What profile? I can't see any on his profile on this site.

Hmmm...personally I think "associates" is a pretty vague term. It could mean anything from a bookie to a realtor who looks the other way.

None of us will ever really know a lot of the nuances.

I do think there is merit, though, in the idea that if no one is being busted for anything, activity is likely down.

Harry Aleman was arrested literally 20 times. I don't buy the idea that the Outfit just got smarter and no one gets pinched for anything anymore.

That's the reason i'm always skeptical of Chicago street guys, not to mention it's usually Chicago posters who disagree with anything showing them as a mid level family, which it seems the FBI believe at least.

Look at the 1997 Chicago Crime Commission Report that state that there were 70 made guys in the Outfit and 700 to 1,200 associates. How could there only be 100 associates 10 years later???? They also said in 1997 there were 3 Crews and now there are 4??? The feds change their story because they really don't know. That's the point Einstein. However, I can play the same game as you and say that from 1997 the membership of the Outfit went down approximately 50% or more. (From 70 to maybe 30) So, the associates would go down to 350 TO 600 OR MAYBE EVEN A LITTLE LOWER like 300 to 500. I choose to quote this F.B.I. Report. I have my report, (which lists my uncle on there under the prison section) and you can believe your F.B.I.report. THEY BOTH CAN'T BE CORRECT. There is no way the number of assocates went from 1,000 to 100 in 10 years. No fucking way. This leads to the final point. You can't take what the Feds say literally.

It's pretty obvious you have a fascination with Ivy League but you must stop showing it off. This whole NY/Chicago "feud" is not gonna be allowed here.

What NY Mafia guys on his profile? Do you mean the avatars of those he has added as UBB BUddies??

That's what i was thinking Ivy's avatar is a pic of the actor Michael Shannon.

Elwood Park, I'm sure you know a lot and I know who your uncle is. I've read maybe 15 books on the Outfit and probably 10s of thousands of articles and I have newsfeeds set up to send me any information that comes out. And I also know a few people, and I've read virtually everything ever posted on ANP, and by that I mean the threads too.

It is my opinion that the Outfit is on it's last legs with less than two dozen hardcore or made guys and who knows how many "associates."

If you choose to believe otherwise, so be it.

If you have any compelling evidence that leads you to your conclusion, I would love to read it.

The Outfit is on its last leg with the way they used to do business. You're right. But, they have new ways to do older things that got many of them in trouble. It's more of a white collar way of doing things. I was only trying to show how the Crime Commission Reports sometimes are conflicting and you can't go 100% by them. I have no quarrel with you at all. In fact, I even agreed with you on one of your other postings. There was another guy who liked me and didn't think much of you. you. It WAS NOT ME. Sincerely, Elmwood Parker.

That big difference between the CCC's associates estimate and the later one from the feds likely results from how the CCC tends to give the greatest possible claim as to the scope of the Outfit. So I imagine that the CCC probably defined anyone who had some kind of relationship (either long-term or temporary/opportunistic - I believe the Outfit chart made by Scott Bernstein et al uses a similar loose definition of associate), while the feds were going by a much stricter standard - probably full-time active gangsters working in crews under soldiers, along with "legitimate" businessmen/politicians/union guys/etc. who actively aided and abetted the Outfit (I believe the aforementioned chart goes ahead and lists these kinds of associates as "soldiers", regardless of made status).

And as someone said, IQ tests are a horrible indicator of native intelligence; they are more a test of whether someone has received a formal education that would prepare them to do well on an IQ test. Someone who was a very sharp guy in terms of business sense and street smarts but quit school early on probably wouldn't do that great on an IQ test; they'd also probably have an indifferent half-assed approach to the test that would also give them an artificially low score.

No, we have to go by what the Chicago Crime Commission said because they got their information from the Feds. The Report was verified by the F.B.I. No, we must do it Ivy League's way and that is that we only go by Government reports, nothing else matters. I'm sorry but in 1997 there were between 700 and 1,200 Associates, and 70 made men. We have NO Right to question the government on any of their reports. They know about these matters much more than any of us.

Morality is superficial. My two cents.

I'm a Chicago guy, don't post a ton but usually check the boards and have a pretty decent understanding of things, can definitely weigh in but not if just to stir the pot

On the audio that starts at 3:15 - is this Jimmy I?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0HdSp7lzTw

First, I don't know who you're looking at, or if you're just lying, but I don't have any photos of anyone on my profile.

Second, even though I've now said it twice in two different threads, I guess I have to do it one more time.

The 70 member figure given by the CCC in 1997 was just an estimate. And if you take away the Outfit members who have died since then, it matches up with the 28-30 members cited by the FBI in 2007.

As for the associates, it's going to be a more flexible figure, given the fact that definitions of what makes an associate differs. But the Outfit's smaller core of made members today makes a little over 100 associates more plausible than 700-1,200 associates.

Yes that is...that tape was played in court and earned him a 5 year jail sentence in 1980.