# In which I pit Mary Jo Kopechne **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 27, 2009, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871 "2009-08-27T03:47:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/41 "2009-08-27T06:40:16Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > A human drowns in just a few minutes. There was nothing to be done that could save her, given the technology of the time. I don’t mean to contradict you, but there’s evidence that there was an air pocket in the car, and that Ms. Kopechne was probably alive for some time, and she could have, if immediate help had come, be saved. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/42 "2009-08-27T06:45:09Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **Princhester** Oh that’s clever No it wasn’t it was a cheap shot, I accept, and I probably shouldn’t have made it. But really, I think you need to step back a bit. You just seem to be taking it all a bit personally and a bit seriously, and your “what joke?” post just seemed to encapsulate the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/43 "2009-08-27T07:33:34Z")
> [@freedumb2003](#): > > (need I quote you from his attempt to undermine America’s effort to destroy Communism?) Oh, by all means, please do. ---
**Author:** ![Salix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3e96dc/32.png) [@Salix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salix)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/44 "2009-08-27T08:16:27Z")
Come on, guys, can’t we even just consider the possibility that **mswas** ’s sympathy for Mary Jo Kopechne is genuine? I’m sure it’s completely innocent and apolitical, and not meant to be an attack on the late Senator Kennedy. This sort of thing happens all the time. Why, I bet when Al Sharpton passes away, we’ll suddenly be seeing a similar outpouring of innocent and apolitical sympathy for the people who died in Freddie’s Fashion Mart! Seriously, though, even though I admire Kennedy’s work as a legislator, the Chappaquiddick incident has always rubbed me the wrong way since I first heard about it. It’s probably because I kind of have a hero complex, and even though my normal life doesn’t involve much in the way of heroics, I like to think that if the chips were down and lives were on the line, I would be the kind of person who could step up, take charge, and save the day. I don’t know why I feel like this. Maybe it’s all the video games I play, I dunno. I’ve never been tested like that, and I hope I never will be. Whenever I looked at Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, I saw someone who had been tested for on-the-spot heroics and had been found wanting, not to mention his handling of the incident later on. If I were ever in Kennedy’s position, and I let someone drown like that, I don’t think I’d be able to live with myself. I’d always carry the guilt and shame of my failure, like Sylvester Stallone’s character in Cliffhanger after his friend’s girlfriend fell down the mountain as he was trying to get her across the cable. I guess part of me is just kind of resentful that Ted Kennedy never looked like he was taking it as hard as I would have. Maybe politicians who wail about regrets over things they’ve done don’t do too well. Jimmy Carter went so far as to profess guilt over adultery that he didn’t even commit, and he didn’t get a second term. But then again, he did beat Kennedy in the 1980 primaries, so who knows. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/45 "2009-08-27T09:09:14Z")
You know, we should have a Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial Day when the nation could give annual thanks. By her death alone she destroyed any chance that the sleazebag Kennedy would ever become President. We owe her a great debt. ---
**Author:** ![kambuckta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/53a042/32.png) [@kambuckta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kambuckta)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/46 "2009-08-27T10:30:43Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > I’ve read several threads you’ve been in over the last couple of days, mswas, and you read as if you are on some kind of manic binge being fueled by alcohol and self pity, to put it mildly. > > I won’t tell you to stop because you wan’t pay any more attention to me than anyone else. I am simply relieved not to be around to watch you crash and burn in the RW. Yeah, I’ve been floating 'round the boards and noticed a plethora of threads with him doing this sort of stuff, and wondered much the same about his mental/inebriation state myself **Boyo Jim.** Like you though, I’m loathe to curtail his rantings because a) they’re quite amusing in a sort of _scab-picking_ kind of way and b) at least he is losing the plot here in cyberspace and NOT in RL, we hope. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/47 "2009-08-27T11:34:02Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > There: [I am sorry](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11489783#post11489783) > > **dropzone** I wasn’t alive 40 years ago, but I think you’re right, I don’t think Ted Kennedy was a murderer. That being said, may I be concerned about it in the present? If not for the fact that it was in the news, would you care about her at all? Consider all that have died in accidents since her drowning that you _haven’t_ mentioned-they haven’t received 1/1000000th of the attention she has, and yet you bemoan the “fact” that she in particular has been forgotten. Besides the Kennedy connection, what makes her case special? ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/48 "2009-08-27T11:49:12Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Besides the Kennedy connection, what makes her case special? Perhaps the fact that she was left to suffocate in an air pocket while the man with her who had escaped made no attempt to contact the aurhorities until the next morning? That would be tragic and memorable whoever was involved. Another factor. The man involved escaped any punishment for what was undoubtedly a crime (probably several). One more thing whoch would have made the story stand out even had Kennedy not been involved. The man then went on to establish a political career as the champion of the ‘little people’. Another rich irony considering that he and his family had pulled every string to ensure that the death of one ordinary woman was never fully investigated.) This case would be worth of remembrance even had the man been called McGillicuddy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/49 "2009-08-27T12:26:16Z")
It’s irritating that the earlier thread was closed, because I would have liked to address the claims concerning John Farrar, the diver who found Kopechne’s body, and his theories. It is on those theories that **Cheesesteak** apparently rests his claim that Kennedy’s inaction, post-accident, is what caused the woman’s death. In the closed thread, **Cheesesteak** ripostes with **Diogenes** , saying his own expert (Farrar) is infinitely more credible than **Diogenes** ’s contrary expert, because there is no contrary expert to offer an opinion. To recap, Farrar said that when he dove down and saw the body, it was in a position where “an air bubble could have formed” and that she could have survived as long as two hours. It’s not justified to take this analysis as gospel. The primary problem is that the evidence was never subjected to cross-examination; he never had to answer specific questions about his theory. Perhaps he would have conceded that “might” meant one chance in ten thousand. Perhaps we would have admitted that he had no training in accident reconstruction. Perhaps he would have acknowledged that the position of her body could just as easily have been the result of the accident. Even assuming that Kennedy was perfectly healthy following the crash – that is, that he wasn’t suffering from a concussion and unable to reason clearly as a result – we still cannot build a compelling case to say his post-accident action made him responsible for a death. The accident happened in the middle of the night. Let’s say Farrar is absolutely right: that Kopechne found an air pocket and survived for two hours. Now let’s see what sequence of events gets her rescued in that two hours. Kennedy spends… how long? … trying himself to dive down and get her out? Half an hour? Fifteen minutes? Again I’ll point out that he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t; if he immediately leaves the scene to seek help and she dies, then you excoriate him for not trying to save her, pointing out how shallow six feet of water is and how he didn’t even try - right? So I assume you agree he has to spend SOME time there, trying to get her. So then he goes for help. The bridge, 81 feet long and a mere 10 feet wide, leads to a secluded beach. He has a fifty-fifty shot – does he go on or does he go back? In fact, he’s just escaped from a car that overturned under water in the middle of the night – does he even KNOW which way is which? How many minutes does he spend going in the wrong direction? Now we have the mile and a quarter walk back to the cottage he left, the first place he knows there’s a phone. How long does that take? Now let’s assume he gets to that phone and immediately calls the authorities. Can he even describe where the accident was? Let’s assume he can; let’s assume that his confused description of a bridge in the dark a mile and a half away inexorably leads to only one possible candidate, and they respond. According to Ferrar, once he was told where the accident was, it took him 20 minutes to arrive. He doesn’t say how long it takes him to don scuba gear once he arrives, or how long it takes him to find the car in the pitch-black night after he’s got the gear on and dives down, but he’s got to do all those things. The bridge had no guard rails, so he doesn’t even know which side the car is on or how far out it went. What’s a fair time to assign to that search? So – you tell me. Add up all those numbers, fairly, and tell me: even granting every favorable inference so that we get every minute of those theoretical “two hours” – is it really likely that she survives? ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/50 "2009-08-27T12:31:27Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Should I be looking out for any inside jokes, puns, or hidden meanings? Nah, but if you could keep an eye out for mswas’s meds, that would be helpful. ---
**Author:** ![freedumb2003](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@freedumb2003](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/freedumb2003)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/51 "2009-08-27T12:36:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Oh, by all means, please do. From [http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kgb-letter-details-kennedy-offer-to-ussr](http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kgb-letter-details-kennedy-offer-to-ussr) > [@](#): > > Appendix > TEXT OF KGB LETTER ON SENATOR TED KENNEDY > > * * * > > Special Importance > Committee on State Security of the USSR > 14.05. 1983 No. 1029 Ch/OV > Moscow > > Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Comrade Y.V. Andropov > > Comrade Y.V. Andropov > > On 9-10 May of this year, Senator Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant J. Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Center Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov. > > Senator Kennedy, like other rational people, is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations. Events are developing such that this relationship coupled with the general state of global affairs will make the situation even more dangerous. The main reason for this is Reagan’s belligerence, and his firm commitment to deploy new American middle range nuclear weapons within Western Europe. > > According to Kennedy, the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification on his politics. He feels that his domestic standing has been strengthened because of the well publicized improvement of the economy: inflation has been greatly reduced, production levels are increasing as is overall business activity. For these reasons, interest rates will continue to decline. The White House has portrayed this in the media as the “success of Reaganomics.” > > Naturally, not everything in the province of economics has gone according to Reagan’s plan. A few well known economists and members of financial circles, particularly from the north-eastern states, foresee certain hidden tendencies that many bring about a new economic crisis in the USA. This could bring about the fall of the presidential campaign of 1984, which would benefit the Democratic party. Nevertheless, there are no secure assurances this will indeed develop. > > The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign. The movement advocating a freeze on nuclear arsenals of both countries continues to gain strength in the United States. The movement is also willing to accept preparations, particularly from Kennedy, for its continued growth. In political and influential circles of the country, including within Congress, the resistence to growing military expenditures is gaining strength. > > However, according to Kennedy, the opposition to Reagan is still very weak. Reagan’s adversaries are divided and the presentations they make are not fully effective. Meanwhile, Reagan has the capabilities to effectively counter any propaganda. In order to neutralize criticism that the talks between the USA and the USSR are non-constructive, Reagan will grandiose, but subjectively propagandistic. At the same time, Soviet officials who speak about disarmament will be quoted out of context, silenced or groundlessly and whimsically discounted. Although arguments and statements by officials of the USSR do appear in the press, it is important to note the majority of Americans do not read serious newspapers or periodicals. > > Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan and his campaign to psychologically burden the American people. In this regard, he offers the following proposals to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Y.V. Andropov: > > \*\*1. Kennedy asks Y.V. Andropov to consider inviting the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting in July of this year. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. He would also like to inform you that he has planned a trip through Western Europe, where he anticipates meeting England’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and French President Mitterand in which he will exchange similar ideas regarding the same issues. > > If his proposals would be accepted in principle, Kennedy would send his representative to Moscow to resolve questions regarding organizing such a visit. > > Kennedy thinks the benefits of a meeting with Y.V.Andropov will be enhanced if he could also invite one of the well known Republican senators, for example, Mark Hatfield. Such a meeting will have a strong impact on American and political circles in the USA (In March of 1982, Hatfield and Kennedy proposed a project to freeze the nuclear arsenals of the USA and USSR and pblished a book on the theme as well.) > > 1. Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year, televised interviews with Y.V. Andropov in the USA. A direct appeal by the General Secretary to the American people will, without a doubt, attact a great deal of attention and interest in the country. The senator is convinced this would receive the maximum resonance in so far as television is the most effective method of mass media and information. > \*\* > If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interview. Specifically, the president of the board of directors of ABC, Elton Raul and television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow. The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side. > > Furthermore, with the same purpose in mind, a series of televised interviews in the USA with lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military would be organized. They would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR, with their own arguments about maintaining a true balance of power between the USSR and the USA in military term. This issue is quickly being distorted by Reagan’s administration. > > Kennedy asked to convey that this appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is his effort to contribute a strong proposal that would root out the threat of nuclear war, and to improve Soviet-American relations, so that they define the safety of the world. Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y.V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders, who expressed their commitment to heal international affairs, and improve mutal understandings between peoples. > > The senator underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal, the answer to which may be delivered through Tunney. > > Having conveyed Kennedy’s appeal to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Tunney also explained that Senator Kennedy has in the last few years actively made appearances to reduce the threat of war. Because he formally refused to partake in the election campaign of 1984, his speeches would be taken without prejudice as they are not tied to any campaign promises. Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. At that time, he will be 56 and his personal problems, which could hinder his standing, will be resolved (Kennedy has just completed a divorce and plans to remarry in the near future). Taken together, Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president. This would explain why he is convinced that none of the candidates today have a real chance at defeating Reagan. > > We await instructions. > > President of the committee > V. Chebrikov Working against the interests and stated direction of the USA – traitorous bastard. ---
**Author:** ![freedumb2003](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@freedumb2003](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/freedumb2003)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/52 "2009-08-27T12:43:34Z")
(I need to learn how to delete a post) ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/53 "2009-08-27T13:20:05Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > BTW, if it isn’t clear, I am pitting the nasty vile and hateful members of this board who feel they have to shout down or censor people, who are so narcissistic that they cannot imagine that someone might actually have felt sad over Mary Jo Kopechne today. C’mon, how many threads to you have to make spewing the same lie over and over again? If you really were so interested in Mary Jo, you’d at least talk about her life at some point, not just rehashing her death and Kennedy’s role in it. Or just make a thread about the fucking Chappaquiddick incident. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/54 "2009-08-27T13:21:22Z")
> [@freedumb2003](#): > > …God and Mary Jo have him now – he will get the justice in the afterlife she was denied in this one… The Lord certainly took His sweet time getting around to it. Busy, you think? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/55 "2009-08-27T13:22:22Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Perhaps the fact that she was left to suffocate in an air pocket while the man with her who had escaped made no attempt to contact the aurhorities until the next morning? That would be tragic and memorable whoever was involved. This does not answer my question. Out of all the unjust deaths(_Not_ murder-the evidence, if it can be called that, is too damn flimsy to be taken seriously by anyone who doesn’t already have a full on Kennedy hate going on) that have happened before and after, what draws you to this particular case, other than the Kennedy connection? What about this girl in particular makes her death more significant than all the others? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/56 "2009-08-27T14:22:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So – you tell me. Add up all those numbers, fairly, and tell me: even granting every favorable inference so that we get every minute of those theoretical “two hours” – is it really likely that she survives? I honestly don’t know. It seems pretty unlikely. But it seems to me that, even if ultimately, Ms. Kopeckne would have died regardless of what Senator Kennedy did, Senator Kennedy had a moral duty, at least, to do more than he did. It was the senator’s fault that she was in the river in the first place…he was driving, and he was intoxicated. I’d like to think that were I in that car, my companion would do more to try to save me than what Senator Kennedy did, and while the senator didn’t do anything legally culpable, he at least did something morally culpable. ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/57 "2009-08-27T14:24:08Z")
“or taken any drugs, not for many days in fact” … off her meds, it’s all more clear to me now. Ding, Ding, Ding! I believe we have a winner… ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/58 "2009-08-27T14:37:33Z")
> [@freedumb2003](#): > > But to lionize this killer, this traitor (need I quote you from his attempt to undermine America’s effort to destroy Communism?), this philandering drunk? This supporter of our enemies? Even if he had been a communist sympathizer (which he obviously wasn’t), so what? Is it illegal to be a communist? > [@](#): > > Working against the interests and stated direction of the USA – traitorous bastard. Ah, yes. He _considered_ the possibility of discussing detente with a country with which we had normalized relations. What a motherfucker. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/59 "2009-08-27T14:37:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > To recap, Farrar said that when he dove down and saw the body, it was in a position where “an air bubble could have formed” and that she could have survived as long as two hours. > > It’s not justified to take this analysis as gospel. Nor, in my opinion, to disregard it. It is evidence, not proof, I grant you. > [@](#): > > Even assuming that Kennedy was perfectly healthy following the crash – that is, that he wasn’t suffering from a concussion and unable to reason clearly as a result – And was not drunk. > [@](#): > > we still cannot build a compelling case to say his post-accident action made him responsible for a death. His post-accident action, perhaps not. His pre-accident actions - pretty clearly. I find the “she would have died anyway” rationale to be less than compelling. He was drinking, he was driving, he drove off a bridge and he made no effort to contact the authorities while there was even a remote chance of saving her life. I don’t see why one should accept at face value Kennedy’s allegations (post-concussion and post-drinking, from an admitted and that time, active alcoholic) about diving to rescue Kopechne but dismiss the police diver who actually found the body. Kennedy was never cross-examined either. IYSWIM. I find the statements of the sober, experienced, and disinterested police diver to be of greater weight than the drunk, concussed, very much self-serving Kennedy. YMMV. But the accident was Kennedy’s fault. And it was by no means his call to decide when rescue attempts by the qualified authorities should be discontinued. Or indeed, to decide never even to give them a chance at it. It is quite like a hit-and-run driver knocking down a pedestrian, allegedly attempting a few minutes of CPR, and then deciding that all hope is lost and leaving the scene and running off to a hotel until you are able to pass a Breathalyzer. Do you really believe that the person who causes the accident should be given the right to decide when rescue attempts are futile? And when he makes that decision, he should be given the benefit of the doubt when assigning responsibility for a death? Please note I am saying moral responsibility, not legal. I bow to your superior authority in deciding the law. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2009, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871/60 "2009-08-27T14:45:12Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I honestly don’t know. It seems pretty unlikely. But it seems to me that, even if ultimately, Ms. Kopeckne would have died regardless of what Senator Kennedy did, Senator Kennedy had a moral duty, at least, to do more than he did. It was the senator’s fault that she was in the river in the first place…he was driving, and he was intoxicated. > > I’d like to think that were I in that car, my companion would do more to try to save me than what Senator Kennedy did, and while the senator didn’t do anything legally culpable, he at least did something morally culpable. We don’t know he was intoxicated. But I grant you he should have done more than he did. I don’t think anyone questions that fact. I just dislike seeing that basic fact expanded into “he killed her.” It’s a virtual certainty that no matter what he did after the crash, she would be dead. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-which-i-pit-mary-jo-kopechne/507871.md?page=4)