Liebling:-)))

Remember, Forgive and Forget are not same thing.

__________________

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Reba

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

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

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

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 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

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.


[quote]... 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.


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

[quote=Liebling:-)));988159]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

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

[quote=Reba;989085]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.


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

jillio

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 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:-)))

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

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.

jillio

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

Cheri

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

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

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

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.

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

jillio

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.