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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Well, this is a typical 'conspiracy theory' statement.


Why is conspiracy theory such a modern obsession? Is it to do with individualism?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I mean folks have been plotting for a long time. In fact after heros and saints died, plots were pretty popular?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Err that is the continentals were plotting. Your Angles and Saxons believed in fair play...
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Those that didn't think they would get fair play set off to the Americas....
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What ever happened to...

Mick Harper wrote:
If this is new we should run with it.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to be obstructive. I assumed at this level we could go in for general, if non-supportive, commentary. Coyote will have to answer for himself. Not that, on this evidence his answer will be coherent. I googled mary jo erotic asphyxiation (God knows what that will do to my GCHQ file) and got nothing. So can we assume that the 'she died at the party' is new and is what we should be concentrating on?

A film is coming out this year about the incident, I learned, so it will be interesting to see how the post-Trump (and post-internet) world of 'anything goes' speculation affects what was, at the time, considered a bizarre but not a 'conspiratorial' event. Which is not to say that anybody believed Kennedy's account -- the doubts did after all destroy his presidential ambitions -- but not to this degree of conspiracy.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I have a theory that whenever someone dies from auto-erotic asphyxiation it's probably much more likely that they've been purposefully murdered.

My first reason for thinking this is that I can't imagine the practice being as common as it's said to be. It seems more like an urban myth type thing. Then again I have led quite a sheltered life. My second reason is that it seems like a very good way to kill someone. You suffocate or strangle the person, stick a pair of women's knickers on the corpse, stuff a satsuma in their mouth, and everyone just assumes it's some kind of sexual practice gone wrong.

It also has the added bonus of discrediting the victim. Making it less likely that there'll be any serious demand for an inquiry, as even family members will publicly distance themselves from someone who's died in such a perverted way.

I don't know how that would relate to this case though, which is quite bizarre. I actually went and watched a lot of the footage from the time of the event after reading this thread - including Kennedy's Address to the People of Massachusettes. It all just left me baffled. The story he tells clearly makes no sense, yet he doesn't display any tells that would indicate guilt.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I can't imagine the practice being as common as it's said to be.

Actually I would have thought it's the other way round. In other words, a common enough practice (in a recherché sort of way) is kept quiet about by its adherents. I say this because the use of 'poppers' -- which have the same effect -- became extremely popular (in a recherché sort of way) as soon as they became available (and street legal, as they still are). However, the problem here is that while it is common enough for a middle-aged Tory MP to do it or a middle-aged Democratic senator to do it, it would be unusual for Mary Jo Kopechne to do it. After all, it would not be Kennedy's pleasure that is at issue and Mary Jo is presumably just doing it for the bragging rights.

As you say, reasons for Mary Jo being murdered would seem difficult to conjure with even given conspiracy theory standards.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I googled mary jo erotic asphyxiation (God knows what that will do to my GCHQ file) and got nothing. So can we assume that the 'she died at the party' is new and is what we should be concentrating on?


Yes. The erotic asphyxiation notion came from my mistaken belief that there had been a coroner's finding of death by suffocation. In fact, no such finding was made. The only known quantity is that she did not drown.

I now suspect she was given drugs by Kennedy and overdosed. He has to be implicated in some way else he has no motive to cover up the crime.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

N R Scott wrote:
I can't imagine the practice being as common as it's said to be.


It's actually more common than you might imagine, and a lot of women enjoy it. I also suspected this was the cause of death based on the Kennedy clan's reputation for "rough sex." Specifically, I was inspired by the date-rape by a Kennedy nephew(?) that occurred in the 90s, for which "rough sex" was the winning defense.

Ted Kennedy was present at the party where that rape occurred.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Remember what we say about conspiracy theories: They typically indicate paradigm error.

I am endeavoring to correct the paradigm.

I am the first ever to suggest that Mary Jo died at the party. I was surprised to discover that this paradigm explains several oddities associated with the incident.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I like the rough sex explanation though because such an incident might be more easily concealed by a feigned car crash and drowning.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Not drowning, remember? I don't see the paradigm angle. I think launching a brand new conspiracy theory is quite sufficient for one day.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Not drowning, remember?

But how can this be if the side window had been wound down? Since that couldn't have been done by a) Kennedy or b) the lawyers, it would appear to be a smoking gun.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
But how can this be if the side window had been wound down? Since that couldn't have been done by a) Kennedy or b) the lawyers, it would appear to be a smoking gun.


I don't follow. Please explain.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 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