Michael Skakel

[AMS80]

This guy is awfully greedy...he should be happy with the 27 years he evaded conviction.

[odette]

CRIMELIBRARY - NOTORIOUS MURDERS/MOST FAMOUS

THE MARTHA MOXLEY MURDER - By Patrick Bellamy - CrimeLibrary

The Latest Update April 22, 2002 to June 7, 2002

Skakel Trial Update - Jury Selected

On Wednesday, April 24 2002, CNN reported that the last two jurors had been selected for the long-awaited trial of Michael Skakel for the murder of Martha Moxley. The jury panel comprises 12 regular jurors and four alternates. — continued: »

Excerpt: Guilty
On June 7, 2002, Court TV reported that after three days of deliberations the jury in the Martha Moxley murder case found Michael Skakel guilty of the crime. He now faces 25 years to life in prison. Under state law, Skakel’s bond will be revoked and he will await his sentencing behind bars.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou...updates_1.html

[odette]

Martha Moxley, shown in this undated photo, was found bludgeoned to death on her family's estate in Greenwich, Connecticut, in October 1975. Michael Skakel was charged in January 2000 with her murder and convicted on June 7, 2002.


Skakel is escorted into a juvenile court in Stamford, Connecticut, in June 2000. Skakel was originally charged in juvenile court but a judge ruled in January 2001 that the case be moved to adult court because the state lacked juvenile facilities to accommodate a middle-aged defendant.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/...ing/index.html

[AMS80]

Hi Odette! Looks like we're the only ones interested in this case right now!

What are your thoughts on the case?

[odette]

Originally Posted by AMS80

Hi Odette! Looks like we're the only ones interested in this case right now!

What are your thoughts on the case?

Hey AMS80

Actually, I'm not all that familiar with the Martha Moxley murder but it does look interesting.

I just thought that I'd post some of the history of the case for those who, like myself, are not too familiar with the case.

Do you vote guilty for Michael Skakel?.

[AMS80]

Originally Posted by odette

Hey AMS80

Actually, I'm not all that familiar with the Martha Moxley murder but it does look interesting.

I just thought that I'd post some of the history of the case for those who, like myself, are not too familiar with the case.

Do you vote guilty for Michael Skakel?.

Yes, I'm on the guilty side of the fence. Mark Fuhrman's book on this case is very good if you're looking to read up. I believe that, basically, Michael liked Martha, Martha was blatantly flirting/hooking up with his brother Thomas in front of him, and he flew off the handle. Something tells me that there weren't too many times that these boys didn't get exactly what they want handed to them. While I think Michael is the one that murdered her, I think there were more people, especially Thomas, that knew about it soon after the fact.

Great posting with you!

As always IMO!

[starlite]

I am not that familiar with this case either, but I agree that the Skakel boys were probably very spoiled and arrogant,comming from a wealthy family and having ties to the Kennadays. I think he is guilty and right where he belongs! jmo

[LindaA]

I read Fuhrman's book some years ago, and have been interested in this case ever since. I must admit that I didn't follow the Skakel trial all that closely.It seems to me, though, that Skakel should have gotten the sentence he would have if he had been tried as a juvenile at the time of the crime. It seems unfiar to impose an adult sentence on him now. I am under the impression that that is what happened.

[starlite]

I didn't follow the trial either Linda,so I would have to say that after thinking about what you said, it would be unfair,if that was what happened. If he is guilty, then possibly carrying this guilt all these years has caused some of the problems he has had in his life.I need to read more about this case. JMO

[slynn14]

Originally Posted by odette

Hey AMS80

Actually, I'm not all that familiar with the Martha Moxley murder but it does look interesting.

I just thought that I'd post some of the history of the case for those who, like myself, are not too familiar with the case.

Do you vote guilty for Michael Skakel?.

Hello, new here, being a New Englander myself, I know little bit about the case, I do agree with the other posts he should've been tried as a juvinelle.
It's interesting he pleads his innocence.


slynn

[AMS80]

Originally Posted by slynn14

Hello, new here, being a New Englander myself, I know little bit about the case, I do agree with the other posts he should've been tried as a juvinelle.
It's interesting he pleads his innocence.


slynn

Does anyone know how the prosecutors got around trying him as a juvenile? I thought that sentences were usually reduced if there were no suitable facilities to house a criminal (etc. jails are full so dui or small drug offenders get house arrest). The same happened I believe with two out of the three WM3 boys, they were younger than 18 and still tried as adults. Does it have to do with the seriousness of the offense?

I, for one, don't think that he should have been tried as a juvenile. He was certainly adult enough at 15 years old to batter a girl to death with a golf club...not just once, repeatedly, and at two different attack sites. MS is a cold, calculating liar (masturbating in Martha's tree outside her window, or cooking up an excuse for his dna on her? come on!) that evaded custody for many more years than he deserved.

All IMO

[odette]

Originally Posted by slynn14

Hello, new here, being a New Englander myself, I know little bit about the case, I do agree with the other posts he should've been tried as a juvinelle.
It's interesting he pleads his innocence.


slynn

Hey slynn14 .. Welcome

Looking forward to your input .. I need to read up on this case

[slynn14]

Originally Posted by AMS80

Does anyone know how the prosecutors got around trying him as a juvenile? I thought that sentences were usually reduced if there were no suitable facilities to house a criminal (etc. jails are full so dui or small drug offenders get house arrest). The same happened I believe with two out of the three WM3 boys, they were younger than 18 and still tried as adults. Does it have to do with the seriousness of the offense?

I, for one, don't think that he should have been tried as a juvenile. He was certainly adult enough at 15 years old to batter a girl to death with a golf club...not just once, repeatedly, and at two different attack sites. MS is a cold, calculating liar (masturbating in Martha's tree outside her window, or cooking up an excuse for his dna on her? come on!) that evaded custody for many more years than he deserved.

All IMO

maybe it does have to do with the seriousness of the offense, guess I will read more on the case. But Skakel seems to me that he has no remorse what so ever for what he did, or is that just me?

[kjb19500]

I sent a PM to Sweetwater a couple of weeks ago about Michael Skakel's appeal and I'm happy to see this here. It's been a while since I read Furman's book and watched the movie (same title); I'll have to dig it out and watch it again. For the Furman bashers, Mark seems to me to have a strong prejudice against rich people who use their wealth to subvert justice, as in this case. This was also an example of an incompetent LE (local police) almost allowing someone to get away with murder because of the position the family held in the community.

There was evidence found on the morning of the murder that pointed a finger at MS and/or his brother. The murder weapon, IIRC, was a 5-iron (I don't recall the model.) The same club was missing from a bag owned by the family. The father was completely uncooperative and impeded the investigation and the police allowed this to happen.

The area in Greenwich where the Skakel's and Moxley's lived was an exclusive gated community; the Skakel family floated the theory that this was a random attack from some vagabond wandering into the area from a nearby railroad. There was also a young man who had been hired as a tutor for Michael and he was put forward as the sacrificial lamb; after years of harrassment and investigations he was finally dropped as a suspect but never official cleared.

Furman was the main force in reopening the investigation and getting it onto the right track. The Moxley family and the people of Greenwich finally got justice was he was convicted in 2002.

I know nothing about CT law, but if a minor could be charged as an adult for murder in 1975, due to the viciousness of the crime that probably would have been the case.

[slynn14]

Originally Posted by kjb19500

I sent a PM to Sweetwater a couple of weeks ago about Michael Skakel's appeal and I'm happy to see this here. It's been a while since I read Furman's book and watched the movie (same title); I'll have to dig it out and watch it again. For the Furman bashers, Mark seems to me to have a strong prejudice against rich people who use their wealth to subvert justice, as in this case. This was also an example of an incompetent LE (local police) almost allowing someone to get away with murder because of the position the family held in the community.

There was evidence found on the morning of the murder that pointed a finger at MS and/or his brother. The murder weapon, IIRC, was a 5-iron (I don't recall the model.) The same club was missing from a bag owned by the family. The father was completely uncooperative and impeded the investigation and the police allowed this to happen.

The area in Greenwich where the Skakel's and Moxley's lived was an exclusive gated community; the Skakel family floated the theory that this was a random attack from some vagabond wandering into the area from a nearby railroad. There was also a young man who had been hired as a tutor for Michael and he was put forward as the sacrificial lamb; after years of harrassment and investigations he was finally dropped as a suspect but never official cleared.

Furman was the main force in reopening the investigation and getting it onto the right track. The Moxley family and the people of Greenwich finally got justice was he was convicted in 2002.

I know nothing about CT law, but if a minor could be charged as an adult for murder in 1975, due to the viciousness of the crime that probably would have been the case.

I didnt' know there was a book about this case. Geesh I need to get out more

[AMS80]

Originally Posted by slynn14

I didnt' know there was a book about this case. Geesh I need to get out more

The book by Fuhrman is called "Murder in Greenwich," I believe, and is a great read. Mark includes his hand-written diagrams and maps of the murder scene.

IMO

[JuneKleever]

Originally Posted by kjb19500

[....For the Furman bashers, Mark seems to me to have a strong prejudice against rich people who use their wealth to subvert justice, as in this case....]

IIRC, it was Dominick Dunne who pulled MFuhrman into the case.
I believe this case was Mark's debut -his re-entry into the public eye.

[LindaA]

JuneK, I believe you are right. Dunne wrote a novel based on this murder. It was made into a TV movie.

[Tap Dancer]

Originally Posted by AMS80

I, for one, don't think that he should have been tried as a juvenile. He was certainly adult enough at 15 years old to batter a girl to death with a golf club...not just once, repeatedly, and at two different attack sites. MS is a cold, calculating liar (masturbating in Martha's tree outside her window, or cooking up an excuse for his dna on her? come on!) that evaded custody for many more years than he deserved.

ITA!!

[Xainia]

Originally Posted by JuneKleever

IIRC, it was Dominick Dunne who pulled MFuhrman into the case.
I believe this case was Mark's debut -his re-entry into the public eye.

You are correct.

Dommick Dunne did most of the leg work on the case. He got close to Mrs Moxley.

Dunne gave the info he had to Fuhrman. Fuhrman checked out what Dunne had given him. Then he wrote his book.

Dunne did the work and Fuhrman got the praise by writing the book.

Can't give a link as I saw this in a documentary on the case.

[Limaes]

Originally Posted by AMS80

Does anyone know how the prosecutors got around trying him as a juvenile? I thought that sentences were usually reduced if there were no suitable facilities to house a criminal (etc. jails are full so dui or small drug offenders get house arrest). The same happened I believe with two out of the three WM3 boys, they were younger than 18 and still tried as adults. Does it have to do with the seriousness of the offense?

I, for one, don't think that he should have been tried as a juvenile. He was certainly adult enough at 15 years old to batter a girl to death with a golf club...not just once, repeatedly, and at two different attack sites. MS is a cold, calculating liar (masturbating in Martha's tree outside her window, or cooking up an excuse for his dna on her? come on!) that evaded custody for many more years than he deserved.

All IMO

I don't think he should have been tried as a juvenile either.

He gave her a horrific beating. Her face was unrecognisable and they couldn't tell at first that she was blonde.

What struck a chord with me in the movie, was when Fuhrman (can't remember the actor who played him) told Dorthy Moxley that the loud voices she heard that night wasn't Martha's murder like she had always felt. It was a moving moment. Imagine that. For all those years Dorthy Moxley endured the agony of thinking that she heard her own daughter's murder. Meanwhile, her murderer was free to go on with his life. As far as I am concerned, if you take someones life so selfishly, then you deserve everything and anything the law can throw at you.

[LindaA]

As heinous as the crime was, I just think he should have received the same sentence he would have had the police solved the crime in a timely manner. Maybe he would have been tried as an adult had he been tried at the time of the crime, but it seems unfair to do so now just because it took so long to solve the crime.

[slynn14]

Originally Posted by LindaA

As heinous as the crime was, I just think he should have received the same sentence he would have had the police solved the crime in a timely manner. Maybe he would have been tried as an adult had he been tried at the time of the crime, but it seems unfair to do so now just because it took so long to solve the crime.

are you saying because it's been so long since the actual crime took place, that it's unfair for Skakel to be convicted?

[slynn14]

any updates on Skakel?

[KTScarlettOkity]

I was mucking around in the Connecticut Judicial web site and was refreshing my memory regarding the trial. As to why he was not tried as a juvenile, I found the following:

"Because the defendant was 15 years old at the time of the murder, he was initially presented in juvenile court. That court subsequently granted the state's motion to transfer the case to the regular criminal docket in Superior Court on the grounds that the juvenile court was precluded from committing the defendant to the department of children and families because of his present age and that no alternative facilities were available. "


http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supap...cket/16844.htm

See also here:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/Press032.html#1

"General Statutes §17-60a (Rev. 1975) provides: "The juvenile court shall have the authority to transfer to the jurisdiction of the superior court any child referred to it for the commission of a murder, provided any such murder was committed after such child attained the age of fourteen years. No such transfer shall be valid unless prior thereto the court has caused a complete investigation to be made as provided in section 17-66 and has found, after a hearing, that there is reasonable cause to believe that (1) the child has committed the act for which he is charged and (2) there is no state institution designed for the care and treatment of children to which said court may commit such child which is suitable for his care or treatment or (3) the safety of the community requires that the child continue under restraint for a period extending beyond his majority and (4) the facilities of the superior court provide a more effective setting for disposition of the case and the institutions to which said court may sentence a defendant are more suitable for the care or treatment of such child."

[LindaA]

Originally Posted by slynn14

are you saying because it's been so long since the actual crime took place, that it's unfair for Skakel to be convicted?

No. I'm saying he should receive the sentence he would have had, hadthey tried him as a juvenile, which he was when he committed the crime. My issue is not with where he serves his time, but the length of his sentence.

[pearyb]

Originally Posted by JuneKleever

IIRC, it was Dominick Dunne who pulled MFuhrman into the case.
I believe this case was Mark's debut -his re-entry into the public eye.

A case this old I find it important to get major evidence instead of politics. As far as I am concerned it was a weak case. They may have gotten the riht guy, but they just as easily missed the whole thing. Supposition made him a suspect and ancient hearsay convicted him.

[Redmama]

I think this guy would have deserved to be tried as an adult even if he was caught at the time of the crime. IMO, after all of those years on the run - when he actually became an adult - then he should have had the reasoning skills to turn himself in if he truly thought he wasn't old enough to know what he was doing when he was 15.

[susie31023]

JB, you hit the nail on the head with this post in my opinion. MS got away with this crime for many many years because of his family's wealth and attachment to the Kennedy's. He should have been arrested when it first happened. He is right where he should have been all those years ago, and I hope that Martha's ghost reminds him constantly of the terror she must have felt when he killed her. JMO

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by Redmama

I think this guy would have deserved to be tried as an adult even if he was caught at the time of the crime. IMO, after all of those years on the run - when he actually became an adult - then he should have had the reasoning skills to turn himself in if he truly thought he wasn't old enough to know what he was doing when he was 15.

Excellent and valid point Redmama.

[slynn14]

Originally Posted by slynn14

I didnt' know there was a book about this case. Geesh I need to get out more

howdy all, been awhile since I been here. yes, I finally got the book, yeah I know took me long enough. lol

Happy T-Day

[Xainia]

This site has been around for years. It is run by a school friend of Martha's

Excellent information.

http://www.marthamoxley.com

[slynn14]

Skakels lawyers filed for a new appeal, I guess they have new information they didn't know of until a few months ago. I don't have many details other than what I heard on the news, I am sure it will get more publicity as it progresses.

Any thoughts?..

[slynn14]

According to his lawyers key evidence was with held, now Skakel is seeking appeal and bail.

here is a link to the story, it's from the Hartford Courant.

http://www.courant.com/news/nationwo...,6193105.story

[slynn14]

I heard on the morning news the appeal is going to be this week (Thursday).

I am trying to understand why this was never brought up from the begining, it took 7 years??

[emmeblu]

Pictures from the 3/26/09 appeal at link below. Includes pictures of Martha's mother and brother taken outside the court house.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc...4.photogallery

[RedDogBeer]

Glad to see there is a thread on the Moxley murder. I have always been facinated with this case. Here's some good reading/viewing for others who are further interested in the case...

Books on the case

Murder in Greenwich: Who Killled Martha Moxley by Mark Fuhrman

A Wealth of Evil: The True Story of the Murder of Martha Moxley in America's Richest Community by Timothy Dumas

Conviction: Solving the Moxley Murder: A Reporter and Detective's Twenty-Year Search for Justice by Leonard Levitt

Cracking More Cases: The Forensic Science of Solving Crimes: The Michael Skakel - Martha Moxley Case by Dr. Henry C. Lee (note: there is a chapter in the book dedicated to the case).

Other books available that mention or site the case.

For viewing

Murder in Greenwich (movie starring Christopher Meloni and Robert Forster based on the book by Mark Fuhrman)

American Justice on A&E: Martha Moxley

City Confidential - Greenwich: Who Killed Martha Moxley

There may be others out there, that I'm not aware of. I just finished watching the movie starring Christopher Meloni (from Law & Order: Special Victims Unit), which is based on the book about the case by Mark Fuhrman. Meloni actually plays Fuhrman in the movie. Found the movie to be quite interesting. Meloni did a great job at playing the arrogant Fuhrman. Maggie Grace plays the part of Martha Moxley and Toby Moore plays Tommy Skakel. Robert Forster makes an appearance as one of the original detectives who worked the case.

All in all, not a bad little movie IMO. The lady that played Dorothy Moxley in the movie is a dead ringer! Sorry, can't remember the actress who played her. From my understanding, much of the movie was shot in New Zealand. Beautiful landscapes and scenery. The Skakel's home very much resembles the real one in Greenwich, while the Moxley home, eh not so much.

[SaraSidle]

Red Dog do you have a different suspect in mind? I always thought this was cut and dried and over and done with. IMO sara

[RedDogBeer]

Oh no, I believe Michael Skakel is the right man and I believe his family knew he did it from the very beginning. Funny thing.. if his family would have just done the right thing and let him be held responsible way back when. Instead, they shipped him around from all those ghastly, so-called treatment centers for troubled kids, where he was living his own personal hell. No, if they would have allowed him to be held responsible for his actions, he would have probably served his time and long been out by now. Who knows, he might have gotten the help he needed and become a productive member of society.

Instead, the Skakels used their wealth, power and influence to muddy the waters, hide him away and keep the powers-that-be from doing anything with the case, until it was almost too little, too late. They literally almost got away with it, until the Sutton report got out, Fuhrman's book started getting attention and a few of the "old hats" involved in the case, finally retired or moved on. Sad, sad case for the Moxley family, who waited so long for justice to be served. They are the ones who have truely suffered, having to live their lives without their beloved Martha.

[RedDogBeer]

One thing.. I do have several theories and they differ somewhat from Fuhrman's book. I disagree with Fuhrman's timeline that the murder happened later than the police originally believed. I happen to believe the police were correct in their timeline. I believe Michael Skakel never went to the Terrien's home that night. I believe he changed his mind at the last minute and stayed behind to see what was going to happen with Tommy and Martha. Martha was grounded that night. She was also scheduled to have a party on the very next night. I just don't think she would have stayed out late and took a chance of not being able to host her party. She would have headed home earlier than what Fuhrman seems to believe.

Mrs. Moxley heard a disturbance and loud voices in her yard. All the neighborhood dogs went crazy around the same time. I believe Michael had spied on Martha and Tommy horseplaying and it drove him into a rage. He went inside and got the golf club. I think Tommy may have even walked with Martha, as she started home for the night. Michael comes upon them as they near the Moxley property and starts a confrontation (which is the disturbance Mrs. Moxley heard and what all the neighborhood dogs were barking at). I think at that time, Martha and Tommy are not taking Michael seriously. I think he goes after Tommy with the golf club and Tommy books it, running off into the darkness, as if it were a game.

That leaves Michael with Martha. I think she tries to run a short distance (I believe Dr. Henry Lee also makes that assumption in his book), still believing it's a game and not believing she was in any mortal danger, when she is overtaken and is knocked down from behind. He drags her across the driveway facedown and then delivers several more crushing blows. He leaves her to either go and find Tommy or Tommy comes back, sees what he's done and Michael goes after him again, leaving Martha there for some time, with those oozing head wounds (which left the large pool of blood that was found).

Later Michael comes back and discovers that Martha is still alive, so he drives the golf club shaft through her neck and drags her to the final resting place, under the tree, where he pulls her underwear down. All the while, Tommy knows what Michael did. That is why Tommy seemed genuinely upset at the funeral. Eventually all the Skakels learn what happened and do everything in their power to make sure one of their own is not prosecuted for the crime. That's just one of my theories as to what could have happened that night.