Michael Skakel on 48 Hours tonight - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

crystaldawn · 08-30-2008, 09:09 PM

Sorry I didn't post this sooner but I just found out. There is a new 48 Hours tonight which will profile Michael Skakel's effort for a new trial in the murder of Martha Moxley. It airs at 9 pm on CBS.

Necco · 08-30-2008, 09:23 PM

Thanks.
Tivo armed and ready.

nohwheregirl · 09-03-2008, 12:08 AM

I haven't watched it yet, but CBS has posted the episode online: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4401189n

AB · 09-03-2008, 05:51 PM

I watched it & thought it was really interesting. I always believed it was him or his brother that killed her. I still think so even after watching the show.

Tighthead · 09-04-2008, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by annball1957

I watched it & thought it was really interesting. I always believed it was him or his brother that killed her. I still think so even after watching the show.

I think it was one of the brothers, but I don't see either of them as the more likely suspect. I'm still surprised there was a conviction.

BuffaloBill · 09-04-2008, 01:13 AM

It quite interesting how the family of Martha Moxley thought they probably wouldnt be able to convict him, due to lack of evidence, especially physical evidence...kind of like fingure prints , old dna evidence. Ironically according to the 48 hours segment, the 2 hair fibers that could have been saved and stored to be tested both belonged to a none white race. I think just alone on the fact Michael's words in closing arguments were "edited", that alone should qualify 4 prosecution misconduct and a new trial. I guess in the end the question is if eveyone involved knew there was quite a bit of lack of evidence, how the hell did they get a conviction. Kind of make you wonder too who Mickey Sherman was "really" working for. Based on his families strong conviction, and I really mean the weren't hiding it..you got to wonder why they would go thru all these lengths if Michael was guilty. Leslie Stahl hits it right on the head, if she edited and twisted an interview like that she would have been fired and blackballed from the business.

Necco · 09-04-2008, 01:35 AM

I don't think him putting himself above the scene of the crime in an "personal entertainment" helped his case. Seriously, who does such things in a tree? Wouldn't you be afraid you'd fall with only one hand free to steady yourself?

(Sorry, that's as politely as I can put it.)

nohwheregirl · 09-04-2008, 08:26 AM

I think they need to make a much better case that these two unnamed men committed the murder if they want to create a reasonable doubt. Afterall, the murder weapon came from the Skakel house. That alone doesn't prove that Michael did it, but it certainly makes it difficult to believe that anyone *outside* the Skakel home committed the murder.

AB · 09-04-2008, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuffaloBill

It quite interesting how the family of Martha Moxley thought they probably wouldnt be able to convict him, due to lack of evidence, especially physical evidence...kind of like fingure prints , old dna evidence. Ironically according to the 48 hours segment, the 2 hair fibers that could have been saved and stored to be tested both belonged to a none white race. I think just alone on the fact Michael's words in closing arguments were "edited", that alone should qualify 4 prosecution misconduct and a new trial. I guess in the end the question is if eveyone involved knew there was quite a bit of lack of evidence, how the hell did they get a conviction. Kind of make you wonder too who Mickey Sherman was "really" working for. Based on his families strong conviction, and I really mean the weren't hiding it..you got to wonder why they would go thru all these lengths if Michael was guilty. Leslie Stahl hits it right on the head, if she edited and twisted an interview like that she would have been fired and blackballed from the business.

I agree that there really wasn't enough evidence to convict him and that edited statement should have been grounds for a mistrial. But I still believe it was him or his brother that actually killed her.

kadrmas15 · 09-07-2008, 02:58 AM

Hmm, well, people need to remember it isnt supposed to be the defense's responsibility to prove anything. The prosecution needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael Skakel did this murder. In this instance they did not do it. I am one that believes that Michael Skakel is not the person that murdered Martha Moxley.

Also, just because the golf club belonged to the Skakel's does not mean a Skakel did the murder. The Skakel house was a party house with people coming in and out as the Skakel's dad Rushton was aloof to say the least and so it really could have been anyone that did this. Personally, I always felt the tutor did it but that is just my personal opinion.

Michael Skakel, it is just amazing to me he was convicted at all based on the evidence or lack of it presented. Mickey Sherman either was so arrogant that he thought the state had so little of a case that he felt he didnt need to present a case or he purposely threw the case but either way Sherman did a terrible job defending Skakel. I would say this even if Skakel had been acquitted. Skakel deserves a new trial in my opinion.

Necco · 09-07-2008, 11:02 AM

Whether or not he legally deserves a new trial is a bit outside of my realm of expertise, but knowing the area as I do, I'd be surprised if he got one any time soon. The late 90s seemed to be a time of tidying up loose ends in the wealthy community infamous crime department (Alex Kelly as well) and I suspect that the region is happy to put all that unpleasantness behind them. It almost seems like any Skakel would have done. Is Michael paying for the crimes of a sibling? Maybe. Is he doing time because of a documented history of violence perpetrated by family members? Maybe. I hope not, because as I said, I don't see him getting another shot in the near future.

LooksLikeCRicci · 09-08-2008, 03:15 PM

I have to get back to work, but I WILL weigh in later on this one...

Thinman · 09-08-2008, 03:55 PM

Michael Skakel is right where he belongs.

mike890 · 09-10-2008, 10:51 AM

"Michael Skakel is right where he belongs."

You might be right but the prosecution did not meet the requirements for a conviction in this case.

08-30-2008, 09:09 PM	#1
crystaldawn Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Dec 17, 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,261	Michael Skakel on 48 Hours tonight Sorry I didn't post this sooner but I just found out. There is a new 48 Hours tonight which will profile Michael Skakel's effort for a new trial in the murder of Martha Moxley. It airs at 9 pm on CBS.

08-30-2008, 09:23 PM	#2
Necco Member Senior Member Join Date: Jan 06, 2006 Posts: 1,149	Thanks. Tivo armed and ready.

09-03-2008, 12:08 AM	#3
nohwheregirl THE Mystery Machine Senior Member Join Date: Apr 23, 2004 Posts: 1,057	I haven't watched it yet, but CBS has posted the episode online: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4401189n

09-03-2008, 05:51 PM	#4
AB Member Eternal Member Forum Icon Join Date: Dec 26, 2006 Location: The South Posts: 59,428	I watched it & thought it was really interesting. I always believed it was him or his brother that killed her. I still think so even after watching the show.

09-04-2008, 01:13 AM	#6
BuffaloBill Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Mar 07, 2004 Location: Cheektowaga(Buffalo),NY Posts: 438	It quite interesting how the family of Martha Moxley thought they probably wouldnt be able to convict him, due to lack of evidence, especially physical evidence...kind of like fingure prints , old dna evidence. Ironically according to the 48 hours segment, the 2 hair fibers that could have been saved and stored to be tested both belonged to a none white race. I think just alone on the fact Michael's words in closing arguments were "edited", that alone should qualify 4 prosecution misconduct and a new trial. I guess in the end the question is if eveyone involved knew there was quite a bit of lack of evidence, how the hell did they get a conviction. Kind of make you wonder too who Mickey Sherman was "really" working for. Based on his families strong conviction, and I really mean the weren't hiding it..you got to wonder why they would go thru all these lengths if Michael was guilty. Leslie Stahl hits it right on the head, if she edited and twisted an interview like that she would have been fired and blackballed from the business.

09-04-2008, 01:35 AM	#7
Necco Member Senior Member Join Date: Jan 06, 2006 Posts: 1,149	I don't think him putting himself above the scene of the crime in an "personal entertainment" helped his case. Seriously, who does such things in a tree? Wouldn't you be afraid you'd fall with only one hand free to steady yourself? (Sorry, that's as politely as I can put it.)

09-04-2008, 08:26 AM	#8
nohwheregirl THE Mystery Machine Senior Member Join Date: Apr 23, 2004 Posts: 1,057	I think they need to make a much better case that these two unnamed men committed the murder if they want to create a reasonable doubt. Afterall, the murder weapon came from the Skakel house. That alone doesn't prove that Michael did it, but it certainly makes it difficult to believe that anyone outside the Skakel home committed the murder.

09-07-2008, 02:58 AM	#10
kadrmas15 Retired from Board 03/03/11 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 11, 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,910	Hmm, well, people need to remember it isnt supposed to be the defense's responsibility to prove anything. The prosecution needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael Skakel did this murder. In this instance they did not do it. I am one that believes that Michael Skakel is not the person that murdered Martha Moxley. Also, just because the golf club belonged to the Skakel's does not mean a Skakel did the murder. The Skakel house was a party house with people coming in and out as the Skakel's dad Rushton was aloof to say the least and so it really could have been anyone that did this. Personally, I always felt the tutor did it but that is just my personal opinion. Michael Skakel, it is just amazing to me he was convicted at all based on the evidence or lack of it presented. Mickey Sherman either was so arrogant that he thought the state had so little of a case that he felt he didnt need to present a case or he purposely threw the case but either way Sherman did a terrible job defending Skakel. I would say this even if Skakel had been acquitted. Skakel deserves a new trial in my opinion.

09-07-2008, 11:02 AM	#11
Necco Member Senior Member Join Date: Jan 06, 2006 Posts: 1,149	Whether or not he legally deserves a new trial is a bit outside of my realm of expertise, but knowing the area as I do, I'd be surprised if he got one any time soon. The late 90s seemed to be a time of tidying up loose ends in the wealthy community infamous crime department (Alex Kelly as well) and I suspect that the region is happy to put all that unpleasantness behind them. It almost seems like any Skakel would have done. Is Michael paying for the crimes of a sibling? Maybe. Is he doing time because of a documented history of violence perpetrated by family members? Maybe. I hope not, because as I said, I don't see him getting another shot in the near future.

09-08-2008, 03:15 PM	#12
LooksLikeCRicci Likes to live in a clean house Moderator Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Nov 27, 2005 Posts: 4,050	I have to get back to work, but I WILL weigh in later on this one...

09-08-2008, 03:55 PM	#13
Thinman Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Apr 08, 2005 Posts: 182	Michael Skakel is right where he belongs.

09-10-2008, 10:51 AM	#14
mike890 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Oct 07, 2003 Posts: 46	"Michael Skakel is right where he belongs." You might be right but the prosecution did not meet the requirements for a conviction in this case.