That's a good way to put it.



Really the only disagreement I've had with Scott - and this goes back some years on another forum - is his charts and how he's generally presented the state of the Detroit mob. But even while disagreeing, I've said many times that he's provided a lot of good information about Detroit otherwise. It's where he started before branching out with his Leonetti book (his best work in my opinion) and his blog where he writes about several families.



I could concede all the explanations you made above for the relative lack of cases but I'm not sure how much it really changes.

In other words, even if I were to add Detroit to the list of remaining families, I still see little evidence (other than Scott) of an overly hierarchical family (as shown in his charts) with 40, 50, or more members, that is criminally diversified and operates far and wide in and beyond Detroit. Because that's the picture that's been presented.

Do I think there is some semblance of an organized structure in Detroit? Yes. Do I think it includes a boss, street boss, underboss, consigliere, a few "counselor emeritus," 4-6 captains or acting captains, in addition to the soldiers? No. Do I take Scott's membership figures and charts at face value? No. Why not? Because they fluctuated over several years, ranging anywhere from 30 to nearly 60 members. And only later on, and after many debates, did he say that not all the names he listed were necessarily made members.

Do I think 50 members for Detroit is a stretch? Absolutely. That would make it similar in size to New Jersey, New England, or Philadelphia which all have larger Italian-American populations. Furthermore, as I've pointed out about a bazillion times now, the feds had the family at 30 members at most 20 years ago. 20 years for crying out loud! Am I supposed to believe Detroit has somehow bucked the general trend over the last two decades and actually grown in size? Especially when many of its members have died over that time and even Scott hasn't said there's actually been any recent making ceremonies. And speaking of Scott, even he had the family at 25 members in his 2006 book.

Even if I consider the family to still be active, does that mean there's any evidence it's very diversified? Not much at all. It's mainly a bookmaking operation with some loansharking and card games. And, yes, you could say that about other families. Involvement in the drug trade is basically non-existent. There really isn't any labor racketeering activity to speak of. Even before LaPiana sold his company. There are certainly many who have legitimate interests, some well off financially. That's what the Detroit mob is today - a gambling operation with interests in legitimate businesses as well. That's not an insult, just a statement of fact.

And does this operation extend to any significant degree beyond Detroit? Specifically the eastern suburbs? No. I see no evidence of it having an active San Diego crew. Nothing really to speak of in Chicago or Canada. Maybe a few old retirees living in Florida. It's very limited in scope, as are most of the remaining mob families now.



Read what I posted above in regards to me thinking they're dead or inactive.



That FBI website article, which has been up for years, is in reference to the family at the time of the 1996 GamTax bust and before.



Nobody is arguing otherwise. But that can't be used as a blanket excuse to put forth unrealistic images of the current size, activity, and scope of the Detroit mob.



And so we see some in law enforcement still consider the family viable. Some OC experts apparently don't include it. But even if there's technically still an existing family, that doesn't mean the organization you believe it to be is reality.



15 years ago now, with several members having died since them and no verification of new ceremonies. And that 2001 article, which I was already aware of, is the last time you'll see 30 members cited.



And?