Yeah, because people that have murdered and made tons of money have never been rats/snitches/informants.
Lot of people in this thread really want to not believe it. Keep the myth alive.
Did he? I don't know. But to outright think it's impossible because he was a tough guy, killed people and made tons of money is naive.
What do you mean? FBI have declined on stuff like this before so how on earth would Time Magazine know Neil Dellacroce better than the feds?
I mean that everyone in this thread is dismissing this because Neil was a tough guy, who killed people and he made alot of money. That's it.
They don't know him better than the FEDS but it's not outside the realm of possibility that they could be correct. That he could have been a paid informant.
A response could be "I doubt it. Never heard anything of that sort, but who knows." Not "Neil was rich, he was a tough guy. No way."
No one knows. You could say Carlo Gambino was a dry snitch, Paul Castellano, etc, etc. And it all could be true or none of it could be true. We don't know, but to dismiss it because we have heard stories or read books about Neil is ridiculous.
