OK. But my analysis above accepts the diver’s theories.
Yes.
Although a bridge 10 feet wide, 81 feet long, with no guard rails strikes me as very possible accident territory stone cold sober.
Agreed, and he himself acknowledged that.
No, I’m not lauding his actions. I’m simply saying that there’s nothing in front of us to let us conclude that his subsequent cover-up actions were the reason for her death.
As long as we agree on that, I’m good.
What about DUI manslaughter? They have that in Massachusetts, right? Even if they didn’t have it then, they I’m sure they at least had normal manslaughter.
It’s highly unlikely that he would have been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter if he wasn’t drunk. Accidentally crashing a car is virtually never found to be the result of gross negligence unless the crash occurs because the driver was racing or driving blindfolded or something.
From the IMHO thread:
Seems to me to be an admission of trolling (posting with the intention of raising some hackles). At the very least, it blows away any attempt at sincerity on mswas’ part.
I doubt it could be proven in a court of law. There is evidence to suspect that this may have been the case.
And I think we agree that, whether Kopechne could have been saved or not, it was a topic than Kennedy gave far less attention than it deserved. He was far too busy trying to save his own political ass. Apart from that, the life of a woman seems to have mattered almost not at all.
His actions were despicable, and revealed that he was a moral coward. Fortunately for the country (however unfortunately for Ms. Kopechne), it put paid to any chance Kennedy ever had for the White House.
And rightly so. No matter how you spin it, it came down to a crisis, and Kennedy panicked. Such a person does not belong with his finger anywhere near the nuclear trigger.
Regards,
Shodan
after the initial reactions to it.
You need to post something first to get initial reactions.
YMMV though, maybe you get initial reactions first and can save yourself all kinds of trouble. 
Give it up Munch, this poster is teflon when it comes to trolling, self confessions notwithstanding.
There are special rules for Mwas, she says so all the time, so it must be true!
What evidence do you have that would convict him of DUI?
Oh, come on! After he shot the guy, he didn’t talk to police! He told them to come back in the morning! AND THEY DID! He was obviously drunk when he shot the guy in the face and–
Wait. I’m conflating events, aren’t I?
You know, poor Mary Jo certainly didn’t deserve her unfortunate fate. She also doesn’t deserve this incredibly offensive frenzy of people masturbating over her corpse. Pretending to give a shit about her while actually using her as an excuse for gleeful Kennedy-bashing is a bit unseemly, don’t you think?
C’mon. If we can’t use the dead to score a partisan shot or two, who can we use?
I have yet to see any cites given as evidence that I otherwise have a problem with Ted Kennedy. You’re just assuming that that because people who don’t like Kennedy care about this issue that everyone who cares about this issue has an axe to grind against Kennedy. It’s really poor logic. I’d love to see you know, some evidence that tells you that I don’t like Kennedy other than just the starting of these threads.
You all seem to have this idea that if someone ever agrees with conservatives they must BE a conservative. I thought this board was big on being rational?
I actually wasn’t referring to you in particular, mswas. It’s not all about you, dear.
Ok, fair enough.
Oh fucking bullshit. “This is more civil than I expected after the initial reactions” suggests you expected those initial reactions to be less than civil. THAT is trolling.
Well at least that explains mswas’ insistence that Canada should subsidize American drugs.
Actually, I can explain that.
I didn’t say that.
I didn’t say anything remotely resembling that.
First of all that’s not what trolling means. Second of all that’s not the correct way to read what I wrote. I said what my opinion was AFTER reactions. You are using it to extrapolate what I felt beforehand.
So you are both using the term trolling incorrectly and abusing the English language so that it can be distorted into meaning what you want it to mean.
It isn’t trolling to post something that you suspect might piss people off. None of us has a responsibility NOT to offend people. It’s trolling if you are disingenuous and are just doing it to get a reaction, which I wasn’t.
You guys are going to just believe what you want to believe, as is pretty common, that’s what a lot of people do, but after does not mean before no matter how you slice it.
This is my final answer to you.
You’ve started now three threads to bash his memory.
Well how the hell else are we supposed to define conservativism? It’s an ideology. If you agree with what conservatives say a lot, that pretty much makes you a conservative.