Transcript of The Murder of Martha Moxley (Part 2)

Hey weirdos, I'm Ash and I'm Alayna and this is Morbid. This is Morbid. Morbid in the afternoon. Um, and I'm trying to think of, uh, I saw because like last time I think we were like, okay, like set your timers because we're about to start the episode. I saw some funny-ass people being like, it starts at 69 seconds. So like it starts at 0.03 seconds.

So now you're never gonna know when it starts.

So I think you guys are funny.

You guys are funny.

But I don't think we have a ton of business. Just some, the normal stuff. If you guys haven't bought tickets to the live show at Radio City. What do you do? June 27th. Buy tickets to it, 'cause I'm telling you, it's gonna be a blast. We've really nailed some stuff down.

Yep, we're reeling it in.

It's gonna be fun. We have some fun merch. Yes. We have a special guest.

Special guest.

And it's just gonna be a really fun time.

Special Fitz from Romania.

Yeah. Literally. So get your butt there.

And then you can just wander around New York.

Yeah, all night. Yep. Actually don't, because I've been seeing, I mean, you shouldn't anyway, but like.

Yeah, that was always just a joke to begin with.

I keep seeing these reports on the news the last couple days of people.

I don't watch the news.

Are like, they're getting film of like in the middle of the night, people are just going into manholes. And then some people are like crawling out of manholes. It's just like a group of men.

What?

Who, and they don't know what they're doing.

Are they the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

That's the running joke.

That's the general consensus.

But that's very dangerous. Like, don't do that. Yeah. Like if you're one of those people, stop doing that.

Also like emerging from a manhole, you could get Zachary Binxed real quick.

Absolutely. That's crazy. Yeah.

I'm saying, I was like, you're going into the sewers?

That's what I'm saying. Nobody knows what they're doing. Nobody really knows what the situation is. It's been a couple nights of them like seeing these videos. I really hate that. So there— so that's going on. Yeah, that's spooky. That's something pretty spooky. Uh, so don't do that. But also, um, on a totally different note, um, what you should do is pre-order The Butcher Legacy.

Honestly, it's not even that much different of a note because your book has some weird shit going on.

Exactly. So So there's that. And also, I don't know if you've noticed, some of you have, I'm doing a little series, like a video series. I'm trying my hand at it. It's a lot of work. I don't know how to put these videos together. Anybody who puts videos together and edits and does all this stuff all by themselves.

Influencers in the wild. Props to you.

You have a tough job. Props to you for being able to edit a video, 'cause it's hard. It is hard. But yeah, so I'm doing a little video series where I'm gonna go through the chapters of The Butcher Legacy. I love it. And give you a little sneak peek of every chapter, Kind of like Easter eggs.

Yeah, Easter eggs, exactly.

So keep a lookout for those. I'm putting them on TikTok and Instagram. I think a couple of people might have thought it had to do with the game, Slicer game that Morbid is doing with Hunt a Killer. Those are two different things. Yes. Just in case you were confused.

So these are not like game pieces or anything like that. Yeah, okay. We'll do another video.

Yeah, for sure. So these are just, keep a lookout for them. I'm calling them the evidence recovery series, so. Keep an eye out. I love it.

It's so fun.

It was a very good idea. It's been a really fun thing to do. Uh, and I'm trying to think if we have any other business.

I think it starts now.

I think it starts— oh wait, also pre-order the Salem Slicer if you want that game. The game is so much fun.

It's incredible.

Yeah, it's really fun.

A lot of people are getting theirs in the mail, like the ones that we sent out, and like our friends and family are so excited.

I'm so excited to see everybody get them. Um, but yeah. I think that's it.

Okay, it starts now. Now. All right, Carl, stop your timer.

All right, starts now. All right, so when we last left you guys—

yeah, you left us on a fucking cliffhanger.

I sure did, because I talked about the Sutton Report that was put together that was never made public, only bits and pieces of it.

Yeah, I think that's the weirdest thing ever.

Um, but one of the things that did come out from it was that Tommy Skakel lied about his whereabouts are at, or more his actions that night. Yeah. Um, because remember he said he just like went inside and started a project that didn't exist on Abraham Lincoln that was proved to not exist, and the teachers were like, nobody— yeah. But what else came out in this report was, um, some stuff about Michael Skakel.

Interesting. I didn't see that coming when you said that. I said, quoi?

Yeah, it's pretty crazy. Now, as private investigators were digging into the Martha Moxley case, the state's attorney was doing their best to keep the press and the public you know, in the loop with regard to the newly reopened investigation. Among other things, John Solomon was eager to employ the latest technology in DNA because obviously that's coming out. That feels like it's going to open a million doors.

Yeah, that's huge.

They hope that was going to identify the suspect like bar none. The news that they might soon be able to identify the killer did prompt both Tommy and Michael Skakel to have a change of heart with their initial stories. Oh, so that— so the word comes out like, hey, maybe we could identify someone, like we have DNA, we have this certain report. They were like, actually, we'd love to tell you what we were actually doing that night. All righty. Um, and they did admit to police that they lied about the night of the murder and they would like to offer new alibis. Okay. Which obviously in and of itself does not identify them as murderers. It just doesn't look good because unfortunately they were teenagers at the time. So you have to look at it like that. Uh, in Tommy's case, the alibi was more or less similar to what he had offered the first time he was interviewed, but he dropped the story about doing the project. That didn't exist.

The teachers were like, bud, you really gotta stop this because we have no proof of that.

You're not doing a project on Abraham Lincoln. It's just not doing— uh, but he copped to being drunk at the time. Okay, because remember, they were young. They were like 15 years old at this point. Yeah, young.

Michael's new alibi, on the other hand, was Surprising, because he had said he was at another cousin's house, right?

Yeah. So like you just said, according to Michael, he returned from his cousin's house around 11 PM, remember? But he didn't go to bed as he had previously stated. Okay. Before, he said he got home around 11 PM and he just went to bed.

I thought that was a little cray cray because like these kids all like to have a lot of fun and go around, you know.

Now this is a little shocking. Okay, what he did, he brought this forward. Okay, uh, instead he claimed he wandered around the neighborhood looking into the bedroom windows of his female neighbors. Oh, until— that's not even the shocking part. Oh, until he returned home and climbed the tree outside of Martha's window and masturbated in the tree.

Oh, what the actual fuck? Yeah, he just told investigators that.

Yeah, he said that's what I was actually doing.

And what'd they do when they heard that?

I mean, I wasn't there, so I don't know what their exact reactions were.

How'd they proceed?

I imagine they said, oh yeah, oh, the fuck. Um, so what made his new alibi so surprising wasn't just that it outed him as a teenage peeping tom and a public masturbator. Like, those are pretty—

that's a big deal.

Like, that's, that's a lot.

But not a public masturbator.

I think the more— what's crazy is the more shocking thing was that he essentially placed himself at the scene of the crime. I'm seeing— yeah, making himself now, not his brother Tommy, the last person to maybe see Martha alive. Okay, the new alibi wasn't just a bizarre twist.

I'm also like, babe, that's just not even an alibi.

No, you can't call that an alibi. I guess I mean, it is because it doesn't prove he murdered her.

His alibi is that he was masturbating outside her bedroom window.

I'm not out here saying it's a good thing to be doing, fuck, but technically it's an alibi. You're telling them where you were, but— and it doesn't obviously make him just from that a murderer. No, just a creep. Just a creep. But what the bigger problem there is, like they were saying, he placed himself at the scene of the crime, essentially. So it's like, that's what makes it more like, huh, like, sure, that's an alibi, but it's not a good—

but you're at the scene of the crime.

Yeah, it also called into question the original timeline, and it raised new questions about the reliability of the original investigation, which was already, yeah, pretty shaky. Now, within days of the murder, investigators had ruled Michael Skakel out as a suspect. That was in the beginning, based on the fact that he was confirmed to have been at his cousin's house when they thought the murder occurred around 10 PM. Okay, he was— they— the cousins were like, yep, he was there. Yeah, but the only reason— this is wild to me— the only reason investigators believe the murder occurred at 10 PM was not based on medical examiner evidence. Oh, like it should be. Yep. They were basing it on reports from neighbors about the agitated barking dogs in the neighborhood that were barking at 10 PM.

Gotta be fucking kidding me. Yeah, you— that's based— that's the same as like eyewitness testimony. Like, that's never— that's not that reliable. And it's actually even worse.

I was just gonna say that.

No, there's no eyewitness—

that on the same level as eyewitness testimony, you're literally saying animals made noises, right, at a time one night, so someone must have been being murdered.

And you're relying on people's memory of what time that was, which like Again, people have shaky memories.

And just the fact that dogs bark. Yeah, dogs bark.

My dog barks for no fucking reason.

For sometimes my dog barks sometimes when they see their own reflection in the window.

Yep.

My dog barks at my other dog when my other dog is laying down and she wants to play.

Yep.

My dog barks sometimes when they bark.

My dog Yeah, my dog barks when she farts too.

Sometimes it upsets them, or the other one barks when the other one farts.

Dolores, when she farts, she chases her butt and barks, and I'm like, bitch, that was you.

That was you.

It's almost like she's like mad at her butt for betraying her. That's the thing, like dogs are awesome. Yeah, dogs are awesome, but they're gonna do wily shit for no reason.

But they're barking at their own farts, so it's like we're using them as a forensic tool now? Like what, when did that happen?

Yeah, they're not canine dogs, babe.

That's insane to me to be like, well, dogs barked around 10 PM, so that was obviously when the murder happened. It's like, nope, I think they were just barking.

And again, like, not even— take the dogs out of it, you're relying on the neighbor saying what time that happened. That's no good.

What's even worse with this is the medical examiner had never really agreed with investigators' stated time of death, and they're, they're the expert, I would say. Yeah, they got the actual biological evidence that shows that this is when they had actually placed Martha's time of death anywhere between 9:30 PM 5 AM.

That's a big window.

It was only because investigators believed the local dogs to be more reliable than the medical examiner, essentially. Are you shitting me? That they were able to rule Michael Skakel out in the first place. That was the only reason he was ruled out.

That is so ridiculous.

Because he had an alibi for when the dogs were barking. That's brutal. Not when the medical examiner is saying it could have occurred.

That's crazy.

Yeah. Also, now that he'd admitted to trying to— trying to watch Martha through her window after he'd returned from his cousin's home, Michael hadn't just ruled himself back in as a suspect, he'd effectively moved himself to the top of the list. Yeah, you're masturbating outside of her window and he's at the scene. Yeah, that's— she was 200 feet from her house, right?

Like, you're there.

Yep. Now, although no one outside Sutton Associates knew it at the time, there was a lot more that made Michael Skakel a strong suspect than just a bizarre new alibi.

And this was— the Sutton Report was like, like their family hired that law group. So this is interesting.

Yeah. According to the Sutton Report, because remember we got little bits and pieces of it. Yeah, not the whole thing. At the quote, at the very least, it is fair to say Michael Skakel has, for whatever reason, often acted out in certain ways to arouse suspicion. Reportedly, Michael once even confessed to the murder of Martha Moxley in a therapy session while a patient at the Elan Treatment Center. Oh, fuck. In fact, while he was at the Elan School, Michael confessed multiple times to murdering Martha Moxley in both group therapy settings and in private conversations. Okay. Although he would later recant at least one of those confessions in an email correspondence with one of the other students at Elan. The discovery of that information would have been damning if it had been made public, and it wasn't at the time. That's so tough.

I know, with like therapy.

Yeah, you have to be careful with that stuff. When he was informed of his son's confession at the Elon School, Rushton Skakel immediately pulled the plug on the entire investigation, paying any remaining fees and ending multiple years of work. Huh. Since everyone involved in the private investigation had signed a confidentiality agreement I wish you guys could see my face right now because my face is saying, what? What? Uh, well, all the people involved in the private investigation had signed a confidentiality agreement, so they were all prohibited from disclosing any information contained in the report to law enforcement or to the public. An NDA, brother. Once again, it seemed that Skakel's money and power had kind of shielded his family from any responsibility, but there was one thing he hadn't counted on.

Stop.

What? It was true that every investigator on the case had signed a confidentiality agreement, but, but the young employees who'd been tasked with organizing the information for the investigators had not been required to sign anything. When that young man, one young man who shall not be named, he has remained anonymous, learned that the report and Skakel's confession to murder were being shelved and would not see the light of day, he stole the report and sent it to Dominick Dunne.

Not all heroes wear capes.

Because he had seen Dominick Dunne talking about the case on the news, and he was like, "I think you should have this." Wow. That's always, like, my favorite part of a story when one person is just like, "I think you should look at this." I love when one person just is like, "Boop, zoop." Dominick Dunne had built a respectable career for himself as a writer covering crime, but he also wasn't exactly an investigative journalist at the time. No. Which he actually shifted a lot after the murder of his daughter, which is what was required if the Sutton Report was going to be put to good use. You need an investigative journalist of some sort. So rather than pursue the story himself, Dunn forwarded the report to former Los Angeles police detective turned author Mark Fuhrman. Okay, and Dunn didn't know personally, but he respected the work he had done. Okay, now although he would eventually make a name for himself as an author and journalist, Fuhrman first became a household name. Some people might be like, wait a minute, the name sounded familiar. He was— he became a household name across America during the O.J. Simpson trial.

Oh, okay. In 1994, he was an LAPD detective, and he investigated the murder of Simpson's wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman, and was the investigator who found the notorious bloody glove. Oh shit. During the trial though, several witnesses for the defense testified that Fuhrman had previously made racist statements in their presence, leading the defense to charge that Fuhrman had tampered with evidence in order to obtain a conviction. Ah, despite there being no evidence to suggest the glove had been planted by anyone, the controversy and documentation of, you know, his past, essentially the remarks he had made, it made him a pariah everywhere, like in law enforcement. You know, he retired in 1995, the next day, the next day, the very next day, the next year. And he did write Murder in Brentwood about the Simpson murder in the trial. Oh, okay. Murder in Brentwood had really impressed Dominic Dunne. Um, and so when he came across the Sutton Report, Fuhrman was the first person that came to Dunne's mind.

Okay.

Because he was like, he knows how to do this shit. Yeah. Now, after reading the Sutton Report, Fuhrman placed a call to Dorothy Moxley, who by then had moved to New Jersey to live near her son. Okay. Unlike Dunn, who'd written a fictional account of the case, Fuhrman wanted to write a non-fiction account and not only intended to emphasize the countless mistakes made by law enforcement, but he also wanted to identify Martha's killer. Good. Uh, he later said, I felt like I had a heavy burden on my shoulders. I just told this woman who's been waiting 23 years for some solution to her daughter's homicide that I could solve it. So I had no choice then. I actually had to go out and solve it. Wow. Now, with Dorothy's consent— it's a lot to task yourself with. Now, with Dorothy's consent, Fuhrman got to work digging into the case, but immediately ran into problems when word of his intentions reached the local police. Ah, sensing that Fuhrman was planning to smear them in the investigation with his book, Fuhrman was shut out by local law enforcement, and claims— he, he claims that he was threatened with arrest if he went near any residents of Belle Haven.

Allegedly.

Allegedly. That's what is claimed. Fortunately, he soon found an ally in retired Greenwich detective Steve Carroll. Oh, the original lead on the Moxley case. Okay. He later said his absence of ego at not being able to solve this case was a great contribution because he admitted things that I think other detectives wouldn't have. Okay. Which is like really impressive that Steve Carroll— I like that he said his lack of ego at not being able to solve this case. Like he didn't go into this being like, whatever, we did all we could and this isn't my fault. Like, he was like, no, I think we fucked up along the way. That's good.

You have to be willing to admit fault.

Yeah. Once Dorothy Moxley gave her consent for Carol to speak with Fuhrman, the former detective became Fuhrman's greatest asset as he attempted to navigate a community that was very vocally opposed to his presence. Now the problem with the Moxley case is that regardless of how many mistakes were made in the investigation, the fact remained that there also was little for investigators to go, like, work with here. Journalist Joel Lang wrote, "As damning as the evidence may seem, it proves little." Anyone might have dr—" And this is true. You have to look at— At first, when you first look at this, you say, oh my God, how could it? How could you not? And it's true. It looks damning. It does. When you really pull apart the pieces though, you go, well, you have to think of every part of this.

Because anybody could have taken that golf club.

Anyone might have dropped the club outside. And anyone might have picked it up. Who knows if one of them had just had the club, dropped it outside somewhere, someone found it, picked it up. Somebody stumbled upon it. No one the police interviewed said that they saw Tommy with the golf club. Okay, so there's just that. And I'm just— that just from like a purely like, sure, perspective, you know what I mean? Like, sure, somebody— is it likely? I don't know. Yeah, you know, like, it's just— but you have to think of these things.

It's too bad they weren't able to get any prints off of it.

I know, but I don't know, maybe somebody was wearing gloves. Who knows? Maybe. Now, in fact, even with all the circumstantial evidence pointing towards the Skakel house investigators still had the wrong person as their prime suspect in the case. Of course, the only people who knew that were contractually bound to secrecy, because remember, they were going after Tommy, right? But Fuhrman may have had the one piece of evidence that would break the case wide open and finally shed light on the identity of Martha's killer. Okay. In the spring of 1998, Fuhrman's book Murder in Greenwich: Who Killed Martha Moxley was published. Much to the consternation and very much to the ire of the investigators at the Greenwich Police Department and in the State's Attorney's Office. In the book, Fuhrman laid out the facts as they were known, paying particular attention to the myriad of mistakes made by investigators, and asserts the widely accepted theory that a wealthy and powerful family had stymied the investigation from the start. I like that word, stymied. But the real bombshell was that Fuhrman took the rare step of naming the person he believed was responsible for Martha's murder. That's bold.

He named Michael Skakel. Interesting. You got to be— you got to have balls to do that because—

for so many reasons. Yeah. Murder in Greenwich was an immediate bestseller, and it also attracted scathing criticism, particularly from those Fuhrman sought to undermine with the book, like Frank Garr, a former Greenwich detective who was working for the state at the time the book was published. Said, "Furman has the luxury of not having to back up anything he says, so he can name anybody he wants and he can say anything he wants in that book," which I was like, technically you can't.

No.

Not if he doesn't want to be sued. I was gonna say. But Greenwich Police Chief Peter Robbins shared a similar sentiment about the work, telling a reporter, "His real intent was to make money. I don't think he was necessarily attempting to solve a crime." Like, damn. Okay. So relying heavily on the Sutton Report and interviews conducted with Michael Skakel's classmates at the Elan School, Furman laid out a very plausible case against Skakel while also exposing how the case had been so badly botched by investigators in the first place. Furman told a reporter, I can find very little they did correctly in the investigation. I don't want to be smug or arrogant about this, but I obviously know much more than they do. Dang. Like, fuck. Now, on June 18th, just one month after the publication of his book, Connecticut's chief court administrator Aaron Ment announced that a one-person grand jury comprised of Superior Court Justice George Thim was being called upon to review the evidence against Michael Skakel.

Never in my life have I heard of a one-person grand jury. That's the—

and also, oh, so suddenly, yeah, everybody doesn't like this book and they think like everybody thinks the book is a bunch of a crock of shit, and all of a sudden they're like, a load of— we are going to bring him in front of a grand jury. It's like, wait, Yeah, which one is it?

Make that make sense.

Like, interesting. Now, the announcement of the grand jury came as a surprise, not only because, like you said, it consisted of one man, but also because it's not so grand.

It doesn't seem great.

I don't know who George is, but he's got to be real.

I'm sure he's grand.

Like, I'm sure he's a great guy, but, but also because Connecticut does not require a grand jury before felony charges can be filed. Oh, according to Connecticut lawyer Norman Pattis, Grand juries in Connecticut are only used for political purposes. Having a grand jury provides insulation for a prosecutor in a politically sensitive case because the decision to indict is made by a panel of anonymous citizens. Or just one. Or just George.

Or just Grandmaster George. Also, I was like, I'm sure he's a great guy. I really went on a limb there. Yeah, who knows? Who? I don't know George, that he's a great guy, but I don't know him. As a gal, you can never say you're sure a man is great.

No. So I just—

I'd like to recant that.

I stay over here just saying, I don't know, George.

Yes, I don't know. I hope that he's great is what I should have said.

So another way of saying all this is, in other words, the district attorney can't be blamed if the accused isn't indicted because it was the grand jury that made the decision, not the prosecutor. All right, so it's just to keep them from the 'I didn't do it.' To anyone who had been following this case, it looked like whether investigators liked it or not, the publication of Murder in Greenwich had managed to break the case somewhat. Yeah, like at least move something along, right? But when he was asked about the matter, Detective Frank Garr dismissed the suggestion that the book had anything to do with the filing. So then what was it? He said, "We've talked to hundreds of people and gathered some information that was previously unknown. So we reached a point where having a grand jury was an option. The books added interest to the public and the media, but they had no impact on the investigation." Wasn't like public pressure after people read the book?

Whatever you say. Yeah. Okay.

Sure. For decades, Martha Moxley's friends and family had desperately sought answers to her, remember, brutal murder, but were just again stymied— since you like that word— they were stymied at every turn. Yep. Now, after more than 20 years, it looked like Martha might finally get the justice that she deserved. Of course, nothing in this case is straightforward at all. No. And there was no reason to believe that would change. Oh, uh, Lisa, you really just Yeah. Well, and least of all because of the publication of this book. Yeah. You know? Yeah. So on July 12th, 1998, the one-man grand jury proceeding— George. It began in Bridgeport, where Justice George Thim began hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence in the case. Among those seated in the gallery were Dorothy and John Moxley, who were accompanied by former Greenwich detective Daniel Hickman. Hickman told a reporter, I'm very glad we're doing this, glad we're investigating this matter a little further. I hope something comes— good comes out of this for the sake of the family and the community. Yeah, given the number of times the Skakel family had kind of thwarted investigators' attempts to get answers into the Moxley case, it should come as no surprise that the grand jury hearing was pretty similarly frustrating, and it ultimately dragged on for 18 months.

Wow. Holy shit. During that time, the majority of the Skakel family members who were expected to testify publicly stated their intent, uh, intent to skip the hearing. Is that allowed? I guess. Rushton Skakel was particularly adamant in his refusal, telling reporters, I wasn't there personally. I was hunting when the slaying happened. So he saw no reason why he should be there. Okay. I wonder—

I don't know if I'm just like making this up, but I wonder if you could be held in contempt of court for not showing up to testify when you're called upon. I would think so.

I looked at Debbie.

Debbie's just like shrugging and being like, yeah, usually, right?

Like, you would think. I would think. You would think. Yeah, that's typical. It's interesting.

Yeah.

Okay. But others who refused to testify or otherwise attempted to stonewall the prosecution, including Sutton Associates Detective Willis Krebs and Elan School owner Joseph Ricci. Okay. Krebs cited attorney-client privilege as his reason for not divulging the names of those interviewed during the investigation.

I mean, that makes sense, I guess.

But the judge rejected the claim.

And it doesn't— it doesn't make sense.

The judge rejected the claim and Krebs was compelled to release the names. Ricci's refusal, on the other hand, proved a more challenging matter because he's the Elon school. In his case, he's got school in the— in his case, he cited doctor-patient confidentiality as his reason for declining to testify or release information about Michael's time at Elon, which— that's a lot more unlike— yeah, unlike Skakel's contract with Sutton. The mutually assured privacy between a doctor and their patient is taken very seriously in the legal system. Yeah. Um, Skakel's lawyer David Grudberg said it completely undercuts that privilege if you can change the rules after the fact. In response, the prosecution argued that the confession, quote, had nothing to do with Skakel's treatment or any illness, therefore should not be privileged information.

Which I can get that.

Which, if you're saying he was talking in private conversations with like fellow students, I would think, yeah, that wouldn't have anything to do with his treatment. Deb, Deb has just informed us that she's not positive, but she said, because she doesn't know Connecticut law, but she certainly knows Mass law, there is the possibility that Rushton Skakel, especially being the father, would not be compelled to testify because of like the parent-child— it's kind of like a spousal privilege. Um, so that makes sense, I suppose.

Yeah, no, I could see that. But yeah, I'm interested though because obviously it was more than him that refused. So I'm like, what did everybody else say?

Yeah. Now again, they're saying— they're claiming that his confessions, like Michael's confessions, had nothing to do with his treatment. So that's why they should be allowed to have the doctor testify. Ultimately, the judge sided with the defense and any statements Michael made while at Elan were deemed inadmissible. Inadmissible.

Why is that hard to say? Interesting.

Yeah. Finally, in January 2000 The grand jury ruled that even without the incriminating statements made at Elan, there was sufficient evidence to charge Michael Skakel with the murder of Martha Moxley. That's without the confession.

I was just gonna say, okay, so then what's the evidence?

But in an odd twist— this is the twistiest case— the arrest warrant and any associated documentation related to the case would not list Skakel by name, as he was a juvenile when the murder was committed. Okay. In response to news of the indictment, Skakel's lawyer, Michael Sherman, told reporters If he's arrested, he's going to plead not guilty, come to court, and we'll go to trial. He's innocent. He has nothing to do with this murder. This is not a case that will result in a plea bargain. Okay. Now, as expected, on January 20th, an arrest warrant was issued for Michael Skakel, who surrendered at the Greenwich Police Department that afternoon, where he spent roughly 30 minutes before being released on $500,000 of bond. Yeah, I That's shocking. For those who'd lived in Greenwich since the murder occurred, it was a moment they never thought would come. Bellhaven resident Martha McEntree said, a lot of people would like to see closure. If an arrest is heading towards that, then I think that's a relief for everyone. Yeah. The arrest was followed by the usual cries of innocence from, you know, Skakel's lawyer Michael Sherman, but Skakel himself seemed interested only in protesting the arrest directly to Dorothy Moxley herself.

Oh, with Sherman's encouragement, allegedly his lawyer. Yeah, Michael reached out to Dorothy, much to her surprise and, uh, disappointment. She later said, what he said to me was, Dorothy, I feel your pain, but you've got the wrong guy. And she says, I was incensed that he would call me Dorothy. I'm sorry, but I do believe I deserve some more respect than that. He should have called me Mrs. Moxley and he shouldn't have talked to me. It wasn't the right thing to do.

Yeah, there's so much wrong with that. To start with, exactly, her mother. Yeah, like, well, like exactly what she said. Put some respect on her name. It's Mrs. Moxley. And she said he shouldn't have called me at all. Shouldn't have called her at all. And the fact that he didn't said, I, I can feel your pain. No, you can't. Yeah, no, you don't know a mother's pain whose daughter was slaughtered 200 feet from her home. 15-year-old daughter. Like, no, you can't feel her pain. Don't ever say that. Yeah, that's nuts. That whole entire decision is nuts from start to finish.

Now, 2 weeks later, on February 8th, Michael Skakel was arraigned on 1 count of second-degree murder in juvenile court. After reviewing the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case, the juvenile court judge had the case transferred to the criminal division of the Superior Court, ending the period in which Skakel's name was withheld from any official documents.

Because now he's an adult.

Now, the case was preceded by the usual round of pretrial hearings, but the prosecution was dealt a significant blow on August 7th, 2001, when their star witness, former Elan student Gregory Coleman, was found dead from an apparent drug overdose. Coleman was one of the two students who testified to the grand jury that Michael had confessed to killing Martha while at Elan, and his testimony was key to securing a conviction.

I just wanted to let that hang in the room for a minute.

Fortunately, the judge allowed the prosecution to present Coleman's deposition at trial in lieu of his testimony. Okay. But the lack of his presence was a major source of frustration, obviously. Now, Skakel's trial began on May 7th, 2002, at the county courthouse in Norwalk. As expected, the trial had drawn a ton of people, like a huge crowd of observers and journalists, many of whom were hoping for an appearance of like a rich and famous Kennedy at the trial. Yeah, and they weren't disappointed, I guess. As early as the first day, many members of the Skakel and Kennedy families were in attendance to support Michael, including his cousins Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Shut up. And Douglas Kennedy.

I didn't even know there was a Douglas.

Yeah, there's a Douglas. There's so many of them. I knew about all of them. The Kennedys are far-reaching. Uh, Dominic Dunn said, the thing that I've always found so curious about the Kennedy's support of Michael is that Michael wrote a treatment for a book in which he says absolutely terrible things about his cousins, the Kennedys. And yet Bobby Kennedy Jr. was up here hugging him and supporting him. Public, public appearances, babe. Yeah. In his opening statement, prosecutor Jonathan Benedict laid out the case— the state's case against Michael, stating with their belief that both Michael and Tommy had been vying for Martha's attention. And while she had no real interest in either of them, yeah, she clearly favored Tommy a little over his brother. Okay. And I think that, yeah, based There's entries in her diary where, like, Michael was mad because she was quote-unquote leading him on. Yeah, he seemed— he seemed kind of protective over his brother. Yeah, and he seemed like— yeah. Now, it was the state's assertion that after the group of friends had gone their separate ways that night, Michael returned from his cousin's house and coaxed Martha outside and made a romantic or physical over— overture.

Okay. To her, you know. When Martha rejected Michael's advances, he became physical and eventually attacked her with the golf club. Okay, now remember, and I want to claim— say this again— that this was the prosecutor Jonathan Benedict's, like, theory. Yeah, it was the argument. That's what happened, right? In his statement, Benedict acknowledged that it was incumbent upon the state to prove not only that Michael was a killer, but that he had intended to kill Martha that night. To that end, the prosecutor used a large projection in the courtroom to show the jury and observers the crime scene photograph. Showing the extent of the brutality Martha had suffered before her death. And he said, and I agree with him, "I can think of no photos more compelling of substantiating an intent to kill." Yeah. There is no way whoever did that to Martha did not intend to kill her. That was an accident. No. No. As for how the case was finally broken at the time, Benedict told the jury, "Sometimes some people simply can't keep a secret." That, as you will see, is how things eventually unraveled for Michael Skakel. Hmm. In his client's defense, Michael Sherman refuted the state's claims and their theory, arguing that after years of bad police work and pressure to solve the case, investigators decided to just pin the murder on Michael.

Okay. He said, the case that we have is based loosely on a very shaky house of cards and mostly wild cards and a few jokers as well.

Okay, let's not get super theatrical with it.

I'm not out here trying to judge, uh, statements in a courtroom.

I'm always out here trying to judge statements.

That made me go, yeah, because you could have Like a shaky house of cards, because I was nodding.

I was like, yeah, like a kind of— with jokers. I love it.

Mostly wild cards, maybe a few jokers. I'd be like, nope, you overdid it. You overdid it. Run it again, Michael. Run it again.

He didn't run that with like— yeah, anyone.

He didn't read that for anyone, I feel. No. Read that in front of someone and see if they go, that's like— yeah, I don't like it. Now, the state's case against Michael was entirely circumstantial, and it hinged, hinged very significantly on the testimony of Gregory Coleman, right, who'd heard Skakel's confession. But he had passed away, right? Yes. Coleman's death before the trial was a big problem for Benedict. However, several weeks into the trial, the prosecutor was contacted by Jennifer Pease, another former Elan student, who offered to testify and corroborate Coleman's statement that Michael not only confessed to the murder but also that he believed, and I quote, he was going to get away with murder because he was a Kennedy. So this is what Jennifer Pease was saying that she could back up. She told the jury that Coleman had confided in her that he thought Michael Skakel was, quote, sick, and that Skakel had, quote, beat some girl's head in and killed her with a golf club. Oh shit. Yeah, the testimony from Jennifer Pease went a long way to corroborating Coleman's earlier statements and those of his widow, who testified prior to Pease.

Wow. On June 3rd, the prosecution and defense gave their final statements before the jury retired to deliberate. That's today. Oh my God, that's— I'm not kidding, guys, we do not do this on purpose.

Today is June 3rd though. That's so weird. What the fuck? This happens to us so often. Why does it happen? I don't know. I had to stop you before you went any further.

I'm not kidding you guys. I swear on everything. We do not do this on purpose. No, we talked about it. We don't line up dates.

A lot of times we're supposed to record earlier than we do. Yeah.

And then we don't. And when we do record, it ends up falling on the date. Yeah.

Because we were going to record this yesterday, but then we didn't. Yeah.

So that's weird.

What the fuck? That's weird. That's weird.

Okay, wow. Well, on June 3rd, the prosecution and defense gave their final statements before the jury retired to deliberate. In his closing remarks, Jonathan Benedict focused on the sheer brutality of the crime and Skakel's sense of untouchability afforded to him by his family's wealth and power. He said— this is really graphic, by the way— okay, he said, the act of stabbing her through the neck from one side through the other is the most emphatic evidence of pure hatred, rage, and intent to kill. Now, in his final argument, Michael Sherman was blunt and simple.

He didn't practice this one either.

Good morning. He didn't do it. He didn't do it. He doesn't know who did. He wasn't there when the crimes were committed, and he never confessed. That's the whole case.

Babe, that's not going to convince me of anything. That's just going to convince me you didn't have your morning coffee.

Yeah, that did. The fuck? I feel like you you should have done this earlier. Yeah. Like, I feel like this is one of those that you were like, I did this before breakfast. Yeah, I just threw that one together. Yeah, that's a rough— but then he just used the rest of it. So that was his, like, here's what I'm gonna— here's my argument. He didn't do it. He didn't do it. He doesn't know who did. He wasn't there. He never confessed. That's it.

Are you gonna tell me why though?

And then the rest of the time he just used to attack the prosecution. That's nice. The witnesses and the investigators for what he alleged was a concerted effort to frame Michael Skakel. He said, I have to tell you, this is the worst-run conspiracy I've ever seen. Wow. Now, the jury deliberated for 4 days before finally coming out on June 8th— my birthday! Hey!— to find Michael Skakel guilty of the murder of Martha Moxley. Oh, bad day for Michael. Now, when the verdict was read, Skakel swayed slightly and shook his head in disbelief. From somewhere behind him, a member of the Skakel family shouted, oh my God! Martha's family, on the other hand, was very happy with the jury's decision. You wait that long for justice for your daughter. Dorothy told a group of reporters, this whole thing was about Martha. Yeah, I feel so blessed and so overwhelmed. This is Martha's day. I hope people remember that. Now, when asked about the verdict his book had seemingly helped secure at the time, Mark Fuhrman praised the jury. He said they were attentive, they gave away nothing. They made no mistakes. Even when I talked to them, they said they were of one mind very early on that he was guilty.

Now, in late August, Skakel went back to the Norwalk Court for sentencing, and when asked whether he had anything to say for himself, Skakel went on the offensive. He attacked his accusers and repeatedly professed his innocence. Before passing sentence, Judge John Kavanouski's address to the court was, Pretty broad, just saying, for the last 25 years or more, a period well into his adult life, the defendant has been living a lie about his guilt. Most importantly, this defendant has accepted no responsibility. He has expressed no personal remorse to this present day. All of this persuades me to impose a sentence which on balance is substantial. And with that, he sentenced Skakel to 20 years to life to be served at the Garner Correctional Institution in Newtown, Connecticut. Okay. Now, his appeals began almost immediately after the sentence. In 2004, the Connecticut Supreme Court heard his claims that, among other things, his constitutional rights were violated when the state prosecuted him for a crime in which the statute of limitations had expired. Hmm. The argument depended largely on Skakel having been underage when the murder was committed, and the judge in juvenile court had erred in transferring the case to criminal court.

Court. In their conclusion, the justices upheld the lower court's ruling, noting, if the trial court erred in their actions, the defendant has not established harm. Okay, so they just kept it. They were like, no. Now, in subsequent appeals, Skakel's defense team made a number of claims of improper conduct, from claims of prosecutorial misconduct to the credibility of witness testimony and beyond. Okay, each case was considered by the higher courts and rejected on the merits. Now, then in 2013, Skakel launched another appeal for a new trial, this time arguing that his original trial attorney, Michael Sherman, was incompetent and was more interested in building his own reputation and celebrity than he was in defending his client. Okay. Martha Moxley's friends, family, and neighbors waited more than 25 years for her to see justice, and it felt like it had finally been found. Yeah. But in November 2013, Judge Thomas Bishop agreed with Skakel's complaint and ordered a new trial. Oh! In his conclusion, Judge Bishop noted that Michael Sherman, quote, "was in a myriad of ways ineffective," and as such, there was no way to be certain that the jury was acting on the best information available.

Okay. To Martha's family, who had been struggling through a frustrating investigation and decades of uncertainty and trials, the reversal was a massive disappointment. Of course it was. But one that was not entirely unexpected, unfortunately. Yeah, given the extent of Skakel's resources. Uh, Dorothy Moxley told reporters after Skakel was released on bail pending a new trial, I guess I knew that the day would come. And she said, it would have made my life much easier for this not to happen. Oh, that must be— because I can't even like come up with how that would feel, to have it like, finally this is over, we can start healing, but then to start moving on, ever really believe it's true, but then it's just reversed. And that's the thing.

They— and they were— it's like holding your breath, waiting for the moment.

Like, because she believed that they got it right. Yeah. But she never believed that it would hold because she knows they have infinite resources. Now, like Dorothy Moxley, the prosecution was ready when the reversal happened and had already started preparing for a retrial. Okay. Fortunately, however, the prosecution wouldn't have to go that route. In 2016, the Connecticut Supreme Court overruled the lower court and concluded that Skakel had in fact been given been a fair trial, even if he didn't feel as though the lawyer provided the best possible defense. Okay. Uh, one of the justices wrote in their concurrence, Sherman's defense need not have been the best decision or even a good one. It need only fall within the wide range of reasonable decisions that a defense attorney might make. Okay. To those who'd been watching the case from day one, the state Supreme Court's decision seemed like an attempt to correct the previous injustice. Yeah. But there wasn't much time to celebrate. Okay, because it's like up and down and up and down. In fact, despite having reinstated the conviction, the question of whether Michael Sherman provided adequate representation would be argued back and forth in the state Supreme Court for 2 more years until May 2018, when the court ultimately reversed their original decision, their earlier decision, and agreed with Skakel's complaint that his lawyer had been ineffective and Yes, he was originally deprived of a fair trial.

Okay. From the moment he was arrested in 1991, nearly everyone in Greenwich, Connecticut watched and waited to see how Michael Skakel's wealth and power would possibly help him in this scenario. They figured it was just a foregone conclusion that it was going to come into play. Yeah. To the shock of many, that proved ineffective when a jury found him guilty and a judge sentenced him to spend the rest of his life in prison. Securing Skakel's conviction and a lengthy sentence was a major victory for the prosecution, who had to, again, contend with really poor police work, missing evidence, the death of their star witness mid-trial. But in truth, his conviction was just never a sure bet. The case, there was a lot of circumstantial stuff, and there was a lot of time between the crime and when the trial occurred. There was just a lot that were a lot working against them.

Yeah.

Now that Skakel had once again managed to win a new trial and was out on bail, the district attorney needed to decide whether they could feasibly secure the same verdict nearly 30 years later, with many of their witnesses having passed away or simply forgotten the important parts of their testimony because they're getting older, right? That's— I don't remember 30 years ago.

No, and it's— you can't necessarily rely on somebody's memory from 30 years ago as you're on a jury, and everybody's memory is different.

It's like, I don't have a great memory. Like, my friend, like, Deb, Deb will say things that are like, remember when this happened? I'm like, oh shit, yeah. Like, or I'll just be like, no, I don't remember that. Yeah, my brain, my memory is just like weird. I remember weird shit, I don't remember good shit. And it's like that, so you just can't be sure. But in the end, Chief State's Attorney Richard Cullenjello looked at the potential battle of a new trial and determined that retrying Michael Skakel simply wasn't a good use of the state's resources. I hate when they say that.

Like, I get what they're saying, but I just hate how it sounds.

He said, I believe the state cannot prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the state is going to enter a nolle prosse, which means to be unwilling to pursue. Oh, once it was formally entered in 2021, the nolle prosse resulted in a discharge of the murder charge against Michael Skakel.

So he was never necessarily proven innocent. They were just like, we think you did this, but we can't prove it.

Basically, we just don't think we can prove you guilty again.

It's almost like what happened with the West Memphis Three. I know that's like a whole different process, but it's a little—

that's more, we're not saying what— it's like basically they can't— they, they just say that they did it. Mm-hmm. And the state will let them go, and that means they can't sue the state. Plea. Oh, that's what it means with the West Memphis 3. So that's a little different. That's an Alfred plea. Yeah. This is them being like, we just don't think putting resources to retrying you will get us the conviction, but we still think you did it. But like— and I don't even know, I don't even know if it's— that's what I think you did it. I think it's just like, we don't think— we just can't prove it. We're not going to put the resources forward because we don't think we could get a conviction again. Wow. So you will be— that's really Um, so although— so he was a free man once again. Okay. Although it is possible that Skakel could be charged again and taken to trial, that is a thing. In the absence of the, you know, any new compelling evidence of his guilt, it seems pretty unlikely because nothing has come out since then that points to him. Yeah.

Regardless of the prosecutor's decision, uh, Dorothy Skakel remained convinced that they got it right the first time. Yeah. While she was disappointed with the outcome, she told reporters she was, quote, satisfied with the efforts of police and prosecutors. All right, so like, damn, at least she had that. But very impressive outlook. Yeah, she did. That's— but sadly, on December 24th, Christmas Eve 2024, Dorothy Moxley died at her home in New Jersey at the age of 92. Wow. But from complications of the flu. Oh, that's awful. Now technically, Martha Moxley's murder remains unsolved to this day and is currently inactive. Oh, it should be active. Which makes me crazy. It should be active. Because regardless, I— that's like a 16-year-old girl was murdered. The facts of the case— I am not giving my personal opinion on this. The facts of the case are Michael Skakel was convicted of the murder. Mm-hmm. He was granted a new trial and they chose not to pursue it. So he was freed. That's just the facts of the case. I don't know. Again, no more compelling evidence has come forward to— that we know of, or that has been released, I should say, or come public to say that he did it or that anyone else did it.

And that's what's really frustrating. It's like we don't have anything else. There's nothing else we can dig into. They need to review that evidence. I mean, look at that golf club.

Why is— did fingerprinting ever fucking happen on that thing?

I don't know, because also the golf club broke, so I don't know if it was hard to get.

Oh, who knows if they have both parts.

Yeah, I don't know. I don't know exactly what parts they were able to like, or what the parts— what kind of condition they were in there.

She was discovered with her pants like around her.

Yes, and the medical examiner said there was no evidence of sexual assault, but there was red marks on her thighs that were like handprints that he believed were someone trying to wrench her knees apart. But there was no biological evidence of sexual assault that they found. Okay, that's not saying with 100% certainty. Yeah, but they were— they were fairly confident that they didn't believe.

I think this investigation just was tough.

It's got a lot around it. It's got a lot going on. But right now, you know, Michael Skakel is not a, you know, not considered the person that did it. Yeah. Right now. But you know what we say?

A cold case is never cold. Exactly. And technically, because this is, it's open though, right? Yeah, I guess. Open but inactive.

It's unsolved and inactive. I think it's just—

Oh, yes. Okay.

So it's a bummer. I would love to see it solved regardless of who is the person they identify. I would like it to be solved. Yeah. Just for Martha's family. Yeah.

Their family deserves justice and so does Martha.

Yeah. And for the people who have been— there was a few names thrown around in this case. It would be nice if you could, you know, exonerate those names or prove that somebody did it.

Yeah. Just have some certainty.

You know, there's a lot of people that were involved in this case that are thrown around here.

Yeah, yeah. Wow, what a, what a brutal case. And just, just, it's awful. It's so awful and it's so messy and it's so sad.

She's super young, she's super promising. It's so sad for so many reasons. Life ahead of her. Yeah, doing everything right, just being a teenager in the '80s or the '70s. '70s. And this is awful. Just going to hang out with their friends and in a place that like didn't have crime. Yeah, like a safe, you know, like, so like this is just like even weirder. And it's— and it makes you think more that this was someone who potentially knew her, because like, it's not like random strangers were being attacked or anything like that around Bellhaven. Yeah, except for that hitchhiker that they claimed they saw that no one could ever— yeah, nobody could prove if they existed or not. Yeah, but who knows?

You never know. I don't know. You never know.

Yeah, I think we need a fun fact. We do need a fun fact. Do you have a fun fact? Debbie has a good one. Oh my God, I— Deb, Deb just found the greatest fun fact that just like ruined my life with the visual as well, because that is the cutest baby elephant I've ever seen in my life. Elephants are my favorite. Baby elephants suck their trunks for comfort, like a baby like would suck their thumb or like a pacifier. Oh, they suck their thumbs, like, or trunks, or their, their trunk thumbs. Yeah, just to soothe themselves when they're tired, anxious, are away from their mamas. Oh, and please look at this elephant. Oh my God, I think my entire life just changed because of that picture of that baby elephant.

So much. Elephants are the best animals ever. They literally like— they hold funerals.

Oh, they take care of each other. They live in communities. Protect— they save each other's babies.

Yeah, like, they are— we are not— we don't deserve elephants.

No, we don't deserve them at all.

We don't—

we don't deserve most animals. My youngest had us watch a show on Disney+ that was like called Elephant, I think, or something, and it was just about a whole fucking group of elephants. Oh honey, I'm finna watch that. One of the elephants saved another one's baby. They do. From being stuck in mud. Cutest thing I've ever seen. They like never gave up. They were like, I'm saving this baby. So elephants, oh my God.

Also, while we're talking about that, Drew and I have been watching this show. I think it's on Hulu. It's about the San Diego Zoo.

Oh my God.

And it is so much fun. I love that. I don't necessarily recommend watching with your children because they do talk about mating I literally, I was just about to recommend it to Elena because they were talking about koalas and her girls love koalas. But then they were like, "He's about to have sexy time with the other koala ladies." And I was like, "Okay, maybe don't have them watch that." She texted me and she was like, "Oh my God, they should watch this." And then like 10 minutes later she was like, "Scratch that. They should not watch this yet." Yeah, I was like, "Maybe not yet yet. You probably have to talk." But if you're like an adult who loves animals, it's a really good show.

I love that. So check it out.

Hell yeah. And with that being said, we hope you keep listening, and we hope you keep it weird. Just not too weird.

Not too weird that you leave this case unsolved. Yes, not that weird.