The Godfather question

Something I've been wondering for awhile - at the end of the Godfather when Michael Corleone has Carlo whacked, why does he lie and tell Carlo he's letting him off the hook only to have his henchmen kill him 5 minutes later?

When he confronted him Carlo was alone in a room surrounded by the Don's men, so why didn't he just kill him then?

I think because he wanted to confess and to make sure 100% he was guilty, and also to make him feel at ease so the killing was easier to do and not messy. Michael doesn't kill anybody himself after he becomes the leader either, he likes to be in control and let others do that side of the work for him.

__________________

Didn't he do it so it would be after the baptism?

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

There was several reasons I guess, but I think it was mostly because Michael is not "involved" directly in those things. He likes, as Daniel M said, to be in control. He arranges things, control things, but is never the one who wants to deal with the dirty jobs directly. He don't need to. Slightly cowardish at times, but you know that's his character...

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror

Every previous answer is correct. If he wasn't to give an assurance, he could have REALLY started crying and screaming - you don't want a scene - take the Tessio murder too. Very subdued, even a little sentimental.

It's a great scene, because Carlo pretends that it's so horrible that he's out of the family, (when he knows he should be killed) a way of getting mercy. I think he was delighted and surprised (but doesn't show it) he got a ticket. Also having a ticket to go to Vegas might look nice to anyone looking into this.. Maybe..

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

Thanks for the good replies and thoughts - I think there was a slight misunderstanding. I wasn't asking why Michael didn't kill Carlo himself (though there were some good insights given on that), I was asking why he didn't have his men just kill him in the room, instead of lying about letting him off and waiting for him to get in the car to kill him.

After thinking about it, a theory I have is that Michael hadn't witnessed a lot of death yet and didn't want to witness Carlo's murder; he let him leave the room and be killed in the car so he could emotionally detach himself from it.

It was already after the Baptism, in the scene Ace is talking about.

Daniel already partially explained this. It was both to have Carlo to admit it, and so he could find out who was the main Architect, Tattaglia or Barzini. Your theory on why it wasn't specifically done then and there is believable, especially since it was his Sisters husband/ Nephews father.

He wanted information, so he gave him that "Here's a ticket to Vegas. You're out. Being specific to actually think he's free."

Besides the baptism, they killed people in cars. Remember the beginning when Pauly is killed. After the death, you dispose the car, but you can't dispose a house.

There's no reason why Michael would do it. Someone gets paid to do it, and a murder is a murder. You wouldn't want a traitor to have witnessed that (Willy Cicci testifying). People were scarred from killing people in WWII, he wouldn't that on his conscience. He killed Sollozzo because that was the only option. He was forced into the family business, because he was considered a civilian. This is what makes a great story.

Also, the minute Connie know that her husband is dead, she asks Michael in front of Kay, accusing him. When Michael allows her the one time to ask about his business, he absolves himself (he thinks) by saying honestly, "No"