Anyway, speaking only for myself, I am not arguing about it at all. I merely expressed my disbelief that you felt the need to snarkily bring the subject up again in a superfluous aside and my incredulity that you then had the chutzpah to question why others were bringing it up to argue about again and to then claim that other posters have stated things that they did not say.
I am in no way meaning to feed this silliness in any way and will indeed go back to ignoring posts regarding it or in response to this post for that matter. Enjoy yourself discussing it amongst yourself and with anyone else who finds clogging this thread with boring and tiresome restatements regarding the subject to be of interest, if anyone does. I know how to skim past things just fine.
Yeah, I didn’t doubt that the guy was a drug dealer. I just didn’t realize that a drug deal would be such an emergency that he would have to get out of court appointed community service to do the deal. I mean, can’t a drug deal be postponed by a few hours? An emergency in a hospital seemed believable to me.
At the risk of being boring and tiresome, I think maybe the issue is not so much the definition of “know” than it is the definition of “ethical”? Let’s be clear: IMHO the only reason Kim knows Jimmy did the MV thing is that she knows Jimmy. She knew in the car after Chuck played the tape for her. The information she had at that point was the same that the bar committee had at the hearing: Chuck’s mistake, his accusation of Jimmy, and the tape of Jimmy’s confession. If they knew Jimmy had done it based on that evidence they would have disbarred him in a heartbeat. The whole deal with her prodding Jimmy to cover his tracks is really a way to cover her butt, and was done cleverly enough that she did not get any evidence that Jimmy did it.
From the conventional definition of ethical that you or I would use, Kim is certainly being (somewhat) unethical in her behavior by (1) accepting the work from Mesa Verde and (2) continuing to buy Jimmy’s various explanations of his own behavior. However, the question is whether she in engaging in legally unethical behavior by not reporting Jimmy to the bar association. It is possible that, since she could only testify under oath that she thinks Jimmy did it (since she has no direct proof), that she would be guilty of an ethical violation for bringing unsubstantiated charges agains a fellow member of the bar.
If you asked Kim on her deathbed if she knew that Jimmy altered the records then she would say “Yes, of course I knew. It was obvious. However, nobody could prove I knew, and I never explicitly told Jimmy I knew and he never explicitly told me what he did so that I could continue to deny that I knew if anyone ever asked”
(I wonder if I had just said “she doesn’t know for a fact” that would have passed muster?)
Fair point, but maybe he had like six hours left and it was worth it to him. Or the deal was not just a small street deal but moving a significant amount, or taking receipt of a shipment of supply. Of course, anytime you have to fanwank these things it’s a sign that a scene was at least a bit underwritten.
She didn’t actually see him do it tho. So she would have to infer that he did. She would believe that he did. But technically, she wouldn’t know. I mean, he could be lying for some bizarre reason. Maybe the copy guy did it.
ETA: I saw my cousin’s dog go into my closet. Later on, I saw it come out. When I went in there, I saw poop in the closet. I didn’t actually SEE it poop in the closet. But, I know it was the dog who did it.
Maybe the poop was already there? Maybe there was another dog in there? Maybe your cousin has a secret scat fetish and undiagnosed colon cancer?
From a legal standpoint, Kim has to know or have reason to suspect that Jimmy had actually tampered with evidence/the legal papers. A mere feeling or inference, no matter how understandable and even likely correct is not enough.
She needs to either know, by Jimmy telling her, that he changed the documents or she needs to have some direct evidence which leads inescapably to that conclusion, for instance, Jimmy having stated his intention to do so or having been told by a third party he had done so.
In this case, her ethics concerns are clear once Jimmy tells her that he only stated what he did to calm Chuck down. Even if she does not believe him, she has no evidence to prove otherwise.
The poop was from Jimmy - the closet has a sun roof.
Which do you think had a bigger impact on Jimmy - that his brother thinks so poorly of him, that his being a lawyer is like a monkey with a machine gun, so much so that he’d try to keep him and then try to force him out of the law - or that his brother succeeded in playing him for a chump, conned him, into make a confession out of compassion, took advantage of his better instincts just like so many had taken advantage of his father’s?
Can I double back to Gale … I can find out from the wiki (FWIW) that he graduated in '99. And BCS present is now 2003. The events of BB occur while Gale has been well established in the superlab and has admired Walt’s product in 2009.
Someone earlier had said that BCS current is too early to meet Gale. Why? I’m guessing he’s going to make an appearance.
When Walt asked Gale why he did this kind of work, Gale said something about being a libertarian about drugs and also that he disliked the corporate work atmosphere. That sounded to me like the kind of bullshit answer you give instead of “Im a registered sex offender and no one else will hire me”.
Well by “now” Gale would be four years out from graduation … enough time to have been in legit industry and to have discovered for whatever reason that he and it are not good fits.
The space is being bought in BCS present, 2003. In flashback in BB we know that Gale was there to set it up and no doubt was part of the planning of what to order and how to set it up. Gus is not the sort of person who would proceed farther than purchasing the space without having his expert and for then sole producer lined up already and providing design help. He wouldn’t own it and sit on it for years.
I had been assuming that Gale had been producing on his own for a few years before Walt had been brought in. Others thought that Gale had just set up the lab in 2008 (no more than a year before Walt was brought in) which means that it take Gus five years from “now” (making the decision to buy the property) to getting Gale involved. That makes little sense to me. Is there anything explicit in BB that I am not recalling that declares that Gale had just set the lab up?
I just streamed the beginning of “Box Cutter” and you are right. What I was recalling as a separate flashback was in fact Gale unpacking equipment and then reporting to Gus how pure the sample he gave him was, a sample of Walt’s stuff.
Which does not mean that Gale is not involved earlier in the planning stages …
