Posted on 07/18/2006 9:54:03 AM PDT by ncountylee
His avoirdupous would have sunk the Amphicar..
?
Where the heck did some liberal idiot come up with THAT idea?
If he (Ted) was not in the car when it went off the bridge, and did NOT know about theincident until the next morning, how come his clothes were wet (due to swiming out of the car that night)?
Get a life, and quit accepting (liberal/socialist) lies.
but a head that large has to float!
Stunned disbelief. I always thought that quote was a joke-or at least a sarcastic attack.-not a serious editorial. It's times like that i wish we could wage a civil war.
ping for later
Since there's no statute of limitations on murder, maybe it would be good to get Mark Fuhrman involved, kick a few tires, start investigating... Seeing fat, drunk Teddy in prison for murder would be the best!!
,,,
This is THE question of the incident, and one that has never been answered. When they drove away from the house where the party was happening, both Kennedy and Mary Jo were in the front seat of the car, according to witnesses. When her body was found, Mary Jo was in the back seat, in a position "consistent with" her breathing in an air pocket. There was no autopsy, but the condition of her body at the time she was pulled from the car was "consistent with" her having died of suffocation and not drowning.
Why didn't she get out of the car on her own when Kennedy did? First, it's safe to assume they were both well under the influence of alcohol and who knows what else. Then...
After they left the party, a police officer saw the car parked in a dark area. He didn't know who was in the car, but he thought it was a man and woman making out. Kennedy knew the cop saw the car, and might have thought the cop saw him, so he took off and drove off the bridge shortly thereafter.
The car flipped over into the water on the passenger side. Mary Jo might have been (a) unconscious before the car went in, or (b) injured/stunned when the car went in.
Putting all that together, the only answer that makes sense to me as to why she remained behind is this: She was already in the backseat when the car went over. (I'm not convinced she was conscious at the time.) She wakes up and is disoriented due to being under the influence (and possibly being injured during the accident). She may not fully grasp why she's in an upside down car in water, and her first instinct is to breath. So she raises her head as far as it can go. Unfortunately, it's the wrong direction, because with the car upside down, the windows are below her head.
And, most tragically of all, Mary Jo was probably panicky and certainly tried to reassure herself that Ted would get help. Only he didn't. I honestly believe he would never have reported the accident at all if the car was not found -- which it might never have been if the water were deeper there.
The question is, when does Kennedy begin his jail sentence?
OldFriend wrote:
> No matter how the car found it's way into the water, the question is......how did the orca manage to get out and she remained behind. <
He wasn't in the car. He got out shortly before, for fear that an approaching policeman would find him and Mary Jo making out.
Then he made his way back to the mainland, while poor MJ -- who was lost -- drove right off of the bridge.
I know that most people don't accept this explanation. But I maintain it's the only hypothesis that fits all the PROVABLE facts of the case.
Only the Lord knows, but there is no doubt kennedy is responsible for Mary Jo's death.
I bet he's having a drink in her memory.
You know -- you're probably right.
Probably? ;-)
Get some reading lessons and keep your insults to yourself.
So how do account for Kennedy's wet clothes, and his return path (walking) back from the bridge (past all those occupied and lit houses)?
He was in the water. He drove the car. You can make guesses or excuses, but you have to accept what he himself admitted.
Robert A. Cook, PE wrote:
> So how do [you] account for Kennedy's wet clothes, and his return path (walking) back from the bridge (past all those occupied and lit houses)? <
My understanding is that he was wet because he swam back to the mainland, since the ferry had already stopped running for the night.
> He was in the water. He drove the car. You can make guesses or excuses, but you have to accept what he himself admitted. <
Well, I beg your pardon, but I don't "have" to accept anything said by a lying SOB like the Senior Whale from Massachusetts. Not one tittle!
[And please allow me to venture the opinion that most Freepers would be inclined to believe THE OPPOSITE of anything said by Uncle Ted. But that's beside the point.]
IMO, it boils down to this:
(1) Your hypothesis:
Teddy drove the car off the bridge, then escaped from the vehicle, while Mary Jo was unable to duplicate his feat.
(2) My hypothesis:
Teddy got out of the car before it reached the bridge, and Mary Jo drove off into the water.
I maintain that if one dispassionately considers all the non-disputed facts of the case, the second hypothesis is consistent with them all, whereas the first hypothesis appears inconsistent with several.
So as it has sometimes been said in science, the first hypothesis is accepted (though not necessarily proven) while the second is falsified.
There was a very good TV program that took this tack about ten years ago, and I came away utterly persuaded. Wish I could remember the name and channel. Maybe somebody else can help.
[Something tells me it was on A & E. But my memory fails in my eldery years!]
Finally, please be aware that the above is by no means an "excuse" for Lard-Tub Teddy. I refuse to take second place to anybody in my destestation of the old lush. But evidence is evidence, and logic is logic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.