The novel emphasizes that Vito gave orders only to one person at a time, so that, even if the person turned rat, there’d be no corroborating witness. But in the penultimate boat house scene in II, Michael gave the order to whack Roth with Rocco, Neri and Tom present. Worse, he sent Rocco on a one-way mission against Roth. It seemed that Rocco’s only escape route was to run through a crowded airport. The chance of his escaping was just about nil. Even if he had escaped, there were photographers all around Roth, and one or more probably would have captured Rocco’s image.

Rocco alive or dead would instantly be associated with Michael—he was listed as a caporegime in the FBI chart shown at the Senate hearing. Everyone on the planet would know that Roth was whacked on Michael’s order—at that, not long after he narrowly missed being exposed as America’s top mob boss at the Senate hearing. And, if Rocco had been captured, he'd have been charged with Murder One and face the death sentence. That would raise the risk that Rocco--perhaps embittered by taking a fall for Michael--might finger Michael to save his own skin.

Revenge, Vito said, is a dish best eaten cold. The Trilogy and the novel are full of examples of lesser men (like Carlo and Fredo) who took insane risks for revenge. I think Michael was crazy to order Roth’s assassination at the airport, by Rocco. Your thoughts?

Yes, he had gone crazy. At that time he had no family anymore to protect. They were all gone, except for Connie. It was just him and the crime organisation. So he became a paranoid gambler. Gambling with the lives of his enemies. And everybody could become his enemy, at any time. He even threatens Tom.

TB, essentially I agree with you. However, I think that FFC's desire for a dramatic scene dominated the screenplay formulation. Certainly, Micahel could have come up with more practical (and less dramatic) scenarios in which Roth would meet his doom. For one, if he could bribe several governments to not admit Roth, then he could bribe them to admit Roth and hold him until he could be dispatched.

Nevertheless, I don't support the interpretation of Roth's murder as a way for Rocco to prove loyalty or as a penalty.

Rocco was listed by Pentangeli as a caporegime in Michael's family, but after the hearings turned out to be a major fiasco due to Pentangeli, he was deemed an unreliable source. Therefore, law enforcement could only presume that Michael was behind the murder of Roth.

Jack Ruby was also proven to be an associate of the Chicago Outfit and New Orleans boss Carlos Marcello. Yet he is believed (at least officially) to have been acting on his own. And so even though law enforcement knew of Ruby's association with Marcello, they have never arrested Marcello in relation to the murder of Oswald simply because there wasn't any substantial evidence other than speculation.

As part of the tradition in the Corleone family, Rocco was probably assured that his family would be taken care of, in case he would be killed or captured. This would prevent him from becoming a government witness.

My recollection of the scene is that Rocco Neri and Mike are already in the room when Tom enters, after Michael insults Tom (some say to Neri's pleasure)they get doewn to business. I think it is a given that Michael wants Roth killed, and Tom, as always, tries to talk him out of it by asking whether or not he has to rub everyone out, to which Michael replies, "just my enemies." Then there is some discussion about Roth being turned away by all these different countries, and they conclude that Roth will end up in Miami. Michael simply says he wants the plane to be "met" in Miami. Tom then goes into how this is a logistical nightmare, and Michael responds that if history teaches us anything it is that you can kill anybody. Then he throws the discussion open and Rocco says something like "difficult but not impossible," which Michael takes to be Rocco volunteering for the mission, something many people on these boards was done to curry favor with Michael who seems to have passed Rocco over for Neri. Technically, therefore Michael never gives anyone an order to do anything. If Rocco had been caught and even if he broke omerta, Michael had complete deniability. It is not likely Tom or Neri would also rat him out, and in fact they could say something to the effect that there was some discussion about Roth, and that Rocco somehow got it wrong and went off and killed him. I believe Michael, if arrested for this would have Tom and Neri as witnesses to say "He never gave the order."

Additionally I do not think this is the only time Michael had more than one person in on killing someone. If you look at how he handled Carlo, Tom got plane tickets to Vegas, and Michael plied him with alcohol to get a confession in front of more than one witness that he set Sonny up and that Barzini had approached him. Carlo then goes to the car and there's a driver (forget who and Clemenza in the back seat. Those two had to know what was going to happen. Then as Carlo is garroted Michael, Tom and Neri I think all casually stroll outside to watch. No one seems surprised, so I deduce they all knew what Michael had in store for Carlo.

Sonny, of course Michael would have an alibi that would protect him against being arrested in connection with Roth's murder. The greater danger to Michael would be renewal of speculation about Michael's Mob ties so soon after the Senate hearings. At minimum, police associating Rocco with Michael because of the FBI chart would question him, and the news media would have a field day with speculation.

While there might not be legal consequences for Michael, he could run afoul of the Nevada Gaming Commission. The Commission was formed in 1958 to try to "clean up" Nevada's gaming image because it had been exposed as being run by the Mob. The Commission had a "Black Book"--a list of people who could be barred from even entering a casino, much less owning or operating one. They could be barred even if they didn't have a criminal record--just unsavory reputations and associations could get someone listed in the Black Book. Michael could have lost his casino holdings simply because his caporegime, Rocco, murdered someone. (N.B.: The Gaming Commission took away Frank Sinatra's holdings in the Cal-Nevada Lodge because he let Chicago Mob boss Sam Giancana stay there.)

Another thing to consider is that Rocco would be identified as a known member of the Corleone family. That alone, as TB points out, would tie Michael to the murder and get his name in the Blackbook.

That is why he used straw men to run the casinos for him. I also think that by that time Michael would have had enough "pull" (such a Nevada Senator Geary) to prevent him from being listed in the Black Book by the Gaming Commission. Also bear in mind that very rich business men such as Michael would be important for Nevada's (and in effect Las Vegas) economy.

As far as the gaming commission wasn't it the case that Michael personally held nominal interests in the casinos, and the formal ownership was vested in straw men?

Yes, we infer from his testimony that he was not the outright owner or licensee for his hotels, so his interests were probably held by his front-men. But, scrutiny from the Gaming Commission would have uncovered the hidden interests. Geary seemed to know all about them ("You own, or control, three hotels...").

BTW: The first chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission (1958) was Harry Reid, the current Senate Majority Leader.

Harry Reid?? Wow that explains a lot.


As for law enforcement being able to penetrate Michael's real controlling interest in the hotels and casinos, I suspect they could not do so in a way would have been admissible in court. The reason I say this is because in his testimony before the committee, Michael said under oath that he had a small interest in the hotels and casinos, and then at Tom's prompting then added that he also had stock in ITT and something else ... as if to show he --- like Roth --- was an "investor." If they could have penetrated his real ownership, his statement that he had a small interest would have itself been perjury --- the very thing for which they were trying to set him up, and they would not have needed Pentangeli. Also, I imagine Questeadt would not go there because such an investigation would have revealed that Hyman Roth had a much bigger hand in things than he would have wanted to be revealed.

I agree DT. Michael's history would have provided law enforcement with bountiful reasonable suspicion to investigate further. They were not fooled at all by Michael's financial arrangements to disguise his casino interests.

Anyway, we can discuss this until the end of time, but fact is that Michael got away with it and became the biggest gambling czar in the country.

His statement to the arch bishop that he had "sold" all his casinos suggests that by then he had legitimate interests in those casinos. So somewhere between the end of Part II and the start of Part III, Michael was able to own casinos without using proxies.

I think at least officially (and to the public) Michael had succeeded to become a legitimate business man.

Didn't have to be admissible in court. The Gaming Commission could put people in the "Black Book" if they didn't like the way they parted their hair. And remember, Michael had to bribe Geary to get Klingman's share of the Tropigala--and Geary knew all about Michael's other holdings ("You own or control three hotels...") no matter whose name was on the licenses.

I believe Mike at that point was willing to oust anyone in the family he thought would be a traitor. Giving an order like that in front of all of them them know Mike would play them against themselves if he had to. Mike needed all of them, yet acted like he didn't.

Like Sollozzo, Roth simply couldn't allowed to live after attempting to have Michael killed. Like how Tom explained it to Kay at the end of the book, Sollozzo, Tessio, and Carlo alive would always be a threat against the "Family." so they had to go regardless of the cost.

By sending Rocco on a suicide mission to kill Roth, Michael, in effect, is killing two birds with one stone. First and foremost, he's rid of Roth and secondly, by taking the job to kill Roth, Rocco is redeeming himself for failing to protect Michael and his family during the botched assassination attempt at the Lake Tahoe compound. Also, Rocco was part of Clemenza's regime so his ties to Michael weren't as strong as Neri's were, making him, effectively, the odd man out.

As to why Michael didn't farm the hit out on Roth, it seems that it was simply too important to Michael to entrust to anyone who wasn't directly responsible to him.

I would also think that, like Pentangeli, Rocco would know his family would be taken care of if anything happened to him in the service of the Family. So that would be Michael's insurance against him turning informer. Although I seriously doubt either Rocco or Michael thought that he, Rocco, would be able to escape alive.

This is very interesting. As you know, the role of Pentangeli was originally written for Clemenza. So if they could have casted Castellano, it would have been Clemenza who slit his wrists.
It makes some sense that his old protegé went on a suicide mission.

Maybe having Rocco kill Roth was a hold-over from an old version of the script that still had Clemenza in it?

Also, with Rocco gone there's one less person for a paranoid and bitter Michael to worry about.

I don't remember when or by whom this myth of Rocco's Roth suicide mission for imagined sins originated. The GFII script gives no evidence of it. Michael simply states to Tom, Rocco, and Neri that he wants Roth's plane met. After Tom's objections, Michael simply states "Rocco" who responds "Difficult - not impossible.

Agreed, Olivant. I never thought Rocco was in any way a problem for Michael, nor did he ever incur his wrath. Instead, I think Neri "passed him over" and emerged as Michael's "go to" guy (except when he needed Tom or someone else!). I think Rocco may have been trying to ingratiate himself to Michael by volunteering, and I think Michael played Rocco to do it, but that said, I am certain that if Rocco had a family or whatever, the Corleones would have "taken care" of them as a reward for Rocco's martyrdom.

After all it was Rocco who built the secret regime in I that allowed Michael to pull off what he did with the heads of the other families, and Rocco was also a partial witness to the Kay and Michael scene in the hotel in D.C. Both times he kept his mouth shut and did his job. For Michael, it was probably enough that Rocco helped win the war in I and that he kept omerta. If anyone pulled a near boneheaded move it was Neri who almost showed his face in the brother scene, and may have but for Tom.

Further I think Michael assigned Neri to Fredo because he knew Neri was more heartless than Rocco. This doesn't mean Rocco was in disfavor, it just means Michael knew the right people to whom he assigned various jobs.

Well, I believe that, in the context of that boathouse scene, Michael gave Rocco no choice. After thoroughly humiliating Tom and claiming that "if history teaches us anything, it's that you can kill anyone," Michael immediately turns and says, "Rocco?" Notice that he didn't say, "Al?" Rocco's only alternative to "difficult, not impossible," would have been to agree with Tom that Roth couldn't be touched--and to suffer the same humiliation.

As for building the secret regime: Gratitude wasn't one of Michael's long suits.

But does Rocco agreeing it was "not impossible" really mean that he was forced into handling it personally? That seems like a stretch to me.

It's possible that Michael told Rocco to do it himself, but that's off-screen and mere speculation.

Speculating on the reasons for something that, itself, is only speculation (i.e. Michael sending Rocco on a suicide mission) is, I think, too far removed from canon to speak on with any confidence.

(I know that last sentence was confusing, but if we're smart enough to casually throw around words like "paucity" and "surfeit," we're smart enough to puzzle it out.)

I think that's another myth DT: a rivalry between Neri and Rocco. I posted elsewhere that Neri was (always) Michael's majordomo. Rocco was not in Neri's league when it came to Michael's favor and trust. Michael was not going to risk Neri's loss. Afterall, Rocco was "just" a capo though he commanded a regime.

One other thing that has escaped our attention is that Rocco's "acceptance" of the Roth assignment did not require that Rocco carry out the attack himself and there is nothing in the script that indicates that he would. In fact, I would expect that he would assign the murder to his subordinates. What mitigates the whole thing is FFC's dramatic license that put Rocco in the role of the assassin.

Correct TB. As I said, Michael played Rocco's insecurity about being passed over by Neri. He knew how to manipulate people into doing his will. Besides, Neri was already slated for a fishing trip that day.Tom, after being insulted was dispatched to talk Frankie into committing suicide, no easy task, which he performed perfectly, and for which he probably got no credit from Michael.

The point Oli and I were making was that there are some people who theorize that Rocco was somehow on the "outs" with Michael for some real or imagined slight. Neither of us thinks that is the case. Michael told Geary he trusted Rocco and Neri with his life, and likewise he told Tom in the boathouse that Rocco or Neri could be the traitor because they are first and foremost businessmen.