Which rat was the most truthful in your opinion?

If you had to pick one. My vote goes to Sal Vitale.

One thing with vitale they say he order a homeless punk who stuck up his kid killed. The guy nicky crow was really truthfull and came across as pathetic. He said he was driver or sometging in his 1 murder. All the other plots were just plots. These new england rats are getting caught in lies every other year from 1 guys book to anothers.

Al D'arco

Nick Gentile.

going way back, joe valachi, told about the ceremony, how the LCN was set up, identified all the bosses, and underbosses.
truthful enough that J. edgar hoover could no longer deny the existence of the L.C.N.

Binnie you no your probaly right. He was wrong about a few things and experts say he was border line retared. Or probalg just dumb. Wasnt genovese his best man or something way back. He was wrong about who was in what family but they say it was what the feds were telling him and they had bad info. He was spot on about the structure thats the same today.

Mikey Scars Dileonardo

Petey Crumb Caprio

Yogi Merlino

'
yes, pmac he was vitos best man at his wedding, also he wasn't
retarded or disturbed, the information he gave about the original five n.y.c. dons was spot on. when he went in front of congress in 1963 the L.C.N. freaked out. here was a made guy an insider, giving away secret information, it was the first time in history a made guy flipped.

I've gotta go with Mikey Scars too. I'm sure he held back some stuff, but he comes across as quite honest IMO. Always has some interesting info.

Yep, I second that one too..

I dont believe in truthful rat. They took an oath. It doesnt mean if the things you do are right or wrong or the other way around, if you took an oath, you'll keep your mouth shut and thats that. On the other hand if you never took an oath, well than thats another story...

You raise a good legal point Toodoped. So you are basically saying that associates are really the only ones who are not lying on the witness stand. I can see Jacobs, Cutler and Stargell asking rats on the stand about their Cosa Nostra oath how and when they took it, how they believed it and have now decided to brake that sacred oath by testifying. The lawyers can then say, so what the difference now? You took you an Oath here to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God and how do we know you're not lying now?

Thats a very good point Beans. Also associates dont give a damn if they talk about their business relations with mobsters and that is why many mob members made mistakes by bringing the same associates to their bosses. Such is the Sam Battaglia case in Chicago during the mid 1960's.

it is not a matter of taking an oath at the point of testimony, the question was who was most truthful, a ton of crimes are solved with guys who flip, gravano unloaded the truth he just minimized his role and blamed gotti, but he put the shooters there. opened up all the union stuff.. joe messing the same..al darco slanted everything away from him and protected his son..but the guy solved so many homicides, no question..scars was also devastating. i just looked up how many times these guys put their hands up ..gravano 9 darco 9 scars 15! believe that ..that means these guys could not be proven to lie on the stand or they never would have been used case after case..throw vitali in , he was devastating also..he has i think 6 trials..so breaking the oath aside these guys stood the test of very good lawyers.rats all folks!

What I am talking about Bronx are the 12 Jurors. They are the ones who decide the fate of the defendants. . So if the Defense attorney raises an argument that when the witness was in the life he swore an oath and lived by the code and he believed in the life but yet he broke the Omertà rule by ratting. He basically can't be trusted now to tell the truth now while testifying. Because he lied to his CN family and he's capable of lying now to the jurors.

got it..Bean... thanks..

"I got to learn that the whole thing was bullshit. I mean, we broke every rule in the book. Like, at one of the trials, a lawyer asked me, 'How could you break the oath of omerta?' I said, 'There's a hundred rules. We broke ninety-nine of them. This was the last rule. It wasn't that hard anymore'".
-Gravano

Was a corrections officer before he got caught up with Massino.

Another guy, like Leonetti, who likes to blame his life of crime on falling in with an influential, older family member.

He punched an agent out one time.

Vitale, Ligambi.. I wonder who else has done that.

Not everyone is a Massino or Gambino who maintains entente cordiale with the guys looking to bring them down.

I don't know if you could call Jon Roberts a rat, but everything he put into his book seemed to be uncensored straight dope. The real deal.

Nice find MightyDR. Spot on by Gravano!

I liked Gravano's book. I've heard people say that he lied about a lot of things, but he certainly set the record straight on Gotti. Gotti was a beloved celebrity up to that point that, as far as anyone knew, was one of the great mafia dons of all time. He was a trainwreck, and Gravano spelled it out with information that for the most part was corroborated by court records, wire taps, witnesses, etc.

Nick Calabrese - calm and clearly laid out the mundane life of a mobster.

Carmine Sessa

Totally agree Alfa, love that book.

So do I. Every emotion is covered in that book, and then some. Some of his confessions are downright disconcerting. Then after the book was released, we found out he was still friendly with some dirty cops who supposedly supplied him with unmarked guns. Very wild. Very scary.

Was Roberts the one on Cocaine Cowboys, who talks about his uncle or something being in the mob? Wasn't aware he had a book. I'll check that out.

Mikey Dileonardo is the most truthful

Yes, yes he did, and yes you should.

yes, I read that book, his uncle was joe "staten island joe"
riccobono, a capo in the Gambino family, joe valachi even mentions him in his book, he was close to albert Anastasia.