Mike Mancuso put a contract on Cammaranos

[newera_212]

Tony Nics was a Make Money, Not Headlines type of guy

[Antiliar]

Why don't you come out and say it instead of hedging? You tell me the problem with the scenario (mine, not Scott's). I brought up the fact that I have sources (you focused on the Chicago one) just like many researchers do. There's nothing unusual about it at all. Despite that fact you still seem to have an issue with researchers having sources (unless their last name happens to be Capeci, apparently).

Capeci has a proven track record over decades and many of the things he reports is eventually validated through other sources available to the public. That you would compare him to Scott, who's record is rather spotty, or whoever you're talking to online, is ridiculous.

In other words, you won't trust anyone but Capeci because you're biased. Any other researcher's sources are to be automatically dismissed because they're not Capeci's sources.

I don't know why I was expecting an intelligent answer or at least something approaching a half-way decent reason from you. Apparently my expectations weren't low enough.

[Newyorkempire]

Stop disrespecting Scott Bursteins character and integrity.

Scotts twice the man you'll ever be. Not that you're even a man but you understand what I mean.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Why don't you come out and say it instead of hedging? You tell me the problem with the scenario (mine, not Scott's). I brought up the fact that I have sources (you focused on the Chicago one) just like many researchers do. There's nothing unusual about it at all. Despite that fact you still seem to have an issue with researchers having sources (unless their last name happens to be Capeci, apparently).

Capeci has a proven track record over decades and many of the things he reports is eventually validated through other sources available to the public. That you would compare him to Scott, who's record is rather spotty, or whoever you're talking to online, is ridiculous.

In other words, you won't trust anyone but Capeci because you're biased. Any other researcher's sources are to be automatically dismissed because they're not Capeci's sources.

I don't know why I was expecting an intelligent answer or at least something approaching a half-way decent reason from you. Apparently my expectations weren't low enough.

Why so angry?

Great claims require great evidence. That's all.

I say Easter Bunny real. My job to prove or yours to disprove?

[Antiliar]

First, I'm not angry, but I am annoyed. Second, sorry, but I'm not buying the "great claims" nonsense. I specifically asked you what evidence would you accept and you never answered. You say you want "great evidence," but you won't tell me what kind of evidence you would accept. It obviously can't be something that would endanger the source, so I don't know what kind of evidence you expect.

Third, have you ever read an FBI file? They're full of information that can't be corroborated. They just say something like the CI advises this or that. They try to verify what they can, but often it's not possible. You see those charts with dozens or hundreds of names? Sometimes a member is said to be made or part of a crew on the word of a single informant. Besides that, you do know that people are convicted of crimes based on the testimony of just one person all the time, don't you? At any rate, we DO vet our sources before sharing their info. Speaking for my Chicago source, your damn right I vetted him. But I can't share how I vetted him because it would endanger him. Should I put that vetting evidence out on the forum to satisfy your curiosity and get my source killed? C'mon.

[gohnjotti]

In other words, you won't trust anyone but Capeci because you're biased. Any other researcher's sources are to be automatically dismissed because they're not Capeci's sources.

Capeci has decades and decades of mob journalism under his belt, and has a proven track record with his sources (albeit it seems his sources have slowly dried up over time). Time and time again, his sources - both LE and on the street - have been correct more often than they have not, and when his sources are wrong he is quick to amend them. Especially in the '90s, Capeci's day-to-day reporting of things like the Colombo War were later proven correct in federal court. Even today, he is often the first to reveal cooperating witnesses in a case, upcoming indictments or grand jury investigations.

Burnstein and his sources might be 100% right about the Bonanno situation; should he be proven right, his credibility will go up. As of right now, in my view, Burnstein has not built up the same sort of resume and track record as Capeci. That doesn't mean Capeci is infallible - the Dennis DeLucia thing comes to mind, where he inaccurately reported that DeLucia had was cooperating with LE, and then amended it the following week. But I think when researching the mob and analyzing the quality of source information, we have to put Capeci higher than Burnstein. No disrespect to Burnstein, I would put Capeci ahead of just about every active NY mob journalist.

[Wiseguy]

Why don't you come out and say it instead of hedging? You tell me the problem with the scenario (mine, not Scott's). I brought up the fact that I have sources (you focused on the Chicago one) just like many researchers do. There's nothing unusual about it at all. Despite that fact you still seem to have an issue with researchers having sources (unless their last name happens to be Capeci, apparently).

Capeci has a proven track record over decades and many of the things he reports is eventually validated through other sources available to the public. That you would compare him to Scott, who's record is rather spotty, or whoever you're talking to online, is ridiculous.

In other words, you won't trust anyone but Capeci because you're biased. Any other researcher's sources are to be automatically dismissed because they're not Capeci's sources.

I don't know why I was expecting an intelligent answer or at least something approaching a half-way decent reason from you. Apparently my expectations weren't low enough.

My bias rises or falls based on how much it's warranted. This isn't just about Capeci. Tom Robbins would be another. Also Selwyn Raab. Of course George Anastasia for Philadelphia. They have proven records that you don't see the same issues with Scott's reporting.

Are you really expecting me to give your internet source the same amount of weight as those above? This seems to be more about you than your source. You're angry...or annoyed...if someone just won't take your word for it about them. This isn't a personal thing about you.

[gohnjotti]

First, I'm not angry, but I am annoyed. Second, sorry, but I'm not buying the "great claims" nonsense. I specifically asked you what evidence would you accept and you never answered. You say you want "great evidence," but you won't tell me what kind of evidence you would accept. It obviously can't be something that would endanger the source, so I don't know what kind of evidence you expect.

For me, "evidence" that Scott's sources are accurately interpreting the Bonanno situation would come in the form of a corroborating article from some of the more established media outlets, like the NY Daily News, Gang Land News. Alternatively, with the LE pressure on Mancuso and the Bonannos, court documents and indictments down the line (Bonanno administration has been regularly indicted every few years) would also clear things up.

I don't know about Wiseguy or Pogo, but I don't want to reject Scott as a source outright. I mean, obviously he is getting this information from someone and I highly doubt he is making it up out of thin air. But why should we blindly accept Scott's info as the truth? What credibility has he established so far in this area? Like I said earlier, Scott normally focuses on the crime families outside of NY so I don't follow his content too much, but from what I've read on here he's made a lot of claims over the years and, unlike Capeci, few of them have been corroborated by anyone else.

[Antiliar]

In other words, you won't trust anyone but Capeci because you're biased. Any other researcher's sources are to be automatically dismissed because they're not Capeci's sources.

Capeci has decades and decades of mob journalism under his belt, and has a proven track record with his sources (albeit it seems his sources have slowly dried up over time). Time and time again, his sources - both LE and on the street - have been correct more often than they have not, and when his sources are wrong he is quick to amend them. Especially in the '90s, Capeci's day-to-day reporting of things like the Colombo War were later proven correct in federal court. Even today, he is often the first to reveal cooperating witnesses in a case, upcoming indictments or grand jury investigations.

Burnstein and his sources might be 100% right about the Bonanno situation; should he be proven right, his credibility will go up. As of right now, in my view, Burnstein has not built up the same sort of resume and track record as Capeci. That doesn't mean Capeci is infallible - the Dennis DeLucia thing comes to mind, where he inaccurately reported that DeLucia had was cooperating with LE, and then amended it the following week. But I think when researching the mob and analyzing the quality of source information, we have to put Capeci higher than Burnstein. No disrespect to Burnstein, I would put Capeci ahead of just about every active NY mob journalist.

That's fair. It's also far from just outright dismissing sources from other researchers because they don't happen to be Capeci. I can't speak for Scott's vetting process, but I can speak to my own. Nowhere did I state that I know for a fact that my source's info is 100% accurate, but based on what I know about him it's enough to take his information seriously. I shared because I thought those with an interest in Chicago would be interested. But some like Wiseguy dismiss all that without evidence just based on his own bias.

Getting back to Scott, I think he's doing basically the same thing. He has a source that he personally vetted for credibility and shared the source's inside information with his readers because he thought they would find the information interesting. Scott confirmed what he could (like the shirt), but the rest will have to wait and see.

And since it's been mentioned, I don't think Capeci not mentioning the story isn't a good reason to dismiss it. There's many reasons why Capeci hasn't mentioned it. Maybe he doesn't have relevant sources. Maybe he sees Scott as a competitor. Or maybe he just doesn't want to step on Scott's toes. There's many possible reasons. In the end it's just an argument from silence.

[Ivan]

you guys should all collaborate in writing a book on mafia epistemology

[SonnyBlackstein]

First, I'm not angry, but I am annoyed. Second, sorry, but I'm not buying the "great claims" nonsense. I specifically asked you what evidence would you accept and you never answered. You say you want "great evidence," but you won't tell me what kind of evidence you would accept. It obviously can't be something that would endanger the source, so I don't know what kind of evidence you expect.

Third, have you ever read an FBI file? They're full of information that can't be corroborated. They just say something like the CI advises this or that. They try to verify what they can, but often it's not possible. You see those charts with dozens or hundreds of names? Sometimes a member is said to be made or part of a crew on the word of a single informant. Besides that, you do know that people are convicted of crimes based on the testimony of just one person all the time, don't you? At any rate, we DO vet our sources before sharing their info. Speaking for my Chicago source, your damn right I vetted him. But I can't share how I vetted him because it would endanger him. Should I put that vetting evidence out on the forum to satisfy your curiosity and get my source killed? C'mon.

Who you arguing against?

It's week 3 of the Bananno war and Capeci's latest article actually features Mikey Nose.... and his parole violation.

You see math doesn't add up?

You don't have to 'buy' great claims evidence. It's just a common sense.

[SonnyBlackstein]

you guys should all collaborate in writing a book on mafia epistemology

Collaborate.... as in rat?

[SonnyBlackstein]

First, I'm not angry, but I am annoyed. Second, sorry, but I'm not buying the "great claims" nonsense. I specifically asked you what evidence would you accept and you never answered. You say you want "great evidence," but you won't tell me what kind of evidence you would accept. It obviously can't be something that would endanger the source, so I don't know what kind of evidence you expect.

For me, "evidence" that Scott's sources are accurately interpreting the Bonanno situation would come in the form of a corroborating article from some of the more established media outlets, like the NY Daily News, Gang Land News. Alternatively, with the LE pressure on Mancuso and the Bonannos, court documents and indictments down the line (Bonanno administration has been regularly indicted every few years) would also clear things up.

I don't know about Wiseguy or Pogo, but I don't want to reject Scott as a source outright. I mean, obviously he is getting this information from someone and I highly doubt he is making it up out of thin air. But why should we blindly accept Scott's info as the truth? What credibility has he established so far in this area? Like I said earlier, Scott normally focuses on the crime families outside of NY so I don't follow his content too much, but from what I've read on here he's made a lot of claims over the years and, unlike Capeci, few of them have been corroborated by anyone else.

Yup

[SonnyBlackstein]

First, I'm not angry, but I am annoyed. Second, sorry, but I'm not buying the "great claims" nonsense. I specifically asked you what evidence would you accept and you never answered. You say you want "great evidence," but you won't tell me what kind of evidence you would accept. It obviously can't be something that would endanger the source, so I don't know what kind of evidence you expect.

Third, have you ever read an FBI file? They're full of information that can't be corroborated. They just say something like the CI advises this or that. They try to verify what they can, but often it's not possible. You see those charts with dozens or hundreds of names? Sometimes a member is said to be made or part of a crew on the word of a single informant. Besides that, you do know that people are convicted of crimes based on the testimony of just one person all the time, don't you? At any rate, we DO vet our sources before sharing their info. Speaking for my Chicago source, your damn right I vetted him. But I can't share how I vetted him because it would endanger him. Should I put that vetting evidence out on the forum to satisfy your curiosity and get my source killed? C'mon.

You're a good guy, everyone respects you. None of this is personal, not from my book. To you or Scott.

Salut friend.

[gohnjotti]

In other words, you won't trust anyone but Capeci because you're biased. Any other researcher's sources are to be automatically dismissed because they're not Capeci's sources.

Capeci has decades and decades of mob journalism under his belt, and has a proven track record with his sources (albeit it seems his sources have slowly dried up over time). Time and time again, his sources - both LE and on the street - have been correct more often than they have not, and when his sources are wrong he is quick to amend them. Especially in the '90s, Capeci's day-to-day reporting of things like the Colombo War were later proven correct in federal court. Even today, he is often the first to reveal cooperating witnesses in a case, upcoming indictments or grand jury investigations.

Burnstein and his sources might be 100% right about the Bonanno situation; should he be proven right, his credibility will go up. As of right now, in my view, Burnstein has not built up the same sort of resume and track record as Capeci. That doesn't mean Capeci is infallible - the Dennis DeLucia thing comes to mind, where he inaccurately reported that DeLucia had was cooperating with LE, and then amended it the following week. But I think when researching the mob and analyzing the quality of source information, we have to put Capeci higher than Burnstein. No disrespect to Burnstein, I would put Capeci ahead of just about every active NY mob journalist.

That's fair. It's also far from just outright dismissing sources from other researchers because they don't happen to be Capeci. I can't speak for Scott's vetting process, but I can speak to my own. Nowhere did I state that I know for a fact that my source's info is 100% accurate, but based on what I know about him it's enough to take his information seriously. I shared because I thought those with an interest in Chicago would be interested. But some like Wiseguy dismiss all that without evidence just based on his own bias.

Getting back to Scott, I think he's doing basically the same thing. He has a source that he personally vetted for credibility and shared the source's inside information with his readers because he thought they would find the information interesting. Scott confirmed what he could (like the shirt), but the rest will have to wait and see.

How did Scott confirm the shirt thing? I must have missed that.

But yes, I think we're basically in agreement here. I am rooting for Scott to be vindicated, for an indictment to come out or for other news outlets to pick it up. With most of the mainstay mob journalists retiring or nearing retirement, it's good to have a fresh face exclusively covering the present-day mob.

And since it's been mentioned, I don't think Capeci not mentioning the story isn't a good reason to dismiss it. There's many reasons why Capeci hasn't mentioned it. Maybe he doesn't have relevant sources. Maybe he sees Scott as a competitor. Or maybe he just doesn't want to step on Scott's toes. There's many possible reasons. In the end it's just an argument from silence.

I haven't seen much in the way of Capeci's street sources recently, but he has always been pretty clued up on the Bonanno family. Was he the first to report on the Bonanno funeral brawl? That would indicate he has relevant sources to this situation. I think most of his sources today are in LE, which is why he still has a knack for predicting upcoming indictments or outing the names of CWs. Due to the recent LE attention on Mancuso - as someone mentioned, Capeci covered Mancuso this week's GL - you would think Capeci would have caught onto this. With all due respect, I also don't think Capeci is neglecting to cover this because he sees Scott as a competitor or doesn't want to step on his toes. I don't think that has ever been a factor in Capeci's journalism; traditionally, multiple news outlets cover events from every angle, and Capeci frequently collaborates with other journalists and hosts their articles in some of his GL articles.

I agree with you that Capeci not mentioning the story isn't a good reason to dismiss it, but I would contend that Capeci would be and has traditionally been the main guy to cover this stuff, especially the recent Bonanno affairs over the past few years.