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. 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. As well as leaving the scene of an accident, which is a felony in all 50 states IIRC.
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.
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.
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.”
I call BS. During investigation of the Susan Smith case, prosecutors determined that
Even if a car has its windows and doors shut, water can still seep in from the air vents. And when a car fills with water, it sinks pretty fast. If Kopechne couldn’t have gotten out of the car in six minutes, how could she have gotten to an air bubble trapped in the car, and how could an air bubble large enough to sustain her for “several hours” have formed?
(Note: I got the above quote from this sensationalist site. It jibes with what I saw from the tape of the re-enactment on Court TV, though.)
I wasn’t saying anything about his being drunk or not in my post. I believe he was pissed four sheets to the wind, but I wasn’t saying anything about that. What I’d meant was to point out that, IIRC, Ms Kopeckne recieved no traumatic, instantly fatal injuries during the car crash, so it’s reasonable to assume that Kennedy’s actions after the accident had some contribution to her death. Sorry I wasn’t clearer about that.
Granted. I’d meant them to be presented as two seperate charges.
Umm… I find it impossible to believe that something wasn’t done to protect Teddy by the Kennedys. Considering more than one of the jurors in the case have since come forward to complain about how sketchy the situation described to them had been, considering the known facts of the case, I can’t believe that this was a case of blind justice without regard to who was on the stand. My position is not ‘it must be a cover-up, because he’s a Kennedy,’ but rather the fact that he was acquitted of all charges is sufficient to convince me that something kept justice from being done. And the first explaination that comes to mind is family influence.
mhendo has addressed the holes in this very well.
It’s not enough to show that the actor demonstrates an indifference, depraved or otherwise, to human life. You have to show that his indifferent actions were a proximate cause of the death.
I notice, OtakuLoki, that you have completely dodged the requests for cites, and both sets of lies you’ve posted. To refresh your recollection, the first lie was the claim that an autopsy showed details that supported your theory. When informed there was no autopsy, you retreated into the second lie: that an examination by the medical examiner showed that the victim survived for hours by using an “air pocket” in the car. Not only have you refused to provide a cite for this bizarre claim, but Duke’s post effectively shows the problem with this claim.
now, you offer this gem:
This strange notion ignores the fact that the car crashed into a river, and Ms. Kopechne drowned. We don’t have to assume that Mr. Kennedy did anything more after the accident to cause her death. The accident put the car under water, and she drowned.
So no - it’s competely UNreasonable to assume that Mr. Kennedy did anything more to cause her death.
Again I point out, OtakuLoki, that your commitment to truth seems less than rock-solid, and it’s rather ironic that you’re lambasting the Kennedy family for their alleged malfeseance, when you yourself are posting half-truths and outright lies. How do you sleep at night?
- Rick
If I’m wrong let me know, but isn’t it still the case that polygraphs aren’t allowed as evidence in trials (a rather broad question, I know)? And further, that there is no overwhemling consensus as to their accuracy? And if so, why is so much emphasis put on defendants who do or do not chose to have one administered?
The main utilization of polygraph exams (based on my exhaustive study of the criminal/true crime literature ;)) is by police agencies which are attempting to rule out particular suspects. If you pass a properly conducted test and are not under intense scrutiny for some other reason, you’re likely to be excluded from consideration.
It seems that Michael Skakel never took advantage of this option, which would lead you to wonder why.
I would then address a similar question to police departments who use polygraphs to rule out suspects: “Why do you conduct a polygraph to determine if someone should remain under suspicion, if there is no conclusive evidence as to their accuracy? Does it not concern you that a suspect may go free based upon and unreliable and unproven test of truthfulness?”
As for me, I suspect that I would fail a polygraph, knowing myself as I do. I certainly wouldn’t want to risk failing one, if I knew that I was innocent of any charges brought against me. Perhaps that is why Skakel (or other suspects for that matter) didn’t want to take one.
Not me. Remember Gary Condit? Too many subjective/uncontrollable factors. There’s no guarentee that if you ‘pass’ a lie detector that the police will leave you alone, and there’s all too many ways you can be ruled ‘less than forthcoming’ etc. on them. For the police to accept the results, they want to control who is conducting the exam, what questions are asked etc. depending on how the question is framed, it’s all to easy to have a reaction to the question w/o it being a ‘guilty’ reaction.
I’ve never been in a position of being asked to take one, and have absolutely no faith in how I’d react.
I think the answer lies in that part of my response dealing with possible other compelling reasons to look at a suspect. I doubt that a professional detective force is eliminating suspects solely on the basis of the polygraph.
And to address wring - once you’ve got the idea that the cops are casting their beady eyes upon you in a high-profile crime (and you’re innocent), it might be a good idea to go on in for the polygraph (with a lawyer or observer in tow). If you are making a reasonable effort to get yourself eliminated, the publicity may well do you good. And if you think the test was flawed, you can have a separate test conducted by somebody qualified and release those results to the press. Sounds like a better idea than having a family attorney give vague assurances about some truth serum test conducted under unknown circumstances.
This brings back memories of my one and only polygraph test - given one summer when I was applying for a temp security guard position. As they were hooking me up, I felt my pulse jumping and blood pressure shooting up, even before the first question was asked. I was sure that not only would I fail the test, I’d probably be charged with whatever handy unsolved crimes were on the books.
Passed, though. Maybe the operator was stoned. 
Fair enough, but it still seems that a scenario could develop where the police aren’t sure whether they should spend time on a suspect, but use the polygraph to tip the scales in one direction, which could then result in the guilty party going free. I don’t want to beat this into the ground, but why not just flip a coin and save the time and expense of a polygraph in those cases? 
In fact, if you look, the Green River killer, Gary Ridgeway, was cleared as a suspect after passing a polygraph. I would concur that lie detector tests are not only useless, but, by clearing the guilty, actively detrimental toward determining guilt or innocence.
again, remember Condit - he had a former FBI expert conducting their own lie detector and the cops still kept him in the spotlight.
nope. sorry. with all the news stories I’ve seen where investigative information is ''oops" leaked, and the results when folks believe that you’re guilty, I’ve got less than zero faith in the Lie Detector results.
Again, numerous other individuals/suspects/persons of interest in the Skakel case apparently came in for polygraphs, and were not railroaded into prison. Why Michael Skakel didn’t come forward in the same way is strange.
As opposed to all the news stories involving defense attorneys/family spokesmen who “oops” leak stories about clients supposedly passing such tests (i.e. the Skakel family attorney who claims that Michael passed some sort of truth serum test).
Did you even read the posts above? Plenty of people are nervous enough about polygraphs, and may feel that their reactions may indicate guilt even when innocent… this might apply doubly to a man who knew he had climbed a tree and jerked off while peeping at the future murder victim.
It’s absolutely wrong to draw any inference from someone’s desire to avoid a lie detector test.
- Rick
No, I draw my “inference” from the fact that the jury found him guilty of murder.
Did you even read the previous posts?
This is a guy whose family had him take some sort of private “truth serum” test(s) whose results were given to police (undoubtedly to get them to draw the appropriate “inference”). Apparently it is fine to try to manipulate police/public opinion in this way, but dastardly to suggest that someone who regarded as a major suspect in a murder might find it in his best interest to come forward for an official polygraph test, to confirm the previous alleged findings.
News flash: the polygraph is one among many law enforcement tools. It is not a magic bullet. It can help police and it can help figures in an investigation who are innocent.
Gary Condit might have been eliminated earlier as a suspect if he had not been such a lying sleazeball to begin with.
And I absolutely agree that a jury’s guilty verdict is a fair basis from which to draw an inference of guilt. But your post, which I replied to, said:
The clear statement in that post is that Skakel’s refusal to come forward and take a polygraph test was “strange.” I’m saying it’s not strange at all, and wouldn’t be strange even if he had been innocent.
Well… yes. I don’t think it’s “fine” to manipulate police or public opinion that way, but I also think the effects of that manipulation are slight. Certainly the police regard tests administered by a third party hired by the suspect as dubious in the best of circumstances.
On the other hand, since a polygraph is notoriously unreliable, suggesting that a person who fails to come forward for one must have something to hide is not only wildly flawed, but antiethical to our system of justice, which forbids compelling people to testify against themselves. In a trial, for instance, the prosecutor cannot so much as allude to a defendant’s silence in an effort to suggest to the jury that, if he were innocent, he would have testified in his own defense to clear things up.
On the contrary, its use is overrated and notoriously inaccurate. Reliance on a polygraph can just as easily hurt as help an investigation, especially if undue emphasis is placed on the results.
- Rick
Show me just where I said he “must have something to hide”.
This thread consists of speculation after the fact of a jury verdict, incorporating various unproven claims and allegations as to the dependability of key players. I think that spreading word of an outside “truth serum” test in an attempt to get the police off your trail, and then not taking the opportunity for an official polygraph, something which various acquaintances/members of your own family have done is not a point in your favor.
It is silly to react to this as though I were predjudicing his right to a fair trial.
This insistence on strawman arguments is not helping your case. I have never suggested “relying” on a polygraph. I don’t know how many times I have to reiterate this before it sinks in. One more time:
“News flash: the polygraph is one among many law enforcement tools. It is not a magic bullet. It can help police and it can help figures in an investigation who are innocent.”
What did you intend the reader to infer from this line?
What do you infer from the fact* that he underwent “truth serum” testing under private auspices but did not come in for an official police polygraph?
*at least, according to the family lawyer.
What can we infer from your use of the strawman technique?