Uh, you’re missing the important part. It’s what he did after the accident that poses the problem.
What does that have to do with what I said?
My point is that they both made a similar mistake (auto accident), with similar outcomes (two lives lost).
One paid for it all his life and continues to, after his death, it likely cost him the white house.
The other, not so many consequences, sailed right into the white house.
I don’t care that one was a public figure, there shouldn’t be that disparity in consequences for the taking a life.
sigh
You do know that Laura Bush wasn’t President, right?
“Teddy was jist taking that Mary Jo lass to midnight Mass, when they came to a bridge built by one o’ them Eyetalian contractors.”
Let’s try this again:
He got drunk, drove his car into a channel, left a woman there to drown, while he went home and took a nap. No trial, no jail time, he didn’t even lose his Senate seat, his punishment was “He didn’t get to be president”. Yeah, poor guy.
There is no evidence that he was drunk.
Sure there is. Arguably, not enough that he could have been convicted, but definitely evidence.
At some point in his life, he got drunk.
Not houses so much as cottages. No lights were on = possibly unoccupied.
Once again, he’s damned either way. If he spent thirty seconds at each house he stopped at, banging on the door in an effort to wake someone up, then you’d complain he didn’t give them a chance to wake up. If he spent four minutes at each house he stopped at, banging on the door in an effort to wake someone up, then you’d complain how he was wasting time trying summer cottages when he knew, knew for certain, there was a phone only a short distance away. But let him pass by the cottages without trying, and then THAT becomes the indictment of his behavior.
What is that evidence?
I’m afraid your say-so doesn’t qualify as evidence. It falls more into the category of ‘speculation’.
I heard he drove off a bridge.
He was at a party where there was alcohol being served. He admitted to drinking and he left at after 11pm. And then he drives his car off of a bridge and kills someone, and then leaves the scene of the accident. He also was known to have a problem with alcohol.
Now, as the other poster said, he wouldn’t get convicted in a court of law with this circumstantial evidence, but it sure as hell is enough in most peoples minds.
That might make sense if he used the phone at the hotel to call the cops. But he waited until the next morning.
None of that is evidence- not even circumstantial evidence.
Well, that plus the fact that he didn’t alert the police until hours after the accident, and after he’d consulted with his advisors. The implication that he was at that point not looking to help her is strong.
One point would be Teddy’s long penchant for booze and broads - something that seems to be accepted by even his strong supporters. If he was at a party with alcohol and a bunch of women and not drinking, it would have been very seriously out of character.
So if I was on trial for DUI and someone saw me drinking before I got into the car, that wouldn’t be valuable evidence for the prosecutor to use?
Why is it not circumstantial evidence?
The fact that he drove his car into the water in the first place.
His behavior after the accident. He didn’t report the incident, even once he had access to phone. He told the other men who knew, not to tell anyone else what had happened, and that he would notify authorities. But he didn’t. He went back to his hotel and went to bed. Consistent with someone who didn’t want to immediately take a sobriety test.
This is pointless semantics. I’m not claiming that the evidence that he was drunk was simply “because I said so”. Anytime someone takes known facts and uses them to draw a conclusion about the unknowns of an incident it’s “speculation”. Every time a criminal charge is brought against someone it’s “speculation”.