Mason_dixon wrote: ↑Fri May 03, 2019 8:34 pm
Wise guy ... I guess you are right but wasn’t Peter Gotti official boss at this point? And also we should consider how powerful the bonnanos were at this point. I’d say they were as strong as any family in the room around 98 save maybe the Genovese.
It was a quote from Casino.
For a time, in the late 1990s/early 2000s, the feds considered the Bonannos to be the second strongest after the Genovese.
Sorry Barney's boss was too, Gigante. Also what is the time line Wasn't Barney in jail in 1998. I didn't realize that the Colombo war was still going on, I always thought it ended around 93. Was Massino possibly testifying that there was no commission since the 80s, to protect the other bosses, seeing it was his own men that did him in.
Bellomo, Genoroso, Corozzo and Russo were all locked in 1996. So this meeting couldn't have been any later than June 1996 which was when Bellomo and Genoroso were indicted. Vitale says it was after Joe Scopo was killed (October 1993) so I'd say it took place in late 1993/very early 1994.
Pogo
It's a new morning in America... fresh, vital. The old cynicism is gone. We have faith in our leaders. We're optimistic as to what becomes of it all. It really boils down to our ability to accept. We don't need pessimism. There are no limits.
Pogo The Clown wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 10:12 am
Bellomo, Genoroso, Corozzo and Russo were all locked in 1996. So this meeting couldn't have been any later than June 1996 which was when Bellomo and Genoroso were indicted. Vitale says it was after Joe Scopo was killed (October 1993) so I'd say it took place in late 1993/very early 1994.
Pogo
Which is interesting considering they apparently approved 5 new Colombo members at the time but it would take until year 2000 to induct them, assuming there wasn't a ceremony that flew under the radar during the supposed "induction ban" period in the 1990s.
The part of Vitale thinking it may have been 98 throws me off. Hoping thats a courtroom typo or him misspeaking. Otherwise he has a horrible memory/ concept of time.
Adam wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 6:42 pm
The part of Vitale thinking it may have been 98 throws me off. Hoping thats a courtroom typo or him misspeaking. Otherwise he has a horrible memory/ concept of time.
You have to remember these guys don’t work normal jobs so the concept of ‘time’ per-say can get a little lost on many of them. One year is generally synonymous with the next with only very specific events punctuating a timeline (sent to prison, a very unusual score etc, etc).
There’s been several examples of guys getting their making year way off so it’s not unsurprising that dates can be problematic with wise guys.
I've looked over the testimony again and found that Vitale, for some reason, actually doubled down on the 1998 thing.
This was his first bit of testimony.
Q At some point did the Commission recognize one
faction as leading the Colombo family?
A Yes.
Q Which faction?
A Junior Persico's faction.
Q When was that?
A Say approximately '98.
Q How did the Commission go about recognizing the
Persico faction as leading the Colombo family?
A We all met in a hotel in Manhattan, there was eight
of us and we asked to see Vinnie Aloi and Andy Russo, Andy
Russo was representing the Persico side. Vinnie Aloi was representing the Little Vic Orena side. We told them: It
has to stop. You have to resolve your differences. Go
into the other room, resolve your differences. When you
come out, we want it resolved.
(He then continued to discuss the meeting, followed by weird cross-examination questions by Sarita Kedia and Co. trying to discredit his testimony. Funny that he was never called out on the '98 thing though).
Then later on in the testimony he said this;
By the time this meeting occurred, there had already
been a commission meeting in which Junior Persico was
formally recognized?
A. Yes.
Q. And that happened sometime either a year on two
prior?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. That had happened some time in 1997 or 1998. Is that
right?
MR. BURETTA: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MS. KEDIA:
Q. Well, to the best of your recollection, when, in
relation to this meeting that you're describing with
Mr. Persico, had that occurred?
MR. BURETTA: Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Adam wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 6:42 pm
The part of Vitale thinking it may have been 98 throws me off. Hoping thats a courtroom typo or him misspeaking. Otherwise he has a horrible memory/ concept of time.
You have to remember these guys don’t work normal jobs so the concept of ‘time’ per-say can get a little lost on many of them. One year is generally synonymous with the next with only very specific events punctuating a timeline (sent to prison, a very unusual score etc, etc).
There’s been several examples of guys getting their making year way off so it’s not unsurprising that dates can be problematic with wise guys.
Fair enough, but still seems weird to me. And it seems like a glaring error like that leaves reliability open to question. Like a defense attorney asking him him if this meeting happened the year before you were supposedly ordered to kill Gerlando Sciascia? Yes? Even though its impossible for that to be true? It would have been years before. How sure are you about any of the timeline of the events you're testifying about?
SonnyBlackstein wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 7:27 pmThere’s been several examples of guys getting their making year way off so it’s not unsurprising that dates can be problematic with wise guys.
Thats exactly right, I've seen were guys are asked when they were made, you get answers like "I dunno, I think it was 1974, maybe 75." You think it would be etched in their memory.
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize
Adam wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 6:42 pm
The part of Vitale thinking it may have been 98 throws me off. Hoping thats a courtroom typo or him misspeaking. Otherwise he has a horrible memory/ concept of time.
You have to remember these guys don’t work normal jobs so the concept of ‘time’ per-say can get a little lost on many of them. One year is generally synonymous with the next with only very specific events punctuating a timeline (sent to prison, a very unusual score etc, etc).
There’s been several examples of guys getting their making year way off so it’s not unsurprising that dates can be problematic with wise guys.
Fair enough, but still seems weird to me. And it seems like a glaring error like that leaves reliability open to question. Like a defense attorney asking him him if this meeting happened the year before you were supposedly ordered to kill Gerlando Sciascia? Yes? Even though its impossible for that to be true? It would have been years before. How sure are you about any of the timeline of the events you're testifying about?
No doubt it is weird and I’m sure defence attorneys have pursued these errors with vigour, though as it seems at least regards Vitale, it makes little difference in the end.
