(11-17-2017, 06:52 PM)irukandji Wrote: Funny, I thought I wrote she wasn't guilty of murder, but was guilty of betrayal.Iruk,
(11-17-2017, 12:54 PM)New Guy Wrote: The factual evidence has been presented. It is irrefutable that the evidence shows Juliette was both an accessory and an accomplice to Kelly's murder.
Well, not so fast on this so called "factual evidence". May I refer you to an earlier post of yours, #350:
""Juliette was never brought to trial, however IMO she fully meets the criteria for both an accessory and an accomplice. As such, she is guilty of Aggravated Murder."""
Your opinion does not equate to factual evidence.
You claim to read posts, but continue to ignore facts and express indefensible opinion. The two legal terms at issue are "Accessory" and "Accomplice." The definitions are available:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona.../accessory
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona...accomplice
Quote:Accessoryand
Aiding or contributing in a secondary way or assisting in or contributing to as a subordinate.
In Criminal Law, contributing to or aiding in the commission of a crime. One who, without being present at the commission of an offense, becomes guilty of such offense, not as a chief actor, but as a participant, as by command, advice, instigation, or concealment; either before or after the fact or commission.
Quote:AccompliceIt is a fact that Juliette "contributed" to the murders. Her email betrayed Kelly to her death. That contribution alone makes her an accessory. In addition, it is a fact that she was present at the crime scene and lured Kelly into the ambush by the phone call. She also was bailed out of jail by Kenneth and promised a new life with the royals for her "contribution." She was in the hotel providing details about the neighbors while the Verrat loaded guns, that is a fact. She not only showed Kenneth around Nick's house but took him upstairs and fornicated him (united with the principal offender) in Nick's bed, fact.
One who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unites with the principal offender in the commission of a crime. One who is in some way concerned or associated in commission of crime; partaker of guilt; one who aids or assists, or is an Accessory. One who is guilty of complicity in crime charged, either by being present and aiding or abetting in it, or having advised and encouraged it, though absent from place when it was committed, though mere presence, Acquiescence, or silence, in the absence of a duty to act, is not enough, no matter how reprehensible it may be, to constitute one an accomplice. One is liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if he or she gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it with the intent thereby to promote or facilitate commission of the crime.
An accomplice may assist or encourage the principal offender with the intent to have the crime committed, the same as the chief actor. An accomplice may or may not be present when the crime is actually committed. However, without sharing the criminal intent, one who is merely present when a crime occurs and stands by silently is not an accomplice, no matter how reprehensible his or her inaction.
Her "contributions" to the murders are irrefutable facts that beyond any reasonable doubt and by their preponderance, prove she was both an accessory and an accomplice to the murders and guilty.
I realize you hold to your unsubstantiated opinion. As such you seem to have no regard for law or justice. You have admitted that Juliette was guilty of betrayal but fail to understand how the betrayal and other verifiable contributions were material and essential to the crime.
In closing, your statement:
Quote:Your opinion does not equate to factual evidence.is particularly inane. The facts I have presented on numerous posts are irrefutable evidence that prove Juliette an accessory and accomplice to the murder of Kelly. It is you Iruk, whose opinion lacks any supportive factual evidence. Your daddy the LEO would be ashamed. Why not come clean and make him proud?
N G