I almost hate to say it....

[sdeitche]

Lookimg fwd to the book scott

Thank you and everyone who said they are looking forward to it. I think there will be some info that's never been in a book and I know there are photos that never were. I may share a few here after I submit the manuscript in mid March.

[Meatball]

Lookimg fwd to the book scott

Thank you and everyone who said they are looking forward to it. I think there will be some info that's never been in a book and I know there are photos that never were. I may share a few here after I submit the manuscript in mid March.

Congratulations on the book, Scott.

[AG777]

New Jersey really took a beating after those shows like Jersey Shore and the Jersey Housewives. They made a mockery out of the state. Embarrassing.

Good luck to you on your new book. It will be nice to read about the REAL Jersey.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Then don't buy my book. I never said it was definitive and say as much in the book. I specifically said, according to a source. How is that any different from some random FBI report with claims of an anonynous CI?

And I'm never afraid to say when I've been wrong. This source could be wrong though I think it certainly falls under extreme likelihood that Tieri was replaced by Lombardi. All the research that's been done on the mob and how much are we still learning. And how is whether Teri was shelved or not radically rewriting history?

And unless you are in the life and know all the nuances of terms and how there applied your reasoning is pure bullshit as well.

Ive been writing, researching, and contributing to these boards and the overall body of our research since 1995, mistakes and all. Not sure why you are so butthurt by my post.

I can see the last two lines of my post were not interpreted as intended. For clarification when I stated 'hardly inspires credibility' I was referring to your source failing to use a basic, commonly used and understood term, correctly.

When I closed with 'Again' I was referring that this was the second point which caused pause with your post.

Neither statement was directed at yourself.

And how is whether Teri was shelved or not radically rewriting history?

It's not. You stated Lombardi was shelved. This is new and controversial. And the only substantiation is from an unknown source who doesn't understand a basic, common mob mob term it appears.

And unless you are in the life and know all the nuances of terms and how there applied your reasoning is pure bullshit as well.

Am i understanding you correctly that the only way to understand the term 'shelved' is to be in the life itself. IE Anyone not a button or recorded associate could not understand this term?

Sorry, that's bullshit.

Nothing which I have said is personal, I simply have requested corroboration to a new and surprising piece of claimed history. That no evidence was provided and that your unknown source confused a key term leads me to pause in wholeheartedly accepting this new information is a legitimate question.

You've said you take criticism, the above is reasonable. Not 'pure bullshit' or 'butthurt' whatever.

[SonnyBlackstein]

To dismiss him because he didn't give an answer that was liked is totally unfair.

...and he shouldn't get attacked because his source wants give info off the record to stay alive, or maybe not to offend relatives who would consider them "rats."

You're reading things which aren't there.

No one was attacking or dismissing Scott.

To request evidence is not a crime. When none is offered I am having pause in blindly believing.

Why this is contentious is beyond me.

[OlBlueEyesClub]

Looking forward to the book, Scott. And idk, from reading Scotts post it seems like "shelved" is semantics. From the way its being described, sounds like his demotion was amicable, maybe his health simply didn't allow for him to be involved in day-to-day Genovese activity. Which isn't really re-writing history, as his position has been debated time and time again. Just like other Genovese bosses. I agree about Catena being an underrated mob power as well. His vote and word was just as crucial to the game as Carlo's & Lucchese's were during the Bananas War conflict. When Bonanno was "kidnapped", Catena was the first along with Gambino to be visited by NJ Boss, Sam DeCalvacante, to try and get insight into what was going on. The fact that Bonanno set up his own kidnapping, neither Catena nor Gambino knew anything about it.

[Antiliar]

To dismiss him because he didn't give an answer that was liked is totally unfair.

...and he shouldn't get attacked because his source wants give info off the record to stay alive, or maybe not to offend relatives who would consider them "rats."

You're reading things which aren't there.

No one was attacking or dismissing Scott.

To request evidence is not a crime. When none is offered I am having pause in blindly believing.

Why this is contentious is beyond me.

You wrote "You are rewriting history and when asked for evidence deny to provide." That sounds like an attack on Scott. You claimed he was "rewriting history" which could be taken as something good or bad, and followed up that he denied/refused to provide evidence, which is a mischaracterization. He's protecting a source. I think most of us can understand that some sources have to remain anonymous for their own protection or other reasons. Scott's not keeping his source's name out of it just to be selfish and stingy, so it's not that he's refusing, but he can't under the circumstances. Moreover, Scott never said that he's "rewriting history" based on this single source. It sounds like he's just including an additional piece of testimony to be considered along with the others we're already aware of. So there's no need to blindly believe in anything. Maybe you didn't intend for your words to be contentious, but to anyone reading them that's how they came across.

[HairyKnuckles]

I can understand why Sonny feels frustrated. The lack of info on what was going on with these guys and all misinformation that is out there can tear one apart. I totally understand that. 25-30 years ago I would have gone to bat, defending the "Night of the Sicilian Vespers" story. I would have defended the belief that it was Luciano who created the US Mafia and that the Italian gangsters pre that was just street hoods, I would have defended the notion that Lansky sat on the Commission, I would have defended the "fact" that it was the Gallo brothers who shot Anastasia to death. I would have defended the story of Paulie "Stripes" DeMarco being the Genovese boss etc, etc. But I wouldn´t do that anymore because of obvious reasons. And it´s not that who disclaimed these myths were rewriting history, but they were opening people´s eyes. That´s how I see it.

Scott is right about that it´s safe to say that Tieri was the Genovese boss. CI after CI after CI says this. Lombardo was powerful and he had some pull but he has wrongfully been ascended to an almost mythical figure thanks to internet posters. Lack of information and lack of access to information created the legend. Scott also said this:

I think we're talking semantics but I dont think he was shelved as in made persona non grata. I think it had more to do with Benny either not really wanting the top spot, not having support, and his health/age. Or a combination of all three. Form the conversation, it seemed to be amenable. Maybe demotion is a more apt description?

I can go to bat for that.

[SonnyBlackstein]

You wrote "You are rewriting history and when asked for evidence deny to provide." That sounds like an attack on Scott.

Sorry, thats bullshit. Youre seeing things which werent there. Both claims in the above statement are without prejudice.
A) 'You are rewriting history'
That Lombardo was shelved is a new and not insignificant claim which to my knowledge contradicts the known historical timeline.
Changing that is literally, rewriting history.
B) 'when asked for evidence, deny to provide'
This requires little explanation. I asked for corroboration and Scott chose to withheld.

followed up that he denied/refused to provide evidence, which is a mischaracterization.

No, its not. Its literally what he did. It is, was, not a judgement on him, just a literal description of what he did.

He's protecting a source. I think most of us can understand that some sources have to remain anonymous for their own protection or other reasons. Scott's not keeping his source's name out of it just to be selfish and stingy, so it's not that he's refusing, but he can't under the circumstances.

And thats fine.
But it means he's asking me to accept a claim on faith. I dont have a huge amount of trust in faith.
The claim is wholeheartedly based on the dependency of the source. The source could be anyone with hugely varying degree of knowledge/access/trustworthyness/motivation etc etc etc.
Without knowing the source you cannot make a call on the validity of the claim.

This is not a 302 or FBI file. At least in those cases Federal agents are indirectly attesting the information provided is from somewhat a reliable source.
This is a reporter.

Replace all above SDIETCHE with ERNEST VOLKMAN and tell me, would we still be having this argument?

Moreover, Scott never said that he's "rewriting history" based on this single source. It sounds like he's just including an additional piece of testimony to be considered along with the others we're already aware of. So there's no need to blindly believe in anything.

I am unaware of any information stating Lombardo was shelved. If there is corroborating I will gladly withdraw my posts and apologize.

[SonnyBlackstein]

I can understand why Sonny feels frustrated.

Appreciated.

The Genovese from Vito to Chin is a contentious history.

From my perspective a claim is made and I am simply asking for corroboration. With the amount of bullshit/rumour etc out there I dont see this as being a ridiculous position to take.

Again, if I was having this dialogue with Ernest Volkman not Scott, would this be such a contentious fucking stand?

At the end of the day this point probably doesnt warrant anymore wasted pages. So I've said my piece and will let it drop.

[sdeitche]

To dismiss him because he didn't give an answer that was liked is totally unfair.

Moreover, Scott never said that he's "rewriting history" based on this single source. It sounds like he's just including an additional piece of testimony to be considered along with the others we're already aware of. So there's no need to blindly believe in anything.

Exactly. I was simply offering up an alternative perspective given to me by a source. Nothing more, nothing less. Absolutely no different than the thousands of back and forth debates we've had on these forums for over 20 years.

[B.]

Scott has contacted me privately and I can tell he is sincerely trying to write a solid book on the very difficult subject of NJ. I wish him all the good fortune in the world in taking this on and look forward to reading it.

[moneyman]

Can't wait to read the book Scott, how much will the book cover from the 1990s to the present?

[Antiliar]

Replace all above SDIETCHE with ERNEST VOLKMAN and tell me, would we still be having this argument?

Sonny, when you even mention Ernest Volkman in the same sentence as Scott you lost me and your argument. Scott doesn't use fictionalized dialogue. What he is, is a fine researcher and writer. He also explained that this source only gives another possible scenario. Anyway, you have your opinion and I have mine, so I'm calling this debate over as far as my participation is concerned.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Jeezus H fucking Christ.

Would you read what I write not what's in your fucking head.

To clarify what does not need clarification, I AM NOT SAYING Scott is Fucking Ernest Volkman.

I was, for the millionth fucking time simply requesting corroboration for a claim from a claimant. Whoever the fuck they are. I don't, unlike you, have special writer friends or favourites or writers who I bend or ignore rules for. Hence, the fucking illustration that I don't give two fucks who's making the claim, some substantiation might be fucking nice.

But I keep forgetting the board has their 'special' claimants who are beyond basic standards.

So enjoy your fucking writers pity party about how persecuted writers are and tell yourselves you ARE open to criticism.

Because the tantrums and outcry on this fucking forum when asking for evidence from 'certain people' is fucking embarrassing frankly.

I know I stated I was finished posting but I'll not have people put words in my mouth, neither twist them to their own perceived biases.

Looking forward to reading your book Scott! We all fucking happy now?