written analysis
Investigative Statement Analysis
Initial statement given by Ted Kennedy in reference to the accident that occurred on July 18, 1969 in Chappaquiddick, Massachusetts.
Date: October 30, 2007
Analyst Comments:
Narrative Balance: The Prologue begins with sentence #1 and ends with sentence #3. The Central Issue begins with sentence #4 and ends with sentence #9. The Epilogue begins with sentence #10 and ends with sentence #14. Thus the breakdown is:
Prologue = 3 sentences
Central Issue = 6 sentences
Epilogue = 5 sentences
The narrative is somewhat unbalanced due to the short Prologue and thus can be considered to be possibly deceptive on its face. It is not unbalanced enough to say this conclusively.
Mean Length of Unit:
The narrative has 14 sentences and 237 words, thus giving a MLU of 16.9 rounded to 17. Thus any sentences 23 words or longer and any sentences 11 words or less can be considered deceptive on their face.
Structure of Analysis:
The actual sentences from the narrative are in bold italicized type. After each sentence are the number of words in the sentence, whether or not it is deceptive on its face, and the analyst’s comments. All of these will be in normal type.
1. On July 18th, 1969, at approximately 11:15 P.M. in Chappaquiddick, Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, I was driving my car on Main Street on my way to get the ferry back to Edgartown.
30 words – Deceptive on its face. There is no mention of the passenger in this sentence. All of the pronouns are singular. It is “my car” “on my way”, etc. When the passenger is mentioned later, it is almost an afterthought. The deception in this sentence may be the last part of the sentence where he relates why he was driving the car. He very well may have been driving for some reason other than to get the ferry. This would be an area to be further explored in an interview.
2. I was unfamiliar with the road and turned right onto Dike Road, instead of bearing hard left on Main Street.
20 words. “I was unfamiliar with the road” is an explanatory phrase telling us why he ended up on Dike Road. The phrase “instead of bearing hard left on Main Street” is a strange way of phrasing. Most people would say something like “instead of staying on Main Street.”
3. After proceeding for approximately one-half mile on Dike Road I descended a hill and came upon a narrow bridge.
20 words. There is nothing particularly deceptive about this sentence. The phrasing of the sentence is very formal. The phrasing is almost like a police type report or a legal/lawyer way of phrasing. It also appears that the phrase “came upon a narrow bridge” is almost a passive way of phrasing that indicates he was taken by surprise and had no control over what he was doing.
4. The car went off the side of the bridge.
9 words – This sentence is deceptive on its face. This is the very first sentence of the Central Issue. It is interesting to note that four of the six sentences in the Central Issue are deceptive on their face. Even though the normal words indicating a temporal lacuna are not present, there is one between sentence three and sentence four. He “came upon a narrow bridge” and then he goes off of it with no explanation or reason. He is leaving out critical facts in the narrative – the reason he went off the bridge and his actions between getting to the bridge and the car going off the bridge.
Notice also that at the beginning in sentence 1 the vehicle is “my car” and in this sentence it is “the car”. This is a good example of dropping a pronoun and removing himself from the narrative. In his mind, he had nothing to do with the car going off the bridge. This would be a great angle to explore in an interview with him. It is almost as if the car committed the crime and he was just a passive spectator.
5. There was one passenger with me, one Miss ________, a former secretary of my brother Sen. Robert Kennedy.
18 words. There is nothing particularly deceptive about this sentence. It is interesting to note the way Kennedy refers to the victim as “one Miss _____”. The blank line is there in Kennedy’s original statement (supposedly Kennedy left if blank because he was unsure of how to spell the name and wrote in a phonetic equivalent – the girl’s name was Mary Jo Kopechne). Even if he had written the correct name, this is still a very depersonalized way of referring to a woman who has just died in a car driven by you less than 12 hours previously (Kennedy wrote the statement at approximately 1000 to 1030 the next day).
6. The car turned over and sank into the water and landed with the roof resting on the bottom.
18 words. Again, there is nothing particularly deceptive about this sentence. Notice that he refers once again to it as “the car” rather than “my car” as he did in the beginning of the statement.
7. I attempted to open the door and the window of the car but have no recollection of how I got out of the car.
24 words – This sentence is deceptive on its face. “I attempted” – this is a weakened assertion referring to something that probably did not happen. This is shown even more by the abjuration “but” which serves to withdraw the entire previous statement. He then immediately uses a repression phrase “have no recollection” indicating there is something about this that causes anxiety. It is the opinion of this analyst that this sentence is a complete fabrication. There is something significant about how Kennedy got out of the car that causes him a great deal of anxiety. This should be thoroughly explored in an interview and he should be pressed to remember what happened with getting out of the vehicle. It is also the opinion of this analyst that he remembers exactly the events involved in him getting out of the car.
8. I came to the surface and then repeatedly dove down to the car in an attempt to see if the passenger was still in the car.
26 words – This sentence is deceptive on its face. “then” represents a temporal lacunae indicating some lapse of time between surfacing and diving back down to the car (if indeed, he even dove back down). Again, “attempt” here represents a weakened assertion about something that probably did not happen. Also, he refers to the victim as “the passenger” rather than by name – this is an example of distancing and depersonalizing the victim. It is the opinion of this analyst that none of the actions indicated in this sentence actually happened.
9. I was unsuccessful in the attempt.
6 words – This sentence is deceptive on its face. It also should be noted that “attempt” show up again. He does not say he was unsuccessful in rescuing the victim, he just says he was unsuccessful in the “attempt.” Again, it is the opinion of this analyst that there was no attempt and this statement is false because of that. This sentence ends the Central Issue.
10. I recall walking back to where my friends were eating.
10 words – This sentence is deceptive on its face. This sentence also begins the Epilogue. “I recall” is a modifying or equivocating term – he is not telling you what all he did, he is only telling you what he “recalls.” There is also a temporal lacuna here even though the normal words indicating one are absent. In the previous sentence, he is still in the water after his unsuccessful “attempt” and now he is walking back to where his friends are eating. What happened in the time period between the two? This is definitely an area that should be explored in an interview. Again, this analyst is of the opinion that this sentence is false and Kennedy’s actions were something other than what he states here.
11. There was a car parked in front of the cottage and I climbed into the backseat.
16 words. Even though there are no particular deceptive markers in this sentence, the sentence is very generalized and conveys little helpful information. What car? What cottage? Why get into the back seat? Therefore, this sentence contributes to the overall deceptiveness of the narrative because the subject is attempting to appear cooperative and helpful while conveying little or no real information.
12. I then asked for someone to bring me back to Edgartown.
11 words – This sentence is deceptive on its face. The sentence begins with a temporal lacuna “I then asked” indicating a period of time between getting into the backseat of the car and asking someone to take him back to Edgartown. The sentence is also deceptive in that it is very general and conveys little real information such as who did he ask. Finally, the word “bring” is present tense and refers to a past event that indicates deception. The question is, what is he being deceptive about here? It is possible that he never asked anyone to bring him back to Edgartown.
13. I remember walking around for a period then going back to my my hotel room.
15 words. This sentence is very vague and generalized and appears deceptive because of that. We have no idea how much time has elapsed or where he went or who he might have seen. It fits in with several other sentences in the narrative where the subject tries to appear like he is cooperating while in reality he is giving very little substantive information.
14. When I fully realized what had happened this morning, I immediately contacted the police.
14 words. This sentence begins with a temporal lacuna “When” and leaves us with no idea how much time has passed since he went back to his hotel room in the previous sentence or what happened in the interim. The words “fully realized” are explanatory terms intended to give a reason why he did not report the accident at an earlier time. The explanation does not make sense. He realized enough in the Central Issue to supposedly dive under the water time after time to attempt to rescue the passenger, but it took him until the next morning to realize what had happened enough to report it to the police. This sentence is also deceptive due to this reason.
Analyst’s Conclusion:
The narrative is deceptive as to form based on its structure. It is also deceptive throughout based on semantic analysis of the words and phrases used in the narrative. Every sentence in the narrative is deceptive in some measure either as an outright lie or in the omission of crucial information.