Remy returning to the booth

Mar 30, 2009
340
Boston, MA
InsideTheParker said:
I'm hopelessly out of it, b/c I hadn't realized until today that Remy is away from ST b/c the custody hearing is on: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us/case-spurs-fan-debate-over-boston-announcer.html?ref=baseball
 
This is where I think the PR issue is really at play. We can butt heads over the enabler talk and the culpability of the Red Sox in growing the monstrosity that is Jared, but it seems like the broader public is willing to say "But Jerry didn't kill anybody!"
 
But from the people I've spoken with -- I recognize that's hugely anecdotal -- there doesn't seem to be much sympathy to the idea that the girl should be brought up by the parents of the man that killed her daughter. Especially given the outcomes of the three other Remy offspring (one of whom is certainly worse than the others, but it isn't a pretty picture for any of them).
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
JGray38 said:
I think the point is that that they chose A. Then they chose A again. And again, and again, etc. You're framing it as one decision, when it was the same decision made many times over. Most people get to choose A once, if that. How many times can you choose A before B becomes the option?
 
I understand the frustration, but I think different variations of A, or a combination of elements from A and B are almost always going to be a better choice than going all B unless you no longer have the means to do anything else. I have personal reasons for not believing in our prison system as a means of fixing people, but that's not to say that Jared didn't deserve to spend more time there anyways. It sounds like he refused to stay on medication that was prescribed to him, and that is one potential angle Jerry and Phoebe might have been able to pursue as far as a condition for maintaining certain levels of support. If we ever were to get a more complete picture of how he was handled by the family, and what the internal discussions with him were like, I think a lot of alternatives would be apparent. They should have tuned the faucet to more of a trickle at certain points,but I'm not sure a pure sink-or-swim approach was the missing key for a case like him.
 
If people are talking about the nice cars or any other luxuries that should have been witheld from him, I am on board. Setting him up with a working-class-type job though to me is not excessive enabling, and I just haven't been able to understand why a lot of people have brought that up amongst all things as a reason for critcism. If anything that seems like one of the more reasonable things they did. He'd likely struggle to get work on his own and you certainly would prefer someone get used to having a job, as opposed to getting accustomed to living without one.   
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
redsahx said:
 
That's fine but we're all given the benefit of hindsight now. I was trying to present the possible perspective of the Remy's before all of this, and how it's not reasonable to state that they should have known they were choosing a more dangerous path for him at that time. If the choices were
A) Get him a job, provide family support for him and hope he grows out of his problems
or
B) Kick him to the curb, let him spend some more time in jail and ignore him when he comes out 
 
I'm not sure why B should have been considered the obvious solution from their viewpoint as far as what was going to spare society and protect others. You may not care about rehab, but their decision process would have been based on their best guess as far as how they might be able to rehabilitate a twenty-something year old son considering he was something they were going to be dealing with the rest of their lives. I'm sure Jerry and Phoebe have been second-guessing themselves pretty harshly, but I don't believe their intentions were poor. I do think Phoebe's reasoning and apparent actions those final two days make no sense, and I'd like to know why Jared's sister was able to detect how dangerous the situation was but not the mother. However, if you are going to criticize their handling of Jared in the prior years up to that point, I don't see how you can say that his hypothetical rehab is pointless, as all decisions are made with a hypothetical outcome in mind.
 
JGray38 said:
I think the point is that that they chose A. Then they chose A again. And again, and again, etc. You're framing it as one decision, when it was the same decision made many times over. Most people get to choose A once, if that. How many times can you choose A before B becomes the option?
 
This is where the Globe piece utterly fails of course--we don't know what sorts of measures the Remys did or did not take with their son. There is some stuff thrown in near the end about the therapist who had worked with Jared and said he wouldn't take his meds, so we know that some measures were taken. The author is too busy hammering Remy and the legal systems failures to give us the full story though, which is annoying for reasons that other, notably Syd have already fleshed out.
 
I'm inclined to think that Jerry and Phoebe fucked up a fair amount along the way as three for three with violent offenders isn't that common, unless you believe Phoebe is carrying the Evil Gene or something. This last intervention with Martel also reeks of serious denial about Jared who sounds like he was pretty toxic even when he wasn't committing violent acts, which is kinda special.
 
There's probably a strong argument to make that they definitely should not have kicked him to the curb; rather, they should not have let him live with anyone else.
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
Youkilis vs Wild said:
 
This is where I think the PR issue is really at play. We can butt heads over the enabler talk and the culpability of the Red Sox in growing the monstrosity that is Jared, but it seems like the broader public is willing to say "But Jerry didn't kill anybody!"
 
But from the people I've spoken with -- I recognize that's hugely anecdotal -- there doesn't seem to be much sympathy to the idea that the girl should be brought up by the parents of the man that killed her daughter. Especially given the outcomes of the three other Remy offspring (one of whom is certainly worse than the others, but it isn't a pretty picture for any of them).
 
Just playing devil's advocate here because I don't know the true intentions of the Remy's in this matter and do believe the Martel's are the better option, but Is it possible that what Jerry and Phoebe are doing is simply a means to maintain some sort of meaningful relationship with their granddaughter? It sounds like they were just as close to her if not closer than Martel's parents. Someone with background on family court matters can straighten me out here, but if they make no attempt at custody and allow the Martel's uncontested full custody, is it more likely the Martel's can then cut them off from their granddaughter? Could this simply be a means for them to ensure they get at least some visitation or partial custody rights?
 

InsideTheParker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,920
Pioneer Valley
Forgive me if this has already been covered, but is it possible that the Globe article is intended to effect a shift in public opinion against the Remys, so that he can be removed with less of an uproar from the Remy-lovers? (I would love to see him off the broadcasts, but  I've wanted him off for years.)
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,706
InsideTheParker said:
Forgive me if this has already been covered, but is it possible that the Globe article is intended to effect a shift in public opinion against the Remys, so that he can be removed with less of an uproar from the Remy-lovers? (I would love to see him off the broadcasts, but  I've wanted him off for years.)
 
I would so "no," but only because whatever ultimately happens, his "removal" won't look like a "removal,"  if for no other reason than to keep his significant fan-base (which includes, but it certainly not limited to, a not-insignificant number of "it was just as much the dead girl's fault" troglodytes) from uproaring as much. If JWH or whichever management type is closest with Remy tells him it just isn't working, I have little doubt that they will let him essentially write the script, but at a minimum, it will be portrayed as "Jerry's choice"  (and there will be a golden parachute of some sort for him). I dont see Remy making it into a "you're gonna have to fire me" thing.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
redsahx said:
 
Just playing devil's advocate here because I don't know the true intentions of the Remy's in this matter and do believe the Martel's are the better option, but Is it possible that what Jerry and Phoebe are doing is simply a means to maintain some sort of meaningful relationship with their granddaughter? It sounds like they were just as close to her if not closer than Martel's parents. Someone with background on family court matters can straighten me out here, but if they make no attempt at custody and allow the Martel's uncontested full custody, is it more likely the Martel's can then cut them off from their granddaughter? Could this simply be a means for them to ensure they get at least some visitation or partial custody rights?
 
It's possible, but they did this before at a time that sounds nearly indefensible:
 
At that point, Guyette, 19, had sole custody of the child after winning a two-year court battle initiated by Jerry and Phoebe Remy in which a guardian appointed by the court to investigate the child’s welfare, Bette Winik, ultimately sided with Guyette. “Bette was the one that really laid out that Jared was not doing what the court asked, that his parents were enabling him, and that Tiffany was the better parent,” said Maxa Berid, a family lawyer who represented Guyette. (Guyette lost custody in 2007, after the Remys prevailed in a second case, brought at a time Guyette was in another abusive relationship.)
 
 
I can imagine making a case for when Guyette was in another abusive relationship... sorta. But privileging your own desire to have a relationship with your grandchild over what seems pretty clearly to be the good of the child suggests a kind of selfishness or blindness, perhaps both (selfishness often leads to blindness).
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
Reverend said:
 
It's possible, but they did this before at a time that sounds nearly indefensible:
 
 
I can imagine making a case for when Guyette was in another abusive relationship... sorta. But privileging your own desire to have a relationship with your grandchild over what seems pretty clearly to be the good of the child suggests a kind of selfishness or blindness, perhaps both (selfishness often leads to blindness).
 
Well there are more factors to consider. First off I am not sold on the Martel's as a great landing spot either based on their history. From the Globe article:
 


Martel looked more than a little like a young Tiffany Guyette. And, like Guyette, the 22-year-old had also not had the easiest home life.
Growing up in Taunton, Martel had been 17 when her parents decided to follow her brother to Virginia for work, said Alexis Kirker, a younger cousin who grew up partly in the same household. Given a choice between dropping out of school and going with them or staying and fending for herself senior year, Martel stayed — working to pay for a tiny apartment and becoming the first in her family to finish high school, Kirker said.
 
So we're talking about a family that doesn't value education and who left their 17-year old daughter behind to fend for herself. The more I read about them, I'm not so sure the Remy's aren't a better landing spot. Jennifer seems like she was a lot more put together than the rest of her family. I also hesitate to label the Remy's selfish for wanting a relationship with their granddaughter. If for example, the Martel's are planning on taking the child to Virginia, and the Remy's have to settle for an occasional picture in the mail or on facebook (if they even get that courtesy) then I can't blame them for wanting to avoid that fate.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm not arguing that the Martels would be a better landing spot. Rather, I'm suggesting that there's no good way to tell if the Remys are suing for custody for good or bad reasons because we have evidence that they will do it even when it should be fairly obvious it is not in the best interests of the child, i.e. when it would have given Jared increased access to the child during his reign of terror.
 

doldmoose34

impregnated Melissa Theuriau
SoSH Member
I had a total WTF moment on Sunday, while flicking around all of the sports on TV I hit NESN late in the game durring the 8th inning garbage time when Jerry and DO were yucking it up over Costig's grandchildren in the stands and talking about interns... It was cringe worthy after having read the article
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
27,545
South Boston
redsahx said:
So we're talking about a family that doesn't value education and who left their 17-year old daughter behind to fend for herself. The more I read about them, I'm not so sure the Remy's aren't a better landing spot.
Yeah, I'm convinced. Moving to find work and giving a 17 year-old the choice of whether to come or work her way through her senior year by herself and raising three criminals and a murderer and telling your son's eventual murder victim that you'll protect her if she refuses to cooperate with the criminal prosecution and then failing to do so are pretty comparable behaviors.
 

rundugrun

lurker
Jul 23, 2005
455
Knoxville, TN
Reverend said:
 
 
This is where the Globe piece utterly fails of course--we don't know what sorts of measures the Remys did or did not take with their son. There is some stuff thrown in near the end about the therapist who had worked with Jared and said he wouldn't take his meds, so we know that some measures were taken. The author is too busy hammering Remy and the legal systems failures to give us the full story though, which is annoying for reasons that other, notably Syd have already fleshed out.
 
I'm inclined to think that Jerry and Phoebe fucked up a fair amount along the way as three for three with violent offenders isn't that common, unless you believe Phoebe is carrying the Evil Gene or something. This last intervention with Martel also reeks of serious denial about Jared who sounds like he was pretty toxic even when he wasn't committing violent acts, which is kinda special.
 
There's probably a strong argument to make that they definitely should not have kicked him to the curb; rather, they should not have let him live with anyone else.
But how can any parent "not allow" a 30 year old adult to live where he or she wants? Jared Remy was an adult and short of jail time, he was gonna do whatever he wanted to do. Jerry certainly could not physically force him to live at home... I think given all the mistakes Jared made, it was past time for him to be treated like an adult without any financial assistance. If that's "kicked to the curb", so be it. I call it growing up.
 

Judge Mental13

Scoops McGee
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2002
5,083
redsahx said:
I also hesitate to label the Remy's selfish for wanting a relationship with their granddaughter. If for example, the Martel's are planning on taking the child to Virginia, and the Remy's have to settle for an occasional picture in the mail or on facebook (if they even get that courtesy) then I can't blame them for wanting to avoid that fate.
 
Fuck that.
 
Their son murdered the kid's mother.  The fact that they're fighting for custody at all is so fucked up.
 

Nuf Ced

stupidity monitor
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2001
9,715
Cape Ann
doldmoose34 said:
I had a total WTF moment on Sunday, while flicking around all of the sports on TV I hit NESN late in the game durring the 8th inning garbage time when Jerry and DO were yucking it up over Costig's grandchildren in the stands and talking about interns... It was cringe worthy after having read the article
 
Maybe if they can get a guest in the booth every inning or someone else to throw pizza in the stands, no one will notice...... <_<
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
rundugrun said:
But how can any parent "not allow" a 30 year old adult to live where he or she wants? Jared Remy was an adult and short of jail time, he was gonna do whatever he wanted to do. Jerry certainly could not physically force him to live at home... I think given all the mistakes Jared made, it was past time for him to be treated like an adult without any financial assistance. If that's "kicked to the curb", so be it. I call it growing up.
 
By not paying the rent?
 
Have you read the piece? I think you have the financial equation here backwards--the guy didn't have a job but was living away from home and had a gym membership and went tanning. Do the math.
 

CantKeepmedown

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,716
Portland, ME
I have to imagine that the Martel's argued that they can support their granddaughter in a loving, 2 parent home.  They raised 2 good kids.
 
Meanwhile, it's well documented what has gone on with the 3 Remy children.  As well as Jerry Remy himself being on the road for 8 months out of the year, leavining the littel girl to be raised primarily by Phoebe Remy.  Maybe Jerry staying with NESN bit him in the ass a bit?
 
The Remy's will get visitation rights, who knows in what manner.  I wonder if they asked about visitation rights for their monster son?
 

JayMags71

Member
SoSH Member
Reverend said:
By not paying the rent?
 
Have you read the piece? I think you have the financial equation here backwards--the guy didn't have a job but was living away from home and had a gym membership and went tanning. Do the math.
That's correct. But if Mom and Pop turn off the money spigot, that gives Jared the means to cry poor mouth and weasel into living with Jen anyways.
 

yep

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2006
2,465
Red Sox Natin
rundugrun said:
But how can any parent "not allow" a 30 year old adult to live where he or she wants? Jared Remy was an adult and short of jail time, he was gonna do whatever he wanted to do. Jerry certainly could not physically force him to live at home... I think given all the mistakes Jared made, it was past time for him to be treated like an adult without any financial assistance. If that's "kicked to the curb", so be it. I call it growing up.
 
This is the kind of thing one could get way bogged down in, but here is a theoretical "tough love" scenario short of disowning/kicking to the curb (since some here seem hell-bent on forcing a binary choice between exactly what the Remys did, and complete abandonment):
 
- Jared can stay at our house, all money and valuables are locked up, and he is given food, clothes, but no money. (call it the man-child approach)
 
- No car, no cell phone, you walk or we drive you to work if you want to work. If you do work, a condition of staying here is that your paycheck is direct-deposited into an account controlled by the parents, which will be released to you on the day you move out and not before. If being treated like a child seems unfair, then go be free, and be a grownup on your own. You are welcome home every Sunday between 6pm and 10pm for dinner. 
 
- We don't pay for bail, lawyers, or anything like that. You get in trouble with the police, you sort it out yourself, like a big boy.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,706
Judge Mental13 said:
 
 
Their son murdered the kid's mother.  The fact that they're fighting for custody at all is so fucked up.
 
 
Unless it's as suggested above, simply a way of getting some standing to get some sort of visitation rights, which is what looks like the result is.
 
Anyone know whether it was by the parties' agreement, as opposed to a judge or marital master having to decide?
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
Myt1 said:
Yeah, I'm convinced. Moving to find work and giving a 17 year-old the choice of whether to come or work her way through her senior year by herself and raising three criminals and a murderer and telling your son's eventual murder victim that you'll protect her if she refuses to cooperate with the criminal prosecution and then failing to do so are pretty comparable behaviors.
 
Nice mischaracterization of the argument. If you are so wise in the ways of parenting and have extensive background in studying behavioral issues in young adults, would you care to spell out which "behaviors" on the part of the Remy's directly led to their son becoming an extremely violent lunatic and how that would manifest itself in the upbringing of this young girl? Neither you or I possess enough meaningful info to project a likely outcome for being raised by them. I'll have to defer to the courts which I'm sure you'll agree will consider more information than that provided in a Boston Globe article. (And from what it seems, a settlement might have been reached)
 
If I happened to know that for example, Phoebe was an emotionally and physically abusive person and that was the underlying cause of their children's behavior, then of course I wouldn't hesitate to call that out. There hasn't yet been indication that this or anything similar was the case. Did they simply lose some genetic lottery and their worst crime was spoiling their already rotten kids? I don't know. If the Martel's were unlikley to provide support for going to college and even finishing high school, whereas the Remys can provide significant resources for the child if need be including access to specialized care and education, then I'm not sure they should be cut off from the child. For the record I have a daughter the same age as Arianna, so that is who I care about, not the Remy's. I've merely been trying to point out that people are making some awfully big assumptions about the Remys with incomplete evidence.
 
Judge Mental13 said:
 
Fuck that.
 
Their son murdered the kid's mother.  The fact that they're fighting for custody at all is so fucked up.
 
So if you had granchildren you were close to, and a son of yours murdered their mother, you would voluntarily sever all ties with them out of principal? Pretend your side of the family no longer exists for them?
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
CantKeepmedown said:
I have to imagine that the Martel's argued that they can support their granddaughter in a loving, 2 parent home.  They raised 2 good kids.
 
Meanwhile, it's well documented what has gone on with the 3 Remy children.  As well as Jerry Remy himself being on the road for 8 months out of the year, leavining the littel girl to be raised primarily by Phoebe Remy.  Maybe Jerry staying with NESN bit him in the ass a bit?
 
The Remy's will get visitation rights, who knows in what manner.  I wonder if they asked about visitation rights for their monster son?
 
I would assume that they will now be allowed to take their granddaughter back to Virginia full time, and have no responsibility to stay in Mass so the Remy's can regularly visit her.  Presumably that would mean the Remy's would have to travel to see her, but they have the financial resources to do so of course and it is not a long trip. 
 

fairlee76

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2005
2,925
jp
redsahx said:
 
So we're talking about a family that doesn't value education and who left their 17-year old daughter behind to fend for herself. The more I read about them, I'm not so sure the Remy's aren't a better landing spot. Jennifer seems like she was a lot more put together than the rest of her family. I also hesitate to label the Remy's selfish for wanting a relationship with their granddaughter. If for example, the Martel's are planning on taking the child to Virginia, and the Remy's have to settle for an occasional picture in the mail or on facebook (if they even get that courtesy) then I can't blame them for wanting to avoid that fate.
On the Martells, I have a few friends whose parents "let them fend for themselves" at some point during their teenage years.  In all cases, the kids had the choice to follow the parents to a new town or stay behind with other relatives and/or friends.  In the cases of friends closest to me, they decided to stay behind while their parent(s) moved away for a better opportunity or a fresh start.  Mind you, their parents were scuttling by, trying to figure themselves out, and in no position economically to provide for their kids.  (Whether they should have had kids at all is a discussion for a different day.)  These were parents who were doing their best (which, admittedly, was not nearly enough) despite a glaring lack of resources and some childhood issues of their own to address.  Their kids grew up to be tough, resourceful, and among the most independent people I know.
 
Now contrast that with the Remy family.  It appears as though they had all the resources in the world and chose to use those resources to enable and protect Jared each time he battered someone.  From the time he was 15 through the time he was 30, they facilitated his behavior.  I know Jerry and Phoebe Remy did not kill Jennifer Martell.  But their "parenting" certainly helped Jared become the beast we see today.  I can't get behind the notion that the Remys are more fit to serve as guardians than the Martells.  We know how the Remy's kids turned out.  They don't deserve another chance, without getting into the macabre discussion of the daughter of a murder victim being raised by the murderer's parents.
 

fairlee76

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2005
2,925
jp
redsahx said:
 
So if you had granchildren you were close to, and a son of yours murdered their mother, you would voluntarily sever all ties with them out of principal? Pretend your side of the family no longer exists for them?
"Sever all ties" is pretty far from "serve as guardians for."
 

Judge Mental13

Scoops McGee
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2002
5,083
redsahx said:
So if you had granchildren you were close to, and a son of yours murdered their mother, you would voluntarily sever all ties with them out of principal? Pretend your side of the family no longer exists for them?
 
I would voluntarily leave the decision up to them, rather than FIGHTING THEM IN COURT.
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
fairlee76 said:
"Sever all ties" is pretty far from "serve as guardians for."
 
Look at what I was responding to with that though. Judge Mental argued that they basically had no business wanting any relaitonship with the child.  Anyways this goes back to my intial hypothesis which was that the Remy's were possibly just trying to ensure some visitation rights anyways, while many people seemed to be of the belief that there was no excuse at all for them to be pursuing any type of custody.
 
 
fairlee76 said:
On the Martells, I have a few friends whose parents "let them fend for themselves" at some point during their teenage years.  In all cases, the kids had the choice to follow the parents to a new town or stay behind with other relatives and/or friends. ....
 
.....I can't get behind the notion that the Remys are more fit to serve as guardians than the Martells.  We know how the Remy's kids turned out.  They don't deserve another chance, without getting into the macabre discussion of the daughter of a murder victim being raised by the murderer's parents.
As for the first part of this, I did consider that angle, and it's a good point to raise. Jennifer Martell is clearly more evidence that things can still turn out well in that situation. She appeared to have her head on straight and was doing well professionally. I raised the question as to whether or not we know for certain the Martell's are now in better shape to raise Arianna than they were their daughter. I hope people didn't take my points to mean I feel qualified to declare who the better fit will be, merely that there are question marks on both sides.
 
As for the second part, should judges and social workers seriously consider the fact of who's child killed who as a primary factor in their decision? How much weight is that supposed to truly carry? If the mother's parents were raging alcoholics who couldn't hold down a job, should we just skip both sets of grandparents and go straight to state custody? My argument with Myt1 aside, I do believe it is perfectly reasonable to question whether the Remy's would actually fare any better this time around in raising a child, I just think it is unfair to conclusively rule them unfit without closer examination. The whole part about whose child killed whom should only be perhaps a tie-breaker all things being equal.
 

rundugrun

lurker
Jul 23, 2005
455
Knoxville, TN
Reverend said:
 
By not paying the rent?
 
Have you read the piece? I think you have the financial equation here backwards--the guy didn't have a job but was living away from home and had a gym membership and went tanning. Do the math.
We're on the same page then... Jerry and Phoebe should have cut off the funds and let Jared live his own life. I just don't see how they could force a 30 year old man to live with them. Refusing to subsidize Jared does not guarantee that he will live at Mom and Dad's place.

Yes, I read the entire article.

Edited for typo.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
rundugrun said:
We're on the same page then... Jerry and Phoebe should have cut off the funds and let Jared live his own life. I just don't see how they could force a 30 year old man to live with them. Refusing to subsidize Jared does not guarantee that he will live at Mom and Dad's place.

Yes, I read the entire article.

Edited for typo.
 
Cool. I simply was pointing to an in-between point, i.e. we'll give you financial support, but not to live with other people. 
 

CR67dream

Dope
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
4,782
I'm going home
Judge Mental13 said:
 
I would voluntarily leave the decision up to them, rather than FIGHTING THEM IN COURT.
The thing is, it's pretty likely that they're not fighting, but rather had some sort of agreement, or framework thereof, going into the hearing. I find it hard to believe that the Remys were fighting for primary custody, and if they were I'll certainly change my tune. It just drives me nuts that while none of us knows anything about what went on in the courtroom, or leading up to the hearing, conclusions are being drawn. Judge, is it your opinion that the Remys should just go away and not try to work out a solution amenable to both families?
 

Redkluzu

tortures mice
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
2,146
Bostonish...see Wiki for "ish"
I am certain I am in the minority here but this line in RR's resonated for me: ".I just dislike it when rhetoric gets employed like this to no good end.  Does anyone not think Jared is fucked up?  Does anyone not think he murdered Martel?  So why the article?"
 
I dared to mention something on twitter that I found the timing of this article, after all had been known for so long, somewhat concerning. Yes, it takes a lot with an investigation and editing and fact-checking and and and but why now, why just at the beginning of baseball season when everyone --as has already been mentioned above -- will look at Jerry and cringe or call for his head? Could this article have been released earlier? Is the point to pull out all the stops and print "The Truth," and if so, in a twist on what RR asked, what does The Globe want to achieve with this?
 
I am a defender of women, for sure, a non-supporter of those who game the system with money and yet, something doesn't feel right about the article's timing.
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
Judge Mental13 said:
 
I would voluntarily leave the decision up to them, rather than FIGHTING THEM IN COURT.
 
Even if you had a relationship with said grandchildren and that was your only means of maintaining meaningful contact? Not buying it.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
CR67dream said:
The thing is, it's pretty likely that they're not fighting, but rather had some sort of agreement, or framework thereof, going into the hearing. I find it hard to believe that the Remys were fighting for primary custody, and if they were I'll certainly change my tune. It just drives me nuts that while none of us knows anything about what went on in the courtroom, or leading up to the hearing, conclusions are being drawn. Judge, is it your opinion that the Remys should just go away and not try to work out a solution amenable to both families?
 
It's been widely reported that they were. Whether or not it was strategic with the goal of getting visitation rights is, of course, another matter.
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
27,545
South Boston
redsahx said:
Nice mischaracterization of the argument. If you are so wise in the ways of parenting and have extensive background in studying behavioral issues in young adults, would you care to spell out which "behaviors" on the part of the Remy's directly led to their son becoming an extremely violent lunatic and how that would manifest itself in the upbringing of this young girl? Neither you or I possess enough meaningful info to project a likely outcome for being raised by them. I'll have to defer to the courts which I'm sure you'll agree will consider more information than that provided in a Boston Globe article. (And from what it seems, a settlement might have been reached)
 
If I happened to know that for example, Phoebe was an emotionally and physically abusive person and that was the underlying cause of their children's behavior, then of course I wouldn't hesitate to call that out. There hasn't yet been indication that this or anything similar was the case. Did they simply lose some genetic lottery and their worst crime was spoiling their already rotten kids? I don't know. If the Martel's were unlikley to provide support for going to college and even finishing high school, whereas the Remys can provide significant resources for the child if need be including access to specialized care and education, then I'm not sure they should be cut off from the child. For the record I have a daughter the same age as Arianna, so that is who I care about, not the Remy's. I've merely been trying to point out that people are making some awfully big assumptions about the Remys with incomplete evidence.
No. You've been pointing that out while simultaneously tying yourself in knots to draw every possible conclusion in favor of the Remy's but against the Martels.

I mean, in the same post you conclude that the Martels don't value education in the basis of one anecdote while grasping at straws and suggesting that the Remys weren't actually interested in obtainig the order they sought from the court, but merely wanted to have a role in their grandchild's life (instead of taking the apparently esoteric step of simply asking for visitation in the first place).

You know, after trying to take another grandchild away from a woman their monster battered.

Your posts in this and pretense to suspending your mind because you lack all relevant information almost comically lack self awareness.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
 
Yes. And they bought her a brand new car as well. Almost as if by paying for her rent and things they could make the relationship between Jared and her work out.
 
Money has a way of guilting people into letting others control their lives, to the point that they feel an irrational dependency on it. 
 
The chronic inability of people to say no, mostly because of money, is all over this story; Remys, Martel, Red Sox, judges
 

Myt1

the FRESH maker
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
27,545
South Boston
It's also cute that you're steadfastly ignoring the fact that Phoebe Remy promised to protect Martell and failed to do so, too. I know, it's an inconvenient fact when you're using solipsism to set one bar while wish casting to set the other.

And if the Remys care so much about paying for an education for their granddaughter and that's their motivation for seeking custody, exactly which part of not seeking custody would prohibit them from establishing an educational trust or otherwise paying for her education anyway? I mean, besides your straw man false equivalency between not seeking custody and being completely cut off from their grandchild.

I'll hang up and wait for your answer.
 

CR67dream

Dope
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
4,782
I'm going home
Reverend said:
 
It's been widely reported that they were. Whether or not it was strategic with the goal of getting visitation rights is, of course, another matter.
Not really, as it's not uncommon in custody cases for petitioning for physical custody to be a starting point, and common sense tells me the Remys, and more importantly, their lawyers, had  to know that the odds of that ever happening were zilch. In other words, legally speaking, it seems to be a totally strategic move designed to get the sides talking. If my common sense has failed me, and the Remys went into that hearing guns a blazing, trying to pry that little girl away from her mother's family, then fuck them, but it just doesn't seem to me that that's very likely. 
 

Foulkey Reese

foulkiavelli
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2006
21,785
Central CT
Redkluzu said:
I am certain I am in the minority here but this line in RR's resonated for me: ".I just dislike it when rhetoric gets employed like this to no good end.  Does anyone not think Jared is fucked up?  Does anyone not think he murdered Martel?  So why the article?"
 
I dared to mention something on twitter that I found the timing of this article, after all had been known for so long, somewhat concerning. Yes, it takes a lot with an investigation and editing and fact-checking and and and but why now, why just at the beginning of baseball season when everyone --as has already been mentioned above -- will look at Jerry and cringe or call for his head? Could this article have been released earlier? Is the point to pull out all the stops and print "The Truth," and if so, in a twist on what RR asked, what does The Globe want to achieve with this?
 
I am a defender of women, for sure, a non-supporter of those who game the system with money and yet, something doesn't feel right about the article's timing.
Page views?
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
 
And even if they wrote this as a "hit piece" against Jerry Remy, who gives a shit? Look how long he and his scum bag criminal kids got a free ride in the court of public opinion.
 

Judge Mental13

Scoops McGee
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2002
5,083
CR67dream said:
The thing is, it's pretty likely that they're not fighting, but rather had some sort of agreement, or framework thereof, going into the hearing. I find it hard to believe that the Remys were fighting for primary custody, and if they were I'll certainly change my tune. It just drives me nuts that while none of us knows anything about what went on in the courtroom, or leading up to the hearing, conclusions are being drawn. Judge, is it your opinion that the Remys should just go away and not try to work out a solution amenable to both families?
 
What I got out of this is that the Remy's knew that if the Martells were awarded full custody then they would not allow the Remys to see the granddaughter, and that they were going to court to make sure that they could at least have visitation rights. 
 
What I'm saying is that if the Martells have primary custody, and don't want the Remys to have visitation rights, the Remys should shut the fuck up and deal with it.  

 
Even if you had a relationship with said grandchildren and that was your only means of maintaining meaningful contact? Not buying it.
 
 
 
If my son had just murdered the child's mother I can assure you that my "relationship" with the grandchild would in NO WAY supercede me making sure that the Martells have whatever custody they want and if they want to allow visitation the courts don't need to be involved.  No fucking way would I fight to have visitation rights if the other family were against it. 
 
If I'm grossly misunderstanding what these court dates were about well then sorry for derailing, but that's the impression I was under. 
 

fairlee76

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 9, 2005
2,925
jp
Foulkey Reese said:
Page views?
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
 
And even if they wrote this as a "hit piece" against Jerry Remy, who gives a shit? Look how long he and his scum bag criminal kids got a free ride in the court of public opinion.
Yes.  Of all the stories that have come out over the last few weeks, this is the one that pretty much everyone I know is talking about.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,706
If my son had just murdered the child's mother I can assure you that my "relationship" with the grandchild would in NO WAY supercede me making sure that the Martells have whatever custody they want and if they want to allow visitation the courts don't need to be involved.
 
 
 
The courts *do* need to get involved insofar as *someone* has to be made a guardian.
 
What I'm saying is that if the Martells have primary custody, and don't want the Remys to have visitation rights, the Remys should shut the fuck up and deal with it.  
 
That appears not to be the case.
 
 
They seemed to have reached an agreement, which suggets that the Martels agreed with the idea of an agreement under which the Remys have some sort of visitation. (And yes, it is certainly possible that the Remys walked in there and said to Martel's lawyer, "we have 1000 times more money than they do and we'll bury them unless we get something here," but the downside of that is that there is no agreement and the Remys roll the dice in front of the judge with some bad facts on their side, so I think its unlikely to haev gone down that way).
 
http://boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/03/25/custody-case-over-remy-granddaughter-set-begin-report/1iNxzhXsR81HvGSwcMvp2L/story.html
 
Remy lawyer:

The parties came to an agreement that they're all satisfied with, and under this agreement, the granddaughter, Adrianna, will spend time with all three famlies. Beyond that, I'm not at liberty to give any specific details," said the attorney, Sandy Durland.
 
 
 
 
 
Martel lawyer:
Eric Moskowitz @GlobeMoskowitz Follow

Martel family lawyer: Martels will have guardianship of 5 year old Arianna; Remys will have visitation rights

 
 

 
 

 
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
CR67dream said:
Not really, as it's not uncommon in custody cases for petitioning for physical custody to be a starting point, and common sense tells me the Remys, and more importantly, their lawyers, had  to know that the odds of that ever happening were zilch. In other words, legally speaking, it seems to be a totally strategic move designed to get the sides talking. If my common sense has failed me, and the Remys went into that hearing guns a blazing, trying to pry that little girl away from her mother's family, then fuck them, but it just doesn't seem to me that that's very likely. 
 
Yeah, that's what I was saying--all we know is that they were petitioning for custody and we have no information as to what their actual goals were, i.e. we know their actions but their intentions are unclear based on said actions.
 

CR67dream

Dope
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
4,782
I'm going home
Reverend said:
 
Yeah, that's what I was saying--all we know is that they were petitioning for custody and we have no information as to what their actual goals were, i.e. we know their actions but their intentions are unclear based on said actions.
I hear you, Rev, and I could have been clearer by saying that I would find it hard to believe the Remys went into today seeking physical custody, rather than leave the impression that I thought that they never filed papers seeking such. I only responded to Judge because it seemed to me that he was under the impression, based on his post, that he thought today was going to be a battle. I just couldn't see that happening, for reasons stated above, and also the fact that it most certainly would have had severe negative PR consequences, and would have justified taking the beating the Remys are taking to a nuclear level. Even if they were inclined to wage that fight, which is far from established, they had to know that it would be a very, very bad idea. 
 

Redkluzu

tortures mice
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
2,146
Bostonish...see Wiki for "ish"
Foulkey Reese said:
Page views?
 
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
 
And even if they wrote this as a "hit piece" against Jerry Remy, who gives a shit? Look how long he and his scum bag criminal kids got a free ride in the court of public opinion.
I give a shit. Why something appears as news months after the facts came out, i.e. the "when" is an issue for me, which is why I raised it. There are many issues here. Not 1.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,909
Southwestern CT
Redkluzu said:
I give a shit. Why something appears as news months after the facts came out, i.e. the "when" is an issue for me, which is why I raised it. There are many issues here. Not 1.
 
If you're claiming that there's nothing new here you are simply incorrect, because the totality of Jared Remy's record and the role of his parents in supporting him over the years was new information for most.  If your chief complaint is that the timing feels opportunistic, I would say you simply don't understand how investigative journalism works.
 
When reporting a story like this the publication is going to take it's time and make sure they have the facts right.  Then they'll publish the story at the moment when it will have the maximum impact.
 
I can appreciate that you don't like it, but there's nothing sinister about it.
 

Judge Mental13

Scoops McGee
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2002
5,083
Well I'm glad I misunderstood the nature of today's proceedings.  I still feel as though it would have been more appropriate to give the Martells a unilateral decision in court vis-a-vis custody without their visitation rights being a matter of the court, but again, I thought much worse.  
 
What I don't understand is why aren't they trying to find an aunt or uncle or someone closer to Jennifer/Jared's age at least?  There's a decent chance all 4 of these grandparents will be gone by the time the girl's 18