I can understand the value of having Kay appear at Michael's side during the Senate Hearings. It relays an image of the accused as an ordinary family man with all-American values; it's certainly not the image of a criminal.

But wasn't Kay's presence a risk to Michael's family life? She knows that his dealings are not legitimate, and Michael knows that Kay is not a stupid woman. She will hear things at the inquiry that will stir nagging doubts -- if not outright certainty -- about Michael's true involvement in the charges leveled against him.

I found that Kay maintained her stoicism pretty well throughout except when the chairman asked Michael if he were personally responsible for the murder of a New York city police captain and a man named Sollozzo in 1947. As the camera focuses on Kay's face, I saw a realization emerge there that literally woke her up. "So this is why Michael disappeared for over a year and no one would tell me where he was." In the back of her mind, when she was willing to admit it to herself, she knew Michael had his button men perform executions. But this was a cold-blooded murder he had committed by his own hand. She had married a killer.

I wonder if right there she resolved to leave Michael. And, as Kay was freeing herself from her delusions, I wonder if Michael was holding on more tightly to his. Did actually think she would have no questions after the hearings and that things would eventually be smoothed over between them?