Better Call Saul Embezzlement Results
November 2, 2016 11:12 AM Subscribe
Question about what would have happened in Better Call Saul if the Kettlemans had gotten a new lawyer (spoilers within)
I just finished the sixth or seventh episode last night. As I follow it, here is how the Kettleman narrative has gone down:
- Craig Kettleman embezzles a bunch of money as treasurer.
- Betsy and Craig meet with James McGill to discuss representation. They decide against it. They instead go with HHM as their lawyers, specifically Kim Wexler.
- They take the "camping trip", are found by James, pay him $30,00 as a "retainer".
- Kim Wexler gets them a hella good plea deal if they give up the money. They say no and fire HHM. James McGill tells the the same thing and won't take their case. They remind him of the "retainer".
- James McGill gets Mike Ermantraut to leave marked bills outside the Kettleman house, allowing him to break in later that night and discover the rest of the cash. He takes all of it in a big bag to Saul.
- James McGill meets with the Kettlemans and reveals that he has the cash and sent it over to the ... prosecutor's office, I believe. Betsy says that James could get in big trouble if she spills the beans about him taking the bribe and says she is getting a new lawyer. James reminds her that this plan implicates her as well as her husband, and tells her she should go back to HHM.
Okay, long story short, what hypothetically would have happened if Betsy followed up on her threat and went to a new defense lawyer? Could the prosecutors prove that the cash was ever in the Kettleman's possession? Wouldn't this get them both out of serving jail time?
If Betsy Kettleman was more concerned about getting revenge on James McGill, how would her lawyer approach the case given that the money he stole was not theirs to begin with?
I don't know if this case gets referenced again after episode 6 or so, but please no spoilers if it does!
I just finished the sixth or seventh episode last night. As I follow it, here is how the Kettleman narrative has gone down:
- Craig Kettleman embezzles a bunch of money as treasurer.
- Betsy and Craig meet with James McGill to discuss representation. They decide against it. They instead go with HHM as their lawyers, specifically Kim Wexler.
- They take the "camping trip", are found by James, pay him $30,00 as a "retainer".
- Kim Wexler gets them a hella good plea deal if they give up the money. They say no and fire HHM. James McGill tells the the same thing and won't take their case. They remind him of the "retainer".
- James McGill gets Mike Ermantraut to leave marked bills outside the Kettleman house, allowing him to break in later that night and discover the rest of the cash. He takes all of it in a big bag to Saul.
- James McGill meets with the Kettlemans and reveals that he has the cash and sent it over to the ... prosecutor's office, I believe. Betsy says that James could get in big trouble if she spills the beans about him taking the bribe and says she is getting a new lawyer. James reminds her that this plan implicates her as well as her husband, and tells her she should go back to HHM.
Okay, long story short, what hypothetically would have happened if Betsy followed up on her threat and went to a new defense lawyer? Could the prosecutors prove that the cash was ever in the Kettleman's possession? Wouldn't this get them both out of serving jail time?
If Betsy Kettleman was more concerned about getting revenge on James McGill, how would her lawyer approach the case given that the money he stole was not theirs to begin with?
I don't know if this case gets referenced again after episode 6 or so, but please no spoilers if it does!
Her lawyer would explain that her best option is a good plea bargain.
posted by bile and syntax at 2:54 PM on November 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by bile and syntax at 2:54 PM on November 2, 2016 [2 favorites]
« Older Processing news of infidelity in last relationship... | Help me fall asleep on my back without choking on... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Perhaps not guilty by reason of insanity? There's no way to press a complaint about the theft without admitting that they took the money. It seems like the only argument a person could make is that the Kettlemans have a delusional belief that the money is not stolen and actually belongs to them. Kinda feel like most lawyers would not take this case, though.
posted by phoenixy at 12:43 PM on November 2, 2016