Michael Skakel

[Todd Mueller]

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?

[Tighthead]

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.

[kadrmas15]

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.

[LooksLikeCRicci]

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.

[Thinman]

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

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?

[Todd Mueller]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

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!

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.

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.

[kadrmas15]

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.

[mozartpc27]

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.

[kadrmas15]

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.

[LooksLikeCRicci]

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.

[kadrmas15]

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.

[marlins3]

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)

[kadrmas15]

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.

[LooksLikeCRicci]

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.

[Todd Mueller]

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

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.