(04-04-2019, 06:10 PM)syscrash Wrote: This like other statements only view this event from and emotional point of view. When the showed made it evident the decision was a logical one. Could they have chosen Elizabeth instead of Kelly yes. But that would say Sean could have contacted his mother that quick. It was stated Sean had no way to contact his mother. But more important I have yet to see anyone consider. Elizabeth is in hiding, having a baby would be a problem. that Kelly was able to do it does not mean Elizabeth could. We know nothing about how they survive. They only thing we do know is Kelly has contact with the resistance. We know nothing about who Elizabeth knows.
It is the same argument of why didn't Kelly take Adalind with her. Even if we ignore or assume Kelly got over the reasons why she had problems with Adalind. It would still require being on the run with someone who could put you at risk, even if it was unintentional

AS for the good and bad. I see people are having trouble with the new form of writing action shows. Gone are the days of the hero being the one fighting to truth, justice, and the american way. Watch most shows and the characters are ambiguous. Show are find with having the protagonist being willing to lye, cheat, steal, and kill if for the grater good. But what is even newer is having the protagonist becoming the antagonist only to go back to being the protagonist. I see the reason people have problems with this is they can't get past the logic of needing to reconcile past actions.

(04-05-2019, 07:32 AM)brandon Wrote: Sean could not contact Elizabeth and who else could he trust?
Certainly not in his father's family and would not have entrusted it to the resistance to avoid greater danger.

(04-05-2019, 09:52 AM)brandon Wrote: that's because ?.Because she was killed?

(04-06-2019, 07:20 AM)irukandji Wrote: I'm not talking about Kelly's death. I'm talking about the trust placed in her, which she disregarded.

(04-06-2019, 10:46 AM)N_grimm Wrote: Kelly kept Diana perfectly safe, until Juliette turned into an evil monster and stabbed all her friends in the back. Taking Diana was cruel to Adalind at the time but was portrayed as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good. In retrospect, even Adalind seemed to understand this and was thankful that Kelly kept Diana safe. She even named her son after her.

(04-06-2019, 10:56 AM)irukandji Wrote:

(04-06-2019, 10:46 AM)N_grimm Wrote: Kelly kept Diana perfectly safe, until Juliette turned into an evil monster and stabbed all her friends in the back. Taking Diana was cruel to Adalind at the time but was portrayed as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good. In retrospect, even Adalind seemed to understand this and was thankful that Kelly kept Diana safe. She even named her son after her.

Kelly *volunteered* to keep Diana safe, convincing everyone (with the exception of the most important person, Adalind), that she could do so.

Juliette sent her an email. Kelly had the option to ignore it or followup on it. No one forced her to Nick's doorstep. She made that decision on her own.

As a caveat, I am not saying that Juliette was absolved of evil. What I am saying is that Kelly broke the trust of everyone who agreed to let her take Diana for safekeeping.

So, no, Kelly did not keep Diana perfectly safe because Kelly couldn't stay away.