+- Grimm Forum (https://grimmforum.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Grimm Universe (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Universe)
+--- Forum: Grimm Discussions (https://grimmforum.com/forum/Forum-Grimm-Discussions)
+--- Thread: What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death (/Thread-What-Juliette-Knew-Kelly-s-death)
RE: What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death - brandon - 11-17-2017
I think the Hexenbiest prefer spells, how else would they have done " bad fame", not to fist bumps.
RE: What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death - dicappatore - 11-17-2017
(11-17-2017, 12:54 PM)New Guy Wrote: So for you, Adalind was three different people? (Season 1 Hexenbiest, Blood of Grimm non-hexenbiest, then murder another hexenbiest to re-hexenbiest) Why didn't she tell Nick it was Hexenbiest 1 that did whatever. I don't buy any of the Hexen-Spirit possession malarkey. I saw the green thing leave Adalind, but I did not see any change in her attitude, morals or ethics after it departed, other than she cried about not having hexen-powers. IMO, having Nick's child did change her.
I don’t want to rehash some of your finer points, NG. But I have to add, the whole Hexenbiest possession theory is pure malarkey too. None of the other Wesen have a spirit or entity possessing them. They are one of the same and so are the Hexenbiest.
If this possession of an entity is what it is, no one ever explained what possessed a Half-Zauberbiest like Sean. Nor can they explain Diana, since it’s a type of Hexenbiest that has never existed. If it’s a possession? Who made the new type of Hex Spirit?
RE: What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death - irukandji - 11-17-2017
(11-17-2017, 12:54 PM)New Guy Wrote: Hi Iruk,
You stated:
Quote: For me, I look at all of the events that led up to the betrayal. Juliette (after hexenbiest) was a completely different person than Juliette (before hexenbiest).So for you, Adalind was three different people? (Season 1 Hexenbiest, Blood of Grimm non-hexenbiest, then murder another hexenbiest to re-hexenbiest) Why didn't she tell Nick it was Hexenbiest 1 that did whatever. I don't buy any of the Hexen-Spirit possession malarkey. I saw the green thing leave Adalind, but I did not see any change in her attitude, morals or ethics after it departed, other than she cried about not having hexen-powers. IMO, having Nick's child did change her.
Hi New Guy-
If you want to start a thread about the split personalities of Adalind, feel free to do so. However, I was talking about Juliette. She was not the same person after the hexenbiest took control.
(11-17-2017, 12:54 PM)New Guy Wrote: The hypothetical I posed to you was IMO was not only plausible but in fact more likely than the send Juliette upstairs plot.
Some things you didn't consider in your hypothetical, New Guy; Juliette was listening at the door when all of thumping and bumping occurred. She was listening at the door when Kenneth decided to "take it outside". She didn't suddenly open the door, rush down the stairs and hurry outside so she could get some whacks at Kelly. Furthermore, if she was involved in Kelly's death, she would have been coming in at the same time Kenneth entered the house. She did not. If she had been involved, there wouldn't have been any need for Kenneth to tell her, "we got her".
(11-17-2017, 12:54 PM)New Guy Wrote: As I noted previously, Juliette had a dream about killing Rosalee with her bare clawed hands. That is a fact, not a factoid. Juliette returned to Nick's house to kill him. FrankenEve confirmed this in the restaurant scene. Again fact not factoid.
I agree those are facts. But what are you saying? That Juliette's dream about killing Rosalee equated to her returning to Nick's house to kill him? What does one have to do with the other?
(11-17-2017, 12:54 PM)New Guy Wrote: G&K seem to have placed Hexenette upstairs just to have something visible on screen while the audio was about Kelly being killed. IMO it was because Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio was not available for the scene.
No doubt that had something to do with it. However, the video also shows the audience that Juliette was not involved in the murder.
(11-17-2017, 12:54 PM)New Guy Wrote: I did notice that you failed to answer the question(s):
That is not much of a departure from what actually happened.
It's a total departure from what happened. As you yourself stated, it's hypothetical.
(11-17-2017, 12:54 PM)New Guy Wrote: If this were an essay exam would your professor accept you dodging his question? If your graduation depended on passing the course how would you answer?
If this was an essay exam, the professor wouldn't be asking a question, so no one would be dodging anything. It would be a written exam. There's a difference.
(11-17-2017, 12:54 PM)New Guy Wrote: You hold your position:
Quote: Until a jury (which is not Nick) of her peers under the supervision of an appointed judge (which is also not Nick) tries and convicts her of it, she is not.You have yet to concede that Hexenette was guilty of murder.
Funny, I thought I wrote she wasn't guilty of murder, but was guilty of betrayal.
(11-17-2017, 12:54 PM)New Guy Wrote: The factual evidence has been presented. It is irrefutable that the evidence shows Juliette was both an accessory and an accomplice to Kelly's murder.
Well, not so fast on this so called "factual evidence". May I refer you to an earlier post of yours, #350:
""Juliette was never brought to trial, however IMO she fully meets the criteria for both an accessory and an accomplice. As such, she is guilty of Aggravated Murder."""
Your opinion does not equate to factual evidence.
(11-17-2017, 12:54 PM)New Guy Wrote: You have revealed that you do not actually read some posts.
That's not happening here.
(11-17-2017, 12:54 PM)New Guy Wrote: So if you are reading this please provide your verifiable evidence that Juliette was neither an accessory nor an accomplice to Kelly's murder. Respond to this as if a pre-trial request from the presiding judge had sent it to you as the defense attorney for Hexenette. Failure to reply shall place you in contempt of the court.
N G
As the prosecutor, it would be your burden to provide verifiable evidence that Juliette was an accessory/accomplice to Kelly's murder. You yourself have said you can only provide an opinion. Beside that, you already know there is no evidence to prove Juliette murdered Kelly. There's no body, the house has been scrubbed for evidence, and I can't think of a witness who's alive to corroborate any of it. Add to that that the supposed murderess has disappeared.
How do charges get filed when there's no evidence to prove murder? You're talking about pre-trial notes, but no judge is going to request any such thing because there's nothing to request.
RE: What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death - irukandji - 11-20-2017
What happened New Guy? Did you give up?
RE: What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death - New Guy - 11-20-2017
(11-20-2017, 12:47 PM)irukandji Wrote: What happened New Guy? Did you give up?Hi Iruk,
No, I remain adamant in the positions I have taken and the factual evidence supporting such positions.
If anyone provides contrary facts I would participate in a debate. Lacking viable contrary evidence I am content to apply my time to more rewarding pursuits.
N G
RE: What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death - dicappatore - 11-20-2017
(11-20-2017, 05:01 PM)New Guy Wrote: No, I remain adamant in the positions I have taken and the factual evidence supporting such positions.
If anyone provides contrary facts I would participate in a debate. Lacking viable contrary evidence I am content to apply my time to more rewarding pursuits.
N G
Ahh, NG. Those rewarding pursuits, of those rare moments, such as, watching the grass grow?
RE: What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death - irukandji - 11-20-2017
(11-20-2017, 05:01 PM)New Guy Wrote:(11-20-2017, 12:47 PM)irukandji Wrote: What happened New Guy? Did you give up?Hi Iruk,
No, I remain adamant in the positions I have taken and the factual evidence supporting such positions.
If anyone provides contrary facts I would participate in a debate. Lacking viable contrary evidence I am content to apply my time to more rewarding pursuits.
N G
Hey New Guy-
That's great! Have a good one.
RE: What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death - New Guy - 11-21-2017
(11-20-2017, 06:23 PM)dicappatore Wrote:Hi Dicap,(11-20-2017, 05:01 PM)New Guy Wrote: No, I remain adamant in the positions I have taken and the factual evidence supporting such positions.
If anyone provides contrary facts I would participate in a debate. Lacking viable contrary evidence I am content to apply my time to more rewarding pursuits.
N G
Ahh, NG. Those rewarding pursuits, of those rare moments, such as, watching the grass grow?
I actually do "watch" my grass. Unfortunately there is little reward. I refer to part my lawn as "Death Valley," plenty of weeds but not much grass.
Shalom,
N G
RE: What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death - dicappatore - 11-21-2017
(11-21-2017, 05:12 AM)New Guy Wrote:(11-20-2017, 06:23 PM)dicappatore Wrote:Hi Dicap,(11-20-2017, 05:01 PM)New Guy Wrote: No, I remain adamant in the positions I have taken and the factual evidence supporting such positions.
If anyone provides contrary facts I would participate in a debate. Lacking viable contrary evidence I am content to apply my time to more rewarding pursuits.
N G
Ahh, NG. Those rewarding pursuits, of those rare moments, such as, watching the grass grow?
I actually do "watch" my grass. Unfortunately there is little reward. I refer to part my lawn as "Death Valley," plenty of weeds but not much grass.
Shalom,
N G
NG, I actually drove trough Death Valley on one of my western excursion years back. It was during the winter months where the temperature dropped down to the mid 70’s degrees. One of these days, if I ever get around to scan some of the photos, I have of that journey, with some photos of Portland and Mt. Hood ski trip, I will post them on the photo threads.
RE: What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death - Devegs - 11-21-2017
(11-13-2017, 07:09 AM)Robyn Wrote: ...The only thing Adalind knew for sure was that Meisner was the first person to help her without wanting something in return...
Adalind also knew for sure that Meisner had been working for Sean and had been sent by Sean to help her escape the royals. She knew he had been given the mission to 'rescue' her with the help of the resistance by Sean. Meisner wouldn't want anything from her since he was working for Sean, the father of her child. She later found out that he had an ax to grind against the royals which was why the royals couldn't buy him like they did with whoever had sold out the resistance and compromised their rescue.
Quote:...Adalind reaching out to Meisner, who might contact the Resistance, does not automatically require Adalind to leave Nick and/or Kelly. It’s simply an inquiry, an attempt to rescue her daughter from the Royals. Her effort might not result in actually getting Diana back, but the main goal should be Diana’s safety, getting her away from the Royals.
Adalind probably didn't forget how they had barely made it out of Vienna and that Meisner had required help to get them out. It was probably less to do with her thinking that she would have to leave Nick. She does have the responsibility as a parent to keep Kelly safe as well. Meisner got help from Diana to get them out of the hotel and then got help from Sebastian and finally Kelly to get Adalind & Diana out of Vienna. She also knew that the plan had worked because she never got into the clutches of the royals. Sean had stressed that she had to get out with Meisner before the royals were able to get hold of her. If she had been taken to the heavily guarded castle then it would have taken more than Meisner to rescue them. She later experienced just how impossible it was to get out of the royal's clutches (castle & verrat guards) when she had fallen into their hands.
I get that they have some sort of connection since they escaped the royals together and Meisner helped deliver Diana but Adalind knew that he did so because he was working for Sean. I don't get how she would have expected Meisner to go back to Austria to get Diana out of the royal's castle just because she asked when others had covered the cost of the first rescue. She would have to consider the funding for the mission. I can imagine her saving some serious money and then reaching out to Meisner to inquire if he could attempt to rescue Diana from the royals for her. Then she could say, "Hey can you help me rescue Diana from the royals? Here's funding for the trip to get to Austria, get whatever you need (extra guns/people) to help you break into the castle, get her and smuggle yourselves out."