|
|
Suspect:
Michael Skakel
When Michael Skakel was questioned by the police on October 31st, 1975 he stated that his
brother Tommy was the last one to see Martha. Initially, Michael was overlooked as a
suspect, due to his claim that he left the Skakel home that evening with Rush JR and
John on the drive to take Jim Terrien home. Michael was never asked to take a polygraph
test, which is rather strange as John Skakel, who was not with Martha Moxley that night,
was asked to. It seems that the police may have confused the two brothers. In a homicide
investigation, these types of omissions can have disastrous results, which ended up the
situation in this case.
When analyzing Michael's behavior before and after Martha's murder, we see that he has a
lot of explaining to do as his actions were very strange and some flat out bizarre!
In his 1997 book proposal entitled "Dead Man Talking", Skakel admits to having a serious crush on Martha. He states that he "wanted to take things slow".
In light of his past history, taking things slow is out of character for Skakel. Skakel appears to be a very impulsive person and tended to "act out" whenever he feared threat of any kind. Considering his serious sibling rivalry with his brother Tommy, and knowing that Tommy was also interested in Martha, "taking things slow" does not seem the route Skakel would have taken that night. He also states that the night of Martha's murder, she had promised him that they would get together the following night. A promise he states, that left him "swooning".
If what Skakel claims in "DMT" is true, which does
seem highly unlikely given the circumstance, WHEN exactly did
Skakel have the opportunity to have this conversation alone with Martha? From what has
been made public, nobody claims to have witnessed these two alone at any point that
evening.
Helen Ix and Geoffrey Byrnes who were with Martha at the time that she arrived, did not
mention the two alone together, nor did either of them mention overhearing the plans
Michael alleges to have made with Martha. If they HAD heard this, why didn't either of
them mention this to the police? Why in fact, didn't Skakel HIMSELF
mention this to the police?
Also curious, the following evening when Skakel alleges this get together was to take
place, Martha had a Halloween party for her friends planned at her house. Just when was
the rendezvous supposed to have taken place? If Michael HAD been invited to the party,
wouldn't Dorthy, Martha's mother, have known about it? Dorthy had no idea that Martha even
KNEW these boys, therefore it is safe to assume that he was not on the guest list for
Martha's party.
Michael Skakel told police, he left with his two older brothers to go to his cousin Jim
Terrien's home. John Skakel, who was one of Michael's brothers that did make the ride that
night, can not recall Michael being in the car with them. John was hypnotized, apparently
to assist him in his recollections, yet still, he could not be certain that Michael was
with them that night.
Years later, in the early 1990's when Rush Sr hired Sutton Associates to look into the
Moxley murder, sister Julie stated that "no way did he go to the Terrien's" in
an interview with one of the investigators. Ken Littleton was also asked by Sutton people
and Littleton responded "do we really know that he was in the car"?.
So much for his "incontrovertible alibi" that defense
attorney Mickey Sherman likes to chant in front of the media. Three people in the Skakel
home that evening questioned whether Michael Skakel ever went to the Terrien's home. One
of those questioning this was in the car to Terrien's October 30th. Considering these
statements, it is questionable whether Michael made the drive with his brothers as he
claims. That leads us to ask, where was he and what was he doing?
Michael told the police after he returned from the Terrien's he went upstairs and went to
bed. In 1992, during the Sutton interviews, he changed his story. Michael stated that he
went to bed, could not sleep and went back outside. In the Sutton interview, he elaborates
further, stating he ran towards Walsh Lane, passed the Moxley residence, turned right into
a driveway, walked to a ground floor window of a woman he frequently peeped in on.
According to Skakel, this woman often could be seen nude in the privacy of her own home,
that is if one were prone to peeping. Apparently, he had become quite the voyeur and made
frequent stops to look in. This particular evening says Skakel, the woman was clothed and
he decided at this point to pop over to the Moxley's and check in on Martha.
Once at the Moxley's, Skakel claims to have scaled a tree and with pebbles in hand,
proceeded tossing them at her window all the while calling out Martha's name. When there
was no response, Skakel felt a sudden urge to masturbate, which he did to its natural
conclusion. Once he completed the task at hand, he climbed down the tree, and apparently
was intending to return home. While crossing the street from the Moxley property to the
his own, he stopped at a street lamp on Walsh Lane. He claims to have "felt someone's
presence" in the area where Martha's body was found. He yells something out at them
and threw something at the trees. He became spooked and ran back to his house. He then
claims the doors were locked and he had to climb into his home through a bedroom window.
This has got to be one of the most bizarre stories of all time! I think the prosecutors
are going to have a field day on this one at trial. The jury will surely be composed with
reasonable people who are going to raise their eyebrows after hearing Skakel's own
revelations about his actions that night.
If Skakel was out romping around that evening, in the midst of a crazed killer doing his
handiwork, why on earth didn't he mention this to the police?Did it never occur to him,
after Martha's body was found, me may have innocently "heard" her killer?
Considering he was swooning over her that very night, attempting to make contact with her when he believed her to be safe in her bed, and not being able to because she was not there, was he so simple minded enough to think that the police would not have been interested in hearing what happened October 30, and what he observed? CERTAINLY , when he informed his family of this, THEY would have encouraged him to tell the police, or call them themselves to relay this information. Nobody bothered.
Can we assume that no one did because this story was never relayed to them, or more likely, they already knew what happened to Moxley or had a strong suspicion about what had happened to her. This is just one example of the many things that Skakel needs to account for.
Whatever way it comes to play, no one, not even Skakel himself, mentioned any of this to
the police. Defense attorney Mickey Sherman has already argued to the media, Michael
Skakel did not change his story, he simply elaborated on the original version. The
semantics aside, if he had nothing to do with Martha's murder, surely he would have told
the police about what he observed that evening. If he had nothing to offer as far as a
suspect, he still had the matter of time of death to address.
The police believed that Martha was killed in the 10:00PM time frame on October 30th. According to Michael's version of the events that night, the killer hung around the murder scene for 3 hours? Was he waiting around to be caught? If in fact Skakel was telling the truth, why wouldn't he tell someone that he thought that she had died later and tell them his reason for believing that to be true? I think the police would have appreciated hearing his account of what he heard at the Moxley home that night. Time of death is important in a homicide investigation. As a matter of fact, HAD he mentioned this to the police, his brother Tommy would have been cleared. He was in bed sleeping at this time and had his brother Rush's testimony to prove his innocence. Is this why Michael did not chose to come forward with this tidbit? His desire to NOT let his brother off the hook? That would certainly make us wonder why he would not wish to do this.
I find it hard to believe that this conversation never took place at the Skakel home.
Since Tommy was investigated as a suspect, I would imagine that the father would certainly
ask where he was and could he prove he was where he claimed. If his father did not ask,
SURELY the defense attorneys Margolis and Sheridan would have asked this very question as
well. Wouldn't Michael wish to pipe in and say "hey dad I think Tommy is in the
clear, I heard someone out there LATER that night. I think she was killed about midnight,
so Tommy is home free". Nope, never happened and the fact that it didn't casts
greater suspicion onto Michael.
So, we need to take a closer look at his story. If Michael was withholding information or
flat out lying about one thing, what else was he lying about? If Michael went out that
evening as he claims, and had this great urge to masturbate in 30 degree weather, why
didn't he do this at the first woman's house he went to who was clothed? He takes off to
go to the Moxley home to waken Martha. When he does not find her home, here he is dangling
from a tree, with pebbles in his hand, and now he can not control his natural urge to
masturbate? This is really unbelievable.
If he managed to control himself at the normally naked woman's house, who was in fact
THERE in the flesh, could we assume that he many have been able to control these urges
until he either made it back to the other woman's home, or managed to get to his own bed
in his own WARM home? Are we to believe that his teenage hormones were raging so
powerfully at that second in time, that he had no other choice but to remain where he was,
staring into this dark and empty room, in the freezing cold weather, with rocks in his
hand, to take care of his business? The fact that he managed to do all of this while up in
a tree is amazing!
Defense attorney Sherman, has stated that this has been a cold case, and because of that,
people's memories tend to fade with time. Because of this, he did not believe that this
would end in a conviction for his client.
I tend to agree with Sherman that time fades most of our memories. But, considering this
fact, how is he able to explain his client's recollections from 1975? It seems Michael
Skakel had a photographic memory. His ability to recall incredible detail 20 years later
is truly fascinating. He not only remembers getting from his house to the oft naked
woman's, he remembers the exact path her took, recalling he ran there, so vividly he
remembers this trek, that he feels the need to mention that he stopped at a street light!
What a guy! Is this something that most people recall when they are relating a story about
something that happened 20 years prior? I walked down the street and stopped at the street
light hahahaha...hmmmmmmm
If Skakel does indeed have this uncanny ability to recall detail, why is it that he can
not recall who first informed him of Martha's death? For someone that can recall stopping
at a street light, but is not able to recall who first informed him that the love of his
life was savagely murdered, I think we have another problem here. Both can not be true!
Martha was a young girl that Skakel admits being totally smitten with, he wanted to take
things slow so that he would not screw anything up, he wanted to impress her. Yet, he can
not recall this very important information, who told him she was dead? This is highly
suspicious. How come Romeo can not recall who told him that his Juliet was brutally
killed?
The shrink that he related this to, opined that perhaps Skakel could not recall how he
first learned about Martha's death from someone else, as he already knew that she was
dead, having killed her himself. Since her murder was not new information, who told him
about it did not register with him, as he already was aware of the murder. I think the doc
is onto something here.
So, why would Mike relate this incredibly detailed story to the Sutton investigators? DNA
testing that was done at the time certainly accounts for one possibility, and the most
probable reason why both Skakel boys revised their stories. Tommy's story at least seems
feasible. Martha is not alive now to comment on whether any sexual encounter with Tommy
was consensual or not. But what about Michael's story?
Closer examination tends to lead a prudent person to conclude that for some reason,
Michael Skakel needs to account for any DNA that may be found at the Moxley crime scene.
The reason for his tree story gains understanding and cohesiveness only when looking at it
from an investigative stand point. There was motivation for him to devise this story, at
least he THOUGHT there was as what was found at the crime scene was not made public.
Michael tells of hearing "something" over at the crime scene and throwing
"something" over in the general area of it. Since he admits to masturbating, but
omits what he did with the evidence of this performance, I am inclined to believe he
thought a rock tossed over to the crime scene which could have "bounced" off
Martha could provide an explanation to the authorities of how an innocent transfer of his
DNA was possible.
This story is ridiculous, but why else would he have concocted it? He needed to account for his DNA, that was his primary concern. He needed to account for it WITHOUT being in physical proximity to the body, much harder feat. His lame story, does manage to do that.
Tommy had already used the consensual sex story therefore he could not possibly use that
one as well. Who would buy that Martha agreed to have sex with both of these boys on the
same night? No one that knew her would and certainly not the police investigating her
death. For both brothers to admit to having sex with her would certainly cause the police
to look even closer at BOTH of these boys as suspects, NOT
just Tommy, as was the case initially.
This explanation is lame, but certainly does explain this curious, very detailed and well thought out story Michael gave to Sutton. His desire to account for his semen at the crime scene is paramount to understanding this incredible description of his actions that night. He needed to account for his DNA and other than telling the police the TRUTH of how it could have gotten there, he came up with this story. The prosecution will surely shoot holes through both his alibi and this fantastic story, at trial.
As far fetched as his story is, Michael Skakel masterfully managed to fit all of the
details into his account to counter the possibility of having been seen running on Walsh
Lane, being seen throwing something back over to the Moxley property (a piece of the golf
club handle most probably),by Ken Littleton who was asked to go "check on the
boys" by Nanny Sweeny, or Mr Bjork who was outside calling his dog in at the time, or
even Carol Wold who was out walking that night and could have possibly seen him at the
Moxley's home, and finally to account for his DNA being found on or about Martha's body .
Sounds like someone sat down and thought about how to address any an all possibilities
that could have linked him to Martha's death and the Moxley property.
Another thing that is very curious is Michael's actions the day Martha's body is found.
Mrs Moxley visited the Skakel home to once again inquire about Martha. Michael answered
the door (it was a school day for private school children and it is not yet public
knowledge why Skakel was home that morning) and appeared disheveled and hungover as if he
had not slept, Dorthy observed. She wanted to look in the Skakel family camper to see if
Martha could possibly have fell asleep in there. Franz Wittine the gardener opened the
camper up and did not find Martha. He claimed that he looked in it as early as 6:30 that
morning for her. How on earth did he know that Martha had been last seen with Tommy and
why look in the Skakel camper? What did Franz Wittine already suspect at that early hour?
Wittine is now deceased, so we will never know what he suspected or overheard in the early
morning hours at the Skakel home.
After the body was found, and Michael was aware of it (although he does not recall who
told him) the police were all at the Moxely property that is across the street from the
back of the Skakel home. Michael manages to get himself interviewed by several of the
reporters there that afternoon. He tells them all that Tommy was the last seen with
Martha. This is very strange. Strange not only because he is telling them something very
incriminating about his brother, but that the boy is out there to begin with!
He states in DMT that he is swooning over this girl. He was so in love with her. Yet, he
finds out that she has been brutally murdered and he is running around telling reporters
that she was last seen with Tommy? He also managed to get to his friend Andy Pugh's home
and also tells Andy's mother that Martha was last seen with Tommy. He is quite the social
butterfly that morning isn't he! He is telling anyone that will listen that Tommy, not
himself, was the last one seen with Martha.
It seems to me that an average 15 year old boy that is so smitten with a girl would have
been devastated by the news of the sudden and violent death of their "love".
Apparently Michael is not your average Joe. He is not only doing fine, he is out there
watching the investigators, talking to reporters, managing to get himself quoted in
several newspapers whose articles appeared November 1, 1975.
This is a very eerie thought when considering that he has now been arrested for this crime. How often have we heard about criminals that go back to the scene of the crime and blend in with the average looky loos that are hanging around watching the police process a crime scene. It seems to add to their excitement to watch the investigation unfold. Is Skakel just another one of the crazies who enjoyed watching the aftermath of his evil deed?
One of the articles, Michael states that they "always leave golf clubs in the woods
after their shots". To who is he saying this and where is he referring? The golf club
(which by the way was owned by the Skakel's) was found on the Skakel property. Was he
inferring that the Skakel boys were always leaving their clubs at the Moxley's? That could
certainly be refuted by the Moxley's. Was this Michael's way of leading the police down
the wrong path? Why on earth was he mentioning this already. At that time, it had not been
made public that the golf club even belonged to the Skakel family. Already, Michael had
addressed this issue. Very curious indeed!
Michael's life since the murder of Martha Moxley is a bit disturbing. In Mark Fuhrman's
book "Murder in Greenwich" Ken Littleton tells the Sutton investigators that the
day after the murder, when father Rush had the family whisked away to Windham NY, Michael
was out shooting little animals.
Littleton also related that he had seen Skakel beating a squirrel to death using a golf club. It seems that the golf club was Michael Skakel's personal choice in weapon when doing this as there are others that have relayed the same story to police. Boyhood friend Andy Pugh recalls witnessing this behavior before as well. Former rehab companion Steve Dougherty tells authorities that while out fishing one day, they had caught an eel and Skakel suggested a golf club to kill it. He tells Dougherty that he often used golf clubs to kill animals. Dougherty himself thought it was strange. When wondering how he could get the eel off, a knife had come to mind, but not a golf club!
Interestingly, there has been undeniable evidence made by those that research killers,
that cruelty to animals is often a predecessor to those who grow up to kill humans. Also
worth noting, John Douglas former FBI Profiler writes in his book "Anatomy of
Motive" that being Peeping Tom's is a common trait of people that progress to murder.
By his own volition, Michael Skakel admits to being one. Then again, back then, when this
story was related to Sutton, criminal profiling was not anything that Skakel would even
have dreamed about HAD he, more likely than not, he would not have mentioned his peeping
episode the night of Moxley's murder.
These two behavior patterns, which Michael displayed (killing animals and being a Peeping
Tom ) taken alone certainly would not indicate that he would eventually kill someone in
his future, but, considering these two facts along with other known facts about Michael's
life, and a frightening picture begins to emerge.
Michael had a long history of conduct disorder as a child. Psychologists do not like to
diagnose personality disorders in children under 18, as teenagers as a whole are going
through hormonal changes etc, that do lead the most normal of children, into periods of
abnormal behavior. Instead, they choose to label them conduct disorder until the time that
a person should normally outgrow these habits at adulthood. If the behavior persists, a
diagnosis is then made reflecting the personality disorder.
From the time of his youth Michael had frequent, uncontrollable acts of violence. This was
documented surely when the Rushton Skakels brought both Tommy and Michael for counciling
in regards to their often violent bouts of sibling rivalry. Most parents would not have to
take their children to therapists for sibling rivalry. It is a natural part of family
dynamics. Apparently, the situation between Tommy and Michael was anything but normal and
the reason why they needed to seek help to control it.
The death of their mother at a young age, surely had an impact on all of the children in
the family. It appears that Michael took her death rather hard which is certainly
understandable. But with a fragile psyche to begin with, factoring in the alcoholism and
lack of parenting going on in the Skakel home, it is very likely that Michael's emotional
problems became exacerbated as he grew into his teenage years. In his book proposal,
Michael mentions familial abuse and neglect. These are two other factors that would
contribute to an unstable personality in the children.
Michael had emotional problems, it seems, from a very young age. He admits to suffering
from substance abuse from as early as the age of 13. He is said to have been sober now for
17 years, yet his frequent stays in rehabs makes one question if that is true. Perhaps he
has managed to attain sobriety, but the rehab stays would indicate that his ability to
function in society is limited.
Also worthy of consideration are comments made by those close to Michael and knew him very
well at the time of the murder:
Julie Skakel feared Michael and this was related to Sutton investigators by family friend
and attorney Tom Sheridan. Julie was 3 years older then her brother Michael. The fact that
she was afraid of him seems very odd.
Rush SR tells Sutton that he believes that Michael is capable of murder. This is very
revealing as to Rush SR's thoughts about his son. I find it difficult to believe that a
father would relate this information to anyone unless he absolutely believed it to be
true, and was perhaps frightened himself about this knowledge.
Tom Sheridan suggests that perhaps Michael killed her and does not remember and someone
i.e. Tommy helped move the body. The fact that a close family friend suggests this to
Sutton also tells of disturbing behavior he must have witnessed from Michael to think it
all feasible for Michael to have killed her. Considering Tommy was the initial suspect,
there must have been talk between Sheridan and the investigators that Michael was a more
likely suspect. The fact that Sheridan also provides the information that Julie is afraid
of Michael, seems a red flag to me.
Mildred (Cissy) Ix comments to Dorthy Moxley that Tommy could never have done this but
"I'd give you Michael any day". Again, Cissy was a close family friend and was
privy to the Skakel dynamics as she had been a close friend to Anne Skakel prior to her
death, thus having had chance to observe the personalities of all the Skakel children for
years.
Clearly mental problems have plagued Michael Skakel for a very long time. He did manage to
graduate from college in his 30's. Since then other, than being a driver for his cousin
Michael Kennedy, and working on Ted Kennedy's reelection campaign, Michael has been
basically unemployed. He apparently secured a position for a time with his brother Steven
as well. Other than family induced employment, it does not seem that Michael has managed
to integrate himself into the workforce.
Does this make him a killer? Clearly not, but figure in the frequent rehab stays, prior emotional problems and it does draw a picture of someone who might have a problem functioning in the mainstream.
Michael's involvement in the Michael Kennedy - babysitter scandal is totally questionable.
It also shines light on yet another example of this mans inability to control his
impulsive behavior. He had hoped to be seen as the man that "saved" the underage
child from the brutality of his adult cousin Michael Kennedy, but that image is tarnished
when it is revealed that Skakel is in fact the person who revealed her name to the Boston
Globe reporter. It seems simply a vengeful move on Michael's part to bust this scandal
wide open, but why did he want to do that? Another example of how he acts out and wishes
to be perceived as the innocent, white knight. Very very strange!
The book proposal for "Dead Man Talking" is interesting. In fact, the title
alone is very telling. Just why does Michael Skakel view himself as a dead man and why is
he talking? The book was proposed to be a tell-all deal about the Kennedy family which
seems strange considering they were just about the only ones to ever employ Skakel. Is
this an example of one biting the hand that feeds him? Why on earth would he wish to harm
his own relatives? What happened to cause Skakel to feel he needed to once again act out.
Was this possibly a preemptive strike on his part because he had been threatened to be
exposed for his involvement with the death of a teenage girl decades before?
This we will never know as Michael Kennedy died in a freak skiing accident in 1997.
If in fact Kennedy had threatened to leak something to the press in regards to Skakel's involvement in the Moxley scandal, was this book deal Michael's attempt to "jump the gun", a preemptive strike to prepare the public and the authorities for anything that the Kennedy family could reveal about him, making it appear that the Kennedy family was just retaliating? It does seem very possible and not out of character for what we have seen Skakel do.
Margot Skakel, Michael's wife of 9 years did not show up in support of her husband for any
of the court proceedings . In fact, shortly after his arrest, Margot separated from Skakel
and filed for divorce. She has contacted a book publisher about writing a book. Skakel has
gone to court to have a gag order placed on their divorce proceedings. A probate judge
denied Skakel's request.
What is it that Skakel fears that Margot
could tell us? Did Skakel talk in his sleep? Did he ever admit to his involvement in the
murder of Martha Moxley? Did he tell Margot yet another version of what happened that
night?
So far there are several versions Michael has told to the police, to Sutton investigators,
to former friend Andy Pugh, to former Elan residents Coleman, and Higgins. The question
now is, which one will he tell at trial?
Michael Skakel was arrested on January 19, 2000 for the murder of Martha Moxley.
Michael Skakel matches each and every criteria in the FBI profile of Martha Moxley's killer.
