I think that there is a little unfinished discussion on this thread. How do you reconcile your statements below?
"Michael had no reason to distrust Fredo or keep him under a 'watchful eye', prior to the hit attempt by Roth. Because Fredo kept his resentment to himself until Johnny Ola came along to stir it up. "
"The reality is that nothing would've satisfied Fredo or made him feel important, other than becoming head of the family upon his father's death."
Though I am new to this board, and lack the gravitas of being 7,000 post member, I don't think that it is out of line for me to request that you provide commentary on the seemingly conflicting positions that you have taken. It would be only fair and sporting of an individual with such impressive stature (on this board) that has seen fit to be so dismissive of others.
I see no contradiction in what Apple is saying. She says that she thinks:
1) Michael had no evidence to distrust Fredo... or at leat he did not see it.
and
2) Fredo did harbor resentment (albeit unseen by Michael) that would never be satisfied
until he was numero uno in the family.
