1 registered members (Malavita),
92
guests, and 33
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums21
Topics43,347
Posts1,086,182
Members10,381
|
Most Online1,254 Mar 13th, 2025
|
|
|
Re: Frankie and the FBI
[Re: Danito]
#656587
07/23/12 10:42 AM
07/23/12 10:42 AM
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 773 Pittsburgh, PA
The Last Woltz
Underboss
|
Underboss
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 773
Pittsburgh, PA
|
The combination of Michael's betrayal and the chance at saving his own skin was enough to motivate Frankie to turn traitor.
Tom's line always struck me as funny. "They'd already had him on possession, bookmaking, murder 1, and a lot more."
Once you throw in Murder 1, what else do they really need? What could the "lot more" be?
Also, what does Tom mean by "possession?" Possession of drugs?
Was old-school Frankie really likely to be personally involved with drugs? He is unhappy with the Rosato's emphasis on the "junk dope." It seems unlikely he would "possess" drugs.
"A man in my position cannot afford to be made to look ridiculous!"
|
|
|
Re: Frankie and the FBI
[Re: The Last Woltz]
#656593
07/23/12 12:19 PM
07/23/12 12:19 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,030 Texas
olivant
|

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 15,030
Texas
|
W, when prosecuting someone for a felony, especially an organized crime someone, a multiplicity of charges would be very useful to a prosecutor. They provide leverage for a plea bargain. Of course, there is no guarantee that Frankie would be convicted of murder. The reamining charges provide a prosecutorial safety net for the state.
As far as possession goes, state and federal statutes define possession as having effective control of something illegal regardless of whether one physically possesses it. The lot more could be racketeering, extortion, jury tampering, intimidation, bribery, stolen goods, etc.
"Generosity. That was my first mistake." "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." "Instagram is Twitter for people who can't read."
|
|
|
Re: Frankie and the FBI
[Re: olivant]
#658047
07/31/12 09:28 PM
07/31/12 09:28 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,696 AZ
Turnbull
|

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,696
AZ
|
Good question, Oli.
I think that Clemenza proved his loyalty to Michael, and after the move to Nevada, he kept Clem on a long leash. Maybe Clem mentioned something about the Rosatos--perhaps some job they did for him that he said he would reward them for. But, I can't see Clemenza directly involving Michael in the details of what would be, for Michael, a minor operational matter occurring far away in NY.
I think Roth pushed the Rosato affair on Michael for his own purpose--to deliberately stir conflict between Michael and Frankie, and to make his allies (Rosatos) stronger in NY. I posted a long time ago that Michael should have been suspicious of Roth pressing the Rosatos' claims. But I think Michael's greed for Roth's Havana holdings dulled his suspicions. And, if he did question Roth, ol' Hyman might have fixed him with the gimlet eye and said, "Michael, they helped me once and I owe them a favor. Do yourself a favor and go along--it'll be good for our deal."
Ntra la porta tua lu sangu � sparsu, E nun me mporta si ce muoru accisu... E s'iddu muoru e vaju mparadisu Si nun ce truovo a ttia, mancu ce trasu.
|
|
|
|