I don't know GF2 as well as others, but to me it is ambiguous as to what Fredo knew about Pentangeli, and when. Tom tells Michael about Frankie, cites the New York detectives as his source, and says that he thinks Fredo doesn't know anything. Fredo does then tell Michael about Pentangeli and Questadt, but there's no way to know how or when he found out about those things.

One thing that seems obvious is that information about Pentangeli became much easier to obtain once the senator announced that a surprise witness was coming. That's natural, as prople with information might open up once they thought the trap had been set up. So it could be that Tom and Fredo were both picking up the same information at the same time.

Yes it would. And, after being portrayed as a doofus and weakling throughout GF and part of II, it makes Fredo's betrayal of Michael all the more shocking--and impactful. Michael (and we) never saw it coming. What's more, the boathouse scene (IMO, John Cazale's best) shows just how deeply he resented Michael and highlights why he betrayed his brother.



Could be. It's possible that the subcommittee chair was required by procedural rules to disclose his witnesses to Tom, acting as Michael's lawyer, and it might have made the newspapers.

But there's only one way Fredo could have known that the Senate lawyer, Questadt, belonged to Roth: Roth told him. And, if Roth told him, it tells me he was in with Roth far deeper than he let on.

True TB. But I don't see why Roth would give Fredo such information. There was no reason for him to do so. Also, Roth certainly was astute enough to have observed that Fredo was hugely amenable to manipulation which would not require his knowing sensitive information.

Of course, I would conclude that since Michael was under subpoena and the subject of the Senate committee's investigation, that disclosure would apply. Thus, Tom would have been informed of Cicci and Pentangeli.

I don't think that Michael would have been entitled to a disclosure of subsequent witnesses. He wouldn't technically be a target of the investigation. The committee would have to target "Organized Crime Penetration of Interstate Commerce" or some such. It would have to be something plausibly related to defined Congressional powers.

It almost would have to be this way: most Congressional hearings are essentially fact finding missions, they can continue for long periods of time, and a committee often won't know who subsequent witnesses will be until they hear what this witness has to say.

it just doesn't fit. Like I said before there is a difference between jealousy and acting on it. Most people are jealous at one point but most do go out and do something violent. I mean ive seen the film hundreds of times and its pretty clear that Fredo is a lot of things but he is not a sadistic person. i mean mike is the only one that i see that murders family members and women

Since we don't know the content of the Senate resolution that established the committee, we can't say for sure what its jurisdiction was. But it is obvious that the hearing was an adversary one. Given that Pentangeli's verbal testimony contradicted his written deposition (as the Committee chair pointed out), we know for sure that he was deposed previous to the hearing, that therein he accused Michael of crimes, and therefore, Michael was a target of the committee's investigation. I think disclosure would have applied.

While this is a logical chain of inference its foundation makes no sense.

As Oli points out, there was no reason to give Fredo such inside details on Roth's plan. Fredo was hardly a vault with information, and he had already told Ola that he didn't want to talk to them anymore after the failed hit. The phone conversation also confirms to me (but, admittedly, not to everyone) that Fredo didn't know it was a hit and he felt deceived by Roth. Nothing here lays the groundwork for continued confidences from Roth to Fredo.

Also, Fredo had no value to Roth after the Tahoe hit attempt. Why would Roth need Fredo's complicitly to kill Michael in Cuba or to have Michael perjure himself? Keeping Fredo in the dark would have been much safer.

The only reasonable explanation I can see is that, during his interactions with Roth, Fredo somehow came across Questadt. Then, after seeing him at the Hearings, Fredo put two and two together. While that information would have been useful to Michael, it does not mean that Fredo was in deeper with Roth than previously acknowledged and certainly doesn't mean that Fredo knew about Pentangeli and the perjury trap.

To clarify, are you saying that Michael should have been advised of Frankie's affidavit before Michael testified, or after? Even if this were an actual adversarial proceeding, Frankie's value only arises as a rebuttal witness to what Michael might say. The government wouldn't have to disclose his availability to possibly testify if Michael should happen to perjure himself on some undetermined subject.

Michael's subpoena would have been issued only after Pentangeli was deposed (of course, Cicci must have been deposed prior also). So, yes, their depositions should have been made available to Michael or Tom soon after the subpoena was issued.

Not so sure Oli. If Frankie's testimony was to impeach Michael his deposition or affidavit or whatever may have been allowed to be withheld.

Oli and LW:

Logic is on your side. There is no logical reason for Roth to have confided anything to Fredo other than what was required for him to betray Michael. But what we're shown and hear in II indicates otherwise:

--Fredo got out of Cuba and to NY in the same short timeframe that Michael got out and went to Vegas to meet with Tom, Rocco and Neri. Michael had a private plane, Fredo didn't.

--Despite being in Nevada the entire time Michael was away, Tom knew Roth had a stroke, recovered, got out of Cuba on a boat; the bodyguard was dead,and Fredo was in NY.

--Fredo knew the Feds had Pentangeli--and that Questadt belonged to Roth.

What that tells me is that Fredo told Tom about Roth's escape and the bodyguard; and that Fredo escaped Cuba on the same boat that rescued Roth. My conclusion is that he was in with Roth far deeper than he let on--for whatever (illogical) reason.

As for Fredo seeing Questadt with Roth:

Oli and LW: you probably recall an astute catch made by someone on this board: he spotted Questadt sitting behind Roth in Batista's meeting with US businessmen. Someone else posted one of many earlier scripts in which Questadt and Michael met in Cuba. It was dropped from the final cut, leading to the assumption that either FFC overlooked Questadt in that scene, or wanted to save money by not reshooting it (it was filmed in the Dominican Republic) and hoping nobody would notice Questadt in the scene. But: If Fredo had spotted Questadt with Roth, so would have Michael--in the same room with him.

It's immaterial because the Questadt/Michael meeting wasn't in the final cut. That's why I'm convinced thatFredo must have learned about Questadt from Roth or Ola.

The main reason why a defendant might be provided with a witness' statement is so that the defendant has a fair chance to prepare to rebut anything negative that is in it. The two major ways of doing this are cross-examination of the witness and the calling of the defendant's own witnesses to rebut the allegations. A Congressional hearing is a whole different sort of animal, and witnesses don't participate in this way.

Edit: A couple posts were made while I was typing. Apologies for any confusion.

Well, I tried to research Senate committee rules to no avail. All I can say for sure is that the committee would be investigative, able to subpoena witnesses and to swear witnesses. As far as it being an adversarial proceeding, it is probable that the committee's jurisdiction only extends to asking a federal judge to rule on a witness's possible perjury. I think it is unusual that a committee would target an individual. That being the case, Tom should have realized that the committee must have had what it believed was inculpatory evidence against Michael and for Michael to take the fifth regardless of Michael's desire to appear legitimate.

I basically agree with this. I think Michael's choices as counsel were limited to either Tom or a "mob lawyer," because any high-profile white collar guy would have advised him to take the Fifth.

Another possible reason: By having Tom appear as his counsel of record before the Committee, Tom could invoke client/attorney privilege. The FBI chart showed Tom as consigliere of the Corleone Family. He might have been called as a material witness if someone else had represented Michael.

All the motivation Neri needed to do ANYTHING was that it was what Michael wanted hime to do. This is clearly indicated in the 'hugging' scene, where the look on Neri's face indicated he would not enjoy killing Fredo...but it was Michael's order and it was what had to be done.

Apple - good to see you back. It's been a while!

This is exactly what i was thinking. Yes Neri would never refuse an order but you can tell Neri didn't like having to do it which for neri never happenes

Neri's expression was almost sad.