the sutton report michael skakel analysis 5
Gaspar: When you drove back from the Terrien's [Terriens'], who drove?

Skakel: I think I drove.

Gaspar: Why didn't Rush drive?

Skakel: I think he gave up the wheel.

Gaspar: Do you remember why he gave up the wheel?

Skakel: I think he said it was better if I drive.

Gaspar: Who else was in the car with you? Besides you and Rush?

Skakel: I think just us, but I'm not sure.


This hypnosis session was not the first one between Gaspar and John, and not the first time this issue of Michael's whereabouts was raised. Suffice it to say, this is not an issue of John being momentarily forgetful. If anything, Gaspar went too far in trying to lead John into putting Michael at the Terrien's [Terriens'] and in the car, but John would still not capitulate.

Indeed, the way he was answering questions about the car ride seems to be consistent with a subconscious conflict. It almost seems as though John, under the influence of hypnosis, plainly sees Michael was not in the car, and sees he was not at the Terrien's [Terriens'], but realizes someone was supposed to be there. (Frankly, Gaspar's style of questioning, in and of itself, gives that impression.) So, John is answering truthfully, but qualifying his answers out of some inexplicable concern. He says that someone, he doesn't know who, doesn't know why, but someone might have been there. This, I believe, is consistent with John having been instructed to say, and perhaps even believe, at some point after October 30, 1975, that Michael was with him both in the car and in the Terrien's [Terriens'] on that night, when that was untrue. Perhaps he even, at some point, convinced himself that was the case. Under hypnosis, however, John's testimony is crystal clear. Michael was not with him. John would surely remember, after all those questions, if he had been.

If Michael was not at the Terrien's [Terriens'], there are many scenarios to be considered. It has been reasoned, even, that Martha may have actually gone home for an indefinite period of time after being with Tommy, and the [WW] snuck back out. For a number of reasons, this makes a great deal of sense. For example, Martha, we know, had a curfew that night. She was still living under a parental probation for some recent disobedience. Mrs. Moxley was expecting Martha to be home by 9:30 pm. However, Martha, according to Tommy (and corroborated by the testimony of others) Martha [WW] was interested in having Tommy joining her, later on, for some hacking. If Martha did intend to participate in such activity later that night, it would require defiance of her curfew. If we accept Tommy's version of events, Martha was serious about avoiding blatant [sp] violating her curfew. If she planned on doing any hacking that night, she was going to have to sneak out. There

5
Previous Next


the sutton report michael skakel analysis 5


 
MOXLEY MURDER SPECULATIVE ANALYSIS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

 
MARTHA MOXLEY MURDER INVESTIGATION TIME-LINE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

 
MICHAEL SKAKEL PREJUDICIAL ANALYSIS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

 
MICHAEL SKAKEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

 
TOMMY SKAKEL PREJUDICIAL ANALYSIS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

 
TOMMY SKAKEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

 
KEN LITTLETON

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

 
JOHN MOXLEY

1

2

3

4

5

6

7



Powered By CAMPy Skakel