Our
investigator then asked Littleton if he had
seen Michael throwing pebbles, would he say
so? Littleton's answer: "No."
Before we delve further into such curious details and
inconsistencies, it is important to analyze the
considerable circumstantial evidence which indicates
Littleton did not murder Martha Moxley. First and
foremost, the Academy Group's extensive Report of
Crime Analysis and Criminal Personality Profile
presents many probable offender characteristics
distinctly inconsistent with Ken Littleton:
Overkill: Overkill is defined as using
much more violence than necessary to kill a person.
In this case there were 14 to 15 blows to the
victim's head. Any one of several of the blows would
have resulted in death. Again, this is strongly
indicative of anger and rage directed in a very
personal way to the victim.
Body Disposal Site: The area selected to
dispose of the body is not one that would be selected
by a person unfamiliar with the area. It is a
considerable distance from the major attack site and
subjected the killer to much greater possibility of
being observed while moving the body. The killer had
to know the location of the tree and the cover it
provided.
Again, the Academy Group believe the offender was
sexually inexperienced, a habitual window-peeper, and
an emotional loner. To the best of our knowledge,
these conditions are not consistent with Ken's
behavior at the time in question. He had been,
reportedly, sexually active for years, and was not an
emotional loner" at that point. The Academy Group's
portrait of the perpetrator is fairly specific.
The subject who committed this crime
resided within easy walking distance of the
victim's residence on Walsh Lane, and was from the
same socio-economic status as the victim. In
all likelihood he grew up in a family setting
considered by others to be wealthy or "high-class."
Due to his young age and his social setting, we
believe he was unemployed when this crime was
committed.
Littleton, we know, was not someone who grew up amid
the same level of privilege and wealth as the Moxley
and Skakel families. And, obviously, for whatever it
is worth, he was employed with two jobs at the
time.
As previously noted, he was
well-acquainted with the victim and the
neighborhood, and was very comfortable
functioning in the area where the crime occurred. We
believe he was not only well-known to the victim, but
has what can be described as a teenage "crush" on
her. As a result, the offender fantasized about
the victim on a regular basis. Those who were
acquainted with both the victim and offender knew
he cared very much for her.
Given it was his first night, it is highly doubtful
Littleton could have been that familiar with
the
3
|