Speaking of Senator Kennedy....

[BlueHen86]

His was not manslaughter. It was murder Jon.

She was trapped in an air pocket in the car for several hours while Edward and company were working on the coverup.

If she was still alive - why cover anything up? Wouldn't it make more sense to just rescue her?

[AZGrizFan]

She was trapped in an air pocket in the car for several hours while Edward and company were working on the coverup.

If she was still alive - why cover anything up? Wouldn't it make more sense to just rescue her?

Sure, but apparently there wasn't enough air in the air pocket to last EIGHT HOURS.

[BlueHen86]

If she was still alive - why cover anything up? Wouldn't it make more sense to just rescue her?

Sure, but apparently there wasn't enough air in the air pocket to last EIGHT HOURS.

You don't really think she was alive in an air pocket for several hours do you? I guess it never occured to her to swim for it.

In all likelyhood, they were both drunk when Kennedy drove off the bridge and she drowned immediately. I'm not defending Kennedy, but I think it's pretty stupid to argue that Kopechne lived in an air pocket for "several hours" after the accident and the Kennedy's decided that a cover up was better than a rescue.

[Grizalltheway]

Sure, but apparently there wasn't enough air in the air pocket to last EIGHT HOURS.

You don't really think she was alive in an air pocket for several hours do you? I guess it never occured to her to swim for it.

In all likelyhood, they were both drunk when Kennedy drove off the bridge and she drowned immediately. I'm not defending Kennedy, but I think it's pretty stupid to argue that Kopechne lived in an air pocket for "several hours" after the accident and the Kennedy's decided that a cover up was better than a rescue.

But it's easier to stomp on his grave when you make up a bunch of bullshit about him.

[wideright82]

Sure, but apparently there wasn't enough air in the air pocket to last EIGHT HOURS.

You don't really think she was alive in an air pocket for several hours do you? I guess it never occured to her to swim for it.

In all likelyhood, they were both drunk when Kennedy drove off the bridge and she drowned immediately. I'm not defending Kennedy, but I think it's pretty stupid to argue that Kopechne lived in an air pocket for "several hours" after the accident and the Kennedy's decided that a cover up was better than a rescue.

Being trapped in a car is not a difficult thing to have happen. What is also not difficult is reporting it to police the same day/night

[CID1990]

You don't really think she was alive in an air pocket for several hours do you? I guess it never occured to her to swim for it.

In all likelyhood, they were both drunk when Kennedy drove off the bridge and she drowned immediately. I'm not defending Kennedy, but I think it's pretty stupid to argue that Kopechne lived in an air pocket for "several hours" after the accident and the Kennedy's decided that a cover up was better than a rescue.

But it's easier to stomp on his grave when you make up a bunch of bullshit about him.

I don't support pissing on peoples graves, either. However, I don't recall you defending Reagan against the same thing on this board.

[Gil Dobie]

You don't really think she was alive in an air pocket for several hours do you? I guess it never occured to her to swim for it.

In all likelyhood, they were both drunk when Kennedy drove off the bridge and she drowned immediately. I'm not defending Kennedy, but I think it's pretty stupid to argue that Kopechne lived in an air pocket for "several hours" after the accident and the Kennedy's decided that a cover up was better than a rescue.

But it's easier to stomp on his grave when you make up a bunch of bullshit about him.

Before you call it "Made up Bullshit" maybe you should do some research. Typical liberal radical move to demonize the messenger.

Wiki Link

Discovery of the body

Earlier that morning, two amateur fishermen had seen the overturned car in the water and notified the inhabitants of the cottage nearest to the pond, who called the authorities at around 8:20 am.[14] A diver was sent down and discovered Kopechne's body at around 8:45 am.[15] The diver, John Farrar, later testified at the inquest that Kopechne's body was pressed up in the car in the spot where an air bubble would have formed. He interpreted this to mean that Kopechne had survived for a while after the initial accident in the air bubble, and concluded that

Had I received a call within five to ten minutes of the accident occurring, and was able, as I was the following morning, to be at the victim's side within twenty-five minutes of receiving the call, in such event there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive on removal from the submerged car.[8]

Farrar believed that Kopechne "lived for at least two hours down there

[AZGrizFan]

You don't really think she was alive in an air pocket for several hours do you? I guess it never occured to her to swim for it.

In all likelyhood, they were both drunk when Kennedy drove off the bridge and she drowned immediately. I'm not defending Kennedy, but I think it's pretty stupid to argue that Kopechne lived in an air pocket for "several hours" after the accident and the Kennedy's decided that a cover up was better than a rescue.

But it's easier to stomp on his grave when you make up a bunch of bullshit about him.

Hey, sheeple....we don't need to MAKE up shit about Kennedy. He did enough damage to his reputation ALL ON HIS OWN.

[BlueHen86]

But it's easier to stomp on his grave when you make up a bunch of bullshit about him.

Before you call it "Made up Bullshit" maybe you should do some research. Typical liberal radical move to demonize the messenger.

Wiki Link

Discovery of the body

Earlier that morning, two amateur fishermen had seen the overturned car in the water and notified the inhabitants of the cottage nearest to the pond, who called the authorities at around 8:20 am.[14] A diver was sent down and discovered Kopechne's body at around 8:45 am.[15] The diver, John Farrar, later testified at the inquest that Kopechne's body was pressed up in the car in the spot where an air bubble would have formed. He interpreted this to mean that Kopechne had survived for a while after the initial accident in the air bubble, and concluded that

Had I received a call within five to ten minutes of the accident occurring, and was able, as I was the following morning, to be at the victim's side within twenty-five minutes of receiving the call, in such event there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive on removal from the submerged car.[8]

Farrar believed that Kopechne "lived for at least two hours down there

I've read Farrar's testimony. He also claimed that there was no air bubble in the car when he first examined it. The body was found in the portion of the car where an air bubble would have formed, but he (Farrar) did not find an air bubble.

[CID1990]

Before you call it "Made up Bullshit" maybe you should do some research. Typical liberal radical move to demonize the messenger.

Wiki Link

Discovery of the body

Earlier that morning, two amateur fishermen had seen the overturned car in the water and notified the inhabitants of the cottage nearest to the pond, who called the authorities at around 8:20 am.[14] A diver was sent down and discovered Kopechne's body at around 8:45 am.[15] The diver, John Farrar, later testified at the inquest that Kopechne's body was pressed up in the car in the spot where an air bubble would have formed. He interpreted this to mean that Kopechne had survived for a while after the initial accident in the air bubble, and concluded that

Had I received a call within five to ten minutes of the accident occurring, and was able, as I was the following morning, to be at the victim's side within twenty-five minutes of receiving the call, in such event there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive on removal from the submerged car.[8]

Farrar believed that Kopechne "lived for at least two hours down there

I've read Farrar's testimony. He also claimed that there was no air bubble in the car when he first examined it. The body was found in the portion of the car where an air bubble would have formed, but he (Farrar) did not find an air bubble.

Not a fan of Senator Kennedy's or anything but....

This is coming from an ex-cop with 17 years experience. I have pulled a number of bodies (both warm and cold) from the water. Out of airplanes and out of cars.

1. If there was an air bubble in the roof of the car it would not have lasted. What is likely is that she immediately struggled upwards in search of air and drowned immediately. That is assuming that she was conscious at all. I have seen people who were dead on impact in car accidents who were in all kinds of weird places in the vehicles.

2. A rescue diver is not a time of death expert.

3. A person who drowns floats. This is because the lungs do not fill with water. Drowning is suffocation due to not inhaling. Most people think that you drown when you take in a big lungful of water. The opposite is true. You lose consciousness of oxygen starvation long before you would take a desperate breath. The tracheas of conscious drowning victims are seized shut. People who are unconscious or dead at the time of immersion do have water in their lungs. If she was in a position where a bubble would have formed, this is also where she would have floated to with lungs full of air.

4. Anything he said outside of his direct observations of the body in situ is pure speculation.

5. Any ME in those days would have been able to say for sure whether she drowned after a significant period of consciousness or not. If the suspicion against Kennedy is based solely on the testimony of a rescue diver then I would say that the allegations are still possible, but the source is questionable.

[Gil Dobie]

5. Any ME in those days would have been able to say for sure whether she drowned after a significant period of consciousness or not. If the suspicion against Kennedy is based solely on the testimony of a rescue diver then I would say that the allegations are still possible, but the source is questionable.

There are a lot of questionable sources in this fiasco, with all the Kennedy money, and a proven record of the money being used by Teddy in the past (Paying another student to take his test at Harvard), to cover up his ineptitude.

[TheDancinMonarch]

My favorite Ted Kennedy moment happened in a debate with his Democrat opponent for the Senate nomination in 1962. His opponent asked him, "If your name was Edward Moore, what would your qualification for this job be?" You have never heard so much stuttering and stammering. But I at least gave him credit for not blurting out that his brother was President, which happened to be his only qualification at the time.

[BlueHen86]

5. Any ME in those days would have been able to say for sure whether she drowned after a significant period of consciousness or not. If the suspicion against Kennedy is based solely on the testimony of a rescue diver then I would say that the allegations are still possible, but the source is questionable.

There are a lot of questionable sources in this fiasco, with all the Kennedy money, and a proven record of the money being used by Teddy in the past (Paying another student to take his test at Harvard), to cover up his ineptitude.

Which is why I try and stay away from speculation. The facts in this case a damning enough on their own merit, there is no reason to start conspiracy theories.

[BlueHen86]

I've read Farrar's testimony. He also claimed that there was no air bubble in the car when he first examined it. The body was found in the portion of the car where an air bubble would have formed, but he (Farrar) did not find an air bubble.

Not a fan of Senator Kennedy's or anything but....

This is coming from an ex-cop with 17 years experience. I have pulled a number of bodies (both warm and cold) from the water. Out of airplanes and out of cars.

1. If there was an air bubble in the roof of the car it would not have lasted. What is likely is that she immediately struggled upwards in search of air and drowned immediately. That is assuming that she was conscious at all. I have seen people who were dead on impact in car accidents who were in all kinds of weird places in the vehicles.

2. A rescue diver is not a time of death expert.

3. A person who drowns floats. This is because the lungs do not fill with water. Drowning is suffocation due to not inhaling. Most people think that you drown when you take in a big lungful of water. The opposite is true. You lose consciousness of oxygen starvation long before you would take a desperate breath. The tracheas of conscious drowning victims are seized shut. People who are unconscious or dead at the time of immersion do have water in their lungs. If she was in a position where a bubble would have formed, this is also where she would have floated to with lungs full of air.

4. Anything he said outside of his direct observations of the body in situ is pure speculation.

5. Any ME in those days would have been able to say for sure whether she drowned after a significant period of consciousness or not. If the suspicion against Kennedy is based solely on the testimony of a rescue diver then I would say that the allegations are still possible, but the source is questionable.

Good post.

[Gil Dobie]

There are a lot of questionable sources in this fiasco, with all the Kennedy money, and a proven record of the money being used by Teddy in the past (Paying another student to take his test at Harvard), to cover up his ineptitude.

Which is why I try and stay away from speculation. The facts in this case a damning enough on their own merit, there is no reason to start conspiracy theories.

Where did I try and start a conspiracy theory? I'm just stating what a first-hand source had said. If she were alive for an hour or so, it wouldn't matter anyway. TK didn't call authorities, and like you said, that's damning enough.

[BlueHen86]

Which is why I try and stay away from speculation. The facts in this case a damning enough on their own merit, there is no reason to start conspiracy theories.

Where did I try and start a conspiracy theory? I'm just stating what a first-hand source had said. If she were alive for an hour or so, it wouldn't matter anyway. TK didn't call authorities, and like you said, that's damning enough.

Right here:

She was trapped in an air pocket in the car for several hours while Edward and company were working on the coverup.

No matter how you spin it, and I'm sure you will, this is an irresponsible statement that can't be proven. It's best to leave crap like this alone.

[Gil Dobie]

She was trapped in an air pocket in the car for several hours while Edward and company were working on the coverup.

No matter how you spin it, and I'm sure you will, this is an irresponsible statement that can't be proven. It's best to leave crap like this alone.

Quite a reach BlueHen86. It's not a conspiracy theory if it's repeating the statement of a first-hand eye-witness. But whatever, you radicals like to demonize the source.

[BlueHen86]

No matter how you spin it, and I'm sure you will, this is an irresponsible statement that can't be proven. It's best to leave crap like this alone.

Quite a reach BlueHen86. It's not a conspiracy theory if it's repeating the statement of a first-hand eye-witness. But whatever, you radicals like to demonize the source.

It's one mans opinion, not a fact. You repeated it as fact, and didn't cite your source. Call me names if you want, your post was irresponsible. Now spin away some more...

[BlueHen86]

No matter how you spin it, and I'm sure you will, this is an irresponsible statement that can't be proven. It's best to leave crap like this alone.

Quite a reach BlueHen86. It's not a conspiracy theory if it's repeating the statement of a first-hand eye-witness. But whatever, you radicals like to demonize the source.

There were first hand eye witnesses that saw someone in the grassy knoll the day JFK was shot, but according to you, repeating their claim is not a conspiracy theory.

I guess you think conspiracy theories just start themselves.

[Gil Dobie]

Quite a reach BlueHen86. It's not a conspiracy theory if it's repeating the statement of a first-hand eye-witness. But whatever, you radicals like to demonize the source.

It's one mans opinion, not a fact. You repeated it as fact, and didn't cite your source. Call me names if you want, your post was irresponsible. Now spin away some more...

Farrar's statement is a statement, you can take it as me saying fact if you want, keep spinning

[Gil Dobie]

Quite a reach BlueHen86. It's not a conspiracy theory if it's repeating the statement of a first-hand eye-witness. But whatever, you radicals like to demonize the source.

There were first hand eye witnesses that saw someone in the grassy knoll the day JFK was shot, but according to you, repeating their claim is not a conspiracy theory.

I guess you think conspiracy theories just start themselves.

I guess I started the conspiracy in 1969

Link

The following article was published in the Ocala Star-Banner on September 1, 1969. It includes the expert opinion of the trained diver who pulled Mary Jo’s corpse from the car.

Mary Jo’s Rescue Possible

The preliminary investigation into the drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne has raised an agonizing question that will haunt the Kennedy inquest this week. Could Mary Jo have been rescued from the bottom of Poucha Pont if Sen. Ted Kennedy had only rushed to the nearest house and banged on the door for help?

John Farrar, the diver who removed Mary Jo’s body from the submerged car, has told authorities that “a large amount of air would initially have been trapped” inside the car. Had he been summoned immediately after the accident, Farrar declared, there was “a strong possibility that she would have been alive.”

The Navy-trained diving expert gave his electrifying testimony and backed it up with a detailed diagram at a pre-hearing interrogation on Aug. 20. He was questioned by Lt. George Killen, who has been assigned by the Massachusetts State Police to assist District Attorney Edmund Dinis with the Kennedy investigation.

Farrar described from his own measurements how the death car had hurried off Dyke bridge for a distance of approximately 36 feet and then dropped eight feet, hitting the water at a 45-degree angle. The momentum flipped it over, he conjectured, “bringing the car to settle upside down in the water.”

“On impact,” he said, “the water would have gushed through the two right windows. However, due to the vertical settling of the car, a large amount of air would have initially been trapped underneath the floor of the car.”



He pointed to his diagram, which showed “a possible water level based on the way the car entered the water and settled.” In his sketch, the air pocket was large enough to have sustained life for a while. The position of Mary Jo’s body suggested, in his opinion, that she may have been trying desperately to take advantage of the last air.

He found the body in the right rear seat. Emphasizing again that the car was bottom up, he testified: “With respect to the seat, she was upside down. With respect to the water, she was right side up. Her head was cocked back, her face pressed into the foot well.” This is where the air bubble likely would have formed.

“I found when I inspected the car underwater,” he added, “That there was no air within the occupants’ section of the car. However, by the statement of John Ahlbum and Joe Cerpa when the car was first moved by cable or by winch, numerous air bubbles escaped from the car while still underwater.”

Farrar suggested that “Ted Kennedy could have escaped from the driver’s window as it was the only one rolled down and by the roll of the car would have been the last window submerged. His door was locked, which could have occurred, incidentally, during his egress since the locking device was the button on the edge of the window.”

Once out of the water, Kennedy could have reached nearby Dyke House in a matter of seconds. The house was occupied by Mrs. Pierre Malm, who has stated that her lights were on at the time of the accident.

“Had I received a call within five to ten minutes of the accident occurring,” declared Farrar, “and was able, as I was the following morning, to be at the victim’s side within 25 minutes of receiving the call, in such event there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive upon removal from this submerged car.”

Summarizing, Farrar gave the reasons why he believed that Mary Jo Kopechne may have survived for serveral terrifying minutes, trapped in Kennedy’s car at the bottom of Poucha Pond.

“Number one,” said the diver, “the position of the car upon entering into the water, which I had deduced…

“The position of the submerged car on the bottom of the water. That is number two.

“Number three, what I feel to be the consciously assumed position of the victim as distinguished from the prone position which, to me, was indicative of a person being consciously aware of the immediate situation in an attempt to save one’s life by obtaining the last breath of air.

“Four, the fact that air bubbles emanated from the car upon removal by the wrecker two hours after I removed the victim from the submerged car.

“And five, the fact that there was a large air void and lack of water in the car’s trunk 10 hours after the accident was alleged to have occurred.”

[Gil Dobie]

Quite a reach BlueHen86. It's not a conspiracy theory if it's repeating the statement of a first-hand eye-witness. But whatever, you radicals like to demonize the source.

There were first hand eye witnesses that saw someone in the grassy knoll the day JFK was shot, but according to you, repeating their claim is not a conspiracy theory.

I guess you think conspiracy theories just start themselves.

Link or STFU

[CID1990]

There were first hand eye witnesses that saw someone in the grassy knoll the day JFK was shot, but according to you, repeating their claim is not a conspiracy theory.

I guess you think conspiracy theories just start themselves.

I guess I started the conspiracy in 1969

Link

The following article was published in the Ocala Star-Banner on September 1, 1969. It includes the expert opinion of the trained diver who pulled Mary Jo’s corpse from the car.

Mary Jo’s Rescue Possible

The preliminary investigation into the drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne has raised an agonizing question that will haunt the Kennedy inquest this week. Could Mary Jo have been rescued from the bottom of Poucha Pont if Sen. Ted Kennedy had only rushed to the nearest house and banged on the door for help?

John Farrar, the diver who removed Mary Jo’s body from the submerged car, has told authorities that “a large amount of air would initially have been trapped” inside the car. Had he been summoned immediately after the accident, Farrar declared, there was “a strong possibility that she would have been alive.”

The Navy-trained diving expert gave his electrifying testimony and backed it up with a detailed diagram at a pre-hearing interrogation on Aug. 20. He was questioned by Lt. George Killen, who has been assigned by the Massachusetts State Police to assist District Attorney Edmund Dinis with the Kennedy investigation.

Farrar described from his own measurements how the death car had hurried off Dyke bridge for a distance of approximately 36 feet and then dropped eight feet, hitting the water at a 45-degree angle. The momentum flipped it over, he conjectured, “bringing the car to settle upside down in the water.”

“On impact,” he said, “the water would have gushed through the two right windows. However, due to the vertical settling of the car, a large amount of air would have initially been trapped underneath the floor of the car.”



He pointed to his diagram, which showed “a possible water level based on the way the car entered the water and settled.” In his sketch, the air pocket was large enough to have sustained life for a while. The position of Mary Jo’s body suggested, in his opinion, that she may have been trying desperately to take advantage of the last air.

He found the body in the right rear seat. Emphasizing again that the car was bottom up, he testified: “With respect to the seat, she was upside down. With respect to the water, she was right side up. Her head was cocked back, her face pressed into the foot well.” This is where the air bubble likely would have formed.

“I found when I inspected the car underwater,” he added, “That there was no air within the occupants’ section of the car. However, by the statement of John Ahlbum and Joe Cerpa when the car was first moved by cable or by winch, numerous air bubbles escaped from the car while still underwater.”

Farrar suggested that “Ted Kennedy could have escaped from the driver’s window as it was the only one rolled down and by the roll of the car would have been the last window submerged. His door was locked, which could have occurred, incidentally, during his egress since the locking device was the button on the edge of the window.”

Once out of the water, Kennedy could have reached nearby Dyke House in a matter of seconds. The house was occupied by Mrs. Pierre Malm, who has stated that her lights were on at the time of the accident.

“Had I received a call within five to ten minutes of the accident occurring,” declared Farrar, “and was able, as I was the following morning, to be at the victim’s side within 25 minutes of receiving the call, in such event there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive upon removal from this submerged car.”

Summarizing, Farrar gave the reasons why he believed that Mary Jo Kopechne may have survived for serveral terrifying minutes, trapped in Kennedy’s car at the bottom of Poucha Pond.

“Number one,” said the diver, “the position of the car upon entering into the water, which I had deduced…

“The position of the submerged car on the bottom of the water. That is number two.

“Number three, what I feel to be the consciously assumed position of the victim as distinguished from the prone position which, to me, was indicative of a person being consciously aware of the immediate situation in an attempt to save one’s life by obtaining the last breath of air.

“Four, the fact that air bubbles emanated from the car upon removal by the wrecker two hours after I removed the victim from the submerged car.

“And five, the fact that there was a large air void and lack of water in the car’s trunk 10 hours after the accident was alleged to have occurred.”

Gil, the rescue diver's assumptions are extremely flawed, and not the product of someone with a lot of experience recovering bodies from submerged vehicles. There are forensic accident investigators who cannot make these observations in the best of circumstances. I do not find his assumptions to be authoritative at all. Kennedy might be guilty of all the allegations, but Farrar is a poor source.

[BlueHen86]

I guess I started the conspiracy in 1969

Link

The following article was published in the Ocala Star-Banner on September 1, 1969. It includes the expert opinion of the trained diver who pulled Mary Jo’s corpse from the car.

Mary Jo’s Rescue Possible

The preliminary investigation into the drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne has raised an agonizing question that will haunt the Kennedy inquest this week. Could Mary Jo have been rescued from the bottom of Poucha Pont if Sen. Ted Kennedy had only rushed to the nearest house and banged on the door for help?

John Farrar, the diver who removed Mary Jo’s body from the submerged car, has told authorities that “a large amount of air would initially have been trapped” inside the car. Had he been summoned immediately after the accident, Farrar declared, there was “a strong possibility that she would have been alive.”

The Navy-trained diving expert gave his electrifying testimony and backed it up with a detailed diagram at a pre-hearing interrogation on Aug. 20. He was questioned by Lt. George Killen, who has been assigned by the Massachusetts State Police to assist District Attorney Edmund Dinis with the Kennedy investigation.

Farrar described from his own measurements how the death car had hurried off Dyke bridge for a distance of approximately 36 feet and then dropped eight feet, hitting the water at a 45-degree angle. The momentum flipped it over, he conjectured, “bringing the car to settle upside down in the water.”

“On impact,” he said, “the water would have gushed through the two right windows. However, due to the vertical settling of the car, a large amount of air would have initially been trapped underneath the floor of the car.”



He pointed to his diagram, which showed “a possible water level based on the way the car entered the water and settled.” In his sketch, the air pocket was large enough to have sustained life for a while. The position of Mary Jo’s body suggested, in his opinion, that she may have been trying desperately to take advantage of the last air.

He found the body in the right rear seat. Emphasizing again that the car was bottom up, he testified: “With respect to the seat, she was upside down. With respect to the water, she was right side up. Her head was cocked back, her face pressed into the foot well.” This is where the air bubble likely would have formed.

“I found when I inspected the car underwater,” he added, “That there was no air within the occupants’ section of the car. However, by the statement of John Ahlbum and Joe Cerpa when the car was first moved by cable or by winch, numerous air bubbles escaped from the car while still underwater.”

Farrar suggested that “Ted Kennedy could have escaped from the driver’s window as it was the only one rolled down and by the roll of the car would have been the last window submerged. His door was locked, which could have occurred, incidentally, during his egress since the locking device was the button on the edge of the window.”

Once out of the water, Kennedy could have reached nearby Dyke House in a matter of seconds. The house was occupied by Mrs. Pierre Malm, who has stated that her lights were on at the time of the accident.

“Had I received a call within five to ten minutes of the accident occurring,” declared Farrar, “and was able, as I was the following morning, to be at the victim’s side within 25 minutes of receiving the call, in such event there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive upon removal from this submerged car.”

Summarizing, Farrar gave the reasons why he believed that Mary Jo Kopechne may have survived for serveral terrifying minutes, trapped in Kennedy’s car at the bottom of Poucha Pond.

“Number one,” said the diver, “the position of the car upon entering into the water, which I had deduced…

“The position of the submerged car on the bottom of the water. That is number two.

“Number three, what I feel to be the consciously assumed position of the victim as distinguished from the prone position which, to me, was indicative of a person being consciously aware of the immediate situation in an attempt to save one’s life by obtaining the last breath of air.

“Four, the fact that air bubbles emanated from the car upon removal by the wrecker two hours after I removed the victim from the submerged car.

“And five, the fact that there was a large air void and lack of water in the car’s trunk 10 hours after the accident was alleged to have occurred.”

Gil, the rescue diver's assumptions are extremely flawed, and not the product of someone with a lot of experience recovering bodies from submerged vehicles. There are forensic accident investigators who cannot make these observations in the best of circumstances. I do not find his assumptions to be authoritative at all. Kennedy might be guilty of all the allegations, but Farrar is a poor source.

Once again, good post.

[BlueHen86]

It's one mans opinion, not a fact. You repeated it as fact, and didn't cite your source. Call me names if you want, your post was irresponsible. Now spin away some more...

Farrar's statement is a statement, you can take it as me saying fact if you want, keep spinning

I don't have to spin, reread your post. You stated it as fact, and didn't cite your source until people started calling BS. If you cant understand that, I can't help you.