I didn't understand (possible plot hole?) - Ozark (2017) Discussion

[–] Information-Police (4033) 4 years ago

I believe she forged his signature. If he confessed to money laundering he'd no longer be allowed to have a casino license.

reply

[–] exatera (3942) 4 years ago

I don't understand how this could have possibly worked. She forges his signature, he says he knows nothing about the whole thing - how exactly would any of this stand up in court? Or however FBI cases are prosecuted.

I am sure if they did an investigation, it could be physically proven, too, that he didn't confess or sign the papers.

I mean, there is just no way it can be that easy to falsify someone else's testimony!

reply

[–] Information-Police (4033) 4 years ago

Remember, Hellen was dealing with an unethical FBI agent.

reply

[–] r5d4d2 (679) 4 years ago

I think she was trying to get a signed cooperation agreement so she could show it to Navarro when they were all in Mexico and have the Byrde's whacked.

How could Marty explain away a deal with the FBI.

reply

[–] exatera (3942) 4 years ago

Oh, you mean for Navarro's benefit only?

Okay, I get it now.

reply

[–] whatwazdat (374) 4 years ago

There is no benefit to Navarro, only Helen. She's tryna to create the perception that Marty is about to talk. Shes basically tryna fool Navarro, so he would greenlight whacking the Byrds.

reply

[–] exatera (3942) 4 years ago

The expression "for someone's benefit" does not literally mean for their benefit.

reply

[–] TalkinPikchorBox (2249) 4 years ago

The way you worded it was exactly that though. A simple scene with obvious intentions and you couldn’t figure it out for yourself. Now you're trying to lecture your intellect? You are very funny! Also, you use commas where you don’t have to.

reply

[–] exatera (3942) 4 years ago

?

Can't say I understand which particular high horse you are coming off.

And I worded it just fine in the context of what was being said. Same with my commas. Geez, so sorry for remembering some grammar rules.

And it wasn't a "scene", if you want to get pedantic - it was a story line.

Learn to be happier in life.

How ironic when someone so miserable, arrogant and unpleasant starts to lecture others on their behavior...

reply

[–] TalkinPikchorBox (2249) 4 years ago

Who was lecturing your behavior? Was straight laughing at you. Again, something so simple but overlooked. I already know you can’t teach stupid and it’s not in my character to fight an uphill battle.

reply

[–] exatera (3942) 4 years ago

Hmm, all this only reflects poorly on you, not me.

Not my problem, though.

Enjoy the commas.

reply

[–] whatwazdat (374) 4 years ago

You took the words outta my mouth. I was taken aback a little by his response. Base on his initial question, I thought maybe he needed a little extra help. So for me to get that response, I was like... "Well, excuse me!" LOL!

Exatera, you're right regarding the expression "for the benefit of," but I took it literally because just a minute ago you were confused about how the forged FBI deal was going to play out. You can understand from my point of view, right?

reply

[–] exatera (3942) 4 years ago

You were replying to a comment where I said "okay, I get it now". You were not the one who offered the initial explanation, so it wasn't like I acted ungrateful toward someone who did. Not to mention that your comment came off condescending.

Also, based on some other comments in this thread, I obviously wasn't the only one who didn't fully get it. I was overthinking it.

And it's she, btw.

reply

[–] gbu (545) 4 years ago

This deal had no credibility with the FBI at all, it was purely to show Navarro, to prove that Marty had taken a deal with the FBi to rat him out so he had perfect reason to kill the Byrdes and let Helen run the business, that's why she already sounded out Ruth to continue running the casino side once they was out of the picture.

reply