Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN)   Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel won't face a retrial in the 1975 golf club bludgeoning of 15-year-old Martha Moxley. The prosecutor says at this point it's all just water under the bridge   (msn.com) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

2142 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Oct 2020 at 6:35 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



41 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-30 5:38:54 PM  
It's kind of amazing that our legal system is so broken that we often do this if key witnesses are dead, even if they've already given testimonies in court. Unless the evidence that's creating a new trial is directly related to that testimony, it shouldn't matter.

It's like not granting a retrial for an old murder case because rust ate away at the (already authenticated as the perp's) fingerprints on a gun. "Oh we can't test those prints again, better let him go."
 
2020-10-30 6:49:21 PM  
Another rich guy escaping justice. What a shock.
 
2020-10-30 6:49:28 PM  
Dude's a washed up drunk; he's not even a top-tier Kennedy with the wealth and connections. If the Moxleys want justice, I'm sure they'll find him easily.
 
2020-10-30 6:52:56 PM  
Is this a repeat from, like, 15-20 years ago?
 
2020-10-30 7:08:48 PM  

Gooch: Dude's a washed up drunk; he's not even a top-tier Kennedy with the wealth and connections. If the Moxleys want justice, I'm sure they'll find him easily.


Not a Kennedy at all; his aunt married a Kennedy.
 
2020-10-30 7:15:49 PM  
This is still a thing?
 
2020-10-30 7:17:58 PM  
If I Did It Part II
 
2020-10-30 7:18:39 PM  

Rannuci: Gooch: Dude's a washed up drunk; he's not even a top-tier Kennedy with the wealth and connections. If the Moxleys want justice, I'm sure they'll find him easily.

Not a Kennedy at all; his aunt married a Kennedy.


If Nancy Pelosi's brother in law being married to Gavin Newsom's aunt (divorced in 1977) makes them related, then this guy is a Kennedy.

/s
 
2020-10-30 7:26:07 PM  

Harry Freakstorm: If I Did It Part II


Both featuring Mark Fuhrman.
 
2020-10-30 7:29:09 PM  
Just listened to the MFM episode on that case and the boarding school the killer went to after.

Honestly, that guy was punished enough after that experience.
 
2020-10-30 7:33:54 PM  
Martha Moxley sounds like a Marvel Comics character.
 
2020-10-30 7:38:24 PM  

Rannuci: Gooch: Dude's a washed up drunk; he's not even a top-tier Kennedy with the wealth and connections. If the Moxleys want justice, I'm sure they'll find him easily.

Not a Kennedy at all; his aunt married a Kennedy.


The term is "touch-hole" relative.
 
2020-10-30 7:41:29 PM  

ZMugg: Rannuci: Gooch: Dude's a washed up drunk; he's not even a top-tier Kennedy with the wealth and connections. If the Moxleys want justice, I'm sure they'll find him easily.

Not a Kennedy at all; his aunt married a Kennedy.

If Nancy Pelosi's brother in law being married to Gavin Newsom's aunt (divorced in 1977) makes them related, then this guy is a Kennedy.

/s


Hes every bit as much of a Kennedy as Arnold Schwarzenegger
 
2020-10-30 7:55:04 PM  

puffy999: It's kind of amazing that our legal system is so broken that we often do this if key witnesses are dead, even if they've already given testimonies in court. Unless the evidence that's creating a new trial is directly related to that testimony, it shouldn't matter.

It's like not granting a retrial for an old murder case because rust ate away at the (already authenticated as the perp's) fingerprints on a gun. "Oh we can't test those prints again, better let him go."


Aren't you a legal scholar. The most important basic premise is ability to confront your accusers. A new trail is just that, a new trial.
 
2020-10-30 8:05:31 PM  

Natalie Portmanteau: Hes every bit as much of a Kennedy as Arnold Schwarzenegger


Ahnold actually married a Kennedy (Maria's mother was JFK's sister).
 
2020-10-30 8:07:48 PM  

puffy999: It's kind of amazing that our legal system is so broken that we often do this if key witnesses are dead, even if they've already given testimonies in court. Unless the evidence that's creating a new trial is directly related to that testimony, it shouldn't matter.

It's like not granting a retrial for an old murder case because rust ate away at the (already authenticated as the perp's) fingerprints on a gun. "Oh we can't test those prints again, better let him go."


Waiting until a minor is an adult to take him to trial and sentencing him as if he were an adult when he committed the crime is the truly broken part.
 
2020-10-30 8:22:08 PM  
Tomorrow is the 45th anniversary of the discovery of her body. She was born about 9 months before me and was 15 years old when murdered. How incredibly sad.

And of course to make it even more difficult on her family she was killed in 1975 but the scumbag convicted of murdering her didn't go to trial until 2002. Skakel was the last person seen with her.

You know he did it.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-10-30 8:48:10 PM  

jmr61: Tomorrow is the 45th anniversary of the discovery of her body. She was born about 9 months before me and was 15 years old when murdered. How incredibly sad.

And of course to make it even more difficult on her family she was killed in 1975 but the scumbag convicted of murdering her didn't go to trial until 2002. Skakel was the last person seen with her.

You know he did it.

[Fark user image 850x630]


His brother was the last person seen with her, actually.
 
2020-10-30 8:53:31 PM  
Dominick Dunne's A Season in Purgatory was a thinly-disguised fictionalization of this case.
 
2020-10-30 8:55:24 PM  

Benjimin_Dover: Rannuci: Gooch: Dude's a washed up drunk; he's not even a top-tier Kennedy with the wealth and connections. If the Moxleys want justice, I'm sure they'll find him easily.

Not a Kennedy at all; his aunt married a Kennedy.

The term is "touch-hole" relative.


What hole is being touched and on who?
 
2020-10-30 9:13:41 PM  

chitownmike: Benjimin_Dover: Rannuci: Gooch: Dude's a washed up drunk; he's not even a top-tier Kennedy with the wealth and connections. If the Moxleys want justice, I'm sure they'll find him easily.

Not a Kennedy at all; his aunt married a Kennedy.

The term is "touch-hole" relative.

What hole is being touched and on who?


Any desired hole on any non-blood relative.
 
2020-10-30 9:28:12 PM  

puffy999: It's kind of amazing that our legal system is so broken that we often do this if key witnesses are dead, even if they've already given testimonies in court.


The right to confront your accuser is almost absolute. The reason for this is because you might look at their testimony from a prior trial and notice something you want to further explore... but you can't, because they are dead.
 
2020-10-30 9:31:53 PM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: Waiting until a minor is an adult to take him to trial and sentencing him as if he were an adult when he committed the crime is the truly broken part.


He was 15 when he allegedly committed the murder. It's not unusual for minors to be tried as adults for serious crimes. There are hearings where it is determined whether the offender has the culpability of an adult to try them as such.
 
2020-10-30 9:36:53 PM  

jmr61: Skakel was the last person seen with her.


The last person seen with her was THOMAS Skakel, Michael's brother. Maybe you are mixing things up?
 
2020-10-30 9:56:38 PM  

jmr61: Tomorrow is the 45th anniversary of the discovery of her body. She was born about 9 months before me and was 15 years old when murdered. How incredibly sad.

And of course to make it even more difficult on her family she was killed in 1975 but the scumbag convicted of murdering her didn't go to trial until 2002. Skakel was the last person seen with her.

You know he did it.

[Fark user image 850x630]


He probably did, but Tommy might have too. Also the chauffer, and since the Greenwich PD let uncle Rucky lose the golf clubs, reasonable doubt should have ruled out most things. Then Mark Furman came out of hiding and got in bed (I mean literally had sex with) a Connecticut DA looking to make it in politics. The dude's done more time than your usual preppie murderer, plus they made him go to Hyde School, blech. What do you or I really know about it?

It was the night The Godfather was first on TV, and that was part of every grown-up's alibi that night...
 
2020-10-30 9:58:52 PM  

macadamnut: jmr61: PD let uncle Rucky lose the golf clubs, reasonable doubt should have ruled out most things. Then Mark Furman came out of hiding and got in bed (I mean literally had sex with) a Connecticut DA looking to make it in politics. The dude's done more time than your usual preppie murderer, plus they made him go to Hyde School, blech. What do you or I really know about it?
...


I now regret this homophobic joke, and so when I say fark Mark Furman that's not what I mean.
 
2020-10-30 10:15:38 PM  

macadamnut: It was the night The Godfather was first on TV, and that was part of every grown-up's alibi that night...


I had to Google that: The Godfather made it to TV on November 16, 1974 and November 18, 1974 (split up over two nights).
 
2020-10-30 10:20:06 PM  

puffy999: It's kind of amazing that our legal system is so broken that we often do this if key witnesses are dead, even if they've already given testimonies in court. Unless the evidence that's creating a new trial is directly related to that testimony, it shouldn't matter.

It's like not granting a retrial for an old murder case because rust ate away at the (already authenticated as the perp's) fingerprints on a gun. "Oh we can't test those prints again, better let him go."


Actually that's exactly why it is just. If a crime isn't prosecuted timely, the evidence goes to shiat (personal recollections as well as physical evidence - for the prosecution and the defense) and a truly fair trial becomes less likely. For some big crimes like murder where you have a dead body it may make some sense to allow prosecution years later, but even then if the evidence has decayed it's not fair to any defendant (even this one) to present evidence that doesn't exist and expect it to hold up. Don't think of this arsehole. Think of your kid and how you'd like the state to treat them on such shoddy evidence.
 
2020-10-30 10:37:05 PM  

mrmopar5287: macadamnut: It was the night The Godfather was first on TV, and that was part of every grown-up's alibi that night...

I had to Google that: The Godfather made it to TV on November 16, 1974 and November 18, 1974 (split up over two nights).


So that's not true? Where did I read that Godfather story then, damn. The Fuhrman comeback was in 1998, it was all still very topical to the people I knew.
 
2020-10-30 10:55:16 PM  

mrmopar5287: He was 15 when he allegedly committed the murder. It's not unusual for minors to be tried as adults for serious crimes. There are hearings where it is determined whether the offender has the culpability of an adult to try them as such.


That's currently the law, and it's been the law for so long that I bet it's hard for most people to think of a time when it wasn't, but 1975 was right around the time that laws were starting to change to allow the state to try minors as adults for particularly serious crimes or where the minor had an extensive criminal record as a juvenile.  Prior to that, even serious crimes like murder were heard in juvenile court, even if the resultant sentence was so long that the perp got transferred to an adult prison on aging out of the juvenile-justice system.  (Typically 18 but sometimes 21 or even as late as 25 IIRC.)

I'm not sure what the law was in Connecticut in 1975, but the law as it existed then is the law Skakel would need to be tried under, else it's ex post facto and thus unconstitutional.
 
2020-10-30 10:59:09 PM  

Rannuci: Gooch: Dude's a washed up drunk; he's not even a top-tier Kennedy with the wealth and connections. If the Moxleys want justice, I'm sure they'll find him easily.

Not a Kennedy at all; his aunt married a Kennedy.


Shhhh.
It was a great joke .
 
2020-10-30 11:32:38 PM  
What? A rich, well-connected white guy got away with murder? I, for one, am shocked!
 
2020-10-30 11:59:04 PM  

mrmopar5287: jmr61: Skakel was the last person seen with her.

The last person seen with her was THOMAS Skakel, Michael's brother. Maybe you are mixing things up?


The one dive I've taken into this story also stated that Michael, on more than one occasion, climbed a tree outside of Martha's window and jerked off while peeping on her.

That doesn't make him the murderer, but it would explain how he got roped into being a participant.
 
2020-10-31 12:35:58 AM  
Oh No... Another Kennedy chap acquitted?
 
2020-10-31 12:37:12 AM  
I bet that Skakle mother was up to alllllll kinds of butt stuff to rope a bonafide Kennedy hauling those two lunks around with her.
 
2020-10-31 12:53:41 AM  

ZMugg: Natalie Portmanteau: Hes every bit as much of a Kennedy as Arnold Schwarzenegger

Ahnold actually married a Kennedy (Maria's mother was JFK's sister).


Isn't this dude a nephew? Seems about the same to me.
 
2020-10-31 1:44:45 AM  

TedCruz'sCrazyDad: puffy999: It's kind of amazing that our legal system is so broken that we often do this if key witnesses are dead, even if they've already given testimonies in court. Unless the evidence that's creating a new trial is directly related to that testimony, it shouldn't matter.

It's like not granting a retrial for an old murder case because rust ate away at the (already authenticated as the perp's) fingerprints on a gun. "Oh we can't test those prints again, better let him go."

Waiting until a minor is an adult to take him to trial and sentencing him as if he were an adult when he committed the crime is the truly broken part.


Agreed.
 
2020-10-31 4:27:15 AM  

sex_and_drugs_for_ian: The one dive I've taken into this story also stated that Michael, on more than one occasion, climbed a tree outside of Martha's window and jerked off while peeping on her.


There were all kinds of claims about this case and that was one of them. Stories have shifted but it's hard to tell if that is because people are hiding things or the passage of time doing that to their memory (making it fuzzy).

I do like the extremely rarely used one-man grand jury used to indict him, though. Gee whiz, I wonder if that was done intentionally to rig it to indict him?
 
2020-10-31 11:58:07 AM  

sex_and_drugs_for_ian: mrmopar5287: jmr61: Skakel was the last person seen with her.

The last person seen with her was THOMAS Skakel, Michael's brother. Maybe you are mixing things up?

The one dive I've taken into this story also stated that Michael, on more than one occasion, climbed a tree outside of Martha's window and jerked off while peeping on her.

That doesn't make him the murderer, but it would explain how he got roped into being a participant.


This Malaka could help Toobin write his column for the New Yorker.
/New yanker
 
2020-10-31 3:00:24 PM  

astelmaszek: The most important basic premise is ability to confront your accusers


Another great thing about our legal system: this idea is also why a lot of women don't report their rapes. Because the victim has to have irrelevant personal details brought to trial by a person whom they accuse of rape.

Again, a trial has been had. Evidence is evidence. Unless there's reason that's come to light to question the testimony of the deceased, what's the argument?

It also seems that only wealthy people get off with the excuse of "my lawyer was bad." There's another thing to fix with our legal system.

cefm: puffy999: It's kind of amazing that our legal system is so broken that we often do this if key witnesses are dead, even if they've already given testimonies in court. Unless the evidence that's creating a new trial is directly related to that testimony, it shouldn't matter.

It's like not granting a retrial for an old murder case because rust ate away at the (already authenticated as the perp's) fingerprints on a gun. "Oh we can't test those prints again, better let him go."

Actually that's exactly why it is just. If a crime isn't prosecuted timely, the evidence goes to shiat (personal recollections as well as physical evidence - for the prosecution and the defense) and a truly fair trial becomes less likely. For some big crimes like murder where you have a dead body it may make some sense to allow prosecution years later, but even then if the evidence has decayed it's not fair to any defendant (even this one) to present evidence that doesn't exist and expect it to hold up. Don't think of this arsehole. Think of your kid and how you'd like the state to treat them on such shoddy evidence.


Well, yes, it's what made conviction tough in this case in the first place.

I'm just not sure how it applies to what I said. Though, I do NOT believe in bringing charges too early or without the proper evidence... See, an actual case where someone got convicted of murder who should have NEVER gone to jail: heck, not even to trial originally, IMO.
 
2020-10-31 3:08:43 PM  
That McGuffin case was popular around here. I was a bit older than them and people my age were pretty shook up.

But I remember when the case went to trial, and there didn't seem to be a "there" there. No smoking gun. No witness testimony other than past incidents.

And then he lost 10-2, because Oregon is idiotic.

And YEARS LATER it is learned that the asshats WITHHELD DNA EVIDENCE on the victim's shoe from an unidentified individual. Coulda been spit from walking down the street... who knows... but not for the prosecution to decide to not bring it up to the defense.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.