Skakel to Get New Trial

[Vincennes]

I was reading up on the MacDonald case yesterday- which is pending a judge's decision, and I read an opinion that if the judge's decision is to grant a new trial, then the state will likely not re-try the case.

My thoughts turned to this case and I suddenly had a very bad feeling about the outcome. The sentence wasn't particularly long to begin with, and he's already served about a decade and I'm worried that the state- if they lose their appeal- will decide to drop it.

That is a really good point !! I have really have thought the same thing. As I've said, I think it's a good things that these three authors, all writing from different angles, haven't really differed much from each other on the facts of the case and how they arrived at the conclusion. That's pretty impressive ! However, it still leaves the fact there isn't any actual physical evidence. Would they get another jury that would convict on circumstantial even though it is strong ??? I think that the Prosecution will have to look at what has happened in the Zimmerman, Arias and Anthony cases, where they lost it all and had just has much if not more evidence in each of those cases.

They would also have to look at the fact Michael has actually done more time already than he would have if they had charged him back then when he was a juvenile. If they did offer him a manslaughter bargain, he could walk with time served. IMO opinion, the rub with doing that is that he would have to plead guilty and now, with the Kennedy involvement saying he's not guilty, he would then be saying RFK Jr. is wrong .

But they have to at least be looking at that possibility.

Maybe the question that K brought up regarding his bail money might influence that. As amazing as it seems, I don't think the Spraekels have all that much money left. They blew through that fortune which, at the time of Ethel's marriage to Bobby, was thought to have been larger than the Kennedy's. They might have some trust funds but I don't think they are significant any longer, evidenced by the fact all of them are now working and living pretty average lives. Who's going to pay for Michael's attorney when they really were not that wild about him in the first place ?

All in all, I am concurring with what you brought up. I don't think we will see another trial.

[Regi]

However, it still leaves the fact there isn't any actual physical evidence. Would they get another jury that would convict on circumstantial even though it is strong ??? I think that the Prosecution will have to look at what has happened in the Zimmerman, Arias and Anthony cases, where they lost it all and had just has much if not more evidence in each of those cases.

Arias is convicted of first degree murder, it's just that the jury wasn't unanimous re: the sentencing. (Seriously, if that jury had come back with a not guilty verdict, I would have lost all faith in system right then and there!)

Our judicial system might be considered "the best", but it's faaaaaar from perfect. No doubt about it.

The thing w/the Arias trial is that in a death penalty case in Arizona, the jury's decision about sentencing must be unanimous, and there were 8 for the death penalty and four against. Last I heard, there was going to be a re-trial of the sentencing phase only.

Yeah, I think the biggest problems a prosecution faces with old cases is that witnesses die and memories fade. I guess there are also issues re: seating an unbiased jury...

Circumstantial evidence is soooo misunderstood.

In most cases, it's the only evidence there is. Fact: Eye-witness testimony is considered direct evidence, but it's shown to be the most unreliable of all evidence. The only other direct evidence would be audio or video of the crime. A confession might be considered direct evidence, but still, it requires supportive evidence because someone can't just come off the street and claim they committed a crime! (First, there has to be evidence that there was a crime.)

DNA is circumstantial evidence. Indeed, it's the circumstances of the DNA- what it is and where it's found- that dictates it's strength. I imagine it's the strongest when there's no known connection between victim and perp.

Cases will have some circumstances which are compelling for guilt or innocence one way or the other, and some won't. It depends on the evidence.

They would also have to look at the fact Michael has actually done more time already than he would have if they had charged him back then when he was a juvenile. If they did offer him a manslaughter bargain, he could walk with time served. IMO opinion, the rub with doing that is that he would have to plead guilty and now, with the Kennedy involvement saying he's not guilty, he would then be saying RFK Jr. is wrong .

But they have to at least be looking at that possibility.

Given my opinion about Michael's guilt, what bothers me the most is that he refuses to take responsibility for what he's done. His denial continues to hurt people, and still, he sacrifices anyone and everyone for his own self.

I don't think we will see another trial.

I'm hoping the state's appeal is successful. I truly believe the judge's decision was wrong and so I think it should be.

Edited December 30, 2013 by regi

[Vincennes]

Arias is convicted of first degree murder, it's just that the jury wasn't unanimous re: the sentencing. (Seriously, if that jury had come back with a not guilty verdict, I would have lost all faith in system right then and there!)

Our judicial system might be considered "the best", but it's faaaaaar from perfect. No doubt about it.

The thing w/the Arias trial is that in a death penalty case in Arizona, the jury's decision about sentencing must be unanimous, and there were 8 for the death penalty and four against. Last I heard, there was going to be a re-trial of the sentencing phase only.

And there it is, another factor in taking Michael to trial again. Along with everything else, they can also get a stupid judge. I think the judge' decision in the Arias case to all that jury to dismiss without a verdict in the that amount of time was preposterous. She should have talked to them, gone over her instructions again and sent them back for another week if they needed it ! That was a slap in the face to all the work that Prosecution had done in getting it to that point.

The sentencing phase ~~~ One of the attorney's on the Court TV talk programs Mark something, made me laugh when that was originally discussed. He said, if it comes to that "OI Vay!" and slapped his hand to his forehead, because they "don't have to do the entire again" but they have to go back into all the elements of the trial that lead to the verdict. Now, think about that one. And, they are supposed to be people who didn't follow the trial ! That's ridiculous !

Now, you got me started !!!

Given my opinion about Michael's guilt, what bothers me the most is that he refuses to take responsibility for what he's done. His denial continues to hurt people, and still, he sacrifices anyone and everyone for his own self.

No, he never has and never will. Levitt's description of Michael's conduct at the trial was sickening. Really of note though "still, he sacrifices anyone and everyone for his own self" entirely describes one of the author's repeated statements regarding Ethel Kennedy's modus operandi throughout her entire life. This is so deeply established in the Skakels it almost seems genetic. That becomes part of the issue that none of them is going to step up, continue footing his bills, for what reason would that benefit them. Don't forget here RFK, Jr. is also a Skaekel. We might not be able to see what it is but they don't do anything for nothing. They don't stick their foot in anything that might make them come out looking badly.

I'm hoping the state's appeal is successful. I truly believe the judge's decision was wrong and so I think it should be.

Sorry, kid, I will bet you anything, they cannot call that bell back once it has rung. As right as they might be, the state has wasted paper and ink in trying to do that. They are only establishing their disagreement with the ruling. I'm not saying the ruling is correct. I am saying any decision on it has to go with a preponderance of consideration to the accused. They won't do that recall it. Sorry ~~

Edited December 30, 2013 by Vincennes

[Regi]

And there it is, another factor in taking Michael to trial again. Along with everything else, they can also get a stupid judge. I think the judge' decision in the Arias case to all that jury to dismiss without a verdict in the that amount of time was preposterous. She should have talked to them, gone over her instructions again and sent them back for another week if they needed it ! That was a slap in the face to all the work that Prosecution had done in getting it to that point.

The sentencing phase ~~~ One of the attorney's on the Court TV talk programs Mark something, made me laugh when that was originally discussed. He said, if it comes to that "OI Vay!" and slapped his hand to his forehead, because they "don't have to do the entire again" but they have to go back into all the elements of the trial that lead to the verdict. Now, think about that one. And, they are supposed to be people who didn't follow the trial ! That's ridiculous !

Well, I think the state of Arizona is kicking ass.

Now, I'd never heard of re-trying a sentencing phase before, but the way I understand it, if the state decided not to re-try, the judge would decide sentencing, the death penalty would be off the table, and a sentence with parole would be a possibility.

The way I see it, the state is refusing to accept anything less than life w/o.

Sorry, kid, I will bet you anything, they cannot call that bell back once it has rung. As right as they might be, the state has wasted paper and ink in trying to do that. They are only establishing their disagreement with the ruling. I'm not saying the ruling is correct. I am saying any decision on it has to go with a preponderance of consideration to the accused. They won't do that recall it. Sorry ~~

There's still hope.

Edited December 30, 2013 by regi

[71sportstourer]

While long unsolved, this case, for a variety of reasons, reminded me of the Valerie Percy murder, IL, 1966. Great new book on that out now, Sympathy Vote: a Reinvestigation of the Valerie Percy Murder.

[Maureen_jacobs]

Michael and/or his brother did it. Because they cannot say for certain who did it, it is reasonable doubt. As far as a slam dunk on this one, too old a case.

However, if MS gets a new trial it is because of money. The whole reasonable doubt thing is secondary.

My mother always said, if you get don't get caught doing something wrong, you will eventually be punished. Be it guilt, fear of god, or just plain karma. You reap what you sow.

[Regi]

A news article from early this month which reports that the state has filed it's appeal.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/08/08/prosecutors-file-appeal-to-reverse-kennedy-cousin-michael-skakels-release/

[Vincennes]

Interesting, I was just wondering whatever happened to this case.

I have to admit to extremely conflicted feelings here. I totally feel that Michael was guilty of the murder, absolutely no doubt in my mind. However, I do have to give him the fact that Mickey Sherman just might have done a lousy job representing him. Mickey's primary interest in that case was strutting before the camera and then billing for camera time. Now was Rushton's influence part of the reason why Tommy wasn't named as a possible suspect, we will probably never know.

This, along with the fact that the Prosecution did act unethically in bringing in some of the witness testimony that they did, has to make me feel he does deserved to be retried. Is that frustrating, yes ! Is this coming about because of the Kennedy money? To some extent, probably yes. They had to money to keep it going that others do not. But the biggest cause is that he did not receive a fair trial. This wasn't just a simple error by a judge nor is it a tiny little mistake they are grasping on. That fault that is bringing the new trial lies at the feet of over zealous prosecutors, not the Kennedy's.

Looking at this picture, Michael looks terrible. Like OJ, it does seem like in the end even those who have bought there way out of justice, pay with their lives in another way. It looks to me as if has done just that and will continue to do so, no matter what the trial result.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Vincennes

[Regi]

Interesting, I was just wondering whatever happened to this case.

Yeah, I was thinking back to our 'pending' cases and this is one of the ones I decided to check in with.

I guess it took a while for the state to prepare their appeal, right? Lord, the system can be so slow! In fact, it's been so long that I don't remember if the state had ever said it before, but according to the article, they'll retry if their appeal fails.

Well, we'll see if they stand by that remark, won't we?

I have to admit to extremely conflicted feelings here. I totally feel that Michael was guilty of the murder, absolutely no doubt in my mind. However, I do have to give him the fact that Mickey Sherman just might have done a lousy job representing him. Mickey's primary interest in that case was strutting before the camera and then billing for camera time. Now was Rushton's influence part of the reason why Tommy wasn't named as a possible suspect, we will probably never know.

I don't remember if there were any other points, but the judge said that there would have "likely been an acquittal if the defense focused more on the brother"...that "the defense needed only to cast doubt that Michael Skakel killed Moxley, not convince that his brother committed the crime."

Now, I understand that that's the same old smoke and mirrors tactic commonly used by a defense, but in this case, they're talking about the brother.

Anyway, I don't agree that there would have likely been an acquittal because I agree with the prosecution that if the defense had focused on Tommy and his romantic relationship with Martha, it would have highlighted even more a motive for Michael.

Looking at this picture, Michael looks terrible. Like OJ, it does seem like in the end even those who have bought there way out of justice, pay with their lives in another way. It looks to me as if has done just that and will continue to do so, no matter what the trial result.

[Vincennes]

I don't remember if there were any other points, but the judge said that there would have "likely been an acquittal if the defense focused more on the brother"...that "the defense needed only to cast doubt that Michael Skakel killed Moxley, not convince that his brother committed the crime."

Now, I understand that that's the same old smoke and mirrors tactic commonly used by a defense, but in this case, they're talking about the brother.

Anyway, I don't agree that there would have likely been an acquittal because I agree with the prosecution that if the defense had focused on Tommy and his romantic relationship with Martha, it would have highlighted even more a motive for Michael.

I have a personal suspicion that it might have been Rushton that called the shots on don't accused Tommy. I think there might have been a couple of reasons for that.

Remember Rushton refused to appear at the trial and actually did everything he could to fake dementia so that he wouldn't have to. I think he might just have thought that actual suspicion at the time of the murder ran so high against Tommy and not so much against Michael. I think he might just have thought Michael had a better chance of getting off, if the guilt was pointed by Michael at his brother they just might not be able to draw it back.

I also think that there is another chance Rushton knew very well Michael had done it and because of that Tommy had suffered some real psychological damage. I think there just might have been enough of a parent in Rushton to say, Michael you did it, now you have to suffer the consequences, you are not going to absolve yourself of guilt by implicating your brother any further. Michael seemed to have driven Rushton to a point of being over the edge quite a few times. I think he just might have had enough control of the money Sherman was so happy to be billing for that he said, Enough!

[Regi]

(For a pretty good while, I was curious as to how many pages back this thread actually was but eventually, my curiosity ran out so that I finally used the search bar!)

I was checking the status of this case and I came across this article from Oct. '15 that I'd missed and I thought others might also have missed it but would like an update.

https://www.greenwichsentinel.com/2015/10/30/the-moxley-case-turns-40-with-no-end-in-sight/