To kill JFK? Sure they did.
But they didn't have the means or the know-how to do the cover-up, and, far from silencing RFK and enlisting him as a helper, any Mafia involvement would have made RFK chase them to the gates of hell.
Wiseguys only bet on a sure thing, and nothing could be less sure (for them) than the aftermath of whacking America's capo di tutti capi.
Capisce?
Why did Ruby shoot Oswald?
I admit I know nothing of this thing, with all the grassy knowles (knoll? can't even spell it!)
But I wonder about some assumptions:
Was the 'Camelot' mystique contemporaneous, or generated after his death? Sure, he was smart, like his old man, and got good press, but many historians don't rank him so high;he was indecisive --something of a bumbler. I can also say that not everyone liked him; my old man hated him (he was in NC that day.)There was residual anti-Pope sentiment openly expressed, and fears about involvement in Indochina.
Wiseguys only bet on a sure thing...
Maybe wise guys are like everyone else--they consider risk in proportion to potential gain? It would not be the first time in history a criminal organization committed or collaborated in a political act would it?
The other thing: I could conceive of a kind of 'half-assed' conspiracy in which parties merely facilitate, short of direct involvement. I would suppose these are the ones that succeed. In such cases the agents' primary characteristics are patience, the ability to recognize an Oswald or a Ruby, timing and discretion-- mostly in knowing when to exit.
I don't know... of course.