"Well, instead of just believing everything Joe/Bill Bonanno tell you in self-serving memoirs, you can use facts and logic, too."
- Alex, that is what I do. I use facts and logic.
"Even Joe Bonanno doesn't say that they postponed a drug ban in 1956 in order to meet "face to face" in 1957. I don't know where you're getting this now?
This is really weak logic, too. Why didn't the Commission at least issue a national edict in 1956? Why didn't the New York bosses present agree to ban drugs among the New York Families at the 1956 Commission meeting?"
- To my knowledge, banning of drug involvement was not on the agenda at the Oct 1956 Commission meeting. it was never my intention to make you believe it was.
We are going round and round with this without getting nowhere. I know why you are doing this and I´m not going to help you doing this. Let´s just agree to disagree. But it´s funny though...I think there must be over one hundred references and quotes where you use Bonanno as a source in your book. To me, that´s kinda remarkable considering Bonanno is just a "self serving, bull shit coin artist".
HairyKnuckles, you speak with 100% certainty about things ("The other major issue was the banning of drugs, across the board"). What you don't reveal is that you're mostly just rehashing Joe/Bill Bonanno's romantic mythology almost word-for-word.
A Man of Honor was published back in 1983. Since then, there's been a lot of new source material that's come out. We can use those other sources to test Bonanno's claims against.
Yet, I've never heard you question a single substantive thing Joe/Bill Bonanno have ever said. I doubt you've ever stepped foot in an archive. That's what bothers me.
As for your "funny" assertion that I DO sometimes cite to Joe Bonanno, I know you're not that obtuse. But let me explain one last time:
(1) DISPUTING PROVABLE LIES: The majority of my cites to Bonanno are to dispute provable factual lies or romantic myths by him (i.e., he wasn't at Apalachin). There are assertions that we can disprove with facts and evidence, like at the New York State Archives.
(2) PROVABLE FACTS ABOUT MAFIA OPERATIONS: I do cite to Bonanno when he's talking about provable facts like the Mafia liked to achieve monopolies. There's no reason he'd lie about something like that, and plenty of evidence to support it (i.e., garment district racketeering).
(3) CORRABORATION FROM OTHER INSIDE SOURCES: I do cite to Bonanno on some of the basic facts when he can be corroborated by other sources. For example, Nicola Gentile's "Vita de Capomafia" and even Joe Valachi's handwritten memoirs corroborate much of the basic timeline of 1930-31. Gentile's and Bonanno's lineup of the members of the 1931 Commission are basically the same, too.
However, Bonanno's story that Joe Masseria was just a fat pig, and Maranzano a supreme physical specimen is provably false. The Medical Examiner autopsy reports show that Maranzano was actually fatter than Masseria.
Here's my bottom line: Mob memoirs are valuable, because they're rare, but I don't swallow everything they say as 100% true. When Bonanno can be corroborated by other sources, I use him. However, when Bonanno can NOT be corroborated, has a strong motive to lie and indeed can be disproven by other facts, then I don't use him.
It's called "interrogating the sources." It's exactly what good historians like Critchley and Dash have done, too. Not too complicated HK.
