And Michael's still responsible for the killing, even if he had no knowledge of it beforehand? Really? Does that mean Tony Soprano was responsible for Ralphie's killing of his (Ralphie's) girlfriend, even though Tony not only didn't know about it until after it happened, but vehemently disapproved when he found out? Sorry, I don't buy that.
That analogy doesn't work, Vito. My contention was that Michael would have been
legally responsible, and I still say he would have been.
You're right, of course Tony Soprano wouldn't be responsible for Ralphie killing his girlfriend. But that wasn't a business related murder; the murder of the hooker in "GF 2" was. And with Michael as the head of the "criminal enterprise" that killed her---in the interest of stengthening
his criminal enterprise---he would have been responsible up and down the line for said murder, under the RICO statute. A sharp prosecutor would convict him.
Now I realize that "GF 2" took place roughly ten years before Robert Blakey wrote the statute (around 1970), but "The Sopranos" takes place in modern times, and you're the one who made the analogy. It's neither here nor there, anyway.
Turnbull knows much more about RICO than I do; I'm just going by what I read in Selwyn Raab's excellent "Five Families."
Can you help me out, TB?
