# I Pit Michael Skakel **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 13, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-michael-skakel/229070 "2004-02-13T17:39:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 42
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2004, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-michael-skakel/229070/42 "2004-02-16T05:17:36Z")
> [@OtakuLoki](#): > > Well, first, negligent homicide is usually defined (I don’t know Mass state law AT THE TIME) by the phrase ‘depraved indifference to human life’ resulting in loss of life. Yes, but you’ve still presented no evidence that such “indifference” resulted in Kopechne’s death. You _assume_ that Kennedy was drunk, but that has not been established. > [@OtakuLoki](#): > > Whether or not Ms. Kopeckne was alive at the time that Teddy got out of the car and left the scene of the accident, his waiting 8 hours to report it seems to be more than sufficient to convict him on that charge alone. Actually, if you’re arguing that Kennedy’s leaving the scene is part of the reason that we should consider a negligent homicide charge, the issue of whether or not Kopechne was alive when he left is not, as you seem to suggest, irrelevant. In fact, it is crucial, because _if_ she was already dead, then his leaving in no way contributed to her death, and thus could not reasonably be used to sustain a negligent homicide charge. If you could establish definitively that she was alive when he left, then that might be a different story. > [@OtakuLoki](#): > > As well as leaving the scene of an accident, which is a felony in all 50 states IIRC. Never said it wasn’t, but i also believe that “leaving the scene of an accident” is an entirely different charge from “negligent homicide.” I didn’t enter this thread intending to rally to the defence of Ted Kennedy. Despite the fact that i quite like his politics, i do believe that his behaviour on that night in Chappaquiddick was, as best, strange and irresponsible, and at worst illegal and reprehensible. I don’t really know enough about what went on to reach a definite conclusion. I just think it’s rather silly and unproductive to launch into rampant speculation along the lines of “he _must_ have been drunk; how else can we explain his actions,” or “it must be a cover-up, because he’s a Kennedy.” --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-michael-skakel/229070)._