Mixed bag IMO. On one hand he used inexplicably bad sources like "Double Cross." On the other he got absolutely incredible access and conducted hundreds of interviews with people who were there first hand. Generally, he gave everything a better journalistic treatment than it normally gets. A lot of gangster books are awful because it is kind of a slum genre... for instance a book came out a couple years ago, by a major publisher, claiming Capone had nothing to do with the St. Valentine's Day Massacre. It was very badly researched, proposterous and I doubt the author himself believed his "theory." (Which was immediately exposed as ridiculous by John Binder.) However, that didn't stop it from getting very strong reviews, a ton of national press, etc.

In short, with mob stuff, people can generally write whatever they want and everyone just takes it at face value. What are the gansters gonna do, sue you? No way. And because it exists in an unkown/gray area, there is a lot of room for fudging. (As we see on these boards every day.)

Russo was definitely sensational about some things, but by and large he gave it at least a sembalance of a real journalistic treatment and so his book is better than most IMO.

Although his use of "Double Cross" as a source really has me scratching my head.