Talk:Chappaquiddick incident/Archive 2

Valetude's questions answered, courtesy of Cutler and Joesten
The article under consideration is derived from mainstream sources, including Lange & Dewitt (2006) and Knight (2003), both of which recognize the theories covered in this proposal. The Cutler and Joesten sources were recently acknowledged as legitimate by User:LukeSurl at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chappaquiddick incident conspiracy theories

Valetude may profit from examining the section Kennedy’s Behavior in Edgartown: July 19, 1969 and Kennedy's Physical Injuries 36hourblock (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The Chappaquiddick Incident Conspiracy Theories
A number of conspiracy theories have been published regarding the Chappaquiddick Incident since 1969, all of which reject all or part of the official version. Editor and conspiracy critic Peter Knight recognizes three distinct conspiracy categories, each with variations, which comprise these hypotheses.

The Conspiracy to Blame Kennedy, also known as the “frame-up” hypothesis , is advanced by researchers on the political Left.

A theme common to this category of frame-up argument is that right-wing elements assassinated Edward M. Kennedy’s older brothers: President John F. Kennedy (1917-1963), and Robert F. Kennedy (1925-1968), and that the same cabal or interests were determined to destroy the presidential aspirations of the last surviving brother of the Kennedy clan. The Watergate scandal, which exposed President President Richard Nixon’s use of espionage against his political opponents, is offered as evidence that Kennedy was a victim of the same elements.

A second theme in the frame-up theories is that Kennedy was blackmailed into taking the blame for an accident and fatality, in which he did not participate and of which he had no knowledge. Kennedy’s immediate family is reported, as part of the scenario, to have been threatened with physical harm if he divulged these threats to the authorities. Joachim Joesten, Robert B. Cutler and Richard Sprague offer versions of the “blame Kennedy” conspiracies.

The second conspiracy category – Conspiracy to Shield Kennedy - offer “cover-up” scenarios, which argue that Senator Kennedy and his associates conspired to conceal or minimize the extent of his criminal negligence in responding to an accident that he was responsible for. A version of this hypothesis contends that Mary Jo Kopechne was at the wheel of the Kennedy’s vehicle when the accident occurred. The underlying assumption in all the “shield Kennedy” frameworks is that political and financial elites – among them the Kennedy family – possessed sufficient wealth and influence to elicit a sympathetic response from the mass media, and to set limits on the official investigation into the affair. Author Leo Damore and journalist Jack Olsen represent these veiws.

The third category Chappaquiddick Incident conspiracy theory – the Conspiracy to Stage the Incident - presents arguments that Kennedy and his associates staged the accident at Dike Bridge to cover up an earlier mishap in which the Senator injured Mary Jo Kopechne. In covering up the first accident, Kennedy caused Kopechne’s demise, but succeeded in delaying a blood alcohol test that would have revealed that he had been legally intoxicated while driving. Author Kenneth Kappel presents this scenario.

Another version of the “staged” incident is offered by researcher Zad Rust, proposing that Edward Kennedy murdered Kopechne and then staged an accident at Dike Bridge in order to end a sexual relationship and to conceal that she was pregnant with his child.

Still another version by authors Thomas and Richard Tedrow accuse Kennedy of covering up the accident to protect his political aspirations for the 1972Democratic Party presidential nomination. This hypothesis suggests that the benzedine test revealed that not blood, but grass stains on the back of Kopechne’s blouse, implying that she and Kennedy had engaged in sex on the beach during the interval after departing the Lawrence cottage cookout and the accident at Dike Bridge.

=The Cutler-Joesten Frame-up Hypothesis =

In his Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia, editor Peter Knight offers an article describing Robert B. Cutler as one of the researchers who have "developed the [frame-up] theory in depth." Cutler reports that his January 1972 article "Who Killed Mary Jo Kopechne" was written in collaboration with German investigator Joachim Joesten, after they "arrived at the same conclusions" and were collaborating on the topic.

The "Frame-up" - Summary
Official Findings: No official acknowledgement of a frame-up.

Conspiracy Hypothesis: Conspiracy theorist R.D. Cutler develops an elaborate scenario – “Operation Chappaquiddick” – described as a an ambush-kidnap-“accident”operation in which several teams of kidnappers, as well as a Kennedy look-a-like (“K-2”) (possibly elements of US President Richard Nixon's White House Plumbers associated with the Watergate scandal) , are deployed by Kennedy’s political adversaries. Their mission is to engineer a frame-up that would leave him the prime suspect in a staged “accident” and fatality.

Joachim Joesten’s hypothesis is similarly based on a political conspiracy in which unnamed operatives engineer an accident and frame-up to impeach Kennedy's character and destroy his political aspirations - in particular, a run for President in 1972 on the Democratic Party ticket against incumbent Richard Nixon. Lange and DeWitt outline Cutler’s scenario, as does Knight.

That the “conspirators” falsely represent themselves as ransomers, out to fleece a wealthy Senator – and not as his political enemies – is key to understanding Cutler’s and Joesten’s hypotheses. Kennedy is led to believe he can diffuse a deadly situation by staying calm and assiduously complying with the demands of the conspirators, posing as extortionists.

The events as conceived by Cutler are as follows: Action squads infiltrate Chappaquiddick Island and stake out the Laurence cottage during the cookout. Joesten speculates that a traitor planted in Kennedy’s camp provides a signal to alert the team to Kennedy’s departure from the party.

Kennedy’s Oldsmobile is intercepted shortly after he departs the cottage with Kopechne.

Kennedy, separated from Kopechne, is delivered by his handlers to his room at the Shiretown Inn. He is warned not to contact the authorities until the money transfer is completed (consistent with a ransom demand.) He is instructed to make arrangements (by phone) to procure funds for the release of Kopechne, but to take no further steps. He is ordered to wait for a call at the Edgartown ferry landing telephone booth to receive addition instructions later that morning on July 19.

While Kennedy is biding his time in Edgartown, Mary Jo Kepechne is either plied with hard liquor or is injected with ethanol or drug-laced cocktail to make her appear to have been drinking heavily (she had a 0.9% blood alcohol level at time of death [See: Kopechne’s Blood Alcohol Level]. She is placed unconscious the in the backseat of Kennedy’s Oldsmobile (Jeosten and Cutler insist that the “object” that Deputy Sheriff Christopher Look reported seeing in the backseat was, indeed, Mary Jo Kopechne). [See Officer Look’s Testimony]). The car is driven off Dike Bridge by one of the action teams shortly after Officer Look’s sighting of the vehicle. Kopechne asphyxiates in the backseat after she regains consciousness [See: Kopechne, Cause of Death]. The abductors depart the island immediately after staging the “accident”.

Joesten and Cutler offer Kennedy’s behavior at the Shiretown Inn [See: Kennedy’s Behavior at Edgartown on July 19] as indicative of a man dealing with extortionists, not killers, and though menacing, is one whose outcome he believed he has some control over. His easygoing display of sociability - a cover for his anxiety - served to allay any suspicion and deflect inquiries. (His detractors would exhibit this behavior as proof of his callousness towards the suffering and demise of a young woman.) These frame-up hypotheses contend that Kennedy knew absolutely nothing of Kopechne’s fate until 9:30 am or 9:45 am, when volunteer fireman Tony Bettencourt informed him of the accident and the dead woman in his vehicle. When Kennedy was informed of the whereabouts of his vehicle and Kopechne's death, he realized that he had been set up and framed. Immobilized by his efforts to comply with the abductors demands and as the last person to be seen in the company of Kopechne, he was obliged to explain his action – or inaction – for the previous ten hours. These scenarios rule out Kennedy coming clean on the events of his kidnapping and exposing his abductors as political enemies. He feared that they might concoct blackmail disinformation that would implicate him as Kopechne’s lover and murderer.[See: Was Kopechne pregnant?] Kennedy, seeing he had “walked into a bear trap”, embarked on a course of obfuscation to limit the damage to his and Kopechne’s reputations, as well as to curtail further investigation. Sprague contends that Kennedy’s family was threatened with murder.

Kennedy submitted an affidavit to Edgartown police, falsely claiming to have been involved in an “accident”, fabricating details about an event he knew nothing about, excluding any reference whatsoever to his abductors. Inventing a false scenario, he portrayed himself and Kopechne as victims of an accident, when he knew that Mary Jo Kopechne had been murdered as part of the frame-up. The damage control option required that he admit to vehicular negligence and suffer the ignominy of having the press dwell on the sordid nature of the event, including the lurid speculation that he and Kopechne had engaged in sex. Kennedy, however, would avoid a charge of manslaughter, or worse. His reputation was stigmatized sufficiently to obviate any serious chance of winning a presidential race in the future.

Officer Christopher Look’s Testimony
Official Findings: Christopher “Huck” Look, Jr. made two observations around 12:45 a.m. , on July 19 of particular interest at the Inquest:

1. Slowing his vehicle at the intersection of Schoolhouse Rd. and Main St., a dark-colored sedan passed directly in front of his vehicle’s headlights, illuminating portions of the interior of the sedan. He observed a man behind the wheel and a woman in the front passenger seat. In the back seat he testified to seeing, “either another person or an object of clothing, handbag or something, sitting in the back.”   Officer Look also informed the court that the “object” or person was sitting in the right-hand rear seat of the vehicle.

2. Look recalled that the car had a Massachusetts license plate and the configuration of three of the plates six letters or numbers. The plate had an “L” followed by a “7” and the last digit was also “7” (i.e. L7- - -7). The actual plates on Senator Kennedy’s Oldsmobile were: L78207. Arriving at the accident scene later that morning, Look informed Chief of Police Arena that the vehicle hauled from Poucha Pond was the one he had seen at 12:45 a.m. at the intersection of Dike Road and Main St. (Chappaquiddick Rd) and that the plates on the vehicle matched. This contradicted Kennedy’s statement.

Judge Boyle, presiding judge in at the inquest, deemed that Look had failed to provide “positive identification” and dismissed his testimony. Conspiracy Hypothesis: Joesten contends that the “object” Deputy Sheriff Look observed in the right-rear of the sedan (the same location where the body was recovered) was the drugged and unconscious Kopeckne; the in the front were two members of the abduction teams, one of them a female.

In earlier interviews, with newspaper reporters, and before he had prepared for the inquest, Look had been “more affirmative”, insisting that the figure in the backseat was “a person”, and not merely an inanimate object, according to Joesten. Moreover, Cutler and Joesten think that the possibility of the presence of an almost identical dark-colored, late model 4-door with an L7---7 configuration plate would be exceedingly low on the tiny, sparsely populated Chappaquiddick Island.

Joesten complains that witness “Huck” Look was “...badgered by Judge Boyle into an admission that he could not “positively identify” the car...” and match it to the vehicle he saw at the accident site. Culter concurs, saying that Judge Boyle “pressured” Look into backing down on his original claims to identifying the vehicle.

Researchers Lange and DeWitt concede that Kennedy left the cookout at 11:15 to 11:30, as he testified, and do not dispute that Officer Look saw the same vehicle ninety minutes later, but they dismiss the time gap as irrelevant. Knight accepts the time of the accident as 12:45 am, based on Look’s testimony (and that Kennedy left the cottage with Kopechne minutes before that).

Joesten and Cutler believe that Kennedy and Kopechne were in the custody of their abductors during the intervening ninety minutes during which Kennedy was escorted to Edgartown by his captors, and Kopechne prepared for her death in the “accident”. [See: Frame-up Hypothesis]

Kopechne: Cause of Death
Official Findings: The medical examiner, Dr. Donald Mills, was satisfied that Kopechne’s death was “a clear case of drowning” because, ipso facto, her body had been recovered from a “submerged vehicle” and there was “no evidence of [external] injuries”. [See: Mary Jo Kopechne – External Injuries] The original date for the inquest was 2 September, 1969, but was postponed when the chemical analysis on Mary Jo Kopechne’s blouse revealed blood traces [See: Benzidine Test Evidence] When the inquest commenced in January 1970, Judge James A. Boyle asked Dr. Mills whether the presence of blood [on the blouse] was consistent with his original diagnosis of death by drowning. Dr. Mills affirmed this, explaining that “blood from the lungs” might be discharged when a drowning person attempts to gasp for air: the bloody discharge would “spread…to the person’s clothing.” The death by drowning conclusion was thus reconciled with the belated discovery that Kopechne’s blouse had been stained with blood. Mortician Eugene Frieh observed Dr. Mills perform a [body block] to discharge water from the decedent’s lungs, and testified that though properly performed, the procedure produced “very little moisture” When asked at the Inquest if he thought this unusual in a case of drowning, Frieh replied to District Attorney Dinis, “I did raise an eyebrow, sir, in the sense that I expected much more moisture”. Dr. J.W. Spellman, pathology specialist, medical examiner for the City of Philadelphia stated that “… [if] [Kopechne] did indeed drown, I would expect to find proof.” Cutler paraphrases Spellman’s testimony: “as to the ‘blood froth [foam] which appeared on the mouth or nose of the victim, [he] attached very little, if any, significance as evidence that Kopechne was a victim of drowning; this phenomena occurs in many forms of death. Judge Boyle concluded that “expert evidence was introduced that chemical analysis of the blouse worn by Kopechne showed bloodstains, but medical evidence proved this was not inconsistent with death by drowning (Exhibit 31)” Conspiracy Hypothesis: Both Joesten and Cutler challenge the conclusion that Kopechne’s death was “a clear case of drowning”. First, they question the assertion from Dr. Mills that a small bloody discharge from the lungs of the decedent could stain her clothing sufficiently to produce a benzidinee test reaction [See: The Benzidine Test] Secondly, they believe that scuba diver John Farrar’s testimony proves conclusively that Kopechne died of asphyxiation – not drowning. Joesten considers the testimony by Dr. Mills an “absurdity” and the “most fantastic ever put forth by a medical examiner in a court of law in our time” Moreover, Joesten and Cutler are skeptical that a small amount - less than [four ounces] -  of bloody "foam" (not pure venous or arterial blood) diluted in a "large volume of saltwater, moving a 4 knots from the tidal current” would produce detectable residual blood on clothing.  Joesten reports that scuba diver Farrar’s testimony established two key facts in the case: 1) John Farrar recovered Mary Jo Kopechne’s body from the right-rear seat compartment, establishing that she was in that area of the vehicle at the time it entered the water. [See: Kopechne’s external physical condition]. Joesten and Cutler consider supportive of  their claim that she was placed there by her abductors before the “accident”..  2) Farrar’s discovery of Kopechne with “her face pressed into the “foot well” of the upside-down sedan led him to the conclusion that Kopechne, in her death struggle to obtain “the last remaining air in the car”, had succumbed to asphyxiation – not drowning by immersion (i.e. her face was not immersed in water). These claims, according to Joesten and Cutler, refute the testimony of Dr. Donald Mills, and give credence to Eugene Frieh’s skepticism that Kopechne’s body exhibited evidence of drowning.

Kopechne: Failure to Autopsy
Official Findings: Kopechne’s body was released for internment by associate medical examiner Dr. Donald Mills without ordering an autopsy, and no autopsy was ever performed. Post-internment efforts were made by District Attorney Edmund Dinis (South Disttrict of Massachusetts) to exhume Kopechne’s corpse for autopsy in September 1969, but was denied by Luzerne County (PA) Judge Bernard C. Brominski, in part due to objections from Mary Jo Kopechne’s parents Dr.Donald Mills testified that he contacted, as customary, the DA office for guidance in proceeding with, or without, an autopsy. Mills was told that if no foul play was evident, he could proceed with releasing the body for burial. Dr. Mills released the decedent, considering an autopsy superfluous. [See Kopechne: Cause of Death]

Under questioning by Assistant District Attorney Armand Fernandes, Dr. Mills conceded releasing the decedent under the following circumstances: 1) Without knowing the identity of the woman. 2)  Without knowing how the accident had taken place. 3) Without knowing if the woman had been alone or was accompanied by others. Chief Medical Examiner for New York City, Dr. Milton Helpern told reporters “when you find a young woman dead in a car...you do an autopsy.”

District Attorney Dinis subsequently made public his dispute, condemning Dr. Mill’s decision to forego an autopsy (New York Post 8-15-69)

Conspiracy Hypothesis: Joesten condemns the failure to autopsy, but adamantly defends Kennedy’s facilitating the quick burial of Mary Jo Kopechne.

Joesten maintains that Edward Kennedy was fully convinced that Kopechne was pregnant, pointing out that autopsy results would have settled this question. The father of the child, according to Joesten, was a State Department (DOS) employee Kopechne was having an affair with, and planned to marry. [See: Was Kopechne pregnant?]

Kennedy expedited her internment, pre-empting an autopsy, to avoid speculation that he, rather than the DOS employee, may have sired the child and to shield the deceased Kopechne from charges of sexual promiscuity.

Kennedy’s Behavior in Edgartown: July 19, 1969
Official Findings: Kennedy testified at the January 1970 Iinquest that he arrived back at the Shiretown Motel, where he was staying as a guest, at 2:00 am on 19 July, 1969.

The earliest corroborating evidence that he was in Edgartown on that date was from innkeeper Russell Peachey, who said he had an exchange at about 2:25 am with a guest in a darkened stairwell whose voice he recognized as that of Edward Kennedy. At about 7:30 am Kennedy emerged from his motel room after showering and a change of attire (“all dressed up” according to Mrs. Marylyn Richards, a fellow guest at the inn) ) and spoke briefly to front desk clerk Frances Stewart, who described Kennedy as “normal in every way”. Kennedy strolled along Water Street near the motel and encountered other guests, including Ross Richards (winner of the Regatta the preceding day, Stan Moore, and their spouses. Kennedy joined the Richards on their patio for thirty minutes (between 7:30 and 8:00 am ), drinking coffee and “chatting”. Ross Richards noticed nothing out the ordinary about the Senator. Around 8:00 am Kennedy was preparing to accompany the Richards to breakfast, when Paul Markham and Joseph Gargan, two of his associates, appeared at the Richard’s motel room door; Kennedy excused himself, promising to join the Richard’s later for breakfast, and went to his own room with Markham and Gargan. At approximately 8:30 am, the three men emerged from the motel room and walked to the ferry crossing and were transported to Chappaquiddick Island. They proceeded to a nearby phone booth. Kennedy, Markham and Gargan loitered around the payphone, and appeared to be waiting for someone, according to ferry operator Richard P. Hewitt. After “milling around” for thirty or forty minutes, a local fire department volunteer, Tony Bettencourt, showed up en route to pick up medical examiner Dr. Donald Mills and escort him to the accident scene. Bettencourt informed ferryman Hewitt that a dead woman had been discovered in a vehicle belonging to Senator Edward Kennedy. Hewitt replied, “Oh? Well, Kennedy’s standing right over there by the ferry house with a couple of guys”. Bettencourt walked over to the parking area where the three men were standing and said to Kennedy: “Senator, they just took a dead girl out of your car. Do you want a ride up to the bridge?” “No” Kennedy replied, “I’m going over to town”. Kennedy hurried to the police station in Edgartown, accompanied by Markham, arriving at 9:45 am and proceeded to write an accident report. Wrote Kennedy, “…when I realized what had happened this morning, I immediately contacted the police”. Conspiracy Hypothesis: Joesten and Cutler concur that Kennedy knew nothing about the fate of Mary Jo Kopechne when he first emerged from his motel room the morning of 19 July, 1969, and that his social behavior supports that conclusion. [See Frame-up Section]. Moreover, Joesten points out that the Senator’s actions “clearly show that he had no idea where [Kopechne] was and that he deliberately stayed away from the police. The self-possession, reserve and “nonchalance” he exhibited while socializing with friends is used, says Joesten, to demonstrate his callousness towards the suffering and demise of a young women by Kennedy’s critics. Joesten, to the contrary, argues that this behavior establishes that Kennedy was totally unaware of Kopechne’s fate and that he laboring under the delusion that she was alive and in the hands of her abductors. By Kennedy’s own testimony, his very first phone call that morning (before being informed about the accident) was an attempt to reach his brother-in-law Stephen Edward SmithStevie Smith, who managed the huge Kennedy family fortune; Smith was the “treasurer” of the Kennedy clan. Joesten maintains that Kennedy was seeking ransom money for the release of Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy failed to reach him after numerous attempts. Finally, Kennedy turned to his family’s chief attorney, Burke Marshall, who might have been contacted by the abductors for ransom money in lieu of Smith. This contact attempt also failed.

Kennedy’s Physical Injuries
Official Findings: Two medical doctors (Robert D. Watt of Hyannis, MA and Milton F. Brougham, chief of neurosurgery at several hospitals in the Cape Code area) submitted affidavits that Edward Kennedy had suffered multiple injuries – injuries attributed to an auto accident, according to the patient.

Both exams (including X-rays) revealed similar conditions: a half-inch (1.25 cm) diameter spongy swelling (hematoma) on the top of the scalp, concussion; a swelling and discoloration behind the right ear; acute cervical (neck) strain and tenderness in the lumbar region (groin). Kennedy was fitted with a neck brace and released.

Conspiracy Hypothesis: Joesten argues that these injuries were “totally incompatible” with the alleged plunge from the bridge”, but are consistent with an assault by a “karate expert” Cutler claims that the hematoma was the result of “blows” to the head, possibly from a “blackjack”. Richard Sprague wrote that these purported assaults served to subdue Kennedy and force his compliance with his abductors.

Dike Bridge Design and Safety Record
Official Findings: Dike Bridge spans Poucha Pond, which lies about 300 yards (275 meters) west of East Beach on Chappaquiddick Island.

This primitive wooden plank bridge is about 80 feet (25 meters) long and 12 feet (3.7 meters) wide - unlighted, lacking guardrails and unmarked by warning signs. It had, however, an “unblemished” safety record - no motor vehicle had ever gone off the bridge in the twenty years since its construction in 1949. Thousands of transits had been completed by tourists, unfamiliar with the bridge and its environs, without incident, even at night.

Judge Boyle, in his February 11, 1970 inquest report stated, “I am fully convinced that Dike Bridge constitutes a traffic hazard...”

Conspiracy Hypothesis: Joesten and Cutler explain that the approach to the bridge is not confusing or challenging for drivers using headlights at night. Citing journalist Jack Olsen, Joesten points out that a person would have to be blind drunk and driving at high speed to risk jumping the 4 inch (10 cm) rub rail at 20 mph (32 k/hr) [See: Kennedy’s Behavior in Edgartown]

Cutler concludes that “only the most rudimentary caution is needed to steer across the bridge” Witnesses reported that Kennedy was sober when he departed the cookout with Kopechne and that he showed no signs of a hangover the following day [July 19].

Joesten writes that Kennedy’s testimony reveals that he was entirely unfamiliar with the configuration of the bridge and the approaches to it, and offers this as support for his hypothesis that Kennedy was never in the vicinity of the bridge the night of July 18-19, 1969.

The Benzidine Test
Official Findings: Mary Jo Kopechne’s clothing, retained by mortician Eugene Frieh, were impounded by District Attorney Dinis after discovering that her blood alcohol levels were elevated at the time of death (0.09%). [See: Kopechne Blood Alcohol Levels] The acting medical examiner, Dr. Donald Mills, did not report any blood residue or discoloration on Kopechne’s clothing during the exam, nor did mortician Eugene Frieh, in preparing her body for embalming. Her body was “completely unscathed,” with no fractures or cuts, so no blood residue was expected to be found on her clothing.

The analytical chemist, Melvin Topjian, who performed the tests (under supervisor McHugh) testified that the collar area “[produced] slight positive test results” When asked at the inquest if anything but blood could have caused these positive results he responded, “In my opinion, no sir.”

Dr. Henry C. Freimuth, toxocologist in the Office of Chief Medical Examiner in the State Maryland testified, "...referring to the reddish stains which appear along the left shoulder of the blouse and down along the area in the back.. they are stains which we very frequently find on the clothing of persons that die as a result of drowning..."

Judge James A. Boyle, while presiding over the examination of Dr. Donald Mills, was satisfied that the blood stains were produced by “a very small amount” of bloody discharge from Kopechne’s lungs, as she gasped for breath while drowning and had "spread” to her clothing. [See: Kopechne: Cause of Death] The residue would only be revealed with a benzidine test. Lange and Dewitt report the findings that the bloody froth from Kopechne’s mouth was sufficient to stain her clothing.

Conspiracy Hypothesis: Joesten and Cutler arrive at different conclusions on the source of the blood found on Kopechn’s blouse:

Joesten believes that during efforts to subdue Mary Jo Kopechne with a sedative or an ethanol solution, her handlers clumsily hit an artery with the syringe needle, producing a tiny puncture wound (undetectable without an autopsy), but producing significant arterial bleeding. He dismisses the testimony that the blouse could have been stained with diluted blood when Kopechne was submerged in the water. [See: Kopechne: Cause of Death].

Cutler thinks that Kopechne was “cut on the back of the neck” when her captors forcibly tried to “administer alcohol” to her or, in an alternate explanation, she received a “cut on the neck” while her abductors were staging the “accident” on Dike Bridge, smashing the window on the Oldsmobile while preparing to push the car into Poucha Pond. [See Kopechne: post mortem condition].

Kopechne: post mortem Condition
Official Findings: Dr. Donald R. Mills, Associate Medical Examiner testified at the January 1970 Inquest that Kopechne’s corpse showed no evidence of external injury: no “bruises”, no “incised wounds”, no “external marks” of any kind.

Eugene Frieh, mortuary director and senior undertaker at the Vineyard Haven Funeral Home, witnessed the medical examination at the scene. Shortly thereafter, he helped prepare Kopechne’s body for embalming. Frieh testified that he did not see any fractures, marks, or bruises on her body in the process of washing her body with germicidal soap and shampooing her hair. Frieh acknowledged only a “very slight abrasion” on the left knuckle. Lange and DeWitt report that Dr. Mills found “a small bruise on one upper arm”, (which arm is not indicated). This was the extent of her external injuries that were ascribed to the auto accident.

Conspiracy Hypothesis: Kopechne’s “immaculate condition” is attributed by Joesten to her placement (drugged and unconscious) in the back seat at the time of the plunge, tumbling her body as the vehicle impacted the water, without causing external injury. Her kidnappers expected her to drown in the submerged vehicle.

Joesten argues that, had Mary Jo Kopechne been sitting in the right-front seat when the crash occurred (as Kennedy claimed) she would have been exposed to greater injury than Kennedy. The right side of the Oldsmobile evidently took the full force of the impact, blowing out the windows as it hit the water surface. The fact that she was “unscathed”, contradicts this, according to Joesten.

Joesten believes that the “battered” right side of the Oldsmobile was damaged intentionally by those who staged the accident, rolling the car off on its side, or “smashing” the right side-doors and windows before driving it off the bridge. These efforts were made to make it look like Kennedy had faked the accident as to frame him on covering up a murder.

Both Cutler and Joesten dismiss the notion that Kopechne could have crawled from the front seat into the rear compartment (where her body was discovered) in a pitch-dark, water-filled, up-side-down vehicle, calling it “preposterous”. [See: Kopechne: Cause of Death]

Kopechne’s Blood Alcohol (ethanol) Level
Official Findings: Kopechne’s post mortem blood alcohol (ethanol or ethyl alcohol) level was determined from a blood sample collected at the Frieh Funeral Home The analysis established her ethyl alcohol level at 0.09 % at time of death. (The threshold for legal intoxication in Massachusetts in 1969 was 0.15 % ethyl alcohol). Death had occurred between 11:30 pm on July 18 and 1:00 am July 19, 1969, according to Judge Boyle’s formal findings on February 18, 1970.

At five feet, four inches (163 cm) and weighing 110 pounds (50 kg) Kopechne would, theoretically, have needed to imbibe 4-5 ounces (120 – 150 ml) of 80-90 proof (40% - 45% ethanol) in the last hour prior to death, according to Dr. John McHugh, Supervisor of Laboratories at the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety in Boston.

Esther Newburgh, one of the attendees at the Laurence Cottage cookout testified to Kopechne’s drinking habits. Heavy drinking as indicated by her blood alcohol level was “completely out of order for the way she lived.” These abstemious habits made her “notorious” among her friends who imbibed more freely. Newburgh insisted that Kopechne had been drinking modestly, and appeared to be entirely sober around the time she departed with Kennedy.

Conspiracy Hypothesis: Joesten and Cutler speculate that Mary Jo Kopechne was forcibly plied with hard liquor, or perhaps injected with an ethanol laden concoction by her kidnappers. [See Frame-up Section].

Was Kopechne Pregnant?
Official Findings: Dr. Donald Mills, medical examiner in the case, reported that he found Mary Jo Kopechne’s uterus normal and not enlarged; based on a simple external examination, pregnancy was not likely.

Conspiracy Hypothesis: Researcher Jack Olsen reported that Dr. Mills had testified that “it was not impossible that the victim [Kopechne] had been in the early months of pregnancy”. Joesten, however, asserts that “there is all but conclusive evidence that she was.”

Had District Attorney Dinis succeeded in exhuming Mary Jo Kopechne for autopsy [See: Failure to Autopsy] the question of her pregnancy would have been determined forensically. Part of the reason Dinis could not secure permission was that Kopechne’s parents blocked his efforts, partly on religious grounds – they were devote Catholics, as was their daughter - and partly because they were reluctant to risk confirmation that she was pregnant out of wedlock.

Joesten develops a scenario based on the presumption that Kopechne was in the early stages of pregnancy from a union with an employee of the US Department of State; he considers this a “key element in the frame-up”. Cutler ignores pregnancy as an issue in his scenario.

Mrs. Kopechne (Mary Jo’s mother) disclosed that her daughter had been having an affair – “going quite steady” – with the US State Department diplomat who had been deployed overseas,, shortly before the Chappaquiddick events. The almost 29-year-old Kopechne would have married him, if he had proposed, according to her mother. She had agreed to become engaged to the man. Kennedy knew Kopechne strictly on a professional basis. During the hectic get out the vote efforts, the women who worked the phonebanks were affectionately referred to as “boiler room girls”. Kopechne had served as a campaign consultant and operative for his brother Robert Kennedy during the 1968 presidential bid, in which Robert was assassinated campaigning for the California primary in Los Angeles.

With abortion out of the question (on religious grounds) Kopechne decided to appeal to Edward Kennedy to intervene on her behalf, and use his influence as a US Senator to recall the diplomat to the United States and pressure him, tactfully, to marry her. She found an opportunity to request an interview with Kennedy at the cookout, and Kennedy obliged by offering to take a drive where they could discuss the matter privately, not at the party. Joesten points out that Kopechne had a reason to leave her motel key and purse at the cookout because, fully expecting to pick them up after her talk with Kennedy. This private interview regarding Kopechne's pregnancy was, according to Joesten, was the sole reason that Kennedy and Kopechne were in the Oldsmobile that night. Joesten concludes that the abductors lured Kopechne into approaching Kennedy at the cookout, and planned to murder her as part of the frame-up. [See:Frame-up Section].

Kennedy, therefore, knew that Mary Jo Kopechne was pregnant because she had told him so, according to this scenario. Discovering she was dead, he realized that if Kopechne’s pregnancy became public after her death, he might be falsely accused of siring the child (applicable DNA methods did not exist at the time). His fear that his political enemies would use this to discredit him as a philanderer drove him to expedite the internment, circumventing an autopsy, and incidentally, protecting Kopechne’s reputation, as well as his own. [See: Failure to Autopsy]

Cited in footnotes

 * Cutler, Robert B. 1980.You, the Jury...In Re: Chappaquiddick. Beverly Farms, MA. 1980. 85 pages. OCLC: 5790437 (An edited version by Robert (See 1st printing (May 1973) 2nd printing (September 1977) for longer versions)
 * Cutler, Robert B. 1995. Chappaquiddick: Water Under the Bridge?[1] in The Conspiracy Reader: From the Deaths of JFK and John Lennon to Government-Sponsored Alien Cover-Ups. 1998. Editors: Al Hidell and Joan d'Arc. Kensington Publishing Corporation, New York. ISBN 0-8065-2041-8
 * Damore, Leo. 1989. Senatorial Privilege: The Chappaquiddick Cover-up. New York: Dell Publishing. ISBN 044020416X.
 * Joesten, Joachim. 1970. The Truth About Chappaquiddick: the Murder of Mary Jo Kopechne[2] . 1970. (68 pp) OCLC 12102044
 * Kappel, Kenneth. 1970. Chappaquiddick Revealed: What Really Happened Little Brown & Company, Boston.
 * Knight, Peter (Ed.) 2003. Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia. ABC Clio. ISBN 1-57607-812-4
 * Lange, James and DeWitt, Katherine. 2006. Chappaquiddick: the Real Story. St. Martin’s Press. 286 pp. ISBN 978-0-312-08749-4 *Olsen, Jack. 1970. The Bridge at Chappaquiddick. Little, Brown Publishers. ISBN 0-393-07501-X
 * Rust, Zad. 1971. Teddy Bare. Western Islands Press.
 * Sprague, Richard E. 1985. Chapter 7 in The Control of the Kennedys—Threats & Chappaquiddick[3] (Third Edition 1985)
 * Tedrow, Thomas L. and Tedrow, Richard L. 1979. Death at Chappaquiddick. Pelican Company, New Orleans. ISBN 0-88289-249-5.

Credibility of official version
Under any serious scrutiny, the official version is looking so full of holes that I think it ought to be presented as just one theory among many.

In the main article, the alternative theories deserve more space, and the lede should not simply reflect the official version. Valetude (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The foregoing conclusions drawn by Valutude should be the starting point for any reevaluation of this topic, in particular the Wikipedia article that purports to cover the incident. 36hourblock (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Interactive google map of incident
I made this map a few years ago for my own purposes. I thought it was interesting enough that a link might be included to it in the article, but perhaps it isn't or there are other problems with it.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=201142406370548014824.0004b504f66c18f45f6e9&msa=0&ll=41.379642,-70.458755&spn=0.135761,0.232086

--Davefoc (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the best map I've seen is included in the R.B. Cutler publication, Cutler, Robert B. 1980. You, the Jury...In Re: Chappaquiddick. Beverly Farms, MA. 1980. 85 pages. OCLC: 5790437. The one you've presented just doesn't have enough detail to make it useful for posting.


 * I've seen Cutler's document on ABES BOOKS.org. The larger paper bound copies are going used for about $100. It has some valuable photos, including aerial black & white prints of the cottage and the curve at Dike Bridge/Main St. where Officer Huck Look reported seeing the Kennedy sedan after it was supposed to be in Poucha Pond, and so on. Also a diagram of the bay that Kennedy purportedly swam that night to Edgartown.


 * The narrative Cutler provides is a kind of loose editorializing, clearly tendentious, but he gets his point across, more or less. Plenty of excerpts from the inquest and newspaper headlines, etc. etc. It's more of a scrapbook on the topic than anything else. I had a hard time extracting the material from it for my article, posted below, rejected by wiki new article division. But Cutler is at least pretty consistent in his arguments. 36hourblock (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I like the interactive capability for this kind of map. When I tried to understand this story a few years back I had difficulty following the stories without a map with the key areas indicated and I didn't find one so I made this map. If you like the concept at all, and had in mind the extra detail you wanted I could update the map. --Davefoc (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wondering about the significance of driving to the bridge
Kennedy said he was headed for the ferry but took a wrong turn onto Dike Road. The policeman said he saw Kennedy's car "approaching the intersection to Dike Road", stopping at "private Cemetery Road" before pulling onto Dike Road and heading for the bridge. I see from the map that the ferry to Edgartown and the Dike Bridge are on opposite sides of the island. Questions: if the judge at the inquest did not believe Kennedy was headed to the ferry, why did he think they were going to the Dike Bridge? Apparently there isn't anything on the other side of the bridge except for a long spit. Why was Kennedy going there? To have sex with Kopechne in the car? Did the judge make any guess as to why Kennedy was headed for the Dike Bridge? BTW, I think the map created by Davefoc and linked above is very useful and should be included with the article.


 * The most profitable source to consult on these matters is by Joesten, a German researcher:


 * Joesten, Joachim. 1970. The Truth About Chappaquiddick: the Murder of Mary Jo Kopechne. 1970. (68 pp) OCLC 12102044


 * You can find his essay listed at WorldCat - www.worldcat.org.
 * http://www.worldcat.org/title/truth-about-chappaquiddick-the-murder-of-mary-jo-kopechne/oclc/12102044&referer=brief_results


 * It may be available at used book stores. Powell's and Abe's Books do NOT carry it, last time I checked.


 * I own a copy of it. Well worth the trouble to find it. 36hourblock (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion closed - but where's the text?
In the Archive, Part 2, I note that the discussion about alternative theories is closed. But the following sections are still listed, yet not accessible. Is there a reason for this?

2 The Chappaquiddick Incident Conspiracy Theories 3 The Cutler-Joesten Frame-up Hypothesis[25] 3.1 The "Frame-up" - Summary 3.2 Officer Christopher Look’s Testimony 3.3 Kopechne: Cause of Death 3.4 Kopechne: Failure to Autopsy 3.5 Kennedy’s Behavior in Edgartown: July 19, 1969 3.6 Kennedy’s Physical Injuries 3.7 Dike Bridge Design and Safety Record 3.8 The Benzidine Test 3.9 Kopechne: post mortem Condition 3.10 Kopechne’s Blood Alcohol (ethanol) Level 3.11 Was Kopechne Pregnant? 3.12 Notes 3.13 References 3.13.1 Cited in footnotes Valetude (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Valutude - I think you can access my draft for the Chappaquiddick conspiracies in Archive 2; it was simply edited in to a "hide" link. 36hourblock (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chappaquiddick incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130127195439/http://fatboy.cc:80/live_from_chappaquiddick.htm to http://fatboy.cc/live_from_chappaquiddick.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Drowning vs. Suffocating
The first paragraph mentions Kopechne drowned, and then a diver testifies that she had instead suffocated. I am not aware of a technical distinction here. Anyone feel as though this is necessary, perhaps as an indication it was homicide or something of the like? 2602:30A:2C7C:A140:C1E7:D3F5:4AC5:B386 (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that she suffocated in a pocket of air in which she may have been able to breathe for two hours. That is different from drowning. Valetude (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The Hotel(s)
There are references to the hotel(s) where Mary Jo and the other girls were booked-in. Were these hotels on Chappaquiddick or on Martha's Vineyard? Did they include the one in Edgartown where Teddy spent the night? Valetude (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chappaquiddick incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325144523/http://fatboy.cc/Audio/John%20Farrar.wma to http://fatboy.cc/Audio/John%20Farrar.wma

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chappaquiddick incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C901159-1%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930082819/http://wamu.org/audio/dr/09/08/r1090826-28464.asx to http://wamu.org/audio/dr/09/08/r1090826-28464.asx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Internment of MJK
The date of burial in this article, 20th, conflicts with MJK page that cites a source claiming 22nd. That citation references the burial in a 22nd article, but not the date of the burial itself. Is that the source of the discrepancy?98.115.221.106 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Kennedy's light sentence
Was (or was not) there public uproar at Kennedy's light sentence? I would have assumed that there was. This article mentions nothing. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No. If you dig around you can find what the judge said sentencing Ted Kennedy, namely that the court could not impose a sentence worse than Kennedy having to live with the consequences.  I was reading the news when this happened and it was generally treated as a tragedy.  It was also widely thought that there were other elements that were not brought out.


 * More than 30 years ago, a person I knew who moved in Kennedy circles told me that Kennedy didn't know Mary Jo was in the back seat. According to him, Mary Jo had gone to sleep in the back of the car after too much alcohol. (It wouldn't have taken much if she didn't drink often.)


 * Kennedy and some other woman took off from the party (for the usual reason he thought). Kennedy missed the bridge and went into the water. He and the woman got out and had no idea that Mary Jo was drowning in the back seat. Kennedy didn't think much of the silly accident and got someone else to report they had driven the car into the water.


 * When the car was fished out and the body discovered, that story wouldn't work, he obviously could not put Mary Jo's death on someone else. But Kennedy apparently could not tell the real story due to his own marriage and that of the woman in the front seat (assuming she was married).


 * The actual situation was told to the judge in a closed court session. The judge treated it as a tragic accident (which if this story is true, it was).


 * Now this is third hand at least, and I can't even reference the person who told it to me because he died in 1989.


 * But it makes a lot more sense than the official version which describes totally unreasonable behavior if Kennedy knew Mary Jo was in the car.


 * I know unpublished material can't go in Wikipedia. Now that Ted Kennedy is dead, perhaps some of the people who knew what actually happened will talk about it and the real story (if indeed this is it) will get into print. Perhaps when the woman who was with Kennedy decides to talk or she dies and other people who know talk about it.  Keith Henson (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)


 * "Now this is third hand at least, and I can't even reference the person who told it to me because he died in 1989." Sure you can reference the person who told you the story... because he died in 1989. 2604:2000:1580:45C6:0:D54B:FA08:974D (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I won't put it here, but if you email me (I am not hard to find) and state who you are, I might tell you. Keith Henson (talk) 19:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Testimony and Cause of Death
There is some redundancy about the statements of the diver at the inquest. I might try and simplify. Unfortunately, the quotes are from different sources. Any reason to have multiple statements of the divers saying that she might have survived if called earlier? 10:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Graphic/map for page lacking re Bridge location
This Wikipedia page has a great inline PNG graphic showing a drawn aerial map of the smaller island off of Martha's Vineyard Island, and shows Edgartown; however, although the text Dike bridge (sic, should be Bridge) is there it is totally unclear where the bridge is/was geographically and could use an arrow. QUESTION: What's the process to annotate and then re-upload a Wikipedia/wikimedia image, without stepping on the original author's toes?? Thanks. -Peter in San Diego CA USA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident#/media/File:Chappaquiddick4.png Vid2vid (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Refimprove tag
There's a refimprove tag in one of the sections preventing from the article being featured on OTD box. Is anyone willing to resolve the issue? -- M h hossein   talk 07:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Guard rail
A footnote about the bridge itself. There was no reason or excuse for the bridge to be without a guardrail, which could have prevented the accident. Massachusetts is a northern climate, and the bridge would have been covered with snow, ice, and black ice during the winter, making it treacherous for drivers. I don't know if any third-party civil cases were filed in this incident.Anthony22 (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Did the accident occur shortly before midnight on July 18 or shortly after midnight on July 19?
The article contains contradictory information concerning the date of the accident. The lead and the "Timeline of Events" state that the accident occurred shortly after midnight on Saturday, July 19, 1969. In Kennedy's statement, he says that the accident occurred shortly before midnight on Friday, July 18, 1969. This shows the importance of firsthand knowledge of events. I don't know which version is correct. I do know, however, that the article contains false information because the accident occurred on either the 18th or 19th day of July 1969. If you want to go with Kennedy's statement, a lot of edits have to made to the article to change the date of the accident.Anthony22 (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why on Earth should we "go with Kennedy's statement", when it clearly contradicts the statement of the Sherrif's deputy? JustinTime55 (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Kennedy could not have had a motive for lying about the exact time or date of the accident. He certainly could have had a motive for lying about a state of intoxication or immoral conduct with Kopechne. I don't know if Kennedy knew the exact time of the incident, and I don't know if the Sheriff's deputy knew the exact time of the incident. What I do know, however, is that one of those two people gave false information. The accident could have occurred very shortly before midnight or very shortly after midnight, and NOBODY knows which date is correct.Anthony22 (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kennedy's testimony is that he left the party at 11:15 p.m., and that the accident happened shortly after.
 * Look's statement does not mention the accident, but clearly says he saw Kennedy's car on the road at around 12:40 a.m. If true, the accident could not have occurred before this. This does not contradict the 11:15 time, but leaves almost an hour and a half of unaccounted time which Kennedy conveniently eliminates by moving the accident up to then.
 * Neither Kennedy nor Look knew the time of the accident. We have no idea of Kennedy's state of mind or alcohol level, but he probably had no idea what time he drove his car off the bridge. It is only him we have to thank for our not having better knowledge of when the accident occurred, because he evaded his responsibility to report the accident more reasonably close to when it happened, instead of ten hours later. The Sherrif's deputy also has no reason to lie about the time he saw Kennedy's car. Kennedy's actions of ignoring Look suggest evasiveness of the truth; I do not agree that Kennedy not having a motive for lying about the time necessarily means that he didn't. If he weren't allowed to plead guilty and get a wrist-slap from the judge, there would have been a trial and both Kennedy and Look would have been cross-examined, and we might have a better idea of what the truth is.


 * The introduction should reflect what we know: the accident happened near midnight on July 18 or 19, and there are two contradictory accounts of the time frame. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2019


 * The article states that Ted Kennedy left the party at approximately 11:15 p.m. Kennedy himself said that at 11:15 p.m., he drove 1/2 mile on Dyke Road until he reached the bridge. This is a discrepancy in time intervals. In any case, he drove over the dark bridge either shortly before midnight or shortly after midnight. Even with vehicle headlights, the visibility was poor and the road was angled obliquely to the bridge itself. If Kennedy was disoriented, mentally unstable, and under the influence, the accident was waiting to happen.Anthony22 (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The article now states that the time of the accident cannot be set more precisely than some time "between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m.", due to witnesses' contradiction. This is consistent with at least one early newspaper account. (Some early accounts give more weight to the police (Look's) report and put it "early Saturday morning". As the article also states, the inquest judge concluded Kennedy intended to drive over the bridge, and did so at a rate of speed that was negligent if not reckless. Wikipedia has dealt with the time issue in a WP:NPOV way. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM; it's time to stop beating the fifty-year dead horse. You seem compelled to defend your hero Ted Kennedy, even ten years after his death. This sad incident, with which he never fully dealt, proves he is not worthy of such hero worship. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)