Kennedy clan´s history

[Liebling:-)))]

I create a new thread to separate Jolie_77´s thread over Ted´s health issue to respect her.

http://www.alldeaf.com/current-even...y-has-malignant-brain-tumor-4.html#post987075

We can discuss anything about all Kennedy clan´s history... where they have experience with women like Mary Jo, Marilyn Moore, etc. etc. etc. etc.

 

[Oceanbreeze]

Hmmmmm. Not exactly the history of events as I remember them. Mary Jo Kopechne's family did seek answers which were not forthcoming, until they suddenly became quite well-to-do. Inquiries into the Chappaquiddick incident quickly became dead ends. "Accident" is the convenient euphemism for "crash," but doesn't change that Ted Kennedy got away with a homicide.

It's funny how partisan blinders encourage "forgive and forget" without even knowing full facts on one hand while demanding the full measure of culpability on the other based on partisan rhetoric alone. That's not logic or compassion; that's inequity and injustice.

I'm sorry for Ted Kennedy . . . on several levels.

Actually, I was a baby when Chappaquiddick went down, so I don't know that much about it. I did google and learned some facts of the case. From what I learned, Kennedy was never charged with any crime beyond leaving the scene of a crime, and that is what I based my opinion on. If he was charged with manslaughter or murder, I could understand some people's feelings, but even then, to be so harsh as to say or imply that he deserves brain cancer, in my opinion is a bit harsh.

 

[Chase]

Quote: Originally Posted by Liebling))
There´re no situation comparison between Mary Jo and Nicole & Ron because they are total different.

Just so you know, in argument (not bickering but civil discussion) there are two accepted forms of comparison. It's the same for English and German. One is point-by-point comparison you mention. The other is analogy, signaled by "as," "like," or "rather than."

In analogy, the explanation is in the similarity of a few salient points. The reason I didn't choose point-by-point is obvious. For instance, Los Angeles is in California; Chappaquiddick is in Maine; different laws apply. Ron and Nicole were aggressively cut; Mary Jo was negligently left to drown (or suffocate, that part of the record isn't clear, either).

However, the false claim that one is the other is just another form of begging the question--to avoid the issue and misdirect. That's the false argument here.


Quote: Originally Posted by Liebling)) Ted accept his responsibly for the death of Mary Jo which OJ doesn´t.

If you call accepting responsibility pleading "no contest" to watered down criminal decisions, then OJ also accepted the legal decision of a jury in criminal court "not Guilty." This is much closer to point-by-point comparison.

Another is I think both men in "accept his responsibilty" are examples of blatant miscarriages of justice.

 

[jillio]

I see . . . like OJ's free due to a travisty of justice, and it's disrespectful to Nicole's and Ron's families to bring it up?

It's an eye-opener to see the extent that party lines can warp otherwise fair minds.

Different situation. Nicole's and Ron's families sought retribution through the civil courts. They obviously spoke out against the injustice. Mary Jo's family chose not to. One family kept the incident alive, the other chose to put it to rest. It has absolutely nothing to do with political party. It is about respecting the way a family chose to deal with their loss.

 

[jillio]

Disagree, 3 victims are dead, no hard justice for either of those 3, and both murders are still living out on the streets, so yea they are so similar alike.

Ted has to accept the responsible because he was the driver.

And such is the nature of the justice system. You cannot take the law into your own hands and seek justice for something that you are not even directly involved in.

Nor do you have any knowledge of whether he has accepted responsibility on a personal level for the tragedy, as you do not have a special insight into the man's mind and heart.

 

[jillio]

Quote: Originally Posted by Liebling))
There´re no situation comparison between Mary Jo and Nicole & Ron because they are total different.

Just so you know, in argument (not bickering but civil discussion) there are two accepted forms of comparison. It's the same for English and German. One is point-by-point comparison you mention. The other is analogy, signaled by "as," "like," or "rather than."

In analogy, the explanation is in the similarity of a few salient points. The reason I didn't choose point-by-point is obvious. For instance, Los Angeles is in California; Chappaquiddick is in Maine; different laws apply. Ron and Nicole were aggressively cut; Mary Jo was negligently left to drown (or suffocate, that part of the record isn't clear, either).

However, the false claim that one is the other is just another form of begging the question--to avoid the issue and misdirect. That's the false argument here.


Quote: Originally Posted by Liebling)) Ted accept his responsibly for the death of Mary Jo which OJ doesn´t.

If you call accepting responsibility pleading "no contest" to watered down criminal decisions, then OJ also accepted the legal decision of a jury in criminal court "not Guilty." This is much closer to point-by-point comparison.

Another is I think both men in "accept his responsibilty" are examples of blatant miscarriages of justice.

And such is the nature of our criminal justice system. The blatant miscarraiges of justice are a common occurrance, and evidence of the fact that justice is served, in out system, not always dependent upon guilt or innocence, but on having the financial means to obtain a good attorney.

 

[Chase]

And such is the nature of our criminal justice system. The blatant miscarraiges of justice are a common occurrance, and evidence of the fact that justice is served, in out system, not always dependent upon guilt or innocence, but on having the financial means to obtain a good attorney.

Agreed. Another comparison of the two cases in point-by-point.

Had both been required to use city or county defense attorneys, they might both have gotten the chair, rope, gas, needle -- whatever was the method du jour.

On a journalist's assignment, it soon become evident that the entire show is musical chairs. Defense attorneys were once prosecuting attorneys or will soon be. Judges are merely graduates of either pool moving up through city to country to state benches. Before and after each performance, they're all big buddies. Who was where was mostly a matter of current political affiliation.

Not in my lifetime, even though our legal system is one of the beat, I hope someday there's a better way.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Reba´s post from other thread

I don't know that they were satisfied. Maybe they were afraid or intimidated or gullible or paid off. They're dead now, so we'll never know.

AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - Doctors: Ted Kennedy has malignant brain tumor

I don´t think so.

Do you remember John Kennedy Jr., his wife Carolyn and her sister Lauren were being killed by plane crash? Carolyn & Lauren´s parents filed the lawsuit against Kennedy for million for the loss of their 2 daughters because John ignored weather warning in first place. Why should Mary Jo´s parents were afraid or whatever?

Reba´s post

No one did that. The parents are dead, and Mary Jo was an only child, so there were no siblings to take up the cause.

It could be that Mary Jo have relatives who know them? They would bring this subject up but they doesn´t. ?

 

[jillio]

AllDeaf.com - View Single Post - Doctors: Ted Kennedy has malignant brain tumor

I don´t think so.

Do you remember John Kennedy Jr., his wife Carolyn and her sister Lauren were being killed by plane crash? Carolyn & Lauren´s parents filed the lawsuit against Kennedy for million for the loss of their 2 daughters because John ignored weather warning in first place. Why should Mary Jo´s parents were afraid or whatever?



It could be that Mary Jo have relatives who know them? They would bring this subject up but they doesn´t. ?

Mary Jo's parents were not dead at the thime of the incident. They had the opportunity to pursue civil recourse at that time. The statue of limitations for civil action is limited. They allowed that time period to pass without action. It was their daughter and their decision. Had they wanted help with seeking justice, they had the opportunity to ask for assistance at that time. I do not recall them ever requesting that the public take up the cause for them. Perhaps they prefered to deal with this as a private matter within their family. That is their right to do so.

Attempting to play arm chair quarterback at this point in time is totally unproductive, and serves no purpose.

 

[Chase]

Attempting to play arm chair quarterback at this point in time is totally unproductive, and serves no purpose.

Actually, it drives to the heart of this amended thread. An armchair quarterback implies a frivolous, unprofessional critic, but ranking police investigators and crime reporters were skeptical of the odd responses by the Kopechne family. "No comment" was their right, but it didn't answer hard questions.

Those unanswered questions will surface again (not just here) as those who remember serve as counter-points to political soft soap in the hogwash.

 

[jillio]

Actually, it drives to the heart of this amended thread. An armchair quarterback implies a frivolous, unprofessional critic, but ranking police investigators and crime reporters were skeptical of the odd responses by the Kopechne family. "No comment" was their right, but it didn't answer hard questions.

Those unanswered questions will surface again (not just here) as those who remember serve as counter-points to political soft soap in the hogwash.

I wasn't aware that any participating in this thread were ranking police investigators or crime reporters participating in the investigation at the time. Therefore, speculation falls into the category of arm-chair quarter backing, especially as it applies to Mary Jo's family's concept of whether justice was served to their satisfaction.

 

[jillio]

It has also ben speculated that JFK was directly involved inthe death of Marilyn Monroe. However, as both are dead, to what end does speculation lead?

Mary Jo is dead. Her remaining family members are dead. If the progression of Ted Kennedy's disease follows its usual course, he will soon be dead. Unless we plan to prosecute him in the next few days, speculation regarding what might have occurred and the way in which justice could have been better served in this particular case is useless.

If one wishes to celebrate the death of Ted Kennedy based on the assumption that his life was undeserved, then one could at least wait until he is in the grave to do so.

 

[Reba]

Do you remember John Kennedy Jr., his wife Carolyn and her sister Lauren were being killed by plane crash? Carolyn & Lauren´s parents filed the lawsuit against Kennedy for million for the loss of their 2 daughters because John ignored weather warning in first place. Why should Mary Jo´s parents were afraid or whatever?

Remember, I posted that they lived in a different era, in different circumstances?

It could be that Mary Jo have relatives who know them? They would bring this subject up but they doesn´t?

Do you know any of her relatives? I don't.

 

[Reba]

...If one wishes to celebrate the death of Ted Kennedy based on the assumption that his life was undeserved, then one could at least wait until he is in the grave to do so.

I don't see anyone celebrating the death of Kennedy.

Just because someone has brain cancer it doesn't make him an untouchable saint deserving of honor. A terminal illness doesn't whisk away the past.

 

[jillio]

I don't see anyone celebrating the death of Kennedy.

Just because someone has brain cancer it doesn't make him an untouchable saint deserving of honor. A terminal illness doesn't whisk away the past.

Nor does it make him a parriah deserving of a total lack of empathy.

"At least he got to live to a ripe old age, which is more than poor Mary Jo Kopechne ever got to do."
Your quote says it all.

 

[~SG~]

Mod's note:

I have moved couple of last posts from Doctors: Ted Kennedy has malignant brain tumor to here.

 

[Cheri]

I don't see anyone celebrating the death of Kennedy.

Agreed; I don't know why some jumped the gun and assume the worst. :roll:

 

[jillio]

"At least he got to live to a ripe old age, which is more than poor Mary Jo Kopechne ever got to do."

As stated prior, perhaps this quote from another post reagarding the topic will explain it all. It is entirely without empathy, and seeks to distract from the issue of his health. It would appear to say, "So what. He desreves what he gets."

 

[Reba]

Nor does it make him a parriah deserving of a total lack of empathy.

"At least he got to live to a ripe old age, which is more than poor Mary Jo Kopechne ever got to do."
Your quote says it all.

My quote says that he enjoyed a long life, whereas Mary Jo's life was cut short. Is that not true? I've read many posts, in many threads here where people refer to the long lives that people led before dying in contrast to people who tragically died young.

 

[Reba]

"At least he got to live to a ripe old age, which is more than poor Mary Jo Kopechne ever got to do."

As stated prior, perhaps this quote from another post reagarding the topic will explain it all. It is entirely without empathy, and seeks to distract from the issue of his health. It would appear to say, "So what. He desreves what he gets."

I never said that he deserved to get cancer. I wish that he didn't have cancer. Apparently it just makes him unjustifiably more "heroic" in the eyes of many people.

So, for the umpteenth time, I will state, "I NEVER SAID THAT TED KENNEDY 'DESERVED' TO GET CANCER, AND I NEVER CELEBRATED THE FACT THAT HE GOT CANCER."

It's too bad that people can't show more "empathy" for Mary Jo's tragic death. Gone and forgotten; "move on". Yep.