[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Elder Kennedy ordered to tesify to Grand Jury (if you can call it that) [CNN]
Why would this be "unconstitutional?"
Are you at all familiar with the case? There seems to be a fair amount of
evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that would indicate a certain
politically and financially powerful family used its influence to keep
the two prime suspects in the case from coming to trial for over 20
years.
One judge is better than nothing. OTOH, maybe a football, a few pine
trees, and some vertical slope would do justice.
(Or do you think there should be a statute of limitations involved?)
-r.w.
On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Jim Choate wrote:
> Forwarded message:
>
> > X-within-URL: http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/10/kennedy.testimony.ap/
>
> > STAMFORD, Connecticut (AP) -- A Florida judge on Tuesday ordered the
> > elderly brother of Ethel Kennedy to testify before a Connecticut grand
> > jury investigating a 1975 slaying in which his two sons are suspects.
> >
> > Rushton Skakel, 74, of Hobe Sound, Florida, was ordered to testify
> > about what he knows about the slaying of Martha Moxley, a 15-year-old
> > Greenwich girl who was bludgeoned to death with a golf club.
>
> ...
>
> > The case stalled for years but was revived this spring by the
> > appointment of a grand jury consisting of a single judge.
>
> [remainder deleted]
>
> Now if that isn't unconstitutional I don't know what is. He and his lawyer
> should be screaming bloody murder (figuratively).
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want
> the right answers.
>
> Scully (X-Files)
>
> The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
> Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [email protected]
> www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
> -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>