Reply #8: Google.

[gttim]

There are a couple os sites, but they are maintained by wingnuts. You can get information, but you have to filter it.

The accident was a terrible thing, but that is what it is was, an accident. It happened late at night, on an unfamiliar road, over a one lane bridge. The car took a bath in a dark, fast moving canal. As a former lifeguard, and an openwater swimmer and ironman, I don't see how the wingnuts expected Ted to rescue the girl. I find it amazing anybody got out. Of all the wrecks I have been in, I was never thinking clearly right after it happened, and after the more violent impacts,, was punch drunk and unaware of what was going on. There is no way I could have been in any physical or mental state to dive into cold, dark, fast moving water, swim to a submerged, overturned car, open doors that resue divers had trouble with, and rescue anybody after an string impact. When you consider that Kennedy had an injured back from a plane crash 5 years ealier, I find it even more hard to believe that he could have successfully resued anybody from that car.

Nobody has ever proved that any kind of affair was going on between him and the girl. Nobody has been able to prove that Kennedy did not try and rescue the girl. Nobody has ever proved that Kennedy was drunk. However, it is hard to argue with a wingnut about it. I frequently do, trying to use reason, but wingnuts have never cared about reason.

http://www.gfsnet.org/msweb/sixties/chappaquiddick.html

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/tedkennedychappaquiddick.htm

http://www.ytedk.com/ (Crazy wingnut site, but some good info. You can actually find stuff on some pages that refutes what he says on different pages.)