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  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

To answer your question, I thought I'd better check the facts -- unusually for me -- but I was mildly astonished at what I found. Here's the opener to the Wiki account

On the night of July 18, 1969, Ted Kennedy hosted a party on Chappaquiddick Island at the cottage of Sidney Lawrence. The gathering was a reunion for a group of six single women that included Mary Jo Kopechne. The group, known as the Boiler Room Girls, had served on Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Also present were Kennedy's cousin Joseph Gargan and Paul F. Markham, a school friend of Gargan's who had previously served as the U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts. Attorney Charles Tretter, Raymond La Rosa, and John Crimmins (Kennedy's part-time driver) also attended the party. All but one of the men (Crimmins, age 63) were married, and all six women were single and 28 or younger.

In other words it was a sex party (in some sense). How do we know? Well, first of all it couldn’t have been a reunion of Boiler Room Girls. Although all the men present might have been on Bobby Kennedy’s campaign there is no indication they were but more importantly there would have been a random collection of males and females present if it were. The fact that there were precisely six young women and six not-so-young men indicates the purpose was something else (even if the Boiler Room women may not have known it).

The men are all ‘prominent’, all lawyers, all associates of Ted Kennedy, all young-but-mature, with the single exception of Crimmins, Kennedy’s driver. Who got paired off with him, one wonders? Given the social character of both the Boiler Room women and the married men, this could not be part of the scenario. That leaves us with the slightly hanging chad ‘at the cottage of Sidney Lawrence’. “I say, Sid, could we use your cottage for a bit of a knees-up Saturday night?’ ‘Sure, I won’t be there myself but put the empties in the trashcan.’

more
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Kennedy testified that he left the party at "approximately 11:15 p.m." When he announced that he was about to leave, Kopechne told him "that she was desirous of leaving, if I would be kind enough to drop her back at her hotel." Kennedy then requested the keys to his mother's car from his chauffeur, Crimmins.

There is something very weird here. ‘Mother’ is the redoubtable Rose, matriarch of the clan. A clan in possession of – at a rough guess – a zillion cars. ‘Ma, can I have the car tonight? ’ ‘What for?’ 'I’m going to a shaggers night-in and don’t want the paparazzi identifying my car.’ ‘Oh, all right. I’m a famously austere family-values Catholic but I suppose the Kennedy image comes first. But I’m giving the keys to Crimmins. I know what you're like at these 'parties' of yours. Tell him it’s a stick shift.”

There was, it seems, a need for a car at some stage of the proceedings and not the one you first thought of.

more
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Kopechne told no one that she was leaving with Kennedy, and left her purse and hotel key at the party

This is where Ishmael comes in. Evenin’, all. At a social gathering of twelve people it is obviously strange that Kopechne told no one she was leaving. If it was just to go home, just straight out unbelievable. Kennedy has just announced his departure (‘Bye, Ted, drive carefully, don’t do anything I wouldn’t do.’) but Mary Jo slips away without as much as a by-your-leave with all her old muckers from the Boiler Room, the whole point of the party.

Now of course there is an obvious and innocent explanation – that the two were slipping away for a bit of nookie, whether temporarily or for the night – but this leads to the real central mystery. What is the testimonial status of the ten eye-witnesses to these events? ‘They’ are testifying that Kennedy publicly bid them adieu but ‘they’ are also testifying that Mary Jo didn’t. Since they could hardly miss the fact that Kopechne has disappeared as well (‘Seen Mary?’ Nah, must have sloped off with Ted.’ 'No wonder she didn’t say goodbye. She knew I had my eye on him. I shall be having words with that little madam’) they must all have known the truth, or they must all be lying.

Now of course it would be routine for such seasoned political campaigners to tell small lies on behalf of The Candidate. 'Oh really, they were photographed snogging in the car, were they? Well, I 'm pretty sure Ted was just driving her home. He's very affectionate with us staffers, very touchy-feely. In fact I do remember him saying...' But Big Lies? Would all ten risk jail time, all keep quiet for fifty years about the crime-of-the-century? I'm not buying that. Something else is required.

more
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Did Kennedy normally use his driver for social functions or only on official business? Perhaps he booked Crimmins to drive him knowing there'd be drugs and/or alcohol at the party.

In crime dramas witnesses usually lie in order to cover up something they're anxious to keep private. I doubt the party-goers would be complicit in a murder but death by misadventure is another matter. If they were stoned they'd want to avoid public exposure especially if the drugs were banned. The disgrace would reflect on their families too so the truth couldn't be published, not even 'buried' in more important news.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There are two objections to this
1. Too many witnesses. One, two ... three, maybe, and that would be pushing it. Ten? I don't think so. These are not, remember, career criminals used to police interrogations.
2. We are dealing with a stupendous worldwide news story. It is one thing lying to avoid embarrassment, even criminal charges, against oneself or others but not to avail oneself of the million dollars available from the National Enquirer once the statue of limitations has run out ... ten times over?

No, you have to come up with a timeline in which everybody (or everybody except named conspirators) is reporting what they witnessed truthfully. It is not hard to do.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The girl died in private. With Kennedy. The various pairs were indisposed. Kennedy brought only two other persons into his confidence: The two lawyers. This is why he invented the second rescue story a week later, as their absence from the party, and their wet clothes upon their return, were noticed by their dates.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So a living girl leaves a party and forgets....
  1. her panties
  2. her handbag
  3. her key to her hotel room
She later turns up dead inside a submerged vehicle with no water in her lungs.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The girl died in private. With Kennedy. The various pairs were indisposed. Kennedy brought only two other persons into his confidence: The two lawyers. This is why he invented the second rescue story a week later, as their absence from the party, and their wet clothes upon their return, were noticed by their dates.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We can assume the party is fairly riotous with nobody particularly keeping tabs on anyone. Assuming Mary Jo died in private with Kennedy then the following sequence suggests itself
9 pm girl dies with Kennedy
9.30 Kennedy quietly rounds up two lawyer-guests for help and advice
10.00 plan put into action
11.15 Kennedy addresses the party. "I'm taking Mary Jo back to her hotel and calling it a day. She says 'Bye'"
11.16 Party guests look at each other, grin.and think no more of it.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Assuming this is our scenario, because it disposes of the eye witnesses, our next task is to separate that which is inseparable. A woman, her panties, her handbag and her hotel key normally come as a package, but didn't. Concentrate on this tiny aspect of the puzzle and ignore all else for the moment. (I will be thinking about the car.) In your scenarios you can accept some panicked mistakes but generally it will have been devised by three quite clever people with limitless resources. Talking of which I now return you to our leader in this matter, Ishmael.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The bots have been talking to one another. I've just received a flyer from Netflix announcing a four part series on Bobby Kennedy.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If we assume that it is supremely unlikely that Kennedy, with or without chauffeur, would set out for a Saturday night rave deep among the boondocks in his mother’s stately limousine, we arrive at various questions:

What car did he go to the party in and where is it now?
In what circumstances would someone have to fetch another car from the Kennedy compound?
Is there a point in fetching a particularly stately limousine (and one that is only ever driven by chauffeurs).
To what extent did the original police enquiry pursue sightings of (and whereabouts of) the various cars moving around and between Hyannisport and Chappaquiddick island?


Of course this line of enquiry will be nullified if any of the nine eye-witnesses at the party reported, “Oh yes, I remember parking next to Rose’s jalopy. Quite a squeeze getting everybody’s car round the cottage. There’s no other way of getting about on Chappaquiddick Island. No wonder all the girls came together.”
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Oh wow! I love this line of reasoning! Amazing thinking.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Stop being amazed and start doing some research. Jeez, the leaders you get sent nowadays.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I have very limited time to devote to these matters.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Poor old chap.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 3 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