Jump to content
The Education Forum

Its a Kennedy,find MUD throw MUD


Recommended Posts

Let's not be silly Greg, Thorsen being the main scientist was one of the two legs your claim stood upon

Len, you are just confusing yourself. The only claim I made was that he was in trouble for fraud. That you think I should provide a cite for everything said leading up to a claim, is your problem. But no one - including your good self does it.

But you choose to ignore a more important point. Even if he was "the main scientist" of that particular project, 'his' paper's and he papers that cited them only constitute a small percent of the body of work showing there not to be a connection thus no matter how you slice it your claim he was “…the main scientist dismissing the link to autism..." was incorrect

Show me an apple-pie graph with his percent in puce, otherwise I'll just have to believe you're relying on number of google hits and the say-so of pro-vax sites.

Yes and he was never first nor last [named as co-authors]

Yes, and which of the 3 claims about order (that we have so far located), is correct?

You miss understand peer review, the reviewers don't verify the claims they only certify that the study as described followed certain standards.

Stop trying so hard, Len.

What you wrote was Wakefield "had been dishonest, violated basic research ethics rules" to which I responded "I do wonder how such apparently shoddy work got past a peer review to begin with"

shod·dy (shhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gifdhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)

adj. shod·di·er, shod·di·est

1.
Made of or containing inferior material.

2.

a.
Of poor quality or craft.

b.
Rundown; shabby.

3.
Dishonest or reprehensible:
shoddy business practices.

4.
Conspicuously and cheaply imitative.

Where did I say anything about peer reviews VERIFYING his claims? In your hunt for "gotchas", you really need to exercise a little more thought and care, lest you put your foot in it (yet again).

Living in Brazil I know a thing or two about such corruption, such scandals are frequent it is not uncommon for midlevel administrators to pull such scam, for example the person responsible for purchases at a public hospitals can arrange kickbacks or submit false invoices

Irrelevant. We're not talking about Brazil, and in any case, those who transferred the money to him have not been charged with anything, nor are they under any suspicion as far as I know.

Not a very good analogy since it is known as the Warren Report, get back to me with anyone (besides anti-vaxers) calling it the "Thorsen Project" any of the papers the "Thorsen Report"

It is popularly known as the Warren Report but it's correct title is the Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. The vax studies do not have the same level of interest to the point where the title is shortened to the name of the head honcho, so your objection is irrelevant. It was not an analogy on popularity. The analogy stands.

As noted above you've yet to establish that "the Danish press" have dubbed him the main scientist

Yes, I did. Pay attention. The blogger was sourcing his blog from the Danish press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Daniel, don't look now but your Camus is showing!

Dr Parker BA, MD, FRACCAS, OHM, OBE, UNO, KNaRDLI

Meanwhile, deep in the bowels of the DPD interrogation chamber, it seems that Dr. Parker has been foiled by the overwhelming cunning of Johnny the Search Engine Deployer. "Ha HA!" cried Johnny.

They'll never catch me now! 'Twas upon just such a night dark and dreary as this

that I first discovered I had the ability to comprehend the syllogistic narratives of

my lessers and to note for all posterity's posterity the presentations of their false

dichotomies presented as fact; but I knew better, since the rarity with which they

were cited by others indicates otherwise. People knew but could not tell that

something was amiss. Where now the wee bairn with his crayon box so tidily

dismissive? Where now the incoherent, overexcited jabberings of one without

apparent recourse to auxiliary verbs, pronouns, and other such language usage

desiderata of the all too meticulous online authors of things? Behold My mighty

hand!! There blows a terrible wind on those who question mine authority to do

what I do. Let them fear now the hell-bent gestations of my gastrointestinal

discomfitures! Let them stand aghast at the mind-bending permutations of my

mind-bending permutations! Crash, Boom, Bang! goes the Choo-Choo. Never

was and never will be wrong done by the better sort in society, the acknowleged

officials and bourgeois citizen-leaders with their smart suits highly polished

and well-scented breakneck pace of lads on the make for more money, more

money, more money; and their undaunted bon homie and Gemutlichkeit

with the wilful ingestion of Viagra during a thunderstorm and being heard crying

throughout the castle, Life! Life!! Give my creature LIFE!!! Such was the

way of it, and still is, up to and including today. They sought to maneuver what

they called the truth into the public's consciousness, but without reckoning with

the sheer elemental force that I represent. Let them go on squandering their

energy in attempts to reason with me. Let them use up all their patience and

vast databases of information to counter my unlimited patience and vaster

databases. They will not find the answers I already own. They'll never see as

clearly as I do. They'll never know what it means to be me........ They'll never

catch me now! 'Twas upon just such a night dark and dreary as this that I first

discovered I had the ability to comprehend the syllogistic narratives of my lessers

and to note for all posterity's posterity the presentations of their false dichotomies

presented as fact; but I knew better, since the rarity with which they were cited

by others indicates otherwise. People knew but could not tell that something was

amiss. Where now the wee bairn with his crayon box so tidily dismissive? Where

now the incoherent, overexcited jabberings of one without apparent recourse to

auxiliary verbs, pronouns, and other such language usage desiderata of the all too

meticulous online authors of things? Behold My mighty hand!! There blows a

terrible wind on those who question mine authority to do what I do. Let them

fear now the hell-bent gestations of my gastrointestinal discomfitures! Let them

stand aghast at the mind-bending permutations of my mind-bending permutations!

Crash, Boom, Bang! goes the Choo-Choo. Never was and never will be wrong

done by the better sort in society, the acknowleged officials and bourgeois

citizen-leaders with their smart suits highly polished and well-scented breakneck

pace of lads on the make for more money, more money, more money; and their

undaunted bon homie and Gemutlichkeit with the wilful ingestion of

Viagra during a thunderstorm and being heard crying throughout the castle, Life!

Life!! Give my creature LIFE!!! Such was the way of it, and still is, up to

and including today. They sought to maneuver what they called the truth into the

public's consciousness, but without reckoning with the sheer elemental force

that I represent. Let them go on squandering their energy in attempts to reason

with me. Let them use up all their patience and vast databases of information

to counter my unlimited patience and vaster databases. They will not find the

answers I already own. They'll never see as clearly as I do. They'll never know

what it means to be me........ They'll never catch me now! 'Twas upon just such

a night dark and dreary as this that I first discovered I had the ability to

comprehend the syllogistic narratives of my lessers and to note for all posterity's

posterity the presentations of their false dichotomies presented as fact; but I

knew better, since the rarity with which they were cited by others indicates

otherwise. People knew but could not tell that something was amiss. Where

now the wee bairn with his crayon box so tidily dismissive? Where now the

incoherent, overexcited jabberings of one without apparent recourse to auxiliary

verbs, pronouns, and other such language usage desiderata of the all too

meticulous online authors of things? Behold My mighty hand!! There blows a

terrible wind on those who question mine authority to do what I do. Let them

fear now the hell-bent gestations of my gastrointestinal discomfitures! Let them

stand aghast at the mind-bending permutations of my mind-bending permutations!

Crash, Boom, Bang! goes the Choo-Choo. Never was and never will be wrong

done by the better sort in society, the acknowleged officials and bourgeois

citizen-leaders with their smart suits highly polished and well-scented breakneck

pace of lads on the make for more money, more money, more money; and their

undaunted bon homie and Gemutlichkeit with the wilful ingestion of

Viagra during a thunderstorm and being heard crying throughout the castle, Life!

Life!! Give my creature LIFE!!! Such was the way of it, and still is, up to

and including today. They sought to maneuver what they called the truth into the

public's consciousness, but without reckoning with the sheer elemental force

that I represent. Let them go on squandering their energy in attempts to reason

with me. Let them use up all their patience and vast databases of information

to counter my unlimited patience and vaster databases. They will not find the

answers I already own. They'll never see as clearly as I do. They'll never

know what it means to be me........ et cetera ad infinitum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoops. Missed this clanger.

You are also presenting a false dichotomy there is a third option, Reuters and the blogger could have made a simple mistake.

Hypothetically speaking, offering two choices where there is no clear cut answer, is a lot better than pretending there is no choice because you have it right.

But the fact is, I did give exactly the option as you suggest I should have given earlier in the same reply that you've responded to here when I said "I mean, apparently Reuters and the Danish Press are all idiots..." which implies they simply made a mistake.

I have been attempting to elicit your spin on what Reuters and the Danish press called him. I think I just got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Is the "military censor" (sorry Evan, that is how you are referred to in an obscure area of the CT community...) on to something unintentional in his recent, "Eat our Young" thread?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19121

I see little or no reaction to research posted by contributors here who still regularly do that sort of thing, but fifty or more posts in a thread such as this one are par for the course. "Feelings" or "This is what I see in that image" related posts and threads are sucking up the oxygen in this forum, but Robert Howard, for example, now stays away for two week blocks at a time. Who can blame him?

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see little or no reaction to research posted by contributors here who still regularly do that sort of thing

Not me. I gave up and went my own way when every discussion I started on any new research got hijacked by those wanting to flog the Harvey and Lee dead horse. It was apparently allowed under the Rules of Free Speech.

But then others since have complained about threads being hijacked and had the threads "cleaned up" by the Keepers of the Rules of Free Speech. Go figure because I can't.

but fifty or more posts in a thread such as this one are par for the course. "Feelings" or "This is what I see in that image" related posts and threads are sucking up the oxygen in this forum,

Although you name someone else, I detect a whiff of sour grapes here because your long and winding roads don't get the attention you crave (you were given sound advice regarding your style and formating by Lee Farley, BTW - did you take it?). Apart from that, I basically agree with you. Many years ago. I told John Simkin that I could start a thread here by making up a bunch of crap about a photo and it would be taken more seriously and be more widely read than anything else I was posting. It wasn't a complaint (I have never lodged one) just an aside in a discussion on other things. Cinque and others have now proved my point.

But what do I care? I only have to turn up these days and someone wants to pick a fight. I'll be leaving again soon, so your Free Speech will not be further disrupted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My latest
Let's not be silly Greg, Thorsen being the main scientist was one of the two legs your claim stood upon

Len, you are just confusing yourself. The only claim I made was that he was in trouble for fraud. That you think I should provide a cite for everything said leading up to a claim, is your problem. But no one - including your good self does it.

You described him as "
the main scientist
dismissing the link to autism"

But you choose to ignore a more important point. Even if he was "the main scientist" of that particular project, 'his' paper's and he papers that cited them only constitute a small percent of the body of work showing there not to be a connection thus no matter how you slice it your claim he was “…the main scientist dismissing the link to autism..." was incorrect

Show me an apple-pie graph with his percent in puce, otherwise I'll just have to believe you're relying on number of google hits and the say-so of pro-vax sites.

You continue to use the strawman that a Google Scholar search is no different than a normal Google search. The former is a database of academic papers, it indexes leading journals like Science, Nature, the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine etc, less than 3% of the papers with keywords
Thimerosal
and
autism
also contain the keyword
thorsen
. But you still don't like it let's try another albeit smaller index. The Public Library of Science (PLoS) Biology database has 783 hits for
Thimerosal
and
autism
but only 6 when we add
thorsen
, that come out to less than 1%

Yes and he was never first nor last [named as co-authors]

Yes, and which of the 3 claims about order (that we have so far located), is correct?

It seems that there are a few different protocols but in non-alphabetical lists the first one or two and some
You miss understand peer review, the reviewers don't verify the claims they only certify that the study as described followed certain standards.

Stop trying so hard, Len.

What you wrote was Wakefield
"had been
dishonest, violated basic research ethics
rules"
to which I responded
"I do wonder how such apparently shoddy work got past a peer review to begin with"

shod·dy
(shhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/obreve.gifdhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)

adj.
shod·di·er
,
shod·di·est

1.
Made of or containing inferior material.

2.

a.
Of poor quality or craft.

b.
Rundown; shabby.

3.
Dishonest or reprehensible:
shoddy business practices.

4.
Conspicuously and cheaply imitative.

Where did I say anything about peer reviews VERIFYING his claims? In your hunt for "gotchas", you really need to exercise a little more thought and care, lest you put your foot in it (yet again).

??? How else would they have known

Living in Brazil I know a thing or two about such corruption, such scandals are frequent it is not uncommon for midlevel administrators to pull such scam, for example the person responsible for purchases at a public hospitals can arrange kickbacks or submit false invoices

Irrelevant. We're not talking about Brazil, and in any case, those who transferred the money to him have not been charged with anything, nor are they under any suspicion as far as I know.

The point was that it's possible for a mid-level administrator to pull off such scams. I imagine it would be easier for a conman in Denmark because since their is less corruption there probably is less control The people who transfered the money were not punished because he told them it was a CDC account

Not a very good analogy since it is known as the Warren Report, get back to me with anyone (besides anti-vaxers) calling it the "Thorsen Project" any of the papers the "Thorsen Report"

It is popularly known as the Warren Report but it's correct title is the Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. The vax studies do not have the same level of interest to the point where the title is shortened to the name of the head honcho, so your objection is irrelevant. It was not an analogy on popularity. The analogy stands.

Exactly get back to me if you can find anyone but anti-vaxers who call
it the "Thorsen Project" any of the papers the "Thorsen Report" It is not uncommon for people to s name reports after the lead author.
In any case judicial investgations and scientific research are very different animals.

As noted above you've yet to establish that "the Danish press" have dubbed him the main scientist

Yes, I did. Pay attention. The blogger was sourcing his blog from the Danish press.

Please quote where the blogger indicated "the Danish press." had identified him as the team leader

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but fifty or more posts in a thread such as this one are par for the course. "Feelings" or "This is what I see in that image" related posts and threads are sucking up the oxygen in this forum,

Although you name someone else, I detect a whiff of sour grapes here because your long and winding roads don't get the attention you crave (you were given sound advice regarding your style and formating by Lee Farley, BTW - did you take it?)

Wow I fully agree with you Greg. Tommy and I have made similar observations. On the other hand we should be thankful that the world's foremost authority on who attended the weddings of the offspring of anyone vaguely connected to the assassination posts here.

Funny that he complains about photo interpretation threads "sucking up the oxygen in this forum" on this thread but made the thread I started suggesting that people refrain from participating in the Fetque circus invisible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoops. Missed this clanger.

You are also presenting a false dichotomy there is a third option, Reuters and the blogger could have made a simple mistake.

Hypothetically speaking, offering two choices where there is no clear cut answer, is a lot better than pretending there is no choice because you have it right.

But the fact is, I did give exactly the option as you suggest I should have given earlier in the same reply that you've responded to here when I said "I mean, apparently Reuters and the Danish Press are all idiots..." which implies they simply made a mistake.

Yes then you contradicted yourself But that was yet another false dichotomy. Someone can make a reasonable mistake and not be an "idiot". You've made lots of mistakes but strike me as a reasonably smart guy. Fetzer supposedly graduated with honors from Princeton but is less accurate than a stopped clock
:)

I have been attempting to elicit your spin on what Reuters and the Danish press called him. I think I just got it.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While six_degrees _of_separation phenomena may at first appear to be unrelated to the discussion in this thread I think it is not.

If you start at the periphery of the case you can always work toward someone who knew someone.

I believe that one should start their investigation at the scene of the crime and hence the importance of the photographic record.

In the same way that you take the photographic analysis with a bit of skepticism I take the written analysis found in so many books with a bit of skepticism.

Basically this principle says that you can connect anyone to anyone else if you step out far enough.

http://en.wikipedia....s_of_separation

The social network...

250px-Six_degrees_of_separation.svg.png

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While six_degrees _of_separation phenomena may at first appear to be unrelated to the discussion in this thread I think it is not.

If you start at the periphery of the case you can always work toward someone who knew someone.

I believe that one should start their investigation at the scene of the crime and hence the importance of the photographic record.

In the same way that you take the photographic analysis with a bit of skepticism I take the written analysis found in so many books with a bit of skepticism.

Basically this principle says that you can connect anyone to anyone else if you step out far enough.

http://en.wikipedia....s_of_separation

Yes but a certain member of this forum had discovered things like "X's daughter attended the wedding of Y's son, Z was Y's college roommate, Z attended one of Q's sons' weddings" then implies that this shows X is tied to Q and feels disappointed that no praises him for his stunning 'discoveries'.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While six_degrees _of_separation phenomena may at first appear to be unrelated to the discussion in this thread I think it is not.

If you start at the periphery of the case you can always work toward someone who knew someone.

I believe that one should start their investigation at the scene of the crime and hence the importance of the photographic record.

In the same way that you take the photographic analysis with a bit of skepticism I take the written analysis found in so many books with a bit of skepticism.

Basically this principle says that you can connect anyone to anyone else if you step out far enough.

http://en.wikipedia....s_of_separation

Yes but a certain member of this forum had discovered things like "X's daughter attended the wedding of Y's son, Z was Y's college roommate, Z attended one of Q's sons' weddings" then implies that this shows X is tied to Q and feels disappointed that no praises him for his stunning 'discoveries'.

Thats kinda what I am talking about Len.

This is a thankless job. We do it because we want to know the truth, not because it is going to make us any friends. However, if we a make a friend or two along the way then that is an unexpected bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Daniel, you've persuaded me to dump my last post. You've influenced me to anticipate that anything I post will probably be taken in the worst possible light. I am surprised I have not assumed that appraisal of motive will marginalize the message to the point where nothing in it will be considered as anything other than a provocation, a self indulgence, or a transparent manipulation.

You hold up a mirror each of us could benefit from taking a look in. Ignore your critics, identify what you cannot change and accept that you cannot change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes! That's it! That's a perfect example! I bother to write something, and I get no response. So I can either choose to wonder why I'm being ignored, maybe even shunned, or I can choose to feel positively giddy and totally confident about having made a f***ing contribution to so many lives in this G****m world.

I shall choose the latter thank you very much.

All that can be demonstrated is that people are far more attracted to train wrecks. Choosing to believe I've made some huge contribution may give me a warm glow, but I prefer reality. Likewise choosing to believe I'm being shunned may allow me some righteous indignation, but where's the evidence? You may be into self-delusion, Daniel, but I prefer reality and keeping my head as level as I can. I'll save all the fuzzy feelings for if/when I make any contribution to having the case reopened.

I really don't understand the almost constant ridicule and harassment of the few members here actually posting new information or furthering existing knowledge, or the clogging of this forum with what seems to be barbs, banter, and image centered distractions.

Is the intent to discourage the posting of new details about relationships of existing suspects and persons of interest?

If you ridicule others, shouldn't you also have a long list of contributions you've posted in prior threads here?

....Why is almost no one interested in taking the ball, as in research posted by another member, and expanding on it?

If Greg Parker was not so caught up in whatever Len is dishing out

It's just some brainless fun - a distraction from the more serious work - kind of acts like a reboot.

, or with critiques of my posting style, posted by Lee Farley,

Lee posted what he did in a good faith effort to help you achieve what you wanted: a bigger readership, and more discussion. That you took it as some kind of insult is not Lee's fault.

maybe Greg and I could discuss this article he posted, and the related things I've posted recently on this forum that added to the detail in Greg's piece.

Why isn't this happening routinely? I would appreciate reading responses from Len and Tommy.

See above. In general, people prefer train wrecks. More specifically with you, reading your posts make decoding the dead sea scrolls a walk in the park and you refuse to acknowledge your style is a turn off.

First off, I believe they now wish to be referred to as Dr. Greg Parker and Dr. Lee Farley.

Here, it's called taking the piss out of pompous blowhards. It's our national sport.

Lee, btw, is a professor. Or a Father Confessor. I get confused.

Secondly, my impression from what I've been able to understand from prior threads and their recent comments is that Drs. Parker and Farley have what they regard as a fairly major dispute with Tom Scully at a personal level over issues of egotism, heavy-handedness, and possibly hypocrisy in his role as a Moderator and/or in disputes about censorship Free Speech Within a Framework of Rules.

When someone is so desperate for the last word, that they use their moderator powers to lock threads after having that last word, I think that person plainly has some problems. But personally I have bigger issues with other Mods than I do with Tom. I don't believe Tom is a xxxx or a hypocrite. There's the ego thing with Tom, but there is also an inability to administer rules above the level of an 8 year old Hall Monitor. Apart from that, Bob's ya uncle.

If that's the case it's unlikely that Dr. Parker will appreciate someone seeming to tell him what he "should" be doing...

Not at all. That is an entirely separate issue. Fact is, the piece Tom wants to discuss is not on my radar at the moment. I have too much else sizzling in the deep fryer.

Finally, some of what these questions are driving at is getting very close to the forbidden zone of questioning the motives of members; for instance, "Is the intent to discourage the posting of new details about relationships of existing suspects and persons of interest?" If we're gonna start going down that road, we might just as well post negative but not entirely irrelevant background information on chiropractors

Once again, the Chiropractor invited scrutiny by issuing the challenge "Do you know who you're dealing with!" or something similar.

and authors who wrote books in 1980; or address the issue of how in sections of the Forum's "Controversial Issues" other than the JFK Obsession, it seems that discussion has been largely closed off by the ubiquitous presence of an overbearing, noxious personality who has to have the last word at all times in all situations. Had there been an active strategy to accomplish the stifling of discussions it could not have been more effective. But we can't talk about things like that, because who knows where it would lead? Lawsuits might be threatened, or disaffected members might run off to form their own band, like Drago and His satellites. Soon enough, mere commoners will be dropping their pants in an audience with Her Majesty and Prince Philip, shouting, "There ya are, missy! Celebrate yer Diamond Jubilee with that now!!"

Inappropriate and scandalous, and I'll be no party to it.

I'm very sorry that I'm not Len and Tommy, but there it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't understand the almost constant ridicule and harassment of the few members here actually posting new information or furthering existing knowledge, or the clogging of this forum with what seems to be barbs, banter, and image centered distractions.

Is the intent to discourage the posting of new details about relationships of existing suspects and persons of interest?

Once again the immoderator violates one of the rules he is supposed to enforce and indeed does enforce against others

EDIT - Formatting

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Private Lives of Kennedys, Played Out in Public

By PETER APPLEBOME

The New York Times

July 16, 2012

BEDFORD, N.Y. — These days, Cheever Country is feeling a lot more like Kennedy Country.

When Kerry Kennedy, the former wife of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, was arrested and charged with driving while impaired by drugs on Friday, it was just the latest in a distressing series of stories involving Kennedy family members living in the leafy quarters of affluent northern Westchester County, where suburban and exurban blend together.

Most conspicuous has been the fallout surrounding the suicide of Mary Kennedy, the estranged wife of Kerry Kennedy’s brother, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who hanged herself May 16 in a barn by the couple’s home here.

But if John Cheever, who lived in nearby Ossining, captured the private dysfunction beneath the placid surface of the “Mad Men”-era Westchester, the Kennedys seem to be offering an increasingly public view of a more contemporary version.

Among the many differences is that while Cheever captured the genteel dislocations in a world of country-club Republican suburbia, northern Westchester has become the residence of choice for the state’s most powerful Democrats, including Bill and Hillary Clinton in Chappaqua, Mr. Cuomo in Mount Kisco, and various Kennedy family members scattered about the landscape.

Ben Cheever, the writer and John Cheever’s son, who lives nearby in Pleasantville, said that despite different times with different rules, the rot behind the lace curtains that his father captured in fiction remains relevant.

“He wrote about hypocrisy,” Mr. Cheever said. “The idea was that in every fine home of every apparently successful person, there was living some secret life, that hiding beneath the surface was some terrible passion or infidelity. And to that extent, it exactly mirrors what we see of the Kennedys today.”

The woes, routine and tragic, of Kennedy family members are familiar here.

Ms. Kennedy, 52, was arrested Friday when her 2008 Lexus hit a tractor-trailer at around 8 a.m. She kept driving and left the highway, despite the damage to her vehicle, including a flat tire, according to the police report.

Through a spokesman, she denied the charge, saying she voluntarily took Breathalyzer, blood and urine tests — which showed no drugs or alcohol. Another source close to the family said on Sunday that Ms. Kennedy, who was on the way to her gym when the accident occurred, might have had a seizure. He said that after the accident, Ms. Kennedy told police that she wondered whether she perhaps took Ambien by accident instead of her thyroid medication. Ambien, a powerful prescription sleeping pill, has sometimes been linked to erratic behavior. It is not clear if that would have shown up in tests.

The accident happened amid the continuing fallout from the suicide of Ms. Kennedy’s sister-in-law and longtime best friend, Mary Kennedy, after it was revealed that she had been reburied in a Cape Cod cemetery 700 feet from her original grave near other Kennedy family members. Recently, a sealed affidavit, signed by Robert Kennedy Jr. during their divorce proceedings and made public afterward, alleged numerous instances of instability, violence and substance abuse.

Douglas Kennedy, another child of Robert F. Kennedy, the senator from New York who was assassinated in 1968, faces charges, two counts of harassment and one of endangering the welfare of a child, a misdemeanor, in connection with a scuffle he had with two nurses in January. The incident began when he tried to take his newborn son, despite their instructions, out of Northern Westchester Hospital, where Ms. Kennedy was taken after her accident Friday

.

Other incidents have become a familiar part of the local news.

Robert Gottlieb, a lawyer for Kerry Kennedy and Douglas Kennedy, said that being a Kennedy could lead to a harsher response and more news media attention than others would have received. The two nurses who insisted that the episode involving Douglas Kennedy be prosecuted were “simply trying to make money off the Kennedy name,” Mr. Gottlieb said.

He added: “Every case is different, but you certainly have to be aware of the impact and the burden that the Kennedys carry because of their name.”

William O’Shaughnessy, a northern Westchester native and longtime radio executive, said that unflattering behavior hardly began with the Kennedy family, but that it was more public and involved a broader pharmacopoeia than was common in an earlier era when substance abuse was limited largely to gin, Manhattans, whiskey sours and martinis.

“It may be more of the same, but with less class,” he said.

Mr. Cheever said one lesson of the Kennedys’ travails was true in his father’s time, too: Money and fame can create as many problems as it solves.

“The simple lesson I take from the Kennedys and a lot of other people who live around here is that success and notoriety are very hard to deal with,” he said. “I really think to a large extent fame is toxic, and it takes a very strong and canny person to survive it.”

Still, he said, a huge difference is what sort of behavior becomes known today.

“It was much easier to keep a secret 50 years ago, and a huge amount of misbehavior was never reported,” he said. “If someone committed suicide, you didn’t put it in the paper. If someone had a string of whores, you didn’t put it in the paper. Now, we the audience are the powerful people, and we love to pity the famous.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...