Is there even a commission anymore?

[B.]

You should be a defense attorney. A guy who can prove Massino is lying on cross would be the richest man on the bar.

[Antiliar]

As someone who isn't as interested in the more recent stuff, I found this back and forth between SonnyBlackstein and B very educational. Very well argued on both sides.

[B.]

Thanks Rick -- I enjoy these topics and as you know the sources themselves are sometimes in conflict but sometimes it's a matter of POV.

What we've learned from this thread is members use the term Commission in a more general way to refer to NYC Families working together at high levels, while Massino says the formal Commission ceased to exist at least between 1985-2005 though he himself uses it in the former sense sometimes too.

I'm interested in all of their viewpoints. Maybe some of them did think of it as a formal body but the only official boss, and therefore the only one qualified to sit on a formal Commission if it did exist, says it was not a formal body and has no incentive to lie.

[B.]

Sonny, think of it this way:

If a formal Commission did exist in 2005 when Massino cooperated, do you know how much bargaining power that would have given him? They could have had Commission Case 2.0 with an official boss testifying in the trial. Even if they didn't do a sweeping RICO of all the Commission members, simply having Massino testify in individual cases that bosses of different NYC Families sat on a Commission would be a massive coup. The government's goofy "East Coast LCN Enterprise" from the Merlino/Genovese case would have actual legs.

If he had incentive to lie, it would be to say there was in fact a Commission which would increase the value of his cooperation tenfold and the US Marshalls would be buying him way better steaks.

[SonnyBlackstein]

You should be a defense attorney. A guy who can prove Massino is lying on cross would be the richest man on the bar.

You give me too much credit. Im not the one adroit at avoiding questions.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Sonny, think of it this way:

If a formal Commission did exist in 2005 when Massino cooperated, do you know how much bargaining power that would have given him? They could have had Commission Case 2.0 with an official boss testifying in the trial. Even if they didn't do a sweeping RICO of all the Commission members, simply having Massino testify in individual cases that bosses of different NYC Families sat on a Commission would be a massive coup. The government's goofy "East Coast LCN Enterprise" from the Merlino/Genovese case would have actual legs.

If he had incentive to lie, it would be to say there was in fact a Commission which would increase the value of his cooperation tenfold and the US Marshalls would be buying him way better steaks.

As a quick response, no they could not have had a Commission Case version 2.0 because commission by definition implies multiple families and they only had Massino on trial. So, no.

And again, whether Massino lied or not, is actually BESIDE THE POINT. The only relevancy is, is it true. The preponderance of evidence points otherwise.
DeFede, Gravano, Violi, Basciano, the meet at Louie's house.
Oh and to negate your point of 'the only thing that counts is the word of the only sitting boss'?
Remember the point of Massino stating the Commission had affirmed his 91 appointment as boss? There you go. If Massinos word is the ONLY thing that matters, the this, is the only point that matters.

[SonnyBlackstein]

As someone who isn't as interested in the more recent stuff, I found this back and forth between SonnyBlackstein and B very educational. Very well argued on both sides.

Cheers.

And again, I'll reiterate. I have the upmost respect for B. AS frustrated as we may appear in disagreement on points, my larger respect holds without second thought.

[B.]

What questions do you have? Boil it down to a couple of simple ones or I might accidentally avoid them since I'm adroit at that.

As a quick response, no they could not have had a Commission Case version 2.0 because commission by definition implies multiple families and they only had Massino on trial. So, no.

And again, whether Massino lied or not, is actually BESIDE THE POINT. The only relevancy is, is it true. The preponderance of evidence points otherwise.
DeFede, Gravano, Violi, Basciano, the meet at Louie's house.
Oh and to negate your point of 'the only thing that counts is the word of the only sitting boss'?
Remember the point of Massino stating the Commission had affirmed his 91 appointment as boss? There you go. If Massinos word is the ONLY thing that matters, the this, is the only point that matters.

First paragraph: the Commission by definition is a formal body established in 1931 with official seats and processes. It was already watered down by 1985. If it implies multiple Family leaders making decisions together, then there was a Commission meeting almost every day pre-Apalachin.

I didn't say the only thing that counts is Massino's word, only that his word has more weight in the hierarchy of sources given he is the only official boss to cooperate. The other sources' POVs are important too and you can read my reply to Antiliar on how to possibly reconcile the conflicting info, including Massino's own conflicting use of the term.

[SonnyBlackstein]

Massino A: "There hasnt been a Commission since 1985"
(No corroborating evidence, preponderance of contradictory evidence)

Massino B: "I was affirmed by the Commission in 1991"
(Evidence of a post '85 Commission corroborated by: Jo Defede, Gravano, Basciano, Violi, Restivo meet)

I'll take Massino B thanks John.

I leanrt this trick as a defense lawyer. (Pssst its the evidence stoopid )

[B.]

That's not a question and I did address that throughout the thread.

[SonnyBlackstein]

What questions do you have? Boil it down to a couple of simple ones or I might accidentally avoid them since I'm adroit at that.

adroit?

Stealin meh words.

Sonny thesaurus'd the fuck outta google for that. Step off.

[SonnyBlackstein]

That's not a question and I did address that throughout the thread.

It isnt a question.

Its a damn good point.

[B.]

I'm an avoidant thief, what can I say. It's all good Sonny. We're pals.

[B.]

This topic is a good example of how frustrating this subject can be as researchers -- the mafia is almost completely verbal but they aren't always consistent with how they use words. People say different things, sometimes even the same person does it, and we can't afford to throw anyone's account out unless it's blatantly deceptive like Scarpa lying in FBI reports about murders he was involved in (see LCNBios' recent post about Somma) or Ralph Natale's book which might as well be Grimm's Fairy Tales.

Usually they're pretty good about things like official ranks and membership but when you get outside of that it becomes a quagmire and a lot of it comes down to POV.

Good examples are the Anastasia murder and the reason for the Apalachin meeting. A lot of people tell different stories about that and we have to try and decipher who was in a better position to know and what matches other available info.

Another example is the "first Family" discussion. You have four high-ranking sources from different Families who believe the first (or one of the first) US Family was the DeCavalcantes or at least in New Jersey, but we also have a Commission member saying New Orleans was the first and a ton of evidence to support that. Maybe we should ask Massino about that one haha -- only half-joking, you have to wonder what historical info he was told.

[B.]

We're really at the mercy of just a small cast of people who have cooperated, been recorded, or written memoirs. A single sentence from one of these guys can completely shift our understanding.

Also not all of these guys are well-spoken. Not everyone is like Michael DiLeonardo, who has the knowledge and wit to break things down in a way that makes sense and the humility to admit the things he doesn't know. Massino comes across that way to me too in his own way which is one reason we're all desperate for an interview or book. We could hear more from him later that puts his info in better context or maybe Sonny's right and we'll see a much more manipulative side of him.