Turnbull,

There is something in your argument that I'm confused by. On the one hand, you argue that Roth did not want Pentangeli testifying to the Senate committee, because he was worried that Pentangeli would expose his, Roth's, criminal activities. You write: "Any exposure of Roth's criminal activities before a Senate hearing televised to millions would have poisoned Roth with any government that might have considered hiring him as a gaming "consultant" or granting him or his associates gaming licenses."

But then you argue that after the hit on Pentangeli fails -- which, you claim, is not what Roth wanted -- Roth then puts his "brilliant Plan B" in motion. And this is where I'm confused: you describe this as a brilliant plan, but it involves a high risk of Pentangeli exposing Roth before the Senate committee. You write: "Roth wanted Frankie dead, but when he survived, he brilliantly went to Plan B--use Questadt to lay the perjury trap for Michael." In other words, my problem is that laying the perjury trap for Michael means getting Pentangeli behind the microphone on Capitol hill; but how is this a "brilliant" plan B if it has a high risk of exposing Roth's criminal activities to an audience of millions?

Let me state my concern this way: your argument against my view that the Pentangeli hit was deliberately botched in order to get him to testify against Michael is this: the last thing in the world Roth wants is Pentangeli on the witness stand, since he would expose Roth's criminality. But then you describe Roth's laying the perjury trap--which means getting Pentangeli on the witness stand--as Roth's "brilliant plan B."

Forgive my repetativeness here, but I wish to make my objection as clear as possible.