the action. Bruno was being sensible: AC is close to New York, and he had alliances with the Gambino and Genovese Families that he needed to keep up. But the pazzos in Bruno's family felt otherwise. One of the wildest of the pazzos was Nicodemo (Little Nicky) Scarfo. Bruno had banished him to AC before gambling was legalized--it amounted to an exile for Scarfo at that time. But after gambling was legalized, Little Nicky got hungry for action. Although it is not clear that Scarfo was in on Bruno's assassination, he probably encouraged it, and eventually benefited from it--taking over the family after Phil (Chicken Man) Testa was blown up in a bombing.

Thanks TB...

Instead of starting a new topic i'll just post this question:
Why was Albert Anastasio whacked?
Was he whacked by Meyer Lansky cause Anastasia wanted to buy Havana-casino's?
Or was he whacked by Vito Genovese so that Vito's henchman Carlo Gambino became the boss (actually, carlo didn't became vito's henchman)?

Wasn't it (also) that the young wanted to take over from the Moustashepetes? I read about it in Crime Inc. a book of Martin Short.

Juvents, if you don't mind me answering your question....here goes.....

Anastasia was an enemy of Vito Genovese. Anastasia had done things that were against "commission" rules and was going a bit nutty. Lansky, Costello and Luciano figured it best to sit back and hoped that Genovese and Anastasia would eventually take each other out. But then Anastasia started to lean on Lansky for a piece of his gambling action in Cuba. Lansky would not let him in. So Anastasia decided that he himself would start his own gambling operation in Cuba. That was his fatal mistake. Lansky would not stand for it. So Anastasia was taken out.


Don Cardi

It goes deeper than that. Anastasia was an ally of Frank Costello. Luciano had appointed Genovese in charge of his family when he went to prison in 1936. But Genovese had to flee to Italy to escape a murder rap. Then Luciano put Costello in charge of his former family. Genovese deeply resented Costello but couldn't do anything about it. As Luciano's influence waned during his Italian exile, Genovese got bolder. First he tried to have Costello whacked. The attempt failed, but Costello got the message and retired. Then Genovese took after Anastasia, and installed his ally, Carlo Gambino, in his place. He called the famous Apalachin meeting in part to have Gambino anointed.
It's true that Anastasia wanted a piece of Lansky's Havana operation. But I don't believe it was a "hanging matter" between the two. Lansky always shared Havana action with Mafia partners. And, while it's possible, I doubt Lansky would have gone to the mat with Anastasia over a piece of the Havana action.

Of course I dont mind! Why should I?

Thanks everybody

TB, all that you said in your post above is true and more into detail. No doubt. But with the Lansky - Anastasia-Havana Casino thing, I think that it did get out of hand. As you say Lansky would always share the casino thing with others, however from what I've researched and read the implications are that it went deeper than that. Lansky was willing to cut Anastasia in for a small percentage, but that was not satisfying to Anastasia so he decided that he would start his own thing with the Havana Casinos.

Now there is no question that the Luciano, Costello, Genovese Anastasia conflict played a big part in the decided hit on Anastasia, but I believe that the Havana Casino disagreement may have played a major part in the decision to take Albert out of the picture. Maybe with all else that went on, this was one of the final straws that broke the camel's back. After all, when it came to Lansky and his partneres money, especially from the casino business, Lansky would take out whomever looked to cut into his action. Bugsy was probably his best friend, and he was taken out.


Don Cardi

Thanks for all your replies...

But to come back on the killing of Bruno, to get it clear:
Who was behind it? The heads of Gambino/Genovese? Bruno wanted to share AC, so what's the problem? The should have killed Scarfo...Or am i wrong?

Actually it was Bruno's Phialdelphia Family that did NOT want to share the profits being skimmed in Atlantic City with the New York Families.

When the New Jersey Gambling Act of 1977 was re-written, Bruno declared AC open territory for all to share in and his Philadelphia family objected to this way of thinking, wanting to keep all for themselves.

Living up to his nickname as " The Docile Boss," Bruno felt that there was enough money to be made for all and that by allowing AC to be open territory, a long and drawn out war could be avoided. But Bruno's consigliere Anthony Caponigro did not agree with this. The younger factions within the family wanted to deal in drugs, something that Bruno supposedly was also against. Couple this supposed ban on drug dealing with Bruno's wanting to allow other families into AC, there was a lot of disatisfaction within the family. Caponigro eventually convinced others within the Bruno family that AC should remain theirs and that drugs should be a part of their business. So they probably decided that Bruno had to go. Bruno was killed. However over time, without Bruno as boss, the family began to fall apart and would never be the same as when Bruno was the boss.


Don Cardi

OK, thanks.

Also you've got to understand that Scarfo was the John Gotti of Philly. He was cunning, ambitious, street smart and had a legion behind him that would follow him to war. I think Bruno was one of the top bosses ever to rule a US Family. Philly was his for years and he ruled it peacefully. but he didn't adapt with the times and didn't see what was happening in the streets. Much like Castellano. Dissent arose through the younger more ambitious fellows, especially Scarfo who had been banished to Atlantic City. Bruno was also a strong ally of Carlo Gambino's and it's no coincidence Bruno's death wasn't long after the death of Gambino.

And after the death of Bruno....did the family than held AC an open city? Or was whole AC for themselves, something the NY-families wouldnt accept....Or did they?

After Bruno's death, Scarfo and his associates turned the Philadelphia and AC Mob scenes into a modern version of the "Wild West" with their lunatic behavior. They became sitting ducks for law enforcement. Those who weren't killed in irrational shootouts were sent away for double digit sentences.

TB, all that you said in your post above is true and more into detail. No doubt. But with the Lansky - Anastasia-Havana Casino thing, I think that it did get out of hand. As you say Lansky would always share the casino thing with others, however from what I've researched and read the implications are that it went deeper than that. Lansky was willing to cut Anastasia in for a small percentage, but that was not satisfying to Anastasia so he decided that he would start his own thing with the Havana Casinos.

Now there is no question that the Luciano, Costello, Genovese Anastasia conflict played a big part in the decided hit on Anastasia, but I believe that the Havana Casino disagreement may have played a major part in the decision to take Albert out of the picture. Maybe with all else that went on, this was one of the final straws that broke the camel's back. After all, when it came to Lansky and his partneres money, especially from the casino business, Lansky would take out whomever looked to cut into his action. Bugsy was probably his best friend, and he was taken out.


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]This has been troubling me, so I looked up Robert Lacey's definitive biography of Meyer Lansky:
According to Lacey's research, NYC detectives investigating Anastasia's death found that he'd been meeting with Santos Trafficante, one of Lansky's Havana beneficiaries, and Roberto "Chiri" Mendoza, a Cuban who'd recently gotten the casino franchise for the new Havana Hilton. Since they believed Lansky had veto power over gambling in Havana, they naturally suspected him in Anastasia's death.
But further investigation ruled out Lansky. They found that 13 American "syndicates" had gambling franchises in Havana. Batista personally gave Mendoza the franchise for the Hilton because the hotel workers' union wanted a Cuban operator, and Mendoza was popular with the unions. Anastasia was looking for a piece of the action, and met with Mendoza in part because Anastasia was big in the US labor rackets and felt he had credibility with Cuban unions.

"Detectives could discern no role for Lansky in the barbershop murder," Lacey says. He then notes that the investigation turned toward domestic causes.

Now, I'm mindful that few things are certain in Mob history, even for a top-notch researcher like Lacey (whose Lansky book is just about the best Mob bio extant). But I believe him here. Batista himself gave Mendoza the franchise for the Hilton casino, and there's no way Lansky could or would ever go against his patron. Moreover, Lacey notes that Lansky was more than busy--and satisfied--with his brand-new hotel, the Havana Riviera.

The obvious reason seems the best reason: Vito Genovese was behind Anastasia's murder. He earlier arranged the shooting and forced retirement of Frank Costello. Anastasia was Costello's ally. By whacking Anastasia, he got rid of a very dangerous enemy and installed a grateful ally, Carlo Gambino, as head of Anastasia's family.

Thanks for that insight TB. It definitely shines a different light on the picture. You are my Mob Historian Mentor!

You know I bought Lacey's Lansky book, on your recommendation of course, but I just can't seem to get around to reading it. Everytime I put it next on my list, I find another book and wind up reading it instead.

I just picked up "The Green Felt Jungle." It's another book about Vegas and the mob. You familiar with it?


Don Cardi

I never read it through, DC. But I'll be guided by your recommendation.

Anastasia was taken out because Vito Genovese wanted Frank costello offthe Commsion and Costellos biggest allie on the commision was Anastasia, Genovese's case that he presented to the commsion was that Anastasia was going nutty he killed a local store owner for turning in a famed bank robber, he was infringing on otehr people's turf, and he was selling memberships to young hoodds. It was probably all nice and well since when Carlo Gambino toook over he set up Genovese for the drug rap that would hold him till he died and Gambino turned his family into the largest and most powerful family in history...it's was a shame when Paul took over and turned it into GM

Thanks al of you.

But i read the book "Contact Killer", its about Donald "Tony the Greek" Frankos. In this book he said that Joe Profaci was behind the Anastasia killing. In another book (im not sure but i thinks it was mafia encyclopedia from carl sefakis) i read that carlo gambino (an underboss) gave the contract to Joe Profaci (a boss)??

And according to "Tony The Greek" the Gallo-brothers, Carmine Persico and Sally D'Ambrosio carried out the hit of Albert Anastasia (those guys were all in the profaci-family)...

So what was Joe Profaci's role in the Anastasia-assasination?

BTW: @ Turnbull, what is the title of the book that you are talking about? Is it The Little Man?

?

juventus send turnbull a private message, that way you don't have to wait for him to go to the thread again.

OK, but I also want to know the answer on my question about Profaci. And there are more people than Tb who can answer that....