Remy returning to the booth

Patriot_Reign

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2011
340
I'm guessing the rumors about his cash levels being low are pretty much true and he needs to work.
 
The buenos noches amigos is going to feel a little weird.
 

twibnotes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
17,798
Foulkey Reese said:
If he stays, I hope he just goes for it and enjoys himself.
 
"Wow Pedroier really stabbed that one!"
"Sign up for Ameeker Insurance. You may be glad you did..."
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
17,246
Newton
Globe editors savage the state judges:

EDITORIAL
State judges bear blame for failing to curb Jared Remy

JARED REMY ricocheted across the criminal justice system for almost two decades before he was arrested for the August murder of Jennifer Martel, his girlfriend and the mother of his 5-year-old daughter. The 35-year-old Remy, son of popular Red Sox broadcaster Jerry Remy, had a lengthy history of threats and assaults against girlfriends dating back to high school. But he was shown extraordinary deference by the courts, up until Martel’s death. Put more simply, state judges repeatedly — and often inexplicably — allowed him to get off the hook. It’s a shameful episode in the history of the state’s judiciary.

There is much speculation, but no hard evidence, that the younger Remy benefited from his father’s fame and popularity in Boston sports circles. A related but more concrete scenario is that Jared Remy remained on the loose all these years through his access to seasoned defense attorneys, but also through the reluctance of some domestic violence victims to testify against their tormentors and, most unfortunately, the desire of judges to “move the list’’ through clogged courtrooms. Often Remy would be granted a “continuance without a finding’’— CWOF (pronounced “quaff”) in legalese — that amounted to a free pass as long as the defendant stayed out of trouble. On more than 10 occasions, Remy was arrested on new charges or otherwise ran afoul of the law while serving on probation or waiting for the resolution of an earlier case. But the judges kept ignoring the record.

The CWOF, in and of itself, is a useful legal remedy for newcomers to the criminal justice system who are given an opportunity to avoid a formal conviction by agreeing that sufficient facts exist to warrant a finding of guilt. Typically, defendants are placed on probation for a year with the stipulation they do not reoffend. Failing that, a judge can impose the finding of guilt along with a prison sentence on the original charge.

That’s not how it worked with Remy, however. He collected CWOFs like some people collect baseball cards. While it may be reasonable for judges to give a continuance to a first- or second-time offender, it’s judicial negligence to ignore a growing pile of continuances. Two should be enough chances for even the most penitent offender; after that, judges should impose serious sentences.

Yet time and again, Middlesex County judges gave Remy the space he needed to hurt women. He received head-spinning treatment from Judge Gregory Flynn in Waltham District Court. Remy was no stranger to the judge who had granted him four CWOFs. In 2000, Flynn found him in violation of his probation for having attacked his former girlfriend, Tiffany Guyette. Yet the judge failed to impose a guilty finding or jail time, opting instead to require Remy to submit to random screening for substance abuse.

That opened the way for an especially egregious case in Lowell District court in 2001, where Remy appeared in front of presiding Justice Neil Walker on a charge of threatening to kill Guyette. It was Remy’s sixth case in 27 months. Guyette steeled herself to testify, which many victims fear doing. It seemed that a judge would finally bring the hammer down on Remy. But inexplicably — and over the objections of prosecutors — Walker accepted the request by Remy’s experienced attorney to continue the case without a formal judgment, an outcome even more lenient than a CWOF.

Similar examples of judicial enabling can be found around the same time in Dedham District court, where Judge Lynda Connolly found Remy in violation of his probation for a failed drug test and a new restraining order based on alleged threats to kill Guyette. Yet Connolly extended Remy’s probation with a warning that the next violation would yield 60 days in jail. Remy appeared before her a month later on a new probation violation, yet he still slid away without jail time.

The years dragged on, and Remy found new girlfriends to assault and terrorize. By 2005, he had racked up 15 cases — six CWOFs, one guilty, and eight dismissals — while still eluding jail.

Remy’s victims were terribly served in these cases. It was well within the discretion of judges on numerous occasions to stop Remy in his tracks. Instead, they extended his probation or even ordered him to move home with his parents as if he were a wayward child. It would be disgusting if these outcomes were in any way a result of Remy’s prominent family or the ability of a high-priced attorney to “shop” for lenient judges. It would be even more terrifying to learn that judges across the Commonwealth are routinely handing out continuances to serial perpetrators of domestic violence.

In 2012, the state Supreme Judicial Court commissioned an independent study when a Globe Spotlight series revealed that judges in some Massachusetts courts acquitted nearly all drunken driving defendants who chose to waive their right to a jury trial. The SJC-ordered study yielded good recommendations, including the curbing of judge shopping. If the Remy cases say anything about the quality of justice in domestic-violence cases, a similar independent investigation is long overdue.
http://b.globe.com/1dPuHNc

Would be interested to see RR's take on this piece.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,553
Patriot_Reign said:
I'm guessing the rumors about his cash levels being low are pretty much true and he needs to work.
 
The buenos noches amigos is going to feel a little weird.
 
The irony is that he is probably low on money because of the amounts he's paid lawyers to keep his kids out of jail all these years.  
 

doldmoose34

impregnated Melissa Theuriau
SoSH Member
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/2014/03/27/reason-for-jerry-remy-lose-his-job/dmZIvpExXkqUGrIq1d7lfL/story.html
 
 
Chad says Remy should stay, while I respect your opinion, knowing what we do from Sundays and previous articles on the case, I think both he and NESN would have been better served by him stepping away until the trial. And yes, I do have a vested interest since I work for the biggest advertiser.

I can't imagine the guilt that he and his wife must be feeling, knowing they enabled that piece of shit Jared for all those years. I'm sure that the prosecutors have pulled Phoebe's phone and text records, if there is evidence that she told Jen that the restraining order would 'ruin Jared's life' then fuck both of them.

I think we all know the only winner in this whole sad story Peter Bella esq.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,271
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Van Everyman said:
Globe editors savage the state judges: http://b.globe.com/1dPuHNc
Would be interested to see RR's take on this piece.
Busy times. I'll check in on this in a couple of days. No opinion yet. Except that you can't "forum shop" for judges - unless I'm very mistaken, usually a brand new case gets a randomly assigned judge. If you have a open case, new cases usually flow to that courtroom/judge. So it's not unusual for a judge to appear in a cluster of cases near in time if probation is involved. There may vbe a weird MA thing, but that's the general rule.

Theoretically it's possible to bribe a clerk to assign cases.

I think a more useful inquiry of the globe would be to examine if Remy got better treatment than the average defendant in front of the same judge, and/or better treatment than other defendants represented by the same attorney.

Those interested in inequity in sentencing should look around. A number of studies have been done. Generally speaking class, education, and beauty tend to cluster in odd ways vis a vis sentencing. Although a friend of mine (LEO) once told me he pulled over a woman for speeding, but because she was so ugly and looked so miserable, he just couldnt ticket her.
 

redsahx

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 26, 2007
1,455
LF Pavillion
doldmoose34 said:
I can't imagine the guilt that he and his wife must be feeling, knowing they enabled that piece of shit Jared for all those years. I'm sure that the prosecutors have pulled Phoebe's phone and text records, if there is evidence that she told Jen that the restraining order would 'ruin Jared's life' then fuck both of them.
I do wonder how well Phoebe is actually doing, especially going over the whole "don't worry I took Jared's keys" thing in her head (if that piece is actually true), and just the general fact that she was with Jared the night before and somehow completely missed the fact that he was in a murderous rage that would carryover into the next day. The negligence required there is hard to comprehend. Is she going to handle it well if/when Jerry is on the road for 10-12 days and she is left to herself to dwell on this?

A former high school classmate of mine murdered his girlfriend, and in the aftermath his mother had to check herself into a psychiatric hospital. Every mind reacts differently of course, but my takeaway was that having a child of yours murder an innocent person can't be that much easier to process than actually losing a child. Now add in the fact that there is plenty of room for Phoebe to hold herself somewhat accountable during the final hours, and the fact that Martel wasn't some stranger but the mother of their granddaughter. I don't know when you ever get over that. Not surprising that Jerry basically begged people not to go after his wife, and was asking people to blame him.
 

Blacken

Robespierre in a Cape
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2007
12,113
I almost posted something else here but I didn't but you know what it was and now you'll have that in your brain for a while.
 

doldmoose34

impregnated Melissa Theuriau
SoSH Member
Rovin Romine said:
Busy times. I'll check in on this in a couple of days. No opinion yet. Except that you can't "forum shop" for judges - unless I'm very mistaken, usually a brand new case gets a randomly assigned judge. If you have a open case, new cases usually flow to that courtroom/judge. So it's not unusual for a judge to appear in a cluster of cases near in time if probation is involved. There may vbe a weird MA thing, but that's the general rule.

Theoretically it's possible to bribe a clerk to assign cases.

I think a more useful inquiry of the globe would be to examine if Remy got better treatment than the average defendant in front of the same judge, and/or better treatment than other defendants represented by the same attorney.

Those interested in inequity in sentencing should look around. A number of studies have been done. Generally speaking class, education, and beauty tend to cluster in odd ways vis a vis sentencing. Although a friend of mine (LEO) once told me he pulled over a woman for speeding, but because she was so ugly and looked so miserable, he just couldnt ticket her.
RR I think you said way back that you're not in Mass, both the Globe and Herald have done series of articles over the past few years on how lawyers who specialize in DUI cases will 'judge shop' for either friends or those know to go easy/broom cases
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Blacken said:
I almost posted something else here but I didn't but you know what it was and now you'll have that in your brain for a while.
 
Why would post rain on his wedding day?
 
That's just mean, man.
 

Patriot_Reign

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 21, 2011
340
Chad's column is behind the pay wall.
Awesome.
 
edit:  oops, actually it's not
weird how that's setup thou
 

Foulkey Reese

foulkiavelli
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2006
21,785
Central CT
Dummy Hoy said:
 
did he say what was false? 
No he wouldn't go into that.
 
He got a bit fired up at the end when talking about the granddaughter. 
 
Basically he kind of had a "not much more we could have done" attitude and admitted that they paid for Jared to live since he couldn't hold a job.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

All Hail King Boron
Dope
May 20, 2003
30,437
Deep inside Muppet Labs
Dummy Hoy said:
 
did he say what was false? 
 
I don't know what he said was false, but I find it interesting that Remy is accusing the paper owned by his boss of running falsehoods about him. The JWH ownership of the Globe is going to be an interesting study in how the paper covers JWH's other entities.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
38,144
deep inside Guido territory
Foulkey Reese said:
No he wouldn't go into that.
 
He got a bit fired up at the end when talking about the granddaughter. 
 
Basically he kind of had a "not much more we could have done" attitude and admitted that they paid for Jared to live since he couldn't hold a job.
They brought up the steroid issues and he said he gave Jared money to live on and what he did with it was up to him.  Said he didn't actually see him take roids but "I'm not stupid".
 

TomBrunansky23

Member
SoSH Member
May 4, 2006
520
Crapchester, NY
Reasonable minds can and will differ on the issue of him broadcasting games, but for my part I give the man a whole lot of credit for facing the music and giving candid answers to difficult questions.  He could choose to stay silent and yuck it up in the booth with Don as if none of this is going on, but that is not what he did.  He faced the music, and D&C didn't hold back on asking the questions.
 

CantKeepmedown

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,708
Portland, ME
Dummy Hoy said:
 
did he say what was false? 
Since most of the story was court records and, I presume, fact checked, it's reasonable to think that he feels the other women interviewed in the story are lying.  He pretty much said that some of what Christina Hill said was not true. 
 
He is still flat out denying that they ever told/asked Jen Martel to not extended the restraining order. It will be interesting if they can ever get that phone and pull the text messages.  If it comes out that they indeed did ask/pressure her to do so, Jerry will have some explaining to do. 
 
Of course, he could have no knowlege of it and it could have been his wife that did it.  But still........
 

Dogman2

Yukon Cornelius
Dope
Mar 19, 2004
13,552
Missoula, MT
Remy said he always felt there would be more trouble with his son.
"We always felt that it was a disaster waiting to happen, something around the corner and that's why we always tried to get him as much possible help as you can. Sometimes it takes two to tango and a lot of times the tango wasn't there... I can't say if I had to go back and do a certain thing different that I would. It's been awful, absolutely horrible. It's horrible for two families and it's not something that I wish on anybody that has to go through this with children because when you have children, and you guys do, you know how you feel about them and you try to do the right thing. And the right thing doesn't always turn out right."
 
 
 
This is telling.
 

joyofsox

empty, bleak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
7,481
Vancouver Island
ESPN has quotes, too:
http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/10688368/jerry-remy-defends-right-make-living
 
"What are we guilty of? We're guilty of getting him lawyers when he was in trouble. We were well aware what was going on with Jared and we tried our best to do everything along the way to get him as much help as he possibly could," Remy said. "And then for a stretch it seemed like he had his life in order and then of course everything caved in. ...
"Did we enable him? Yes. We paid for lawyers, we paid for a psychiatrist, we paid for the help that we thought he needed. I think a lot of families would have done the same thing. Others would not have. Others would have thrown him out into the street, but that just wasn't our way. When you look back on it, was it the right thing to do? I don't have an answer to that. I really don't have an answer for that."
 
 
 

Trautwein's Degree

a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
11,300
My Desk
Foulkey Reese said:
Also, credit to the WEEI hosts who asked legit tough questions. 
 
Dennis, Callahan, and Minihane did an excellent job. They asked tough but fair questions and let Remy answer. And for his part, Remy did a great job staying in there and answering the questions as best as could be expected.
 

ForKeeps

lurker
Oct 13, 2011
463
Myt1 said:
5. After their monster of a son murdered the mother of his child, they sought custody despite the fact that they're below the Mendoza line on child rearing.
 
 
And sticking with the baseball theme, judging someone's parenting based on how their kid turns out is like giving a pitcher full credit for his BABIP.
 

ForKeeps

lurker
Oct 13, 2011
463
When Remy was asked if he considered getting Jared a public defender in lieu of paying for an attorney to defend him, Jerry Remy said his financial resources would come into play.
"Well, here's the deal with that. If you do that, people say ... supposedly I've got a ton of money and you wouldn't be able to get a public defender because you're supposed to be able to afford his defense, so you're caught between a rock and a hard place so he has representation.
 
 
This can't actually be true, can it? He is obligated by law to pay for Jared's lawyer? That seems to be what he's implying...
 

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,075
I listened to most of the Remy interview - it basically just confirmed what I already felt. 
 
Do I sorta feel sorry for him? Yes. 
 
Do I think he's a bad person? No, ultimately not. But I think he made some poor decisions. His answers around steroids were pretty absurd: "bodybuilding was the way Jared fought his weaknesses." It was pretty clear he turned a blind eye because he didn't really feel like it was all that bad that Jared was doing steroids to get all muscled up. 
 
Do I think he should continue broadcasting? No. I just don't want to hear him yukking it up and be reminded of Jared and the whole mess. Too bad for him. He does have a right to work, but he doesn't have a right to be the Sox color guy 162 games a year. 
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
RR or others can give real info, but I think the public defender assignment (whether you can afford your own) is largely up to the judge.  And I would imagine that Jerry's assets would be part of the judge's calculation.
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
1,354
Florida
I can't imagine a parent being forced to foot their 30-something year old child's legal bills, I really can't, and he had no job or income coming in so he would have more than qualified for a public defender, I take it more like Jerry was kind of alluding to people assuming he has all this money and should be paying his son's legal bills so the state didn't have to. 
 
Dec 10, 2012
6,943
singaporesoxfan said:
""I can tell you that I didn't go and request the job back for him," Remy said."
 
Anyone else read this as Phoebe did this?
 
 
Also, I don't buy this:
"We did everything in our power to try to help Jennifer be safe."
 
For his sake, I hope there aren't any outdoor/non-private pre/post game shows where he'll be open to the elements.
 

Byrdbrain

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
8,288
Several lawyers(or at least they said they were) contacted D&C and said that since he was "emancipated" then Jerry was under no obligation to pay and Jared could get a public defender. D&C also contacted the law professor that calls in sometimes from UNH(don't recall his name) and he confirmed that Jerry was incorrect.
I can't help but think the lawyer who is raking in some nice fees has somehow influenced what Jerry seems to think.
 
Interesting note is that Jerry seemed much more upset with Marjorie Eagan's column that said they were bad parents than he was with the Globe article.
 

CantKeepmedown

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,708
Portland, ME
I'm not sure why Jerry Remy would have to fill out a financial affadavit.  When there's a juvenile, yes.  But it could have been stated that Jared Remy had no source of income.  And Jerry could have said, "I'm not giving him a dime" and he then could be given a public defender.  I would have to assume that either Jared said, "my dad will pay for an attorney" and Jerry himself agreed.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,650
jcd0805 said:
I can't imagine a parent being forced to foot their 30-something year old child's legal bills, I really can't, and he had no job or income coming in so he would have more than qualified for a public defender, I take it more like Jerry was kind of alluding to people assuming he has all this money and should be paying his son's legal bills so the state didn't have to. 
 
I did not hear the interview, but I think this is likely true. I can recall numerous situations of public outcry when the public foots the bill for the lawyer for the child of someone who can afford one.
 
My guess is that Remy didn't see paying for the lawyer as much different than paying for the psych help; falling into the "we tried to do everything we could" file.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
9,271
Miami (oh, Miami!)
As touched on, unless MA has a really weird rule (and I don't think it does) everyone bears the burden of their own defense.  If you can't afford an attorney, the court will provide one for you (in these kinds of circumstances.)
 
That said, I can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with Jerry paying for an attorney instead of the payments coming out of a public fund.  
 
(BTW, "court appointed attorney" is just that - an attorney appointed by the court.  Not every state or county has a "public defender's" office.  Furthermore, if the PD can't take a case because a conflict (representing a witness or a victim is the most common scenario), the court still has to make sure the accused has counsel.  Various "private" attorneys can thus be assigned indigent clients and those private attorneys are paid out of a public fund - usually there are set rates.)
 

jcd0805

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 3, 2007
1,354
Florida
I think people think any private attorney Remy hires will be SO much better than someone from the PD's office and they're mad money he earns on NESN would be used to help his murderer son, but again if he didn't pay for private counsel then I'm sure others would be outraged the tax payer was footing the bill to defend his murderer son when he has the means to, I guess he couldn't really win in that situation. 
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think the issue is support in general. That is to say, Jerry didn't have to pay for a lawyer, but if he was giving support to Jared, then that money would then be required to go to paying for his own lawyer. So, like, telling Jared that he can't expect to get supported by his parents and then have the state provide for his legal counsel. If that is the case, then no, Jerry would not have had to pay for counsel, but he wouldn't have been able to support Jared financially in other ways as well.
 

Trautwein's Degree

a Connecticut bicycle attorney in General Motor's
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
11,300
My Desk
Remy made a good point about having a public defender. Remy said he supposedly has a lot of money. If he let the Commonwealth pay - he would be seen as a bum. If he paid for the defense than he's seen as an enabler. In this situation, I agree, he's damned no matter what.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,650
Trautwein's Degree said:
Remy made a good point about having a public defender. Remy said he supposedly has a lot of money. If he let the Commonwealth pay - he would be seen as a bum. If he paid for the defense than he's seen as an enabler. In this situation, I agree, he's damned no matter what.
 
He is, espcially since part of the narrative is that he hired a "high-priced" attorney. No lawyers are cheap, so its all relative, but I dont know if this guy is nearer to the top or bottom of the scale.
 
So if he hires a lawyer, he's enabling; if he doesn't, he's taking from the taxpayers.  The growling public would only approve if he hired Lionel Hutz or Jackie Chiles.
 

yep

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2006
2,465
Red Sox Natin
jcd0805 said:
I think people think any private attorney Remy hires will be SO much better than someone from the PD's office and they're mad money he earns on NESN would be used to help his murderer son, but again if he didn't pay for private counsel then I'm sure others would be outraged the tax payer was footing the bill to defend his murderer son when he has the means to, I guess he couldn't really win in that situation. 
Others here can probably speak better than me, but the whole "court-appointed attorneys are bad lawyers" trope is mostly false. 
 
"Public defenders" are lawyers who work for the state/town/county/jurisdiction, and all they do is defend (typically indigent) defendants. They handle hundreds of cases, and it is safe to say that nobody has more day-to-day familiarity with the real-world personalities, judges, and court-proceedings than they do. It's all they do, and they tend to work a lot of hours per week doing exactly that, and a lot of them are smart, dedicated, and well-educated attorneys, certainly no worse than public prosecutors, and quite a lot of them are making less money than they could be elsewhere, because they care about their work. 
 
"Court-appointed attorney" means just that, and can include either the "public defenders" referenced above, or an attorney in private practice hired by the court to represent a defendant, e.g., if the public defender's office is over-booked. That could mean, for example, that you get appointed a hotshot, high-priced, expensive-suit-wearing attorney with commercials on TV, who specializes in DUI or drug cases, and whose last exposure to murder proceedings and case-law was 20 years ago in mock trial at law school. And he/she is getting paid state-mandated rates to represent your case, while also juggling a workload of rich-kid repeat DUI offenders who are his bread and butter, and the source of his "never lost a DUI case!" yellow-pages ads. 
 
Which leads to the real potential difference between good representation, and expensive representation, which are not always synonymous: A public defender or court-appointed attorney is typically not going to have a million-dollar budget to spend on private investigators, expert witnesses, deep legal research, or expert consultants to help develop a "creative" case-- you're not getting Matlock or Perry Mason to "find the real killer" on a PD schedule/budget, nor are you getting a Johnny Cochrane who is going to "put the system on trial"  with deep research into police-procedures or witness background. You are, at best, getting a very good legal mind who is familiar with the relevant law and typical court-proceedings, and who is mostly or entirely operating on the facts in the police reports and so on, and ensuring that your rights as a defendant are upheld in the proceedings. Some great defense-attorneys will barely even talk to the defendant, and some bad ones will spend boatloads of the defendant's money on elaborate theories that only prejudice the jury and court in the wrong direction. 
 
The only generic mark against PDs is how little time they have to invest in your case. Their expertise and versatility in courtroom and legal proceedings is usually unmatched or better than private attorneys with similar time in practice. 
 
Reverend said:
I think the issue is support in general. That is to say, Jerry didn't have to pay for a lawyer, but if he was giving support to Jared, then that money would then be required to go to paying for his own lawyer. So, like, telling Jared that he can't expect to get supported by his parents and then have the state provide for his legal counsel. If that is the case, then no, Jerry would not have had to pay for counsel, but he wouldn't have been able to support Jared financially in other ways as well.
My imperfect understanding is that this is essentially correct. Jerry can shut off Jared, and Jared will be appointed an attorney, assuming he has no other assets, but Jerry can't give Jared income or assets and have it "not count" towards Jared's ability to pay. 
 
Trautwein's Degree said:
Remy made a good point about having a public defender. Remy said he supposedly has a lot of money. If he let the Commonwealth pay - he would be seen as a bum. If he paid for the defense than he's seen as an enabler. In this situation, I agree, he's damned no matter what.
 
joe dokes said:
 
He is, espcially since part of the narrative is that he hired a "high-priced" attorney. No lawyers are cheap, so its all relative, but I dont know if this guy is nearer to the top or bottom of the scale.
 
So if he hires a lawyer, he's enabling; if he doesn't, he's taking from the taxpayers.  The growling public would only approve if he hired Lionel Hutz or Jackie Chiles.
This line of thinking is ridiculous. It presumes that Jerry not only gives weight, but gives primary weight, to "how he will be seen", not to helping his son. That attitude is at odds with both common sense and with his own publicly-declared statements, and disregards a 20+year history of below-the-radar actions by the Remys  to help and protect Jared. 
 
The rightness, wrongness, destructiveness, merit, and/or futility of the Remy's supposed parenting practices have been debated and speculated-upon ad-nauseam on this forum and elsewhere, in plenty of places. But Jerry's philosophy of parenting is made plain and explicit in both his actions and clear public statements, and there is no disconnect between what he has done for the past 20+ years, and what he has stated publicly: he has done everything he can to help Jared, in his own exact words, and in all documented history. 
 
To try and find "PR" reasons to explain why Jerry is doing what he has always done, and what he has publicly stated that he thinks is what he thinks is right, is nonsensical. It's like saying that David Ortiz continues to pull-hit because otherwise he would be "seen" as being afraid of the shift, or something. Jerry himself has, explicitly, copped to "enabling" Jared. He has spoken with remarkable candor, given the circumstances, and made it plain that he knew Jared was on steroids, that there was a constant fear about what he might do, that they hoped the worst was past, etc...
 
There is a contingent of people who think that it was despicable for a father to continue to help his son under these circumstances. There is another contingent who cautions us not to judge too quickly, and there is a whole spectrum of opinions in-between. But if there was any doubt about Jerry's own thoughts prior to Friday's D&C interview, there can be none now:  He made it (surprisingly) plain that his own philosophy has been to help his son, however he could. To try and add "PR" considerations as a significant motive is both redundant and irrational. 
 
edit: for speling nd stuf
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,291
Beyond this, court appointed lawyers and public defenders not always are, but can be, some of the finest lawyers you will find. Fully the match of their "high priced" private counterparts. It's an insult borne of ignorance to suggest otherwise.

So the bitching about Remy paying for his son's counsel, when the alternative could well have a lawyer just as good, paid by the taxpayer, is hilarious.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,650
Just a comment on the last 2 posts. Both really summed up the appointed lawyer/PD well.
 
And this is also true.
 
To try and find "PR" reasons to explain why Jerry is doing what he has always done, and what he has publicly stated that he thinks is what he thinks is right, is nonsensical. It's like saying that David Ortiz continues to pull-hit because otherwise he would be "seen" as being afraid of the shift, or something. Jerry himself has, explicitly, copped to "enabling" Jared. He has spoken with remarkable candor, given the circumstances, and made it plain that he knew Jared was on steroids, that there was a constant fear about what he might do, that they hoped the worst was past, etc...
This line of thinking is ridiculous. It presumes that Jerry not only gives weight, but gives primary weight, to "how he will be seen", not to helping his son. That attitude is at odds with both common sense and with his own publicly-declared statements, and disregards a 20+year history of below-the-radar actions by the Remys  to help and protect Jared.
To try and add "PR" considerations as a significant motive is both redundant and irrational.
 
 I probably worded my comment pretty poorly if it was seen as trying to suggest PR as a *reason* for Remy hiring the lawyer (as opposed to "he was doing all he can"), I dont see that stuff as reasons....I was gauging hypothetical public reaction. ("he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn;'t")
 
As you listen to him talk about this, I dont think "how he is seen" is very high on his list.  He acknowledges how many see him, and doesn't particularly take issue with it. It's if he's saying, "given what happened, how people see *me* is pretty small potatoes." 
 
But that he doesn't care "how he is seen" doesn't mean that how the public sees him isn't important to NESN/his future.  That includes the "high-priced lawyer" narative, which, I agree, is stupid.
And its not just in the criminal/PD context. Once you get into court, the only way to tell who is billing $150/hour and who's billing $650/hr is by looking at their shoes.
 

Redkluzu

tortures mice
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2007
2,146
Bostonish...see Wiki for "ish"
In today's Globe, there's an editorial calling for Jerry to not return to the booth with the headline

"Jerry Remy should think of fans, delay return to TV booth"
 
The gist:
 
WEEI’s informal polling of callers was running close to 50-50 on whether he should go back to work. After Jennifer Martel’s murder last August, Jerry sensibly took a leave of absence from NESN. He should have extended it at least until his son’s trial, now scheduled for October. Then, he could have enjoyed the support and encouragement of his many friends, fans, and well-wishers, without having to perform in the broadcast booth.
Can Jerry Remy express excitement over baseball, chuckle at partner Don Orsillo’s jokes, and analyze plays on the field without evoking fans’ memories of his son’s offenses? By returning to the broadcast booth at a time when his son’s case is certain to be heavily in the news, he’s asking fans to put all those images aside. It’s a lot to ask.
 
I, for one, have enjoyed Jerry and Don in the booth, but the Globe may actually be exacerbating the antagonism -- and subtly, mine as well. This, of course, is not new. The media's take is powerful, and it's not like his son didn't deserve to be taken apart for his behavior, including "19 arrests, while his father paid for his defense and upkeep, believing that out-patient counseling would curb his demons — or perhaps already had." And after the WEEI intervew, it was clear to me that defending his son was Jerry's motive.
 
I did post in another thread that I wondered about the timing of all the coverage, a bit conveniently timed for the opening of the season-- even if it takes weeks and months to get interviews, fact check etc. Each new piece of information seems to add to the ball that will roll Jerry downhill. Even if he says he's going to Baltimore, I'm wondering if Jerry (or NESN) will ultimately cave to the pressure of the media even if the public is 50-50 on his return to the booth.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
12,650
 
Can Jerry Remy express excitement over baseball, chuckle at partner Don Orsillo’s jokes, and analyze plays on the field without evoking fans’ memories of his son’s offenses? By returning to the broadcast booth at a time when his son’s case is certain to be heavily in the news, he’s asking fans to put all those images aside. It’s a lot to ask.
 
 
Remy obviously thinks he can. And by the Glob's own admission, (an unscientific poll of) 50% of the fans think they can.
 
Until the trial (if there is one) there will be very little coverage to "distract" anyone. And MA criminal lawyers can correct me, but when was the last time a trial actually started on the trial date that was announced early in the process. All they need is for one delay due to (for example) a psych eval that runs long, and suddenly the trial is taking place in November or later.
 
I'm wondering if Jerry (or NESN) will ultimately cave to the pressure of the media even if the public is 50-50 on his return to the booth.
 
 
I think this fades into the background once the season starts. I dont, for rexample, see Remy holding press conferences in every city on road trips. But I do think that columnists and radio idiots in a majority of those places might write & talk about him.