(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.

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

(11-08-2017, 06:22 AM)Henry of green Wrote: She set with Kenneth picking which neighbors would die and which wouldn't what else would die.

(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.

(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.

(11-08-2017, 06:34 AM)rpmaluki Wrote: Her objective was to get Kelly to make Nick suffer as much as possible, what Kenneth said or did to convince her to give away her neighbours details the specifics of which is something you'd have to query with G&K because they never showed us only her discussing her neighbours a minimum of four surrounding houses around Nick's house (you're more that welcome to hazard a guess of the number of people they killed in order for the verrat to occupy all those house). We know she wasn't under duress since she was cosying up Kenneth, as much as someone in her position would who was intending to destroy her former boyfriend by doing the unthinkable to get to his mother.

I think you sort of know this already, but for some reason you're choosing to ignore it. I get that you want to absolve Juliette for everything she did, she may not have pulled the trigger or ripped their throats or telepathically threw them up in the air and dropped them to their deaths or suffocate them or whatever was actually done to them, but she willingly participated in their murder as an accomplice/co conspirator or whatever that makes her liable through everything we saw her do with Kenneth.

Kenneth could have gone after the neighbours without Juliette but she chose to involve herself because she wanted to make Nick suffer. Why she involved the neighbours herself is something only she and the writers can answer.

(11-08-2017, 06:46 AM)dicappatore Wrote: 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, 07:55 AM)irukandji 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.

So you're stating she invaded the house with Kenneth and shot the neighbors, right?

---

(11-08-2017, 06:34 AM)rpmaluki Wrote: Her objective was to get Kelly to make Nick suffer as much as possible, what Kenneth said or did to convince her to give away her neighbours details the specifics of which is something you'd have to query with G&K because they never showed us only her discussing her neighbours a minimum of four surrounding houses around Nick's house (you're more that welcome to hazard a guess of the number of people they killed in order for the verrat to occupy all those house). We know she wasn't under duress since she was cosying up Kenneth, as much as someone in her position would who was intending to destroy her former boyfriend by doing the unthinkable to get to his mother.

I think you sort of know this already, but for some reason you're choosing to ignore it. I get that you want to absolve Juliette for everything she did, she may not have pulled the trigger or ripped their throats or telepathically threw them up in the air and dropped them to their deaths or suffocate them or whatever was actually done to them, but she willingly participated in their murder as an accomplice/co conspirator or whatever that makes her liable through everything we saw her do with Kenneth.

Kenneth could have gone after the neighbours without Juliette but she chose to involve herself because she wanted to make Nick suffer. Why she involved the neighbours herself is something only she and the writers can answer.

First of all, your theory that murdering the neighbors in order to hurt Nick makes no sense. If he was hurt by that, the viewers weren't clued in. I recall it came up as a home invasion later and even when it did, I don't remember Nick being torn up about it. I don't know maybe there's some portion of script to support what you're stating?

As for the rest, you're wrong. I'm not absolving Juliette of anything. I I just don't agree with posters simply embellishing the story and then insisting their version is the one true version either.

(11-08-2017, 07:55 AM)irukandji 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.

So you're stating she invaded the house with Kenneth and shot the neighbors, right?

---

(11-08-2017, 06:34 AM)rpmaluki Wrote: Her objective was to get Kelly to make Nick suffer as much as possible, what Kenneth said or did to convince her to give away her neighbours details the specifics of which is something you'd have to query with G&K because they never showed us only her discussing her neighbours a minimum of four surrounding houses around Nick's house (you're more that welcome to hazard a guess of the number of people they killed in order for the verrat to occupy all those house). We know she wasn't under duress since she was cosying up Kenneth, as much as someone in her position would who was intending to destroy her former boyfriend by doing the unthinkable to get to his mother.

I think you sort of know this already, but for some reason you're choosing to ignore it. I get that you want to absolve Juliette for everything she did, she may not have pulled the trigger or ripped their throats or telepathically threw them up in the air and dropped them to their deaths or suffocate them or whatever was actually done to them, but she willingly participated in their murder as an accomplice/co conspirator or whatever that makes her liable through everything we saw her do with Kenneth.

Kenneth could have gone after the neighbours without Juliette but she chose to involve herself because she wanted to make Nick suffer. Why she involved the neighbours herself is something only she and the writers can answer.

First of all, your theory that murdering the neighbors in order to hurt Nick makes no sense. If he was hurt by that, the viewers weren't clued in. I recall it came up as a home invasion later and even when it did, I don't remember Nick being torn up about it. I don't know maybe there's some portion of script to support what you're stating?

As for the rest, you're wrong. I'm not absolving Juliette of anything. I just don't agree with posters simply embellishing the story and then insisting their version is the one true version either.

---

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

hahahahaha...................I love it. You're just so obsessed.

(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.