Grimm Forum

You know what I wish, Adriano? That instead of people accusing me of being arrogant, they just ask for clarification about something I typed.

I was not being arrogant, believe me. I was trying to explain something here and I didn't explain it very well. But I don't know that unless someone comes back and asks me.

(03-11-2016, 09:25 AM)Nickster Wrote: [ -> ]I find this question absurd to be honest. Are people really asking this?

If Juliette thought Kenneth would let Kelly walk free after taking Diana in the first place, then she must be either very stupid or delusional.

As annoying she may be, I don't think Juliette is that mentally incompetent not to realise the royals would kill Kelly. After all they killed the neighbours and she helped them do that.

We have evidence that Juliette knew Kelly was going to die. The scene of her sitting in the bedroom, looking all guilty but refusing to save Kelly. She heard Kelly die and didn't do anything about it.

So not only she knew the royals were killing Kelly, she also didn't stop them.

She was one of those people who helped set someone up and let the crime happen. So along with the Royals, Juliette is responsible for Kelly dying.

I've quit posting on this topic. There are a couple of Forum members who simply will not stop flogging this dead horse. Complete waste of time.

(03-10-2016, 07:10 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]Belle you missed the difference in the cases. In the article she was aware they where planing a robbery. Which makes her culpability for what happens different then Juliette's case. Here is the problem with Juliette case. What was the crime she helped plan. In the article the plan was a robbery. In Juliette case it was to retrieve Diana. The first one is most definitely a crime. In Juliette case it is not so clear. The part that makes it really questionable is Kelly kidnapped Diana. Sean never had the authority to give Diana to Kelly. He was never determined the parent plus custodial interference would have prevented his action even with authority. This makes Juliette not part of planing a crime. That is based on US law.
Where she does have a problem is, you are not allowed to resort to self help.
With out the neighbors death. Killing kelly would be self defense. Why? we are in the US. We have a really interesting rule. It is called the castle doctrine. It says someone in your house, and you feel for your life, you have a legal right to blow their brains out. If in Florida it is stand your ground, you don't even have to be in your house. You can walk down the street, if you are in fear for your life you can blow them away aka Zimmerman.

I didn't miss anything. I read Oregon statutes and case law. By luring Kelly into an ambush Juliette is guilty of felony murder, not just for the death of Nick's mother, but also all the neighbors she so readily offered up.
Whether or not Juliette knew in advance that Kenneth planned to slaughter everyone is irrelevant, Juliette should be getting life in prison for her crimes, end of story.

You are beating a dead horse pretty hard at this point because the laws concerning what Juliette did are crystal clear.

(03-11-2016, 09:27 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]You know what I wish, Adriano? That instead of people accusing me of being arrogant, they just ask for clarification about something I typed.

I was not being arrogant, believe me. I was trying to explain something here and I didn't explain it very well. But I don't know that unless someone comes back and asks me.

You right.. I should have asked first... Would you forgive me?

I would like to know to read your thoughts you wish to explain it again....



Note: maybe the word has a more heavy meaning in English than in Portuguese... But certainly I was arrogant when I answered your post interpreting it in way with out asking about it first... I am really sorry...

(03-11-2016, 09:31 AM)wfmyers1207 Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-11-2016, 09:25 AM)Nickster Wrote: [ -> ]I find this question absurd to be honest. Are people really asking this?

If Juliette thought Kenneth would let Kelly walk free after taking Diana in the first place, then she must be either very stupid or delusional.

As annoying she may be, I don't think Juliette is that mentally incompetent not to realise the royals would kill Kelly. After all they killed the neighbours and she helped them do that.

We have evidence that Juliette knew Kelly was going to die. The scene of her sitting in the bedroom, looking all guilty but refusing to save Kelly. She heard Kelly die and didn't do anything about it.

So not only she knew the royals were killing Kelly, she also didn't stop them.

She was one of those people who helped set someone up and let the crime happen. So along with the Royals, Juliette is responsible for Kelly dying.

I've quit posting on this topic. There are a couple of Forum members who simply will not stop flogging this dead horse. Complete waste of time.

I second that.

(03-11-2016, 10:01 AM)Adriano Neres Rodrigues Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-11-2016, 09:27 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]You know what I wish, Adriano? That instead of people accusing me of being arrogant, they just ask for clarification about something I typed.

I was not being arrogant, believe me. I was trying to explain something here and I didn't explain it very well. But I don't know that unless someone comes back and asks me.

You right.. I should have asked first... Would you forgive me?

I would like to know to read your thoughts you wish to explain it again....



Note: maybe the word has a more heavy meaning in English than in Portuguese... But certainly I was arrogant when I answered your post interpreting it in way with out asking about it first... I am really sorry...

There's nothing to forgive, Adriano. What I was trying to say really involved diplomatic immunity, and I got off talking about royalty and the like.

The way I understand diplomatic immunity, it is granted by the country the VIP (very important person) is traveling in. In Frederick's case that would be the US. I don't know a lot about it, but I am assuming that someone like Frederick would have to go through procedures here in the United States to be granted diplomatic status.

I am assuming he did so, because he's rented a mansion, cars, a helicopter. He's not in hidiing, but appearing in public. Again, I am assuming that if someone checked, he could show the proper paperwork to prove was in the US as a diplomat. The same would go for Kenneth.

From watching Grimm, it seems there are people who believe Frederick should be the king and would fight to see that happen. Likewise, there are people who prefer the democratic government and would fight to retain that.

Now, you're correct, Kenneth is not a king. But, he would need some proof that he should be considered a diplomat. Could he reasonably prove to the US government that he actually was trying to restore the monarchy and therefore should be considered a diplomat? If there was conflict going on to restore the monarchy, I think he could.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the US is 100% against Frederick's politics. But he's not coming to the US to promote his politics, he's coming over here to get his granddaughter. Let's also say the US granted him diplomat status. The US could not arrest him or Kenneth for their politics. Could they subsequently charge Kenneth with murder? I think it would get a little tricky there. And what about Juliette? Could she be considered an accomplice? I would have to say if Kenneth were charged, she probably could be charged too.

Conviction, on the other hand, might not ever occur. There are so many variables that took place that evening. For instance, something you brought up before. Did Kelly willingly walk into a trap, knowing she was going to die? That might change things for Juliette.

New Guy also brought up something I think is interesting. In the NBC recaps, Juliette is credited with telling Kelly the "house is safe". However, she did not tell Kelly that in her email. Did she tell her later? If so, was that a warning to Kelly?

Like I said, I think Kelly's plans included a lot more of her people on the premises that night and they didn't show up. So who really betrayed her? Juliette or someone else?

Does that make sense?

(03-11-2016, 10:51 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-11-2016, 10:01 AM)Adriano Neres Rodrigues Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-11-2016, 09:27 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]You know what I wish, Adriano? That instead of people accusing me of being arrogant, they just ask for clarification about something I typed.

I was not being arrogant, believe me. I was trying to explain something here and I didn't explain it very well. But I don't know that unless someone comes back and asks me.

You right.. I should have asked first... Would you forgive me?

I would like to know to read your thoughts you wish to explain it again....



Note: maybe the word has a more heavy meaning in English than in Portuguese... But certainly I was arrogant when I answered your post interpreting it in way with out asking about it first... I am really sorry...

There's nothing to forgive, Adriano. What I was trying to say really involved diplomatic immunity, and I got off talking about royalty and the like.

The way I understand diplomatic immunity, it is granted by the country the VIP (very important person) is traveling in. In Frederick's case that would be the US. I don't know a lot about it, but I am assuming that someone like Frederick would have to go through procedures here in the United States to be granted diplomatic status.

I am assuming he did so, because he's rented a mansion, cars, a helicopter. He's not in hidiing, but appearing in public. Again, I am assuming that if someone checked, he could show the proper paperwork to prove was in the US as a diplomat. The same would go for Kenneth.

From watching Grimm, it seems there are people who believe Frederick should be the king and would fight to see that happen. Likewise, there are people who prefer the democratic government and would fight to retain that.

Now, you're correct, Kenneth is not a king. But, he would need some proof that he should be considered a diplomat. Could he reasonably prove to the US government that he actually was trying to restore the monarchy and therefore should be considered a diplomat? If there was conflict going on to restore the monarchy, I think he could.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the US is 100% against Frederick's politics. But he's not coming to the US to promote his politics, he's coming over here to get his granddaughter. Let's also say the US granted him diplomat status. The US could not arrest him or Kenneth for their politics. Could they subsequently charge Kenneth with murder? I think it would get a little tricky there. And what about Juliette? Could she be considered an accomplice? I would have to say if Kenneth were charged, she probably could be charged too.

Conviction, on the other hand, might not ever occur. There are so many variables that took place that evening. For instance, something you brought up before. Did Kelly willingly walk into a trap, knowing she was going to die? That might change things for Juliette.

New Guy also brought up something I think is interesting. In the NBC recaps, Juliette is credited with telling Kelly the "house is safe". However, she did not tell Kelly that in her email. Did she tell her later? If so, was that a warning to Kelly?

Like I said, I think Kelly's plans included a lot more of her people on the premises that night and they didn't show up. So who really betrayed her? Juliette or someone else?

Does that make sense?

Irukandji,
Cut and paste for future reference, Hexenette's betrayal email, verbatim:

Quote:From: <Juliette>

To: [email protected]

Kelly,

Nick’s in trouble. If you don’t come, he may be killed. The house is safe.

Juliette

…. {reply}

On my way.

Your post says:

Quote:New Guy also brought up something I think is interesting. In the NBC recaps, Juliette is credited with telling Kelly the "house is safe". However, she did not tell Kelly that in her email. Did she tell her later? If so, was that a warning to Kelly?

Not so. Please replay the scene. I am confident the above is verbatim. It irrefutably includes "The house is safe."

Would not a "warning" indicate danger? Per Merriam Webster:

Quote:Simple Definition of safe

: not able or likely to be hurt or harmed in any way : not in danger

: not able or likely to be lost, taken away, or given away

: not involving or likely to involve danger, harm, or loss

Do you find something to rebut?

New Guy

(03-11-2016, 10:51 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]There's nothing to forgive, Adriano. What I was trying to say really involved diplomatic immunity, and I got off talking about royalty and the like.

The way I understand diplomatic immunity, it is granted by the country the VIP (very important person) is traveling in. In Frederick's case that would be the US. I don't know a lot about it, but I am assuming that someone like Frederick would have to go through procedures here in the United States to be granted diplomatic status.

I am assuming he did so, because he's rented a mansion, cars, a helicopter. He's not in hidiing, but appearing in public. Again, I am assuming that if someone checked, he could show the proper paperwork to prove was in the US as a diplomat. The same would go for Kenneth.

From watching Grimm, it seems there are people who believe Frederick should be the king and would fight to see that happen. Likewise, there are people who prefer the democratic government and would fight to retain that.

Now, you're correct, Kenneth is not a king. But, he would need some proof that he should be considered a diplomat. Could he reasonably prove to the US government that he actually was trying to restore the monarchy and therefore should be considered a diplomat? If there was conflict going on to restore the monarchy, I think he could.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the US is 100% against Frederick's politics. But he's not coming to the US to promote his politics, he's coming over here to get his granddaughter. Let's also say the US granted him diplomat status. The US could not arrest him or Kenneth for their politics. Could they subsequently charge Kenneth with murder? I think it would get a little tricky there. And what about Juliette? Could she be considered an accomplice? I would have to say if Kenneth were charged, she probably could be charged too.

Conviction, on the other hand, might not ever occur. There are so many variables that took place that evening. For instance, something you brought up before. Did Kelly willingly walk into a trap, knowing she was going to die? That might change things for Juliette.

New Guy also brought up something I think is interesting. In the NBC recaps, Juliette is credited with telling Kelly the "house is safe". However, she did not tell Kelly that in her email. Did she tell her later? If so, was that a warning to Kelly?

Like I said, I think Kelly's plans included a lot more of her people on the premises that night and they didn't show up. So who really betrayed her? Juliette or someone else?

Does that make sense?

Yes... It make sense now.

I am not a law specialist. So my information not be accurate, ok? And I will type considering Brazilian law that it was what I read about. I think in this case USA should almost the same because it is based on international agreements.
I will start with a real life situation.
Recently Israel assigned a new ambassador to represent Israel in Brazil. Brazil rejected the person (not Israel but the person chosen) because this person was related with Israel settlement police in Palestinian territories. It was a way of protest. I am not talking about foreign politics here. My point is that as the ambassador was not accepted he couldn’t come to Brazil and Israel should a new person (I don’t know if it was done). My point: the diplomatic privileges will exist only when both sides agree.
So, even if Frederick was a VIP in his land, USA would have to accept the diplomatic immunity. It is not automatic. I think it is automatic only when it comes to government leaders. I mean… President, vice-president, royals (the official ones like in England), state ministers (like Ashton Carter, if google didn’t lie to me…. The Secretary of Defense (SecDef) of USA) and so on. People out of this group the immunity is not automatic. At least according to Brazilian laws (again, I think USA should be close to that because Brazilian law follow Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), as far as I know).
Considering this in grimm. Frederick is not official king. This way he has no diplomatic immunity and neither his family has. Being VIP doesn’t grant automatic diplomatic immunity (being clearly… I am not sure because I am not specialist, but as far as I have read this is the way it works). Can his county ask for this? Maybe yes but USA can refuse to accept.
Now something I found out today. Let’s suppose Kenneth has diplomatic immunity. According to Brazilian law Juliette would be charged because Kenneth was immune but Juliette no. So I think the same goes in USA.
Even Kenneth would be investigated and prosecuted. The documents against him would be used to ask his country permission to go with the process until the end. It is also possible that the process is sent to the origin country so Kenneth would be judged and then arrested there if it was the case. Diplomatic immunity means that Kenneth can’t be judge and arrested in USA (or Brazil, as I am using Brazilian law as base) at least until his origin country give permission for this.
This means that legally there were still means for a legal process against Kenneth and against Frederick even if they have diplomatic immunity.
Note about a situation: you wrote about Frederick fighting to restore monarchy and if it could be used to ask for diplomatic immunity. This is tricky because I think that if USA accepts to give Frederick diplomatic immunity USA would in a certain way validating his fight against the democratic official government. It is not just about the immunity.
Note about Frederick renting mansions and so on. The royal family is very rich with companies and so on. Like Mark Zuckerberg. He certainly can go to lot countries almost as a diplomat since he has money and the countries want him to invest his money there. But that doesn’t mean Zuckerberg has legally granted diplomatic immunity. I see the same situation with Frederick in grimm. He certainly is received in many places almost as a king. But that doesn’t mean he has legally granted diplomatic immunity.

Just to be clear: I am not a specialist in international laws, but I am very curious. This is what I think how things work. I also think that is how the show runners deal with the royals in the show. If the royals were like diplomats in the show, the death king in the show would be cared by US government. It didn’t happen. The same goes to Kenneth. If he was a diplomat (or an official royal) his death would be properly investigated. Another example: Sean killed a cousin in season one. The investigation was done by Nick and Hank (if I am not wrong). If that royal was diplomatic immune certainly his death would be investigated by FBI or someone higher.


About kelly.
If she was working with someone there are just two options: resistance and HW. The resistance traded the king death to have Diana. This is what was being said. HW wanted Juliette hexanbiest. Both groups have reasons to betray Kelly to get to their objectives.
Conclusion: You are right: someone else betrayed Kelly.

(03-11-2016, 10:51 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-11-2016, 10:01 AM)Adriano Neres Rodrigues Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-11-2016, 09:27 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]You know what I wish, Adriano? That instead of people accusing me of being arrogant, they just ask for clarification about something I typed.

I was not being arrogant, believe me. I was trying to explain something here and I didn't explain it very well. But I don't know that unless someone comes back and asks me.

You right.. I should have asked first... Would you forgive me?

I would like to know to read your thoughts you wish to explain it again....



Note: maybe the word has a more heavy meaning in English than in Portuguese... But certainly I was arrogant when I answered your post interpreting it in way with out asking about it first... I am really sorry...

There's nothing to forgive, Adriano. What I was trying to say really involved diplomatic immunity, and I got off talking about royalty and the like.

The way I understand diplomatic immunity, it is granted by the country the VIP (very important person) is traveling in. In Frederick's case that would be the US. I don't know a lot about it, but I am assuming that someone like Frederick would have to go through procedures here in the United States to be granted diplomatic status.

I am assuming he did so, because he's rented a mansion, cars, a helicopter. He's not in hidiing, but appearing in public. Again, I am assuming that if someone checked, he could show the proper paperwork to prove was in the US as a diplomat. The same would go for Kenneth.

From watching Grimm, it seems there are people who believe Frederick should be the king and would fight to see that happen. Likewise, there are people who prefer the democratic government and would fight to retain that.

Now, you're correct, Kenneth is not a king. But, he would need some proof that he should be considered a diplomat. Could he reasonably prove to the US government that he actually was trying to restore the monarchy and therefore should be considered a diplomat? If there was conflict going on to restore the monarchy, I think he could.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the US is 100% against Frederick's politics. But he's not coming to the US to promote his politics, he's coming over here to get his granddaughter. Let's also say the US granted him diplomat status. The US could not arrest him or Kenneth for their politics. Could they subsequently charge Kenneth with murder? I think it would get a little tricky there. And what about Juliette? Could she be considered an accomplice? I would have to say if Kenneth were charged, she probably could be charged too.

Conviction, on the other hand, might not ever occur. There are so many variables that took place that evening. For instance, something you brought up before. Did Kelly willingly walk into a trap, knowing she was going to die? That might change things for Juliette.

New Guy also brought up something I think is interesting. In the NBC recaps, Juliette is credited with telling Kelly the "house is safe". However, she did not tell Kelly that in her email. Did she tell her later? If so, was that a warning to Kelly?

Like I said, I think Kelly's plans included a lot more of her people on the premises that night and they didn't show up. So who really betrayed her? Juliette or someone else?

Does that make sense?

The case would be by treaty who has diplomatic status. Have no idea what Austria and U.S. have as far a this. This King like anyone could simply use a passport. What was said about Eric in S2E22 and S3E1 that may be the answer, I don't remember the statement but do remember hearing something about the status in some way, but again I could be wrong as it be a while I'll have to rewatch unless someone remembers what if anything was said about Eric and his plane.

But again Eric may have had a role in Austria's gov. that the king may not have had as he was running things day to day. So Eric could be a different case.

NEW Guy

Quote:After the murder of Kelly the script of the car scene (emphasis added):
Quote:
Scene: Kenneth, Juliette, and Diana are in the car after leaving the house, as Kenneth talks to Rispoli on the phone.

Rispoli: Burkhardt is in the house.
Kenneth: Kill him.
Rispoli: He's not alone. There are two people with him.
Kenneth: Doesn't matter, kill them all. [He hangs up. To Juliette] You're good with children. She's rather taken with you.

That is after the fact. has nothing to do with before hand knowledge. It was never in dispute that after Kelly was killed Kenneth talked about killing. The fact the Kelly was dead make that evident. The question was did Juliette knew they WHERE going to kill Kelly. Not DOES SHE KNOW. Even you comment says after. You entire position is, because we see the results and then Kenneth talks about killing. You assume they must have had that conversation before hand. That is where I see the problem you are assuming. Could be because that is what you would do. In the show if that was the case they would have told us. Instead they told us the opposite. They said "I did not know" that is a direct statement.