THE BLACK HAND FORUM

Chris, when your, Rick´s and Lennert´s article came out, you presented it as an alternative [u]theory[/u]. It was clear from the very start that the article should not be regarded as fact but a work out of extensive research presenting a theory. The article was a result of that. At front page of the issue of Informer where your article can be found, it says "Sicilian hometown allegiance and kinship ties MAY have played larger roles in early Mafia development than previously thought." How can anyone argue against an article when it´s put like that? And that´s the difference between your guys´ excellent work and the work of somebody who states everything as a [u]fact[/u], providing no sources. And on top of that, works by Scott for example are very often going against established facts based on sources of considerable importance. Authors of those kind of work, should be open for and prepared for criticism.

[quote="B."]He thought he was "Little Caesar" Maranzano, but he was really "Fat Joe" Masseria.[/quote]

Who Piddu? He was a chronic masterbater. He wore a blanket to cover his deformed right hand but his left hand was fuckin boss. He'd use the blanket to cover his dexterr as a rag for wiping loads with his sinister, especially after commission meets with Lupo and Orlando. He was an early John D'Amato, take it from me because I am Joe Bonanno's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate! And speaking of Uncle Joe, he and Little Ceasar used to dock. Now you know why he's called Little Ceasar, Don Peppino was circularized on Marcy in 1906 and was sporting a WW2 helmet while Sal had a Mustache Pete uncircumsized ant eater. Who you think won out? And that's why Charley Lucky had "No quarrel" with Don Peppino. Fact :!:

He thought he was "Little Caesar" Maranzano, but he was really "Fat Joe" Masseria.

[quote="B."]"Mustache Pete" Morello couldn't have been made, we all know that. They didn't start having inductions until La Cosa Nostra was invented in 1931, bro.[/quote]

Damn, dawg, that's right. Thank god for Luciano, the George Washington of This Thing Of Ours for anyone who really knows.

"Mustache Pete" Morello couldn't have been made, we all know that. They didn't start having inductions until La Cosa Nostra was invented in 1931, bro.

And here's a Gotcha example:

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KKBydmEAZ-s/U2t08DwdiKI/AAAAAAAAFhg/P5L7a7A7oQ0/s1600/1_Sicily.jpg[/img]

I can't confirm 9.5/10s of these guys as being made. And on a personal level, I think there were very few made guys in that era. But all these names existed. If someone where to ask me about anyone of them as to why they are on that list I could explain why. But if you asked me to confirm if he was made- officially went through the ceremony, no I could not. Stella Fraud (I put her on there I think), a broad!? Is Chris Christie advocating that a woman was made in the Mafia in 1890? (!!!!-Fake). Structure, ranks aside, she was part of the mafia bloodline of the early 1890's-1900 bloodline that we know today as the Genovese family. Do I think she was an official made member? The answer is no, but she was prominent, made/nonmade aside, individuals have been instrumental in making this network work be it Henry Hill in Brooklyn . in her role as Salvatore Clemente's wife and the NY Corleonesi counterfeiting rackets in the late 1890's and early 1900's that Cascio Ferro was associated with early on. Member or not, she was associated with the Corleonese society as an active participant since women can't be made. If she's on that list under the title "Sicilian Mafiosi" then I'm a fucking liar based on your methodology. Do you think I am a bullshitter due to some self-serving interest???.... The net question is to zoom in: who we can identify as made (mostly the bosses since wellll, they were bosses) and a few members here and there being called members of the "mafia" or "black hand" which were few and far in between.

One could take the argument that since I, Rick, Lennert can't prove those names as being officially Made Members that our article is bullshit. Or you can look at it from our perspective: apart from the bosses, we went into this with the knowing that we can't confirm who was made and who wasn't. If information surfaced about so-and-so being a prominent figure on James St. who answered to Morello, we weren't quick to call him "caporegime," he went with "described as an 'influential figure.'" We can confirm who "ran" in these networks. But let's say, for example, someone came along one day demanding that I/we explain why each of these members were Made Sicilian Mafiosi, we would get an - - - - F and my counter would be: Morello was the boss of bosses, how could he not be made? There's no official documentation of him ever going through a mafia ceremony. Law enforcement was too adolescent in its approach to OC on both sides of the Atlantic. You get the idea: we, as researchers and as educators run into some very serious dilemmas in how to explain this stuff. Creative criticism works better than discounting. Scott doesn't deserve to be discounted. His work should evaluated and questioned with a ? not a !.

I disagree with both of you but we're not going to agree. Scott's going to have to stand on his sources and if the last KC article is anything, I hope you both continue to scrutinize him with your bullshit meter but give him props for the sources that are confirmed. Bats agreed with what Scott mostly laid out. Some credit is deserved for that.

I go back to when I was 16 when I first came on here. I was a "book" historian then, I was influenced by Mafia Dynasty, the Last Testament, Gotti: Rise and Fall, the Valachi Papers and a personally autographed Joe Bonanno book that I had laminated. If my 16 year old self came on here today, my current self would pick his facts apart. I could mock my younger self for "believing in too many books based on books based on incorrect books" or I could have "suggested" things he may want to look up for himself... Scott's not deceptive, lying or in this for money. As imperfect as he is, as I was at 16 and am today, can't we at least agree to respect his attempts but continue to scrutinize his work for accuracy? The guy may improve his work because that's what he's always trying to do. You guys won, he no longer drops a 60 member Detroit list, instead he lists who he can confirm and provides sources. If he was lying in the traditional sense he could have said there's 30 extra members from inside info that only he knows, but what did he do instead? He sourced what he could confirm. You won, he adjusted. We're all out for truth. We'd all rather say we don't know instead of lie and say we do.

That was my main beef with Chicago (apart from his fucking ninny bitch emails) was that he wasn't honest. His story would change to win the argument. A discussion about one Chicago crew comes up he's Lombardi's nephew on one forum and English's son on BB and the son of the mob lawyer on here. Fair enough, enough people play make believe online, one of my twitter handles is WellEndowed but anyway,when he injected himself into the discussion, demanding to be taken seriously about certain facts because his relative is this or that... <----- that type of personality is the kind that deserves to be ridiculed and discounted, whereas Scott is one to be argued with and debated. He's not always accurate but he's an honest guy so why not extend to him people would/should a 16 year old me? I once argued to the moderator of NYMH that I think Luciano was innocent because I read Last Testament and believe his side. The mod sent me a PM telling me I havn't looked at the trial transcripts and other sources. He was right. Look where I am today? An expert on an era very few care about, so suck it!

One thing I can say for him is he puts his name on everything he does. Some might see it as self-promotion, but the other side of the coin is that he opens himself up to criticism every time he writes something or posts.

He seemed pretty open to feedback and information when he was writing the Leonetti book and overall he did a solid job, though it was clearly not his area of expertise. Could have used some editing given that it talks a lot about the previously unknown mafia rank of "solider", but he basically let Leonetti do the storytelling and added context.

Detroit is another story and I don't know enough to comment. Personally I find the charts for them ridiculous at first glance, but I also know zero about them past or present. It could be that the Detroit family is that delusional and grandiose that they need a Jew named "Hesh" to be their Consigliere of the Chosen People and a panel of old men who meet to decide which sucker is going to coach the Lions.

[quote="Pogo The Clown"]It is funny how Scott gets defended and seemingly a pass for his claims. I can just imagine what would happen if some author would come on the forums claiming that the Gambino Syndicate, founded by the Godfather Carlo Gambino, have 500 made members (including a Greek guy as a made member), thousands of Associates, are active in 14 states, control 1/4 of the drug trade in NY/NJ with 'Don' Frank Cali overseeing it. Everyone would be eating his lunch and he would quickly be written off as a hack. It wouldn't matter how nice he was or what sources he claimed he got it from or if he were published. Ah well what are you gonna do.


Pogo[/quote]

This can't be argued with.

It is funny how Scott gets defended and seemingly a pass for his claims. I can just imagine what would happen if some author would come on the forums claiming that the Gambino Syndicate, founded by the Godfather Carlo Gambino, have 500 made members (including a Greek guy as a made member), thousands of Associates, are active in 14 states, control 1/4 of the drug trade in NY/NJ with 'Don' Frank Cali overseeing it. Everyone would be eating his lunch and he would quickly be written off as a hack. It wouldn't matter how nice he was or what sources he claimed he got it from or if he were published. Ah well what are you gonna do.


Pogo

Good posts Chris. I´m not the type of poster who knows current stuff. If somebody asks me who all the captains are today in the Genovese Family, I´d say I really don´t know. My strenght is the history of the Mafia because to me, it´s hell more interesting than the current stuff going on. In many cases, I can show my sources or direct someone to a specific source. I try to do that when the source is available to me, or when somebody asks me to. And then it´s up to the reader to digest or to believe the source. With Scott´s stuff, he can´t do that (read reveal) for obvious reasons so right from the start his stuff is going to be viewed with skepticism. I have absolutely nothing against Scott, he seems to be a fair and cool guy. I don´t think I have ever interacted with him and that´s nothing else but due to our different fields of interests. Scott is welcome to post here anytime he feel like it. In fact I want him posting here more! I know he´s an amicable guy, he doesn´t start shit with anybody. But I doubt very much that those mentioned above have a personal beef with HIM. The way I see it, it´s his opinions and facts they have a problem with. And when is difference in opinion something that should be okay surpressing? Never!

My post above was more directed to Pete than Scott. And I just made a statement that what Sonny said was not something out of a "persoanl beef" but rather something that was said sarcastically. I´m convinced that Pete misinterpreted Sonny´s intentions. And that´s that.

I know that nobody´s here on this forum for the purpose of making money. There is no money in this. Ask Rick or David Critchley for example. Scarpo is another deal lol. (I can´t go on his site anymore without my computer crashing...well or slowing down considerably atleast... because of all the adds and comercials he´s got going.) I´ve got nothing agianst him. There´s been examples of posters who have tried to come in JUST for the purpose of promoting a book. But those examples are few and far between. Thank god for that!

At the end of the day, it´s up to the reader to decide what to believe and what not to believe. Asking a poster for sources goes hand in hand with learning. And it shouldn´t be discouraged no matter who the poster is.

[quote="Chris Christie"]Make money off of this shit?[i] What fucking reality are you living in?[/i][/quote]
this right here is a great point. does anybody really have a clue how much traffic a website needs to generate to make it a legit source of income? just a quick fyi...people who have monetized their youtube videos earn an average 1/10 of a cent per view, so unless they are getting millions of views they aren't quitting their day jobs. i can't imagine it's that much different for banner adds on websites. ditto for authors, try making money with a print copy of a book on any topic in the digital age, much less a fringe topic like the mob that only a small group of miscreants really care about. ;)

And to Pogo, Wiseguy and Sonny, who I'm on good terms with and respect. This isn't a this side or that side argument. If you guys don't agree with him, state your argument why: "Scott says Detroit has 300 members when in 1995 the indictment said only 24, Scott what are your sources for the 276 additional members?" That's not kissing his ass, that's getting him in a gotcha to prove his shit or head for the hills. An operandi I agree with... Rick, Lennert and I expected alot of blowback like "prove it/sources?!" when we wrote our article basically boldly laying out the origins of the 5 families in a way that was never descruived before. Instead we got "Great article" and "makes sense." This isn't a suck-me-off-moment but rather, a good researcher/journalist should be ready to back up his statements with evidence and we were/are prepared to do that... We all agree- Pogo, Wiseguy, Sonny, me, Antilliar, JCB, Lennert, we approach this as best we can and as honesty we I can. I happen to know to Scott does the same.

You don't have to treat the guy with kid gloves, in the end, facts outweigh everything! We all agree on that and let's work backwards from the methodology which is getting the truth out as accurate as possible. We're all good people, we all have the BEST intentions. Scott too.

[quote="HairyKnuckles"][quote="Pogo The Clown"]I may be losing my mind but where did Sonny say that "we" (as if he would be speaking for anyone other than himself) have a "personal beef" with Scott?


Pogo[/quote]

You´re right. He didn´t. Sonny said this: "You're right. Myself, Pogo and Wiseguy have personal beefs with you. Our criticism is not based upon your writings. Honestly? This is your considered retort? 'Haters gonna hate?'"

I can´t see it in any other way than it just being meant sarcastically.

And Sonny is correct (or whoever said it), ANY writer who can´t cope with or can´t stand criticism, probably should change profession. Especially those who can´t show any evidence backing their facts up.[/quote]

There's a difference between asking amicably and being downright bashful. Instead of; "Scott, what are your sources for this?"... "No sources, then nothing you say can be substantiated."... "Based on the lack thereof you are full of shit.".......Instead I see: "KC law enforcement consider whoever the fucks to be boss and under in a nominal way." and the responses are: "He's bullshitting, he's inflating, etc etc." In case you didn't notice, ever since he got lambasted for the exuberant amount of members on the Detroit LCN Family, he's been more careful to put out what can be proven vs his own personal beliefs. That occurred because of the blowback he caught from Pogo/Wiseguy/naysayers of what Scott has to say. Fair enough. They kept Scott on his toes to be more accurate than he everrrrrrrr expected an audience to be. That's a great and beautiful thing. Actually I agree with them/don't agree with Scott on some things. And that's the question: how do we deal with incorrect or misleading info? Call him a piece of shit or try and explain the truth with him?(???????)

Scott's not a liar, you might disagree with him but bottomline: he's published, he's connections, he's earning his name in this genre. And at the end of the day he's published and we're a bunch of bickering assholes on a forum. We know our shit! The Black Hand stands out for that. We are quality over quantity. And Soliai will agree we want to expand (not bringing you into this.) I'm TELLING YOU Scott is an amicable guy. He is NOT a bullshit artist. All the names he mentioned exist, there's never been an "Angelo Molistani moment."

1) He would never CONJURE up a fake name.
2) He would never CLAIM something he THOUGHT/KNEW was untrue.
3) He would never pick a name at random because he has a cool nickname (Scott loves him some nicknames) and say this guy is "considered" boss based on "an inside source." [b][u][i]HE WOULD NEVER DO THAT![/i][/u][/b]

Some of you guys have a difference of opinion. The KC article read objectively, but for some reason people took it as Scott was accentuating the Kansas City Crime FAMILY in order to be considered an expert, make money, or make things up for his own musings, Scott backed up all his sources and Bats confirmed/agreed with most of it. That's not a pro-Scott fact that is simply a fact :!:

As far as taking heat for a project, there's a big reactional difference between: "Scott is in fantasy world, he makes claims that aren't there" and "Scott, what are your sources for this or that?"

Someone said the former about anything I wrote, I'd say go fuck yourself too. Personally, to assume that I would make anything up, to cherry-pick my narrative or in this for the money, would be insulting. Considering the money I've spent (wasted) acquiring all this shit and doing my own research and documenting it before I make a conclusion... After I go through all that, you can disagree but don't ever call me a fraud. Make money off of this shit?[i] What fucking reality are you living in?[/i] If I'm wrong on something it's one of my limitations due from a misunderstanding or not having access to information that someone else found. I've never claimed to the definitive expert and neither has Scott Burnstein. He's a lawyer. His passion is this bullshit. He's giving up alot. (And he's Jewish, he's like Evan Handler from Sex and the City: he's well connected, but instead he chooses to cover "disa lifea" when he could be banging Brooke on Park Avenue.) He's building a base, he's writing articles, he's expanding his knowledge. He's never came out said: "I, Scott Burnstein am the final definitive source on Detroit or anywhere else." Instead he's a searcher for knowledge and we have his ear and if he's proven incorrect, he'll adjust his info if we prove to him why he's mistaken or not seeing something. He and whoever might not always agree but, at the end of the day: god-fucking-dammit Scott approaches his the best way he can as honestly as possible. Perfect no, neither is anyone here. The different is we're assholes on a forum, Scott is published. We could have his ear and influence his accuracy if we approached it the right way.

That's all I'm saying :!:

Does he inflate Detroit numbers? Is he incorrect on the Chicago hierarchy? Does he use this term instead of that term? There's a way to be civil about it. The guy is quite open, he will share why he believes what he believes based on information. If you question it, ask him for it see what he says. For what it's worth, Scott tries to be as factual as possible to the point where he argued with Leonetti about what could be confirmed.) Do you think Ed Scarpo argued with Dominick Cicale over anything he said? His photo in a suit is next to Luciano, Capone, Castellano, Cirello, Colombo and Gigante on the cover for god's sake. Did Scott do that with the Leonetti book?

Everyone's imperfect, respect Scott's and try and help him see the truth. He's not a "fuck you I know because I KNOW" kinda guy. " Not at all.

[quote="Pogo The Clown"]I may be losing my mind but where did Sonny say that "we" (as if he would be speaking for anyone other than himself) have a "personal beef" with Scott?


Pogo[/quote]

You´re right. He didn´t. Sonny said this: "You're right. Myself, Pogo and Wiseguy have personal beefs with you. Our criticism is not based upon your writings. Honestly? This is your considered retort? 'Haters gonna hate?'"

I can´t see it in any other way than it just being meant sarcastically.

And Sonny is correct (or whoever said it), ANY writer who can´t cope with or can´t stand criticism, probably should change profession. Especially those who can´t show any evidence backing their facts up.