There is no absolute truth in this matter.
No one was present to witness the incident, so there can be no reliable sources.
Happened July 18. 1969
- Thread starter assari
- Start date
- Status
No one was present to witness the incident, so there can be no reliable sources.
Who would drive on such a bridge at such a fast pace that a car will fly far from the shore if you drive over the edge of the bridge?
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Someone so intoxicated that they don't belong behind the wheel of a vehicle. But that still doesn't make it a necessarily deliberate act.
Little Red Wagon Repairman
MFOMBSoPGA
It's been pretty peaceful and calm around here lately. The disagreements now have been more polite that the agreements were before.
What is Summer like in Finland? Must look amazing.
John_8581
FreeOnes Lifetime Member
Assari's explanations -- as a "deliberate act by Mr. Ted Kennedy" as well as his anti-liberal rhetoric -- in this entire thread are ludicrous.
That's why I avoid his threads like the plague. His retorts have the stink of bad halitosis.
They said that he was driving on an unlit road. Probably. But I would tend to think that it was a poorly lit road. So he could have easily reported it as a deer in road, and he swerved off the road to avoid it. A few things are wrong with that explanation.
(1) The thing is that Edward Kennedy didn't report it right away because had he stayed the Massachusetts state police would have given him a field sobriety test and he would have failed it. Instead he waited about a day or two days later to report the incident. His blood alcohol level after a day or two days would have been null and void. He would have been sober.
(2) Mary Jo Kopechne was not wearing a seat belt. You can see that in the pictures of the car. The damage to the windshield is crucial while examining the evidence at the car crash scene. You can see that the passenger had been jarred and that the passenger smashed into the windshield. It's amazing that the force of the crash didn't eject Miss Kopechne from the car. If Edward Kennedy was not wearing a seat belt, he would have sustained injuries, like broken ribs, a punctured lung, or a ruptured spleen for instance because he would have banged into the steering wheel as well as smashing into the windshield. He didn't sustain any bad injuries other than having abrasions to his face. Therefore, he was wearing his seat belt.
(3) Excessive speed probably played a role in the car accident. Excess speed could have easily caused the sudden jarring needed to cause so much damage to that windshield. And with an unlit road, being intoxicated, and excessive speed; those were the reasons why the car ended up in the water.
(4) A deer does not do that. There were no deer crossing signs in the area. Thus it wasn't a place where deer would be. If there aren't deer in the area, there's no way to avoid one because they don't come into play in an explanation as to why the accident occurred. But had Edward Kennedy said that he had hit a deer, the front end of the car as well as the windshield would have sustained much worse damage. Instead the windshield is the only thing damaged leading credence to points (1) (2) and (3).
Call me, "Mr Discount Double Check" the State Farm Insurance Investigator. I'm signing off now.
That's why I avoid his threads like the plague. His retorts have the stink of bad halitosis.
They said that he was driving on an unlit road. Probably. But I would tend to think that it was a poorly lit road. So he could have easily reported it as a deer in road, and he swerved off the road to avoid it. A few things are wrong with that explanation.
(1) The thing is that Edward Kennedy didn't report it right away because had he stayed the Massachusetts state police would have given him a field sobriety test and he would have failed it. Instead he waited about a day or two days later to report the incident. His blood alcohol level after a day or two days would have been null and void. He would have been sober.
(2) Mary Jo Kopechne was not wearing a seat belt. You can see that in the pictures of the car. The damage to the windshield is crucial while examining the evidence at the car crash scene. You can see that the passenger had been jarred and that the passenger smashed into the windshield. It's amazing that the force of the crash didn't eject Miss Kopechne from the car. If Edward Kennedy was not wearing a seat belt, he would have sustained injuries, like broken ribs, a punctured lung, or a ruptured spleen for instance because he would have banged into the steering wheel as well as smashing into the windshield. He didn't sustain any bad injuries other than having abrasions to his face. Therefore, he was wearing his seat belt.
(3) Excessive speed probably played a role in the car accident. Excess speed could have easily caused the sudden jarring needed to cause so much damage to that windshield. And with an unlit road, being intoxicated, and excessive speed; those were the reasons why the car ended up in the water.
(4) A deer does not do that. There were no deer crossing signs in the area. Thus it wasn't a place where deer would be. If there aren't deer in the area, there's no way to avoid one because they don't come into play in an explanation as to why the accident occurred. But had Edward Kennedy said that he had hit a deer, the front end of the car as well as the windshield would have sustained much worse damage. Instead the windshield is the only thing damaged leading credence to points (1) (2) and (3).
Call me, "Mr Discount Double Check" the State Farm Insurance Investigator. I'm signing off now.
Last edited:
So what did you say it for?
I want you to understand something. You returning isn't carte blanche for you to go around this board spouting such utter horseshit. Just because you're not telling someone to go fuck themselves, don't think we won't send you on your way for picking up your shit-posting where you left off.
Someone might say that a person makes a conscious choice if he goes to drive a car and is intoxicated.
If I was drunk and I drove over a family that crossed the road, then I could hardly blame anyone but myself!
The most important thing to remember is that liberals do not tolerate anything other than their own opinions.
The Finnish summer is long over. The weather was still warm at the end of July, but now it is almost zero in the mornings.
It occurred to me in the summer when it was hot that this is the kind of weather you are very familiar with.
(Almost 30 degrees warm.)
If Ted Kennedy had been in an accident due to a technical fault, he could have stayed at the scene.
But he escaped from the scene and did not report to the police until much later.
If he was drunk then his actions were intentional.
An innocent person usually does not try to evade the police.
Because I’m very sure Ted Kenndy was either drunk or he was trying to commit suicide.
I understand that you will be annoyed if a liberal person is criticized.
But Ted Kennedy could also have been a Republican and I would have written about this accident in the same style.
Why?
Because it seems that you are a liberal.
John_8581
FreeOnes Lifetime Member
Again, this is another ridiculous response ....
Before I respond to this, I suggest you read up on Edward Kennedy's good friend, Paul Markham, the United States Attorney for District of Massachusetts, and Jospeh Gargan who was Edward Kennedy's cousin. You should also read Ronald Kessler's book, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded.
All will give you knowledge about the incident, so that you stop saying all these false statements that cannot be corroborated.
They had the license plate number, they knew the car was registered to Edward Kennedy. It was only a matter of time before state police detectives would show up at his front door at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis, MA.
He did turn himself to detectives the next day. Much later in the day. Markham was there too as a friend of his and he gave Kennedy's statement to the state police.
His actions were not intentional. He did not escape. He did not evade police. In fact, Edward Kennedy went to Markham and Gargan and all three went back to the scene of the accident to try and get Miss Kopechne out of the submerged car. It was futile. She had died. Edward Kennedy was crazed with guilt and shame. Both of them urged Kennedy to report the incident to the police.
When you are intoxicated, you do not have capacity. Do you even know what capacity is? For purposes of this forum, a person who is intoxicated is not in control of their actions.
When Edward Kennedy was coherent enough he did report the incident to the police. And a week later, July 25, 1969, Edward Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, which led to the injury of Miss Mary Jo Kopechne without making himself known. Judge James Boyle imposed a two month sentence in the house of correction in Barnstable, MA with the comment "that the defendant has already been and will continue to be punished far beyond anything this court can impose.”
https://vineyardgazette.com/news/1969/07/25/senator-kennedy-pleads-guilty-leaving-accident
=====
More on it here. A few months later in October 1969:
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/356/356mass367.html
Before I respond to this, I suggest you read up on Edward Kennedy's good friend, Paul Markham, the United States Attorney for District of Massachusetts, and Jospeh Gargan who was Edward Kennedy's cousin. You should also read Ronald Kessler's book, The Sins of the Father: Joseph P. Kennedy and the Dynasty He Founded.
All will give you knowledge about the incident, so that you stop saying all these false statements that cannot be corroborated.
Like a manhunt was going on? An All-Points-Bulletin was going out to all police precincts?
They had the license plate number, they knew the car was registered to Edward Kennedy. It was only a matter of time before state police detectives would show up at his front door at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis, MA.He did turn himself to detectives the next day. Much later in the day. Markham was there too as a friend of his and he gave Kennedy's statement to the state police.
His actions were not intentional. He did not escape. He did not evade police. In fact, Edward Kennedy went to Markham and Gargan and all three went back to the scene of the accident to try and get Miss Kopechne out of the submerged car. It was futile. She had died. Edward Kennedy was crazed with guilt and shame. Both of them urged Kennedy to report the incident to the police.
When you are intoxicated, you do not have capacity. Do you even know what capacity is? For purposes of this forum, a person who is intoxicated is not in control of their actions.
When Edward Kennedy was coherent enough he did report the incident to the police. And a week later, July 25, 1969, Edward Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, which led to the injury of Miss Mary Jo Kopechne without making himself known. Judge James Boyle imposed a two month sentence in the house of correction in Barnstable, MA with the comment "that the defendant has already been and will continue to be punished far beyond anything this court can impose.”
https://vineyardgazette.com/news/1969/07/25/senator-kennedy-pleads-guilty-leaving-accident
=====
More on it here. A few months later in October 1969:
http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/356/356mass367.html
Last edited:
What do you base that assumption on?
xfire
New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Put, "In my opinion," in front of, "Ted Kennedy deliberately drove his car into the sea.", and there's no problem with what you said. Trying to pass opinions off as facts is what, "liberals" are intolerant of.
Well let this be the official explanation for this event.
May the victim rest in peace.
.
Amen
Earlier this summer, I wrote that refugees need to return to their f**** d-up countries.
You said that such an expression should not be used here.
Who thinks mass migration from developing countries to the West is a good thing?
Answer:
Liberals
Christ allfuckingmighty.
Let's clarify one thing. I told you that I didn't want you using that expression because you had used it about a million fucking times. You were like a stuck record.
Secondly, I'm not going to debate with someone who thinks that everyone who has non-right wing opinions on immigration is a "liberal". It just confirms to me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, not that I needed that confirmation anyway.
Under normal circumstances I'd put you on ignore but I'm an admin so I have to keep an eye on you.
gmase
On the dark side of the moon
@John_8581 You wasted too much brain power on this. Great posts though.
And I was sure that no one knew anything about Senator Ted Kennedy and even less about this accident but I was wrong
Personally, I came across this event a long time ago when I was reading a book about the history of the United States.
- Status
Similar threads
