Willy Cicci testifies, under immunity I think, that he never got a direct order from Michael Corleone to kill anyone, but insstead always got the word through "buffas." Willy was a witness to Tom Hagen carrying out Michael's order to kill Tessio. Before he got into the car, Tessio asked Tom in front of he could tell Mike that it was strictly business, and that he always liked him. Then he asks Tom if he could get him off the hook for old times sake, and Tom said no. This is a break in the Buffa link because Tessio and Tom are essentially acknowledging that Michael gave the order, and they do this in front of Willy. A little later, Willy sees Mike and Tom witness the killling of Carlo. again no buffas there. Could it be Willy kept Omerta?

Cicci broke Omertá the moment he confirmed to the Senate subcommittee that Michael Corleone was the head of the Corleone family.

Well, what happened to Tessio, we and Willie will never know. Speculation is all we've got and a good lawyer would call him out on that.

But witnessing the hit on Carlo is something that would be tough to get around. Still, there's no way to confirm that Michael had ordered such a hit. Last I heard, Michael gave him a plane ticket to Vegas and told him to go to the airport. That Clemenza was in the back seat of the car giving him a hug with a shoe-string is really not michael's fault is it? It must have been some sort of disagreement between those two.

Tessio says, he always liked Michael, and that it was strictly business. This doesn't mean in a courtroom that Michael gave the orders. It could be interpreted that Tom gave the orders, which he probably did. The fact that Tessio believes that Tom could get him off the hook, only means that Tom had those powers. Not Michael.

Here is a thread where we discussed the Carlo-buffa-problem before.
I think that it was too much dramatic license. It makes absolutely no sense that so many people are around while Clemenza kills Carlo, and nobody interferes.

D, I agree. It can be immensely frustrating to a viewer of the films when they do not allow for dramatic license as well as the fact that most films are only a few hours and can't contain every explanation of how and why.

The scene that begins with Cicci saying, "The boss says for you to go on ahead..." certainly connects Michael with what folloed. But, in a courtroom,Michael's lawyer would require the prosecution to show that Cicci actually received a direct order to have Tessio killed--and to have a corroborating witness who heard the same thing from Michael at the same time as Cicci. The jury would infer Michael gave the order, but the court would require the prosecution to prove it.

As for Carlo: Michael said, in front of witnesses, "Your punishment is that you're out of the family business." Neither Michael nor Tom was in the car when Carlo was garrotted.

If that's supposed to be ironic, I don't get it.

To me the scene makes no sense: It doesn't matter who gave the order to kill Carlo. A dozen people saw how Michael just let the killing happen on his own mall.

A dozen people saw Carlo get into a car with an airline ticket in one hand, his suitcase in another. The people who were with Michael when he confronted Carlo heard him say, "Your punishment is that you're out of the family business." Only Clemenza and the driver of the car saw Carlo being murdered.

Of course everyone knew the score. But, to obtain a conviction in a US court, a prosecutor would need need two people to testify that they heard Michael give the order to kill Carlo. So, if Michael gave the order in private to Clemenza, without witnesses, there'd be no way to convict Michael even if Clem turned rat.

TB, you hit the nail on the head. Per RICO (and other statutes and rules of evidence today), a conviction might be obtainable. But not prior to the 70s.