I was looking into Molaska, wondering what exactly happened there, and started to think..
Besides the Judge begging him to release the hex, (lol) and the GOvernor breaking down crying (I actually find this strangely believable lol) what else in this book exactly is fraudulent?
I ask cause a lot of it seems on the money to me;
When he talks about Bronfman, the Annenbergs, the Commision politics, a lot of that stuff seems believable..
Also, I know I'm not the only one who's seen it, but isn't that movie MObsters with Christian SLater basically based on this book?
Any thoughts?

It was Luciano words and he was trying to show himself in a better light, even Joe and Bill Bonanno did it in their books, but there is some truth in what Lucky said. The book was meant to be a screen play. Lucky could not talk about certain things, but talked about some important facts. The three big things that I remember were him taking over Vito Genovese old drug routes and suppliers. Him and Joe Adonis getting into it, in the book it was the amount of money Adonis had on him, where Lucky had a faction of that amount. In reality that rift was do to Lucky accusing Joe of not making a stronger stance against Vito rise to boss. The Eboli brothers, true Pat was loyal to Luciano, and Tommy to Genovese, but it was never violent, but rather they did not talk to one another unless they had to. The one thing that really stuck in my mind was where he hinted at Joe Profaci being in drugs, I think he wanted to say Joe Bonanno, but since Profaci was on his death bed already, he would just say Profaci instead of Bonanno.

Exactly Giacomo, and this is the thing I can't seem to get people to see;
Gonna no was big in drugs, but didn't establish his connects until 57,
Yet you have him married into the profaci family, profs I married into drug dealing Detroit, and Bonnano married into the MAggadinos, who control the main routes to Canada, see where this goes?
Like it seem PROBABLE that Profaci was huge in drugs, but no one sees the connections.
No one seems to see the obvious factionalism either, like in another thread someone asked why the COlombos had more guys than luchesse or BOnnano, I gave em the rundown above, but it's like people see him as like a Mangano, a weak boss?
The Molaska thing;
In the book Lucky says it was his first indication that MYer was trying to strike out on his own, like get away from the Italians, but I think most people think no, everything was always hunky Corey or whatever, what do you think, or anyone for that matter?

I don't know what the fuck is up with the spell thing I meant BOnnano

I also find it ironic that they would create this super big, legit corporation, to go legit, then not pay the taxes lol
I mean CArlo bought up all the bootlegging interest, and gained a monopoly on illegal liquor, like if your going to sell legal liquor, sell it legal, if not, then don't...

There's a lot wrong with the book. If you want the details, read this article:

http://gangstersinc.ning.com/profiles/blogs/april-issue-of-informer-journal-available-now

http://informer-journal.blogspot.com/2012_04_21_archive.html

I think I read bill bonannos last test. That shit was a scrap of his first book an his father's. He didn't give up any new secrets. Got me for 10 bucks. It came out after massino flipped.

I doubt now that Luciano even said majority of the things attributed to him in the Last Testament book. You're right in that it was originally written as a screenplay, but there's doubt that even Luciano signed off and participated in that whole ordeal in the first place.

Idk, there's been real debate over it. But I've went over to the side that believes the book is a complete fabrication.

Well, either Luciano fabricated names, places and events or Martin Gosch did. I cited example after example where what's in the book is contrary to the facts. If it was a screenplay (and we know that it originally was meant to be a screenplay) and was published as Luciano's true life story, then that is by definition a hoax and a fraud.

If I interviewed Richard Nixon (for those who don't know, he was a president of the USA and died several years ago) for the purpose of a fictionalized movie of his life, then after he died I put it together as a book and say that this was an interview of his real life story, that's a fraud. Some facts, some truths, could be in there. They would have to be to give it coherence, but the stuff that we don't know about, we can't trust it because the original intention was a fictionalized screenplay. So to call "The Last Testament" a hoax or a fraud doesn't mean that every single thing in the book is false, but that it's not what it claims to be and can't be trusted.

That's kinda what I mean, when you say complete fabrication, like how could it be a COMPLETE fabrication lol, too much of the stuff really happened..
It's like saying cause Bonnano never mentioned drugs, you can't take the commission seriously cause he's probably lying, like how does that work?
What I don't get is what exactly is fabricated?
His abduction by MAranzano?
It looks like the police were the ones to take him for a ride, like is that one of the instances?
It's just no one ever gives any examples, it's just, well the book is a fraud lol..

I mean I see that the harshest criticism came from the fbi line and I'm like get the fuck outta here, first they didn't know shit, so how would they criticize?
Fbi data on the mob came after Appalachian via black bugs and whatnot.
Like I can see the dramatic shit, are there like wrong dates of political conventions or something just obviously wrong?

One of the reasons I ask is that I've read two other books on Luciano so far, and none of em are as informative as this fake book, I find it baffling, but I'll try to get my hands on the article...
Another thing is that the moves being made in cn at that time, kinda jibe with what Luciano hints at in the book....
Stuff like GAmbino and GEnovese pretending to not get along, but really being co-conspirators
Luciano not understanding why lanky didn't stick up for guys like LOngy, who was Jewish like him, plus a part of his power block, it was another sign lanky was hedging his bets..
Just little stuff..

One of the reasons I ask is that I've read two other books on Luciano so far, and none of em are as informative as this fake book, I find it baffling, but I'll try to get my hands on the article...
Another thing is that the moves being made in cn at that time, kinda jibe with what Luciano hints at in the book....
Stuff like GAmbino and GEnovese pretending to not get along, but really being co-conspirators
Luciano not understanding why lanky didn't stick up for guys like LOngy, who was Jewish like him, plus a part of his power block, it was another sign lanky was hedging his bets..
Just little stuff..

You do know that other Crime books based on LCN were out at the time, before Gosch & Hammer released "The Last Testament"? And a lot of them contained some of the information that was claimed in the Last Testament, there are some who believe that Gosch & Hammer used those books as reference points to describe factual events, "as told by Luciano".

I don't put much credence on Testament, but the concern I have with the above statement is that it implies that Gosch and Hammer cobbled together Testament on their own with no input from Lucky Luciano himself. If you say that, then you have to explain away the whole story about Lucky and Gosch being together as acquaintances, the screen play for the proposed movie, etc etc etc. It's not like Gosch claimed to know someone he never met. You have to explain why Luciano was with Gosch if Gosch's primary profession was writing scripts for movies [not writing autobiographies] and being a motion picture producer.

Here's another factoid: Luciano was a fan of Abbott and Costello. He might have listened to them on the radio. Gosch was big part of the production of the Abbott and Costello show. So that's another connection and no one can then claim that Luciano had no idea Gosch was involved in show business.

Also guys, I want you to know I'm not apologizing for a bad book or hack writer, but I really genuinely don't know what parts ain't real, ( other than the really dramatic parts)
Example; The whole meeting with MAsseria, everything into the pot but the whiskey?
Real or fake?
Did Luciano get abducted by MAranzano? Or was that supposed to be the attack made by the police, that left him scarred?
I assume they got a lot of dates wrong as well?
Also, the fraudulent part is in that it got no input from Luciano?
So not his own words then, ok I see read that the notes were destroyed or something?

I think Frank Costello said the cops are the one's that took Lucky for a ride. Lucky himself might have also said so, according to Salvadore Vizzini.

When asked to produce proof of his conversations with Luciano, like an audio...Gosch or Hammer, one of the two, claimed that they had taken notes of Luciano's statements, when the book came under scrutiny, these notes were sought. According to the authors, when no notes could be recovered, the claim was they had been burned.

Gosch wrote down notes that were unorganized. Hammer took the notes and when he cited them used quotes. Hammer also did the historical background. Later, when a reporter asked to see the notes the widow of Gosch said she burned them.

There was a New York reporter who wrote a book critical of the Gosch and Hammer book named Anthony Scaduto. I interviewed him because he said he interviewed AND RECORDED Luciano's brother, Bart. I asked if I could get a copy of the recordings. He said he threw them out years earlier.

But they're not the only ones. I contacted a former president of the Italo-American National Union (what used to be called the Unione Siciliana). She told me that a previous president couldn't find a place to store all their old records, so they destroyed them.

The borough of Brooklyn destroyed all of its older business license records (I wanted info on the Harvard Inn and other old mob-related businesses). New York City and other cities regularly destroy old police files.

So it sucks, but most people don't appreciate history and don't bother to save records.

He recorded Bart Lucania and then threw out the recordings? How irresponsible. Maybe there is doubt he really recorded Bart's voice? Some people embellish.

People often don't think to save things. So there's no reason to think he lied. Scaduto was a well-known journalist with a long history. I don't doubt that Gosch had notes and that his widow got rid of them after he died, not knowing their value. Can't always assume the worst about people.

My beef with Gosch is that his notes were of a fictionalized version of Luciano's life, a screenplay, and he passed it off to Hammer as the truth. So I don't blame Hammer either.

Anyway, as I pointed out, Brooklyn threw out many of its records and I'm not going to assume that they never existed. They just didn't realize the historical value of what they had. It's like a strict mother who takes it on herself to throw away her son's comic books because she cleaned up his room after he wouldn't clean it up. Then it turns out that the comic books were part of a valuable collection that her son saved up for years. I remember that happening to one or two people I knew when I was a kid.

Ah, only thing I disagree with is the term fictionalized, cause a lot of the info isn't fiction.
I would say DRamatized more than fictionalization, also, not to go off on a crazy tangent, but I feel like you can't ever discount the fact that LUciano was up to his eyebrows with the CIA! This is why I really think there is so much haze around the guy...
Again, I actually don't hold the writers too responsible here, I have a feeling ANY record of LUcianos life that went public was going to be heavily edited, censored, rewritten...rife with omissions, vagueness, Alfa already pointed out the literal blackout on VIzzini (just finished his book by the way, thank Alfa for mentioning it in a post lol)

If you scour the expose of the book in the article I linked you may change your mind.

Aah, ok lol, I shall take your advice..

After reading that link Faithful1 posted, and from the article I remember reading on the AmericanMafia site. It seems when compared with the information picked up by local police, FBI, and Narcotics agents at the time, in regards to Luciano & other OC matters, a lot of what Luciano claims in the book, is flat out inaccurate or simply wrong. Now who could've done this? Did Luciano seek out Gosch & Hammer with the intent of not only embellishing his life, but also contradicting the information of the period in relation to LCN matters that went on around Luciano without his direct involvement, with the hope of simply making a movie of it all? Or was it his initial idea to an autobiography full of misinformation for entertainments sake? Perhaps still living by the rules of LCN, he really didn't tell Gosch anything, and lied all throughout the book to protect those who he knew actually did the things he blamed others for. Why would he do this though? Or did Gosch & Hammer make it all up? Not saying they didn't have a relationship with Luciano and that he didn't actually speak with Gosch, but did Gosch use his known relationship with Luciano to his utmost advantage after the man himself passed on?

There's a lot to consider here.

That Vizzini book is a good one, isn't it Cabrini? I enjoyed it intensely. It was in Vizzini's book where Luciano told him that no one was going to hear the real story, and that the real story was better than the fiction to the point that no one would even believe it if he told it.

From reading that book I got the distinct impression that Luciano was just pretending by treating Vizzini like a long lost son, after which he was probably going to have Vizzini whacked without warning. Sal Vizzini is lucky his mission ended when it did.

It's really interesting you say that Alfa, that's the impression I got too, like Vizzini was away outta his league...

Vizzini imagined that Luciano needed his services as an airforce pilot to move smack. Vizzini imagined that Luciano looked upon him with paternal affection, and to some degree I think that is true. Luciano kept the photo of "airforce pilot Major Mike Cerra" on the wall of his own home. By many accounts Lucky Luciano had affection and sympathy for everyday normal people. Someone said that a person on the street could accidentally bump into him and he would say "excuse me" and keep going. Very polite. But Luciano trusted no one. He didn't become Lucky Luciano by trusting. And he didn't agree with the motive that inspired police to law enforcement. He disagreed with that motive and that logic. He felt they had no right to interfere...

I think Luciano wanted to put on a good front in front of Vizzini without ever giving him any proof that he was into heroin smuggling. Luciano knew that the Italian authorities were on his case, so he had to be on the lookout for agents and undercovers. You'll notice that Luciano never showed Vizzini any drugs or discussed anything drug related with him, only that he might need him in the future. When Vizzini agreed to this, he showed his hand, that he was interested in trafficking...or wanted to become privy to Luciano's trafficking activities. Really he was going to be whacked because you never approach a boss offering your services directly to him. Vizzini forgot that Lucky Luciano was still a boss because Lucky appeared to be alone in Italy with no mafia family, no capos, no soldiers. In the real world, Vizzini should have been trying to become an associate...working for a soldier....who was working for a Capo....who answered to an Underboss and front boss....who answered to Luciano. So in violating that protocol I think Luciano was going to hit him once he could find out who sent Vizzini. Luciano would never just whack someone like him. He wanted to find out who the puppet masters were, always. If the senders were from the underworld, he would engineer their demise. If the senders were from the world of law enforcement, he would go to school on them and become wise to their operation.

Remember when Vizzini found his name (but no photo) on a list of agents in Luciano's home? He really had a very close call. Luciano was very smart.

Edit: Some people say Luciano was not heroin trafficking in Italy, but if that is true, why would he have the name of an FBN (Federal Buereau of Narcotics) agent in his possession?

Luciano was definitely heroin trafficking in Italy, in my opinion.

Mine too. They don't come right out and say the ridiculous...they just say that when he was in Italy he was done, washed up, no influence, etc. They don't want to believe that Lucky Luciano actually became bigger in Italy than he ever was in the United States during the "classical age" of Great Depression era gangsters.