MovieChat Forums > State of Play (2009) Discussion > Has Stephen Collins done anything to lan...

Has Stephen Collins done anything to land him in jail?


What exactly did he do that was criminal? He lied to Cal. So what? Lying to the newspaper is hardly a criminal offense. He had somebody follow his mistress. So what? If Bingham killed Sonia because Bingham is nuts, how does that come back to get Collins arrested?

Doesn't it seem like Collins can simply explain this away and make it look like he was secretly working to uncover Sonia's ties to Point Corp? He could even explain away the affair by indicating that it was done to get Sonia to trust him.

Can't Affleck's character come out of this looking like a hero? Or am I missing something?

reply

He won't look like the hero. At the least, it's reckless endangerment. The fact that Bingham called his direct line at the end of the movie, won't help either. He didn't report Bingham and his involvement with him after Sonia's murder, therefore everything after looks like an attempt to coverup an assassination.

reply

Well obstruction at the very least.. but I think its obvious from the final sequence when Bingham called him directly and said he was going to make sure everything was finished, that Collins ordered the hit on Cal. But of course Bingham gets mowed down so there is no way of proving that....except for the call...circumstancial.

I think the fact that you can now tie Bingham to Collins is enough for them to charge him with conspiracy.

reply

yea for sure. I mean if your buddy knocks over a liquor store and you wait outside - only to find out later that he killed the cashier: you're goin' down for a stretch. Saw that one on an episode of 'First 48'. It will be very difficult for Collins to prove that he didn't have Sonja killed (for being pregnant...for being a spy...for threatening to ruin his marriage..etc.). Doesn't help one bit that his watchdog killed four people, shot a cop and tried to kill Cal. Nope...doesn't help his case at all.

reply

So few people understand the law or are able to draw logical analogies.

You only get in trouble if you knew, or maybe if you should have known, your friend went in to commit a crime.

Collins doesn't have to prove that he didn't kill Sonia. The state would have to prove that he did, and, based on the facts given, they wouldn't be able to.

He might have obstructed justice depending on what he told the cops during any interviews about Sonia.

If you read the headlines at the end, it doesn't say that he was convicted of anything, only that he was implicated, which would likely be enough to sink his political career.

reply

fair enough - i suppose at that level of society collins could get away with it with plausible deniability unless there was anything explicit showing that he said 'kill sonja'.

but if you think that the average joe (from my analogy) in a bad neighborhood would be able to avoid jail time for AT LEAST aiding and abetting or accessory - i'd be interested to hear how or why. kids all over oakland, philly and various other cities i've been to get their permanent record stained because one of their buddies does something crazy and they all gut busted together. if you don't run to the phone to call the cops and snitch on your buddy, chances are you're gonna go down. maybe you didn't know they were going in to do it..but once they came out and you realized what happened - aren't you screwed?

reply


Yeah,he stole his name from the actor who played Reverend
Eric Camden on 7th Heaven!

reply

Best post ever.

W.W.G.D.
What Would Gibson Do?

reply

I agree with OP. I was very confused when Russell Crowe said he had called police, like he had done something wrong. From their conversation I didnt think that Rusell thought that he had ordered her execution, just that he had not disclosed his relation with Bingham and his knowledge of Binghams being the killer. So I didnt understand Russell calling the cops on him. As far as I can tell he is under suspicion, but I dont really see why he would be guilty unless he lied and had really ordered her killed. After his reaction at her death and his crying, I am more likely to believe his story that he did not know Bingham would kill her.

reply

Bingham was discharged from military because he was mentally unstable and Collins knew this. He had a chance to get off clean if he had reported Bingham to the police the moment he realised Bingham was responsible for the killings, but he didn't.

By doing that, he became an accessory. He didn't have to tell Bingham to do it and he didn't have to be aware of what he did until later, but he can be charged for failing to report Bingham's actions to the police. Cal had the proof Collins had the knowledge of Bingham's involvement when Collins told his story to the Washington Globe. This alone made him an accessory.

But whether he would be found guilty during his trial? Who knows?

reply


Has Stephen Collins done anything to land him in jail?


Well...like all of his fellow cast-members - he delivered a performance in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" that was incredibly stiff and wooden. But, in most states, I do not think that that is a jailable offense.

:o)

--

"Never in the history of the United States has the Congress ever passed a law which required any citizen to enter into a contract with another citizen or a private business against their will ... Never, that is, until now. How's that for change?"

reply

[deleted]

I took it that Bingham still thought Sonia was out to take Collins down, and so he was protecting Collins. The whole thing was a tragic mistake.

reply

How about 'Withholding Evidence'?
Plus the fact that the crazy killer friend of his is still out there killing people and reporting back to him.

reply

You don't even know what withholding evidence is. There is no general duty in this country to report crimes.

And he can't be convicted of a crime for what his friend is doing.

reply

The implication, based on Bingham's direct phone call to Collins ("finish what we started") and the fact that Collins gets arrested in the news account, is that Collins was lying and Bingham was NOT acting alone. If that's the case and he was acting under orders from Collins when he murdered Sonya, then Collins is guilty of murder. (Think about it: if he wasn't behind Sonya's murder, why would he have turned to Bingham, an Army-trained sniper, for the simple task of "observing" her and "reporting back"? I think the correct interpretation is that Collins, knowing Bingham's hatred of Pointcorp and Sonya's status as a mole, manipulated him into killing her, just as the whole film was basically about Collins manipulating an unwitting Cal into helping him cover it up by exploiting their friendship and Cal's guilt over his feelings for Collins' wife. Collins is a manipulator.)

If, however, you take the alternate view that Collins was telling Cal the truth and Bingham was simply unhinged, it gets more murky. A zealous prosecutor could try and make the case that Collins is still guilty of murder or manslaughter because it was reckless of him to unleash Bingham on Sonya (knowing Bingham was a nut and capable of killing her out of a perverse sense of loyalty). It would be a longshot but not impossible. Obstruction of justice would be a very strong possibility, depending on whether he made any affirmative misrepresentations to the police during the course of their investigation. Regardless, the taint of the whole affair would ruin his political career.

reply

If you go by Bingham is following orders from Collins, then Collins knew Bingham was out killing people at his command and did nothing or said anything to the police. If you go by Bingham is a nut hearing voices, then it does get murkier and it makes you question if Bingham was talking to anyone at all when he was on the phone. Why destroy the phone if there are phone records of the call?

Either way, if I hire someone with sniper/black ops/paramilitary experience to follow another person and that person ends up dead, I can expect the police to come visit me post haste. On the high end it's accessory to murder and on the low end its obstruction of justice.

reply