Is there even a commission anymore?

[MightyDR]

Has Michael DiLeonardo talked about a post-1985 Commission? I feel like he would be someone with a good enough understanding of things to distinguish between bosses getting together to iron out issues and an actual Commission.

I seem to recall reading that there was a moratorium on hits at some point during the 90s. Is that true? If so, it seems like a rule only the Commission would be able to make.

[B.]

Just for some perspective this literally changes nothing. Massino is wearing a wire. He's cooperating. Stating something when youre cooperating or on the stand is literally the same thing. He knows the G will hear it. If Massino was caught on tape saying this before he flipped, that may carry more weight. But I dont see how this is any different from saying it on the stand which is the point of contention.

Glad Vinny Basciano was there to assist with Massino's Big Lie about the Commission:

JM: There, no, you know that, there’s no commission.
VB: Yeah, I know, but that’s what he told me.

Nice of Basciano to help because... wait, how does it help Massino to lie about it?

[PolackTony]

Has Michael DiLeonardo talked about a post-1985 Commission? I feel like he would be someone with a good enough understanding of things to distinguish between bosses getting together to iron out issues and an actual Commission.

+1

[B.]

DiLeonardo said Gotti Sr. wanted to take over the Commision and become boss of bosses, but the latter position no longer existed so it all may have been defacto.

[B.]

Another question is when the last known Commission meeting took place involving a non-NYC Family. According to a Colombo member CI, Chicago attended the Commision meeting in the late 1970s where the DiBella-Persico vs. Yacovelli-Abbatemarco conflict was mediated. This was presumably Aiuppa or someone representing him.

We know Cleveland and Buffalo continued to seek out their Genovese avugad until the Commission case, but I'm not aware offhand of any formal "Commission meetings" where a non-NYC Family attended and was consulted in matters not directly relevant to their city.

[Pogo The Clown]

Nicky Scarfo and Tony Accardo attended the meeting in 1986 where the Commission ruled that Joe Bonanno had to get out of Las Vegas.


Pogo

[B.]

Did it count as a Commission meeting when Maranzano and Capone looked down on them from Heaven?

Sonny is going to say yes.

[PolackTony]

Unfortunately, Roemer’s editors cut out the line where Maranzano and Capone refer to God as “The Old Man Out West”.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Glad Vinny Basciano was there to assist with Massino's Big Lie about the Commission:

JM: There, no, you know that, there’s no commission.
VB: Yeah, I know, but that’s what he told me.

Nice of Basciano to help because... wait, how does it help Massino to lie about it?

B. I expect better.

Vinny claimed at the beginning of the conversation that the Commission had ok'd it. He stated so BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THE COMMISSION HAD, OKAYD IT.
This excerpt clearly relates to his acquiesce of Massino's statement that it didn't. Massino telling him it didn't and him being the boss n all, Vinny agreed.

Off your game bud.

[SonnyBlackstein]

D'fede said there were 8 Commission meetings in the 90's.
Gravano cited one in 88
Basicano refers to it in 03 (?)
Violi refers to it in 2018 (?)
Fuck, even Joey boy himself said he was made Boss in 91.

Then there's this:
Bonanno boss Joseph Massino
Bonanno underboss Salvatore Vitale
Genovese captain Lawrence Dentico
Gambino acting boss Peter Gotti
Lucchese acting boss Louis Daidone
Colombo consigliere Joel Cacace

All atrend a meeting to discuss Gino's softball team in Philly.


Or..... we can worship at the alter and not question he who should not be questioned....

[B.]

Glad Vinny Basciano was there to assist with Massino's Big Lie about the Commission:

JM: There, no, you know that, there’s no commission.
VB: Yeah, I know, but that’s what he told me.

Nice of Basciano to help because... wait, how does it help Massino to lie about it?

B. I expect better.

Vinny claimed at the beginning of the conversation that the Commission had ok'd it. He stated so BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THE COMMISSION HAD, OKAYD IT.
This excerpt clearly relates to his acquiesce of Massino's statement that it didn't. Massino telling him it didn't and him being the boss n all, Vinny agreed.

Off your game bud.

There's a thoughtful way to analyze/challenge Massino's info (see Antimafia's post about the Cotroni murder Sciascia allegedly admitted to), but your stance is that Massino lied for reasons unknown about multiple major murders as well as the Commission, all with the death penalty still lingering behind him. None of these "controversial" statements from Massino impact his admitted guilt in the crimes discussed, nor do they diminish the role he admitted to playing.

With confirmed liars like Greg Scarpa and Ralph Natale, we can easily identify the motivation for their lies. With Massino the motivations to lie aren't clearcut, especially with this Commission angle. If you want to continue the discussion I'd love to know what you believe Massino's motivation is for both testifying and telling Basciano the formal Commission ceased to exist. Unless you can enlighten me on what his motivation would be concerning the Commission, it just seems you feel Massino was an inveterate liar who lied about the Commission just to lie. If that's the case the discussion is a dead end.

[CornerBoy]

We need a major guy to flip and spill the beans on thsi stuff.

Think Barney or any of those old Genovese guys could flip?

Who could really shed light on this?

no Luchese. no bonanno, no colombo, maybe a few old genovese or a few old gambino

[SonnyBlackstein]

There's a thoughtful way to analyze/challenge Massino's info (see Antimafia's post about the Cotroni murder Sciascia allegedly admitted to), but your stance is that Massino lied for reasons unknown about multiple major murders as well as the Commission, all with the death penalty still lingering behind him. None of these "controversial" statements from Massino impact his admitted guilt in the crimes discussed, nor do they diminish the role he admitted to playing.

With confirmed liars like Greg Scarpa and Ralph Natale, we can easily identify the motivation for their lies. With Massino the motivations to lie aren't clearcut, especially with this Commission angle. If you want to continue the discussion I'd love to know what you believe Massino's motivation is for both testifying and telling Basciano the formal Commission ceased to exist. Unless you can enlighten me on what his motivation would be concerning the Commission, it just seems you feel Massino was an inveterate liar who lied about the Commission just to lie. If that's the case the discussion is a dead end.

I'm disheartened on two ends.
1) Your complete misconstruction of my argument. To attempt to clarify, again, I am not anti-Massino. I am not attempting to prove he is lying. This is not my basis for debate nor my contention. My contention is simply that on two points, the overwhelming evidence is different to that of Joe Massino's testimony.
In a vacuum, I would 100% believe every syllable that Massino uttered. But we do not live in a vacuum, and if the preponderance of evidence contradicts a single testimony, then by logic I am forced to err with the alternate.
Massino may or may not be lying, he may be confused, he may have a mis-recollection, he may have heard false information, or he may be being deliberately deceitful for reasons known only to him. Who knows. And here's the thing, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference, nor do I care. The only thing which is important is what the truth is, what actually happened. If it were to come to light Joe had been erroneously informed the last Commission was in 85, and he genuinely believed it ie he was not 'lying' on the stand, I wouldn't care less. My goal is not to discredit Massino, prove that he's lying. Its to find the truth.
Massino is simply a variable to be weighed up in order to conclude the logical truth.

2) I find your discussion/debate style a little, one-sided. I have on multiple occassions stated many points of contention, almost all of which you continuiosly aviod/ignore.
I, in good faith, and in an honest attempt to come to the right conclusion, have addressed all your points you brought to the table. You have done little to nothing to address mine. It appears from this posters end, you would adroitly isolate a minor point I made and address that, and often in a indirect manor to serve your own point. I haven't felt youve entered this debate with an open mind and a motivation to isolate the truth. How can we have a productive discussion if you refuse to address the issues I raise?
My last two posts , and your response, is another perfect example of this. I offered an explanation as to the Massino/Basicano discussion. You failed to address this. I then offered a post with 5, 6 very compelling reasons as to the error of Massino's testimony (DeFede, Gravano etc). You have refused to address one, let alone all of these points.
The discussion has come to an end, if you misunderstand my point (1) and decide to not fully engage in an honest pursuit of the truth (2).

End of the day you know Sonny loves ya and a good discussion is worth its weight no matter the outcome, and Ive enjoyed you challenging me to think and consider, every step of the way.

[B.]

1) Your complete misconstruction of my argument. To attempt to clarify, again, I am not anti-Massino. I am not attempting to prove he is lying.

Sonny, I'd like you to meet a guy named Sonny:

Pogo, B. Now that it's demonstrable that Massino was lying, and knew better, ie not a misunderstanding.

Are you prepared to accept Massino, if, as proven, lied about the Commission, would lie again in his testimony?

[SonnyBlackstein]

1) Your complete misconstruction of my argument. To attempt to clarify, again, I am not anti-Massino. I am not attempting to prove he is lying.

Sonny, I'd like you to meet a guy named Sonny:

Pogo, B. Now that it's demonstrable that Massino was lying, and knew better, ie not a misunderstanding.

Are you prepared to accept Massino, if, as proven, lied about the Commission, would lie again in his testimony?

B. Youve completely missed the point.
I am not starting out trying to prove Massino is Lying. I am indicating that the preponderance of evidence proves it. Im concerned you cant differentiate.
Should I have included every other possibility Massino may have made false testimony? IE mis-remembered, was mis-informed etc etc, sure. But considering this comes on the back of his contentious Napolitano testimony, its a likely conclusion that with 2 'errors' that it was a deliberate mis-truth ie lie, rather than two mis-recollections.
So if the CONCLUSION is that Massino is likely lying, that is NOT that I am starting out to make Massino a liar.

B. Id like you to meet a guy called English 101

And thanks on proving point number 2.