Talk:Mary Jo Kopechne
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 22 May 2008. The result of the discussion was withdrawn. |
Contents |
[edit] current
"However tidal records indicated that the tide was running in the opposite direction at the time of the supposed attempted rescue."
Can someone explain the relevance of this? There could still be rip current, and in my experience anytime you're in the ocean regardless of tide direction there's the tendency to be at least partially brought out with the returning current. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.81.40 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] identity
Wasn't Mary Jo on Bobby Kennedy's campaign staff? --Rj 20:29, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] huh?
Why didn't Mary Jo's parents exact any revenge?
- Money? Loyalty? Belief in Kennedy's innocence combined with not wanting to get on the bad side of a future president? Calbaer 21:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Why did her parents not want an autopsy proformed? Has there been any evidence that she might have been pregnant?
[edit] depth of water
I was about to remove that (again) myself, Rick. The only data I can find are that the pond was from 6 to 30 feet deep (though certainly it means 0 to 30 feet deep),
The Marianas Trench is 10-12 miles deep there is no 0 feet until you hit Guam or count the boat as zero feet.
Driving over an embankment would be no different than jumping off a boat. Zero feet would be around a beach.
except in those sources seeking to lambaste Kennedy. Lokifer, if you have something credible (IIRC, there may be a photo of the divers, but I couldn't find it), I have no problem with having this detail in place. But it'll require some rewriting rather than just stuffing it in there, because Kennedy didn't claim the water was six feet deep. Blair P. Houghton 23:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That is exactly the problem that I'm having with proof about the depth of the water. There were photos of the car being pulled out of the water at the time, but I've been unable to locate them. I've been trying to dig up what people would consider credible sources (not the politically biased sites that litter the internet) that states the depth of the water. And since Rickk is questioning the reason that it's valid, one of the things that hurt Kennedy's image was not just the drunk claim and supposed inability to act, but that the water wasn't very deep on the day that it happened.Lokifer 00:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I cleaned it up. It said the car overturned, then that it was upside down, within 10 words. I adjusted the logical flow lower down. I changed it to say she worked for RFK rather than TK. I added a link to Kennedy's speech; and I've removed the link to the Times site because they want 5 bucks from everyone who wants to see the data. Sick. Blair P. Houghton 07:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I had to add the "six feet of water" to the article again. Besides the Time magazine article from November 1979, I can cite other sources that all agree that it was six feet of water. The FBI report entitled "The Perjury of Edward Kennedy" states that the car was six feet underwater. John Farrer, the scuba diver, guessed that the car was six to seven feet underwater. And from Ted Kennedy in his testimony he states that he waded to the car and that he could stand next to the car. Additionally, he stated that while holding onto the car when trying to save Mary Jo, the water reached up to some point on his body (the exact point is not detailed in the report). Since he is slightly taller than six feet tall, all his descriptions of the depth of water would indicate about six feet of water.Lokifer 00:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] depth of water again
As I've shown in the Ted Kennedy talk, the water level was six feet deep. My count so far has five sources stating that it was six feet of water: 1) Ted Kennedy states in his testimony that when he tried to save Mary Jo, he could stand next to the car...making it about six feet deep. 2) Ted Kennedy states that he had to hold on to the car because of the current and indicates (the source doesn't show where exactly he indictates) where the water level is at...making it around six feet, with a liberal area of about one foot above or below his height. 3) The scuba diver that removed Mary Jo from the car then the car from the pond states that the water was about six or seven feet deep. 4) Edgartown Police Chief Dominick Arena's police report and a diagram of the accident has it stated that the water was six feet deep. 5) An article in Time Magazine from 1979, ten years after the incident, has it stated that the water level was six feet deep. By my count, that's four sources from 1969, including two from Kennedy himself.Lokifer 07:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The only one that's a reliable fact is Farrar's, and he was working at low tide. Where Patterson erred is the tides aren't 12 hours apart, they're closer to 11 hours apart (Patterson is no sailor). The tide would have been rushing at its peak velocity when Kennedy was in the water, not still, and not at its minimum depth. Kennedy's indication is (a) unknown and (b) relative to the bottom of the car and (c) gives us absolutely no indication of the actual depth of the water. The fact that many sources quote Farrar and/or Patterson does nothing to change the fact that the water MUST have been deeper than six feet at the time the car went into the water, the time Kennedy was trying to save Kopechne, and the time the other two men were trying to save her. We have no idea how deep, we only know "six feet" is almost certainly wrong. Blair P. Houghton 18:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 67.109.132.98
Why is the author stating that an "undertaker" stated the cause of death was due to suffocation and not drowning? An undertaker buries people. Perhaps the author meant "coroner." Even still there seems to be no documentation for such bizarre claims as undertakers declaring cause of death. Near-breathless bias runs not quite between the lines in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 28 Oct 2005.
[edit] Why no autopsy
Under law, how could there have been no autopsy? How can a family petition to not have one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.68.210.59 (talk • contribs) 19 Jan 2006.
[edit] reporting of accident
Ted did not report the accident until after contacted by then Police Chief Arena. This is fact and is reported as such in Leo Damore's "Senatorial Privilege". This was also brought out at the inquest. This point has never been disputed in public, why here? You can't change the facts. To ignore the truth makes this work a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.103.146 (talk • contribs)
- These seems contradictory to the Ted Kennedy page, which reads: "Kennedy discussed the accident with several people, including his lawyer and Kopechne's parents, before he contacted the police 10 hours after the accident." -- Did he call the police or did the police call him? Ken 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Married
The Ted Kennedy page says all but one of the men were married and attending without their wives. This page says all were married. Which is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.225.99 (talk • contribs) 25 June 2006.
[edit] Desperately needs citation
Given WP:BLP and the fact that Ted Kennedy is alive, this article desperately needs better citation. I think it is essentially accurate, but according to WP:BLP, that is not enough. - Jmabel | Talk 03:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nasty phone calls
"Bruce Roberts' Gemstone letters assert that Mary Jo Kopechne left the party at the cottage because Teddy Kennedy became involved in some nasty phone calls at the cottage." This seems out of place with respect to the Bobby Baker Scandal section. Besides that it's pretty vague ("nasty?"). If Mary Jo were offended by Ted Kennedy's "nasty phone calls," so much so that she wanted to leave the party, then why would she want a ride home from the same man? Mason1024 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
