Kennedy clan´s history

Liebling:-))) said:
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.
Click to expand...
He wasn't too drunk to call his lawyers.


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.
Click to expand...
Ted didn't have a jury trial; it was a judge's decision.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
He called his lawyer that's time he was a sober.
Click to expand...
He called them immediately after the accident, several hours before he reported it to the police. If he was sober enough to make all those calls, he was sober enough to call the police or fire department to try to rescue her. But he never did.


Oh I see... :confused:
Click to expand...
It was only a 7-minute hearing before a judge.
 
Reba said:
It's kind of hard for a dead person to accept responsibility.
Exactly. Which is why your attempt to paint her as a totally innocent victim are useless as well. Death does not absolve responsibility, either.

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.

Yes, he did. And do you know that it was not on the advise of his lawyers that he delayed? Perhaps you should be looking in the direction of poor legal advise.



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



The initial plunge of the car might have been an accident but neglecting to rescue Mary Jo wasn't an accident.
And, again, not having been there, you cannot determine that it would have been possible, under the exact circumstances at that moment, for him to rescue anyone. Armchair quarterbacking about "should" and "would" is much simpler than acting in the moment.



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

People make moral judgements for themselves. Moral judgements made against them are best left to a man and his God. Unless, of course, the one making the moral judgement can claim infallibility, and I have yet to meet a human who can.

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, in this case, the only thing proved to be illegal was leaving the scene of an accident. Once again, ifyou have problems with this, then your problem is with the legal system.



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.

There were no witnesses to the actual accident. Post hoc reconsctruction is conjecture.

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

And that is certainly your right. You don'thave to find it credible. You simply have to accept the fact that the situation was dealt with whether it was to your satisfaction or not.
 
Reba said:
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.
Oh, I see. Its okay for Joe to engage in illegal acts, and engage in the sale and transport of illegal whiskey that has been linked to numerous social problems at the time, as well as more than one death because he wasn't president. And it is okay for JFK to have engaged in numerous affairs and to have been implicated in the death of Marilyn Monroe because he was President. Why would Joe and JFK be so much more deserving of benefit of the doubt than Ted? That is selectivley applied criteria, now isn't it?


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.

Ah, but you know about it now. Apply some of that post hoc judgement you are making about Ted to the rest of the Kennedy family, and your position will be more valid.
Click to expand...
 
Reba said:
No, he only plead guilty to leaving the scene of the accident. He did NOT admit to DUI.
Click to expand...

Because he wasn't charged with DUI. Why would anyone, Ted Kennedy included, admit to guilt of a criminal charge that has not been levied against them? Again, your problem here is with the legal system, and the inequities inherent, not with the man himself.
 
Reba said:
He wasn't too drunk to call his lawyers.



Ted didn't have a jury trial; it was a judge's decision.
Click to expand...

And the American public is responsible for the judges that sit the bench. But once again, if you don't like the way the legal system functions, then perhaps you should campaign to have it changed.
 
Reba said:
He called them immediately after the accident, several hours before he reported it to the police. If he was sober enough to make all those calls, he was sober enough to call the police or fire department to try to rescue her. But he never did.



It was only a 7-minute hearing before a judge.
Click to expand...

And his lawyers, and friends that he contacted could have easily have done the same. Where is your judgement against them?
 
jillio said:

Exactly. Which is why your attempt to paint her as a totally innocent victim are useless as well. Death does not absolve responsibility, either.
Click to expand...
I never said that she was "totally innocent" as a person. She still didn't deserve to die that way. Dead people can't "accept" responsibility, nor can they defend themselves.


Yes, he did. And do you know that it was not on the advise of his lawyers that he delayed? Perhaps you should be looking in the direction of poor legal advise.
Click to expand...
Fine. That doesn't excuse Teddy but if you want to add his lawyers to the guilty list I'm OK with that. Anyone who suggests delaying or interfering with a rescue attempt should be prosecuted.


And, again, not having been there, you cannot determine that it would have been possible, under the exact circumstances at that moment, for him to rescue anyone. Armchair quarterbacking about "should" and "would" is much simpler than acting in the moment.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that just he could have rescued her. He didn't go for nearby help, or call any authorities who could have made a rescue attempt. That is documented.

And, in this case, the only thing proved to be illegal was leaving the scene of an accident. Once again, ifyou have problems with this, then your problem is with the legal system.
Click to expand...
The legal system was at fault for not conducting a proper investigation or hearing. I'm not letting them off the hook. They were wrong, and he was wrong. They covered up his past driving record and lack of valid license at the time of the incident. They allowed him to submit an improperly prepared statement. Yes, they all did wrong in the legal proceedings.


There were no witnesses to the actual accident. Post hoc reconsctruction is conjecture.
Click to expand...
Most convictions are made on testimonies, forensics and circumstantial evidence that are gathered after the fact, and have proven to be even more reliable than eye witness accounts. That is more than mere "conjecture."


You simply have to accept the fact that the situation was dealt with whether it was to your satisfaction or not.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you mean by "accept". If you mean keeping quiet about wrong doing and perpetuating a cover up, then no, I don't have to accept it. The "situation" was NOT dealt with; it was covered up. Why should I pretend otherwise? I have the right to present the other side of the story, and people can make up their own minds.
 
jillio said:
And his lawyers, and friends that he contacted could have easily have done the same. Where is your judgement against them?
Click to expand...
Right here, if you noticed. I never said it was OK for Teddy's friends to conduct a cover up. They are guilty to boot.
 
jillio said:
Oh, I see. Its okay for Joe to engage in illegal acts, and engage in the sale and transport of illegal whiskey that has been linked to numerous social problems at the time, as well as more than one death because he wasn't president.
Click to expand...
Nope, never said that. We were discussing my feelings for the JFK presidency at the time he was in office. That had nothing to do with his father's history. I was judging the man that I knew at that time, thru a child's hopeful eyes.

I've never said that Joe Sr.'s actions were acceptable to me.


And it is okay for JFK to have engaged in numerous affairs and to have been implicated in the death of Marilyn Monroe because he was President.
Click to expand...
Did I say that? No. At the time that he was President and was assassinated, I wasn't aware of those things, so they didn't influence my impression of him, at that time.


Why would Joe and JFK be so much more deserving of benefit of the doubt than Ted? That is selectivley applied criteria, now isn't it?
Click to expand...
Probably because I was only 10 - 12 years old when JFK was President, and much more idealistic. By the time Teddy had his "problem" I was a little older (18) and wiser about the Kennedys.


Ah, but you know about it now. Apply some of that post hoc judgement you are making about Ted to the rest of the Kennedy family, and your position will be more valid.
Click to expand...
Which position would that be?

I described what my viewpoint about JFK was back then, at the time that it happened. That had nothing to do with my viewpoint of what Teddy did years later, other than to show that I didn't have some life-long agenda against the Kennedy family.

Joe Sr., JFK, and RFK are long dead, off the scene, and everyone knows their dirty "secrets." Teddy is still here, leaving his wake in the Senate, and in the lives of others. That's the difference.
 
jillio said:
And the American public is responsible for the judges that sit the bench. But once again, if you don't like the way the legal system functions, then perhaps you should campaign to have it changed.
Click to expand...
I've always been against corruption in the courts.
 
Interesting debate... Jillos made good points.

I can't understand some people can't move on and still blame Ted negative over his case with Mary Jo when they knew all Kennedy men including their father Joe did worst... :dunno2:


 
On a personal level (Reba's) she made utterly valid points within the scope of her lifetime, as things happened when they did and the dawning realizations of how things really were. I had those same sentiments as we are near enough in age.....
 
Reba said:
Right here, if you noticed. I never said it was OK for Teddy's friends to conduct a cover up. They are guilty to boot.
Click to expand...

And if you are going to ask that all others accept resposnibility for the part they played, then you must ask that Mary Jo accept responsibility for the part she played, as well. But I suspect that your championship of the victimhood of Mary Jo extends only so far as it can be used to discredit Ted Kennedy.
 
Reba said:
Nope, never said that. We were discussing my feelings for the JFK presidency at the time he was in office. That had nothing to do with his father's history. I was judging the man that I knew at that time, thru a child's hopeful eyes.

I've never said that Joe Sr.'s actions were acceptable to me.



Did I say that? No. At the time that he was President and was assassinated, I wasn't aware of those things, so they didn't influence my impression of him, at that time.



Probably because I was only 10 - 12 years old when JFK was President, and much more idealistic. By the time Teddy had his "problem" I was a little older (18) and wiser about the Kennedys.



Which position would that be?

I described what my viewpoint about JFK was back then, at the time that it happened. That had nothing to do with my viewpoint of what Teddy did years later, other than to show that I didn't have some life-long agenda against the Kennedy family.

Joe Sr., JFK, and RFK are long dead, off the scene, and everyone knows their dirty "secrets." Teddy is still here, leaving his wake in the Senate, and in the lives of others. That's the difference.
Click to expand...

And the time of his death, as well as the manner, is best left to someone more omnipotent than a human.
 
jillio said:
And if you are going to ask that all others accept resposnibility for the part they played, then you must ask that Mary Jo accept responsibility for the part she played, as well. But I suspect that your championship of the victimhood of Mary Jo extends only so far as it can be used to discredit Ted Kennedy.
Click to expand...
Believe whatever you want.
 
jillio said:
And the time of his death, as well as the manner, is best left to someone more omnipotent than a human.
Click to expand...
For whatever it's worth to you, I've been hoping and praying that Teddy doesn't die from the brain tumor. Just because I don't respect him doesn't mean I wish ill for him.
 
Back
Top