48 Hours Mystery Examines Skakel Conviction

An episode of 48 Hours Mystery airing tonight on CBS will explore Michael Skakel's conviction of murder in the death of his neighbor Martha Moxley.

A new one-hour episode of 48 Hours Mystery will focus on a videotaped deposition by Skakel's ex-classmate at Brunswick School, Gitano "Tony" Bryant, in which he claims two Bronx, N.Y., teens confessed to him that they killed Moxley, as well as Skakel's two pending legal appeals to reverse his conviction.

TalkLeft's coverage of the Skakel case is collected here.

< Republican Convention Loses Jindal | A Bar That's Ready for Prime Time >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I have followed this case and often (none / 0) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:42:09 PM EST
    wondered if a mistake was made...maybe they will shed some new light on it tonight.

    what made you feel like he might be (none / 0) (#3)
    by bjorn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:46:19 PM EST
    not guilty?

    Maybe because it was so many years (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:02:59 PM EST
    after the fact...recollections tend to get cloudy...we'll see.

    Thanks for the heads up (none / 0) (#2)
    by bjorn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:45:43 PM EST
    I will be watching.  My gut says he is totally guilty and was rightfully convicted.

    thankfully (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    guilt is not determined by gut feelings. Hope you will read my past coverage of the case -- I came to the conclusion he is innocent, based on the evidence presented and not presented.

    We need to keep reminding (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:03:39 PM EST
    ourselves of Patsy Ramsey and - if you are old enough to remember - Sam Sheperd. People were convinced of both of them were guilty then new evidence came out and changed the whole picture.

    I really wish kids in school were put through some kind of exercise to show them how making judgements without all the facts or facts that have been selectively presented can convince you beyond doubt that something is one way when in fact it is just the opposite. (Not just criminal cases, but all kinds of things like advertising, statistics, etc.) We really need to learn to be much more skeptical. And I do not mean cynical. There is a big difference. Skepticism means keeping an open mind, analyzing the information you are given for weaknesses and looking for more facts before deciding.


    We need to take the word "WIN" out of (none / 0) (#12)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 06:59:21 PM EST
    the courts.

    That "win/loss" record causes great problems in the ethics of some overly competitive attorneys.

    Sometimes the best place to be is on the losing side (i.e., a prosecutor who attempts to put an innocent person in prison).


    thanks Jeralyn (none / 0) (#9)
    by bjorn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:23:24 PM EST
    I will definitely read what you have written before I watch tonight.

    Something that bothered me about this case (none / 0) (#5)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 03:08:34 PM EST
    (and others) is that this took place when he was a kid yet he was tried as an adult. How do they justify that?

    No statute of limitation (none / 0) (#8)
    by BernieO on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:04:20 PM EST
    on murder, I guess.

    After reading some of Jeralyn's (none / 0) (#10)
    by bjorn on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    previous posts on this, I guess it is not as clear cut as I orginally thought.  I think being a Kennedy cuts both ways, sometimes it helps and sometimes it hurts.  But one of the commentators from an old post might have said it best...in terms of why he migh have been convicted:

    "You note Tommy Skakel's change of story as if it were something the jury could have taken into account. But it was Michael himself who blocked that information from being presented, not the prosecution. You also write that no forensic evidence linked Michael to the crime. The golf club that killed Martha was sister to a club found in the Skakel family mudroom, a hallway really that was outside John Skakel's bedroom. John testified that he heard a noise outside his bedroom at 11:33 the night of the murder, which was pretty much the same time Michael claimed to have gone out on the late night excursion he has lied to police. Jurors, it appears, did not accept this prosecution theory of the murder. They appear, instead, to have accepted the defense's time of death and rejected the defense's alibi. So while it may be possible to find political elements somewhere in this trial, I think the trial's predominent feature was that of an "own goal." As juror Bill Smith noted after the verdict, "At the end of the prosecution's case, if the defense had rested, I don't know where I would have been."

    Tonight will be interesting and I will have more of an open mind after reading everything.

    Thanks for the alert (none / 0) (#11)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    I've set my DVR to record it.  It's a case that I've always been interested in.  I go back on forth on his guilt.  It's so hard to know since it happened so long ago.  

    I was very glad to see that the Ramsey's were finally let off the hook.  I can't imagine anything more horrible than losing a child, unless it was made worse by being accused of being  involved!  Horrific for those parents.