Kennedy breaks silence on Chappaquiddick

Press, 20 July 1979, Page 5

Kennedy breaks silence on Chappaquiddick

By ROBERT KAISER of the “New York Times,” news service, through NZPA Senator Edward Kennedy has reaffirmed that he believes he acted irrationally and irresponsibly in the aftermath of a fatal automobile accident at Chappaquiddick Island 10 years ago. But he said that he did not believe that his performance in that crisis meant that he could not meet the pressures of the Presidency if he chose to run.

In the first detailed interview he has granted in five years, on the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, Senator Kennedy thus addressed himself directly to an issue that has occupied politicians and political journalists ever since the accident — whether the events at Chappaquiddick represented a fatal blow to any Presidential hopes the senator might harbour. In the interview Mr Kennedy said that his actions in driving the automobile off a bridge, which resulted in Miss Kopechnels death, and his failure to report the accident promptly to the authorities, had been “irrational and irresponsible, and they were actions for

which I take full and complete responsibility.” But he said he did not believe the tragedy on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts on the night of July 18, 1969, posed the same kinds of tests that he had met in 17 years in the Senate and that he would face if chosen President. He said he had met the issues of war and peace in public life since Chappaquiddick and “have felt no hesitancy about involving myself in them and taking stands on many of them.” Seated in a high-backed colonial chair in his

office, Mr Kennedy appeared tense and occasionally swept by emotion as he described the 10-year-old trauma. Though his recollections were largely the same as his earlier testimony, he disclosed for the first time that he had ordered two longtime friends who were with him that night, Joseph Gargan and Paul Markham, not to report the accident to the police “because I was the responsible person in the accident and I felt I should report it.” He also firmly rejected the suggestion that a new inquiry into Chappaquiddick would lay to rest any of the doubts about the incident. Mr Kennedy agreed to an interview provided that he and his staff would have an opportunity to review the questions in advance and that no electronic recording be made of his remarks. Though Mr Kennedy, the 47-year-old Massachusetts Democrat, has stated that he is not a candidate for the Presidency, it became clear in the interview that he - is willing to deal with Chappaquiddick in a new way. He said that in the near future he expected he “will be asked about the incident in a public forum or in a public way” and that hei

would continue to address himself to the matter as often as necessary because he had resolved on “a continuing involvement in public life.”

Six days after Miss Kopechne died, Mr Kennedy pleaded guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident. He received a twomonth suspended sentence, was placed on probation for one year, and had his driving licence suspended for 12 months.

The presumed political liability for Chappaquiddick extended through two Presidential campaigns, 1972 and 1976. Mr Kennedy resisted pressure from some leaders of his party to seek the Presidency. Some of his friends said that one of the main factors underlying his resistance was the incident at Chappaquiddick. In the last few weeks, movements have been mounted in 15 states to draft Mr Kennedy for President. The list includes nearly all the states holding early and critical primaries and caucuses in 1980, including New York, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Mr Kennedy has co-oper-ated with all official inquiries and submitted, in 1974, to one, detoiled new

interview on the subject, conducted by the Boston “Globe.” Nevertheless, many people have said they do not believe they have been given a full account of Chappaquiddick. The parents of Mary Jo Kopechne said in an interview last week that despite two private meetings with Mr Kennedy they do not feel that they know all the facts about how their daughter died. They were bitterly critical of the inquest into the death. The inquest also heard the controversial testimony of Christopher Look, a deputy sheriff, who said that he saw Mr Kennedy's car at an intersection near the bridge almost an hour after the time that Mr Kennedy said the accident had occurred. In a 1976 investigation, however, the Associated Press reported that Mr Look’s account had been materially expanded in the retelling. From the beginning there has been consistent criticism that Mr Kennedy received favoured treatment from the Massachusetts police and courts.

In a review of published data and court records on Chapnaquiddick. renorters for the “New York Times’’ focused on those aspects of the account that seemed the I

least resolved and went through them point-by-point, with Mr Kennedy.

He said that in his first report to the police he did not mention the efforts of the friends (perhaps 30 to 40 minutes after the accident) to help him “see if the passenger was still in the car,” because he had not wanted them to assume any responsibility, either for the accident, or for reporting it later. “And,” said Mr Kennedy, “I had every intention of doing it. I was the respon sible person in the accident, and I felt I should report it.” Kennedy said there had never been any discussions between him and his aides about making up a cover story about the accident. “Absolutely not.” he said. “Absolutely not. The discussions were about reporting the accident, and I wanted to do that, and also to call Burke Marshall, who was a family friend.” In the interview it was noted that Mr Marshall was also a family lawyer. Was the senator seeking some legal advice too? “No,” said Mr Kennedy. “I realised that late at night I would be calling the Ko-

pechne family, that there were probably other arrangements involving the tragedy that would have to be made.”