conte was in the biz until he got pinched..no doubt

Two different cases, I think my point was obvious. It is that maybe Conte was not as involved, or no longer involved, with drugs, and had moved on to other Mafia activities. Him pleading guilty to a murder, but not the drug charge, leads me to believe that is what it was. You seem to disagree, I'm sure some others might, that's fine. Thing to realize is that FBI has put out wrong information in past, and they do control what informers say to a certain extent.

The problem with that thinking is that it's basically gives a free pass for anyone to disagree with the feds anytime they feel like it. Now, if they have good reason to disagree, with demonstrable evidence, then fine. But you seem to have just started from the position that Conte hadn't been involved in drugs for a long time but without any reason for believing so.

Anyway, when Gravano approached Conte, he told him the Gotti administration wanted the same arrangement he had with Castellano. Conte's response was that he had been out of the business for a while, after which Gravano instructed him to start back up again. So, yes, Conte did stop dealing for a while but it wasn't before he gave a lot of drug money to Castellano. In fact, that's why Gotti had Gravano approach him in the first place, i.e. the money he heard Conte had passed up to the old boss.

Hold on: Evidence that he was selling heroin should come first, not people having to prove that something did not occur. I have seen all the stories on him, they repeat same thing. I just don't see how they can monitor a person for so long, have so many informants wearing wires talking to him, and not have anything to show.

Do you think Gotti already knew he would have enough captains backing him ?
If he just killed Castellano without seeing if he had backing first that was a risky gamble to take.

Even before Gravano flipped, the indictment against Conte came about in the late 1980's because a confidential informer provided evidence that Conte was trafficking in heroin. It was alleged that "Conte does not have physical contact over the heroin but directs the importation and distribution business through other members of Sicilian organized crime; and that he received $5,000 for every kilo of Sicilian heroin imported and sold in the New York metropolitan area." Two others, Tommaso Buscetta and Sammy Gravano, confirmed this. Italian authorities were also able to trace $1.9 million of Conte's drug money to Switzerland.

I think Gravano is not a reliable source. He would have said anything to save own neck. If a confidential informer was cooperating, why did he not record things, or let them know where next meeting was so they could set something up? It's all rumor and innuendo.

Give me a break. We may as well say the same thing about OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony.

They had trials, and were convicted. There was evidence. You see to be taking this personal, don't. I just like to go by definite facts, it's just the way I am.

What are you talking about? Both OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony were acquitted, despite the overwhelming evidence against them. And there's plenty of evidence that Conte was involved in drugs. What this is about is you starting from a bad assumption that he was out of the drug business before Castellano was boss and being too stubborn to acknowledge the evidence that shows you're wrong. Period.

OJ Simpson case was before my time, and I did not follow Casey Anthony, so I thought she was in prison. My error.

I am not being stubborn, I was trying to have civil conversation on this topic. You want me to acknowledge evidence that is not there? They had no evidence, just rumors. No phone taps, no recording from confidential informer you mentioned, just gossip. In America, we don't convict people on rumors.

Many are convicted on multiple witness testimony (which is different then rumor). You're simply trying to narrow the goal posts where only certain types of evidence will be good enough.

Now you lost me. Narrowing goalposts? I'm going by facts, and by law. That is not narrowing goalposts. Sorry, I just don't see it that way.

Why would the stupid Gambino Capos vote for Gotti to be Boss after he broke every Mafia Commandment by killing his Boss? Why would the Capos even need a Boss? For what reason?? What would Gotti do for them?? In Chicago, A man was the Top Boss Of The Outfit FOR A REASON. Mainly it was because of his strong political ties which enabled business to Flourish. Also, The Top Boss had acquired a lot of money and he INVESTED some of it into franchises. So, If you were a made guy in the Outfit, You WANTED to be a partner with a man of this caliber.
It seems in the highly decentralized Gambino Family, Gotti didn't know anything about what other people were doing. He really had nothing to offer any of the other captains. Why would the Gambino Family even need a Boss?? Gotti killed Castellano before Castellano killed him. It was kill or be killed. I understand that reason. However, Seriously, why would all the Captains give a percentage of the money they were receiving to Gotti? What would they gain in return from Gotti? I never did understand the logic in any of it.

I am not going back through this thread but I will say that mere multiple witness testimony should only convict someone when the witnesses are credible. I don't care whether we are talking about mobsters or Michael Milken. If there is no hard evidence and there are 10 witnesses - all of whom are members of LCN or involved in a junk bond scam - it is highly dubious to award their statements sufficient creidiblity to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I'm sorry Ivy, but Sammy Gravano was by his very nature a highly questionable witness. Was Gotti guilty of all the things Gravano said? Sure. But it is insane to think that he would have been found guilty solely based on that testimony. There were tapes in that trial. That is what got him.

That's going to be the case with all mob guys who flip. They're criminals, liars (at times), and murderers. But that's why they have the info on their fellow criminals to begin with. As for Gravano specifically, he proved to be one of the most effective and convincing witnesses the government ever had.