In the beginning Stephen Collins in a state of emotional frailty on the press conference gives his allegiance to Sonia baker when he actually knew all about her alleged link up with Pointcorp beforehand and may or may not have got her killed..And at that point he didnt even know that she was pregnant..What was the requirement for the senator to do that when that can only open a can of worms and in the end it did??
shareAssuming he didn't lie when he said the soldier was just supposed to keep an eye on her (instead of killing). He could not know yet if someone would find out who murdered her.
Playing the role of victim was an attempt to drive the investigation away from him and, perheaps, try to pin the crimes on Pointcorp's back.
I may be wrong, but that's how I understood...
Corporal Bingham killed her because he didnt trust her...he did it behind Collin's (Affleck) back...so it WAS a shock for him to hear the full true story later from Cal's informant in the motel room
shareWhatever the story or the thinking, the guy was a politiician. The story of her death was going to be reported. She was on his staff and he knew about the death. His tears and emotion were required. As a politician facing the press.
shareFirst of all, it's shocking how many people confuse Congressman with Senators. There are over 400 U.S. Congressman who serve two-year terms. There are only 100 Senators who serve six year terms. There is a vast difference between a Congressman and a Senator.
As to your question, it's clear that he did love Sonia, even though he knew she had been spying on him (his reaction to her pregnancy makes this clear). It's not clear if he had her killed, only that Cal suspects he did. Regardless of whether he wanted her dead or had her killed, it was clearly an emotional situation for him.
If you take Cal's view, you could see the emotion as part of his ploy to paint himself as a victim. If not, her death was doubtlessly upsetting to him.
There is a vast difference between a Congressman and a Senator.
Worse than that, is the fact that Collins promises to come down hard on Pointcorp, only if his reporter friend can track down the killer and link him to Pointcorp. Knowing his reporter friend is a better investigator than the Police, he is sending him out only to his own demise, because he knew very well who killed the girl. STUPID. That error in the screenplay almost ruins the movie for me.
shareExcellent point.
shareCome back when you know what a plot hole is, OP.
shareRight, it doesn't make sense. Collins knew that Sonia was getting $26,000 / month for spying on him, so his reaction to her death should not only be at a loss but also fear (if Pointcorp is capable of killing her, maybe he's next?) or anger (at Bingham for taking the decision to kill his mistress).
It is also not plausible that he would keep Sonia as his key researcher if he knew she was a spy (short of doubleplaying Pointcorp with a compromised sideline investigation, but the story includes no trace of that), or for that matter manage to keep up his affair with her even when knowing that she was spying on him.
He was a cynical, manipulative career politician for goodness sake- they were crocodile tears. It was shown at the end that the whole exercise using crowe was for damage limitation!
shareA lot of Collins' reactions were down to him playing the part of the innocent - he may well have been shocked by the initial news of her death, along with a realisation that he might well have been responsible for it. After that, he's reacting the way an innocent man would - he's got to try and have the blame pinned on Pointcorp once he knows Cal suspects it's murder, so he's got to do the things an innocent man would do. Short of killing Bingham (or having him killed), what else can he do? If he doesn't want to find out who killed Sonia, wouldn't that look suspicious?
shareIMHO, all he knew at that point was that she was dead from falling onto the tracks. He was in shock.
share