I’m sure you know the story. In July 1969, on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts, Senator Edward Kennedy drove his car off a bridge and into the water. Kennedy made his way to safety but his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned in the overturned car. He fled the scene and called several aides, but waited until the next morning to report the incident to authorities. Kennedy faced a two-month suspended sentence for leaving the scene of an accident.
I wrote that summary for the benefit of any readers who have never been in the presence of a conservative when the name “Ted Kennedy” came up. So now you know. More gritty details here. It was a shitty thing of Kennedy to do. His privilege protected him from the legal consequences most others would have faced under those circumstances. That’s not right. But goddammit I’m sick of Chappaquiddick.
I’m sick of people pulling the Chappaquiddick card whenever Kennedy receives praise for his enormous contributions to this country. Not only because great heroes needn’t be flawless, and Kennedy seemed genuinely remorseful for what he did, but because there is something else on Kennedy’s record I consider far more damning.
In 1991, Ted Kennedy took part in a smear campaign against a woman who accused his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, of rape. The men had been partying together in Palm Beach, Florida, when they met her at a bar. They all retreated to the Kennedy family home, where Smith allegedly raped her. She filed a police report and underwent an exam at a hospital. Meanwhile, the Kennedy clan was uncooperative and even dishonest with investigators. The case went to trial, and the prosecution brought forth three other women who claimed that Smith had assaulted them. However, the judge didn’t allow the prosecution to enter their testimony.
The police, prosecutors, rape counselors and the doctors who examined her all believed the victim’s account of rape. But William’s defense depicted the woman as a neer-do-well, and Ted Kennedy swore to his nephew’s innocence and the alleged victim’s dishonesty. Smith was cleared of all charges. In the years since, other alleged assault victims have emerged, naming Smith as their attacker. Several of his colleagues accused him of sexual harassment in 2004. The man is, by all accounts, a chauvinist sleazebag at the very least and a serial rapist at worst. And he was allowed to go free, in part, because of his uncle Ted’s influence.
I consider Ted Kennedy’s defense of his nephew in 1991 much more sinister than what he did at Chappaquiddick in 1969. The latter was motivated by panic, confusion, and possibly alcoholism. The former was intentional, and revealed something uglier about Ted Kennedy’s character. But you almost never hear about it from those who obsess about Chappaquiddick. We’ve got rape culture to thank for that.
Totally agree Sarah. I like to think (but of course this is pure speculation on my part) that Ted Kennedy had regrets about that incident and saw it as something he HAD to do for his family. Not that that excuses it. He took the stand did he not? William K. Smith really makes my skin crawl.
Agreed. Their legacy of public service is unimpeachable, but from Joe Kennedy on down, their legacy also includes a very ugly flip side of addiction and mistreatment of women.
There is no doubt in my mind that William Kennedy Smith is a rapist. And that Ted Kennedy should have been prosecuted for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.
It is really remarkable that so few people talk about the WKS rape case and Kennedy’s testimony. Overall, yes, it is due to rape culture. But I wonder if it is also partly to do with the fact that Chappaquidick was viewed as happening during the era when Kennedy was viewed as being the automatic next Kennedy in line for the Presidency, whereas in 1991 the bloom was off the rose, so to speak, for both Ted Kennedy and his family at large. The Camelot myth may still have been propagated in the nineties, but in the sixties it was unimaginable for a Kennedy to err so gravely (and criminally).
I actually learned what rape was thanks to reading a headline in the tabloids during the WKS trial. That was a hell of a thing for my dad to have to explain to me at the Shop Rite grocery store.
Good point SarahMC, but I would theorize that this entry could have some unintended consequences. Namely giving right wing freak shows another talking point while giving them a fig-leaf of progressive street cred.
[threadjack]WifeRat sent me this link (www.xyonline.net) and I’ve spent the last hour or two cruising around the site[\threadjack]
Right-wingers have had the opportunity to latch onto this for a while now. But rape doesn’t bother them that much, which is why they almost always throw all their eggs into the Chappaquiddick basket. I do see your point but most right-wing hypocrisy can be identified and called out almost immediately after they’ve begun talking.
I really love that link. Will read some more.
Clarification: Rape committed by straight white males doesn’t bother them that much.
As part of a trial clinic I once attended, we watched parts of the defense attorney’s cross-examination of one of the witnesses in this case. My recall is a bit hazy, but I think the witness was a friend or acquaintance of the victim who was also at the beach house the night the rape happened.* Apparently, even though the victim had told the witness about the rape after it happened, the witness went with the defendant out to the beach to locate the victim’s shoes or an item of clothing. The defense attorney hammered that home in just about every question: So you went with the man that the victim had just told you had raped her, alone, out to an isolated beach at night far from the house and other people… The message to the jury was clear: the witness didn’t really believe the victim had been raped, otherwise she would have been scared of the defendant and wouldn’t have done that.
As a lawyer, it was definitely an education in crafting an effective cross. As a woman, it was horrifying to see how a skilled defense attorney can pick holes, and cast doubt over a victim’s story. Granted, we didn’t watch the whole trial, and this cross was just one of several hurdles the prosecution had to jump (see Ted Kennedy’s testimony). But still, it was scary because the defense attorney very effectively amplified the importance of this woman’s testimony, like, so what if the rape counselors, police, doctors believed the victim was raped; clearly the witness who was there that night did not. It’s all about creating reasonable doubt.
*Please feel free to correct me if I have the details wrong.
@Tall-girl: Yes, the defense claimed that was that she had, in fact, been raped, she wouldn’t have sent a friend back for her shoes, instead she would have walked home barefoot or collapsed in a heap or something.
It’s a classic defense attorney technique predicated on the notion that there’s only one way for rape victims to behave–complete public mental breakdown of horror and shame and victimization–and if they don’t then surely the sex was consensual. If a woman actually acts rationally when she’s been raped, it works against her.
That’s interesting, Tallgirl. I don’t know about that particular detail but it sounds plausible.
I really hope nobody interprets this post as an anti-Kennedy one. As I said yesterday, I worked for the man, I am overwhelmed with admiration for his political accomplishments, and I consider his death a huge loss.
I am more frustrated by the refrain “Chappaquiddick!” and faux concern for Kopechne whenever Kennedy is praised or even mentioned. First, because I believe Kennedy was remorseful and made an effort to be a better man, and second, because there was this other thing he did which I consider worse.
@Becky: It’s a catch-22. Absent a mental breakdown indicating trauma, it must have been consensual sex. But if a victim has a mental breakdown, her psych issues will be painted as “a history of mental problems” that calls into question her credibility, perception, and judgment.
@Sarah: I didn’t think you were bashing Kennedy, and I totally get the point you were trying to make about the focus on Chappaquiddick! Ted Kennedy – and B. Clinton for that matter – have always been brain fodder when I consider the issue of how much, if at all, I should distinguish between a public servant’s public and private lives.
@sarah-oalg: This is a good point. Chappaquiddick put the kibosh on his presidential hopes for good, when the WKS rape trial rolled around he was coming in to his like third decade of being, to put it indelicately, a hard partying drunk. People were less than shocked. And I also think its true what SarahMC said about conservatives, they don’t tend to view rape allegations as very problematic (press them and I’m sure they’d think the victim had made it all up).
Just clarifying because Hill Rat made me nervous, Tallgirl!
Two questions arise for me in this situation:
One, how would I respond were a good friend or my brother accused of rape? What would I do? How could I be a good friend or sister AND not someone who makes the victim’s life worse?
Two, how would I deal with this as a feminist defense attorney?
I don’t know much about Kennedy’s response to his nephew’s crime, so these questions aren’t meant as any kind of apologia for them.
I do know how I feel about the men who’ve raped friends of mine—an utter blankness toward their existence—but none of these men were close to me, so to blot them out causes me zero anguish. But if they were. . ?
And there has to be feminist defense attorneys out there; how do they/you handle these cases? How do you handle your twin commitments to the standards of your profession and to the principles of feminism?
@SarahMC: I certainly didn’t interpret any of this as “anti-Ted” in the slightest. So I would say no worries in that regard. And I appreciate the post because there can be such a hagiography built up around the recently deceased and it is important to cut through that because it is NEVER realistic.
I don’t think anyone here knows how to answer those questions, unless they’ve been through it.
I hate it that a woman is considered un-feminist, if she stands by a family member or friend who has been accused of rape. I think it is fine, as long as the evidence is not staking up against the accused, then you may just be left with mud on your face.
One has to take it from an “I don’t know” perspective because the truth is no one knows for sure unless they were there. So there should be no judging of the accuser or the accused.
[...] death that conveniently forgetting to mention Mary Jo Kopechne and Kennedy’s participation in a smear campaign against a woman who accused his nephew of [...]
Thanks for the summary. I am not American and know nothing about Ted Kennedy. Reading about both these things was interesting.
This is terrible. How can we say that she died for a good cause???? Did I miss something? She was probably rapped and then left to drown and die. The Kennedys are notorious for coming such crimes. Hate to say it, but it’s true.
As was pointed out by adbsurdbeats and DirtyLaundry above, it is not surprising that a family would come together to support an accused. I deal with such on a regular basis, often involving fabrications, more often denial and stupidity. While I agree that it is conscious conduct on Kennedy’s part, and I can see why it causes such heartburn, I have commented in court with regard to similar facts that blood is thicker than court orders. Persons of privilege are also a major pain in such circumstances – they truly think they should be treated differently because they are a “name”.
I was traveling a lot in 1991, and only recall that I thought that WKS was guilty. If I remember right, the defense attorney was Roy Black, one of the best in Florida. The cross-examination as described is very skillful, and facilitated by a couple of social realities. One is that we do a terrible job generally of educating members of American society and women in general that “nice” is generally over rated and often counterproductive. In addition, most people, men and women, are poor at threat recognition and putting their safety above the feelings of others. I would not be surprised if the witness referred to is more an example of that than of not believing that the rape occurred.
There is a constant tension between educating a potential or actual victim population and blaming the victim. Since the offender is the one responsible for the crime, it is repugnant to blame the victim, but I am constantly amazed at how unthinking people are with regard to their own safety. (And this is not limited to physical assaults – it can be ID theft and other such crimes, too.) When I taught college, I thought it was vital to ensure that my students would think critically about such things. I was at least happy to see that most of the women in the classes knew that classmates and fellow dorm residents were the real threat, not the “stranger”. I am constantly exposed to crime reports which among my professional responses leave me wanting to ask “what the hell were you thinking?”. I went to a burglary one afternoon, in which someone watching a house and caring for their friend’s dog held the dog (bullmastiff) off the burglar because she was afraid the dog would hurt the burglar. Huh? Damned right it would, and GOOD.
Am I the only one who remembers when Kennedy and Christopher Dodd (CT-D) sexually assaulted a waitress in a D.C. restaurant?
I hate hearing about that part of his life, because I want to believe all Democrats actually care about women. It hurts me when the facts don’t line up.
There is another way to look at it. Like it or not, William Kennedy Smith was acquitted after a fair trial. Unsurprisingly, his family rallied around him. That frequently happens. His defense attorney was effective.
Although I no longer practice, I was a criminal defense attorney. I followed the case at the time, watched what I could on television. (We did not have cable at the time.) I thought it was a weak case. My first wife, who was a practicing lawyer at the time (but not a criminal attorney), also found it to be a weak case. One of her law school classmates, then a prosecutor, also thought it was a weak case.
Of course the judge did not let those three other women testify that Smith had attacked them earlier. It would have been shocking if the judge had. Prior convictions do not usually come in unless the defendant testifies. Then they only come in to challenge the defendant’s credibility.
However, these allegations were not even convictions. They had never been tested in court, let alone proved true.
Strangely, in a rape case, we are supposed to throw away all the rights that a criminal defendant normally receives. Forgive me if I dissent.
I suspect if any of you are ever indicted, you will want to make use of every right that the legal system provides. I further suspect that most of you will stand by any son; husband; father; uncle or nephew to whom you are close if he is ever charged with rape. At most, you may have to convince yourself of his innocence first.
Strangely enough, spouses, fiancees, relatives and friends usually manage to do that also.
But rape doesn’t bother them that much, which is why they almost always throw all their eggs into the Chappaquiddick basket
You mean like this case?
Link
Roman Polanski doesn’t have a Chappaquiddick to trump his rape. But he is a “Hollywood liberal,” which is the only reason right-wingers are up in arms about the case.