The sheriff’s deputy said he saw a car pause on the main road as if the driver were lost, but when he came up behind them to offer help, the car took off. The road to the ferry had no lighting, and the bridge had no rails. Furthermore, Kennedy had been driven to the party, and he was not familiar with that area, plus he was drunk. I’m not excusing him from anything. I think his actions post-crash were driven by adrenaline and a confused and drunken panic.
It’s doubtful Kopechne and Kennedy were having an affair. Kopechne was known as the “office virgin” and a woman of integrity. And she’d recently told her parents she might be getting engaged soon to her boyfriend. . I think she was lying down on the back seat because she was drunk and had a sunburned back (according to some partygoers).
With the car upside-down, submerged and in utter darkness, Kopechne was disoriented. Her body positioning and her broken nails indicate she was trying to claw her way through the floor of the car. There was almost certainly an air pocket up there. I’ve been listening to a podcast on this, and an expert said most people in that situation think only of going UP, but they actually need to go DOWN in order to get out a window and to the surface.
Agree with all of this (except the confusion part).
Disagree with this. What else would they have been doing? The ferry was closed. She was not going to her hotel room because she left her purse and room key at the party.
No sex at the party or at the hotel because there are people around. Even in 2019 that would start rumors, let alone in 1969.
And likely the beach WAS the place to get away from people. Remember the cop stopped him at the entrance to the road and there were houses along the way. They were on an island; their options were limited. It is possible that they were intending to have sex in the car at the beach: a place nobody would likely be at 1:30 a.m.
Perhaps my post was too long for you to bother reading. Kopechne left her purse and key behind because she was drunk. She was found in the back seat, probably because she’d been drunk and sunburned. She was, however, a woman with a reputation as “the office virgin.” She had a boyfriend. And Ted Kennedy was not her cup of tea.
I know people assume Kennedy man + secretary = sex, but unlikely in this case, not because of Kennedy but because of Kopechne.
I absolutely believe a drunk, fat guy could escape, a sudden plunge into cold water in the dark would be a complete shock to the system and a great motivator to move, at that point he probably was on autopilot reacting to the danger without even analyzing or thinking about it, people survive crazy situations all the time.
Obviously I wasn’t there, and it doesn’t defy any physical law for it to have happened as Kennedy said it did, but a few facts lead me (and most people who have looked at the case) to conclude that the two were out to have sex:
The ferry was closed
She left her room key and purse behind
Nobody, even while drunk, who was familiar with the island or roads in general would turn off a paved road onto a gravel and unlit road if they are going to the main attraction on the road
He was Teddy Kennedy.
The fact that she was engaged really is meaningless. Many people who get engaged and are unsure about their decision to get married have affairs. That’s not to denigrate Mary Jo at all. She was human. But especially in 1969, even if Teddy was driving her to an on call ferry appointment, he would not have wanted to take the risk of a scandal by being a married man seen driving an unmarried woman to her hotel. He had staff to run those errands.
Why wouldn’t he have told any of 10 guys at the party to drive her back?
And this “she was lying in the back seat” theory. Why wouldn’t he say that? It absolves him of all responsibility beside explaining what he was doing with Rosemary Keough. But him and Keough both saying that they got into an accident and having no idea that Mary Jo was in the back seat absolves him of accusations that he knowingly left someone there to die. They got into an accident, both were fine, so they walked away. Why fabricate a story where he knowingly left someone to die?
That’s not an easy distinction to make. It’s hard to think about Mary Jo without thinking about the sleazeball who left his pregnant wife at home to try to cheat on her with an innocent woman, and then drove off a bridge and left her to drown while he went home to sleep off his drunk.
Not to mention the public knows nothing at all about her, except through Ted and this incident- its not like she was famous beforehand. If you think of her, this is literally the only thing you can think of.
Had she lived Mary Jo Kopechne would be celebrating her 79th birthday this Friday. A graduate of Caldwell College, she was a teacher, secretary, a very successful political campaign specialist, and she played catcher on the office softball team.
If you wish to honor her memory, there is a scholarship fund in her name at Misericordia University.
If it weren’t for the Kennedy connection - and by “connection” I mean “the drunken sleazeball who left her to drown was a Kennedy” - no one would ever have heard of her. So I probably wouldn’t be posting anything about her.
There’s no pretense involved, at least on one side. Look we get it - the drunken sleazeball politician who left an innocent woman to drown was a liberal drunken sleazeball politician. Therefore it is upsetting to hear that he was a drunken sleazeball who was trying to cheat on his pregnant wife and left an innocent woman to drown.
No doubt, sooner or later, some other liberal will turn out to be just as big a slimeball as Teddy. What will we do then?
Let’s not worry - we can drive off that bridge when we come to it.
I don’t disagree and didn’t start the thread, but even the OP only mentions her in relation to the accident- I took the thread to be ‘remember the incident’ and all discussion followed in that path. No one has said anything about how funny she was or that weird laugh she had or her love of cashews or anything like that.
No one knows anything about Kitty Genovese or Rosemary LaBianca or tons of people known only for how they died, but you still remember the incident.
I won’t defend Ted Kennedy. I think he panicked and left Kopechne to die. But in your rush to condemn him, you’re condemning Kopechne without evidence. Whatever Kennedy’s motivations were, Kopechne was no more likely to consent to sex with Ted Kennedy than you or I would have been. says historian William Kashatus, “didn’t really like Kennedy.”
As for
evidence shows she was very drunk. Very drunk people forget stuff. Why is that hard for you to understand? Keough’s purse, OTOH, was in the car, and that’s a puzzler.
Not sober and at the party, he didn’t. The average consumption of alcohol per guest was 8-10 ounces, so it’s likely everyone was drunk, including Kennedy’s chauffeur, who downed a bottle of rum before the party even began and had planned to spend the night there. Kennedy should NOT have been behind the wheel under any circumstances, but there was no sober alternative.
QUOTE]
And this “she was lying in the back seat” theory. Why wouldn’t he say that?
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t matter what Kennedy said. THE DIVER FOUND HER IN THE BACK SEAT. Her body did not have the injuries that would indicate she’d been in the front seat and thrown to the back seat by the crash.* She was in the back seat.*
It doesn’t matter what Kennedy said. THE DIVER FOUND HER IN THE BACK SEAT. Her body did not have the injuries that would indicate she’d been in the front seat and thrown to the back seat by the crash.* She was in the back seat.*
[/QUOTE]
Again, I am not saying that if Mary Jo had a desire to have sex with Kennedy that she was an immoral little whore. She was human. People do things, especially when drinking, that they might not otherwise do. And Shodan has a good point. Maybe Mary Jo hadn’t agreed to have sex, but Kennedy was taking her to the beach to “see the beautiful night” or some other shit to persuade her to have sex.
To your other points, you are doing what I do in court when you have no better argument with the “divide and conquer” approach. Yes, there are 5 different pieces of evidence against your client. You take each one and provide a possible innocent explanation for them. What remains unsaid in the un-likelihood that all 5 have the same innocent explanation. A great example of this is 12 Angry Men.
The simplist explanation is likely the correct one.
Again, I am not saying that if Mary Jo had a desire to have sex with Kennedy that she was an immoral little whore. She was human. People do things, especially when drinking, that they might not otherwise do. And Shodan has a good point. Maybe Mary Jo hadn’t agreed to have sex, but Kennedy was taking her to the beach to “see the beautiful night” or some other shit to persuade her to have sex.
To your other points, you are doing what I do in court when you have no better argument with the “divide and conquer” approach. Yes, there are 5 different pieces of evidence against your client. You take each one and provide a possible innocent explanation for them. What remains unsaid in the un-likelihood that all 5 have the same innocent explanation. A great example of this is 12 Angry Men.
The simplist explanation is likely the correct one.
[/QUOTE]
And you’re doing what people do when they’re determined to stick to their unfounded theories and are afraid the facts will prove them wrong: you’re doing no research. You’ve found a simplistic explanation that fits what you’d like to believe, and you’re going to stick with it despite it being unfounded because God forbid you should ever learn something knew and change your mind. I’ve seen this time and again in your posts. You don’t research; you don’t cite sources; you come up with simplistic theories that fit your own prejudices, and you stick to them and refuse to look at the facts.
I was a kid when Chappaquiddick happened. I had no preconceived ideas when, as an adult, I first started looking into what happened. Had the evidence pointed to Kopechne wanting to have sex with Kennedy, I would have gone with that. But that’s not what the evidence indicates. Go ahead and claim you don’t blame Kopechne while you create a scenario that fits what you want to believe about her. You could just as easily believe Kennedy had plans to have sex with a woman too drunk to consent, but that would require you to consider your theory about Kopechne might be wrong.