When Characters Knew The Truth but Couldn't Prove it | Better Call Saul (Seasons 1-3)

[00:00:00]There's an overarching theme in the AMC series Better Call Saul that I don't see get mentioned a lot. The theme of knowing versus proving. In fact, it's more than a theme. It's a major plot element throughout many of the character conflicts.

[00:00:13]>> There's proving and then there's knowing.

[00:00:16]>> To know something about someone relies on intuition, paying attention to subtleties, and being familiar with a person's behavior or history. To prove something about someone relies on facts, irrefutable physical evidence, or witnessing a person commit [music] an action. Better Call Saul demonstrates that the moral justice implied in knowing someone did something wrong versus the legal justice accomplished by prosecuting with hard proof of wrongdoing are often incompatible states. You can know something, but if you can't prove it in a court of law, then justice cannot be served in a societal sense. With that in mind, let's track all of the examples of characters knowing something criminal or immoral happened, but not being able to or choosing not to prove it. This video essay is going to be more of a narrative slash thematic breakdown and less of an analysis. Something I've never quite done before, but at the end we'll discuss what I think is the deeper significance of this knowing versus proving theme in the overall series.

[00:01:17]Think of this video as about 70% breakdown and about 30% analysis. If it's your first time here, my name is Quinton. I'm a writer, a teacher, and sometimes [music] performer. It's time to look at the compelling artistry of Better Call Saul again on this channel.

[00:01:31]Don't forget to hit that like button and subscribe for more videos like this one.

[00:01:35]So, let's get into it.

[00:01:37]Okay, here we go. Every example of characters knowing another character did something but not having enough evidence to prove it. We'll break down what they know, how they know it, and what prevents them from being able to prove it. We begin, of course, with the first season. In season 1 episode 4, Hero, Jimmy Jimmy hires the UNM crew to unknowingly film a stunt where he saves the man taking his billboard down from falling. Jimmy tries to hide this stunt from Chuck, so he lies about the Albuquerque Journal not being delivered like it normally is. Chuck knows Jimmy's act of heroism was orchestrated by him, not only because of Jimmy obviously withholding the paper, but being familiar with his cutting corners to accomplish his goals, aka his moral flexibility. Both brothers know each other very well since Jimmy knew that Chuck would know the truth incident after one look at the article. But, can Chuck prove it? He could if he wanted to, but the evidence isn't that strong without more digging. The only tangible evidence is Jimmy's withholding of the Albuquerque Journal, and possibly Jimmy and Howard's meeting with the judge.

[00:02:40]Chuck gets too triggered by going outside to steal his neighbor's paper anyways. Not to mention he has a run-in with the police. So, Chuck doesn't have the time or energy to investigate the matter fully. Jimmy will later admit to Chuck it was a stunt, but that it won't happen again. Lies. This billboard stunt will come up again in Chuck's rant at Jimmy's bar hearing, and we will cover that when we get there. In season 1 episode 6, 5-0, in a flashback to Mike Ehrmantraut's previous life as a cop in Philadelphia, we learn that his son Matty was offered some money from a drug bust by his partner Troy Hoffman and Sergeant [music] Jack Vensky. Despite Matty taking the money, he did so very reluctantly, which concerned Hoffman and Vensky. Feeling like Matty couldn't be trusted, they murdered him and made it look like he was killed in the line of duty by a quote "junkie with a gun."

[00:03:30]Mike knows this isn't the truth. Not only is Mike familiar with the corruptness at the precinct, but he also knows cops tend to fear prison. Mike and Matty also had an intense phone call where Mike revealed his complicity in the police corruption and encouraged him to just take the money.

[00:03:48]>> I know it's you, and I'm going to prove it.

[00:03:52]>> With all of that in mind, Mike can easily deduce that Hoffman and Fensky weren't going to risk getting found out even if Matty did take the money. Mike calls them both out on it in the bar one night and their insisting that they drive him home cements their guilt. Now, Mike [music] may tell them he's going to prove that they killed Matty, but can he actually prove it? Besides the phone call with Matty, which Stacy partly overheard, there isn't enough evidence to concretely prove that Hoffman and Fensky [music] stage their murder as a drug bust gone wrong. But in their last moments, Mike overhears them discussing how they'll stage his death before Mike outsmarts them both and shoots them. So, in this sense, Mike got some proof that indeed they conspired [music] to kill his son to save themselves. Mike probably took matters into his own hands because he knew it would be hard to legally prove what they did and get any justice for Matty. Plus, him pursuing legal action against them would reveal the precinct's criminal corruption and just make things worse for him and his family. Mike kills them and moves on knowing what really happened even if he can't prove it to others. Moving on to season 2, in episode 2, Amarillo, Jimmy McGill, now working at Davis & Main on the Sandpiper case, solicits residents from the Amarillo branch to join the class action lawsuit against the assisted living facility. He goes about it in a pretty smart way, but it's hard not to imagine that this wouldn't get back to Schweikart and Cockley at some point.

[00:05:20]next meeting with Davis & Main and HHM, Chuck questions how Jimmy was able to obtain 24 new clients in Amarillo with only one client actually responding to their mailer. Chuck worries that the opposing counsel may look at these client numbers and deduce there was some solicitation. But let's be real, Chuck knows that's exactly what Jimmy did. Kim knows as well, asking Jimmy if he did a song and dance in the day room at the facility, which technically he didn't.

[00:05:49]It was on a bus. Now, how do both Chuck and Kim know Jimmy solicited the Sandpiper residents? For Chuck, it's obvious. He's all too familiar with Jimmy's tactics, and obtaining a large number of new clients in a short period of time is difficult and unlikely unless you directly solicit. Kim is also familiar with Jimmy's tactics and has even participated recently in one of his scams. Not to mention Jimmy told her all about falsifying evidence to exonerate Danny as a favor to Mike. So, she shares in Chuck's certainty that Jimmy would do something like solicitation, even if it's unethical and illegal for a lawyer.

[00:06:26]Can they prove it, though? They could prove it, but it would require more energy than it's probably worth. They would simply have to contact Alma May or any of the other residents at the Amarillo branch and ask them how they came to sign up. But in a complex case like this and considering Jimmy's solicitation favors their side more than the other side, why would they bother trying to obtain proof? They know what he did, but to prove it just isn't worth it in the grand scheme. So, they let it go while still knowing the truth. And now we come to the main event in this season. In episode 9, Nailed, it's embarrassingly discovered that Chuck wrote the wrong address on Mesa Verde's filing for the opening of the Rosella branch. In the previous episode, we see Jimmy intentionally changing the address numbers from 1261 to 1216 as revenge for Chuck taking Mesa Verde away from Kim as a client. Later on in the episode, he confronts Jimmy by telling Kim exactly how he knows Jimmy went about it.

[00:07:25]Stealing the documents, going to a 24-hour print shop, putting the doctored ones in the boxes, and then ultimately switching them back with the originals once Chuck had completed the work. Now, how did Chuck get every single detail correct? Need I say it again? He's familiar with Jimmy's antics. But more importantly, this isn't the first time a McGill brother has switched address numbers for the sake of a romantic gesture. We see in a flashback at the start of season 3 episode 5 Chicanery that Chuck and Jimmy came up with a lie about a person living at the address 512 Cristobal not paying their electricity bill, whereas Chuck lives at 215. This covers up why Chuck's house, the one he shared with his ex-wife Rebecca, has no electricity. A simple transpositional error. Now, of course, Chuck didn't go out of his way to mess with actual documents like Jimmy. But the central thesis of both the scams is the same.

[00:08:20]Chuck also took notice of Jimmy sending Ernie away and spending the night to look after him. Chuck also vividly remembers remarking on the address 1216 Rosella Drive.

[00:08:30]>> It's just 1 year after 1215, the year the Magna Carta was signed.

[00:08:35]>> With these memories and these behavioral clues from Jimmy, he's able to piece the rest of it together. Okay, so yeah, Chuck knows it happened and he's absolutely right. But can he prove it?

[00:08:46]Nope, he really can't. He has no direct evidence that this occurred. Kim points this out, gaslighting and shaming him for concocting an elaborate story without any solid proof. But only a minute later, we see that Kim knows Chuck is right. Screwing with Mesa Verde's documents to motivate them to go back to Kim as a solo practitioner is something Jimmy would do, evidence or no evidence. Chuck does try to obtain some evidence by questioning Lance at the print shop. But before Chuck can get to him, Jimmy has already bribed him to deny that he was ever there. Something Chuck also deduces based on the fact that Lance told Ernie Jimmy was there, but changes his story once Chuck arrives. Ernie, preferring Jimmy to Chuck, lies about calling Jimmy over to the print shop to explain why he was there so fast when Chuck woke up from his fall. No one is willing to help Chuck as much as they're willing to help Jimmy. Despite Chuck's efforts to prove what he already knows, he fails because of Jimmy getting ahead and being way more of a likable person. But Chuck isn't done yet with trying to obtain a piece of evidence for crimes he knows occurred, and that informs much of season 3. The presence of the knowing versus proving theme in season 3 mainly stems from Chuck not leaving the Mesa Verde number swap alone. When Chuck secretly records Jimmy confessing to changing the address numbers, we assume it's his way of obtaining proof of what he knows happened. But it turns out Chuck has a grander scheme in mind. In season 3 episode 1, Mabel, he lets the tape accidentally play for Ernie. Chuck assumes Ernie will tell Jimmy, and Jimmy will probably break in and destroy the tape. Hey, you know, these McGill brothers, for all of their animosity, they really know each other pretty well.

[00:10:30]Tsk. Because that's exactly what happens. Chuck was aiming to not only get Jimmy to confess, but get him to blatantly break the law in front of witnesses this time, [music] Howard and the private investigator Dave Brightbill. Chuck's tape-recorded proof of the Mesa Verde number swap may not stand up in court, but with two witnesses to Jimmy's break-in, that's some solid proof that his little brother broke the law. But this ends up backfiring on Chuck in Jimmy's bar hearing a few months later. In episode 5, Chicanery, the truthfulness of Jimmy's confession on tape is really called into question when Jimmy demonstrates to the panel beyond a shadow of a doubt that Chuck's electricity allergy is psychological.

[00:11:11]Plus, Chuck's epic rant has him referencing past instances of knowing but not being able to prove it. He once again insists he knows Jimmy swapped the address numbers, but he couldn't prove it. That's the clearest articulation of this theme for the first time in the series, and he mentions Jimmy's billboard stunt that occurred in season 1. This monologue is truly the peak of the knowing versus [music] proving theme in the first half of Better Call Saul.

[00:11:36]Chuck is absolutely right about Jimmy's actions, but not having compelling enough evidence coupled with his painfully obvious resentment towards his brother means that no one will take him seriously. There's knowing and there's proving, but there's also just being so unlikable that no one will listen to you even if you are right.

[00:12:03]Thank you so much for watching. My Patreon is linked below if you want to support me in making these videos. Or hey, why not throw me a tip by clicking on the three dots below or become a member of the channel. You can earn some badges and get early access to videos like this one. Any amount you can afford helps a lot. Thank you. A special shout-out to our latest channel members, Julia Goolia 1, Katie Tyson 1019, and Gambity 07. Welcome to the channel.

[00:12:27]Let's thank all of our other channel members, Nanny Moan, Trespass 367, I am June Bug, Tesla Stucky, Andrew Nguyen 4408, Berkeley Krieger 3601, Linda Helfrich, Row Cooking, Share Onlin, Bullet Hole Johnny, Nikonets 4971, Aperture Ace, Ryan Ellis 7842, Quang Luu Yu 2702, Tung Yu 7131, Paxton Patterson 1186, Raymond Apple 6951, Donem Smash, Layla Saka 1583, Kyle Ennis 9412, The Tea Noon, Kelly David 8169, Robbie Loves 7922, Lanilla Nert, and Greer Phillips 4756. Thank you so much for the continued support. And don't forget to hit that like button and subscribe. See you next Saturday. Take care.