01-23-2018, 08:19 AM
Quote:Juliette planned to have Kelly ambushed these events were all in the script as was her giving Kelly false information via email , saying that the house was safe a place for kelly to go . She give kennth advice about how dangerous Kelly was and not to underestimate Kelly, then she outright lies to Kelly saying the house is safe come on in I’m upstairs,when in reality Kenneth is downstairs with a load of armed verat preparing to attack an unsespecting Kelly, Juliette hears Kellys moans of pain downstairs hears Kenneth say lets take this outside and sits upstairs and does nothing, Juliette is an accessory to murder that is fact, everything I stated above is in the script and shown onscreen. It matters little wether she definitely knew Kelly would be murderd or not all the matters is she willingly led Kelly to her death and didn’t care wether she lived or died as long as she got revenge on Nick and Adalind as she didn’t care wether her nieghbours lived or died. These are facts but you will probably ingnore tham as they don’t suit you version of events.You keep posting what happened. There is no disagreement on that. The point I keep making is you are trying to draw and inference from the actions and state that is the perception the writers intended. The problem with that is when the writer provides narrative to state their intent. That is their intent not what you think it is.
The writers could have a character gun down a group of people. At the end they could then provide a reason why the character is not a killer. You could post all you want, line for line proving proof the character gun down the group. That still would not change the intent of the writer that the character is not a killer. No matter how lame of an excuse they use to make this point.
The bottom line is the writer provided Exposition where Juliette stated that she did not know that Kenneth was going to do that. The writers also had her show remorse for what happened to his mother. The writers could not have her comment on the neighbors because the writers omitted Juliette from having any knowledge about what happened to the neighbors.
You have no idea how she felt about the attack. There is not one line where the writers give use that information. You may feel she did not care. But the writers never said she didn't care.
You keep wanting to say she was an accessory. If that is what the writers wanted us to think. then why didn't they have Nick arrest her. All the times he confronted her not once did the writers have Nick accuse her of killing his mother. He only accused her of setting her up. The neighbors, not one line of dialog relates their fate to Juliette.
Yes your arguments fit a logical analysis of cause and effect. If this was something that actually happened I would agree with you 100%. But I view the show how the writers wrote it, not how I would or would not like to see it. When I argue a point, I argue it from the writers point of view. That does not mean I do not question why a character did or did not do something. I also make assumptions for why I think a character did or did not do something. But I do not argue these assumptions. I may add them from the point of fan fiction, providing a rational explanation for the how and why. The same as someone would do when explaining how a warp drive works. But that makes it a hypothesis not a fact. You keep trying to justify an assumption as fact.
Embrace your inner Biest..... We all have one