MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Chappaquiddick (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The Chappaquiddick car crash was a cover-up of the accidental murder of Mary Jo Kopechne by erotic asphyxiation.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It has often been remarked that the central figures in conspiracy theories have double-barrelled first names.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mary Jo Kopechne had no water in her lungs.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Why would she if she died when the oxygen ran out in the submerged car?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mary Jo Kopechne left the party without her panties, and she left without her handbag.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You should have told us that in the first place. Guilty as charged. Next!
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I told my wife only these facts.

1. Mary Jo did not drown (no water in her lungs)
2. Mary Jo was not wearing panties.
3. Mary Jo forgot her handbag.

Her response: "She was already dead when she left the party."
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ah, this is better. I thought you were just rehashing some old wive's conspiracy theory from long ago. If this is new we should run with it.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As soon as I learned that Mary Jo left her handbag, I knew she was dead before she left the party. A Lady might forget her panties, but she never forgets her handbag.

Now. "Knew" is a relative concept. But this hypothesis explains many of the other facts.

  1. Approximately one week after the crash, Kennedy suddenly started talking to the media about a rescue attempt he had not previously mentioned. According to this story, after the crash, he returned to the party! There, he enlisted the assistance of two lawyers. The two then accompanied Kennedy back to the crash site where-upon the two lawyers (not Kennedy) dove to the vehicle but were unable to recover the body.
  2. After recounting this story, Kennedy claimed attorney-client privilege to prevent either lawyer from testifying about the incident in court.
    These facts make no sense if Kennedy's story is true. Assuming he lied about the second rescue, Kennedy might of course have lied to make himself look better, then claimed client-attorney privilege to prevent the lawyers from contradicting the story.

    But if he wanted to make himself look good, why didn't Kennedy claim that he was the one to dive into the water? Why make the heroes the lawyers?

    I say it's because someone saw those lawyers were missing from the party, and saw that they arrived back at the party with wet clothes. Why did the lawyers have wet clothes?
  3. Kennedy's car was seen by a police officer driving toward the bridge an hour after the accident occurred.
    Kennedy and his two lawyer buddies drove out to the bridge an hour after Mary-Jo's death. It took them that long to formulate a plan and to get her body out of the house and into the car. Kennedy would later claim the time of the crash was an hour prior to their driving out to the bridge. He did so out of fear that the coroner might pin-point the time of death. He needed the crash time to match the time of death.
  4. The driver-side door window was rolled down. The only detail of his escape from the car that Kennedy claimed he could remember was rolling down the window. He claimed no memory of how he got out of the car.
    The window was rolled down because the driver of the car was prepared to exit the vehicle as soon as it hit the water. Kennedy had no memory of his escape and tried not to invent any details because Kennedy was not the driver of the car.
  5. Kennedy was seen that evening at the hotel in clothes that were dry.
    Kennedy's clothes were dry because it was one of his lawyers who drove the car into the water. The second lawyer may have assisted with helping his compatriot exit the vehicle (which likely proved trickier than anticipated).
  6. Mary-Jo had no water in her lungs.
    While it is not unheard of for people to suffucate in air pockets in submerged cars, it is rare. Rarer still when those persons were sitting in the passenger seat on the side of the vehicle that bore the brunt of the impact. To claim Mary-Jo was alive for hours inside the car is to require a very special case. I submit that it is a statistically impossible case.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

First post should have read "erotic asphyxiation," not "auto-erotic asphyxiation." I've made the correction.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A Lady might forget her panties, but she never forgets her handbag.

In my day, a lady would put her panties in her handbag. Before going into the lavvy to share a line of coke with me. Happy days. I'm married now of course. To the only woman who ever did this. Turned out to be a gold digger rather than a sex and drugs fiend. And a transsexual. I wondered why she agreed to come into the Gents. Must be off, her breakfast won't cook itself.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As soon as I learned that Mary Jo left her handbag, I knew she was dead before she left the party. A Lady might forget her panties, but she never forgets her handbag.

A crucial insight. I followed this story quite intensively at the time (insofar as British reporting and a lack of the internet permitted) but don’t recall this featuring in the speculation. You might check and let us know.

Approximately one week after the crash, Kennedy suddenly started talking to the media about a rescue attempt he had not previously mentioned. According to this story, after the crash, he returned to the party!

Yes, there was certainly a great deal of confusion. As I recall he claimed that his back injury (historic, not crash-induced) hampered heroics. I seem to remember that guilt about not effecting a rescue was advanced as the reason for Kennedy's hesitation and reticence. It is worth pointing out that the climate was different then. People were rooting for him being (relatively) innocent. Now it would certainly be the other way round.

There, he enlisted the assistance of two lawyers. The two then accompanied Kennedy back to the crash site where-upon the two lawyers (not Kennedy) dove to the vehicle but were unable to recover the body.

On the other hand most people in Kennedy circles were lawyers of some description.

After recounting this story, Kennedy claimed attorney-client privilege to prevent either lawyer from testifying about the incident in court


Attorney-client privilege doesn't attach when it is a criminal conspiracy. They would have to ‘plead the fifth’. Which I suppose wouldn't have done at all.

The driver-side door window was rolled down. The only detail of his escape from the car that Kennedy claimed he could remember was rolling down the window

It is worth saying that you can’t open a car door under water (too much pressure). You have to roll down the window until the car is half full of water in order to do so.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

But overall, as with most conspiracy theories, you will have to account for the sheer unlikelihood of proceedings eg
1. Oh, blimey, she's died
2. What shall we do?
3. Bundle her into a car and drive it off the pier at Chappaquiddick.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

How was Kennedy's car seen on the road one hour after it was submerged in water?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well, this is a typical 'conspiracy theory' statement. Since it is a) a physical impossibility but also b) a smoking gun, you will find (if you go back and look at the source) that it will be flaky. Not entirely dismissable but not carved in stone either. You will further find that it has only been inspected in any great depth by conspiracy theorists. Or, since this is before the internet, by the then equivalent -- political opponents, tabloid sleaze journalists, general flying saucer-believing fruitloops. 'Respectable' investigations will be confined to a yellowing police record. That is what 'seen on the road' means. Somebody saw it, the police interviewed that someone, the police made a record, no further action was taken.

This though is one of the problems with Chappaquiddick category events. There is no doubt that the Kennedys held sufficient local clout to keep that record yellowing -- but probably justifiably so. How do we know? Because the story burst so far beyond the bounds of Kennedy control. This also is a characteristic of the conspiracy theory. It soon requires a conspiracy of truly epic proportions to keep everything under wraps.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 4

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group