Remy returning to the booth

[YTF]

 
How can you possibly set aside the stance on their parenting skills? Do you not understand why Jared was allowed to continue walking the streets a free man after all of those arrests?  Do you not grasp how he was able to be GAINFULLY EMPLOYED for most of this time while almost annually getting arrested and charged with assaulting a woman? Good grief, man.  Just think about this:
 
When Remy threw Martell into the bathroom mirror on August 13th, he had (as far as we know) gone 8 years without an incident of violence against a woman.  Some might say that's remarkable progress, and that whatever the Remy's did between 2005-2013 to help their son really worked.  Some might disagree, since in those years while Jared did not beat the shit out of any women he did steal a bunch of World Series jackets and dealt steroids to people, but hey......progress??
 
So even taking all of that into consideration, 8 years later when there's even the slightest SNIFF of a domestic violence issue, Phoebe Remy's first instinct is to beg the Martell's not to extend a restraining order?  Like......really?? Do you not understand how massively fucked up that is?  
 
Maybe Jerry had a say in that request, maybe he didn't but unless he begged his wife not to ask the Martell's to drop the RO and she did anyway I'm sorry but he gets part of the blame. 

 
You've assumed an awful lot about my views on this considering the brevity of my post. I simply questioned your stance that the Remys allowed the victim count of their 37 year old, monster of a son to rise. I set aside the question of their parenting skills because it's been well (or poorly) argued here and the fact is that NONE of us know more than what we assume. What we do know is that Jared Remy is a fucking punk, a scumbag that we should all be thankful for not having in our lives. EVERY ONE of these violent crimes against women were committed by an adult. If you or anyone else wants to play amateur shrink and find the deep rooted causes of this going back to the punks childhood, have at it. What I'm saying is that this sick fuck, THIS 37 YEAR OLD SICK FUCK killed this women and you say his parents "let it get to" that.  

 

[Judge Mental13]

You can't force someone into a treatment facility either unless you go through a rigorous process of getting him declared mentally unfit and then being assigned his power of attorney, which I doubt would have occured in this case.

 
Well, we wouldn't want the Remy's to have to do anything rigorous, now, would we?  Nah, better off just hiring lawyers, begging families not to extend restraining orders and hope it all just works out, right?
 
Gimme a break.

 

[joe dokes]

 
Well, we wouldn't want the Remy's to have to do anything rigorous, now, would we?  Nah, better off just hiring lawyers, begging families not to extend restraining orders and hope it all just works out, right?
 
Gimme a break.

 
Whatever valid point you have about the restraining order is being swamped by your dismissiveness of the near-impossibility of an adult being locked up involuntarily for something other than committing a crime or being charged with having done so.  There is no Pre-Crime Bureau.
 
As for the enabling evil of "hiring a lawyer"...he'd get one anyway.

 

[Foulkey Reese]

Also of note, Jared was under the employ of his father's apparel company when he was arrested.
 
So his parents were propping him up in more ways than one.

 

[Judge Mental13]

 
Whatever valid point you have about the restraining order is being swamped by your dismissiveness of the near-impossibility of an adult being locked up involuntarily for something other than committing a crime or being charged with having done so.  There is no Pre-Crime Bureau.
 
As for the enabling evil of "hiring a lawyer"...he'd get one anyway.

 
He was arrested and charged with violence against women 9 times before he murdered Martell. 

 

[Curt S Loew]

 
It's not counter-intuitive and it is a common intuition. It also happens to be wrong and highly harmful conjecture in a general sense.
 
What I mean by this is that this is something people bring up a lot in discussing the issue and whether or not to involve the police and stuff. It just seems like it makes sense. The issue has been studied, though, and involving the authorities in matters of domestic violence has not been shown to increase the likelihood of repeated incidents. Obviously, the threat of police action didn't have a sobering effect on Jared Remy in the case currently being discussed, but I wanted to point out the state of our knowledge about the general issue in case anyone is in a situation where someone advises someone not to involve the police because it "might make him even more angry" or something like that. It happens frequently and it's bad; the data suggests that having the police involved helps more often than it hurts, even if the system clearly failed in this particular case.
 
 
 
Eck is a recovering alcoholic and has, I believe, stated that he doesn't want to subject himself to the old routines and temptations of the road. He's been very vocal about his recovery and has turned himself into a public role model for how to deal with the condition, and I think that effort has offered him a strong sense of purpose and meaning for his life. So yeah, I don't think he's going anywhere for any amount of money.
 
 
 
I was going to accuse you of being a low-expectation-having motherfucker until I remembered that NESN doesn't carry play-off games.

They don't carry 162 games, either.  I have a feeling even if he starts the season he won't finish it.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
 
 

It's fun to see the lengths to which people will go to avoid reckoning with the problem of evil. Maybe Pol Pot just needed a little Prozac.
 
There's even less basis to ascribe Jared Remy's behavior to mental illness than there is to blame Jerry Remy's parenting for Jenn Martel's death. Happily, there's a middle ground. Most matters of moral reckoning are complex, and those of us on the outside of a situation are seldom in a position to pass judgment on those on the inside. This is the wisdom behind the biblical admonition not to visit the sins of the father on the son, or vice versa -- sure, fucked-up parents are more likely to have fucked-up kids, but that loose correlation doesn't tell us nearly enough to make judgments in a specific case.
 
We can reserve judgment in this case while recognizing that Jared Remy's behavior was evil, irrespective of whatever biological or environmental factors might have given him a greater propensity than the average person to do what he did.

 

 
 

 
This is a good point. Mental health advocates are driven pretty much nuts (no pun intended) by people who want to ascribe all evil to some form of mental illness. In truth, some people just suck and some like to hurt people and some refuse to control themselves, but conflating them with those who are actually mentally ill stigmatizes those with mental illness and interferes with their ability to get care and public support for a greater understanding of the issues of mental illness.
 
I have seen no evidence presented that Jared Remy suffered from mental illness. It's much more probably that he was just an asshole; we shouldn't slop his shit on people suffering from mental illness.

 
This is a complex issue.  At one extreme, you can view "mental illness" as a big tent, covering all irrational/socially deviant behaviors - killing another human being out of greed or spite or a "crazy" amount of carelessness could be seen as non-normal/irrational/crazy/deviant behavior.  On the other, you can take much narrower view where you pretty much write off anything as not being a mental illness, but the product of a rational choice made by the individual at some point in time.
 
Basically US law says that to be found not guilty through reason of insanity, you have to be so insane (at the time of the crime) that a) you didn't know what you were actually doing, or b) you didn't know what  you were doing was wrong.  Courts have repeatedly taken a very very narrow view of what this means.  For example, if you kill because you think you're attacking a demonic figure, you'll still be found guilty of manslaughter.  Or if you kill and you did it because your dog told you to (but you know killing is wrong), you'll still be found gilt of manslaughter. (Also, "winning" an insanity defense basically gets you medicated for life, BTW.)
 
I say this because there's an impression out there that we must not allow "mental illness" into discussions of criminal motivations and punishment for fear that "the guilty will go free."  In practical terms, people who are batshit crazy are tried and convicted every day for stuff they were doing when they were out of their minds.  (At least in the US).  
 
There's also the Rev's countervailing idea that not everything wrong is connected to mental illness.  While this is true from one perspective, I can only anecdotally say that in my experience a lot of "crime," charged or not, is the result of some very fucked up thinking that seemed to make sense at the time - for many reasons, including recognized MH issues, drugs, medication problems, intoxication, or emotional issues, or impulse control issues, or "high pressure/stress" situations.  I don't offer this as an excuse, or to mitigate the seriousness of some crimes, but believe me, the percentage of cold blooded rational crime is fairly low.   Or at least what we see that's caught/prosecuted.   
 
***
 
But to get back to the moral issue.  I have no problem with people condemning this kind of killing as wrong, or twisted, or tragic, or stupid, or whatever else you want to.  I do get nervous when people start throwing the word "evil" about.  I think I get nervous because it has the faint echo of some kind of externalism - that the "evil" person may have been corrupted by spiritual forces, or is somehow not like the run of normal humanity.  Then the issue is simply dismissed.  
 
While that process is well and good for most things (no one can deal deeply with the nuances of every fucked up situation our media saturated world puts in front of us) it's also something of a crutch. 
 
I think it's worth inquiring (perhaps not for everyone re: this case) just *why* this happened - just *why* Jarred Remy did what he did.  Hopefully with the understanding that this inquiry isn't for salacious purposes, but will help us understand how elements in our everyday society can interact to produce a murder.  I have no beef with any particular individual who wants to assess this as "evil" and to flip the page - but there's more to be learned.  

 

[joe dokes]

 
He was arrested and charged with violence against women 9 times before he murdered Martell. 

 
And assuming there were convictions, he either did his time or was on probation or whatever. I'm missing how it's the parents' fault that he wasn't in prison on the day of this killing? "He's committed a lot of crimes before.." is not a basis for an involuntary civil commitment (as far as I know).

 

[Reverend]

 
 
 
This is a complex issue.  At one extreme, you can view "mental illness" as a big tent, covering all irrational/socially deviant behaviors - killing another human being out of greed or spite or a "crazy" amount of carelessness could be seen as non-normal/irrational/crazy/deviant behavior.  On the other, you can take much narrower view where you pretty much write off anything as not being a mental illness, but the product of a rational choice made by the individual at some point in time.
 
Basically US law says that to be found not guilty through reason of insanity, you have to be so insane (at the time of the crime) that a) you didn't know what you were actually doing, or b) you didn't know what  you were doing was wrong.  Courts have repeatedly taken a very very narrow view of what this means.  For example, if you kill because you think you're attacking a demonic figure, you'll still be found guilty of manslaughter.  Or if you kill and you did it because your dog told you to (but you know killing is wrong), you'll still be found gilt of manslaughter. (Also, "winning" an insanity defense basically gets you medicated for life, BTW.)
 
I say this because there's an impression out there that we must not allow "mental illness" into discussions of criminal motivations and punishment for fear that "the guilty will go free."  In practical terms, people who are batshit crazy are tried and convicted every day for stuff they were doing when they were out of their minds.  (At least in the US).  
 
There's also the Rev's countervailing idea that not everything wrong is connected to mental illness.  While this is true from one perspective, I can only anecdotally say that in my experience a lot of "crime," charged or not, is the result of some very fucked up thinking that seemed to make sense at the time - for many reasons, including recognized MH issues, drugs, medication problems, intoxication, or emotional issues, or impulse control issues, or "high pressure/stress" situations.  I don't offer this as an excuse, or to mitigate the seriousness of some crimes, but believe me, the percentage of cold blooded rational crime is fairly low.   Or at least what we see that's caught/prosecuted.   
 
***
 
But to get back to the moral issue.  I have no problem with people condemning this kind of killing as wrong, or twisted, or tragic, or stupid, or whatever else you want to.  I do get nervous when people start throwing the word "evil" about.  I think I get nervous because it has the faint echo of some kind of externalism - that the "evil" person may have been corrupted by spiritual forces, or is somehow not like the run of normal humanity.  Then the issue is simply dismissed.  
 
While that process is well and good for most things (no one can deal deeply with the nuances of every fucked up situation our media saturated world puts in front of us) it's also something of a crutch. 
 
I think it's worth inquiring (perhaps not for everyone re: this case) just *why* this happened - just *why* Jarred Remy did what he did.  Hopefully with the understanding that this inquiry isn't for salacious purposes, but will help us understand how elements in our everyday society can interact to produce a murder.  I have no beef with any particular individual who wants to assess this as "evil" and to flip the page - but there's more to be learned.  

 
I get where you're coming from. Personally, I prefer to say that some people just suck. To be specific, I used the term "evil" because I got it from Dr. Ken Duckworth who is the former Medical Director of the Department of Mental Health in Massachusetts, went on to be commissioner of the department and is now head of the National Alliance of Mental Illness--he's basically the lead guy in the country on trying to destigmatize mental illness and sees the association of criminality and mental illness to be a huge problem in that regard. Another way of putting it is that "some people just like to hurt people" and there's no identifiable pathology to which they can point. 
 
I guess the point is, saying that a lot of these people are fucked up is one thing, while ascribing it to mental illness is quite another. It's kinda like the moment in Grosse Pointe Blank (SPOILER ALERT) when the girl says, "Why did you never learn that it was wrong?"

 

[YTF]

 
I get where you're coming from. Personally, I prefer to say that some people just suck. To be specific, I used the term "evil" because I got it from Dr. Ken Duckworth who is the former Medical Director of the Department of Mental Health in Massachusetts, went on to be commissioner of the department and is now head of the National Alliance of Mental Illness--he's basically the lead guy in the country on trying to destigmatize mental illness and sees the association of criminality and mental illness to be a huge problem in that regard. Another way of putting it is that "some people just like to hurt people" and there's no identifiable pathology to which they can point. 
 
I guess the point is, saying that a lot of these people are fucked up is one thing, while ascribing it to mental illness is quite another. It's kinda like the moment in Grosse Pointe Blank (SPOILER ALERT) when the girl says, "Why did you never learn that it was wrong?"

 
And I think that is essentially what many of us who assign the Remys a lesser degree of responsibility in this are trying to say.  

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
I get where you're coming from. Personally, I prefer to say that some people just suck. To be specific, I used the term "evil" because I got it from Dr. Ken Duckworth who is the former Medical Director of the Department of Mental Health in Massachusetts, went on to be commissioner of the department and is now head of the National Alliance of Mental Illness--he's basically the lead guy in the country on trying to destigmatize mental illness and sees the association of criminality and mental illness to be a huge problem in that regard. Another way of putting it is that "some people just like to hurt people" and there's no identifiable pathology to which they can point. 
 
I guess the point is, saying that a lot of these people are fucked up is one thing, while ascribing it to mental illness is quite another. It's kinda like the moment in Grosse Pointe Blank (SPOILER ALERT) when the girl says, "Why did you never learn that it was wrong?"

 
I appreciate the danger of equating mental illness with criminality.  Unfortunately, there is a huge population of arrested people who are mentally ill and symptomatic at the time of their arrest.  (I say "arrested people" for a number of reasons.)  So the association is there.  I don't think you ever get away from that.
 
While I appreciate the argument that "some people are just bad," there are also obviously messed up patterns of behavior that don't show up in the DSM, or don't meet criteria therein.  However, a lack of a formal diagnosis does not mean that there's nothing wrong under the hood.  The DSM is far from a perfect tool.  Understandably - it's not like psychology is an exact science.  And people don't always present their particular issue.  I remember a couple of guys who were evaluated as normal by decent psychiatrists; but on a second interview the psychiatrists would actually find their triggers and off the client would go about the chip in their head. 
 
In the "this guy is probably mentally ill" category, I've had clients who really do change their ways.  I've also had clients who were clearly on a one way train (although not mentally ill per se) whose next brush with the law surprised no one (even after I knew they fully knew what they were doing and what the consequences would be.)  They just couldn't help themselves. 
 
***
Anyway, with Jared, he's got a history of violence against different women - why?  At what point does a chronic repeating behavior become a mental illness?  Usually we think of mental illness as something abnormal that exists to the extent that it negatively impacts other life functions.  Here, I'd argue by that definition Jared's life was negatively impacted (repeatedly) by his violence toward women.  He was repeatedly arrested.  People must have told him it was wrong.  He must have had examples of relationships that didn't contain violence.  He just couldn't (or didn't) change his own patterns of behavior.  How does someone like this persist *in* society?  Myt1 is looking for enablers; I'd also like to see who and what actually turns up.  If anything ever does.

 

[Reverend]

 
I appreciate the danger of equating mental illness with criminality.  Unfortunately, there is a huge population of arrested people who are mentally ill and symptomatic at the time of their arrest.  (I say "arrested people" for a number of reasons.)  So the association is there.  I don't think you ever get away from that.
 
While I appreciate the argument that "some people are just bad," there are also obviously messed up patterns of behavior that don't show up in the DSM, or don't meet criteria therein.  However, a lack of a formal diagnosis does not mean that there's nothing wrong under the hood.  The DSM is far from a perfect tool.  Understandably - it's not like psychology is an exact science.  And people don't always present their particular issue.  I remember a couple of guys who were evaluated as normal by decent psychiatrists; but on a second interview the psychiatrists would actually find their triggers and off the client would go about the chip in their head. 

 
Oh, don't get me wrong, I find the flip side of the issue that you're getting at, i.e. that we've substituted a cruel and incredibly expensive incarceration system for a proper mental health system in dealing with people with mental illness to be an enormous problem; the percentage of inmates who the administrators at prisons I've talked to think suffer from mental illness are staggering.
 
I think the unfounded association of mental illness with criminality, though, especially in high profile cases like this one, are part of what has led to a lack of support for mental health research and care which ultimately shunts those with mental illness into the criminal justice system. We pay more far the prisons because we won't pay for their hospitalization or outpatient care; shit's fucked.

 

[mauf]

 
But to get back to the moral issue.  I have no problem with people condemning this kind of killing as wrong, or twisted, or tragic, or stupid, or whatever else you want to.  I do get nervous when people start throwing the word "evil" about.  I think I get nervous because it has the faint echo of some kind of externalism - that the "evil" person may have been corrupted by spiritual forces, or is somehow not like the run of normal humanity.  Then the issue is simply dismissed.  
 

 
Without question, there's a lot of bad theology out there. A lot of people do use "the devil" (or some other personification of evil) to blame their own wrongdoing on an external force, or to draw bright lines between themselves and others without acknowledging their common humanity. Faux claims of "mental illness" have a similar effect -- allowing some to excuse themselves of wrongdoing, and others to pretend that they are nothing like those people.

 

[redsahx]

This is a good point. Mental health advocates are driven pretty much nuts (no pun intended) by people who want to ascribe all evil to some form of mental illness. In truth, some people just suck and some like to hurt people and some refuse to control themselves, but conflating them with those who are actually mentally ill stigmatizes those with mental illness and interferes with their ability to get care and public support for a greater understanding of the issues of mental illness.
 
I have seen no evidence presented that Jared Remy suffered from mental illness. It's much more probably that he was just an asshole; we shouldn't slop his shit on people suffering from mental illness.

  

I think the unfounded association of mental illness with criminality, though, especially in high profile cases like this one, are part of what has led to a lack of support for mental health research and care which ultimately shunts those with mental illness into the criminal justice system. We pay more far the prisons because we won't pay for their hospitalization or outpatient care; shit's fucked.

  

I'm sorry, but this criticism is absurd. In what way am I undermining the mental health system or unfairly lumping in every one with a mental health condition with Jared Remy? If society doesn't understand that mental illness covers a very broad and diverse range of conditions and isn't some binary either-or category, that's society's fault, not mine.

We are actually on the same page otherwise. I am a strong advocate for mental health awareness because severe depression runs on both sides of my family. I also had an uncle whom I mentioned earlier in this thread who repeatedly wound up in prison while he was losing his mind, and eventually was crippled in a brutal prison attack. So needless to say I am also an advocate for prison reform.

Faux claims of "mental illness" have a similar effect -- allowing some to excuse themselves of wrongdoing, and others to pretend that they are nothing like those people.

I also think this criticism is based on simplistic assumptions about my feelings. Again, this isn't binary; it is possible to hypothesize that someone has some underlying mental issues while not trying to excuse their crimes. It is still possible to say that they are also assholes, and their asshole tendencies might have been a huge factor. I bring up the possibility of a mental illness because his behavior fits in some ways the profile of another case I was personally familiar with. I was also raising the possibility to suggest that the Remy's maybe were facing a tall task in trying to control a disturbed adult male, but I don't think his issues raise to the level of being an excuse for his behavior. Just that the Remy's parenting skills, however lacking they may be, are probably not enough on their own to explain what happened here.

Beyond that, as another example, is it irresponsible to suggest Adam Lanza May have had some mental illness? Or should we simply chalk it up to him being evil? What is accomplished by trying to dismiss the possible psychological explanations for some criminal behavior? We can have it both ways.

Edit: To Maufman and Rev, I hope I didn't come across as too hostile in this response. I get where you guys are coming from.

 

[joe dokes]

To combine a couple of the thoughts redsahx raises........on the legal side, mental illness can usually only be an "excuse" if, among other things, it contributed to causing the defendant to commit the act in question (there are differences in states that allow "dimished capacity" defenses, which may lead to acquittal, and insanity defenses, which lead to hospitalization rather than prison.). This relates to the prison part in that a significant portion of the prison population is suffering from some diagnosed mental illness, but for most of them, the mental illness was not part of the legal proceeding that landed them in prison. That's not to say it didnt contribute to their criminal behavior, it just wasn't legally significant.  That might be where, if anywhere, Jared Remy is.  He may have some diagnosable mental illness....but I dont see it playing a significant role in his criminal trial. Where that leaves him and others though, is in prison, and getting virtually no real treatment for any mental illness that might exist. I dont think the Constituional safeguards (8th amendment mostly) that require prisons not to let physical illness go untreated in prison have reached the same levels with respect to mental health treatment. 

 

[redsahx]

Well, we wouldn't want the Remy's to have to do anything rigorous, now, would we?  Nah, better off just hiring lawyers, begging families not to extend restraining orders and hope it all just works out, right?
 
Gimme a break.

Instead of deliberately misconstruing(*) one of my points to come up with a post, you could bolster your case by actually proposing realistic solutions for how the Remy's could have controlled their adult son and protected the rest of society. For example, I am still waiting for someone to explain how not setting him up with a paying job somehow would have solved anything. I am also wondering what the legal basis is for your claims that he should have been in jail all this time, and that Jerry Remy is the reason he was "on the streets" after his previous assaults.

(*)For the record, when I pointed out that it was a rigorous process, I was referring to the fact that it was unlikely that they would have been able to obtain legal power of attorney and get him committed against his will to a lockdown mental hospital based only on the fact that he had been involved in domestic violence assaults in the past.

 

[Judge Mental13]

I wasn't deliberately misconstruing you, and in the interest of full disclosure I will say that I don't have children, so my opinion on this is not based on personal experience. 
 
That being said, I don't exactly know what sort of "realistic" steps the Remys could have taken towards a solution to their son's problems.  I honestly don't.  I know people who have had family members committed, and I also know a guy who murdered his mother during a psychotic episode because no one could find a "realistic solution" quick enough.  The point isn't so much what they did between violent crimes 1-9, it's the fact that after #9 the first thing on their mind was begging the Martell's not to extend the RO.  The priorities displayed in that instance are, IMO, horrifying. 

 

[joe dokes]

 The point isn't so much what they did between violent crimes 1-9, it's the fact that after #9 the first thing on their mind was begging the Martell's not to extend the RO.  The priorities displayed in that instance are, IMO, horrifying. 

 
That, as they say, is a horse of a different color from how I interpreted some of your other posts. And on this point I agree. 
 
Of everything we actually know, that's the only thing that troubles me. That I can understand how and why it happens doesn't mean I think it was the right thing to do; or that I might not be tempted to do the same thing.  Denial of our children's faults, failures, mistakes and worse is a powerful force.

 

[Myt1]

Do you really think it's more likely than not that, given Jared Remy's history, this was the first time they intervened like this?

 

[joe dokes]

Do you really think it's more likely than not that, given Jared Remy's history, this was the first time they intervened like this?

 
"Intervened like this," meaning talked a victim out of getting a restraining order (or against pressing charges, perhaps)*? I don't have any sense one way or the other.   But given the son's well-documented history, and given that the Remys' intervention here is well-known, I would expect that if they'd done it before, we'd be reading about it.
What I *do* think is likely is that Jared dropped Dad's name along the line of "My father's famous; if you press charges he'll destroy you."  Loser sons of famous parents have been doing that forever, and there's no reason to think this son is any different.  But I dont think its probable that the Remys joined in and said, "Yeah, pursue this and we'll crush you."
 
*I dont consider paying for his lawyer, for example, to be "intervention like this," but YMMV.

 

[reggiecleveland]

I will leave the moralizing speculation to others.

Jerry is not an important enough contibutor for the Red Sox to put up with the negative press and distraction. I suspect he will be gradually phased out this year. Getting him off the air will be as hard as getting Sizemore on the DL.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

What I *do* think is likely is that Jared dropped Dad's name along the line of "My father's famous; if you press charges he'll destroy you."  Loser sons of famous parents have been doing that forever, and there's no reason to think this son is any different.  But I dont think its probable that the Remys joined in and said, "Yeah, pursue this and we'll crush you."
 

 
Who do you think Jared Remy said that to? The cops? The Martel family?
 
Because if he said that to a cop, the cop will literally laugh in his face. And BTW, people way more famous than Jerry Remy's kid get arrested all the time (see Beiber, Justin x2).
 
The Martel family might be a bit more believable, but they have the leverage of going to the papers with this. Because Remy's fame would work against him if his daughter-in-law went to the press and says, "Jerry Remy's son abuses way more than steroids." shows bruises, polices reports, incidence of negligence from the Remys, etc.

 

[mauf]

The only account we have of the pivotal conversation between Jenn Martel and Phoebe Remy is a secondhand account from Martel's mother. I don't doubt her veracity, but precisely what was said, how it was said, and what the larger context was will forever be unknown to us. The only thing we can say with confidence about Jerry Remy's knowledge of that conversation is that whatever knowledge he had was indirect -- he was almost certainly in Toronto when the conversation happened.
 
Even though I'm inclined not to judge, I understand why people look at Jared Remy's history of run-ins with the law, together with what little we know of his siblings, and pass some sort of judgment on Jerry Remy on the assumption that there must be a fire beneath all that smoke. I'm less sure why people -- some of whom are willing to give the Remys the benefit of the doubt on their parenting skills -- are willing to pass sweeping judgments based on a cursory, secondhand account of a single conversation.

 

[mauf]

  

  

I'm sorry, but this criticism is absurd. In what way am I undermining the mental health system or unfairly lumping in every one with a mental health condition with Jared Remy? If society doesn't understand that mental illness covers a very broad and diverse range of conditions and isn't some binary either-or category, that's society's fault, not mine.

We are actually on the same page otherwise. I am a strong advocate for mental health awareness because severe depression runs on both sides of my family. I also had an uncle whom I mentioned earlier in this thread who repeatedly wound up in prison while he was losing his mind, and eventually was crippled in a brutal prison attack. So needless to say I am also an advocate for prison reform.

I also think this criticism is based on simplistic assumptions about my feelings. Again, this isn't binary; it is possible to hypothesize that someone has some underlying mental issues while not trying to excuse their crimes. It is still possible to say that they are also assholes, and their asshole tendencies might have been a huge factor. I bring up the possibility of a mental illness because his behavior fits in some ways the profile of another case I was personally familiar with. I was also raising the possibility to suggest that the Remy's maybe were facing a tall task in trying to control a disturbed adult male, but I don't think his issues raise to the level of being an excuse for his behavior. Just that the Remy's parenting skills, however lacking they may be, are probably not enough on their own to explain what happened here.

Beyond that, as another example, is it irresponsible to suggest Adam Lanza May have had some mental illness? Or should we simply chalk it up to him being evil? What is accomplished by trying to dismiss the possible psychological explanations for some criminal behavior? We can have it both ways.

Edit: To Maufman and Rev, I hope I didn't come across as too hostile in this response. I get where you guys are coming from.

 
No offense taken.
 
There was considerable evidence that Adam Lanza was mentally ill. If there is similar evidence regarding Jared Remy, I'm not aware of it.
 
There's an important qualitative difference between saying that some people have a greater propensity than others to commit heinous crimes, and saying that such crimes are therefore the product of "mental illness," rather than the product of evil. (If you don't like the theological baggage associated with the word "evil," feel free to use a synonym.)

 

[SaveBooFerriss]

The only account we have of the pivotal conversation between Jenn Martel and Phoebe Remy is a secondhand account from Martel's mother. I don't doubt her veracity, but precisely what was said, how it was said, and what the larger context was will forever be unknown to us. The only thing we can say with confidence about Jerry Remy's knowledge of that conversation is that whatever knowledge he had was indirect -- he was almost certainly in Toronto when the conversation happened.
 

 
Yes, this is double hearsay.  You have to assume that Martel's mother is accurately recounting her conversation with her daughter and that Jenn Martel accurately recounted her conversation to Phoebe Remy to her mother.  I am not saying that it did not happen as Martell's mother says or that it would be necessarily inadmissible, but there is a lot issues with assuming that it is 100% accurate.  

 

[joe dokes]

 
Who do you think Jared Remy said that to? The cops? The Martel family?
 
 

 
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was not thinking of the Martel case. I was thinking more of other victims somewhere down the line, in a case that had a living victim. Maybe one that didn't even result in charges against him.  It seems that "My father is famous" is about the *only* thing he had going for him, so I suspect he used it in the past.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

 
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was not thinking of the Martel case. I was thinking more of other victims somewhere down the line, in a case that had a living victim. Maybe one that didn't even result in charges against him.  It seems that "My father is famous" is about the *only* thing he had going for him, so I suspect he used it in the past.

 
Okay. Makes sense.

 

[Reverend]

 
No offense taken.
 
There was considerable evidence that Adam Lanza was mentally ill. If there is similar evidence regarding Jared Remy, I'm not aware of it.
 
There's an important qualitative difference between saying that some people have a greater propensity than others to commit heinous crimes, and saying that such crimes are therefore the product of "mental illness," rather than the product of evil. (If you don't like the theological baggage associated with the word "evil," feel free to use a synonym.)

 
Pretty much ditto.
 
I don't have a problem with the idea that mental illness can lead people to commit crimes. I was pointing out that I hadn't seen any evidence presented that he might suffer from mental illness. It's the the conjecture that is problematic. Many people also do, in fact, basically collapse the two with respect to certain kinds of crimes. Even if nobody posting in this forum is doing it, the conjecture to move so easily from crime to possible mental illness reinforces that tendency, and that is a problem.

 

[wnyghost]

The system deserves all of the blame here... Jared Remy was a complete scumbag.   He should have been jailed a long time ago as a consistent, documented abuser of women.  If there are 9 cases out there you can bet there are at least 9 that were not brought forward.  You beat up and bloody a woman = Automatic jail time.  Registered as an abuser and this should lead to more jail time.
 
If you want to blame the Remy family for raising and/or enabling a murderer.... shouldn't you also be questioning how the Martel family let their daughter travel the path?   How does someone convince you to let their son off the hook for knocking around your daughter? 
 
I have both a young son and daughter and for me there is no fucking way I let this happen.   My number one goal in life is to protect my family.  
 
The blame here is on Jared Remy and the legal system that allowed it to happen.  It might not be popular but if everything I have read is true I would also put the Martel family ahead of the Remy family.   Jared Remy was a really bad guy before Jenn Martel was convinced by Phoebe Remy to give him chance... I call bullshit on that story.

 

[joe dokes]

Registered as an abuser and this should lead to more jail time.
 

 
Does Massachusetts have an "abuser registry"?
 

You beat up and bloody a woman = Automatic jail time. 
 

 
In principle, I doubt anyone would disagree. But you can't convict someone of a crime without evidence/ a witness. And domestic violence cases are notorious for the victim choosing (for various and reasons, some simple, some not-so-simple) not to testify.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
Yes, this is double hearsay.  You have to assume that Martel's mother is accurately recounting her conversation with her daughter and that Jenn Martel accurately recounted her conversation to Phoebe Remy to her mother.  I am not saying that it did not happen as Martell's mother says or that it would be necessarily inadmissible, but there is a lot issues with assuming that it is 100% accurate.  

 
Because I deal with this a lot, I thought I'd toss in a quick (and rough!) FYI for the layman/curious. 
 
Basically, "hearsay" is usually defined as "an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted."  
 
Yeah - confusingly worded.  It's a pretty reasonable concept if you unpack it though.  While it's more nuanced in practice, you can think of "hearsay" as meaning a witness in court cannot say, Some-Guy-Who-is-Not-Here said "X ," and I'm telling this so you'll believe that X is true and actually happened, even though I didn't see or hear X myself.  
 
So, excluding something as "hearsay" is basically designed to protect litigants from a witness punting an issue to a third party, or (sort of) answering on a third party's behalf.  It protects the basic idea in our courts that litigants should be able to *actually question* the people who are testifying against them.
 
However, in court there are tons of "hearsay exceptions," meaning even though the statement meets the "technical" definition of hearsay, the court finds the surrounding circumstances make the statement reliable enough to put in front of a jury.  There are also lots of statements that would be hearsay, but aren't actually being introduced "prove the issue" - instead they're offered into evidence for another reason, like showing the subsequent effect on a person.  There are also special kinds of statements that the court views as "not really a statement in the hearsay sense."  (This is where good lawyer separates themselves from mediocre ones - you can often get a statement in or out depending on how quickly you think and how comprehensively you argue.  Sometimes, even though it's hearsay, you get it in front of jury anyway (and the jury thinks what they think, regardless of the judge's instruction.)
 
A related concept (again a rough concept for conversational/illustrative purposes) is that your basic witness can only talk about what they saw with their own eyes and heard with their own ears (except for the relevant statements of third parties not present, unless there's a hearsay exception to those statements).  
 
***
 
So, if there was a civil lawsuit, Phoebe Remy could be asked to testify as to what she said (no hearsay - although you could make an argument it was hearsay, in certain situations).
 
Jen Martel obviously can't be called.  Since she can't be called, there's a potential hearsay issue with information flowing through a third party about anything she said.  However, there are hearsay exceptions that could apply.  If Jen wrote anything down or texted or left a voice message, it might be allowed in (depending on the type of case and the type of statement, and what it was being introduced *for*.)  Anyone testifying as to what Jen Martel said could also be hearsay, or not, depending.  So that would include Jen Martel's mother, relating what Jen Martel said. 
 
Jen Martel's mother, relating what Jen Martel said about what Phoebe Remy said, would be hearsay or double hearsay under certain conditions.  Or not.  Depending.
 
***
 
In criminal court it's the same, mostly, but additionally complicated by the fact that under "the confrontation clause" of the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution (as interpreted by a case called Crawford and subsequent cases) the accused has the right to face their accuser.  This gives greater protection against out of court statements of many types.  There are exceptions to Crawford as well (or situations where it has been found Crawford does not apply.)
 
***
 
For conversational purposes in this thread, we're actually dealing with 1) what a reporter said, 2) Jen Martel's mother said 3) Jen Martel said what Phoebe Remy said.  There can be distortion in any of those transmissions. 

 

[redsahx]

 
No offense taken.
 
There was considerable evidence that Adam Lanza was mentally ill. If there is similar evidence regarding Jared Remy, I'm not aware of it.
 
There's an important qualitative difference between saying that some people have a greater propensity than others to commit heinous crimes, and saying that such crimes are therefore the product of "mental illness," rather than the product of evil. (If you don't like the theological baggage associated with the word "evil," feel free to use a synonym.)

 
I understand and agree with your main point; that if you become too dependent on "mental illness" as an explanation for people's misbehavior, you can overlook the fact that not everyone is at their core equally good or evil. It is certainly true that not every "bad" person is going to have some significant underlying illness either. The underlying quality of that person's character, their moral values, their general level of empathy for people etc. etc. will all play a role in their actions and decisions. How those different factors are weighted for each person varies as well, with no way of being able to definitively quantify it in any case. 
 
My response was based on the idea that you seemed to be implying that I was falling back on mental illness as a blanket excuse for bad behavior, so I needed to clarify that I wasn't. I do feel that it is not necessarily a bad thing if someone wants to consider mental illness as a piece of the puzzle in examining what goes wrong with certain people, including someone like Pol Pot to steal your example. If someone profiling him finds that he displayed symptoms of manic depression (just making this up hypothetically) that obviously doesn't mean anyone with manic depression would turn out like him if given similar power.
 
I am obviously in no position to diagnose Jared Remy with anything, so you are justified in scolding me on that if you wish. The reason I suggested he may have such issues is because I think it is a very plausible theory in this case; IMO it is more likely than the theory that Jerry and Phoebe raised him to be that violent. I was countering the idea many were falling back on, which is that Jared's behavior automatically reflected on his parents values.

 

[redsahx]

  The point isn't so much what they did between violent crimes 1-9, it's the fact that after #9 the first thing on their mind was begging the Martell's not to extend the RO.  The priorities displayed in that instance are, IMO, horrifying. 

 
That's a fair concern. I hesitate to break down their thought process until we know more particulars about how that conversation went down (which we may never know). Jerry was out of town at the time when this unfolded, and we don't know the exact transcript. In either case, it would appear at the very least that they not only miscalculated how dangerous their son was at that point, they were pretty lax in looking out for Martel afterwards. Had Jerry had been in town at the time, I would especially question why two sets of eyes weren't keeping better tabs on Jared initially after he got out. Did either of them talk to him at all after the assault to get a sense of his state of mind? There are a lot of questions there.

 

[SydneySox]

I have a hard time with this because I think a lot of the blame being placed on Remy's family is unfair. Of course there is no doubt their son was a piece of shit and there are unquestionably issues of mental health across the spectrum but I'm continually reminded of an image I constantly see in my work that really makes me think about how complex the role of family is. I go to coroners courts a little for non-lawyer reasons I won't bother getting into as a spectator but I see some cases of violent death and in many of those cases or situations not just there but outside or in ensuing trials I have to track, there is often a family sitting behind the offender who is often so fucking clearly guilty that you look and you see this little man and woman, often elderly, just sitting there behind their kid. I mean, not 'kid' - the 'kids' who do these things, like 18-24 year olds, we sort of see still as kids and when we see their parents who usually look like us, 40 or 50 year olds still working and dressed appropriately, you expect them to be there. I mean, actually, grizzled, horrible excuses for humanity like the Remy kid, bloated mid thirties assholes who definitely did bad things, and often there in the docks are parents who look old and, usually, normal.
 
I've often thought about them - what must it be like from the obvious horrible "we spent twenty years doing everything we could to raise this person right, then the next fifteen watching them destroy their lives and now here we are and someone else is dead" story - to the actual thought of 'how do they sit there, knowing they're being judged by every single person who sees them here or on tv or in the paper?' and 'how do they even reconcile what the person did with that life commitment of thirty or more years from birth to here?'.
 
It's just sad. In almost every case like this one there's things we look back on that can be shown as mistakes, errors of judgement that might have seemed right but turned out horribly wrong. In the Remy case it seems that one-such is this pleading with the family of the victim to grant some leniency to their son. Now it clearly looks terrible and may well have played some part in allowing their evil child to kill her though in reality it's hard for me not to cynically dismiss the idea of any sort of AVO doing anything at all because really they're meant only to grant further protection to victims, not an actual barrier and when it comes to irrational crimes of (hate filled) passion like this one, it's pretty clear evil little piece of shit Remy kid was going there to stab her to death regardless of deterrents.
 
Anyway, it leads me to ask that question as to why the Remy's would even bother trying to help their kid. As oft-repeated in this thread it was like the 9th time their kid did something, plus all the other shit I'm sure we don't know about. It's pretty clear the rest of the world had forgotten their kid, for good reason. If not Jerry and his wife, who was even still caring about what their kid did? A question that could be asked is, why did they do it - was it for totally good reasons in that they might have been pleading on his behalf for any sort of chance to get him on track finally in an effort to stop what they feared would, and did, occurr? Or a bad effort to protect a kid despite his crimes? Maybe it was a little of both. Or maybe - and this is the point I really do find myself wondering about every time I see these parents - maybe that question doesn't matter? Maybe it doesn't matter why because in the end it's parents doing what only the parents of these sorts of horrible people can do, which is be the only ones still standing behind their children doing what they can to keep that human they remember as an innocent kid who laughed as a toddler when he saw a puppy - sappy I know, but it's where I am right now with my own mini-human. I don't think Remy or his wife have ever excused or rationalised this murder or any of the other horrible things their asshole kid did, I wouldn't know but I think that tone comes through, but I do think the ongoing struggle Jerry has and that of his family is that one about when or if or even how they could give up on their child. I think they know they're the last ones that will ever care about their son; not excuse or justify the actions of or even support, but actually show human empathy for as a person. I think every parent of a person who has turned out to be a horrible piece of shit knows that.
 
We know some turn away - when I'm in those court procedures and there is no one sitting behind them, maybe that's what happened - and we know some don't but I bet that's a fucking struggle of a choice to make and one every parent vows from the first minute of holding their kid it's one they'll work their whole lives to ever avoid having to make.
 
So that's what I'm thinking about when I see Remy on TV this year, I reckon, and why I applaud his return and applaud his employer in a totally non-baseball sense.

 

[Myt1]

"Intervened like this," meaning talked a victim out of getting a restraining order (or against pressing charges, perhaps)*? I don't have any sense one way or the other.   But given the son's well-documented history, and given that the Remys' intervention here is well-known, I would expect that if they'd done it before, we'd be reading about it.

There are nine incidents and an 11 year history that we know about. Given how domestic violence usually works, I don't think that assuming an additional incident for every one that got reported is crazy. It's probably conservative. If you disagree, I'd love to know why.

Given that, and the fact that the Remys intervened this time, do you really have no sense one way or the other about whether its likely that they intervened somehow in any of the other 17 incidents? They just picked this time to start acting differently than all the other times?

Because if you can honestly say that you have no sense one way or the other, I'm not going to belabor the point further.

 

[joe dokes]

There are nine incidents and an 11 year history that we know about. Given how domestic violence usually works, I don't think that assuming an additional incident for every one that got reported is crazy. It's probably conservative. If you disagree, I'd love to know why.

Given that, and the fact that the Remys intervened this time, do you really have no sense one way or the other about whether its likely that they intervened somehow in any of the other 17 incidents? They just picked this time to start acting differently than all the other times?

Because if you can honestly say that you have no sense one way or the other, I'm not going to belabor the point further.

 
I dont disagree that there are probably other unreported or uncharged incidents. And I never said anything to the contrary.
Your premise assumes that his parents knew about each incident when it happened but before he was charged;
 
 
What I *did* say is that given how *this* intervention worked out, if there had been *other* similar "please dont get our boy in trouble" interventions by the parents  (i.e. "if THEY'D done it before"), the victims in those other incidents would be crawling out of the woodwork to tell about it once the guy killed someone. ("Remy's parents often tried to stop victims from charging Son, victims say").  So, yeah, I really can't say whether its likely that in other instances of him beating up women, that his parents: a) knew about it; and b)contacted the victim and said "please dont press charges or get a restraining order."  Considering what we *do* know about this type of violence -- that even without the pleas of the perpetrator's parents, victims often refuse to press charges -- it's is at least as likely that that's what happened on those other, assumed-to-exist occasions, as opposed to the victims stepping back as the result of the parents' pleas.  
 

Because if you can honestly say that you have no sense one way or the other, I'm not going to belabor the point further.
 

 
Could be because I'm not willing to assume to quite the same extent as you are; especially when there are countervailing factors -- like lots and lots and lots of similar victims are influenced by factors other than the perp's parents. 

 

[LeftyTG]

I have a hard time with this because I think a lot of the blame being placed on Remy's family is unfair. Of course there is no doubt their son was a piece of shit and there are unquestionably issues of mental health across the spectrum but I'm continually reminded of an image I constantly see in my work that really makes me think about how complex the role of family is. I go to coroners courts a little for non-lawyer reasons I won't bother getting into as a spectator but I see some cases of violent death and in many of those cases or situations not just there but outside or in ensuing trials I have to track, there is often a family sitting behind the offender who is often so fucking clearly guilty that you look and you see this little man and woman, often elderly, just sitting there behind their kid. I mean, not 'kid' - the 'kids' who do these things, like 18-24 year olds, we sort of see still as kids and when we see their parents who usually look like us, 40 or 50 year olds still working and dressed appropriately, you expect them to be there. I mean, actually, grizzled, horrible excuses for humanity like the Remy kid, bloated mid thirties assholes who definitely did bad things, and often there in the docks are parents who look old and, usually, normal.
 
I've often thought about them - what must it be like from the obvious horrible "we spent twenty years doing everything we could to raise this person right, then the next fifteen watching them destroy their lives and now here we are and someone else is dead" story - to the actual thought of 'how do they sit there, knowing they're being judged by every single person who sees them here or on tv or in the paper?' and 'how do they even reconcile what the person did with that life commitment of thirty or more years from birth to here?'.
 
It's just sad. In almost every case like this one there's things we look back on that can be shown as mistakes, errors of judgement that might have seemed right but turned out horribly wrong. In the Remy case it seems that one-such is this pleading with the family of the victim to grant some leniency to their son. Now it clearly looks terrible and may well have played some part in allowing their evil child to kill her though in reality it's hard for me not to cynically dismiss the idea of any sort of AVO doing anything at all because really they're meant only to grant further protection to victims, not an actual barrier and when it comes to irrational crimes of (hate filled) passion like this one, it's pretty clear evil little piece of shit Remy kid was going there to stab her to death regardless of deterrents.
 
Anyway, it leads me to ask that question as to why the Remy's would even bother trying to help their kid. As oft-repeated in this thread it was like the 9th time their kid did something, plus all the other shit I'm sure we don't know about. It's pretty clear the rest of the world had forgotten their kid, for good reason. If not Jerry and his wife, who was even still caring about what their kid did? A question that could be asked is, why did they do it - was it for totally good reasons in that they might have been pleading on his behalf for any sort of chance to get him on track finally in an effort to stop what they feared would, and did, occurr? Or a bad effort to protect a kid despite his crimes? Maybe it was a little of both. Or maybe - and this is the point I really do find myself wondering about every time I see these parents - maybe that question doesn't matter? Maybe it doesn't matter why because in the end it's parents doing what only the parents of these sorts of horrible people can do, which is be the only ones still standing behind their children doing what they can to keep that human they remember as an innocent kid who laughed as a toddler when he saw a puppy - sappy I know, but it's where I am right now with my own mini-human. I don't think Remy or his wife have ever excused or rationalised this murder or any of the other horrible things their asshole kid did, I wouldn't know but I think that tone comes through, but I do think the ongoing struggle Jerry has and that of his family is that one about when or if or even how they could give up on their child. I think they know they're the last ones that will ever care about their son; not excuse or justify the actions of or even support, but actually show human empathy for as a person. I think every parent of a person who has turned out to be a horrible piece of shit knows that.
 
We know some turn away - when I'm in those court procedures and there is no one sitting behind them, maybe that's what happened - and we know some don't but I bet that's a fucking struggle of a choice to make and one every parent vows from the first minute of holding their kid it's one they'll work their whole lives to ever avoid having to make.
 
So that's what I'm thinking about when I see Remy on TV this year, I reckon, and why I applaud his return and applaud his employer in a totally non-baseball sense.

Thank you for this post.  I previously posted that I had a lot of thoughts but didn't have it in me to reduce them to writing.  This post hits on many of those thoughts. 

 

[Dummy Hoy]

Syd- I love your post and agree 100% with the general sentiment, but the fact that all three of their kids seem to be scumbags makes me a little less empathic on that point. Maybe empathetic is the wrong word because part of me is more empathetic because it's their whole family. But the larger part of me thinks maybe a large chunk of the blame lies with the family environment that at least partially pushed the siblings towards their behavior.

 

[Myt1]

 
I dont disagree that there are probably other unreported or uncharged incidents. And I never said anything to the contrary.
Your premise assumes that his parents knew about each incident when it happened but before he was charged;

1. What I *did* say is that given how *this* intervention worked out, if there had been *other* similar "please dont get our boy in trouble" interventions by the parents  (i.e. "if THEY'D done it before"), the victims in those other incidents would be crawling out of the woodwork to tell about it once the guy killed someone.
 
. . .

2. Could be because I'm not willing to assume to quite the same extent as you are; especially when there are countervailing factors -- like lots and lots and lots of similar victims are influenced by factors other than the perp's parents. 

Oh, I think it's pretty clear that you're perfectly happy to assume to a very large extent so long as it supports your idea that the Remys are blameless.

But sure. Currently relatively anonymous women are far more likely to try to put themselves in the spotlight by reliving their abuse for the media than the Remys were to ever before have asked a woman not to press charges or cooperate.

 

[Mo's OBP]

Given what we know, and Remy's comments in his press conference about what is still to be revealed, and the related the pre-trial leaks, will make Jerry's future in the booth quite short.

 

[Buffalo Head]

Sorry I don't have the link, but the Globe did an absolutely devastating investigative piece today on Jared Remy's history of getting away with all sorts of mayhem in his life, resulting in this murder.

 

[Frisbetarian]

Thanks for letting us know about the Globe article, BH. Wow.

 

[Average Reds]

I got halfway through that article and couldn't finish.
 
Jared Remy is a complete and total piece of shit.  And I have no words for the enablers who allowed him to walk free until he finally killed someone with his own hands.

 

[Average Reds]

Here are some key points:
 

 
Now 35, Remy has been arrested or brought to court as the defendant in 20 different criminal cases, mostly for charges of violence against, or intimidation of, women, including his pending case for allegedly murdering his girlfriend, Jennifer Martel, in Waltham last August.
 
Remy has been found guilty just twice, and both times his lawyer persuaded a judge to let him walk with a suspended sentence, defying the wishes of prosecutors.
 
Often he benefited from victims who did not want to testify, whether from fear or forgiveness, leading prosecutors to drop the case. But even when cases seemed airtight, judges often rewarded Remy with a nearly free pass — temporary probation without the stain of a guilty finding. Most offenders are lucky to get two such reprieves. He got six.
 
And on more than 10 occasions while already serving probation or waiting for an earlier case to be resolved, Remy was arrested again on new charges or otherwise ran afoul of the law — a pattern of incorrigibility that would ordinarily get a person locked up.
 
But he continued to walk, with judges extending his probation or finding creative solutions to help him avoid jail, like ordering him to move home with his parents and observe a curfew — a measure common in juvenile courts, but rarely employed for adults.

 
Remember, this is just what is on the record.  Imagine all the acts of violence that did not get reported.
 
Assuming that the article is accurate, it will be interesting to watch the ripple effect over the next few weeks.  And one of those is almost certain to be that Jerry Remy will be pushed out of the booth.

 

[soxfan121]

The thing that jumped out at me was that the first person to call the police on Jared Remy was Jerry Remy. He knew twenty-plus years ago who Jared Remy was and how dangerous his behavior had become. That Jerry then continued to enable Jared with "the best" lawyers, treatment programs and resources leads me to conclude that Jerry Remy loves his wife. In his statement a few months back he said something to the effect of "criticize my parenting but don't criticize my wife". Jerry Remy thought of himself as part of Jared's problems; Jerry saw himself as contributing, through his absence or other self-critical reasons, as having been a "bad" parent to Jared. And so when Jared continued to fuck up, and the threat of the police was used ineffectively, Jerry decided to let his wife steer the ship (as she always had). He continued to provide Jared with lawyers and resources because Jerry loved his wife and she kept asking (telling?) him to protect Jared. 
 
That's another tragic aspect of a tragic story. Jerry Remy seems to have been a guy who loved his wife, kept trying to help his son in different ways and thought of himself as the problem. And I'm sorry, but Jerry is wrong. His wife seems to deserve quite a bit of criticism, if she didn't ever recognize what Jared was and how he repeatedly hurt other people. If she pushed Jerry to enable Jared. If she indeed discouraged or otherwise spoke to Jennifer Martel about not renewing the restraining order. 
 
What a depressing, but well-done, bit of journalism from Eric Moskowitz and The Globe. And I agree with AR above; Jerry isn't going to be in the booth Opening Day or ever again. This article is going to dominate sports talk radio and the other media until at least Thursday. That's a lot of negative attention for the team that does not need it. 

 

[YTF]

No doubt that Remy killed the mother of his child, but after reading this I can only wonder how many people have the blood of Jen Martel on their hands. I'm interested in knowing how many different judges let this animal walk free as his "resume" grew. And of those, how many released him on more than one occasion? And of those, how many times? And his lawyer...yeah I get that it his job to defend his client, but that man clearly has no conscience considering how many times he was called to defend Remy and his trail of violent crimes. Nice how he boasts of being a former prosecutor and knowing "all of the tricks in the book".  

 

[Foulkey Reese]

I can't imagine listening to Don and Jerry joke around in the booth after reading that. He really needs to go.

What a reprehensibe family of monsters.

 

[Dalton Jones]

I find it interesting that Jerry's boss -- John Henry -- published such a piece of journalistic indictment in his paper. I would imagine he had no choice if he wanted to maintain credibility among the staff of The Globe.

 

[Buffalo Head]

I'm sure joe dokes has a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why this doesn't reflect badly on Saint Jerry.

 

[YTF]

I find it interesting that Jerry's boss -- John Henry -- published such a piece of journalistic indictment in his paper. I would imagine he had no choice if he wanted to maintain credibility among the staff of The Globe.

 
 
Perhaps this makes it easier for him to "persuade" Jerry it's time to move on. Sort of force Jerry into making a decision that Henry doesn't want to make.