The current thread in which we are discussing the question of "Who killed the Tahoe assassins?" for the umpteenth time, prompts this question.

I figured I'd make it a separate thread, so those who are sick of the original question don't miss it

Were the would-be assassins even meant to escape in the first place?

Let's look at it from their POV.

The drapes are left open for them as they were told they would be. They lie in wait for Michael to enter the bedroom unprotected. They see him at the window and open fire. At the very same split second, Michael, smelling the danger, dives to the floor. Perhaps his dive to the floor was prompted by the fact that he actually saw the assassins. The assassins keep firing.

Question: How did they know that they missed? Their opening fire and Michael ducking happened so quickly that they could not have been certain that they weren't successful.

So they immediately begin making their way to their pre-planned escape route.

Which was what? A plan to walk out the front gate where a car would be waiting for them? Making their way to the dock, where a boat would be waiting for them?

Since the driver of the car (if there was one) or the pilot of the boat (if that was the plan) would have had no way of knowing if the hit was successful or not, shouldn't they have been there waiting for their passenger's arrival?

But in the thorough search of the estate after the shooting, neither the car nor the boat were discovered.

Which leads me to believe that it was Roth's intention to not have the assassins escape at all.

They were meant to be killed (and silenced) while still on the property.

Which brings us back to the original question: "By Who?"

Interesting (to me, at least) is Michael's comment to Tom in the boathouse:

"We're not gonna catch them. Unless I'm very wrong they're dead already. Killed by someone close to us...inside...very, very frightened they botched it."

With no viable escape plan for the killers, that would make Mike's observation at least partially incorrect. The assassins were not killed because the "botched" it. They were never meant to leave the property alive, and were killed to silence them.

Had the hit been successful, it would have been no less likely that they would have been caught while still on the property and made to talk.

So, I conclude that it was part of the original plan to kill the assassins.

Which means it could not have been Fredo who killed them, since he didn't know it was going to be be a hit in the first place, as evidenced by his late night telephone conversation with Ola.

Am I somewhat obsessed by this question? Sure. I think that one of, if not the main themes of GF II is the treachery within Michael's own family and Michael's quest to uncover who the traitor is.

Mike discovers that at worst Fredo is a traitor (or at best, a dupe for Roth), but the fact that the rest of the assassination plot is never uncovered, or at least revealed to the viewer, is, IMO, a major mis-handling of a key theme, and a major flaw in the film

To make it short and sweet, as Michael told Fredo (before knowing his connections with Ola), he believes that Roth was behind it.
I personally feel that the assassians were on a sucide mission. And if they have any common sense, they would know that they had not escape route. of course they would run and hide from the bodyguards to live as long as possible. That's human nature.

I agree with you that the hitmen were supposed to be double crossed. But there were two hitmen and as you say that would take two men to silent them. So Fredo was indeed involved and he did it to cover up the mess he made. He had no other choice to listen to the third person came with Roth's package to kill Mike.
And don't forget they came with Fredo, stayed at Fredo's and were told to hide at Fredo's.
If you'd like to see the rest of my statement please refer to the old thread we were discussing it at "A GF II question that's been killing me"
Thank you.

Who do you think this "third person" was? Certainly he would have had to have been a key player in the plot, and if he existed, then you would have to agree that not revealing his identity or existence is a major flaw in the film.

Since pl created this thread, here's part of what I posted in the older thread:
One possible scenario is that, since Michael's meeting with Johnny went so well, neither he nor anyone else paid too much attention to Johnny and his men afterward. So the men, and/or Johnny, hid out after the party. We don't know how many men Johnny had. Let's say there were four. Two did the shooting, and were immediately killed by the other two. Or there were two plus Johnny, and Johnny (or Johnny and Fredo, if you take a bullish view of Fredo's capabilities) killed the two after the shooting. Or, of the four men, two were killed before the shooting, and their bodies positioned before the shooting, so that when the bodies were found, everyone's attention would be diverted, allowing the others to escape. All of these scenarios beg the question of how anyone might have gotten away in such a short timeframe with such heavy security.

I must disagree. Surely the assassins would have figured out in advance that it would be in Michael's best interest to capture them alive so that he could learn who was behind the plot.

Which would mean that they would have to know that once captured they would certainly be tortured before being killed.

Guys that were stupid enough to take on a mission such as killing the most powerful Mafia Don in the country without thinking that they had an escapre route would never have been hired by Roth in the first place. He would have realized that these guys were too stupid to carry out the mission successfully.

Like my father before me,
We feel that it was the hitmen that were double crossed after the shooting. They may have been told that Fredo was in on it and that there was an escape plan. It was always our thought that the man who says that it looks like they were from NY that did them in. The way he stammers the words. We feel that this person was the real inside connection. He makes you think it was Frankie who was doing the hit on Michael.

The mysterious "third person" identified.

Such a minor character, though, to have such a major role in the plot. Obviously, as Michael says, someone "close" on the "inside". And with a role in the plot more important than Fredo's, you would think that the character would have been developed, and, somewhere along the line, exposed.

Forget the deleted scenes. What I wouldn't give to see what was left on the cutting room floor....

The following has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I couldn't resist.

The portion of your post quoted above immediately reminded me of an episode the old TV show, "Get Smart", with Don Adams. I'm sure you remember it.

Anyway, there was a classic episode in which Maxwell Smart hooks up with the famed Hawaiian detective Harry Hoo, who was an hilarious send-up of Charlie Chan.

Sure enough, I was able to find a transcript of the scene on a Charlie Chan website. It's pretty funny, I think. The part that I put in bold is what your post reminded me of.

Isn't it amazing what sticks in your mind after forty years?

MAX: Uh, what puzzles me in this case, Inspector Hoo, is the motive for the murder.
HOO: Oh, correction. This is not case of murder, Mr. Smart. Is case of rovvery.
MAX: Rovvery?...That’s amazing. But how can you say it’s robbery, Mr. Hoo? I mean, the man was found dead with a hundred dollars in his wallet.
HOO: Humble to beg pardon, Mr. Smart. Suppose victim’s pocket originally contained one hundred and one dollar.
MAX: By George, you’re right! They took the dollar and left the hundred dollars to throw us off the track!
HOO: You are apt pupil, Mr. Smart.
MAX: Yes, of course. And then they murdered him so we wouldn’t find out about the rovvery. (HOO looks at him funny.)
HOO: It is widely written, Mr. Smart: dead men tell no tales. (MAX is visibly impressed. HOO lifts the blanket covering the body.) Mr. Smart, you are man of some perception. What do you notice about man on floor?
MAX: He’s not breathing.
HOO: Which presents two possibilities. One: man has gone to visit honorable ancestors.
MAX: Or?
HOO: Man very good at holding breath. Do you notice anything else unusual, Mr. Smart?
MAX: No, I don’t think so.
HOO: Your eyes see, Mr. Smart, but they do not observe.
MAX: I don’t think I follow you, Mr. Hoo.
HOO: Observe closely, Mr. Smart. Murdered man dressed in business suit. Gray jacket and pants. Black socks and shoes. Striped necktie. Silver tie clasp.
MAX: Looks pretty good.
HOO: Then why, I ask you, Mr. Smart, why is he not wearing shirt?
MAX: By golly, you don’t miss a trick, do you? You know, a lot of people wouldn’t have noticed that little detail.
HOO: That is why it is wisely written, Mr. Smart: bird in hand gathers no moss. (spots something on the floor; steps over the body to pick it up) Ah, so.
MAX: Is it a clue, Hoo?
HOO: It is evidence left by murderer, Mr. Smart.
MAX: It’s a button.
HOO: Which presents two possibilities: one, victim tore button from murderer’s coat during struggle.
MAX: Or?
HOO: Is button from...my jacket. Sleeve. (examines his cuff; wanders away. MAX follows him)
MAX: Tell me, Mr. Hoo, do all Hawaiian detectives wear white suits?
HOO: No. I began to wear white suit in Hawaii when I was employee of ice cream firm.
MAX: Well, it’s very attractive.
HOO: You should see my cleaning bills. Tell me, Mr. Smart, how you think murder was committed.
MAX: Two possibilities. (HOO looks at him funny again.) One: he was killed by a .22 caliber pistol at long range by a short man who was a stranger to him.
HOO: Or?
MAX: He was killed at close range by a knife used by a woman he knew who was over six feet tall.
HOO: Amazing...Ah so. (crosses to table, picks up an ashtray)
MAX: Found something, Mr. Hoo?
HOO: Perhaps, Mr. Smart. Notice the ashtray containing two cigarettes. (holds up three fingers . MAX and HOO look at them. HOO puts one down.)
MAX: I see. Well, then that means there was someone here in the room when the victim was killed. Perhaps even the murderer.
HOO: Moment please.
MAX: Moment please?

HOO: Once again worthy CONTROL agent leap at too obvious a conclusion. If victim were non-smoker, there could have been two smokers in the room with him.
MAX: Well, that’s true.
HOO: Perhaps two smokers and one non-smoker.
MAX: Moment please.
HOO: Moment please?
MAX: Perhaps there were two smokers and two non-smokers.
HOO: Perhaps there were two smokers and FOUR non-smokers.

MAX: Well, then, what you’re saying, Mr. Hoo, is that there could have been as many as fifty people in the room with the victim when he was killed, provided only two of them were smokers.
HOO: Exactly. (puts down ashtray, crosses to other side of the room)
MAX: Boy, it must have been crowded in here. (two policemen walk by and pick up their still-smoking cigarettes)

Was he shooting from the grassy knoll?
So would I, but I can't forget the deleted scene you cited in the other thread. Fredo and Deanna showed up in a very cherry '55 Mercedes 300SL gullwing coupe, one of the world's most desirable cars then--and now. To paraphrase Sonny: "Lotta money in that Mickey Mouse nightclub."