New Skakel trial likely to call expert to testify about Elan

[Matt C. Hoffman]

LOL Che -I can understand your confusion- bottom line the answer is yes which possibly lead to Higgins and Coleman to say that he confessed to them . It is odd that prosecutors,   let one of the " worst of the worst " (as quoted by Mickey Sherman's P.I. in Fridays April 19 2013 testomony) type of Junkie's testimony (Coleman ) be played in that courtroom.

Coleman overdosed before the trial of Mike Skakel began , therefore he wasn't allowed to confront his accuser, and Sherman was not able to question his testimony.

This trial back in 2002 when Mike was convicted was a travesty imo of the judicial system on so many counts that the prosecutors ,Skakel's original  defense attorney ,and judge should all be blushing  in embarrassement at the allowed out come and verdict.

The real loser's besides Mike is Mrs.Moxely and the Moxely family - I don't think it is possible for them to believe 100% that the Mike is guilty, by this travesty of a trial.

I have more to say Che, I have to run. Talk with you later.

Matt Hoffman

[Anonymous]

This was a media trial. Mike was convicted by public opinion and the media pushed the confession. Frank Garr wanted me to testify and sent me to see John Benedict because I told him that everyone heard Mike confess to the crime. When I saw Mickey Sherman, I told him the reason why, which is that he was beaten and he said it every time he entered or left a room. It was on his sign. Mickey Sherman said that Mike never admitted it, which was false. He said it many times. Anyway, neither side wanted to hear the truth.

Because Elan routinely beat and coerced false confessions from us, nothing from an ex resident or staff should have been admissable. The fact they were messing with thought reform and indoctrination as therapy should render any information garnered from Mike's stay at Elan null and void

But hey, Danny has a gut feeling. Everyone can go home. Nothing to see here.

Actually, I think Danny's feeling is the greatest piece of evidence that Mike is innocent. That moron couldn't pick the winner of a one horse race

[Che Gookin]

Are there any articles or wikis that lay the whole fucked up story out from start to finish? Absolutely none of this makes a lick of sense.

[Horatio.]

Are there any articles or wikis that lay the whole fucked up story out from start to finish? Absolutely none of this makes a lick of sense.

The trial was like a general meeting. It made no sense. The confusion you're experiencing is a perfectly reasonable reaction. The jury wanted to hang Skakel and Elan people helped them do it.

[psy]

Are there any articles or wikis that lay the whole fucked up story out from start to finish? Absolutely none of this makes a lick of sense.

Wikipedia has an article.  There is also plenty in the news if you search google news.  Here's a link to one article.

[Matt C. Hoffman]

Che you can go to  http://www.greenwichtime.com/  and look for any reference to the Shakel trial and you can follow the trial that is now going on.

There are books also  and the  trial transcripts from when Mike Skakel  in 2002 was convicted for the 1975 murder of a neighbor thru testimony of former Elan residents, when he was a resident in elan in the late 70's. the  transcripts of the trial can also be found online.

It will all start making sense Che, lol.

[Che Gookin]

I DUNNNO.... so much to do here.. stop watching the First and only season of Firefly or delve into the belly of the beast......

 :suicide:

[Troublemaker]

Ofshe, who worked on an exposé about a similar facility that won a Pulitzer Prize, used the words "intimidation" and "humiliation" to describe the atmosphere at the Elan school.

http://articles.courant.com/2013-04-22/ ... el-kennedy

Expert Witness Says Skakel's 'Shift' In Statements About Moxley Murder Came Amid Culture Of Intimidation

They beat him down with the shift in his story from having not done it to he couldn't remember. I disagree about the two confessions because they never happened. Coleman and Higgins are liars. The reward should negate what either of them said. Neither statement has been corroborated

This is the first newspaper article I've seen that uses the word intimidation. Forget the ring and the paddle, that was the worst part of Elan. They could do whatever they wanted and they did. Even beat Phil Williams to death and got away with it. I wonder how the kids in his house must have felt atferwards

[Che Gookin]

So what are the chances the old conviction gets overturned?

[psy]

So what are the chances the old conviction gets overturned?

I'm not all that familiar with the case, but based on what I know, i'd say it's unlikely.  Trying to convince your average Joe that he was somehow coerced into making a confession requires more than a short lecture by Richard Ofshe, as good as he is.  People just don't understand coercive persuasion and most don't want to understand.  Most want to believe free will is inviolable and anything that threatens that assumption is too dangerous to consider.  Most will see him as troubled, having been put in a place for troubled kids because of that, and having gotten what he deserved.  The concept that in order to graduate from many programs you not only have to confess to things, but also believe them is just too foreign.

[DannyB II]

Idiot Child Wrote:
Why would Tommy kill someone so brutally that he was sleeping with. He took her away from Mike, he had her that night....are you really this inept when it comes to this murder or are you on another one of your fishin expeditions. Looking to plagiarize again Wayne..poo.

You're a caveman, you know that? No wonder they didn't want you to testify. I can see you on the stand "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, why would Tommy kill her? She was putting out"

Sex had nothing to do with it. You couldn't possibly understand because you're sick, you don't experience emotions correctly. You see, the rest of us experience this thing called Love, and love can definitely cause people to kill like that.

Unlike you, we don't break people down to commodities. "I can fuck her, she's a keeper" We develop relationships based on love and passion

Maybe she broke up with him and wanted to be with Mike. Maybe she was conflicted and didn't want to have sex any more.

You also don't seem to comprehend the law. We don't convict even guilty people without evidence and we certainly don't take away their life because of tainted evidence. Anything they considered evidence that is attached to Elan is tainted. Elan tainted everything and everyone it touched.

Have a long life Dan

Jeesh.......what a beautifully scripted drama filled post. Wayne you are only one here to actually get sent away for molesting someone, so please spare us all the lesson on gender relations.
I will spell it out for you because as we can see you are more interested in making points here by insulting me with ridiculous accusations then sticking with the topic.
Tom didn't have an issue with Martha (that was ever brought out) that would bring about a psychotic episode like the one that killed Martha. Mike did have a psychotic episode that night, brought about by Martha's rejection and his brothers one upmanship, Tom knew Mike adored Martha and wanted to be with her and he took his brothers feeling and shoved them up Mike ass. So Mike went about to get his revenge and he picked the weaker of the two and also the one he felt really betrayed him the most.
Mike and Tom changed their stories concerning the timeline of there events that evening. I believe Tommy did this to help his brother but in the end it damn near implicated him.
Let me state also that this is my opinion, of course I have no facts, just what I experienced for a short period of time with Mike and what has been reported from the trial, witness accounts, books and magazine articles.

[DannyB II]

So what are the chances the old conviction gets overturned?

I'm not all that familiar with the case, but based on what I know, i'd say it's unlikely.  Trying to convince your average Joe that he was somehow coerced into making a confession requires more than a short lecture by Richard Ofshe, as good as he is.  People just don't understand coercive persuasion and most don't want to understand.  Most want to believe free will is inviolable and anything that threatens that assumption is too dangerous to consider.  Most will see him as troubled, having been put in a place for troubled kids because of that, and having gotten what he deserved.  The concept that in order to graduate from many programs you not only have to confess to things, but also believe them is just too foreign.

Psy, if you were to read the newspaper and magazine articles and the books written about this case you will see that Elan or the program (can't remember right now) he went to before Elan, there is very little talk about them. This murder took place (1975) 3 years earlier then when he got to Elan and he wasn't convicted until (2002) 27 years later. Coleman and Higgins admissions were just a part of the overall base of damaging evidence compiled against Mike.

[psy]

Danny.  You might want to read the most recent page of the rules thread.  Rules have changed. You can't start (or finish) fights anymore.  Discuss the case without attacking others (even if they attack, you, leave that to me) or take your disagreements to Open Free for All.  Wayne already knows the rules have changed and calling somebody a "Moron" is unacceptable outside the Offa, though his post was made prior to the rules change.  I've moved your most recent post to the Offa as a result.

Learn to say "I disagree, and here's why..."  Attaching insults, insinuations, and accusations are unnecessary.

[none-ya.]

The only thing relevant to Michael Skakel getting a new trial is whether or not Mickey Sherman was inadequate in his defense. That may very likely happen because there has to be some compelling evidence for them to have gotten this trial in the first place. I would say his chances are 50/50 based on that. A judge who heard the evidence agrees

[DannyB II]

Danny.  You might want to read the most recent page of the rules thread.  Rules have changed. You can't start (or finish) fights anymore.  Discuss the case without attacking others (even if they attack, you, leave that to me) or take your disagreements to Open Free for All.  Wayne already knows the rules have changed and calling somebody a "Moron" is unacceptable outside the Offa, though his post was made prior to the rules change.  I've moved your most recent post to the Offa as a result.

Learn to say "I disagree, and here's why..."  Attaching insults, insinuations, and accusations are unnecessary.

Okie Dokie!!!!