Did Michael have Tom killed?

Yeah yeah, I know, Duvall wanted too much money so he was not in III and there was a plot device by which we are led to think he died of natural causes, and that his widow and son were at the party.

BUT isn't it possible that Michael had Neri give Tom something to induce a heart attack or whatever? My reasoning is that between the end of II and the beginning of III, Michael was on his bizarre quest to become "legitimate." After the end of II the ONLY person other than Mike who were
originally with Mike were dead. All of Vito's top people and even middlemen were dead. In other words the only person with an institutional memory of Everyithing was Tom, who BTW appeared on that Senate chart as a member of the "family." Michael wanted all traces of his Vegas dealings to be in the past when he moved to New York. He sold all the casinos, abandoned his house in Tahoe, and along the way Tom's lips are sealed forever. Coincidental heart attack? Maybe not.

DT, it's possible, but not probable. I think his absence from III was exclusively a function of a compensation dispute. Had there not been such a dispute, he would have appeared and no doubt played the Hamilton role.

The answer is NO- PERIOD end of discussion.

Wake up it is time to go to back to work......No sleeping.... Most be a really slow week.....

That's right. Robert Duvall killed Tom Hagen. George Hamilton killed Part III.

How clever! See, some good can come out of Throggs Neck.

I often wondered: What if (in the penultimate boathouse scene), Tom did move his wife, family and mistress to Vegas, and take the job with the House & Hotels? Would Michael let him go, given all that Tom knew? And, wouldn't Tom lose the lawyer/client privilege with Michael, meaning the authorities could pressure him to rat out Michael?

My understanding of lawyer/client is that it can never be "lost", even when the relationship no longer exists.

Michael certainly would have seen that as an act of betrayal. And if Tom quit Michael, I think he was a goner. But barring such an act, I don't think Tom had anything to fear from Michael. He just had to stay loyal. And by all accounts (novel and films), he did just that.

Because it would be Michael's privilege to surrender, I imagine that the feds would try to prove that Tom was part of Michael's criminal conspiracy thus losing the legal protection of that relationship.

Micheal would never touch Tom no matter what he did, as long as he doesnt do anything to physically hurt Micheal or his family. Tom could have left and done whatever he wanted to and there would have been nothing to worry about. Micheal respected and loved Tom more than any other of his brothers i believe. I know what everyone is going to say, Mike had his brother killed! Fredro, weather he knew it or not, was involved in a plot to have Mike killed and also effectively overthrow the Corleone family, not accept a RESPECTABLE, ILLEGITIMATE job. If anything Micheal would have been jealous of Tom and the move he was free to make.

There's nothing in GFIII to say specifically that such a scenario wasn't possible - however, the fact that Michael is tormented by guilt over Fredo, yet simply mentions Tom once or twice without any such feelings (and has no problem conversing with his widow and son), clearly rules out the possibility.

Given that guilt and redemption are major themes of GFIII, a second (third, if you count brother-in-law Carlo) act of fratricide by Michael would have to be mentioned. As it wasn't, it's fair to say it couldn't have happened.

I don't feel there is enough information to speculate on such a scenario.

I suppose that -- as he was letting it all hang out -- Michael would have had to confess (to the Cardinal) having two of his brothers killed were this the case.

That is the nail in the coffin Professor, great point buddy!

It could be another topic: as to whether Michael would have (or could have) withheld parts of the truth from Lamberto in confession.

One thing I think he held out from the Cardinal was genuine remorse. He said,"I had my brother killed--he injured me. [emphasis added]" I'm not Catholic, but, when you confess, aren't you not supposed to rationalize your misdeeds in order to gain forgiveness?

Good oint Turnbull. mike is sort of a sociopath because how can you rationalize murdering your own brother for no real reason

Exactly TB. You seek forgiveness not because of the injury you have done, but because you have offended God ("I am heartily sorry for having offended thee").

Correct, you're meant to repent completely, not try to justify or defend yourself, but I never got the impression that Michael was trying to excuse his actions, he was just saying that he had Fredo killed in retaliation for 'injuring' him. If anything, he was clarifying that what he did was deliberate.

I think Michael really does lay his soul bare - he was not just confessing to the Cardinal that he had his brother killed, but that he regretted that he was the sort of person who would do such a thing.

Not necessarily true. Case in point....Frank Ragano and Santo Trafficante.