Skakel guilty
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/06/skakel.trial/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/06/skakel.trial/index.html</a>;
Well I have no connection to this case other than I work in the town of Norwalk. Must be why there was so much traffic today.
Well I have no connection to this case other than I work in the town of Norwalk. Must be why there was so much traffic today.
Comments
You Republicans might remember the Kennedys as drunk womanizers, but how easily you forget great men like Robert Kennedy and all of the good things that John F. Kennedy did.
Remember, if not for those two men, we might not be here today.
Edit: Also, I'm so glad to you felt the need to connect someone who was found guilty of murder to the entire family. Good job. Hey, your cousin killed someone! Your entire family is horrible! Get a clue guys.
[ 06-07-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
Lets' see.
Ted killed that girl when he drove off that bridge.
John Jonh crahsed his plane killing two.
Skakel clubed that poor girl.
That's four right there.
I know you usually grasp at straws but this is ridiculous.
(And I'm not a republican't. But I guess if you have something bad to say about a democrap you have to be labeled somehow so we all fit in nice little bins like sorted mail)
I don't think that Bush took that big of a hit from what his daughter's did, and I certainly wouldn't blame Bush for what they did either. You can't make generalizations about a family for the actions of one person.
As for this case, it's the same way. WTF does this guy have to do with the other Kennedy's except for the fact that he's sort of related. Making a connection between him and even Ted Kennedy is wrong. This thread is being used as an excuse to bash the Kennedys, and I think its foolish. Bash Skakel, I can't object. But bashing the Kennedy family? I don't see the connection.
<strong>I'm glad you guys can so easily make such statements without providing the facts to back them up.
You Republicans might remember the Kennedys as drunk womanizers, but how easily you forget great men like Robert Kennedy and all of the good things that John F. Kennedy did.
Remember, if not for those two men, we might not be here today.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fran, I like RFK and JFK too but your hero worship is a little over-the-top. If it weren?t for them, we might not be here today? You could say that of Churchill, perhaps, but Bobby and Jack?
<strong>
Fran, I like RFK and JFK too but your hero worship is a little over-the-top. If it weren?t for them, we might not be here today? You could say that of Churchill, perhaps, but Bobby and Jack?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Cuba Crisis. Thirteen days minus 50% still = saved the world
<strong>
The Cuba Crisis. Thirteen days minus 50% still = saved the world</strong><hr></blockquote>
How can prove a different person and/or different method would not have "saved the world". One could argue that Reagan saved the world when he put a stop to the funny business in Granada.
Anyway no, Fran, I'm not suggesting that they all tried to kill the women. Just that they seem rather skilled at it. If my sister was dating a Kennedy I'd take out a policy. I'm sure it would cost to much though.
<strong>
How can prove a different person and/or different method would not have "saved the world".</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can´t prove anything. But I have read a lot on the crisis both out of interest and in IR. Of course a lot of it is biased (like the writings of Robert Kennedy and Ted Sorensen) but more "neutral" accounts of the events point me to the same conclusion.
<strong>
The Cuba Crisis. Thirteen days minus 50% still = saved the world</strong><hr></blockquote>
One could place a fair amount of blame for the Cuban missile crisis on the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Meaning: JFK dealt with a problem he helped to create in the first place.
<strong>Erra yer wrong
Lets' see.
Ted killed that girl when he drove off that bridge.
John Jonh crahsed his plane killing two.
Skakel clubed that poor girl.
That's four right there.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Skakel isn't really a Kenndy is he? He's only related by marriage.
<strong>
Skakel isn't really a Kenndy is he? He's only related by marriage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ethel Kennedy's (Bobby's widow) maiden name was Skakel. That's the connection. So RFK and Michael Skakel wouldn't be blood relatives but Bobby's kids - all first cousins to Michael Skakel - are.
<strong>I think he should have been found innocent,there isn't any hard evidence linking him to the crime.In my opinion he probably did it,but I don't think the prosecution met the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,not at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You may be right. I haven't heard what the great new evidance is against him. If they found a golf club with her blood and his prints it would be big news. But there doesn't seem to be a smoking gun here. I'm off to NYT to see what I can read.
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: scott_h_phd ]</p>
<strong>I think he should have been found innocent,there isn't any hard evidence linking him to the crime.In my opinion he probably did it,but I don't think the prosecution met the standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,not at all.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree on both points (that he probably did it, but shouldn't have been convicted based on the evidence presented). I haven't been following the trial that closely, but from what I understand, all of the evidence was circumstantial and based on 27 year old testimony from witnesses that were admitted drug addicts at the time.
Also, one of the news shows interviewed some of the jurors this morning, who said that they based their conviction on Skakel's "hubris" and/or guilty conscience that seemed to want to be convicted, which is kind of odd considering that Skakel never took to stand or said a word throughout the course of the trial.