Skip to comments.
Is There Any Evidence in the Skakel/Moxley Trial?
self
| self
| self
Posted on 05/22/2002 7:29:29 AM PDT by MHT
The defense begins today in the Skakel trial and I never heard any mention of tangible evidence pointing to Skakel. Do they only have the hearsay testimony of other drug-abusing kids? I thought there was new DNA evidence or something more concrete which convinced the prosecution to try him at this late date. If it's he-said-she-said, it looks like another Kennedy clan member is going to get off the hook. In other words, where's the beef in this case?
TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: justice; moxley; skakel
1
posted on
05/22/2002 7:29:29 AM PDT
by
MHT
To: MHT
After several decades, it'd be tought to make a case against Charley Manson.
To: MHT
My understanding is that Skakel is the one who killed that girl, but the evidence may not hold up in a court of law. This is based on conversations with someone who was involved in the case before it was brought before the grand jury.
To: MHT
There's a tape of him admitting to it and some really wierd B.S. from what I understand!
4
posted on
05/22/2002 7:41:00 AM PDT
by
gr8eman
To: MHT
Like evidence would make a difference. Look at O.J. Money and the right slimeball lawyers will get just about anybody off.
5
posted on
05/22/2002 7:41:08 AM PDT
by
MJM59
To: Alberta's Child
I look for the Snakels to beat this, given both the very poor investigation at the time and the passage of time since, but at very least, it will cost them a lot of money, a lot of bad PR, and a certain amount of anxiety. That's little enough, but at least it's something. I feel sorry for Martha Moxley's family, though.
To: MJM59
Money and the right slimeball lawyers will get just about anybody off. You may be right, but it's worth noting that this case was only brought before a grand jury because a group of people up there spent a fortune paying private investigators to re-examine the case years later. So the "money" part works both ways.
To: Irene Adler
Mrs. Moxley always seem so happy and confident going into the courthouse that I was sure that they had a smoking gun and were going to surprise everyone with it. I thought that there was DNA on the golf club that was his, or something like that. Certainly, from watching the former OJ policeman and Dominic Dunne (who both wrote books about the case), I thought there was more concrete information than a tape.
Another opportunity for the Kennedy's to walk away claiming victimhood because they are Kennedy's.
8
posted on
05/22/2002 7:50:43 AM PDT
by
MHT
To: Alberta's Child
Did the person you spoke with ever indicate if there was any physical evidence beyond the golf club that belonged to his mother?
9
posted on
05/22/2002 7:51:58 AM PDT
by
MHT
To: Alberta's Child
True, but I just can't help believing that if this guy wasn't a Kennedy, that he was just Joe Blow off of the street, that he'd be making big rocks outta little ones.
10
posted on
05/22/2002 7:53:26 AM PDT
by
MJM59
To: MHT
I think that the only other evidence is a diary entry, where Martha says that the younger Skakel kid seemed to like her and that she thought it was creepy. The prosecutors believe that the entry proves the motive.
11
posted on
05/22/2002 7:56:09 AM PDT
by
Eva
To: MHT
To be honest, I don't know any of the details that would later become part of the state's evidence (I'm sure he would not have told me anything even if I had asked) -- this was something that just came up in a conversation about something else.
To: MJM59
Maybe so, but I would say that if he weren't a Kennedy you'd never even have heard about the case in the first place. And he never would have been prosecuted if the murder hadn't occurred in Greenwich, CT.
To: Eva
I read that there was alot of testimony about drinking, blacking-out etc., but a diary entry is not enough to get this man prosecuted, muchless convicted.
Doesn't sound like this case is going to appear on "The New Detectives".
14
posted on
05/22/2002 8:02:26 AM PDT
by
MHT
To: MHT
In one of the books about the Kennedy kids, Skakel is mentioned as a big boozer/drug consumer with RFK's kids.
To: MHT
Though I Haven't followed this very closely,I would think that if there were any physical evidence(not just circumstantial)this would be apparent.
To: Alberta's Child; MJM59
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the only thing worse than referring to this guy as a "Kennedy cousin" is referring to him as a Kennedy. Damn the Kennedys for their own sins--not those of someone who isn't even a blood relative of most of them (he's first cousin to Bobby's kids and Bobby's kids only).
To: Peter Porcupine
He might not be a Kennedy by birth--but he is a Kennedy by association. "Tickle-down" glamour and celebrity. In fact, he even theoretically boasted that he wouldn't be punished because he's a Kennedy. Illusions (Delusions) of grandeur.
18
posted on
05/22/2002 9:40:11 AM PDT
by
MHT
To: MHT
so what happened to this trial?
To: Peter Porcupine
any verdict yet?
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson