Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

00001
01 SUPERIOR COURT - JUVENILE MATTERS
02 JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NORWALK STAMFORD
03 AT STAMFORD
04 STATE OF CONNECTICUT
05 --------------------------------------x
06 STATE OF CONNECTICUT,
07
08 Plaintiff, Case No. FO1-00DD-01028-0
09 Date: June 28, 2000
10 vs.
11
12 MICHAEL SKAKEL,
13
14 Defendant.
15 --------------------------------------x
16
17 BEFORE THE HONORABLE MAUREEN DENNIS, JUDGE
18
19 A P P E A R A N C E S:
20
21 JONATHAN BENEDICT, ESQUIRE
22 MICHAEL COULOUTE, ESQUIRE
23 Attorneys for the State
24
25 MICHAEL SHERMAN, ESQUIRE
26 JASON THRONE, ESQUIRE
27 Attorneys for the Defendant
00002
01 THE COURT: We are back on the record in the
02 matter of Michael Skakel and could we begin with the
03 identifications here, please.
04 MR. GARR: Inspector Frank Garr.
05 MR. COULOUTE: Matthew Couloute, Jr., Assistant
06 State's Attorney.
07 MR. BENEDICT: Jonathan Benedict, State's
08 Attorney.
09 MR. SHERMAN: Michael Sherman representing
10 Michael Skakel.
11 MR. THRONE: Jason Throne, attorney with Michael
12 Sherman.
13 THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Sherman.
14 MR. SHERMAN: Yes, Your Honor. I will call Alice
15 Dunn.
16 ALICE DUNN,
17 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
18 THE CLERK: Please have a seat and state your name
19 and address for the record.
20 THE WITNESS: My name is Alice Dunn. My address
21 is 1 Carole Street, Portland, Maine.
22 THE COURT: You may inquire.
23 MR. SHERMAN: Before Ms. Dunn commences her
24 testimony, I know she has testified before the Grand
25 Jury and I asked the State's Attorney to provide me with
26 a copy of her testimony. I am just making that request
27 now before she testifies.
00003.01 MR. BENEDICT: I don't think there is any practice
02 rule that entitles counsel to that at this point. She
03 is not a State's witness. She is defense counsel's
04 witness.
05 MR. SHERMAN: Spirit of fair play, interests of
06 justice, Your Honor. She is a witness. She has
07 testified before the Grand Jury as the State's witness
08 and I don't see the reason to hide that and not to share
09 that, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Is there any authority that you can
11 cite for me, Attorney Sherman, as to why you would be
12 entitled to that under this scenario since she is not
13 the State's witness.
14 MR. SHERMAN: Just seems like the right thing to
15 do.
16 THE COURT: At this point, the request is
17 denied.
18 MR. SHERMAN: And also, as my brother points out,
19 if it is exculpatory, I believe there is an ongoing duty
20 to disclose that.
21 MR. BENEDICT: I certainly understand that.
22 THE COURT: I am sure you do, Attorney Benedict.
23 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:
24 Q Alice, where do you work?
25 A I have my own business. I have an architectural
26 salvage company in Portland, Maine. We sell stuff,
27 retail, wholesale and on line as well.
00004
01 Q How old are you?
02 A I will be 40 tomorrow.
03 Q And, how long have you been in this business?
04 A I have been in this business for about eight
05 years.
06 Q And, where did you grow up?
07 A I grew up in Scarsdale.
08 Q Did there come a point in your life where you were
09 sent to the Elan program?
10 A I was.
11 Q When was that?
12 A In about 1976.
13 Q And, when you got there, how long did you stay
14 there?
15 A I was a resident at the facility for I want to say
16 16 months but it could have been as long as 18.
17 Q When you got to the Elan program, did you have
18 occasion to meet John Higgins?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Did you have an acquaintance with Greg Coleman?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And, did you know Michael Skakel?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Were you ever in a position to observe Michael
25 Skakel interacting with either of those two fellows, Mr.
26 Coleman or Mr. Higgins?
27 A It doesn't stand out to me that they were very
00005
01 close friends, either of those three people. I don't.02 remember any interactions between them at all.
03 Q At the program, did you become a close friend of
04 Michael Skakel?
05 A I was a friend. I don't -- while he was in the
06 facility, I would consider myself a friend.
07 Q Did you become friends later on?
08 A Yes.
09 Q Did you become close friends?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Did you continue your friendship after you left or
12 after he left the Elan program?
13 A We continued our friendship while we were both on
14 a staff level after we were both graduates of the program.
15 Q Now, you are familiar with Gregory Coleman?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And, have you been made aware that he has
18 testified in this case?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And, were you made aware of the fact that he
21 testified about a primal scream therapy session?
22 A I read something in a publication saying that
23 there was a primal scream therapy group where Michael had
24 made some sort of admission or was working on it.
25 Q By the way, you and I have spoken about this case;
26 correct?
27 A Yes.
00006
01 Q And, we met basically when?
02 A The only time I met you is this morning.
03 Q We have spoken on the phone?
04 A Yes.
05 Q And, we discussed this case?
06 A Yes.
07 Q Have you ever discussed this case with the State's
08 Attorney?
09 A Yeah, I have spoken to Frank Garr and I was also
10 called down to Connecticut last year to give my version of
11 what happened there.
12 Q You testified before the Grand Jury?
13 A I believe it was.
14 Q You were in Court, you were sworn and there was --
15 A Yes.
16 Q -- a judge on the bench?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And, you have spoken with Inspector Garr on a
19 number of occasions?
20 A I have.
21 Q When was the last time you spoke to Inspector
22 Garr?
23 A I spoke to Inspector Garr on Saturday evening this
24 past.
25 Q Did you call him?
26 A No.
27 Q Did he call you?
00007
01 A Yes.
02 Q Once or several times?.03 A He attempted to reach me on Friday afternoon, once
04 on Saturday afternoon and then I was working and he finally
05 reached me around dinner time on Saturday evening.
06 Q And, you have never refused to speak to the State
07 attorney's office or their representatives?
08 A No, not at all.
09 Q Have you always been truthful with them?
10 A Absolutely.
11 Q Now, going back to that primal scream session,
12 could you describe what that is?
13 A At Elan, there were different types of groups that
14 were held. There were encounter groups and this other
15 type of group which is called a primal scream therapy
16 group. What it basically was was it would be a circle of
17 residents and it was a group that was usually run by a
18 staff person. And in that group, it was usually set in a
19 very dark room so if there was light in a particular room,
20 you would be asked to draw the curtains so that it was dark
21 and there was more of a relaxed kind of setting there.
22 And, in primal scream, what used to happen is you would
23 talk to somebody about their, you know, their largest,
24 their things that they, you know, feel might be the reason
25 why they are there, that type of thing, you know, could be
26 the death of a parent, could be, you know, being mean to a
27 sibling. It could be a number of things.
00008
01 In that context, that forum, you would pick
02 something that someone would focus on like, you know, I am
03 scared. And what you would do is you would have them hold
04 hands with the person next to you and in a very kind of
05 methodical buildup, you would have them say I am scared, I
06 am scared, I am scared. And you would have them build that
07 up to a point where they would pretty much be screaming it
08 or it would be a loud, you know, I am scared, I am scared,
09 I am scared, but just a more high pitched version of that.
10 Q Now, Greg Coleman has told us that he in fact
11 attended one of those sessions that you ran with Michael
12 Skakel. You recall that; correct?
13 A I Do.
14 Q Do you remember what the focus of that session
15 was? Was it the murder of Martha Moxley?
16 A Absolutely not.
17 Q Any question in your mind?
18 A 100 percent.
19 Q Was it Michael dealing with the death of his
20 mother?
21 A Michael was in the group and I remember the shirt
22 that he was wearing and I remember his hair and I remember
23 where he was sitting in the room in relationship to the
24 room. And I believe that what he was working on was the
25 death of his mother and feeling guilty about a conversation
26 that he had with her prior to her not being around anymore.
27 Q Did it have anything to do with the death of
00009
01 Martha Moxley?
02 A Absolutely not.
03 Q Would you remember that if it had?.04 A Absolutely, I would.
05 Q Now, just to digress a tiny bit, was it common for
06 people to talk about their alleged crimes at Elan?
07 A Was it common -- people were usually sent there
08 for a specific reason or a specific symptom, if you would.
09 And, if things happened in the facility where people were
10 boasting about something they got away with or doing
11 something illegal, whether it was stealing a car or
12 breaking into a house, you would kind of hear about it and
13 it would become common knowledge.
14 Q Was it common knowledge that Michael admitted that
15 he killed Martha Moxley?
16 A Absolutely not.
17 Q Any question about that?
18 A 100 percent, no question.
19 Q Going back just a couple of seconds again to the
20 primal scream therapy session, it was not about the death
21 of Martha Moxley?
22 A It was not.
23 Q So, you would disagree with Greg Coleman?
24 A Absolutely.
25 Q How well did you know Greg Coleman?
26 A You know, again, when I hear that Greg Coleman and
27 other people are called to testify, the first thing that
00010
01 comes to me is a visual. I remember what Greg Coleman
02 looked like and I remember his person, if you would, but
03 there was nothing ever really outstanding about Greg
04 Coleman that would make it stick out in my mind that he was
05 any particular way. I remember him as being kind of a
06 real big kid and kind of quiet, kind of, you know, pretty
07 insignificant --
08 Q Not an evil person?
09 A Absolutely not an evil person, no.
10 Q Was it someone you would confide in?
11 A I wouldn't choose him as a person to confide in
12 because I --
13 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, relevance, to who she
14 would confide in.
15 THE COURT: How do you claim that?
16 MR. SHERMAN: I don't.
17 THE COURT: Could you confine your questions,
18 please, to things that --
19 MR. SHERMAN: Sure.
20 BY MR. SHERMAN:
21 Q With respect to Greg Coleman, were you aware of
22 any confessions that Michael Skakel ever made to him? Did
23 he ever repeat this to you or anybody else?
24 A No.
25 Q Had something like that occurred, would you have
26 heard about it?
27 A Absolutely.
00011
01 Q Why?
02 A Because you heard about anything, basically,
03 because if somebody had told -- if Michael Skakel had told
04 John Higgins or Greg Coleman that there was some sort of an.05 admission about this, it would be a way for them to be the
06 focal point, be the center of attention. He would be
07 called to the director's office. It would have been a big
08 deal if that had happened during that time frame that they
09 were there and that never happened. It just never
10 happened.
11 Q Would it have been in Greg Coleman's interest to
12 let everyone know that Michael Skakel had confessed to him?
13 A I would find it to be more in John Higgins'
14 interest but I wouldn't think that Greg Coleman -- I see
15 him as a really non-entity, if you would. I hate to be so
16 vague about it but there was nothing in my mind that stuck
17 out about Greg Coleman. I didn't see him as being
18 manipulative or weaselish in any way.
19 But I saw John Higgins that way. My memory of
20 Greg Coleman is kind of standing in a hallway and people
21 passing him by and him not really having anything that
22 would be that attractive to you to want to go be his
23 friend, you know what I am saying.
24 Q Did you ever notice any close relationship between
25 Michael Skakel and Greg Coleman?
26 A No.
27 Q Any question about that?
00012
01 A No. I don't remember any intense bond there, no.
02 Q Any bond at all?
03 A No.
04 Q Were you aware of Greg Coleman's reputation for
05 truthfulness in that facility at the time?
06 A I guess, Mickey, to be honest with you, in
07 retrospect, it was never an issue, his truthfulness. But I
08 don't -- he was a gentle guy. I remember that about
09 him. That's all I really kind of remember about him.
10 Q With respect to John Higgins, I am going to ask
11 you the same question. Did you have an opinion or do you
12 have an opinion now about John Higgins' reputation for
13 truthfulness in Elan at that time? What was his
14 reputation?
15 A He had a terrible reputation for truthfulness at
16 that time.
17 Q Any question about that?
18 A No. He didn't have a very good reputation for
19 truthfulness.
20 Q How much contact, if any, did you ever have with
21 John Higgins?
22 A He was in the facility every day while I was a
23 reentry staff member and a staff member. I was in the
24 facility. I had daily contact with him. I saw him all
25 the time.
26 Q Did you ever notice a relationship between he and
27 Michael Skakel?
00013
01 A Minimal, at best.
02 Q Do you believe that John Higgins was someone that
03 Michael Skakel would have confided in based on your
04 knowledge of their relationship?
05 MR. BENEDICT: Same objection..06 MR. SHERMAN: I will kind of claim that, Your
07 Honor. Not kind of, I will claim that, Your Honor. It
08 is an issue put out by the state and that's John Higgins
09 testifying at his testimony that he was the kind of
10 person that people open up to and that Michael Skakel in
11 fact opened up to him. She has observed both of
12 them. She observed their interaction and I think she
13 is entitled to give an opinion.
14 THE COURT: Your question is what?
15 MR. SHERMAN: Is whether or not she observed --
16 whether or not she has an opinion as to whether Michael
17 Skakel and John Higgins had a relationship to the extent
18 that Michael Skakel would confide in him which is the
19 very issue that John Higgins has put forth.
20 THE COURT: Attorney Benedict, I am sorry, may I
21 hear from you?
22 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, relevance, as to how she
23 would know who confided in who. I don't think she has
24 the ability to voice that testimony.
25 MR. SHERMAN: If she knows, Your Honor.
26 THE COURT: I will overrule the objection. If you
27 can answer the question.
00014
01 BY MR. SHERMAN:
02 Q You can answer it. Do you remember the question?
03 A Whether or not John Higgins would be the type of
04 person that would have the type of relationship where he
05 would confide --
06 Q That's correct.
07 A I tend to say no. I do, however, think I am not
08 God, I have no idea who is capable of what.
09 Q Was John Higgins the kind of guy that you would
10 confide in?
11 A No.
12 Q Why not?
13 A Because he was manipulative, because he tended to
14 kind of brown nose the staff. He would do anything for
15 attention. He would get people in trouble intentionally
16 when in fact they wouldn't do a lot of the things
17 afterwards that we would find out that he would say that
18 they would do. He had a tendency to try and act like
19 something that he really wasn't. He had some major
20 problems that, you know, were very telling by just being
21 around him for a brief period of time.
22 Q If someone had told John Higgins that they
23 committed a crime, in fact, a murder, would it have been in
24 John Higgins' interest to tell Joe Ricci or somebody else?
25 A Yeah. If he went to Joe Ricci and told him that,
26 he would have probably gotten promoted up the ladder or
27 something. He would have been the person that cracked the
00015
01 case that people had been bantering Michael Skakel about
02 forever while he was a resident there. The whole time I
03 knew Michael Skakel there, he had said it over and over
04 again that he wasn't responsible for what happened, you
05 know. I even witnessed him being beaten into submission
06 and only after that time did he say I don't know, I don't.07 know, I don't know, I don't remember. And I believe it was
08 because of fear of being beaten up.
09 Q Tell us about that. Is this something that
10 happened in the boxing ring?
11 A Yes.
12 Q What was the boxing ring? Why was it there and
13 how was it implemented?
14 A The boxing ring was a tool that was used, if you
15 can believe that, that was used to -- the pretense of it
16 initially was to make sure that there was no bullying going
17 on at the facility. So if someone was to steal your desert
18 on the dinner line, they would be put into the boxing room
19 to teach them a lesson that there are no bullies here and
20 everybody is equal.
21 It was also used in very severe cases when someone
22 was being confronted, if Joe Ricci or the staff person that
23 was running the general meeting didn't like the answer and
24 thought a little roughing up, if you would, would maybe get
25 them to break. It was a place where breaking people's
26 person was really pretty much the focus.
27 In the general meeting that I remember that
00016
01 Michael was confronted in, prior to this general meeting, I
02 didn't know anything about Martha Moxley. I didn't know
03 anything about a murder in Greenwich. I didn't know
04 anything. I was up at Elan when it was all going on in
05 the Westchester and Greenwich area.
06 So, the first time it came up and the first time
07 anybody in the facility even knew about it was when Michael
08 ran away, came back to the facility and was confronted in
09 a, probably in a forum of about two hundred people. It
10 was a large open room. Michael was brought into one end
11 of the room and the residents sat back in the room. Joe
12 Ricci, the executive director, came into the facility and
13 started confronting Michael on why he ran away, why he was
14 rich, why he was spoiled, why he was this, why he was
15 that. And at that time, when Joe didn't feel like Michael
16 was being honest, people would get up and go scream at him,
17 sit back down.
18 And that was the time where he went into the
19 boxing ring. And the reason I think the boxing ring is
20 something that needs to be stressed is that the whole
21 concept of the boxing ring is that even though it is trying
22 to teach equality, it is not equal at all. You have
23 somebody that is supposed to be guilty of something or is
24 being confronted and then you have new people coming into
25 the boxing ring every round. So you go a minute. Let's
26 just say this. Here is Michael. Here is John. He goes
27 a minute. Michael, you know -- Gary comes up, he goes a
00017
01 minute, you know, Joey will come up, he goes a minute.
02 Dick comes up so the whole time Michael is --
03 Q When you say they came up, what are they doing?
04 A They come up, put boxing gloves on, head gear and
05 they go into the boxing ring and they fight.
06 Q They hit him?
07 A They hit him..08 Q What are they trying to get him to do?
09 A Break down.
10 Q At that meeting they were obviously trying to get
11 Michael Skakel to say something or admit something or say
12 something or confess something or what?
13 A Yeah, they were trying to get him to talk about
14 what happened with Martha Moxley.
15 Q Were they trying to get him to admit that he
16 killed Martha Moxley?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Or he knew who killed Martha Moxley?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Had he said all along he didn't do it?
21 A When he was confronted and it was brought to light
22 that this was an issue at the general meeting, he denied
23 vehemently over and over and over again, no, no, no, no.
24 He goes into the boxing ring, he is crying, he is standing
25 in front of all these people, he is going back into the
26 boxing ring, he is crying, people are yelling at him, it
27 was a tense situation.
00018
01 Q How many rounds?
02 A At that point he changed.
03 Q How many rounds?
04 A I remember him going in at least five if not six
05 or seven rounds.
06 Q Were these five or six or seven different people
07 beating him?
08 A Correct.
09 Q And, he finally broke down?
10 A He broke down and started to cry as anyone would.
11 Q What did he say? Did he say he did it?
12 A Absolutely not. He never admitted it. The
13 whole time I knew him, the whole time I was there, in front
14 of that general meeting, in the primal scream therapy,
15 Michael Skakel never admitted to doing this heinous crime
16 to Martha Moxley or his family, absolutely, 100 percent,
17 never did that.
18 Mickey, I wanted to say something.
19 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
20 THE COURT: Just answer the question as posed to
21 you.
22 BY MR. SHERMAN:
23 Q After the seven rounds or the five to seven
24 rounds, whatever round it was, what did he finally say?
25 A He just broke down and he cried and he said he
26 didn't know what happened that night. He didn't know. He
27 didn't know. He remembers bits and pieces of it. He
00019
01 remembers that there was some drinking going on. He
02 remembers, you know, just it was all bits and pieces. It
03 sounded to me like the guy might have blacked out. It
04 sounded like he just said I don't know.
05 Q And , did that stop the meeting?
06 A It did stop the meeting.
07 Q Did it appear to you that Michael knew that that
08 would stop the meeting?.09 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
10 MR. SHERMAN: I won't pursue it.
11 BY MR. SHERMAN:
12 Q So, finally, when he went from I didn't do it to I
13 don't know, they stopped hitting him?
14 A Correct. He didn't go in the boxing ring again
15 after that.
16 Q And, after that, did you have occasion to speak to
17 him?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And, did he say I don't know or did he say I
20 didn't do it?
21 A One time I remember confronting him and he said
22 nothing. And, that's it.
23 Q But, he never admitted that he did this?
24 A He never admitted that he did it.
25 Q Do you believe he did it?
26 A I believe that --
27 MR. BENEDICT: Objection. That's hearsay.
00020
01 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
02 BY MR. SHERMAN:
03 Q Did you continue a relationship with him
04 afterwards, after Elan?
05 A Yes.
06 Q Did you have any problem doing that?
07 A Did I have a problem with continuing a
08 relationship with him?
09 Q Yes.
10 A No, not at all. I mean, I had so much of a not
11 problem with him that, I am a bright person --
12 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, relevance.
13 MR. SHERMAN: She may explain her answer.
14 THE WITNESS: I would like to answer that.
15 THE COURT: The question is?
16 MR. BENEDICT: I would like to object to it.
17 THE COURT: The question is did she continue a
18 relationship with him after Elan and she had no problem
19 doing that. Right now, I don't think there is a
20 question pending.
21 MR. SHERMAN: I am sorry, Your Honor?
22 THE COURT: I don't know that there is a question
23 pending.
24 BY MR. SHERMAN:
25 Q Did you continue a relationship with Michael
26 Skakel afterwards?
27 A Yes.
00021
01 Q And, was that a problem for you?
02 A It was not a problem for me and if I thought for
03 one minute that he had done the crime, I would never have
04 been out with him socially.
05 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, speculative, relevance.
06 THE WITNESS: Absolutely not.
07 BY MR. SHERMAN:
08 Q The question I have is, your opinion of his guilt
09 or innocence, that didn't change after the boxing ring; did.10 it?
11 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, relevance.
12 THE COURT: Objection is sustained.
13 MR. SHERMAN: I think it's a different question.
14 THE COURT: I understand that. The objection to
15 that question is sustained.
16 BY MR. SHERMAN:
17 Q You appeared on a TV show somewhat recently?
18 A Yes.
19 Q 48 Hours?
20 A Yes.
21 Q The producer called you about 100 times and you
22 went on the show; right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Why did you do the show?
25 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, relevance.
26 THE COURT: How do you claim it? Do you claim
27 it?
00022
01 MR. SHERMAN: I don't claim it at this point,
02 Your Honor. I will wait until counsel has his turn.
03 BY MR. SHERMAN:
04 Q Did you ever tell anyone that you believed Michael
05 Skakel committed this crime?
06 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
07 THE COURT: Did she ever tell anybody that she
08 believes that Michael Skakel committed this crime --
09 objection sustained.
10 BY MR. SHERMAN:
11 Q Did you ever tell anyone that you heard Michael
12 Skakel confess to this crime?
13 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, asked and answered.
14 THE COURT: I understand it has been asked and
15 answered but I will overrule this objection.
16 BY MR. SHERMAN:
17 Q Did you ever hear Michael Skakel tell anyone --
18 did you ever tell anyone that you heard Michael Skakel
19 confess to this crime?
20 A No.
21 Q No question about that.
22 Did you know that Michael Skakel was quote,
23 unquote, a Kennedy?
24 A Did I know it -- I knew it after the general
25 meeting.
26 Q Did you ever hear Michael Skakel brag about this?
27 A No.
00023
01 Q Would you have heard? Were you in a position to
02 hear?
03 A Yeah. Um-uh.
04 Q Did other people talk about it?
05 A No. He was brought up at general meeting and,
06 you know, just like Martha, I didn't know anything about
07 his association to the Kennedys either. There was a
08 little, you know --
09 Q Was it something that Michael would brag about?
10 A No..11 Q Do you recall that or are you guessing?
12 A No, I know that Michael didn't rest on his
13 association with the Kennedys at all.
14 Q Now, with regard to Greg Coleman, would it have
15 ever been his responsibility to make a report if Michael
16 Skakel confessed to him?
17 A Absolutely.
18 Q Why is that? What was his -- what was Greg's
19 position that would cause that?
20 A My understanding was that Greg's position was a
21 personal overseer. When somebody runs away, they are
22 assigned a person who basically has to be with you for long
23 periods of time to make sure that you don't run away
24 again. And, if anything comes out of it, you know, there
25 is a report that is done at the end of every shift --
26 MR. BENEDICT: I object to this line. Pursuant
27 to another Judge's ruling which has gone through the
00024
01 appellate process in the State of Connecticut, the State
02 has been deprived of access to any materials regarding
03 the treatment of Mr. Skakel at Elan. Subsequently, the
04 State has no way whatsoever to rebut this testimony or
05 confront this testimony.
06 MR. SHERMAN: If I may be heard, Your Honor. I
07 am not asking about any reports that she may have made
08 or even been privy to. The question is totally
09 directed to Greg Coleman's testimony and testing the
10 credibility and the veracity of what he has already told
11 this Court. And he has testified, the Court may recall,
12 that he observed, listened to a confession. And my
13 question is, is it her knowledge that Greg Coleman
14 should have made a physical report about it, not what
15 the report was, not sharing the report with us, just was
16 it his responsibility to do that.
17 MR. BENEDICT: With that is relevance. Counsel's
18 next question or point in argument would be how come the
19 State hasn't produced Greg Coleman's report.
20 MR. SHERMAN: I am not going to ask him.
21 MR. BENEDICT: The State has been deprived of any
22 opportunity to look for Greg Coleman's report or use
23 Greg Coleman's report if it does exist.
24 MR. SHERMAN: I know what the answer is; I won't
25 ask that. He testified he made no report so I am not
26 going there. All I am asking is for this witness to
27 enlighten us with respect to the veracity and
00025
01 credibility of the State's witness who said that he
02 never made a report. And, I am asking this witness,
03 was he supposed to. It's a yes or no, not what is in
04 the report.
05 THE COURT: I will overrule the objection.
06 BY MR. SHERMAN:
07 Q You don't remember the question; do you?
08 A I do.
09 Q Good, thank you.
10 A You are required to make a report after an eight
11 or a 12 hour shift of being a personal overseer for any.12 incident that comes up during that, whether it be a
13 physical incident or an admission of any kind, blah, blah,
14 blah.
15 Q So, it would have been Greg Coleman's
16 responsibility to make a report had Michael made a
17 confession?
18 A Yes, absolutely.
19 Q Now, is a confession to murder a significant
20 enough event that it should find its way to a report?
21 A Yes.
22 Q It doesn't get anymore significant; does it?
23 A No, it does not.
24 Q Felony record?
25 A Drunk driving.
26 Q Three years ago?
27 A Three years ago.
00026
01 Q Any other felony record?
02 A No.
03 Q You are doing okay, you are not in any trouble,
04 you are not in custody?
05 A No, I drink, all that stuff.
06 Q Kim Freehill, were you present when Kim Freehill
07 was being paddled?
08 A I physically was not present when Kim Freehill was
09 being paddled.
10 Q Did you ever see Greg Coleman strike her?
11 A I never saw Greg Coleman strike her.
12 Q You have heard about this but you were not there?
13 A I was transferred. I was working at a facility
14 about 30 miles away from Poland Springs in Waterford, Maine
15 so I wasn't in -- Kim Freehill was also my best friend
16 growing up so I wasn't privy to her treatment, if you
17 would. I was on staff already in another house.
18 MR. SHERMAN: Nothing further.
19 THE COURT: Attorney Benedict.
20 MR. BENEDICT: Thank you, Your Honor.
21 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BENEDICT:
22 Q How are you doing. I know we have met
23 previously?
24 A How are you?
25 Q At some point, you indicated that you were a
26 resident at Elan from 1976 at some point for 16 to 18
27 months?
00027
01 A Yes.
02 Q Does the 16 to 18 months include your entire
03 association with Elan or is that just the point at which
04 you were a resident and following which you were passed
05 onto some higher level of staff?
06 A Right, the 16 to 18 months was when I was a paying
07 resident. And then after that I was on staff and worked
08 there for, you know, I want to say three years. It might
09 be more like four.
10 Q At the time of the primal scream group that you
11 monitored of which Mr. Skakel was the focus, were you a
12 staff member or a resident at that point?.13 A I was a staff member.
14 Q And, at the time you mentioned, I will get into it
15 but you mentioned a two hundred person general meeting run
16 by Joe Ricci. At that time, were you a staff member or a
17 resident?
18 A I was on staff.
19 Q You were on staff. Okay, what was your position
20 on staff?
21 A I believe I was a staff member at Elan three.
22 Q And, Elan three was a section --
23 THE COURT: Excuse me, counsel, I need to take a
24 recess.
25 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
26 BY MR. BENEDICT:
27 Q Ms. Dunn, I was asking you approximately when was
00028
01 it that you advanced to a staff level at Elan?
02 A After I was a resident so I would say at about 15
03 months I went to a reentry staff position and then I
04 graduated. And, again, you know, I didn't check or look
05 back in records or anything like that. But, you know, a
06 couple of months after you could go reentry staff to staff
07 so within 18 months of going there.
08 Q So, probably, if you went there in 1976, somewhere
09 about the end of 1977, 1978, you went to a staff level?
10 A Right. Yeah.
11 Q You just mentioned that you didn't bother to go
12 and check records. Do you have records that you have of
13 your stay at Elan?
14 A No, but I am sure I could ask my father for copies
15 of the bills.
16 Q Your family bills?
17 A Yeah. That's the only record I would be able to
18 have a reference to. I don't have any documentation left
19 from those days.
20 Q When you left Elan, records of your stay there
21 were in fact given to your family, if you know?
22 A No. No. Basically they sent home a progress
23 report.
24 Q Okay.
25 A But, no real records.
26 Q At some point, you and Mr. Skakel were both at
27 Elan in a staff capacity?
00029
01 A Yeah.
02 Q And, at least at that point, if not before, you
03 developed some relationship with him, a friendship, would
04 it be fair to say?
05 A Yeah.
06 Q Have you stayed in touch with him since?
07 A No. The first time I saw Michael was this
08 morning since the day he left the State of Maine.
09 Q Now, at the time that he was at Elan in a resident
10 capacity, he was in Elan three; is that correct?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Was Elan three coed or all male -- well, it
13 obviously wasn't all female..14 A Elan three was coed and the women slept upstairs
15 in the actual lodge facility, if you would. And then
16 there was a couple of, you know, there were like men's
17 dormitories that you would have to go down like a little
18 path down, you know what I mean. So they would have
19 separate lodging facilities physically detached from the
20 property.
21 Q When you say Elan is upstairs, that's upstairs in
22 the main Elan building?
23 A Yes.
24 Q The women were there?
25 A Yes.
26 Q The first floor would be where the dining hall is,
27 where the general meeting you described was held?
00030
01 A Yes.
02 Q And, the men were kept in -- I shouldn't say kept,
03 the men slept in other buildings?
04 A Right.
05 Q Separate from the building in which the women
06 slept?
07 A That's true.
08 Q The residents dined together, went to class
09 together, did group therapy together?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Did women ever serve night owl duty?
12 A Women served women night owl duty.
13 Q And night owl duty was a function that was
14 assigned on a rotating basis for residents to make sure
15 that residents didn't leave the sleeping facility at night?
16 A Yeah.
17 Q Or God forbid leave the entire place at night?
18 A Exactly.
19 Q So that you must have served night owl duty
20 yourself on some occasions while you were there?
21 A When I was a resident, yeah.
22 Q And, any time you did that, you served night owl
23 duty watching whatever, when you were a resident, you were
24 also in Elan three?
25 A I was, yeah.
26 Q So, you would have served night owl duty in the
27 main Elan building making sure none of the women, I don't
00031
01 know, got in trouble, took off, anything like that?
02 A Right.
03 Q And, you never sat up with any male resident when
04 you did night owl duty?
05 A No.
06 Q You certainly never sat up with Michael Skakel in
07 the course of doing night owl duty?
08 A No.
09 Q Would you describe what you did in the course of
10 night owl duty?
11 A Well, night owl duty basically, you know, you
12 would read a book, you would listen to music or something
13 and then every half an hour on the hour you were required
14 to get up from the hallway area and go and do a physical.15 check to make sure that if there are 20 women that are
16 supposed to be there, 20 women are physically there. It
17 is called a head count and you come back and you check it
18 off. Then what happens is there is a night man that goes
19 between the night owl male and the night owl female,
20 between both to make sure --
21 Q He makes sure that the night owls are --
22 A Were still there.
23 Q Were being good night owls; correct?
24 A Yes.
25 Q How many people in the women's facility would
26 serve as night owls on a given night, more than one person?
27 A Just one. One woman and then as many as how many
00032
01 houses there were to house the men.
02 Q So, there would be a separate male for each male
03 house in Elan three?
04 A Yes.
05 Q Would you be assigned to be night owl for that
06 particular facility.
07 A Yes.
08 Q And, the only person keeping track of them would
09 be another resident who was, I forget what title you gave
10 him?
11 A Night man.
12 Q The person who kept track of the night owls would
13 be the night man and he was another resident?
14 A Yeah, a very trusted resident.
15 Q Now, you mentioned when Mr. Sherman asked you,
16 initiated a question, it was the subject of a primal scream
17 therapy session, that you were familiar from having read or
18 seen a publication I guess recently about what Mr. Coleman
19 had testified to; is that your testimony?
20 A I didn't see anything in association with my name
21 in it. All I saw -- and it was in some type of a weekly
22 or daily newspaper, I don't know which one.
23 Q What was it that you saw?
24 A I saw that Greg Coleman had mentioned that Michael
25 had said that he admitted to the murder.
26 Q In a primal scream session?
27 A In a primal scream and had repetitively cried out
00033
01 I am sorry. That's what I read.
02 Q That must have been very recently that you saw
03 that?
04 A Yeah.
05 Q Just within -- it must have been within the last
06 week?
07 A Yeah, since he testified.
08 Q What was the publication you saw?
09 A You know, I want to say the Portland Press Herald,
10 the U.S.A. Today, you know.
11 Q You mean a newspaper?
12 A It was in a newspaper, yeah.
13 Q Are they covering this thing pretty closely up in
14 Portland, the Portland local paper?
15 A They cover anything up there, you know, just.16 pretty --
17 Q Not much happening there?
18 A You have to watch Jeraldo at night to really get
19 it.
20 Q Of course, since reading that and before coming
21 here, you didn't just get beamed in here, Mr. Sherman
22 requested that you come down here?
23 A Yeah.
24 Q And, you discussed what you read in the newspaper
25 with Mr. Sherman prior, obviously prior to taking the stand
26 here today?
27 A I just met with Mickey, like, you know, maybe --
00034
01 Q His name is Mr. Sherman. I know it's Juvenile
02 Court but we are trying to act like adults here, okay.
03 A Okay, I met with Mr. Sherman this morning for
04 probably 20 minutes. It was not just me. It was a group
05 of us so we didn't have a chance to talk too much about
06 individual concepts, if you would.
07 Q When you met as a group, do you recall anybody
08 else that was there?
09 A Just myself and the other people that are coming
10 today.
11 Q Well, who were they? Did you know who they were?
12 A Sarah Peterson and Angela Hawkins.
13 Q I am sorry, who?
14 A Sarah Peterson and Angela Hawkins.
15 Q Now, you recall having been present at a primal
16 scream therapy session in which the subject was Michael
17 Skakel and the death of his mother. And that's the only
18 one you apparently particularly recall having been involved
19 in where Michael Skakel was the individual who was the
20 focus of the session; is that correct?
21 A That's true, yes.
22 Q How often were primal scream therapy sessions held
23 at Elan?
24 A What is interesting was that encounter groups were
25 every day. There were other kinds of groups but primal
26 screams were only held once a month or once every six
27 weeks.
00035
01 Q Once a month, once every six weeks?
02 A Yes.
03 Q And, how many did you ever sit in during your stay
04 at Elan?
05 A When I was a resident, I was in at least eight or
06 ten of them. And as a staff person, I didn't like running
07 them so I tried to get out of running them, if I could.
08 So, not very many as a staff person.
09 Q If Joe Ricci or one of your other supervisors at
10 Elan would tell you, hey, we are going to do a primal
11 scream therapy session for John Doe today regarding his
12 involvement in dealing in drugs or something like that, you
13 would try to get out of it because you didn't really like
14 to do those?
15 A I felt it was a little bit hokey.
16 Q You avoided them whenever you could?.17 A Yeah.
18 Q Now, in addition to primal scream therapy sessions
19 -- I am having a hard time with that -- on a daily basis at
20 Elan in the afternoon, various types of group sessions were
21 conducted?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Everybody attended a group session. It was, I
24 don't know, five days a week, six days a week, seven days a
25 week?
26 A You pretty much went five days and Saturday was a
27 lighter day and Sunday was kind of a day off.
00036
01 Q But, at least Monday through Friday -- and, these,
02 the group sessions, were held in the afternoon; is that
03 correct?
04 A Correct, after -- there was a meeting every day at
05 1:00 o'clock after lunch and 2:00 o'clock everyone broke
06 for groups, two to four.
07 Q 1:00 o'clock meeting was sort of a general meeting
08 for Elan three?
09 A The 1:00 o'clock meeting was the communications
10 department had to put on something, either bring in a
11 speaker from the community or talk about, you know, I don't
12 know -- they would pick any particular subject and they
13 would have a little meeting about it for an hour. It was
14 like an educational kind of thing.
15 Q And after that, everybody would be sent to some
16 sort of a group session for the balance of the day?
17 A From two to four, yes.
18 Q Would that be two one hour sessions or one two
19 hour session?
20 A One two hour session.
21 Q One two hour session?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And, they were different types of sessions with
24 different subjects five days a week, sometimes even on
25 Saturdays?
26 A Yes.
27 Q Now, obviously, you did not attend every group
00037
01 session that Michael Skakel attended?
02 A Absolutely not.
03 Q How big were the group sessions?
04 A The group sessions were like I would say anywhere
05 from maybe 12 to 15 people per group. The primals were a
06 little bit smaller because they had to be a little bit more
07 intimate. So eight people were usually a maximum in the
08 primal.
09 Q These group sessions, whether they were primal or
10 other types of group sessions, would they be within Elan
11 three, would they be attended only by the residents of Elan
12 three or would people be brought in from the other houses?
13 A No, just the people from the facility that you
14 were in.
15 Q That's Elan three?
16 A Correct.
17 Q How big was Elan three during your stay there?.18 A I want to say that Elan three when I was a
19 resident was, there were probably 50 people there, the
20 population in that facility was right around 50 people.
21 Q So, for that two hour period in the afternoon when
22 people were sent out to various group sessions, the
23 population would get divided by three or perhaps four?
24 A Right. There would be a crew that would be
25 working through the group sessions like the kitchen crew or
26 somebody that is making dinner. So, really, you want to
27 divide 40 people into three or four groups so there were,
00038
01 you know, three or four groups that went on every day.
02 Q So, obviously, there was no way you could have
03 attended every single one because you can't be in four
04 places at the same time?
05 A No.
06 Q Now, you have indicated that it was not common
07 knowledge amongst the populas at Elan three that Michael
08 Skakel had actually admitted ever murdering anybody. That
09 was your testimony?
10 A Correct.
11 Q Would it be fair to say, however, though, that it
12 was common knowledge, at some point it became common
13 knowledge at Elan that he was in some way involved in the
14 murder of a young woman in his neighborhood?
15 A I don't know whether anybody ever thought that
16 Michael was involved. I think that there was an
17 association regarding the family involvement.
18 Q You have testified that you knew nothing about
19 this whatsoever until a group meeting was held at some
20 point during your stay there?
21 A Yeah.
22 Q At the time the group meeting was held, were you a
23 staff member or a resident?
24 A I was a staff member.
25 Q Now, you have just indicated that Elan three had a
26 population of about 50, however, this general meeting had a
27 population of approximately four times that?
00039
01 A Yeah.
02 Q So, persons were brought in from other Elan
03 facilities that were on the main Poland Spring campus?
04 A Right. There were four.
05 Q This is the first time you knew anything about Mr.
06 Skakel's Kennedy connection; is that correct?
07 A You have to understand when Michael came in as a
08 resident, I was way up --
09 Q You have to answer my question --
10 A I am sorry.
11 Q -- yes or no. This general meeting, it is the
12 first time you knew anything about Mr. Skakel's Kennedy
13 connection or did you know about it before?
14 A No light was brought to it at that time.
15 Q Certainly nothing you gave any thought about prior
16 to this?
17 A No. No. No, not at all.
18 Q And, I think you have testified already today that.19 the first time you knew anything about any association with
20 any murder back home in Connecticut was, again, what you
21 learned and heard at this particular meeting?
22 A Yes.
23 Q I think you also testified that this meeting
24 followed Mr. Skakel's return to Elan from having escaped?
25 A Um-uh.
26 Q Were you aware when he did escape that he had
27 escaped?
00040
01 A Yes.
02 Q Because he was in Elan three and you were in Elan
03 three?
04 A Um-uh.
05 Q Do you recall how long he was absent,
06 approximately, from Elan three?
07 A He was -- it was awhile. It was not like he ran
08 away and they brought him back the next day. He was gone
09 for a period of time. I want to say between one and three
10 weeks. That's what my memory says. It is not factual.
11 Q When he was brought back to Elan, it is true,
12 isn't it, that he wasn't placed back in the dormitory he
13 had been kept in, but rather he was placed under guard on
14 the stage in the Elan three main building?
15 A Yes, that's true.
16 Q And, that was a condition that ran on for three or
17 so days prior to the summoning of the actual meeting; is
18 that correct?
19 A Yes, that's true.
20 Q So, even when he came back -- did you have
21 anything to do with the guarding of Mr. Skakel during that
22 approximate three day period?
23 A I did not.
24 Q Do you recall, your own recall, who did, if
25 anybody did?
26 A No. It is so standardized to guard people when
27 they come back that there is not, you know, they just put a
00041
01 list together of people in a certain position in a house
02 that are capable of overseeing. So there is nobody that is
03 in charge of the schedule, you know, they relieve people
04 time and again to watch if you are trusted.
05 Q So, it could have been anybody as long as they
06 were trusted?
07 A Over a certain level, that is correct.
08 Q You mentioned not having a real extensive recall
09 of Greg Coleman. He was more or less in your opinion a
10 harmless --
11 A I know, I just -- there is nothing really about
12 Greg Coleman that stands out to me other than the fact that
13 he was a big guy and he was pretty gentle. I found him to
14 be gentle.
15 Q And, you have no personal knowledge because you
16 weren't present of that meeting Mr. Sherman mentioned where
17 Kim Freehill was paddled. You indicated you didn't attend
18 that; is that correct?
19 A Did not attend it..20 Q So, you have no knowledge as to whether Mr.
21 Coleman was involved in that or not?
22 A Couldn't tell you.
23 Q Would it surprise you to learn today that he was
24 one of the people that paddled the heck out of Kim Freehill
25 in that particular meeting?
26 A It wouldn't surprise me because on command,
27 anybody could be picked out of an audience and told you do
00042
01 that and you didn't say no, basically.
02 Q Let me get back to -- I am sorry, let me stay on
03 the subject of Mr. Coleman for just a minute.
04 The people who would have been assigned to watch
05 Mr. Skakel on the stage for about three days before he was
06 placed as the focus of this general meeting, was there some
07 sort of an enforcer category? I don't know if I am using
08 the right phrase. A guard category, an enforcer category
09 of residents at Elan?
10 A There was. Overseers is what I would like to
11 call it in my memory and you are correct, there is a
12 category. You got to a certain level in the dichotomy and
13 you were able to be an overseer.
14 Q There was some phrase, a gorilla squad or goon
15 squad or something like that, do you recall that being
16 used?
17 A I didn't use it when I was a personal overseer or
18 when I was a staff member. No, that's between the boys,
19 if you would, you know what I mean. I don't know what they
20 said about what they did, I don't know.
21 Q You obviously don't know?
22 A I don't know if they were called goon or not.
23 Q You have no idea what the boys were saying to one
24 another all the time?
25 A No.
26 Q Boys are boys and they have their own --
27 A Exactly.
00043
01 Q And, of course, they stay in a separate facility
02 as well?
03 A Right.
04 Q Did you know whether or not Mr. Coleman was one of
05 these gorillas or goons, if I can use the boys' term?
06 A He was a personal overseer because he reached a
07 level in dichotomy but he wasn't used because he was a big
08 guy. There were little guys too that would oversee just
09 based on their trust level, if you would.
10 Q But, anyway, let me return to this. Mr. Skakel is
11 returned to Elan after an absence. He is guarded on the
12 stage in the dining hall; correct?
13 A Yes.
14 Q For about three days, could have been four -- do
15 you specifically recall three days or it could have been
16 four?
17 A He wasn't exclusively on the stage in the dining
18 room. He was also kept in an office called the
19 communications office which is outside of the dining room.
20 And the standard practice is to put them in a corner, have.21 them sit an hour, stand an hour, sit an hour, stand an
22 hour, sit an hour --
23 Q Under guard the whole time?
24 A Being watched by somebody, that is correct.
25 Q Eventually, though, after a few days, we get to
26 this general meeting. That general meeting, do you recall
27 that was run by Joseph Ricci, the director of Elan?
00044
01 A Yes, it was.
02 Q And, Mr. Skakel was the focus of that?
03 A That is correct.
04 Q Do you recall how Mr. Ricci announced to the two
05 hundred or so gathered there what the subject of this
06 particular general meeting was?
07 A Mr. Ricci came in and he had a manila folder in
08 his hand with obviously some sort of a psychological
09 profile. Most of the members that come into Elan have
10 them so it is called your file and he brought the file
11 in. And, he opened it up and he geared the general
12 meeting up by revving the crowd up prior to Michael even
13 being brought into the room by saying that the reason we
14 are here today is because Michael Skakel ran away and the
15 reason we are here today is Michael Skakel thinks he is
16 better than other people. Michael Skakel is a rich
17 spoiled brat, Michael Skakel is this, Michael Skakel is
18 that. He mentioned the Kennedy connection. He also
19 mentioned that there was a strong possibility that Michael
20 was involved in a murder in Greenwich, Connecticut where a
21 girl was bludgeoned with a golf club and that was pretty
22 much it.
23 Q But, then the meeting went on from that point?
24 A Then they brought Michael in and the meeting
25 continued.
26 Q And, who confronted him once he was brought into
27 the room?
00045
01 A Joe.
02 Q Any other people or did he handle the whole scene
03 itself?
04 A When Joe comes into a room, you don't interrupt
05 him or anything, you let him do his thing because he
06 doesn't show up very often.
07 Q That meeting lasted about how long?
08 A A couple of hours.
09 Q I was not clear, because you discussed with Mr.
10 Sherman here the boxing ring incident. Was that something
11 that immediately followed the general meeting or was it
12 something that took place on some subsequent date?
13 A You know, it is a part of the general meeting.
14 In other words, when Michael first came in and Joe
15 confronted him, most of the people get up and they scream.
16 And after the screaming subsides, you let the people sit
17 down again. Joe at that point says you are going in the
18 boxing ring, put the gloves on. So it is actually an
19 intricate part of the actual general meeting.
20 Q At any rate, that certainly let the cat out of the
21 bag amongst the two hundred residents at Elan, that there.22 is something going on here with the murder in Greenwich?
23 A Yes.
24 Q And, the age range of residents at Elan at that
25 time was, what?
26 A It would be anywhere from maybe 14, 15 up to 30.
27 Q Primarily teenagers?
00046
01 A In that facility there were more -- there were a
02 lot of older people too or maybe that was after Michael
03 left. When I got there, it was all older people and I was
04 one of the youngest people. But by the time Michael came
05 in and I was almost ready to leave, it was more people from
06 like the Chicago area, anywhere between like 14 and 18.
07 Q Just kind of from what you said, I am trying to
08 get an understanding of timing. Correct me if I misheard
09 you but I think you just said when Michael Skakel first
10 came, you were getting ready to leave. Was that it?
11 A I was getting ready to leave the facility as a
12 resident and go onto reentry staff, yeah.
13 Q That's what I was curious about. So that this
14 general meeting didn't happen very quickly upon his arrival
15 at Elan; is that correct?
16 A No, it didn't happen right off.
17 Q And, I think you have already indicated that you
18 were at a staff level by the time of that general meeting?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Now, you testified that it was not general
21 knowledge at Elan that Mr. Skakel had ever admitted
22 murdering anybody and you also have testified that he never
23 made any such admission to you. Do you recall testifying
24 to the Grand Jury?
25 A Yes.
26 Q I don't have the date offhand but it was sometime
27 last year?
00047
01 A About a year and a half ago.
02 Q Do you recall relating to the Grand Jury some
03 private conversations you had with Mr. Skakel during your
04 stay at Elan?
05 A Um-uh.
06 THE COURT: Is that a yes?
07 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's a yes.
08 BY MR. BENEDICT:
09 Q Do you recall relating to the Grand Jury about a
10 private conversation you had with Mr. Skakel at some point
11 when he was busy scrubbing the floor in the kitchen and you
12 were a staff member?
13 A Do I remember exactly what that was?
14 Q Do you recall the incident, that you had a private
15 conversation?
16 A Yeah, I had lots of conversations. Yes, but I
17 remember an incident where he was scrubbing the floor, on
18 his hands and knees. I think he was in the kitchen area,
19 yes, I remember.
20 Q Do you recall such a situation or such a
21 circumstance in which Mr. Skakel in fact did speak about
22 the murder of the young lady in Greenwich?.23 A No.
24 Q And, do you offhand recall what it was that he
25 told you on this occasion?
26 A It could have been anything he told me on any
27 other occasion because it has all been the same. It has
00048
01 been very linear. It has never really changed. So it had
02 to have been the old conversation where there was a period
03 of time where he denied it, he denied it, he denied it, he
04 denied it. And then at one point he did say that he is so
05 confused about everyone telling him that he did it and he
06 doesn't know what happened. That was the extent of my
07 conversation with him.
08 Q Do you recall on this particular occasion, the
09 incident where he was scrubbing the floor in the kitchen,
10 that he responded to you that I don't know if I did it, it
11 was myself or it was my brother, it was one of us but I was
12 in a blackout and I don't remember. Does that jog your
13 memory as to what he said on that occasion?
14 A Yes. After Michael was -- do you want just a yes
15 answer?
16 Q Is that what you recall him saying?
17 A I remember there being --
18 Q Yes or no, is that what you recall him saying?
19 MR. SHERMAN: Your Honor, not every question can
20 be answered yes or no and I think she should be allowed
21 to explain.
22 THE WITNESS: I remember the conversation.
23 BY MR. BENEDICT:
24 Q Do you recall that being the response?
25 A I don't recall it being that cut and dry.
26 Q Do you want to look at your transcript and refresh
27 your recollection as to what you testified to? Just read
00049
01 it to yourself. It is highlighted at the very bottom.
02 A Okay.
03 Q Does that refresh your recollection?
04 A Yeah.
05 Q Isn't it true that what you relate to the Grand
06 Jury was that the response you got from him was I don't
07 know if I did it, it was myself or it was my brother, it
08 was one of us but I was in a blackout and I don't
09 remember. Is that fair to say that was your testimony
10 before the Grand Jury?
11 A It was part of my testimony, that is correct.
12 Q Now, do you recall also in the course of
13 testifying before the Grand Jury relating to the Grand Jury
14 another conversation, a private conversation, you had with
15 Mr. Skakel where the two of you were in I think a bar
16 together?
17 A Yeah, it was actually a restaurant.
18 Q A restaurant, I shouldn't have said that. But,
19 it was down by Bates College which -- is that Lewiston?
20 A Auburn. Lewiston -- Bates is Auburn.
21 Q And, at that point, Mr. Skakel was no longer a
22 resident, he was a staff member?
23 A Right..24 Q And, you were a staff member. Were you still
25 working at Elan?
26 A Yes.
27 Q And, I don't know whether you were or not, but he
00050
01 had a couple of drinks on that occasion?
02 A Oh, I had plenty myself, I am sure.
03 Q Were you aware that one of the reasons he was
04 placed in Elan was for having a drinking problem?
05 A Was I aware of it -- I was aware that it was a
06 symptom of his problem, my problem and eighty percent of
07 the people that went there's problem so yeah, I guess so.
08 Q You indicated earlier, I hate to jump around, but
09 you indicated earlier that John Higgins was a person who
10 had a series of problems that you noted in the course of
11 your acquaintanceship with him at Elan. It's true,
12 basically everyone in Elan had some kind of a problem.
13 That's why they were there in the first place?
14 A Yes, right.
15 Q Let me get back to the subject of the conversation
16 you had at this restaurant. Do you recall that one thing
17 you spoke about in the course of this time you were at this
18 particular restaurant was the murder of the young woman in
19 Greenwich, Connecticut. And, as you sit there now, do you
20 recall what you told the Grand Jury that Mr. Skakel said in
21 the course of this particular conversation?
22 A I think that we had a couple of drinks. We were
23 kind of loosened up and it was kind of just something that
24 --
25 Q Again, yes or no?
26 A I don't feel like it could be answered yes or
27 no. Repeat the question and I will just be brief.
00051
01 Q It's fairly simple, do you recall what he said?
02 A I do recall what he said, absolutely.
03 Q What was it that he said?
04 A What he said was he didn't answer when I asked him
05 what happened and, you know --
06 Q Do you recall telling the Grand Jury that what Mr.
07 Skakel told you was that as far as he was concerned, he
08 might have done it.
09 A I absolutely said it, if you have it written down
10 there.
11 MR. BENEDICT: May I have a moment, Your Honor?
12 THE COURT: Yes.
13 MR. BENEDICT: I have no further questions.
14 MR. SHERMAN: May I see his Grand Jury
15 transcript?
16 MR. BENEDICT: Sure. (Handing.)
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:
18 Q Did Michael Skakel tell you that he committed this
19 crime?
20 A Never.
21 Q How do you explain him saying to you, as far as I
22 am concerned, I might have done it? Why would he say
23 that?
24 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, that's looking into his.25 head.
26 MR. SHERMAN: She was there, Your Honor. It's
27 her conversation. She has related it and it is an
00052
01 admission of this crime.
02 THE COURT: Your question is why did he say it?
03 MR. SHERMAN: I am asking you if she knows, she
04 is a therapist there, she is on staff, she can explain
05 why he may have said that, if she knows.
06 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
07 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
08 MR. SHERMAN: If I may just have a moment, Your
09 Honor.
10 THE COURT: Yes.
11 BY MR. SHERMAN:
12 Q You were not at every general meeting, by the way;
13 were you?
14 A Not at every general meeting, no.
15 Q And you were not at every primal scream session?
16 A No.
17 Q If there had been a confession that he had
18 committed this crime by Michael Skakel, would you have
19 heard of it?
20 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
21 THE COURT: Objection sustained.
22 BY MR. SHERMAN:
23 Q Had there been an admission by Michael Skakel at a
24 meeting that you were not at, would you have had occasion
25 to hear about that?
26 MR. BENEDICT: Same objection.
27 THE COURT: Sustained.
00053
01 MR. SHERMAN: I am going to claim that, Your
02 Honor. She has already testified that --
03 THE COURT: Your objection is sustained.
04 BY MR. SHERMAN:
05 Q Did anyone else ever report to you that Michael
06 Skakel confessed?
07 A Never.
08 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, hearsay. May it be
09 stricken?
10 THE COURT: I will allow that answer to stand.
11 MR. SHERMAN: This might be the best time, Your
12 Honor, we have three minutes -- I am just getting this
13 for the first time -- for the morning recess.
14 THE COURT: We will take a 15 minute morning
15 recess.
16 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
17 THE COURT: We are back on the record in the
18 matter of Michael Skakel. Same parties and counsel are
19 present as previously identified.
20 BY MR. SHERMAN:
21 Q Alice, during the recess, I handed you the
22 transcript to refresh your recollection?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Did you and I talk about this in any way or form?
25 A No..26 Q But, you did have a chance to look at the
27 transcript?
00054
01 A Yes.
02 Q Now, were you present at any time when anyone
03 tried to force Michael Skakel to admit that someone else
04 committed this crime?
05 A No.
06 Q And, were you present when people tried to force
07 Michael Skakel to admit that he committed the crime?
08 A Yes.
09 Q On many occasions or a few?
10 A Just that one particular general meeting is the
11 only thing that really stands out as forceful.
12 Q And, at that general meeting, it culminated with
13 him being in a boxing ring being pummelled by five to seven
14 to nine different people?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And, at that point, he went from I didn't do it to
17 I don't know in order to stop the beating?
18 A That's exactly what happened.
19 Q And, after that, did he stay throughout his stay
20 at Elan with I don't know in order to stop the beating?
21 A Again, I don't know. Yes to the first part. I
22 think that's a two-fold question. The first part is a
23 definite yes. The I don't know, I don't know what his
24 motivations were because I am not him so I have no idea.
25 Q But, after he went from I didn't do it to I don't
26 know, the beatings stopped?
27 A Correct.
00055
01 Q And, did the interrogation stop?
02 A There was always some underlying interrogation in
03 groups, one to ones, that type of thing but never in a
04 forum where people were that exposed to it by someone like
05 Joe.
06 Q But, he never said I did it?
07 A He never said I did it.
08 Q But, I showed you that transcript of when you
09 spoke to the Grand Jury?
10 A Yeah.
11 Q You are not saying in that, before the Grand Jury,
12 that he said I did it; are you?
13 A No, I was very clear, I have been clear all along.
14 He never said that he did it.
15 Q Was he saying to you the same thing he said in the
16 general meeting, I don't know, I don't know --
17 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, this entire line is
18 leading. Ask a question.
19 THE COURT: I am sorry, the question now is what?
20 MR. SHERMAN: I will withdraw it. I will
21 rephrase it, Your Honor.
22 BY MR. SHERMAN:
23 Q I am showing you the transcript of the Grand
24 Jury. Do you remember whether or not you told the Grand
25 Jury that he continually said that he didn't know, that he
26 doesn't know?.27 A I continually told the Grand Jury that.
00056
01 Q And, did Michael Skakel tell you that, that I
02 don't know, I don't remember?
03 A After the general meeting, that's all he ever
04 said. Prior to the general meeting, it was adamantly,
05 flatly, no, no, no.
06 Q Would it be fair to say that the net effect of
07 that general meeting was to have Michael Skakel from then
08 on say, I don't know, I don't remember, leave me alone?
09 Is that a fair statement?
10 A If I was in his shoes -- I mean, I don't know how
11 to answer the question. Could you rephrase that?
12 Q Would it be a fair statement to say that after the
13 general meeting, after he was pummelled in the ring, after
14 the two hour session with the two hundred students, from
15 that moment on, Michael Skakel said, I don't know, I don't
16 remember, period?
17 A That's true.
18 Q Would you have done the same thing?
19 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
20 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
21 BY MR. SHERMAN:
22 Q Were you surprised that he --
23 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
24 MR. SHERMAN: If I may finish the question?
25 MR. BENEDICT: It's the relevance of surprise.
26 MR. SHERMAN: No, I think we have to hear the
27 question, Your Honor.
00057
01 THE COURT: Ask the question.
02 BY MR. SHERMAN:
03 Q Were you surprised to see Michael Skakel go from I
04 didn't do it to I don't remember?
05 A No.
06 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
07 THE COURT: Objection is sustained.
08 BY MR. SKAKEL:
09 Q Had you ever been confronted with anything of this
10 nature yourself in the general meeting?
11 A Not to this degree but things I have done wrong or
12 things people have told me that I have done wrong.
13 Q Were you confronted by people?
14 A Yeah.
15 Q Did you change your answer to them?
16 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, relevance.
17 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
18 BY MR. SHERMAN:
19 Q When you went with Michael to the bar, he didn't
20 confess to you; did he?
21 A No, he never said that he did it at the bar.
22 Q Do you believe he did it?
23 A I don't believe Michael Skakel did it.
24 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
25 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
26 BY MR. SHERMAN:
27 Q When you told the Grand Jury, quote, but as far as.00058
01 he was concerned, he might have done it, what did you mean
02 by that? And I am going to show you this in the context of
03 the answer which is rather long. Take a few moments, page
04 8 of the transcript. Read the answer and then I am going
05 to ask you to explain that and how it reconciles with what
06 you have told us.
07 THE WITNESS: Can I ask you something, Your
08 Honor?
09 THE COURT: No, you can't.
10 THE WITNESS: Can I answer the question without
11 being interrupted by either side because I feel like I
12 have been answering this one question for a couple of
13 years?
14 MR. SHERMAN: I am not going to interrupt.
15 THE COURT: First of all, what you need to do,
16 after the question is asked, if there is an objection,
17 don't answer until I rule on the objection, okay.
18 THE WITNESS: Yes.
19 This is one sentence of many sentences said
20 that day. Did I say this, did I say it, did Michael
21 say this, did he say it, it still is not saying I did
22 it. I would not be there if I thought Michael Skakel
23 did it. I would not be sitting with him if I thought
24 that.
25 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, not responsive. Not
26 relevant.
27 THE COURT: It will stand.
00059
01 BY MR. SHERMAN:
02 Q Did Michael ever wear a dunce cap?
03 A Yes, he wore a dunce cap.
04 Q How big of a dunce cap?
05 A It was quite large.
06 Q How large?
07 A It was probably -- it depends. You got a dunce
08 cap for every week you failed school. If you failed
09 school for more than two weeks, they made the dunce cap
10 larger. Dunce caps were usually three feet high and if
11 you failed two weeks in a row, they became six feet but so
12 much so when you went through a door jam you would have to
13 take the dunce cap and go like this in order to go from
14 room to room to room.
15 Q Do you remember Michael wearing a dunce cap?
16 A Absolutely. He wore them a lot.
17 Q Did you know whether or not he was learning
18 disabled, that he was dyslexic?
19 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
20 THE COURT: The basis of your objection?
21 MR. BENEDICT: Hearsay, if nothing else. How
22 would she know that.
23 MR. SHERMAN: How do you claim it, Attorney
24 Sherman?
25 MR. SHERMAN: She was on staff, Your Honor. She
26 may have known. She may have known through her
27 training and experience in dealing with Michael Skakel.
00060.01 She was a superior.
02 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
03 BY MR. SHERMAN:
04 Q How big a dunce cap did Michael Skakel wear?
05 A It was anywhere from between three and five feet.
06 Q And, was it designed to humiliate him?
07 A Yes.
08 Q And, did it humiliate him?
09 A Yes.
10 Q When Michael was on the stage, somebody was
11 guarding him. Do you remember that?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Who was guarding him?
14 A Anywhere from four to six people at any three day
15 period. But my understanding is that Greg Coleman was
16 guarding him at one point and he had other personal
17 overseers, not exclusively one.
18 Q The incident where Michael was scrubbing the floor
19 in the kitchen facility, were you on staff?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And, you have indicated that you have testified
22 before the Grand Jury -- and, again, I am just going to
23 give you this to refresh your recollection. Just take a
24 look at it and I will ask you some questions.
25 A Yeah, I remember that conversation.
26 Q And, the incident itself, Michael is scrubbing the
27 kitchen floor?
00061
01 A Correct.
02 Q What is he using to scrub; do you remember?
03 A He was using a, what was called then a GI pad
04 which is basically a metal pad, a heavy duty metal
05 scrubbing pad and scrub brush.
06 Q Was he a happy camper at that point?
07 A No.
08 Q In fact, this was kind of a punishment deal?
09 A He was upset.
10 Q What was he upset about?
11 A It was directly after the general meeting. It
12 was the same day or the very next day.
13 Q It was right after the general meeting?
14 A Correct.
15 Q And, when he was doing that, were you his
16 superior?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And, you indicated to the Grand Jury that you
19 thought that maybe you could crack him and make him admit
20 to this?
21 A Yes.
22 Q And, you felt that that was your duty at this
23 point?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And, you told that to the Grand Jury; correct?
26 A I did.
27 Q Do you recall telling the Grand Jury I thought I
00062
01 was the one that could crack him and make him admit to the.02 fact that had done all this stuff; right?
03 A Yes.
04 Q So, you asked him, did you do it?
05 A Yes.
06 Q And, do you remember what he said?
07 A Um-uh.
08 Q What did he say?
09 A He was on his hands and knees and he said I don't
10 know what to believe anymore. I don't know what happened.
11 I don't know if I did it. I don't know. I don't know if
12 my brother did it. I don't know. We were drinking. I
13 don't remember anything about the night. There was
14 nothing cut and dry about any kind of admission. I didn't
15 walk away from there feeling like I had cracked him and
16 that he had admitted anything to me.
17 Q Did you make out a report to anybody saying he has
18 confessed to you?
19 A No.
20 Q Because he hadn't?
21 A Absolutely.
22 Q And, he was basically trying to get you off his
23 back like he tried to get the people at the general
24 meeting?
25 A Probably, yeah.
26 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, leading.
27 THE COURT: Asked and answered.
00063
01 BY MR. SHERMAN:
02 Q Why do you think he said this to you?
03 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
04 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
05 MR. SHERMAN: It's a different question, Your
06 Honor. It's not a leading question. It is an open
07 question as to why she believes he may have said this to
08 her.
09 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
10 BY MR. SHERMAN:
11 Q Did he confess to you?
12 A No.
13 Q Ever?
14 A Never.
15 MR. SHERMAN: Nothing further.
16 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BENEDICT:
17 Q What is a personal overseer?
18 A A personal overseer is someone that would be
19 assigned to you. For example, this gentleman ran away and
20 so he gets a personal overseer to watch him to make sure he
21 doesn't run away again. He is with you, you know, all day
22 long that you are awake. He is with you when you are
23 scrubbing toilets. He is with you when you go to the
24 bathroom. He is with you when you are taking a shower.
25 You can't be out of their sight.
26 Q And, Gregory Coleman was one of the personal
27 overseers for Mr. Skakel during those three days when he
00064
01 was held on the stage or is that something you just heard?
02 A It is something I heard. I cannot say that he.03 was definitely a personal overseer for Michael on the
04 stage. I don't know.
05 Q But, if he was a personal overseer, that's what he
06 would have been doing?
07 A Yes.
08 Q And, in any of those private conversations that
09 you had with Mr. Skakel, either in the kitchen or in that
10 restaurant, did he ever make mention of a golf club to you?
11 A The golf club was mentioned in the general
12 meeting.
13 Q Okay; the private conversations, you indicated
14 that the day after the general meeting or so is when he was
15 scrubbing the floor in the kitchen?
16 A Yeah, when he was crying and he was confused and
17 he was talking about all that stuff, he did say that the
18 golf club had belonged to his family. He had that much
19 information.
20 Q But, he never mentioned to you going and getting
21 the golf club or having possession of the golf club that
22 night?
23 A No.
24 Q And, he never made mention to you in any of your
25 conversations, private conversations with him, being in a
26 wooded area or looking up and seeing pine trees or anything
27 like that?
00065
01 A There was one conversation. I can't tell you when
02 it happened or when it was but I remember Michael using the
03 word pine trees.
04 Q Did he ever by any chance make any mention in the
05 course of any private conversation with you the subject of
06 masturbation?
07 A Never.
08 MR. BENEDICT: I have no further questions.
09 THE COURT: Attorney Sherman.
10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:
11 Q Michael never told you that he took a golf club
12 and did anything; correct?
13 A He never mentioned anything about the --
14 Q And, the golf club was initiated by Joe Ricci, is
15 that correct, at the general meeting?
16 A Yes.
17 Q And, Joe Ricci made it common knowledge among the
18 community at Elan?
19 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, leading question.
20 MR. SHERMAN: Withdrawn.
21 BY MR. SHERMAN:
22 Q How did you find out that a golf club was used in
23 the context of this murder?
24 A Joe Ricci told us prior to Michael being brought
25 into the room that day.
26 Q Not through Michael Skakel?
27 A Not through Michael.
00066
01 Q How long did he sleep on that stage; do you
02 remember? Was it three weeks?
03 A It was a couple weeks..04 Q And, he was guarded all the time?
05 A He was guarded all the time but he never had a
06 record player.
07 Q You have heard that Mr. Coleman and Mr. Higgins,
08 one of them said that he was given a record player?
09 A There was no record player in the facility.
10 Q Was he given any privileges there?
11 A You don't get record players, cigarettes. You
12 don't get shoes. You don't get pants. You don't get those
13 and it doesn't matter if he is the Pope's -- it doesn't
14 matter who you are, you just don't get it. It doesn't
15 matter who you are.
16 Q And, he had run away?
17 A Yeah.
18 Q Do you know how they got him back?
19 A They went and fetched him.
20 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, it is way beyond the
21 scope.
22 MR. SHERMAN: Nothing further.
23 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BENEDICT:
24 Q When Mr. Skakel was returned from escape, he was
25 then assigned a personal overseer?
26 A Yes.
27 Q That is who would have had the responsibility of
00067
01 being with him at all times up until at least the general
02 meeting was held?
03 A Yes.
04 Q Do you recall whether or not he was assigned a
05 personal overseer after the time of that general meeting?
06 MR. SHERMAN: Objection, Your Honor, beyond the
07 scope of the redirect.
08 MR. BENEDICT: I claim it. Counsel brought up
09 the subject of personal overseer on redirect.
10 MR. SHERMAN: I don't think I did. I don't
11 think I did.
12 THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
13 BY MR. BENEDICT:
14 Q You may answer. Do you know?
15 A I don't know.
16 Q Were you assigned, in the kitchen in the course of
17 that conversation that you had, were you assigned the task
18 of being a personal overseer for him?
19 A At that particular time, I was his personal
20 overseer because I was sitting there and having a
21 conversation. I didn't need to be assisted by someone
22 that was in the house or something. We were just kind of
23 talking and he was doing what he was supposed to be doing
24 and I was just trying to talk to him. So, yes, I was --
25 Q Were you assigned to watch him at that point?
26 A It wasn't assigned. It was forthcoming on my own
27 person.
00068
01 MR. BENEDICT: I have no further questions.
02 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:
03 Q And, when that happened, were you trying to get
04 him to crack?.05 A When that happened, I was trying to get him to
06 crack, that is correct.
07 Q You wanted him to admit to the killing of Martha
08 Moxley?
09 A I wanted to know whether it was true or not and
10 whether he did it, yeah. I wanted --
11 Q And, did you find out?
12 A Yes. What I found out was he didn't -- he told
13 me that he didn't do it.
14 MR. SHERMAN: Thank you. Nothing further.
15 MR. BENEDICT: I have no questions.
16 THE COURT: Thank you. You may step down.
17 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
00069
01
02 MR. SHERMAN: I call Mrs. McFillin.
03 ANGELA MC FILLIN,
04 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
05 THE CLERK: Please have a seat and state your name
06 and address for the record, Ma'am.
07 THE WITNESS: My name is Angela McFillin,
08 Baltimore, Maryland.
09 THE CLERK: Would you spell your last name,
10 please?
11 THE WITNESS: M-C-F-I-L-L-I-N.
12 THE CLERK: Thank you.
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:
14 Q Angela, how old are you?
15 A 37.
16 Q And, without telling us the name of the company,
17 what do you do? Who do you work for?
18 A I am a senior laboratory technician in a medical
19 school.
20 Q And, did you finish your education?
21 A Yes.
22 Q You were in Elan; correct?
23 A Yes.
24 Q From when to when?
25 A May, 1978 through January, 1980.
26 Q After Elan, you went to college?
27 A Yes.
00070
01 Q Where did you go?
02 A I went to a few schools. I hold two bachelor
03 degrees.
04 Q In what areas?
05 A One in business administration and one in
06 biomedical and research technology.
07 Q While you were at Elan, did you have occasion to
08 meet Michael Skakel?
09 A Yes.
10 Q Do you remember when? Do you remember the
11 occasion?
12 A The first time I saw Michael he had a smile sign
13 around his neck.
14 Q Had a what?
15 A A smile, like a cheshire cat and so he was already.16 there probably maybe a few months before I arrived.
17 Q Did you have occasion to know John Higgins?
18 A Yes, I did.
19 Q Did you have occasion to know Greg Coleman?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Did you have occasion to know Kim Freehill?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And, Sarah Peterson?
24 A Yes.
25 Q And, Alice Dunn?
26 A Yes.
27 Q By the way, what brought you here today?
00071
01 A I heard through various media reports that Michael
02 had been arrested based on testimony, at the time I didn't
03 know who, from former Elan residents. Since I was there,
04 I thought the truth should come out since his life is on
05 the line.
06 Q And, did some investigator dig you up?
07 A No, I contacted you, Mr. Sherman.
08 Q You sent me a letter?
09 A That's right.
10 Q Out of the blue?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Did you ever have occasion to hear Michael Skakel
13 confess to the murder of Michael Moxley?
14 A No.
15 Q Any question about that?
16 A No.
17 Q Did you ever hear anyone confront Michael about
18 this?
19 A Yes.
20 Q On many occasions or a few?
21 A It's hard to say. That's, you know, I mean, it
22 came up on a few occasions.
23 Q Now, what was Michael's response?
24 A Michael denied it. There was a general
25 meeting. I was present at the general meeting after
26 Michael had run away. Initially, he was confronted about
27 it and denied it. At that point, he went into the boxing
00072
01 ring, what they called the boxing ring which just consisted
02 of Michael and a pair of boxing gloves with some head gear
03 and another student where it was not a timed round like a
04 professional or an amateur boxing. It was just a matter
05 of the staff member, depending on how long they felt you
06 needed to be in there. So, the rounds were based on
07 that.
08 And, so Michael got beat up by several people, one
09 at a time. And at that point, after that, he said -- Joe
10 Ricci was there. Joe Ricci wanted Michael to give an
11 account of what happened that evening and at that point,
12 Michael said he didn't know.
13 MR. BENEDICT: Objection. Mr. Skakel is here.
14 He can testify. This is hearsay, what Michael Skakel
15 said.
16 THE COURT: Under the case of in re: Ralph,.17 hearsay is not an issue in these proceedings. The
18 objection is overruled.
19 BY MR. SHERMAN:
20 Q You can continue.
21 A At that point, Michael just said that he didn't
22 know, he couldn't remember.
23 Q And, did the beatings stop?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Did Michael ever tell you after that that he
26 really did it or he really didn't do it? Did he ever
27 change from anything that you told us?
00073
01 A No.
02 Q And is that why you are here, to tell us that?
03 A Yes, I wanted to give my, you know, my
04 recollection.
05 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, that's self serving.
06 MR. SHERMAN: I don't claim it.
07 BY MR. SHERMAN:
08 Q John Higgins, how well did you know John Higgins?
09 A I knew him pretty well, I would suppose. We
10 lived in the same house for 18 months.
11 Q And, what was his position there? What was his
12 job? What was his function? What did he do?
13 A Well, he, like the rest of us, had several
14 different jobs. They changed throughout our stay there.
15 So, you know, it changed. At one point he was in the
16 service crew. At one point he was an expediter.
17 Q Was he in a position at one point to be guarding
18 Michael Skakel, if you know?
19 A Not to my knowledge. Maybe after Michael ran
20 away and came back, he may have been in a position to guard
21 Michael.
22 Q Were you aware of the relationship, if any,
23 between Michael Skakel and John Higgins? Did they appear
24 to be friends?
25 A No, they didn't appear to be friends. We were
26 all kind of forced into a situation where we had to live
27 with people, whether we liked them or not. So, I mean,
00074
01 maybe -- he had closer friends than John Higgins.
02 Q Michael did?
03 A Yes.
04 Q Did it appear as though John Higgins and Michael
05 Skakel were close enough that Michael would confide in him?
06 Did they have that kind of a relationship that you
07 observed?
08 MR. BENEDICT: Objection. How could she testify
09 to that?
10 MR. SHERMAN: She was there 18 months. They
11 lived together, just the nature of what she observed.
12 THE COURT: I will overrule the objection, if she
13 can answer that.
14 BY MR. SHERMAN:
15 Q Did they have that kind of a relationship?
16 A No, Michael was not very close to John Higgins.
17 I wouldn't think that Michael -- there were other people.18 there that Michael was closer to that if Michael were to
19 confide in someone, it would have been someone else.
20 Q What was John Higgins' reputation with regard to
21 truthfulness?
22 A Personally, I felt that I should be guarded around
23 him.
24 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, the question is
25 reputation.
26 THE COURT: I think she is explaining her answer
27 or giving her answer.
00075
01 THE COURT: The question is what was his
02 reputation for truthfulness.
03 THE WITNESS: I can only speak from my own
04 personal views.
05 BY MR. SHERMAN:
06 Q Please --
07 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
08 BY MR. SHERMAN:
09 Q -- tell us.
10 MR. BENEDICT: It's not appropriate testimony.
11 BY MR. SHERMAN:
12 Q Let me rephrase it. Did you feel that, based
13 upon the reputation of John Higgins in that community, did
14 you feel you could trust him?
15 MR. BENEDICT: Objection. There is no foundation
16 for this testimony.
17 THE COURT: Objection sustained.
18 BY MR. SHERMAN:
19 Q Were you aware of what other people thought of
20 John Higgins with regard to whether or not he was a liar or
21 someone who tells the truth?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And, what was that reputation?
24 A He exaggerated and embellished stories quite a
25 bit.
26 Q Do you know why?
27 MR. BENEDICT: Objection. How could she answer
00076
01 that?
02 MR. SHERMAN: I am going to claim it, Your Honor.
03 THE COURT: That's a yes or no answer. I will
04 overrule the objection to that.
05 BY MR. SHERMAN:
06 Q Do you know why he would embellish or tell
07 stories?
08 A Yes.
09 Q Why?
10 MR. BENEDICT: I renew the objection, how can she
11 look into his mind.
12 THE COURT: And, how do you claim this?
13 MR. SHERMAN: Well, John Higgins, Your Honor, is
14 an accuser here.
15 THE COURT: I understand who John Higgins is; I
16 heard his testimony.
17 MR. SHERMAN: I think she is someone who can
18 reflect or give us information with respect to the.19 veracity of John Higgins which is directly in issue.
20 And she can explain why, she can explain her answer,
21 what is it based on, why does she believe he had a
22 reputation for not being truthful which she already told
23 us.
24 THE COURT: The question was why she exaggerated
25 and embellished.
26 MR. BENEDICT: Again, Counsel is asking this
27 witness to look through Mr. Higgins' mind. I don't
00077
01 think she has the ability to do that.
02 THE COURT: Objection sustained.
03 BY MR. SHERMAN:
04 Q If John Higgins were to lie, was it something good
05 for him?
06 A Yes.
07 Q What would happen?
08 A He would be rewarded, brownie points with the
09 staff, that type of thing, make himself look better.
10 Q And, did he do that routinely?
11 A When he had the opportunity.
12 Q With respect to John Higgins and Michael Skakel,
13 was there hostility?
14 A Not to my knowledge.
15 Q With respect to John Higgins and anyone, was there
16 hostility?
17 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, relevance.
18 MR. SHERMAN: I will withdraw that, Your Honor.
19 BY MR. SHERMAN:
20 Q With respect to Greg Coleman --
21 A May I say something?
22 THE COURT: There is no question pending. There
23 was an objection and the question was withdrawn, not
24 claimed. So now there is no question pending.
25 BY MR. SHERMAN:
26 Q Were you close to John Higgins?
27 A Not on a friendly -- no, not on a friendly basis.
00078
01 Q Did you have occasion to observe him on a
02 day-to-day basis?
03 A Absolutely.
04 Q If John Higgins were to tell you something, would
05 you take his word for it or would you want to have further
06 information?
07 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
08 THE COURT: Objection sustained.
09 BY MR. SHERMAN:
10 Q Did you ever catch John Higgins in a lie?
11 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
12 MR. SHERMAN: I think I can ask that, Your Honor.
13 MR. BENEDICT: Has he lied on one occasion before
14 or two occasions before, that's not relevant for the
15 purposes of this inquiry.
16 THE COURT: And, how do you claim that question?
17 Did she ever catch him?
18 MR. SHERMAN: It is veracity of John Higgins,
19 Your Honor, which is directly in issue..20 MR. BENEDICT: If he lied about this --
21 THE COURT: Objection sustained.
22 BY MR. SHERMAN:
23 Q Do you know whether or not John Higgins has lied
24 about Michael Skakel?
25 A Yes.
26 Q How do you know that?
27 A Because the circumstances of his deposition which
00079
01 I read just wouldn't have happened that way.
02 Q Why not?
03 A Because had it happened, John Higgins would have
04 immediately turned Michael in.
05 Q Why?
06 A If he hadn't, it would undermine the whole
07 philosophy of the program which was you are supposed to rid
08 yourself of guilt and you are supposed to get it all out on
09 the table and deal with it and put it behind you.
10 Q And, it would have been John Higgins' function and
11 in his interests personally to make sure that everyone knew
12 that he got Michael Skakel to confess; correct?
13 A Absolutely.
14 Q And, that never happened; did it?
15 A That is correct.
16 Q And, the first time you ever heard that Michael
17 Skakel confessed to John Higgins is probably last week; am
18 I correct?
19 A No.
20 Q When?
21 A When I read the deposition.
22 Q When you read --
23 A Or the paperwork.
24 Q When you read the initial accusation of John
25 Higgins?
26 A That is correct.
27 Q Which you got from me?
00080
01 A Yes.
02 Q After you sent me a letter?
03 A Yes.
04 Q Before that, you never heard anything about John
05 Higgins telling anybody that Michael Skakel confessed;
06 true?
07 A That is correct.
08 Q Let's go to Greg Coleman, how well did you know
09 Greg Coleman?
10 A I knew him fairly well.
11 Q Was he a gentle guy?
12 A Gentle?
13 Q Yes.
14 A Yes. I mean, at the time he didn't seem like a
15 threat.
16 Q Not a mean spirited person?
17 A No, he didn't seem mean spirited.
18 Q Yet, he was a, quote, unquote, gorilla? Was he
19 like part of the enforcing squad or something?
20 A That I don't remember..21 Q Were you aware of his part in Kim Freehill's
22 beating?
23 A No, I don't recall.
24 Q Were you aware of Greg Coleman ever telling you or
25 anybody else that Michael Skakel confessed to him?
26 A No, Greg Coleman never told me that.
27 Q Would he have told you that?
00081
01 A I think probably he would have come to me had that
02 happened.
03 Q Why is that?
04 A We lived in the house together and I was in a
05 position directly above him as a supervisor.
06 Q So, his position was what and your position was
07 what?
08 A At the time, he was my department head in the
09 kitchen and I was a coordinator at Elan eight.
10 Q And, if someone had said something to Greg Coleman
11 of this nature, I killed somebody, I committed a murder,
12 was Greg the kind of person who would have reported it to
13 you?
14 MR. BENEDICT: Objection. How would she know
15 what kind of person he is?
16 THE COURT: How do you --
17 MR. SHERMAN: Withdrawn. If I may withdraw it,
18 Your Honor, and rephrase it?
19 BY MR. SHERMAN:
20 Q Was it Greg's responsibility under the protocol of
21 Elan to report that to you?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Did he ever?
24 A No.
25 Q Did he ever report anything else to you about
26 anybody?
27 A I can't remember specifics. It was 25 years ago
00082
01 but I am sure -- I can't remember a specific but I do
02 believe he did.
03 Q So, it is not like he never reported anything?
04 A That's right.
05 Q He reported things that were significant in his
06 eyes?
07 A Yes.
08 Q And, that you considered appropriate to have been
09 reported to you?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Are you forgetting maybe that he reported Michael
12 or --
13 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, leading.
14 BY MR. SHERMAN:
15 Q Any question in your mind that he never ever
16 reported in paper or anyplace else --
17 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, self serving.
18 MR. SHERMAN: -- that Michael Skakel committed
19 this crime?
20 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
21 BY MR. SHERMAN:.22 Q When you were interacting at any time with John
23 Higgins, were you relaxed?
24 A No.
25 Q Why?
26 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, relevance.
27 THE COURT: How do you claim this, Attorney
00083
01 Sherman?
02 MR. SHERMAN: It goes to the veracity but
03 probably it has been asked and answered enough, Your
04 Honor, and I am not going to spend the Court's time
05 going over it again.
06 BY MR. SHERMAN:
07 Q This morning you met with Sarah Peterson, Angela
08 McFillin and Alice Dunn for the first time in many years;
09 correct?
10 A Yes.
11 Q We met in my office for like 20 minutes?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Did anybody tell you what to say or anything?
14 A No.
15 Q You didn't sit down with Sarah and --
16 MR. BENEDICT: Objection. Is counsel
17 cross-examining his own witness here?
18 MR. SHERMAN: Kind of.
19 MR. BENEDICT: This is self serving.
20 THE COURT: I will allow the question at this
21 point.
22 BY MR. SHERMAN:
23 Q Did anyone say to you, the three of you sit down
24 and get your stories straight?
25 A No. All you asked is that we tell the truth.
26 That's all that you asked of us.
27 Q Did you ever see Michael with the dunce cap?
00084
01 A Yes.
02 Q Under what circumstances did he wear a dunce cap
03 that you observed?
04 A If he got a bad grade in school, an F, then, that
05 was part of what they called a learning experience. It
06 was a punishment.
07 Q Was he humiliated?
08 A Absolutely.
09 Q Did Alice Dunn or anybody ever tell you that
10 Michael confessed to them?
11 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, hearsay.
12 THE COURT: Okay, the question is did Alice Dunn
13 or anyone else tell her that he confessed?
14 MR. SHERMAN: That is correct.
15 THE COURT: I will overrule the objection.
16 THE WITNESS: No. No one ever told me that
17 Michael confessed.
18 BY MR. SHERMAN:
19 Q And, Michael never confessed at the general
20 meeting?
21 A Michael never did confess.
22 MR. SHERMAN: Nothing further. Thank you..23 THE COURT: Attorney Benedict.
24 MR. BENEDICT: Thank you, Your Honor.
25 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BENEDICT:
26 Q I have only a few questions. You indicated that
27 at some point you were a coordinator at Elan eight, you
00085
01 were a supervisor of Gregory Coleman?
02 A Yes.
03 Q And, Gregory Coleman had some position at Elan
04 eight at that time. What was it?
05 A Department head of the kitchen.
06 Q Elan eight is not Elan three?
07 A Elan three, we were all living there together and
08 another house was built which was called Elan eight. And,
09 then some of us moved down there. At the time, Alice Dunn
10 also moved down to Elan eight.
11 THE COURT: Is that eight?
12 THE WITNESS: Yes.
13 THE COURT: Okay.
14 BY MR. BENEDICT:
15 Q At that time, you were a coordinator. Is a
16 coordinator a member of the staff at Elan?
17 A No.
18 Q Just a resident who has a job to make sure, to
19 supervise other residents?
20 A Right. It would be, other than senior
21 coordinator, it would be the highest position as a
22 resident.
23 Q You knew Mr. Higgins from Elan three?
24 A Elan three and also Elan eight. He also moved to
25 eight.
26 Q And, that's where you knew Mr. Skakel from?
27 A Michael Skakel, he was at Elan three and then
00086
01 later on staff. I don't recall Michael moving with us to
02 Elan eight.
03 Q How about Coleman, he moved from three to eight?
04 A Yes.
05 Q What is a night owl?
06 A A night owl was a term for the men that stayed in
07 the men's dorms and did head counts about every 15 minutes
08 to make sure no one ran away.
09 Q And, with regard to the men's dorm, that position
10 was filled by men?
11 A That is correct.
12 Q And, as regards to women's dorms, that position
13 was filled by men or by women?
14 A No, well, it was the girls and boys that were
15 there at the program actually were the ones that had the
16 jobs, if they were trusted enough.
17 Q You yourself would never have been put in a
18 position to be a night owl in any of the men's dorms?
19 A No, I was a night woman in the women's dorms.
20 Q That would be you would be responsible for making
21 sure the night owls did the bed checks and kept the women
22 from --
23 A No, that was the night man. There were night.24 women that stayed in the women's dorms and then the night
25 owls stayed in the men's dorms. And then there was a go
26 between called the night man and he went back and forth,
27 yes.
00087
01 Q It was a man?
02 A Yes, it was always a man and he went back and
03 forth to make sure that everyone was okay.
04 Q No woman ever served as night man?
05 A That is correct.
06 Q So, you would never, at your time in Elan, you
07 would have never had responsibility to make sure that the
08 night owls were performing their tasks?
09 A That is correct.
10 Q Now, at that time, at the time you were at Elan
11 three, about 50 people, total population of residents?
12 A That's probably about right. It may have been a
13 little bit less than 50.
14 Q A little less?
15 A Yeah.
16 Q And, it was about an even split between men and
17 women?
18 A I would say so, yes.
19 Q And, as far as the men went -- well, I will
20 withdraw that.
21 The women had one sleeping facility; is that
22 correct? This is Elan three, it was upstairs, second floor
23 over where the dining hall was situated; is that correct?
24 A That is correct.
25 Q The men did not sleep in that particular building?
26 A It was a cabin down the hill from the main house.
27 Q Was it one cabin or more than one cabin?
00088
01 A I never went in the men's dorms so I am not sure
02 -- I believe it was just one dorm. It may have been one
03 building with two separate entrances, I am not sure. I
04 never went in there.
05 Q So, if Elan three was split roughly down the
06 middle in terms of male female population, there would have
07 been at any given time a total of about 25 males assigned
08 as residents of Elan three?
09 A Yes.
10 Q That's fair to say?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And, they resided either in one particular
13 building or possibly in two separate buildings or something
14 like that, as far as their sleeping arrangement?
15 A It was away from the main house.
16 MR. BENEDICT: If I could have just a moment, Your
17 Honor.
18 THE COURT: Yes.
19 BY MR. BENEDICT:
20 Q Did the subject of murder ever come up during your
21 time at Elan aside from the situation that Mr. Skakel was
22 associated with? I mean, anybody else, any other resident
23 during your time at Elan, were you ever -- I am asking five
24 questions here, let me rephrase it..25 Do you recall while you were at Elan anybody else,
26 any other resident there being associated with any other
27 crime of murder?
00089
01 A Not at Elan three.
02 Q And, I didn't want to get into why you were there,
03 but would it not be fair to say that most of the residents
04 at Elan three were there for substance abuse problems?
05 A That's an incorrect statement.
06 Q Explain to me what -- during your stay at Elan
07 three, what was the general reason for most of the --
08 MR. SHERMAN: Objection, relevance, Your Honor.
09 THE COURT: Attorney Benedict, how do you claim
10 it?
11 MR. BENEDICT: We are talking about -- let me
12 rephrase the question.
13 BY MR. BENEDICT:
14 Q Isn't it true that everybody at Elan three was
15 there because they had some kind of a problem that caused
16 them to be placed in Elan three?
17 MR. SHERMAN: Same objection, Your Honor,
18 relevance.
19 THE COURT: I will overrule the objection. You
20 may answer the question.
21 THE WITNESS: Apparently our parents thought so.
22 We were children.
23 BY MR. BENEDICT:
24 Q You were children?
25 A Yes.
26 Q And, the age range when you were there, the
27 youngest were how old?
00090
01 A 13 or 14.
02 Q And, the age range in Elan three, did it go up a
03 good bit?
04 A Elan three it did.
05 Q Adults?
06 A There were some older adults there, a few.
07 Q Mr. Coleman, how old was he when he was there?
08 A About my age.
09 Q And, you were?
10 A 15 until I was 17.
11 Q And, Mr. Higgins was about the same age when he
12 was there as well?
13 A He may be a year older than me and Greg may be a
14 year younger than me but we are about the same age.
15 Q Mr. Skakel was maybe just a little bit older than
16 you?
17 A A little bit, yes.
18 MR. BENEDICT: I have no further questions.
19 THE COURT: I have a question. Did you indicate
20 that night owls got the jobs if they were trusted
21 enough?
22 THE WITNESS: If they were trusted not to run
23 away or -- yeah, if they had earned enough trust and
24 been there long enough and the staff felt that they were
25 responsible enough..26 THE COURT: And, who decided who was a night owl,
27 if you know.
00091
01 THE WITNESS: I am not sure if the staff -- you
02 know, this was a decision at least at the staff level.
03 I am not sure if it was at the director level or not, at
04 least staff.
05 THE COURT: Attorney Sherman.
06 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:
07 Q Do you recall was Greg Coleman a night owl at any
08 time?
09 A Not that I recall.
10 Q How about John Higgins?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Now, was that because he was such a trusted
13 person?
14 A I am not sure why. I mean, he I guess wasn't
15 going to run away. He wasn't a threat to run away and he
16 could count heads so I suppose he was trusted enough.
17 Q And, that's the qualifications to be a night owl,
18 they don't think he is going to run away and he can count
19 the heads; right?
20 A Right.
21 Q It wasn't because of any great therapeutic powers
22 or knowledge that he has?
23 A Right.
24 Q If a night owl hears a confession to murder, would
25 you have heard about it?
26 A I believe so, yes.
27 Q Why?
00092
01 A Again, even if -- because I was a night woman at
02 the time, and there were other -- the night man would be
03 back and forth and something that important and something
04 that big would not have waited. Someone would have said
05 something about it, I believe.
06 Q That was the nature of this community; correct?
07 It was a small community?
08 A Right.
09 Q And, you didn't have a lot else to talk about;
10 correct?
11 A That's right.
12 Q And, if somebody confessed to something, let alone
13 murder, that would get around pretty quick?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And, that would be whether it was to a night owl,
16 to a night person, to a night watchman, to anybody;
17 correct?
18 A Yes. The appropriate protocol would have been to
19 go to the next level to turn it in, a coordinator or a
20 staff member.
21 Q Did people gossip about people a lot too?
22 A Yes. There was that. They glamorized in kind
23 of a twisted way maybe telling stories, yes.
24 Q Michael Skakel never did that; did he?
25 A No, Michael never did that.
26 Q Did he brag about being a Kennedy?.27 A Not at all, no. Michael was always polite.
00093
01 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BENEDICT:
02 Q Was the protocol if somebody confessed to a
03 misdeed to turn that into an immediate superior?
04 A Yes, probably a coordinator, at least.
05 Q And, did every 16 year old at Elan abide by that
06 protocol in every instance? There is no way you can tell
07 that; is there?
08 MR. SHERMAN: Objection, if she may be allowed to
09 answer the question
10 BY MR. BENEDICT:
11 Q Go ahead, answer it.
12 A If we didn't -- I never kept any secrets
13 personally and I think it would, like I said, it would
14 undermine the whole idea of the program.
15 Q So, if everybody complied with the protocol all
16 the time, what did you have night owls for?
17 A Well, not everyone did. It was -- there was a
18 lot of physical punishment there that was disturbing to say
19 the least.
20 MR. BENEDICT: I have no further questions.
21 BY MR. SHERMAN:
22 Q What kind of physical punishments?
23 A Spankings.
24 Q Who would do this?
25 A Other residents under the supervision of a staffer
26 or a director.
27 Q Did John Higgins do this?
00094
01 A I am sure at some point he did.
02 Q Do you remember John Higgins being violent at all?
03 A He would be the first one to volunteer.
04 MR. BENEDICT: I object. Way beyond the scope.
05 THE COURT: Objection is sustained.
06 MR. SHERMAN: He opened the door, Your Honor,
07 with regard to the spanking.
08 MR. BENEDICT: The question that produced that was
09 did people comply with all the protocol at Elan all the
10 time and I think the testimony has been --
11 MR. SHERMAN: But the answer came out about the
12 spankings. I didn't object to it and the State didn't
13 move to strike it. So I am just asking her whether or
14 not John Higgins participated in that at all. I think
15 she just has a quick answer.
16 THE COURT: You are asking whether she actually
17 saw John Higgins participate?
18 MR. SHERMAN: That is correct.
19 THE COURT: I will overrule the objection.
20 THE WITNESS: Some of this was behind closed
21 doors, particularly where the men were involved. So I
22 don't recall specific instances but I do remember
23 specifically him volunteering for these cowboy beatings
24 is maybe a better word than what they called it.
25 BY MR. SHERMAN:
26 Q And, John would be the first to volunteer?
27 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, leading..00095
01 THE COURT: Objection sustained.
02 BY MR. SHERMAN:
03 Q With regard to night owls reporting these things,
04 let's now talk about night owls in general. From your
05 knowledge of John Higgins, from your knowledge of what John
06 Higgins would want Joe Ricci to know and what John Higgins
07 would like to see happen to John Higgins, had John Higgins
08 heard a confession, would he have reported it?
09 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, beyond the scope,
10 leading, asked and answered.
11 MR. SHERMAN: I am going to claim it. It's a
12 hypothetical based on facts directly in evidence.
13 THE COURT: The objection is sustained. It was
14 asked and answered previously.
15 MR. SHERMAN: Nothing further, thank you.
16 MR. BENEDICT: No questions.
17 THE COURT: Thank you, you may step down.
18
00096
01 MR. SHERMAN: I will call Sarah Peterson.
02 SARAH PETERSON,
03 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
04 THE CLERK: Please have seat and state your name
05 and address for the record, Ma'am.
06 THE WITNESS: My name is Sarah Peterson and my
07 address is 1035 United Street, Key West, Florida.
08 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:
09 Q Hi, Sarah. How are you doing?
10 A Hi, Mickey.
11 Q You live in Key West; correct?
12 A Yes.
13 Q What do you do there?
14 A I run a few guest houses.
15 Q How long have you been there?
16 A Three years.
17 Q Before that, what were you doing?
18 A I was living in Maryland bartending.
19 Q Now, you are how old?
20 A 38.
21 Q You had occasion to be in the Elan program some
22 years ago?
23 A Yes, I did.
24 Q When were you there?
25 A I was there from January of 1979 until June of
26 1980.
27 Q By the way, how did you get here? What prompted
00097
01 you to come to this Court today?
02 A When I first read about Michael's arrest and the
03 kind of --
04 MR. BENEDICT: I object, this is self serving.
05 MR. SHERMAN: That's what I am here for, to serve
06 my client, Your Honor. I don't think that's a big
07 shocker here, that it is self serving.
08 THE COURT: The question is how she came about --
09 I will overrule the objection..10 BY MR. SHERMAN:
11 Q How did you get here?
12 A When I read about the case against Michael and the
13 kind of evidence they had and the kind of people who were
14 saying the things they were such as John Higgins saying
15 that he had admitted this, I knew that that was not the
16 truth. And I did not feel like I could stand by and let a
17 lie like that effect a man's life.
18 Q And, you sent me a letter or called me?
19 A I sent you a letter and I called you.
20 Q We didn't send out some investigator to dig you
21 up; correct?
22 A No.
23 Q The State's Attorney didn't dig you up someplace?
24 A No, sir.
25 Q And, you didn't testify before the Grand Jury or
26 anything?
27 A No, sir.
00098
01 Q Did you ever speak to Inspector Garr at all?
02 A No, sir.
03 Q You never spoke to anyone from the State
04 Attorney's office?
05 A No, sir.
06 Q So, at some point you and I spoke about this case;
07 right?
08 A Yes, we did.
09 Q Down in Key West?
10 A Yes, we did.
11 Q And, then you came up here yesterday, last night;
12 correct?
13 A Last night.
14 Q And, we met in the office, in my office this
15 morning?
16 A Yes, sir.
17 Q And, who did you meet with?
18 A It was you, me, Alice Dunn, Angela, Kim and
19 Michael was there for the very end.
20 Q Had you seen them before today?
21 A I hadn't seen anybody except for Michael when he
22 came to Key West since I left Elan.
23 Q So, you had not kept an ongoing relationship with
24 any of these other people?
25 A No, I haven't.
26 Q And, did you discuss the events of Elan with them
27 this morning for a brief period?
00099
01 A Yes, I did.
02 Q When you got there, when is the first time -- when
03 you got to Elan, when is the first time you saw Michael
04 Skakel?
05 A I saw Michael Skakel the first day I was there.
06 He was shot down at the time.
07 Q What does that mean?
08 A It means he had no position so he was basically
09 scrubbing floors on his hands and knees.
10 Q Now, there was a general meeting about Michael.11 Skakel where he was in a boxing ring. Are you aware of
12 that?
13 A I am aware of that but I was not there for that.
14 Q You were not there for that; correct?
15 A No, it was right before I got there.
16 Q So, that happened before you got there?
17 A Right, directly before.
18 Q Did you ever have occasion to speak to Michael
19 Skakel when he was in this shot down position?
20 A As a new resident, they really didn't want you to
21 talk with somebody who was in a position of being shot down
22 so it was probably I started speaking with him probably
23 after I was there several months.
24 Q Was it common knowledge that Michael Skakel
25 murdered a girl?
26 A No, it was not.
27 Q You told us that you believe John Higgins lied
00100
01 here; right?
02 A I do.
03 Q Why do you say that?
04 A John in the program of Elan was well known for
05 letting anything you said to him be known to everybody
06 because it achieved him two things. It achieved him
07 brownie points with the staff members and it also made him
08 feel more adequate as a person.
09 Q Obviously, you didn't like John Higgins?
10 A I didn't think much of him.
11 Q Why?
12 A In Elan, people who are in the program run the
13 program and it is very obvious when people are mean
14 spirited, unkind people because they can use that --
15 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, this is irrelevant.
16 THE COURT: I will overrule the objection. You
17 can finish your answer.
18 THE WITNESS: Because they can use that power over
19 the people who are weaker or in lesser positions and in
20 fact it is encouraged by the staff for you to do that,
21 not to -- to get the people to admit to whatever you
22 need to get them to say, to break them so that they can
23 maybe rebuild you into what they believe you should
24 be. He was the kind of person who always was trying to
25 look for dirt on somebody else to make himself look
26 better and to make other people look worse.
27 BY MR. SHERMAN:
00101
01 Q And, when he found dirt on people, he kept it to
02 himself or shared it with the world?
03 A He shared it with the world. It was an open book
04 thing in Elan. When somebody did something, it was common
05 knowledge among all the people who were there.
06 Q Was it common knowledge that Michael Skakel
07 confessed to John Higgins?
08 A No, sir.
09 Q Was it common knowledge that Michael Skakel
10 confessed to anybody?
11 A No, sir..12 Q Did you ever talk to Michael Skakel about this
13 case?
14 A When you guys flew down to Key West, we discussed
15 it.
16 Q He certainly didn't confess then?
17 A We discussed it at Elan.
18 Q Did he ever confess to you at Elan?
19 A No. In fact, he told me that he could never do
20 anything like that and that he said even if he was drinking
21 and in a blackout, there would have been some physical
22 evidence when he awakened and that he knew as a person that
23 he couldn't do that because it was not something that was
24 in his heart. He was always a very kind person.
25 Q Were you present when they were trying to convince
26 Michael that he did it?
27 A I was present on more than one occasion when they
00102
01 tried to convince Michael that he did it.
02 Q Explain to us that process.
03 A They would generally either in a group session or
04 in a general type meeting put pressure on people by
05 continually saying to you again and again and again you did
06 this, just admit it and we will stop it. They would beat
07 you. They would put you in a boxing ring. They would do
08 whatever they could in order to get you to say what they
09 felt like you should say.
10 I saw Michael several times told, we know you did
11 it, just admit it. We know you did it and he would say I
12 didn't do it, I didn't do it, I didn't do it. And he would
13 say -- he would just like they would pressure him for like
14 days or months or weeks and it was just never ending.
15 Q Did there finally come a time when he would say I
16 don't know?
17 A Yes, there did.
18 Q And, why did that happen, if you know?
19 A When Michael and I discussed that later, he said
20 sometimes I hear it so much that I even doubt myself but I
21 know I could have never done anything like this.
22 Q And, also after he would say I don't know, did
23 they stop harassing him?
24 A Yes, they did.
25 Q Greg Coleman, do you remember him?
26 A Vaguely, yes.
27 Q You didn't know him well?
00103
01 A I know him. I know who he is but he was not
02 somebody who was paramount to my life at that time. He
03 was kind of a non-entity.
04 Q Was he someone that you would have confided in?
05 A No.
06 Q Do you know whether or not Michael Skakel would
07 have confided in him?
08 A I didn't know Michael Skakel had any sort of
09 relationship with Greg at all.
10 Q You never saw them hanging out together?
11 A I never saw them hanging out together. I spent a
12 lot of time with Michael. He was right above me in the.13 program so I know who he was pretty much talking to and
14 around.
15 Q You were there for how long?
16 A I graduated 15 months but stayed another month to
17 graduate high school.
18 Q So, for the 15 months you were there, you saw
19 Michael Skakel daily?
20 A I think at the very end he left right before I did
21 but I saw him daily the whole time I was in the program.
22 Q And, you never saw him hanging out with Greg
23 Coleman?
24 A No.
25 Q Did you ever see him hanging out with John
26 Higgins?
27 A No.
00104
01 Q Was he friendly with John Higgins?
02 A No, I would say more like John Higgins was a bully
03 to Michael Skakel.
04 Q Did you ever see that happen?
05 A Yes, I have.
06 Q Describe the interaction between the two?
07 A I remember when Michael was shot down, when I
08 first came in, I remember John Higgins being like a PO over
09 him.
10 Q What is a PO?
11 A Personal overseer and I remember John just always
12 on him, just, you know, yelling at him, dealing with him,
13 giving him verbal reprimands and just totally, you know,
14 just never letting down on one second of making his life
15 miserable.
16 Q Did John Higgins seem to enjoy that?
17 A Yes, he did. He seemed to enjoy it when he did
18 it to me also.
19 Q Why did he do it to you?
20 A When I first arrived at Elan, you start out as a
21 worker on the service crew. He was directly above me in a
22 co-ramrod position with John Simpson. And since I had the
23 comparison to be made very easily as to how they both dealt
24 with me, while they were both very tough with me, Higgins
25 really liked doing it. He liked to really come in and no
26 matter what it was, you could never do anything right, no
27 matter what you were doing and he used to like to watch you
00105
01 get dealt with. He used to like to watch you go down.
02 Q Did you know Kim Freehill?
03 A Very well.
04 Q Were you present when she was beaten?
05 A Yes, I was.
06 Q Would you describe that?
07 A I watched them beat Kim until she was bruised from
08 the back of her knees to the top of her shoulders with open
09 sores across her buttocks. And I watched her retreat into
10 a shell where she just wasn't even there as a person.
11 Q Did they take her away?
12 A Yes, they did. I believe they air lifted her.
13 Q Did you ever see her again?.14 A I haven't seen her again and I have had an
15 occasion in the last couple of weeks when I was -- I found
16 her phone number to talk with her. And it was good for me
17 because it was something that I worried about for so many
18 years about her because I never seen somebody hurt that
19 badly.
20 MR. BENEDICT: Objection to relevance.
21 BY MR. SHERMAN:
22 Q Was Greg Coleman one of the people who beat her?
23 A I don't recall exactly who beat her. There was a
24 lot of people.
25 Q You were never beaten like that?
26 A I was beaten but not to that extent.
27 Q And, why did they beat her?
00106
01 MR. BENEDICT: I am sorry, beat her?
02 BY MR. SHERMAN:
03 Q Why did they beat her?
04 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, relevance.
05 THE COURT: How do you claim it?
06 MR. SHERMAN: Your Honor, it tells the story of
07 the methodology at Elan, that people would be beaten,
08 people would be harassed, people would be spat upon, put
09 in a ring until they confessed to something. They did
10 it with Michael Skakel. He didn't confess. I am
11 asking did they do it with other people. It tells the
12 story of Elan which better tells the story of Michael
13 Skakel and explains why he may have gone from I didn't
14 do it to I don't know.
15 THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
16 BY MR. SHERMAN:
17 Q Was Michael ever beaten like that?
18 A I never saw Michael beaten like I saw Kim Freehill
19 beaten.
20 Q Did you ever see Michael wear the dunce cap?
21 A Yes, very often.
22 Q And, why was he wearing a dunce cap?
23 A If you had bad grades in school, they gave you a
24 dunce cap to wear because they said you were stupid.
25 Q Did he wear a sign?
26 A He had a sign on when I first got there.
27 Q What did the sign say, if you remember?
00107
01 A I remember part of the sign. It said please
02 confront me on the death of my friend Martha or something
03 to that extent. I can't remember the exact words. It
04 also said I am a spoiled brat and I think I can get away
05 with anything. But the signs weren't something that we
06 made ourselves. They were made by the staff.
07 Q And, how often did you wear that sign?
08 A I believe he wore that for several months when I
09 first arrived at Elan.
10 Q And, did he in fact wear that -- did he go through
11 several signs? Did they have to remake the sign?
12 A Well, when you are on the ground scrubbing the
13 floor on your hands and knees and the signs get messed up,
14 they would make you a new sign and the words might be a.15 little different but they were the basic same gist every
16 time.
17 Q And, what was that sign designed to do?
18 A It was designed to, first off, humiliate him.
19 Second off, get everybody to put pressure on him to admit
20 to something, whether he did it or not.
21 Q Did he ever admit to it?
22 A No, he never did.
23 Q Was there a sign at one point trying to get him to
24 admit that his brother killed Martha Moxley?
25 A I don't recall that.
26 Q Did he want to wear that sign?
27 A No.
00108
01 Q What would happen if he didn't wear the sign?
02 A They would have beaten him.
03 Q Did he ever have to recite what was on that sign
04 to the Elan community? Did he have to speak those words?
05 A He used to do it at least -- I know he did it in
06 the morning and at meals and at night before he went to
07 bed.
08 Q And, is that because he wanted to do it?
09 A No, it was because he was told to do that by the
10 staff.
11 Q He was forced to do that?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And, then would people confront him?
14 A People would confront him on a regular basis about
15 this and we were very much encouraged to do things of that
16 nature to try to make -- whoever they were trying to make
17 say whatever they wanted them to say, they would encourage
18 you to help them along.
19 Q Did you ever see John Higgins hug anybody?
20 MR. BENEDICT: I am sorry, I didn't hear the
21 question.
22 BY MR. SHERMAN:
23 Q Did you ever see John Higgins hug anybody?
24 A Hug?
25 Q Hug. Is he the kind of guy who would hug
26 somebody?
27 A I can't recall that. I can't imagine that
00109
01 either, though.
02 Q Did you ever see John Higgins hug Michael?
03 A No.
04 Q Would that have been a likely scenario based on
05 your knowledge of the two and their interaction?
06 A Not at all.
07 Q Did anyone ever tell Michael in your presence that
08 he is never going to leave Elan until he admits to this
09 killing?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Who said that?
12 A Joe Ricci.
13 Q What did he say?
14 A He said it. This was after Michael's general
15 meeting and I had arrived and he was wearing the sign. And.16 he said something to the effect of Skakel, you will never
17 leave here until you admit you killed that girl.
18 Q But, he did leave there; didn't he?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And, he never admitted it?
21 A No.
22 Q Did you ever hear from anyone else, Greg Coleman,
23 John Higgins or anybody that Michael confessed to them that
24 he killed Martha Moxley?
25 A No, I didn't.
26 MR. SHERMAN: I have nothing further.
27 MR. BENEDICT: I am not going to complete before
00110
01 1:00 o'clock, Your Honor.
02 THE COURT: It's about three minutes to one. We
03 will take the luncheon recess now until 2:00 o'clock.
04 (Whereupon, the luncheon recess was taken.)
05 THE COURT: We are back on the record in the
06 matter of Michael Skakel. The same parties are
07 present. Do you wish to proceed or do you wish to
08 wait?
09 MR. BENEDICT: I will proceed.
10 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BENEDICT:
11 Q Mrs. Peterson, Jonathan Benedict, United States
12 Attorney.
13 You indicated you are presently living in Key
14 West?
15 A Yes, sir.
16 Q And, you have been down there for about three
17 years?
18 A Yes, sir.
19 Q And, you had not seen Michael Skakel from the time
20 you left Elan until you saw him in Key West?
21 A Yes, sir.
22 Q And, apparently, correct me if I am wrong, I get
23 the drift that Mr. Sherman and Mr. Skakel came to see you
24 at Key West sometime since you moved down there?
25 A Yes. After I wrote a letter to Mickey, they came
26 down to talk with me.
27 Q And, that was about when, approximately how long
00111
01 ago?
02 A Two or three months.
03 Q And, what generated your writing the letter to Mr.
04 Sherman was that you heard about it either through reading
05 or hearing or seeing in the media the fact of Mr. Skakel's
06 arrest; is that correct?
07 A Yes, sir.
08 Q Were you aware prior to learning of his arrest
09 that there had been a Grand Jury investigating this case?
10 A No, sir.
11 Q You had no knowledge of that?
12 A No, sir.
13 Q Did it occur to you to contact my office --
14 withdrawn.
15 You have indicated in your testimony here today
16 that I must have the wrong guy or the State must have the.17 wrong guy. That's your opinion; correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Did it occur to you at any time to contact my
20 office and share with us the information you bring before
21 us today?
22 A Not really.
23 Q Did you think we wouldn't listen to you?
24 A Not at all. I had already talked to Mickey and I
25 felt like I had let somebody know the knowledge that I had.
26 Q You also indicated that -- well, you came up here,
27 you flew in yesterday?
00112
01 A Yes.
02 Q And, you met with Mr. Sherman at his office?
03 A This morning.
04 Q This morning, okay. And, also there was Ms.
05 Freehill?
06 A No.
07 Q She was not there?
08 A No, she was not.
09 Q A young woman whose maiden name was Hawkins, a
10 young blond woman, was she in Mr. Sherman's office?
11 A Yes. Angela was there.
12 Q And, Angela Dunn, who was a former staff member?
13 A She was there, yes, and the other lady that was
14 there was Kim, which was Alice's friend.
15 Q Kim?
16 A Yes, but it is not Kim Freehill. It is Kim who
17 is Alice's friend who came down with her.
18 Q Came with Alice, okay.
19 A As far as I know.
20 Q As far as you know, she is not appearing here, she
21 just accompanied Alice down here?
22 A Exactly.
23 Q You testified that your admission or arrival at
24 Elan occurred very shortly after this general meeting?
25 A Yes, sir.
26 Q You were not present at the general meeting?
27 A No, I was not.
00113
01 Q But, you learned of the general meeting somehow?
02 A Everything at Elan was general knowledge. It was
03 discussed openly in groups, in other meetings, in house
04 meetings and all sorts.
05 Q So, when you got there, you very quickly knew that
06 there had been a general meeting in which Michael Skakel
07 was the person who was focused on and the subject of his
08 involvement in the murder was the subject, was the focus of
09 the meeting?
10 A I became aware of that very shortly because he had
11 to stand up several times a day and read the sign to the
12 house and, thus, I asked somebody who told me.
13 Q So, you did not arrive at Elan until after the
14 general meeting?
15 A Exactly.
16 Q Did you become aware after your arrival from the
17 scuttlebutt in the school that he had just been brought.18 back from an escaped status just a few days before the
19 general meeting. Did you know that?
20 A Yes, I did.
21 Q But, of course, you were not present at Elan at
22 the time of his being brought back?
23 A No, I was not.
24 Q So, if there was a three day or so thereabouts
25 interval between him being brought back to Elan and being
26 placed before this general meeting, you have no personal
27 knowledge of that?
00114
01 A I have no idea.
02 Q You spent your time at Elan as a resident of Elan
03 three or eight or --
04 A Three.
05 Q You were at Elan three?
06 A Yes, with Michael.
07 Q And, at Elan three, being a woman, you slept in
08 the women's dorm?
09 A Yes, I did.
10 Q And, that was on the second floor of the main Elan
11 three building?
12 A Yes, it was.
13 Q And, the men slept in the separate men's
14 dormitories?
15 A Yes, it was down a path.
16 Q Did you ever serve as a night owl?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And --
19 A Actually they called it a night woman in the
20 women's door.
21 Q The guys were night owls and the women were --
22 A There you have it.
23 Q Your duties as serving as a night owl was to make
24 sure everybody was in bed?
25 A You would do a head count every few minutes. The
26 night man who would go between the two dorms would come by
27 and take your count.
00115
01 Q I mean, in the course of your occasions to serve
02 as a night owl, did you ever come upon a -- well,
03 withdrawn. Did you ever have trouble sleeping at Elan?
04 A I always had trouble sleeping at Elan.
05 Q If you were having trouble sleeping, did you stay
06 in your bed or would you go out and walk around on any
07 occasion?
08 A That wasn't allowed.
09 Q So, you never got out of bed and sat down and shot
10 the bull with anybody else in the facility; is that
11 correct?
12 A It wasn't something that was acceptable unless you
13 were in the higher echelon of the program and then usually
14 you wouldn't be talking with the night woman or night owl,
15 you would be talking with one of the people who were under
16 you or who were having personal problems. You tried to
17 get whatever sleep you can.
18 Q Did you ever talk to anybody one on one about.19 personal problems while you were at Elan?
20 A Hundreds and hundreds of times.
21 Q Do you think every one of those occasions was
22 reported to some supervisor?
23 A I believe that I reported anything that I felt was
24 relevant and not known to the staff.
25 Q You were about how old when you went to Elan?
26 A I was 16, a month from being 17.
27 Q You testified nobody ever confessed to you about
00116
01 committing a crime so grievous as murder while you were at
02 Elan; is that correct?
03 A Nobody said that they killed somebody while I was
04 at Elan.
05 Q Or any other serious crime, did anybody ever
06 report having committed any other serious crime to you?
07 A Not to me personally, no.
08 Q The whole time you were at Elan, did anybody ever
09 open up to you that they had committed some crime before
10 they were placed in that school?
11 A Yes, but it was generally, as my recollection
12 allows me, it was people who were charged with those crimes
13 and sent to Elan for those crimes who would generally
14 discuss those crimes.
15 Q Those were the people who had actually gone
16 through the Court system and were placed as a result of
17 Court proceedings at Elan?
18 A Exactly.
19 Q Apparently nobody, while you were at Elan, ever
20 confided in you as to their having committed any crime for
21 which they had not yet been arrested?
22 A No.
23 MR. BENEDICT: Thank you very much, I have no
24 further questions.
25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:
26 Q Had someone confided in you about a crime that
27 they had committed but had not as yet been arrested for,
00117
01 would you have reported that?
02 A Immediately.
03 Q Why?
04 A The main way we were taught at Elan was the
05 technique of peer pressure and teaching people to change
06 their behaviors. And, part of that was ingrained in you
07 or sometimes beaten into you depending on how stubborn you
08 might be was that you must report and tell. If not it was
09 called holding guilt and to hold guilt meant that the
10 program meant nothing to you and you never achieved
11 anything out of it. So, I would have always told.
12 Q And, you believed in the program?
13 A I believed in the program for part of the time I
14 was there.
15 Q Were you in fact programed to believe in the
16 program?
17 A Very much so. In fact, during my later months
18 there, I actually went out and talked to the public about
19 the benefits of Elan..20 Q And, would it make a difference if the person who
21 confided in you was a close friend or a slight
22 acquaintance, would you still turn them in?
23 A Yes, I would have.
24 Q No matter what?
25 A Yes, I would have.
26 Q Because you believe that would help them?
27 A Yes, I would have.
00118
01 Q Now, Mr. Benedict asked you why did you contact
02 me, why didn't you contact him?
03 A I contacted you because when I first heard about
04 him being arrested, the first name that came up was that
05 you were his lawyer and I just immediately went to you.
06 Q So, you didn't contact anybody until you found out
07 he was arrested?
08 A Exactly.
09 Q So, you didn't appear before the Grand Jury;
10 correct?
11 A No.
12 Q Nobody asked you to?
13 A No.
14 Q And, did you ever suspect that Michael Skakel was
15 actually going to get arrested for this?
16 A No.
17 Q Why?
18 A Because I didn't think he did it.
19 MR. SHERMAN: Nothing further.
20 MR. BENEDICT: I have no questions.
21 THE COURT: Thank you.
22 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
23 MR. SHERMAN: Could she go out this way so I can
24 speak to her very briefly? We have another witness
25 coming in but she was just leaving and I wanted to speak
26 with her.
27 THE COURT: All right.
00119
01 MR. SHERMAN: I will call Bernadette Coomaraswamy.
02 BERNADETTE COOMARASWAMY,
03 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows:
04 THE CLERK: Please have a seat and state your name
05 and address for the record, Ma'am.
06 THE WITNESS: Bernadette Coomaraswamy, 640 Nod
07 Hill Road, Wilton, Connecticut.
08 THE COURT: Spell your last name.
09 THE WITNESS: C-O-O-M-A-R-A-S-W-A-M-Y.
10 THE COURT: Thank you. Attorney Sherman, you may
11 proceed.
12 MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
13 DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:
14 Q Mrs. Coomaraswamy, what do you do for a living?
15 A I am an attorney with a small private practice.
16 I am a magistrate, state trial attorney and a fact finder,
17 excetera.
18 Q What is a magistrate of the State of Connecticut?
19 A A magistrate is a non-judicial officer appointed
20 to hear matters in Housing Court and Small Claims Court..21 That's about it.
22 Q Like one notch lower than a regular judge?
23 A Several notches.
24 Q And, when is the last time you served as a
25 magistrate?
26 A This morning.
27 Q Where did you sit?
00120
01 A In Norwalk Court, GA 20.
02 Q And, you heard cases?
03 A I did.
04 Q Could you give us a brief run down of your
05 educational background?
06 A Watertown High School, Boston University
07 undergraduate, Boston University graduate, teaching
08 assistant at Boston University for about three years,
09 Fordham Law School. I have had one term at Oxford
10 University in England, in philosophy, politics and
11 economics and that's about it.
12 Q And, did you also get a masters of education?
13 A Oh, yes. Oh, yes, I got a masters of education in
14 statistics and measurement.
15 Q And, was that at Boston University?
16 A It is.
17 Q And, work wise, where did you start work?
18 A I worked for Roy Cohen in Sachs, Baycon & O'Shea
19 and was on duty when the Arizona case came down in 1966.
20 I was the lowest in the ladder. I was a mere clerk but he
21 had an assistant attorney general in the U.S. Attorney's
22 Office that helped us open the floodgates of the prisons, I
23 would say.
24 Q This is miranda, we are talking about?
25 A Yes.
26 Q And, after Mr. Cohen's office, where did you go?
27 A I became a teacher. I taught at a community
00121
01 college, both in psychology and business law.
02 Q And, did you come to practice law in the State of
03 Connecticut?
04 A Yes.
05 Q And, was that in 1960?
06 A Yes. No.
07 Q I am sorry, when was that?
08 A In --
09 MR. BENEDICT: We are not going to hold Mrs.
10 Coomaraswamy to it.
11 THE WITNESS: I guess it's the late sixties. I
12 really -- yes, around 1968. I took ten years off to
13 raise a family.
14 BY MR. SHERMAN:
15 Q And, at some point, you became active in the
16 juvenile justice system; did you not?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And, how did that occur and what did you do?
19 A I had the misfortune to go into Maggie Driscoll's
20 Courtroom.
21 Q Maggie Driscoll was whom?.22 A I am sorry, the Honorable Judge Driscoll and I was
23 only there to represent a family. And she impressed me so
24 that I thought instead of being a criminal attorney,
25 attorney for criminals in Augustus, I would go into
26 juvenile justice because she convinced me, well --
27 Q How deep did you jump into the juvenile justice
00122
01 system?
02 A Very.
03 Q Like what, what did you do?
04 A In the early seventies, I practiced almost
05 exclusively in the Stamford Juvenile Court in representing
06 both -- as a public defender first representing abused and
07 neglected children. Then when they found out about my, I
08 guess the background in criminal law, I was used
09 extensively in criminal justice in the delinquency division
10 of the law.
11 Q Did you form any -- were you instrumental in the
12 forming of any organizations designed to promote the
13 juvenile justice system?
14 A With Judge Bingham, Walter Flaherty, Paul Briburg
15 and I am leaving someone out, I think, maybe Jimmy
16 Rappaport, we formed an association of Juvenile Court
17 lawyers to keep the standard of practice high in the
18 Juvenile Court so that we would give the children the best
19 representation and the highest sense of professional
20 excellency.
21 Q At some point did you become a Court Advocate?
22 A Yes. That was before they hired a full-time Court
23 Advocate and I can't remember the years it was so long ago.
24 Q And, what is the Court Advocate?
25 A It is the prosecutor.
26 Q Were you the prosecutor in the Juvenile Court?
27 A With three others.
00123
01 Q And, for how long was that?
02 A I would say until Joanne Goldberg took the job so
03 maybe that was four or five years.
04 Q And, roughly, what would the time period be?
05 A 1973 to 1978, perhaps.
06 Q So, oddly enough, you would have been the Juvenile
07 Court prosecutor had Michael Skakel been arrested at the
08 time of this event?
09 A Yes. We had homicides and I did have one.
10 Q So, you are familiar with the transfer procedure?
11 A No, because we had a probable cause hearing and it
12 was broken down to negligent, what did we call it in those
13 days, negligent homicide, criminally negligent.
14 Q Now, are you active at all in any other civic
15 organizations right now?
16 A Yes, I became active as a result of being in
17 Juvenile Court because I realized that the Court
18 effectively was limited by kind of a neglect of community
19 involvement. You see, the concept of the Juvenile Court
20 in those days was different probably than it is now but it
21 was early detection of children at risk and the labeling,
22 if you could, the prediction of who would really be at risk.23 and then the delivering of treatment. Well, that was
24 fine. We used to send them to Yale and have some great
25 studies but we didn't have any facilities for the treatment
26 orders that they gave us. So, I became active in anyplace
27 that would have me. The United Way, I was on the board of
00124
01 directors there. The Child Guidance Clinic of Stamford, I
02 was a consultant to the family center and we started a
03 child protection team in Greenwich which is still going
04 on. We haven't run out of neglected children.
05 Q Were you instrumental in founding the Greenwich
06 Youth Shelter?
07 A Yes.
08 Q And, have you sat on the board of the Stamford
09 Child Guidance Clinic?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Were you the coordinator of the Greenwich Child
12 Protection Team from its inception in 1980 to present?
13 A Yes.
14 Q And, did you serve on the advisory committee to
15 the Connecticut Bar Association on the Juvenile Justice
16 Committee?
17 A Under Shirley Bysowitz (ph), yes, Professor
18 Bysowitz.
19 Q Clearly, you practice law and you also serve as a
20 magistrate?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Now, do you know Michael Skakel?
23 A Yes.
24 Q How long have you known Michael Skakel?
25 A Well, technically, before he was born. I met his
26 mother in 1959 but I didn't really meet Michael face to
27 face until he was about 12, I would say.
00125
01 Q Did you ever have occasion to ask him to speak to
02 the New England Consortium of Family and Youth?
03 A Yes.
04 Q Tell us about that?
05 A Michael was a -- was a very sensitive person to a
06 lot of ills that were inflicting our children, drugs,
07 alcohol and he had gone through a great deal and at the
08 time I knew him he had become quite a concerned and
09 compassionate and knowledgeable person. And, I felt that
10 many --
11 MR. BENEDICT: At this point, we are going to
12 object on relevance.
13 MR. SHERMAN: I am going to claim it, Your Honor,
14 because the issue I am going to be speaking to is 17-60
15 A of the statute which we are dealing with and we are
16 talking about rehabilitation and we are talking about
17 whether or not this young man is amenable to
18 rehabilitation. Here we have clearly, clearly not only
19 an expert in this field and in the juvenile field but
20 also someone in it who is familiar with Michael Skakel.
21 THE COURT: 17-60 A, which section are you
22 referring to?
23 MR. SHERMAN: Transfer section, Your Honor..24 THE COURT: Which section of 17-60 A are you
25 referring to?
26 MR. SHERMAN: Certainly three, the safety of the
27 community requires that the child continue under
00126
01 restraint for a period extending beyond his majority.
02 Certainly this statement at least speaks to that.
03 THE COURT: Okay.
04 MR. SHERMAN: And, whether or not he has been
05 rehabilitated even should the Court find that number one
06 has been satisfied.
07 THE COURT: And, the Court under that statute
08 needs to find, number one, that there is reasonable
09 cause to believe that the child has committed the act
10 for which he is charged and, two, there is no state
11 institution designed for the care and treatment of
12 children to which said Court may commit such child which
13 is suitable for his care and treatment or the safety of
14 the community requires --
15 MR. SHERMAN: That's correct, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: And, the facilities of the Superior
17 Court provide a more effective setting for disposition
18 of the case and the institutions to which said Court may
19 sentence a defendant are more suitable. So, you are
20 offering this testimony now on --
21 MR. SHERMAN: All three of the latter once, two,
22 three and four, Your Honor. Two, because it speaks to
23 whether or not a state institution is suitable for his
24 care and treatment which he is -- what she is discussing
25 is whether or not this young man in fact needs care and
26 treatment.
27 THE COURT: I will overrule the objection. Can
00127
01 we establish the time period we are talking about here?
02 BY MR. SHERMAN:
03 Q Do you remember the date, roughly, or the year
04 when you had him speak to the New England Consortium of
05 Family and Youth?
06 A I can't. I do know that he did the same work
07 with our child protection team that was about I would think
08 around 1980.
09 Q 1980, roughly?
10 A Late to 1982.
11 Q And, you selected him to speak?
12 A Well, not only to speak but to attend our meetings
13 and to sit in on cases to help us in the disposition of
14 hard core cases that we didn't know what to do next.
15 Q Why would you pick him?
16 A First of all, he was knowledgeable in the
17 background that these youths maybe came from. But,
18 secondly, I think he would know all of the, for example, if
19 we were talking about drugs, he would know the excuse, he
20 would know the treatment centers, he would know the
21 approaches which we only academically knew and he had gone
22 through it the hard way.
23 Q Michael had used drugs and he had used alcohol
24 extensively?.25 A You know, there are many people who use drugs but
26 this particular young man was able to -- he had a quality
27 in that he wanted to help those, he had been through it
00128
01 before. So, to answer your question honestly, it was more
02 than his knowledge. It was his experience.
03 Q And, also an ability to help others?
04 A Yes.
05 Q And, a desire to help others?
06 A Very much so.
07 Q You didn't have to twist his arm?
08 A No. This is why I was drawn to this particular
09 child when he was quite young. We have a chapel in our
10 house and, you know, the kids go in there and he had an
11 attitude of respect that was difficult to describe. And,
12 I thought that he wanted an outlet and he did and he used
13 that outlet. There were policemen on our team and I
14 thought, you know, how will they insert, they know it from
15 one side, from enforcement and he will know it from
16 another, from experience. And, so, yes, Michael helped
17 us, especially the child protection team. It wasn't a
18 speech, it was really working on the team.
19 Q Now, you also are from the Belle Haven area;
20 right?
21 A I was until three years ago.
22 Q So, you grew up -- you lived in the same
23 neighborhood as Michael?
24 A For 25 years.
25 Q And, you are very very much familiar with the
26 murder of Martha Moxley?
27 A Yes.
00129
01 Q Weren't you concerned when you would have Michael
02 speak to your groups that well, maybe I shouldn't have him
03 because maybe he killed Martha Moxley?
04 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, relevance.
05 THE COURT: How do you claim that as relevant to
06 what this witness is being presented for?
07 MR. SHERMAN: I would claim it at this time, Your
08 Honor.
09 BY MR. SHERMAN:
10 Q Were you aware that Michael was ever being accused
11 of murdering Martha Moxley?
12 A No, I was only aware of other members of the
13 family who had been accused.
14 Q Was there ever any hesitation on your part to ask
15 him to become involved in these activities?
16 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
17 THE COURT: How do you claim that?
18 MR. SHERMAN: Well, I am asking as to why she
19 would select Michael Skakel. I am not asking whether
20 or not she believes he is innocent. I am asking
21 whether or not there was any hesitation on her part to
22 select Michael.
23 THE COURT: I think she has been quite clear as to
24 why she selected him. The objection is sustained.
25 BY MR. SHERMAN:.26 Q Can you think of any other activities that you
27 engaged Michael in towards rehabilitating people?
00130
01 A I didn't do it for rehabilitation but I brought
02 him to see one of my clients who was active in -- with whom
03 I worked for many years. And, he seemed to want to give
04 so much and I brought him down to see her.
05 Q And, who was that?
06 A It was Mother Theresa of Calcutta.
07 Q Mother Theresa, you took it upon yourself to
08 introduce Michael to Mother Theresa?
09 A Yes.
10 Q Why is that?
11 A I thought it would be good for Michael to give
12 where we are and I don't think you have to travel all over
13 the world. And she was here in New York and I thought it
14 might ignite something in him to work with the people in
15 the Bronx or to work wherever he is. You don't have to go
16 to Africa.
17 Q Did it work out well?
18 A I don't know because I introduced many people to
19 mother and I just don't follow up on it. I don't know
20 what they did.
21 Q Were you proud to introduce him to her?
22 A Was I what, please?
23 Q Were you proud to introduce him to Mother Theresa?
24 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, irrelevant.
25 THE COURT: Objection sustained.
26 BY MR. SHERMAN:
27 Q Now, with respect to whether or not Michael Skakel
00131
01 needs rehabilitation, you are someone who is particularly
02 knowledgable in Juvenile Court, in the judicial system and
03 the Superior Court as well. You are someone who knows
04 Michael Skakel. You wear many hats in this case, Mrs.
05 Coomaraswamy.
06 Do you believe that Michael Skakel as he sits here
07 is in need of rehabilitation?
08 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, that's the ultimate
09 question here.
10 MR. SHERMAN: I think she is allowed to state her
11 opinion, Your Honor. That's exactly what she is here
12 for. It is up to the Court to give it whatever weight
13 the Court feels it appropriate.
14 THE COURT: I will sustain the objection to that
15 particular question.
16 BY MR. SHERMAN:
17 Q Do you see the need for Michael Skakel to undergo
18 further rehabilitation based upon your knowledge of him?
19 A No.
20 Q Do you believe that Michael Skakel is a danger to
21 the community?
22 A No.
23 Q Do you believe that Michael Skakel has ever been a
24 danger to the community?
25 A As far as I know, no.
26 Q Any hesitation on that, Mrs. Coomaraswamy?.27 A Well, because I didn't know him -- I knew him as a
00132
01 child and I knew him during the years of his teenship and I
02 unhesitatingly say that I have the greatest belief in
03 him. But, I have taken an oath to tell the truth and
04 there are certain things that nobody can know about another
05 human being.
06 Q Of course.
07 A And, to the best of my knowledge, to answer your
08 question, I don't think he is a menace and I don't think he
09 is in need of rehabilitation. Now, was he ever a menace,
10 I don't believe so. But, as you know, the basis upon that
11 belief would be a 24 hour surveillance which I don't think
12 anyone has had of Michael Skakel.
13 Q Let's put a time frame on it. Since 1980, do you
14 believe he has ever been a danger to the community?
15 A No.
16 Q You feel very comfortable about saying that?
17 A I do.
18 MR. SHERMAN: If I may have a minute?
19 THE COURT: Yes.
20 MR. SHERMAN: Excuse me, Your Honor, I will be
21 very brief.
22 (Brief pause.)
23 MR. SHERMAN: Nothing further, thank you very
24 much.
25 THE COURT: Attorney Benedict.
26 MR. BENEDICT: Just a few questions.
27 CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. BENEDICT:
00133
01 Q Ma'am, would it be fair to say that the reason you
02 appealed to Mr. Skakel to participate in programs you were
03 involved with in the early 1980s was because you knew that
04 he had been through -- he spent an extensive amount of time
05 in rehabilitation?
06 A Yes, I visited him once when he was in one of
07 those --
08 Q Was it by any chance the one up in, out there in
09 Maine in the middle of no where?
10 A It was, yes. We were reading each other.
11 Q Is that it?
12 A It was at Elan.
13 Q When you were up there, did you go up with any
14 family members?
15 A No, I went up officially. I was Court Advocate
16 in those days and I went up with Mr. Patlan (ph) who was
17 the probation officer.
18 Q He is still here.
19 A Thank goodness and with the rest of the Juvenile
20 Court personnel.
21 Q In 1975 -- well, you have children. They are
22 grown now; is that correct?
23 A Yes, six.
24 Q And, what is the age range of your children today?
25 A Well, today, the youngest is 33, and the oldest is
26 40.
27 Q And, you have how many children?.00134
01 A Six.
02 Q So, you lived very nearby the Skakel's; is that
03 correct?
04 A We did, yes.
05 Q Your children were roughly contemporaries of the
06 Skakel children; is that correct?
07 A Several of them were contemporaries, yes.
08 Q What kind of a relationship did you have with
09 Michael Skakel in 1975?
10 A He was a frequent person that came in and out of
11 the house like everyone else. He was in the
12 neighborhood. Let's see, 1975, you say?
13 Q Yes.
14 A That would be when he was about 15.
15 Q 15, right. That would be around the time of this
16 unfortunate murder of your neighbor.
17 A They went away quite a bit to Windom (ph) -- it
18 was not a day by day basis. I was much more familiar with
19 other children in the neighborhood.
20 Q Do you recall offhand whether, following the
21 tragic murder of your neighbor, whether Michael was around
22 the neighborhood less often than he was before, spending
23 time away at school or in rehab or anything like that?
24 A Well, I was shocked to learn that he was in Elan
25 but that was much later.
26 Q How about in between the murder of Ms. Moxley and
27 your learning that he was at Elan, do you recall whether he
00135
01 was living at home most of the time then or away?
02 A I don't recall.
03 Q Ma'am, you have given an opinion that you don't
04 believe that Mr. Skakel is in need of any rehabilitation
05 today. Is that opinion based upon the assumption that he
06 did not murder that young lady?
07 A No.
08 MR. BENEDICT: I have no further questions.
09 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SHERMAN:
10 Q Mrs. Coomaraswamy, that's a very tough no and I am
11 not taking issue with it, I am appreciating it. What you
12 are telling us is that even if Michael Skakel did murder
13 Martha Moxley, even if he did, you still don't believe he
14 is in need of rehabilitation. Is that what you are
15 telling us?
16 A Even if he did, yes. But, you didn't ask me the
17 other question.
18 MR. BENEDICT: Objection.
19 THE WITNESS: That's all right.
20 MR. SHERMAN: I will ask you that other
21 question. Tell me what it should be.
22 MR. BENEDICT: I would like to hear Mr. Sherman
23 ask it.
24 BY MR. SHERMAN:
25 Q Do you believe he killed Martha Moxley?
26 A No.
27 Q You do not. But, you would actually go so far as
00136.01 to say that even if he did, which you don't believe, he
02 still doesn't need rehabilitation?
03 A Yes, that is correct.
04 Q Now, you are, again, I say you are one notch lower
05 than a judge, not several, isn't that a difficult statement
06 for you to make here?
07 A Very.
08 Q Why would you make it?
09 A Because I believe in an oath.
10 Q You actually visited Michael at Elan?
11 A I did.
12 Q You didn't go up as his neighbor, his friend?
13 A Well, that was a mixed motive. When I had the
14 opportunity --
15 Q You went up with Mr. Patlan who sits here?
16 A I did.
17 Q Were you like as fact finders or whatever, you
18 tell me?
19 A Yes. Well, we have sent several of our little
20 clients up there and I was unsettled about it because of
21 what I had read and because it was one of the only
22 installations that I had never visited, making a
23 disposition to or an argument for a disposition to a place
24 that we had never visited. But, when I went up there, I
25 have to tell you, I never again, ever recommended a
26 disposition to Elan. But, my mixed motive was I did want
27 to see Michael.
00137
01 Q Did you see Michael?
02 A I did.
03 Q And, what was it like? How was -- what was his
04 demeanor up there? How was he getting along?
05 A We didn't see each other very long.
06 MR. BENEDICT: Objection, relevance.
07 MR. SHERMAN: He brought it up. I did not bring
08 up her visit to Elan. It was the State's inquiry, not
09 mine. She opened the door.
10 THE COURT: Objection to this question, how was he
11 at Elan or what was his demeanor, how do you claim that
12 as relevant to these proceedings?
13 MR. SHERMAN: She is talking about his
14 rehabilitative efforts, Your Honor, which is germane to
15 this issue and I would like to know what her opinion was
16 of his rehabilitative status, how far along he was when
17 she visited him in the program. She is the only
18 non-Elan person who has testified.
19 THE COURT: Do we know when this was?
20 BY MR. SHERMAN:
21 Q Do you know when this was, roughly?
22 THE COURT: And, I will overrule the objection to
23 the other question.
24 THE WITNESS: I think it would be between 1976
25 and 1978.
26 BY MR. SHERMAN:
27 Q Could it have been as late as 1979?
00138
01 A It might have been, yes..02 Q What did you observe about his character,
03 demeanor, at that time?
04 A I saw him only a minute because I had asked the
05 director of the house where we were visiting if I could see
06 Michael Skakel and he was very reticent to let me do
07 that. He said he was at the dentist and then Michael ran
08 -- as Michael walked by. And so Michael and I talked
09 briefly. And it was so good to see him but I thought he
10 looked -- he looked very done in. He looked very tired.
11 MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, I have nothing
12 further. Thank you very much.
13 MR. BENEDICT: I have no questions.
14 THE COURT: Thank you.
15 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
16 MR. SHERMAN: We rest, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: Why don't we take about a 15 minute
18 recess. Do counsel wish to do final argument? The
19 Court would need to make written findings and I would
20 not be able to complete those today but I don't know
21 whether counsel would prefer to make final argument
22 orally or do that in writing.
23 MR. BENEDICT: We can make an oral statement
24 today.
25 MR. SHERMAN: I agree. We discussed this, Your
26 Honor.
27 THE COURT: All right; take a 15 minute recess,
00139
01 then. Thank you.
02 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
03 THE COURT: We are back on the record and the same
04 parties and counsel are present as previously
05 identified. Attorney Benedict.
06 MR. BENEDICT: Thank you, Your Honor. Your
07 Honor, I don't know how you want these arguments
08 structured. I perceive that it is not a Jury
09 argument. I will basically say as little as possible
10 to start with and give all of my points to the Court now
11 and I would ask for some opportunity to respond if there
12 are any issues that Mr. Sherman raises that I haven't
13 been able to address.
14 THE COURT: Certainly.
15 MR. BENEDICT: As the State perceives it, transfer
16 act 17-60 A presents a four prong test, sort of. The
17 test requires a demonstration to the Court of a number
18 of things.
19 First of all, reasonable cause is the
20 measure here which is an unusual term in our law
21 somewhat but I do not think it is a particularly onerous
22 term. It certainly doesn't present an onerous hurdle
23 for the State to pass here.
24 The first issue, of course, is for the Court
25 to believe that the defendant committed the crime of
26 murder. Of course, the crime of murder is defined with
27 intent to cause death, in fact caused the victim's death
00140
01 and the State has submitted the autopsy report, the
02 autopsy photos, the crime scene photos, the golf club..03 I don't think it is particularly necessary to go at any
04 length on the issue of was the crime of murder
05 committed. We presented evidence of the nature of
06 conduct, the implement and the manner in which it was
07 used and the fact is it is really pretty clear here that
08 the bone of contention, so to speak, is who did it if it
09 wasn't Michael Skakel.
10 Evidence was presented from a number of
11 witnesses about Elan, what exactly is or was Elan back
12 in 1978 or thereabouts. It seems to be, from witnesses
13 we heard today as well as witnesses we heard last week,
14 a place where a parent might well resort if they could
15 afford it to send a teenager who had the parent
16 literally tearing their hair out. We heard that from
17 one or two witnesses today. You heard Gregory Coleman
18 testify that he had been expelled from a prep school for
19 theft. John Higgins testified that his stepfather
20 wanted to get rid of him. Michael Skakel, we don't
21 have any specific information of what landed him in Elan
22 but I would submit that his involvement or suspected
23 involvement in a brutal murder would certainly suffice
24 as a very good reason to place him out of harm's way for
25 a period of time.
26 The State also presented evidence of the
27 golf club and it is important evidence here. But to say
00141
01 who specifically had his hands on the golf club on the
02 night of the crime, it is important for the Court to
03 know that the golf club indubatively came from the
04 Skakel home and most telling evidence was shown that the
05 missing part of the golf club, the most significant
06 part, is the part that would have had the Skakel name on
07 it. That would indicate clearly that someone
08 associated with the Skakel household would have been the
09 person who wielded the golf club on the night of the
10 crime.
11 The State also presented testimony of John
12 Higgins and Gregory Coleman who testified, they both
13 related to the Court conversations that took place some
14 22 years ago, that they had no reason to bring back up
15 for purposes of their memory until some 20 years or so
16 had past. Clearly, their recall is somewhat sketchy.
17 Clearly, some of that recall does not match all of the
18 discernable facts from the crime scene. Higgins
19 recalled it was a garage that the defendant told him he
20 took the golf club from. It turns out there was no
21 garage, rather it was actually a shed. A shed did
22 exist adjacent to the Skakel driveway but that's what
23 happens when a person's recall is filtered by 20 years
24 in time.
25 I think we kind of got the gist of that when
26 Mrs. Coomaraswamy, I hope I pronounced that right,
27 testified today. She was unclear about exactly when
00142
01 she did things. On the other hand, who knows what term
02 the defendant used when he had that dormitory step
03 conversation with Mr. Higgins, whether he used the word.04 shed or garage or whatever. It was interesting to find
05 out from Andy Pugh when he testified that there was a
06 structure in place in 1975 next to the driveway and that
07 things that were kept in it included sporting equipment.
08 Gregory Coleman, the defendant having said
09 to him or having concluded from what the defendant said
10 to him that the defendant admitted, I think the word was
11 crushing the victim's skull with a driver rather than an
12 iron type of golf club. Mr. Coleman also seems to be
13 at odds with discernable facts in his recall being that
14 Mr. Skakel told him that he went back and masturbated
15 over the victim's body a couple of days later. Again,
16 that's what happens to recall when it is filtered by 20
17 years of time.
18 I submit, though, that the bottom line here
19 is that Mr. Higgins recalls that Mr. Skakel related to
20 him on the dormitory steps that Mr. Skakel went and got
21 a golf club out of some structure on the property, a
22 golf club being the murder weapon in this case and the
23 defendant also recalled in the course of that
24 conversation with Mr. Higgins having been in a wooded
25 area and looking up and seeing tall pine trees which is
26 a description of the crime seen in this particular
27 case. Thus whether or not looking only at the
00143
01 testimony of Mr. Higgins, the defendant actually ever
02 did fully acknowledge his complicity in this crime to
03 Mr. Higgins, the defendant did indeed admit both his
04 presence at the crime scene on the night of the crime as
05 well as his possession of the murder weapon on the night
06 of the crime. I would submit that in and of itself
07 that is reasonable cause.
08 However, Gregory Coleman also testified that
09 the defendant admitted to him murdering the victim with
10 a golf club once again. And again, Mr. Coleman recalled
11 the defendant relating to him that he recalled himself
12 being again in a wooded area again on the night of the
13 crime. He also mentioned masturbating which is notably
14 interestingly almost 20 years before Andy Pugh ever had
15 a conversation with the defendant about this crime.
16 Andy Pugh also testified the defendant told
17 him he had been masturbating in what I submit is an
18 extremely interesting context. It was now the 1990s,
19 the early 1990s. A private investigating firm named
20 Sutton Associates had been retained by the Skakel family
21 to investigate this matter on behalf of the Skakel
22 family. I submit that it is hardly far fetched to draw
23 the connection between the sudden, in the early
24 nineties, appearance of some private investigators, the
25 development by the early '90s of DNA technology over the
26 intervening years. And Chief Keegan testified as to
27 that in the course of his testimony. And then in
00144
01 addition to that, Mr. Skakel's admission over the
02 telephone, oh, by the way, I masturbated up in the tree
03 the night of the crime. Again, I think the bottom line
04 with Mr. Pugh is the defendant admitted his presence at.05 the crime scene on the night of the crime.
06 As strenuously as counsel cross-examined
07 just about each of those three witnesses, I submit that
08 the evidence really divulges no reason for any of those
09 three people to have come -- to have even gotten
10 involved with this tragic matter let alone to have any
11 reason or cause to fabricate testimony before this
12 Court. I submit that based on their testimony, the
13 defendant's identity of the murder of Martha Moxley is
14 demonstrated clearly.
15 However, the Court heard other evidence
16 today. Today the Court heard testimony that the
17 defendant never admitted anything to certain former
18 students at Elan. You also heard testimony from Alice
19 Dunn that she was not the person who ran the primal
20 scream group that was described by Gregory Coleman.
21 That the defendant refuted complicity in the murder,
22 while admissible before a Juvenile Court, I submit is
23 the weakest form of information. The State clearly was
24 deprived of any opportunity to confront it with
25 cross-examination of the defendant and certainly and I
26 think it is notable in terms of the issue before the
27 Court and for the Court to understand that that is not
00145
01 information that would be admissible under the rules of
02 evidence were this matter transferred to adult Court.
03 As to the evidence sought to put the -- the
04 defense evidence sought to refute today was the
05 occurrence of private contacts, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Coleman
06 and I suppose Mr. Pugh. But no one has suggested that
07 Mr. Skakel made private admissions to all two hundred
08 residents at Elan back in 1978, that he did not make
09 some admissions to some of the people there hardly
10 refutes the fact that he made admissions to others,
11 especially when the Court looks to the context in which
12 these questions of various witnesses arose.
13 That Alice Dunn does not recall being
14 present at that particular primal scream session that
15 Mr. Coleman testified about does not really refute Mr.
16 Coleman. I think if you review Mr. Coleman's
17 testimony, he thinks it was Alice Dunn. He is not sure
18 it was Alice Dunn. Looking back 22 years, he can only
19 surmise it was maybe or probably Alice Dunn. You heard
20 from Alice Dunn today that she only recalled ever being
21 present in one primal scream session with Mr. Skakel
22 although she was present at numerous others. But her
23 idea of primal scream sessions, she didn't like it and
24 she avoided them like the plague every chance that she
25 could.
26 I think what is important to note is the
27 differing circumstances. The defense witnesses who
00146
01 testified today, Elan witnesses, were all women. I
02 think it's hardly likely to believe that the defendant
03 would open up to a 16 year old girl or 15 or 17 year old
04 girl and say hey, I killed a 15 year old girl. And,
05 again, most of the context in which they testified, we.06 are talking about non-admissions by the defendant before
07 a large body of people which is an entirely different
08 type of circumstance than that which the State
09 presented.
10 The State presented, first of all, the
11 defendant was up on a sleepless night with John Higgins
12 who was serving as a night owl and secondly, as far as
13 Mr. Coleman goes, the State presented evidence that the
14 defendant had just immediately been returned from escape
15 status and placed under guard, the guard of Gregory
16 Coleman. It would appear that both of those
17 conversations took place before Mr. Skakel was ever
18 placed in that group meeting of two hundred or so people
19 and the subject of his involvement in the murder became
20 common knowledge. I say that because it is very clear
21 from Mr. Coleman's testimony especially when put
22 together with Alice Dunn's testimony of this morning and
23 it is rather clear also from Mr. Higgins' testimony
24 because Mr. Higgins' testimony is that he knew
25 absolutely nothing about Mr. Skakel's involvement in the
26 murder until he sat down with him on the steps that
27 particular night. As we well know, that by the night
00147
01 of the two hundred person general meeting, everybody in
02 the place knew about it and was talking about it.
03 As to the first issue, the State's burden
04 here is a minimal one, reasonable cause. The defense
05 has presented evidence here that is intended to I think
06 refute that State's evidence. I submit this is not a
07 proceeding that requires the State to prove the issue
08 beyond a reasonable doubt. I submit that what the
09 defense evidence does here is simply raise the point
10 that the State's evidence will be contested, that we
11 will have a trial and that is one reason why this matter
12 should be transferred to adult Court.
13 As I review -- as I read the second, the
14 entire 17-60 A statute, the State is required also to
15 satisfy the Court that there is currently no suitable
16 state institution -- this is item two in the statute --
17 designed for the care and treatment of a person in the
18 defendant's circumstances. We presented a witness from
19 DCF last week. I think it is rather clear, it is almost
20 a no brainer that DCF, Long Lane, no Connecticut
21 juvenile institution has any ability to in any way deal
22 with a 39 or 40 year old man. I would submit that that
23 should suffice just about all the way for the Court to
24 be able to make a finding that this matter should be
25 transferred because section 3 which addresses the issue
26 of safety is placed by the statute in very clear
27 language, in very clear disjunctive language. I submit
00148
01 that the only way to read this is the State certainly
02 has to prove that there is reasonable cause to believe
03 the defendant committed the act and I have already made
04 my points on that. And, secondly, the State has to
05 prove that there is no state institution designed for
06 the defendant or the safety of the community requires.07 that he continue under restraint for a period extending
08 beyond his majority which he clearly has here.
09 I would suggest, therefore, that the State
10 does not have to satisfy that third prong, however, I
11 would like to address that third prong anyway. The
12 safety of the community requires that he continue under
13 restraint for a period extending beyond his majority.
14 The State has already produced evidence here that the
15 defendant, Michael Skakel, in a very brutal fashion
16 killed an innocent child, thereby committing the crime
17 of murder. Clearly, the legislature is presumed
18 whenever it enacts a statute to have done so with in
19 mind all of the other legislation currently in effect.
20 The DCF, I believe, in 1975 had the ability
21 to incarcerate an individual for a period of seven
22 years, the majority being 21. And today my
23 understanding from testimony of last week is that it is
24 only four years. Clearly, the juvenile transfer
25 statute, 17-60 A, the legislature had to envision the
26 juvenile transfer statute resulting in sentences
27 exceeding seven years. The statute only permitted at
00149
01 that time transfer of a person who is charged for
02 murder. The sentencing laws of 1975 required a
03 mandatory minimum sentence of ten years with a maximum
04 sentence of life.
05 Assuming that the Court has found reasonable
06 cause to believe the defendant committed the crime of
07 murder, that's the State's most serious criminal
08 offense. And, by the way, I have forgotten that I
09 should know this better than most in the Courtroom, that
10 is today a capital felony. At any rate, any person I
11 would submit committing such an offense as murder, the
12 intentional causing of death of an individual, an adult
13 or child or whatever, should be deemed to pose a danger
14 to the community for that entire person's life. And, I
15 submit that that's borne out by other criminal
16 procedural and substantive laws in the State of
17 Connecticut.
18 First of all, there is no statute of
19 limitations in Connecticut on the crime of murder.
20 Second of all, the maximum sentence to a charge of
21 murder that applies to this particular case under the
22 sentencing statute current in 1975 is a life sentence.
23 That's the old indefinite sentencing statute we are
24 talking about that would be closer to a conviction of
25 murder in an adult Court. Under that old indefinite
26 sentencing statute, the sentence has to be not less than
27 ten years nor more than life. In other words, if
00150
01 sentenced in this case, the defendant would remain on
02 parole most likely for life or whatever the minimum
03 sentence was. Clearly from that I would submit the
04 legislature envisioned the crime of murder was a life
05 involving crime and, therefore, that's another reason
06 this matter should be transferred over.
07 It is difficult to believe our legislature.08 in any era, even today or back in the early 1980s, could
09 have ever intended that a juvenile commit a crime, a
10 person 14 or 15 years old, not be barred by the crime
11 under the statute of limitations and then manage to
12 avoid detection to a point in time where he had already
13 reached beyond attaining his majority and thereby by
14 doing that would evade prosecution. I submit that that
15 is essentially what counsel is going to argue, that Mr.
16 Skakel has not offended since he was a teenager or at
17 least there is no record of that here, it is clearly an
18 appropriate sentencing consideration and one that may or
19 should be taken up if he is convicted in adult Court
20 following the transfer of this matter here.
21 The bottom line I submit is in summary,
22 considering the gravity with which our society has
23 traditionally viewed the crime of murder as borne out by
24 the 1971 transfer act, restricted transfer only for the
25 crime of murder, considering the gravity of the crime
26 that was committed here, considering the lifetime
27 sentencing scheme that was in place, put in place by the
00151
01 legislature that covers the time of this particular
02 crime, considering the fact that there is reasonable
03 cause that the defendant has committed the crime of the
04 murder of Martha Moxley, I submit that the Court has
05 more than sufficient grounds to find that he poses
06 sufficient risk to warrant passing this matter onto
07 adult court.
08 The fourth prong is, Your Honor, the
09 Superior Court facilities provide a more effective
10 setting. Clearly, this is what was behind the
11 enactment of the 1971 act. Murder carries a minimum
12 ten year sentence, a maximum lifetime sentence at the
13 appropriate institutions. The appropriate institutions
14 are only available in this particular case through the
15 adult court. And, therefore, for those various reasons,
16 the Court should order this matter transferred to adult
17 Court.
18 THE COURT: Attorney Sherman.
19 MR. SHERMAN: Yes, Your Honor. I am probably
20 not going to be as structured as Mr. Benedict but I may
21 bounce a little bit more around than he does. It is
22 probably due to my ADD.
23 But, to start at the back of this thing, I
24 don't think we should be talking about a child. We are
25 talking about this child. I know this sounds silly but
26 I think the statute is specific to the person that we
27 are dealing with. It is not just a generic child.
00152
01 And, as I said earlier in this proceeding, Your Honor,
02 or earlier in the Court in another proceeding in this
03 case, we have a very very rare opportunity to look at
04 the future. And usually a lawyer gets up and makes a
05 pitch to a judge that my client is this, my client is
06 that, he is never going to do something again and I want
07 you to believe in this, Your Honor, and I want you to
08 believe that my client is going to lead an exemplary.09 life and he is not going to get in trouble again so
10 that's why you should give him a suspended sentence or
11 accelerated rehabilitation or some sort of
12 rehabilitation program. And we are always here asking
13 the Court to take a chance on our word that our client
14 is not going to do anything bad in the future. And
15 what we base it on is our knowledge of the client, our
16 hopes that things are going to be better in the future.
17 Maybe he is in some kind of a program, he is in a better
18 setting, he has a job and we are either right or we are
19 wrong.
20 Here, we have the benefit of 25 years of
21 hindsight. We know, we know that had someone made this
22 argument for Michael Skakel back in 1975, had he been
23 arrested back then, had he been convicted back then and
24 a lawyer stood here and said trust me, my client is
25 going to be okay, he doesn't need to be transferred
26 because he doesn't need to be confined beyond his 21st
27 year, well, it looks like we were right because for 25
00153
01 years he has led an exemplary life. For 25 years he
02 hasn't, as Mr. Benedict points out, managed to avoid
03 detection. He hasn't gone anywhere. All he has been
04 doing is going home. He has been going to rehab
05 programs. He has been lecturing at rehab programs. He
06 has been sober. He has been an exemplary citizen.
07 Not only has he not committed any crimes, he has a
08 family life. This is somebody that had he been
09 convicted then, had he gone to jail then, he would be a
10 home run now. 25 years later, he is an exemplary
11 citizen.
12 But, let's go back. Let's go back to the
13 reasonable cause. And I have never heard a defense
14 lawyer say it as good as Mr. Benedict says it. Clearly
15 their recall is somewhat sketchy. Well, that's the
16 understatement of the century here, somewhat sketchy.
17 I don't believe that is what the legislature intended in
18 deciding whether or not someone should be held for trial
19 in the Superior Court, that reasonable cause should be
20 found on the basis of someone, witnesses whose recall
21 is, quote, unquote, somewhat sketchy. I totally buy
22 into Mr. Benedict's argument. I think he is
23 extraordinarily candid.
24 And he also goes on to say, of course, their
25 testimony doesn't match with their Grand Jury
26 testimony. Well, don't you think it should. I don't
27 think I am holding them to this ridiculously high
00154
01 standard to ask them to come to our Court, whether they
02 are in shackles or not like Mr. Coleman. And I don't
03 vilify him for that. People have problems but at least
04 when you come here, don't lie to us in a murder case.
05 And clearly John Higgins, not that he lied before, he
06 certainly lied to Inspector Garr, not one, not two, not
07 three, but at least seven times and then admitted he
08 lied. But at least don't lie to us in a current murder
09 trial in a proceeding where someone's life is at stake.10 here. Don't lie to us now. And, he admitted he did
11 several times. And, I am not going to go over his
12 testimony, we all heard it. It has all been
13 memorialized. There is no reason to.
14 It's somewhat sketchy. This is a man who
15 sits on his confession for 20 some odd years and finally
16 only comes forward when, as he says, Harry Krannick
17 called me to tell me about it. He had read that People
18 Magazine or I think it was People and there was a story,
19 the whole thing was in the magazine and he called to
20 tell me that they were offering a $50,000.00 reward for
21 information leading to the arrest of this murderer of
22 the Moxley girl to which inspector -- and then Inspector
23 Garr tells him it is up to $100,000.00. And he says
24 that's special.
25 Well, that's why he came forward. Maybe he
26 says now he doesn't want the reward. I think all he
27 wants now is a ticket out of Connecticut. He couldn't
00155
01 get out of here fast enough, obviously. But, he came
02 here and he lied and I don't think there is any nice
03 label you can put on it other than lying under oath and
04 he clearly did. Any examination of the transcript by
05 Your Honor or a third grader will tell us that and
06 that's not what the State of Connecticut wants people to
07 rely on in holding people for murder.
08 We have got Mr. Coleman. Mr. Coleman who
09 had this pain of conscience and blew us away by telling
10 us that yes, he had a spirit of conscience because his
11 mother, the mother of his child, was murdered by a
12 serial killer in Rochester, New York and he really needs
13 to come forward and make things right. So that's why he
14 waited ten years before the murder of his child's mother
15 and then waits another ten years after that to finally
16 come forward and call the MSNBC affiliate in
17 Rochester.
18 He came here and, as Mr. Benedict points
19 out, his testimony was a little bit, as Mr. Benedict
20 says, at odds with discernable facts. He tells us that
21 Michael Skakel used a driver, that he masturbated on the
22 body for several days, facts that are just absurd. And,
23 he stuck to those facts. He also told us that he
24 testified before the Grand Jury, which we had from his
25 transcript, Michael Skakel confessed two to six times,
26 clearly at odds with what he said here. He either lied
27 here or there or maybe both times.
00156
01 We brought in Alice Dunn who ran that
02 session, the primal scream session. It's the very one,
03 I don't think there is any question about that. And she
04 clearly heard there was no confession by Michael
05 Skakel. He was talking about the guilt he felt about
06 making a statement about his mother's illness which led
07 to her death.
08 We talk about what is the physical evidence,
09 the golf club, and we had the expertise of Chief Keegan
10 who told us that it had to be Michael Skakel because it.11 was obviously a Skakel because they hid the handle
12 portion of the club. Yet, his compadre, Detective
13 Lunney, clearly said that it was common knowledge and
14 they had information that golf clubs were routinely left
15 in the Skakel family yard. The golf club may have very
16 well came from the Skakel household but it in no way
17 points the finger at Michael Skakel. Even though it
18 would be so convenient and so nice to find the murderer
19 of Martha Moxley, and we all want that dearly, that
20 doesn't mean that we have to bring Michael Skakel to
21 trial. It doesn't rise to the level of the reasonable
22 cause.
23 And I wish I could tell Your Honor what
24 reasonable cause is -- I don't know. I think it is
25 obviously some threshold that Your Honor is going to
26 have to find was here. But, I think whatever threshold
27 it is, however low Mr. Benedict wants it to be, however
00157
01 low that bar should be, it still should be based and
02 must be based on credible evidence, not on the likes of
03 the people who came here and lied to us and lied before
04 a Grand Jury. I think we expect more than that. We
05 all do.
06 With respect to the witnesses we brought
07 here, they all told the same story. They were all
08 consistent. The fact that they were women, I think
09 that's an absurd characterization. Well, a man would
10 never confide in a woman. I think history kind of
11 tells us a little bit different than that. These were
12 people Michael knew and I think the best one was Alice
13 Dunn who cut both ways. I am the first to concede she
14 got up there and when she was reminded of her Grand Jury
15 testimony, she clearly was not a witness in the defense
16 pocket. She stuck to her ground and then she
17 explained, however, why Michael Skakel may have said,
18 you know, I don't know if I did it. They were all
19 totally totally consistent with one another. They
20 pummelled the heck out of this kid. They put him in
21 the boxing ring. They physically beat him up. They
22 mentally abused him. They verbally assaulted him until
23 finally he went from I didn't do it to I don't know,
24 leave me alone and that finally worked.
25 We heard the same story from everybody and
26 of course many people said this trial is an indictment
27 of the Elan program. I don't know; I don't care. We
00158
01 are not here to try the Elan program. We are not here
02 to try Joe Ricci or John Higgins or Greg Coleman, God
03 bless them all, I don't care. All I am caring about is
04 the level and the measure of justice that is meeded out
05 to Michael Skakel. And what happened to him there, Your
06 Honor, the Elan program is an experience that I think
07 totally dehumanized him and brought him down to a level
08 where he didn't know which way was up. And that was the
09 only explanation described in detail and consistently by
10 all of these witnesses, all of these witnesses including
11 the State's..12 The law, the way I see it, the State says
13 well, if you find probable cause, stop there because
14 anybody that a judge could find probable cause about in
15 terms of murder, they must be a danger to the community
16 and that no institution is suitable for their treatment
17 and it has got to be the Superior Court. But, as also
18 Mr. Benedict points out, the legislature doesn't do
19 things willy nilly and they generally have a reason and
20 they generally write statutes for a purpose. And, if
21 they really were going to mean what Mr. Benedict says
22 that if it's a murder, then nothing else applies, that's
23 not what they wrote. They didn't exempt murder from
24 this so one has to deduce that certainly murder is a
25 statute that they envisioned that a child could have
26 committed. And even if a child had committed murder,
27 even if they had and the judge made such a finding of
00159
01 reasonable cause, you still have to go to either two or
02 three and number four. And I don't think the State has
03 produced any evidence of whether or not Michael Skakel
04 -- and, again, it is not a child; it is this child. It
05 is this adult, whether he needs rehabilitation.
06 The only one who brought in evidence of that
07 was us. We brought in Mrs. Coomaraswamy who is not
08 only an expert in the juvenile justice system but a
09 pioneer in that in this state, not only a present
10 magistrate and respected member of the community, active
11 in so many causes but a neighbor and a friend. And,
12 she got up there and said, which I thought was one of
13 the most courageous things I ever heard in a Court, you
14 know something, even if he did do it, he still does not
15 need rehabilitation. I can't imagine how that is going
16 to play in tomorrow's headlines for a member of the
17 community to say that, I believe that even if he did it
18 he should not be punished. Yet she had the courage to
19 say that and one has to believe that she meant that. I
20 think she does take her oath very serious, more
21 seriously than so many other people and certainly more
22 serious than a John Higgins or a Greg Coleman. She
23 clearly stated she knows not only the history of the
24 Juvenile Court, she knows the history of Michael
25 Skakel. She saw him at the Elan program and she
26 clearly said to us he does not need rehabilitation.
27 The safety of the community, number three
00160
01 says that the safety of the community requires that the
02 child continue under restraint for a period extending
03 his majority. Again, that goes hand in hand with what
04 I said at the very beginning of my comments. That's a
05 pitch that somebody like me would make to a Court based
06 on the great letters of recommendation that we had, take
07 your chances on him, believe me, he is going to work.
08 You don't have to believe me, it worked. It is 25
09 years later. We have that crystal ball. The Court
10 has the benefit of that. I don't see any possible way
11 the Court can now say or anyone can say that the
12 community is unsafe and he has to be restrained beyond.13 his 21st birthday. His 21st birthday was 19 years ago
14 and all he has done since then is lead an exemplary
15 life. You couldn't ask for anything better than
16 that.
17 If he had been found guilty back then, if
18 someone had been found guilty of this offense and been
19 sentenced, as I said, for him to sit here now having
20 done nothing but good things for 25 years, we would all
21 be very happy that the system worked. So, I don't
22 believe that it is a no brainer. I believe that it is,
23 frankly, a tough call and I don't hide that.
24 I am asking the Court to say, you know
25 something, even if you believed that there is probable
26 cause or reasonable cause, he still doesn't need
27 rehabilitation. I know that's a difficult thing for
00161
01 Your Honor to do but that's why Your Honor is wearing
02 the robe and that's why we are just lawyering here. And
03 I know Your Honor is going to take this very serious.
04 And I know Your Honor is not going to be moved by the
05 emotion of the moment. And I know this case is an
06 emotional case and I apologize for stepping over the
07 line on my questioning sometimes. But, by the same
08 token, we are here to meed out justice to someone who
09 was a juvenile. Believe it or not, it is about the
10 youth. That's the statute we are talking about and I
11 think that the interests of justice require that the
12 Court take all these things into consideration. So you
13 not only look at the statute then but also what happened
14 since then. And we have that track record. For 25
15 years Michael Skakel has led an exemplary life. Thank
16 you.
17 THE COURT: Attorney Benedict.
18 MR. BENEDICT: Very briefly, Your Honor. Counsel
19 last week and in comments today sought to test
20 particularly the State's witnesses of last week, that
21 they were adults who were attempting to relate something
22 that happened three days ago. I submit it is certainly
23 fair enough to treat them as adults as they sit here on
24 the witness stand and that of course happened. But, I
25 submit further that it is truly unfair to slide over the
26 fact that they were relating something that occurred 20
27 years ago and at the time of witnessing those
00162
01 conversations, they were doing so with the perceptions
02 of at that time 16 year olds. I think it is
03 demonstrated, what most impressed Gregory Coleman from
04 the conversation he had with Mr. Skakel is the comment
05 by Mr. Skakel, the opening, I am related to the Kennedys
06 and I can get away with it rather than was it a four
07 iron or a three iron. That's what Kennedy (sic)
08 recalls.
09 The defense today presented witnesses who
10 interestingly all said that if anybody ever confessed a
11 murder to them, they would run immediately to a director
12 and let the director know. That's easy for them to say
13 and I would like to have put them in the shoes of these.14 two 16 year olds back in 1975 and see if they would have
15 responded in the way they say they would today.
16 Counsel has pointed out that the two primary
17 State's witnesses sat on their information for some 20
18 years but who were they. They were 16 year olds.
19 Clearly they weren't the best adjusted 16 years olds
20 either; nobody at Elan was at that time. Today, in
21 Court today, we expect adults to step forward like
22 marines whenever they witness a crime yet we know that
23 very rarely happens.
24 What I think is note worthy is when Mr.
25 Coleman and Mr. Higgins, when things came to a head over
26 the last few years, what Coleman and Higgins did was
27 they did agree to come forward. They did seem
00163
01 reluctant. They are clearly not publicity hogs in this
02 matter. They clearly are not seeking to be placed in
03 the spotlight by their participation in this matter.
04 What really is almost the bottom line question here is
05 what brought them to this Courtroom beyond the fact that
06 they got pulled into a Grand Jury.
07 Counsel submits that Mr. Higgins is looking
08 for a reward. He has no desire for that whatsoever.
09 He testified he views this entire thing as, I don't know
10 whether he said this as a bad dream or nightmare, one or
11 the other. Mr. Higgins, thinking in terms of the
12 dollars he could make, when Garr, recalling a telephone
13 conversation that Higgins was cross-examined at
14 extensively by Mr. Sherman, where Higgins at the time of
15 having that particular telephone conversation with Garr
16 thinking in terms of dollars, do you think he would have
17 repeatedly and repeatedly told Inspector Garr that hey,
18 gee, the guy never really told me anything. His
19 reluctance to get involved in this matter while not
20 commendable I submit does not impugn his honesty.
21 Counsel I submit has been incredibly free
22 with the word lie when addressing the subject of Mr.
23 Higgins. I would submit that the evidence supports
24 that Mr. Higgins repeated his disavows to Inspector Garr
25 in the course of that telephone conversation in terms of
26 Higgins having ever heard the defendant actually
27 acknowledge killing the victim whereas Higgins described
00164
01 no more than an effort on Higgins' part to avoid his
02 involvement that he saw in this case becoming. I would
03 submit that not a glimmer of purpose in fabricating the
04 testimony has been developed in the evidence at this
05 hearing as to either Mr. Higgins or Mr. Coleman or
06 certainly Andy Pugh.
07 And as counsel has noted, as I note, the
08 recalls of Mr. Higgins and Coleman are indeed sketchy.
09 They recall after the filter of 22 years of time has
10 certainly taken its toll. Yet, counsel at the same
11 time is suggesting that these two witnesses or at least
12 Higgins is involved in this matter for money or whatever
13 other property he can make or fleeting fame he could
14 make, garner from this particular case. But, if that.15 were the situation, if all Higgins wanted to do was make
16 money out of this, would you not expect them to simply
17 parrot, I don't know what it is, America's Most Wanted,
18 Timothy Dumass' book, any various newspaper articles but
19 that's not how it happened. There have indeed been
20 some pretty detailed accounts of the murder placed out
21 in various areas of media. It is almost an invitation
22 for some want-to-be witness, somebody who wants to get
23 involved, watch TV, come in here and parrot a newspaper
24 or television show.
25 That's clearly not what happened here.
26 What is the inescapable bottom line in this case is the
27 defendant's admission of possession of a murder weapon
00165
01 to two persons. It is an admission of having been at
02 the crime scene on the night of the crime to people.
03 Counsel also argues accepting the fact that under prong
04 two of the 1971 act of the juvenile system provides no
05 appropriate remedy and assuming for purposes of argument
06 here that there is reasonable cause to believe that Mr.
07 Skakel committed a crime, counsel nevertheless persists
08 that because he has not offended in the last 25 years,
09 has thereby managed to avoid detection, this case must
10 be kept in the juvenile system. It would appear that
11 if this case is kept in the juvenile system, he is not
12 being able to be kept in custody in any way, kept within
13 the juvenile system, the State would be utterly impotent
14 to take any action against Mr. Skakel for having
15 committed this crime.
16 I would submit that I find that a bazaar
17 result. I find it difficult to conclude that he will
18 ever attempt such a result, that Mr. Skakel hasn't
19 gotten in trouble since 1975 or 1976 or whatever it was
20 that bounced him into Elan. Our society takes the
21 crime of murder and places it in a light completely
22 different from any other offense in our penal code. It
23 has no statute of limitations. It has a sentence today
24 of life. It is interpreted differently than it was in
25 1975 but it was nevertheless a maximum life sentence in
26 1975. The legislature has found the crime of murder so
27 serious in 1971 that it even enacted a statute that
00166
01 allowed the transfer of a 14 year old's murder case to
02 Superior Court.
03 Rehabilitation, I agree with. Mr.
04 Sherman's concern, however, I would submit that it is
05 one of only many concerns that a Court should be
06 involved with in terms of the disposition of this
07 matter. And I submit that those concerns can only be
08 appropriately addressed by the adult Court. I would
09 ask the Court to transfer the matter.
10 MR. SHERMAN: May I respond briefly, Your Honor?
11 THE COURT: If it is very brief, yes.
12 MR. SHERMAN: I will be very brief, very brief.
13 Just one issue. I know the State's Attorney feels that
14 I bandied the line, term around loosely. Last week in
15 this Courtroom I asked Mr. Higgins whether or not.16 Inspector Garr, when Inspector Garr asked him if he had
17 a confession, John Higgins said, if, believe me, if I
18 had a confession from him, I would give it to you. My
19 question, what does that mean? And he says it means
20 that I wanted Frank to go away. And I said it means you
21 lied to him. Yes. And he said I definitely
22 definitely lied to him.
23 I didn't make this stuff up. We were all
24 here. We saw it. The man lied. Coleman lied and I
25 don't believe that the legislature intended people to be
26 held over for trial on the basis of sketchy testimony.
27 THE COURT: Anything further, Attorney Benedict?
00167
01 MR. BENEDICT: No, Your Honor.
02 THE COURT: The Court will be required to issue
03 written findings. The Court will be reviewing the
04 transcripts and issuing written findings for this
05 matter.
06 The findings that the Court will need to
07 make under 17 A 60 A will be whether or not there is
08 reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Skakel has
09 committed the act with which he is charged, and that
10 there is no state institution designed for his care and
11 treatment to which he could be committed, or that the
12 safety of the community requires that he continue under
13 restraint for a period extending beyond his majority,
14 and that the facilities of the Superior Court provide a
15 more effective setting for disposition of the case, and
16 the institutions to which said Court may sentence a
17 defendant are more suitable for his care and treatment.
18 If reasonable cause and the other elements
19 are found by the Court, the Court would also need to
20 order a complete investigation under 17-66 which is
21 traditionally known in juvenile Court as a
22 predispositional study. I will attempt to free up my
23 schedule in terms of my other duties so that I can
24 address this at my earliest opportunity. However, I
25 will take obviously whatever amount of time I need to
26 appropriately go through my notes prior to issuing my
27 decision.
00168
01 The Court will adjourn at this time.
02 * * * * * * * * *
00169
01
02
03 C E R T I F I C A T E
04
05
06 I, Susan Wandzilak, Registered Professional
07 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
08 Connecticut do here by certify that the foregoing pages are
09 a true and accurate transcription of my stenographic notes
10 taken of these Court proceedings.
11
12 I further certify that I am not related nor in
13 any way interested in this case..14
15
16
17 _________________________
18 SUSAN WANDZILAK