Actually, the thing that struck me most in that piece was that Michael Skakel was upset with his Kennedy relations because they didn’t prevent the trial, which further reinforces my belief that they had been doing just that previously.
And, Otto , I have to confess Ralph124c is not the only person pathological about Tedward. Certainly in Massachusetts, where I grew up, there seemed to be exactly two opinions about Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy clan in general: The majority opinion that the family was annoited by divine right to rule; and the minority opinion that the family made the Bulger crime family look honest, and aboveboard.
Is that what the autopsy report indicated? Did it also indicate that Ms. Kopechne had gills, or an oxygen tank with her? I ask because the car accident involved the car going off the bridge and into the river, where it landed at the bottom, completely underwater.
So I think I’m going to have to ask you for some kind of cite to this autopsy report, or, in the alternative, the admission that you’re simply making shit up.
If a car does submerge, it is possible that it will take time for the interior to completely fill with water, so a rescue may have been possible. That’s all conjecture though.
In accordance with the wishes of Kopechne’s family, there was no autopsy performed.
Well, this site and this one point out that no autopsy was ever performed on Kopechne.
This article and this Wikipedia entry both go even further, noting that Kopechne’s parents filed a succesful petition specifically to bar an exhumation and autopsy.
I suppose your theory must be that there was an autopsy performed, but the all-powerful Kennedy clan quashed its findings.
At the very least, negligent homocide. Probably reckless homocide because I’m sure he was lit like a roman candle. I don’t think a reasonable person can read the facts of the case and agree that Kennedy’s punishment fit his crime. Minimally, he should have served at least a few months in jail. He let that woman drown and then, worse, waited eight hours to tell authorities that hey, I drove off a bridge last night and managed to escape, but unfortunately a friend was also, well still IS, in the car. Sorry!
No, IMO Kennedy had one thing in mind and that was to try and cover his ass. He was still hoping that he could cover up what happened so he could maintain his presidential bid. Had so many people not seen him drive off with MaryJo Kopechne, I daresay he might have gotten away with it. Kopechne’s family got zero justice from the Old Boys’ Network.
As far as Skakel goes, I don’t think anyone can claim with absolute certainty that he committed the crime. So much time has passed and key witnesses have died. Do I think a drifter committed the crime? No. I think it was someone she knew simply because the perpetrator was so angry. But I’m not 100% sure that it was Skakel. The original suspect was his brother. Obviously the OBN was in full force during that investigation, though.
As far as WK Smith. My gut instinct tells me he’s guilty. And the reason for that is because he was scheduled to leave town later that day (I recall it was Easter Sunday…?) but he was swept out of town on a charter before they could arrest him. Most well-connected defendants turn themselves in as a sign of cooperation. Instead he left and lay low for weeks. I tend to believe her attorney who accused him of waiting until the telltale scratches on his face healed. Without scratches, it pretty much was left to a he-said, she-said thing. In any event, as I said it’s my gut instinct that he’s guilty but I don’t think we’ll ever really know.
The other interesting thing is that RFK Jr. has nothing but contempt for all the witnesses who say they heard Skakel confess to/brag about the crime, based in part on the years it took for some of them to come forward. But RFK Jr.'s current prize “witness” (Bryant) apparently didn’t say anything for 28 years before vaguely fingering either himself or a couple of buddies who may, um, have been contemplating some similar crime in the area at the time.
I guess it’s OK to step forward after years have elapsed, but only if you’re providing aid to the defense.
Anyway, I was under the impression that once a jury finds someone guilty, he’s not eligible for a new trial based on interesting new alternate theories of the crime. This stuff seems aimed more at creating sympathy for Skakel so that he gets released on parole sooner.
I’m sorry…Mary Joe Kopechne was not autopsied. However, the body WAS examined by the county medical examiner, who concluded that it was most likely that she had been ALIVE for several hours after the rollover incident. There was an air pocket in the car, and there is evidence that she was breathing this. Anyway, had Kennedy gone back to the drunken party he had attended, called the police IMMEDIATELY! Miss Kopeche probably would have survived. Instead, he concocted a story that had him swimming back from Chappaquiddick to Edgartown, trying to find help, then swimming BACK TO CHAPPAQUIDDICK! This is IMPOSSIBLE, because the strong tide in the channel would have made it impossible.
What actually happened: he went back to the party, and told his advisors. They probably told him to “dummy up”, while they concocted an alibi for him (this most likely included having someone be a “fall guy” forhim. Once this was decided, Kennedy was driven back to Edgartown, where he spent the night at a hotel. Evidently, the fall guy decided that he wasn’t going to take the rap for Kennedy, so there was another made scramble to concoct a new story.
So, for those ofyou who admire Ted Kennedy, think about this…does any ethical person behave in such a manner?
But you said she was. You lied! You posted information here that smeared Mr. Kennedy, and yet it was untrue!
An excellent question. What ethical person posts lies on a message board like that?
Well, given your record for lying, maybe your unsupported word on this isn’t enough. How about a cite supporting the claim that the county medical examiner looked at the body and reached the conclusions you offer? Maybe you’re lying again.
What’s the evidence that he was “lit like a Roman candle?” And if not, what were the elements of negligent homicide that the state would have had to prove?
Can you give me some evidence here? While it’s certainly possible, I’ve never read this fact–that the medical examiner believed she lived for several hours-- anywhere except on conspiracy-theorist webpages.
Because, as the juvenile court found when they transferred the case: "“there is no available or suitable state institution designed for the care and treatment of children to which the Juvenile Court could commit, the now forty year old, respondent that would be suitable for his care and treatment, should he be adjudicated delinquent for the murder of the victim.” Because his case was lawfully and properly transferred to adult court. Because almost all of the policy reasons behind having a juvenile criminal justice system do not apply to 40 year old men. Because he’s hidden his guilt for 25+ years. So, you have legal arguments, factual arguments, and policy arguments all supporting the transfer to adult court. Because, after all, he is an adult.
You mean other than the fact that the car he was driving ended up bottoms up in a pond and someone died as a result of that accident? Dude, what else do you need to prove negligent homocide?
As far as the drunk thing goes, how many sheets to the wind would YOU have to be to go to wait EIGHT HOURS to call and let someone know that your lady friend was floating dead in your car? How long would you wait to to pick up the phone and call her parents - you know the ones that were probably freaking out with worry because their daughter hadn’t come home. Would it ever occur to your sober mind that at the very minimal, your responsibilities as a human being, not to mention self-purported Christian, just might extend to picking up the fucking phone and letting the parents know where they could find their daughter’s corpse?
By gawd, I HOPE the guy was drunk. To think that he acted so miserably towards another human being stone sober would only mean he was more self-centered and viscious than I have previously given him credit for.
Yes, but that’s hardly the final word on the subject. There was an interlocutory appeal on this issue, which was kicked back as premature. So the above is the law of the case for the moment, but it hardly has precedential force.
And there’s another argument that is unaddressed: the law in force at the time did not provide a transfer into adult court. To apply the current procedure to a crime that occurred back then is essentially an ex post facto and due process violation.
The fact that the state is ill-equipped to provide for an adult in the juvenile system is of no moment – the law at the time provided for a juvenile adjudication, and that’s what he’s owed.
Umm… so you’re saying, that since he wasn’t prosecuted while he was a minor, he can only be tried as a minor, and then, since AIUI, Juvenile law only allows offenders to be held until their 18th, or 21st birthday, if convicted he should be released? I’m not trying to be offensive, here, just wondering how that can be seen as just or proper.
And yes, I’m unfortunately well aware that the law doesn’t always work out to be just or proper.
Well, IANAL, but i assume that what you would need is whatever the law in that particular state requires for a conviction on a charge of negligent homicide. And, as far as i’m aware, in no state is the simple fact that an accident occurred and someone died sufficient for such a charge to be brought.
Of course, you do address other issues that would probably bear on the issue of whether a charge of negligent homicide could be bought, for example:
But considering that these two paragraphs comprise nothing but rampant speculation and a bunch of pointless rhetorical questions, we’re still no further enlightened about the appropriateness–or otherwise–or a negligent homicide charge in this case.
