Stories From A Life

Been there. Done that. Writing about it.

Sally Swift

Sally Swift
Location
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
Birthday
June 14
Title
VP, Repartee
Company
Swift Retorts
Bio
sally: a journey, a venture, an expression of feeling, an outburst, a quip, a wisecrack ... me

Editor’s Pick
DECEMBER 17, 2008 7:11PM

My Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick Story

Rate: 38 Flag

chap  

Déjà vu all over again. Fate--in the person of a new OS blogger--has now told me it's time to tell the version I heard, supposedly from the horse's mouth, of what really happened almost 40 years ago at Chappaquiddick.

In a thoughtful post called My Kennedy mystery, written by Jason Korke, Mr. Korke (May I call you Jason?) acknowledges Ted Kennedy's many lifetime achievements and his courage in the face of serious illness. He also mentions Teddy's many well-known infidelities and the lying that is part and parcel of such behavior.  

It's this quote that stirred my own memory: "Much more than lying, though, homicide concerns me. Of course, I am talking about Chappaquiddick."

I urge you to read Mr. Korke's post, but meanwhile here's my recap of the scandal. Ted Kennedy's car went off a bridge and into a pond after a June 1969 party for Bobby Kennedy's campaign staff on Chappaquiddick Island near Martha's Vineyard. A passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne (Ko-'peck-nee) was subsequently found drowned in the car.

Kennedy later claimed he dove repeatedly into the dark water but couldn't find her. Then, disoriented and hurt, he gave up. On it's face, a routine if terrible tragedy. But Kennedy and his handlers inexplicably waited 9 hours before reporting the accident.

The media frenzy was ferocious. There were claims Kennedy was drunk and that he and his staff engaged in a massive cover-up of the accident and the cause of Ms. Kopechne's death. Which was, according to the story I heard, partly true. But not homicide.

Kennedy eventually pled guilty to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident and the case was closed. Justice may not have been served for Mary Jo Kopechne, but many felt partial justice was achieved in the total destruction of Ted Kennedy's chances ever to mount his own presidential campaign.

Sidebar: I was a carefree college student that summer of 1969, doing the European tour. When the scandal broke we were in Italy. It wasn't until we returned to the states that I learned the young woman's name was not Mary Jo "Co-pah-'chine-ah" as had been widely reported in the Italian media.

Fast forward a few years to my post college life in the political arenas of Pennsylvania and Washington. I met a woman who was, to say the least, in the thick of things at Chappaquiddick. She told me her story -- one that makes the most sense of the 9-hour lag in reporting the accident, the most critical and damning factor in the whole mess.

It goes like this. The party was filled with young girls, star-struck by the older power brokers with whom they were socializing. Mary Jo in particular was known to have had a crush on Ted Kennedy. Everybody was drinking heavily.

At some point in the evening, feeling more than a little under the weather, Mary Jo wandered outside, saw Kennedy's car and crawled into the back seat to sleep it off.

At some later point, Kennedy and the girl who told me this story got in his car together and headed for a more private party à deux.

Here's the punch line: they didn't know Mary Jo was in the car.

They were both plastered. In fact, Kennedy stopped the car along the road so his young paramour could open her door and vomit into the weeds.

This had to be the same time a sheriff's deputy saw the car idling with its lights on. He approached the car but it drove off. 

After the car went off the bridge, Kennedy's primary goal was to get his female companion--the only person he thought was in the car--the hell out of the picture. His wife was at home, after all, and pregnant to boot.

Which provides a logical explanation for Kennedy's seemingly evil callousness in not trying to save Mary Jo Kopechne. It would explain why Deputy Sheriff Look testified he thought he saw someone lying down in the back seat of Kennedy's car when he approached it on the side of the road leading to the bridge. He wouldn't have seen the girl in the passenger seat because she was bent over, puking.

It would explain the troubling time lag as aides scrambled for damage control, not realizing that something far worse than casual infidelity would hit the fan. And the fact that a woman's handbag--not Ms. Kopechne's--was also found in the car.

And why witnesses at the Shiretown Inn said Kennedy was calm and gave no indication of any knowledge that a scandalous accident that could ruin his career had just taken place.

My source's anonymity was protected. But her conscience was far from clear. I hope after all these years she's realized she was little more than a naive kid dazzled by a powerful figure with feet of clay.

She should certainly know that she had plenty of company. From those who gravitated to the first Kennedy in power all the way up--or down--to Monica. And who knows how many more.

There are dozens of theories, reams of material, reports, hypotheses and even web sites on what happened at Chappaquiddick.

I didn't make this version up. I wasn't there. So I don't claim this is the Emmes. I'm just reporting the story I was told. We'll never know.

After all ... wait for it ... there's been too much water under the bridge.

 

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." Oscar Wilde

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
An extremely interesting and compelling theory.
The 9 hour lag puzzled everyone, perhaps Kennedy more than anyone.
I never did buy the "disorientation story"

Nonetheless, I find it hard to believe a young woman would not stir, or be noticed in the back seat, no matter how tipsy the driver and other passenger were. Maybe they both forgot there glasses.

Great post Sally!!
Sally- I have never heard this story. I do wonder why, if it's true, this girl never said anything, because it would have gone a long way to moderating the attacks on Kennedy's character - guilty of infidelities, but not murder or callousness. She must have been well paid to keep quiet, but why for so long?
Very interesting. David read a book about Chappaquiddick and has hated T. Kennedy ever since. This actually puts some sense into a senseless death.
The book was Senatorial Privilege, BTW. And Gary, I think if they all were drunk enough, and it was dark enough, I can see that happening. It still doesn't excuse the extramarital activities. If he had behaved, none of this would have happened. It all comes down from Papa Joe.
This is really interesting. I heard "things." You can't spend a lot of time on Nantucket without getting a boatload of Kennedy stories, but I've never heard this one. I think it is fascinating. And to tell you the truth, if certainly explains a lot. I have only the vaguest recollection of the other woman's purse---and really had no recollection until you mentioned here.

Great post, Sally. As always---you've got one hell of a story to tell and you tell it well.
We'll never know--unless Teddie does a deathbed thingy.

This I know for certain: No matter his many, many failings...Ted Kennedy was an outstanding senator and a really special father and father surrogate for an awful lot of kids.

He may have had the morals of a snake...but he has served this country and its citizens admirably...and I admire him for that.

Great story. Never heard it before.

Now that I've heard it here, I bet I hear it again somewhere else soon.
What a tragic family, those Kennedys.
i like this story...but if its true...why wasn't it reported in the media? that would have been a better explanation than the one given.
Wow. This makes UTTER AND COMPLETE sense to me.

But it's not super conspiralicious, so I figure it won't be good enough for most people who've decided that Kennedy actually drugged her, strangled her with piano wire, and just drove off the bridge to disguse the fact that he'd also bludgeoned her to death with a flashlight. Or something.
I second Verbal's sentiments almost verbatim (she is my pimp, after all, isn't she?) ;)
VERY well written. I was nine years old at the time but by then, I had already formed some pretty strong opinions about the world and how things operate. There are many sides to a story (especially if you give yourself the time and distance to consider them) and you just gave the one that makes most sense. Thank you for filling in the blanks. Rated.
Interesting, to say the least.

rated
G
Great story and rated!

But one has to wonder about Kennedy's testimony given at the time that Kopechne asked for a ride home and Kennedy went back to the party and got two other men to try to rescue her.

What's the logic of making up such a story? I mean, you're screwed either way - I can't see how the official story is that much "better" than the one outlined here. And Kennedy's first statement was at 10:00am, an awfully quick time to come up with the details and get any other witnesses on the same page.

Chalk up another layer to the intrigue, I guess.
Wow...I like the new version. He is still a smuck, but not as bad a smuck as the version I read many years ago. Thanks for sharing!
Groan! (for water under the bridge).

I had never heard this. It has a ring of plausibility to it, though.
I have similar sources who also state the back top of the car had claw marks on it from Mary Jo trying to get out, which belies the idea that he dove to find the car, particularly when the car was only in about 8 feet of water. Likewise, the 90 degree, paved BANKED turn to the left as opposed to going up and over the pavement onto a dirt road to drive a 1/4 to a 1/3rd of a mile to get to the bridge blows holes in the idea he took a wrong turn.



This source also surmised he had no idea she was in the back seat like that.
Who knows? But you've told a compelling tale about a tragic incident. It would be good if he would tell more about this at his deathbed, as it hangs over his legacy. I can't imagine he will, esp. with Caroline as a new senator.
wow...as always you bring a new light to things.
Wow. It does have a ring of plausibility, but I'm afraid we'll never really know the truth.

On a lighter (sort of) note I do have interesting John John stories. He was at Brown while I was at RISD, and you know how all the frat boys came down to the art school looking for fast girls.
Sally---there is a Mister magruder on the phone---says he has a filmhe wants to show you. . .

Terrific piece!
Much more plausible than the official story. It is too sad for words that the Kennedys and tragedy have gone so often hand in hand.
Sally,
With all due respect for you and this interesting possibility; At the inquest Ted K said he was driving Mary Jo. Also, the names of all the girls at the party are well documented. I don't think there is someone who knows something and hasn't come forward, do you? Given the heavy drinking that night, and the fact that Teddy had been drinking heavily since the assassination of Bobby the year before, I think it more plausible that he was in a blackout at the time of the accident. It is amazing what drunk people can do motorically while in a blackout. Their judgment is of course totallly impaired. I have always thought that this was a drunk driving case involving a death and should have been prosecuted as such. But it was a Kennedy in Massachusetts. Enough said. And I love and respect the Kennedy family and name. Thanks for listening.
Interesting theory, though leaves a great big question mark, why your woman acquaintance stayed quiet so long...except, of course, for telling you. And whoever else she told. I do likes me some intrigue!
Gary, have you ever been passed out drunk? Or seen someone that way? (The correct description is "dead drunk" because that's how some people appear, especially those not used to alcohol, like Mary Jo, but I mean her memory no disrespect). I think it's entirely possible she never stirred, Kennedy wasn't thinking with the right head and his female 'friend' was woozy, sick and trying hard to keep his interest. People in that situation don't act rationally. Anyway, who looks in the back seat for no reason? But, as always, thanks for your kudos, they mean a lot.

Ardee, the girl was instructed not to say anything by the Kennedy team. Plus, she's not the type to come forward and out herself as a slut, much less a potential contributor to a crime. I haven't spoken to her in years, but would guess she'd like that part of her life to stay in the past.

Lauren, thanks, I've read the book and while I've never like Ted Kennedy, he certainly did some good eventually. And you're exactly right, if you do something wrong, it'll come back and bite you every time.

m. a.h, Nantucket is the mother lode of Kennedy stories, and this one's been around, I think, but still, unless the woman steps up--and she won't--there's no proof. Just makes sense.

Frank, I agree with everything you said, including "Great story." heh Thanks!

delores, as I mentioned to Ardee, the media was kept in the dark about her to hide his infidelity. And once Mary Jo was found, the story was all Mary Jo all the time.

Verbal, I UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY thank you.

cartouche, coming from you, VERY well written is VERY welcomed.

Greg, you're a readin and ratin fool and I love ya for it.

Corey, his statement was 9 hours after the fact, and included the discovery of Mary Jo's body, so clearly the strategy of claiming heroic efforts to rescue her was deemed preferable to "I was so hammered and had such a woody for the girl I've already hidden from you that I didn't pay attention to who else might have been in the car." N'est pas?

Rich, thank you for acknowledging my perfectly executed pun!

Geoff, I've heard those horrendous descriptions of Mary Jo trying desperately to claw her way out of the car. And I have to think even Ted, especially in those days isn't craven enough to let a young girl die on purpose, but there are those who do.

Lea, thank you as always. Please don't get me started on why Caroline is so egregiously unqualified to fill Hillary's seat.

Liz, thank you, really.

Dorella, ooohhh, give us the frat boy stories. We want the 411, were you one of those fast girls?

Roger, you cracked me up. Thanks for reading and cheering.
Sally, you called her your "source," which is a term of art. Were you a media professional at the time? If so, did you report this up the chain of command? Was the story spiked? Was a single source not enough to run with the story? I think I understand protecting sources, but then, why now do you come forward with this if not before?

I've never quite cleared up my understanding of your career, but I thought you said you spent quite a few years with CBS News. Am I mistaken there?

If you were out of the media when you heard this firsthand account, I'm unbothered by your keeping of a confidence. But if you were in the media at the time, what's the story that would explain why this wasn't chased down and tied up. (I think I remember hearing this as speculation, but never as a verifiable but unreportable allegation.)
Sorry, some new comments came in while I was composing my replies. So here are more replies.

Cherie, the Kennedy family does seem to have had a curse on them. I've always wondered how and why?

grif, I already gave the "party line" answer to your logical question. Hindsight is easy, but trying to manage and spin the lessor of two evil behaviors back then was brutal. It's a conundrum, Joan was pregnant, which is worse, admitting to cheating on her or trying and failing to save a life? Not all the names were released. I agree he was let off the hook more than Joe the Plumber would have been. Thanks for reading.

Sandra, she was protecting her reputation and a possible criminal charge. I don't know who else she told, but people tend to confide in me, we were close, she was scared shitless when she told me and I don't think she spread it around. Plus, her family got her a lawyer who most certainly told her to keep her mouth shut.
Oops, sorry Randy, you slipped in while I was answering the others. I meant she was my "personal" source. I was not working for CBS at the time she told me. I spent a little more than 2 years there, in the Editorial dept. associate producing documentaries.

Apologies for my long comments, but since y'all took the time to ask, I wanted to answer everybody's questions.
Sally,

Help me with a couple points.

If she was so drunk that they didn't know she was in the car, then how did he know to dive for her? If she was that drunk then how did she try to get out?

Also wasn't one of the problems with the diving story that the motel people say he show up dry, that they never saw him wet?
Well, I guess there has to be someone to disbelieve this tale in its entirety, and that would be me. Taken at face value, we would have to believe that Kennedy would rather be known as a man who left a drowning unreported, a drowning he "knew" had occurred, a drowning for which he was presumably responsible as the driver, than be known as a man who had an affair and was concerned to get his paramour safely and anonymously away from the accident scene. We have to believe one of the Kennedy men--who had affairs as casually as some of us have dinner--would prefer to be associated with the cowardly abandonment of a woman he knew to be dying than with notching another female conquest to the family bedpost. I'm sorry I don't buy it, and I have trouble understanding why anyone would. Kennedy would surely have uttered the single most exculpating sentence in his entire arsenal: "I didn't even know she was there." The idea that he didn't, for whatever reason, is implausible to me. And this story, although beautifully retailed, seems the stuff of urban legend.
Of course you can call me Jason!

I am sorry, but I have to go with Libertarius. I like the story but I can't buy any of it. After plunging his car and Mary Jo into the pond, Ted went back (on foot) to the party and fetched Joseph Gargan and Paul Markham, who went with him and then themselves tried to rescue Mary Jo from the car. Having failed, they told him he had to report the incident right away. Then he went back to his hotel for a good kip.

Kennedy was very lucky to recover politically from Chappaquiddick, and it arguably cost him the Presidency. So, as Libertarius says, he'd have to have been OUT OF HIS FRICKIN' MIND to pretend he knew she was in his car when she wasn't. I don't see why wanting to conceal some borderline infidelity would lead to pretending he knew Mary Jo was there. There were much better lies to make up.
sorry, brain problem... I meant to say, "... out of his mind to pretend he knew she was in the car when he didn't..."

I also meant to add, I enjoyed the post even though I don't believe the tale :)
Sally, then I withdraw the journalistic ethics questions. I somehow got it into my head that you spent 22, not 2 years at CBS. I don't think anyone is challenging your account as a true revelation of what was told to you, but libertarius and jason korke make a pretty compelling point. Why wouldn't Teddy (my mom's choice to her dying day for prez) just say "I didn't even know she was in the car?"
For what it's worth, I'd have voted for him at some point. I think Ted Kennedy will reside in the pantheon of great U.S. Senators. Perhaps at the pinnacle. And if I were a Senator, I'd take his staff on my payroll in a Massachusetts Minute.
Intriguing, to say the least. It does raise some questions, though, as other posters have noted.

If he didn't know Mary Jo was in the car, why would he make up the piece about trying to save her? Would it have sounded worse to say he didn't know this than to say he was drunk and taking your friend for a "ride"?

I can see this story as plausible for the time lag in reporting it, though, as he and his staff all worked together to stay on "the same page" so-to-speak -- and for Kennedy to sober up.

There still seem to be some disconnects, though, that will probably never be solved.

I wonder how the Kopechne family feels about Ted Kennedy all these years later.
STORY DOESN'T RING TRUE

Sorry, but I don't believe your friend's story. If this really happened, all Ted Kennedy had to do was say what really happened.

I'm also perplexed by this statement -- "but many felt partial justice was achieved in the total destruction of Ted Kennedy's chances ever to mount his own presidential campaign."

Ted Kennedy not being president is nowhere close to "partial justice" for being involved in an incident that caused the death of a human being.

Besides that, Ted Kennedy DID mount his own presidential campaign. Considering he was challenging an incumbent president, he did very well -- about 45 percent of the delegates at the Democratic Party Convention in 1980, when Kennedy was still only 48 years old.

I was at the convention, by the way, and I just don't recall anyone expressing concern about Chappaquidick. On the contrary, most people at the convention seemed to be supportive of him seeking the presidency again.

Kennedy was also doing very well in the polls in 1972 and 1976 so I just don't see the evidence that Chappaquidick killed his bid for the presidency -- although it should have.

Frankly, I think he was hurt more in 1980 by his total inability to explain why he wanted to be president and what he would do as president.

Shalom,
ZWrite
Now that's a theory I never heard. Plausible, absolutely. But I think we'll never know the truth. Ted doesn't seem the type to own up to that one, and as for the other woman in the car - well, I'm guessing if true, she still has too much at stake to own up to it either.

So tell me, Sally - is there ANYONE you aren't connected to in some fashion? This is marvelous, like Six Degrees Of Sally Swift. :-D

Thumbed for Scandal, Intrigue, Sex, Lies (but sadly, no videotape), and Mystery.
Definitely a Movie of the Week TV potboiler once upon a time. True? This "story" seems at least as plausible as Ted's tale, but neither has the ring of truth to me.

We'll probably never know the truth because Ted likely will take that to his grave. Because he has hidden the truth, I suspect that even after his long years of service, many obits will mention Chappaquiddick, a suspicion supported by the fact that Chappaquiddick turns up in Word's spellcheck.
Catnlion, libertarius, Jason, Randy, Laura, zwrite (jeez, you don't have to YELL at me ;), I can't answer your legitimate questions with any real authority. I can only reiterate what was told to me by a person who said she was in the car.

Again, I haven't seen her in years. She wasn't a flake or a nutcase back then, but she was known as a Teddy "regular" and she was at the party. Her purse was found in the car. I can't figure out why she would lie about being at the scene of a crime when she already had the carnal knowledge creds of Ted K. (Notches on a female's bedpost were a big deal back then too).

As for Mary Jo, even if she was passed out stoned drunk, hitting cold water could likely have brought her to consciousness.

I've said in my post and other comments, Kennedy didn't leave a drowning unreported --- he didn't know there had been one. He was too busy covering up one mess (drunk driving and infidelity). He and his aides must have gone nuts when they found out the bigger, much more horrendous mess. Bad judgement was used, no question.

Remember, Ted only claimed to have dived for Mary Jo after her body was discovered. Which is when they had to come up with a fast scenario. He did come into the inn dry.

In 1969 politics, especially among the Kennedys, it was all about deny and distract. They had two choices: Say he was drunk and with another girl, didn't know MJ was in the car. That's admitting immoral if not criminal acts. No way. I mean really, No. Way.

Once the shit hit the fan, strategy was devised to say he was giving her a ride home, ran off the road, tried desperately to save her. Seemed the better, more noble choice At. That. Time.

It's not about saying, "I didn't even know she was there." In the calm of hindsight, of course that's the right answer, especially if true. A deputy sheriff did see someone lying in the back seat. Even if it would have been believed then, the next question would then be WHY he didn't notice her. Answer: He was drunk. He was with a very young woman not for the first time while his pregnant wife sat home. Not 'borderline infidelity.' An affair. No win.

As for Chappaquiddick killing his chances for a presidential bid, the Kopechne family vowed to come forward any and every time he sought that office to shoot his chances down. I believe it would have worked. Apparently so did Senator Kennedy and his advisors.

Bill and Tom, I humbly admit I have lived rather a lively life. Remember, Kevin Bacon is from Philly. Have you ever seen us together? Just, you know, food for thought.
Sally, I'm late, but I'll still add my two cents worth. In a comment you state: "As for Chappaquiddick killing his chances for a presidential bid, the Kopechne family vowed to come forward any and every time he sought that office to shoot his chances down."

Strangely, I don't recall them doing that when Kennedy tried to take the nomination away from Carter in 1980. It seems odd that they would have waited until he got the nomination to sabotage his candidacy, but stranger things have happened. I always assumed the Kennedy family paid the Kopechne's off to avoid a politically ruinous lawsuit or criminal prosecution.

The story is plausible, but I agree with those who wonder why such an account would have remained a secret so long. Your acquaintance's fear of prosecution seems highly unlikely, unless she were driving the car. The likelihood of prosecution for keeping such explosive evidence of possible criminal behavior secret seems greater.

That being said, anything is possible, and the Kennedy's were powerful and had lots of money to keep witnesses quiet. We'll probably never know the truth until Ted is deceased, at least if there is more to the story than what we already know and easily infer.
Truth is often stranger than fiction. It's too bad the second woman didn't come forward.
Steve, you could be right. I do remember very strong speculation the family was paid off. They would have had to be. Maybe they started to come forward in 1980 and got another settlement. Or.. Wait.. strangely, I don't remember the 1980 election very well... you can't imagine how much that pisses me off. Now I have to go do some back-reading. Thanks!
Interesting tale! i enjoyed reading it even if I'm also not sure about its plausibility (I believe you, I just don't necessarily believe the woman who told you the story).

I also don't recall the Kopechnes doing anything the times Ted ran for President so that makes no sense to me. And I recall his implosion in 1980 more the way someone else did - he didn't mount a focused campaign. IIRC, the Kopechnes have never spoken publicly about the whole thing, or at least not since shortly after the accident. Of course, it's always been presumed the Kennedy family paid them something in compensation for their loss.

But yes, Mary Jo could have been dead drunk but woken once immersed in water -- this is known as the "drowning man's reflex".
Forgive me in advance for this:

Q: Who taught Grace Kelly to drive?
A: Teddy Kennedy
A friend of mine heard the exact same thing from someone who was from that area. I realize the fact that I have heard the same thing doesn't prove anything, but it is the most logical explanation. This story would show that if you just told the truth in the beginning, you would save yourself from much worse trouble.
In a book on the subject, I read how there was a pocket of air for Mary Jo to survive in for a while and that she'd been clutching at the seat to hold herself in the air pocket. A deputy along the road the night before had seen Kennedy pass with a woman in the front seat (Mary Jo was found in the back from what I remember). In the book, if memory serves, the deputy had mentioned that the woman in the front had her hair down and I think Mary Jo's was up. Anyway, the book didn't come to the conclusion that Kennedy didn't even know Mary Jo was there. It was after I heard about that version of events from a friend that I went back and thought about the details from the book that didn't add up and realized they did fit my friend's story of a different woman in the front seat.
Still don't know what to believe, but it seems like he probably didn't know she was there. If I did think he had left her knowing she was in there and tried to do damage control instead of saving her, I would think that prison would be too kind for him.
BUT LOOK!
Here is something from an internet site that says the deputy had claimed he may have seen someone in the back seat as well. Of course, if it is from an internet website, it must be true. (I often like to say, "It must be true-- I read it on the internet," when I make a crazy statement.)
"Huck Look told Chief Arena that he was 'positive there was a man driving, and a woman next to him.' He thought there may have been someone else in the back seat, but he wasn't sure.

- Note: Rosemary Keough's handbag was later found in the accident vehicle. She acknowledged that she had riden in the car earlier that day, and had probably left the handbag in the back seat. It has been suggested that it was her handbag, left on the rear window shelf, that had appeared to be 'someone else in the back seat.' "
Sally,

Sorry if you thought I was yelling at you. I didn't mean to. If I was mad or wanted to yell at you, it would have been in a private message.
plausible and very well told.
The desire of people to defend a homicide is disconcerting to me. It is known with 100% certitude that a woman died when Ted Kennedy drove a car off a bridge while drunk. Undeniable fact and enough to judge Ted Kennedy as morally responsible and unfit to lead.

The argument some make that he did so much in the Senate after that is illogical. If the same criteria were applied to all politicians then after every scandal we would have to say, "Well, let's see what he does in office for the next 30 years and if he does something we like, then we will not judge him for that action that happened right now."
Rather an unprofessional piece really. First, the tag says "true story". What you mean is *your* part in the story is true i.e. hearing an account from an unnamed person. But the reader is drawn in by the misrepresentation that the entire piece is "true".

I won't even dignify the unnamed person you cite by calling her a "source" for that would give your recounting the gloss of journalism. Which it is not. It is gossip. And malicious gossip, at that.

(Emphatically unrated.)
Sally - FWIW

I found myself surpried when I read your story, and then these comments. I thought everybody knew the real story of what happened.

You see, I have always known this story, and believe it fully. When I lived in Boston in the early 80's, some of the men in the Kennedy security detail from that night were well-known to the people I socilaized with, and we all knew what really happened.

Mary Jo was dead drunk in the back seat, Ted was leaving with a young woman who was not his wife, and when the accident happened, he had no idea that Mary Jo was in the car. It was that simple. Everything else was an attempt at damage control when the full scope of the tragedy became known.

As to those who can't fathom that, I don't know what to say. it was reality - the parties, the booze, the sex - of course one woman can be dead drunk in the back seat and not be seen. Of course one of the most powerful families in America would try to cover up the scope of the "debauchery" with a story (that never quite worked).

Anyway, I have known your version presented here as the real story for many years. Your friend is telling the truth IMO.
Kellylark,

Let me make sure I understand the way you know the story to have happened.

Everybody agrees on the party, sex and booze. Your story is he wasn't with Mary Jo but some other lady. There was a wreck, Ted and the lady got out and they didn't know Mary Jo was in the car and she died.

The diving and all that part of the story is the cover up. Am I correct?

My question about the night. We know he showed up at the motel dry. That has always been the problem with the diving to save Mary Jo story.

If he was driving the car with the other lady with him and they had an accident how did he get out of a car that was under water and still be dry? It doesn't matter if he dove for Mary Jo or not. He would have had to push the car off the bridge into the water to come out dry. The act of getting out of a car in water would have made him wet. I don't care how deep the water was. 3 feet deep would have made his pants and shoes wet, which they weren't.

Help with this please.
catnlion

I need to call one of very old freinds to get the details. Truth is, I don't know the details of the court story (official story) because I was just 11 in 1969.

The only story I ever knew was this version, which I learned when I was 23-24 in the early 80's.

But I can get the details, and I will. I'll email and maybe have a separate post when I do.

Kelly
I just got your email--I keep forgetting to check it. This story doesn't make sense to me. Surely, investigators would have tracked it down. But, the original story never made sense so I can see why Kennedy's presidential ambitions were derailed.

I actually saw Kennedy in Iowa when he ran against Carter (1979?). He showed up for a rally on the Univ. of N. Iowa campus. I and a couple of others were there. When he saw the tiny crowd, he left quickly and didn't speak. I guess he was afraid photographers would catch the moment. I think he at least should have shook our hands for standing out in the cold.
I believe the story. It's the same one that I was told in October 1969, by a guy who heard it from a drunken Kenny O'Donnell, who was at the Kennedy Compound after the accident when "Bobby's people" were fabricating the cover story about Teddy diving repeatedly to save Mary Jo.
Teddy's been living the lie all these years, further compounding his life.
RISailor
I heard this story more than 30 years ago. The source was a Massachusetts Judge attending the Reno judge's school, and it was told informally to several other judge's in attendance. I heard the story second hand. I have often wondered over the years if the story was true, and if so, if it would break after Senator Kennedy passed on.

When I heard that Senator Kennedy had finally lost his battle with cancer, curiosity got the best of me and I Googled "Chappaquiddick true story" . I was very surprised to see the same story I had heard so many years ago. Every detail was the same. Kennedy left the party with another woman. They got out of the car for whatever reason, and it rolled into the water. They walked back. Later, people started asking where Mary Jo was, and somebody said that she had crawled into the back of "Teddy's car". It was then learned that she had been sleeping in the back seat unbeknownst to Kennedy or his companion.

Since the Copechne family learned that the death was not caused by Kennedy's negligence, there was no need to 'out' him on the rest of the scandal. And of course, an out of court settlement had been reached. Yes, it will be interesting to see what comes out about this story once the funeral and memorials have concluded.
WOW! If true, it makes sense, CNN should report it and the NYTimes. After his death, the truth will come out. It always does. Sad story.
when the privileged and powerful do it - it's a tragic "mistake" and they must pay a reparation and then be forgiven
when the ordinary do it - it's a willful criminal act by a selfish narcissist that needs to be punished, after which said offender needs to pay a reparation and then he/she needs to be monitored and seek redemption while being denied many occupational opportunities for the rest of his/her life.
sarighter, you added some details I'd heard and hadn't written, and some I had not heard. I didn't know the car rolled into the water without them in it. I did know that they walked back to the party. Then people started asking "where is Mary Jo?" That's when the realization sank in.

I have no doubt at all that this is the true story. It will not be reported because none of the first-hand witnesses will ever confirm it.