|
MICHAEL SKAKEL PREJUDICIAL ANALYSIS MICHAEL SKAKEL TOMMY SKAKEL PREJUDICIAL ANALYSIS TOMMY SKAKEL KEN LITTLETON JOHN MOXLEY SUTTON REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS MOXLEY MURDER SPECULATIVE ANALYSIS 1. Tommy Skakel has lied to authorities about the night of October 30, 1975. 2. Michael Skakel has lied to authorities about the night of October 30, 1975. We know Tommy Skakel lied, because he, admittedly, altered his story to now include highly relevant facts he purposefully concealed from the Greenwich Police Department, Dr. Lesse, and others. For example, he told the Greenwich Police and Dr. Lesse that the last time he saw Martha Moxley on the night of her murder was at the side of his house, around 9:30 pm. He has subsequently advised Sutton Associates that he actually spent approximately, an additional thirty minutes with Martha, engaging in a sexual encounter. If he was not lying then, he is lying now, and visa-versa. We know Michael Skakel lied, because, in terms of his story, he did the same thing as his brother. If he was not lying then, he is lying now, and visa-versa. We suspect Ken Littleton has lied because he failed at least two lie-detector tests. This remains only a suspicion, however, because the results of these lie-detector tests (administered under circumstances unclear to Sutton Associates,) cannot entirely be trusted. Tommy, we have good reason to believe was able to pass at least one lie-detector test with his original story. While it is possible Tommy told the truth back then and is lying now, such a scenario seems highly unlikely. (Why would Tommy start telling self-implicating lies after previously telling the truth?) More probably, Tommy was able to fool the polygraph. Certain individuals are capable of such deception. (If the perpetrator is in some state of denial, for example, their responses may not register on the polygraph.) Tommy, we know, successfully lied to Dr. Lesse. It would seem his capacity for deception is formidable. (Then again, as we will consider in greater depth, later in this section, Tommy may not have murdered Martha Moxley. His deception may have been easier to maintain if executed on the behalf of whoever did murder Martha.) Just as the polygraph will let some who are lying slip by, it can also falsely identify others who are not lying. Certain individuals, know matter what they say, will fail the polygraph. Such people are usually very nervous, unstable, or agitated. Littleton is all three. However, he could still be lying. Or he [^] simply holding something back. Littleton has given Sutton Associates’ investigators ample indication that he has purposefully not disclosed everything he knows about October 30, 1975. For example, on April 7, 1976, Littleton was asked to sign a statement, put before him by the Greenwich Police Department, documenting circumstantial evidence against Tommy (essentially that he was out of the house for x period of time when the murder was alleged to have occurred). Littleton refused to sign what he had already stated to be the truth, on the grounds he believed Tommy was innocent. When asked about this occurrence recently, Ken denied it ever happened. After Littleton gave indication, through certain remarks, that he may have seen Michael outside on the night of the murder, our investigator pressed him on this issue as well. First, Littleton denied making the comments in question. Then, asked if he had seen Michael outside that night, Ken said,”No.” Would you tell us if you did? asked our investigator. Tellingly, Littleton replied, “No.” Littleton has something to say, but is unwilling to say it. “I have a definite feeling in my mind,” he told our investigator, “that this murder was committed after 10:30 at night." “Why do you say that? he was asked. “Because,” he responded cryptically. All of this adds up to fact number three: 3. Ken Littleton knows something, but is holding back. These three basic details … 1. Tommy Skakel has lied to authorities about the night of October 30, 1975. 2. Michael Skakel has lied to authorities about the night of October 30, 1975. 3. Ken Littleton knows something, but is holding back. …establish the foundational paradigm upon which we will now speculate with what evidence we possess: Tommy and Michael are somehow involved in the murder. Littleton is somehow a witness in a state of complicity. The Academy Report, based on objective criminological evaluations of the evidence, points heavily towards Michael and Tommy as suspects, but not Littleton. Logically, it is highly unlikely that Littleton, his first night on the job, would attack Martha Moxley out in front of her house. It was such a high-risk crime, only someone who (was) very comfortable in the neighborhood, and had a very personalized rage against Martha, could commit this heinous act as it happened. Also, the perpetrator was most likely in a state of severe psychosis and intoxication. While we have indication that both Tommy and Michael were under the influence of alcohol, and possibly drugs, that night, Littleton seems to have been clean in that regard. Now, before we begin hypothesizing, let us pin down the points where we are fairly certain that Ken, Tommy, and Michael were accounted for, and utilize this as the frame for our speculative canvases… Mark #1 9:15 Michael was in the Skakel car, listening to music tapes with Helen Ix, Jeffery [Geoffrey] Byrne, and Martha Moxley. It was shortly after this point that Martha got out of the car to join Tommy in flirting, and sexual horseplay. Littleton, we believe, was with the younger Skakel children. We do not have a specific account of how Michael responded to this activity, or, more importantly, exactly where he was after this point. Jim Terrien maintains that, along with Rush, John, and Michael, he left the Skakel residence for his house at around 9:30 pm. Andrea Shakespeare, however, contradicts this account. While she is not sure of the exact time, she says Terrein left well before her own departure. Julie has stated she drove Andrea home at around 9:30. Andrea believes it was about 9:50 pm. At any rate, it is Andrea’s strong opinion that Michael did not go to the Terrien’s [Terriens'] residence with his brothers. Hearing that story, sometime after the homicide, she said to herself, ”That’s bullshit. No way did Michael go to Terrien’s [Terriens'].” While she cannot be absolutely certain, Andre believes that she saw Michael at some point after John, Rush and Jim left for the Terrien’s [Terriens']. Her conviction is supported by additional evidence; most notably, the hypnosis session with John in which he never put Michael either in the car, coming or going, or at the Terrien household. On 5/4/93, John was asked where Michael was while he and Rush were at the Terrien’s [Terriens']. The interviewer, on repeated occasions, tried to get John to place Michael in the car and then at the Terrein’s [Terriens']. John could not. After being pushed, he would only recall that maybe someone else was in the car and at the Terrien’s [Terriens'] house. As much as the interviewer persisted, hinted, and pushed, John could not identify that person as Michael, and even said he felt Michael was back at the Skakel house. Gaspar: Who is in the room with you? You, Jimmy, who else? John: Rush. Gaspar: Did you hear anybody come in or leave? Did the telephone ring? John: I don’t recall. Gaspar: Where's Ken and Michael and Julie now? John: Anyone who didn’t come back with us is back at Belle Haven. They discuss the ride back to Belle Haven: Gaspar: When you drove back from the Terrien’s [Terriens'], who drove? Gaspar: Why didn’t Rush drive? John: I think he gave up the wheel. Gaspar: Do you remember why he gave up the wheel? John: I think he said it was better if I drive. Gaspar: Who else was in the car with you? Besides you and Rush? John: I think just us, but I'm not sure. This hypnosis session was not the first one between Gaspar, and John, and not the first time this issue of Michael's whereabouts was raised. Suffice it to say, this is not an issue of John being momentarily forgetful. If anything, Gaspar went too far in trying to lead John into putting Michael at the Terrien's [Terriens'] and in the car, but John would still not capitulate. Indeed, the way he was answering questions about the car ride seems to be consistent with a subconscious conflict. It almost seems as though John, under the influence of hypnosis, plainly sees Michael was not in the car, and sees he was not at the Terrien's [Terriens'], but realizes someone was supposed to be there. (Frankly, Gaspar's style of questioning, in and of itself, gives that impression.) So, John is answering truthfully, but qualifying his answers out of some inexplicable concern. He says that someone, he doesn't know who, doesn't know why, but someone might have been there. This, I believe, is consistent with John having been instructed to say, and perhaps even believe, at some point after October 30, 1975, that Michael was with him both in the car and in the Terrien’s [Terriens'] on that night, though it was untrue. Under hypnosis, however, John's testimony is crystal clear. Michael was not with him. John would surely remember, after all those questions, if he had been. Could Terrien be lying? Could Rush be lying? Why? If Rush says, today, that Michael was in the car with him when he went to the Terrien's [Terriens'] [access to his interview of October 7, 1992 [footnote 1] is pending] he is a liar. When Tommy was evaluated by Dr. Lesse in the Spring of 1976, only months after the murder occurred, Rush was called in to provide the doctor with general background information on the Skakel family and his younger brother. Dr. Lesse also asked Rush for an account of October 30, 1975. Thankfully, Dr. Lesse kept a written record of all his interviews. In his report of May 11, 1976, he reported the following from a section titled The events of October 30th – 31st, 1975 as related by Rush, Jr. : At 9:30 pm, they arrived home. The group watched television for a period of time. Shortly before 10:00 pm, Martha Moxley visited with a group of girls and boys. About that time, Rush took Jimmy home in order that be might be there by 10:30 pm in order that he could watch “Monty Python." Tommy did not go with them. Rush states that he came home at approximately 11:45 pm. At that point, Tom was in his room. Rush slept in the same room with Tom. Rush stated that he retired about 1:00 am and that Tom was asleep approximately at that time. He believes that between 10:00 pm and 1:00 am, Julie, Steven [Stephen], and Michael were at home. Again, Rush told Dr. Lesse that while he was at the Terriens, Michael was at home. Later in the interview, Rush told Dr. Lesse: At 11:00 am on October 31st, many police cars gathered around the Moxley residence. "Michael seemed to be the most curious one. He was going nuts. He was in an obnoxious mood.” According to a Tom Sheridan memo: Michael’s aunt, Sue Reynolds, who spent much time at the Skakel home after the Moxley incident, observed--that she spent much time eyeball to eyeball with Tommy; and she is persuaded “that Tommy had nothing to do with the crime." On the other hand, she has "very negative vibrations with reference to Michael." Michael is deeply involved in alcohol and not under control--“he is capable of anything" -- she also states that Martha Moxley was at one time Michael's girlfriend. This is a confirmation to Margolis. It has been reported to him by others. This means that the Greenwich Police know this fact. There is more evidence, still, that Michael did not get in that car leaving for the Terrien's [Terriens']. Consider the striking discrepancies between the way Tommy recalls their departure versus the way Michael recalls their departure: Tommy’s version: When Tom and Martha were "fooling around" behind the fence, Tom heard Rush, John, Michael, and Jimmy leaving for Jimmy Dowdle's [Terrien's preferred last name] house. Tom went over to the Lincoln and remembers having a brief conversation with either Jimmy or John. While Tom cannot recall what was discussed, he speculated that it may have been about drugs, stating, "Jimmy was into that." He stated he believes John was in the front seat. In response to questions as to why he didn't go with them, Tom stated, "maybe I wanted to fool around with Martha some more.” Michael’s version: Thomas Skakel exited the house and announced they were going to the Skakel [Terrien] residence to watch the Monty Python Show. Michael asked Moxley to go with them, but she declined, stating she couldn't because her mother expected her home. T. Skakel said he couldn’t go because he had to study for an exam. Moxley exited the vehicle and as Michael, Rushton Jr., John, and J. Dowdell [Dowdle] pulled from the driveway, Michael saw T. Skakel speaking with M. Moxley near the side door. Also in the driveway were Helen Ix, Jeff [Geoff] Byrne, and Marge Walker. Despite Michael's account, Tom recalls seeing Martha and Michael in the Lincoln a considerable while before he says the car departed for the Terrien's--confounding Michael's version, suggesting Michael was not around when the car actually left, Tommy reports the following as occurring before he and Martha started “fooling around" behind the fence, at the side of the house. Tom advised that the next thing he remembers is going through the kitchen to the side door. He went over to the left rear door of the Lincoln, which was parked in the driveway Martha and Michael were in the rear seat of the car, talking. Jimmy was in the front seat of the car. Tom could provide no reason for going to the Lincoln. When asked if he recalls anything regarding cassette tapes, he said he did not. Tom does not recall if he did or did not get into the car. The next thing he remembers is that Martha got out of the left side of the car. They were talking and made their way to the front right of the car. Tom recalls someone going in and out of the house, looking for the Lincoln car keys. After this, Tom says he spent about ten minutes "fooling around" with Martha behind the fence before he went out and saw the Lincoln depart for the Terrien's. Clearly, for whatever reason, it seems Michael is confused. He is telling us the group departed for the Terrien's at least ten minutes before we have good reason to believe they actually did. Is it possible that Michael got out of the car in disgust, when Martha went off' with Tommy, and although he never actually rejoined Rush, John, and Jim, assumes that they must have left soon after that point? Could this be an error in fabricated recollection? Unfortunately, John’s hypnosis sessions do not include any specific description of leaving for the Terrien's. He should be further, but carefully, questioned in this regard. At some point, before she left, Andrea recalls seeing an unidentifiable flash go by, outside the kitchen window. She mentioned it to Julie, but Julie said she didn’t see it. In addition, Andrea thinks Littleton “may" have been at the top of the center hallway stairs with one of the younger Skakel boys, but she "could not testify in court to that.” If her recollection is accurate, we have Littleton pinned down inside the house at some general point after 9:30 pm. Julie also thinks that Littleton was there as she and Andrea were leaving. Andrea definitely confirms that Tommy came to open the door for her when she returned to the house to get the keys. At this point, Julie says Martha was walking around the back fence as Tommy closed the door behind Andrea. Mark #2 9:30 At this general point somewhere around 9:30 (since Julie's recollection of time, based on the Ellery Queen show, is more credible than Andrea's), Tommy and Littleton are pinned down by the front door of the Skakel home. Michael’s whereabouts, however, are contested. If he was not in the car on the way to the Terrien's, and it certainly seems as though he was not, then Michael is unaccounted for. Could Michael have been that flash outside the window that Andrea saw? Could he have stayed behind to spy on Martha and his brother? Andrea's recollection of seeing something, or someone, outside the kitchen window, is especially interesting in light of what Julie reports encountering upon her return home, after dropping Andrea off. During her most successful hypnosis session with Dr. Vrechek, on July 26, 1994, Julie recounted the following: Julie: As I approached the front door, I heard a noise in the bushes and saw a big dark person crouched, moving underneath the kitchen windows, then going to the trees on the other end of the driveway. Dr. Vrechek: What did this figure look like? Julie: Crouched, big, dark, maybe a hood, carrying something in his left hand. At the time, Julie was less than alarmed by this stranger's presence due to the fact it was "Hacking Night”--the night before Halloween, when children traditionally play pranks and cause other mischief around the neighborhood. She did recall thinking it odd, however, that this individual was unaccompanied, as young people typically cavort in groups on “Hacking Night.” Could this person have been Michael, Tommy, or Ken? Dr. Vrechek asked Julie if she got a sense of the person's size: Julie: Bigger than myself. Dr. Vrechek: Bigger than yourself. Okay. Was it a man or a woman, or a girl or a boy? Julie: I would just say… a man or a boy. This general description could match either Michael, Tommy, or Ken. Julie tells us that she caught the last ten minutes, or so, of Ellery Queen. Hence, if we accept Tommy's recent confession as entirely truthful, he would have still been still engaged in a sexual encounter with Martha Moxley behind the house at this point. Mark #3 10:05 pm Julie also tells us that soon after Ellery Queen concluded, at 10:00 pm., she encountered Ken Littleton in the kitchen, making a sandwich. Her recollection of the encounter is so specific (including snippets of conversation), that even though Littleton denies any recollection of the meeting, we must conclude it happened as Julie remembers. Therefore, Littleton (and Tommy, somewhat) are accounted for at this stage. Could that have been either of them out there in the bushes? It is possible, but highly unlikely. How could Littleton have been running around outside in dark, hooded garb, and then end up in the kitchen wearing a plaid shirt (as Julie recalls), making a sandwich ten minutes later. If Tommy went out back with Martha for at least twenty minutes, it is highly improbable he would have had time to change into dark clothes and end up in front of his house before 9:50 pm. So why would Michael be sneaking around his own home? Michael’s motive is simple. We know he saw Martha cavorting with his brother Tommy at the side of the house. We know, as well, that Martha had previously been involved romantically with Michael for some time. She had changed the focus of her affections from one brother to the other, in a very public, and, for Michael, certainly humiliating way. Let's not tip-toe around this issue. Imagine that your older brother, who you detest, has seduced and effectively stolen your girlfriend. Do you even have to be a high-strung, cocaine and alcohol abusing, depressed psychotic, to get absolutely enraged and lose control? Clearly not. Consider in addition, however, that Dr. Sue Wallington Quinlan, who examined Michael on March 3, 1977, reported the following: Projective testing suggested a severe agitated depression, a sense of being overwhelmed by a sense of evil and the futility of life. The depression is possibly of psychotic proportions but the protocol was too guarded to be certain. Mental functioning is clearly fragile. Extent of pathology is evident in borderline features: 1) intrusions of personal concerns into intellectual functioning, 2) primitive fantasy content, e.g. mutilated bodies, masked, distorted figures, concerns about bodily integrity and deformity, 3) inadequate capacity for attachment to other people. Now think about how he must have responded [^] the circumstances of October 30, 1975, as someone who Dr. Quinlan further diagnosed as having impulse control that is only marginally adequate. Was Michael able to control his impulses that fateful night? Given everything we know about the highly combative rivalry between these two brothers, and Michael’s well-documented psychological problems, there can be no doubt he was extremely upset about what was transpiring. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that he may have wanted to spy on his brother and Martha, to monitor, first-hand, any betrayal. If we accept what Tommy has told us about his sexual encounter with Martha, they were carrying on flagrantly, only 50 feet behind the Skakel residence, in the middle of the rear lawn. Their indiscretion was highly visible, should anyone have been even remotely suspicious. Did Michael have reason to be suspicious? Ample reason. Many people were aware, even before the demonstrative sexual horseplay at the side of the house, that Martha was interested in Tommy. If Michael did not go to the Terrien's [Terriens'], could he have witnessed Tommy and Martha's sexual encounter? Certainly. Michael also claimed, when interviewed by Sutton Associates, that he could not remember when he first realized Martha was dead. To a fifteen year-old boy, such a realization would certainly have been an extreme shock--a frightening, unprecedented moment of devastation. Not a moment, in short, one would ever forget. Why would Michael forget? He wouldn’t . But how could he tell investigators if he realized she was dead before he was supposed to know. Michael also told Sutton Associates he did not consider Martha to be a flirt. By all other accounts--many of them emphatic and coming directly from her good friends--Martha Moxley was a relentless flirt. This was an aspect of her character everyone recognized, without negative judgment. (No one considered her to be sexually promiscuous, or inappropriately preoccupied with sexuality. Rather her flirtatiousness seems to have been indicative of a self-confident and cheerful disposition.) So why did Michael dissent from the consensus on this point? Is this a reactionary and defensive stance? Is Michael wary of giving any indication that he harbored resentment against her for her liaisons with Tommy? Now let's assume, as we suspect, that Michael did not go to the Terrien's [Terriens']. Why would Tommy and Jim Terrien want to make us believe he did? Mark #4 10:15 The next time we have Ken and Tommy pinned down is sometime around 10:15 pm, depending on who you believe is more accurate (Littleton says Tommy came into the master bedroom at around 10:03 pm. Tommy says he arrived at around 10:17 pm). Let us assume they are both being entirely honest to the best of their recollection. After leaving Martha, Tommy says he went up to his room for an indeterminable period of time. He then went down the staircase from the third floor to the second floor where he noticed that his father's bedroom door was open. Inside, Ken was sitting on the lounge chair, watching The French Connection. Tommy joined him and sat on the bed. After watching the chase scene, Tommy says he went down to the kitchen for a bite to eat, and then went up to bed. Littleton says that Tommy came into the bedroom about twenty minutes before the chase scene. The chase scene began at exactly 10:23 pm. If Tommy really came up twenty minutes earlier, Ken would have been in the kitchen with Julie at that point. Most likely, Tommy came up later than that, probably around a quarter past. Littleton says that Tommy, in his estimation, could not have murdered Martha Moxley before this point. He seemed completely normal and relaxed at the time. If Julie has Littleton in the kitchen at 10:05 pm, and Tommy has him in the master bedroom shortly thereafter, it seems virtually impossible Ken could have committed the murder of Martha Moxley--assuming, as most do, that the murder occurred just after Martha left Tommy's presence and headed for home. Could Tommy have killed her after their sexual encounter. Littleton says no. So if we are dealing with Tommy, Michael, and Ken, as our suspect triumvirate, and we believe that Martha was murdered around 10:00 pm, on her way home after fooling around with Tommy, only one of our suspects could possibly have intercepted her: Michael. Ridiculous? Hardly. A Tom Sheridan memo of 6/6/78 stated that [^] possible Michael could have committed the murder and doesn't know it and possibly someone else, i.e. Tommy, could have hidden the body and taken Michael to the Terrien's [Terriens'] to provide him with an alibi. A memo of 1/9/79 reports that Mr. Bennison [exact identity pending--presumably a staff member at Elan] advised Father Mark Connolly and Sheridan that Michael had admitted involvement after a long and arduous gruelling [WW] , but later recanted any involvement. We have numerous indications that Michael suffered from a serious alcohol and cocaine problem. Let us imagine for a moment, that after seeing Martha go off with Tommy, Michael went and did some coke--maybe in his room, maybe in the Revcon vehicle. Now, highly agitated, paranoid, and in a virtual state of psychosis, he puts on some dark clothing and decides to spy on them. At this point, the Terrien group has already left. So has Julie and Andrea. When Andrea [Julie] returns, it is Michael she sees in the bushes. When Michael does find Tommy and Martha, based on what Tommy has told us, he witnesses them in a very compromising position. But he waits. Maybe he flees in complete rage. Maybe this is when Andrea [Julie] sees him crouched. Maybe she sees him crouched before he stumbles upon Martha and Tommy. The point is, that Michael decided to wait and confront Martha alone. In Michael's mind, it is all her fault. She has humiliated him. Michael wants to confront Martha because he will be stringer [WW] than she is—how [WW] [^] will be able to control the situation if he confronts her. If he confronted his brother, Tommy could have held is own and would have contained Michael. Michael does not want to be contained. His mind is reeling. Finally, Tommy leaves Martha to head inside. Martha begins her walk home. Waiting until Tommy is gone, Michael confronts Martha in front of her driveway. In a [WW] likelihood, he know doesn't what he’s going to do. The rage, fueled to uncontrollable heights by substance abuse, is directing him. Consistent with the Academy report, Martha would not fear Michael. Certainly, she would feel a little embarrassed, guilty, or defensive, but not immediately afraid. Perhaps, Michael tested her. Maybe he asked her if she had been with Tommy to she if she'd lie. And maybe she did. She could have felt very guilty, didn’t want to hurt his feelings, etc. maybe she said something patronizing, disparaging... maybe she said something which Michael perceived as an affront to his manhood. Perhaps nothing was said at all. Regardless, Michael reacted. He punched her in the face, sending her to the ground. That was the point of no return. With this scenario, we finally have potential explanations to previously baffling issues. For example, why did Tommy conceal his sexual encounter with Martha from Julie (starting when she woke him up later than [WW] night--well before he should have known that anything unsavory had befallen Martha), the police, Dr. Lesse, and other authorities, for years, if he hadn't murdered Martha himself? Why would Tommy be able to tell a polygraph expert he did not kill Martha, and pass? Why, when he finally came clean and confessed to his twenty minute liaison with Martha in the back lawn (to Sutton Associates' investigators), did he break down in tears? Why would Michael confess to a murder he did not commit? Why would Michael later tell Sutton Associates that he went outside at around 11:40 pm that night and masturbated outside Martha’s window? Why, if Martha was not raped, were her panties rolled down, exposing her in a vulgar manner? What was the murderer trying to say by leaving her in this position? What does this all mean? Tommy probably knew, before going to sleep that night, that Martha was murdered by his brother Michael. That's why he lied to Julie when she first woke him up. Moreover, Tommy was gripped with guilt for having precipitated his brother's actions. Tommy had no great love for Martha. To him, unfortunately, she was a piece of ass. Tommy felt guilty for having pushed his brother over the edge. Tommy probably could have rationalized that it was Martha’s fault anyway. So he helped his brother. In a way, he was helping himself too. Mark #5 10:32 pm The chase scene from The French Connection concluded. Accepting their respective stories, we have Tommy and Ken pinned down at this point. From this point, forward, however, Tommy is not again pinned down until, at least, over an hour later. Littleton is not accounted for at all until the next morning. Imagine, at some point, after leaving Littleton in the master bedroom, Tommy encounters Michael. He [WW] brother is covered in blood, incoherent, hysterical. He is in a state of shock. At first, Tommy probably could not even believe what Michael was trying to tell him. Possibly, Tommy went out to see the body for himself before accepting what had happened. From that point, he made his decision. He may have even helped move the body to the more discrete final resting place under the tree. We know from the Academy Report that the murderer returned to the body, at some point, and inflicted the post-mortem through-the-neck-wounds. We also know that, somehow, the shaft of the golf club was hidden. The crime scene, in short, was cleaned up to protect the guilty. It is possible, as well, that Littleton and Jim Terrien were made aware of what transpired, and complied with a cover-up to protect Michael. Terrien gives a highly transparent and convenient alibi for his whereabouts after 11:00 pm that night. He says he was with a married woman having a sexual encounter, and will not say who that woman is unless he is called in to testify before a grand jury. Absurd. Terrien could have come to the Skakel residence and helped Tommy clean things up. At the very least, Terrien is the most outspoken in asserting that Michael was with him from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm. From what we can tell, that’s covering up right there. And let's imagine that Littleton, in one way or another, is exposed to what happened. Tommy and Jim Terrien could have coerced him into cooperating with words to the following effect: If you ever come forward about any of this, it will be our word against yours. We will say you were an active participant. We will have the best representation money can by [WW] . We will have the support and resources of the Kennedy as well as the Skakel family. What will you have? Whether you like it or not, you are now a party to this. If you do not maintain your silence, you will be crushed. Would this threat, this fear, be enough to keep Littleton silent? Suffice it to say, he hasn't proved himself, in subsequent conduct, to be either the brightest or most moralistic person ever. This scenario would explain much of Littleton's subsequent problems, as well as why he is holding back. This scenario would also explain a lot about Tommy's subsequent behavior--particularly why he has been so shaken up since his recent interviews with Sutton Associates. We have made him believe we think he did this. As he said, “In my heart, I know I did not do this.” What does that mean? Could it mean that he knows he did not actually kill Martha, but still feels guilty because he knows that if he had never fooled around with Martha, none of this would have ever happened? He protected his brother, but now he’s getting more than he bargained for. He wanted to feel some redemption for his participation, so he confessed to what, in his mind, was the worst thing he did with regards to the death of Martha: he had a sexual encounter with her. In Tommy's mind, he has confessed to his part of the crime, but is still being hunted (as well as haunted). Now, he realizes he is on the verge of taking the full fall for Michael--and it frightens him. He knows Michael did this, but probably still thinks of the incident, on some level, as one big accident. Michael didn’t mean to kill her. He just got out of his head. Michael probably looks at the murder in much the same way. He may have been in such a state of psychosis, the act of killing Martha felt completely removed from himself. It was her fault, after all. In some sense, Michael has probably started to believe that he is not responsible. It was taken care of for him--just as Sheridan took care of his drunk driving incident, and whatever else he fucks up. Michael has largely escaped scrutiny. Until now, no one has really looked closely and pieced the holes together. So why does Michael then [WW] us about masturbating in a tree outside her window? Two reasons: 1) he knows that there are ear-witnesses, like Julie and John, who have testified they heard someone going in and out of the house around that time. (The time when, presumably, he, Tommy, and whoever else, were cleaning up the crime scene, etc.) This way, he ties up that loose end. And 2) his account of going to her house and calling her name “proves" that he didn’t know she was dead, and thus couldn't have murdered her. Michael mentions watching the naked woman, and his masturbating in the tree, because this gives him a motive for what, on the surface, is a very curious action: leaving his house in the middle of the night and ending up outside Martha's window. He even adds something about “sensing the presence” of someone near where Martha's body was found. Michael is actively deflecting any possible suspicion of guilt. When it came to implicating Frank Wittine, Michael was one of his most outspoken critics. The list goes on and on... Even his own father has conceded that Michael could be capable of this. We know he went after his aunt Ethel with a kitchen knife when she found him stealing liquor. What other incidents haven’t we been told about? Mark #6 1:15-1:30 am Julie reports that Tommy was in bed when Mrs. Moxley first called. The deception begins. This supplementary document is intended as a reference guide to various accounts of the events of Thursday, October 30, 1975 and Friday, October 31, 1975. The objective was to create a concise sequential record of circumstances immediately leading up to, and following, the murder of Martha Moxley, in order to illustrate conflicts in testimony, the actions and whereabouts of suspects, and points of interest worthy of further investigation. While this time-line includes multiple and often opposing perspectives, it is by no means comprehensive. As much as possible, specific details and their reported time of occurrence have been attributed to the proper source and context. It is important to remember that times should generally be viewed as approximate and subject to reasonable variance. Thursday, October 30, 1975 6:00 pm--According to local resident Mrs. Jean Walker, interviewed on 9/14/92, her daughter Marjorie, receives phone call from Martha Moxley, inviting her to go out. At her mother's insistence, Marjorie declines. --FROM FOLIO 101, 103, John Moxley, interviewed on 11/5/75, reports that he left home for the evening. 6:30 pm--According to Steven [Stephen] Skakel, he is eating a chicken dinner in the kitchen at the Skakel residence with David Skakel and Nanny Sweeney. --FROM FOLIO 34, Officer Charles Morganti reports seeing a white Volkswagen parked on Walsh Lane. According to Rushton Skakel Sr., the car belongs to Frank Wittine. 7:00 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, this is the approximate time he left for dinner at the Belle Haven Club with Michael Skakel, John Skakel, Rush Skakel, Julie Skakel, Jim Terrien, Andrea Shakespeare, and Ken Littleton. --FROM FOLIO 101, 103, Mrs. Moxley, interviewed on 11/5/75, claims that Martha left home at approximately this time. According to Mrs. Moxley, between 7 and 11:00 pm, Martha could have come home without her knowing it. 7:15 pm--According to Helen Ix Fitzpatrick, interviewed on 8/6/92 and 6/4/93, she and Martha are at the Moukard [Mouakad] residence. They make plans to visit the Skakel residence. These interviews are not yet available for review. 7:15 pm to 7:30 pm--According to Jackie Wettenhall, interviewed on 10/9/93, a group comprised of herself, Martha Moxley, Helen Ix, and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne arrive at the Skakel residence. After Frank Wittine told them the older Skakel children were out at dinner, the group returned to the Moukard [Mouakad] residence. 7:30 pm--According to Steven [Stephen], interviewed on 5/4/93, he and his brother David are put to bed by Nanny Sweeney. Steven [Stephen] recalls hearing voices downstairs. He remembers them saying something about the boys. 8:00 pm--FROM FOLIO 37 -- according to Helen Ix, interviewed on 11/1/75, around this time she and her friends witnessed an unidentified adult male, possibly wearing a suit, walking on Walsh Lane in the direction of Field Point Drive. --FROM FOLIO 51 -- according to Robert Ix, interviewed on 11/2/75, around this time he witnessed an unidentified adult male wearing a suit walking East on Walsh Lane in the direction of Field Point Drive. 8:30 pm--According to Jackie Wettenhall, interviewed on 10/9/93, the group consisting of herself, Martha Moxley, Helen Ix, and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne once again visit the Skakel residence roughly around this time. The girls have Jeffrey [Geoffrey] ask Frank Wittine where everyone is. Jackie believes Frank told Jeffrey [Geoffrey] that the Skakels were still not home. 8:45 pm--FROM FOLIO 201 -- Frank Wittine, interviewed on 11/17/75, says everyone returned home from dinner at around this time. During an interview with Willis Krebs, Wittine reports going to his basement room once the dinner group returns. --From an interview on 8/14/92, Michael Skakel reported to Willis Krebs that "upon returning from dinner on Thursday night, he went halfway down the basement and called out to Frank. He received no reply, and because it was completely dark, he did not do down the stairs any further." --At this point, Steven [Stephen] reported on 5/4/93 that he awoke and went to the top of the stairs to listen to the group. --According to Jackie Wettenhall, interviewed on 10/9/93, Martha Moxley, Helen Ix, and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne walked Jackie to the head of her driveway, as she had to make her 9:00 pm curfew. 8:55 pm-- According to Michael Skakel (the interview from which this comes is as yet uncertain), he was in the car with Martha Moxley, Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne and Helen Ix listening to tapes. 9:00 pm--Mrs. Wettenhall-Keating, interviewed on 10/7/92, confirms that her daughter, Jackie, arrived home. --Both Julie Skakel and Andrea Shakespeare recall watching the Ellery Queen show in the sun room. --According to Michael Skakel, from his interview with Willis Krebs on 8/14/92, he left for the Terrien residence with John, Rush and Jim Terrien at roughly this time. 9:10 pm--FROM FOLIO 121-- the Bjorks, interviewed on 11/7/75, return home from dinner. 9:15 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, at approximately this time he left the sun porch area and went outside to the side of the house to retrieve a tape cassette from his parents car. Inside the car, Tommy encountered Martha Moxley, his brother Michael, Helen Ix and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne, who were all listening to music. Soon after, he and Martha would move to the area around the shed, off the driveway, and begin "making out." 9:25 pm--Julie, before being put under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recalls this as being the exact time she began to take Andrea Shakespeare home (p. 3). 9:25 pm to 9:30 pm--Julie, while under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recounts seeing Martha and Tommy together: "Andrea decided she needed to go home, so half way through Ellery Queen we got up, went out to the car, got in, the car keys weren't in the car so I asked Andrea to go back up to the house and get them. At the same (sic), as my window was down, I could hear Tommy and Martha talking at the back door.” (p.8) “ I couldn't hear absolutely clearly, but it seemed like whatever the plans were for that evening, Tommy wasn't interested and he was just going to stay home. I could hear the back door close after Tommy said goodnight to Martha. I could see Martha walking around the back fence and, about the same time that Tommy closed the door, Andrea tried to get in the front door, but she couldn't, so she ran the door bell. I could see Tommy slowly walking through the kitchen and ... I think looking through the glass to see who it was." Julie also recalls that Ken Littleton was there. (p.8-9) 9:30 pm--According to Jim Terrien, interviewed 9/23/93, this is approximately the time he left the Skakel residence for his house with Rush, John and Michael. He recalls that Rush drove the Skakel's [Skakels'] Lincoln. Before leaving, he remembers seeing Tommy at the front door. --Under hypnosis, on either 1/6/93 or 3/15/93, John Skakel recalls being in the car with Rush and Jim Terrien (see pages 7 to 9), and possibly someone else, but he cannot recall who. --According to Ken Littleton, from his interview with Willis Krebs, he went outside at approximately this time, "for three or four minutes," and heard leaves rustling by the cypress trees. (p.8 and p. 35). 9:30 pm to 9:35 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, Richard McCarthy, and Manny Margolis, he and Martha Moxley commenced a sexual encounter at about 50 feet to the rear of the house, in the middle of the rear lawn, which concluded in mutual masturbation. Tommy estimates that the entire encounter lasted about twenty minutes. He last saw Martha hurrying across the rear lawn towards her home. 9:40 pm--FROM FOLIO 121 -- at approximately this time, Mr. and Mrs. Bjork, from their interview of 11/7/75, heard a car racing north on Otter Rock Drive. 9:50 pm--Helen Ix Fitzpatrick, interviewed on 8/6/92, recalls that her dog was barking wildly at around this time. This interview is not yet available for review. --Julie, before being put under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recalls returning to the Skakel residence after dropping Andrea home (p.3) at this time. Under hypnosis, on 3/5/93, she remembers hearing something in the bushes by the kitchen and then, "I see a crouched person running." Julie believes this individual was a man, someone bigger than herself, carrying a bundle under his left arm. The person "ran past the kitchen, across the driveway, through the bushes."(p. 10) Later, on 7/26/94, while again under hypnosis, Julie further characterized this individual as, "Crouched, big, dark, maybe even hooded." 9:50 pm to 9:55 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, and as noted above, this is the approximately time he left Martha Moxley and returned to his house after their sexual encounter. He last saw Martha hurrying across the rear lawn towards her home. 10:00 pm--FROM FOLIO 17, we know that Special Officer Charles Morganti observed a white male, 6' feet tall, 200 lbs, late 20's to early 30's, darkened rimmed glasses, fatigue jacket, tan slacks, blond hair, walking northerly on Field Point Drive. The subject said he lived on Walsh Lane. Morganti reported this information to the Greenwich Police Department at 5:00 pm on October 31, 1975, adding that, "This same subject was later observed in just a very few minutes walking northbound on the west side of Otter Rock Drive, just north of the Walsh Lane intersection." Morganti later confirmed that this individual was not Ed Hammond. --FROM FOLIO 25, at approximately this time, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Gorman, of 21 Walsh Lane, interviewed on 10/31/75, recall hearing a dog barking. --FROM FOLIO 29, local neighbor Mr. Bjork, interviewed on 11/1/75, reported observing seeing an unmarked police car in front of his house. At that time, he went out and spoke with Officer Morganti. 10:03 pm--According to Ken Littleton, when interviewed by Willis Krebs on 9/12/94, Tommy joined him in the master bedroom to watch The French Connection on television at around this time. "He came up," Littleton states, "approximately twenty minutes before the chase scene." The chase scene began at exactly 10:23 pm. 10:05 pm--Sometime soon after the Ellery Queen show concluded at 10:00, Julie, before being put under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recalls speaking with someone in the kitchen. She believes it may have been Ken Littleton. Under hypnosis, she says, "I'm sure it's Ken." She remembers asking him where everyone was, and then correcting him on the pronunciation of "Terrien." "I did not stay there long." (p. 11-12) Julie states, under hypnosis, that she did not know, at that point, where Tommy was. (p.13) 10:10 pm--FROM FOLIO 29, Mr. Bjork, interviewed on 11/1/75, reports letting his dog out at this time. 10:17 pm-- According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, this is the approximate time he joined Ken Littleton in the master bedroom to watch The French Connection -- approximately five minutes before the chase scene began at 10:23 pm. After the conclusion of the chase scene, Tommy said he went to the kitchen for food. 10:30 pm--At roughly around this time, Steven [Stephen] Skakel recalls during his interview under hypnosis on 5/4/93, that he heard the Ix dog, Socks [Zock], barking. In addition, he remembers hearing a young woman, either "Helen or Martha," laughing behind the pool. --According to a local resident, Mr. Wright Ferguson, interviewed on 12/13/93, he saw a group of people at the Belle Haven police booth. After inquiring, Mr. Ferguson recalls being told that Martha Moxley was missing. It should be mentioned that all efforts to confirm this detail were unsuccessful. Mr. Ferguson sticks to his story. 10:32 pm--This is when the chase scene from The French Connection would have concluded, and when, according to Ken Littleton, interviewed by Willis Krebs, Tommy left the master bedroom. (p. 7) 10:35 pm--FROM FOLIO 29, Mr. Bjork, interviewed on 11/1/75, reports this as the time he was finally able to bring his dog back inside. 11:00 pm--According to Jim Terrien, interviewed 9/23/93, this is the approximate time the Skakels left to return home. 11:20 pm--FROM FOLIO 101, 103, John Moxley, interviewed by police on 11/5/75, says he returned home at this time. --According to Tommy Skakel, at about this time Rush returns and goes to sleep on the floor in the same room where Tommy is sleeping. Documentation is not yet available. 11:25 pm--Julie, before being put under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recalls hearing noises downstairs at this time. When asked how she remembered the time, she explained, "I did have a TV in my room, maybe I was watching the news. I definitely got up out of my bed, opened my door. The noises were downstairs, but I don't think I went any further than the top of the steps and then I went back in my room." 11:30 pm--FROM FOLIO 28, at approximately this time. Steve Hartig, interviewed on 11/1/75, recalls hearing noises in the area of Walsh Lane. Hartig, a local resident, was in his room at the time, which faces Walsh Lane across Otter Rock Drive. This information was reported to Detective Timm. 11:33 pm--According to John Skakel, as reported to Sutton investigators while under hypnosis on either 1/6/93 or 3/15/93, someone went in or out of the house at this point. "It was changing to 11:33 on the clock radio," John remembers, "Something going on in the mud room." And then, "the noise ... the sound of the back door." Questioned again about this point on May 4, 1993, John added: "I didn't hear anything in the kitchen, so whoever it was must not have gone through the kitchen." 11:40 pm--Michael reported to Willis Krebs, during his interview on 8/4/92, that a short time after going to bed, at approximately 11:40 pm, he used the front hallway rear door to exit the house. Krebs reports: "Upon leaving the house, he ran towards Walsh Lane and after passing the Moxley residence, turned right into a driveway, walked to the end and approached a ground floor window of the house. Michael stated that he had been at the house on other occasions to look at the woman who resided therein (name unknown). This woman, on many previous occasions, would not be wearing clothing. On this occasion the woman was lying on a couch wearing some sort of night garment. After looking into this window for a short period of time, he walked to the Moxley's house, climbed a tree and looked into the room he thought was Martha's. He yelled at the window, "Martha, Martha," but there was no response. Michael then stated that he masturbated to orgasm in the tree. After climbing down, he stopped near a street light on Walsh Lane. Michael stated that he felt "someone's presence" in the area where Martha's body was eventually discovered. He yelled "into the darkness" and threw something at the trees. Still fearing what was there he ran back to his house. He crossed in front of his house, and finding all doors locked, climbed to the second floor and entered his room through his bedroom window. He felt he was out of the house between 30 and 45 minutes, arriving home at sometime around 12:30 am. Once in his room he went to sleep." 11:45 pm--From his interview with Stanley Lesse, M.D., between 3/10/76 and 3/19/76, Rush Skakel says this is the approximate time he returned home from the Terriens [Terriens']. He says that Tommy was in bed when he arrived. --FROM FOLIO 34, Special Officer Charles Morganti says he again saw the white Volkswagen on Walsh Lane. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1975 12:00 am--According to Andrea Shakespeare, interviewed on 8/26/92, she received a call from Julie Skakel at approximately this time. She says Julie asked her: "Do you know where Martha Moxley is? She never made it home." 12:30 am--According to Michael, as stated above, this is roughly the time he returned home after climbing the tree next to the Moxley residence. 1:15 am to 1:30 am--According to Julie, interviewed on 7/26/94, Mrs. Moxley called around this time to ask about Martha. "I went upstairs and asked Tommy where she was, when the last time he'd seen her. He said the back door, and then he had to study for a test. He was tired. So, I went back downstairs and told Mrs. Moxley the same thing." Julie added that Tommy was asleep, his room was dark, and that he didn't get out of bed." 3:15 am--According to Jackie Wettenhall, as interviewed on 10/9/93, Mrs. Moxley called asking to speak to her. Mrs. Moxley reached her mother, Mrs. Wettenhall-Keating--who confirmed this detail in her interview of 10/7/92. 3:35 am--FROM FOLIO 118, John Moxley, interviewed by police on 11/6/75, says his mother awoke him at this time, and soon thereafter he went out to drive around and search for Martha. 3:48 am--FROM FOLIO 1, Mrs. Moxley first calls the Greenwich police and reports Martha as missing. Sometime thereafter, patrolman Daniel Merchant interviews Mrs. Moxley at her residence. 4:00 am--According to Julie, from her 7/26/94 interview, Mrs. Moxley called again at around this time. She recalls that Mrs. Moxley "was very concerned. Would I please go upstairs and ask Tommy again if he had seen her, what the circumstances are, or were, when they last saw each other. I went back up again and asked Tommy, are you sure? He said Yes, the last time I saw her was at the back door. I went back downstairs and told Mrs. Moxley. She said I'm concerned. John, her son, was looking outside. Would you please help him?" Shortly thereafter, Julie claims she joined John Moxley behind her house and they looked for Martha. Julie said their search lasted "maybe ten, maybe fifteen minutes." John denies this ever happened. 6:00 am--FROM FOLIO 118, John Moxley, interviewed on 11/6/75, claims he returned home after driving around and searching for his sister. 6:15 am--FROM FOLIO 201, Frank Wittine tells the Greenwich Police Department, on 11/17/75, that he left his room at this time in order to walk the dog. Reportedly, however, the Skakel dog was at the vet. 6:35 am--FROM FOLIO 2, Patrolman Merchant calls Mrs. Moxley. She informs him that Martha has not been found. 8:00 am--FROM FOLIO 116, the Moxley maid, interviewed on 11/6/75, says she arrived at the Moxley residence. 9:00 am--FROM FOLIO 116, the Moxley maid, interviewed on 11/16/75, says there was a loud crash in the basement. 9:15 am--FROM FOLIO 116, the Moxley maid, interviewed on 11/6/75, says a friend of John's arrived. --FROM FOLIO 3, Juvenile Officer Daniel Hickman assigned to case. At some point thereafter, he calls Mrs. Moxley. 9:45 am--FROM FOLIO 3, Hickman and Jones (presumably another officer) begin a motor search of the Belle Haven area lasting around one hour. 10:00 am--According to Mrs. Jean Walker, interviewed on 9/14/92, around this time she called Mrs. Moxley to ascertain if Martha had returned. Reportedly, Mrs. Moxley explained that Martha had not returned, the police had been notified, and they were searching for Martha with a photograph Mrs. Moxley had lent them. 10:15 am--FROM FOLIO 201, Mrs. Moxley asked Frank Wittine, interviewed on 11/17/75, to check the camper for Martha. Wittine told her he had already checked the camper, but did so again anyway. 12:00 pm--According to Mrs. Jean Walker, interviewed on 9/14/92, she arrived at Mrs. Moxley's residence in order to console her around this time. At some point thereafter, Mrs. Walker recalls that she was confronted by a hysterical Sheila Maguire who informed her that she had found Martha under a tree. The following is from Willis Krebs' report on Mrs. Walker's interview: "After calling the police and Mrs. Maguire, Mrs. Walker walked to a large evergreen tree between the Moxley and Hammond houses and found the body of Martha Moxley. Mrs. Walker stated Martha was laying face down with her head on an incline (head higher than feet) towards the Moxley house. Martha's jeans and white cotton panties (with small flowers) were pulled down to her ankles. Her upper clothing was in place. Mrs. Walker further stated she saw dried blood in the hair at the rear of Martha's head. Aside from that blood, she did not recall any other visible blood or blood-stained clothing. Martha's exposed flesh (waist, buttocks, thighs and calves) displayed no scratches, abrasions, bruises or lacerations. Mrs. Walker felt Martha's waist area and it was cool to the touch. She then had the sensation "someone was watching her" so she returned to the Moxley residence. She stated the police arrived soon thereafter." 12:30 pm--FROM FOLIO 4, Hickman receives a radio call from headquarters that Mrs. Moxley had called. Shortly thereafter, he reaches the Moxley residence by phone and is informed that Martha had been found in a wooded area. 12:45 pm--FROM FOLIO 6, Chief Keegan, Detectives McGlynn, and Detective Carroll arrive at the crime scene and rope the area off. 1:15 pm--According to the autopsy report, Dr. Coleman arrives at the crime scene at this time. --Mrs. Moxley is interviewed by Detective Keegan until 3:00 pm. Documentation is not yet available. 2:00 pm--According to Rush Jr., he picks up his cousin Geo Skakel at the airport at roughly this time. Documentation is not yet available. 2:30 pm--According to Julie, she arrives home at approximately this time. 3:00 pm--FROM FOLIO 9, Detectives Carroll and McGlynn interview Ed Hammond. He cooperates fully, is advised of his rights, and is brought to the station house with blood stained trousers around this time. --FROM FOLIO 11, Detectives Brosko and Lunney arrive at Skakel house and interview Julie and Michael Skakel around this time. 3:30 pm-- According to John Pinto, he arrives at the Skakel residence around this time. Documentation is not yet available. 4:00 pm--According to Geo Skakel and John Pinto, they drove off to a Georgetown reunion weekend in the Revcon vehicle at around this time. Documentation is not yet available. --FROM FOLIO 13, Ken Littleton is interviewed for the first time. "He never went out that night after dinner ... he saw nothing suspicious." 4:30 pm--According to Rush Jr., he left for Dartmouth at about this time. Documentation is not yet available. 5:15 pm--According to Jim McKenzie, he arrives at the Skakel residence at around this time. Documentation is not yet available. 5:30 pm--According to the autopsy report, the body is removed to the morgue at this point. 5:40 pm.--Tommy Skakel is taken to the station house for questioning until 10:30 p.m. Documentation is not yet available. --Mrs. Hammond consents to a search of her residence. Documentation is not yet available.. 6:00 pm--Helen Ix is interviewed by Detectives Brosko and Lunney. Documentation is not yet available. 8:00 pm--Russ (sic) [Rush]returns home. Documentation is not yet available. 9:00 pm-- Frank Wittine drives Jim McKenzie back to New York City. Documentation is not yet available. 10:00 pm--Mrs. Bjork calls the Greenwich Police Department regarding Ed Hammond. Documentation is not yet available. 10:30 pm--Tommy Skakel returns home from the Greenwich Police Department. Documentation is not yet available. A purposefully prejudicial analysis of Michael Skakel and his testimony. Much like his brother, Tommy, Michael Skakel has made some revelatory alterations and amendments to our account of his activities and whereabouts on the night of October 30, 1995. [sic] The parallels neither begin nor end there. As mentioned earlier in this report, Tommy and Michael have both suffered from similar mental and emotional disorders, and their early relationship was distinguished by an intense, exceptionally explosive rivalry. As Thomas Sheridan has written, in a digest of Anna Goodman's Elan report on Michael: both boys are impulsive personalities. Both have very poor ego development and a bad self image. Both are sexually immature and blocked emotionally. Both have an alcohol and possibly drug problems. Both are very likable and outstanding athletes. Both are lost, personally disorganized and have no life plan. Their only point of departure is in the fact that Tommy feels loved by his family and Michael does not. His father, Mr. Skakel, reports that, “ Julie is frightened to death of Michael,” that Michael suffers from enuresis (bedwetting), and has engaged in some transsexual behavior.” In more than one sense, these two brothers share a unique category of suspicion in this case. Michael’s recent revelations, solicited first during interviews with staff at the Elan school and then with Sutton Associates investigators, also places him in a higher category of suspicion without any overt implications of wrongdoing. In this regard, it is not altogether clear why this information was volunteered now, after so long, and indeed, why it was then volunteered at all. As with Tommy, however, the changes illustrate that Michael was originally deceitful with the police and other authorities. In terms purely of motive, over the course of our investigation, we have found considerable evidence to show Michael had been involved in a relationship with Martha Moxley. According to one source, Michael and Tommy even fought over her. Along the blurry lines of teenage romance, Michael was known to be Martha’s boyfriend for some time. Coupled with our extensive knowledge of just how vehemently they fought with each other, this information suggests Michael had more than ample reason to me [WW] extremely upset when Tommy was carrying on with Martha by the side of the house just before 9:30 pm. The magnitude of certain psychological and emotional problems from which Michael has suffered is considerable. Dr. Sue Wallington Quinlan, who examined him on 3/3/77, has written: Projective testing suggested a severe agitated depression, a sense of being overwhelmed by a sense of evil and the futility of life. The depression is possibly of psychotic proportions but the protocol was too guarded to be certain. Mental functioning is clearly fragile. Extent of pathology is evident in borderline features: 1) intrusions of personal concerns into intellectual functioning, 2) primitive fantasy content, e.g. mutilated bodies, masked, distorted figures, concerns about bodily integrity and deformity, 3) inadequate capacity for attatchment [sp] to other people. Borderline feature number two is, obviously, of special concern to us. Such preoccupations are alarming, and suggest an unusual capacity for violent thought. Later in the report, Dr. Quinlan states: Impulse control is marginally adequate. This point, coupled with borderline features number one and two, suggest Michael may just be pathological enough to sidestep his intellectual functioning. In other words, his rationale could be superseded by the temporary madness of a psychotic episode. If Michael was, as suspected, under the influence of alcohol and drugs on the night of October 30, 1975, the possibility of such a psychotic episode is increased, while Michael's wherewithal to resist it, is decreased. Remember, Dr. Quinlan states: The depression is possibly of psychotic proportions but the protocol was too guarded to be certain. At first, I took this to mean that Michael himself was too guarded, that he used a certain protocol and/or polite behavior to distance himself from the doctor in a protective manner. Consider the sentence again. Dr. Quinlan says "the” protocol, not Michael’s protocol, or Michael's manner. Is it possible that Dr. Quinlan was prevented from conducting a thorough examination of Michael by other individuals--perhaps through some imposed and limiting guidelines or circumstances? Could this be the "protocol” of which she speaks? The core of the depression is the feeling of being helpless, of being buffeted and brutalized by external forces. He sees himself as the helpless victim. There is also great fury inside him focused primarily in hatred for his father. This anger is very frightening and he has inadequate defenses to deal with it except for avoidance and inhibition of behavior. There is some trend toward a more paranoid stance in which projected anger and fear that other people see him as crazy combine to produce interpersonal distancing and disparate resistance to manipulation by external forces. Part of what Dr. Quinlan seems to be establishing here, is the notion that Michael lacks a sense of self-control in his life, and very much resents this fact. He hates his father, because his father is the one who most controls Michael's life. His father also represents a legacy and a family standard which, as much as anything else, places both great expectations and limitations on Michael's conduct and identity. There also seems to be evidence of family pressure which Michael felt from his brothers. From Thomas Sheridan's digest of Anna Goodman's Elan report: Thereafter, commencing in the last paragraph of the 1st page she reports that Michael has "started to talk about a lot of things that bother him which be blocks out most of the time." In a distraught state, i.e. crying off and on, he talked about feeling that “he always had to be a certain way because of who he is." Anna Goodman, then, interprets this to mean that because he is a Skakel he had to do things (many of which were dangerous, i.e. drinking and fast driving) so people would accept him. Dr. Quinlan talks about a protocol keeping her from getting adequately close to Michael. Conversely, then, this protocol--basically enacted and sustained by his father--must keep Michael from getting adequately close to Dr. Quinlan and, indeed, any other individual with whom he comes in contact. Hence, he resents his father a great deal. Hence, his capacity for normal relations with other individuals is diminished. Hence, he resents feeling powerless and not being able to control his own life. Hence, when Michael wants to act out in protest of his figurative lack of control in life, he does so by becoming, quite literally, out of control. We know from subsequent incidents that Michael, especially while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, will go to reckless and self-destructive lengths. Case in point number one is Michael’s arrest in Windham, New York, on March 5, 1978. From a Thomas Sheridan memo on the incident: Through the influence of heavy drinking or smoking pot or a combination of both, Michael panicked and became involved in a drunken driving and reckless driving incident... On that occasion, he was driving--without a license--the Skakel family jeep station wagon and he was accompanied by a young woman named Debbie Diehl, who is approximately 21 years of age. She and her family have been friends of the Skakel's [Skakels'] at Windham for several years and she has the reputation of being a little bit of a swinger. In any event, after a wild chase by the town police, Michael ended up crashing the car into a telephone pole. The car is practically a total wreck. Michael and his passenger escaped unscathed. Dr. Quinlan says Michael's impulse control is "marginally adequate.” I say, it is even less so. Sheridan continues: The facts relating to the pleading and disposition of those charges in Windham are not pertinent to this memo. Suffice it to say that an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal has been obtained upon the condition that Michael attend the Elan school at Poland Springs in Maine for at least six months. What should be noted, however, is the fact that in my interviewing of Michael on that occasion, he was obviously a disturbed person and hooked on either booze or pot. He showed little or no remorse for having nearly killed the companion in his car and when confronted with the potential problem of a subsequent conviction for drunken driving, his only comment was, "Next time I won't get caught.” So once again, after Michael acts out by wreaking havoc, the influence of his father manages the situation by imposing order (and damage control) from above. Let’s not kid ourselves. Just about any other kid racing away from police, while drunk, and crashing into public property, would have gotten far worse than an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. Dismiss those charges? Simply incredible-simply Skakel. Michael, of course, must then bend to the consequences of how someone else is handling his actions--once again reaffirming his mindset of helpless dependency. In any event, approximately a week later, Michael was in effect taken into custody (after a wild chase) by the staff from Elan and he is a resident there to this day. Simply put, all the wild chases in the world will not pull this young man away from his arrested state of development. Dr. Quinlan adds: Under conditions of increasing depression or with an increase in overt hostility or social withdrawal there would be a possibility of self-destructive behavior. Imagine: Michael has just seen his reviled brother, Tommy, and his flirtatious ex-girlfriend Martha Moxley, cavorting together at the side of his own home, in the presence of everyone. She turned him down to hang out with his older brother. It is hard to imagine how such a spectacle would not have made him both increasingly depressed and overtly hostile. From the time-line: 9:15 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, at approximately this time he left the sun porch area and went outside to the side of the house to retrieve a tape cassette from his parents car. Inside the car, Tommy encountered Martha Moxley, his brother Michael, Helen Ix, and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne, who were all listening to music. Soon after, he and Martha would move to the area around the shed, off the driveway, and begin “making out.” Martha's friends reportedly left shortly after this point because they found Martha's behavior to be embarrassing. Clearly, her activity with Tommy was purposefully demonstrative. It seems likely, as well, that Martha’s young friends were disturbed by the inherent awkwardness of watching Martha blatantly and immodestly courting the affection of her ex-boyfriend's older brother in her ex-boyfriend's presence. We know practically nothing of how Michael reacted to all this, and it is a glaring omission. For certainly, he had a reaction, and it may have been extreme. All this speculation counts for much less, of course, if Michael went to the Terrien's [Terriens'] and stayed there. There is curious evidence suggesting this is not exactly what happened. In an interview under hypnosis, on 5/4/93, John was asked where Michael was, while he and Rush were at the Terrien's [Terriens']. The interviewer, on repeated occasions, tried to get John to place Michael in the car and then at the Terrien's [Terriens']. John could not. He would only recall that someone else was in the car, and that someone else was at the house, but as much as the interviewer persisted, John could not identify that person as Michael. Gaspar: Who is in the room with you? You, Jimmy, who else? Skakel: Rush. Gaspar: Did you hear anybody come in or leave? Did the telephone ring? Skakel: I don't recall. Gaspar: Where's Ken and Michael and Julie now? Skakel: Anyone who didn’t come back with us is back at Belle Haven. They discuss the ride back to Belle Haven: Gaspar: When you drove back from the Terrien’s [Terriens'], who drove? Skakel: I think I drove. Gaspar: Why didn’t Rush drive? Skakel: I think he gave up the wheel. Gaspar: Do you remember why he gave up the wheel? Skakel: I think he said it was better if I drive. Gaspar: Who else was in the car with you? Besides you and Rush? Skakel: I think just us, but I'm not sure. This hypnosis session was not the first one between Gaspar and John, and not the first time this issue of Michael's whereabouts was raised. Suffice it to say, this is not an issue of John being momentarily forgetful. If anything, Gaspar went too far in trying to lead John into putting Michael at the Terrien's [Terriens'] and in the car, but John would still not capitulate. Indeed, the way he was answering questions about the car ride seems to be consistent with a subconscious conflict. It almost seems as though John, under the influence of hypnosis, plainly sees Michael was not in the car, and sees he was not at the Terrien's [Terriens'], but realizes someone was supposed to be there. (Frankly, Gaspar's style of questioning, in and of itself, gives that impression.) So, John is answering truthfully, but qualifying his answers out of some inexplicable concern. He says that someone, he doesn't know who, doesn't know why, but someone might have been there. This, I believe, is consistent with John having been instructed to say, and perhaps even believe, at some point after October 30, 1975, that Michael was with him both in the car and in the Terrien's [Terriens'] on that night, when that was untrue. Perhaps he even, at some point, convinced himself that was the case. Under hypnosis, however, John's testimony is crystal clear. Michael was not with him. John would surely remember, after all those questions, if he had been. If Michael was not at the Terrien's [Terriens'], there are many scenarios to be considered. It has been reasoned, even, that Martha may have actually gone home for an indefinite period of time after being with Tommy, and the [WW] snuck back out. For a number of reasons, this makes a great deal of sense. For example, Martha, we know, had a curfew that night. She was still living under a parental probation for some recent disobedience. Mrs. Moxley was expecting Martha to be home by 9:30 pm. However, Martha, according to Tommy (and corroborated by the testimony of others) Martha [WW] was interested in having Tommy joining her, later on, for some hacking. If Martha did intend to participate in such activity later that night, it would require defiance of her curfew. If we accept Tommy's version of events, Martha was serious about avoiding blatant [sp]violating her curfew. If she planned on doing any hacking that night, she was going to have to sneak out. There This would mean Martha could have been murdered later that night, perhaps by Tommy. Why, we find ourselves asking again, does a suspect who has been successfully deceiving for many years, suddenly come forth with new, unflattering and potentially incriminating details? Michael did just this when he altered and amended the story he had been telling the police to include the followin. (from the time-line): 11:33 pm--According to John Skakel, as reported to Sutton investigators while under hypnosis on either 1/6/93 or 3/15/93, someone went in or out of the house at this point. "It was changing to 11:33 on the clock radio." John remembers, "Something going on in the mud room." And then "the noise ... the sound of the back door." Questioned again about this point on May 4, 1993, John added: "I didn't hear anything in the kitchen, so whoever it was must not have gone through the kitchen." 11:40 pm--Michael reported to Willis Krebs, during his interview on 8/4/92, that a short time after going to bed, at approximately 11:40 pm, he used the front hallway rear door to exit the house. Krebs reports: "Upon leaving the house, he ran towards Walsh Lane and after passing the Moxley residence, turned right into a driveway, walked to the end and approached a ground floor window of the house. Michael stated that he had been at the house on other occasions to look at the woman who resided therein (name unknown). This woman, on many previous occasions, would not be wearing clothing. On this occasion the woman was lying on a couch wearing some sort of night garment. After looking into the window for a short period of time, he walked to the Moxley’s house, climbed a tree and looked into the room he thought was Martha's. He yelled at the window, "Martha, Martha," but there was no response. Michael then stated that he masturbated to orgasm in the tree. After climbing down, he stopped near a street light on Walsh Lane. Michael stated that he felt “someone's presence" in the area where Martha's body was eventually discovered. He yelled "into the darkness" and threw something at the trees. Still fearing what was there he ran back to his house. He crossed in front of his house, and finding all doors locked, climbed to the second floor and entered his room through his bedroom window. He felt he was out of the house between 30 and 45 minutes, arriving home at sometime around 12:30 am. Once in his room, he went to sleep.” It is difficult for anyone to process this information, let alone begin to understand what it may mean. What is Michael trying to tell us? Is this the whole truth? Is this true at all? Michael had told the police he went straight to bed and did not leave the house after returning from the Terrien's [Terriens'] with Rush and Michael [John]. Is it possible that Michael became aware of John's (and others) testimony about someone coming in and out of the house and became alarmed, because it was him? Is this why he felt compelled to come forward with this story? He is telling us that he may have come physically close to the murdered [sp] —“someone's presence.” This is incredible testimony. Once again, we are forced to ask ourselves how and why a young man could have kept this to himself after so many years. Another interesting point when considered in a prejudicial context: Michael claimed, when interviewed by Sutton Associates, that he could not remember when he first realized Martha was dead. To the average person, such a realization would have been a frightening and unprecedented moment of devastation. Not a moment, in short, one could easily forget--even if wanting to. One reason why Michael may not have been able to pinpoint the time when he was made aware of Martha's death, could be because he knew she was dead before anyone else. Michael also told Sutton Associates investigators he did not consider Martha to be a flirt. Again, this may be a truthful and entirely innocuous response to a simple question. However, when we consider this response carefully, in a prejudicial context, it is slightly suspect. By all other accounts, many of them emphatic and coming directly from her good friends, Martha Moxley was a relentless flirt. This aspect of her character was one with which she was, in a neutral sense, largely identified with. No one considered her to be promiscuous, or inappropriately preoccupied with sexuality. Rather, her flirtatiousness seems to have been of the “nice girl” variety, and was indicative of a self-confident and cheerful disposition. It seems odd, then, that Michael, who we know was involved with Martha at least for a short while, and who certainly spent considerable time with her, would dissent from the consensus on this point. Why would Michael say he did [^] find Martha to be a flirt? Are there reasons he may have been wary of going on record with such a statement? Let us not forget, Michael saw Martha and Tommy together at the side of the house before he left (assuming he left) for the Terrien's [Terriens']. Given all this, it defies common sense that Michael could have thought Martha wasn't a flirt. Many people who were close, or not so close to Martha, readily volunteered this information. It was no secret to anyone. Why wouldn't Michael say so? In general, it seems as though Michael has been overlooked to some degree. The authorities placed Tommy immediately under considerable scrutiny. He was questioned for upwards of five hours on the night of October 31, 1975. Michael, on the other hand, seems to have been largely ignored as a possible suspect, until later. His subsequent difficulties with the law may have contributed to the police's desire to evaluate him with renewed speculation. Michael, at the time, was plagued with serious emotional problems, living, by many accounts, a reckless and drug-fueled existence. What gradually emerged, from that point forward, was a portrait of a deeply, and somewhat enigmatically, troubled young man. In this light, and during the course of Sutton Associates' investigation, serious questions and unresolved issues have been raised about Michael and the murder of Martha Moxley. At the very least, it is fair to say Michael Skakel has, for whatever reason, often acted out in ways certain 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. He quickly recanted. It soon becomes obvious that there are many ominous parallels between Michael and his brother Tommy. Michael Skakel, as you will learn, has also made some revelatory alterations and amendments to our prior account of his activities and whereabouts on the night of October 30, 1975. As mentioned earlier in this report, Tommy and Michael have both suffered from remarkably similar mental and emotional disorders, and their early relationship was distinguished by an intense, exceptionally explosive rivalry. As Thomas Sheridan has written, in a digest of Anna Goodman's Elan report on Michael, "both boys are impulsive personalities. Both have very poor ego development and a bad self image. Both are sexually immature and blocked emotionally. Both have an alcohol and possibly drug problems. Both are very likeable and outstanding athletes. Both are lost, personally disorganized and have no life plan. Their only point of departure is in the fact that Tommy feels loved by his family and Michael does not." Thomas Sheridan also noted being informed by Mr. Skakel that, “ Julie is frightened to death of Michael,” and that Michael suffers from enuresis (bedwetting), and has engaged in some transsexual behavior. In more than one sense, these two acrimonious brothers share a unique category of suspicion. Like Tommy, Michael’s recent revelations--solicited first during interviews with staff at the Elan school and then with Sutton Associates’ investigators--place him in a higher category of suspicion without any steadfast implications of wrongdoing. Again, in this regard, it is not altogether clear why such information was volunteered now, after so long, and indeed, why it was then volunteered at all. But, as with Tommy, these changes illustrate that Michael was originally deceitful with the police and other authorities. We are left to wonder why. Due to the many similarities between the brothers, the Academy Group's profile of the probable offender also shares many characteristics with Michael Skakel (as well as with other leading suspects). Again, the Academy Group believe the offender was between 14 and 18 years of age, resided within easy walking distance of the victim's residence, was in the same socio-economic status as the victim, had regular interaction with the victim, would have exhibited strong sibling rivalry tendencies, would have experienced behavioral problems both at school and at home and was under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol at the time of this crime. Some pertinent excerpts: Offender Resorted to Violence: His immaturity and/or intoxicated state left him inadequately equipped to effectively deal with the victim on an emotional or intellectual level equivalent to the victim. Choice of Weapon: The weapon utilized to commit the murder is not one normally associated with violence. Its use is strongly indicative of impulsiveness, immaturity and/or lack of experience in violent crimes on the part of the offender. Overkill: Overkill is defined as using much more violence than necessary to kill a person. In this case there were 14 to 15 blows to the victim’s head. Any one of several of the blows would have resulted in death. Again, this is strongly indicative of anger and rage directed in a very personal way to the victim. Body Disposal Site: The area selected to dispose of the body is not one that would be selected by a person unfamiliar with the area. It is a considerable distance from the major attack site and subjected the killer to much greater possibility of being observed while moving the body. The killer had to know of the location of the tree and the cover it provided. The Academy Group went on to cite certain characteristics for the probable offender which, to our knowledge, were not consistent with Tommy Skakel. Michael, however, is a different story. It is uncanny, in fact, how closely these other characteristics match with Michael’s personality, behavior, and the diagnosis of his psychological evaluations. From the Academy report: The offender did not have a criminal record at the time of this attack. He was sexually inexperienced and had not committed sexual assaults before. He had not killed before the night of October 30, 1975. His sexual fantasies regarding the victim were probably accompanied by viewing pornographic magazines and masturbation. We believe he also would have practiced window-peeping in the immediate neighborhood. It is not outside the realm of possibility that this offender may have also made obscene phone calls to school friends and others. Any window-peeping activities by this offender would have been in conjunction with his nocturnal tendencies, in that he was very comfortable being out late at night and functioned well under the cover of darkness. He was an emotional “loner,” and would have spent solitary periods while out at night either pursuing his fantasies, window peeping or brooding about perceived inequities in his life. Michael advised Sutton Associates, during a set of interviews, that he was in the habit of regularly leaving his home at night to widow-peep at the nearby residence of an older woman. He would go specifically to watch this particular woman in various states of undress. Further, Michael stated that on the night of Martha's murder, he snuck out of his house and went to this woman's residence to watch her. After leaving the outside of her residence, he went to the window of Martha Moxley's room and made an effort to contact Martha by calling out her name. After his efforts proved unsuccessful, Michael states he masturbated in a tree outside her window before returning home. This information leads us to consider another crucial offender characteristic cited in the Academy report. This particular detail was included in the Post-Offense Behavior section: This section will enumerate for the reader the behavioral changes the analysts believe would be manifested by the person responsible for the murder of Martha E. Moxley. 1. It is believed that after leaving the victim's body, the offender returned to the scene of the crime before her body was discovered. After departing the crime scene, he went home and thought about what had happened. Finding it hard to believe that he had murdered his friend, he returned to verify that she was in fact dead. As you will also later read in this report, Michael recalls passing by the spot, that night, where Martha was ultimately found, and sensing someone's presence. He, in effect, visited the scene of her murder shortly after she was killed. Needless to say, we believe none of these crucial details were originally shared with the police. Only years later did Michael come forth on these points. In terms of motive, we have found considerable evidence to show he had been involved in a romantic relationship with Martha Moxley. According to one source, Michael and Tommy even fought over her on occasion. Along the blurred lines of teenage liaisons, Michael was known to be Martha's boyfriend for some time. As of this writing, we know substantially less than we would like about this relationship, and, in particular, what it meant to Michael. This is an important blank spot which needs to be filled. But coupled with our extensive knowledge of just how vehemently Michael and Tommy fought with each other, we at least believe Michael had more than ample reason to me [WW] extremely upset when Tommy was carrying on with Martha by the side of the house just before 9:30 pm. Was Michael someone capable of losing control and acting out in a violent rage of jealousy? We now know the magnitude of certain psychological and emotional problems from which Michael has suffered, and may still suffer, is considerable. Dr. Sue Wallington Quinlan, who examined him on March, 3, 1977, wrote: Projective testing suggested a severe agitated depression, a sense of being overwhelmed by a sense of evil and the futility of life. The depression is possibly of psychotic proportions but the protocol was too guarded to be certain. Mental functioning is clearly fragile. Extent of pathology is evident in borderline features: 1) intrusions or personal concerns into intellectual functioning, 2) primitive fantasy content, e.g. mutilated bodies, masked, distorted figures, concerns about bodily integrity and deformity, 3) inadequate capacity for attachment to other people. Borderline feature number two is, obviously, of special concern to us. Such preoccupations are alarming, and suggest an unusual capacity for violent thought. Later in the report, Dr. Quinlan states: Impulse control is marginally adequate. This point, coupled with borderline features number one and two, suggest Michael may just be pathological enough to sidestep his intellectual functioning. In other words, his rationale could be superseded by the temporary madness of a psychotic episode. If Michael was, as suspected, under the influence of alcohol and drugs on the night of October 30, 1975, the possibility of such a psychotic episode is increased, while Michael’s wherewithal to resist it is decreased. Remember, Dr. Quinlan states: The depression is, possibly of psychotic proportions but the protocol was too guarded to be certain. At first, one might take this to mean that Michael himself was too guarded, that he used a certain protocol and/or polite behavior to distance himself from the doctor in a protective manner. Consider the sentence again. Dr. Quinlan says “the'" protocol, not Michael’s protocol, or Michael's manner. Is it possible that Dr. Quinlan was prevented from conducting a thorough examination of Michael by other individuals--perhaps through some imposed and limiting guidelines or circumstances? Could this be the ”protocol" of which she speaks? The core of the depression is the feeling of being helpless, of being buffeted and brutalized by external forces. He sees himself as the helpless victim. There is also great fury inside him focused primarily in hatred for his father. This anger is very frightening and he has inadequate defenses to deal with it except for avoidance and inhibition of behavior. There is some trend toward a more paranoid stance in which projected anger and fear that other people see him as crazy combine to produce interpersonal distancing and disparate resistance to manipulation by external forces. Part of what Dr. Quinlan seems to be establishing here, is the notion that Michael lacks a sense of self-control in his life, and very much resents this fact. He hates his father, because his father is the one who most controls Michael’s life. His father also represents a legacy and a family standard which, as much as anything else, places both great expectations and limitations on Michael's conduct and identity. There also seems to be evidence of family pressure which Michael felt from his brothers. From Thomas Sheridan's digest of Anna Goodman's Elan report: Thereafter, commencing in the last paragraph of the 1st page she reports that Michael has "started to talk about a lot of things that bother him which be blocks out most of the time." In a distraught state, i.e. crying off and on, he talked about feeling that “he always bad to be a certain way because of who he is." Anna Goodman, then, interprets this to mean that because he is a Skakel he had to do things (many of which were dangerous, i.e. drinking and fast driving) so people would accept him. (Unfortunately, as of this writing, Sutton Associates is not in possession of Goodman's report, as well as other important documents pertaining to Michael Skakel.) If Dr. Quinlan talks about a protocol keeping her from getting adequately close to Michael, then, conversely this protocol--presumably enacted and sustained by his father--must keep Michael from getting adequately close to Dr. Quinlan and, indeed, any other individual with whom he comes in contact. Hence, it is likely be resents his father a great deal. Hence, his capacity for normal relations with other individuals is diminished. Hence, he resents feeling powerless and not being able to control his own life. Hence, when Michael wants to act out in protest of his figurative lack of control in life, he does so by becoming, quite literally, out of control. We know from subsequent incidents that Michael, especially while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, will go to reckless and self-destructive lengths. Case in point number one is Michael’s arrest in Windham, New York, on March 5, 1978. From a Thomas Sheridan memo on the incident: Through the influence of heavy drinking or smoking pot or a combination of both, Michael panicked and became involved in a drunken driving and reckless driving incident... On that occasion, he was driving--without a license--the Skakel family jeep station wagon and he was accompanied by a young woman named Debbie Diehl, who is approximately 21 years of age. She and her family have been friends of the Skakel's [Skakels] at Windham for several years and she has the reputation of being a little bit of a swinger. In any event, after a wild chase by the town police, Michael ended up crashing the car into a telephone pole. The car is practically a total wreck. Michael and his passenger escaped unscathed. Dr. Quinlan says Michael's impulse control is "marginally adequate.” Given the evidence, one might say it is even less so. Sheridan continues: The facts relating to the pleading and disposition of those charges in Windham are not pertinent to this memo. Suffice it to say that an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal has been obtained upon the condition that Michael attend the Elan school at Poland Springs in Maine for at least six months. What should be noted, however, is the fact that in my interviewing of Michael on that occasion, he was obviously a disturbed person and hooked on either booze or pot. He showed little or no remorse for having nearly killed the companion in his car and when confronted with the potential problem of a subsequent conviction for drunken driving, his only comment was, "Next time I won't get caught.” So once again after Michael acts out by wreaking havoc, the influence of his father manages the situation by imposing order (and damage control) from above. Just about any other young person racing away from police, while drunk, and crashing into public property, would have received far worse than an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. Michael, of course, must then bend to the consequences of how someone else is handling his actions--once again reaffirming his mindset of helpless dependency. In any event, approximately a week later. Michael was in effect taken into custody (after a wild chase) by the staff from Elan and he is a resident there to this day. Simply put, it seems all the wild chases in the world will not pull this young man away from his arrested state of development. Dr. Quinlan adds: Under conditions of increasing depression or with an increase in overt hostility or social withdrawal there would be a possibility of self-destructive behavior. Michael has just seen his reviled brother, Tommy, and his flirtatious ex-girlfriend Martha Moxley, cavorting together at the side of his own home in the presence of everyone. She turned down an offer to hang out Michael that night, in order to be with his older brother. It is hard to imagine how such a spectacle would not have made him both increasingly depressed and overtly hostile. From the time-line: 9:15 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, at approximately this time he left the sun porch area and went outside to the side of the house to retrieve a tape cassette from his parents car. Inside the car, Tommy encountered Martha Moxley, his brother Michael, Helen Ix, and Jeffrey Byrne, who were all listening to music. Soon after, he and Martha would move to the area around the shed, off the driveway, and begin “making out.” Martha's friends reportedly left shortly after this point because they found Martha's behavior to be embarrassing. Clearly, her activity with Tommy was purposefully demonstrative. It seems likely, as well, that Martha’s young friends were disturbed by the inherent awkwardness of watching Martha blatantly and immodestly courting the, affection of her ex-boyfriend's older brother while in her ex-boyfriend's presence. We know practically nothing of how Michael reacted to all this, and it is a glaring omission. Certainly, he had a reaction, and it may have been extreme. Michael's initial alibi hinged on testimony that he was at the Terrien's [Terriens'] residence and stayed there during the time when Martha was suspected of being killed. There is curious evidence, however, suggesting this is not exactly what happened. In an interview under hypnosis, on May 4, 1993, John Skakel was asked where Michael was while he and Rush were at the Terrien's [Terriens']. The interviewer, on repeated occasions, tried to get John to place Michael in the car and then at the Terrien's [Terriens']. John could not. He could only recall that someone else was in the car, and that someone else was at the house. As much as the interviewed [WW] persisted, John could not identify that person as Michael. Gaspar: Who is in the room with you? You, Jimmy, who else? Skakel: Rush. Gaspar: Did you hear anybody come in or leave? Did the telephone ring? Skakel: I don't recall. Gaspar: Where's Ken and Michael and Julie now? Skakel: Anyone who didn’t come back with us is back at Belle Haven. They discuss the ride back to Belle Haven: Gaspar: When you drove back from the Terrien’s [Terriens'], who drove? Skakel: I think I drove. Gaspar: Why didn’t Rush drive? Skakel: I think he gave up the wheel. Gaspar: Do you remember why he gave up the wheel? Skakel: I think he said it was better if I drive. Gaspar: Who else was in the car with you? Besides you and Rush? Skakel: I think just us, but I'm not sure. This hypnosis session was not the first one between Gaspar and John, and not the first time this issue of Michael's whereabouts was raised. Suffice it to say, this is not an issue of John being momentarily forgetful. If anything, Gaspar went too far in trying to lead John into putting Michael at the Terrien's [Terriens'] and in the car, but John would still not capitulate. Indeed, the way he was answering questions about the car ride seems to be consistent with a subconscious conflict. It almost seems as though John, under the influence of hypnosis, plainly sees Michael was not in the car, and sees he was not at the Terrien's [Terriens'], but realizes someone was supposed to be there, (Frankly, Gaspar's leading style of questioning, in and of itself, gives that impression.) So John, it seems, is answering truthfully, but qualifying his answers out of some inexplicable concern. He says that someone, he doesn't know who, doesn't know why, but someone might have been there. Gaspar: Who’s with you? Skakel: I think it’s Rush, Jimmy and myself. (tape indecipherable) Gaspar: Where’s Ken? Is he with you also? Skakel: I don’t see Ken. Gaspar: Is he outside or in the house or is he back at the restaurant? Skakel: I don't see him. Gaspar: What do you do now, John? Skakel: In the car. Get in gear and back out. Around the driveway and (tape indecipherable) Gaspar: Where’s Tommy? Where's Michael? Skakel: I can see Tommy by the back door, the side door. Gaspar: Is there anyone else there with him? Skakel: I think so. Gaspar: Who? Skakel: I think it's Martha. I think that's who it is. Gaspar: Who's coming back with you now? Leaving with you? Skakel: Rush. Jim Terrien. Gaspar: What are Tom and Martha doing? Skakel: They're just standing by the back door, the side door. Gaspar: Where's Martha? Skakel: I don't see. Gaspar: Where were you sitting? In the front seat or the back seat? Skakel: I must have been in the back seat. Gaspar: Who's driving? Look at the back of their head. Skakel: (tape indecipherable) Gaspar: You get there. Go inside and tell me who's there. Skakel: Jim and Jim…and Rush… watching Monty Python. Gaspar: Was there anyone else there? Skakel: There might be. I can't see who it is. Gaspar: What else are you doing? Anything else? Skakel: That’s it. Gaspar: What time do you leave there? Skakel: Don't stay long. Gaspar: Okay, you're leaving now. You're getting in the car. Who's driving? Can you see? Skakel: I think I'm driving. Gaspar: Who is in the car with you? Skakel: Rush. Maybe someone else too, but I can only see Rush. Gaspar: Okay. You get home. About what time would you say it is? Skakel: A little after eleven. Gaspar: Go inside. Is there anyone there? Is there anyone up, John? Skakel: In the kitchen. Gaspar: Who is in the kitchen? Skakel: I don’t see... getting something out of the fridge. Rush goes to bed. Gaspar: Where’s Michael. Skakel: I don't see him. This testimony puts a tremendous, irrefutable dent in Michael's alibi. During that whole crucial block of time, he is simply not accounted for. Many investigators believe the only way Michael could have committed or participated in the murder of Martha Moxley is if she was killed later than the 9:50/10:00 pm estimate. There is a possibility that Martha may have actually gone home for an indefinite period of time after being with Tommy and then snuck back out. There is circumstantial evidence to support this scenario. For example, Martha, we know, had a curfew that night. She was still living under a parental probation for some recent disobedience. Mrs. Moxley was expecting Martha to be home by 9:30 pm. However, Martha, according to Tommy (and corroborated by the testimony of others) was interested in having Tommy joining her, later on, for some “hacking.” If Martha did intend to participate in such activity later that night, it would require defiance of her curfew. If we accept Tommy's version of events, Martha was serious about avoiding a blatant violation [^] her curfew. If she planned on doing any hacking that night, she would have to sneak out. Given that her mother, Mrs. Moxley, is alleged to have been intoxicated on the night in question, it seems all too possible that Martha could have returned home. Either her mother was never aware of that fact, or simply, impaired by alcohol, forgot Martha had made an appearance. Along the lines of speculation, scenarios in which Michael and Tommy could have conspired together have been considered by a number of experts in the case. Given all the information we have at this point, such a scenario seems unlikely, but further investigation and access to pertinent materials is recommended. The following essentially illustrates what Michael confessed to once he altered and amended the original story he had been telling the police (from the time-line): 11:33 pm--According to John Skakel, as reported to Sutton investigators while under hypnosis on either 1/6/93 or 3/15/93, someone went in or out of the house at this point. "It was changing to 11:33 on the clock radio," John remembers. "Something going on in the mud room." And then "The noise ... the sound of the back door." Questioned again about this point on May 4, 1993, John added, "I didn't hear anything in the kitchen, so whoever it was must not have gone through the kitchen." 11:40 pm--Michael reported to Willis Krebs, during his interview on 8/4/92, that a short time after going to bed, at approximately 11:40 pm, he used the front hallway rear door to exit the house. Krebs reports: "Upon leaving the house, he ran towards Walsh Lane and after passing the Moxley residence, turned right into a driveway, walked to the end and approached a ground floor window of the house. Michael stated that he had been at the house on other occasions to look at the woman who resided therein (name unknown). This woman, on many previous occasions, would not be wearing clothing. On this occasion the woman was lying on a couch wearing some sort of night garment. After looking into this window for a short period of time, he walked to the Moxley's [Moxleys'] house, climbed a tree and looked into the room he thought was Martha's. He yelled at the window, "Martha, Martha," but there was no response. Michael then stated that he masturbated to orgasm in the tree. After climbing down, he stopped near a street light on Walsh Lane. Michael stated that he felt "someone's presence" in the area where Martha's body was eventually discovered. He yelled "into the darkness" and threw something at the trees. Still fearing what was there he ran back to his house. he crossed in front of his house, and finding all doors locked, climbed to the second floor and entered his room through his bedroom window. He felt he was out of the house between 30 and 45 minutes, arriving home at sometime around 12:30 am. Once in his room, he went to sleep.” Once again, at the very least, we are forced to ask ourselves how and why a young man could have kept such important information to himself for so many years. We must consider that Michael might have become aware of John's (and others) testimony about someone coming in and out of the house. This could have been what prompted him to come forth with his confession. This possibility, of course, does not inherently mean Michael murdered Martha. Michael may very well be telling the truth now. There are, however, some other interesting points when considered in a prejudicial context: Michael claimed, when interviewed by Sutton Associates, he could not remember when he first realized Martha was dead. To most fifteen year old boys, such a realization would have been a frightening and unprecedented moment of devastation. Not a moment, in short, one could easily forget. Michael also told Sutton Associates he did not consider Martha to be a flirt. By all other accounts--many of them emphatic and coming directly from her good friends--Martha Moxley was a relentless flirt. This aspect of her character was one with which she was, in a neutral sense, largely identified with. (No one considered her to be promiscuous, or inappropriately preoccupied with sexuality. Rather, her flirtatiousness seems to have been indicative of a self-confident and cheerful disposition.) It seems odd, then, that Michael, who we know was romantically involved with Martha, and who certainly spent considerable time with her, would dissent from the consensus on this point. Given that Michael’s new, amended story is somewhat supported by the testimony of others, he is not a suspect on the same level as his brother, Tommy. Further investigation, however, is required to answer the questions and doubts raised by John's testimony, and other dubious factors in this case. Suffice it to say, Michael, in a sense, has been his own worst accuser. We must listen to what he is trying to tell us. If only because his profile so strongly fits that of the Academy Group's report, he must be carefully examined. Ideally, Michael can be ruled out of the crime with complete certainty, so that Sutton Associates may intensify investigative scrutiny towards other suspects. Needless to say, Michael's cooperation and the continued cooperation of the Skakel family will be required to move forward on this matter. TOP OF PAGE TOMMY SKAKEL A purposefully prejudicial analysis of Tommy Skakel and his testimony, designed for evaluating how best to proceed with questioning during his upcoming interview. Let us say it is about 9:30 on the night of October 30, 1995 [sic]. At this point, basically everybody has left the Skakel residence. Helen Ix and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne left a little while ago. Michael is gone (we’ll assume for now)—he left with Jim Terrien, John, and Rush. Tommy watched as Andrea and his sister Julie drove off after he helped Andrea retrieve the car keys. In short, the coast was clear. If, as Tommy has expressed, he was sincerely concerned about appearances and making an effort to conceal a tryst with Martha (and if he genuinely lied about his homework assignment as an excuse to stay behind with her) then his mission was accomplished. When Tommy went back to meet Martha the need for discretion was over. So why, now that the coast was clear, did Tommy and Martha brave temperatures of forty degrees and have their encounter on the grass when access to either a comfortable bedroom, or the van, was a few mere steps away? In terms of appearances, mutual masturbation on the back lawn does not, by any standard, constitute a continuing effort to be discrete. Plus, by most accounts, the Skakel van was well-known as a place the boys would take willing young ladies. Another factor to consider: Tommy admits having about 4-5 beers with dinner. There |