Was Ted Kennedy a murderer?

That theory has already been discredited.

 

Really? Last I checked no one really knows what the hell went on that night

 

That's true, no one as far as we know really knows what went on that night.

Not knowing what really happened that night doesn't make any incredible theory credible, nor does it prevent such from being discredited.

 

Exactly, it's a theory, and it's a theory that could make sense. The theory that he was so drunk he didn't know what he was doing could also make sense. Then there's also the Ted Kennedy is a murderer theory, when thought about actually makes the least sense.

 

Any theory can make sense as long as it is consistent with known facts and has reliable, verified sources.
The theory you mention has been discredited because it lacked both.

 

:cheers2:.. some people just dont get that Im Nuts..

 

Evidence? Minus a car in the water, dead body and a story that kept changing there isn't much evidence of anything

 

No, you are not.

The error you made was to suggest that Jesus's story is as unbelievable as Kennedy's.
Whereas the story of Jesus is indeed a lot more believeable than that about Chappaquiddick incident.

 

Actually there is a lot of evidence that can discredit any improbable theory.

You can't for instance claim that the car drove directly into the pond and overturned, as oppossed to falling off the bridge, because the bottom of the car left the marks on the bridge where it fell off.

You also can't claim that the dead person inside the car was a stuffed doll used for cooked-up story and that real Mary Jo Kopechne is alive nowdays.

 

Not so.

First of all, the premise that people always avoid death is not feasible. What of those who slowly asphyxiate in their sleep, not aware that the oxygen is being removed slowly from the air by noxious but unnoticeable gases.

It's not a stretch to say that she could have died, not knowing the risk, while waiting for help.

Next, how far was it to the air bubble, compared to climbing out of the car and swimming. It may just have been easier, in the moment, to go toward the air, rather than fight through the water. Perhaps she may have even been simply taking some time before attempting an escape, and was slowly, unnoticeably overcome by the lack of oxygen forming in a gradual way.

You simply have a preferred outcome for your theory. I have none. I am not preferring one or the other, since we can truly know neither. But to deny the possibility of what I am saying is ludicrous, and merely a matter of contention.

You seem unwilling to accept the fact that in many cases, things happen gradually, and by degree, not immediately, with a predictable outcome. Many people die for lack of action, hoping for help, and believing it will come. A simple blow to the head could have been all that was needed to make the less effective and eventually fatal choice.

 

There is not such a thing as "not knowing a risk" when you are under water and in a danger of asphyxation or drowning.

Get a large plastic bag, put it around your head (allow for "air bubble") and see how long you will stay without attemting to get your head out of it.
Now imagine yourself in an air bubble inside of the same car, with water level closing in, with door or window of the car open (way out!).
You can't tell me anyone in conscious mind would actually decide to stay and die there.

It is not the same as letting yourself to die of oxygen deprivation in sleep (unconscious). Two circumstances just can not be compared.

See above.

It is not a matter of my or anyone's preference for "outcome of theory".
It is a matter of instinct and self preservation that governs one's actions in such moments.
You can't decide not to breath.
And if you are conscious and inside the car that is under water you just don't "wait" there for help, you do what it takes to get out of the car as soon as possible.
I refuse to believe that any conscious human being in their right mind would remain there to die of asphyxation given a clear choice to get out of that car.

There is no doubt that if one is deprived of oxygen, it will lead to death through asphyxation.
Show me where I stated that death through asphyxation is not possible or that I don't believe one can die slow death due to gradual decrease and lack of oxygen?

What I question is why would someone willfully let that happen to themselves in an emergency like that?

See above and previous posts.

 

Sure there is. You tend to look at things in black and white, in extremes. Practical, everyday real situations are not black and white, but in degrees. There is a degree to which the woman did not know how to assess the relative risk of drowning vs. the relative risk of not making it out alive if she were to try to escape, rather than wait in the air bubble.

Again, simplistic thinking. You don't have all the parameters available to you. For instance, you are merely using your imagination to assume that the "door or window" of the car was, first of all, easily accessible to her, and apparent, rather than clouded in murky water. We do not know to what extent the availability of an escape was know to her, not knowing if there was any communication between herself and Edward Kennedy before he left the car, nor whether or not she was conscious immediately after the crash.

From the drawing included in the report, the "air bubble" would not be fairly represented by a simple "plastic bag". It appears that at the beginning, the air pocket was far more sizable than the plastic bag would adequately represent.

On the contrary, both situations represent one who is slowly being deprived of oxygen. The typical result is one of drowsiness, then unconsciousness, then death, not merely a sudden feeling of oxygen deprivation.

You are again assuming a lot here.

Your personal reactions, imagined, at a distance from the actual situation, and not being experienced as MJKopechne did, are perhaps slanted by your own imagination. I would think it quite possible that a woman who has had a head injury would choose to remain in the "pocket of life", which it seems would be a bit larger than the one you have portrayed. It would also seem relevant to the discussion to realize that people don't suddenly run out of air, given a large enough pocket, but more gradually, and the decision "not to breath" is never addressed.

You again are assuming that you are in the car, not Mary Jo Kopechne, whom neither of us know personally. You may have instincts that are entirely different than what she might choose, in that situation, which again, you are not entirely familiar with, nor have complete knowledge of the exact set of circumstances. You simply prefer to believe something because of the limits of your imagination.

I can't help what you refuse to believe. It would only disappoint me that any sound-minded person would be unwilling to imagine a different set of parameters than the one he/she chooses to believe. The ability to pose two conflicting views is important to any scientific investigation. It is entirely possible that MJKopechne never felt that she might die of asphyxiation, that help might arrive in a timely fashion, and that she did not have an easily accessible exit from the car. We don't know if the exit used by Kennedy was still available to her, nor do we know if she was even conscious at the time he left, thereby perhaps not having that idea as available to her as the idea of survival in the air pocket.

Forensic science deals with questions like these, and they don't make assumptions. They explore all the possibilities, without suggesting a bias, but looking at all the clues.

What I find odd is that I have had to repeat the scenario several times. A person is not dead, but living, and has some available air, and decides to remain there until help arrives. As the available oxygen is used up, the person becomes drowsy, and falls unconscious before the awareness that the situation could result in death by asphyxiation is evident to them. It happens all the time. In unfamiliar circumstances, people don't always have all the facts available to them, to make a wise or even an informed decision.

 

Really? So, an adult individual , in a car falling off the bridge and into the pond, may actually not know the danger of asphyxation or drowning if remained in the car?
No more questions

This is your assumption, unsupported by facts and biased indeed (could it be due to your own extreme views about necessity to allow wifes to wear pants in the house and my disagreement with such view under separate thread? LOL).

No disagreement here.

LOL Would she be able to assess the relative risk of getting a bullet in her head if someone pointed a gun to her head?
Becase I may contend that there is a degree to which she would not know the danger of getting a bullet accross her head LOL

Yeah, it was a giant cruiseship, not a passenger car, so how could she possibly find out any door or window , including the one Kennedy escaped through LOL

Oh no, we don't. Interior of vehicle was larger than your average transatlantic cruiseship , with thousands of possibly locked windows more than a hundred feet away in either direction LOL

Kennedy: Sorry, hun, gotta go now

Kopechne: Oh, ok, I'll stay in the bubble. Will you come to resque me?

Kennedy: Sure I will!
_________________

LOL

It is reported that she was conscious and alive for a long while after the accident.

It's not about the size of bag, but the length of time you can force yourself not to breath fresh air.
Bigger bag would let you stay longer, but there comes the point where you do know that you are not getting enough oxygen and you can't tolerate it.

See above

See above... :yawn:

rolleyes:

1. She was dead immediately after or at the time of accident.
2. She was alive long after the accident.

These are two contradicting and incompatible statements.

This is not quantum physics, this is a person after an accident. It can't be alive and dead at the same time.

LOL

 

dumbullshit55, you really don't know how to carry on a decent conversation, without resorting to infantile misquotes with the intention to discredit, most probably because you fully realize that you've met your match, and find it impossible to contend with a superior intellect.

If you can't figure out what I've said up until now, I've got no further use for this discussion.

Have a nice day,,,

p.s.,,though you boast in "wearing the pants" in your family, I tend to believe that they are "M.C.Hammer pants",,,and he wants them back.

 

Now you resort to namecalling.
What a wonderful proof of maturity and superior intelligence

That's right, those quotes are not yours I made them up
What a great sign of intelligence, to not recognize your own quotes and resort to ad hominem attacks once premise of the argument is hopelessly lost.

Hand waving technique...hmm... this is so advanced, I have never heard of it before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c4L4CPfQY8

 

No actually, you displayed the superior maturity through your many "LOL"s

When nothing to say, simply laugh, right?

You wish. Do I have to point out to you your entry misquote, dumbass? Try re-reading your own material for a change. Using Latin to describe your own stupidity doesn't fly here.

No doubt, there are more than a few things you "haven't heard of before".

Some of your language acquisition skills betray you. What is your mother tongue? Monkey?

 

It is impossible not to laugh reading a statement such as "There is a degree to which the woman did not know how to assess the relative risk of drowning ..."

I did. Still don't see how quoting what you actually posted and replying to it in the context counts as misquoting you.

I used Latin to describe your resorting to argument against the person, linking the validity of a premise to a characteristic of a person advocating the premise.

Calling me stupid or dumbass doesn't invalidate what I say nor establishes validity of your points.

I was being sarcastic. Evidently, recognizing it was far beyond your cognitive skills.

This betrays yOur mother tongue, which certainly is none other than that of an ass.

 

Ted was a lot of things - -some good ,some bad- - but a murderer?? Thats probably a bit strong

 

What other title would be more accurate for someone who left a woman to die in the mud without alerting an ambulance, this done so that he can avoid taking a breathalyzer when the authorities showed up?

 

He could well have been a reckless murderer or a coward whose inaction may have led to death of other. Who knows? I for one didn't know Edward Kennedy personally nor do I know any particulars of this incident beyond what is known to general public.

It's just such theory is not supported by what is known about this particular incident.
Kennedy's own statement is self-incriminating enough, however it is implausibile and contradicts other known facts of the incident.