Yes, Rocco would have been able to do it.

But that doesn't mean that he did.

Who did? We don't know, and there's no character to whom we can attribute that act to whose actions fit all of the facts. That's the flaw in the movie.

How did Michael know, and what does he say or do that indicates that he does?

I believe that there are certain statements made by the characters in films which are meant to be taken at their face value so as to advance the plot along.

The purpose of Michael's conversation with Tom was for us to know that at that point Michael didn't know who the traitor was.

If he already did, what was the purpose of that scene in the first place?

If Michael had it figured out ten minutes after the shooting that Rocco was a traitor, or the traitor, why did it take him so long to figure out that Fredo was involved as well?

Actually, altho Neri is not shown in the aftermath of the assassination attempt, the whorehouse scene with Geary is much later.

If anything, Neri was already on his way to Vegas to move Klingman out.

But since Michael mentions Neri as a possible suspect in his discussion with Tom, I assume that Michael considered him to be one.

From Michael's POV, knowing what little I think he knew at the time, if there were other confederates involved it wouldn't necessarily have been required that Neri actually be there. His planning may have been enough.

This one is a real stretch.

If there's one thing we know about Michael, it's that he doesn't allow his enemies to live any longer than necessary.

Rocco alive and still part of his inner circle posed a continuing threat to Michael.

To think that Michael would keep Rocco around, knowing that he had been part of the assassination plot, is rather preposterous IMO, knowing what we know about Michael's character.

It's not a case of keeping Rocco around because Rocco had nowhere else to go - Rocco had a place to go, anyway: He could've openly joined Roth.

Put yourself in Rocco's place.

The assassination attempt on your boss, in which you are involved, has failed. You're gonna hang around, waiting to figure out if Michael has figured out that you're involved?

And I don't see what "great expertise" was involved in killing Roth.

All it required was someone with the nerve to step up to the plate and shoot Roth in public, knowing that almost certain capture and possible death would follow.

I'm still not sure how you know that Michael knew all this.

Ten minutes after the shooting, he knew Rocco was involved, but it took him months to figure out that Fredo was also?

Fredo knew that Michael knew what? Why couldn't he shift the blame, or at least implicate Rocco?

And how did Michael know that Fredo knew it was gonna be a hit? And how did he know that in Cuba, at least prior to the "Superman scene"?

That Fredo didn't know it was gonna be a hit is perfectly consistent with his character:

Stupid and weak. And as Michael said to him, "I know Roth misled you."

If you accept Fredo’s statements in the boathouse at their face value, then he “didn’t know it was gonna be a hit.”

Yes, all of Fredo’s resentments came pouring out, so why lie about that?

Fredo even went so far as to tell Michael about Questadt, which indicates that he (Fredo) was still in contact with Roth, so clearly he was holding nothing back.

I accept Fredo’s “You guys lied to me” comment to Ola, along with his “I didn’t know it was gonna be a hit” comment to Michael at their face value.

As far as Questadt goes....

I could never understand why Roth would tell Fredo that he had Questadt in his pocket. What did he gain by that?

Seems to me that it was to Roth’s advantage for Michael to not know, and by telling Fredo he was risking Fredo telling Michael.


I agree, up to the point about Roth thinking that Michael intended to move him out of Vegas.

I don’t think that Roth figured that Michael intended to move him out of the Vegas operation at all.

Remember, the real prize here is the deal in Cuba, which would not be possible without Roth..

Remember also, the real life Roth, Meyer Lansky, lived a long life and died of natural causes because, like Roth, “he always made money for his partners.”

It was Lansky whose expertise in gambling made the casinos in Las Vegas and Havana really profitable for the first time, because he understood the percentages and realized in the long run they would make more money by not cheating their customers.

I believe that Michael was an honorable businessman who knew that Roth’s expertise and connections with the Cuban government in partnership with him was invaluable.

Michael could never have brought off the Havana deal without Roth, and the “partnership with a friendly government” was possible only because of Roth’s friendship with Batista.

I believe that at the first meeting that Michael had with Johnny Ola, it was Michael’s intention to honorably partner with Roth in Havana and Las Vegas.

But that was before the hit attempt, which changed Michael’s way of thinking a bit.

As far as Roth goes, I think that he was perfectly happy with the way things had been going in his gambling operations without Michael’s involvement, and that his main motivation in eliminating Michael was revenge for the death of Moe Greene.

I believe that Fredo was told that it was going to be a kidnapping rather than a hit, as suggested by the unused script.

Maybe the “How”, but not the “Who”.

Fredo was taking an awfully big chance enlisting Rocco in the plot, don’t you think?

Rocco is Michael’s #3 man. What happens if he doesn’t bite?

You point out elsewhere that Fredo and Rocco were on friendly terms, as evidenced by the playful pat that Rocco gives Fredo before removing Deanna from the dance floor.

To me, though, that was a condescending gesture on Rocco’s part which displayed the degree of contempt which he had for Fredo – a man who could not even control his own wife – and the idea that Rocco would involve himself in a plot suggested to him by Fredo, the black sheep of the family, makes no sense.

How did he know that?

The “that was no heart attack” conversation regarding Clemenza indicates to me that Fredo was not aware of the infighting going on between Pentangelli and the Rosatos.

If this is Roth’s plot, why involve Pentangelli at all? What does he need him for?

Makes no sense to me. Pentangelli was at odds with Roth’s cohorts in New York, the Rosatos.

Eliminating Michael weakens Pentangelli’s position in New York. Involving Pentangelli in the plot does nothing for Roth that I can see.

Now we come to the heart of the matter, and I believe that it’s ground we’ve been over before.

Yes, someone killed the hitmen.

But, as I’ve said, there is no character to whom we are ever introduced that is the likely killer, no character whose participation fits all of the facts.

And that, IMO, is the film's great flaw.

It’s hard to imagine anyone sneaking into the bedroom while Kay was asleep and opening the drapes.

But someone did. What would Rocco have said if he had been caught?

So, yes, I can imagine Fredo doing it.

That’s what I asked you.

If Fredo wasn’t lied to about it being a hit, what was he lied to about?

That Fredo was lied to about it being a hit attempt makes perfect sense to me.

If you’re so absolutely certain of that, then you have more than one-tenth of the answers.

The answer to #1 is really the only thing that leaves us hanging, AFAIC, and you haven’t come anywhere near convincing me that it was Rocco.

Just too many holes in your theory.

I don't see the plot as being all that complicated. It just has a few holes, and they're big ones.