First of all, why is my scenario ridiculous?

There are for example, literally thousands of murders, etc., every day in this country.

And at least hundreds which involve one familymember killing another.

And probably in only a tiny fraction of these cases does a third family member take revenge against the family member who perpetrated the crime.

So why is my scenario ridiculous?

And I can presume to know what you both would say because I know you both - to the extent that I do know you - to be law abiding people.


As far as Fredo having been already "warned" by Michael against going against the family before goes, surely you are not comapred his publicly disagreeing with Michael with complicity in a possible assassination plot against him?

Surely you don't mean to imply that had Fredo publicly disgareed with Michael a second time, that that would have been grounds for his assassination?