Elan discussion from New Forum Policies

[mark babitz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuhrman_tapes




Fuhrman tapes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Fuhrman tapes are 13 hours of taped interviews given by Los Angeles police officer Mark Fuhrman to writer Laura McKinny between 1985 and 1994. The tapes include many racist slurs and remarks made by Fuhrman, and portions of the tapes were admitted into evidence during the O. J. Simpson murder trial.

Contents [hide]
1 Creation of tapes
2 Role in O.J. Simpson murder trial
3 Excerpts from Fuhrman tapes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Creation of tapes

Laura McKinny was interested in writing a screenplay and a novel about the experience of women police officers. After learning that Fuhrman was a Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officer and had strong views about the employment of women as LAPD officers, McKinny engaged Fuhrman as a consultant to provide background information about the reality of the experiences of LAPD officers and to serve as a technical advisor in the development of a screenplay.

[edit]Role in O.J. Simpson murder trial

Fuhrman was the officer who found both gloves, much of the blood drops in the dark and who entered Simpson's estate grounds without a search warrant due to exigent circumstances. Only very limited excerpts of the tapes were admitted as evidence in the 1995 murder trial against O.J. Simpson, yet the admitted portions were strong enough to cast doubts on Fuhrman's motives and credibility.

[edit]Excerpts from Fuhrman tapes

Among the portions that were admitted were the following:[1]

( ...speaking of changes in composition of L.A.P.D.).
"That we've got females ...and dumb niggers, and all your Mexicans that can't even write the name of the car they drive."
(McKinny Transcript No. 1, p.11.)

( ...speaking of the physical risks to officers).
"If I'm wrestling around with some ___ nigger, and he gets me in my back, and he gets his hands on my gun. It's over."
(McKinny Transcript No. 1, p. 12)

( ...describing arrest of a suspect).
"She was afraid. He was a big nigger, and she was afraid."
(McKinny Transcript No. 1, p. 20)

(...explaining arrest of a suspect in Westwood).
"He was a nigger. He didn't belong. Two questions. And you are going: Where do you live? 22nd and Western. Where were you going? Well, I'm going to Fatburger. Where's Fatburger. He didn't know where Fatburger was? Get in the car."
(McKinny Transcript No. 1, p.33)

(...commenting on L.A. P. D. politics).
"Commander Hickman, was a dickhead. He should be shot. He did that for one thing. He wants to be chief, so he wants the city council, and the police commissioner, and all these niggers in L.A. City government and all of 'em should be lined up against a wall and fuckin' shot."
(McKinny Transcript No. 1, p.41)

(...discussing American aid to drought victims in Ethiopia).
"You know these people here, we got all this money going to Ethiopia for what. To feed a bunch of dumb wild ape niggers that their own government won't even feed."
(McKinny Transcript No. 1, p. 44)

(...discussing where he grew up in the state of Washington).
"People there don't want niggers in their town. People there don't want Mexicans in their town. They don't want anybody but good people in their town, and anyway you can do to get them out of there that's fine with them. We have no niggers where I grew up."
(McKinny Transcript No. 1, p.45)

( ...speaking of women as training officers).
"When I came on the job all my training officers were big guys and knowledgeable, some nigger'd get in their face, they just spin 'em around, choke 'em out until they dropped."
(McKinny Transcript No. 1., p. 47)

(...discussing use of chokehold by L.A.P.D.).
"No, we have to eliminate a choke hold because a bunch of niggers down in the south end of L.A. said this is bad."
(McKinny Transcript No. 1., p. 49)

[edit]References

^ Excerpts from the Fuhrman tapes, http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/Info/fuhrman.html
[edit]External links

Site at MIT with information on Fuhrman tapes
PBS Documentary on OJ Trial
[hide]
v • d • e
O. J. Simpson murder trial
Key figures   
O. J. Simpson · Nicole Brown Simpson · Ronald Goldman · Al Cowlings · Lance Ito
Prosecution figures   
Marcia Clark · Christopher Darden
Defense figures   
F. Lee Bailey · Johnnie Cochran · Alan Dershowitz · Robert Kardashian · Barry Scheck · Robert Shapiro  · Carl Douglas
Witnesses   
Traci Adell · Michael Baden · Denise Brown · Pablo Fenjves · Mark Fuhrman · Fred Goldman · Kato Kaelin · Henry Lee · Faye Resnick
Other elements   
Brentwood · Bruno Magli · Centinela Avenue  · Ford Bronco · Fuhrman tapes · If I Did It
Categories: O. J. Simpson murder trial | Law enforcement in California | Racism

[mark babitz]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... dLEsRz6I2Q


The Boy Next DoorBy Patrick Rogers
Kennedy Kin Michael Skakel Faces Charges in the Martha Moxley Murder
FacebookTwitterE-mail Dorthy Moxley had nothing special planned for Jan. 18–tennis with friends in the morning, bridge in the afternoon–until a 9:30 a.m. phone call brought news she had waited more than 24 years to hear: Frank Garr, an inspector with the Connecticut state's attorney's office, told her there would be a major announcement concerning the long-unresolved investigation of the death of Moxley's 15-year-old daughter, Martha, whose savage 1975 murder outside the family's Greenwich, Conn., home has been generating headlines ever since.

"Oh, Frank, I'm not going to be disappointed, am I?" implored Moxley, 67. "No," said Garr, "I think you'll be pleased."

Moxley settled into a chair in her Chatham, N.J., living room and looked up at an oil portrait of her daughter, forever young, blonde and smiling. "Martha, we're getting him," she said through bittersweet tears. "We're going to get him."

The next day, the announcement was made that the Moxleys' onetime Greenwich neighbor Michael Skakel, 39, had been charged with Martha's murder. Skakel, a nephew of Ethel Kennedy, turned himself in to police in Greenwich later that day and was released on $500,000 bond to return to his home in wealthy Hobe Sound, Fla.

Skakel, speaking through his lawyer, maintains his innocence, as he has since he was first questioned by police nearly a quarter century ago. His good character is vouched for by, among others, his first cousin Douglas Kennedy, 32, son of Robert and Ethel Kennedy and a reporter with FOX News Channel. "Michael is one of the most honest and open people I know," says Kennedy. "He cares about people more than anybody I've ever met, and there is no possible way he's involved in this."

Proving who was involved in the Moxley murder will present staggering difficulties to the prosecution. Greenwich police, deferential to local gentry such as the Skakels, never searched the Skakel house thoroughly after the killing–though the golf club with which Martha was bludgeoned belonged to the family–and also failed to properly secure the crime scene. Consequently, there is little physical evidence upon which a case might be built. Yet a 1996 episode of the TV show Unsolved Mysteries led to new information and helped prompt the impaneling in 1998 of a one-man grand jury in the person of Connecticut Superior Court Judge George Thim. He heard testimony from 53 witnesses, including former residents of a pricey drug-and-alcohol rehab facility where Skakel allegedly discussed his role in the Moxley murder while under treatment in the late '70s.

The case is further complicated by the fact that Skakel was 15 at the time of Moxley's murder and will face trial as a juvenile unless state attorneys persuade a judge to move the proceedings to superior court. Frank Garr, who was a patrolman with the Greenwich police in 1975, concedes, "An arrest is just the first step. We have a long road ahead."

For Dorthy Moxley, the road has already been long. She saw her daughter for the last time on Oct. 30, 1975, the day before Halloween, as Martha, bundled against the cold in her blue down jacket, happily set off to engage in a few pre-Halloween pranks with other kids from the neighborhood. "She's with me all the time," says Moxley. "I'll open my recipe book, and there will be a card that she wrote out for lemon squares. I'll open a box of stationery, and there's a Mother's Day card she made for me."

Dorthy saw no reason to fear for Martha's safety that evening. Belle Haven, the Greenwich neighborhood where the Moxleys had moved from Piedmont, Calif., 16 months earlier, was an enclave of big houses, pampered lawns and streets guarded by a private security detail. The Moxleys–Dorthy, her late husband, David, an accountant, and their two children, Martha and John, then 17–felt at home among their new neighbors. The presence of the Kennedy-connected Skakels–Michael's father, Rushton, is Ethel Kennedy's older brother–only enhanced the neighborhood's atmosphere of exclusivity and privilege. Rushton Skakel had recently recommended David Moxley for membership at Manhattan's University Club.

Probably no place in Greenwich or in all of Connecticut seemed safer than Belle Haven, yet Martha never came home that night. Dorthy waited anxiously by a window in the library of the family's sprawling Spanish-style house. Before dawn her concern had turned to panic. That afternoon Martha's body was found hidden beneath the low branches of an evergreen on the Moxley property. Lying facedown with her jeans and underwear near her ankles, Martha had been beaten with such force that the six-iron golf club used in the attack had shattered into three parts, one of which had been driven through her neck.

The discovery in the Skakel house of a set of matching clubs with a missing six-iron immediately cast suspicion on the Moxleys' neighbors. Tommy Skakel, then 17, the third of Rushton Skakel's seven children by his first wife, Ann, who had died of cancer in 1973, was known to have had a crush on Martha–Tommy kept trying to get to "first and second base," the teenager had written in her diary–and was the last person seen with her before she was killed. He insisted then, as he does now, that he didn't murder Moxley. Another member of the Skakel household, live-in tutor Kenneth Littleton, then 23, also fell under scrutiny but was eventually dropped from the list of suspects because no evidence or motive linked him to the crime.

From the beginning, Dorthy Moxley kept a certain distance from the brutal facts of the investigation. "I never knew which tree Martha was found under or where things happened," she says. "I thought if I did not know, it wouldn't hurt so much." For a time, the Moxleys remained friendly with the Skakels and even once visited the family's ski lodge in Windham, N.Y. But relations soured when the Skakels stopped cooperating with police in 1976, by which time Tommy Skakel had emerged as the prime suspect.

Soon the Moxleys could no longer bear living in their big house in Belle Haven. "We were convinced that whoever killed Martha had to have been someone who lived across the street at the Skakels'," says Dorthy. The family moved to Manhattan, then, in 1986, to Annapolis, Md. Two years later, David Moxley, who rarely spoke of his daughter's murder, died of a heart attack at age 57. "I think the fact that he kept everything inside added to his early demise," says Dorthy, who herself fell into a deep depression.

Back in Greenwich, where police had scant experience with serious crime, the Moxley investigation meandered along inconclusively. By and large, the Skakels, even while shadowed by suspicion, managed to get on with their lives–all of them, that is, except Michael, a troubled child who struggled with dyslexia and drank heavily in his teens. According to Greenwich native Timothy Dumas, whose account of the Moxley murder, Greentown, was published in 1998, Skakel had a short temper and was reputed to have beaten squirrels to death with a golf club.

One family member, who prefers to go unnamed, says Michael's problems date back to his mother's death. "He was never told what was happening," says the source. "His mom was taken away to the hospital, and the next thing he knew, she was dead." In 1978 Michael was arrested for drunk driving after a high-speed chase in Upstate New York. He was sent by his father–himself a heavy drinker who relied largely on servants to raise his children–to the Elan School in Poland Spring, Maine, a private facility then specializing in turning around the lives of troubled rich kids through tough love and discipline.

By all accounts, Elan was a bad fit for Skakel, who ran away several times. According to a written proposal for a book about his life (titled Dead Man Talking) that Skakel and a ghostwriter circulated among publishers a couple of years ago, Skakel wore a sign reading "Confront me on why I killed my friend Martha" during his time at Elan. He left the school after two years and spent much of the '80s on the golf course, on ski slopes and in and out of rehab clinics. Supported by his father, he competed on the international speed skiing circuit and came close to qualifying for a U.S. demonstration team that took part in the 1992 winter Olympics in Albertville, France.

Friends at the time describe Skakel as gentle and generous. "When I was training, he helped me a great deal," says Kazunaga Kusumi, now 33, a member of the Japanese Olympic team. "He'd share his equipment, which is really rare for a competitor." In the early '90s, Skakel married golf pro Margot Sheridan, now 36, and settled in the affluent Boston suburb of Cohasset, Mass., near Skakel's cousin Michael Kennedy, who would die in an Aspen ski accident in 1997. In 1993, at age 32, Skakel earned his bachelor's degree from Curry College in Milton, Mass., and went on to work as a driver for Ted Kennedy's 1994 reelection campaign.

For a time, it seemed that Skakel had slipped free of the long shadow of the Moxley case. But in 1991, another Kennedy cousin, William Kennedy Smith, was tried in West Palm Beach, Fla., on rape charges. Smith, then 30, was acquitted, but his trial spurred rumors that he had been at the Skakel home on the night of the Moxley murder. The rumors proved false, but in an effort to clear his family's name once and for all, Rushton Skakel hired a team of private investigators, Sutton Associates, to examine the facts of the Moxley case once again.

This, evidently, was a disastrous miscalculation. In interviews with Sutton investigators–later leaked to New York City reporter Leonard Levitt, Connecticut cops and the authors of three books–both Tommy and Michael Skakel drastically altered their accounts of events on the night of Oct. 30, 1975. Tommy, who originally claimed he and Moxley had briefly flirted on the lawn before he last saw her walking toward her house at 9:30 p.m., now told the Sutton team that he and Martha had been masturbating each other before parting at around 10 p.m. Michael, who had told cops he was far from the scene at a cousin's house, now added that, after returning home, he climbed a tree, where he too masturbated, outside Moxley's bedroom.

The Skakels' bizarre disclosures and the apparent revision of their stories heightened interest in the case once again. Disgraced former Los Angeles police detective Mark Fuhrman, famous for his role in the O.J. Simpson trial, investigated the facts of the case and came up with his own theory: that the Skakel who had killed Martha Moxley was Michael, not Tommy. "One, the murder weapon came from the Skakel home," says Fuhrman, who detailed his hypothesis in his 1998 book Murder in Greenwich. "Two, the Skakel boys were the last ones to see her alive. Three, Michael lied to police, which eliminated him as a suspect in 1975. Then he told a different story–a whopper of a story–in 1992 that put himself all over the murder scene."

Fuhrman also says he talked to former Elan School students who claim Michael Skakel admitted involvement in the murder–a claim Michael's counsel, Mickey Sherman, a frequent TV legal analyst, dismisses as unfounded hearsay.

Since 1998, when Connecticut investigators at last compiled enough evidence to convene the grand jury that would lead to the murder charge, Skakel, his wife and their son George, now 14 months old, have lived largely incommunicado in a condo in a gated community in Hobe Sound, close to the home of Michael's father. Friends seeing Michael's picture today are shocked by his gray hair, not long ago blond, and the extra pounds he now carries on his formerly athletic frame. "This has ruined his life," says a relative, referring to the Moxley case.

Yet one person's ordeal may be another's deliverance. Dorthy Moxley, who derives her greatest pleasure from her remaining family–son John, 41, a Manhattan real estate executive, his wife, Kara, and their two children, Caroline, 8, and David, 6–says she is at last ready to confront the full facts of her daughter's murder. "I am definitely going to this trial," she vows. "Wild horses couldn't keep me away."

Patrick Rogers
Jennifer Longley in Greenwich

Contributors:Jennifer Longley

[mark babitz]

The Moxley Murder Case Timeline *
Go the Most Current date at the Bottom of Page.
Revised: June 11, 2002
* Bibliography
October 30, 1975:
Martha and some friends went out for an evening of "mischief night" pranks before stopping at the home of Tommy and Michael Skakel.
Martha was due home around 10:00 PM; She never comes home.
Martha's family, neighbors, friends and the Greenwich Police begin searching for Martha around midnight. Dorthy Moxley waits up all night for Martha to return home.
October 31, 1975: The search continues throughout the night. Greenwich Police begin considering Martha's disappearance as a possible run-away.
4:00 AM: Greenwich Police search Belle Haven.
6:00 AM: John Moxley returns home from his search.
10:00 AM: Dorthy Moxley went to the Skakel home looking for Martha and speaks to Michael.
12:15 PM: While walking through the Moxley's backyard, 15-year-old Sheila McGuire finds Martha dead under a pine tree. The murder weapon was a golf club, which was later matched to a set owned by the Skakel family.
12:30 PM: Police arrive at the crime scene.
4:00 PM: GPD requests the Connecticut State Police Mobile Crime Scene Lab.
4:30 PM: C.S.P. Crime Scene Lab arrives.
5:30 PM: Martha's body is moved to Greenwich Hospital.
5:40 PM: Tommy Skakel is taken to the Greenwich station for questioning; he returns home at 10:30 PM.
November 1, 1975: Dr. Elliot Gross conducts an autopsy concluding that Martha was killed with a golf club.
November 2, 1975: Greenwich detectives remove a set of golf clubs matching the murder weapon from the Skakel home. Greenwich Police put out a nationwide APB for a missing portion of the golf club.
November 3, 1975: Tommy Skakel is given a polygraph test. The results were inconclusive.
November 4, 1975: More than 500 people attend Martha's funeral in Greenwich surrounded by onlookers and the media.
November 9, 1975: Tommy Skakel is given a 2nd polygraph test and reportedly passes.
November 10, 1975: Greenwich Police conduct an extensive background check on Ken Littleton.
November 15, 1975: Detectives re-interview the Skakel's, Andrea Shakespeare, Jim Terrien and Helen Ix.
November 21, 1975: Ed Hammond is given a polygraph test and passes.
November 24, 1975: Greenwich Police ask a New York City Area Dry Cleaners Association to report any blood stained clothing.
December 2, 1975: Greenwich Police ask all Fairfield County Dry Cleaners to report any blood stained clothing received since the crime.
December 2, 1975: John Moxley is given a polygraph test and passes.
December 9, 1975: John Skakel is given a polygraph test and passes.
December 11, 1975: Greenwich Police search the Skakel's Windham, NY residence with Rushton Skakel's Permission.
December 12, 1975: Greenwich Police receive the autopsy report from Dr. Gross.
December 13, 1975: Detectives re-interview Tommy Skakel and take hair samples.
December 17, 1975: Dorthy Moxley is given a polygraph test. The results are inconclusive.
January 16, 1976: Detectives receive written permission from Rushton Skakel to obtain Tommy's school, medical and psychological records.
January 20, 1976: Greenwich Police are contacted by Chris Roosevelt of the Whitby School. He tells them that he will NOT release Tommy's school records without first speaking to the Skakel's. He also states that if Tommy was arrested, he would be defended by a battery of lawyers who would claim the boy was "temporarily insane".
January 22, 1976: Rushton Skakel formally WITHDRAWS permission to release Tommy's school records. Later that day Rushton collapses with chest pains and is rushed to Greenwich Hospital where he informs detectives that he has retained Manny Margolis as Tommy's criminal attorney.
January 25, 1976: David Moxley sets up a meeting between Police and his friend John McCreight a consultant who wants Greenwich Police to bring in outside help.
January 28, 1976: Detectives request to permission re-interview Ed Hammond.
January 30, 1976: Attorney Manny Margolis advises Police that he has advised the Skakel's NOT to talk with police.
February 4-7, 1976: Detectives go to Detroit, MI to get advice from Detroit Police on the case.
February 9, 1976: Detectives go to Brunswick School to try and get a written statement from Ken Littleton - Littleton is unavailable.
February 18, 1976: Detectives meet with Skakel family advisors Fr. Tommy Guinan and Fr. Mark Connolly concerning medical and psychological tests they would like perform.
February 25, 1976: Detectives meet with Rushton Skakel, Fr. Mark Connolly and Attorney Manny Margolis concerning medical and psychological tests they would like perform.
March 3, 1976: Attorney Manny Margolis informs detectives that his client will NOT COMPLY and be tested.
March 5, 1976: Ed Hammond and his mother are re-interviewed.
March 15, 1976: Tommy Skakel is given a psychological exam in NYC under a false name.
March 16, 1976: Greenwich Police consult with Nassau County Police on the case.
March 25, 1976: Donald Browne holds a press conference and states they are frustrated by an unnamed family's lack of cooperation. He does not identify the family.
March 28, 1976: Rushton Skakel tells the Moxley's that Tommy has passed a psychological exam but refuses to give the results to police on advice of council.
March 31, 1976: Two Detroit detectives arrive in Greenwich to assist with the investigation.
April 2, 1976: Detroit detectives interview Robert and Mildred Ix.
April 5, 1976: Greenwich Police attempt to re-interview Ken Littleton - he declines.
April 7, 1976: Ken Littleton refuses to talk to detectives and refuses to sign a statement about Tommy Skakel.
April 13, 1976: Ken Littleton retains Attorney John Meerbergen and notifies police.
April 15, 1976: Police talk to witnesses regarding the barking dog the night of the murder.
April 16, 1976: Police check with Animal Control looking for "barking dog complaints" the night of the murder.
April 22, 1976: Detectives re-interview Ken Littleton with his lawyer present.
April 30, 1976: Tommy Skakel admitted to Greenwich Hospital.
May 11, 1976: Skakel's receive a full psychological report on Tommy Skakel from Dr. Lesse.
September 2, 1976: The Moxley's attorney informs police that the Skakel's have agreed to have Dr. Lesse speak to a doctor for the Moxley's.
October 18, 1976: Ken Littleton fails a polygraph test.
October 19, 1976: Ken Littleton tells police that his attorney has advised him not to submit himself for tests.
October 21, 1976: Detectives meet with attorney Margolis and tell him they would like to re-interview the Skakel's regarding Ken Littleton. Margolis is given a list of questions.
October 30, 1976: Detectives do an overnight stakeout of the murder scene.
November 9, 1976: Attorney Margolis contacts police with a list of answers regarding Ken Littleton.
November 12, 1976: Police do a background check on Ken Littleton.
March 3, 1977: The Moxley's attorney tells police that they have arranged a doctor to review Tommy Skakel's file.
May 1977: Ken Littleton is given 5-7 years suspended sentence for burglary charges in Nantucket, Mass. Littleton refuses to submit to a sodium amytal interview in return for reduced charges.
October 30, 1977: Detectives again do an overnight stakeout of the murder scene.
December 12, 1977: Detectives travel to Vermont where Tommy Skakel is attending school to obtain information.
December 14, 1977: Detectives travel to Boston to speak with Ken Littleton's Probation Officer.
March 5, 1978: Michael Skakel is arrested in Windham, NY on charges of unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, speeding, failure to comply with an officer and DWI.
June 1978: Tommy Skakel is expelled from college for academic reasons.
October 17, 1978: Governor Ella Grasso authorizes a $20,000 reward.
October 28, 1978: Greenwich Police meet with a psychic who contacted them regarding dreams.
October 30, 1978: Detectives again do an overnight stakeout of the murder scene.
Mid-November 1978: Michael Skakel escapes from the Elan School and is returned a few days later.
November 29, 1978: Michael Skakel escapes from the Elan School again.
December 12, 1978: Michael Skakel escapes from the Elan School again.
October 30, 1979: Detectives again do an overnight stakeout of the murder scene.
October 30, 1980: Detectives again do an overnight stakeout of the murder scene.
July 31, 1981: Police contact a second psychic about the case.
September 27, 1981: Police meet with the second psychic about the case.
October 30, 1981: Detectives again do an overnight stakeout of the murder scene.
July 13, 1982: Greenwich Time newspaper requests to see the investigation reports.
July 20, 1982: Police DENY the request.
August 6, 1982: Greenwich Time newspaper "formally" requests to see the investigation reports under the "Freedom Of Information Act".
October 4, 1982: Police request to see and edit Len Levitt's Greenwich Time article before publication. Their request is denied.
October 30, 1982: Detectives again do an overnight stakeout of the murder scene.
December 9, 1982: An FOI hearing is conducted regarding the police reports.
January 5, 1983: Detectives talk to Ken Littleton who states he has been talking to reporter Len Levitt. He also states that he is now willing to undergo tests to prove his innocence.
May 11, 1983: FOI Committee decides that police must hand over selected parts of the police report.
Summer 1983: Len Levitt's article is written on the case - Greenwich Time and Stamford Advocate REFUSES to publish it (so it sits on the self).
In 1988: Martha's father, David Moxley, dies unexpectedly in New York City. Mr. Moxley is buried in Greenwich next to Martha.
April 30, 1991: Greenwich police and the State of Connecticut announce that they are reinvestigating evidence in the case.
June 2, 1991: Len Levitt's article is published in the Greenwich Time under the headline "Moxley Murder Case Still Haunts Greenwich".
August 9, 1991: The Moxley family increases the reward to $50,000. They also set up a toll-free telephone number to assist in an announced reinvestigation by the State Attorney's office by Frank Garr and Jack Solomon.
SOMETIME IN 1991: The Skakel's hire Sutton Associates to investigate the murder.
1993: The book "A Season in Purgatory," by Dominick Dunne, is published.
October 1993: Dr. Henry Lee submits his findings to the Greenwich Police, the report is 6 inches thick.
January 5, 1994: At a press conference, Jack Solomon admits that there is nothing new in the investigation at this point - he also blames the Skakel family for not cooperating.
September 30, 1994: Frank Garr retires from the Greenwich Police to work as an investigator for the State Attorney's Office. He is assigned full time on the Moxley Case.
November 26, 1995: Len Levitt writes an article for "Newsday Magazine" in which he states that Tommy Skakel has changed his story about what he was doing the night of the murder.
June 19, 1996: The Moxley's double the reward money to $100,000.
October 1996: Evidence is taken to Washington D.C. to the Defense Department for DNA testing.
June 1998: Superior Court Judge George Thim starts an 18-month, one man grand jury review of information gathered by Frank Garr and the State Attorney's office.
Spring - Summer 1998: The books "Greentown" by Timothy Dumas and "Murder in Greenwich," by former Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman, are published.
September 1998: www.MarthaMoxley.com goes online.
November 1998: The grand jury interviewed more than 30 witnesses in connection the case. Some reportedly are former residents and staff of the Elan School in Poland Springs, Maine. At the same time counsel for Michael Skakel, headed by Stamford based defense attorney Michael Sherman, has made a motion to suppress all testimony from staff and residents of the Elan School citing "doctor - patient confidentiality".
December 10, 1998: In his ruling, Superior Court Judge Edward Stodolink stated that the owner of the center, where the state alleges former Greenwich resident Michael Skakel may have made admissions as to the murder, must give grand jury testimony.
March 11, 1999: Suffolk County (New York) Judge Michael Mullen ruled that private investigator, Willis Krebs must appear before the grand jury in Bridgeport.
March 24, 1999: When Krebs appeared before the grand jury, Willis Krebs refused to divulge those names on the basis that it was confidential information, but was later ordered to do so.
July 28, 1999: A Florida appeals court ruled that Rushton Skakel, the father of Michael and Tommy Skakel, was ordered to testify before the Connecticut grand jury investigating the Moxley Case.
August 5, 1999: The state Appellate Court has reversed a state Superior Court judge's order that a drug and alcohol rehabilitation center's owner must testify what he knows about admissions a suspect allegedly made concerning the Martha Moxley murder. It remains unclear, however, whether the Appellate Court decision would affect testimony the grand jury has already heard from others who attended the rehab center with Skakel.
September 9, 1999: Rushton Skakel Sr. spends over an hour answering a grand jury's questions about what he might know concerning his sons' possible involvement in the 1975 murder. In addition the grand jury is still looking for testimony from James (Dowdle) Terrin, cousin of Michael and Tommy Skakel, who was with the Skakel brothers the night of the murder.
December 10, 1999: The Grand Jury officially ended its investigation. By law, Judge Thim had a maximum of three, six-month terms to complete his investigation. His final term ended on Friday December 10. Judge Thim had 60 days to say whether he believes there is enough evidence to make an arrest. The prosecutors office is not bound by his decision. Even if Judge Thim finds probable cause for an arrest, prosecutors may decide there is not enough evidence for them to win a conviction.
January 19, 2000: 9:00 AM: At a news conference which was held in Bridgeport, Connecticut, prosecutors announced that an arrest warrant had been issued for an unnamed juvenile. Attorney Mickey Sherman told reporters that his client, Michael Skakel, was on his way to Connecticut to surrender to authorities. 3:00 PM: Greenwich, CT, Michael Skakel surrendered to Greenwich Police. Skakel was charged as a juvenile. The Skakel family posts $500,000 bail and he is released.
February 8, 2000: At what could only be described as a 'media circus', Michael Skakel was scheduled to appear in Stamford Juvenile Court for arraignment. But, Juvenile Court Judge Maureen Dennis decided to postpone his arraignment on murder charges until March 14, reportedly so she can look into whether to open the proceedings to the news media.
March 10, 2000: Judge Maureen Dennis rules on a request from five newspapers and The Associated Press which had asked to open the juvenile proceeding to the public. The judge agreed to allow press coverage and moved the arraignment to Stamford Superior Court, Tuesday March 14th.
March 14, 2000: In a four-minute court appearance, Skakel heard the charges against him read aloud and was advised of his Constitutional rights. Because this is a juvenile case, Michael Skakel was entitled to a "reasonable cause" hearing, which was held on June 20, 21 and 28, 2000.
When leaving court, Michael Skakel approached Dorthy and John Moxley and said "I feel your pain," Skakel followed with "but you've got the wrong guy." John Moxley said he told Skakel, "We'll find out in court."
June 20, 21 and 28, 2000: Michael Skakel appeared for a "Probable Cause Hearing". Skakel was flanked by his brother, sister and cousins Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Douglas Kennedy. Witnesses appeared for both the prosecution and defense on whether Skakel actually admitted to the murder while attending the Elan School in Poland Springs, Maine.
August 17, 2000: Judge decides Skakel will stand trial. Stating evidence from a probable cause hearing showed "well beyond mere suspicion" that Michael Skakel could have caused the death of Martha Moxley.
October 5, 2000: The Juvenile report from a court-ordered background investigation was been delivered to the presiding judge.
January 31, 2001: Kennedy nephew Michael Skakel will be tried as an adult in the 1975 murder of Greenwich teen-ager Martha Moxley, a judge ruled Wednesday.
February 11, 2001: The prosecution filed a motion to have the case of Martha Moxley murder defendant Michael Skakel moved to Bridgeport from Superior Court in Stamford, which a judge only last week designated as the trial site.
February 14, 2001: Michael Skakel appeals judge's decision to try Skakel as an adult.
February 21, 2001: Michael Skakel is charged as an adult.
November 2001: The CT State Supreme Court said it would not hear Skakel's appeal of the decision to transfer his case to adult court, saying it was too early in the legal process to consider that issue. Appeals are not normally granted until verdicts are reached.
December 11, 2001: Connecticut State Superior Court Judge John Kavanewsky denied a long-standing motion to dismiss the charges against Michael Skakel.
May 4, 2002: Trial took place in Connecticut State Superior Court in Norwalk with Judge John Kavanewsky presiding.
June 7, 2002: With the family and friends in the courtroom the 12 person jury found Michael Skakel "Guilty as Charged of Murder in the 1st Degree"
* Bibliography and Reference:
J.A. Johnson, Jr. - Greenwich Time Reporter
Murder in Greenwich, by Mark Fuhrman
A Wealth of Evil, by Timothy Dumas
ABC News
APBNews.com
MSNBC New

[mark babitz]

The Bounty On Martha's Killer Put Up By The Moxley's


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... YjyNSPfh-w



October 17, 1978: Governor Ella Grasso authorizes a $20,000 reward.

October 28, 1978: Greenwich Police meet with a psychic who contacted
them regarding dreams.

October 30, 1978: Detectives again do an overnight stakeout of the
murder scene.

Mid-November 1978: Michael Skakel escapes from the Elan School and is
returned a few days later.

November 29, 1978: Michael Skakel escapes from the Elan School again.

December 12, 1978: Michael Skakel escapes from the Elan School again.

October 30, 1979: Detectives again do an overnight stakeout of the
murder scene.

October 30, 1980: Detectives again do an overnight stakeout of the
murder scene.

July 31, 1981: Police contact a second psychic about the case.

September 27, 1981: Police meet with the second psychic about the
case.

October 30, 1981: Detectives again do an overnight stakeout of the
murder scene.


GREENWICH TIME EDITOR
JOE PISANI GETS MORE INVOLVED
IN THE MARTHA MOXLEY MURDER CASE


July 13, 1982: Greenwich Time newspaper requests to see the
investigation reports.

July 20, 1982: Police DENY the request.

August 6, 1982: Greenwich Time newspaper "formally" requests to see
the investigation reports under the "Freedom Of Information Act".

October 4, 1982: Greenwich Police Department requests to see and edit
Len Levitt's Greenwich Time article before publication. Their request
is denied.

October 30, 1982: Detectives again do an overnight stakeout of the
murder scene.

December 9, 1982: An FOI hearing is conducted regarding the police
reports.

January 5, 1983: Detectives talk to Ken Littleton who states he has
been talking to reporter Len Levitt. He also states that he is now
willing to undergo tests to prove his innocence.

May 11, 1983: FOI Committee decides that police must hand over
selected parts of the police report.

Summer 1983: Len Levitt's article is written on the case - Greenwich
Time and Stamford Advocate Editor Joe Pisani REFUSES to publish it (so it sits in Joe Pisani's lower desk drawer under lock and key). The Kennedy clan is elated that Pisani has knuckled under to their pressure.


In 1988: Martha's father, David Moxley, dies unexpectedly in New York
City. Mr. Moxley is buried in Greenwich next to Martha.

April 30, 1991: Greenwich police and the State of Connecticut announce
that they are reinvestigating evidence in the case.


TWO MONTHS LATER COWARDLY
GREENWICH TIME EDITOR JOE PISANI
HAS A CHANGE OF HEART

June 2, 1991: Len Levitt's article is published in the Greenwich Time
under the headline "Moxley Murder Case Still Haunts Greenwich".

August 9, 1991: The Moxley family increases the reward to $50,000.

They also set up a toll-free telephone number to assist in an
announced reinvestigation by the State Attorney's office by Frank Garr
and Jack Solomon.

SOMETIME IN 1991: The Skakel's hire Sutton Associates to investigate
the murder.

1993: The book "A Season in Purgatory," by Dominick Dunne, is
published.

October 1993: Dr. Henry Lee submits his findings to the Greenwich
Police, the report is 6 inches thick.

January 5, 1994: At a press conference, Jack Solomon admits that there
is nothing new in the investigation at this point - he also blames the
Skakel family for not cooperating.

September 30, 1994: Frank Garr retires from the Greenwich Police to
work as an investigator for the State Attorney's Office. He is
assigned full time on the Moxley Case.

November 26, 1995: Len Levitt writes an article for "Newsday Magazine"
in which he states that Tommy Skakel has changed his story about what
he was doing the night of the murder.

June 19, 1996: The Moxley's double the reward money to $100,000.

October 1996: Evidence is taken to Washington D.C. to the Defense
Department for DNA testing

[mark babitz]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... sMgJwcaa4g


Sherman doesn't pay his taxes :jawdrop:  :jawdrop:  :jawdrop:



Tax Relief Lessons Learned from Celebrity Tax Woes #6: No matter how much you owe, the IRS is poised to do whatever it takes to collect every penny. Just because you're an attorney, doesn't mean you're a tax attorney and can outfox the IRS. Last spring, celebrity lawyer Mickey Sherman (he unsuccessfully represented Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel in his murder trial) pled guilty to not paying $400,000 in taxes.
Sherman paid those taxes, but allegedly still owes more than $1 million in penalties, interest and for back taxes in other years. While it may be difficult for many taxpayers to directly relate to owing the IRS millions of dollars in back taxes, the IRS has become increasingly aggressive in pursuing tax cheats – both big and small. And both individuals and businesses are at a big disadvantage if they try to face the IRS alone. They need expert representation or they risk the IRS managing their cash flow via financially debilitating levies. An experienced tax attorney or Certified Tax Resolution Specialist will also make sure you get the optimum tax settlement you deserve without paying the IRS a penny more than you have to

[mark babitz]

Martha's mother, Dorothy Moxley, offered a $100,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of her daughter's killer and set up a hotline to receive tips about her death, with no result. For years, Thomas and Michael Skakel and Kenneth Littleton remained the three main suspects, but no charges were ever brought against any of them. The police team cited a lack of physical evidence and lack of co-operation among the Skakels as the main obstacles in the case.


Higgins back peddling.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... xNTR78Kj7Q

[SharonMcCarthy]

Sharon
I hope the event turns out great, and raises tons of cash for you and your family. I also hope Mason recovers quickly and you can put this whole thing behind you.

Ok wow thank you....but all this sudden kindness whats the catch?

[SharonMcCarthy]

Danny
Your time would be better spent doing for others,rather than promoting yourself. You are but a Fraud
show me where I stated Fornits was being shut down and I had something to do with this ? And if you sent this personal email to psy,how is it Sharon got it and posted it here ?
You are gonna have to learn to be a better liar if you are going to run in these circles Danny.
I never had you as a friend,nor was I ever interested in your friendship,as the cost is just to high.
I am sorry that you are SO sick that you have to post here 200 times a day. Tho I understand the affliction. I have to think your time could be better spent helping real people,who want help.. Rather than forcing it down someone's throat (like you do in every thread)
I really do wish you owell. But I really wish you'd shut the fuck up,as I am sure dozens of others will agree with. You have quite the fan base here @ fornits. Where else can you get this kind of attention and not have to pay for it
You live for betrayal,and eat it up with sugar. Even if you are lying,its still always about you. Did Psy give you a cookie for your most recent lies ?
How about another Screen Name LOL

Well Jee, Arty, maybe Psy sent it on to her so she could inform you of the consequences of your stupid actions. Listen I have to go now but please stay in touch with me. I am very interested in your life and how things are going for you. I know you have this penchant for calling me names and trying to reject me but we both know how you adore me. We are friends Arty, this is just how we do it. I am baffled that you don't recognized this as a great relationship, I was under the impression all your friendships are like this.
Is everyone a liar in your life??

Danny I do not recall PSY sending me anything but I do remember you promoting yourself..

[liarsexposed]

Sharon
I hope the event turns out great, and raises tons of cash for you and your family. I also hope Mason recovers quickly and you can put this whole thing behind you.

Ok wow thank you....but all this sudden kindness whats the catch?

No catch.. just sick of the bullshit. My life is too full,and I have to think you have much more important things to focus on than this nonsense.
besides .. thats who I am
what you have seen is not me

[liarsexposed]

Danny
Your time would be better spent doing for others,rather than promoting yourself. You are but a Fraud
show me where I stated Fornits was being shut down and I had something to do with this ? And if you sent this personal email to psy,how is it Sharon got it and posted it here ?
You are gonna have to learn to be a better liar if you are going to run in these circles Danny.
I never had you as a friend,nor was I ever interested in your friendship,as the cost is just to high.
I am sorry that you are SO sick that you have to post here 200 times a day. Tho I understand the affliction. I have to think your time could be better spent helping real people,who want help.. Rather than forcing it down someone's throat (like you do in every thread)
I really do wish you owell. But I really wish you'd shut the fuck up,as I am sure dozens of others will agree with. You have quite the fan base here @ fornits. Where else can you get this kind of attention and not have to pay for it
You live for betrayal,and eat it up with sugar. Even if you are lying,its still always about you. Did Psy give you a cookie for your most recent lies ?
How about another Screen Name LOL

Well Jee, Arty, maybe Psy sent it on to her so she could inform you of the consequences of your stupid actions. Listen I have to go now but please stay in touch with me. I am very interested in your life and how things are going for you. I know you have this penchant for calling me names and trying to reject me but we both know how you adore me. We are friends Arty, this is just how we do it. I am baffled that you don't recognized this as a great relationship, I was under the impression all your friendships are like this.
Is everyone a liar in your life??

Danny I do not recall PSY sending me anything but I do remember you promoting yourself..

Hey Danny
Oooops !

[mark babitz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvyTY_oYR_c

[mark babitz]

At a press conference last month, the Greenwich police more than doubled the reward they had been offering for new information in the Margolies case, from $20,000 to $50,000. They also established a hotline for tips (203-532-1949), and brought Maryann Margolies forward to make an emotive plea

                                                                     Greenwich Town Office
                                                                        449 Pemberwick Rd
                                                                     06831-4242 - Greenwich

                                                                      { Tel. 203-532-1949 }
                                                                          Current Number    
                                                 



http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... vYWh2G7F1A



 only appear in links pointing to this page: hotline  
 
         



   
MAIN PAGE
WORLD
U.S.
WEATHER
BUSINESS
SPORTS
POLITICS
LAW
SCI-TECH
SPACE
HEALTH
ENTERTAINMENT
TRAVEL
EDUCATION
IN-DEPTH

VIDEO
LOCAL
CNN NEWSWATCH
E-MAIL SERVICES
CNNtoGO
ABOUT US/HELP

CNN TV
what's on
show transcripts
CNN Headline News
CNN International
askCNN

EDITIONS
CNN.com Asia
CNN.com Europe
CNNenEspanol.com
CNNArabic.com
set your edition







   
CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Interviews With Dorthy Moxley, John Moxley, Dominick Dunne

Aired June 7, 2002 - 21:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight: Guilty. Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel stands convicted of murdering Martha Moxley almost 27 years ago. Joining us is Martha's mother, Dorthy Moxley. She never gave up hope she'd get justice for her daughter. And with her is her son and Martha's brother, John Moxley.

Also in New York, the best-selling crime writer Dominick Dunne. He covered the Skakel trial for "Vanity Fair." Like Dorthy Moxley, he lost a daughter to a brutal killer.

From outside the courthouse in Norwalk, Connecticut, Skakel's prosecutor Jonathan Benedict. We'll also have an exclusive interview with key prosecution witness John Higgins. He testified that Michael Skakel confessed to killing Martha many years ago.

And later, from the other side of this controversial case, Michael Skakel's defense attorney, Mickey Sherman, vowing to appeal. All that, your calls, next on LARRY KING LIVE.

What's it feel like, Dorthy?

DORTHY MOXLEY, MARTHA MOXLEY'S MOTHER: Well, I'm still pinching myself. I'm afraid I'll wake up tomorrow morning and it will be, you know, all over, that it won't be true. I've dreamed of this for 27 years. And...

KING: The moment before the verdict was read, when they opened up the envelope, what were you thinking when the foreman began to read?

D. MOXLEY: Well, I think my heart almost had stopped. It was -- I just kept thinking, I want it to be guilty, because I just believed so much in the system. And when he said "guilty," I just hugged my son and my sister-in-law, and I just could hardly believe it. It's been a dream come true.

KING: What was it like for you, John?

JOHN MOXLEY, MARTHA MOXLEY'S BROTHER: Well, like mom says, it's been 27 years in the making. We have really been doing this for the last 13 years. And it's just unbelievable.

KING: What was it like for you, opening the -- before they read? J. MOXLEY: It was -- it was just one of those moments that you'll remember forever. It was just so real and so intense, not knowing what was going to happen.

KING: Was it a relief?

J. MOXLEY: I don't know if "relief" is the right word.

KING: What is the right word?

J. MOXLEY: I don't yet. I don't know yet. It's going to take a long time to figure that out.

KING: Did either of you ever have a doubt about this, his guilt?

D. MOXLEY: No. Once I realized that, you know, it was Michael, I just never, ever doubted it for one minute.

KING: So in the past years, once you had the realization, did ever waiver?

J. MOXLEY: No. Michael was never a suspect for a long time. And it wasn't until...

KING: So he wasn't a suspect in your mind?

J. MOXLEY: Wasn't a suspect in our mind at all. And it wasn't until '98, the grand jury, when we started hearing all these bits and pieces and we saw how they all fit together. And we became convinced.

KING: Dominick, you've been on this for a long time. Wrote a novel about it, right, nine years ago? What's your thoughts tonight?

DOMINICK DUNNE, COVERED SKAKEL TRIAL FOR VANITY FAIR: Well, I have got to tell you, sitting in that courtroom this morning, I mean, there was such tension in that courtroom before this happened, when we were all sitting there. And a very nice woman, a friend of Dorthy's was next to me, who was like drawing pictures or something. And I just said, "will you stop doing that!" Because I was so nervous. And you know, I didn't really anticipate the verdict.

KING: You did not.

DUNNE: No, I didn't.

KING: You thought it would be not guilty?

DUNNE: I thought it would be -- it would be -- that it was a possibility. But when it became a reality, I was really shocked.

KING: Because many thought it would be a not guilty?

DUNNE: Yes.

KING: Many courtroom experts. Isn't that true?

DUNNE: Yes.

KING: So were you shocked at the verdict?

DUNNE: Yeah. But thrilled. Because I think this is absolutely the right verdict.

KING: No question in your mind justice was done?

DUNNE: No question in my mind that justice was done.

KING: How did you get on to this case?

DUNNE: Well, I was covering the William Kennedy Smith rape trial in Palm Beach, and this false rumor went through the courtroom there, that William Kennedy Smith had been in the Skakel house in Greenwich on the night of Martha Moxley's murder. So I went back and checked that out. And then that turned out not to be true.

And then, you know, I said, what ever happened to that story? Whatever happened to the thing? And they said, well, Tommy Skakel was the main suspect. The father had died, the mother had moved away. So I sought out Dorthy. And in 1991, I went to Annapolis, Maryland...

KING: And you wrote a book as fiction, though.

DUNNE: Yes. Yes. Because nobody knew what the facts were at that time. I was pretty close, by the way, to the...

KING: When did Mark Fuhrman pick it up?

DUNNE: Me.

KING: He got it from you.

DUNNE: He got it from me. Because there was a Sutton report, a Sutton private detective agency hired by Rushton Skakel, the father of Michael, the brother of Ethel Skakel Kennedy. And he hired this group of private detectives to take the cloud off his son, Tommy. And instead, it was they, these people whom he paid $750,000 to, it was they who unearthed Michael for the first time.

KING: Martha -- I mean, Dorthy, where were you the night Martha was killed?

D. MOXLEY: I was home. We lived in Greenwich, Connecticut in the Bell Haven section. And I was a do-it-yourself type of person. And I wanted to -- I was going to have new draperies delivered for our bedroom, so I was painting the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) on the windows.

KING: How did you learn of it?

D. MOXLEY: Martha's death? Oh, Martha didn't come home that night. And Martha was one of these girls who -- she was a delight. She did everything the right way. She just never -- you know, she never did much wrong.

KING: She said she was coming home, she came home.

D. MOXLEY: She said she was coming home, of course she was going to come home. And she did not come home that night. And my husband was in Atlanta, Georgia at a partner's meeting, and John was home.

KING: How old were you, John?

J. MOXLEY: Seventeen.

KING: Who -- did you learn before your mother?

J. MOXLEY: No. I learned -- I had gone to school. We had school off that day, but I had gone for a football practice. And then when I came home, I found out.

KING: Who told you?

D. MOXLEY: Three of my friends came to see me, and we were sitting in the living room when a knock at the door. And we went to the door, and it was one of Martha's friends, and she with in hysterics. And she said, "I think I have found Martha." The night before, I had called everyone I knew, everyone I knew, and so everyone was out looking for Martha. Everyone knew Martha was missing. And that's why these friends had come to be with me.

KING: One can assume there's nothing worse, both of you have experienced this, Dominick and you, both by murder, the loss of a daughter. One can assume there's nothing worse -- whatever second is a distant second. Do you ever get over it?

D. MOXLEY: No. I'm sure -- I don't want to get over it. I mean, I don't ever want to forget Martha. But, you know, time does help. It has been 27 years, almost. And I'm sure if it were like two or three years now, I wouldn't be able to be here.

KING: You never get over it, do you, Dominick?

DUNNE: Well, you never get over it. You go on with your life, though. I mean, that's very, very important. I mean, that honors also the daughter. But I mean -- it's part of me every day. And it's just part of my life.

KING: How close were you to your sister?

J. MOXLEY: Close. Close as, you know, as I think anybody.

KING: She was two years younger?

J. MOXLEY: Two years younger. We had just moved from the West Coast to the East Coast, so we didn't know a lot of people.

KING: Did you know the Skakels?

J. MOXLEY: No, we traveled in different circles.

KING: Did you know them? D. MOXLEY: I knew Rush.

KING: The father.

D. MOXLEY: Rush had been -- yes. It was very popular in those days to have cocktail parties, and we moved into Bell Haven, and we bought an old, run-down house. And I think the neighbors were elated that here was this family that moved in and we were going to fix up the house. And everyone had cocktail parties to introduce us. And Rush Skakel was -- he was one of the people that came. And in fact, we were asked to join the Bell Haven Club, the little beach club there, that's lovely. And Rush was one of our sponsors. And he sponsored my husband for the University Club here in New York. I mean, so he was becoming a good friend.

KING: We'll be back with more on this fascinating story. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: We're back. We're trying to find the word the Moxleys feel today.

John, are you happy? Is that the right word?

J. MOXLEY: No, not happy. You know, it's sad. It's -- you know, it's a lose-lose situation. It's funny, where we've worked on something for so long, we set goals. We, you know, we set a goal of finding who killed Martha. We set a goal of having him arrested, tried and convicted. And we've achieved all of those things. But it's absolutely hollow.

KING: Really anti-climactic, in a sense?

J. MOXLEY: You know, I don't know the word.

KING: "Hollow," though?

J. MOXLEY: It's -- there's no -- you know, there's no joy in it.

KING: No closure?

J. MOXLEY: "Victory" is the wrong word. There is no victory here.

KING: What are your feelings about Michael Skakel?

J. MOXLEY: Sad. You know, here is somebody that had every material advantage that anybody could ever want. And, you know, most people worry about how they're going to pay their bills. That was never a part of his life. And it just -- I mean, it goes to show you that money doesn't solve all your problems.

And, you know, it's parents; it's the power that a parent has in the raising of a child.

KING: He wasn't parented well?

J. MOXLEY: No. Apparently his mother was a wonderful person. And when she died, Rush Skakel's solution was to hire a staff. And, you know, it's like a business: Well, we need more help, let's hire more staff.

KING: Dorothy, do you hate Michael Skakel?

D. MOXLEY: No, I don't hate Michael Skakel. I...

KING: The court said he killed your daughter.

D. MOXLEY: I know. But if I were to say that I strongly disliked anyone, I would say that Rush Skakel, the father, is the person that I would put in that category.

KING: Because?

D. MOXLEY: Because he had the responsibility of raising these children. And I think Michael, we know -- he admitted it in his book proposal that at 13 he was an alcoholic. And he wanted help. I mean, you just don't have children that have problems like that without a reason. And I think, you know, they had all the means to do something.

When his wife died, if he couldn't handle the children, then why didn't the family step in and help him or something?

KING: Was it difficult for you, Dorthy, to look at Michael during the trial, or not difficult?

D. MOXLEY: Not as difficult as it was for me to look at Rushton Skakel when he came into court. I found -- I'm sincere when I say that.

KING: Are you surprised at this, Dominick?

DUNNE: No, I'm not, because I know how Dorthy feelings about Rushton Skakel. And Rushton Skakel was a disgrace.

KING: But he didn't kill their daughter.

DUNNE: He didn't kill the daughter, but he raised some of the most dysfunctional children who have ever been raised.

There was a moment today -- I have to say, I think this was absolutely the right verdict. I'm thrilled with the verdict. But there was a moment today when I found that I actually kind of felt sorry for Michael, in a way, whom I believe is the murderer.

But the whole humiliation of when he said, I'd like to speak, and the judge said no, sit down. And then when they -- when the bail was denied him, and he had to go into prison and went in front of the whole courtroom; you know, two cops, one took each arm -- not cops, but bailiffs -- and put the arms behind him, it was very -- it's was -- you know, it's not possible to be more humiliated in your life than he was at that moment.

KING: Did you agree with the denial of bail? Usually rich people get bail continued.

DUNNE: Yes, well I think the judge was great, by the way. And...

KING: You would have denied bail, too?

DUNNE: Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, I think he's a risk.

KING: To flee?

DUNNE: Yes, I think he's a risk to himself at this moment.

KING: You do?

DUNNE: I think that the despair must be -- think about that. He's sitting in a cell tonight, this rich kid. And I think that the despair must be absolutely overwhelming.

KING: John, do you think -- a man of 41 is not a man 15; it's not a boy 15. This is a different person now.

J. MOXLEY: Right.

KING: Do you think that gives him some leeway, in your mind, toward a lesser sentence maybe than...

J. MOXLEY: No, not at all. As a matter of fact, it should be more. I mean, here's somebody that's thumbed their nose at the rules all their life. You know, this was an inconvenience that the family could take care of. And, you know, we'll deal with it our way, as opposed to working with the law.

You know, if Michael and Rush had come to the police when he was 15 and he said, you know, I was drunk, I was stoned, I was out of my mind, I had a wild crush on Martha, she was with Tommy, I lost my mind, I did something, it was a mistake, there wouldn't have been all this damage to -- you know, we would have known it happened. It would have been over 20 years ago. You know, he certainly wouldn't have done the damage to the rest of his family.

KING: He would have been out by now.

J. MOXLEY: Yes.

DUNNE: Long since out.

KING: Do you want a life sentence? Do you want a long sentence? What do you want? What's justice to you?

J. MOXLEY: Justice to me would start with the 27 years that we've waited, and then some sort of penalty on top of that.

KING: So a minimum 27 years? J. MOXLEY: A minimum of 27 years, and then something as a...

KING: Token.

J. MOXLEY: Token.

KING: Dorthy?

D. MOXLEY: I have said that I'd like to think about it a bit. But I think John speaks very well. I think that, yes.

KING: What's it -- he can get 10 years to life?

DUNNE: Ten to life, yes.

D. MOXLEY: Ten to life, yes.

KING: There will be -- was there a background done on this before? I mean, what's the procedure, Dominick?

DUNNE: I don't know.

KING: Do they do a background check in Connecticut?

J. MOXLEY: They -- apparently they set a range. A minimum of 10 to a minimum of 25 to life. And apparently there is some vehicle where the court will talk to us and see what our thoughts are and...

KING: They get the victims' thoughts?

J. MOXLEY: Right.

KING: So you will tell the judge what you're saying here tonight...

J. MOXLEY: Absolutely.

KING: Twenty-seven plus.

J. MOXLEY: Twenty-seven to start.

KING: Sound right to you, Dominick?

DUNNE: I don't know. This is their matter. I mean, the fact that he was convicted is satisfaction to me.

KING: We'll take a break. When we come back, we'll have an exclusive interview from Chicago with John Higgins, a key prosecution witness in the Skakel trial; a former classmate of Skakel's who testified that Michael confessed to Martha's murder.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: The Moxleys remain, the mother of the late Martha Moxley, Dorthy Moxley, the brother, John, the special correspondent for "Vanity Fair," Dominick Dunne.

Joining us now in Chicago is John Higgins, key prosecution witness in the Skakel trial. What, John -- before we talk to John Higgins -- John Moxley, what did John Higgins mean to the trial?

J. MOXLEY: I think John Higgins was very important, and I was so appreciative. And, you know, he showed a lot of courage. He was a very credible guy, somebody that obviously had a troubled past, but has gotten himself together. Doing something wrong 20-some-odd years ago isn't a life sentence. It's something that you can work on. And John Higgins, I think, is a stand-up fellow.

KING: You wanted to say something to him?

J. MOXLEY: Yes, absolutely. John, I very much appreciate everything that you did. I have nothing but respect for you. And I hope you feel good about yourself because we admire you.

KING: John, was it tough for you to come forward, John Higgins?

JOHN HIGGINS, TESTIFIED IN SKAKEL TRIAL: Yes, it was very tough for me to come forward. It was going to happen regardless of anything. But I feel absolutely fantastic about the way things worked out.

KING: You're glad the verdict came out the way it did?

HIGGINS: I most certainly am.

KING: Because you testified that Michael Skakel told you that he did it, right?

HIGGINS: That's correct.

KING: And you believed him, obviously?

HIGGINS: At the time, 20-odd years ago? No, I didn't believe him. I was at a place that was kind of crazy and I really didn't -- I didn't know if he was being truthful or whatever. But I believed him 20 years later when somebody told me the same story.

KING: So you thought then he was kind of like boasting, is that the word?

HIGGINS: No, he wasn't boasting. He was crying his eyes out and sobbing, and it was an extremely emotional thing. But I really didn't want to be involved with anything back then. I was in a bad place and wanted to get out of there.

KING: How did you react -- Mickey Sherman is going to be with us later. Were you bothered by his tough cross-examination of you?

HIGGINS: It's Mickey's job. I think he's made many comments that he probably shouldn't have made about me. But it's his job to be who he is, and I'm sure it's nothing personal.

KING: John, what are you doing now?

HIGGINS: What do I do for a living?

KING: Yes.

HIGGINS: I'm a local 150 operating engineer in Chicago.

KING: What does that mean?

HIGGINS: I run equipment.

KING: Dorthy, how do you feel about John Higgins?

D. MOXLEY: Oh, John, I am just so -- really, John, I just can't tell you how much I appreciate what you did. You know, I will be forever grateful and so thankful that you, you know, that you came forward when you did. I love you, John. It's wonderful. And I enjoyed meeting your wife. She's beautiful. And thank you so much.

KING: John Higgins...

HIGGINS: Absolutely.

KING: Was it tough to face Michael in the courtroom?

HIGGINS: No, it absolutely was not.

KING: I mean, you were friends, weren't you?

HIGGINS: No, we were never friends at Elon (ph). When you were there, you weren't really friends with anyone. It was more just survival, trying to get out of there without too much collateral damage.

KING: Dominick, do you foresee it as taking kind of guts to come forward? A lot of people avoid things.

DUNNE: The list -- there's people in this case who should have come forward who haven't come forward. I think what John did is absolutely wonderful. Absolutely wonderful.

And, you know, I just had a call the other day from a woman who wanted to come forward. And they almost brought her forward for the rebuttal, but there was a privacy issue. She had been at Anacapa by the Sea. Joanna (ph) Walker, her name is.

And in 1997, when Michael was at Anacapa by the Sea, which is an alcoholic rehab place beyond Malibu near Oxnard -- a lot of famous people there -- and he was very, very paranoid the whole time that he was being followed by the FBI and the CIA. And she -- this Joanna (ph) Walker said why? And he said because of something I did when I was a teenager. And finally she said to him -- this was in 1997 -- said to him did you do it? And he said, yes, and I've been running ever since.

And so I tried to bring her into the case, and they almost did. But on the privacy issue, it was turned down.

KING: John Higgins, where were you when you learned of the verdict today?

HIGGINS: I was at work. I was on a dig. We were replacing some sewer pipe.

KING: Who told you, or how did you learn of it?

HIGGINS: Actually, your producer called me and said that we're probably going to have to do this tonight. They just got a guilty verdict.

KING: So it was CNN, it was LARRY KING LIVE production staff, that informed you?

HIGGINS: It was LARRY KING LIVE productions that told me.

KING: That's being on the ball. How would you describe -- the Moxleys are having trouble finding a word about their feelings. What were your feelings when you heard it was guilty?

HIGGINS: Well, I have got to be honest with you. I feel pretty terrible for Michael. I think his family did him a tremendous injustice by allowing this thing to go on for as long as it did. They should have stepped up to the plate and dealt with it when it happened. And Michael could have had a life. And now he's had no life up to now, and will have no life from now forward.

KING: John Higgins, do you think the Kennedy connections and the fact of the wealth and the like kept this thing going so long?

HIGGINS: I would definitely say that money had something to do with it. The Kennedy connection, I don't find any relevance in it.

KING: You think money had something to do with it, John Moxley?

J. MOXLEY: I think money had something to do with it. I think that money and they had the ability to take Michael and take him out of the mainstream and save him from himself.

KING: Dominick, money?

DUNNE: Money, always, always, always. And I think no matter what they say now, I think at the time, there was a certain amount of intimidation about the family.

KING: The Kennedy family?

DUNNE: No. I'm not saying the Kennedys. No.

KING: The Skakels?

DUNNE: The Skakel family.

KING: Dorthy, money? D. MOXLEY: Money, yes. I think money was definitely an issue. If they hadn't -- you know, when you have money, you know what to do. You know who to hire and, you know.

KING: John Higgins, thank you very much for agreeing to join us. And I know the Moxleys have already expressed their thanks.

D. MOXLEY: Thanks again, John.

J. MOXLEY: Thanks, John.

HIGGINS: Thanks for having me.

KING: That was John Higgins, a key prosecution witness. When we come back, the Moxleys and Dominick Dunne will be joined by Jonathan Benedict, the prosecutor in the case. Jeffrey Toobin, our own legal analyst, said he won the case in summation. We'll talk with him and later we'll meet Mickey Sherman, the attorney for the defense.

Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Welcome back. Dorthy Moxley is with us. There is no second "o" in her name. It's Dorthy -- D-o-r-t-h-y, Martha Moxley's mother. John Moxley, the brother, and Dominick Dunne, the special correspondent for "Vanity Fair."

We're joined now in Norwalk, Connecticut by Jonathan Benedict, the very successful prosecutor of this case. What were your thoughts, Jonathan, when the -- right before the foreman read the verdict?

JONATHAN BENEDICT: By that point, the jury had filed in, and I had suggested to my associates that if people came in in tears, that that would have been a bad sign, because the tears would have been for Dorthy. But when they filed in, they were all dry-eyed, and nobody looked over toward the defense. At that point it was pretty clear to me what the verdict was going to be.

KING: Did four days seem long to you?

BENEDICT: No, it actually seemed a little shorter than I expected, to be honest.

KING: Because?

BENEDICT: Because they had a lot to go through. They really only deliberated for two days, plus a half hour this morning. The equivalent of one day was devoted to playback, which really isn't that long, with a case where they had to determine the credibility of so many witnesses.

KING: Were you surprised that Michael didn't take the stand in his own defense?

BENEDICT: No, I don't think Michael could have taken the stand in his own defense. He would have had to somehow explain a dozen admissions to a dozen different people. It would have been an exhausting day for him and an exhausting day for me but, I think, a very successful day for our case.

KING: Some people were surprised, Jonathan, that the brother wasn't called -- Tommy. Why not?

BENEDICT: You'll have to ask Mr. Margolis, his attorney.

KING: It was his decision not to call him?

BENEDICT: Right.

KING: Do you have any sentencing recommendations?

BENEDICT: No, not at this point. The minimum is not less than 10 or more than life, and the maximum is not less than 25 nor more than life.

We want to talk to the Moxleys and see what the probation report suggests, and give it some thought. We'll worry about that in a few weeks.

KING: Honestly, Jonathan, in a circumstantial case, does the prosecutor ever have doubts?

BENEDICT: Not really in this case. I have felt confident all along. I never guaranteed a win, and certainly it was a tough case, partly because it was such an old case. But doubts, no. You have your negative days when you don't get what you'd like to get out of one witness or another, but I thought the case would end overall very well. I thought our case built off the defense case. And of course the arguments went well as well.

KING: Did you think Mickey Sherman did a good job?

BENEDICT: Mickey gave an excellent argument, did a tremendous job confronting each and every witness. I just don't think that he had the evidence to pull an acquittal off with.

KING: Dorthy, what do you think of the job Jonathan Benedict did?

D. MOXLEY: He's one of my heroes. I have complete faith in him. When we first found out it was going to be Jonathan Benedict, Frank Garr, the lead detective, said Dorthy, he's really good, we're lucky, and so I have felt good right from the beginning.

KING: John, what do you think?

J. MOXLEY: I think he was brilliant. I think that, 27 years in the making, his summation exceeded everybody's expectations, and he was just absolutely terrific.

KING: Dominick, I don't think anybody has been in more court cases than you. How was his -- Jeffrey Toobin, I'll ask him -- Jeffrey Toobin, our legal analyst, said it was one of the best summations he ever heard.

DUNNE: It was the best that I ever heard. Jonathan is a classy guy, also. He is sort of laid-back, and I felt for a while he was too laid-back. He was too quiet. At one point the jury had to send a note to the judge to ask him to speak up, and when he's the closest person to it. But he has got a strength, a real strength. And when he got up there for the closing, I mean it was breathtaking he was so brilliant.

KING: Jonathan, does a closing win a case?

BENEDICT: No. The evidence wins the case. You can give the most wonderful argument ever, but if you don't have the evidence, the argument is just fluff, and we had strong evidence.

KING: How long did you work on that close?

BENEDICT: Oh, a long time.

(LAUGHTER)

KING: Does a good attorney kick it around with somebody, like with your wife or associates? Do you say what do you think of this? What do you think of that?

BENEDICT: My wife, in addition to our prosecution team, had been telling me on a daily basis for the last two months that I better wrap it up really well or we were going to be in big trouble, so it certainly put pressure on me.

In addition, my two associates, Chris and Sue, were terrific in helping me work on the argument, making sure I didn't forget to say the things that needed to be said.

KING: Well, Jonathan, we -- I guess congratulations are in order. How do you feel now? Do you feel closed, vindicated? How do you feel about Michael Skakel?

BENEDICT: Well, I feel professionally it's been a great day. I feel terrific for guys like John Higgins, who was the first pivotal witness to come forward. It's the kind of a day where it seems to be the routine is not to come forward and not to get involved. John was the first one who had good information to give that did so. I certainly feel terrific for the Moxleys. Their resiliency has been something else.

KING: Any sadness for Michael?

BENEDICT: No personal -- Michael? No, no personal feelings for Michael at all.

KING: Thank you, Jonathan. Thanks for joining us. I know it's been a long day. Jonathan Benedict, the prosecutor.

We will come back with some more moments with Dorthy and John and Dominick, and then we'll talk with defense attorney Mickey Sherman. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID SKAKEL, BROTHER OF MICHAEL SKAKEL: My brother Michael has impressed me with a sense and love and integrity that I literally have not seen, with such strength, in another person. And I'm so fortunate to know him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: By the way, we should tell you that Dominick Dunne, special correspondent for "Vanity Fair," his diary article for July is now on the stands. "The Rich and the Damned" is the title of this article. There you see it. And it includes Skakel trial coverage. Of course, it does not have the verdict, much to Dominick's disappointment. But he's on top of this scene forever. He is the best-selling author of "Justice" now out in paperback. Also, the 1993 novel based on this murder, "A Season in Purgatory." You mentioned something during the break, the other brother, Tommy.

DUNNE: Tommy. Tommy was like the dark cloud over this case. For 20 years, he was the main suspect. When I first knew you, he was still the main suspect in the case. And he never appeared. And he's got this lawyer, Manny Margolis (ph), who is taking notes all day long, and you know he's calling the notes up to him afterward. But finally he came. And he was there for one day only. And he wasn't at all like I thought he was going to be.

KING: Meaning?

DUNNE: I don't know. Well, when you look at Michael, I thought he was going to be more like Michael, you know, sort of -- the way Michael looks. But he was -- I don't know. He was strange. There's no closeness between those brothers at all. And you know, you have to figure he has to hate him, if he was the suspect for 20 years and everybody was pointing at him, and it was the other brother. There has to be a complicated relationship.

KING: Dorthy, I asked you if it hurts you when you see Martha's picture, and you said no.

D. MOXLEY: No. You know, we've been working on this now, I've been talking about Martha's case almost every day for -- since 1991, that's 11, almost 12 years. So, you know, I have grown with this. And I'm -- we've done this a lot.

KING: Were you ever confident early on it would be resolved?

D. MOXLEY: There was a time when I thought nothing would ever happen. But then -- this has grown slowly and slowly. And it's been the work of many, many people. You know, John Higgins, the big people like Dominick, people like you, you interviewed my son before. And lots of people.

DUNNE: And Tim Dumas.

D. MOXLEY: And Tim Dumas, who wrote the wonderful book "Green Town."

DUNNE: And Len Levitt. We can't forget any of these people.

D. MOXLEY: I mean, I have...

J. MOXLEY: Frank Garr.

DUNNE: Frank Garr.

D. MOXLEY: ... I've always referred to a team of angels that I've had, because it seems as though these people just came from heaven. I mean, there were answers from God.

KING: There had to be times, John, when you thought nothing was ever going to happen.

J. MOXLEY: For a long time. You know, up through my late 20s, early 30s, I didn't think anything would happen. And I thought it was just going to go away.

KING: And still the feeling, though, is not yet complete.

J. MOXLEY: No, it's not. You know, I don't think it will ever be complete. I don't think that a guilty verdict and Michael spending the rest of his life in jail isn't the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle that makes it a beautiful picture.

KING: Maybe there is no final piece.

J. MOXLEY: No, I don't think there is, really.

KING: Dominick? Is this a finality to you as a journalist?

DUNNE: Well, I'll always be interested. I'm going to be in the courtroom when he's sentenced, also. I mean, I'm very interested to see what he's going to get. And I'm very interested to see what Mickey is going to do on the appeal. It's not over for me, no.

KING: Thank you all very much. Thanks for coming in tonight.

D. MOXLEY: Thank you for having us.

KING: Dorthy Moxley, John Moxley, the mother and brother of the late Martha Moxley, and Dominick Dunne of "Vanity Fair." Current article in the July issue, "The Rich and the Damned."

The famed defense attorney Mickey Sherman is next. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: And we wind up things tonight with the defense attorney for Michael Skakel, Mickey Sherman. Mickey, what were you thinking when the foreman opened the -- to read the verdict?

MICKEY SHERMAN, MICHAEL SKAKEL'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, you know, you've been doing this a long time, you get to know some signs. And as soon as they came out, I knew it was a guilty verdict. I think anybody who has been practicing criminal law could tell that as well. They had a somber look on their face. They wouldn't look over at us. Not that these are the, you know, the old tales, but it was pretty obvious that this was a jury that was very serious.

KING: The prosecutor praised you. Did he do a good job?

SHERMAN: He did a great job. And I've known John Benedict for 30 years. I've tried cases with him. He is a very good prosecutor; he's a very decent man as well.

KING: What lost this case?

SHERMAN: You know, John says I lost it on the facts. And he praised my argument, my skills, and I praised his as well. One of the elements that I couldn't control was the outrage factor. And you have a very lovely young girl whose life was taken in the most demonic way. And when they saw her picture up there time and time again, and then they look over here and they see Dorthy Moxley, who is, you know, the very essence of elegance, I think they wanted to do something good for her and I think they wanted to avenge this death.

And all they had in front of them was the body of Michael Skakel. And there were very unkind things said about him throughout the trial. He has been painted as a villain in the press. And that's not Michael Skakel. That's not the Michael Skakel I know, or the people who know him know. And I think we could never get past that PR factor, or that outrage, or that moral shock factor.

KING: Why didn't you let him take the stand?

SHERMAN: You know, I thought of it. And I'm usually someone who does have my client take the stand. But in Michael's case, as John Benedict pointed out a few moments ago, I really didn't need to, because his story was out. It wasn't the greatest story, though. But it was his story. And you know, you are dealt the cards that you have at the beginning of the case. We don't have the (UNINTELLIGIBLE) of defenses. We take the defenses we have.

KING: All you can do is all you can do.

SHERMAN: All you can do -- but again, it was his story, and it was in his own words and it was also in his own voice, because they had this tape that they seized. So, you know, it was out there. I was never going to do any better than that, so why subject him to cross-examination. It's one of the things people like me always second-guess, but even in this dark night right now, I'm not second- guessing that aspect.

KING: How about Tommy?

SHERMAN: Tommy was always the man of mystery here. The state was going to call him, and that was fine with me. I was never intending on calling him. He certainly may have helped Michael's alibi, but in the long run it seemed the jury didn't buy any family member talking about an alibi, which I still don't understand.

KING: Where is Michael right now?

SHERMAN: Michael is locked up. He is in a maximum security prison in Connecticut.

KING: Maximum security.

SHERMAN: Yes, he is.

KING: Where he remains through all appeals...

SHERMAN: He will now remain there at least until the sentencing, or at least until we have the issues heard as to whether or not he should be released on bond before the sentencing.

KING: Can you appeal the ruling of no bond?

SHERMAN: I think we can. And we will take every possible step to make that happen.

KING: What did he say to you?

SHERMAN: Michael, being Michael, was very consoling to me. I was a wreck. Still am a wreck. And Michael was saying, don't worry, it's going to be OK. He trusts in the system, he trusts in me, trusts in God. And he believes that eventually he will be exonerated. We've been saying this a long time. This is kind of an obstacle, no question about it, but he believes that things will happen.

KING: Who does he think killed her?

SHERMAN: He doesn't know. And Larry, if he knew, he'd tell me, I'd tell you, and I would have told Jon Benedict a long time ago.

This is not a matter of family honor. It's not a conspiracy; it's not a conspiracy of silence. He has no clue.

KING: How did the judge -- you're going to appeal on how many grounds?

SHERMAN: We have a bunch of things that we can deal with. I don't want to start listing them now. The last thing I want to do is start dissing the judge.

KING: Well, was one of the things, that he didn't get a trial as a juvenile?

SHERMAN: Yes, I think the case should never have been transferred out of the juvenile court. This happened when he was 15. And there was nothing to dictate that he should be treated more harshly. Twenty-five years had gone by, he had not committed any serious crimes -- any crimes, much less that. So there's no reason this should have been ever taken out of the juvenile court. The reason they used is, well, we have no place to put him in case he's convicted. Well, in Connecticut, they've got a few bucks there; they could have found someplace.

KING: Any sense that the fame of Skakel, the relationship to the Kennedys hurt him?

SHERMAN: It hurt him. I mean, I've been trying not to embrace that all these years, in the four years I've been involved. And I don't blame the Kennedys, but there's a spotlight on this case that would not have been there had it not been for that affiliation.

KING: How damaging was the tree climbing masturbation story?

SHERMAN: Not damaging, it was the most damaging aspect of this case. We know that from seeing some of the interviews that have come out with the jurors. They could get past everything, it seems, but that story.

And the problem is, you're talking about a 15-year-old kid who did something weird, something offbeat. But to build a bridge between that behavior and murder, and a violent murder, I don't think that bridge could have been built.

KING: Do you learn a lot when you interview jurors?

SHERMAN: You do. You do. But then, again, it's specific and peculiar to those jurors. You can get 12 more people and have a totally different result.

KING: What about the closing argument? A lot of people have said today the prosecution's close won this.

SHERMAN: I don't know that the prosecutor's close won it. And I think Jon doesn't believe that either. I think he did a hell of a job; and I was the first one to congratulate him and shake his hand when he gave that argument.

I think the bar had been lowered because, I think, people had expected him to be too low key. But I agree with Jon Benedict when he said, it's evidence that wins it, and it's the people's perception of evidence. It's not the arguments themselves.

KING: Mickey, you've defended a lot of people. And some of the people had to have done what they were charged with.

SHERMAN: Yes.

KING: And some you believe, and some you don't believe. You've got to do your job, because your job is not to say whether they're guilty or not guilty, but to see that they get a fair trial.

Do you ever think your client may have done this?

SHERMAN: No. No. Not after I got to know him. Not after I got to know the case. I've never been this close to a client and this close to a case in my life.

KING: Is that a good idea, by the way?

SHERMAN: No it's not. It's not. I'm much too close to this case. I'm much too close to this client. But it allowed me to have the passion that I had, for what it's worth in the courtroom. But most importantly, it allowed me to get to know this guy so well, and really believe -- and really believe -- he didn't commit this crime...

KING: So then what does it do to you?

SHERMAN: Well, it takes away your impartiality. It takes away the dispassion. You're supposed to be somewhat separated from your client so you can divorce yourself from some of the emotional issues. I threw that away; and I'm proud of it, frankly. And that's because I like Michael Skakel. I like him a lot.

KING: Therefore, the guilty verdict has to annihilate you.

SHERMAN: It totally annihilates me. I will tell you that I was a wreck. I wanted to go home and hide under the bed, but you can't do that. As I said outside the courthouse, we're not giving up. I'm just going to be even more, more eager to help him.

KING: Mickey, what about him do you know that we don't?

SHERMAN: I know him. I know him. And that's such a good question, Larry. I know the Michael Skakel that goes out to the grocery store. I know the Michael Skakel that kids around at the place where he used to live. How he interacts with people. How he interacts with somebody who's going to park a car. How he knows the people -- the little people, as they say, in the world.

And Michael is one of the kindest people I've ever met. He loves people, and people love him -- those who know him.

The people who don't know him are the people who vilify him, because they know him from the "Star" of the "Globe" or the spin.

KING: Why did he confess?

SHERMAN: I don't believe he ever confessed. I do not believe he ever confessed...

KING: You believe that Higgins is lying?

SHERMAN: No, I don't believe John Higgins heard him confess. John Higgins heard him say, over a two-hour period, where John Higgins said nothing -- that's John Higgins' testimony. This is, by the way, coming forward 20-some-odd years later after hearing about a reward in "People" magazine.

And John Higgins' story is that one night Michael, while he was guarding him said, you know, I don't think I did it. I didn't do it. Maybe I did it. I could have done it. Do you think I did it? Maybe I did it. I guess I did it. That's John Higgins' confession. And that's what they were convicting him on.

KING: You mean he was just sort of, what, drunk?

SHERMAN: No. First of all, I don't know that I believe that it happened. You have to understand, however, the way it was at the Elan program. The state's witnesses -- not mine -- but the state's witnesses testified initially that Michael Skakel was beaten -- literally beaten to a pulp in a boxing ring, one person after another, until he went from saying "I didn't do this" to, "I don't know, maybe I did it." And that was the same, same confession of John Higgins.

KING: Why did courthouse veterans think you were going to win this one?

SHERMAN: I thought I was going to win this one. I don't believe they had any evidence. I don't believe they -- they didn't have any physical evidence. They had no forensic evidence. Their testimony was horrible. And it was a circumstantial evidence case based on a lot of lousy evidence.

I don't think anyone counted on the emotional impact of the death.

KING: Was Ethel Kennedy involved?

SHERMAN: No.

KING: Never talked to you?

SHERMAN: Frankly, no. I spoke to Bobby several times. Bobby came to court.

KING: He cared about this case?

SHERMAN: Absolutely; and cared about Michael Skakel, and was very articulate in many interviews -- I think the "New York Times," perhaps even on this show.

Very supportive. Very supportive. I think, as Bobby said, there's not a disingenuous bone in Michael's body. This young man is "totally without guile," to quote Bobby Kennedy Jr. And I totally agree with that.

KING: Is the family to blame, the father? Were these kids raised poorly?

SHERMAN: You know, someone said -- I think John said that this was a dysfunctional family. You know, tell me their family is not. You know, everyone's got their problems. And I don't place the blame on anybody, because I don't believe Michael Skakel committed the crime.

KING: Thanks Mickey.

SHERMAN: My pleasure, Larry.

KING: Mickey Sherman.

We want to give you an update on that 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart in Salt Lake City, kidnapped at gunpoint from her home very early on Wednesday morning. The police tip hot-line is 801-799-3000, or you can call toll-free 1-800-932-0190. There's a Web site as well: http://www.elizabethsmart.com.

We'll be back to tell you about tomorrow night right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Tomorrow night on LARRY KING WEEKEND: the cast and director of a phenomenal movie, "Windtalkers." It opens next week. I saw it already. It's about the Navajo Indians and the work they did in World War II in establishing a code the Japanese could not break. Nicolas Cage and others tomorrow night from "Windtalkers."

Next is Aaron Brown with his always spectacular news -- this program is one of my favorites, and Aaron Brown is one of my favorite people. And tonight he's got an exclusive dealing with Burnham case in the Philippines.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT http://www.fdch.com


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... mSSj-hINXQ

[DannyB II]

Danny
Your time would be better spent doing for others,rather than promoting yourself. You are but a Fraud
show me where I stated Fornits was being shut down and I had something to do with this ? And if you sent this personal email to psy,how is it Sharon got it and posted it here ?
You are gonna have to learn to be a better liar if you are going to run in these circles Danny.
I never had you as a friend,nor was I ever interested in your friendship,as the cost is just to high.
I am sorry that you are SO sick that you have to post here 200 times a day. Tho I understand the affliction. I have to think your time could be better spent helping real people,who want help.. Rather than forcing it down someone's throat (like you do in every thread)
I really do wish you owell. But I really wish you'd shut the fuck up,as I am sure dozens of others will agree with. You have quite the fan base here @ fornits. Where else can you get this kind of attention and not have to pay for it
You live for betrayal,and eat it up with sugar. Even if you are lying,its still always about you. Did Psy give you a cookie for your most recent lies ?
How about another Screen Name LOL

Well Jee, Arty, maybe Psy sent it on to her so she could inform you of the consequences of your stupid actions. Listen I have to go now but please stay in touch with me. I am very interested in your life and how things are going for you. I know you have this penchant for calling me names and trying to reject me but we both know how you adore me. We are friends Arty, this is just how we do it. I am baffled that you don't recognized this as a great relationship, I was under the impression all your friendships are like this.
Is everyone a liar in your life??

Danny I do not recall PSY sending me anything but I do remember you promoting yourself..

Hey Danny
Oooops !

Art,
 There isn't any Oooops here, you sent me a email complaining about Mark and Sharon and you also mentioned this would effect Fornits, possibly shutting it down again. I forwarded it to Psy, period.
You Art, mentioned in one of your previous posts I sent something to Sharon, I assumed this is what you were talking about. So I then assumed Psy may have sent the email to Sharon.
I have not sent any emails to Sharon in months. What I did do was ask Mark to give Sharon my condolences and best wishes for her family.
Other then this explanation I have nothing more to add, if you think I did something then I say, yes, go with your understanding. I can only hope whatever you think I did screwed ya, pretty good. Ya, happy now.
Take your Meds, please, it will alleviate the paranoia.

Sharon,
I still have nothing for ya. Your non-existent.

[liarsexposed]

Other then this explanation I have nothing more to add, if you think I did something then I say, yes, go with your understanding. I can only hope whatever you think I did screwed ya, pretty good. Ya, happy now.
Take your Meds, please, it will alleviate the paranoia.

Sharon,
I still have nothing for ya. Your non-existent.[/quote]
Danny
This is why I do not lie. I would hate to get caught.
This is what you do all the time.
Someone calls you on it.
You squirm and get nasty
Then away you scamper to play this dog n pony show elsewhere. Like 200 threads of nonsense. 50 of them breaking several traditions of AA...Does that make you feel good that noone in person can call you on this. You certainly wouldnt pull that crap in any meetings I used to frequent...
Danny
Danny
Danny,, Sometimes quickly sometimes slowly
You are a mess!

[DannyB II]

Danny wrote:
Other then this explanation I have nothing more to add, if you think I did something then I say, yes, go with your understanding. I can only hope whatever you think I did screwed ya, pretty good. Ya, happy now.
Take your Meds, please, it will alleviate the paranoia.

Sharon,
I still have nothing for ya. Your non-existent.

[/b]

Art wrote:
Danny
This is why I do not lie. I would hate to get caught.
This is what you do all the time.
Someone calls you on it.
You squirm and get nasty
Then away you scamper to play this dog n pony show elsewhere. Like 200 threads of nonsense. 50 of them breaking several traditions of AA...Does that make you feel good that noone in person can call you on this. You certainly wouldnt pull that crap in any meetings I used to frequent...
Danny
Danny
Danny,, Sometimes quickly sometimes slowly
You are a mess!  

Danny wrote:
OK, I'll bite, Art, what did Danny lie about, please do tell.
AA is not rumbling over my actions or views but your narcissist personality sure is. Ha Ha, Art you are really talking with the wrong person about AA and what their principles mean. I am not your average mainstream AA thumper.
Gosh, I sure do miss talking with you. See we can have a actual semi-normal conversation.

[/b]