I was cleaning the house today and came across my copy of "A Murder in Greenwich" book on tape. It is about the Martha Moxley murder that Michael Skakel (a Kennedy cousin) was convicted of.

It was featured on UM during the later years. I don't recall much about it being discussed on this board, so I figured I would post the poll and ask what you all think.

As for me, I think they got the right man. I've read a lot about this case and it seems pretty clear to me, although there wasn't a ton of phyical evidence, but they did have his "confession" during therapy.

So watta ya think?

:)

I think one of the brothers did it, but I always figured reasonable doubt would be easy for either one to establish. I think Michael is more likely, but I expected an aquittal.

Hmm, well I for one believe Michael Skakel was wrongfully convicted. I was surprised when he was convicted, he was convicted basically off of no evidence. Skakel's brother Thomas or that live in tudor whose name I forget also had no alabi yet they focus on Michael, why?

Yes, Michael's alabi of him relieving himself in a tree at the time of the murder is lame but no one can prove that it is impossible. Part of the problem with this case is if they really thought he did it and really had all this evidence wouldnt they have charged him in 1975?

They claim he killed Martha with a golf club, but how did they put that golf club in his hand? While it is true that the golf club belonged to Michael's dad, Michael wasnt the only one that had access to it. Thomas I believe was known to be involved or want to be involved with Martha, I guess the state's theory was Michael killed Martha in a jealous rage when she just wanted to be friends but was interested in his brother instead?

However that tudor I feel was a likely suspect, he was supposedly a creepy guy that had a history of bad acts and flying off the handle and stuff. It is for sure my opinion that Michael shouldnt have been convicted off the evidence or lack of it presented at trial, in typical fashion when the state knew they didnt have the evidence they decided to assassinate Michael's character to make the jury hate him.

Michael's defense also didnt do well for as high priced as they were, I think it is because Mickey Sherman and probably Michael too, but especially his lawyer never seriously considered that a jury would convict him off the lack of evidence the state had. So as a result they didnt put on as good of a defense as they should have.

There was more evidence against William Kennedy Smith for his rape case than there was against Michael Skakel yet Smith gets acquitted and Skakel gets 20 years to life. American "Justice" at its finest. There was juror misconduct as well as police and prosecutor misconduct in this case. Wasnt this kind of like Scott Peterson's trial where all the jurors that thought he was not guilty were eliminated during the trial or during deliberations for one reason or another?

I wouldnt be surprised if the Skakel trial had a handful of what I call "stealth" jurors, you know, the type that believe the defendant is guilty before the trial even starts and they go around doing research on blogs that are against the defendant and reading newspapers and stuff when they are supposed to do none of that once they are officially sworn onto the jury and during the trial.

Nope. Kadrmas, we disagree once again. :) I totally think Michael Skakel is the guilty party. I was just reading quite a bit about this case during some down time at work the other day... and to me, Michael is the clear killer. He had a history with the victim, he had access to the murder weapon, and although hearsay testimony, the fact that he told someone at his prep school, "I AM going to get away with murder because I'm a Kennedy." It all adds up to me.

I think Mark Fuhrman (oh, boy, do I know what I'm in for by quoting Fuhrman, but I still stand by his conclusion in THIS case) concluded it best when he said that the murder was a jealousy motivated crime. Michael Skakel wanted Martha, but she was interested in his older brother Tommy. If he couldn't have her, in his mind, no one could. Guilty.

As a defense attorney, I also think that Skakel's defense wasn't that great because they really didn't have great facts to work with. In criminal defense, your case is only as good as your facts, and I really think Skakel didn't have them in this case. No one could solidly account for him during the time period in which Martha was killed, so he didn't have any sort of alibi. Too much evidence pointed in his direction for reasonable doubt to kick in, at least in my opinion.

I understand what you're saying regarding the tutor and Tommy Skakel also having access to the golf club, but I think that both parties are not guilty. Years after the crime, the tutor's ex-wife tried to get him to confess to the crime one night when he was in a drunken stupor (she was secretly taping the conversation) and he wouldn't budge, claiming that he had nothing to do with the crime. I always thought that the tutor KNEW that Michael Skakel killed Martha Moxley, but was threatened by the powerful Skakel family and therefore intimidated into silence. It would explain his downward spiral for sure. The tutor probably knew who killed Moxley, but I'd bet my legs that he wasn't the killer.

Let the head-butting begin. ;)

Hmm, well I for one believe Michael Skakel was wrongfully convicted.


Gee, what a shocker. Is there anyone in prison that you believe actually is guilty?

I think Mark Fuhrman (oh, boy, do I know what I'm in for by quoting Fuhrman, but I still stand by his conclusion in THIS case) concluded it best. . .


And CRicci lobs a particle grenade into the conversation. . . BANG! :lol:

I agree with you 100%, CRicci. Say what you want about Mark Fuhrman as a cop during the OJ trial, but his book on the Moxley killing was excellent. Since everyone involved was rich and white, he can't be accused of being a racist this time. :rolleyes:

Anyway, the thing I found most fascinating in studying this case was that Rush Skakel (the father) was afraid they were going to arrest his son Thomas for the crime. So Rush hired a private investigator to see what happened in an attempt to clear Thomas.

I DID show that Thomas didn't do it, however it also showed that Michael likely did do it.

You have to remember a few things:

- The murder weapon came from the Skakel house
- This was a rage killing based on the severe beating and the broken club stuck in Martha's neck
- This was no a random act of violence
- Very few people had motive, intent, and opportunity

Michael was always sketchy and then he "confessed" during treatment. I know that has always been in dispute, he said it more than once. It's by no means and open and shut case, but I think when you really study the evidence you will see how much there is against Michael. Fuhrman's book is a very good read (or listen in my case! ;)).

Anyway, I was always intrigued by this case and I had forgotten that UM once featured it. Yet another case where someone is convicted but no one will probably ever know for sure what happened.

Thinman, what an ignorant remark. Here is the answer to your question, do your research! Yes, there are people that I actually think are guilty. Is there anyone that you actually think is innocent? I imagine probably not or if you do it is on a rare occasion.

On this board, we talk about people profiled on the show, I believe there are people profiled where they were wrongfully convicted and even some of those are actually fully innocent where they didnt do the crime at all or have anything to do with it, it is wrong for them to be serving life or even a death sentence for a crime they didnt do. Again, wise up, do your research and you will find the answer to your own question.

CRicci, well, I disagree with you that the evidence is overwhelming that Michael Skakel did this. However I can at least respect your opinion because you did your research you just came to an opposite opinion than I did. While I certainly agree that Skakel had the motive and the means and the opportunity to do this murder, the problem is, you cannot put that golf club in his hand! Regardless of whether he had access to it, can you put it in his hand and not say his brother Tommy's or actually, more importantly that tutor who was living in the Skakel house at the time?

There seems to be some confusion here though, Skakel's defense didnt have to prove anything, the prosecution is the ones that had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Michael Skakel did this. In my opinion they didnt. While it is a certaintity that either Michael Skakel, his brother Tommy, or the live in tutor that one of those three did it, which one did it?

Another part of the problem is this waiting 25 years before filing charges. Also this high school classmate, that seems mighty odd to me that a classmate supposedly confesses to you about doing a high profile murder, saying he will get away with it because he is related to the Kennedy's and you dont say anything for over 20 years? Why? Doesnt make any sense.

Well CRicci, I will say I am disappointed in you quoting Mark Fuhrman. Regardless of a person is pro prosecution or not they should know better than to take anything he has to say seriously. Fuhrman, it is just incredible to me, he is a racist piece of garbage that was at least part of the reason why OJ was acquitted (yes Thinman I actually think OJ was the one that did the murders) he basically was forced into retirement and chased out of LA in disgrace.

Yet here he is worshipped by all these media outlets and true crime buffs for some reason that still remains a mystery to me. He has made millions off writing books as well as appearing as a commentator on cable TV like Fox News and CNN. I just dont see it with Fuhrman, not a fan, never will be, I read the book he wrote on the Moxley case at the bookstore, because I didnt want to purchase it and put money into Fuhrman's pockets.

You know, I voted "yes," but now I'm not so sure. I haven't seen the segment or read any detailed breakdown of the case in awhile. I shouldn't rush to judgment.

Again, for the record, I am not saying Michael Skakel didnt do it, what I am saying is, the evidence or lack of concrete evidence, at least to me, didnt show me that Michael did it. He should have been acquitted on the evidence or lack of it presented, but the jury convicted anyway even though they shouldnt have. People seem to be confused about the law, just because you think the guy did it doesnt give you the right to convict, the evidence has to back up that conclusion, all too often it does not.

The tutor could have done the so called "rage killing" too. Afterall, he was trying to "get" Martha Moxley too and was rebuffed and he had a history of bizarre behavior and flying off the handle. But because Michael wanted Martha too and they were just friends and Martha was interested in Michael's older brother Tommy, perhaps Michael was jealous.

Again, I didnt say Michael didnt have the motive, means and opportunity, what I was saying, was that I have never been convinced Michael was the one that for sure did it. It seems you had Michael who was 15 at the time, his brother Tommy who I believe was 17 at the time and the tutor Ken (I forgot his last name) who I believe was 22 at the time and it seems all three wanted Martha Moxley.

Littleton was the last name of the tutor. I don't recall reading anything about him wanting Moxley. The only time he really was introduced to her was when Michael Skakel told him that he thought Moxley was "hot." Again, I really think that the tutor is a red herring on the part of the Skakel family.

As for me not being able to put the golf club in his hand, you are absolutely correct. I cannot do that. I'm not trying to, either. There have been many cases where we've seen convictions of seemingly guilty parties based entirely on circumstantial evidence (*cough* Scott Peterson!) I'm not saying that I'm an advocate of this method. Obviously.

However, in this case, as I stated before, Michael Skakel had the most wide-open alibi and he certainly had a motive for the killing. He had told several people that he felt betrayed by Tommy because he had "stolen his girlfriend," while making references to Moxley. In addition, he had made several confessions of the crime in the past, not just to classmates at his prep school, but various others as well in the years following Moxley's murder. In my opinion, this shows one of two things: 1) Skakel needs serious mental help because he's crazy for admitting to a crime (on more than one occasion) that he hasn't committed or 2) HE DID IT and showed absolutely no remorse because he thought his Kennedy connections were going to keep him from seeing the inside of the jail cell. Personally, I lean towards number 2. Again, that's just me. I respect your differing opinions.

Michael also showed some pretty bizarre behavior on the night Moxley was killed. By his own admissions, he climbed a tree near Martha's bedroom window in an effort to wake her and when she didn't respond, he masturbated in a tree and then left. Uhhh.... okay. That's some bizarre behavior, you have to admit. Then there's the fact that after he was done with his "business," he went back home and climbed a tree to get into HIS bedroom window. This makes absolutely no sense. The Skakel home was notorious for leaving the doors unlocked and Michael could have walked in without a problem. This suggest to me that he was covered in blood from Moxley's murder and didn't want anyone to see him before he had a chance to clean up. I maintain that Michael had help in some way, either from Tommy or from Ken Littleton. As I said before, however, I still firmly believe they have the correct Skakel behind bars.

(EDIT: In addition, add in the fact that at around the time of Moxley's murder, about 9:30pm, Julie Skakel (Michael's older sister) was outside and saw a figure dart through the shadows. Firmly believing it was that of her brother Michael, she shouts, "Michael, get back here!" If her observations were correct and the figure she saw was her brother, it places Michael DIRECTLY near the crime scene at the time of the crime on the night in question.)

As for Mark Fuhrman, I understand your criticism, but I stand by my assessment of his case. I strongly feel he was dead-on in his investigation and assessment of the potential suspects in the Moxley murder. I'm sure that you're aware that Fuhrman wasn't the only investigator that named Michael Skakel as the probable killer. There was more than one who did, although their names escape me at the moment. In any case, although Fuhrman had some admittedly bad problems with the O.J. investigation, I still feel that he did his job in this case.

Well bizarre, but I dont know, I mean, it sounds to me like some people are convicting him of being a teenage boy. Yes, the whole masterbating in a tree thing, a strange place to do such a thing, but I will tell you, if every teenage boy that masterbated at the thought of a girl he liked or was in love with was a murderer practiclaly all heterosexual teenage boys would be in prison.

Well, the tutor I feel is still a viable suspect, he wasnt just a red herring, he had his own bizarre behavior, also, you assume that because other people said Michael did the crime that they are telling the truth, they could be lying. Mind you I am not saying they are for sure lying, maybe they did tell the truth, I guess no one but Michael truly knows whether or not he killed Martha Moxley.

Scott Peterson's case, the weird thing in that case, is, Scott I think could have got away with it, but his arrogance sunk him. Like in the Skakel case, they couldnt put a murder weapon in Scott's hand, but he placed himself in San Francisco bay where his wife's body was later found. Scott also basically admitted to being the last person to have for sure seen alive, now while neither of those things proves he is a murderer, it certainly doesnt look good.

Here is what some people will find contradictory, but it is the truth, there is more circumstancial evidence in my opinion, against Michael Skakel than there is against Scott Peterson. Peterson I doubt will ever be executed. In fact, I wouldnt be surprised to see him get a new trial or at least a new sentencing phase.

There was rampant juror misconduct on his case, it seems any juror that thought Peterson wasnt guilty was taken off the jury for rather trivial reasons, one was removed during the trial, another was removed during deliberations.

Also I believe like half the jurors that were part of the final jury that ultimately convicted Peterson and recommended he be sentenced to death, wrote a book together about the case, so basically they profited off the case. Also one of the jurors, a female juror that voted to convict Peterson and sentence him to death, started writing to him and still writes to him.

Now I have and still write to inmates myself but that is weird to me how you could sit on a jury, convict a guy and sentence him to death and then start writing to him, it has been rumored she is in love with Peterson although she not surprisingly, denies this.

But to get back to the point, the golf club cannot be placed in Skakel's hand, I know you were not trying to put it in his hand, but I would think to convict Skakel of murder, you would have to put the golf club in his hand. He was charged with first degree murder, this isnt a civil trial where you can convict the guy just because you think he was probably responsible. In the case of first degree murder, you need the evidence, in this case, they just didnt have it, certainly not for a murder 1 conviction.

I guess if it was manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder, it would be harder to argue the conviction, but murder 1, the pre meditation wasnt even proven let alone the fact that Skakel was the one that actually did the murder. If Skakel did in fact do this, there is not enough evidence in my opinion to warrant a murder-1 conviction because the pre meditation was not proven.

I think skakel is guilty. It isn't the first time someone with ties to the Kennedy family was responsible for someone's death. I'm sick of the Kennedy family being revered. Most of them are/were shady characters (to put it the nicest way possible)

Wow, nice way to back up your opinion, or not. So you think Skakel is automatically guilty because he is a Kennedy? Hmm. Well, now, it seems a majority of the jury thought the same thing, they convicted him off of ZERO real evidence. I suppose though Skakel's conviction was payback for William Kennedy Smith getting acquitted of rape in Florida back in the early 90's and Senator Teddy "fatcat" Kennedy never even getting charged for DUI manslaughter after he was driving drunk in 1969, took a dump in the water, swam out, left his mistress to drown in the water, stumbled his way back to town, slept it off and never called the police.

You should hop onto Court TV's website which covers his trial and read what the jurors who convicted Michael Skakel thought of him. They all thought that he came off as arrogant and condescending. Not that this attribute makes him a murderer, but I thought it was interesting. They also agreed that Skakel had no alibi and essentially placed himself at the scene of the crime at the time Martha Moxley was being murdered.

I guess if it was manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder, it would be harder to argue the conviction, but murder 1, the pre meditation wasnt even proven let alone the fact that Skakel was the one that actually did the murder. If Skakel did in fact do this, there is not enough evidence in my opinion to warrant a murder-1 conviction because the pre meditation was not proven.


I'll give you that, kadramas. I was surprised he was found guilty (based on the lack of physical evidence) but I still very much believe he did it. Notice I never said I'm glad he was convicted or he's definitely guilty.

I agree with CRicci on this one. I think despite the physical link, Michael did the deed. Again, the report by the private investigator the Skakel's hired showed that Michael was very likely guilty. He never did have a solid alibi as even his own sister's account of that night changed, putting Michael at the the scene at the time of the murder.

Michael has a lot of issues and several of them make him highly disposed to being a killer. Based on the time and opportunity window, it had to be someone in that house. Ken Littleton was all but ruled out. Michael had a lot going against him and he never did anything to disprove that by his own actions.

As for Mark Fuhrman, he did some dumb things in his past and said some racist stuff. That doesn't mean he is still a racist and is not a good investigator. For the record, I don't know if he is or isn't still a racist, but his book was good and well laid out. I can understand, though, if people don't like him.

As for the "Kennedy" thing, the Skakel case isn't helped by Robert Kennedy, Jr. jumping in to defend Michael. He's made an idiot of himself saying there is no evidence, etc. There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence and Michael's own statements that say he probably did it. I think RFK, Jr. is hurting Michael more than helping him in the court of public opinion.

Finally... where did it say he was convicted of 1st degree murder? I'm not saying he wasn't, but all I've ever seen is just that he was convicted of "murder." The difference between first and second is a big deal, so I too would be surprised if it was actually 1st degree.

Too bad we'll never know the whole truth.

He was convicted of first degree murder, he was sentenced to 20 years to life which in 1975 by Connecticut law was the most you could get for first degree murder. They also tried to have this tried in juvenile court, Skakel was fighting hard for that, had he been arrested in 75, he would have been tried as a juvenile as at that time in Connecticut you had to be at least 17 to be tried as an adult.

Well CRicci, I agree with your sentiment about how regardless of how Skakel came off, it doesnt make him a murderer. The problem is, these juries convict people off of things like, they do not personally like the defendenant, or the defendant has certain personality traits they do not care for. That is wrong. Heck, I have heard of black defendants getting defended because jurors said "all blacks look the same to them".

TM, I do agree with you the Kennedy thing didnt help Skakel, I have never been a particularly big fan of RFK Jr. He goes around trying to act like his dad all the time, and he is really nothing like him. I dont know if it is one thing about RFK Jr but the guy just rubs me the wrong way, where as I always liked JFK Jr when he was alive, but RFK's kids, boy, not a bunch that has accomplished much.

You had the late Michael Kennedy screwing his baby-sitter, I am sorry he died, but wasnt he out on bail for rape when he died while skiing? Also David Kennedy died of a drug and alcohol overdose in his late 20's, RFK Jr was on his way to an early death too when he cleaned himself up after being arrested for heroin possession at an airport.

Katherine Kennedy was probably the most productive of RFK's kids, she was the Lieutenant governor of Maryland, but she tried running for governor in 2002 and she basically stunk as a dem nominee, so bad she lost to a conservative republican for governor in Maryland! Bob Ehrlich became the first republican to win a governor's race in Maryland since Sprio Agnew won election in 1966.

Why can't you share what he said in the letter? What's the big secrecy that noone on this board can know except 1 person?

Well peachysquirt, frankly because I trust CRicci. I dont have to tell the whole board details of the letter if I dont want to and I am not going to. It isnt a big secret, I just dont care to tell the whole board the details which I have every legal right to do since the communication was between Mr. Skakel and myself I can share it or not share it with anyone I please, I wanted CRicci to know about a year ago, I wrote him, he wrote back, I will let CRicci know the details.

Wiseguy, yes I know all about Patrick "patches" Kennedy. He is a drunk, a drug addict and just kind of a jerk. However to be fair to Patrick I do think he actually does have some serious mental conditions, bi polar being one that explains away at least some of his bizarre behavior. He was driving drunk though that night when he crashed into a barricade on Capitol Hill at 3 AM and then said he was "late for a vote" even though the last vote had ended over 5 hours earlier.

Kennedy was given special treatment though, he wasnt given a sobriety test and was driven home even though the cops that responded said he smelled of alcohol and had blood shot, watery eyes.

Kennedy later pled guilty to the reduced charge of driving under the influence of prescription drugs since he had admitted driving while under the influence and he was sentenced to a year's probation and had a 90 day drivers license suspension.

Kennedy also got in a drunken brawl with a security guard at LAX and later Kennedy settled a civil suit with the guard for an undisclosed sum, Kennedy also got into a drunken fight with a girlfriend on a yacht in 2000 but again, no criminal charges were filed. Patrick is the son of ironically enough, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.

kadrmas,

While I think M Skakel is likely guilty, I thought he should have been acquitted. The evidence, in my opinion, didn't meet the criminal standard. I don't think you can put too much stock in what some messed up kid said at some boarding school in his youth.

Did anyone prefer Tim Dumas' book to the Fuhrman one?

Tighthead, I actually didnt read the non Fuhrman book. I am not sure I agree Skakel is guilty, but I do think he should have been acquitted since not much was presented to show that he was a murderer. In fact no evidence was presented except hearsay evidence of other drunk and drug addict kids. Basically just lame evidence about how Skakel was a drunk and a drug addict as a teenager and arrogant, no real evidence that he was/is a murderer was presented.

Why not just send her a PM & tell her instead of posting about it & getting people's curiosity going.

Well peachysquirt did I ask you to get curious? No. Did I ask anyone else except CRicci to get curious? No. That is why I directed that message at CRicci and not at you peachysquirt or anyone else. If I wanted you or anyone else besides CRicci to be curious I would have said "to anyone who is interested" do not worry, I edited that comment out above.

Kadmras,

What makes me think he is guilty (although he may not have acted alone) was that he came forth with the story about masturbating in the tree late in the day. To me, that seemed to be tailoring his story to account for possible DNA evidence. It just seemed "hinky".

I also think he shouldn't have been tried as an adult, but I imagine that opinion is shared by a very tiny minority.

Yes, well I do agree tighthead, he shouldnt have been tried as an adult, mainly because, that was the law in 1975 when the crime happened. By Connecticut law, cases are prosecuted based on the law in effect at the time the crime was committed, Skakel was sentenced based on 1975 law when the most you could get for first degree murder was life with parole eligibility after 20 years.

Had he been sentenced according to modern law, he could have got 20 to life, he could have got lwop, he couldnt have got the death penalty as he was 15 at the time and individuals under 18 at the time of the crime are not eligible for the death penalty although at the time of Skakel's trial in 2002, this ruling had not been made by the supreme court so at that time he could have got the dp but even if he could have somehow got the dp it would have been reduced to life when the supreme court made its ruling.

However based on 1975 Connecticut law, I believe an individual had to be 17 years old, maybe even 18 to be tried as an adult, so had Skakel been arrested back then he would have had to be tried as a juvenile in which case he would have been held in a juvenile facility until he 18, usually the feds then sweep because they can hold a juvenile offender until they are 21 for violent felonies.

If Skakel ever does get a new trial, it will probably be because he wasnt tried as a juvenile when he should have been tried as a juvenile. But yes you and I are in the minority in feeling Skakel should have been tried as a juvenile, Skakel and his defense team fought long and hard for him to be tried in juvenile court, essentially he would have got like probation if he had been found guilty there since I dont know if an adult could even be committed to a juvenile facility after the fact, maybe they would have based on, if he had been 15, so then he would have at most spent 6 years in prison if convicted in juvenile court.

Actually, this may shock some on the boards, but I agree. Skakel should have been tried as a juvenile. I still think he's guilty, but he should have been charged as a juvenile nonetheless. :)

Actually, this may shock some on the boards, but I agree. Skakel should have been tried as a juvenile. I still think he's guilty, but he should have been charged as a juvenile nonetheless. :)

Surprisingly, I agree. :D

Even though I'm pretty sure he did it, and I think he is a tool, at the time of the crime he was a juvenile. The crime was horrible though, so I don't feel bad that he's getting his, but by law I think he should have been handled as a juvie.

Just my $.02.

I apologize fo rany misunderstanding. I didn;t mean he was automatically guilty just because he is related to the kennedy's. I was merely stating this wouldn't be the first time a member of the Kennedy family was res[ponsible for another person's death. I believe Skakel is guilty. The fact that he was very arrogant during his trial didn't help him any with the jury. I wonder if jury members maybe thought the Kennedy family helped with a cover up (again, it wouldn't be a first for the kennedy family either)

while watching the City Confidential episode on this recently, I couldn't help but notice the absolutely beautiful portrait of Martha and her brother John that was sitting behind Dorthy Moxley. Here is a picture, though I think this must have been taken after said episode.

I saw a story on this on tv. I they show was sayng Michael ended up at a troubled boys school were he bragged to people about killing Martha. I didn't here them say prep school. Was the info wrong?

I saw a story on this on tv. I they show was sayng Michael ended up at a troubled boys school were he bragged to people about killing Martha. I didn't here them say prep school. Was the info wrong?

It was a prep school for troubled teens. Boys like the Skakels don't end up in juvie, they get sent away to a succession of extremely expensive schools until they finally manage to graduate from one before they get expelled.

The school in question is the former Elan School. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elan_School

It was a prep school for troubled teens. Boys like the Skakels don't end up in juvie, they get sent away to a succession of extremely expensive schools until they finally manage to graduate from one before they get expelled.

The school in question is the former Elan School. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elan_School

Well I wasn't thinking juvie. I bleive it was American Justice I was watching. They just said troubled boys school , and he bragged to bunch of people. It;s been a while sence I saw the show.

Well I wasn't thinking juvie. I bleive it was American Justice I was watching. They just said troubled boys school , and he bragged to bunch of people. It;s been a while sence I saw the show.

It was both a prep school and a school for troubled teens. Almost a rehab of sorts. A place where old money people sent their kids when they were tossed out of other schools for behavior or drug use. Kid won't behave? Don't want to be bothered actually being a parent? Send them to Elan!

It was both a prep school and a school for troubled teens. Almost a rehab of sorts. A place where old money people sent their kids when they were tossed out of other schools for behavior or drug use. Kid won't behave? Don't want to be bothered actually being a parent? Send them to Elan!

LOL

Wasn't Skakel an alcoholic by the age of 14 or something? Guess money can't buy you happiness.

LOL

Wasn't Skakel an alcoholic by the age of 14 or something? Guess money can't buy you happiness.

Funny I thought I read somewhere he did drugs. Those are defently things you could get kicked out of school for.

I apologize fo rany misunderstanding. I didn;t mean he was automatically guilty just because he is related to the kennedy's. I was merely stating this wouldn't be the first time a member of the Kennedy family was res[ponsible for another person's death. I believe Skakel is guilty. The fact that he was very arrogant during his trial didn't help him any with the jury. I wonder if jury members maybe thought the Kennedy family helped with a cover up (again, it wouldn't be a first for the kennedy family either)
I'm not sure I would call him related to the Kennedy's.iirc,Michael's aunt married a Kennedy,and that was as close as it gets.jmo though.
there is no blood relation to them.

I'm not sure I would call him related to the Kennedy's.iirc,Michael's aunt married a Kennedy,and that was as close as it gets.jmo though.
there is no blood relation to them.

I was going to say the same thing. There in-laws by Ethel Skakel marrying Bobby Kennedy. making Michael and his siblings cousins to Ethel's kids. But that is it. People act like their full blooded Kennedy's.

I have been reading about the case and Martha did not have any intrest in either of the Skekal boys. She talks repeatedly of Tommy flurting with her and of Michael buying her an ice cream cone. She apparently hung out with the boys quiet a bit and occasionaly their brother David and one of their sisters. She writes there was drugs and drinking when they hung out. She then says on Sept. 29 she got in an arugment with Michael and he accusses her of leading his brother Tommy on. She denies it and says they are just friends. There is nothing in the diary about the teacher /tutor i'm sure if anything was going on with her and that fellah .Martha would have written about it in her diary and it would be out their in press as well.


It ovious this tutor /teacher had nothing to do with it. It rests on Tommy and Michael. I recall one of their sisters saying she thought she saw Michael come into the yard and she yelled out his name and the figure ran away. I do belive that Michael killed her he admited to it. But I also am bugged at why Tommy keeps lieing. He oviously had something to do with it in some way. His first story about the report on Abraham Lincoln was the first lie.; that assignment was not given out buy his teacher or teachers. And the second story were he says he went home to bed them got up later and met Martha out side and they had sex. Ther was no evidence on her of that or of rape. So why does he lie about it? It is just creepy. Not to mention the timeing is way off. He does seem to still be protecting his brother. And DNA evidence is another thing altogether.

I have been reading about the case and Martha did not have any intrest in either of the Skekal boys. She talks repeatedly of Tommy flurting with her and of Michael buying her an ice cream cone. She apparently hung out with the boys quiet a bit and occasionaly their brother David and one of their sisters. She writes there was drugs and drinking when they hung out. She then says on Sept. 29 she got in an arugment with Michael and he accusses her of leading his brother Tommy on. She denies it and says they are just friends. There is nothing in the diary about the teacher /tutor i'm sure if anything was going on with her and that fellah .Martha would have written about it in her diary and it would be out their in press as well.


It ovious this tutor /teacher had nothing to do with it. It rests on Tommy and Michael. I recall one of their sisters saying she thought she saw Michael come into the yard and she yelled out his name and the figure ran away. I do belive that Michael killed her he admited to it. But I also am bugged at why Tommy keeps lieing. He oviously had something to do with it in some way. His first story about the report on Abraham Lincoln was the first lie.; that assignment was not given out buy his teacher or teachers. And the second story were he says he went home to bed them got up later and met Martha out side and they had sex. Ther was no evidence on her of that or of rape. So why does he lie about it? It is just creepy. Not to mention the timeing is way off. He does seem to still be protecting his brother. And DNA evidence is another thing altogether.
I also think Michael is guilty and that Thomas probably lied to protect his brother. Any story about him having sex with Martha is a lie; her autopsy proved that she was a virgin at the time of her death, so no sexual assault took place either. I think this was a crime of passion and that Michael became enraged when he saw Martha with Thomas that night (and was still accusing her of leading him on). Perhaps he was intoxicated at the time, but I think he hit her with the golf club after arguing with her as she made her way home. Perhaps they had already argued earlier and he took the golf club in premeditation or as a threat.

Tommy had to have been more involved than just protecting his brother by lieing. It is so bizar that he would say they had sex. It does not help any and of course it is not true. I would exspect an inocent person to say I was not near her I went in side to bed for the night and she went home and I don't know what happened. But you get these stories that are not true and just out of the ordinary. I do not know if Tommy was out there and witnessed the attack or he came out after the fact to help cover it up. I have a problem, with the arguing . because know one heard anything and the way she was found says she was snuck up from behined and hit over the head. We know their sister saw what she thought was Michael come home running across the yard and yelled out to him before she went in the house. I would totaly not be suprised if Tommy walked with Martha a little bit making Michael jealous , he goes and gets a golf club out of the yard(which according to their dad , a golf club was known to be left in the yard by one of his kids after hitting a couple balls with it) and going back and waitng for his brother to go home and clubbing Martha with it. Then running home were he connects with his brother Tommy and Tommy goes back out covers Martha with her coat and pulls her pants and underwear down to protect his brother. Make it look like a rape. The fact that the body was not carred off some place and hidden says only one of the boys was there. I do not think one boy could have handle moving her body. I think the whole story is not being told and they investigators need to find out what Tommy is holding back.

It was the 1975. DNA wasn't used in courtrooms until 1986. I suspect Tommy lied about having sex with Martha because he thought that Michael had raped her and wanted to give a reasonable explanation for semen being present. This is probably also why Michael came up with the incredibly stellar story about masturbating in a tree above the murder scene.

It was the 1975. DNA wasn't used in courtrooms until 1986. I suspect Tommy lied about having sex with Martha because he thought that Michael had raped her and wanted to give a reasonable explanation for semen being present. This is probably also why Michael came up with the incredibly stellar story about masturbating in a tree above the murder scene.

That's an excellent point. I also find it odd that Tommy is still defending Michael (as of his most recent interview), saying things like Michael wasn't violent and would never harm anyone.

That's an excellent point. I also find it odd that Tommy is still defending Michael (as of his most recent interview), saying things like Michael wasn't violent and would never harm anyone.

It is actually a moot point. It Depends on when Tommy told that story of Sleeping with Martha and when Michaeal gave his about the tree, if they said these stories as teenage boys , as you said DNA was not readily know then so your reason for them saying what they said would not be the reason. DNA was becoming more familar by the early 80's but still much was not known even then. If they had told those stories as adults after the case was reopend and as DNA testing is now more credible . Then they said them out of ignorance. They had to know there storeys would both make them look guiltly even though they are proclaiming their inocence and they also had to know if DNA is foind it can be teasted now and matched to a person exsactly. All they have accomplished is making themselves look untrufull and very guilty to boot.

As for the police finding DNA at the scene I have issues with that. First they had it reported that the DNA was found on the tree that Michael did what he said he did. A tree that is not were he said the tree he was in, was at. And now their saying some DNA was found under Martha's nails? Some? Ok then how is not one person over the years has come forward to say there was scratches on either boy. With all the people that were around them all the time not one person notcied a mark on those two boys or hear say they were hurting. How else does DNA get under your nail if you have not scratched a person? And it takes time for nails marks to heal. Not to mention she was found face down which was said she was snuck up on and hit over the head by suprise. So when could she had scrached her attacker anyway? And sence they did not do DNA testing then, would DNA have lasted all these years from the crime scene for them to do it now? It does deteriorate after so long.

It is actually a moot point. It Depends on when Tommy told that story of Sleeping with Martha and when Michaeal gave his about the tree, if they said these stories as teenage boys , as you said DNA was not readily know then so your reason for them saying what they said would not be the reason. DNA was becoming more familar by the early 80's but still much was not known even then. If they had told those stories as adults after the case was reopend and as DNA testing is now more credible . Then they said them out of ignorance. They had to know there storeys would both make them look guiltly even though they are proclaiming their inocence and they also had to know if DNA is foind it can be teasted now and matched to a person exsactly. All they have accomplished is making themselves look untrufull and very guilty to boot.

As for the police finding DNA at the scene I have issues with that. First they had it reported that the DNA was found on the tree that Michael did what he said he did. A tree that is not were he said the tree he was in, was at. And now their saying some DNA was found under Martha's nails? Some? Ok then how is not one person over the years has come forward to say there was scratches on either boy. With all the people that were around them all the time not one person notcied a mark on those two boys or hear say they were hurting. How else does DNA get under your nail if you have not scratched a person? And it takes time for nails marks to heal. Not to mention she was found face down which was said she was snuck up on and hit over the head by suprise. So when could she had scrached her attacker anyway? And sence they did not do DNA testing then, would DNA have lasted all these years from the crime scene for them to do it now? It does deteriorate after so long.

I'm confused. Do you believe one or both of the Skakel brothers were involved in the murder of Martha, or do you think both of them may be innocent?

Michael did it he has admitted to it enough. But Tommy is hiding something and he needs to come clean.

Oh, and they are, in fact, Kennedy cousins. They are cousins to RFK's kids. First cousins. They share grandparents, thus are blood relatives.

And no one is "full blooded Kennedy" unless their family tree doesn't branch. JFK's kids are half Kennedy, half Bouvier. They just got the half with the last name.

Oh, and they are, in fact, Kennedy cousins. They are cousins to RFK's kids. First cousins. They share grandparents, thus are blood relatives.

And no one is "full blooded Kennedy" unless their family tree doesn't branch. JFK's kids are half Kennedy, half Bouvier. They just got the half with the last name.

They are not Kennedy's their in-laws to the Kennedy's. Their small connection derives from the fact that Ethel Skekal Kennedy was married to Bobby Kennedy. Making their eleven kids cousins to Michael , Tommy. David and the rest of Rushton Skekals kids, older brother to Ethel. Wich means Rushton's kids share Skekal blood with Ethel's kids not Kennedy blood.

Any story about him having sex with Martha is a lie; her autopsy proved that she was a virgin at the time of her death, so no sexual assault took place either.

Tommy didn't say he had sex with her, he said they engaged in petting to mutual completion, which certainly would account for his DNA on her body.

Tommy didn't say he had sex with her, he said they engaged in petting to mutual completion, which certainly would account for his DNA on her body.

He said in the Connecticut Post that they did and then back tracked on CNN saying they didn't they were just messing around. He needs to come clean and say what he is hiding.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-skakel-kennedy-cousin-murder-conviction-reinstated-martha-moxley-death/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/12/30/connecticut-highest-court-reinstates-michael-skakel-murder-conviction/Wh63Wt1q7ud11rFISvXAKM/story.html

Michael has gone back to the slammer!

Fantastic. It was outrageous the conviction was ever set aside.

For one thing, how can you claim ineffective counsel when the defendant places himself up a tree engaging in all types of jolly activities?

That in itself places the defense attorney in a bind. Sure, explain away.

Can you imagine how many sweaty sleepless nights Michael Skakel must have had, once DNA became a topic and he learned more about it? I've got to explain that connection to 1975.

Of course...I was up that tree. Brilliant.

Kudos to Mark Fuhrman for applying spotlight on the perpetrator. He may not have solved the case but his involvement gave the Michael Skakel connection the attention it warranted.

For me, the clincher was always the comment that he made to the effect of, "They'll never convict me because I'm a Kennedy."

Granted, I know that this comment could have been 1) made up or 2) blown out of proportion, but it always stuck with me. Kinda like the image of Michael in the tree. Seriously, WTH?

Just watched this case last night, thought I would update this thread a bit.

In 2018 the Connecticut Supreme Court threw out the conviction of Skakel because his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to identify an alibi witness for his client, and that as a result, Skakel was deprived of a fair trial.

Subsequently in 2020 the state admitted they did not have sufficient evidence for a compelling case and would not be trying Skakel again. Moxley’s brother, John, addressed the court to express his agreement with the decision not to pursue a retrial.

Thus, the case of Martha Moxley, at least by strict standards, has moved back into the "unsolved" category, possibly forever.

Im sure they wont give up trying to find out who did this.....

They should question Tommy and give him a lie detector test!!

Im sure they wont give up trying to find out who did this.....

They should question Tommy and give him a lie detector test!!

I first thought you were being sarcastic with your opening. I doubt it is ever "solved" at this point. Though I firmly believe at least one, if not both, Skakel are responsible. I think Mark Fuhrman likely got it right.

Ya its too bad it cannot be proven :(