So, why didn’t they tell that story? Because, according to someone close to the Robert Kennedy camp with whom I correspond, the real story was that Mary-Jo didn’t want to go on drinking at the party (maybe didn’t even want to start drinking) and eventually got bored and/or tired and went to sleep in the back of Kennedy’s car (why his car I don’t know but maybe there is a good answer such as his being the only one rich and careless and rich enough to leave his car unlocked or that he had given Mary-Jo a lift earlier). Kennedy then got in to drive off with another woman not his wife and, because he was pretty drunk, he drove off the bridge. He and the other woman escaped and understandably decided not to tell the police because the drink-driving problem would have arisen immediately, and, anyway it would have been pretty difficult to think of a reason for doing anything in the middle of the night rather than wait till morning light.

So, why wouldn’t he have given this version? (a) the other woman’s reputation; (b) it might have drawn attention to the fact that Kennedy and the woman-not-his-wife ended up in bed together that night, whereas he could protest that he was only giving Mary-Jo a lift; (c) it would strain many people’s credulity: the person not known to be in the back seat, the fact that they didn’t notice her when getting out (ah, maybe they did and knew that their failure to get her out would compound the other problems), ……..

Secondly, It’s believed Mary-Jo was still alive in the car for up to 5 hours. So, it’s not possible that she could have scrambled into the back seat after the crash, where the air pocket was and where she eventually suffocated?

Most cars sink front first when they’re the conventional ‘engine in the front’ types, which would mean an air pocket would have formed at the higher end, which would be the rear of the car.

The plunge into the river may have been a short drop, thus preventing any serious injuries to her, which would have enabled her to scrambled over the front seat.

The scenario in the story above is much more plausible than one of Kennedy escaping, trying to rescue her and then going back to the hotel for a good nights sleep and then appearing next day as if nothing had happened.

His eventual rise to the position and esteem he held until this day also indicates that a few important people knew the true story and kept it quiet, realising that he was not to blame and his ‘possible’ original intent (sex with Mary-Jo, if that’s actually what he had planned) had not been carried out because of the chain of events.

I just took a quick look at online info about the book you mention. It’s interesting to see the ‘Onassis-dunnit-theory’ get a second wind after all these years…

You may not be aware of this, but one of the earliest and most sensational fake stories (other than the Warren Commission report) that was put about concerning the assassination of JFK was called ‘The Gemstone File’. It was circulated from the mid-70s; poorly written, lacking in references and full of extraneous weirdness. Aristotle Onnasis was identified as arch-villain in The Gemstone File. It was the type of document that actually helped discredit the idea of a conspiracy to kill JFK. I think it’s now safe to identify it as deliberate disinformation. Peter Evans recent book appears to be cut from similar cloth.

One can now look back at history of The Gemstone File as a text, study who was active in promoting it at the time of its initial release - and draw some interesting conclusions about who played an active role at that time in spreading disinformation.

The so-called and mis-named ‘intelligence agencies’ have a old term for this activity: “poisoning the well”. It works on the principle that it’s easier to taint a water supply than stop the population from drinking. In plain terms, if the curiosity of the public for the truth can’t be quenched, best to strew so much disinformation around that most people don’t know what to believe. ‘Poisoning the well’ has been very effective in the case of those politically significant assasinations in the 1960s.

The doyen of Kennedy assassination disinformationalists, incidentally, is Gerald Posner. He was tasked with writing a book in the 1990s which give the “Lee Harvey Oswald was solely responsible” line of argument a second wind. His book, ‘Case Closed’, is a classic text in the history of disinformation about the JK assassination.

It’s not hard to figure out Mr Posner. Check out his broader interests and connections. Incidentally, he is still churning out disinfo about the Kennedies. Crikey decided to link to his latest article, which is about Ted Kennedy. It is published (appropriately enough) in the Daily Beast. The article is called: “Who gets Ted Kennedy’s millions?”.

I am not, incidentally, accusing Bob Ellis of knowingly spreading disinformation re: the Chappaquiddick incident. Most of the people who write nonsense about the Kennedy assassinations and related matters are probably well-motivated. I imagine Bob falls into that category.

If you’re interested in more about the Kennedy assassination, I maintain a website that contains several articles on the topic.

In my personal opinion, the murder of Jack Kennedy (and RFK) is a mystery that by now has essentially been solved. It’s instructive that one nevers encounters, via the mainstream western mass media, the one theory that can adequately explain both the assassinations and subsequent cover-ups.

I can’t believe anyone who mistakenly maintains that Mary Jo Kopeckne was nineteen, when, in fact, she was twenty-nine. He shoots himself in the foot right there. IMHO.

I just read your follow-up comments on this article.

Sorry, but it really won’t do.

You begin with the remark:

“It’s hard to see what else took place that night once you examine what is known. The autopsy showed she was not pregnant, died a virgin, and was in an air bubble for five hours and might have been rescued…”

I’ll stop you right there Bob, because as I pointed out in a previous comment, there was no autopsy, just a blood test. This is what Time reported in August 1969:

Mills, who pronounced Mary Jo dead, omitted an autopsy. Mills examined the body, but an autopsy would have shown how much Mary Jo had been drinking. Instead, a blood sample, which is much less conclusive, was taken that showed she had drunk a moderate amount. “An autopsy is best in cases like these,” said District Attorney Dinis, “because it clears the air and there is no room for speculation.” Dinis, however, did not order an autopsy or take over the inquiry from Arena, and both of these steps were in his power.

As you seem to be the only author I’ve come across who believes that Mary Jo Kopechne’s body was subjected to autopsy, could you either provide a reference or issue a correction?

I agree that Kennedy didn’t murder Mary Jo. I also agree the official story was a falsehood foisted upon him. But your scenario doesn’t wash, IMO - and to be blunt, it’s poorly researched.

You also write:

Once you look at it only one other theory fits the facts as they are known: that she was in the back seat of the car asleep and he didn’t know she was there…

Bob, surely you’re not claiming that your article exhausts all the possible scenarios? On what rational basis could you make such an assertion?

You say:

…like the JFK-Monroe-murderer theory all that was needed back then was the headline, the smear, the nod and the wink, the two-word vilification (like ‘death panels’) which the twentieth century perfected and the Murdoch Method continues today.

Pleased to say I agree with you about that.

I ask anyone with any other explanation to supply it.

To undertake such an endeavour as a worthwhile attempt to establish the truth - as opposed to flippant scenario-guessing better suited to coffee shop chit-chat - would, in my opinion, require a significant amount of contextual analysis. I don’t think this is the place.

Suffice it to say in my opinion, Ted Kennedy was most certainly set-up - and the set-up was most likely orchestrated by the same networks of impeccable-connected criminals who previously murdered two of his brothers.

I think the really interesting question that should be asked is how such a cover-up could have been effected? Could it be that - as in the case of the assassination of JFK and RFK - the charming folk who put the screws on Teddy Kennedy knew perfectly well the western mass media wouldn’t ferret out and print the truth? That’s my hunch, FWIW.

Incidentally, you mentioned the original source for this story was Dun Gifford. If you ever have the chance to quiz him directly, why not ask him about the death of RFK? It’s a topic he does know something about. He was there, in the pantry, when the shooting occurred.

Unlike other eye-witnesses of Robert Kennedy’s assassination - such as John Pilger - Gifford seems to have confirmed the official view that Sirhan Sirhan was the sole shooter whenever he subsequently spoke about the case.

It would be most interesting to check if that’s correct.

However your story came to be constructed, Bob, someone played fast and loose with the facts. You might like to share with us how it happened in more detail. Study of the process whereby fake stories come about sometimes yields clues of broader relevance.

My thoughts exactly, and running around in the company of Kennedys. Pigs may fly.

“I thought it was Marcus Einfeld driving”.

Yes, and it was Angela Liati in the back seat.

Bob’s article makes reference to an autopsy: “Mary-Jo’s parents demanded an autopsy to discover a certain medical fact.”

Is there a reference for that? It contradicts other sources, such as John Simkin’s Spartacus Educational article about Mary Jo Kopechne:

There were also doubts about the way Kopechne died. Dr. Donald Mills of Edgartown, wrote on the death certificate: “death by drowning”. However, Gene Frieh, the undertaker, told reporters that death “was due to suffocation rather than drowning”. John Farrar, the diver who removed Kopechne from the car, claimed she was “too buoyant to be full of water”. It is assumed that she died from drowning, although her parents filed a petition preventing an autopsy.

And yes, regarding Mary Jo’s age, this is one case when Wikipedia is more accurate than a friend of a friend.

Having said that, I think the article is not as gormless as some comments have suggested. It’s timely to look again at the Chappaquiddick incident. It had a significant historical impact and clearly Ted Kennedy’s official account of the incident was a cover. Bob Ellis’s contact’s friend’s tale is a more plausible way of explaining some of the anomalies than much of the rubbish that’s around. I don’t think it’s correct, but that’s another story.

Incidentally, Bob, I enjoyed your contributions on Q & A some time back - especially the excellent response on the subject of politicians expenses rorts. I also liked your book on the 1982 British general election. (Just getting a couple of plaudits off my chest…)

How disingenuous

This piece of fatuous garbage is only topped today by the announcement by Barry Yobama that he will deliver the eulogy at Ted’s funeral.

This is the same Barry who worshipped at the feet of William (Billy) Ayers and his trog wife Bernadine Dohm,

This is the very same couple who dedicated their communist manifesto to - amongst others - Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Ted’s older brother Bobby.

Nice company you keep there Mr President.

How do you manage to keep a straight face?

Bob deserves the Poo-litsa for this shite, written obviously on a slow day in Byron.

What does wikipedia say about her age? Uh oh, 29 years old indeed.

Anyhow, where she was found in the rear is not quite conclusive of anything after a crash going for the air pocket? And chances are if he was in the car he got concussion, drunk, memory loss?

Also she might have been smuggling herself to his hotel back there. He might have forgot the new bridge was in place.

By the way, his clothes would say if he had been in the river or not, no doubt at all.

Could someone please check the facts before publishing. I might have to go back to reading those squalid Murdoch rags!

I believe this is all covered in the next Dan Brown novel.

This excerpt from another report : “Mary Jo’s body was found in the car’s rear section because that is where she was when the accident happened”.

Doesn’t sound like she was driving!