Did Roth really "play it beautifully"?

I’ve always believed that after the Rosato brothers’ attempt to kill Pentangeli failed, Roth went to Plan B: reach for the Senate lawyer Questad to keep Frankie’s survival secret, and use Frankie to trap Michael into perjuring himself during the Senate hearing. As Hagen told Michael, “Roth played this one beautifully.” Now I’m not so sure Roth had anything to do with it:
The shootout that followed Frankie’s garroting was very loud and public, and would have drawn both police and reporters to the scene quickly and simultaneously. The fact that at least one cop was wounded (maybe killed) would have made it a top news story—and finding major Mob boss Pentangeli at the scene would have amplified the news value tremendously. So, the decision to keep Frankie’s survival secret would have been made within minutes of the police arriving at the scene—too quickly for Roth to have done anything. Roth was in Havana. Even in the unlikely event that someone got through to him right away, there wouldn’t have been enough time for him to reach for Questad and arrange for the FBI to snatch Frankie from the NYC cops and put him on ice, before the reporters learned that Frankie was alive.
My guess is that the NYC cops, not Questad and Roth, immediately decided to hide Frankie. As Hagen told Michael: “Our people with the New York detectives said he was half dead, scared, talking out loud about how you betrayed him.” The NYC detectives figured that, by putting Frankie on ice, they’d keep him safe from his enemies while he “talked out loud” about Michael—enabling them to nail Michael on a bunch of crimes, such as the Great Massacre of 1955, that had been committed in their jurisdiction.
But soon enough, the cops and the DA saw that they wouldn’t be able to bring any felony charges against Michael—much less convictions—on Frankie’s word alone. They’d need corroborating witnesses to back up Frankie’s admissions, and there were none. I’m guessing that’s when the Washington people (Questad, the Senate Subcommittee chairman, the FBI, maybe all of them) took over:
The Senate Subcommittee hearing wasn’t a court of law. But the Subcommittee members had subpoena powers. They could haul Michael before their nationally televised hearings and pose embarrassing questions to him, such as “Were you responsible for the assassinations of the heads of the Five Families?” Then Michael would have two choices. If he pleaded the Fifth Amendment, he’d have to reply, “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me”—thus telling millions of viewers that he really had done it, and was hiding behind the Constitution to protect himself. If he lied under oath by denying the charge, they’d drop Frankie on him and nail him for perjury. Either way, Michael’s cover as a legitimate businessman would be permanently blown.
As for Roth: All of this happened while he was far away in Havana. His near-fatal stroke, and the near-successful murder attempt by Michael’s bodyguard, left him completely debilitated. By the time he was able to escape Cuba and recover his senses, all of the above was fully in motion. Certainly Questad was his man, and he benefited directly from the initiative Questad took on his behalf. But now I'm doubting that he ordered any of it: he may just have been lucky.

What I originally thought about this particular issue was that Roth wanted to set up Frankie so he'd think Michael wanted him dead and keep him for a second plan if Mike made it alive from Havana.

In any case, "Roth played this one beautifully" was what Tom said and he was only trying to draw attention toward Roth because he obviously failed to gather enough information on potential witnesses and advise Mike about lying under the oath.

Will somebody be so kind to explain me what this means, 5th amendment? I'm a European, don't know it.

The basis for U. S. law comes from the U. S. Constitution which was signed into effect back in 1789. Shortly afterward it was deemed that certain issues were not covered and amendments (or additions) to the Constitution were needed. This amendment process is an ongoing one and periodically new additions are added (there have been 27 added to date). The 5th amendment deals specifically with rights of citizens in regard to criminal charges. Its mostly "famous" for the idea that no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself and thus has the right to declare that he/she doesn't have to answer criminal charges against himself.

Excellent topic Turnbull! I definately agree that it took place much too quickly for Roth to put "plan B" into action. FFC wanted us to believe that Roth was behind it all. Having Hagen say "Roth, he engineered it Michael " in the scene right after Michael reads his statement at the hearing and then add the " Roth played it beautifully" line while also allowing the ad libbed line by Aiello " Michael Corleone says hello" to remain in the movie, would give the viewer the impression that Roth was behind the whole setup. With Frankie surviving the hit combined with Aiello's line and both of Duvall's lines, it leaves the viewer thinking that Roth had everything in place just in case the hit on Pentangelli failed! Virtually impossible though. The most likely scenerio was that Frankie would NOT agree to cooperate with the local authorities and demanded to speak with the Feds to make a deal for himself. And when you say that if Michael pleaded the fifth, it would have all been over for him, you are correct. No witness would have been needed to testify ( remember the Frankie line "Ten to one -- ten to one shot you said -- ten to one shot he would take the 5th -- and I lose. You sound like my bookie" ). As for cooborating testimony in case Michael did not take the fifth, the committee had it. Let's not forget that Willie Cicci was shot at the scene of the attack. I always assumed that he too had been taken into custody, hence a cooborating witness for the hearings. Had he ( Cicci ) also made a deal with the feds? I agree Turnbull, everything happened way too quickly after the Pentangelli hit for Roth himself to put everything in place. It had to be Questad, who was Roth's man, who engineered the whole testimony thing to try and set up Michael during those hearings.

It almost looks as though FFC wanted us to believe that Pentangeli was NOT supposed to die in that hit by The Rosatto brothers, and that Roth had it set up that way in hopes that the purposely failed attempt on Frankies life would cause him to turn states evidence and Roth's plan B would now take shape. Too many "ifs" for a plan like that to actually be the plan!

Yes, it just turned out the way that it did and Questad being Roths man took control over the situation that had developed on it's own."


Don Cardi

Enzo, just to add to what SC posted in his response to you:
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states that a person accused of crimes cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself. Our Founding Fathers intended that citizens of the new United States of America should be protected against being tortured or coerced into making confessions--a common practice in Europe at the time.

Applied in a criminal trial, the Fifth Amendment means that if you are the defendant, you cannot be compelled to be sworn in and testify if you doesn't want to--you can remain silent throughout the trial, and let your lawyer do all the talking for you. BUT: If you are called as a witness before a committee of the US Senate or House of Representatives, you must be sworn in and be questioned. The Fifth Amendment only protects you against having to answer specific questions that, if you answered them, could land you in jail. So, if you "plead the Fifth" by saying, "I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that my answer might tend to incriminate me," you are, in effect, admitting that you really did do the crime, and that you need the Constitution to protect you. You can't be prosecuted for giving that response--but everyone will know that you're guilty.

Thanks for the kind words, DC.
Cicci had already testified that he never got a direct order from Michael. That's what emboldened Michael to lie under oath: Since he didn't know that Frankie was alive, he thought that Cicci was the Subcommittee's top witness. Thus he couldn't corroborate any charges against Michael because he never got a direct order from him.

Too many "ifs" for a plan like that to actually be the plan!


You said in one sentence what I took several paragraphs to say.

Wow, where the Trilogy takes us. It's always amazing. Now we are into Constitutional law.

First of all, the Bill of Rights, of which the fifth amendment is just one of ten, was ratified not in 1789, but in December 1791. It was part of a compromise that secured the passage of the Constitution.

By federal law, either the House or Senate has the statutory authority to issue a subpoena. However, since Congress makes it own rules, that subpoena must originate within those rules. The fifth amendment can be overcome if a federal judge concurs with a congressinal request for use or transactional immunity for a witness. If granted and a witness still refuses to testify, Congress can pass a comtempt citation, but it is dependent on the federal courts to enforce it. Unfortunately, taking the fifth implies guilt.

Regarding the original topic, I think that uncertainty over the timeline in the films leads to conflicting opinions. Since I have stated often that FFC's script parallels real time Mafia machinations, I think that the characters time-warp from 1959 (Castro takes over Cuba) to 1962-63 and beyond. Congressional hearings don't take place over night. They require preparation. So, Roth's efforts were not necessarily tied in with those hearings. Using the Rosato Brothers, Roth did indeed intend to eliminate Pentangeli and, thus, one of Mike's allies. That Pentangeli didn't die was just a lucky stroke that Roth could take advantage of and which Mike countered with Pentangeli's brother.

I think SC was talking about the original constitution being ratified in 1789, not the Bill of Rights.

Nobody is suggesting that it wasn't ratified then. The effective date of the Constitution was March 4, 1789.

Your very welcomed TB! And once again, by your superb analysis of this movie, I stand corrected! Cicci could not implicate Michael in his testimony as you have pointed out. So therefore, as you also said, he could not corroberate Frankies testimony. Thank you sir for pointing this very fine and imporatant detail out to me! Grazie!

But my question still stands to you : Was the old man singing at.....


Don Cardi

I must say that I've never experienced a trial like that (watched Judge Judy sometimes, forgive me for that ) but that 5th amendment sounds kind of criminal to me: anyone who commited a crime could just walk freely, of course knowing that everybody knows you actually did it, but you are free. US morals are different than ours (€U), but still it sounds strange.

Enzo, the Fifth Amendment doesn't give you a pass to commit crimes. It simply means that you can't be forced to admit that you committed crimes. It doesn't prevent the prosecution from bringing you to trial and proving that you committed crimes.
If Michael had "pleaded the Fifth" at the Senate Subcommittee hearing, it would have saved him from having to admit that he was responsible for the murder of the heads of the Five Families, etc. But it wouldn't have stopped prosecutors in New York from bringing charges against him, IF they had witnesses and evidence to support bringing him to trial.

Isn't the 5th the same as having the right to remain silent?

Turnbull has it right. The fifth amendment of the US Constitution was just one of 19 that were proposed to the first US Congress in 1789 by James Madison. That Congress approved just 12 for transmittal to the states for ratification. The states only ratified 10 of them.

Human history is replete with examples of governments (including the Catholic Church) extracting confessions (true or not) from people through torture, threats, etc. That history prompted the First Congress to preclude self-incrimination throught the fifth amendment. You must keep in mind that government is the ONLY entity that is AUTHORIZED by society to take your life, your liberty, and your property. Government has huge resources that can overwhelm an individual. And through the use of DNA evidence, we are finding out that those resources have errantly imprisoned an increasing number of individuals. There is quite a potential for abuse in that authorization. This was understood by the First Congress members.

As an alternative to taking the Fifth, Michael chose to lie about his involvement in organized crime. I, personally, whether guilty or not, would not tell the authorities anything about any aledged crime that potentially inculpates me. Government must be continually tasked or it will run amuck. That's for sure. That people like Mafiosi take advantage is unforunate, but government doesn't just go after Mafiosi.

That's an excellent question, afsaneh! Short answer is "Yes." The famous and familiar statement, "You have the right to remain silent..." etc., evolved in the 1960s, nearly 200 years after the 5th Amendment became part of the Constitution. Briefly:

Previously, law enforcements and the courts simply assumed that every defendant or suspect in a crime knew that the Fifth Amendment protected them. Therefore, they saw no reason to remind anyone that they didn't have to answer questions, confess, etc. So, if you were arrested, the police or the DA might threaten you ("Look here, afsaneh, we know you did it--if you don't confess right now, we'll send you to prison and throw away the key," or some such). A lot of defendants, especially poor and illiterate people, were frightened into confessing to crimes crimes they didn't commit.

In the famous Miranda case, the Supreme Court ruled that the arresting officer(s), upon taking you into custody, must "read you your rights." They must say to you: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say may be held against you. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you."

The first part of this famous phrase reminds you of your Fifth Amendment rights. The second part establishes the principle that every juristiction (state, local, federal) must provide you with a Public Defender if you want a lawyer and can't afford one. Previously, many jurisdictions didn't provide Public Defenders, if the accused person didn't ask for one.

So it is not that strange that Enzo Scifo claims it to be, it is a very basic human right and I don't think it is any other way in Europe or other countries that respect human rights. Thanks for the detailed answer Turnbull!

Me sir? No, I swear I didn't do nothin'! I didn't kill those sonovebiches in lake Tahoe. I aint gonna say one more word till you let me see my attorney, Turnbull. Turnbull is a good man!

Wow, this thread has developed into two distinct topics.

1. As for Roth playing it beautifully, I agree with Turnbull that he would have not had enough time to arrange his sequestration immediately. My take is that once the NY Cops had Frankie talking about Michael, the word quickly got to the FBI, which in turn put him in a place where no one could get to him. From there it would have been easy enough for Questead to learn of it, and pass the word to Roth. This was definitely plan B for Roth, however, because Roth planned to assassinate Michael on New Year's eve, so with Michael out of the way, there would have been no need for the Senate hearings.

2. As for the 5th Amendment, it has been pretty well covered, but one of the interesting issues that most people are unaware of is the way it is used in the court system.
It is true that a witness can never be compelled to testify against himself or herself in any situation, however there are many exceptions. If a defendant goes to the stand to deny he or she did the crime, then they have waived their Fifth Amendment rights and the prosecutor can ask them anything. Also, many times where there are plots or conspiracies, the courts and the congress have the ability to offer certain people immunity from prosecution, and without getting too heavily into the details, there are many levels of immunity, and usually the way the immunity deal is negotiated will often affect which evidence can be used against someone. A good example of this was Oliver North, whose lawyer negotiated a brilliant immunity deal for him, allowing Ollie to spill his guts to the Senate, and probably to lie about the involvement of other higher ups, such as George Bush the First and Cap Weinberger in the Iran-Contra scandal. Whenh Ollie was put on trial they could not use anything he said as evidence against him, thus weakening the prosecution's case.

The other interesting thing about the 5th is that in civil cases, sometimes you can ask a witness something and they will take the fifth, at which point jury is going to draw a harsh conclusion about that witness. Most states allow this evidence to be heard, but in California, if someone takes the fifth or is about to take the fifth steps are taken so that the act of taking the fifth is never presented to the jury. The reasoning is that if there is a right to remain silent, then the right is violated if one word is spoken about it.

I always felt that Senator Geary had a role in initiating these hearings. Ofcourse he does walk out of the hearings, but he could be conspiring to implicate michael. OK, I don't have a consistent theory here, I am just speculating. I will post later if some light bulb goes ON in my brain with this Geary connection.

Hey, while posts about the Trilogy are matters of opinion, posts about the law are not. There is no fifth amendment protection in civil actions either on the federal or state level.

That's a major reason why Roth wouldn't have had any role in putting Frankie on ice: If he'd planned to assassinate Michael in Havana, why would he need the Senate hearing?

[qb]As for the 5th Amendment...if a defendant goes to the stand to deny he or she did the crime, then they have waived their Fifth Amendment rights and the prosecutor can ask them anything.[\qb]
Yes. But once you take the stand, you can still invoke your Fifth Amendment right to silence if you believe the answer to the specific question would incriminate you. But by that time, taking the Fifth in front of a jury would be a surefire way to convince the jury that you'd done the crime. Far, FAR better never to take the stand, period.
[qb]Also, many times where there are plots or conspiracies, the courts and the congress have the ability to offer certain people immunity from prosecution. A good example of this was Oliver North, whose lawyer negotiated a brilliant immunity deal for him, allowing Ollie to spill his guts to the Senate, and probably to lie about the involvement of other higher ups, such as George Bush the First and Cap Weinberger in the Iran-Contra scandal. Whenh Ollie was put on trial they could not use anything he said as evidence against him, thus weakening the prosecution's case.[\qb]
A standard activity for prosecutors and Congressional committee staffers is to offer a "small fish" immunity to testify against a "bigger fish." Let's say I'm a bank robber and I hire you to drive a car for me in a bank robbery. You steal the car for this crime. While you're waiting for me outside the bank, I'm inside--and I kill someone during the robbery. The cops catch you, not me. Technically, you're an accesory to armed robbery and murder, and can get the death penalty. But they really want me. So they offer you "immunity to testify": You waive your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and agree to testify truthfully under oath at my trial. The deal is that you cannot be prosecuted for being in on the robbery. But, if that's all that your immunity deal covered, you could be prosecuted for stealing the car, which you also admitted under oath. Moral: get a lawyer before accepting an "immunity" deal.
BTW: Prosecutors routinely harassed Mob bosses by calling them to testify before grand juries. Of course they refused to answer questions. So a prosecutor asked the judge to offer the Mob boss "immunity to testify"--even though the Mob boss was the big fish. If the Mob boss refused the deal, the judge could throw him in jail for contempt of court. The Fifth didn't apply because the judge had already "protected" the Mob boss's right against self-incrimination by promising him immunity. Pretty vicious, eh?
In a famous case: Frank Costello, a frequent "guest" at Congressional hearings on organized crime, always described his occupation as "gambler." To nail him, New York passed a law requiring people who made their livings via gambling (i.e., Costello) to buy a $50 "gambling stamp." Costello didn't have one, so New York prosecuted him for violating the act. His lawyer got him off by noting that since gambling was illegal in New York, Costello, by purchasing the stamp, would have been "incriminating" himself--a violation of the Fifth.

web page

I have battled for years to work out exactly who knew about what with the Pentangeli 'hit' and for the most part I have thought that either:

1) Everyone was in on it, except Frank of course.
or
2) The cop outside wasn't in on it, everyone else except Frank was though.

Having just read Turnbull's post at the top, I have almost come to a final conclusion. Now I know that this is a very contraversial topic, so don't blast me or anything but here goes:

The "Michael Corleone says hello" line is a red herring. To understand this scene, assuming that the line was indeed ad-libbed and FFC just 'liked it', we have to completely ignore this line. So, if we imagine that the rosatto fella didn't utter those words, would Frank have thought that Michal betrayed him?

If the answer is yes, then I believe that Roth had little do to with this whole thing until he realised what had happened and how he could exploit the situation to get Michael sent down. Therefore, Roth ordered the hit on Frank, using the Rosatto brothers. The cop, the barman, and everyone else (correct me if I've forgotten anyone) were oblivious to the scheme.

So here's my question. Would Frank have still thought that Michael betrayed him, even if that Rosatto guy didn't say "Michael Corleone says hello"? And if so, why?

I know I'm probably treading on old ground here but I really want to get this cleared up in my head once and for all.

EDIT: I've just found another post with a very similar question so I'll look into that.

Sorry buddy, that is not going to happen
Unless Don Geoff excercises his power and manages to get FFC on these boards

Yeah I meant in my own head, not officially obviously as that, as you say, ain't gonna happen.

Of course he played it beautifully.

Only problem is Michael (thanks to training from his father)was a step ahead just about 100% of the time.

I mean...even Roth couldn't have figured on Frankie Pentangelli's brother being flown in from Italy just to APPEAR in the courtroom, and cause the whole case against Michael Corleone to go down the drain.

Also, there were times when it was just plain luck that put Michael ahead in the mind game.

How could Roth have figured on Fredo, through his own stupidity, revealing himself as having been the traitor...eventually leading to Michael's knowledge of Sen. Questadt belonging to Roth.

Yes, Roth did play it beautifully. And almost succeeded. However the story wasn't about Roth, it was about Michael Corleone...and fiction being as wonderful as it is, it was Michael Corleone who was destined to prevail.

AppleOnYa

Got a question, ok you know the scene in Havana when the group of "business men" are meeting with Batista and passing around the gold phone, isnt that one of the senators from the commitee meetings in Washington later in the movie. He is sitting behind Roth in a chair back against the wall and he is visible over Roth's left shoulder when they pass the phone around. Maybe I crazy but it look like the same senator that is one of the main guys questioning Michael in the hearings.

belle can you give us the times on the dvd like 1hour 16 minutes etc.. I'd love to look at it but I'm too lazy to keep going through the scenes lol

Belle, you may have seen Senator Geary. He was part of the party that traveled to Havana when Michael was there and he was among the guests at the Havana nightclub when Fredo advised the guests to try some of the local drinks. .

A sharp-eyed observation, Belle! That guy in the Havana scene looks a lot like veteran character actor Peter Donat, who played Questadt, the Senate lawyer who interrogates Cicci and (later) Frankie. But it isn't Questadt in the Havana scene. Questadt's face is slightly more angular, his hairline more pointed, than the guy sitting along the wall, visible over Roth's left shoulder. More important: Questadt couldn't logically be in that scene without giving away the entire plot to trap Michael.

Turnbull,if it was anybody else I would disagree, but you have made your bones on this message board I far I am concerned so I will respectfully defer to your wisdom.

As far as the post by someone that the Senator Questadt being in Havana is giving away the plot, I will have to disagree. It seems that lots of pezzanovante were at that meeting, CEO's etc, so just the mere presence of this (at that moment)unknown Senator Questadt would not provoke suspicion. Remember that at this time Michael and Roth are still "partners". Maybe I am wrong but it makes sense that it was not until after Michael decided not to go along with Roth and his plans for the future of being "bigger that US Steel" that Roth would sick Questadt and his boys on the Corleone family anyway.

Questadt wasn't a senator, he was the Senate subcommittee's lawyer.
No politicians were introduced at the meeting with Batista--they were all businessmen. If a Senator were there, I'ms sure he'd have been introduced. Later, at the Yolanda show, we saw Senators Geary from Nevada, Senator Green (or Rheems) from Maryland, and Judge DiMalco from New York. I think only Geary was associated with the Senate subcommitee.

Oops...my mistake!!!
Anyway, Senator or not he was he was in Roth's pocket and would probably have played a key role in complicating Michael's life with these hearings...all on behalf of Roth.

Apple

Once again outdone by the great Turnbull, but at least I was not alone in the mistake thanks AppleOnYa.

Why did they search Michael Corleone when he attended the Pentangeli portion of the hearing? Did they really think he would be packing heat at such a time and place? Wouldnt they have thought if something bad was going to happen he would have used some "buffers?"

They would have to search everyone...it's standard procedure.

Apple

In the 1950's??

These are Senate hearings.