Mark Kerrigan trial has started

[taf2002]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...id=Top+Stories

http://www.necn.com/05/19/11/Emotion...07&feedID=4206

There are several online articles, here is a couple. The family is still standing by Mark. Apparently the medical evidence is not conclusive that being choked was the cause of death. I feel so sorry for all of them. No matter how this turns out, there is no win/win.

[Jammers]

Why is the family still standing by this creep? Even if he didn't directly kill his father he was abusive at the very least to a elderly man. Why was a 46 year old man still living at home? Seems to me Mark Kerrigan had drug problems and was bad news but the family kept enabling him.

[julieann]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...id=Top+Stories

http://www.necn.com/05/19/11/Emotion...07&feedID=4206

There are several online articles, here is a couple. The family is still standing by Mark. Apparently the medical evidence is not conclusive that being choked was the cause of death. I feel so sorry for all of them. No matter how this turns out, there is no win/win.

I agree no one will win here.

Why is the family still standing by this creep? Even if he didn't directly kill his father he was abusive at the very least to a elderly man. Why was a 46 year old man still living at home? Seems to me Mark Kerringan had drug problems and was bad news but the family kept enabling him.

Being a murderer and being and abuser are two different things in the eyes of the law. Like it or not, even if they were fighting - if he died from any other reason other than Mark hitting and choking him, Mark's charges against him should not be murder. I would hope the family is standing by him because they are aware of more facts. It' snot so easy to just write someone out of your life, especially when it's your son.

[mysticchic]

This is really sad. I'm sure they don't want to lose the brother or son. But if he doesn't get help or there are no concicences then he will abuse the next person and it just gets worse.

[aftershocks]

What I hate is the "spectacle" nature of trials such as these. Obviously, there was an altercation and physical violence. Obviously, a loving father tragically died. Obviously, the son's behavior is a factor in his death. Obviously, the son needs a lot of help, and apparently has for some time. Who wins ... attorneys, media perhaps, court-tv (if its being televised), people who gain faux enjoyment from viewing and dissecting the pain of others. Too bad in this case that something couldn't have been worked out to serve justice as well as to help rehabilitate the accused. The Kerrigan name aspect was just too juicy I suppose, complicated by the Kerrigan family's innate reflex/ desire to protect brother/son and to keep their privacy private and the police department/ criminal justice system's over-reaching tendency to show people who's boss.

What was the Martha Stewart trial other than a scandalous gossipy, let's get the goods on Martha and try to bring her down, he said/ she said spectacle, eaten up and regurgitated by the media? That's a different story, of course, but there are way too many murder trial spectacles to mention.

[Judy]

I think the mom is telling what she honestly feels happened. It is always possible when things happen so fast that she did not see everything. I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt.

[ks777]

I think the mom is telling what she honestly feels happened. It is always possible when things happen so fast that she did not see everything. I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt.

but the mom is blind so I don't know how much she was able to see..

[rudi]

...court-tv (if its being televised)...

Lucky for the Kerrigans, the Casey Anthony trial starts on Tuesday and will be shown all day, every day on Court TV (now called TRU TV) for the next 6-8 weeks. Otherwise, you're right; I'll bet this trial would have been televised.

[Beefcake]

Whoa, Mrs. Kerrigan probably did more harm than good with her candy-coating (read: lie) of the fatal morning. With her careful embellishment -- arm placement etc. -- she's describing a passionate country dance between her husband and son versus than an argument. IMO, she took it too far, and the jury will disregard her entire "eye witness" testimony.

It's just as well, because "guilty" is the only correct verdict in this case. taf, I read this (and earlier articles) as definitely conclusive evidence that choking happened before/contributed to Mr. Kerrigan's death.

[overedge]

Too bad in this case that something couldn't have been worked out to serve justice as well as to help rehabilitate the accused. The Kerrigan name aspect was just too juicy I suppose, complicated by the Kerrigan family's innate reflex/ desire to protect brother/son and to keep their privacy private and the police department/ criminal justice system's over-reaching tendency to show people who's boss.

"The police department/criminal justice system's over-reaching tendency to show people who's boss"? Would you prefer that they said, oh, somebody died under mysterious circumstances involving an assault, but the family is famous and they don't want us to pursue it, so let's just drop all the charges?

The police and the criminal justice system are doing what they're supposed to be doing. I think it's highly unlikely they're pursuing this case simply because of the "name aspect".

[BigB08822]

If I was a juror and I was getting an eye witness account from a blind woman, well...the medical evidence would hold a lot more weight with me. Not only may she be trying to protect her son but she couldn't possibly have seen what happened with any ability to see details.

[judgejudy27]

If I was a juror and I was getting an eye witness account from a blind woman, well...the medical evidence would hold a lot more weight with me. Not only may she be trying to protect her son but she couldn't possibly have seen what happened with any ability to see details.

I agree. I dont know how her testimony in this case can carry much weight.

[duane]

Why is the family still standing by this creep? Even if he didn't directly kill his father he was abusive at the very least to a elderly man.

My sentiments exactly. I guess I can understand the mother, whose natural instinct is to protect her son. Or, perhaps the family is blaming the drugs instead of the person (that the brother isn't "himself" when he's on drugs).

Sad story. Brings back the images of the father carrying an injured Nancy after the wack...and Nancy mouthing the words "where're my parents?" after her successful Olympics free skate (and the father wildly waving his arms, trying to get her attention). If someone had predicted at the time that there would be a murder/manslaughter trial involving a skater's family, everyone would have assumed the skater he was talking about was from-the-wrong-side-of-the-tracks Tonya.

[GarrAarghHrumph]

If I was a juror and I was getting an eye witness account from a blind woman, well...the medical evidence would hold a lot more weight with me. Not only may she be trying to protect her son but she couldn't possibly have seen what happened with any ability to see details.

She is legally blind. Most legally blind people can actually see, to various extents. Some see light/shadows. Some see tunnel vision. Some see peripheral vision. Etc. My friend, who is legally blind, can read with a device that enlarges text, if she turns her head just-so. My brother, who is legally blind, can see pretty darn well for a blind person - but he is legally blind. He can't see well enough to drive, but he can see things way better than people expect of someone who is blind. You actually wouldn't know he was blind if you met him, he functions so well, and his sight is good enough for him to do a lot. So Mrs. Kerrigan's being blind doesn't actually mean that she can't see certain things, and it doesn't mean that what she did see isn't reliable. It really depends.

[MacMadame]

Why is the family still standing by this creep? Even if he didn't directly kill his father he was abusive at the very least to a elderly man. Why was a 46 year old man still living at home? Seems to me Mark Kerrigan had drug problems and was bad news but the family kept enabling him.

In other articles it was reported that he is mentally ill and that he is fine when his medicines work but sometimes they stop working and other times he stops taking them. (Which is pretty par for the course with mental illness.)

I assume this is why he was still living at home. Also, since it was reported that he was drunk, either his meds were not working again or he was off them and self-medicating with alcohol.

I also assume that his mental health issues are why his family is standing by "this creep." I understand their choice even though it's not one I would make.

So Mrs. Kerrigan's being blind doesn't actually mean that she can't see certain things, and it doesn't mean that what she did see isn't reliable. It really depends.

I agree. It definitely depends.

To be legally blind, your corrected vision has to be 20/400 or worse. My uncorrected vision in one eye is 20/400 so whenever the subject comes up, I take off my glasses and close the better eye. I can actually see pretty well. I can't read anything and I wouldn't want to drive, but I could tell if someone's arm was around a person's waist or their neck if they were in the same room with me.

So it depends on how bad Mrs. Kerrigan's eyes actually are and if she has any other vision problems besides myopia.

[Kasey]

To be legally blind, your corrected vision has to be 20/400 or worse. My uncorrected vision in one eye is 20/400 so whenever the subject comes up, I take off my glasses and close the better eye. I can actually see pretty well. I can't read anything and I wouldn't want to drive, but I could tell if someone's arm was around a person's waist or their neck if they were in the same room with me.

So it depends on how bad Mrs. Kerrigan's eyes actually are and if she has any other vision problems besides myopia.

Very good point. I'm twice legally blind without correction (about 20/800 or worse on last exam). Without my glasses or contacts, I would be a sucky driver and sure as hell couldn't read unless the type was really big or I held the book 4 or 5 inches from my face; but I also sure as hell could tell if someone in the same room as me (considering a normal or even large-for-a-home sized kitchen) was choking another person to death.

However, also I would take it with a grain of salt in that the family has already been through a tragedy, they probably don't want to compound it by having their son/brother taken away to prison for X amount of years when he's already mentally ill and they've had to deal with that aspect of him his whole life; so I would tend to think that her memory or "factual" account of the situation could be a bit skewed by that.

Basically, I would go with other testimony and medical evidence if I was a juror in this case.

[QB]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011...r.html?_r=1&hp

[Cheylana]

Not surprised by this outcome. All the defense needed to do was show reasonable doubt, and having an (albeit biased) eyewitness contradicting the prosecutor's story - together with inconclusive medical results - ended up being sufficient.

[numbers123]

Why is the family still standing by this creep? Even if he didn't directly kill his father he was abusive at the very least to a elderly man. Why was a 46 year old man still living at home? Seems to me Mark Kerrigan had drug problems and was bad news but the family kept enabling him.

I think that unless you have had a similar experience within your family, you would not be able to understand.
1. - how would convicting a brother/son replace the loss of the father/husband?

2. Do we really know that he was abusive so much that he would be abusive to another elderly person? Family dynamics are difficult and we do not know what the father/son relationship has been all of his life. Maybe both were abusive to each other all their lives.

3. Do you know of any medically ill children living with their families? There have been mental health issues for years. I know several families who have adult children living with them - some for financial reasons, some to care for older parents, some because they are ill themselves.

4. How do you know that the family was enabling him? You mean they were supplying drugs and alcohol? You mean that they never sought medical treatment for him? or that in your estimation because he was living at home caused enabling?

Tragic yes? What is the truth - truth is what a person saw or experienced which maybe different than someone else's vision or experience? I couldn't see 10 feet in front of me without glasses or contacts, but I can see what someone is doing if I am between them and it is close range.

[my little pony]

I think that unless you have had a similar experience within your family, you would not be able to understand.
1. - how would convicting a brother/son replace the loss of the father/husband?

it doesnt but we don't ask these questions when a stranger does the same thing