What names and people were on that list at the senate hearings in Godfather 2?

The family members we all know about were there: Michael, Vito, Fredo, Sonny, Tom Hagen, Tessio, Clemenza, Pentangeli, Neri, Cicci, Gatto, Brasi, Lampone...somebody add if I've missed anybody.

The rest of the names were either made-up or maybe taken off one of the real charts, I don't know.

The two MAIN characters whose picture didn't appear on the chart, Vito and Clemenza, were the two who couldn't/wouldn't come to terms with FFC to appear in Part II.

They also left off Manolo, the landscaper. He played a large, but relatively unsuspected, role in the Family.

There are some great names on that list, such as:
Joseph Bronski, alias Joey Jail
Victor Vinatonni, alias Vicky Veal
Carmine Coronda, alias The Plunge
Ettore Raoeni, alias Oily Hand

That guy has been mentioned before. Never heard of him or saw him.
Is this some kind of running gag?
Am I missing something?

Nah, once in a while Olivant tries to show us his silly side. That's all.

Silly? Silly? Did you ever think about that? Did you ever once think about that?

It was FFC at his best, molto forte that he was able to significantly conceal Manolo's role as a major player in his films. It's so subtley done - bravo FFC!

Is Manolo the guy who manicured the bushes at the Corleone compound? Did he maintain the tomato patch where Vito collapsed?

Isn't Nina Rota on the chart,im sure i read somewhere that he his.

I thought manolo was on scarface

Not Rota--it's Carmine Coppola, FFC's father. He's "Carmine Coronda, alias 'The Plunge.' "

Oh my mistake, i knew it was someone like this..

The reason that their pictures do NOT appear on the chart is because the FBI could not get a good surveillance photo of either of them because Sonny broke their camera!!!

BTW, the chart is another example of FFC's fanatical attention to authentic detail. It's a clone of the charts used at the real-life Valachi Senate hearings in '62. Go here and scroll to the bottom to see those:

http://www.gangrule.com/gallery/maps.html

Turnbull that was a great link thank you for that.

Turnbull is a good man.

I especially like "Sally Pee", "Fat Nat", and "Tony Ding."

Was this from the DVD? Wow on the resolution, as I recall it pans pretty fast. I have tried freeze framing many times to read this, thanks a lot!

I see that Tom is on the list and I question how he's allowed to represent Mike as his lawyer but yet is on the list as consigliere

Good point, DRC.
If Michael went to trial (for, say, perjury), a judge might rule that Tom was "house counsel" and block him from representing Michael. That's what happened during Gotti's last trial when the judge ruled that Bruce Cutler was "house counsel" because wiretaps and tapes revealed Cutler counseling Gotti on Gambino Family operations that had nothing to do with Gotti's legal troubles.

But the Senate hearing was not a trial, and Michael, not Tom, was the focus of the hearings. Had the committee tried to bar Tom, he'd have raised a big stink with the Bar Association, Civil Liberties Union, etc., that would have taken the focus off Michael and cast doubt on the "fairness" of the proceeding.

TB is right, and as of the hearing Mke had not yet committed perjury. The real question would be if he had, would they have enough on Tom to indict him as a co-conspirator.

Would the Justice Department really be able make a perjury charge stick? Seems like it would just be Frankie's word against Michael's. Wouldn't they need hard evidence, like wiretaps or something? I find it hard to believe that Frankie's ultimate refusal to testify against Michael blew the whole case.

Same with Roger Clemens - don't they need more evidence than just McNamee's testimony?

Well, usually corroborating testimony is necessary. Don't forget that Cicci testified that Mike was the head of the family, etc.

In a perjury case, it's the word of the accuser against the word of the defendant, plus "evidence." No corroborating witness is needed. The "evidence" could be circumstantial, or even another accusation--such as (as Olivant noted) Cicci's testimony that Michael was the head of the family. Cicci didn't have to have heard Michael give any orders--the fact that he was in the family and said Michael was the head, when combined with Frankie's testimony, could have been enough to bring Michal to trial on perjury charges.

It was a beautiful trap. The government didn't have to prove that Michael had committed any of the crimes Questadt and the Senators accused him of--all they needed to do was to use Frankie's testimony and "other evidence" to recommend to a US Attorney that Michael be indicted for lying under oath. In our adversarial system of justice, once a case goes to trial, the issue isn't innocence or guilt, or even right or wrong: it's who wins and who loses. Even a weak case can result in a conviction. In Michael's case: even if he were acquitted of perjury, or if he were convicted but had his conviction overturned on appeal, his reputation would be ruined. Simply being indicted for a serious crime like perjury would be enough for the Nevada Gaming Commission to put his name in the "Black Book" and to start proceedings to yank his casino licenses.

(N.B.: In one of the most celebrated perjury cases in the last century, Alger Hiss, a highly regarded State Department official, was accused by Whittaker Chambers, a Time Magazine editor, of having been a Communist and a Soviet agent. Hiss made a powerful defense, and even denied having ever met Chambers. The House Un-American Activities Committee was never able to prove that Hiss was a spy. But, thanks to Richard Nixon, one of the Committee's new members, they proved that he had met Chambers and did know him. Result: Hiss went to prison on a perjury rap. That's a parallel to what might have happened to Michael had Frankie testified.)

TB, I'm not sure the Hiss case is a very good parallel.

While, if memory serves, there was no corrobating witness to Chambers, there was a great deal of evidence, mostly documents that Chambers said he received from Hiss.

I believe that the "he said, she said" aspects of the case were only a sideline and most of the case was consumed with technical testimony centered around Hiss's typewriter and whether the documents in question could have been typed on them. There is no equivalent evidence in the Corleone case.

Incidentally, I don't think any suspense novelist could have invented a better name for an accused spy than "Alger Hiss."

The corroborating circumstantial evidence against Michael would have been pretty overwhelming. NY captain and Sollozzo die, and Mike splits for Sicily. Mike returns and all the heads of the NY families suddenly die, he conslidates power and moves to Nevada. Cicci could have implicated the "buffas" like Pentangeli, who in turn would have imlicated Michael had the perjry trap worked.

A better example of how to set a perjury trap is the way it was done to Bill Clinton. In the Paula Jones case they took his deposition and under the guise of showing a pattern and practice of illicit conduct, they asked him about Monica Lewinski. He lied about this collateral matter, and they had him cold. Monica's testimony and the famous dress. That's how you set a perjury trap.

I used it not as a direct parallel, but to make the point that, once a case goes to trial, there's always a strong chance that the jury will accept any or all "corroborating circumstantial evidence" as proof of guilt. As dt points out above, if Frankie had testified, there was enough circumstantial evidence to build a case against Michael.