Remy returning to the booth

CR67dream

Dope
Dope
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
4,776
I'm going home
Judge Mental13 said:
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
There is an uncle, I believe, which is why the report said time will be split between the three families. 
 

Judge Mental13

Scoops McGee
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2002
5,083
Yeah aunt and uncle on the Martell's side, good to see. 
 
Those four people are gonna share a lot of time in court over the next couple years. 
 

ForKeeps

lurker
Oct 13, 2011
464
You guys are right, girl is so much better off with the Martels. And when she turns 18 she can get a job and fend for herself after they abandon her like they apparently did with her mother (who, just coincidentally I'm sure, turned out to be someone susceptible to abusive relationships with men). Yeah, some great parenting in store for that girl.
 

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
14,663
The Eastern Suburbs
ForKeeps said:
You guys are right, girl is so much better off with the Martels. And when she turns 18 she can get a job and fend for herself after they abandon her like they apparently did with her mother (who, just coincidentally I'm sure, turned out to be someone susceptible to abusive relationships with men). Yeah, some great parenting in store for that girl.
 
This is completely unhelpful. Take it weei.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,873
Southwestern CT
ForKeeps said:
You guys are right, girl is so much better off with the Martels. And when she turns 18 she can get a job and fend for herself after they abandon her like they apparently did with her mother (who, just coincidentally I'm sure, turned out to be someone susceptible to abusive relationships with men). Yeah, some great parenting in store for that girl.
This is special.
 

ForKeeps

lurker
Oct 13, 2011
464
I'm sorry, I'm lowering the discourse from comments like, "The Martels raised two good kids!" I have to admit it's impressive to, in one sentence, make a definitive judgement on four people you know absolutely nothing about
 

Tito's Pullover

Lol boo ALS
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2007
1,568
Anytown, USA
ForKeeps said:
who, just coincidentally I'm sure, turned out to be someone susceptible to abusive relationships with men
Your whole post was deplorable, but the quoted is one of the more disgusting things I've read on this board.
 

DrewDawg

Dorito Dink
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
34,885
ForKeeps said:
I'm sorry, I'm lowering the discourse from comments like, "The Martels raised two good kids!" I have to admit it's impressive to, in one sentence, make a definitive judgement on four people you know absolutely nothing about
 
You realize you did the same thing right?
 

geoduck no quahog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,125
Seattle, WA
I just finished the article (no ability to read the documents linked) and I want to give props to Myt1, Romine and Sydney Sox for pointing out the fault lines in the piece.
 
It was clear to me that this was another case of a journalist starting off with a premise and then assembling all of the facts to back that premise up. The facts are factual, but the context is contextual.
 
There's simply not enough newsprint in that piece to justify an informed take on the situation, and the agenda is clear.
 
This case is much better served by a book-length study, going into all the details of all the parties, including the enablers. References to law (thanks Sosh lawyers) are extremely helpful. I'd also like to know how this case might be different from any number of cases with similar roots around the country that don't involve celebrity families, because that would be instructive.
 
I guess it served its purpose though, selling papers and leading readers to jump top the exact conclusions the authors wanted them to jump to. 
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,692
ForKeeps said:
I'm sorry, I'm lowering the discourse from comments like, "The Martels raised two good kids!" I have to admit it's impressive to, in one sentence, make a definitive judgement on four people you know absolutely nothing about
 
You have succeeded where others have failed -- folks who have disagreed wildly about various aspects of this mess all find themselves in agreement on one thing now.
 

ForKeeps

lurker
Oct 13, 2011
464
DrewDawg said:
 
You realize you did the same thing right?
 
And finally someone gets it. I'm not taking sides here, the point is what I said is no more ridiculous than people rooting for the Remys to not gain custody as if we have any idea what any of these people are really like.  I regret the wording of the parenthetical statement, I realize it comes across as victim blaming wrt domestic violence which is not what I intended at all. What I should've said was maybe their bad parenting led her to fall in love with and get pregnant by an irredeemable piece of shit.
 

yep

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2006
2,465
Red Sox Natin
ForKeeps said:
 
And finally someone gets it. I'm not taking sides here, the point is what I said is no more ridiculous than people rooting for the Remys to not gain custody as if we have any idea what any of these people are really like.  I regret the wording of the parenthetical statement, I realize it comes across as victim blaming wrt domestic violence which is not what I intended at all. What I should've said was maybe their bad parenting led her to fall in love with and get pregnant by an irredeemable piece of shit.
I agree. If only we didn't have such bad parenting from the Martels, then the poor upstanding Remy family wouldn't have to go through this ordeal of trying to gain custody of their granddaughter, because Jennifer wouldn't have made such poor life-choices as getting herself knocked up and murdered by their son. Maybe in the hands of the Remys, the poor child would have a chance to grow up like their fine children. It's pretty clear that being raised in the Martel household gives one a much higher chance of being murdered than growing up in the Remy household, and you really can't argue with facts. 
 

geoduck no quahog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,125
Seattle, WA
yep said:
...you really can't argue with facts. 
 
which are?...
 
I mean, really - was Jared a victim of mental illness? Was that illness due to his upbringing, or to other issues? Was it neurological or behavioral? Was he an abused child? Was he an addict? What exactly did the Remy's do (or not do) to address the issue? 
 
The point is, we don't really know the answers to these questions, despite how easy it is to jump to conclusions.
 

yep

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2006
2,465
Red Sox Natin
geoduck no quahog said:
 
which are?...
 
I mean, really - was Jared a victim of mental illness? Was that illness due to his upbringing, or to other issues? Was it neurological or behavioral? Was he an abused child? Was he an addict? What exactly did the Remy's do (or not do) to address the issue? 
 
The point is, we don't really know the answers to these questions, despite how easy it is to jump to conclusions.
I frankly dislike this whole line of speculation about the parenting of either household troubling and stupid. 
 
But if we are going to draw conclusions based on the facts we read in the news, fingers off the scales, please. 
 
- One family had a daughter who had a child with an abusive murderer. 
 
- Other family raised said abusive murderer, plus two other children with a history of violence and crime. 
 
Draw what conclusions you will, if you must. But this business of speculating and analyzing the Martel's supposed child-rearing shortcomings with the left hand, while holding up a stop sign with regards to jumping to conclusions RE; the Remys, has got to stop. 
 
If making inferences about the family and parenting situation in one household is out-of-bounds (and I think it is), then it should be off-limits altogether. 
 

geoduck no quahog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
11,125
Seattle, WA
Oh, I agree whole heartedly about judging any of the families based on this piece. It's just too little information to base a conclusion on.

I have enough trouble judging the parenting of people I actually know who have troubled kids (I'm often wrong) to jump to conclusions based on the media coverage of this case.
 

Dogman2

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
13,552
Missoula, MT
geoduck no quahog said:
Oh, I agree whole heartedly about judging any of the families based on this piece. It's just too little information to base a conclusion on.

I have enough trouble judging the parenting of people I actually know who have troubled kids (I'm often wrong) to jump to conclusions based on the media coverage of this case.
 
Irrespective of the 'bias' in the written piece or the media coverage, there are plenty of public facts with which anyone can draw their own conclusions. 
 
Many here were doing that long before this piece was published. In fact and at this point, just about every conclusion drawn is not without merit.
 

absintheofmalaise

too many flowers
Dope
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2005
12,827
The gran facenda
ForKeeps said:
You guys are right, girl is so much better off with the Martels. And when she turns 18 she can get a job and fend for herself after they abandon her like they apparently did with her mother (who, just coincidentally I'm sure, turned out to be someone susceptible to abusive relationships with men). Yeah, some great parenting in store for that girl.
You really need to quit posting in here if this is all you have to add.
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
Myt1 said:
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.
Since when have I been spending my entire time trying to find angles to conclude against the Martels? I mentioned them once in the context that there is no reason to automatically conclude they are the best equipped to raise Arianna, but I did not slam the door on them. All we know about them is that they moved to Virginia without their 17 year old daughter, and that Jennifer was the first person in the family to get through high school. Thats all. They very well could be great people who had to deal with hardship the best they could, but me saying I wasnt sure how well-equipped they are to raise a child, and that Ill defer to the court which actually will see more information on both parties, is not at all unreasonable and did not require me tying myself in knots.
 
Myt1 said:
I mean, in the same post you conclude that the Martels don't value education in the basis of one anecdote
Ill grant you that saying they dont value education might have been a bit harsh, but the actual point was that everyone is outraged that the Remys dare seek custody over a family that featured one high school graduate who only achieved said diploma after being left behind by the parents. I merely suggested that we might not be in a good position from here to know the best place for Arianna. Others suggested that since the Remys son was the one who committed the murder, obviously that by itself should be enough to settle it.
Myt1 said:
while grasping at straws and suggesting that the Remys weren't actually interested in obtaining 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).
Did you not see where I said this:
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 (snip) .
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?
Those would be questions. In other words I was clearly asking people trained in the art of law (Hey are there any lawyers in this forum?) if it is possible that a tactic for the Remys would be to petition for full custody as a starting point as a better way of ensuring they at least get visitation rights. I have not studied family law and no one had really touched on this yet so I raised a question and quite clearly acknowledged that someone more informed on the subject could shed better light. I thought I was clear in not claiming to know what the actual motivation of the Remy family was here. What exactly is wrong with this?
Myt1 said:
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.
You mean like when I said the following:
redsahx said:
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.
which by the way was an unprompted reference to that fact on my part because it hasnt been the main topic at issue during any of my posts. I havent questioned anyone for being critical of Phoebes actions there because I actually agree with any such criticisms.
Is there a reason you are steadfastly ignoring my request to elaborate more on how specifically you believe the Remys, through their parenting techniques, instilled the capability for bludgeoning a woman in broad daylight while fighting off the neighbors? Id really like to know what extra information or insight you have on this.
Myt1 said:
And if the Remys care so much about paying for an education for their granddaughter and that's their motivation for seeking custody,
Timeout. When did I ever say that it was? It was clearly a hypothetical when I mentioned it. In other words, if they believed they could provide better resources, wouldnt that be one of multiple possible explanation for wanting to stay more involved? However.
Myt1 said:
exactly which part of not seeking custody would prohibit them from establishing an educational trust or otherwise paying for her education anyway?
I suggested the primary motivation might be to maintain a meaningful relationship with their granddaughter. I think merely being the funding source for college, while a nice contribution, doesnt count as having a meaningful relationship.
 
Myt1 said:
I mean, besides your straw man false equivalency between not seeking custody and being completely cut off from their grandchild.
I dispute that it actually was a straw man given some of the comments made by other posters. In any event, you say I was using a false equivalency, yet you claim that me merely suggesting it is not clear that the Martels would be better equipped to raise Arianna means I was looking to draw every possible conclusion against the Martels. No, I simply raised some questions, and have been far less judgmental about people than most here.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
8,003
Washington, DC
actual point was that everyone is outraged that the Remys dare seek custody over a family that featured one high school graduate who only achieved said diploma after being left behind by the parents.
Are you suggesting the Martels' lack of education (not lack of means, just lack of education) is a possible reason why the Remys might be better custodians? Because that does strike me as incredibly snobby and judgmental.
 

yep

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2006
2,465
Red Sox Natin
redsahx said:
...the actual point was that everyone is outraged that the Remys dare seek custody over a family that featured one high school graduate who only achieved said diploma after being left behind by the parents...
Well, technically, they now have no high-school graduates, since the Remys' son murdered that one. Which I suppose is one way to gain advantage in a custody hearing...
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
yep said:
I frankly dislike this whole line of speculation about the parenting of either household troubling and stupid. 
 
(snip)

Draw what conclusions you will, if you must. But this business of speculating and analyzing the Martel's supposed child-rearing shortcomings with the left hand, while holding up a stop sign with regards to jumping to conclusions RE; the Remys, has got to stop. 
 
If making inferences about the family and parenting situation in one household is out-of-bounds (and I think it is), then it should be off-limits altogether.
I think I'm going to have to reach out to you over private message tomorrow when I get the time because there is obviously a huge misunderstanding here of what I have been saying, and I don't want to bog down the thread too much more resolving these points. (or if you want to beat me to the punch and send me a message with any concerns or issues you have, feel free and I'll get back to you that way).
 
singaporesoxfan said:
Are you suggesting the Martels' lack of education (not lack of means, just lack of education) is a possible reason why the Remys might be better custodians? Because that does strike me as incredibly snobby and judgmental.
No but apparently you aren't the only one who took it that way, and obviously the line about them supposedly "not valuing education" was really a poor choice of words on my part. I was challenging people who were blasting the Remy's for seeking custody to explain their certainty for knowing where Arianna was best off. Jennifer Martel had to fend for herself as a teenager, so it would be comforting to know whether or not the Martels are in a better state now, but in no way was I trying to hammer away at that topic and come to some sort of conclusion on their merits as parents. If someone wants to state definitively that the Remy's had no business seeking custody, then perhaps they should demonstrate that they have actually considered all the possible angles. The line about high school education unfortunately can come across poorly, but I hope people understand the context was that such a factor would at least raise a question as to what type of environment they will provide, and that's a question we cannot answer in this thread with what information we have. I hope that doesn't make me look like I have my nose up in the air declaring people without a high school diploma somehow are unfit to raise children.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
7,407
NOVA
His comments must have been snipped, no? Because he comes across as insensitive and out of touch.
 

Judge Mental13

Scoops McGee
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2002
5,083
At the end of the channel 5 piece the Martell family lawyer said the family has no opinion on Remy going back to the booth.  Obviously, the family does have an opinion on it one way or another, but legally they are saying nothing about it.  Could their public opinion on Remy's employment arise in court somewhere down the line, like in a civil trial?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
5,151
If we assume Remy is going to provide financial support for his grandduaghter, won't driving him out of his job hurt her in that regard?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,692
Judge Mental13 said:
At the end of the channel 5 piece the Martell family lawyer said the family has no opinion on Remy going back to the booth.  Obviously, the family does have an opinion on it one way or another, but legally they are saying nothing about it.  Could their public opinion on Remy's employment arise in court somewhere down the line, like in a civil trial?
 
 
I doubt it.  While I think there is close to a zero chance of a civil suit against the Remy parents, I dont see how, "we think by doing this he is insulting our daughter's memory" or "he's free to get on with his life in any way he chooses" would be relevant in any suit should one be filed.
 
It is also possible that "they have no opinion" is shorthand for "we dont give a shit what he does."
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,873
Southwestern CT
Judge Mental13 said:
At the end of the channel 5 piece the Martell family lawyer said the family has no opinion on Remy going back to the booth.  Obviously, the family does have an opinion on it one way or another, but legally they are saying nothing about it.  Could their public opinion on Remy's employment arise in court somewhere down the line, like in a civil trial?
 
Their opinion would be the very definition of free speech.  Can't see how that would ever be actionable.
 
My guess - and it is total speculation - is that there is some sort of agreement about support being paid from the Remys for the care of the child and quite obviously this aligns all of their interests from a financial perspective and would lead to a "no opinion" comment rather than a "this is an insult to the memory of Jennifer" comment.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
13,029
DrewDawg said:
 
Well, no. ALL of us do not stand behind him. At least as far as him being on the air.
 
Are you a paid Red Sox Nation Member? If so, then you are required to support Remy as part of the T&C.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,692
Average Reds said:
 
Their opinion would be the very definition of free speech.  Can't see how that would ever be actionable.
 
My guess - and it is total speculation - is that there is some sort of agreement about support being paid from the Remys for the care of the child and quite obviously this aligns all of their interests from a financial perspective and would lead to a "no opinion" comment rather than a "this is an insult to the memory of Jennifer" comment.
 
That the Martels unquestionably have the right to say what they want doesn't insulate what they say from either relevance in court (which is what I thought JudgeM was talking about) or a  possible defamation suit by the Remys (which seems to be what you are talking about) if they truly went off the rails. (Just talking legal technicalities here, since the chances of Remys filing such a suit -- no matter what is said about them -- are even closer to zero than the Martels'.)
 

Judge Mental13

Scoops McGee
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2002
5,083
joe dokes said:
 
 
I doubt it.  While I think there is close to a zero chance of a civil suit against the Remy parents
Close to zero chance?  Again, I'm asking here because i really don't know but it seems like there was a pretty clear case of wrongful death
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,416
Judge Mental13 said:
Close to zero chance?  Again, I'm asking here because i really don't know but it seems like there was a pretty clear case of wrongful death
Wrongful death? Pretty clear case?? But you really don't know???

Awesome. No wonder RR has left the house.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,692
Judge Mental13 said:
Close to zero chance?  Again, I'm asking here because i really don't know but it seems like there was a pretty clear case of wrongful death
 
They would certainly prevail in a civil suit against Jared, but he is, as they say, judgment proof (legal talk for "he ain't got a pot to piss in."). 
 
As for suing the Remy parents, anything can happen, but when one person intentionally kills another, its a really hard case to make that some third party was the legal cause of the death.  You see it in cases against bars for overserving people who then cause DUI deaths. That said, I dont think it would be a frivolous suit, and, if the Martels are so motivated, simply filing the suit would probably result in a settlement because the Remys probably dont want to go under the microscope.  But based on the facts that are out there now, I see it as a difficult case to win on the legal merits (although I am completely uneducated on Mass. caselaw in this area).
 
Something that may be related to all this . . . it could be that the only money the Martells want to see is to help for raising/educating/counseling the granddaughter.  And that might be part of yesterday's agreement.  Obviously this is only speculation, but the Martels have been pretty consistently publicly quiet about all this.  This suggests two things to me: 1)Their "demands," (a legal term of art, not a pejorative one) are probably limited in scope; and 2) the Remys are cooperating.
 
Also as it relates to yesterday, I know the popular meme is that the "Remys filed for custody."  Technically, that might be true.  And putting aside whether their "real" goal was just some visitation, it's likely that the hearing was already set up as part of the Martells' guardianship application, and, among the lawyers, they realized that the best way to tie up the whole thing and get the child out of foster care and onto the path of some kind of stable life as quickly as possible was to address it all *now* in the context of those proceedings.
 

Dogman2

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
13,552
Missoula, MT
As part of that visitation agreement (Remy's pay for part of raising/education/counseling), is it possible that the Martel's signed something that said they cannot bring a wrongful death civil suit against Jerry and Phoebe Remy?
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,692
Dogman2 said:
As part of that visitation agreement (Remy's pay for part of raising/education/counseling), is it possible that the Martel's signed something that said they cannot bring a wrongful death civil suit against Jerry and Phoebe Remy?
 
Good point.  Typically, when one side pays money in a settlement the side that pays gets released from any liability claims that the other might have. The wrinkle there, though, is that the Martels probably didn't have the authority to release the granddaughter's claims (because they aren't yet her guardian).  There might have been a court-appointed guardian -- or maybe an lawyer from the responsible state dept, since she's technically in state custody) already in the process, or maybe the Remys are willing to live with that loose end; or maybe the agreement has a provision that the Martells will do it once they have the authority -- but (and this is outside my expertise) I dont know if they have the authority to do even that.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,416
Dogman2 said:
As part of that visitation agreement (Remy's pay for part of raising/education/counseling), is it possible that the Martel's signed something that said they cannot bring a wrongful death civil suit against Jerry and Phoebe Remy?
Sure: some lawyers won't cross the street without belts, suspenders and a call to their malpractice carrier.

More likely, this is reflective of two families trying their level best to do right by a child saddled with a horrific tragedy. Part of that is reliable economic aupport. Particularly when you seeking quasi parental rights
 

Spud

lurker
Nov 15, 2006
53
 
Sure: some lawyers won't cross the street without belts, suspenders and a call to their malpractice carrier.

More likely, this is reflective of two families trying their level best to do right by a child saddled with a horrific tragedy. Part of that is reliable economic aupport. Particularly when you seeking quasi parental rights
This isn't really lawyers being lawyers as much as it is working toward an agreement that (hopefully) takes into account the competing interests of the Martels, the Remys and, lest we forget, the child. Setting aside the issue of whether the Martels are able at this point to settle any claims their daughter might have against the Remys, an agreement could well include money going to the Martels and visitation and a release going to the Remys. In addition there could well be some type of confidentiality provision and a non-disparagement clause that would prevent the Martels from bad-mouthing Jerry and/or Phoebe or stating publically their opinion on whether Jerry should be allowed to continue broadcasting. One interesting twist in all of this, however, would be the ability of someone to argue at a future date for a modification of any agreement based on a claim that the agreement is no longer in the best interests of the child. Taking into account plausible future issues that may or may not be likely to occur is more like the belt and suspender type of stuff that make people love lawyers so much.
 

Average Reds

Dope
Staff member
Dope
V&N Mod
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
24,873
Southwestern CT
joe dokes said:
 
That the Martels unquestionably have the right to say what they want doesn't insulate what they say from either relevance in court (which is what I thought JudgeM was talking about) or a  possible defamation suit by the Remys (which seems to be what you are talking about) if they truly went off the rails. (Just talking legal technicalities here, since the chances of Remys filing such a suit -- no matter what is said about them -- are even closer to zero than the Martels'.)
 
 
Obviously if they cross the line and make it personal/defamatory about Remy they are subject to any potential civil actions that may come.  But I can't see how their opinion on the matter of whether Remy should  be in the broadcast booth could possibly be actionable.  (And yes, IANAL, so perhaps I'm being naive here.)
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,692
Average Reds said:
 
 
Obviously if they cross the line and make it personal/defamatory about Remy they are subject to any potential civil actions that may come.  But I can't see how their opinion on the matter of whether Remy should  be in the broadcast booth could possibly be actionable.  (And yes, IANAL, so perhaps I'm being naive here.)
 
 
Neither do I. I was really responding to the "free speech" description.  I think I took it far more legalistically than you intended it.
 

FungosWithJimy

Member
SoSH Member
May 6, 2004
1,940
Southington, CT
DonBuddinE6 said:
I'm not sure what I'd have done in Jerry Remy's place, once it became clear that Jared was a screw-up. Do you abandon himn as a son? Not try to set him straight? Not try to get him a job? Not pay for his lawyers?

I just don't know, and I'm don't envy anyone who has to make those kinds of decisions. I'm not comfortable with the decisions Jerry Remy made, but on the other hand I can't point to a single one (of those cited or implied by the Globe article) and say with confidence that I'd have done something else
 
This.  I don't know if any of you have been around so-called "enablers" (although, odds are, many of you have). I know I have.  They are easily judged and routinely condemned. The humanity behind them is often hard to see.  My grandmother was one. Alcohol, drugs, robbery, and violence against women were the vices of more than one aunt and uncle of mine. It's always been a terrible family trait. My grandmother lived amongst it for years.  Her second husband was a violent alcoholic, and the majority of her ten kids had some addiction or another.  Some inherited the violence as well. She would sometimes call anyone she could to borrow money to give to her kids....or borrow for herself, if one of her sons or daughters had gone through her purse.  It was a sad existence.  She loved them.  She believed in them.  She thought they were good people, at heart (and some were). She wanted them to get better.  She didn't want them to die on the street.  If one went to jail, she'd bail them out.  If one went to rehab, she'd write them letters.  She didn't think of herself as an enabler.  She thought of herself as a mother...a mother who would do anything to help her kids.  They would live with her when they got kicked out of various apartments. They would bleed her social security money dry.  She worked taking care of old people and cleaning their houses until she couldn't do it anymore. She spent nearly every penny of whatever small income she had taking care of the addicts and thieves she housed.  And anything she had left, she tried to give to us grandkids. Denial?  Yes. Humiliating?  Absolutely. Needless to say, she died dirt poor, and carrying enough sadness to ruin anyone's will to live.  Perceived melodrama aside, I loved my grandmother.  And I didn't have to support her actions to do it.  I sometimes disapproved of the way she handled things.  But I couldn't claim to understand.  I didn't know what it was like to have kids who were seemingly beyond my ability to help.  I'd never been put in a situation where I was asked to stop believing in my children...to stop supporting them. I don't know how I'd react, to be honest.  And if one of them had killed someone...
 
I just don't know. This is why I can't thunder away at Jerry Remy. It's why I can't beat my chest in self righteous indignation and order NESN to take away his job. It would be easy.  But I can't.  Is he an enabler?  It seems so.  A bad father?  Perhaps.  But a father, nonetheless.
 

lambeau

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2010
1,071
Connecticut
It's often hard for parents to see that the judge can be your best friend--only he has the ability to mandate sobriety, monitor it through weekly testing,
mandate treatment, and mandate compliance with medication with the alternative being violation of probation and prison. The Remy family could have asked the
court for these conditions of probation instead of conceptualizing the judicial system as the enemy. Sort of like working with the principal at school rather than being protective that your child is being unfairly punished.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,794
Boston, NY
I would prefer that Jerry Remy not be on the Sox broadcasts this year.
 
That is not because I judge him or view him as an enabler or anything else along those lines.  One, I don't assume that I know even a third of the actual relevant facts and circumstances from the media reports.  And two, even if I did, I'm not comfortable saying a person should lose his job because of how he handled something that is not specifically related to his job.  I know that's a slippery slope and that if Remy himself murdered someone, things would be different.  But still, I just don't think you can take away someone's job because of stuff like this.
 
That said, as a viewer, I wish he would disappear.  I enjoyed the Sox broadcasts much more without him last season.  Orsillo is better with Eck and many of the other side kicks, as he doesn't devolve into Laughing Boy Don.  And most of the other color guys brought more substance to the broadcast than Jerry in my opinion.  I have huge love for the Eck in the booth, I admit it.  So as an opportunist, I'd prefer a permanent change (even with the Eck's Heinshohn like limitations).  In addition, I do think that Jerry being there is going to be uncomfortable at times.  I can't pinpoint that...it's just a sense.  Now that's not a reason to say he should be fired.  But as a fan, I can prefer an outcome without wanting it to be forced on Jerry.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,290
Miami (oh, Miami!)
MarcSullivaFan said:
Negligent retention, man.
Just traveling. Plus the thread's moved on to the custody issue. Joe Dokes has, I think, the best angle on it. It's really in the best interest of the child for all parties to suss it all out now. If they're wise they'd also talk to a psych professional and coordinate on the best way to answer her questions when she has them so there's consistency.