Why does Clemenza tell him to drop the gun when he's training him for his meeting with McClusky and Sollozzo? I never got that...

The gun is "as cold as they come." It's impossible to trace. If he takes it with him he runs the risk of being caught with it. Since it is untraceable, if he leaves it there is no way to tie it to him.

Clemenza's advice was very important. Forensic procedures can positively identify a gun as the murder weapon--if the bullet is retrieved from the victim, police forensics will fire another round into a tank of water and microscopically examine the rifling lines that the gun's barrel left on the bullet. If that bullet's markings match the ones from the bullet taken from the victim, every court of law will accept that as proof that the gun was the murder weapon. So, if Michael had been caught with the gun in his possession--even if he were arrested far from the restaurant--he would have been found guilty.


Yes. Clemenza meant "untraceable" in two ways: It had no "history"--that is, it hadn't been used in another crime that might have left a telltale bullet in another victim, and thus could have associated Michael with a murder he didn't commit; and he'd treated the butt and trigger with tape that left no fingerprints on the weapon. But, if Michael had been arrested with the untraceable gun in his possession, he still would have been nailed for the reason above.

Does anybody know if the tape thing is realistic?

Yes, it is. However, Mike dislodged the gun from behind the toilet with both hands. How could he avoid leaving prints onthe pistol's barrel and cylinder?

Probably would have been difficult. But every plan has snags.
Perhaps it's easier for the authorities to raise prints from the grip and not the barrel?

In any event the important thing is that he's not caught with the gun. Everything else the Family could fix if need be.

Also critical is that he's never arrested for that or any other crime. So his prints would never have been in the system to be compared against.

By the way, Mike almost throws the gun away when he leaves, but did he take his hat with him?

He drops the gun, takes his coat and departs. He didn't take his hat. I don't think he was shown wearing his hat in the restaurant. So perhaps he left it in the car...

Did Michael touch anything else? In the car or in the restaurant. Sollozzo smelled a rat when Michael got up to go to the bathroom. Why? Perhaps because Michael didn't touch the glass, which is a difference to the novel. In the novel he says: "The wine went right to my bladder." (Sorry for mentioning the novel here.)
Anyway, the police would be able to find Michael's fingerprints in the restaurant and probably in the car. Also, if he forgot his hat, they would find his hair.

As Lilo points out, it is possible that Michael's fingerprints were not in police databases. I've never been in the military; would Mike have been fingerprinted when he enlisted?

In any case, it seems clear that Michael was fingered (pun intended) for the killings in one way or another. Vito refers to the need to clear him of "false charges" in the film.

In the novel, of course, Vito arranges a confession from a Bocaciccio (sp?) to clear Michael. That plan makes sense if the case against Michael was based on eyewitnesses and rumors from the street. Would the police have gone along if there was strong physical evidence, like fingerprints, linking Michael to the killings? Refresh my memory: did the novel get into the details of the case against Michael?

No, it didn't. But we have to keep in mind what that we're talking about here. Everyone associated with this is corrupt. Vito knew this and that's why he cautioned the Dons about Michael's safety.

Even today there are no standards by which fingerprints are asserted to belong to an individual let alone in the late 40s. Hair analysis probably didn't exist, at least not on the DNA level.

Michael could have left his fingerprints anywhere in the restaurant. But, since he had no arrest record (and the military probably didn't take his prints), the police would not have been able to match the restaurant prints to a data base. DNA analysis didn't exist in that era, so leaving the hat behind wouldn't have been a fatal mistake.
Of course, if eyewitnesses identified Michael as being either the shooter, or being in the restaurant with Sol and Mac, he would have been arrested, his prints would have been taken and matched with those left in the restaurant. But, as Olivant said, the whole thing was corrupt. Sonny was confident they could square away witnesses, and presumably they did. And since Michael disappeared immediately after the shootings, and didn't re-emerge until the case was closed (by the Bocchicchios, per the novel), that was that.

SPOILER

In the novel, two detectives visit Kay in New Hampshire while Michael's on the lam. They tell her that they know he killed the two because they have informants (presumably people from the other Families) who "point the finger" at him. But they also say that "...we have no evidence for a court of law." They tell her that they're confident that if they can find and arrest Michael, certain witnesses who are clammed up (the waiter, Sol's driver) will talk. But, of course, Michael didn't reappear until after the Bocchicchios put it to rest.

I would also assume that a place like Louie's was the sort of restaurant where witnessed became deaf, mute and blind, wouldn't you??

Police Interrogator - Tell us what you saw

Louis' Waiter - I bringa the to gentlemen some wine, they speaka the Italian but I no listen, I no hear nothing.
Then I bringa the tall man my veal....madonne, you shoulda taste my veal. Itsa best in the city. The recipe comes from my mama in Napoli...Itsa beautiful veal.. we soak it in...

Police Inspector - What did you see? Did you see any one shoot these two?

Louis' Waiter - I no seea nothing. I serve the food then I turn around and then I hear a big noises.

Police Inspector - How many shots did you hear?

Louis' waiter I'm notta so sure they were shots. Me? I never shot a gun so I dont know what shot sounds like. Was a lot of big noise that firghtened me, so I no a look.

Police Inspector - Did you see anyone leave the restaurant after you heard the noise?

Louis' Waiter (poitining to Sollozzo and McCluskey, now in body bags) Notta thesea two!

Police inspector - then what about the third man?

Louis' waiter - He was a no longer there.

Police Inpector - Did you see him leave?

Louis' waiter - I saw someone leave, but I dont know if it was the other man. Maybe he lefta before.

Police inspector - Did you see him drop this gun?

Lois' waiter - I nevera see no gun until you showed it to me.

As Vito says in the novel, " ... that waiter won't testify, nor that spectator or gunman or whatever he was."

Good posts.

Sollozzo smelled a rat because he was a true gangster. He oozed suspicion and deceit.

As far as getting evidence from the car, it's not likely that Sollozzo's people would want to help the police. Not only would that be bad form for a mafiosi but how do you explain the meeting to the DA- "Sure we went there to discuss narcotics deals, murder and political corruption but forget about all of that-let's find that maniac Michael.."

It's certainly possible that an honest or enraged detective would have done everything he could have done to find the mystery gunman who murdered a police captain.

But resources were limited by modern standards, right? And I believe the FBI would have had the best of what forensic science was available, not the NYPD.

So absent leaving a signed confession or being caught with the gun Michael didn't have too much to worry about. The combination of a good plan, corrupt and greedy cops, along with judicious publicity wielded by Tom's contacts sullying McCluskey's name made Michael quite safe, absent the sort of "accidents" Vito mentioned in his speech.

Speaking of the novel, there is a passage therein where Michael virtually boasts to Kay that although he might end up dead, there's no way he's ever winding up in prison.