Kennedy clan´s history

[Liebling:-)))]

Have you forgotten that even though individuals forgave the Nazis, they still had to face justice? Have you forgotten the Nuremberg trials, convictions, sentences, and executions? The Nazi war criminals had to pay their debt to society whether or not the injured parties forgave them.

Remember, Forgive and Forget are not same thing.

 

[Reba]

Remember, Forgive and Forget are not same thing.

You totally missed the point of my reply. Please read it again. It wasn't about forgiving and "forgetting" unless you're referring to the fact that you seem to have forgotten the full story of justice after WWII.

Individual forgiveness is not the same as society's justice. Just because individuals forgive wrong-doers, that doesn't release the wrong-doers from society's justice.

 

[Cheri]

Nobody knows either Mary Jo was drunk or not? She would say no to drunk driver don´t she? None written negative about her but label her fully as an innocoent etc. I guess the reason why the parents of Mary Jo refused to make it to the public? It could be the reason????[/FONT]

You have shown the lack of capacity to think, There is a lot of covering up in this case. It's all about money and power if you're a Kennedy. It's funny how you are defending the actions of Ted's and putting the blame on Mary Jo for getting in the car with an intoxicate, when she did not drove anyone dead, It was Ted.

Ted had never even been held accountable. Talk about her parents, Her parents aren't meant to be parents, because in fact why in the world would the parents refused an autopsy? There was a house right next to the bridge, where Ted Kennedy could have gone for help, but he didn't. Why? I see a man who left a woman to die to save his own ass and didn't phone the police until next morning, shows that he is guilty.

 

[jillio]

Please quit misinterpret our post because nobody here said that she deserved to die but we only agree that it´s her CHOICE and her responsiblity, it does the same with Ted as well. It´s unfair to negative Ted and positive Mary Jo. Get it?

Nobody knows either Mary Jo was drunk or not? She would say no to drunk driver don´t she? None written negative about her but label her fully as an innocoent etc. I guess the reason why the parents of Mary Jo refused to make it to the public? It could be the reason????

It is entirely possible that the reason her parents chose to deal with the issue privately is because they were reasonable enough to understand that she made unfortunate choices that evening, and bears resposnibility for having put herself in the postion she was in. I'm sure they realised that public examination would lead to questions such as, "What was she doing out drinking and socializing with a married man in the wee hours of the morning?"

 

[jillio]

You have shown the lack of capacity to think, There is a lot of covering up in this case. It's all about money and power if you're a Kennedy. It's funny how you are defending the actions of Ted's and putting the blame on Mary Jo for getting in the car with an intoxicate, when she did not drove anyone dead, It was Ted.

Ted had never even been held accountable. Talk about her parents, Her parents aren't meant to be parents, because in fact why in the world would the parents refused an autopsy? There was a house right next to the bridge, where Ted Kennedy could have gone for help, but he didn't. Why? I see a man who left a woman to die to save his own ass and didn't phone the police until next morning, shows that he is guilty.

No one is blaming Mary Jo for anything, but it cannot be denied that she made the decision to be in the company of a married man in the wee hours of the morning. She no doubt was aware of the fact that he had been drinking. She was an adult. She made the decision to be in his company, she made the decision to get in that car, and she made the decision to become the passenger of a driver that had been drinking. She was not a victim.

Ted has been held accountable. He was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, and he was tried on those charges. If you have a problem with that, then your problem is with the way the legal system functions, and the inequities in the application of law, not Ted Kennedy.

Can you be certaint that Ted Kennedy was not in a state of shock following the accident and that is what prevented him thinking and acting clearly and logically? It happens all the time in the case of accident victims. Abandoned cars that have been in accidents are discovered all the time with the drivers no where to be found. They have simply wandered away in a state of shock.

No one is defending Ted Kennedy and blaming Mary Jo. What we are saying is he made the decisions he made that night, and she made the decisions he made that night. If you want him to take personal responsibility for his part, then you have to demand that she take personal responsibility for her part, as well.

And speaking of power and money....could that be the reason that MaryJo was in the company of Ted Kennedy that evening? It isnt the first time that a young woman has been blinded by power and money and made som very unwise decisions thinking she could get a little of that power and money for herself by becoming involved with the man holding the power and mioney, nor is it the first time that a young woman has done so with a married man. Perhaps Mary Jo's motives for being in the car with a married, wealthy, powerful politician that evening were not so pure after all.

But the whole point is, she willingly got in the car with a man who had been drinking in the wee hours of the morning. When you do that, you accept the risks that go along with it. Her parents obviously understood that.

I'm sure that there was a lot of covering up in this case. What you fail to realize is that much of that covering up could have been an attempt by MaryJo's parents to protect her reputation. It is possible that they refused an autopsy because it would have revealed that she, too had been drinking that evening. It could also have shown that she had recently had sexual intercourse with a married man...or worse yet, that she was carrying his child. That would have blown the whole "poor innocent Mary Jo" theory away, now wouldn't it?

Ted Kennedy was prosecuted under the law as it was in 1969. If you don't agree with that prosecution, then that is a problem with the legal system. The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence that Ted Kennedy was over the legal limit. There is no evidence that Mary Jo was not over the legal limit. The case was prosecuted based on the available evidence.

 

[Reba]

... I'm sure they realised that public examination would lead to questions such as, "What was she doing out drinking and socializing with a married man in the wee hours of the morning?"

I'm sure they realized that their daughter's name would be dragged thru the mud if they made a stink about the Kennedy family; they were probably even more aware of that when the Kennedy henchmen crew threat...--oops, I mean reminded them of that possibility.

 

[Reba]

...Can you be certaint that Ted Kennedy was not in a state of shock following the accident and that is what prevented him thinking and acting clearly and logically? It happens all the time in the case of accident victims. Abandoned cars that have been in accidents are discovered all the time with the drivers no where to be found. They have simply wandered away in a state of shock.

He was in so much "shock" that he contacted his lawyers before he reported the accident to the police. Apparently that "shock" spread to his lawyers, too, since they didn't do anything right either.

... Perhaps Mary Jo's motives for being in the car with a married, wealthy, powerful politician that evening were not so pure after all.{/quote]
So? What does that have to do with letting Teddy off the hook?

As a counselor to rape victims, you of all people should know better than to cast aspersions on the victim.

I'm sure that there was a lot of covering up in this case. What you fail to realize is that much of that covering up could have been an attempt by MaryJo's parents to protect her reputation. It is possible that they refused an autopsy because it would have revealed that she, too had been drinking that evening. It could also have shown that she had recently had sexual intercourse with a married man...or worse yet, that she was carrying his child. That would have blown the whole "poor innocent Mary Jo" theory away, now wouldn't it?

It's also possible that the family was intimated by the Kennedy machine, that made sure the family knew that the Kennedys had no limits of what they would do to protect their own.

 

[Oddball]

Well, take a look at jew people who live in Germany and forgave Nazi what and how they did to them. They forgave and move on...

It doesn´t mean that we think less of Mary Jo but we are suppose to talk about Ted´s health, not his past.

I disagree with that. Several Nazi survivors want some justice. Few of former Nazi soldiers have been hunted by the organization. Once they are found, they have to go to the court and charged for that war crimes.

The Jewish Advocate | This Weeks Issue | News

Do you think Nazi survivors would ever forgive them? I highly don't think so.

 

[Oddball]

Hmm... it's the Kennedy Curse.

Bingo!

Kennedy Curse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ted cheated the death three times.

# 2006 - Ted Kennedy was aboard a plane which was struck by lightning and had to be diverted to New Haven, Conn. Senator Kennedy had just delivered the commencement address at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts in North Adams and was on his way to his Cape Cod home when the plane was struck. This, coupled with the aforementioned 1964 plane crash and the 1969 Chappaquiddick incident, makes Ted Kennedy the only Kennedy family member to cheat death three times.

 

[jillio]

He was in so much "shock" that he contacted his lawyers before he reported the accident to the police. Apparently that "shock" spread to his lawyers, too, since they didn't do anything right either.

... Perhaps Mary Jo's motives for being in the car with a married, wealthy, powerful politician that evening were not so pure after all.{/quote]
So? What does that have to do with letting Teddy off the hook?

As a counselor to rape victims, you of all people should know better than to cast aspersions on the victim.

I haven't cast dispersions at all. I am simply pointing out that Mary Jo had some reason for being the car with a married man who had been drinking that night. Something motivated her to make the decision to go willingly with him. A rape victim does not willingly consent to the act perpetrated upon them. Mary Jo made a decision to place herself in a questionable position and as result, was involved in a fatal accident. If you wish for one person to be accountable for their presence and their actions, then you must ask both to be accountable. After all, she wasn't kidnapped and thrown in the river.



It's also possible that the family was intimated by the Kennedy machine, that made sure the family knew that the Kennedys had no limits of what they would do to protect their own.

That is possible as well, but there is nothing to support that. Therefore, it is all speculation. Either scenario is equally as possible.

 

[jillio]

I'm sure they realized that their daughter's name would be dragged thru the mud if they made a stink about the Kennedy family; they were probably even more aware of that when the Kennedy henchmen crew threat...--oops, I mean reminded them of that possibility.

And do you have any kind of proof that something of this nature actually occurred, or are you still trying to paint this as a situation of the Big Ole Boogie Man and his innocent naive victim?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I disagree with that. Several Nazi survivors want some justice. Few of former Nazi soldiers have been hunted by the organization. Once they are found, they have to go to the court and charged for that war crimes.

The Jewish Advocate | This Weeks Issue | News

Do you think Nazi survivors would ever forgive them? I highly don't think so.

I never said all nazi survivors in the world but I only pick who live in Germany which mean is I met them and collect their experience in real life. Yes, all nazi survivors get their claim... This is their rights. Yes, Many nazi survivors forgave and move on to positive their life but they can't forget. If they never forgive them then they would move out of Germany to other countries, don't they?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

You have shown the lack of capacity to think, There is a lot of covering up in this case. It's all about money and power if you're a Kennedy. It's funny how you are defending the actions of Ted's and putting the blame on Mary Jo for getting in the car with an intoxicate, when she did not drove anyone dead, It was Ted.

Ted had never even been held accountable. Talk about her parents, Her parents aren't meant to be parents, because in fact why in the world would the parents refused an autopsy? There was a house right next to the bridge, where Ted Kennedy could have gone for help, but he didn't. Why? I see a man who left a woman to die to save his own ass and didn't phone the police until next morning, shows that he is guilty.

I do not need to add anything what Jillo said #64 and #65 is good enough. It should be on both way, not just point Ted in negative way... Its about their CHOICE.... Mary Jo choose to go with him... It's her own decision. Ted choose to ignore the DUI law... He accepted his responsiblity for violate the law... I can't see the sense why anyone can't move on and point his past when he already accepted his mistake for his action...

 

[Byrdie714]

What are you saying then? Are you saying Mary got what she deserved to get because she rode with a drunk? I do hope I'm wrong.

Jillio's post below sums it up in what I am saying. It takes two to tango.

Byrdie, and several others are saying that 2 bad decisions were made that evening. One of them was made by MaryJo. If you decide to get in the car with a drunk driver, then you accept the risk inherent in doing so. If you don't want to risk being in a fatal accident, then don't get in the car with a drunk driver behind the wheel. It's very simple. She was an adult, and she made a decision. It turned out to be a fatal one.

So that let's him off the hook?

Counselor, you should know better than that.

As it pertains to 1969, not 2008. Laws were different back then what it is today. If it happened today, he would be out of office.

I think the "as well" implies shared respsonsibility, not transference of responsibility.

No one is placing blame on Mary Jo. What is being stated is that she's shares equally the choice of having been in that car at that particular moment in time. Testing over the legal limit and having consumed enough alcohol to slow one's reaction time is 2 different concepts. The had been together all evening, from my understanding, and therefore she knew he had been drinking. And what about MaryJo's alcohol intake that evening?

Yes, the law does make many errors. However, the law cannot compensate for another's free will. She willinglu got in the car with a driver that had been drinking, it was in the wee hours of the morning, and he was a married man. Quite possible that she has some ulterior motives that clouded her better judgement, in much the same way that other young women have let the desire for fame and fortune lead them into very unwise decisions.

No one is blaming Mary Jo for anything, but it cannot be denied that she made the decision to be in the company of a married man in the wee hours of the morning. She no doubt was aware of the fact that he had been drinking. She was an adult. She made the decision to be in his company, she made the decision to get in that car, and she made the decision to become the passenger of a driver that had been drinking. She was not a victim.

Ted has been held accountable. He was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, and he was tried on those charges. If you have a problem with that, then your problem is with the way the legal system functions, and the inequities in the application of law, not Ted Kennedy.

Can you be certaint that Ted Kennedy was not in a state of shock following the accident and that is what prevented him thinking and acting clearly and logically? It happens all the time in the case of accident victims. Abandoned cars that have been in accidents are discovered all the time with the drivers no where to be found. They have simply wandered away in a state of shock.

No one is defending Ted Kennedy and blaming Mary Jo. What we are saying is he made the decisions he made that night, and she made the decisions he made that night. If you want him to take personal responsibility for his part, then you have to demand that she take personal responsibility for her part, as well.

And speaking of power and money....could that be the reason that MaryJo was in the company of Ted Kennedy that evening? It isnt the first time that a young woman has been blinded by power and money and made som very unwise decisions thinking she could get a little of that power and money for herself by becoming involved with the man holding the power and mioney, nor is it the first time that a young woman has done so with a married man. Perhaps Mary Jo's motives for being in the car with a married, wealthy, powerful politician that evening were not so pure after all.

But the whole point is, she willingly got in the car with a man who had been drinking in the wee hours of the morning. When you do that, you accept the risks that go along with it. Her parents obviously understood that.

I'm sure that there was a lot of covering up in this case. What you fail to realize is that much of that covering up could have been an attempt by MaryJo's parents to protect her reputation. It is possible that they refused an autopsy because it would have revealed that she, too had been drinking that evening. It could also have shown that she had recently had sexual intercourse with a married man...or worse yet, that she was carrying his child. That would have blown the whole "poor innocent Mary Jo" theory away, now wouldn't it?

Ted Kennedy was prosecuted under the law as it was in 1969. If you don't agree with that prosecution, then that is a problem with the legal system. The fact of the matter is, there is no evidence that Ted Kennedy was over the legal limit. There is no evidence that Mary Jo was not over the legal limit. The case was prosecuted based on the available evidence.

Good posts.

As for Mary Jo, her situation reminds me of Monica Lewinsky in terms of a young woman that is attracted to fame, power, and wealth.

 

[jillio]

Jillio's post below sums it up in what I am saying. It takes two to tango.





As it pertains to 1969, not 2008. Laws were different back then what it is today. If it happened today, he would be out of office.







Good posts.

As for Mary Jo, her situation reminds me of Monica Lewinsky in terms of a young woman that is attracted to fame, power, and wealth.

Gotta admit...the comparison certainly crossed my mind.

 

[Cheri]

It should be on both way, not just point Ted in negative way... Its about their CHOICE.... Mary Jo choose to go with him... It's her own decision. Ted choose to ignore the DUI law... He accepted his responsiblity for violate the law... I can't see the sense why anyone can't move on and point his past when he already accepted his mistake for his action...

There are two sides to every story. His, Hers and the truth. We only heard Ted's side but not Mary Jo. How do you know for sure that she made a choice to ride with a drunk when she could be forced under her own will. There's a lot in this story that doesn't match up. There was no autopsy, we don't know how she really had died.

 

[jillio]

There are two sides to every story. His, Hers and the truth. We only heard Ken's side but not Mary Jo. How do you know for sure that she made a choice to ride with a drunk when she could be forced under her own will. There's a lot in this story that doesn't match up. There was no autopsy, we don't know how she really had died.

Who's Ken?

There is no evidence that she was forced into anything.

If we don't know how she died, why blame Ted Kennedy for it?

 

[Reba]

I haven't cast dispersions at all. I am simply pointing out that Mary Jo had some reason for being the car with a married man who had been drinking that night. Something motivated her to make the decision to go willingly with him. A rape victim does not willingly consent to the act perpetrated upon them. Mary Jo made a decision to place herself in a questionable position and as result, was involved in a fatal accident. If you wish for one person to be accountable for their presence and their actions, then you must ask both to be accountable. After all, she wasn't kidnapped and thrown in the river.

Oh, please. You should know better than that.

Of course a rape victim doesn't willingly consent to the act. But, it's true that people often wrongly blame the rape victim for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or drinking too much, or hanging out with the wrong people, or wearing enticing clothing, etc.

Suppose a young woman had been drinking and got into a car with a married man who had been drinking. No car accident happens but the guy drives the girl to a secluded area and rapes her. Would you, counselor, say the same things to that girl as you have said about Mary Jo?

I could say the same thing about Mary Jo. A homicide victim doesn't willingly consent to the act either.

 

[Cheri]

Good Posting as always, Reba

 

[jillio]

Oh, please. You should know better than that.

Of course a rape victim doesn't willingly consent to the act. But, it's true that people often wrongly blame the rape victim for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or drinking too much, or hanging out with the wrong people, or wearing enticing clothing, etc.

Suppose a young woman had been drinking and got into a car with a married man who had been drinking. No car accident happens but the guy drives the girl to a secluded area and rapes her. Would you, counselor, say the same things to that girl as you have said about Mary Jo?

I could say the same thing about Mary Jo. A homicide victim doesn't willingly consent to the act either.

But MaryJo wasn't raped, now was she? Rape is not accidental, it is intentional. A car accident is an accident. If that same girl that you were talking about ended up in a fatal accident, she is still responsible for accepting the risk inherent in getting in the car with a driver who has been drinking. Rape is not inherent in that risk. A fatal accident is.

As there were never any murder charges levied, MaryJo is not a homicide victim. She is the victim of a fatal car crash. Once again, murder is intentional. You would have to prove that Ted Kennedy intentionally drove into the river for no other purpose than to take the life of his young female companion for her to be considered a homicide victim.