Better Call Saul 5.06: Kim's Indecent Proposal

At the end of episode 5.06 of Better Call Saul Kim Wexler makes a shocking proposal to Jimmy: marriage.

It's even more surprising because it comes at the end of an emotional fight in which Kim is criticizing Jimmy for taking a con too far. Nevermind that she'd pushed him to do the con in the first place. It involved creating TV attack ads with scandalous, fake accusations against the CEO of the bank she's representing. She wanted to dissuade the bank from evicting small-time homeowners from their land to build a call center. Kim wised up about her ethical obligation as the bank's attorney and told Jimmy she'd changed her mind against the con. But Jimmy continued running with it, and the result made Kim look like an idiot in front of the bank CEO.

Their dialogue at home that night goes:

Kim: "You win, Jimmy."
Jimmy: "What?!"
Kim: "You win."
Jimmy: "Uh... yeah. But, I mean... Well, we win. Us."
Kim: "No. I didn't."
Jimmy: "What didn't you get that you wanted?"
Kim: "I don't trust you."
Jimmy: "Why?"
Kim: "You played me! You made me the sucker! Again!"
Jimmy: "Again? What... Wait, how could you be the sucker? It was your plan."
Kim: "Oh, fuck you, Jimmy! God! I...I–You know what? I can't do this anymore."
[...]
Kim: "Either we end this now, or..."
Jimmy: "No!"
Kim: "Either we end this now, and enjoy the time we had, and go our separate ways, or..."
Jimmy: "Or what?"
Kim: "Or we're... We're... I mean... Or maybe... [beat] Maybe we get married?"

At that moment I was like, "LOLWUT?! 😱." Where is this coming from? Kim is fed up with Jimmy as he's just jeopardized her job and professional reputation and... so she proposes marriage?!?

There's actually a strong element of logic to it. And a strong element of emotion.

The element of emotion is that Kim and Jimmy are each other's ride-or-die. Kim is ridiculously loyal to Jimmy despite all his shortcomings and despite how his borderline illegal behavior— and occasionally clearly across the line illegal behavior— is a risk both to himself and to her, by association. Plus, we've seen repeatedly that as risky as Kim knows Jimmy's scams to be, she enjoys them.

And that's where the element of logic comes in. Kim realizes that since she can't quit Jimmy, she needs to protect herself— and, by extension, him, too— from harm if his scams are ever found it. And oddly the way to do that is by getting closer together, legally.

As his spouse, she can't be forced to testify against him. That means Kim will never have to take the stand or answer under oath whether she knew about something illegal Jimmy did. She can continue giving misdirecting non-answers or outright lying about it— like she's being doing already. The difference is, marriage means she can't be compelled to answer under oath.

What weird, and also very sad, reason to marry.

Menendez Brothers Resentenced, Eligibile for Parole

The Menendez brothers, Eric and Lyle, were resentenced by a judge in California on Tuesday. The pair were convicted in 1996 of murdering their parents in a brutal attack in 1989. Originally sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Their new sentences are 50 years to life. It's possible they could be paroled later this year, having served just shy of 30 years of their sentences.

For people my age, "The Menendez Brothers" are memorable. I was in my late teens in 1990 when news broke that police had arrested them for murdering their own parents. The two had been living high on the hog for months after falsely claiming to police that they came home and discovered their parents brutally shot in their own home, insinuating that the killings were a "mob hit" due to their father's business ties. (There was never any evidence linking their father, Jose Menendez, to organized crime.)

The Menendez brothers' trials were a regular news fixture for several years as the pair wound their way through the legal system. They were young, handsome, and wealthy— the perfect profile for TV news coverage. In fact, part of the coverage was about their legal defense team working with image consultants to make them appear more sympathetic.

Lyle, left, and Erik Menendez at a pre-trial hearing in court in 1990. Source: AP file photo.

The somber dark suits they wore in earlier court appearances were deemed to make them look too mature and sinister. The suits were ditched in favor of sweaters that made them look more "like the boys next door", I remember news articles crowing.

Lyle, left, and Erik Menendez in court in 1990  after image consultants make them look more sympathetic. Source: AP file photo.

And because they were wealthy, their trials took a long time to resolve. After the killings in August 1989 and their arrest in March 1990, it wasn't until July 1993 their first trials began. (Example reference: "A timeline of the Menendez brothers’ double-murder case", AP News, 13 May 2025.) Those trials deadlocked in Jan 1994. A retrial began in Oct 1995. The jury there convicted the brothers in Mar 1996. They were sentenced in July 1996— almost seven years after the crime they committed.

Lyle, left, and Erik Menendez in a 2003 photo provided by the California Department of Corrections (courtesy of Wikimedia)

Across the various trials, including at this year's resentencing, the brothers never disputed their role in the killings. And the killings were brutal. They had bought shotguns prior to the killings— showing premeditation— and then fired multiple shots each at their parents. Crime scene investigators described the bodies as among the most gruesomely disfigured they'd ever seen. The brothers' defense was that their parents had physically and sexually abused them, and hence they were acting in self defense. Jurors kind of bought that argument in the original trial, which ended with a hung jury, and rejected it in the retrial, when the judge put some limits on (but did not exclude) the amount of psychological testimony permitted.

My sense at the time, back in the 1990s, was that I didn't believe the brothers' defense, either. It's not that I don't believe claims of physical and sexual abuse, but there was no corroboration of it— no doctor who'd seen signs of injury, no clergy member or school counselor they'd confided in, no family member or guest in the house who ever saw anything probative. Moreover, there was zero evidence there was any threat against them at the time, in their 20s, they bought shotguns and murdered their parents. With that, plus the stories of their wealthy entitlement before and after the killings, it sure seemed like their motive was some combination of revenge and desire to take their father's wealth for themselves.