Talk:Frank Rio

Lovato?
There does not seem to be a town in italy named "Lovato". Being from Italy myself, I've been looking for it in several archives including the italian wikipedia. There is no reference to a town with that name. Care to look into this? 95.246.138.41 (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

St. Valentine's Day Massacre - NPOV
Cited sources say that Rio was definitively involved in this crime. Contributors disagree, arguing the evidence is cirumstantial. This is mere opinion on the part of contributors; if sources can be cited to make this case, then those sources should be cited. If not, then that opinion on the part of contributors should be removed and the cited sources allowed to stand. - Tim1965 (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

St. Valentine's Day Massacre - NPOV
I would disagree. For the last 18 years I have read everything I can get my hands on about that incident, including virtually all of the scholarly, well-researched books that deal with it either specifically or in context of the rest of the book, and to the discerning reader, what is patently clear is that there are very few absolute and VERIFIABLE facts connected with the massacre - though there are many well though-out and convincing conclusions. No matter how well-thought out and convincing, however, none of them that I have seen are provable as facts. The web sites devoted to the Massacre are beyond a joke - from one to another, you would think you are reading about two different incidents. I am speaking solely of published and respected research (books such as "Mr. Capone" and all the others). Even those researchers do not uniformly agree on the number of shooters - most say four, a few say five. Bottom line - like so many things about the Massacre - the true answer simply is not known for a fact. Excellent, convincing circumstantial cases are made for almost a dozen individuals, including, but certainly not limited to, Fred Burke, Fred Goetz, Joseph Lolordo, Albert Anselmi, John Scalise, Jack McGurn and Frank Rio. I have yet to read any well-done research that suggests more than five shooters, and most seem convinced of only four, as I said (and admittedly, that is not known for a fact either).

I would love to know who the shooters were, beyond the shadow of a doubt. But I know of no research that can state - and back up with VERIFIABLE fact - who any of the shooters were for certain. one year to the 80th anniverary of the attatck.

As regards the Massacre, I think the article - as most - is fine as written. It is certainly more "Wiki". Facts are facts. But "convincing conclusions" are not verifiable facts.

I would love to see proof - truly verifiable proof - that Frank Rio was indeed, one of the shooters. I have not seen it yet. Considering it is now nearly the 80th anniversary of the event, I think it is unlikely any of us ever will

Melos Antropon (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Then these other sources you've read should be cited, and the existing citation put in a footnote to indicate that at least one author concludes there is enough evidence for there to be proof. Simply changing the article isn't enough under Wikipedia's rules; it just creates POV problems. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The important word in your statement above is "concludes". A conclusion is not a proven fact in this case.  I'm not trying to stretch out an argument here - I'm not trying to argue at all - merely to state a viewpoint.  It would be pointless to cite any or all of the sources (the scholarly that is; as I said, most of the "web pages" are more entertainment than anything else; I am talking about the researched books), because all of them build excellent circumstantial cases for this, that or the other shooter, but at the end they resort to what Wiki calls "weasel" words and phrases, such as:

"Hence than can be no doubt that . . ." "So the evidence demonstrates clearly that . . ." "The conclusion can be reached that . . ."

But none of them can say flatly: "So this PROVES that . . ."

or. ..

"It can be shown as a FACT that . . ."

because they can't. It is not known FOR A PROVABLE FACT who any of the (4, 5, 6???) shooters were. The following things can be shown to be provable fact:


 * There were exactly 70 .45 ACP casings found on the floor of the garage.
 * All of the bullets (some fragementary) were recovered. Most from the victims' bodies. A few either penetrated the bodies and hit the wall, or missed the victims and hit the wall.
 * All of the .45 slugs were positively matched to one of two Thompson submachine guns.
 * Both of those ballistically matched Thompsons were found in the possession of Fred Burke 10 months later in St. Joseph, MI, though that (legally) is considered purely circumstantial, as those two Thompsons turned up in several different murders in various places around the country, some of which where Burke was not even a suspect. Those two guns are today in the possession of the Berrien County Sheriffs Department, in Berrien County, MI.
 * At least two, and possibly as many as four blasts from a 12 gauge shotgun were also fired at the victims (the coroner could not be more specific than that). No empty 12 gauge shells were found.

Those are facts. Who pulled any of the triggers has never been proven as fact beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt (the legal standard).

That is why I think the article - in it's current form - should stand as written. That is merely my view of the article, but a view rooted in what is most acceptably "Wiki". A previous version of the article said "Frank Rio was one of the gunmen in the St. Valentine's Day Massacre". That is a statement of fact. But it's never been proven to be a fact for Rio or anyone else.

Melos Antropon (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)