(11-08-2017, 08:56 AM)dicappatore Wrote:

(11-08-2017, 08:55 AM)irukandji Wrote: You do know I don't look at any of whatever you deem pertinent in YouTube, don't you? But go ahead, obsess away and waste your time posting nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6p1Ck0ab80

(11-08-2017, 08:16 AM)irukandji Wrote: They're all a waste of time. But I ask that you consider this. No one on this forum should be criticized because they don't believe the suppositions or theories of others. That's exactly what has happened here. Because I don't see it "your way", I'm choosing to ignore what "you state", that Juliette willingly participated in the neighbors' murders as an accomplice or co-conspirator. There's no proof of that and you know it. She hasn't even been arrested and you've already got her tried and convicted.

(11-08-2017, 09:05 AM)rpmaluki Wrote:

(11-08-2017, 08:16 AM)irukandji Wrote: They're all a waste of time. But I ask that you consider this. No one on this forum should be criticized because they don't believe the suppositions or theories of others. That's exactly what has happened here. Because I don't see it "your way", I'm choosing to ignore what "you state", that Juliette willingly participated in the neighbors' murders as an accomplice or co-conspirator. There's no proof of that and you know it. She hasn't even been arrested and you've already got her tried and convicted.

Where did I criticise you? I asked you a question. I don't agree what you say because I accept what the show presented, how is that me criticising you?

We keep going round in circles hence my "waste of time" comment

(11-08-2017, 09:13 AM)Henry of green Wrote: How exactly is saying Juliette organized her nieghbours murders a theory, we see her give Kenneth the house plans of how many people are in each house. I’m sorry but that’s accessory to Murder she would get sentenced in a courtroom for her actions.

(11-08-2017, 09:08 AM)irukandji Wrote:

(11-08-2017, 09:05 AM)rpmaluki Wrote:

(11-08-2017, 08:16 AM)irukandji Wrote: They're all a waste of time. But I ask that you consider this. No one on this forum should be criticized because they don't believe the suppositions or theories of others. That's exactly what has happened here. Because I don't see it "your way", I'm choosing to ignore what "you state", that Juliette willingly participated in the neighbors' murders as an accomplice or co-conspirator. There's no proof of that and you know it. She hasn't even been arrested and you've already got her tried and convicted.

Where did I criticise you? I asked you a question. I don't agree what you say because I accept what the show presented, how is that me criticising you?

We keep going round in circles hence my "waste of time" comment

I wouldn't call the word, "obtuse", praise. I can't see why you would.

(11-08-2017, 06:46 AM)dicappatore Wrote:

(11-08-2017, 06:27 AM)Henry of green Wrote: Did you not watch her pick out which house would be invaded with Kenneth, if she didn't know he would murder them she's the dumbest bitch that ever lived. So you ethier believe she knew or do you believe she has the IQ of a toddler. I have already proved to you in a previous post she knew how dangerous the Royals were, she obviously knew the nieghbors fate.

Henry, I have to warn you. This has been hashed over and over with this poster with myself and a few others, on many different threads. This poster is going to tell you that Juliette was never direct responsible for the killing and decapitation. We all know she was NOT the one that pulled the trigger and sliced her head off.

This poster will drive you batty since “IT” does not possess the knowledge to distinguish between, a murder and aiding and abetting a murder. Juliette was in compliance with “Aiding and Abetting” Kenneth and the Verat gang. You know that, I know that and many more see it as such.

Stop wasting your time. I did the research, I posted the transcripts and so did many others on many other threads. Yet, here we are with the same argument you are being suckered in by the same contributor.

Do not bother to do the same research. Post the transcript and whatever else you can do to prove your point. It won’t go anywhere just like your many other points you been trying to make with this same contributor. Hence my theory, “Fake Contributor”

(11-08-2017, 06:10 AM)irukandji Wrote:

(11-08-2017, 06:06 AM)rpmaluki Wrote: Are you asking because you genuinely don't know, or are you being deliberately obtuse? I honestly curious.

I want to know. Recent posts indicate that Juliette murdered innocent people. I'd like to read how that was accomplished.

---

(11-08-2017, 06:06 AM)rpmaluki Wrote: Just before the ambush on Kelly.

How could Juliette pull the trigger on the neighbors when she was upstairs then?

See, the issue I have with a ruthless Juliette doing all of these murders by proxy is just that; an issue. A bloodthirsty hexenbiest isn't going to stand still for being told to 'go upstairs until it's all over' type of thing. Adalind wouldn't. She'd revel in it right alongside Kenneth.

So I don't get where posters say Juliette was involved in all of this planning but when it came time for execution, she goes upstairs. Doesn't make sense.

Quote:Under the English common law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even if they take no part in the actual criminal offense. For example, in a bank robbery, the person who points the gun at the teller and asks for the money is guilty of armed robbery. Anyone else directly involved in the commission of the crime, such as the lookout or the getaway car driver, is an accomplice, even if in the absence of an underlying offense keeping a lookout or driving a car would not be an offense.

An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal (the principal) is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.

(11-08-2017, 11:42 AM)New Guy Wrote:

(11-08-2017, 06:10 AM)irukandji Wrote:

(11-08-2017, 06:06 AM)rpmaluki Wrote: Are you asking because you genuinely don't know, or are you being deliberately obtuse? I honestly curious.

I want to know. Recent posts indicate that Juliette murdered innocent people. I'd like to read how that was accomplished.

---

(11-08-2017, 06:06 AM)rpmaluki Wrote: Just before the ambush on Kelly.

How could Juliette pull the trigger on the neighbors when she was upstairs then?

See, the issue I have with a ruthless Juliette doing all of these murders by proxy is just that; an issue. A bloodthirsty hexenbiest isn't going to stand still for being told to 'go upstairs until it's all over' type of thing. Adalind wouldn't. She'd revel in it right alongside Kenneth.

So I don't get where posters say Juliette was involved in all of this planning but when it came time for execution, she goes upstairs. Doesn't make sense.

Iruk,
You seem to read posts, but often ignore the facts. The evidence has been provided to many times. The transcripts and scenes have been presented to you by several Forum members. In regard to the current discussion on this thread you can use my posts #4 and # 56 in the "What Juliette 'Knew': Kelly's death" thread.
In criminal law there one must understand the words accessory and accomplice. I shall defer to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accomplice

Quote:Under the English common law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even if they take no part in the actual criminal offense. For example, in a bank robbery, the person who points the gun at the teller and asks for the money is guilty of armed robbery. Anyone else directly involved in the commission of the crime, such as the lookout or the getaway car driver, is an accomplice, even if in the absence of an underlying offense keeping a lookout or driving a car would not be an offense.

An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal (the principal) is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.

If Juliette had simply sent the betrayal email, provided Kenneth with the intel on her neighbors and left the hotel she would remain a guilty accessory. However she accompanied Kenneth to the crime scene, heard Rispoli confirm the killing of the neighbors, listened as Kenneth slaughtered and decapitated Kelly and is thus an accomplice in a capital crime.
You may chose to ignore these facts yet they remain irrefutable.
N G