Kennedy clan´s history

[Reba]

But MaryJo wasn't raped, now was she? Rape is not accidental, it is intentional. A car accident is an accident.

The point is about her getting into a car with a drunk driver. For some reason, she's called a victim if she is raped by a drunk driver, but she's not a victim if she is killed by a drunk driver. Where's the justice in that?

When the rape victim got into the car she didn't expect to be raped.

When the drowning victim got into the car she didn't expect to die.

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.

So the rape victim should be responsible for accepting the risk inherent in getting in the car with a driver who has been drinking. A drunken man might be emboldened by alcohol to commit a rape. She should know better.

As there were never any murder charges levied, MaryJo is not a homicide victim.

"Homicide" isn't always murder. There's also:

negligent homicide
: homicide caused by a person's criminally negligent act
reckless homicide
: homicide caused by a person's reckless acts

homicide - Definitions from Dictionary.com

 

[jillio]

The point is about her getting into a car with a drunk driver. For some reason, she's called a victim if she is raped by a drunk driver, but she's not a victim if she is killed by a drunk driver. Where's the justice in that?

When the rape victim got into the car she didn't expect to be raped.

When the drowning victim got into the car she didn't expect to die.



So the rape victim should be responsible for accepting the risk inherent in getting in the car with a driver who has been drinking. A drunken man might be emboldened by alcohol to commit a rape. She should know better.



"Homicide" isn't always murder. There's also:

negligent homicide
: homicide caused by a person's criminally negligent act
reckless homicide
: homicide caused by a person's reckless acts

homicide - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Your comparisons are fallicious. One involves intent (rape) and one does not involve intent (accident). The risk of being involved in a fatal accident if you get in a car with a driver who has been drinking is inherent. The risk of being raped when you get in a car with a driver that has been drinking is not inherent unless you choose to get in the car with a driver who has been drinking and is also known to be a rapist.

Chances are greater that a drunken driver would be incapable of completing a rape, rather than being emboldened to commit a rape. Likewise, a person not inclined to sexual assault does not suddenly become a rapist because they have ingested alcohol.

Unless you can prove that Ted Kennedy intentionally drove the car into the river with the sole purpose of committing homicide against MaryJo, your comparisons regarding an intentional act with an accident is simply grasping at straws.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

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.

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.

Yes, that's right but DNA evidence also did not exist in that 1969 as well.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

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.

Yes, that's what I said in previous posts that it should be both way, not just point Ted in negative way without know Mary Jo's side first.... which I mean is look at both sides. Why blame Ted for when you didn't know Mary Jo's side then? Yes, Ted made a mistake for violate the law and deserved his punishment but we don't know Mary Jo's side because her parents want to keep it private from the public. Nobody knows why her parents refused to have an autopsy done. It could be many reasons why her parents want to keep her reputation private?

Why should Mary Jo was being forced when she work for Kennedys and know them well? Kennedy clan is not stranger to her, don't they?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

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.

Originally Posted by Reba
The point is about her getting into a car with a drunk driver. For some reason, she's called a victim if she is raped by a drunk driver, but she's not a victim if she is killed by a drunk driver. Where's the justice in that?

When the rape victim got into the car she didn't expect to be raped.

When the drowning victim got into the car she didn't expect to die.



So the rape victim should be responsible for accepting the risk inherent in getting in the car with a driver who has been drinking. A drunken man might be emboldened by alcohol to commit a rape. She should know better.



"Homicide" isn't always murder. There's also:

negligent homicide
: homicide caused by a person's criminally negligent act
reckless homicide
: homicide caused by a person's reckless acts

homicide - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Oh please, everyone knows that Mary Jo and Ted Kennedy left party before their friends.

You can't compare them with rape victim because Mary Jo and Ted Kennedy are not strangers. She work for Kennedy clan and know them. Everyone including including Mary Jo also know that Kennedy men are well known womanizer... Women like to being with Kennedy because of their well-known names. You suggest that Mary Jo as rape victim? :roll:

Do you suggest that Ted intended to drive wrong way to end her life?

 

[Reba]

Oh please, everyone knows that Mary Jo and Ted Kennedy left party before their friends.

So? What does that have to do with anything?

You can't compare them with rape victim because Mary Jo and Ted Kennedy are not strangers. She work for Kennedy clan and know them. Everyone including including Mary Jo also know that Kennedy men are well known womanizer... Women like to being with Kennedy because of their well-known names. You suggest that Mary Jo as rape victim? :roll:

Huh? I never suggested that Mary Jo was a rape victim.

Do you suggest that Ted intended to drive wrong way to end her life?

I didn't say that.

Maybe you should read the posts a little slower.

 

[Reba]

Your comparisons are fallicious. One involves intent (rape) and one does not involve intent (accident). The risk of being involved in a fatal accident if you get in a car with a driver who has been drinking is inherent. The risk of being raped when you get in a car with a driver that has been drinking is not inherent unless you choose to get in the car with a driver who has been drinking and is also known to be a rapist.

I'm not saying that there is more risk of rape happening when a woman gets into the car. I'm saying that in the past, society used to blame the rape victim for putting herself into a precarious position, and say such thoughtless things like, "what did she expect", or "she deserved it." It wasn't right then to blame rape victims, and it isn't right now to blame Mary Jo.

Chances are greater that a drunken driver would be incapable of completing a rape, rather than being emboldened to commit a rape. Likewise, a person not inclined to sexual assault does not suddenly become a rapist because they have ingested alcohol.

As you know, sexual assault isn't about the sex act per se but about the perp's thrill from the violence, power trip, or humiliation of the victim. A sexual assault doesn't require full intercourse to occur. Drunkenness can cause social restraint to be reduced.

Unless you can prove that Ted Kennedy intentionally drove the car into the river with the sole purpose of committing homicide against MaryJo, your comparisons regarding an intentional act with an accident is simply grasping at straws.

I didn't say that he intended to drive into the water to kill her. I said that he didn't try very hard to save her, and that he and his cohorts committed illegal cover ups of the event. If he did nothing wrong, why the lies and cover up?

 

[jillio]

I'm not saying that there is more risk of rape happening when a woman gets into the car. I'm saying that in the past, society used to blame the rape victim for putting herself into a precarious position, and say such thoughtless things like, "what did she expect", or "she deserved it." It wasn't right then to blame rape victims, and it isn't right now to blame Mary Jo.

Once again, it isn't about blame. As an accident does not involve malicious intent, it is about accepting responsiblity for placing oneself in the position of increased risk. And, in the case of an accident, if you are going to ask one participant to accept respsonibility, then all involved must accept responsibility to the degree involved.


As you know, sexual assault isn't about the sex act per se but about the perp's thrill from the violence, power trip, or humiliation of the victim. A sexual assault doesn't require full intercourse to occur. Drunkenness can cause social restraint to be reduced.

Exactly. Which is why your attempt to compare an accident with a rape is completely fallicious.
I didn't say that he intended to drive into the water to kill her. I said that he didn't try very hard to save her, and that he and his cohorts committed illegal cover ups of the event. If he did nothing wrong, why the lies and cover up?

Once again, it goes back to the issue of intent.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

So? What does that have to do with anything?



Huh? I never suggested that Mary Jo was a rape victim.



I didn't say that.

Maybe you should read the posts a little slower.

Why do you brought those rape victim in first place up then ? We talk about responsiblity but you talk about rape victim which is not comparison.

 

[Reba]

Once again, it isn't about blame. As an accident does not involve malicious intent, it is about accepting responsiblity for placing oneself in the position of increased risk. And, in the case of an accident, if you are going to ask one participant to accept respsonibility, then all involved must accept responsibility to the degree involved.

Maybe you don't call it "blame" but that's what you're doing. You're shifting culpability from the actor to the victim.

Just because Mary Jo accepted a ride with Teddy doesn't mean Teddy is off the hook for leaving her to die in the car, or for his lies and cover up.

Exactly. Which is why your attempt to compare an accident with a rape is completely fallicious.

I didn't compare the accident itself with a rape act. I compared the wrongness of blaming a rape victim with the wrongness of blaming the victim of a DUI driving accident. Just as people (wrongly) say, "She wouldn't have been raped if she wasn't wearing those clothes (or walking that street, or drinking that spiked drink, or staying out that late, etc.)", it's wrong to say, "She wouldn't have died if she wasn't drinking or hanging out with married men." Teddy took the final action (or non-action) that resulted in her death. He tried to protect his reputation rather than get help for Mary Jo.

Even though he was let off the hook by the authorities that doesn't mean he is morally innocent. Good lawyers, money, and political influence don't always equal justice.

Once again, it goes back to the issue of intent.

OK. After the wreck, Teddy had no intention of rescuing Mary Jo, or accepting any blame for her death.

 

[Reba]

Why do you brought those rape victim in first place up then ? We talk about responsiblity but you talk about rape victim which is not comparison.

I showed how it is wrong to blame victims for whatever befalls them. The responsibility for wrongdoing is still on the shoulders of the perpetrator.

Like you often say, "Is it forbidden" for me to make comparisons?

 

[Reba]

It's obvious that the two camps will never agree. Each camp has a totally different viewpoint of the Kennedy family in general, and Teddy specifically, so that's pretty much where it will stand.

When I was young and idealistic, I had high hopes for the Kennedy family. I was inspired by JFK's speeches and Jackie's grace. I was crushed when JFK was killed, and watching his funeral live on TV left an everlasting impression on me. Then, when Bobby was killed, that was another hard blow.

But the glorious promise of Camelot, and my empathy for the family's tragedies are not enough for me to ignore the shenanigans, personal ambitions and wrong use of power by the "clan".

It's really too bad. I wanted so much to believe in the Camelot dream but that's all it was--a dream, not reality.

 

[Tousi]

It's obvious that the two camps will never agree. Each camp has a totally different viewpoint of the Kennedy family in general, and Teddy specifically, so that's pretty much where it will stand.

When I was young and idealistic, I had high hopes for the Kennedy family. I was inspired by JFK's speeches and Jackie's grace. I was crushed when JFK was killed, and watching his funeral live on TV left an everlasting impression on me. Then, when Bobby was killed, that was another hard blow.

But the glorious promise of Camelot, and my empathy for the family's tragedies are not enough for me to ignore the shenanigans, personal ambitions and wrong use of power by the "clan".

It's really too bad. I wanted so much to believe in the Camelot dream but that's all it was--a dream, not reality.

Mes sentiments and experience, too, Reba!! Whatta blow that was!

 

[jillio]

Maybe you don't call it "blame" but that's what you're doing. You're shifting culpability from the actor to the victim.

I don't call it "blame" because that isn't what it is. It is a request for all involved to accept responsibility for their actions on that night. It isn't a matter of "shifting culpability". It is a matter of accepting personal responsibility for decisions made from all parties, rather than creating a perpetrator and a victim, as would be the case with a crime involving intent.

Just because Mary Jo accepted a ride with Teddy doesn't mean Teddy is off the hook for leaving her to die in the car, or for his lies and cover up.

And again, as you cannot attest to his mental state at the time he left the car, you cannot determine intent. And rarely is the public informed af all details regarding any accident or crime scene, so the accusation of "cover-up" should perhaps be best applied elsewhere.


I didn't compare the accident itself with a rape act. I compared the wrongness of blaming a rape victim with the wrongness of blaming the victim of a DUI driving accident. Just as people (wrongly) say, "She wouldn't have been raped if she wasn't wearing those clothes (or walking that street, or drinking that spiked drink, or staying out that late, etc.)", it's wrong to say, "She wouldn't have died if she wasn't drinking or hanging out with married men." Teddy took the final action (or non-action) that resulted in her death. He tried to protect his reputation rather than get help for Mary Jo.

And again, one victim has been an actual victim of malicious intent (rape). The other bears responsibility for having gotten int he car with a drunk driver, and it does not involve malicious intent. Hence, it is called an accident. The comparisons remain fallicious.

Even though he was let off the hook by the authorities that doesn't mean he is morally innocent. Good lawyers, money, and political influence don't always equal justice.

To my way of understanding, man, by way of the legal system, judges criminal guilt and innocence. Moral judgements are left to a man and his God.



OK. After the wreck, Teddy had no intention of rescuing Mary Jo, or accepting any blame for her death.

And, once again, as you cannot attest to his mental state at the time of the accident, you can, in no way, determine intent. It is nothing more than conjecture on your part.

 

[jillio]

It's obvious that the two camps will never agree. Each camp has a totally different viewpoint of the Kennedy family in general, and Teddy specifically, so that's pretty much where it will stand.

When I was young and idealistic, I had high hopes for the Kennedy family. I was inspired by JFK's speeches and Jackie's grace. I was crushed when JFK was killed, and watching his funeral live on TV left an everlasting impression on me. Then, when Bobby was killed, that was another hard blow.

But the glorious promise of Camelot, and my empathy for the family's tragedies are not enough for me to ignore the shenanigans, personal ambitions and wrong use of power by the "clan".

It's really too bad. I wanted so much to believe in the Camelot dream but that's all it was--a dream, not reality.

The Kennedy clan has never been pure and lily white. Their money was made through bootleg whiskey sales. I don't know why it came as such a surprise to you. JFK's womanizing was well known even prior to his death. Still he managed to put more social programs in place in this country than were seen since the New Deal, to the benefit of some of our country's most oppressed citizens.

Regarding shenanigans, personal ambitions, and wrong use of power, such is the game of politics.

 

[Reba]

I don't call it "blame" because that isn't what it is. It is a request for all involved to accept responsibility for their actions on that night.

It's kind of hard for a dead person to accept responsibility.

And again, as you cannot attest to his mental state at the time he left the car, you cannot determine intent.

His mental state was alert enough that he managed to contact his lawyers, friends, and family members. He made 17 long distance phone calls before he reported the accident.

And rarely is the public informed af all details regarding any accident or crime scene, so the accusation of "cover-up" should perhaps be best applied elsewhere.

I guess you didn't read the whole report that I linked.

And again, one victim has been an actual victim of malicious intent (rape). The other bears responsibility for having gotten int he car with a drunk driver, and it does not involve malicious intent. Hence, it is called an accident. The comparisons remain fallicious.

The initial plunge of the car might have been an accident but neglecting to rescue Mary Jo wasn't an accident.

To my way of understanding, man, by way of the legal system, judges criminal guilt and innocence. Moral judgements are left to a man and his God.

People make moral judgments every day when they decide whether to do right or to do wrong.

A legal judgment is not always based on whether or not an action was right or wrong but on whether or not it can be proved to be illegal. A "not guilty" verdict is not always the same as "innocent".

And, once again, as you cannot attest to his mental state at the time of the accident, you can, in no way, determine intent. It is nothing more than conjecture on your part.

The statements of many witnesses to the events that night and following day show that it would have been possible to rescue Mary Jo if Teddy had sought help for her. Teddy not only neglected to get help, he actually prevented others from helping. He also made false (not foggy) statements to the authorities after the trauma of the event had passed.

I don't find him or his story to be credible.

 

[Reba]

The Kennedy clan has never been pure and lily white. Their money was made through bootleg whiskey sales.

Yes, I know that. So? Joseph wasn't the President. I gave JFK the benefit of the doubt at the time that he was President, and I had high hopes for the future.

I don't know why it came as such a surprise to you. JFK's womanizing was well known even prior to his death.

I was almost 10 years old when he was sworn in, and only 12 1/2 when he was assassinated, so I was naive and positive in my outlook. I didn't know about "womanizing" back then.

Regarding shenanigans, personal ambitions, and wrong use of power, such is the game of politics.

Which is still wrong.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I showed how it is wrong to blame victims for whatever befalls them. The responsibility for wrongdoing is still on the shoulders of the perpetrator.

Like you often say, "Is it forbidden" for me to make comparisons?

No, we have no problem for you to use something to compare with but we also entitle our view as well why we disagree with you for try to compare... It's no forbidden...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Just because Mary Jo accepted a ride with Teddy doesn't mean Teddy is off the hook for leaving her to die in the car, or for his lies and cover up.

All what we say is: It's Mary Jo's choice for accepted Ted's offer for drive her when she KNEW he was drunk, that's all. Of course we know Ted accepted his responsible for violated the DUI law.

I didn't compare the accident itself with a rape act. I compared the wrongness of blaming a rape victim with the wrongness of blaming the victim of a DUI driving accident. Just as people (wrongly) say, "She wouldn't have been raped if she wasn't wearing those clothes (or walking that street, or drinking that spiked drink, or staying out that late, etc.)", it's wrong to say, "She wouldn't have died if she wasn't drinking or hanging out with married men." Teddy took the final action (or non-action) that resulted in her death. He tried to protect his reputation rather than get help for Mary Jo.

It's not right comparison. I would try to make a comparison...

Example: Would you say yes to stranger's offer to drive you home when you don't know him/her or know his/her bad reputation? It mean that it's your own responsible for your action when you know it's risk but you continue to take her/his offer to drive you home then end happened to you then is your choice because you should reject her/his offer... it does the same with Mary Jo. She choose to take Ted's offer to drive her home when she know it would be risk when he was drunk driver.

Accord your link in previous post, that Ted drank a lot... It could be that he was too drunk to rescue Mary Jo's life and fail.

Even though he was let off the hook by the authorities that doesn't mean he is morally innocent. Good lawyers, money, and political influence don't always equal justice.

Yes, if they have good and expensive lawyer who know how to influence juries, then the judge listen juries's decision, that's why we don't have juries here in some Europe countries.

OK. After the wreck, Teddy had no intention of rescuing Mary Jo, or accepting any blame for her death.

Yes, Ted accepted his responsiblity for his DUI driving to cause Mary Jo death. I really have no idea why anyone can't move on but obesse his past for... ?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

It's kind of hard for a dead person to accept responsibility.

Each person accept his/her responsibly for his/her action when she/he knows it's risk to take someone's offer or continue to drive when he/she are overtired or alcohol or whatever... Example: when I drink a lot and prefer to stay overnight instead of risk my life when I want to drive... or reject to take drunk driver's offer to take me home... or stranger's offer or person with bad reputation... It's my own decision.

His mental state was alert enough that he managed to contact his lawyers, friends, and family members. He made 17 long distance phone calls before he reported the accident.

He was kind of shock and don't know what should he do... He don't know what he do when he was drunk then after that he was sober...... and don't know what he do... that's why he made a lot of calls... If he really intended to do that... then he would never make calls, don't he?

The initial plunge of the car might have been an accident but neglecting to rescue Mary Jo wasn't an accident.

Accord your link, he drank a lot. He was drunk to try to save her life.

People make moral judgments every day when they decide whether to do right or to do wrong.

A legal judgment is not always based on whether or not an action was right or wrong but on whether or not it can be proved to be illegal. A "not guilty" verdict is not always the same as "innocent".

Judge listen juries's decision... and then punished Ted. It could be that Ted's lawyer made a very good to influence juries...

The statements of many witnesses to the events that night and following day show that it would have been possible to rescue Mary Jo if Teddy had sought help for her. Teddy not only neglected to get help, he actually prevented others from helping. He also made false (not foggy) statements to the authorities after the trauma of the event had passed.

Again, he was too drunk to save her life.