2

I find the imdb answer isn't quite plausible. When Landy first confronts Abbott about Treadstone, he gets into panic and couldn't believe Landy has traced the fingerprint to Treadstone.

Why would Abbott risk exposing the details about Treadstone to an outsider? He doesn't need to frame Bourne because she doesn't know anything about Neski's murder.

| improve this question | |
1

If the 'frame' had gone to plan, Bourne would have been dead and Abbott would not have been worried about Landy tracing the fingerprints back to Bourne and Treadstone.

'Dead in a ditch. Drunk in a Bar in Mogadishu' - at the point that Landy first confronts Abbott he is still under the impression that Kirril had assassinated Bourne and was confident that any investigation would reach a dead end (pun intended).

It is only once Bourne resurfaces in Italy and Abbott realises that he is still alive that things begin to go sideways for him, hence his desperate attempts to push the agenda to have Bourne killed before he can be contacted by Landy and her team.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    But Kirill tried to kill Bourne only after the incident in Berlin. How could Abbott be sure Kirill was bound to succeed? – Kinzle B Mar 6 '18 at 16:35
  • Exactly! He couldn't. The plan was not executed well at all - they should have waited until it was confirmed that Bourne was dead before setting him up but a: they had no control over the initial meeting so perhaps there was not enough time to deal with Bourne first and b: if they had have killed Bourne first then there would have been no story there to justify a film. – Stephen Francis Mar 6 '18 at 17:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .