Connie was married in the Summer of 1945, so the earliest she could have given birth to Victor was the Spring of 1946. Part II begins in the Fall of 1958 and, according to Michael, Victor had already been picked up on a petty theft that Connie didn't even know about. The timeline would make the kid no older then 12 years old when he got arrested. I guess it's possible, and boys will be boys and all, but it always bugged me just a little bit, because what the Hell was a 12 year old doing in Reno?

Anyone else think the timeline on this one might have been out of whack?

You had to do it PB. You just couldn't leave it alone, could you? Now we have another timeline mess to deal with. But just as we pretty much settle Vito's age and the Dons massacre, PB pulls us back in. Madonne!

Well, it seems like we've almost run out of topics!

The birth of Victor is definitely out of whack. The official timeline states that he was born in 1949. This implies that Connie's first pregnancy ended up in a miscarriage, or that she gave birth to an unknown first child. Due to Carlo beating her while she was pregnant, a miscarriage could have been plausible, but I believe this isn't mentioned in the novel. Maybe it's different in the film as the novel also doesn't mention that Michael and Kay had a daughter or that Sonny impregnated Lucy Mancini.

Right, Sonny. Towards the end of the novel, it was mentioned in passing that Kay had another son. I was always intrigued by "what could have been" had Coppola left it like that. Maybe one honest son, one crooked son? It would have been interesting.

Well you can be picked up for theft at a young age. Even though Victor was 11 0r 12 he can steal be brought in by the cops for stealing. I know kids who were like 9 or 10 were picked up by the cops

Michael: "You know your oldest boy, Victor, was picked up in Reno for some petty theft that you don't even know about."

Connie: "I know about it. Why do you think he did it? I told him to, to get me money because you're such a cheap sob. Pop left me money too. Where is it Michael? I never saw a penny of it. Neither has Fredo.

Michael: "Connie - Connie, Connie, Connie, Connie, Connie -- I wanna be reasonable with you. Now, why don't you stay with us - with the family."

Connie (under her breath): Merle, are you sure those drapes are open?"

Olivant, did you just state that Merle openend the drapes? OMG, so it WAS Merle afterall. That SOB. It was him. Merle!!! Just when you thought you would never know who did it, they pull you back in!

Merle wore ladies underwear.

I don't see this as a problem... plenty of troubled, neglected children turn to crime around the age of 12, or even younger. The purpose of this line was to show how broken and depressed Connie had become. Michael is trying to make her feel guilty for being a bad mother, not even recognizing the fact that it was his actions that hurt her.

He could have been younger than twelve. That's why God invented juvenile courts. BTW whatever happened to Connie's kids?

Good question... I don't think it was ever addressed in the books, and certainly not in the movies. I don't think Connie's children are mentioned at all in Part III. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

I always imagined that the Rizzi brothers might turn to a life of crime. Without a father figure, and with Connie a mess, it would be easy for the "petty theft" to escalate into robberies, drug dealing, etc. Maybe they even joined their uncle Vincent in the family business...

Maybe they moved in with Merle