Bonanno also got a pass despite the fact that he would live for another 40 something years and despite the fact that after his initial reprieve he jumped back into the war. Even after that he wasn't murdered. So again, mercy is highly unusual but it has happened IRL with non-related people that were trying to kill each other.

Of course Michael knew about the hooker. And even if he didn't, as Boss, he's still culpable for her murder, both legally and morally.

All right, forget the morals part, he's a fucking gangster . But he's still responsible for her death.

As I've said before, I'm not convinced he did know, given that he gave Tom "complete power" before he left for Miami. To me, "complete power" means that Tom had the ability to do anything without needing to have Michael's approval.

And Michael's still responsible for the killing, even if he had no knowledge of it beforehand? Really? Does that mean Tony Soprano was responsible for Ralphie's killing of his (Ralphie's) girlfriend, even though Tony not only didn't know about it until after it happened, but vehemently disapproved when he found out? Sorry, I don't buy that.

That's because Bonanno was on the run and they couldn't get to him. And after years of conflict within the Bonanno family they finally decided to make a deal with him to stop the violence which was bad for business. And Bonanno wasn't just anybody, he was well respected in the underworld for being boss of his family for over 30 years. Bonanno made his bones when Gambino and Lucchese were dating cheerleaders.

IRL two different men get passes from non-relatives even though they were actively involved in murder plots (and in Bonanno's case) came up with the plan and did so twice and yet walked away clean. In fiction a man whose involvement is ambiguous and is related to the boss gets no mercy? Of course that will engender discussion, which is all good...

This is one of those few threads that makes me want to leave this board.

That analogy doesn't work, Vito. My contention was that Michael would have been legally responsible, and I still say he would have been.

You're right, of course Tony Soprano wouldn't be responsible for Ralphie killing his girlfriend. But that wasn't a business related murder; the murder of the hooker in "GF 2" was. And with Michael as the head of the "criminal enterprise" that killed her---in the interest of stengthening his criminal enterprise---he would have been responsible up and down the line for said murder, under the RICO statute. A sharp prosecutor would convict him.

Now I realize that "GF 2" took place roughly ten years before Robert Blakey wrote the statute (around 1970), but "The Sopranos" takes place in modern times, and you're the one who made the analogy. It's neither here nor there, anyway.

Turnbull knows much more about RICO than I do; I'm just going by what I read in Selwyn Raab's excellent "Five Families."

Can you help me out, TB?

You may be right from a legal standpoint, but logically it still doesn't make sense to me--unless Michael said something like "Do whatever it takes, I don't care what" beforehand.

Legal reasoning and common sense reasoning often conflict. For example, Jerry Capeci notes that Carmine Persico was convicted in the "Commission" case of participating in the killing of Carmine Galante (as if Galante's death was some kind of big loss anyway!) even though he actually voted against executing Galante. I don't think that anyone in everyday life would consider someone who voted against killing a person responsible for that person's subsequent murder.

As I have posted elsewhere all this happened before RICO, so it would have been harder to pin Michael down in a court f law. HOWEVER there could have been a conviction based on circumstantial evidence for conspiracy or for Michael being an accessory before or after the fact.

Is see I read that too quick, so I misinterpret it as you meaning Roth, lol. But you meant Pentangeli and that was indeed a sad thing.

I felt the need to correct this, so my bad.

I believe that something like that happened in the case of the hooker:

I've always held that Michael would never have given Tom a blank check to have a US Senator implicated in a murder, even though he told Tom, "You're gonna be the Don." Geary was a regular at Fredo's brothel--and with that hooker ("...we done it be-FOE-wer..."). Either Fredo or the manager (the guy who looks like Gene Vincent) would have noted that, and would have gotten that info to Michael. He would have regarded it as gold. So, after the "oily hair/silk suit" rap, Michael probably turned to Tom and Neri and said, "Nail his ass the next time he shows up at that brothel."

Nah. He would have said. "You know about Geary's dalliances? You know he is a regular at Fredo's place?" To which Tom would reply, "Who should I use, Rocco or Neri?" And Michael would reply, "Neri. This will involve drugging the senator and brutally killing a young girl who has no involvement in any of our business. Neri is the more brutal one."

I read somewhere that Neri was against hurting women?

I think the prostitute was drugged along with Geary, given that many other people were in that brothel, including in nearby rooms. The last thing they'd want would be for people to hear her screaming.

Also, while she certainly wasn't a gangster, I don't think it's completely accurate to say she was completely uninvolved in the Corleone family business. One of their activities was prostitution, and she was a prostitute who worked at one of the brothels.