Kennedy clan´s history

[Liebling:-)))]

I think you haven't perused my entire post carefully. Therefore, I'm assuming you read it too quick.

The word, claim has several different meanings. There is a major difference between Carolyn and Lauren's parents had sued the Kennedy estate and Mary Jo's parents hadn't sued Ted Kennedy for the passing of Mary Jo.

I do read your post. Yes I assumed that it's claim, the parents received from Kennedy's insurance because I consider it's as their rights. Do you really think Kennedy volunteered to pay the amount to Mary Jo's parents when they do not request him to? I doubt, that's why I beleive it's claim, no matter either the parents requested the amount of money or Ted Kennedy volunteered to pay the amount to them... to aviod the court... Maybe they agreed with the amount to aviod court?

Yes, Carolyn & Lauren's parents sued the Kennedy which Mary Jo's parents doesn't. Maybe they want more than Kennedy want to pay them to aviod the court.

I have nothing against both parents what and how they get their rights in different way because it's their rights.

Mary Jo's parents were from Pennsylvania, and were extremely introvert, private citizens and religious, not public citizens such as The Kennedy.

Oh I see. I didn't know much about Mary Jo's parents'. It could be true but some people prefer their children's reputation privacy.

Mary Jo's family and friends occasionally interviewed with the Times-Leader of Wilkes-Barre for years. I had to seek articles from the New York Times and frequently quoted some of its articles from The Times-Leader of Wilkes-Barre. Several ones were found. It looks like the book I read at a library turned out to be true. Too bad Mary Jo's parents still didn't receive the apology directly from Ted Kennedy. God is probably gonna ask him,"Teddy, why didn't you apologize to them?"

It was published in July 1994. You have to read the entire article.

Chappaquiddick Journal; Dark Anniversary Draws the Curious - New York Times

for this link. I find sad if it's really true that Ted did not apology them... but funeral? It mean that Ted did not made few words about Mary Jo or few words to parents at funeral? It's hard to beleive that Ted never apology Mary Jo's parents...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Forgiveness may takes time and effort but forgetting is not easy because it reminds you of the tragedy or horrific, painful, hurt, bruised and shaken experiences...

Of course most of us forgive and move on, but forgetting, that's another thing.

Yes, true...

Forgive and forget is not same thing but it's good to forgive and move on.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

It's both the legal system and Ted Kennedy, He had years to turn himself in to the authorities, and admit that he wanted her to die.

Ted want Mary die?

Let's not forget how he helped his nephew William Kennedy Smith get off of a rape charge.

Well, there're no proof either it's really rape or not because a woman did not report police straight way. It would be different story if she did. Why wait so long?

William claimed that woman agreed to have sex with him.


It's Jurors' decision for vote him as not guilty...

 

[jillio]

It's both the legal system and Ted Kennedy, He had years to turn himself in to the authorities, and admit that he wanted her to die. Let's not forget how he helped his nephew William Kennedy Smith get off of a rape charge.

What are you talking about? He turned himself in, was charged with what our legal system deemed appropriate, and was tried and sentenced. Admit that he wanted her to die? I don't know what crystal ball you are using, but I doubt seriously that it allows you to see into the heart and mind of Ted Kennedy, and pronounce what he wants and doesn't want in any circumstance.

And as far as William Kennedy Smith is concerned, again, your problem is with the legal system, not the person. If you feel that he was unfairly acquitted, you need to spend your time attempting to correct the inequities in the legal system, not berating those who have used the inherent loopholes.

 

[jillio]

I certainly did not mean to sound insensitive but from what I'm reading here is, some claim that Ted was too drunk to save Mary Jo in a 5 feet of water even though he was able to swim 500 feet across to the surface... ALIVE.. And he had no valid driver license, why was he driving in the first place?...

It amazes me that people who has enough money and power can beat the justice system and walk away from it all... That's scary..

And that is the whole point. The problem is with the legal system, not with the individual.

And Ted Kennedy did not beat the justice system, actually. He was charged, tried, and sentenced. Had he beat the justice system, he never would have had charges levied against him. If one disagrees with the charges, the sentence, and the punsihment, then the problem needs to be dealt with as the inequities in our criminal justice system.

 

[Mistyrose]

What are you talking about? He turned himself in, was charged with what our legal system deemed appropriate, and was tried and sentenced. Admit that he wanted her to die? I don't know what crystal ball you are using, but I doubt seriously that it allows you to see into the heart and mind of Ted Kennedy, and pronounce what he wants and doesn't want in any circumstance.

And as far as William Kennedy Smith is concerned, again, your problem is with the legal system, not the person. If you feel that he was unfairly acquitted, you need to spend your time attempting to correct the inequities in the legal system, not berating those who have used the inherent loopholes.

Exactly right!

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Skakel's attorneys argue for new trial in Conn.

Skakel's attorneys argue for new trial in Conn.
Court is weighing credibility of a claim implicating two others in murder


updated 4:56 p.m. ET March 26, 2009

HARTFORD, Conn. - A claim that implicates two men in a 1975 murder that sent Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel to prison is "pretty compelling," a Connecticut Supreme Court justice said Thursday, but justices also expressed skepticism.

Justice Richard N. Palmer pressed prosecutors about why they didn't grant Gitano "Tony" Bryant immunity when he implicated two men in Martha Moxley's death a year after Skakel was convicted. Bryant's videotaped account is key to Skakel's request to overturn his 2002 murder conviction.

"It's pretty compelling, I think," Palmer said during a state Supreme Court hearing Thursday.

Prosecutor Susann Gill said Bryant was not a credible witness. None of the 15 people he claimed to have seen the night of the murder — including Skakel's siblings — corroborated his presence, she said.

"The state is not in the habit of granting immunity to people whose credibility we think is worthless," Gill said.

Nephew of Ethel Kennedy
Skakel, a nephew of Ethel Kennedy, was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison for fatally beating Moxley with a golf club when they were 15.

Thursday's hearing was an appeal of a 2007 decision by Stamford Superior Court Judge Edward R. Karazin Jr. that denied Skakel a new trial.

Bryant and Skakel attended the same private school as children. In his videotaped statement to an investigator hired by Skakel, Bryant said his two friends were in Greenwich the night Moxley was killed. He said they told him they got Moxley "caveman style."

Bryant has since invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The two men he implicated have done the same.

Prosecutors have said Bryant's claim was fabricated and that nobody saw him and his friends in the predominantly white, gated neighborhood the night of the murder. Bryant and one of the men he implicated are black; the other has been described as mixed race.

Palmer and other justices on Thursday questioned why nobody saw Bryant's friends in Greenwich on the night of the murder. One justice said the men would have been hard to miss.

One of Skakel's attorneys, Hubert Santos, blamed the Greenwich police investigation.

But Palmer challenged that argument.

"It's hard for me to believe the Greenwich police could have been that slothful in ascertaining who was in the neighborhood at that time," Palmer said.

Appears to be a reluctant witness
Palmer also pressed prosecutors on why Bryant would make up the story. Gill called it "I Love Lucy syndrome." Coined by Skakel's trial attorney, Michael Sherman, it refers to people who want to "get into the act" in the high-profile case.

But Palmer said Bryant seemed to be a reluctant witness.

"That's somewhat counterintuitive to me that anybody would do this," Palmer said. "It's hard for me to fathom."

Skakel's attorneys also accused state investigator Frank Garr of bias because of a book they say he planned with a former Newsday reporter. Garr said he did not get involved in the book until after the verdict.

Santos said Garr was paid $7,000 for his role in the book. He said the book deal would have opened a whole new line of defense: that Garr's interaction with witnesses made their testimony unreliable.

Appeal pending in federal court
The court did not indicate when it would make a decision.

Skakel lost an appeal before the state Supreme Court in which he argued, among other things, that the statute of limitations had expired when he was charged in 2000. He has an appeal pending in federal court.

Dorthy Moxley, the victim's mother, attended the hearing and said she remains convinced of Skakel's guilt.

"You do get a little anxious at the thought maybe you'll have to go through another trial," Moxley said. "I know he will get out some day, but I'd like it to be later rather than now."

Skakel's brother Stephen said he remains confident his brother will be vindicated. He said he considers Bryant's claim credible.

"Why would any one in their right mind put themselves in that situation?" Skakel said.

Kennedy cousin's attorneys argue for new trial - Crime & courts- msnbc.com