From: Tom <tphunt@...>
Subject: [americanmafia] Informer readership climbs
To: americanmafia@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 13 December, 2009, 15:09

 

Readership of Informer: The Journal of American Mafia History grew dramatically during the month of November. Average readership of a non-index journal issue grew by more than 66 percent from 972.4 on Nov. 6 to 1620.8 on Dec. 12.

More detailed stats are available on the Informer website:
http://mafiainforme r.blogspot. com/

From: Tom <tphunt@...>
Subject: [americanmafia] Informer index
To: americanmafia@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 28 October, 2009, 23:46

 

An index to the five Informer issues published in 2008 and 2009 (Volumes 1 and 2) is now available through Scribd.com. You will need to have a free account with Scribd in order to use this download link (so sign up at Scribd.com and then click the link):

http://www.scribd. com/document_ downloads/ 21764189? extension= pdf

If you would like a professionally printed and bound copy of the index, head over to http://informer. magcloud. com

- Tom

From: Tom <tphunt@...>
Subject: [americanmafia] Re: Audio Evidence of St. Laurent Contract vs. DeLuca
To: americanmafia@yahoogroups.com
Received: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 5:19 AM

 

The problem here is the huge historic friction between St. Laurent and DeLuca. I don't think a hit on DeLuca could occur without St. Laurent being suspect.

Disposing of the actual slayers would eliminate witnesses for a murder trial. Considering the rules of the court system, your hypothetical scenario could keep St. Laurent from being convicted. However, the Mafia does not follow the same rules. When your known enemy is killed, there is no amount of distance between you and the incident that can exonerate you.

- Tom

--- In americanmafia@ yahoogroups. com, William Rausch <wisckid@... > wrote:
>
> In replaying the tapes, I came across the following interesting exchange:
>
>
> [St. Laurent]: There’s no repercussions.  If you want, after it’s done, I’ll take you to him.  [The Wisconsin Kid’s note: Uh, St. Laurent will only prove the Boss authorized the hit AFTER the hit was done?!?!?!?  Personally, I never believed for an instant that the Boss had authorized this hit (which could possibly have opened a civil war within his Family), and, apparently, neither did the two associates.  My instant reaction upon hearing the news of the contract, apparently shared by the two associates whom St. Laurent attempted to hire for the job, was that St. Laurent was going to let the two associates hang for an unauthorized hit, possibly cheating the hitmen out of their pay for the job.  (I mean, seeing as he had promised to prove that the Boss had authorized the hit AFTER the job was done, had St. Laurent contracted to pay the hitmen after the job was done as well?  Had this been the case, and had the two associates been whacked
> after the hit, St. Laurent wouldn’t have had to have paid them, would he have?]
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads. yahoo.com/ ca/internetexplo rer/
>

Tom:

Actually, there’s one more historical factional dispute within the Patriarca Family with which I am familiar, that being Mr. Patriarca’s dispute, during the mid-1960-s to early 1970’s, with the very popular (on Federal Hill, at least) Marfeo biological family, together with their followers, the acendancy of which potential oppositional faction resulted in Mr. Patriarca’s major and violent crackdown, which crackdown, in turn, caused people who would never previously have volunteered information to become informants on behalf of law enforcement, which situation, in turn, caused Mr. Patriarca to suffer legal problems which would plague him for the rest of his life.

Eventually, the surviving Marfeo brother, Blaise, would reconcile himself with Mr. Patriarca’s successors and become a Capo within the Patriarca Family, as well as a successful semi-legitimate businessman within his local community.

From: Tom <tphunt@...>
Subject: [americanmafia] Re: Audio Evidence of St. Laurent Contract vs. DeLuca
To: americanmafia@yahoogroups.com
Received: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 5:19 AM

 

The problem here is the huge historic friction between St. Laurent and DeLuca. I don't think a hit on DeLuca could occur without St. Laurent being suspect.

Disposing of the actual slayers would eliminate witnesses for a murder trial. Considering the rules of the court system, your hypothetical scenario could keep St. Laurent from being convicted. However, the Mafia does not follow the same rules. When your known enemy is killed, there is no amount of distance between you and the incident that can exonerate you.

- Tom

--- In americanmafia@ yahoogroups. com, William Rausch <wisckid@... > wrote:
>
> In replaying the tapes, I came across the following interesting exchange:
>
>
> [St. Laurent]: There’s no repercussions.  If you want, after it’s done, I’ll take you to him.  [The Wisconsin Kid’s note: Uh, St. Laurent will only prove the Boss authorized the hit AFTER the hit was done?!?!?!?  Personally, I never believed for an instant that the Boss had authorized this hit (which could possibly have opened a civil war within his Family), and, apparently, neither did the two associates.  My instant reaction upon hearing the news of the contract, apparently shared by the two associates whom St. Laurent attempted to hire for the job, was that St. Laurent was going to let the two associates hang for an unauthorized hit, possibly cheating the hitmen out of their pay for the job.  (I mean, seeing as he had promised to prove that the Boss had authorized the hit AFTER the job was done, had St. Laurent contracted to pay the hitmen after the job was done as well?  Had this been the case, and had the two associates been whacked
> after the hit, St. Laurent wouldn’t have had to have paid them, would he have?]
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads. yahoo.com/ ca/internetexplo rer/
>

From: Tom <tphunt@...>
Subject: [americanmafia] Re: Audio Evidence of St. Laurent Contract vs. DeLuca
To: americanmafia@yahoogroups.com
Received: Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 5:19 AM

 

The problem here is the huge historic friction between St. Laurent and DeLuca. I don't think a hit on DeLuca could occur without St. Laurent being suspect.

Disposing of the actual slayers would eliminate witnesses for a murder trial. Considering the rules of the court system, your hypothetical scenario could keep St. Laurent from being convicted. However, the Mafia does not follow the same rules. When your known enemy is killed, there is no amount of distance between you and the incident that can exonerate you.

- Tom

--- In americanmafia@ yahoogroups. com, William Rausch <wisckid@... > wrote:
>
> In replaying the tapes, I came across the following interesting exchange:
>
>
> [St. Laurent]: There’s no repercussions.  If you want, after it’s done, I’ll take you to him.  [The Wisconsin Kid’s note: Uh, St. Laurent will only prove the Boss authorized the hit AFTER the hit was done?!?!?!?  Personally, I never believed for an instant that the Boss had authorized this hit (which could possibly have opened a civil war within his Family), and, apparently, neither did the two associates.  My instant reaction upon hearing the news of the contract, apparently shared by the two associates whom St. Laurent attempted to hire for the job, was that St. Laurent was going to let the two associates hang for an unauthorized hit, possibly cheating the hitmen out of their pay for the job.  (I mean, seeing as he had promised to prove that the Boss had authorized the hit AFTER the job was done, had St. Laurent contracted to pay the hitmen after the job was done as well?  Had this been the case, and had the two associates been whacked
> after the hit, St. Laurent wouldn’t have had to have paid them, would he have?]
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads. yahoo.com/ ca/internetexplo rer/
>

In replaying the tapes, I came across the following interesting exchange:

[St. Laurent]: There’s no repercussions.  If you want, after it’s done, I’ll take you to him.  [The Wisconsin Kid’s note: Uh, St. Laurent will only prove the Boss authorized the hit AFTER the hit was done?!?!?!?  Personally, I never believed for an instant that the Boss had authorized this hit (which could possibly have opened a civil war within his Family), and, apparently, neither did the two associates.  My instant reaction upon hearing the news of the contract, apparently shared by the two associates whom St. Laurent attempted to hire for the job, was that St. Laurent was going to let the two associates hang for an unauthorized hit, possibly cheating the hitmen out of their pay for the job.  (I mean, seeing as he had promised to prove that the Boss had authorized the hit AFTER the job was done, had St. Laurent contracted to pay the hitmen after the job was done as well?  Had this been the case, and had the two associates been whacked after the hit, St. Laurent wouldn’t have had to have paid them, would he have?]

From: Tom <tphunt@...>
Subject: [americanmafia] Re: Anyone still there?
To: americanmafia@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, 30 November, 2009, 11:53

 

Thanks Rick. Tamiflu was very effective - it instantly added two more horrible symptoms to the dozen I already had ;-) But I seem to have survived both the disease and the cure.

- Tom

--- In americanmafia@ yahoogroups. com, Richard Warner <rishsam1@.. .> wrote:
>
> Tom, I wish you a full, quick and complete recovery. I hope you get your flu shots and Tamiflu. Take care, Rick
>

From: Tom <tphunt@...>
Subject: [americanmafia] Re: Anyone still there?
To: americanmafia@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 29 November, 2009, 10:59

 

I apologize for the delay in approving messages. Your friendly moderator has been recovering - very slowly - from swine flu.

- Tom

--- In americanmafia@ yahoogroups. com, William Rausch <wisckid@... > wrote:
>
> David:
> I am.
> (Yesterday was a holiday in the US (Thanksgiving Day)).
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
> Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now
> http://ca.toolbar. yahoo.com.
>

From: JOHNGIUSTRA@... <JOHNGIUSTRA@...>
Subject: [americanmafia] Fwd: Documents for Johnny "Silk Stockings" Giustra [6 Attachments]
To: americanmafia@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, 24 June, 2009, 21:45

 

 

John M. Giustra
Keller Williams Realty
850 E. State Hwy 114, Suite 100
Southlake, TX 76092
(817) 905-1618

---

Make your summer sizzle with fast and easy recipes for the grill.

From: Richard Warner <rishsam1@...>
Subject: Re: [americanmafia] Anyone still there?
To: americanmafia@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, 26 November, 2009, 10:22

 

I'm here somewhere :-)

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

---

From: David Critchley <ukthesis@yahoo. com>
To: americanmafia@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Tue, November 24, 2009 4:18:22 PM
Subject: [americanmafia] Anyone still there?

 

Is there anybody there?

From: Richard Warner <rishsam1@...>
Subject: Re: [americanmafia] Re: Reevaluating Schiro
To: americanmafia@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, 8 November, 2009, 23:02

 

Again, I don't think Bonanno told us about every significant event in his long life up to that point.  Just because he mentioned one meeting with Schiro doesn't mean there weren't others.  Plus I'm sure that in his discussions with other members his name came up and he probably heard some old stories.  To me it's just not a good idea to jump to these conclusions when we don't have enough evidence to the say one thing or another.  Bonanno knew Schiro toward the end of his reign, and Gentile knew him almost ten years earlier.  A lot can happen in ten years.

---

From: Tom <tphunt@gmail. com>
To: americanmafia@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Sun, November 8, 2009 7:16:47 AM
Subject: [americanmafia] Re: Reevaluating Schiro

 

--- In americanmafia@ yahoogroups. com, Richard Warner <rishsam1@.. .> wrote:
>
> Schiro may not have been the wimp Bonanno
> made him out to be - very possible there.
> He was giving an opinion and there's no one
> around to contradict him. I'm sure he had
> his reasons for believing that, and since
> he was there and we weren't his POV is more
> likely to be right than someone who wasn't.

Or, possibly, his opinion is more likely to have been biased than the opinion of someone who wasn't there. But perhaps we should start the discussion by deciding what we mean by "HE WAS THERE."

Did Bonanno ever claim that he met Schiro? Spoke with Schiro? I don't believe he made either claim. The only exposure to Schiro that Bonanno describes was at an early 1930 meeting of the entire Brooklyn Castellammarese crime family (which probably at the time was already a combination of Castellammarese and former D'Aquila supporters). Yet, from just that one distant exposure, Bonanno called Schiro:
- "a bland, compliant man who depended on my cousin Stefano for his position."
- "a compliant fellow with little backbone... a sort of puppet ruler in Brooklyn... extremely reluctant to ruffle anyone."
- "a timid man."
So, you're right that Bonanno was "there" in that time and place. But I don't think you can argue that the degree of his exposure supports the conclusions that he made about the man.

Identifying Bonanno's bias in this case is simple. He is overtly pro-Castellammare. To him, Castellammarese Mafiosi are honorable and others are not. At the time that Schiro's influence over the Brooklyn Mafia ceased, Bonanno was a 25-year-old new recruit to the Mafia. He worshipped Maranzano, who actively sought war against Masseria and who packaged that war as if no other reasonable choice was possible.

It would have been natural for Bonanno to view Schiro's neutral position as weakness.

Bonanno was in a better position to tell us about Magaddino. He knew him personally over many years. Magaddino's Castellammarese heritage - and probably their common bloodline - stood in his favor in Bonanno's eyes, but there had been a tremendous falling out between the two men. Of course, Bonanno's writing was also done some time after Magaddino was in his grave. So, emotions likely mellowed.

But Bonanno says repeatedly that Magaddino controlled the Brooklyn Castellammarese Mafia from Buffalo, using Schiro as a puppet. I don't think we have any choice but to believe that Schiro was not calling the shots with regard to Brooklyn Castellammaresi during the time that Bonanno was aware of goings-on in the crime family.

Fortunately, Bonanno is not our only window into Schiro's career. In Nick Gentile's memoirs, Schiro's actions come across as near heroic. At the moment when then-boss of bosses D'Aquila and his nationwide network of spies were on the lookout for Gentile, Gentile found refuge within Schiro's Brooklyn crime family. Gentile said he felt safe from D'Aquila because no one could take action against him without Schiro's permission.

In the 1921 conflict between the current and former supreme bosses of the American Mafia - D'Aquila and Morello - Schiro remained neutral. Gentile mentions this, and he later discusses the Castellammarese group in Brooklyn. But I'm not sure I recall an instance where Schiro is said to be the Castellammarese boss. (I'm not sure Schiro makes an appearance after Gentile's discussion of the D'Aquila-Morello conflict.)

Lately, Dave Critchley and Mike Dash have referred to yet another source on Schiro's career: Secret Service informant Salvatore Clemente. I don't know exactly what Clemente said about Schiro or when he said it. I'd be interested to hear. I have some trouble with Dash's portrayal of Schiro (at least in the early version of his book - I don't know if he has edited it since then). And I have doubts that Clemente identified Schiro as having anything at all to do with Castellammare.

- Tom

From: Tom <tphunt@...>
Subject: [americanmafia] Reevaluating Schiro
To: americanmafia@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, 7 November, 2009, 16:17

 

Not sure that Cola Schiro was the wimp Bonanno made him out to be. Yes, Schiro seems to have sought neutrality as Maranzano pushed for war against Masseria. But a few things need to be considered:

- Joe Profaci, who probably had greater personal reasons to commit to the struggle, also remained officially neutral in that conflict and was not criticized as harshly by Bonanno.

- Schiro's neutrality in underworld conflicts dated back a decade, when he refused to go along with D'Aquila's condemnation of a dozen Mafiosi, including Morello, Lupo and Valente. To remain neutral in such a situation, particularly with D'Aquila's base so near, seems to show a great deal of courage. Schiro actually provided a safe haven for Valente ally Nick Gentile, when D'Aquila was looking to trap Gentile.

- Schiro probably did not have the authority to take the Castellammarese into the war Maranzano sought. Bonanno makes it clear that Schiro was serving as a puppet ruler over the Castellammarese, taking his orders from Stefano Magaddino in Buffalo.

I know that this last point seems to conflict with reports that Schiro was boss of a Brooklyn family before Magaddino had achieved any recognition in the U.S. at all. Certainly Schiro seems to have been in the U.S. a dozen years before Magaddino arrived (Schiro's 1902 entry into Boston on his way to NYC indicates that he had been in the U.S. between 1897 and 1901). But Schiro wasn't from Castellammare del Golfo and would have had no business commanding a Castellammarese Mafia organization.

I think the conflict can be reconciled, if Schiro had been the boss of a separate Brooklyn Mafia organization friendly with the Castellammarese before Prohibition. The Castellammarese under Magaddino seem not to have had full "family" status when Magaddino departed Brooklyn in the wake of the Good Killers case. So, possibly, Magaddino combined his own growing but unofficial Castellammarese organization into Schiro's organization.

In that scenario, Schiro would have been more of a hall monitor than a boss over the Castellammarese faction. He could not have given meaningful orders to men who for generations had looked to Magaddinos, Bonventres and Bonannos for guidance. He surely could not have led them into a war against the American Mafia boss of bosses.

- Tom