(03-22-2017, 10:49 AM)irukandji Wrote: It's a stalemate because neither side is able to convince whether the child is Nick's or not.

(03-22-2017, 12:06 PM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 12:01 PM)Grimmbiest11 Wrote: Lol does it really matter in the grand scheme of things if Kelly is or isn't Nick's especially if it's never gonna be brought up. I bet the discussion is just to scratch our intellectual itch because clearly the writers do not care for that storyline. We can discuss it to death implying what the writers might have or might have not done but we will never know.

As for me I'm happy either way, Kelly's adorable and Nick makes a great dad, wouldn't have asked for more. Honestly I don't care.

That's really great. I get the feeling, however, that you (and others) are upset because not everyone shares your opinion?

(03-22-2017, 12:15 PM)Grimmbiest11 Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 12:06 PM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 12:01 PM)Grimmbiest11 Wrote: Lol does it really matter in the grand scheme of things if Kelly is or isn't Nick's especially if it's never gonna be brought up. I bet the discussion is just to scratch our intellectual itch because clearly the writers do not care for that storyline. We can discuss it to death implying what the writers might have or might have not done but we will never know.

As for me I'm happy either way, Kelly's adorable and Nick makes a great dad, wouldn't have asked for more. Honestly I don't care.

That's really great. I get the feeling, however, that you (and others) are upset because not everyone shares your opinion?

Lol you're being funny, why on earth would I be upset? You don't know me that way. I'm actually finding the back and forth hilarious so I just gave my unsolicited two cents. Sorry if it came out wrong.

(03-22-2017, 12:17 PM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 12:15 PM)Grimmbiest11 Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 12:06 PM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 12:01 PM)Grimmbiest11 Wrote: Lol does it really matter in the grand scheme of things if Kelly is or isn't Nick's especially if it's never gonna be brought up. I bet the discussion is just to scratch our intellectual itch because clearly the writers do not care for that storyline. We can discuss it to death implying what the writers might have or might have not done but we will never know.

As for me I'm happy either way, Kelly's adorable and Nick makes a great dad, wouldn't have asked for more. Honestly I don't care.

That's really great. I get the feeling, however, that you (and others) are upset because not everyone shares your opinion?

Lol you're being funny, why on earth would I be upset? You don't know me that way. I'm actually finding the back and forth hilarious so I just gave my unsolicited two cents. Sorry if it came out wrong.

Thanks! I actually was trying to get a laugh out of this. Always nice to know when I succeed.

(03-22-2017, 11:36 AM)rpmaluki Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 11:01 AM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 10:49 AM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 10:40 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 10:33 AM)irukandji Wrote: But I haven't seen any arguments to effectively convince me that Kelly is truly Nick's baby.

There isn't enough time left in the series for them to discover that Kelly isn't Nick's.

It's a stalemate because neither side is able to convince whether the child is Nick's or not.

---

(03-22-2017, 10:47 AM)MarylikesGrimm Wrote: Nick most likely did the testing the first day at the hospital himself.

I don't think Nick gave it a thought, so it was never done.

DNA is so standard at police stations and procedural shows only DNA results are reported in the show if it has meaning.

If we learn about Kelly's powers that might answer your question too.

You have all been going round in circles for what....three/four days now and repeating the same exact points without resolution. It seems rather pointless to me, I would have called it a day by now.

(03-22-2017, 12:46 PM)rpmaluki Wrote: Which is why I am surprised it went on as long as it did as if they could ever retcon Kelly's paternity in two episodes which probably span less than a day, max. When, in that time, would they have time to discover Kelly is not Nick's son when Adalind's convinced he is and Nick's never even questioned it past the initial reveal at the police station?

The world is about to end, people are going to die, Diana's could be a child bride and barely a teen mom at the age of two and a half years but Kelly's (already settled) paternity is what we should really be worry about?

(03-22-2017, 01:08 PM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 12:46 PM)rpmaluki Wrote: Which is why I am surprised it went on as long as it did as if they could ever retcon Kelly's paternity in two episodes which probably span less than a day, max. When, in that time, would they have time to discover Kelly is not Nick's son when Adalind's convinced he is and Nick's never even questioned it past the initial reveal at the police station?

The world is about to end, people are going to die, Diana's could be a child bride and barely a teen mom at the age of two and a half years but Kelly's (already settled) paternity is what we should really be worry about?

Why not?

(03-22-2017, 10:33 AM)irukandji Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 06:08 PM)Robyn Wrote: There wasn’t a scene that showed or even hinted that Adalind had sex with anyone other than Nick since conceiving Diana. I agree that if Grimm was continuing, G & K would likely have Nick suspect Kelly isn’t his in order to create woe-is-me Nick drama and damage the relationship. But in order for that to have any substance, they’d have to create a scene/flashback or have Adalind admit to something that wasn’t shown in S3 or S4.

If the writers wanted to throw a wrench in Nick/Adalind they could just as easily have her inexplicably become bad again and rediscover her Renard itch. The show has never bothered with foolproof explanations or motivations.

I thought it weird that the issue of Kelly's paternity hadn't come up, period. For one thing, Adalind showed up completely out of the blue to declare it was Nick's baby she was carrying. Most men would have demanded a paternity test in that situation. Instead, Nick says nothing because surprise, surprise, Juliette shows up just in the nick (no pun intended) of time to disrupt things. Conveniently forgotten.

When Elizabeth was making the reversal potion, she morphed into Adalind because, according to her, she felt slutty. Why make such a comment?

Just because we don't see Adalind having sex with anyone after Diana gets kidnapped doesn't mean it didn't happen. She had to get in touch with the royals before being assigned to take Nick's powers away. I can't say she didn't sleep with anyone during that time frame. It's not like going to bed with someone takes months and months. Adalind's skilled in the sexual arts. I can imagine she could make anyone go to bed with her, if she wants.

The other thing I thought was strange also involved Elizabeth. She specifically asked Rosalee for a birth control agent (I can't recall the name right off) when she's making the reverse potion. The episode made a point of Elizabeth asking Rosalee for the herb. Now according to the directions she's following, she's making the exact spell. The only difference is that Nick and Juliette must perform it in reverse. I wonder why Adalind is pregnant if Elizabeth used exactly the same spell.

Then we have the timing of the pregnancy itself, which is way off.

Finally, we have the creative team skirting around the issue of Kelly's paternity. Which, in my opinion, leaves it open for another time.

I know timeframes in series don't always adhere to real time. But I haven't seen any arguments to effectively convince me that Kelly is truly Nick's baby.