Chappaquiddick (updated -- with my own theory)

I did not want to write about Chappaquiddick during the period of mourning for Senator Ted Kennedy -- in fact, I did not care to address the subject at all. But some rather nasty and distorted things have been said recently, and corrections are in order. It's not my intention to excuse Kennedy's actions that night. But I do want to discuss certain common beliefs that just ain't so, even though "everyone knows" them to be true.

I'd also like to address the unconventional views of what occurred on July 18, 1969.

Pseudo-sophisticated "progressives" -- the Nation crowd, the Z Magazine types -- have always considered it permissible to launch any conceivable smear against anyone named Kennedy, just as the Kossacks smeared Hillary non-stop throughout 2008. "Everyone knows" that Ted was drunk that night, and "everyone knows" that he had sped off to have a quickie with Mary Jo -- just as "everyone knows" that Hillary killed Vince Foster.

Even if you have no toleration for Ted Kennedy, at least extend some courtesy toward the memory of Mary Jo Kopechne. She was an extremely religious Catholic girl who was something of a prude, and who almost certainly died a virgin. She did not swear and did not like others to use profanity in her presence. She certainly was not the sort to slip off for a quickie with a married man whose wife was pregnant. She was devoted to Bobby Kennedy's campaign and to everything he stood for. It is a cruel irony of history that she has become an icon for the Kennedy-hating right.

A lot of people have written of the "boiler room girls" (a group which counted Kopechne as a member) as though they were little better than hookers or groupies. That is a gross lie. They were campaign professionals, serious people. The other members of that group went on to have impressive careers. These women deserve far more respect than they have ever received from the right-wingers who write anti-Kennedy books.

There is simply no evidence that Ted Kennedy was drunk that night. None of the witnesses at the party refuted his testimony that he had not driven under the influence of liquor. Deputy Sherrif Huck Look, who saw the car before the accident, would have pulled the vehicle over if the driver showed signs of intoxication. If Kennedy had been drunk, his chauffeur could have driven.

Kennedy should not have been heading toward that bridge. He had turned right onto Dike Road; he should have gone left. Nobody knows why he made that mistake. Can you honestly say that you've never lost your sense of direction while driving at night? I'm rather good at keeping myself oriented, even in the dark, and I take some pride in always having a general sense as to which way is north. Yet on rare occasions I have found myself completely turned around, heading east while under the impression that I was going west.

The bridge came at the end of a downward grade. The bridge veered off to the left -- the road led to the water. The car stayed only briefly on the bridge, then sped off into the water. At the time, there were no guardrails, no reflectors, no signs. The crossing was an accident waiting to happen, and everyone on the island knew it. One need not presume that the driver was intoxicated.

Many captious writers have, in recent days, intimated that after the accident, Kennedy simply went directly back to his hotel room. In fact, he spent quite a long time repeatedly diving into the water attempting to rescue Kopechne, both before and after he went for help.

Senator Kennedy always said that his delay in contacting the police was indefensible, and I see no reason to disagree.

Alternative theories:

1. Many have suggested that Kennedy turned right and drove too rapidly because he spotted Deputy Sheriff Look and did not want to be seen alone in a car with a young woman.

I think this idea has some plausibility, and it certainly explains a few things. But it can't be proven.

2. A BBC documentary posited that Kennedy, fearful of being discovered by Look, got out of the car and returned to the party. Mary Jo was driving the Oldsmobile; she lost control of a car that was very unfamiliar to her.

A variant of this notion was first mooted in Jack Olsen's book A Bridge at Chappaquiddick. The theory has always seemed very problematical to me, although it has the advantage of neatly explaining the delay in reporting the accident. Why wouldn't Kennedy simply tell the truth? Sure, doing so would have been embarrassing -- but not as damaging as the scandal that occurred.

3. An anti-Kennedy writer named Kenneth Kappel wrote a once-popular book which argued that Kennedy and his friends Joe Gargan and Markham had conspired to transform the accident scene. In Kappel's scenario, Mary Jo died in an accident on land. The conspirators placed her in the driver's seat of the car and rolled it into the water, in order to convey the impression that she had driven the vehicle.

A far-fetched notion. There were skid marks on the bridge. Kennedy may have reported the accident belatedly, but when he did, he did not attempt to cast blame on Mary Jo. Mary Jo did have blood on her blouse, as Kappel suggests, but this may have been caused by bloody froth ejected from her nose after the body was recovered.

4. Did Teddy Kennedy strangle Mary Jo because she was pregnant with his child? That was the theory offered by right-wing author Zad Rust in a popular book titled Teddy Bare.

An absurd hypothesis. Any powerful and wealthy man intent on committing murder would have hired a pro to do the job quietly. (I'm sure Carmine had a name in his rolodex.) Mary Jo was not pregnant and bore no signs of strangulation. In fact, it is said that she died a virgin.

5. Did Kennedy and Gargan conspire to have Joe Gargan take responsibility for the accident? This was the thesis offered first by Jack Anderson. A later variant -- Kennedy hoped to blame Mary Jo -- formed the basis of the book Senatorial Privilege.

The problem with this theory is simple: Witnesses could have placed Gargan elsewhere. Although Gargan later turned against Kennedy, Paul Markham never verified this thesis. The author of Senatorial Privilege, Leo Damore, had many hours of an interview with Gargan on tape -- but the key statement went unrecorded, and Gargan never verified that he had actually said it. For this reason, Random House refused to publish the book and demanded the return of a hefty advance. The book was eventually published by -- you guessed it -- Regnery. A name you can trust.

6.A frame-up theory has had a limited popularity among open-minded lefties of a certain sort. According to conspiracy buff R.B. Cutler, Kennedy and Kopechne were kidnapped and drugged, placed in the car and pushed off the bridge. Kennedy escaped, but was later warned to take the blame for the death of Mary Jo, lest harm come to his children. (Consider this scenario the liberal answer to Kappel's argument.)

This scenario has a few pieces of evidence going for it: Deputy Look thought that he saw another person in the car with Kennedy and Kopechne. Mary Jo (supposedly) had a high blood alcohol level even though she had not been witnessed drinking that night. There was damage to the vehicle which (some believe) was not caused by going over the side of the bridge.

However, the problems are formidable.

The skid marks on the bridge immediately rule out the notion of a car gently rolled into the water. Some theorists claim that these are actually acceleration marks -- an idea that makes no sense. Why accelerate off the bridge? Why not go directly into the water?

The scenario discounts the testimony of Gargan and Markham. Neither this theory nor any other gives us any reasonable explanation for Kennedy's seeming nonchalance the next morning, before reporting the accident. Cutler offers a very detailed reconstruction of that evening's events -- but very few of those details come backed by evidence. For example, Cutler proclaims that a threat was leveled against Kennedy's children, but we get no proof -- not even a rumor.

I met Cutler once. He was a pleasant enough fellow, I suppose, albeit rather eccentric. I was not terribly impressed by some of his more outlandish ideas -- he was also the guy who thought that the "Umbrella Man" in Dealey Plaza shot a brolly-dart into JFK's throat. Cutler admitted to me that he sometimes uses ESP to help solve mysteries. While I strongly suspect that ESP is real, I'm not convinced that Cutler has any talent for it.

(The latest iteration of this theory comes to us by way of Mathew Smith's book Conspiracy: The Plot to Destroy the Kennedys, which I have not yet read.)

Lingering doubts: I don't buy Cutler's Chappaquiddick theory, but part of me still wonders if some key aspect of that night's tragedy remains untold. Is there an alternative scenario missed by all of the theorists?

Mary Jo left in a hurry, without her purse, which contained her hotel key. Why? Even a woman intent on a tryst will invariably take her purse. In my experience, only a threat to physical safety could cause a woman to leave her purse behind. That said, I have no idea what, at that party, could have been perceived as a threat. (Conceivably, she could have been very intoxicated, but no-one saw her drinking to excess.)

There are those who argue that Mary Jo was the real target that night. Her former roommate, Nancy Tyler, had dated Bobby Baker, the corrupt aide to LBJ. After leaving Baker acrimoniously, Tyler died in a mysterious plane crash. Some suspect that she learned secret information which she passed onto Mary Jo.

Was Kennedy fearful of being followed? Did he feel that he and/or Mary Jo were in some sort of danger?

Many of his actions that night indicate a man motivated by fear, not by lust or intoxication. His turn down Cemetery Road took him into a remote area. He may have thought that Deputy Look was someone else -- someone threatening -- hence the wrong turn down Dike Road, which also would have led to the most remote parts of the island. A sense of danger might explain his estimated 20 MPH driving speed, which was somewhat above the safe level for that stretch of road.

Nixon -- who feared Ted Kennedy more than he feared anyone else -- had a henchman named Tony Ulasewicz on the island when the accident occurred. Remarkable coincidence.

Perhaps unrelated, but worth noting: In 1972, Nixon arranged to have a man named Robert Newbrand assigned to Kennedy's secret service detail. Newbrand, a Nixon loyalist, had previously offered the president his services as an assassin. Another coincidence.

My own theory of Chappaquiddick

(I add these words some hours after writing the bulk of this piece.)

Consider this scenario: At the party, Mary Jo Kopechne found a chance to tell Ted Kennedy that she had important information pertinent to the death of either JFK or RFK. She could have learned something about the death of JFK from her former roommate, Nancy Tyler. Or she could have seen evidence in the RFK case.

In public, Kennedy always supported the Warren Commission, although there is reason to suspect that he was privately curious about alternative scenarios. At any rate, he would have considered Mary Jo a reliable witness -- not a conspiracy crank.

Fearing political damage, he would not have wanted to discuss such a matter in a public place. Impetuously, he yanked her out of the party to talk the matter out during a drive. Conversely, it might have been Mary Jo who asked to discuss the matter in private. The car provided the only privacy.

It is inconceivable that Mary Jo would leave her purse at the party if she were going back to her room, even for a romantic liaison. But if she were going out for a ten-minute drive, then the inconceivability factor lessens, although leaving the purse behind still seems odd. Perhaps she thought that they were going to talk for only a minute or two in a parked car. Perhaps she was surprised when he turned on the ignition. (He would have wanted to go for a brief drive because he would not have wanted anyone to ask "What were you two talking about out there in the car?")

Picture it: Two people driving at night in a remote location, discussing high-level murder conspiracies. Maybe Mary Jo said something about being afraid for her own life.

Even before the party, Kennedy might have been feeling paranoid -- or justifiably fearful. Although most accounts put Ulasewicz on the Island on the morning of the accident, there are those who insist that the hulking Nixon henchman had been tailing Kennedy for some days before. No-one questions that Nixon was always obsessed with the Kennedys. No one questions that the Plumbers (as they came to be called) spent a lot of time spying on the senator. I think it is very likely that Nixonian spies tipped their hand and were "made." In a remote locale, it is not easy to spy on someone without being seen.

Conceivably, the spies intentionally let Teddy know he was under surveillance, just to get under his skin. Perhaps they did damage to his car. Schoolboy pranks -- with psychological consequences.

Remember, we are talking about a man who had already lost two brothers to assassination, and who had barely survived an airplane crash that was never fully explained.

So once again, I ask you to picture the scene:

Two people who feel that they have good reason to be fearful, two people who think that they are being watched everywhere they go, are driving around in the dark, in the middle of nowhere. That's why they go down Cemetery Road. That's why they go down Dike Road in the "wrong" direction. They aren't heading back to either person's hotel -- in fact, they aren't going anywhere in particular.

In this paranoid and hyper-alert state, they encounter Deputy Sheriff Huck Look. If the driver of Kennedy's Oldsmobile seems suspicious to Look, imagine how Look must seem to Kennedy.

Kennedy suspects that Look might be one of "them." The senator hightails it down Dike Road, traveling at 20 mph -- not a monstrously high rate of speed, but rather too fast for that stretch.

Thinking that he is being chased, he turns onto the bridge a second too late. The accident occurs.

He tries, and fails, to rescue the girl. He doesn't tell Markham and Gargan why he and Mary Jo were driving around.

Exhausted, he heads back to the hotel, where he wrestles with the problem of what to tell the police and the press. He certainly doesn't want to tell the public that he let paranoia get the best of him. More importantly, he's not sure whether he should reveal the story that Mary Jo had told him -- a story that we can only guess at. (She may have only begun.) He knows that it would look terrible if the public hears that someone with information about a Kennedy conspiracy died while in a car driven by Ted Kennedy. If her information was suggestive but not probative, then Kennedy would look foolish for allowing himself to be worked up into such a highly anxious state.

After dawn, he goes to the cops with the story that he stuck with for the rest of his life.

This reconstruction explains the lingering enigmas -- in particular, the "purse problem" -- as well as any other. My theory -- which is hardly exonerative -- may be about the effects of paranoia, but is not itself conspiratorial or sensationalistic. I freely admit that evidence is lacking. The only witnesses are now dead.