S06.E07: Plan and Execution

[dabbrusc]

The thing that I found interesting is both Howard and Chuck were laying out to people the intricate ways Jimmy was screwing with them and they both were dead on 100% correct but nobody believed them. It led to both of their downfalls and ultimate demises.

[Emma Snyder]

5 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

The poster is quoting Michael Corleone from the first Godfather film, explaining how, with the right cover story, you can kill anyone, including a police chief.

LOL so I DID miss something...I saw The Godfather multiple times, I don't remember that, though 😂

[monagatuna]

5 hours ago, Constantinople said:

Someone also better take care of Howard's car, which I assume is nearby.

Howard's car: "NAMAST3 right here."

I really hope we get to see the end of Lalo soon. I am so, so tired of his evil and his swagger. I was hoping the hunky lumberjack from last week would've finally bested him. I was hoping a big wall of sewer water would come flooding in and wash him away this week. 

But I don't think I'll get my wish. Our first mention of Ignacio in Breaking Bad indicates that Saul is expecting someone other than Walt and Jesse to be standing over him. Who else could it be besides Gus, Hector, or Lalo (or maybe one of Don Eladio's other henchmen)? And we know it's not going to be Hector...not physically, at least. And likely not Gus, wasn't it Saul that hooked up Gus with Walt in the first place?

[sistermagpie]

13 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

To me he’s a super villain and I’m over it.  I hate super villains, because it’s just frustrating and unbelievable, for me.  Except, maybe Gus.    

Agreed--but that's why he worked well in this scene. Because all that mattered was how Jimmy and Kim were "killing" Howard here. Lalo might as well have just been the gun.

6 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

 suffer any external consequences for what they did. That's kind of what's led them here. They kept getting away with stuff and it kept getting bigger and bigger, feeding their sense of invincibility to go after Howard the way they did. Because it wasn't really hurting anyone. Knowing that he's mostly responsible for the death of a person from his old life who really didn't deserve it and never had to own up to would certain explain some of Saul's obvious self loathing as much as everything that went down with Chuck.

Yup, it reminds me of Don Draper. The more he got away with, the worse he felt, yet everybody wanted to see him as cool.

4 hours ago, Bannon said:

I'm really hoping the unraveling of the plot against Howard plays a role in the last few episodes.

I'm optimistic it will. It seems like exactly the kind of corner they like to write themselves into in this world so they have to write their way out of it. 

3 hours ago, scenario said:

I don't have as much respect for the police as you do. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if that as soon as they found out that the gun that killed Howard was used in other organized crime murders they micro focus on that and ignore all the other evidence. 

3 hours ago, scenario said:

Lalo is a serial killer. He's killed a lot of people. It's almost certainly not the gun used in Europe, But I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he's killed other's with this gun or will kill others with it like some of Gus's men. 

I would imagine the kind of people Howard knew might know people that mean they don't have to just rely on the police to pin it on someone convenient. Lalo isn't a serial killer, though. He doesn't just kill strangers because he wants to kill. His murders are all for his own profit one way or another.

[EtheltoTillie]

1 hour ago, scenario said:

I can see Saul and Kim living happily together for part of an episode until it all crashes down on them. 

Didn't they show someone tracking down Gene in one of the last Cinnabon scenes?  It was left like a menacing cliffhanger.  

[Bannon]

49 minutes ago, scenario said:

I guess your right. Saul couldn't possibly get away with it. He's going to be disbarred shortly. The problem with that argument is that Saul wasn't disbarred so we know he got away with it. 

Saul won't refuse to answer. He'll blame someone else. Possibly Kim. 

My question is, is the evidence we've seen so far clear and convincing evidence? What do the investigators really have. 

I did not say he must be disbarred. I said it was extraordinarily unlikely that the K&S plot would not become exposed, and that it would be a litigious hell for Saul if it became exposed. I am hoping the writers don't handwave away the mess that a gunshot Howard presents, because that doesn't make sense to me, especially since there were other ways for K&S to be responsible for Howard's death which didn't create such a mess, like Howard having a drug induced heart attack that might easily have it's origin missed in a standard autopsy, if one were even performed. I prefer to think the writers have thought about the special problems caused by the specific way in which Howard died, and deal with those problems in an interesting way, as opposed ro saying "Nobody looked hard at what Howard was doing in the days prior to his murder, so they just said he was the victim of a serial killer" or  "In looking hard at Howard's life in the days leading up to his death, the plot against him by K&S was discovered, but it didn't set off a litigation nightmare against Saul that should have bled into his story in BB, because there wasn't enough evidence". I think there is a way to thread this needle, to get where we need to go, and I hope the writers give it a try.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Bannon

[scenario]

3 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I did not say he must be disbarred. I said it was extraordinarily unlikely that the K&S plot would not come exposed, and that it would be a litigious hell for Saul if it became exposed. I am hoping the writers don't handwave away the mess that a gunshot Howard presents, because that doesn't make sense to me, especially since there were other ways for K&S to be responsible for Howard's death which didn't create such a mess, like Howard having a drug induced heart attack that might easily have it's origin missed in a standard autopsy, if one were even performed. I prefer to think the writers have thought about the special problems caused by the specific way in which Howard died, and deal with those problems in an interesting way, as opposed ro saying "Nobody looked hard at what Howard was doing in the days prior to his murder, so they just said he was the victim of a serial killer" or  "In looking hard at Howard's life in the days leading up to his death, the plot against him by K&S was discovered, but it didn't set off a litigation nightmare against Saul that should have bled into his story in BB, because there wasn't enough evidence". I think there is a way to thread this needle, to get where we need to go, and I hope the writers give it a try.

I don't think we are as far apart as it seems. Saul and Kim will go through a lot of crap for this. That's for certain. 

I'm not a lawyer. All the cases I've read about where a lawyer got disbarred, there was a lot of evidence that they were guilty of something. Not always a crime but something totally unethical. I'm under the impression that lawyers aren't disbarred all the time, that it's a fairly rare occurrence. It doesn't require beyond a reasonable doubt proof but its not, I really don't like that guy, let's get him either. 

You think they should be able to get enough evidence to prove he's guilty but somehow slips out of it. I think that most people know he's guilty as sin but there just isn't enough evidence to prove it well enough. That's the advantage of an insanely complicated plot. If you don't find the evidence, no one will believe it actually happened. 

[Ed-]

Some comments from elsewhere indicated that Kim might have made Lalo overly suspicious of Howard by begging him to leave. I kind of agree, she could have made it look like Howard was their client who was about to leave. Also, it is a minor detail, but I think the idea that the soda can is the metaphor for the suppressor has not yet been mentioned here.

After this, I would actually now like both the hidden gun in the superlab, and Kim first seeing the Disappearer's card, both to be red herrings. It really does not matter that much "who kills who" next unless Lalo survives to Gene timeline. I think Kim going to jail (to save Jimmy?) could still fit somewhat into the universe.

[peeayebee]

36 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

What doesn't make sense to me is that law enforcement didn't scoop that book up: The region's most notorious criminal lawyer has flown the coop, and you find a book of coded entries...and don't even confiscate it? Weird...

It wasn't law enforcement that was clearing out Saul's mansion; it was movers. To them the book was trash.

[scenario]

Just now, peeayebee said:

It wasn't law enforcement that was clearing out Saul's mansion; it was movers. To them the book was trash.

But why was the book still there? The police must have searched the mansion at some point.

[Gobi]

14 minutes ago, scenario said:

But why was the book still there? The police must have searched the mansion at some point.

The entire book was in code. If they found it, the police may have felt it wasn't worth the effort of trying to decode it. Not likely, but not out of the question, either. 

For example, the Zodiac killer produced four ciphers. Two remain unsolved and one took 51 years to be deciphered. Saul Goodman, who wasn't a serial killer, probably wouldn't merit that much effort.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Gobi

[Bannon]

3 minutes ago, scenario said:

I don't think we are as far apart as it seems. Saul and Kim will go through a lot of crap for this. That's for certain. 

I'm not a lawyer. All the cases I've read about where a lawyer got disbarred, there was a lot of evidence that they were guilty of something. Not always a crime but something totally unethical. I'm under the impression that lawyers aren't disbarred all the time, that it's a fairly rare occurrence. It doesn't require beyond a reasonable doubt proof but its not, I really don't like that guy, let's get him either. 

You think they should be able to get enough evidence to prove he's guilty but somehow slips out of it. I think that most people know he's guilty as sin but there just isn't enough evidence to prove it well enough. That's the advantage of an insanely complicated plot. If you don't find the evidence, no one will believe it actually happened. 

Yeah, but that is much more unlikely to work if somebody can be forced to testify, as someone can be in disbarment or civil proceedings. It's really hard to successfully lie your ass off, if you have someone who is extremely skilled at cross examination, you have to answer their questions, and they only standard to be met is "It's more likely the case that Saul Goodman is lying", or even "It's pretty clear that Saul Goodman is lying". The overwhelming majority of disbarment proceedings are essentially guilty pleas with a plea for mercy, because the accused lawyer can't say "You can't prove it, and I'm not talking", unless he wants to be disbarred in about 15 minutes. 

Like I said, I think there's ways to thread the needle that was created by choosing this particular way for Howard to die. These writers have only rarely been less than stellar, so I'm hopeful they are up to the challenge.

[Penman61]

8 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

It wasn't law enforcement that was clearing out Saul's mansion; it was movers. To them the book was trash.

Yeah, I know, but aren’t we assuming law enforcement had first crack at the house contents of the region’s most notorious criminal lawyer who had just flown the coop? I was. It’s a potential orgy of evidence, I should think.

[scenario]

1 minute ago, Bannon said:

Yeah, but that is much more unlikely to work if somebody can be forced to testify, as someone can be in disbarment or civil proceedings. It's really hard to successfully lie your ass off, if you have someone who is extremely skilled at cross examination, you have to answer their questions, and they only standard to be met is "It's more likely the case that Saul Goodman is lying", or even "It's pretty clear that Saul Goodman is lying". The overwhelming majority of disbarment proceedings are essentially guilty pleas with a plea for mercy, because the accused lawyer can't say "You can't prove it, and I'm not talking", unless he wants to be disbarred in about 15 minutes. 

Like I said, I think there's ways to thread the needle that was created by choosing this particular way for Howard to die. These writers have only rarely been less than stellar, so I'm hopeful they are up to the challenge.

That's an excellent point. It looks like Saul has to go on the offence to prove that Howard was guilty of something so they'll ignore him. Or Kim will take the bullet and admit it was her plot and Saul didn't know anything about it. She set both of them up. 

[Chaos Theory]

2 hours ago, SimplexFish said:

Why would Fring and Howards paths even cross?

Everyone likes chicken.  

[gallimaufry]

I don't think there's a thing that Kim or Jimmy could have done to save Howard by the end of the story:

1. Lalo must have heard him threaten Jimmy and Kim.  

2. Howard saw his face and could ID him.  

3. He's on the clock: he's managed to pull Gus's people off their usual positions but he must know there's a chance they'll be watching Saul since he's a known associate.

4. Having let them live once before, he really needs his legal team... fully focused.

5. He really doesn't care about another living soul so why wouldn't he kill Howard?

[Bannon]

I understand those who didn't buy Kim breaking bad as completely as she did. I was leaning in that direction at the end of last season, two years ago. Rewatching the previous seasons, however, re-emphasized to me how rational it was for Kim to hate Howard with a white-hot intensity, and people possessed of a white-hot hatred sometimes act very irrationally.  I still didn't get the huge increase in the appetite for risk, but I have more insight now, and hopefully  we'll get more insight into her psychology.

I kind of differ with the thought that she's been previously shown to have impeccable moral standards, on the basis of being good for the sake of being good. Nearly all her objections in the past seasons, to Jimmy's schemes, have been on the basis of the chance of being caught. She's seems to have learned from her mother.

[Gobi]

Kim has been known to pursue a goal at the risk of self destruction; for example, over working herself to the point of falling asleep at the wheel and causing an accident.

[Starchild]

23 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Yeah, but that is much more unlikely to work if somebody can be forced to testify, as someone can be in disbarment or civil proceedings. It's really hard to successfully lie your ass off, if you have someone who is extremely skilled at cross examination, you have to answer their questions, and they only standard to be met is "It's more likely the case that Saul Goodman is lying", or even "It's pretty clear that Saul Goodman is lying". The overwhelming majority of disbarment proceedings are essentially guilty pleas with a plea for mercy, because the accused lawyer can't say "You can't prove it, and I'm not talking", unless he wants to be disbarred in about 15 minutes. 

Like I said, I think there's ways to thread the needle that was created by choosing this particular way for Howard to die. These writers have only rarely been less than stellar, so I'm hopeful they are up to the challenge.

It's better for Jimmy and Kim if Howard's body is never found, and the possibility that he disappeared himself is an open one. (Thanks Mike)

Nevertheless, as you say, an investigation would surface their plot and bring them to the bar's attention. Cliff would make sure of that, I would think.

Now, given that Saul is a friend of the cartel, I suppose it's possible the folks ruling on his case could be threatened, bribed or blackmailed.

[scenario]

39 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Yeah, but that is much more unlikely to work if somebody can be forced to testify, as someone can be in disbarment or civil proceedings. It's really hard to successfully lie your ass off, if you have someone who is extremely skilled at cross examination, you have to answer their questions, and they only standard to be met is "It's more likely the case that Saul Goodman is lying", or even "It's pretty clear that Saul Goodman is lying". The overwhelming majority of disbarment proceedings are essentially guilty pleas with a plea for mercy, because the accused lawyer can't say "You can't prove it, and I'm not talking", unless he wants to be disbarred in about 15 minutes. 

Like I said, I think there's ways to thread the needle that was created by choosing this particular way for Howard to die. These writers have only rarely been less than stellar, so I'm hopeful they are up to the challenge.

It seems like a system as you describe it here would be wide open to abuse. There has to be some sort of requirement for evidence. If they are allowed to put someone on the stand and brow beat them for hours, the most honest person in the world would say something that could be twisted into a lie. The people running it could get rid of anyone they didn't like if there wasn't a strict requirement for evidence. Wrong ethnic group, we think you lied. Wrong political leanings, we think you lied. etc. OMG I think he's gay, I'm sure he lied about something. 

What you are describing sounds like a drum head where people are considered guilty even before the trial starts. 

[SimplexFish]

2 hours ago, Booger666 said:

I don’t think Kim disappears after this. Rewatched the Ep 1 opening after this episode and in the bathroom there are 2 sinks.  The first is clearly Jimmy’s (lots of RX bottles and a big one of Viagra) and the second sink has nutritional supplements and much more minimalist beauty products - the kind that Kim of the constant pony tail and little make up might use.  It was an interesting rewatch because the vet’s black book that didn’t have context at the beginning of the season makes sense now.

I rewatched it but need to rerewatch it again. I was specifically looking for female belongings like clothing in a big closet like Saul's and didnt really see anything.

What I did notice when they thru away the vets lil black book in the "no value" box was that photograph that kim had during the Mesa Veda episodes for the dessert and the cactus 

[Penman61]

38 minutes ago, SimplexFish said:

I rewatched it but need to rerewatch it again. I was specifically looking for female belongings like clothing in a big closet like Saul's and didnt really see anything.

What I did notice when they thru away the vets lil black book in the "no value" box was that photograph that kim had during the Mesa Veda episodes for the dessert and the cactus 

Right, and remember a very un-Kim-like hot pink thong was pulled off the tub faucet. 

Edited May 24, 2022 by Penman61

[Gobi]

48 minutes ago, scenario said:

It seems like a system as you describe it here would be wide open to abuse. There has to be some sort of requirement for evidence. If they are allowed to put someone on the stand and brow beat them for hours, the most honest person in the world would say something that could be twisted into a lie. The people running it could get rid of anyone they didn't like if there wasn't a strict requirement for evidence. Wrong ethnic group, we think you lied. Wrong political leanings, we think you lied. etc. OMG I think he's gay, I'm sure he lied about something. 

What you are describing sounds like a drum head where people are considered guilty even before the trial starts. 

The overwhelming majority of disbarments are for misappropriation of funds, and the evidence is clear.

[Bannon]

32 minutes ago, scenario said:

It seems like a system as you describe it here would be wide open to abuse. There has to be some sort of requirement for evidence. If they are allowed to put someone on the stand and brow beat them for hours, the most honest person in the world would say something that could be twisted into a lie. The people running it could get rid of anyone they didn't like if there wasn't a strict requirement for evidence. Wrong ethnic group, we think you lied. Wrong political leanings, we think you lied. etc. OMG I think he's gay, I'm sure he lied about something. 

What you are describing sounds like a drum head where people are considered guilty even before the trial starts. 

It wouldn't be accurate to say that any question can be asked; but the latitude is pretty wide. The trend in civil suits has been in that direction too. Litigators tend to be given pretty wide latitude about the kinds of questions that can be asked, and there is no 5th Amendment privilege. It's interesting to see what someone extremely skilled at cross examination can do to someone who is extremely intelligent, if the person must answer the questions. What the legendary David Boies did to Bill Gates in the 20 hours he deposed ( available on line!) Gates, in the Microsoft antitrust trial, was devastating. Getting in the crosshairs of a skilled litigator, under oath, can be an absolute nightmare, especially if, ya' know, you've actually engaged in very wrongful behavior. Of course, a person you sue, so you can depose them, can also send somebody skilled to depose you. I'm not a lawyer, either, but I've been around a lot of lawsuits. It sucks.

[peeayebee]

When Gus is doing the photo op for his giant check donation, the woman (reporter?) asks why he chose Youth Development. Gus looked lost in thought for a moment. I wonder what anyone here thinks about that.

Boy, after Lalo made the call to Hector, the response from Mike's guys was immediate.

[Constantinople]

1 hour ago, Gobi said:

The entire book was in code. If they found it, the police may have felt it wasn't worth the effort of trying to decode it. Not likely, but not out of the question, either. 

For example, the Zodiac killer produced four ciphers. Two remain unsolved and one took 51 years to be deciphered. Saul Goodman, who wasn't a serial killer, probably wouldn't merit that much effort.

I disagree. I think it's out of the question.

Law enforcement can always take the book now and try to decode it later or have experts look at it. It's not a large or heavy item. Plus it won't be just the local police interested in Saul, the DEA and the FBI will too and possibly other agencies. I just can't believe no one in law enforcement would think it worthwhile to take a criminal lawyer's book that's encoded.

The only way I can see the cleaners finding the book is if someone put it in Saul's house after the the various law enforcement agencies are done going through his house, but before the cleaners arrive.

But why would anyone do that?

[scenario]

2 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

I disagree. I think it's out of the question.

Law enforcement can always take the book now and try to decode it later or have experts look at it. It's not a large or heavy item. Plus it won't be just the local police interested in Saul, the DEA and the FBI will too and possibly other agencies. I just can't believe no one in law enforcement would think it worthwhile to take a criminal lawyer's book that's encoded.

The only way I can see the cleaners finding the book is if someone put it in Saul's house after the the various law enforcement agencies are done going through his house, but before the cleaners arrive.

But why would anyone do that?

The only thing that makes sense to me is that the police missed it and the cleaners who were taking everything out of the house stumbled across it and thought it was useless. 

It was originally under something heavy that was moved or something. 

[Lonesome Rhodes]

When the photographer was processing the pics in the dark room, was his phrase about taking time a direct quote of what Walt would later say in a BB ep?  I totally went there in my thoughts, but I am not as up on BB.

Now with Kim blowing off the meeting and the insane events around Howard, Cliff would absolutely be intrigued.  I think Howard's body and the NAMASTE-mobile will each need to be long gone and never to be seen again for him to shrug it off.  In any event, he would be done with Kim.

Tough for me to buy that the only inkling of Lalo's entrance was a flickering candle.  Then again, as Gould alluded to in the Talking Saul afterwards:  "Magic Lalo."  I was very pleased he acknowledged how incredibly great Lalo was at being Lalo.

I thought RS and BO overacted in expressing their fear of Lalo.  They were literally quivering, in my eyes. 

Tony Dalton can do no wrong, though.  What a hoot it must have been to play such an arch-villain.

Speaking of...Lalo did not mess around with unnecessary chatter, did he?  The man was all business as he offed Howard.  It was chilling to hear him recount what happened to poor Casper.  I did wonder why Casper would not have attempted some form of dying once he realized he was that screwed.  A German engineer is nothing if not a coldly calculating realist, eh?

Fantastic ep, which worked very well as a time for a season break.  

[scenario]

13 minutes ago, Bannon said:

It wouldn't be accurate to say that any question can be asked; but the latitude is pretty wide. The trend in civil suits has been in that direction too. Litigators tend to be given pretty wide latitude about the kinds of questions that can be asked, and there is no 5th Amendment privilege. It's interesting to see what someone extremely skilled at cross examination can do to someone who is extremely intelligent, if the person must answer the questions. What the legendary David Boies did to Bill Gates in the 20 hours he deposed ( available on line!) Gates, in the Microsoft antitrust trial, was devastating. Getting in the crosshairs of a skilled litigator, under oath, can be an absolute nightmare, especially if, ya' know, you've actually engaged in very wrongful behavior. Of course, a person you sue, so you can depose them, can also send somebody skilled to depose you. I'm not a lawyer, either, but I've been around a lot of lawsuits. It sucks.

It sounds like how the police get someone to confess sometimes. Keep them in a room with no food or water and keep questioning them for hours and hours until they finally just confess so they can get some sleep. A lot of people will sign everything when they've been interrogated for twenty hours straight whether or not they've done anything wrong. 

The system really sounds like they've already decided you're guilty before you even walk in the room so your best option at that point is to confess whether or not you've done anything wrong and hope you'll get a suspension rather than disbarred. 

[Starchild]

10 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

When Gus is doing the photo op for his giant check donation, the woman (reporter?) asks why he chose Youth Development. Gus looked lost in thought for a moment. I wonder what anyone here thinks about that.

Oh I thought that was when he noticed Mike.

[Adiba]

1 minute ago, Starchild said:

Oh I thought that was when he noticed Mike.

I think it was before that.I think Gus was remembering when he pulled a young Max out of the slums of Santiago and paid for his education.

[scenario]

2 minutes ago, Lonesome Rhodes said:

When the photographer was processing the pics in the dark room, was his phrase about taking time a direct quote of what Walt would later say in a BB ep?  I totally went there in my thoughts, but I am not as up on BB.

Now with Kim blowing off the meeting and the insane events around Howard, Cliff would absolutely be intrigued.  I think Howard's body and the NAMASTE-mobile will each need to be long gone and never to be seen again for him to shrug it off.  In any event, he would be done with Kim.

Tough for me to buy that the only inkling of Lalo's entrance was a flickering candle.  Then again, as Gould alluded to in the Talking Saul afterwards:  "Magic Lalo."  I was very pleased he acknowledged how incredibly great Lalo was at being Lalo.

I thought RS and BO overacted in expressing their fear of Lalo.  They were literally quivering, in my eyes. 

Tony Dalton can do no wrong, though.  What a hoot it must have been to play such an arch-villain.

Speaking of...Lalo did not mess around with unnecessary chatter, did he?  The man was all business as he offed Howard.  It was chilling to hear him recount what happened to poor Casper.  I did wonder why Casper would not have attempted some form of dying once he realized he was that screwed.  A German engineer is nothing if not a coldly calculating realist, eh?

Fantastic ep, which worked very well as a time for a season break.  

It seems to me that quivering in fear would be a common reaction when a cold blooded killer walks into your home unexpectedly. Neither Kim nor Saul are action heroes. 

[peeayebee]

5 minutes ago, Adiba said:

I think it was before that.I think Gus was remembering when he pulled a young Max out of the slums of Santiago and paid for his education.

yeah, I was thinking it might be something like. 

[gallimaufry]

Few other things:

I loved the return to Chuck.  He's such a huge part of the show but he's very rarely mentioned.  I think the show really needs to cycle back to explore the impact of Chuck's death on Jimmy and Kim more directly and I hope we get that before the end.  

I really liked Howard's comment about Chuck being the greatest legal mind: "Maybe there are more important things."  I think it shows a maturity, an insight and perhaps an empathy for Jimmy in a funny way.

The can trick was awesome.  Also we saw lots of Howard's skills - his ability to remember even little interpersonal details.

This was also an incredible episode for the broader cast.  The show has done such a stellar job of cultivating this little world of fascinating people.  Mrs Landry is a delight and I'm so glad she returned.  There were lots of lovely comedy moments with the camera nerds and Erin.  I also love seeing Rich back - great character and the way he treads the line with Cliff of sympathy and doing his job is incredible.  The extended cast of this show is really terrific and they're well-utilised.

I wonder if Cliff will speak to Erin and deduce, like Lalo, that there's someone else on the line.  It's a fascinating parallel...

I love how Cliff and Rich look at the judge - it must be such an old spiel but they also have this respect.  And then there's Julie who has been there all along and gets quite a lot to do here.

While Howard's death is absolutely on Jimmy and Kim (and frankly, in this case, more Kim than Jimmy since she took it down the Howard road at every turn), there is a slight irony that the one time he turned his back on his "namaste" creed and declared war was the time that he died.  I also think it's interesting that Nacho's death was symbolised by the flower and one of the key images in Howard's death was the candle flame.  I'm not sure if it's more than coincidence but knowing how symbolic the show can be I wonder.

It's interesting how each season of BCS has a similarity in its underlying structure.  Each one builds progressively to a big legal case in mid-late season which has at its heart a scam.  Chuck was the scammer in 108-109, but then it was Jimmy and the Mesa Verde files in 208, Jimmy and Kim in 305, Jimmy and Kim definitely breaking the law in 408, and then Jimmy and Kim again in 506.  I actually enjoy the law side of the show quite a bit but although sadly I doubt we'll see much of that part of the show again now, seeing these diverse examples of lawyerly procedure feels really fresh and interesting.

Lastly, there's a line reading that really stands out from Patrick Fabian.  He does a take on "you were right" that sounds uncannily reminiscent of Jimmy in 410 at the point where Kim realises that she's been played.  It's so close that I feel like it can't be a coincidence.  I'm not sure if it was a directorial decision or an actor's choice but I feel like there has to be an extra level of pain in that for Kim.

[Blakeston]

Saul being allowed to practice law is one of the most unrealistic things about the show.

He's done so many things that would get him disbarred. The blackmail of Mesa Verde alone (threatening to run the extremely misleading ad suggesting that their employees exposed themselves to customers) would have been the end for him. There was no reason for Kevin not to turn him in for it.

He should also be in deep trouble with the New Mexico Bar Association over allowing a fraud to be perpetrated on the court, which allowed a murderer to flee the country. Saul could claim he had no idea, but he referred to "DeGuzman" as "Lalo" when speaking to other attorneys about the case. He'd be screwed.

[Penman61]

14 minutes ago, scenario said:

It seems to me that quivering in fear would be a common reaction when a cold blooded killer walks into your home unexpectedly. Neither Kim nor Saul are action heroes. 

And Jimmy thought Lalo was dead. I’m surprised we didn’t get actual pants-crapping.

[Adiba]

33 minutes ago, scenario said:

It seems to me that quivering in fear would be a common reaction when a cold blooded killer walks into your home unexpectedly. Neither Kim nor Saul are action heroes. 

Or frozen with fear? People react all sorts of ways when frightened or shocked. This was either an acting choice or a director’s. I thought it was a little too, too as well. Mmv

Howard could have died many other ways, but I give the writers credit for choosing an unexpected and shocking way that also ties the storylines together going forward.
 

[SimplexFish]

2 hours ago, Gobi said:

The entire book was in code. If they found it, the police may have felt it wasn't worth the effort of trying to decode it. Not likely, but not out of the question, either. 

For example, the Zodiac killer produced four ciphers. Two remain unsolved and one took 51 years to be deciphered. Saul Goodman, who wasn't a serial killer, probably wouldn't merit that much effort.

Whether the police would choose to decipher it or not they certainly would not have just left it in the house

Edited May 24, 2022 by SimplexFish

[SimplexFish]

1 hour ago, Penman61 said:

Right, and remember a very un-Kim-like hot pink thong was pulled off the tub faucet. 

I never remember seeing what type underwear ol Saul himself wore throughout the series... 🙃

Edited May 24, 2022 by SimplexFish

[Gobi]

10 minutes ago, SimplexFish said:

Whether the police would chose to decipher it or not they certainly would not have just left it in the house

Assuming that the police did, indeed, search the house. It certainly did not look as if the house had been searched.

[Starchild]

Which is simply unbelievable. We must be missing something, that is not a ball these writers would drop.

[scenario]

56 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

Saul being allowed to practice law is one of the most unrealistic things about the show.

He's done so many things that would get him disbarred. The blackmail of Mesa Verde alone (threatening to run the extremely misleading ad suggesting that their employees exposed themselves to customers) would have been the end for him. There was no reason for Kevin not to turn him in for it.

He should also be in deep trouble with the New Mexico Bar Association over allowing a fraud to be perpetrated on the court, which allowed a murderer to flee the country. Saul could claim he had no idea, but he referred to "DeGuzman" as "Lalo" when speaking to other attorneys about the case. He'd be screwed.

Up to a point I agree. If Mesa Verde refused to cave, Saul would have released the video. He'd probably end up getting punished for it but how many Mesa Verde customers would believe the commercials and believe that Mesa Verde is lying to protect themselves. Its all a giant conspiracy and Saul is telling the truth. Big companies cave all the time because the lawsuit will damage their reputation. It might end up being a pyric victory. 

Saul saying Lalo instead of DeGuzman is damning but in itself its not proof. Saul could say he heard the news and was thinking about it and wasn't paying attention and the name slipped out. Slip of the tongue. Suspicious but not proof. 

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, scenario said:

It sounds like how the police get someone to confess sometimes. Keep them in a room with no food or water and keep questioning them for hours and hours until they finally just confess so they can get some sleep. A lot of people will sign everything when they've been interrogated for twenty hours straight whether or not they've done anything wrong. 

The system really sounds like they've already decided you're guilty before you even walk in the room so your best option at that point is to confess whether or not you've done anything wrong and hope you'll get a suspension rather than disbarred. 

It really isn't like an abusive poluce interrogation. Breaks are taken, the person performing the deposition is not given unlimited leeway in repeating questions, etc... The point is that the state isn't trying to criminally penalize you, so if you refuse to answer a question, it's reasonable for whatever entity is rendering a decision to draw a negative inference from that refusal.

[scenario]

8 minutes ago, Starchild said:

Which is simply unbelievable. We must be missing something, that is not a ball these writers would drop.

By the time Saul ran away, everyone important in the drug trade locally was dead. I can see two detectives spending a half hour collecting stuff and missing it. 

2 minutes ago, Bannon said:

It really isn't like an abusive poluce interrogation. Breaks are taken, the person performing the deposition is not given unlimited leeway in repeating questions, etc... The point is that the state isn't trying to criminally penalize you, so if you refuse to answer a question, it's reasonable for whatever entity is rendering a decision to draw a negative inference from that refusal.

From what little I've learned by a quick google search, for the most part, once you've gotten to that stages, you are already considered guilty and the only thing left is to determine the punishment. So Saul can't allow it to get to the point of having a hearing.

[Bannon]

5 minutes ago, scenario said:

By the time Saul ran away, everyone important in the drug trade locally was dead. I can see two detectives spending a half hour collecting stuff and missing it. 

From what little I've learned by a quick google search, for the most part, once you've gotten to that stages, you are already considered guilty and the only thing left is to determine the punishment. So Saul can't allow it to get to the point of having a hearing.

Defendants do sometimes prevail in civil trials that go to the jury. It helps if, ya' know, you really didn't wrongly cause another party to suffer harm.

[scenario]

12 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Defendants do sometimes prevail in civil trials that go to the jury. It helps if, ya' know, you really didn't wrongly cause another party to suffer harm.

I'm not sure how much actual innocence helps if you can't prove it. I'd bet the person with more money would have a serious advantage. 

[SimplexFish]

1 hour ago, Adiba said:

I think it was before that.I think Gus was remembering when he pulled a young Max out of the slums of Santiago and paid for his education.

I just rewatched it...Gus' hesitation was def him seeing Mike in the far doorway leading into the gym

[Adiba]

4 minutes ago, SimplexFish said:

I just rewatched it...Gus' hesitation was def him seeing Mike in the far doorway leading into the gym

Ok, I thought it was, like a second before that when he hesitated and kind of looked into space before seeing Mike in the doorway? But I stand corrected if that wasn’t the case.

[Bannon]

9 minutes ago, scenario said:

I'm not sure how much actual innocence helps if you can't prove it. I'd bet the person with more money would have a serious advantage. 

Sure, money does play a very significant role in civil litigation, and yes, there are wealthy entities who abuse litigation because they can bully people who don't have the staying power. People of modest means typically don't get sued much, of course, because they don't have anything to fork over if they lose.

[SimplexFish]

2 minutes ago, Adiba said:

Ok, I thought it was, like a second before that when he hesitated and kind of looked into space before seeing Mike in the doorway? But I stand corrected if that wasn’t the case.

I see what you mean but Gus looking into space was him looking all the way across the gym, Mike was in the far door...the gym lights were down but a bright light behind Mike from the hallway. He almost looked like a silhouette but it was obviously him.  Great piece of cinematography from this director...