+- 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: Hexenbiestdom (/Thread-Hexenbiestdom)
RE: Hexenbiestdom - irukandji - 11-01-2018
(11-01-2018, 04:31 AM)Henry of green Wrote:(11-01-2018, 04:28 AM)irukandji Wrote:(10-31-2018, 09:34 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Juliette didn't just send Kelly email. She also provided Kenneth with intel on the neighbors, and from the second floor of the house acted as Kenneth's spotter as Kelly approached (she was on the phone with him right up until Kelly entered the house). These were active roles in the home invasions of the neighbors and in Kelly's ambush.
Commit any felony violation of the law and a resulting death is felony murder, regardless of intent or prior knowledge. It's not first degree or aggravated, but it's still called murder in Oregon.
Oh, and Juliette is indeed shown listening to the ambush from the upstairs. We hear growling, a woman crying out and a child crying.
I know she provided intel on the neighbors. Henry wasn't talking about that. He was specifically referring to Kelly.
All I am saying is that the audience saw nothing that conclusively tied her to the murders. She gave information on the neighbors to Kenneth. That's as far as it went. There was no discussion between Kenneth and Juliette where Kenneth specifically outlined how he was going to murder the neighbors.
You can assume it. You can assume Juliette had to know, you can assume anything you want regarding that information. It still comes down to there's no conclusive proof. It's also not a crime to give out information on your neighbors. A little perusing on the internet would have probably gotten him much more.
I totally agree that Juliette was listening upstairs. We saw that. I don't recall her telling Kenneth on the phone that Kelly was coming, but if you say so, then she did.
Did she know the precise exact moment when Kelly was murdered? I don't know how without seeing it with her own eyes.
I'm not saying Juliette was innocent. She's not. I was merely pointing out that what henry stated was a lot of speculation and some of it was not correct.
Kelly is attacked and screams merely minutes or even seconds after Kelly is lured into the house via phone by Juliette no speculation needed it was all on screen all of it was correct unlike you I don’t make things up from thin air. Go rewatch the episode.
Tell me what they did to her, henry. What did you see?
RE: Hexenbiestdom - dicappatore - 11-01-2018
(11-01-2018, 04:31 AM)Henry of green Wrote:(11-01-2018, 04:28 AM)irukandji Wrote:(10-31-2018, 09:34 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Juliette didn't just send Kelly email. She also provided Kenneth with intel on the neighbors, and from the second floor of the house acted as Kenneth's spotter as Kelly approached (she was on the phone with him right up until Kelly entered the house). These were active roles in the home invasions of the neighbors and in Kelly's ambush.
Commit any felony violation of the law and a resulting death is felony murder, regardless of intent or prior knowledge. It's not first degree or aggravated, but it's still called murder in Oregon.
Oh, and Juliette is indeed shown listening to the ambush from the upstairs. We hear growling, a woman crying out and a child crying.
I know she provided intel on the neighbors. Henry wasn't talking about that. He was specifically referring to Kelly.
All I am saying is that the audience saw nothing that conclusively tied her to the murders. She gave information on the neighbors to Kenneth. That's as far as it went. There was no discussion between Kenneth and Juliette where Kenneth specifically outlined how he was going to murder the neighbors.
You can assume it. You can assume Juliette had to know, you can assume anything you want regarding that information. It still comes down to there's no conclusive proof. It's also not a crime to give out information on your neighbors. A little perusing on the internet would have probably gotten him much more.
I totally agree that Juliette was listening upstairs. We saw that. I don't recall her telling Kenneth on the phone that Kelly was coming, but if you say so, then she did.
Did she know the precise exact moment when Kelly was murdered? I don't know how without seeing it with her own eyes.
I'm not saying Juliette was innocent. She's not. I was merely pointing out that what henry stated was a lot of speculation and some of it was not correct.
Kelly is attacked and screams merely minutes or even seconds after Kelly is lured into the house via phone by Juliette no speculation needed it was all on screen all of it was correct unlike you I don’t make things up from thin air. Go rewatch the episode.
Henry, how dare you state, what you said is not what someone else said, what you said. How dare you contradict what someone says you said, with what you actually said. How dare you not allow others to put words in your mouth by claiming what you did say. How dare YOU!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLO4Qnv1IS8
(10-31-2018, 10:13 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Although you could certainly argue that Juliette should have known murders would take place, in order to establish premeditation it would be required to prove she actually did know. Since you can't read someone's mind, that can be hard to do when involvement in a killing isn't hands on.
With such a legal mind you claim to have. Did you ever hear this line in Latin?. "Ignorantia juris non excusat".
You should really look that up. I think it is also practiced in the State of Oregon Criminal and Civil code.
(11-01-2018, 04:38 AM)irukandji Wrote:(11-01-2018, 04:31 AM)Henry of green Wrote:(11-01-2018, 04:28 AM)irukandji Wrote:(10-31-2018, 09:34 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: Juliette didn't just send Kelly email. She also provided Kenneth with intel on the neighbors, and from the second floor of the house acted as Kenneth's spotter as Kelly approached (she was on the phone with him right up until Kelly entered the house). These were active roles in the home invasions of the neighbors and in Kelly's ambush.
Commit any felony violation of the law and a resulting death is felony murder, regardless of intent or prior knowledge. It's not first degree or aggravated, but it's still called murder in Oregon.
Oh, and Juliette is indeed shown listening to the ambush from the upstairs. We hear growling, a woman crying out and a child crying.
I know she provided intel on the neighbors. Henry wasn't talking about that. He was specifically referring to Kelly.
All I am saying is that the audience saw nothing that conclusively tied her to the murders. She gave information on the neighbors to Kenneth. That's as far as it went. There was no discussion between Kenneth and Juliette where Kenneth specifically outlined how he was going to murder the neighbors.
You can assume it. You can assume Juliette had to know, you can assume anything you want regarding that information. It still comes down to there's no conclusive proof. It's also not a crime to give out information on your neighbors. A little perusing on the internet would have probably gotten him much more.
I totally agree that Juliette was listening upstairs. We saw that. I don't recall her telling Kenneth on the phone that Kelly was coming, but if you say so, then she did.
Did she know the precise exact moment when Kelly was murdered? I don't know how without seeing it with her own eyes.
I'm not saying Juliette was innocent. She's not. I was merely pointing out that what henry stated was a lot of speculation and some of it was not correct.
Kelly is attacked and screams merely minutes or even seconds after Kelly is lured into the house via phone by Juliette no speculation needed it was all on screen all of it was correct unlike you I don’t make things up from thin air. Go rewatch the episode.
Tell me what they did to her, henry. What did you see?
As if you do, would make any difference? lolz
RE: Hexenbiestdom - FaceInTheCrowd - 11-01-2018
Yes, it means ignorance of the law is no excuse. That's not the same thing as ignorance of the actual consequences of your actions. You can't kill someone and claim you didn't know that homicide was against the law. You can claim that you didn't know that something you did was going to lead to someone's death. Then it's up to the prosecution to convince a jury that you're lying and that you actually did know, or to let you plead guilty to a lesser, non-premeditated form of homicide. The latter is the more common. 95% of all criminal charges never go to trial because they're plea bargained.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - Hell Rell - 11-01-2018
I'm going to talk about what the audience knew and nothing more. Adalind hired the assassin and Juliette lured Kelly back to Portland. It's just a difference of opinion on to which degree we hold them responsible.
Adalind, along with Renard, hired the assassin after failing to kill Marie herself. Some posters think what she did was worse and hold her more responsible.
On the other hand, Juliette knowing Kelly would be murdered for certain is never confirmed so some posters see her as not being held accountable for Kelly's death.
Now, I'll just speak for myself. Juliette is just as responsible for Kelly's death as Adalind is for Marie's even though she was never in the room or hired someone to kill Marie herself. I'll try my best to explain why:
Adalind is responsible for Marie's death but she was just a cog. Marie was going to have people coming to that hospital to kill her regardless of Adalind. Renard would'be made sure of it. He's the main reason Marie was targeted for death and he really didn't need to rely on Adalind.
Juliette may have been a cog as well whom can claim ignorance and wasn't the one driving the bus but she is the primary reason Kelly, along with the neighbors, were killed by Kenneth and co. Kelly wouldn't have been found and lured back to Portland, let alone brutally murdered, if it weren't for Juliette. It wasn't even like she was threatened to do these things. She willingly lured Kelly back and gave out information about her neighbors. Juliette also knew an ambush was about to take place. She is largely responsible for everything that happened afterwards. The neighbors wouldn't have been killed if Kelly were not lured back to town. None of this could've happened without Juliette doing this of her own free will.
I'm not a juror so I'm not talking about how things would go down in a court of law. If that were the case, plenty of the criminals on this show would've walked free.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - FaceInTheCrowd - 11-01-2018
The problem with this topic is that people keep asking questions about laws and charges and then bouncing off the walls and ceilings when the answers don't match their perceptions of what constitutes "justice."
Law is not the same thing as justice. That's in the lecture that all first year law students have to sit through on their first day. Just Google "law vs justice."
RE: Hexenbiestdom - N_grimm - 11-01-2018
To be fear, Juliette did say to Nick (before she tried to kill him), that she did not know Kenneth would kill Nick’s mother - only take Diana. But to believe her, one must assume she is a moron. What did she expect them to do? Take Diana and invite Kelly in for a cup of tea? Given what we know about Juliette’s actions and the storyline in the hours and days leading up to the murder, one must be blind and deaf to believe that she did not expect and even want Kelly to be killed.
Juliette had already tried to kill Monroe and Adalind, threatened to kill Nick's unborn son, before trying to kill Nick. Eve also admits to Trouble that she would have killed her if she had got the change. If Kenneth had not killed Kelly, Juliette probably would!
Juliette would need a good lawyer if she where to convince the court that she did not expect Kelly to be killed. Why did Kenneth need so many armed wesen? Why did Juliette not try to help when Kelly is attacked and starts screaming? Whether she expected Kelly to be killed or just badly injured does not change much.
(11-01-2018, 04:28 AM)irukandji Wrote: I was merely pointing out that what henry stated was a lot of speculation and some of it was not correct.
WHAT? This comes from someone who rejects all proven canon facts by claiming they only opinions and speculations?
RE: Hexenbiestdom - brandon - 11-01-2018
I do not doubt the guilt of Juliette.
An innocent person will say he did not know but a guilty person will also.
The worst murderers do not usually admit that they are guilty.
RE: Hexenbiestdom - FaceInTheCrowd - 11-01-2018
(11-01-2018, 10:07 AM)N_grimm Wrote: Juliette would need a good lawyer if she where to convince the court that she did not expect Kelly to be killed.
Not how it works. Prosecution has to prove that she did. Google "burden of proof."
RE: Hexenbiestdom - dicappatore - 11-01-2018
(11-01-2018, 09:31 AM)Hell Rell Wrote: I'm going to talk about what the audience knew and nothing more. Adalind hired the assassin and Juliette lured Kelly back to Portland. It's just a difference of opinion on to which degree we hold them responsible.
Adalind, along with Renard, hired the assassin after failing to kill Marie herself. some posters think what she did was worse and hold her more responsible.
On the other hand, Juliette knowing Kelly would be murdered for certain is never confirmed so some posters see her as not being held accountable for Kelly's death.
Now, I'll just speak for myself. Juliette is just as responsible for Kelly's death as Adalind is for Marie's even though she was never in the room or hired someone to kill Marie herself. I'll try my best to explain why:
Adalind is responsible for Marie's death but she was just a cog. Marie was going to have people coming to that hospital to kill her regardless of Adalind. Renard would'be made sure of it. He's the main reason Marie was targeted for death and he really didn't need to rely on Adalind.
Juliette may have been a cog as well whom can claim ignorance and wasn't the one driving the bus but she is the primary reason Kelly, along with the neighbors, were killed by Kenneth and co. Kelly wouldn't have been found and lured back to Portland, let alone brutally murdered, if it weren't for Juliette. It wasn't even like she was threatened to do these things. She willingly lured Kelly back and gave out information about her neighbors. Juliette also knew an ambush was about to take place. She is largely responsible for everything that happened afterwards. The neighbors wouldn't have been killed if Kelly were not lured back to town. None of this could've happened without Juliette doing this of her own free will.
I'm not a juror so I'm not talking about how things would go down in a court of law. If that were tbe case, plenty of the criminals on this show would've walked free.
The point I am trying to make to this Mr. Legal Scholar, Mr. writers intent and the wacka-doodle they don't seem to get. Adalind did not lure Marie to Portland. Adalind did attempt.
Juliette was all-in the organization that committed the crime. She might not know what the outcome was going to be but she knew exactly what she was doing when she sent the email, left the door open and told Kelly it was safe to come. She was on the planning Committee. Adalind did not make the plans for Marie to be in a Portland hospital.
I might not convince these warped minds. But the majority doesn't buy that version. They are in the minority, which reflects what would happen on a jury trial and the same opinion would be in the minority. Juliette would be found guilty, at best, a hung jury.
I never claimed Adalind would get away with what she did. The problem is when they make the veracity of what Juliette did was less than what Adalind did.
(11-01-2018, 10:27 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote:(11-01-2018, 10:07 AM)N_grimm Wrote: Juliette would need a good lawyer if she where to convince the court that she did not expect Kelly to be killed.
Not how it works. Prosecution has to prove that she did. Google "burden of proof."
So, now we are back to What we saw does not count? Again?
RE: Hexenbiestdom - FaceInTheCrowd - 11-01-2018
If we're throwing lawyers into the discussion? Then yes, what we saw doesn't count. How many times have you seen news reports about juries acquitting people for things you actually saw them do on video?
There are three separate topics being mixed up here: what people did, what they can be charged with and what a jury would be likely to convict them for. The chances of all three being the same thing are practically non-existent.