Skakel to Get New Trial

[Vincennes]

Well, I stayed in all weekend and went ahead and finished the book and now I'm trying to find a place to start.

Ata girl, Reg !!! My theory exactly ! We can't be bothered with this or that when there are crimes to solve !

Re: what the younger Skakel heard, there is mention of that in Fuhrman's book, but nothing about that he'd first said it was a scream.

It was said that he'd heard the Ix's dog barking and "heard female laughter from either Helen or Martha".

Now, the only other mention of Steven in the book is after Littleton had checked outside @ 9:30 per the maid's request...that after Littleton came back in, he checked the bedrooms and found that Steven (and David) were in bed, but Tommy wasn't.

Personally, if Steven heard anything, I think it was either earlier or that he could have actually made it up.

The thing I found most interesting in Steven's statement was that it was another indication regarding the time of the murder. Going back to the day he originally said he heard this, as a kid then of about 12 (I think) he wouldn't have had any idea of the fact that was pretty close to what the medical examiner determined to be the time. Her autopsy wouldn't have even been completed yet.

That about the the missing handle, it was two first arriving officers (Hickman and Jones) who told Furhman that they saw the golf club handle at the discovery site.

Furhman questions whether or not that's true, but he thinks what's important about it would be the cover-up if it is true. Apart from that, he doesn't think the missing handle was/is critical because the club had already been linked to the Skakel home.

I think his main point about that was that investigators invested a lot of time and resources searching high and low for that handle. (What's crazy about that is that they never properly search the Skakel home! )

Anyway, Furhman's opinion is that the club could have already been broken...that is, the handle might have already been missing and that it was wrong to presume that it wasn't.

Furhman outlines how the investigation should have unfolded and he said "it isn't hindsight or expert detective skills, just basic procedure and common sense."

I would certainly go along with Furhman on that point ! There is another interesting point about the location of those clubs that I came across in the Tony Bryant interview that Kowalski posted.

One thing (among so many other things) that burned me up is that Furhman requested the autopsy report and was denied and so Mrs. Moxley requested it and she was also denied!

Several people were privy to that report, including the Skakel attorney's, but the family of the victim is denied it? That's B.S.!

About the body, more evidence that the body was moved some time later is that there was an "indention on the left temple leading from the eye towards the top of the ear. The flesh was depressed, as was the blood-soaked hair. This most probably occurred as the victim's head rested on the broken portion of the golf club shaft. Upon death circulation ceased and the indentation became fixed."

Martha was found on her right side...

That truly is bizzare but I remember the same thing happened in the Spreckel case. Max's mother had to file a lawsuit in order to get a copy of his autopsy. Why on earth would LE ever try to control those findings ??? And yet these are unrelated cases where they have done just that. I don't understand at all.

The indentation on the left side is interesting but I got the impression from Dumas that the first people at the scene were in such shock, I think even the first police there might have turned her and not remembered or wanted to admit that they did.

Re: poly's, the results of Tommy's first one (on Nov. 3rd) aren't clear; I mean, he either failed or it was inconclusive, but I think it was the latter because it was repeated Nov. 9th and it was reported that he'd passed that one.

Len Levitt (a reporter who followed the case) said the questions weren't "well framed"...

(Btw, Levitt also wrote a book about the case and based on the various info Furhman got from him, it sounds like his book is very informative!)

Tommy's lie detector tests - I think they probably should have reviewed his results in reverse. It seems to me that the Skakel kids told the truth so rarely, their blood pressure would be normal when lying and lit up the machine whenever a truth came out of their mouths. LOL

Furhman raises interesting questions about Rushton Skakel... such as when did he know about the murder, why did he come home, and where did he come from.

That is a bit of a mystery isn't it It's been my impression from articles that the day after the murder, Rushton didn't come home but organized a quick trip for everyone to a "hunting lodge" he owned. I've seen that trip/get together mentioned several times and suggested as the opportunity for disposing of bloody clothing. The Dumas book doesn't even mention it ! I wondered about that

Lastly, I think one of the most enlightening points Furhman makes is "Did Michael go to the Terriens ? It doesn't matter. Even if Michael's alibi is solid, he still could have killed Martha after he returned."

(That's actually his opinion of when the murder occurred.)

Per the Sutton interviews and their reports of interviews as I understood it, not one of the kids who went to Terriens verified that Michael went. John came the closest under hypnosis, saying that "someone" else was in the car with them but he didn't ever name that person.

Reg, you didn't mention if you came up with a person who manipulated things from behind the scene ???? There was at least one who really stood out to me.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Vincennes

[Kowalski]

Another interesting thing..... one judge ruled back 2007 that Bryants story was "flimsy" and didn't hold water......

Michael Skakel's appeal for a new trial, based on a claim that two other men committed the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley, has been rejected by a Superior Court judge. The appeal was based on a statement by Gitano "Tony" Bryant in 2003 that two of his friends killed the 15-year-old Moxley.

However, after making that claim to a Skakel investigator, Bryant has refused to say more, evoking his Fifth Amendment rights. The two men Bryant named in the statement have also refused to testify.

Prosecutors have long argued that Bryant's story was a fabrication. The defense was not able to produce a single witness that saw two black men inside the predominately white, gated Greenwich neighborhood on the night of the murder.

Link: http://crime.about.c...kels-appeal.htm

Here's another article, this one from 2007:

Skakel denied new trial

By Martin B. Cassidy and Zach Lowe - Greenwich Time

Published October 26 2007

A state judge rejected Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel's bid for a new criminal trial based on new evidence, discarding as flimsy a theory that implicated two Bronx, N.Y., teenagers in 15-year-old Martha Moxley's brutal 1975 murder.

Just days before the 33rd anniversary of the murder, State Superior Court Judge Edward Karazin Jr. ruled yesterday morning that the new evidence presented by Skakel's defense at an April hearing was available before his 2002 trial and anyway would not have likely swayed a jury to acquit the 48-year-old nephew of Ethel Skakel-Kennedy, the widow of Robert F. Kennedy.

"We are extremely disappointed with the opinion denying Mr. Skakel's petition," Skakel's Hartford defense attorney Hope Seeley and Hubert Santos said in a statement. "Mr. Skakel was wrongly convicted and we intend to pursue all avenues available to him to overturn his unjust conviction."

In April Karazin Jr. heard more than two weeks of testimony on a petition for a new trial for Skakel, who contended that new evidence and testimony would have exonerated him if it had been available at his 2002 trial.

Skakel was convicted in 2002 of murdering Moxley in their Belle Haven neighborhood the night of Oct. 30, 1975, bludgeoning her to death with a golf club.

Karazin Jr. found that the 2003 interview of Gitano "Tony" Bryant, a Brunswick classmate of Skakel's, in which he told a private investigator his two friends Adolph Hasbrouck and Burt Tinsley confessed to killing Moxley, was not believable.

The judge noted that no other witnesses at the 2002 trial or the hearing placed Bryant or the other two youths being in Belle Haven on the night of the murder, and physical evidence did not bear out Bryant's claim that the two boys had described dragging her by the hair.

"The testimony of Bryant is absent any genuine corroboration," Karazin Jr. wrote. "It lacks credibility and therefore would not produce a different result at a new trial."

John Moxley, Martha Moxley's older brother, said he was pleasantly surprised Karazin ruled relatively swiftly, but said he had mostly expected the judge to see through Bryant's story and the other arguments.

"The longer it goes on the angrier you get," Moxley said. "It's amazing the Skakel family won't just stand up and be accountable."

Moxley said he has never seriously wavered in his belief in Michael Skakel's guilt. "We're certain that Michael Skakel is guilty, but that is never going to bring Martha back," Moxley said. "He'll get out of jail in 10 years and have some kind of life. Even where he is now É his worst day is better than what my sister has É she has no days."

Link: http://www.marthamoxley.com/

Another one, this time from 2010:

The Connecticut Supreme Court has turned down another appeal for a new trial for Michael Skakel for the murder of 15-year-old Martha Moxley in 1975. The court voted 4-1 against Skakel's appeal because it said the evidence does not back up the claim that three other men committed the crime.

Skakel's attorneys argued that Gitano "Tony" Bryant, a schoolmate of Skakel's, had implicated two others in Moxley's death.

Evidence Does Not Support Statements

"These three young men did not look like the average fourteen or fifteen year olds who would have blended into the crowd, particularly not in an area that was described by one witness as 'a fairly lily-white community,'" Justice Joette Katz wrote in the court's ruling.

The court also ruled that other statements made by Bryant could not be backed up by the evidence in the case.

"There is no evidence, independent of Bryant, to corroborate any significant aspect of his account of the events of the night of Oct. 30, 1975, whereas there is a plethora of evidence to contradict his account," Katz wrote.

Link: http://crime.about.c...ther-appeal.htm

Edited December 9, 2013 by Kowalski

[Vincennes]

I agree with y'all. I think Michael did it. I don't think they should have used the testimony of the people at Elan, but a lot of the evidence seems to point his way. You and regi both have brought up a lot of good points that I had forgot.

Thought I would share this video with you guys.....

Ghosts of Greenwich

Link: http://m.youtube.com...h?v=b1dDep5qopQ

By the way, the Tony Bryant interview is on YouTube.....

Link: http://m.youtube.com...h?v=FFgJbaJDtpE

I'd be interested in hearing what you guys think about this.

Personally I think Bryant is full of it. Bryant claims Lisa Rader, Helen Ix, Neal and Margie Walker, Josh Engles, Michael, Tom and Julie Skakel were at the party yet Lisa, Helen, Margie and Neal were all at the hearing and all testified that they did not recall seeing Tony or his friends that night. Lisa and Margie both said they did not even go out that night. Why didn't Tom or Julie testify that they saw Tony or his friends that night? Hmmm?

Also this is interesting.....

Link: http://campyskakel.yuku.com/topic/1431

[/size]

Another link: http://articles.cour...ley-tony-bryant

Here's another one: http://www.marthamox...ws/090703gt.htm

Really some fascinating information in those links !! I'm glad you said that you didn't agree with the Elan testimony being used. I was even more put off by the 48 hr. show regarding the Prosecution's conduct in that trial. To me clipping Michael's statement in the closing argument was also very, I'm sorry but I have to say it, really unethical from a moral standpoint. Just because that Prosecutor thought he was guilty gave him no right to what really amounts to manufacturing evidence. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Something really stood out to me in the Bryant interview. (Thanks for that link ! ) Just say that perhaps he was there and it was just never mentioned or to me more probably he was there on another day. When he talked about the golf clubs, he said that the bag of clubs was outside on the patio. When the police found those clubs they were inside by one of the back doors. If they were outside, they wouldn't have needed a search warrant (which they didn't have at the time they took the clubs and therefore they weren't allowed to be used as evidence in the trial. So they were inside.). Now if you take any part of Bryant's statement as true, even that he was there on another day (I have read before that Tommy had a habit of walking around swinging one of those clubs)...... WHO AND WHY WERE THE CLUBS BROUGHT INSIDE !! I'm thinking that 11:30 p.m. back door closing sound was also when the clubs were brought in and placed by the back door, close to where they had been and probably no one i the family even noticed the slight change in location.

I have never heard the reason why Bryant from the inner city was going to school in Belle Haven. Scholastic ?? Charity ?? Bryant mentions that the two other boys were going to stay at the Byrne house. That was the only mention I have found of Bryant which was that he was living with the Byrnes while going to school. Interestingly, Geoffrey Byrne, one of the kids with Martha that night and who is said to have left at the same time Helen Ix did, committed suicide a couple of years later !!! I wonder if they are using the Byrne family now because there is no one left to refute they were there ??? I don't know how they think though that they are going to pull that one off when Geoff Byrnes (who was only 12) is definitely placed as having left the scene with Helen in previous trial testimony.

http://campyskakel.yuku.com/topic/971/t/Re-Where-Geoffrey-Byrne-was.html?page=-1#.UqYRUTYo6M8

Edited December 9, 2013 by Vincennes

[Kowalski]

I have never heard the reason why Bryant from the inner city was going to school in Belle Haven. Scholastic ?? Charity ?? Bryant mentions that the two other boys were going to stay at the Byrne house. That was the only mention I have found of Bryant which was that he was living with the Byrnes while going to school. Interestingly, Geoffrey Byrne, one of the kids with Martha that night and who is said to have left at the same time Helen Ix did, committed suicide a couple of years later !!! I wonder if they are using the Byrne family now because there is no one left to refute they were there ??? I don't know how they think though that they are going to pull that one off when Geoff Byrnes (who was only 12) is definitely placed as having left the scene with Helen in previous trial testimony.

http://campyskakel.y...-1#.UqYRUTYo6M8

Yeah, Bryants story doesn't add up here.

VITO: Right. Did Adolf and Bur stay in Belle Haven that night?

TONY: Yes, they did. They stayed with the Byrnes.

VITO: They did? You know this for a fact?

TONY: Yes. You could stay at their house and they could never know though.

VITO: Okay.

TONY: The parents would never know. It was a huge house.

VITO: Is that where they stayed?

TONY: Yes, and Geoff told me they had also spent the night there.

But according to Geoffs sister both her parents were home that night:

From MICHAEL C. SKAKEL. : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD. V. : AT STAMFORD. STATE OF CONNECTICUT. : JULY 16, 2007. STATE'S POST-TRIAL BRIEF:

Daryll Fleuren, older sister of Jeffrey Byrne, informed Robert F. Kennedy Jr that, on the night of the murder her father was on the porch when her brother got home.

Fleuren also stated that her mother came home at 10:00 p.m. that night and Jeff was in bed.

Link: http://campyskakel.y...-1#.UqYTYTDnZct

More than a quarter century after Martha Moxley's murder, Greg Byrne still remembers how police and his family grilled his 11-year-old brother to see if he could shed any light on what happened.

His brother, Geoffrey Byrne, was with the 15-year-old Moxley the night she was beaten to death with a golf club in 1975. He was never a suspect, but provided authorities with details about Moxley's last hours.

Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel was convicted last year of Moxley's murder. Last month, his lawyers said they will seek a new trial based on new allegations that two teenagers from the Bronx, N.Y., were involved in the murder.

Gitano "Tony" Bryant, a cousin of basketball star Kobe Bryant, reportedly told Skakel's defense team that he and his two friends were in the neighborhood that night with Geoffrey Byrne.

Byrne died in 1980 at age 16 in what his brother would describe only as a family tragedy. The Hartford Courant has reported the cause of death was a drug overdose.

In the family's first comments since the allegation surfaced, Greg Byrne told The Associated Press this week that his brother was repeatedly questioned by police and family members, but never mentioned being with Bryant or his friends.

"He got the third degree from everybody," Byrne said. "There was never any change in his story."

Byrne said it was "convenient" that his dead brother would be named as the local connection for two youths from the Bronx, one of whom is black. He spoke outside his family's home just feet from a private security booth in Belle Haven, close to the spot where Moxley was murdered.

Byrne noted that the murder occurred on "mischief night" before Halloween, when police and private security guards were active on patrol.

"It seems extremely far-fetched to me that there was anybody in Belle Haven that wasn't from the neighborhood and went unnoticed and uncommented on," Byrne said. "The place was crawling with people on the lookout for mischief. It boggles the mind to think that these kids were there that night and nobody noticed them. What are they, ghosts?"

Neal Walker, who described himself as a close friend of Byrne's, also said Byrne never mentioned Bryant or his friends.

"Basically he mentioned nothing about the guys being in the neighborhood that night," Walker said.

But Walker said he was friends with Bryant and had introduced him to Byrne.

"They had been in the neighborhood before and after the murder," Walker said, referring to Bryant and his friends. He said he did not know if Bryant and his friends were in Belle Haven the night of the murder.

Vito Colucci, an investigator for Skakel's defense, said Bryant and the two friends he implicated said they had been to Belle Haven before the day of the murder.

"One of the people that Bryant points at has told two investigators that he went back to Belle Haven two days after the murder to visit Geoff Byrne to talk," Colucci said.

Colucci also said investigators found discrepancies in the account by one of the two men named by Bryant regarding the time he went home and whether he was in Belle Haven.

"We found many discrepancies in his story," Colucci said. "His story changes."

As to the night of the murder, Bryant said he and his friends ran into Byrne at some point, Colucci said.

"He remembers meeting Geoff before he went home to New York," Colucci said.

Bryant has spoken to Skakel's defense team, but has made limited public comments. He did say last month that accounts of his statement were being blown out of proportion, but Colucci said Bryant stands by his account.

A telephone message was left for Bryant's attorney Thursday.

Byrne told police he was with Moxley and two other girls along with Skakel and his brother before he walked home with one of the girls, who gave the same account. Byrne reported hearing the sound of footsteps as he walked home, but ran and did not look back, according to a police report.

Greg Byrne said he wondered about the footsteps, but chalked it up to an 11-year-old boy getting nervous in the dark the night before Halloween.

After three months, Greg Bryne said his family told police they should stop questioning him. "How many times does he have to tell you the same story?" Byrne said the family told police.

Skakel's supporters have called Bryant's account credible, while prosecutors said they are increasingly skeptical.

Link: http://www.marthamox...ws/101103gt.htm

Edited December 9, 2013 by Kowalski

[Regi]

The thing I found most interesting in Steven's statement was that it was another indication regarding the time of the murder. Going back to the day he originally said he heard this, as a kid then of about 12 (I think) he wouldn't have had any idea of the fact that was pretty close to what the medical examiner determined to be the time. Her autopsy wouldn't have even been completed yet.

Those are good points, but you know, it seems it was common knowledge that the murder occurred sometime after 9:30 and according to Littleton, Steven had been in bed for some time before 10-10:30.

Since I'm not aware of anyone other reports of anything heard during that time period, I'd at least consider that he could be inaccurate re: the time.

That is a bit of a mystery isn't it It's been my impression from articles that the day after the murder, Rushton didn't come home but organized a quick trip for everyone to a "hunting lodge" he owned. I've seen that trip/get together mentioned several times and suggested as the opportunity for disposing of bloody clothing.

Furhman says that police were apparently under the impression that Rushton didn't return home until Nov. 2nd, and it's not clear to them whether it was a business or hunting trip.

He said he spoke to a woman, Eleanor Stude, who claims she was with Rushton in California and that he took the company jet back home. She said he told her that "when the murder was committed, the children were drunk."

Furhman reports that Rushton was at home @ 8:00 pm the day of the discovery.

Furhman also spoke with a "junior associate counsel" from the company, Jim McKensie, who'd arrived at the Skakel home at 5:15 pm- he said he couldn't remember why he was called or who called him- but he did offer that the senior attorney's were out of the office.

I was even more put off by the 48 hr. show regarding the Prosecution's conduct in that trial. To me clipping Michael's statement in the closing argument was also very, I'm sorry but I have to say it, really unethical from a moral standpoint. Just because that Prosecutor thought he was guilty gave him no right to what really amounts to manufacturing evidence. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I don't see it that way. Now, I don't know what the jury understood about the context of that interview, but I would think it would have been clear to them that Michael wasn't actually referring to the murder! I think the strategy of the prosecution was to suggest that he could have been referring to the murder.

Reg, you didn't mention if you came up with a person who manipulated things from behind the scene ???? There was at least one who really stood out to me.

Do you mean Donald Browne? Or the police chief? Heck, it appears there were several.....

Edited December 9, 2013 by regi

[Kowalski]

Furhman says that police were apparently under the impression that Rushton didn't return home until Nov. 2nd, and it's not clear to them whether it was a business or hunting trip.

He said he spoke to a woman, Eleanor Stude, who claims she was with Rushton in California and that he took the company jet back home. She said he told her that "when the murder was committed, the children were drunk."

Furhman reports that Rushton was at home @ 8:00 pm the day of the discovery.

Furhman also spoke with a "junior associate counsel" from the company, Jim McKensie, who'd arrived at the Skakel home at 5:15 pm- he said he couldn't remember why he was called or who called him- but he did offer that the senior attorney's were out of the office.

Whoa! That is definitely interesting. It seems Rushton and Litlleton knew something early on in this. And their family is still covering for his rear. I can't believe any judge in his right mind would actually consider Tony Bryants story. It's completely ridiculous. In fact most of the judges denied Michael's appeals because they thought the story was ridiculous. But somehow this one judge thinks it's credible..... I really feel for the Moxley family. Now, their going to have to go through a whole other trial again.....

[Vincennes]

Lots of good information from both of you !! I think we all agree the Bryant story is really way out there in terms of credibility. I think there would be another way to prove/disprove that. Bryant mentioned the gold clubs pretty much detail in that all three of the boys, Bryant and the other two with him, were swinging them and playing with them that night (amazing no one else saw that!) But whatever, he definitely referred to multiple clubs being in play. Well, since those were taken not very long after by the police and I'm sure were held as possible evidence, there would certainly be at least one of their prints on one of those clubs, Dontcha think ?

If they prove he has made that story up, do you think there could be a perjury charge ?

I wonder if the Byrnes are still alive ? I never knew he had a sister who was also home that night so she should be able to provide something in the way of two other teenage boys at their house that no one noticed or mentioned........

Wow.... When you try to post regarding Bryants story, it becomes a lot like Littleton and the rest of the crew. I would put it right up there among the nutsiest If he wasn't there, he should have been because he certainly fits right in with the rest !

Rushton's presence does seem to be a little elusive doesn't it? That, in itself, is really a little telling. If he had no concern that his kids were involved why wouldn't he just show up to be there with them ? Did either of you find the story regarding the get together the next day with him at another location ? That's where I read that Rushton was supposed to have brought the company attorneys in - And it most have been darn inconvenient. Where are those darn senior attorneys when you need them ??? . ~~~ Sigh ~~~

Reg, I didn't think you would agree with me re. the clip from Michael's statement used in the closing but, although my law degree hasn't arrived yet in the mail, had I been Mickey Sherman, I think I would have torn that to pieces in rebuttal argument. Pointing out that there was such an attempt to incriminate would at least to me throw I lot of doubt. That and the Elan testimony should have been easy to put aside it doesn't seem like he did that at all and that is also hard to understand.

Yeah, Reg, I think it was Browne that was so obvious in his efforts to thwart. Dumas stated that when he talked to Browne in the end about his possible retirement, Browne made the statement that he was staying on just for the purpose of "prosecuting" the Moxley murder. I thought, oh, yeah, the old codger, he thought he would stay on not to prosecute but to see that it wasn't prosecuted !

[Regi]

Whoa! That is definitely interesting. It seems Rushton and Litlleton knew something early on in this.

Allow me to expand on Eleanor Strude because the info. isn't exactly straight-forward.

(From the book), in '96, she'd seen an episode of Unsolved Mysteries on the case and called the tip line with info. which included that she'd been with Rushton in California. The tip sheet inaccurately described her as Michael's girlfriend. No one spoke to her until Fuhrman and his associate in '97. "On two separate interviews in 1997, Steve Weeks and I both confirmed that Eleanor went on a trip with Rushton in late October 1975, but she claimed not to remember where they went.

McKenzie told me that Rushton had been in Canada. Why the discrepancy?"

Fuhrman speculates that maybe Rushton didn't want his children to know what he was up to, but points out that if he'd been in California, it would have been at least a five hour trip. "In order to return to Greenwich by 8:00 PM., Rushton would have to know that Martha was dead shortly after- or even before- her body was found."

Re: the scenario in the Skakel home that afternoon, two detectives (Lunney and Brosko) "were in the Skakel house from 3:00 P.M. until at least 5:40, when Thomas was taken to police headquarters for his statement."

Tommy had been at a field hockey game and had gotten home soon after McKenzie had arrived at 5:15.

While the reason for McKenzie's presence appears obvious, Fuhrman questions whether the detectives knew who he was or if they even noticed him there.

I think we all agree the Bryant story is really way out there in terms of credibility. I think there would be another way to prove/disprove that. Bryant mentioned the gold clubs pretty much detail in that all three of the boys, Bryant and the other two with him, were swinging them and playing with them that night (amazing no one else saw that!) But whatever, he definitely referred to multiple clubs being in play. Well, since those were taken not very long after by the police and I'm sure were held as possible evidence, there would certainly be at least one of their prints on one of those clubs

I don't think the clubs were taken into evidence. I know there was one to compare with the one found and they matched.

Anyway, Bryant's story is a load of crap! Of course, there's not a shred of evidence to support it.

Did either of you find the story regarding the get together the next day with him at another location ? That's where I read that Rushton was supposed to have brought the company attorneys in

From Fuhrman's book, the police believed the family had gone to Windham on Nov. 1. There's a police report stating that Detective Mike Powell spoke to Rushton in person on that afternoon. "The Greenwich police thought that the family had gone on a ski trip because the Revcon camper was not in the driveway. They did not know that two Skakel cousins drove the camper away the day after the murder." George Skakel had arrived Oct. 31 and at 4:00 P.M., he "and John Pinto, another Skakel cousin, took the Revon camper to Washington, DC, for a Georgetown reunion weekend.

At 4:30 Rush, Jr. left for Darthmouth."

although my law degree hasn't arrived yet in the mail, had I been Mickey Sherman, I think I would have torn that to pieces in rebuttal argument.

Well, I only know of that one exerpt shown on- what was that...48 Hours?- of the prosecution's closing... and I don't know what Sherman did or didn't do, so I don't know what he could have done to counter it.

That and the Elan testimony should have been easy to put aside it doesn't seem like he did that at all and that is also hard to understand.

It sounds like the Elan testimony was a bit of a gamble for the prosecution ( I recognize- and I'm sure the prosecution considered it- the potential for serious credibility issues), but I don't blame prosecutors for putting it on anyway. Like I've said before, if I had been a juror, I don't think I would have needed that testimony.

I think it's rare that a prosecution or a defense couldn't have been better in hindsight.

I think it was Browne that was so obvious in his efforts to thwart. Dumas stated that when he talked to Browne in the end about his possible retirement, Browne made the statement that he was staying on just for the purpose of "prosecuting" the Moxley murder. I thought, oh, yeah, the old codger, he thought he would stay on not to prosecute but to see that it wasn't prosecuted !

When I read about Browne's statements and learned of his stonewalling, I thought about that poor dear father whose daughter's still missing from that snowy road after that car accident (we have a thread about the case) and that his state attorney has given him B.S. along the same lines; blah, blah, blah re: potential jeapordy of future prosecution, blah, blah, blah. Result: Nothing happens, the case remains at a standstill and likely always will and so a crime goes unsolved and unpunished, there's no justice for the victim- there could be more victims- while the surviving loved ones live indefinitely in the hell of the unknown.

If there's one thing authorities will do- and are quick to do- it's make excuses so as to cover their hind-ends.

Edited December 10, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

Allow me to expand on Eleanor Strude because the info. isn't exactly straight-forward.

(From the book), in '96, she'd seen an episode of Unsolved Mysteries on the case and called the tip line with info. which included that she'd been with Rushton in California. The tip sheet inaccurately described her as

Re: the scenario in the Skakel home that afternoon, two detectives (Lunney and Brosko) "were in the Skakel house from 3:00 P.M. until at least 5:40, when Thomas was taken to police headquarters for his statement."

Tommy had been at a field hockey game and had gotten home soon after McKenzie had arrived at 5:15.

While the reason for McKenzie's presence appears obvious, Fuhrman questions whether the detectives knew who he was or if they even noticed him there.

The Sturde information is really interesting. It does seem as if it were a business trip he would have an Adm. Asst. or someone with him. I'm not differing with you here, I'm just pointing out the different accounts because everything else I've read says that Rushton didn't come home the next day and refers to his trip as a "hunting" trip that he often took. However, that would be logical disinformation to pass around. Since it doesn't seem as if they pointed to the Skakels as suspects immediately, no one would have been actually expecting him to arrive ASAP after the murder. Here is another point that quick questions on the part of LE .

would have provided some more real answers. This Dumas guy seems to have really had a line into Dorthy Moxley. And since the Moxley's knew Rushton well, I will have to go back and see if I can find exactly when she says she spoke with Rushton or that he came over for condolences.

*****One thing that you touched on that I had not brought up yet was Tommy's field hockey game. Now that's a point of question. Dumas says that he interviewed Michael's high school coach who said that although Tommy was an outstanding athlete he participated like he did everything else. When he wanted to and how much he wanted to and was good at letting the other kids know just who he was. The coach says that just prior to the murder Tommy simply had not shown up for a game and, because of that, he coach had suspended him from the team. Tommy then went to the coach and begged to return. At which time the coach said that, since not showing up for a game had let the team down, he would ask the team how they felt about taking Tommy back. The coach says the afternoon of the day Martha was killed he had taken it to the team whether they wanted Tommy back and the team voted NO ! The coach told Tommy this when he arrived. Tommy then realized that it was the kids who didn't want him on the team any more and not just the coach. The coach says Tommy was shaken. This was last time he saw him before he murder and Tommy had walked away crying. Dumas did point out this difference in the story here but was pointing out that the Skakel kids weren't all that well liked. Interesting, huh ! *******

From Fuhrman's book, the police believed the family had gone to Windham on Nov. 1. There's a police report stating that Detective Mike Powell spoke to Rushton in person on that afternoon. "The Greenwich police thought that the family had gone on a ski trip because the Revcon camper was not in the driveway. They did not know that two Skakel cousins drove the camper away the day after the murder." George Skakel had arrived Oct. 31 and at 4:00 P.M., he "and John Pinto, another Skakel cousin, took the Revon camper to Washington, DC, for a Georgetown reunion weekend.At 4:30 Rush, Jr. left for Darthmouth."

You know what came to me here was that both of these stories entail the fact that the camper was taken away. I never thought of this before but if they were going to "Windham," the skiing lodge, why would they need to take a camper ? Littleton is said to have gone with them and as I said before I have read conjecture that John Skakel drove the camper and Littleton drove his own car which would allow him to dispose of evidence. However, it never occurred to me that they might have wanted to sweep out / clean out the camper because of evidence Martha had recently been in it. Even if it was just to met Tommy for that tryst not that she was murdered there. Dumas thinks that Tommy and Martha had tried to cover up their meeting somewhat which is why Tommy said "goodbye" and went in the house. Others have wondered why they supposedly met outside on the grass when it was so cold. Could she have slipped into the camper to meet him. That would make sense.

Well, I only know of that one exerpt shown on- what was that...48 Hours?- of the prosecution's closing... and I don't know what Sherman did or didn't do, so I don't know what he could have done to counter it.

It sounds like the Elan testimony was a bit of a gamble for the prosecution ( I recognize- and I'm sure the prosecution considered it- the potential for serious credibility issues), but I don't blame prosecutors for putting it on anyway. Like I've said before, if I had been a juror, I don't think I would have needed that testimony.I think it's rare that a prosecution or a defense couldn't have been better in hindsight.

You're right and most of the things that I based this on were the Skakel comments on 48 hrs. after the trial. I need to keep in mind what Skakel's say might not always be the truth. I was just so flabbergasted at the time of the trial that they let that nonsense in, I am still a little bit reactive. Having worked in the juvenile facility, all I could think of was that just because these idiots were in rehab didn't mean by any means they were straight at any time. I could just go on and on what a miscarriage that was. You say that you wouldn't have needed that testimony to convict. Here I have to say and I know you and Kowalski probably won't agree with me but had I been on that jury, I would have been done right there, right then. I would have acquitted just on the fact they had brought it in. I wouldn't have trusted anything they had put before me at that point. Sorry guys.

When I read about Browne's statements and learned of his stonewalling, I thought about that poor dear father whose daughter's still missing from that snowy road after that car accident (we have a thread about the case) and that his state attorney has given him B.S. along the same lines; blah, blah, blah re: potential jeopardy of future prosecution, blah, blah, blah. Result: Nothing happens, the case remains at a standstill and likely always will and so a crime goes unsolved and unpunished, there's no justice for the victim- there could be more victims- while the surviving loved ones live indefinitely in the hell of the unknown.

If there's one thing authorities will do- and are quick to do- it's make excuses so as to cover their hind-ends.

Amen. I would like to read Len Levitt's book. He had a lot of information which must have been good because they wouldn't publish it for a long time.. It would be a good counter reference but my library doesn't have it. I'm going to see if I can find a copy.

Edited December 10, 2013 by Vincennes

[Regi]

Correction- Steven Skakel- who'd claimed to have heard the Ix's dog barking and female laughter from "either Helen or Martha" @ aprox. 10:30 PM- was 9 years old.

David- second youngest of the Skakel children- was 12.

Also, Vincennes, rea; the whereabouts of the family, Tommy had his first poly on Nov. 3rd. and Rushton had accompanied him for that.

Just an FYI, I found out why Tommy's first poly result wasn't clear to me; 'inconclusive' was apparently considered 'failed' ...and both terms are used in the book in referencing the poly.

[Regi]

The Sturde information is really interesting. It does seem as if it were a business trip he would have an Adm. Asst. or someone with him. I'm not differing with you here, I'm just pointing out the different accounts because everything else I've read says that Rushton didn't come home the next day and refers to his trip as a "hunting" trip that he often took.

Yeah, he always claimed he'd been hunting. At the end of Fuhrman's book, the case status was that there was a subpeona for him to testify before the grand jury, but he was fighting it. he never did testify, did he?

I will have to go back and see if I can find exactly when she says she spoke with Rushton or that he came over for condolences.

Per Murder in Greenwich, Rushton and Tommy brought a ham over to the Moxley's the day after Martha's body was found.

Dumas did point out this difference in the story here but was pointing out that the Skakel kids weren't all that well liked.

Well, I'm sitting here realizing I can't remember a single positive thing I've ever read about either one of them....

You know what came to me here was that both of these stories entail the fact that the camper was taken away. I never thought of this before but if they were going to "Windham," the skiing lodge, why would they need to take a camper ? Littleton is said to have gone with them and as I said before I have read conjecture that John Skakel drove the camper and Littleton drove his own car which would allow him to dispose of evidence. However, it never occurred to me that they might have wanted to sweep out / clean out the camper because of evidence Martha had recently been in it. Even if it was just to met Tommy for that tryst not that she was murdered there. Dumas thinks that Tommy and Martha had tried to cover up their meeting somewhat which is why Tommy said "goodbye" and went in the house. Others have wondered why they supposedly met outside on the grass when it was so cold. Could she have slipped into the camper to meet him. That would make sense.

Yeah, Littleton said he'd driven the camper, but others said he drove his own car.

Hey, Fuhrman thinks along the same lines as Dumas, that is, he thinks Tommy made that 20 minute appearance w/Littleton so that Littleton might not go looking for him later.

Fuhrman has Martha waiting inside and leaving @ about 11:30.

If that's how it went, I'd be more inclined to think they'd have used the camper.

I would have acquitted just on the fact they had brought it in. I wouldn't have trusted anything they had put before me at that point.

I would hope you would be able to simply discount that particular evidence, but I'm surprised by your passion about it. What's so wrong about the prosecution having putting on those witnesses?

Seriously, I don't know anything about those witnesses except that they claimed they'd heard Michael confess or he confessed to them at some reform school called Elan.

I would like to read Len Levitt's book. He had a lot of information which must have been good because they wouldn't publish it for a long time..

Right?! You know, he sued the Greenwich police for the case file.

Yeah, I'd love to read his book!

Edited December 10, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

Correction- Steven Skakel- who'd claimed to have heard the Ix's dog barking and female laughter from "either Helen or Martha" @ aprox. 10:30 PM- was 9 years old.

David- second youngest of the Skakel children- was 12.

Also, Vincennes, rea; the whereabouts of the family, Tommy had his first poly on Nov. 3rd. and Rushton had accompanied him for that.

Just an FYI, I found out why Tommy's first poly result wasn't clear to me; 'inconclusive' was apparently considered 'failed' ...and both terms are used in the book in referencing the poly.

Sorry, I confused the ages but it was Steven who reported the "laughter." Funny, in the 48 Hrs interview, it seemed as if Steven took the lead most of the time in defending Michael and Tommy didn't show up at all. I wonder if that is because he was so accused first in the murder. My book indicated through Tommy's friends that accusations had followed him pretty much every where he went after that just sitting in restaurants, etc. I had never realized it really hadn't been that long prior to the murder that their mother had died.... I got like 2 to 2 1/2 years. Dumas indicated that Tommy was still suffering quite a bit from that death. I guess then being accused of a murder would be psychologically pretty hard, especially if he didn't do it.

I think Tommy did finally pass the lie detector, what is interesting is that he is said to have finally "passed" the test based on the fact he went in to do school work which, of course, was later found out to be a lie. In Dumas book that really wigged them out and pointed them toward a psychopathic type personality that could lie and beat the test. When you add to that he was considered "slow, " it's very interesting. To me that would lean toward thinking that he couldn't really think through and accomplish how to beat it. At least not at the age he was then. So it does bring me to he was very used to lying.

I have the Levitt book on order. Maybe we can add a third version of what happened and balance them all in together .

Edited December 10, 2013 by Vincennes

[Regi]

Funny, in the 48 Hrs interview, it seemed as if Steven took the lead most of the time in defending Michael and Tommy didn't show up at all.

Indeed, it's not unnoticed. Steven was a 9 year-old at the time and here he is the family spokesperson.

You know, to me, Michael didn't defend himself because from what I've read, he didn't take the stand during his trial.

I think there are times when a defendant's own testimony might be the best- maybe only real- defense against particular evidence, so the way I see it, Michael was of no help to his attorney.

My book indicated through Tommy's friends that accusations had followed him pretty much every where he went after that just sitting in restaurants, etc.

Fuhrman said there came a time when the police would hassle him when they saw him out in public.

I think Tommy did finally pass the lie detector, what is interesting is that he is said to have finally "passed" the test based on the fact he went in to do school work which, of course, was later found out to be a lie.

What's interesting to me is that after that chase scene, Littleton said Tommy told him he was going to do homework (rather than just to bed) and that's precisely what he told police later- the obvious difference was that Littleton said it was about 10:20 and Tommy told the police it was 9:30. My point is that it could sound like 'going to do homework' translates to 'going to be with Martha'.

What's most interesting to me is Fuhrman pointed out that Tommy had already established that 9:30 time period early on- with Julie when she came to his room when Mrs. Moxley called...

I have the Levitt book on order. Maybe we can add a third version of what happened and balance them all in together .

Go, Girl! I can hardly wait to hear all about it! (Of course, it's understood I expect a full report within 7-10 days upon arrival. )

I think Leveiit's perspective should be especially interesting and enlightening!

BTW, have you come across Levitt's article Moxley Murder Still Haunts Greenwich? Fuhrman said it was published June 21, 1991 in the Greenwich Times and the Stanford Advocate.

I don't know if I've read it and I've searched for it, but haven't found it.

Edited December 11, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

I think Steven had the least behavior on the record which is why they might have put him up there. Interestingly Dumas book quoted a girl who had dated Steven a couple of times, found him really weird (no surprise there)

However, she says that she caught Steven after a few drinks later after they had gone out and really ended up just friend/acquaintances and that she asked him if it was true that his brother had killed Martha. She said that she believed her question was direct, it took him off-guard and he simply looked off in the distance and said, yes, it is. At the time her mind was on Tommy but she says that she did not ask which brother. Didn't think of it until Michael was arrested. I didn't mention this before because I thought it just one of those things that are maybe so and maybe no.

No one has mention that Rushton does seem to have sent Tommy off to Europe when the heat got too bad and a break was needed. Supposedly the excuse was that it wasn't to just travel in Europe, it was to Ireland for a funeral but I never saw any mention of why or who had died that was so close only to Tommy that her would be sent off by himself. Did your book mention that ? That did sound to me like something Rushton might have gotten away with because of who they were. It would have certainly given Tommy some recovery time.

No, the only book I saw from Levitt was written in 2002. Its "Conviction: The murder of Martha Moxley" and its coming. LOL Perhaps the other was the title of one of his articles. I have tried to find the ones that were not originally printed and haven't been able to do so.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Vincennes

[Vincennes]

Sorry, Reg, I didn't answer your first question. No, according to my book Rushton never testified. He made a claim of dementia. Dumas made an attempt to interview him once, found him at a business rang by Rushton's second wife but the wife interrupted took the phone and said he wasn't able to converse ??? He didn't substantiate that claim. I don't know whether the court did.

[Regi]

No one has mention that Rushton does seem to have sent Tommy off to Europe when the heat got too bad and a break was needed. Supposedly the excuse was that it wasn't to just travel in Europe, it was to Ireland for a funeral but I never saw any mention of why or who had died that was so close only to Tommy that her would be sent off by himself. Did your book mention that ?

Briefly..."In the spring of 1976, Tommy spent two weeks in Ireland, staying with his aunt Pat Skakel Cuffe."

Fuhrman said it was "widely reported" that Tommy had gone to Switzerland, but he didn't find any evidence of that.

Edited to add that "His family claimed that the trip had been planned long in advance, but it was a rather convenient hideout for the young suspect."

And..."After returning to the States, Thomas left Brunswick School and tried to attend a school in New York, but parents objected to his presence. He ended up graduating from Vermont's Vershire Academy in 1977."

Perhaps the other was the title of one of his articles. I have tried to find the ones that were not originally printed and haven't been able to do so.

I found the article posted on another site, but I haven't read it yet. (It's rather l o n g, and I found it a bit difficult (for me) to read the way it's presented and I guess I haven't had the patience to sit and work through it. )

Here's a current article re: the case status.

http://www.greenwich...6697.php#page-1

Edited December 12, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

Really an interesting article. Dumas was the editor of the Greenwich times before his book was published. I got the feeling reading Len Levitt is a fast talking New Yorker. Did you ?

So Sherman was retained through Tommy's own attorney. That would mean Tommy/Rushton kept an active attorney going for Tommy all that time. WOW ! I wonder if there is any money left at all.

I do think it must have been Skakel influence that kept Tommy's name out of the trial. I would think, if that was the case, Sherman would have gotten something signed indicating that method of defense had been refused. There is no other logical answer to why it would not be used. He wouldn't have to have established Tommy's guilt, just drug him in front of the jury as a possible. Then, Tommy wasn't even called to testify. Weird.

So there were several different stories re. Tommy's trip to Europe. I never thought of that before as a strategy for a lie but seems like it works. Just tell every single person something different and no one can make heads or tails out of anything ! ))))

Edited December 12, 2013 by Vincennes

[Kowalski]

Here's a current article re: the case status.

http://www.greenwich...6697.php#page-1

Thanks for posting this! Explained a lot for me, regarding Judge Bishops ruling. I was kinda baffled at how one Judge, and the Supreme Court of Connecticut, could reject Michael's appeal, and this judge, Judge Bishop, orders a retrial. That was confusing for me. Makes a little more sense now, but what would be Tommys motive for killing Martha? How how do you get around Michael lying about his whereabouts that night?

I seriously wonder if Sherman, was paid off or told, not to focus on Tommy. If I had been Michael's defense attorney, I would have focused on Tommy not Littleton, especially considering how at first in this investigation, Tommy was considered the prime suspect.

[Vincennes]

Thanks for posting this! Explained a lot for me, regarding Judge Bishops ruling. I was kinda baffled at how one Judge, and the Supreme Court of Connecticut, could reject Michael's appeal, and this judge, Judge Bishop, orders a retrial. That was confusing for me. Makes a little more sense now, but what would be Tommys motive for killing Martha? How how do you get around Michael lying about his whereabouts that night?

I seriously wonder if Sherman, was paid off or told, not to focus on Tommy. If I had been Michael's defense attorney, I would have focused on Tommy not Littleton, especially considering how at first in this investigation, Tommy was considered the prime suspect.

I read that article twice and I'm going to have to read it again. What I think he is saying though amounts to what I thought in the very first place. However, if that is Len Levitt's style of writing, I have trouble with it.

I'm glad you asked these questions because I have something about this playing around in my head. I always did see a possible motive for Tommy in the murder in that the only evidence we have of Martha's sexual encounter with him is Tommy. If you take that out or modify it, as wild as these kids were, there seems to be no other statements from other kids that Martha was a sexual player. In fact the other girls' comments that I have come across indicate she seemed pretty virginal to them. That makes me think what might have happened is that she was willing to play with Tommy up to a point. He was dead set after the conquest so that he could throw it in his brother's face. When she had gone as far as she would go, she attempted to leave. Now the other point I came across in Dumas book, (if true...and we never know that for sure) if Tommy had just had another over whelming rejection from other kids that had left him in tears (soccer team), I think with his mercurial personality it might be a recipe for an explosion.

What modifies that a little to me is the timeframe Tommy's lie about the school report was discovered. It wasn't immediately after the murder, it was down the road a few years when the Sutton investigators got into it. That makes me evaluate why he would have then produced the information regarding the sexual encounter. Was he trying to produce the fact that he had left Martha on good terms ? Just like Regi pointed out in Michael's statement that he went to Martha's house after 11:00 pm and called to her. Was Michael trying to establish that he thought Martha still alive at 11:00, all the while knowing that she wasn't ? Was Tommy taking a reach then to establish he left her on good terms ? Why when he had witnesses that he had gone into the house at 9:30 pm and seemed to be saying goodbye to her ?? Why, why, why did he need to go further than that to point out they were on good terms ? That's a mystery to me.

IMO the fact that Sherman didn't at least touch on Tommy's involvement is inexplicable. That, along with Rushton's refusal to testify are strange. If it's true that Rushton Sr. had done all of this maneuvering to remove his kids from any accusations of guilt, what was he afraid would come out? So much so that he would refuse to stand behind them one last time ? Why couldn't he just lie for them ? IMO that might verify that Rushton really wasn't the maneuver that he was thought to be. It makes me think he might have been just what Dumas described, not devious but simply out of it, with his head in the sand, wanting only to think positive things about his kids until the Sutton detectives brought him face to face with something in their invest.

I am not welshing on believing Michael is the most likely suspect to have committed the murder but what has occurred to me just lately in our discussions is that if I was on the next jury I don't know if I could vote to convict, I really don't. I don't think there is really much hard evidence or even circumstantial evidence other than strong suspicion. The lie Michael told is perhaps the strongest thing I see but he does say that he with held it because he was embarrassed at what he had been doing in the tree which is pretty logical for a kid that age and Tommy lied too..... So where does that leave us ? People have been wrongly convicted before on stronger "evidence" than this.

I picture the three of us on this jury and I know you and Regi would be ready to knock me out but they would have to come up with something stronger at trial than we have in these discussions for me to vote to convict. I think at this point we all three "think" he is guilty, we don't know it .

Sorry, sorry !! Will I be voted out of this discussion ?? ??

[Regi]

I got the feeling reading Len Levitt is a fast talking New Yorker. Did you ?

My impression was that he's incredulous re: the judge's decision/rationale.

I didn't agree with his comment that the case must be "the nations longest running soap opera" because that would be the Jeffrey MacDonald case, but I couldn't agree more with his last comment: "The state had better challenge this ruling. Otherwise, half the Connecticut prison population could be flocking to court, claiming their lawyers did not adequately defend them."

I was kinda baffled at how one Judge, and the Supreme Court of Connecticut, could reject Michael's appeal, and this judge, Judge Bishop, orders a retrial.

If I'm not mistaken, this last time was the first time the case was appealed based on grounds of ineffective council.

Makes a little more sense now, but what would be Tommys motive for killing Martha? How how do you get around Michael lying about his whereabouts that night?

The judge's decision was simply that evidence against Tommy should have been presented.

[Kowalski]

If I'm not mistaken, this last time was the first time the case was appealed based on grounds of ineffective council.

Ah, you are right. There were several different appeals. Seems like after he was convicted they tried every single appeal they could think of including Tony Bryants insane story. They are detailed here:

Link: http://crime.about.c...kel_appeals.htm

I found this one appeal interesting....

Attorneys for Michael Skakel have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his conviction for the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley in Greenwich, Connecticut. His appeal is based on the argument that when Moxley was killed the statute of limitation in the state was five years and Skakel wasn't charged with the crime until 2000, an argument rejected by the state's highest court.

Skakel, 45, was convicted of Moxley's murder in 2002. He is currently serving a 20 years to life sentence. His attorneys presented the same statute of limitations argument to the Connecticut Supreme Court last year and lost the appeal on an unanimous vote.

Connecticut eliminated the statute of limitations for murder in 1976, a year after Moxley was killed. The state Supreme Court ruled that because Moxley's murder occurred within five years of that legislation, the change applied to her murder.

Link: http://crime.about.c...preme-court.htm

I am not welshing on believing Michael is the most likely suspect to have committed the murder but what has occurred to me just lately in our discussions is that if I was on the next jury I don't know if I could vote to convict, I really don't. I don't think there is really much hard evidence or even circumstantial evidence other than strong suspicion. The lie Michael told is perhaps the strongest thing I see but he does say that he with held it because he was embarrassed at what he had been doing in the tree which is pretty logical for a kid that age and Tommy lied too..... So where does that leave us ? People have been wrongly convicted before on stronger "evidence" than this.

I picture the three of us on this jury and I know you and Regi would be ready to knock me out but they would have to come up with something stronger at trial than we have in these discussions for me to vote to convict. I think at this point we all three "think" he is guilty, we don't know it .

Sorry, sorry !! Will I be voted out of this discussion ?? ??

No, of course not. Nothing wrong with questioning things, and since Tommy and Michael are the type who would rather "climb a tree and tell a lie then stay on the ground and tell the truth" it makes it hard to know exactly what they know, and if they are telling the truth or not. And with Rushton using his money and influence to cover things up....Yeah, it's a tough case. I don't envy anyone who was on that jury. That has to be hard.

You might find this interesting and helpful:

Why Did the Alibis Change?

No one can yet answer this question for sure. The best clues are found in Timothy Dumas' A Wealth of Evil. His book draws an interesting conclusion that perhaps the killer feared the results of a new type of DNA testing that could surface genetic information from trace evidence years after a death.

In comments that indicate who Dumas really believes is the killer (Michael), as well as hypothesizes a motive (jealousy), the author states, "I found Tommy's 1990s version of his actions hard to believe — and not only of the seeming unlikelihood of Martha engaging him sexually. The story smacked of ass-covering. At this time, (Dr.) Henry Lee had started examining evidence with his magic machines, and Tommy knew that some day he might be called upon to account for whatever Lee turned up — like the presence of semen.

"Still, the tryst story helps Tommy's story in one crucial regard: it unwittingly creates a motive for Michael. What meaner brotherly trespass could Tommy have committed than to encroach on Michael's love interest? How would the emotionally precarious Michael have reacted? Consider that the behavioral scientists said the nature of the attack on Martha was personal, that the killer knew Martha and fantacized about her, and that he was a voyeur...If Michael was indeed the killer, than the scientists had sketched a stunningly accurate portrayal of him."

Link: http://www.trutv.com...ey/files_5.html

Mark Fuhrman, who strongly suggests Michael as his choice as killer, believes that Michael's changing of his alibi was an attempt to save his own hide. Knowing that Sutton was commissioned by his father to dig deep, more deeply than ever, into the crime, he may have feared that the investigators might perhaps come across a witness who may have seen him on the Moxley property that night. What better way to explain his presence than with a fabricated story of climbing that tree to get Martha's attention?

As for the window-peeping, Fuhrman doesn't doubt that Michael could be very capable of such an act. "It is very possible that the house where Michael regularly peeped was not another neighbor's but the Moxleys. At 11:40 Dorothy Moxley was downstairs in the television room, wearing a nightgown and sleeping on the couch, just like the woman Michael described in his statement. Did he regularly peep in on Dorothy or was it Martha?"

An element of Michael's reworked alibi that bothers Fuhrman is his statement about climbing into his bedroom at night's end. Why did the boy say he had to climb into his house?

Everyone who intimately knew the Skakels said the family never bothered to lock its doors, and with the father gone Michael certainly had no worry of angering his father's curfew demands. Fuhrman hints that Michael could not have entered the main doors with blood on his clothes in fear of dripping it on the carpeting, or, more possibly, being caught by a family member with it smeared across him. And as for admitting his offbeat means of entrance, that was just another ploy to explain himself just in case he had been seen.

Link: http://www.trutv.com...suspects_6.html

Also, Martha's diary entries are very interesting as well.... especially the last entry about Michael and Tommy....

Link: http://marthamoxley....diary/index.htm

[Vincennes]

You might find this interesting and helpful:

Link: http://www.trutv.com...ey/files_5.htm

I had read Dumas entire book and the point about the DNA had left my mind which at the time I thought was a very good suggestion as a rationale for Tommy's change of story. This would, however, indicate to me that Tommy had a fear that more of his DNA was going to found on her than would be a logical amount from just sitting in the car beside her. [

The suggestion that Michael's story that he had "climbed in" his window also seems like a logical one to me in view of the fact that the murder would have had a substantial amount of blood on them. But I will have to add a personal note here that is absolutely true and I am sadly old enough that my high school years were way before drugs, etc. had entered the picture. I did have a best friend who did come from a very white collar family that was also extremely dysfunctional. From the time we learned to drive, we were always told not to honk upon arrival at Charlie's house to notify our arrival to pick him up. He preferred to climb out his bedroom window and wait for us there. That way he didn't have to talk to his mother on the way out. Yes, he did turn out just fine, a productive business man and father. In fact the only bad thing any of us were did was sneaking cigarettes. I guess it was a manifestation of his absolute lack of a bond with his mother (who was the one always home alone) I have to admit as kids it never entered our minds as something that should be addressed, we thought it was the funniest thing in the world. Strange coincidence I know but I wonder if this could be a dysfunctional trait that kids with backgrounds that are to far disassociated with their parents might do in order to retaliate in hiding their own personal life.

The profile of the killer that was done by an affiliated group of the Sutton's really was so dead on to Michael, I wondered if it could have been done by someone who borrowed information from other statements and applied them to make his profile look absolutely accurate. Because IMO it certainly pointed to Michael. no doubt !

Link: http://www.trutv.com...suspects_6.html

Also, Martha's diary entries are very interesting as well.... especially the last entry about Michael and Tommy....

Link: http://marthamoxley....diary/index.htm

I hadn't been to Martha's website before. The link I had tried to is came up with a wrong address and I just thought it had been shut down. I didn't try any more to get there. Interesting to read her diaries but the last entry I got was Sept. 19th. Is that the last one ? I wonder why the other entries seem to be every two or three days, then nothing for a month ?

After reading them I came away with the feeling, that Dumas was right, he put her "boy friend" as a Peter. Her flirtation / interest in the Skakel boys does seem to have been focused on Tommy. It sounded to me if Michael was so interested in her, it would have been news to Martha at least at that point in time. She says he was always hanging over a friend of hers. Wonder when the change took place. Why did all accounts from the time of the murder point to Michael as having such as interest in her and not Peter, the "boyfriend ? The last entry re. Michael does convey he was confrontational.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Vincennes

[Regi]

What modifies that a little to me is the timeframe Tommy's lie about the school report was discovered. It wasn't immediately after the murder, it was down the road a few years when the Sutton investigators got into it.

According to Fuhrman, it was learned early in the investigation and it was Littleton who'd contradicted Tommy re: that specific homework assignment. (Littleton had also checked with other teachers at the school and there was no such assignment.)

I always did see a possible motive for Tommy in the murder in that the only evidence we have of Martha's sexual encounter with him is Tommy.

I simply don't see a motive for Tommy...I understand your angle, but I only see that he provides a motive for Michael, although I'm still trying to rationalize why Tommy denied any relationship with Martha.

For example, Tommy was quoted by a newspaper (at the time- it's in that '91 Levitt article) as saying about Martha "I didn't know her. Michael liked her. I didn't." Now, he was obviously distancing himself from the victim- which is always a red flag.

Edited December 14, 2013 by regi

[Regi]

Interesting to read her diaries but the last entry I got was Sept. 19th. Is that the last one ? I wonder why the other entries seem to be every two or three days, then nothing for a month ?

I'm thinking that's only what was 'made available'...

After reading them I came away with the feeling, that Dumas was right, he put her "boy friend" as a Peter. Her flirtation / interest in the Skakel boys does seem to have been focused on Tommy.

My interpretation of what was in the diary, correlated with Mrs. Moxley's impression that Peter was indeed Martha's boyfriend, Tommy's comment about Martha, and statements from that night other witnesses and before is that for some reason, Martha enjoyed Tommy's attention and Tommy would push the limits just to see what happened. From what I've read, Martha never indicated that ever she felt pressured by Tommy.

It's not known what had occurred- if anything- between them previously, but it appears to me that that night might have been a turning point in their relationship and I don't think Tommy wanted anyone to know about what might have occurred between them; not Littleton , or Mrs. Moxley, and then later, the police, possibly because he'd already committed to '9:30'....

(That's my current line of thinking re: his lie, but like I've said, I'm still rationalizing. )

Edited December 14, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

I'm thinking that's only what was 'made available'...

That was the impression I had too but for what reason would they be withheld. It's seeing only a portion of the picture. Being a teenager in the amount of days missing her focus on a boy could have changed three times!

My interpretation of what was in the diary, correlated with Mrs. Moxley's impression that Peter was indeed Martha's boyfriend, Tommy's comment about Martha, and statements from that night other witnesses and before is that for some reason, Martha enjoyed Tommy's attention and Tommy would push the limits just to see what happened. From what I've read, Martha never indicated that ever she felt pressured by Tommy.

It's not known what had occurred- if anything- between them previously, but it appears to me that that night might have been a turning point in their relationship and I don't think Tommy wanted anyone to know about what might have occurred between them; not Littleton , or Mrs. Moxley, and then later, the police, possibly because he'd already committed to '9:30'....

(That's my current line of thinking re: his lie, but like I've said, I'm still rationalizing. )

It also correlates with Dumas' interpretation of who was on first. He emphasized that quite a bit but really didn't draw any conclusion from it. When I was Martha's age, we would have considered that two year difference in ages as a big deal. That would have been an "older" man whose attention was always held in a high esteem. So I have always felt her actions toward appreciating Tommy's attention were really just what I would have expected. I also agree that a possible delay in providing that information might have been an initial attempt by Tommy to hide it. In fact, if you allow him innocence in the murder the first couple of times he was asked in the early morning hours, he might have really thought Martha was just delayed or had gone to another friend's house for the night. The fact that she would not reappear might not have crossed his mind. Then he would more or less stuck with his first report.

I mentioned this once before and thinking about Julie's statement regarding when she was first told Martha was not home, she describes herself as immediately going to wake up Tommy to ask when he saw her last with no mention of waking up Michael. That's odd, if Michael was the one who had the crush on Martha, why wouldn't she at least ask him too ? There are at least a couple of reports of what Julie says that she did in the Sutton papers with no mention of asking Michael. I think that's really as odd as the lies the boys told.

I'm surprised by Furhman's belief that Littleton was the first to discover there was no assignment. I don't remember that at all from the book (nothing surprising there ) My first through response was why would he check on that because he seemed always firm in backing Tommy. Then it occurred to me that as a teacher, he might have just come a crossed it in general conversation with other teachers regarding what happened prior to the murder. Did Furhman think that Littleton took it to the police ?

I'm glad you guys didn't vote me out of the thread. This has really been an interesting discussion !

Edited December 14, 2013 by Vincennes