|probable offender also shares many characteristics with Michael Skakel (as well as with other leading suspects). Again, the Academy Group believe the offender was between 14 and 18 years of age, resided within easy walking distance of the victim's residence, was in the same socio-economic status as the victim, had regular interaction with the victim, would have exhibited strong sibling rivalry tendencies, would have experienced behavioral problems both at school and at home and was under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol at the time of this crime. Some pertinent excerpts:
Offender Resorted to Violence: His immaturity and/or intoxicated state left him inadequately equipped to effectively deal with the victim on an emotional or intellectual level equivalent to the victim.
Choice of Weapon: The weapon utilized to commit the murder is not one normally associated with violence. Its use is strongly indicative of impulsiveness, immaturity and/or lack of experience in violent crimes on the part of the offender.
Overkill: Overkill is defined as using much more violence than necessary to kill a person. In this case there were 14 to 15 blows to the victim's head. Any one of several of the blows would have resulted in death. Again, this is strongly indicative of anger and rage directed in a very personal way to the victim.
Body Disposal Site: The area selected to dispose of the body is not one that would be selected by a person unfamiliar with the area. It is a considerable distance from the major attack site and subjected the killer to much greater possibility of being observed while moving the body. The killer had to know of the location of the tree and the cover it provided.
The Academy Group went on to cite certain characteristics for the probable offender which, to our knowledge, were not consistent with Tommy Skakel. Michael, however, is a different story. It is uncanny, in fact, how closely these other characteristics match with Michael's personality, behavior, and the diagnosis of his psychological evaluations. From the Academy report:
The offender did not have a criminal record at the time of this attack. He was sexually inexperienced and had not committed sexual assaults before. He had not killed before the night of October 30, 1975. His sexual fantasies regarding the victim were probably accompanied by viewing pornographic magazines and masturbation. We believe he also would have practiced window-peeping in the immediate neighborhood. It is not outside the realm of possibility that this offender may have also made obscene phone calls to school friends and others.
Any window-peeping activities by this offender would have been in conjunction with his nocturnal tendencies, in that he was very comfortable being out late at night and functioned well under the cover of darkness. He was an emotional "loner," and would have