THE SUTTON REPORT
 
SEARCHABLE SUTTON
 
Powered By CAMPy Skakel

MOXLEY MURDER INVESTIGATION TIME-LINE
MICHAEL SKAKEL PREJUDICIAL ANALYSIS
MICHAEL SKAKEL
TOMMY SKAKEL PREJUDICIAL ANALYSIS
TOMMY SKAKEL
KEN LITTLETON
JOHN MOXLEY

SUTTON REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS



MOXLEY MURDER SPECULATIVE ANALYSIS

 
Even conservatively, there are a number of clearly condemning circumstances pointing directly at our principal suspects in the murder of Martha Moxley. These facts function as the board off which we must dive into the murky waters of speculation. Despite all the many obstacles and limitations, it is incumbent upon us to take this jump in order to, at the very least, get a tighter grip upon the lose [WW] ends of this investigation. First and foremost:

1. Tommy Skakel has lied to authorities about the night of October 30, 1975.

2. Michael Skakel has lied to authorities about the night of October 30, 1975.

We know Tommy Skakel lied, because he, admittedly, altered his story to now include highly relevant facts he purposefully concealed from the Greenwich Police Department, Dr. Lesse, and others. For example, he told the Greenwich Police and Dr. Lesse that the last time he saw Martha Moxley on the night of her murder was at the side of his house, around 9:30 pm. He has subsequently advised Sutton Associates that he actually spent approximately, an additional thirty minutes with Martha, engaging in a sexual encounter. If he was not lying then, he is lying now, and visa-versa.

We know Michael Skakel lied, because, in terms of his story, he did the same thing as his brother. If he was not lying then, he is lying now, and visa-versa.

We suspect Ken Littleton has lied because he failed at least two lie-detector tests. This remains only a suspicion, however, because the results of these lie-detector tests (administered under circumstances unclear to Sutton Associates,) cannot entirely be trusted. Tommy, we have good reason to believe was able to pass at least one lie-detector test with his original story. While it is possible Tommy told the truth back then and is lying now, such a scenario seems highly unlikely. (Why would Tommy start telling self-implicating lies after previously telling the truth?) More probably, Tommy was able to fool the polygraph.

Certain individuals are capable of such deception. (If the perpetrator is in some state of denial, for example, their responses may not register on the polygraph.) Tommy, we know, successfully lied to Dr. Lesse. It would seem his capacity for deception is formidable. (Then again, as we will consider in greater depth, later in this section, Tommy may not have murdered Martha Moxley. His deception may have been easier to maintain if executed on the behalf of whoever did murder Martha.)

Just as the polygraph will let some who are lying slip by, it can also falsely identify others who are not lying. Certain individuals, know matter what they say, will fail the polygraph. Such people are usually very nervous, unstable, or agitated. Littleton is all three.

However, he could still be lying. Or he [^] simply holding something back. Littleton has given

 
1


Sutton Associates' investigators ample indication that he has purposefully not disclosed everything he knows about October 30, 1975. For example, on April 7, 1976, Littleton was asked to sign a statement, put before him by the Greenwich Police Department, documenting circumstantial evidence against Tommy (essentially that he was out of the house for x period of time when the murder was alleged to have occurred). Littleton refused to sign what he had already stated to be the truth, on the grounds he believed Tommy was innocent. When asked about this occurrence recently, Ken denied it ever happened.

After Littleton gave indication, through certain remarks, that he may have seen Michael outside on the night of the murder, our investigator pressed him on this issue as well. First, Littleton denied making the comments in question. Then, asked if he had seen Michael outside that night, Ken said,"No." Would you tell us if you did? asked our investigator. Tellingly, Littleton replied, "No."

Littleton has something to say, but is unwilling to say it. "I have a definite feeling in my mind," he told our investigator, "that this murder was committed after 10:30 at night." "Why do you say that? he was asked. "Because," he responded cryptically.

All of this adds up to fact number three:

3. Ken Littleton knows something, but is holding back.

These three basic details -

1. Tommy Skakel has lied to authorities about the night of October 30, 1975.
2. Michael Skakel has lied to authorities about the night of October 30, 1975.
3. Ken Littleton knows something, but is holding back.

- establish the foundational paradigm upon which we will now speculate with what evidence we possess: Tommy and Michael are somehow involved in the murder. Littleton is somehow a witness in a state of complicity.

The Academy Report, based on objective criminological evaluations of the evidence, points heavily towards Michael and Tommy as suspects, but not Littleton. Logically, it is highly unlikely that Littleton, his first night on the job, would attack Martha Moxley out in front of her house. It was such a high-risk crime, only someone who (was) very comfortable in the neighborhood, and had a very personalized rage against Martha, could commit this heinous act as it happened. Also, the perpetrator was most likely in a state of severe psychosis and intoxication. While we have indication that both Tommy and Michael were under the influence of alcohol, and possibly drugs, that night, Littleton seems to have been clean in that regard.

Now, before we begin hypothesizing, let us pin down the points where we are fairly certain that Ken, Tommy, and Michael were accounted for, and utilize this as the frame for our

 
2


speculative canvases:

Mark #1 9:15 Michael was in the Skakel car, listening to music tapes with Helen Ix, Jeffery [Geoffrey] Byrne, and Martha Moxley. It was shortly after this point that Martha got out of the car to join Tommy in flirting, and sexual horseplay. Littleton, we believe, was with the younger Skakel children. We do not have a specific account of how Michael responded to this activity, or, more importantly, exactly where he was after this point.

Jim Terrien maintains that, along with Rush, John, and Michael, he left the Skakel residence for his house at around 9:30 pm. Andrea Shakespeare, however, contradicts this account. While she is not sure of the exact time, she says Terrein left well before her own departure. Julie has stated she drove Andrea home at around 9:30. Andrea believes it was about 9:50 pm. At any rate, it is Andrea's strong opinion that Michael did not go to the Terrien's [Terriens'] residence with his brothers. Hearing that story, sometime after the homicide, she said to herself, "That's bullshit. No way did Michael go to Terrien's [Terriens']. While she cannot be absolutely certain, Andre believes that she saw Michael at some point after John, Rush and Jim left for the Terrien's [Terriens'].

Her conviction is supported by additional evidence; most notably, the hypnosis session with John in which he never put Michael either in the car, coming or going, or at the Terrien household. On 5/4/93, John was asked where Michael was while he and Rush were at the Terrien's [Terriens']. The interviewer, on repeated occasions, tried to get John to place Michael in the car and then at the Terrein's [Terriens']. John could not. After being pushed, he would only recall that maybe someone else was in the car and at the Terrien's [Terriens'] house. As much as the interviewer persisted, hinted, and pushed, John could not identify that person as Michael, and even said he felt Michael was back at the Skakel house.

Gaspar: Who is in the room with you? You, Jimmy, who else?

John: Rush.

Gaspar: Did you hear anybody come in or leave? Did the telephone ring?

John: I don't recall.

Gaspar: Where's Ken and Michael and Julie now?

John: Anyone who didn't come back with us is back at Belle Haven.


They discuss the ride back to Belle Haven:

Gaspar: When you drove back from the Terrien's [Terriens'], who drove?

 
3


Gaspar: Why didn't Rush drive?

John: I think he gave up the wheel.

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

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

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

John: 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, though it was untrue. 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.

Could Terrien be lying? Could Rush be lying? Why?

If Rush says, today, that Michael was in the car with him when he went to the Terrien's [Terriens'] [access to his interview of October 7, 1992 is pending] he is a liar. When Tommy was evaluated by Dr. Lesse in the Spring of 1976, only months after the murder occurred, Rush was called in to provide the doctor with general background information on the Skakel family and his younger brother. Dr. Lesse also asked Rush for an account of October 30, 1975. Thankfully, Dr. Lesse kept a written record of all his interviews. In his report of May 11, 1976, he reported the following from a section titled The events of October 30th - 31st, 1975 as related by Rush, Jr. :

At 9:30 pm, they arrived home. The group watched television for a period of time. Shortly before 10:00 pm, Martha Moxley visited with a group of girls and boys.

 
4


About that time, Rush took Jimmy home in order that be might be there by 10:30 pm in order that he could watch "Monty Python." Tommy did not go with them.

Rush states that he came home at approximately 11:45 pm. At that point, Tom was in his room. Rush slept in the same room with Tom. Rush stated that he retired about 1:00 am and that Tom was asleep approximately at that time. He believes that between 10:00 pm and 1:00 am, Julie, Steven [Stephen], and Michael were at home.


Again, Rush told Dr. Lesse that while he was at the Terriens, Michael was at home. Later in the interview, Rush told Dr. Lesse:

At 11:00 am on October 31st, many police cars gathered around the Moxley residence. "Michael seemed to be the most curious one. He was going nuts. He was in an obnoxious mood."

According to a Tom Sheridan memo: Michael's aunt, Sue Reynolds, who spent much time at the Skakel home after the Moxley incident, observed--that she spent much time eyeball to eyeball with Tommy; and she is persuaded "that Tommy had nothing to do with the crime." On the other hand, she has "very negative vibrations with reference to Michael." Michael is deeply involved in alcohol and not under control--"he is capable of anything" -- she also states that Martha Moxley was at one time Michael's girlfriend. This is a confirmation to Margolis. It has been reported to him by others. This means that the Greenwich Police know this fact.

There is more evidence, still, that Michael did not get in that car leaving for the Terrien's [Terriens']. Consider the striking discrepancies between the way Tommy recalls their departure versus the way Michael recalls their departure:

Tommy's version: When Tom and Martha were "fooling around" behind the fence, Tom heard Rush, John, Michael, and Jimmy leaving for Jimmy Dowdle's [Terrien's preferred last name] house. Tom went over to the Lincoln and remembers having a brief conversation with either Jimmy or John. While Tom cannot recall what was discussed, he speculated that it may have been about drugs, stating, "Jimmy was into that." He stated he believes John was in the front seat. In response to questions as to why he didn't go with them, Tom stated, "maybe I wanted to fool around with Martha some more."

Michael's version: Thomas Skakel exited the house and announced they were going to the Skakel [Terrien] residence to watch the Monty Python Show. Michael asked Moxley to go with them, but she declined, stating she couldn't because her mother expected her home. T. Skakel said he couldn't go because he had to study for an exam. Moxley exited the vehicle and as Michael, Rushton Jr., John, and J. Dowdell [Dowdle] pulled from the driveway, Michael saw T. Skakel speaking with M. Moxley near the side door. Also in the driveway were Helen Ix, Jeff [Geoff] Byrne, and Marge Walker.

 
5


Despite Michael's account, Tom recalls seeing Martha and Michael in the Lincoln a considerable while before he says the car departed for the Terrien's--confounding Michael's version, suggesting Michael was not around when the car actually left, Tommy reports the following as occurring before he and Martha started "fooling around" behind the fence, at the side of the house. Tom advised that the next thing he remembers is going through the kitchen to the side door. He went over to the left rear door of the Lincoln, which was parked in the driveway Martha and Michael were in the rear seat of the car, talking. Jimmy was in the front seat of the car. Tom could provide no reason for going to the Lincoln. When asked if he recalls anything regarding cassette tapes, he said he did not.

Tom does not recall if he did or did not get into the car. The next thing he remembers is that Martha got out of the left side of the car. They were talking and made their way to the front right of the car. Tom recalls someone going in and out of the house, looking for the Lincoln car keys.
After this, Tom says he spent about ten minutes "fooling around" with Martha behind the fence before he went out and saw the Lincoln depart for the Terrien's.

Clearly, for whatever reason, it seems Michael is confused. He is telling us the group departed for the Terrien's at least ten minutes before we have good reason to believe they actually did. Is it possible that Michael got out of the car in disgust, when Martha went off' with Tommy, and although he never actually rejoined Rush, John, and Jim, assumes that they must have left soon after that point? Could this be an error in fabricated recollection?

Unfortunately, John's hypnosis sessions do not include any specific description of leaving for the Terrien's. He should be further, but carefully, questioned in this regard.

At some point, before she left, Andrea recalls seeing an unidentifiable flash go by, outside the kitchen window. She mentioned it to Julie, but Julie said she didn't see it. In addition, Andrea thinks Littleton "may" have been at the top of the center hallway stairs with one of the younger Skakel boys, but she "could not testify in court to that." If her recollection is accurate, we have Littleton pinned down inside the house at some general point after 9:30 pm. Julie also thinks that Littleton was there as she and Andrea were leaving. Andrea definitely confirms that Tommy came to open the door for her when she returned to the house to get the keys. At this point, Julie says Martha was walking around the back fence as Tommy closed the door behind Andrea.

Mark #2 9:30 At this general point somewhere around 9:30 (since Julie's recollection of time, based on the Ellery Queen show, is more credible than Andrea's), Tommy and Littleton are pinned down by the front door of the Skakel home. Michael's whereabouts, however, are contested. If he was not in the car on the way to the Terrien's, and it certainly seems as though he was not, then Michael is unaccounted for.


Could Michael have been that flash outside the window that Andrea saw? Could he have stayed behind to spy on Martha and his brother?

 
6


Andrea's recollection of seeing something, or someone, outside the kitchen window, is especially interesting in light of what Julie reports encountering upon her return home, after dropping Andrea off. During her most successful hypnosis session with Dr. Vrechek, on July 26, 1994, Julie recounted the following:

Julie: As I approached the front door, I heard a noise in the bushes and saw a big dark person crouched, moving underneath the kitchen windows, then going to the trees on the other end of the driveway.

Dr. Vrechek: What did this figure look like?

Julie: Crouched, big, dark, maybe a hood, carrying something in his left hand.


At the time, Julie was less than alarmed by this stranger's presence due to the fact it was "Hacking Night"--the night before Halloween, when children traditionally play pranks and cause other mischief around the neighborhood. She did recall thinking it odd, however, that this individual was unaccompanied, as young people typically cavort in groups on "Hacking Night."

Could this person have been Michael, Tommy, or Ken? Dr. Vrechek asked Julie if she got a sense of the person's size:

Julie: Bigger than myself.

Dr. Vrechek: Bigger than yourself. Okay. Was it a man or a woman, or a girl or a boy?

Julie: I would just say a man or a boy.


This general description could match either Michael, Tommy, or Ken. Julie tells us that she caught the last ten minutes, or so, of Ellery Queen. Hence, if we accept Tommy's recent confession as entirely truthful, he would have still been still engaged in a sexual encounter with Martha Moxley behind the house at this point.

Mark #3 10:05 pm Julie also tells us that soon after Ellery Queen concluded, at 10:00 pm., she encountered Ken Littleton in the kitchen, making a sandwich. Her recollection of the encounter is so specific (including snippets of conversation), that even though Littleton denies any recollection of the meeting, we must conclude it happened as Julie remembers.

Therefore, Littleton (and Tommy, somewhat) are accounted for at this stage. Could that have been either of them out there in the bushes? It is possible, but highly unlikely. How could Littleton have been running around outside in dark, hooded garb, and then end up in the kitchen wearing a plaid shirt (as Julie recalls), making a sandwich ten minutes later. If Tommy went out back with Martha for at least twenty minutes, it is highly improbable he would have had time to change into dark clothes and end up in front of his house before 9:50 pm.

 
7


So why would Michael be sneaking around his own home?

Michael's motive is simple. We know he saw Martha cavorting with his brother Tommy at the side of the house. We know, as well, that Martha had previously been involved romantically with Michael for some time. She had changed the focus of her affections from one brother to the other, in a very public, and, for Michael, certainly humiliating way. Let's not tip-toe around this issue. Imagine that your older brother, who you detest, has seduced and effectively stolen your girlfriend. Do you even have to be a high-strung, cocaine and alcohol abusing, depressed psychotic, to get absolutely enraged and lose control? Clearly not. Consider in addition, however, that Dr. Sue Wallington Quinlan, who examined Michael on March 3, 1977, reported the following:

Projective testing suggested a severe agitated depression, a sense of being overwhelmed by a sense of evil and the futility of life. The depression is possibly of psychotic proportions but the protocol was too guarded to be certain. Mental functioning is clearly fragile. Extent of pathology is evident in borderline features: 1) intrusions of personal concerns into intellectual functioning, 2) primitive fantasy content, e.g. mutilated bodies, masked, distorted figures, concerns about bodily integrity and deformity, 3) inadequate capacity for attachment to other people.

Now think about how he must have responded [^] the circumstances of October 30, 1975, as someone who Dr. Quinlan further diagnosed as having impulse control that is only marginally adequate. Was Michael able to control his impulses that fateful night?

Given everything we know about the highly combative rivalry between these two brothers, and Michael's well-documented psychological problems, there can be no doubt he was extremely upset about what was transpiring. It is not at all unreasonable to assume that he may have wanted to spy on his brother and Martha, to monitor, first-hand, any betrayal. If we accept what Tommy has told us about his sexual encounter with Martha, they were carrying on flagrantly, only 50 feet behind the Skakel residence, in the middle of the rear lawn. Their indiscretion was highly visible, should anyone have been even remotely suspicious. Did Michael have reason to be suspicious? Ample reason. Many people were aware, even before the demonstrative sexual horseplay at the side of the house, that Martha was interested in Tommy.

If Michael did not go to the Terrien's [Terriens'], could he have witnessed Tommy and Martha's sexual encounter? Certainly.

Michael also claimed, when interviewed by Sutton Associates, that he could not remember when he first realized Martha was dead. To a fifteen year-old boy, such a realization would certainly have been an extreme shock--a frightening, unprecedented moment of devastation. Not a moment, in short, one would ever forget. Why would Michael forget? He wouldn't . But how could he tell investigators if he realized she was dead before he was supposed to know.



 
8


Michael also told Sutton Associates he did not consider Martha to be a flirt. By all other accounts--many of them emphatic and coming directly from her good friends--Martha Moxley was a relentless flirt. This was an aspect of her character everyone recognized, without negative judgment. (No one considered her to be sexually promiscuous, or inappropriately preoccupied with sexuality. Rather her flirtatiousness seems to have been indicative of a self-confident and cheerful disposition.)

So why did Michael dissent from the consensus on this point? Is this a reactionary and defensive stance? Is Michael wary of giving any indication that he harbored resentment against her for her liaisons with Tommy?

Now let's assume, as we suspect, that Michael did not go to the Terrien's [Terriens']. Why would Tommy and Jim Terrien want to make us believe he did?

Mark #4 10:15 The next time we have Ken and Tommy pinned down is sometime around 10:15 pm, depending on who you believe is more accurate (Littleton says Tommy came into the master bedroom at around 10:03 pm. Tommy says he arrived at around 10:17 pm).

Let us assume they are both being entirely honest to the best of their recollection. After leaving Martha, Tommy says he went up to his room for an indeterminable period of time. He then went down the staircase from the third floor to the second floor where he noticed that his father's bedroom door was open. Inside, Ken was sitting on the lounge chair, watching The French Connection. Tommy joined him and sat on the bed. After watching the chase scene, Tommy says he went down to the kitchen for a bite to eat, and then went up to bed.

Littleton says that Tommy came into the bedroom about twenty minutes before the chase scene. The chase scene began at exactly 10:23 pm. If Tommy really came up twenty minutes earlier, Ken would have been in the kitchen with Julie at that point. Most likely, Tommy came up later than that, probably around a quarter past. Littleton says that Tommy, in his estimation, could not have murdered Martha Moxley before this point. He seemed completely normal and relaxed at the time.

If Julie has Littleton in the kitchen at 10:05 pm, and Tommy has him in the master bedroom shortly thereafter, it seems virtually impossible Ken could have committed the murder of Martha Moxley--assuming, as most do, that the murder occurred just after Martha left Tommy's presence and headed for home. Could Tommy have killed her after their sexual encounter. Littleton says no. So if we are dealing with Tommy, Michael, and Ken, as our suspect triumvirate, and we believe that Martha was murdered around 10:00 pm, on her way home after fooling around with Tommy, only one of our suspects could possibly have intercepted her: Michael.

Ridiculous? Hardly. A Tom Sheridan memo of 6/6/78 stated that [^] possible Michael could have committed the murder and doesn't know it and possibly someone else, i.e. Tommy, could have hidden the body and taken Michael to the Terrien's [Terriens'] to provide him with an alibi. A memo of

 
9


1/9/79 reports that Mr. Bennison [exact identity pending--presumably a staff member at Elan] advised Father Mark Connolly and Sheridan that Michael had admitted involvement after a long and arduous gruelling [WW] , but later recanted any involvement.

We have numerous indications that Michael suffered from a serious alcohol and cocaine problem. Let us imagine for a moment, that after seeing Martha go off with Tommy, Michael went and did some coke--maybe in his room, maybe in the Revcon vehicle. Now, highly agitated, paranoid, and in a virtual state of psychosis, he puts on some dark clothing and decides to spy on them. At this point, the Terrien group has already left. So has Julie and Andrea. When Andrea [Julie] returns, it is Michael she sees in the bushes.

When Michael does find Tommy and Martha, based on what Tommy has told us, he witnesses them in a very compromising position. But he waits. Maybe he flees in complete rage. Maybe this is when Andrea [Julie] sees him crouched. Maybe she sees him crouched before he stumbles upon Martha and Tommy. The point is, that Michael decided to wait and confront Martha alone. In Michael's mind, it is all her fault. She has humiliated him. Michael wants to confront Martha because he will be stringer [WW] than she is how [WW] [^] will be able to control the situation if he confronts her. If he confronted his brother, Tommy could have held is own and would have contained Michael. Michael does not want to be contained. His mind is reeling.

Finally, Tommy leaves Martha to head inside. Martha begins her walk home. Waiting until Tommy is gone, Michael confronts Martha in front of her driveway. In a [WW] likelihood, he know doesn't what he's going to do. The rage, fueled to uncontrollable heights by substance abuse, is directing him.

Consistent with the Academy report, Martha would not fear Michael. Certainly, she would feel a little embarrassed, guilty, or defensive, but not immediately afraid. Perhaps, Michael tested her. Maybe he asked her if she had been with Tommy to she if she'd lie. And maybe she did. She could have felt very guilty, didn't want to hurt his feelings, etc. maybe she said something patronizing, disparaging... maybe she said something which Michael perceived as an affront to his manhood. Perhaps nothing was said at all. Regardless, Michael reacted. He punched her in the face, sending her to the ground.

That was the point of no return.

With this scenario, we finally have potential explanations to previously baffling issues. For example, why did Tommy conceal his sexual encounter with Martha from Julie (starting when she woke him up later than [WW] night--well before he should have known that anything unsavory had befallen Martha), the police, Dr. Lesse, and other authorities, for years, if he hadn't murdered Martha himself? Why would Tommy be able to tell a polygraph expert he did not kill Martha, and pass? Why, when he finally came clean and confessed to his twenty minute liaison with Martha in the back lawn (to Sutton Associates' investigators), did he break down in tears? Why would Michael confess to a murder he did not commit? Why would Michael later tell Sutton Associates

 
10


that he went outside at around 11:40 pm that night and masturbated outside Martha's window? Why, if Martha was not raped, were her panties rolled down, exposing her in a vulgar manner? What was the murderer trying to say by leaving her in this position?

What does this all mean?

Tommy probably knew, before going to sleep that night, that Martha was murdered by his brother Michael. That's why he lied to Julie when she first woke him up. Moreover, Tommy was gripped with guilt for having precipitated his brother's actions. Tommy had no great love for Martha. To him, unfortunately, she was a piece of ass. Tommy felt guilty for having pushed his brother over the edge. Tommy probably could have rationalized that it was Martha's fault anyway.

So he helped his brother. In a way, he was helping himself too.

Mark #5 10:32 pm The chase scene from The French Connection concluded. Accepting their respective stories, we have Tommy and Ken pinned down at this point. From this point, forward, however, Tommy is not again pinned down until, at least, over an hour later. Littleton is not accounted for at all until the next morning.

Imagine, at some point, after leaving Littleton in the master bedroom, Tommy encounters Michael. He [WW] brother is covered in blood, incoherent, hysterical. He is in a state of shock. At first, Tommy probably could not even believe what Michael was trying to tell him. Possibly, Tommy went out to see the body for himself before accepting what had happened. From that point, he made his decision. He may have even helped move the body to the more discrete final resting place under the tree. We know from the Academy Report that the murderer returned to the body, at some point, and inflicted the post-mortem through-the-neck-wounds. We also know that, somehow, the shaft of the golf club was hidden. The crime scene, in short, was cleaned up to protect the guilty.

It is possible, as well, that Littleton and Jim Terrien were made aware of what transpired, and complied with a cover-up to protect Michael. Terrien gives a highly transparent and convenient alibi for his whereabouts after 11:00 pm that night. He says he was with a married woman having a sexual encounter, and will not say who that woman is unless he is called in to testify before a grand jury. Absurd. Terrien could have come to the Skakel residence and helped Tommy clean things up. At the very least, Terrien is the most outspoken in asserting that Michael was with him from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm. From what we can tell, that's covering up right there.

And let's imagine that Littleton, in one way or another, is exposed to what happened. Tommy and Jim Terrien could have coerced him into cooperating with words to the following effect: If you ever come forward about any of this, it will be our word against yours. We will say you were an active participant. We will have the best representation money can by [WW] . We will have the support and resources of the Kennedy as well as the Skakel family. What will you have? Whether you like it or not, you are now a party to this. If you do not maintain your silence, you will be

 
11


crushed.

Would this threat, this fear, be enough to keep Littleton silent? Suffice it to say, he hasn't proved himself, in subsequent conduct, to be either the brightest or most moralistic person ever. This scenario would explain much of Littleton's subsequent problems, as well as why he is holding back.

This scenario would also explain a lot about Tommy's subsequent behavior--particularly why he has been so shaken up since his recent interviews with Sutton Associates. We have made him believe we think he did this. As he said, "In my heart, I know I did not do this." What does that mean? Could it mean that he knows he did not actually kill Martha, but still feels guilty because he knows that if he had never fooled around with Martha, none of this would have ever happened? He protected his brother, but now he's getting more than he bargained for. He wanted to feel some redemption for his participation, so he confessed to what, in his mind, was the worst thing he did with regards to the death of Martha: he had a sexual encounter with her. In Tommy's mind, he has confessed to his part of the crime, but is still being hunted (as well as haunted). Now, he realizes he is on the verge of taking the full fall for Michael--and it frightens him. He knows Michael did this, but probably still thinks of the incident, on some level, as one big accident. Michael didn't mean to kill her. He just got out of his head.

Michael probably looks at the murder in much the same way. He may have been in such a state of psychosis, the act of killing Martha felt completely removed from himself. It was her fault, after all. In some sense, Michael has probably started to believe that he is not responsible. It was taken care of for him--just as Sheridan took care of his drunk driving incident, and whatever else he fucks up. Michael has largely escaped scrutiny. Until now, no one has really looked closely and pieced the holes together.

So why does Michael then [WW] us about masturbating in a tree outside her window? Two reasons: 1) he knows that there are ear-witnesses, like Julie and John, who have testified they heard someone going in and out of the house around that time. (The time when, presumably, he, Tommy, and whoever else, were cleaning up the crime scene, etc.) This way, he ties up that loose end. And 2) his account of going to her house and calling her name "proves" that he didn't know she was dead, and thus couldn't have murdered her. Michael mentions watching the naked woman, and his masturbating in the tree, because this gives him a motive for what, on the surface, is a very curious action: leaving his house in the middle of the night and ending up outside Martha's window. He even adds something about "sensing the presence" of someone near where Martha's body was found. Michael is actively deflecting any possible suspicion of guilt. When it came to implicating Frank Wittine, Michael was one of his most outspoken critics.

The list goes on and on...

Even his own father has conceded that Michael could be capable of this. We know he went after his aunt Ethel with a kitchen knife when she found him stealing liquor. What other incidents

 
12


haven't we been told about?

Mark #6 1:15-1:30 am Julie reports that Tommy was in bed when Mrs. Moxley first called.

The deception begins.

 
13




TOP OF PAGE


 
MARTHA MOXLEY MURDER INVESTIGATION TIME-LINE
 
As compiled by Sutton Associates. (Draft of 2/1/95)

This supplementary document is intended as a reference guide to various accounts of the events of Thursday, October 30, 1975 and Friday, October 31, 1975. The objective was to create a concise sequential record of circumstances immediately leading up to, and following, the murder of Martha Moxley, in order to illustrate conflicts in testimony, the actions and whereabouts of suspects, and points of interest worthy of further investigation. While this time-line includes multiple and often opposing perspectives, it is by no means comprehensive. As much as possible, specific details and their reported time of occurrence have been attributed to the proper source and context. It is important to remember that times should generally be viewed as approximate and subject to reasonable variance.

Thursday, October 30, 1975

6:00 pm--According to local resident Mrs. Jean Walker, interviewed on 9/14/92, her daughter Marjorie, receives phone call from Martha Moxley, inviting her to go out. At her mother's insistence, Marjorie declines.

--FROM FOLIO 101, 103, John Moxley, interviewed on 11/5/75, reports that he left home for the evening.

6:30 pm--According to Steven [Stephen] Skakel, he is eating a chicken dinner in the kitchen at the Skakel residence with David Skakel and Nanny Sweeney.

--FROM FOLIO 34, Officer Charles Morganti reports seeing a white Volkswagen parked on Walsh Lane. According to Rushton Skakel Sr., the car belongs to Frank Wittine.

7:00 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, this is the approximate time he left for dinner at the Belle Haven Club with Michael Skakel, John Skakel, Rush Skakel, Julie Skakel, Jim Terrien, Andrea Shakespeare, and Ken Littleton.

--FROM FOLIO 101, 103, Mrs. Moxley, interviewed on 11/5/75, claims that Martha left home at approximately this time. According to Mrs. Moxley, between 7 and 11:00 pm, Martha could have come home without her knowing it.

7:15 pm--According to Helen Ix Fitzpatrick, interviewed on 8/6/92 and 6/4/93, she and Martha are at the Moukard [Mouakad] residence. They make plans to visit the Skakel residence. These interviews are not yet available for review.

7:15 pm to 7:30 pm--According to Jackie Wettenhall, interviewed on 10/9/93, a group comprised of herself, Martha Moxley, Helen Ix, and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne arrive at the Skakel residence.

 
1


After Frank Wittine told them the older Skakel children were out at dinner, the group returned to the Moukard [Mouakad] residence.

7:30 pm--According to Steven [Stephen], interviewed on 5/4/93, he and his brother David are put to bed by Nanny Sweeney. Steven [Stephen] recalls hearing voices downstairs. He remembers them saying something about the boys.

8:00 pm--FROM FOLIO 37 -- according to Helen Ix, interviewed on 11/1/75, around this time she and her friends witnessed an unidentified adult male, possibly wearing a suit, walking on Walsh Lane in the direction of Field Point Drive.

--FROM FOLIO 51 -- according to Robert Ix, interviewed on 11/2/75, around this time he witnessed an unidentified adult male wearing a suit walking East on Walsh Lane in the direction of Field Point Drive.

8:30 pm--According to Jackie Wettenhall, interviewed on 10/9/93, the group consisting of herself, Martha Moxley, Helen Ix, and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne once again visit the Skakel residence roughly around this time. The girls have Jeffrey [Geoffrey] ask Frank Wittine where everyone is. Jackie believes Frank told Jeffrey [Geoffrey] that the Skakels were still not home.

8:45 pm--FROM FOLIO 201 -- Frank Wittine, interviewed on 11/17/75, says everyone returned home from dinner at around this time. During an interview with Willis Krebs, Wittine reports going to his basement room once the dinner group returns.

--From an interview on 8/14/92, Michael Skakel reported to Willis Krebs that "upon returning from dinner on Thursday night, he went halfway down the basement and called out to Frank. He received no reply, and because it was completely dark, he did not do down the stairs any further."

--At this point, Steven [Stephen] reported on 5/4/93 that he awoke and went to the top of the stairs to listen to the group.

--According to Jackie Wettenhall, interviewed on 10/9/93, Martha Moxley, Helen Ix, and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne walked Jackie to the head of her driveway, as she had to make her 9:00 pm curfew.

8:55 pm-- According to Michael Skakel (the interview from which this comes is as yet uncertain), he was in the car with Martha Moxley, Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne and Helen Ix listening to tapes.

9:00 pm--Mrs. Wettenhall-Keating, interviewed on 10/7/92, confirms that her daughter, Jackie, arrived home.

--Both Julie Skakel and Andrea Shakespeare recall watching the Ellery Queen show in the sun room.

 
2


--According to Michael Skakel, from his interview with Willis Krebs on 8/14/92, he left for the Terrien residence with John, Rush and Jim Terrien at roughly this time.

9:10 pm--FROM FOLIO 121-- the Bjorks, interviewed on 11/7/75, return home from dinner.

9:15 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, at approximately this time he left the sun porch area and went outside to the side of the house to retrieve a tape cassette from his parents car. Inside the car, Tommy encountered Martha Moxley, his brother Michael, Helen Ix and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne, who were all listening to music. Soon after, he and Martha would move to the area around the shed, off the driveway, and begin "making out."

9:25 pm--Julie, before being put under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recalls this as being the exact time she began to take Andrea Shakespeare home (p. 3).

9:25 pm to 9:30 pm--Julie, while under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recounts seeing Martha and Tommy together: "Andrea decided she needed to go home, so half way through Ellery Queen we got up, went out to the car, got in, the car keys weren't in the car so I asked Andrea to go back up to the house and get them. At the same (sic), as my window was down, I could hear Tommy and Martha talking at the back door. (p.8) I couldn't hear absolutely clearly, but it seemed like whatever the plans were for that evening, Tommy wasn't interested and he was just going to stay home. I could hear the back door close after Tommy said goodnight to Martha. I could see Martha walking around the back fence and, about the same time that Tommy closed the door, Andrea tried to get in the front door, but she couldn't, so she ran the door bell. I could see Tommy slowly walking through the kitchen and ... I think looking through the glass to see who it was." Julie also recalls that Ken Littleton was there. (p.8-9)

9:30 pm--According to Jim Terrien, interviewed 9/23/93, this is approximately the time he left the Skakel residence for his house with Rush, John and Michael. He recalls that Rush drove the Skakel's [Skakels'] Lincoln. Before leaving, he remembers seeing Tommy at the front door.

--Under hypnosis, on either 1/6/93 or 3/15/93, John Skakel recalls being in the car with Rush and Jim Terrien (see pages 7 to 9), and possibly someone else, but he cannot recall who.

--According to Ken Littleton, from his interview with Willis Krebs, he went outside at approximately this time, "for three or four minutes," and heard leaves rustling by the cypress trees. (p.8 and p. 35).

9:30 pm to 9:35 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, Richard McCarthy, and Manny Margolis, he and Martha Moxley commenced a sexual encounter at about 50 feet to the rear of the house, in the middle of the rear lawn, which concluded in mutual masturbation. Tommy estimates that the entire encounter lasted about twenty minutes. He last saw Martha hurrying across the rear lawn towards her home.

 
3


9:40 pm--FROM FOLIO 121 -- at approximately this time, Mr. and Mrs. Bjork, from their interview of 11/7/75, heard a car racing north on Otter Rock Drive.

9:50 pm--Helen Ix Fitzpatrick, interviewed on 8/6/92, recalls that her dog was barking wildly at around this time. This interview is not yet available for review.

--Julie, before being put under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recalls returning to the Skakel residence after dropping Andrea home (p.3) at this time. Under hypnosis, on 3/5/93, she remembers hearing something in the bushes by the kitchen and then, "I see a crouched person running." Julie believes this individual was a man, someone bigger than herself, carrying a bundle under his left arm. The person "ran past the kitchen, across the driveway, through the bushes."(p. 10) Later, on 7/26/94, while again under hypnosis, Julie further characterized this individual as, "Crouched, big, dark, maybe even hooded."

9:50 pm to 9:55 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, and as noted above, this is the approximately time he left Martha Moxley and returned to his house after their sexual encounter. He last saw Martha hurrying across the rear lawn towards her home.

10:00 pm--FROM FOLIO 17, we know that Special Officer Charles Morganti observed a white male, 6' feet tall, 200 lbs, late 20's to early 30's, darkened rimmed glasses, fatigue jacket, tan slacks, blond hair, walking northerly on Field Point Drive. The subject said he lived on Walsh Lane. Morganti reported this information to the Greenwich Police Department at 5:00 pm on October 31, 1975, adding that, "This same subject was later observed in just a very few minutes walking northbound on the west side of Otter Rock Drive, just north of the Walsh Lane intersection." Morganti later confirmed that this individual was not Ed Hammond.

--FROM FOLIO 25, at approximately this time, Mr. and Mrs. Charles Gorman, of 21 Walsh Lane, interviewed on 10/31/75, recall hearing a dog barking.

--FROM FOLIO 29, local neighbor Mr. Bjork, interviewed on 11/1/75, reported observing seeing an unmarked police car in front of his house. At that time, he went out and spoke with Officer Morganti.

10:03 pm--According to Ken Littleton, when interviewed by Willis Krebs on 9/12/94, Tommy joined him in the master bedroom to watch The French Connection on television at around this time. "He came up," Littleton states, "approximately twenty minutes before the chase scene." The chase scene began at exactly 10:23 pm.

10:05 pm--Sometime soon after the Ellery Queen show concluded at 10:00, Julie, before being put under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recalls speaking with someone in the kitchen. She believes it may have been Ken Littleton. Under hypnosis, she says, "I'm sure it's Ken." She remembers asking him where everyone was, and then correcting him on the pronunciation of "Terrien." "I did not stay

 
4


there long." (p. 11-12) Julie states, under hypnosis, that she did not know, at that point, where Tommy was. (p.13)

10:10 pm--FROM FOLIO 29, Mr. Bjork, interviewed on 11/1/75, reports letting his dog out at this time.

10:17 pm-- According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, this is the approximate time he joined Ken Littleton in the master bedroom to watch The French Connection -- approximately five minutes before the chase scene began at 10:23 pm. After the conclusion of the chase scene, Tommy said he went to the kitchen for food.

10:30 pm--At roughly around this time, Steven [Stephen] Skakel recalls during his interview under hypnosis on 5/4/93, that he heard the Ix dog, Socks [Zock], barking. In addition, he remembers hearing a young woman, either "Helen or Martha," laughing behind the pool.

--According to a local resident, Mr. Wright Ferguson, interviewed on 12/13/93, he saw a group of people at the Belle Haven police booth. After inquiring, Mr. Ferguson recalls being told that Martha Moxley was missing. It should be mentioned that all efforts to confirm this detail were unsuccessful. Mr. Ferguson sticks to his story.

10:32 pm--This is when the chase scene from The French Connection would have concluded, and when, according to Ken Littleton, interviewed by Willis Krebs, Tommy left the master bedroom. (p. 7)

10:35 pm--FROM FOLIO 29, Mr. Bjork, interviewed on 11/1/75, reports this as the time he was finally able to bring his dog back inside.

11:00 pm--According to Jim Terrien, interviewed 9/23/93, this is the approximate time the Skakels left to return home.

11:20 pm--FROM FOLIO 101, 103, John Moxley, interviewed by police on 11/5/75, says he returned home at this time.

--According to Tommy Skakel, at about this time Rush returns and goes to sleep on the floor in the same room where Tommy is sleeping. Documentation is not yet available.

11:25 pm--Julie, before being put under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recalls hearing noises downstairs at this time. When asked how she remembered the time, she explained, "I did have a TV in my room, maybe I was watching the news. I definitely got up out of my bed, opened my door. The noises were downstairs, but I don't think I went any further than the top of the steps and then I went back in my room."

11:30 pm--FROM FOLIO 28, at approximately this time. Steve Hartig, interviewed on 11/1/75,

 
5


recalls hearing noises in the area of Walsh Lane. Hartig, a local resident, was in his room at the time, which faces Walsh Lane across Otter Rock Drive. This information was reported to Detective Timm.

11:33 pm--According to John Skakel, as reported to Sutton investigators while under hypnosis on either 1/6/93 or 3/15/93, someone went in or out of the house at this point. "It was changing to 11:33 on the clock radio," John remembers, "Something going on in the mud room." And then, "the noise ... the sound of the back door." Questioned again about this point on May 4, 1993, John added: "I didn't hear anything in the kitchen, so whoever it was must not have gone through the kitchen."

11:40 pm--Michael reported to Willis Krebs, during his interview on 8/14/92, that a short time after going to bed, at approximately 11:40 pm, he used the front hallway rear door to exit the house. Krebs reports: "Upon leaving the house, he ran towards Walsh Lane and after passing the Moxley residence, turned right into a driveway, walked to the end and approached a ground floor window of the house. Michael stated that he had been at the house on other occasions to look at the woman who resided therein (name unknown). This woman, on many previous occasions, would not be wearing clothing. On this occasion the woman was lying on a couch wearing some sort of night garment. After looking into this window for a short period of time, he walked to the Moxley's house, climbed a tree and looked into the room he thought was Martha's. He yelled at the window, "Martha, Martha," but there was no response. Michael then stated that he masturbated to orgasm in the tree. After climbing down, he stopped near a street light on Walsh Lane. Michael stated that he felt "someone's presence" in the area where Martha's body was eventually discovered. He yelled "into the darkness" and threw something at the trees. Still fearing what was there he ran back to his house. He crossed in front of his house, and finding all doors locked, climbed to the second floor and entered his room through his bedroom window. He felt he was out of the house between 30 and 45 minutes, arriving home at sometime around 12:30 am. Once in his room he went to sleep."

11:45 pm--From his interview with Stanley Lesse, M.D., between 3/10/76 and 3/19/76, Rush Skakel says this is the approximate time he returned home from the Terriens [Terriens']. He says that Tommy was in bed when he arrived.

--FROM FOLIO 34, Special Officer Charles Morganti says he again saw the white Volkswagen on Walsh Lane.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1975

12:00 am--According to Andrea Shakespeare, interviewed on 8/26/92, she received a call from Julie Skakel at approximately this time. She says Julie asked her: "Do you know where Martha Moxley is? She never made it home."

 
6


12:30 am--According to Michael, as stated above, this is roughly the time he returned home after climbing the tree next to the Moxley residence.

1:15 am to 1:30 am--According to Julie, interviewed on 7/26/94, Mrs. Moxley called around this time to ask about Martha. "I went upstairs and asked Tommy where she was, when the last time he'd seen her. He said the back door, and then he had to study for a test. He was tired. So, I went back downstairs and told Mrs. Moxley the same thing." Julie added that Tommy was asleep, his room was dark, and that he didn't get out of bed."

3:15 am--According to Jackie Wettenhall, as interviewed on 10/9/93, Mrs. Moxley called asking to speak to her. Mrs. Moxley reached her mother, Mrs. Wettenhall-Keating--who confirmed this detail in her interview of 10/7/92.

3:35 am--FROM FOLIO 118, John Moxley, interviewed by police on 11/6/75, says his mother awoke him at this time, and soon thereafter he went out to drive around and search for Martha.

3:48 am--FROM FOLIO 1, Mrs. Moxley first calls the Greenwich police and reports Martha as missing. Sometime thereafter, patrolman Daniel Merchant interviews Mrs. Moxley at her residence.

4:00 am--According to Julie, from her 7/26/94 interview, Mrs. Moxley called again at around this time. She recalls that Mrs. Moxley "was very concerned. Would I please go upstairs and ask Tommy again if he had seen her, what the circumstances are, or were, when they last saw each other. I went back up again and asked Tommy, are you sure? He said Yes, the last time I saw her was at the back door. I went back downstairs and told Mrs. Moxley. She said I'm concerned. John, her son, was looking outside. Would you please help him?" Shortly thereafter, Julie claims she joined John Moxley behind her house and they looked for Martha. Julie said their search lasted "maybe ten, maybe fifteen minutes." John denies this ever happened.

6:00 am--FROM FOLIO 118, John Moxley, interviewed on 11/6/75, claims he returned home after driving around and searching for his sister.

6:15 am--FROM FOLIO 201, Frank Wittine tells the Greenwich Police Department, on 11/17/75, that he left his room at this time in order to walk the dog. Reportedly, however, the Skakel dog was at the vet.

6:35 am--FROM FOLIO 2, Patrolman Merchant calls Mrs. Moxley. She informs him that Martha has not been found.

8:00 am--FROM FOLIO 116, the Moxley maid, interviewed on 11/6/75, says she arrived at the Moxley residence.

9:00 am--FROM FOLIO 116, the Moxley maid, interviewed on 11/16/75, says there was a loud

 
7


crash in the basement.

9:15 am--FROM FOLIO 116, the Moxley maid, interviewed on 11/6/75, says a friend of John's arrived.

--FROM FOLIO 3, Juvenile Officer Daniel Hickman assigned to case. At some point thereafter, he calls Mrs. Moxley.

9:45 am--FROM FOLIO 3, Hickman and Jones (presumably another officer) begin a motor search of the Belle Haven area lasting around one hour.

10:00 am--According to Mrs. Jean Walker, interviewed on 9/14/92, around this time she called Mrs. Moxley to ascertain if Martha had returned. Reportedly, Mrs. Moxley explained that Martha had not returned, the police had been notified, and they were searching for Martha with a photograph Mrs. Moxley had lent them.

10:15 am--FROM FOLIO 201, Mrs. Moxley asked Frank Wittine, interviewed on 11/17/75, to check the camper for Martha. Wittine told her he had already checked the camper, but did so again anyway.

12:00 pm--According to Mrs. Jean Walker, interviewed on 9/14/92, she arrived at Mrs. Moxley's residence in order to console her around this time. At some point thereafter, Mrs. Walker recalls that she was confronted by a hysterical Sheila Maguire who informed her that she had found Martha under a tree. The following is from Willis Krebs' report on Mrs. Walker's interview: "After calling the police and Mrs. Maguire, Mrs. Walker walked to a large evergreen tree between the Moxley and Hammond houses and found the body of Martha Moxley. Mrs. Walker stated Martha was laying face down with her head on an incline (head higher than feet) towards the Moxley house. Martha's jeans and white cotton panties (with small flowers) were pulled down to her ankles. Her upper clothing was in place. Mrs. Walker further stated she saw dried blood in the hair at the rear of Martha's head. Aside from that blood, she did not recall any other visible blood or blood-stained clothing. Martha's exposed flesh (waist, buttocks, thighs and calves) displayed no scratches, abrasions, bruises or lacerations. Mrs. Walker felt Martha's waist area and it was cool to the touch. She then had the sensation "someone was watching her" so she returned to the Moxley residence. She stated the police arrived soon thereafter."

12:30 pm--FROM FOLIO 4, Hickman receives a radio call from headquarters that Mrs. Moxley had called. Shortly thereafter, he reaches the Moxley residence by phone and is informed that Martha had been found in a wooded area.

12:45 pm--FROM FOLIO 6, Chief Keegan, Detectives McGlynn, and Detective Carroll arrive at the crime scene and rope the area off.

1:15 pm--According to the autopsy report, Dr. Coleman arrives at the crime scene at this

 
8


time.

--Mrs. Moxley is interviewed by Detective Keegan until 3:00 pm. Documentation is not yet available.

2:00 pm--According to Rush Jr., he picks up his cousin Geo Skakel at the airport at roughly this time. Documentation is not yet available.

2:30 pm--According to Julie, she arrives home at approximately this time.

3:00 pm--FROM FOLIO 9, Detectives Carroll and McGlynn interview Ed Hammond. He cooperates fully, is advised of his rights, and is brought to the station house with blood stained trousers around this time.

--FROM FOLIO 11, Detectives Brosko and Lunney arrive at Skakel house and interview Julie and Michael Skakel around this time.

3:30 pm-- According to John Pinto, he arrives at the Skakel residence around this time. Documentation is not yet available.

4:00 pm--According to Geo Skakel and John Pinto, they drove off to a Georgetown reunion weekend in the Revcon vehicle at around this time. Documentation is not yet available.

--FROM FOLIO 13, Ken Littleton is interviewed for the first time. "He never went out that night after dinner ... he saw nothing suspicious."

4:30 pm--According to Rush Jr., he left for Dartmouth at about this time. Documentation is not yet available.

5:15 pm--According to Jim McKenzie, he arrives at the Skakel residence at around this time. Documentation is not yet available.

5:30 pm--According to the autopsy report, the body is removed to the morgue at this point.

5:40 pm.--Tommy Skakel is taken to the station house for questioning until 10:30 p.m. Documentation is not yet available.

--Mrs. Hammond consents to a search of her residence. Documentation is not yet available..

6:00 pm--Helen Ix is interviewed by Detectives Brosko and Lunney. Documentation is not yet available.

8:00 pm--Russ (sic) [Rush]returns home. Documentation is not yet available.

 
9


9:00 pm-- Frank Wittine drives Jim McKenzie back to New York City. Documentation is not yet available.

10:00 pm--Mrs. Bjork calls the Greenwich Police Department regarding Ed Hammond. Documentation is not yet available.

10:30 pm--Tommy Skakel returns home from the Greenwich Police Department. Documentation is not yet available.

 
10




TOP OF PAGE


 
MICHAEL SKAKEL

A purposefully prejudicial analysis of Michael Skakel and his testimony.


Much like his brother, Tommy, Michael Skakel has made some revelatory alterations and amendments to our account of his activities and whereabouts on the night of October 30, 1995. [sic] The parallels neither begin nor end there. As mentioned earlier in this report, Tommy and Michael have both suffered from similar mental and emotional disorders, and their early relationship was distinguished by an intense, exceptionally explosive rivalry. As Thomas Sheridan has written, in a digest of Anna Goodman's Elan report on Michael: both boys are impulsive personalities. Both have very poor ego development and a bad self image. Both are sexually immature and blocked emotionally. Both have an alcohol and possibly drug problems. Both are very likable and outstanding athletes. Both are lost, personally disorganized and have no life plan. Their only point of departure is in the fact that Tommy feels loved by his family and Michael does not. His father, Mr. Skakel, reports that, "Julie is frightened to death of Michael," that Michael suffers from enuresis (bedwetting), and has engaged in some transsexual behavior."

In more than one sense, these two brothers share a unique category of suspicion in this case. Michael's recent revelations, solicited first during interviews with staff at the Elan school and then with Sutton Associates investigators, also places him in a higher category of suspicion without any overt implications of wrongdoing. In this regard, it is not altogether clear why this information was volunteered now, after so long, and indeed, why it was then volunteered at all. As with Tommy, however, the changes illustrate that Michael was originally deceitful with the police and other authorities.

In terms purely of motive, over the course of our investigation, we have found considerable evidence to show Michael had been involved in a relationship with Martha Moxley. According to one source, Michael and Tommy even fought over her. Along the blurry lines of teenage romance, Michael was known to be Martha's boyfriend for some time. Coupled with our extensive knowledge of just how vehemently they fought with each other, this information suggests Michael had more than ample reason to me [WW] extremely upset when Tommy was carrying on with Martha by the side of the house just before 9:30 pm.

The magnitude of certain psychological and emotional problems from which Michael has suffered is considerable. Dr. Sue Wallington Quinlan, who examined him on 3/3/77, has written: Projective testing suggested a severe agitated depression, a sense of being overwhelmed by a sense of evil and the futility of life. The depression is possibly of psychotic proportions but the protocol was too guarded to be certain. Mental functioning is clearly fragile. Extent of pathology is evident in borderline features: 1) intrusions of personal concerns into intellectual functioning, 2) primitive fantasy content, e.g. mutilated bodies, masked, distorted figures, concerns about bodily integrity and deformity, 3) inadequate capacity for attatchment [sp] to other people.

 
1


Borderline feature number two is, obviously, of special concern to us. Such preoccupations are alarming, and suggest an unusual capacity for violent thought. Later in the report, Dr. Quinlan states: Impulse control is marginally adequate. This point, coupled with borderline features number one and two, suggest Michael may just be pathological enough to sidestep his intellectual functioning. In other words, his rationale could be superseded by the temporary madness of a psychotic episode. If Michael was, as suspected, under the influence of alcohol and drugs on the night of October 30, 1975, the possibility of such a psychotic episode is increased, while Michael's wherewithal to resist it, is decreased.

Remember, Dr. Quinlan states: The depression is possibly of psychotic proportions but the protocol was too guarded to be certain. At first, I took this to mean that Michael himself was too guarded, that he used a certain protocol and/or polite behavior to distance himself from the doctor in a protective manner. Consider the sentence again. Dr. Quinlan says "the" protocol, not Michael's protocol, or Michael's manner. Is it possible that Dr. Quinlan was prevented from conducting a thorough examination of Michael by other individuals--perhaps through some imposed and limiting guidelines or circumstances? Could this be the "protocol" of which she speaks?

The core of the depression is the feeling of being helpless, of being buffeted and brutalized by external forces. He sees himself as the helpless victim. There is also great fury inside him focused primarily in hatred for his father. This anger is very frightening and he has inadequate defenses to deal with it except for avoidance and inhibition of behavior. There is some trend toward a more paranoid stance in which projected anger and fear that other people see him as crazy combine to produce interpersonal distancing and disparate resistance to manipulation by external forces.

Part of what Dr. Quinlan seems to be establishing here, is the notion that Michael lacks a sense of self-control in his life, and very much resents this fact. He hates his father, because his father is the one who most controls Michael's life. His father also represents a legacy and a family standard which, as much as anything else, places both great expectations and limitations on Michael's conduct and identity. There also seems to be evidence of family pressure which Michael felt from his brothers.

From Thomas Sheridan's digest of Anna Goodman's Elan report: Thereafter, commencing in the last paragraph of the 1st page she reports that Michael has "started to talk about a lot of things that bother him which be blocks out most of the time." In a distraught state, i.e. crying off and on, he talked about feeling that "he always had to be a certain way because of who he is." Anna Goodman, then, interprets this to mean that because he is a Skakel he had to do things (many of which were dangerous, i.e. drinking and fast driving) so people would accept him.

Dr. Quinlan talks about a protocol keeping her from getting adequately close to Michael. Conversely, then, this protocol--basically enacted and sustained by his father--must keep Michael

 
2


from getting adequately close to Dr. Quinlan and, indeed, any other individual with whom he comes in contact. Hence, he resents his father a great deal. Hence, his capacity for normal relations with other individuals is diminished. Hence, he resents feeling powerless and not being able to control his own life. Hence, when Michael wants to act out in protest of his figurative lack of control in life, he does so by becoming, quite literally, out of control.

We know from subsequent incidents that Michael, especially while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, will go to reckless and self-destructive lengths. Case in point number one is Michael's arrest in Windham, New York, on March 5, 1978. From a Thomas Sheridan memo on the incident: Through the influence of heavy drinking or smoking pot or a combination of both, Michael panicked and became involved in a drunken driving and reckless driving incident... On that occasion, he was driving--without a license--the Skakel family jeep station wagon and he was accompanied by a young woman named Debbie Diehl, who is approximately 21 years of age. She and her family have been friends of the Skakel's [Skakels'] at Windham for several years and she has the reputation of being a little bit of a swinger. In any event, after a wild chase by the town police, Michael ended up crashing the car into a telephone pole. The car is practically a total wreck. Michael and his passenger escaped unscathed.

Dr. Quinlan says Michael's impulse control is "marginally adequate." I say, it is even less so.

Sheridan continues: The facts relating to the pleading and disposition of those charges in Windham are not pertinent to this memo. Suffice it to say that an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal has been obtained upon the condition that Michael attend the Elan school at Poland Springs in Maine for at least six months. What should be noted, however, is the fact that in my interviewing of Michael on that occasion, he was obviously a disturbed person and hooked on either booze or pot. He showed little or no remorse for having nearly killed the companion in his car and when confronted with the potential problem of a subsequent conviction for drunken driving, his only comment was, "Next time I won't get caught."

So once again, after Michael acts out by wreaking havoc, the influence of his father manages the situation by imposing order (and damage control) from above. Let's not kid ourselves. Just about any other kid racing away from police, while drunk, and crashing into public property, would have gotten far worse than an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. Dismiss those charges? Simply incredible-simply Skakel. Michael, of course, must then bend to the consequences of how someone else is handling his actions--once again reaffirming his mindset of helpless dependency. In any event, approximately a week later, Michael was in effect taken into custody (after a wild chase) by the staff from Elan and he is a resident there to this day. Simply put, all the wild chases in the world will not pull this young man away from his arrested state of development.

Dr. Quinlan adds: Under conditions of increasing depression or with an increase in overt

 
3


hostility or social withdrawal there would be a possibility of self-destructive behavior.

Imagine: Michael has just seen his reviled brother, Tommy, and his flirtatious ex-girlfriend Martha Moxley, cavorting together at the side of his own home, in the presence of everyone. She turned him down to hang out with his older brother. It is hard to imagine how such a spectacle would not have made him both increasingly depressed and overtly hostile.

From the time-line: 9:15 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, at approximately this time he left the sun porch area and went outside to the side of the house to retrieve a tape cassette from his parents car. Inside the car, Tommy encountered Martha Moxley, his brother Michael, Helen Ix, and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne, who were all listening to music. Soon after, he and Martha would move to the area around the shed, off the driveway, and begin "making out."

Martha's friends reportedly left shortly after this point because they found Martha's behavior to be embarrassing. Clearly, her activity with Tommy was purposefully demonstrative. It seems likely, as well, that Martha's young friends were disturbed by the inherent awkwardness of watching Martha blatantly and immodestly courting the affection of her ex-boyfriend's older brother in her ex-boyfriend's presence. We know practically nothing of how Michael reacted to all this, and it is a glaring omission. For certainly, he had a reaction, and it may have been extreme.

All this speculation counts for much less, of course, if Michael went to the Terrien's [Terriens'] and stayed there. There is curious evidence suggesting this is not exactly what happened. In an interview under hypnosis, on 5/4/93, John was asked where Michael was, while he and Rush were at the Terrien's [Terriens']. The interviewer, on repeated occasions, tried to get John to place Michael in the car and then at the Terrien's [Terriens']. John could not. He would only recall that someone else was in the car, and that someone else was at the house, but as much as the interviewer persisted, John could not identify that person as Michael.

Gaspar: Who is in the room with you? You, Jimmy, who else?

Skakel: Rush.

Gaspar: Did you hear anybody come in or leave? Did the telephone ring?

Skakel: I don't recall.

Gaspar: Where's Ken and Michael and Julie now?

Skakel: Anyone who didn't come back with us is back at Belle Haven.


They discuss the ride back to Belle Haven:

 
4


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
is also testimony from her friends stating Martha was known to have snuck out of her house on other occasions. Given that her mother, Mrs. Moxley, is alleged to have been intoxicated on the night in question, it seems all too possible that Martha could have returned home, and either her mother was never aware, or simply, in an alcoholic stupor, forgot that Martha had made an appearance.

This would mean Martha could have been murdered later that night, perhaps by Tommy. Why, we find ourselves asking again, does a suspect who has been successfully deceiving for many years, suddenly come forth with new, unflattering and potentially incriminating details? Michael did just this when he altered and amended the story he had been telling the police to include the followin. (from the time-line): 11:33 pm--According to John Skakel, as reported to Sutton investigators while under hypnosis on either 1/6/93 or 3/15/93, someone went in or out of the house at this point. "It was changing to 11:33 on the clock radio." John remembers, "Something going on in the mud room." And then "the noise ... the sound of the back door." Questioned again about this point on May 4, 1993, John added: "I didn't hear anything in the kitchen, so whoever it was must not have gone through the kitchen."

11:40 pm--Michael reported to Willis Krebs, during his interview on 8/14/92, that a short time after going to bed, at approximately 11:40 pm, he used the front hallway rear door to exit the house. Krebs reports: "Upon leaving the house, he ran towards Walsh Lane and after passing the Moxley residence, turned right into a driveway, walked to the end and approached a ground floor window of the house. Michael stated that he had been at the house on other occasions to look at the woman who resided therein (name unknown). This woman, on many previous occasions, would not be wearing clothing. On this occasion the woman was lying on a couch wearing some sort of night garment. After looking into the window for a short period of time, he walked to the Moxley's house, climbed a tree and looked into the room he thought was Martha's. He yelled at the window, "Martha, Martha," but there was no response. Michael then stated that he masturbated to orgasm in the tree. After climbing down, he stopped near a street light on Walsh Lane. Michael stated that he felt "someone's presence" in the area where Martha's body was eventually discovered. He yelled "into the darkness" and threw something at the trees. Still fearing what was there he ran back to his house. He crossed in front of his house, and finding all doors locked, climbed to the second floor and entered his room through his bedroom window. He felt he was out of the house between 30 and 45 minutes, arriving home at sometime around 12:30 am. Once in his room, he went to sleep."


It is difficult for anyone to process this information, let alone begin to understand what it may mean. What is Michael trying to tell us? Is this the whole truth? Is this true at all? Michael had told the police he went straight to bed and did not leave the house after returning from the Terrien's [Terriens'] with Rush and Michael [John]. Is it possible that Michael became aware of John's (and others) testimony about someone coming in and out of the house and became alarmed, because it was him? Is this why he felt compelled to come forward with this story? He is telling us that he may have come physically close to the murdered [sp] "someone's presence." This is incredible testimony.

 
6


Once again, we are forced to ask ourselves how and why a young man could have kept this to himself after so many years.

Another interesting point when considered in a prejudicial context: Michael claimed, when interviewed by Sutton Associates, that he could not remember when he first realized Martha was dead. To the average person, such a realization would have been a frightening and unprecedented moment of devastation. Not a moment, in short, one could easily forget--even if wanting to. One reason why Michael may not have been able to pinpoint the time when he was made aware of Martha's death, could be because he knew she was dead before anyone else.

Michael also told Sutton Associates investigators he did not consider Martha to be a flirt. Again, this may be a truthful and entirely innocuous response to a simple question. However, when we consider this response carefully, in a prejudicial context, it is slightly suspect. By all other accounts, many of them emphatic and coming directly from her good friends, Martha Moxley was a relentless flirt. This aspect of her character was one with which she was, in a neutral sense, largely identified with. No one considered her to be promiscuous, or inappropriately preoccupied with sexuality. Rather, her flirtatiousness seems to have been of the "nice girl" variety, and was indicative of a self-confident and cheerful disposition. It seems odd, then, that Michael, who we know was involved with Martha at least for a short while, and who certainly spent considerable time with her, would dissent from the consensus on this point. Why would Michael say he did [^] find Martha to be a flirt? Are there reasons he may have been wary of going on record with such a statement? Let us not forget, Michael saw Martha and Tommy together at the side of the house before he left (assuming he left) for the Terrien's [Terriens']. Given all this, it defies common sense that Michael could have thought Martha wasn't a flirt. Many people who were close, or not so close to Martha, readily volunteered this information. It was no secret to anyone. Why wouldn't Michael say so?

In general, it seems as though Michael has been overlooked to some degree. The authorities placed Tommy immediately under considerable scrutiny. He was questioned for upwards of five hours on the night of October 31, 1975. Michael, on the other hand, seems to have been largely ignored as a possible suspect, until later. His subsequent difficulties with the law may have contributed to the police's desire to evaluate him with renewed speculation.

 
7




TOP OF PAGE


 
MICHAEL SKAKEL
 
At the beginning of the official police investigation into the murder of Martha Moxley, Michael Skakel was not a strong suspect. According to some sources, he was ruled out almost immediately due to what was then perceived as an air-tight alibi, substantiated under polygraph by a number of eye-witnesses. Some feel Michael and other suspects were not thoroughly examined at the time, due to a somewhat premature conviction, on the part of local authorities, that Tommy Skakel was the murderer. It was only later when the spotlight of serious scrutiny was placed directly on Michael. His arrest on drunk driving charges in 1978 probably did as much as anything to renew the police's interest.

Michael, at the time, was plagued with serious emotional problems, living, by many accounts, a reckless and drug-fueled existence. What gradually emerged, from that point forward, was a portrait of a deeply, and somewhat enigmatically, troubled young man. In this light, and during the course of Sutton Associates' investigation, serious questions and unresolved issues have been raised about Michael and the murder of Martha Moxley. At the very least, it is fair to say Michael Skakel has, for whatever reason, often acted out in ways certain to arouse suspicion. Reportedly, Michael once even confessed to the murder of Martha Moxley in a therapy session while a patient at the Elan treatment center. He quickly recanted.

It soon becomes obvious that there are many ominous parallels between Michael and his brother Tommy. Michael Skakel, as you will learn, has also made some revelatory alterations and amendments to our prior account of his activities and whereabouts on the night of October 30, 1975. As mentioned earlier in this report, Tommy and Michael have both suffered from remarkably similar mental and emotional disorders, and their early relationship was distinguished by an intense, exceptionally explosive rivalry. As Thomas Sheridan has written, in a digest of Anna Goodman's Elan report on Michael, "both boys are impulsive personalities. Both have very poor ego development and a bad self image. Both are sexually immature and blocked emotionally. Both have an alcohol and possibly drug problems. Both are very likeable and outstanding athletes. Both are lost, personally disorganized and have no life plan. Their only point of departure is in the fact that Tommy feels loved by his family and Michael does not." Thomas Sheridan also noted being informed by Mr. Skakel that, " Julie is frightened to death of Michael", and that Michael suffers from enuresis (bedwetting), and has engaged in some transsexual behavior.

In more than one sense, these two acrimonious brothers share a unique category of suspicion. Like Tommy, Michael"s recent revelations--solicited first during interviews with staff at the Elan school and then with Sutton Associates' investigators--place him in a higher category of suspicion without any steadfast implications of wrongdoing. Again, in this regard, it is not altogether clear why such information was volunteered now, after so long, and indeed, why it was then volunteered at all. But, as with Tommy, these changes illustrate that Michael was originally deceitful with the police and other authorities. We are left to wonder why.

Due to the many similarities between the brothers, the Academy Group's profile of the

 
1


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

 
2


spent solitary periods while out at night either pursuing his fantasies, window peeping or brooding about perceived inequities in his life.

Michael advised Sutton Associates, during a set of interviews, that he was in the habit of regularly leaving his home at night to widow-peep at the nearby residence of an older woman. He would go specifically to watch this particular woman in various states of undress. Further, Michael stated that on the night of Martha's murder, he snuck out of his house and went to this woman's residence to watch her. After leaving the outside of her residence, he went to the window of Martha Moxley's room and made an effort to contact Martha by calling out her name. After his efforts proved unsuccessful, Michael states he masturbated in a tree outside her window before returning home.

This information leads us to consider another crucial offender characteristic cited in the Academy report. This particular detail was included in the Post-Offense Behavior section: This section will enumerate for the reader the behavioral changes the analysts believe would be manifested by the person responsible for the murder of Martha E. Moxley.

1. It is believed that after leaving the victim's body, the offender returned to the scene of the crime before her body was discovered. After departing the crime scene, he went home and thought about what had happened. Finding it hard to believe that he had murdered his friend, he returned to verify that she was in fact dead.


As you will also later read in this report, Michael recalls passing by the spot, that night, where Martha was ultimately found, and sensing someone's presence. He, in effect, visited the scene of her murder shortly after she was killed. Needless to say, we believe none of these crucial details were originally shared with the police. Only years later did Michael come forth on these points.

In terms of motive, we have found considerable evidence to show he had been involved in a romantic relationship with Martha Moxley. According to one source, Michael and Tommy even fought over her on occasion. Along the blurred lines of teenage liaisons, Michael was known to be Martha's boyfriend for some time. As of this writing, we know substantially less than we would like about this relationship, and, in particular, what it meant to Michael. This is an important blank spot which needs to be filled. But coupled with our extensive knowledge of just how vehemently Michael and Tommy fought with each other, we at least believe Michael had more than ample reason to me [WW] extremely upset when Tommy was carrying on with Martha by the side of the house just before 9:30 pm.

Was Michael someone capable of losing control and acting out in a violent rage of jealousy? We now know the magnitude of certain psychological and emotional problems from which Michael has suffered, and may still suffer, is considerable. Dr. Sue Wallington Quinlan, who examined him on March, 3, 1977, wrote: Projective testing suggested a severe agitated depression, a sense of being overwhelmed by a sense of evil and the futility of life. The

 
3


depression is possibly of psychotic proportions but the protocol was too guarded to be certain. Mental functioning is clearly fragile. Extent of pathology is evident in borderline features: 1) intrusions or personal concerns into intellectual functioning, 2) primitive fantasy content, e.g. mutilated bodies, masked, distorted figures, concerns about bodily integrity and deformity, 3) inadequate capacity for attachment to other people.

Borderline feature number two is, obviously, of special concern to us. Such preoccupations are alarming, and suggest an unusual capacity for violent thought. Later in the report, Dr. Quinlan states: Impulse control is marginally adequate. This point, coupled with borderline features number one and two, suggest Michael may just be pathological enough to sidestep his intellectual functioning. In other words, his rationale could be superseded by the temporary madness of a psychotic episode. If Michael was, as suspected, under the influence of alcohol and drugs on the night of October 30, 1975, the possibility of such a psychotic episode is increased, while Michael's wherewithal to resist it is decreased.

Remember, Dr. Quinlan states: The depression is, possibly of psychotic proportions but the protocol was too guarded to be certain. At first, one might take this to mean that Michael himself was too guarded, that he used a certain protocol and/or polite behavior to distance himself from the doctor in a protective manner. Consider the sentence again. Dr. Quinlan says "the'" protocol, not Michael's protocol, or Michael's manner. Is it possible that Dr. Quinlan was prevented from conducting a thorough examination of Michael by other individuals--perhaps through some imposed and limiting guidelines or circumstances? Could this be the "protocol" of which she speaks?

The core of the depression is the feeling of being helpless, of being buffeted and brutalized by external forces. He sees himself as the helpless victim. There is also great fury inside him focused primarily in hatred for his father. This anger is very frightening and he has inadequate defenses to deal with it except for avoidance and inhibition of behavior. There is some trend toward a more paranoid stance in which projected anger and fear that other people see him as crazy combine to produce interpersonal distancing and disparate resistance to manipulation by external forces.

Part of what Dr. Quinlan seems to be establishing here, is the notion that Michael lacks a sense of self-control in his life, and very much resents this fact. He hates his father, because his father is the one who most controls Michael's life. His father also represents a legacy and a family standard which, as much as anything else, places both great expectations and limitations on Michael's conduct and identity. There also seems to be evidence of family pressure which Michael felt from his brothers. From Thomas Sheridan's digest of Anna Goodman's Elan report: Thereafter, commencing in the last paragraph of the 1st page she reports that Michael has "started to talk about a lot of things that bother him which be blocks out most of the time." In a distraught state, i.e. crying off and on, he talked about feeling that he always had to be a certain way because of who he is." Anna Goodman, then, interprets this to mean that because he is a Skakel he had to do things (many of which were dangerous, i.e. drinking

 
4


and fast driving) so people would accept him.

(Unfortunately, as of this writing, Sutton Associates is not in possession of Goodman's report, as well as other important documents pertaining to Michael Skakel.)

If Dr. Quinlan talks about a protocol keeping her from getting adequately close to Michael, then, conversely this protocol--presumably enacted and sustained by his father--must keep Michael from getting adequately close to Dr. Quinlan and, indeed, any other individual with whom he comes in contact. Hence, it is likely be resents his father a great deal. Hence, his capacity for normal relations with other individuals is diminished. Hence, he resents feeling powerless and not being able to control his own life. Hence, when Michael wants to act out in protest of his figurative lack of control in life, he does so by becoming, quite literally, out of control.

We know from subsequent incidents that Michael, especially while under the influence of drugs and alcohol, will go to reckless and self-destructive lengths. Case in point number one is Michael's arrest in Windham, New York, on March 5, 1978. From a Thomas Sheridan memo on the incident: Through the influence of heavy drinking or smoking pot or a combination of both, Michael panicked and became involved in a drunken driving and reckless driving incident... On that occasion, he was driving--without a license--the Skakel family jeep station wagon and he was accompanied by a young woman named Debbie Diehl, who is approximately 21 years of age. She and her family have been friends of the Skakel's [Skakels] at Windham for several years and she has the reputation of being a little bit of a swinger. In any event, after a wild chase by the town police, Michael ended up crashing the car into a telephone pole. The car is practically a total wreck. Michael and his passenger escaped unscathed.

Dr. Quinlan says Michael's impulse control is "marginally adequate." Given the evidence, one might say it is even less so. Sheridan continues: The facts relating to the pleading and disposition of those charges in Windham are not pertinent to this memo. Suffice it to say that an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal has been obtained upon the condition that Michael attend the Elan school at Poland Springs in Maine for at least six months. What should be noted, however, is the fact that in my interviewing of Michael on that occasion, he was obviously a disturbed person and hooked on either booze or pot. He showed little or no remorse for having nearly killed the companion in his car and when confronted with the potential problem of a subsequent conviction for drunken driving, his only comment was, "Next time I won't get caught."

So once again after Michael acts out by wreaking havoc, the influence of his father manages the situation by imposing order (and damage control) from above. Just about any other young person racing away from police, while drunk, and crashing into public property, would have received far worse than an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. Michael, of course, must then bend to the consequences of how someone else is handling his actions--once again

 
5


reaffirming his mindset of helpless dependency. In any event, approximately a week later. Michael was in effect taken into custody (after a wild chase) by the staff from Elan and he is a resident there to this day. Simply put, it seems all the wild chases in the world will not pull this young man away from his arrested state of development.

Dr. Quinlan adds: Under conditions of increasing depression or with an increase in overt hostility or social withdrawal there would be a possibility of self-destructive behavior.

Michael has just seen his reviled brother, Tommy, and his flirtatious ex-girlfriend Martha Moxley, cavorting together at the side of his own home in the presence of everyone. She turned down an offer to hang out Michael that night, in order to be with his older brother. It is hard to imagine how such a spectacle would not have made him both increasingly depressed and overtly hostile. From the time-line: 9:15 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, at approximately this time he left the sun porch area and went outside to the side of the house to retrieve a tape cassette from his parents car. Inside the car, Tommy encountered Martha Moxley, his brother Michael, Helen Ix, and Jeffrey Byrne, who were all listening to music. Soon after, he and Martha would move to the area around the shed, off the driveway, and begin "making out."

Martha's friends reportedly left shortly after this point because they found Martha's behavior to be embarrassing. Clearly, her activity with Tommy was purposefully demonstrative. It seems likely, as well, that Martha's young friends were disturbed by the inherent awkwardness of watching Martha blatantly and immodestly courting the, affection of her ex-boyfriend's older brother while in her ex-boyfriend's presence. We know practically nothing of how Michael reacted to all this, and it is a glaring omission. Certainly, he had a reaction, and it may have been extreme.

Michael's initial alibi hinged on testimony that he was at the Terrien's [Terriens'] residence and stayed there during the time when Martha was suspected of being killed. There is curious evidence, however, suggesting this is not exactly what happened. In an interview under hypnosis, on May 4, 1993, John Skakel was asked where Michael was while he and Rush were at the Terrien's [Terriens']. The interviewer, on repeated occasions, tried to get John to place Michael in the car and then at the Terrien's [Terriens']. John could not. He could only recall that someone else was in the car, and that someone else was at the house. As much as the interviewed [WW] persisted, John could not identify that person as Michael.

Gaspar: Who is in the room with you? You, Jimmy, who else?

Skakel: Rush.

Gaspar: Did you hear anybody come in or leave? Did the telephone ring?

Skakel: I don't recall.

 
6


Gaspar: Where's Ken and Michael and Julie now?

Skakel: Anyone who didn't come back with us is back at Belle Haven.


They discuss the ride back to Belle Haven:

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 leading style of questioning, in and of itself, gives that impression.) So John, it seems, 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.

Gaspar: Who's with you?

Skakel: I think it's Rush, Jimmy and myself. (tape indecipherable)

Gaspar: Where's Ken? Is he with you also?

Skakel: I don't see Ken.

Gaspar: Is he outside or in the house or is he back at the restaurant?

 
7


Skakel: I don't see him.

Gaspar: What do you do now, John?

Skakel: In the car. Get in gear and back out. Around the driveway and (tape indecipherable)

Gaspar: Where's Tommy? Where's Michael?

Skakel: I can see Tommy by the back door, the side door.

Gaspar: Is there anyone else there with him?

Skakel: I think so.

Gaspar: Who?

Skakel: I think it's Martha. I think that's who it is.

Gaspar: Who's coming back with you now? Leaving with you?

Skakel: Rush. Jim Terrien.

Gaspar: What are Tom and Martha doing?

Skakel: They're just standing by the back door, the side door.

Gaspar: Where's Martha?

Skakel: I don't see.

Gaspar: Where were you sitting? In the front seat or the back seat?

Skakel: I must have been in the back seat.

Gaspar: Who's driving? Look at the back of their head.

Skakel: (tape indecipherable)

Gaspar: You get there. Go inside and tell me who's there.

Skakel: Jim and Jim and Rush watching Monty Python.

 
8


Gaspar: Was there anyone else there?

Skakel: There might be. I can't see who it is.

Gaspar: What else are you doing? Anything else?

Skakel: That's it.

Gaspar: What time do you leave there?

Skakel: Don't stay long.

Gaspar: Okay, you're leaving now. You're getting in the car. Who's driving? Can you see?

Skakel: I think I'm driving.

Gaspar: Who is in the car with you?

Skakel: Rush. Maybe someone else too, but I can only see Rush.

Gaspar: Okay. You get home. About what time would you say it is?

Skakel: A little after eleven.

Gaspar: Go inside. Is there anyone there? Is there anyone up, John?

Skakel: In the kitchen.

Gaspar: Who is in the kitchen?

Skakel: I don't see... getting something out of the fridge. Rush goes to bed.

Gaspar: Where's Michael.

Skakel: I don't see him.


This testimony puts a tremendous, irrefutable dent in Michael's alibi. During that whole crucial block of time, he is simply not accounted for.

Many investigators believe the only way Michael could have committed or participated in the murder of Martha Moxley is if she was killed later than the 9:50/10:00 pm estimate. There is a possibility that Martha may have actually gone home for an indefinite period of time after being with Tommy and then snuck back out. There is circumstantial evidence to support this scenario.

 
9


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) 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 a blatant violation [^] her curfew. If she planned on doing any hacking that night, she would have to sneak out. Given that her mother, Mrs. Moxley, is alleged to have been intoxicated on the night in question, it seems all too possible that Martha could have returned home. Either her mother was never aware of that fact, or simply, impaired by alcohol, forgot Martha had made an appearance.

Along the lines of speculation, scenarios in which Michael and Tommy could have conspired together have been considered by a number of experts in the case. Given all the information we have at this point, such a scenario seems unlikely, but further investigation and access to pertinent materials is recommended.

The following essentially illustrates what Michael confessed to once he altered and amended the original story he had been telling the police (from the time-line):

11:33 pm--According to John Skakel, as reported to Sutton investigators while under hypnosis on either 1/6/93 or 3/15/93, someone went in or out of the house at this point. "It was changing to 11:33 on the clock radio," John remembers. "Something going on in the mud room." And then "The noise ... the sound of the back door." Questioned again about this point on May 4, 1993, John added, "I didn't hear anything in the kitchen, so whoever it was must not have gone through the kitchen."

11:40 pm--Michael reported to Willis Krebs, during his interview on 8/14/92, that a short time after going to bed, at approximately 11:40 pm, he used the front hallway rear door to exit the house. Krebs reports: "Upon leaving the house, he ran towards Walsh Lane and after passing the Moxley residence, turned right into a driveway, walked to the end and approached a ground floor window of the house. Michael stated that he had been at the house on other occasions to look at the woman who resided therein (name unknown). This woman, on many previous occasions, would not be wearing clothing. On this occasion the woman was lying on a couch wearing some sort of night garment. After looking into this window for a short period of time, he walked to the Moxley's [Moxleys'] house, climbed a tree and looked into the room he thought was Martha's. He yelled at the window, "Martha, Martha," but there was no response. Michael then stated that he masturbated to orgasm in the tree. After climbing down, he stopped near a street light on Walsh Lane. Michael stated that he felt "someone's presence" in the area where Martha's body was eventually discovered. He yelled "into the darkness" and threw something at the trees. Still fearing what was there he ran back to his house. he crossed in front of his house, and finding all doors locked, climbed to the second floor and entered his room through his bedroom window. He felt he was out of the house between 30 and 45 minutes, arriving home at sometime around

 
10


12:30 am. Once in his room, he went to sleep.

Once again, at the very least, we are forced to ask ourselves how and why a young man could have kept such important information to himself for so many years. We must consider that Michael might have become aware of John's (and others) testimony about someone coming in and out of the house. This could have been what prompted him to come forth with his confession. This possibility, of course, does not inherently mean Michael murdered Martha. Michael may very well be telling the truth now.

There are, however, some other interesting points when considered in a prejudicial context: Michael claimed, when interviewed by Sutton Associates, he could not remember when he first realized Martha was dead. To most fifteen year old boys, such a realization would have been a frightening and unprecedented moment of devastation. Not a moment, in short, one could easily forget. Michael also told Sutton Associates he did not consider Martha to be a flirt. By all other accounts--many of them emphatic and coming directly from her good friends--Martha Moxley was a relentless flirt. This aspect of her character was one with which she was, in a neutral sense, largely identified with. (No one considered her to be promiscuous, or inappropriately preoccupied with sexuality. Rather, her flirtatiousness seems to have been indicative of a self-confident and cheerful disposition.) It seems odd, then, that Michael, who we know was romantically involved with Martha, and who certainly spent considerable time with her, would dissent from the consensus on this point.

Given that Michael's new, amended story is somewhat supported by the testimony of others, he is not a suspect on the same level as his brother, Tommy. Further investigation, however, is required to answer the questions and doubts raised by John's testimony, and other dubious factors in this case. Suffice it to say, Michael, in a sense, has been his own worst accuser. We must listen to what he is trying to tell us. If only because his profile so strongly fits that of the Academy Group's report, he must be carefully examined. Ideally, Michael can be ruled out of the crime with complete certainty, so that Sutton Associates may intensify investigative scrutiny towards other suspects. Needless to say, Michael's cooperation and the continued cooperation of the Skakel family will be required to move forward on this matter.

 
11



TOP OF PAGE


TOMMY SKAKEL

A purposefully prejudicial analysis of Tommy Skakel and his testimony, designed for evaluating how best to proceed with questioning during his upcoming interview.


Let us say it is about 9:30 on the night of October 30, 1995 [sic]. At this point, basically everybody has left the Skakel residence. Helen Ix and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne left a little while ago. Michael is gone (we'll assume for now)--he left with Jim Terrien, John, and Rush. Tommy watched as Andrea and his sister Julie drove off after he helped Andrea retrieve the car keys. In short, the coast was clear. If, as Tommy has expressed, he was sincerely concerned about appearances and making an effort to conceal a tryst with Martha (and if he genuinely lied about his homework assignment as an excuse to stay behind with her) then his mission was accomplished. When Tommy went back to meet Martha the need for discretion was over.

So why, now that the coast was clear, did Tommy and Martha brave temperatures of forty degrees and have their encounter on the grass when access to either a comfortable bedroom, or the van, was a few mere steps away? In terms of appearances, mutual masturbation on the back lawn does not, by any standard, constitute a continuing effort to be discrete. Plus, by most accounts, the Skakel van was well-known as a place the boys would take willing young ladies.

Another factor to consider: Tommy admits having about 4-5 beers with dinner. There is no sensible reason why he would exaggerate his alcohol consumption. If Tommy says that he [^] about five beers, you can assume he had at least that many, if not more. He also states that when everyone returned to the house after dinner, more beer was consumed by himself and others. So, in the space of about two hours, Tommy had, it is fairly safe to surmise, about seven beers. Now, it is no secret that the Skakel family has a history of heavy drinking, but still, for a sixteen year-old boy, that's a lot of alcohol in relatively a short period of time. So, we have Tommy rolling around on the grass with his pants down, in forty degree temperatures, after consuming a lot of alcohol. It is very hard to understand, then, how he could have gone through the motions of seduction, foreplay, and reached orgasm, all in the space of twenty minutes?

Is Tommy's account possible? Certainly. He may claim it was because he was drunk that he didn't take Martha inside. However, Martha was not drunk. She also, according to Tommy (and I quote from Mr. Krebs' report on a recent interview), "forcibly and verbally rejected Tommy's advances" when he started feeling her breasts at the side of the house during some "kidding around." This was when, we can safely assume, Helen Ix, probably left because she found the behavior of Tommy and Martha to be "embarrassing."

Yet, Tommy maintains that Martha agreed to wait and meet him for a rendez-vous. He implies that by waiting to meet him, Martha was consenting to a sexual encounter. If that was the case, why did she allow the encounter to occur outdoors--especially since, according to Tommy, he met back up with her inside?

 
1


Again, she wasn't drunk. She clearly had some sense of decorum or modesty, since she was rebuffing the more demonstrative of Tommy's advances only moments before. Why would she suddenly allow Tommy to go much farther, outdoors? Being outdoors was unnecessary. Why go outdoors? Not only did being outdoors, at that point, not make it any less likely they would be discovered, arguably, it made it more likely.

Maybe, Martha went outside because she was trying to go home. Maybe, she went outside because she had not consented to a sexual encounter. Maybe, she went outside because, now that everyone was gone, Tommy was coming on too strong. Maybe, Martha Moxley went outdoors because she was afraid.

In the upcoming interview, Tommy may explain the situation this way: Alright, she still wasn't warming up to the idea of hooking up when I asked her to wait while I spoke to Andrea. In fact, we hadn't even discussed it. It was up in the air--unspoken. After I started to walk her home, that's when she finally reciprocated my advances. In the heat of the moment, we found ourselves getting hot and heavy right there. Only afterwards, did we realize how cold it was, or the craziness of where we were laying. Passion took over.

Let it not be denied that passion and hormones of teenagers are powerful forces--capable even, of occasionally fighting back the elements. So, let's accept this version of events for a moment.

Tommy is walking Martha home, still trying to woo her. Flirting, kissing, playing around - boom, she is now swept off her feet. The [WW] have their encounter and, for whatever reason, it's all over within twenty minutes.

If we accept this version, the following questions have to be answered. First, Tommy reported that at approximately 9:30, while at the side (kitchen) door, he had a brief conversation with Martha Moxley who was in the driveway. He tells Martha to wait inside the side door for him. Then, he enters the house. However, a number of eyewitnesses claim they saw Martha walk around the back and not go directly inside. At 9:30, Julie Skakel, for example, says, "I could see Martha walking around the back fence and, about the same time that Tommy closed the door, Andrea tried to get in the front door, but she couldn't, so she ran the door bell. I could see Tommy slowly walking through the kitchen and ... I think looking through the glass to see who it was." Martha could have gone around the back and then come back in. It is not clear why she would have bothered, but let's suppose it is possible. Tommy may say that is what happened. He may say that Martha, to be inconspicuous, went around back to give the impression that she was leaving. However, if Martha went to such lengths to be inconspicuous it is only because she knew perfectly well what they would shortly be doing, and if that is true, we are back to wondering why they would have gone outside in the first place. Remember, the house and the van were at their disposal, offering as much discretion as they could have wanted.

There is an irrefutable pattern of inconsistency--no matter what sort of spin Tommy attempts to put to these events. An objective during the upcoming interview should be to lead him, one at a time, through any number of these various scenarios and watch how he treads the water. Encourage

 
2


him by setting up a sympathetic scenario, establish that version as being entirely plausible and reasonable. As soon as he commits to the new version, turn on him. Confront him with its limitations, its flaws, and its lack of logic. He has purchased the silver lining, now take him into the darkest center of the cloud. See where he goes, see what is added, and see what is altered. The cracks will lead you to other questions, to other answers, and with any luck, to the truth. Allow him to amend to another version, rebuild his confidence, then start the process all over again.

The process will, I believe, push Tommy into revealing more that he had. At the very least, this line of probing will provide for a clearer version of what he maintains happened with Martha on that night. Remember, it is very important to consider the context in which this new information was revealed. After nearly eighteen years, Tommy changed his story. Whether or not what he admitted is true, partly true or even a blatant lie, there has to be a significant reason why he suddenly opted to share this new information. Although not directly incriminating, his new revelation is certainly suspect. Simply put, what Tommy has recently added to his story does not, on the surface, make him look more innocent in the eyes of speculation. So why did he suddenly come forward?

We must consider the possibility that what he has told us constitutes an "okay, but." An "okay, but" is basically a confidence move, a carefully calculated concession. Let's say a thief is caught after committing a murder. If he has some reason to suspect that the authorities can place him at the scene, it is in his best interest to volunteer a semi-confession. Okay, I committed the robbery, but I didn't kill anybody. As a confidence move, this confession accomplishes a number of self-serving objectives. An "okay, but" demonstrates a willingness to cooperate. In a conciliatory manner, the suspect is surrendering somewhat damaging information. The damage, although, must be limited. This, he hopes, will give a general impression of innocence, since common sense dictates that a truly guilty person would not offer any incriminating information at all. Also, the suspect is dealing with his own formidable need to confess. By giving up a limited piece of guilt, Tommy allows himself to feel a certain sense of relief. He has been burdened for eighteen years with a burning secret. Simply put, he is trying to taste some catharsis without biting off more of the truth than he can chew. Moreover, an "okay, but" tends to surface when the guilty party has some reason to suspect that new incriminating information may have been discovered. In that regard, an "okay, but" is damage control. For example: if Tommy thinks Sutton Associates has found, or will soon find, some evidence that he was outside the house with Martha around 10:00 pm or even later. Perhaps, he heard about Steven's [Stephen's] testimony under hypnosis on 5/4/93

Starting from page ten:

Gaspar: How about that night? Were you up at 9:30? Or around that time?

Skakel: I was in my bed.

Gaspar: Did you have occasion to look outside your window?

Skakel: Later, I did.

 
3


Gaspar: What time about?

Skakel: Ten-thirty.

Gaspar: What do you see? Look outside.

Skakel: I hear dogs barking.

Gaspar: Whose dogs?

Skakel: One of them was Ix's dogs, Socks. [Zock]

Gaspar: Any other dogs?

Skakel: I think it was ________(inaudible)________.

Gaspar: Dogs are barking. You look outside. What do you see? Why were they barking?

Skakel: Near the pool. Behind the pool.

Gaspar: Yes.

Skakel: I went to the window. I didn't see anybody. The dogs were barking.

Gaspar: What was near the pool or behind the pool?

Skakel: Somebody must've been walking.

Gaspar: How do you know that?

Skakel: Whenever somebody came through any of the doors, the dogs would bark like crazy, especially the Ix's dog.

Gaspar: Can you see them? Anybody whose walking?

Skakel: No.

Gaspar: Do you think there was more than one person walking? Or, was there one person walking?

Skakel: Somebody was walking.

Gaspar: What happened next, after the dogs were barking and they were walking behind the pool?

 
4


Skakel: Somebody laughing.

Gaspar: Male or female?

Skakel: Female.

Gaspar: Do you recognize the laugh?

Skake: Yes.

Gaspar: Whose laugh was it?

Skakel: Helen or Martha.

Gaspar: Was she alone when she was laughing? Did you hear anybody else with her?

Skakel: (no response)


Why didn't Steven [Stephen] answer that last question? Something left him at a loss for words. Could it be that he was hearing, once again after all these years, the voice of his big brother? John Gaspar returned to this detail later on in the interview on page 13.

Gaspar: I'm going to bring you forward in time again to when you heard the dogs barking in the back and you heard the laughing. And if you would, please, tell me where was that laughing coming from?

Skakel: Behind the pool.


Perhaps, because of this and/or other details, Tommy is afraid that he will be placed outside with Martha right before her murder. Hence, the damage control. His "okay, but" is designed to safeguard his innocence should that information surface. Okay, I was outside with Martha, yeah we fooled around, but I was back inside before 10:00 pm. But, I couldn't have killed her.

This is a fairly Machiavellian mind at work. Is Tommy really capable of such plotting?

First of all, he has been lying for nearly eighteen years. A girl is dead and Tommy fails to mention that, on the night of her murder, he had sexual relations with her almost immediately before she was killed. Not only does he fail to mention that little detail, he actively misrepresents the truth by maintaining, time and time again, that the last time he saw her was at the side of the house at 9:30.

I don't think we even need to delve into the psychological reports and personal testimony which depict Tommy as a habitual liar capable of elaborate deception.

In all fairness, however, we must try and put ourselves in his position. Let's assume, once

 
5


again, that his account of events is entirely honest. Perhaps, Tommy will say: Hey, I was sixteen. I was scared. The police started to ask me questions. I was afraid that they would think I'd done this. I was also feeling guilty. Maybe, I feared, Martha was being punished because of me. I should have walked her home, and I didn't. She was Michael's girl...the whole thing was wrong. I knew it was wrong, I know it was wrong, but I was afraid to tell the truth. I was afraid to tell my father, to tell Martha's mother.

As explanation, such an excuse is entirely plausible and understandable. However, we must then examine whether or not Tommy's subsequent behavior is consistent with such an explanation. Subsequent to the murder of Martha Moxley, did his behavior and demeanor reflect that of a scared young man whose desire to cooperate with authorities was superseded by a paralyzing guilt?

Remember, Tommy was questioned again and again about the details of that night. The first few omissions can be written off as knee-jerk insecurity from a frightened teenager. However, as the weeks, months, and then years go by, his continued deception--even, presumably, under lie-detecting tests--can no longer be viewed, by any standard, as the misjudgment of an innocent. Tommy is said to have passed two lie detector tests, and rendered another inconclusive. This means, I suspect, that on at least two occasions Tommy was able to fool the polygraph.Does this answer our question about his capacity for willful deceit? What else has he omitted, concealed, or fabricated under the polygraph and in regular questioning with the police, analysts, and our investigators?

Answering that last question is the main objective of the upcoming interview with Tommy. Hence, I suggest, at the appropriate moment during questioning, that an interrogator hand Tommy the "frightened teenager" defense, earn his confidence, take his side, and set up that entirely plausible and understandable rationale for his eighteen years of deception. When Tommy buys in and makes that defense his own (as I highly suspect he will), the interrogator has established some important leverage. Turning in on that leverage, the interrogator can now throw Tommy on the defensive by painting another picture. Sure, Tommy "you were scared, you felt intimidated" and you even felt a little guilty, even though you didn't do anything...but you obviously weren't scared of lying under a polygraph. Right? Three times. That take a lot of balls, wouldn't you say? You were intimidated? Well, despite your intimidation, Tommy, you looked the police and their trained polygraph technicians in the eyes and lied to them...again and again, over and over. Help me understand this, Tommy? Why don't you tells us what else you've left out? I think it's about time, don't you?

Now, let us consider another possibility. Before, I asked us to assume that Michael did go to the Terrien's [Terriens']. Perhaps, however, Michael never left the Skakel residence.

Is this possible? We have testimony (from John and Andrea Shakespeare) which plainly suggests this is exactly what happened. If Michael was still in or around the Skakel residence after 9:30 pm, this is one explanation as to why Tommy and Martha went outside for their sexual encounter. According to a number of sources, Michael and Martha had previously been involved in a relationship. We know, as well, that there was an explosive rivalry between Tommy and
6


Michael. When Tommy came over to the car where Michael and Martha were listening to music with Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne and Helen Ix, and started chatting Martha up, there can be no doubt Michael was upset. Imagine, then, how he felt when Martha and Tommy started rolling around at the side of the house--in front of everyone. Tommy must have realized such behavior would upset Michael. Perhaps this was part of his motivation?

This is a point upon which he must be questioned. It is important to get Tommy talking about his motivations and state of mind during these events. If he is only being questioned on abstract, matter-of-fact details, it will be too easy to distance himself emotionally and intellectually from the truth. He should be thoroughly questioned about his feelings for Martha at the time and his motivation for wanting to be with her sexually. Was he motivated by a desire to infuriate his brother? Was he motivated by a conviction or suspicion that Martha was easy? Was he just looking for momentary gratification? Did he have a genuine affection for her?

Remember, Tommy has never spoken truthfully about his feelings and attitudes toward Martha, or exactly what sort of understanding or communication there was between them before she was murdered. This is a glaring omission--one which is highly suspect.

For example, Tommy has always maintained he could not remember, at all, what he and Martha spoke about while standing at the side of the house. From Dr. Lesse's report of 5/11/76:

The patient was questioned as to his conversation with Martha Moxley. "I spoke to Martha for 5 minutes. Maybe it was two minutes, maybe more." He was asked "What did you speak about?" "I can't remember what we talked about. I remember when we broke up, she asked whether I wanted to meet later and go out hacking. I told her I couldn't because I didn't have time and I had homework to do."

It is interesting to note that the one detail of his conversation with Martha Moxley which Tommy could recall is a blatant lie. There was no homework assignment, and Tommy wasn't sending Martha away at that point, anyway--he was, according to his new story, going out back to fool around with her.

If there is still any doubt that Tommy is lying to Dr. Lesse about not being able to recall his conversation with Martha, then the juxtaposition of the very next paragraph in the report will boldly illustrate the sheer ridiculousness of this claim:

"After I gave Andrea the keys, I went up to my room. I spent about 5 minutes with the group before going to my room. I studied English, reading something about log cabins. We were studying the Puritans. I studied for about 5 minutes. Then I needed a book that was in the guest room. It was a book on Lincoln. I was on the third floor and that was downstairs. I was in the guest room for about 5 or 10 minutes and I brought the book back to my room. After another 5 or 10 minutes I went down to Dad's room to watch television with Ken and then I went back up to sleep."

Tommy is telling Dr. Lesse that he has, basically, no recollection of what was said between

 
7


himself and an attractive fifteen year old girl, but can recite in specifically contrived detail, right down to the log cabins, exactly what he was doing after she left--carefully accounting for all his time in 5 minute blocks. Is that slightly curious? Not to even mention, of course, that every bit of Tommy's elaborate recollection is a 100% calculated lie.

At this point, I think it should be suggested that if Tommy is making such a heavy-handed attempt at accounting for his actions at this point, he likely knows that this time-frame is when something unsavory occurred--something more unsavory than a little teenage roll in the grass. In short, I ask you to consider that, perhaps, Tommy is giving us the exact time of death for Martha Moxley.

But back to the issue at hand: Tommy's interview with Dr. Lesse. Unfortunately, it gets better.

Tommy is also purposefully deceitful about his general feelings and attitudes towards Martha: "I never knew her. She was a good friend of Michael's. I met her two or three times before that."

He was asked, "Was she a sexy girl?" "She did not appear to be a very sexy girl to me."

"Was she pretty?" "She was kind of pretty. She was quiet in her own way."


Tommy is clearly trying to downplay any possibility he was attracted to Martha or had a sexual encounter with her. Obviously, this point alone does not make him a murderer. For as much as we know, he was still merely trying to conceal his sexual encounter with her out of some irrational guilt or fear. Maybe that was the only reason he constructed his elaborate lie about studying?

For those of us prepared to give Tommy this benefit of the doubt, a case can be made. In his upcoming interview, Tommy may try and adopt that defensive stance. Look, I just didn't want people to know that we fooled around...that was it...really.

However, before anyone can accept that rationale, let's examine the full depth of Tommy's deception on this issue. From Dr. Lesse again:

"What sort of questions were you asked at the police station?" "They questioned me about a lot of things. They questioned me about whether I had any sexual feelings or sexual desires or any sexual activity with Martha or whether I approached her sexually. I didn't like that because that's not like me and my family. They questioned me in pretty hard terms, terms we don't commonly use. They questioned me many times with regard to the details of what had taken place and what I had done.

(Off the beaten path: Is it me or do some of these quotes seem a little too studied and prim to have been said verbatim by Tommy? Did Lesse tape these interviews, and if so, can we have the tapes? In short, I'm just not buying it all--but more on that later.)

 
8


So we know, then, that Tommy lied to the police as well. He lied to them over and over. Not only did he lie to them, but he was laying it on thick. With Lesse, Tommy even went as far as claiming he never had sexual relations with girls or masturbated. Even more remarkable is the fact that Lesse seems to have bought it--all of it. He states, from his report:

I was particularly observant with regard to his reactions to my questions and to his overall demeanor during the repeated questioning. The patient responded promptly to all questions. He did not appear to take questions lightly on the one hand, nor did he appear to be extremely apprehensive on the other hand. He was questioned intensively as to who he felt might have committed the crime. He had no specific comments with regard to specific individuals. The patient did mention that there had been some kind of prowler in the area some time prior to October 30th.

There is no need to speculate. Dr. Lesse was fooled. Period. Does this indicate incompetence? Not necessarily. It certainly indicaates that Tommy's capacity for willful deceit is formidable. After all, Dr. Lesse isn't the only professional who he successfully snowed. However, I also suspect Dr. Lesse's examination may have been tainted by a sympathetic disposition towards the patient which precluded his ability to notice obvious inconsistencies--such as the Martha conversation v.s. Tommy [Tommy's] studying recall. The most glaring example of Dr. Lesse's inadequacy as an examiner, however, is evident in the sodium amytal interview section of his report:

[Tommy] was queried on a point by point basis as to the events that had taken place on the night of October 30th and on October 31st. He was repeatedly questioned with regard [^] his attitudes and emotions prior to, during and since October 30th. The patient's responses did not deviate from that which he [sic] had been obtained by direct questioning when he was fully awake as they pertained to the Martha Moxley murder.

The patient was questioned intensively with regard to any referential trends towards his peers or towards Martha Moxley. He was questioned intensively with regard to strong sexual desires towards girls or to Martha Moxley. I could not elicit any evidence of strong feelings towards the murdered girl. Indeed, this young man appears to be psychosexually very immature. I believe this interview is very valid. The patient was so anxious in relationship to the needle that the level of anxiety that was present would have tended to block or prevent a deliberate falsification of the response.

Again, Lesse is wrong. Period. We know that now. What is extremely negligent about this section, however, are its unsupported conclusions. Lesse does not include any quotes from Tommy's testimony under sodium amytal, nor does he explain what exactly Tommy's "attitudes and emotions" were. Moreover, he seems just about willing to overlook even the obvious when it comes to evaluating Tommy's behavior. For example:

The test was performed in the patient's room. As the needle was inserted, he became extremely apprehensive once again, began to whimper and at times cried openly. "Please take it out, please take it out!" he held his body rigid and had to be reassured that nothing would go amiss.

 
9


Dr. Lesse does not even pay lip service to the possibility that Tommy's strong reaction to the test was not simply a fear of needles, but a fear of being exposed as a liar. This is very suspect.

And so, an important objective for the upcoming interview must be to force Tommy to admit exactly what was discussed between him and Martha, exactly how he felt towards her, exactly what was going through his mind through every step of their interaction, and exactly what she was saying and doing throughout every step of their interaction. Again, if he is only being questioned on abstract, matter-of-fact details, then it will be too easy to distance himself emotionally and intellectually from the truth. You must not take "I don't remember" for an answer.

When he is called upon to paint a full color, multi-dimensional, and emotional portrait of exactly what happened, it will be that much harder for him to fabricate lies. This line of questioning will lead to a more vivid explanation of that night's events, and probably expose other deceptions or omissions.

Another means by which to prod Tommy into revealing more to us is to use the Academy Group report for leveraged questioning--an idea which belongs to Jim Murphy. Using the report's perpetrator profile and its specific details about the manner in which the initial assault and subsequent bludgeoning occurred, Tommy can be questioned in such a manner that, if he is truly guilty, he will be thrown fiercely on the defensive. Re-reading the report immediately before the interview should prove helpful.

According to Tommy, soon after he returned from his sexual encounter with Martha Moxley, he went into his father's bedroom and watched The French Connection with Ken Littleton. There exists, however, a curious discrepancy between the time Tommy says he joined Ken and the time Ken recalls Tommy entering the room. Littleton actually places Tommy in the room twenty minutes before the famous chase scene, while Tommy says he arrived only ten minutes before. On the surface, it seems as though Ken is giving Tommy more of an alibi than Tommy gives himself, since the period in question (roughly 10:03 pm to 10:17 pm) is when many people believe that Martha was being murdered. Then again, perhaps the discrepancy is meaningless. Still, I believe Tommy should be carefully questioned about the time he spent with Ken.

A very troubling point of conflict is when, exactly Julie and Tommy were first made are that Martha Moxley was missing. From her testimony thus far, Julie maintains that she first heard from Mrs. Moxley at some time around 1:15 or 1:30 am--after which, she woke Tommy to ask if he knew anything, and then reported to Mrs. Moxley that he did not. Julie says that Tommy was asleep when she came into his room. From her interview on 7/26/94:

"I went upstairs and asked Tommy where she was, when the last time he'd seen her. He said the back door, and then he had to study for a test. He was tired. So, I went back downstairs and told Mrs. Moxley the same thing."

We have already conceded the unlikely possibility that Tommy had a innocuous motive for

 
10


lying to Dr. Lesse and the police: he was embarrassed, ashamed, frightened didn't want his father to know, didn't want her mother to know--etc. But this motive would kick in only after Tommy knew Martha had been murdered. Only after finding out that something profoundly unsavory had befallen her directly after their sexual encounter would Tommy be able to feel a reactionary, irrational associate guilt and actively want to conceal their mutual masturbation incident out of innocent fear.

If Tommy knew nothing about Martha's murder why, when Julie came into his room at 1:30 am, would he lie to her about hanging out with Martha? Was it really that big a deal? Why did he begin his pattern of deception at that point? This is assuming that when Tommy told Julie "the back door" he meant the side of the house at 9:30--which is what we would soon tell the investigators. However, there is a chance Tommy meant "the back door" as literally in the back of the house. If he didn't mention a time to Julie, than [WW] he wasn't exactly lying, only neglecting to be entirely honest. Which, perhaps, is understandable. There are serious reasons Tommy wouldn't necessarily want to announce to his big sister he had been rolling around with fifteen year-old Martha Moxley. Yes, but why did he mention the test to her? The test is nothing but a complete and calculated fiction. If we can't be certain that Tommy is lying about where he last saw Martha, we at least definitely know he is lying to Julie about why.

Before we leave this point, there is evidence which suggests that Tommy was lying to Julie about where and when he last saw Martha. From her interview under [^] with John Gaspar on 3/5/93:

Gaspar: What is Mrs. Moxley's first name?

Julie: I don't know. She was asking where Martha is, please go ask Tommy if he knows where she is. So, I went up to the third floor, woke Tommy up and he said the last time I saw her was at the back door when they said goodnight--which is a whole scenario I left out actually.

Gaspar: Well, you told me a bunch of people were by the side of the door.

Julie: But this was after dinner while I was sitting in the car waiting for Andrea to go back up to the house to get the keys. I could hear Tommy and Martha at the back door, saying good-night and Tommy saying, "I've got to go."

Gaspar: And where did Tommy go?

Julie: I could see him, because of where my car was parked, close the back door, walk through the kitchen...

Gaspar: You could actually see someone walking in the kitchen, from window to window...

Julie: Yeah. By the time Andrea got to the front door, which was locked, or she couldn't get it open, Tommy met Andrea at the front door and got the keys, they chit-chatted, I'm, guessing maybe a minute.

 
11


Gaspar: Where did Martha go?

Skakel: I saw her leave the back door and walk around to our here. I assume she went out here. That was the direction she was going.

I think it is fairly plain to see that Julie was under the impression that when Tommy tells [^] last saw Martha by "the back door" he means by the side door of the house at 9:30. When Julie went into his room at 1:30 am, Tommy was, for some reason, purposefully deceitful.

Now, let's assume, for a moment, that even though Tommy was purposefully deceitful, he still didn't know anything about Martha's murder. In the upcoming interview, Tommy may take the following defensive stance: Look, it was only 1:30 in the morning. That's not really late. I wasn't worried. Lot's [lots] of parties were going on ...Martha even told me that she might sneak out of her house. I wasn't trying to lie to Julie, I just was too tired to explain everything that had happened. That's all. I was sure it was all no big deal.

Again, this is a reasonable explanation--on the surface. When we delve deeper, however, Tommy still has some explaining to do.

For instance, what about the next call from Mrs. Moxley, which according to Julie, came at around 4:00 am. Julie repeated the routine, and Tommy stuck to his story. There is some evidence suggesting that Tommy actually, at one point, got on the phone with Mrs. Moxley himself.

Indisputably, there is a serious difference between a fifteen year-old Martha being out at 1:30 am and, now, 4:00 am. Tommy can contend that he was not concerned at 1:30, but how can he stick to a stance of nonchalance at 4:00 am? Wouldn't Tommy, by now, show a little decency and concern? At this point, what harm would be done by at least admitting the last time he saw Martha and how she ran across the lawn to her own house. Why didn't Tommy join his sister Julie in the search for Martha?

Perhaps, Tommy knew there was no point in searching for Martha. Maybe, he already knew what they would find.

The simple question: Why was Tommy lying to Julie at 1:30 am unless he already knew there was a reason to cover up his true actions?

On this point, if Tommy is again questioned in the aforementioned supportive/confrontational manner, I believe he will be forced to reveal more.

There is evidence, however, to suggest that Julie (and, thus, possibly Tommy) were aware that Martha was missing significantly earlier than 1:30 am. According to Andrea Shakespeare Renna,

 
12


interviewed on 8/26/92, she received a call from Julie Skakel at approximately 12:00 am. She says Julie asked her: "Do you know where Martha Moxley is? She never made it home."

Now, obviously, Andrea could be confused about the time. Yet, Julie never mentions calling Andrea at all. I don't think Andrea could be completely making this up. Why has Julie omitted reference to this occurrence? I also don't think it is likely Andrea would be off by an entire hour and a half in terms of placing the call. This is all very curious.

One direction this detail leads us in is that Julie is willfully covering for Tommy. That, I understand, is a big leap to make. On the most basic level, however, we need to know, if the call really happened, how Julie would have known that Martha was missing at 12:00 am. Also, if she [^] making such a call, who was in the house at the time? Was Tommy in bed? Where was Michael? Was Rush back home?

Obviously, we're not going to be interviewing Julie this Monday. However, this issue should be raised with Tommy, and implications should be made. See how he reacts to the possibilities. Ask speculative questions. Didnt you feel like calling Martha at home the next day to see if she was okay, or if she'd been grounded for violating her curfew? Wouldn't you say it is odd that you didn't try and reach her?

Also, why did Tommy lie to his sister and Mrs. Moxley when he would know that, eventually, Martha would tell the truth. If she wouldn't tell her mother, she would, at the very least, tell her girlfriends. In other words, if Tommy didn't know that Martha had been murdered it was stupid and futile of him to lie about staying with her that night, because it would soon come out.

This is a crucial point that must be raised with him at the appropriate time. This all but proves that Tommy must have known Martha was dead when he spoke to Julie at 1:30 am. And I don't have to tell you that if Tommy knew Martha was dead at that point, it was because he was involved in her murder.

 
13


PRESSING QUESTIONS:

1. Moxley maid claims, in Folio 116, that John did not sleep in his bed that night. However, according to Folio 118, John told investigators he was in bed until 3:30 am. After looking for Martha at his mother's insistence, he slept on the sofa in the TV room. Claims he conducted a motor search from about 3:30 until 6:00 am. Two and a half hours? Driving around looking for his sister? Report states: "Got up at 9 am and his friend John Hawky came over and they went to the wooded area in the rear of house to check on a pile of brush behind an 8' foot wall." What the fuck is up with that? Gets better. According to the maid, she heard a loud crash in the basement at 9:00 am, and [^] one of the tables down their [WW] she saw what appeared to be blood.

Response: The maid may have said that John didn't sleep in his bed merely based on the fact he was sleeping on the couch when she arrived for work.

2. Would Tommy and Michael try to have sex with Martha together?

3. Folio 195 acknowledges tapes of interviews with Tommy, Steven [Stephen], Michael, John, David, Julie, Andrea Shakespeare, Jimmy Terrien, and Helen Ix, from 11/15/75. We need these tapes. If they still exist, they must be acquired by any means necessary.

4. Frank Wittine told the cops he left his room--for the first time--when he got up to walk the dog at 6:15. The dog was at the vet. What's up with that? Moreover, Frank supposedly told Mrs. Moxley that he had already checked the camper when she called asking him to do so at 10:15 that morning. Why?

5. Why doesn't John Skakel remember Michael being at the Terriens, or in the car on the way and back at all? What's up with that?

6. Jim Terrien's story about meeting the married woman in a shack seems like a transparent alibi trick. He won't give up her name unless before a grand jury. Right. Well, she doesn't exist.

7. Can Nanny Sweeney confirm that she asked Ken to go outside around nine thirty, or at any point that night?

In another interview under hypnosis, on 5/4/93, John was asked where Michael was, while he and Rush were at the Terriens. "Anyone who didn't come with us is back at Belle Haven," he replied.

 
14


[MISSING TEXT]W QUICK REFERENCE SHEET

[MISSING TEXT]mean to suggest these actual questions be asked verbatim, or even in this sequence. They are merely posed to

[MISSING TEXT]rate the separate points of weakness or conflict in Tommy's previous testimony and behavior which were discussed

[MISSING TEXT]greater length in the accompanying document.)

1. Why did you and Martha brave temperatures of forty degrees and have their [WW] encounter on the grass when access to either a comfortable bedroom, or the van, was a few mere steps away? You told Krebs you met Martha back inside after Andrea left. So was Martha, at this point, willing to fool around with you? If she was, then why did you go outside? If she wasn't, when did she suddenly become willing?

2. You must have been pretty drunk. From your testimony, it looks like you had about seven drinks in the space of two hours. Were you really able to go through the motions of seduction, foreplay, and reached orgasm, all in the space of twenty minutes?

3. We can see that you fooled the polygraph at least twice. We can also see that you fooled the sodium amytal test. That takes some effort. Wouldn't you say that sounds like someone with a pretty high capacity for willful deceit?

4. When you went over to the car where Michael and Martha were listening to music with Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne and Helen Ix, and started chatting Martha up, I imagine Michael was probably upset. When you and Martha started rolling around at the side of the house--in front of everyone--he must have really been steamed. Was this part of your motivation for getting with Martha? What exactly was your motivation? How did Martha respond to you? You must remember at least some of what she said to you at the side of the door and after. Do you remember saying this:

From Dr. Lesse's report: "I spoke to Martha for 5 minutes. Maybe it was two minutes, maybe more."-- "I can't remember what we talked about. I remember when we broke up, she asked whether I wanted to meet later and go out hacking. I told her I couldn't because I didn't have time and I had homework to do."

We know this is untrue. Why did you lie about this? And if you couldn't remember what you and Martha talked about, how come you could so vividly remember this:

"After I gave Andrea the keys, I went up to my room. I spent about 5 minutes with the group before going to my room. I studied English, reading something about log cabins. We were studying the Puritans. I studied for about 5 minutes. Then I needed a book that was in the guest room. It was a book on Lincoln. I was on the third floor and that was downstairs. I was in the guest room for about 5 or 10 minutes and I brought the book back to my room. After another 5 or 10 minutes I went down to Dad's room to watch television with Ken and then I went back to to sleep."

Could you remember it because it never happened? [sic] Because it is also a lie?

5. We know that you lied to the police. " They questioned me about whether I had any sexual feelings or sexual desires or any sexual activity with Martha or whether I approached her sexually. I didn't like that because that's not like me and my family. They questioned me in pretty hard terms, terms we don't commonly use. They questioned me many times with regard to the details of what had taken place and what I had done." And you didn't tell them the truth. Why? It must have taken a lot of guts to keep lying to the police like that?

6. Why did you lie to Julie at 1:30 am? She says you told her that the last time you saw Martha was at 9:30 by the side of the house. If you knew nothing about Martha's murder then why did you begin your pattern of deception at that point? I mean, if you were working under the assumption that Martha was alive and well, why would you tell a blatant lie that Martha would inevitably contradict when she finally got home? What was the big deal Tommy?

 
15




TOP OF PAGE


 
TOMMY SKAKEL


No one contests that Tommy Skakel is the last person known to have seen Martha Moxley alive. Partly as a result of this ominous distinction, the second son of Rushton Skakel remains, to this day, a leading suspect, if not the leading suspect, in the investigation of her murder. Those who have labored to establish his innocence have faced as much difficulty as those who have struggled to prove his guilt. As such, Tommy has remained, for better or worse, in a culpable limbo for nearly twenty years.

Such speculation has left quite a paper trail. Tommy has been interviewed and examined by doctors, detectives, police officers, and mental health experts, on repeated occasions, regarding the night of October 30, 1975. Sutton Associates has amassed a collection, as comprehensive as possible, of the materials generated by Tommy's suspected involvement in the incident. A few omissions were insurmountable: certain files, physical evidence, and recorded interviews, for example, remain in the possession of the Greenwich Police Department, and will likely never be made available.

In addition to collecting and analyzing the findings of other professionals, Sutton Associates has conducted its own extensive investigation into the murder. Tommy Skakel has been among the numerous witnesses and suspects interviewed for this investigation. Sticking largely to the same story he has, to the best of our knowledge, been telling from the outset, Tommy maintains his innocence and professes to have no first-hand knowledge of how Martha Moxley was murdered. The few changes he has made to his story, however, are extremely revelatory. These changes were solicited solely during interviews with Sutton Associates. In conjunction with other circumstantial evidence, they have contributed substantial credence to the possibility of Tommy's guilt and, at the very least, suggest he has willfully deceived authorities, with considerable success, for many years. We will illustrate and explore the significance of these discrepancies.

While this revelatory information brings us a little farther from establishing Tommy's innocence, it does not bring us much closer to proving his guilt. As circumstances now stand, the only means of answering this issue, once and for all, lie with Tommy, himself. To obtain a better understanding of the issue, then, we must come to a better understanding of Tommy Skakel--and, specifically, how he has endured under the scrutiny of a high-profile, multi-faceted murder investigation.

The Academy Group's profile of the probable offender shares many obvious characteristics with Tommy Skakel (as well as with other leading suspects). Most notably, 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:

 
1


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, however, also site certain characteristics for the probable offender which are not consistent with Tommy Skakel. Most notably: 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 Tommy's behavior at the time in question.

One of the best sources of information regarding the behavior and background of Tommy Skakel is the extensive report of Dr. Stanley Lesse, dated May 11, 1976. Not only did Dr. Lesse conduct numerous tests and interviews with Tommy, he produced a thorough review of Tommy's prior medical and psychological records. Dr. Lesse made a reasonable effort at evaluating all the extenuating circumstances of Tommy' s childhood, including the death of his mother and the difficulty of living with a father disabled by alcoholism. Operating with the full cooperation of the Skakel family, he was privy to more facets of Tommy's childhood than any other single evaluator.

It should be noted that Dr. Lesse was retained by Rushton Skakel for the express purpose of determining the validity of assertions made by a psychiatrist from the Yale University school of Medicine, Dr. M. Hale, who had been contracted as a consultant for the Greenwich Police Department. Dr. Hale, who was given access to Tommy's school and medical records by the police, suggested Tommy might be afflicted with an organic neurological problem that could have resulted in a violent outburst that could have resulted in the brutal murder of Martha Moxley. Dr. Lesse further explains: Dr. Hale stressed a report by Dr. Walter Camp, a neurologist in Connecticut who had examined Tommy when he was age 8. The report indicated that at age 4, Tommy was in an automobile driven by a neighbor when the door of the car opened and Tommy was projected out of the car. He struck his head and was allegedly unconscious for 10 hours. He was hospitalized for two weeks in the Greenwich

 
2


Hospital. Allegedly a linear left parietal fracture of the skull was noted on x-ray.

Dr. Hale focused on Dr. Walter Camp's evaluation of changes in Tommy's personality subsequent to the accident. He felt these changes suggested a neurological dysfunction, the nature of which could induce uncontrollable seizures of rage accompanied, potentially, by lapses in consciousness. As Dr. Lesse notes: These reports [from Dr. Camp] then went on to state that there were immediate changes in Tommy's personality, in that became introspective and did not appear to be as happy as be had been prior to the accident. Allegedly he was subject to temper tantrums. He was said to be impulsive and given to precipitous outbursts of anger. "He would rant and rave, be extremely noisy, and on one occasion, put his fist through a door." On another occasion, be was said to have pulled a telephone out of the wall.

While Dr. Camp had been given direct access to young Tommy Skakel, Dr. Hale reached his hypothesis without examining the subject. Through the efforts of Rushton Skakel and his advisors, then, Dr. Lesse was given an opportunity to conduct the definitive evaluation of Tommy Skakel, and conclude, for all intensive purposes, whether or not Dr. Hale's theory was a sound one. Rushton Skakel's personal attorney, Tom Sheriden from a memo dated January 9, 1979, states: "I have the distinct impression at this writing that Dr. Hale was being used by the Greenwich police to scare Mr. Skakel and entrap him into admissions which might implicate one or more of his sons. In any event, Mr. Skakel didn't fall for that trap and did follow a very reasonable approach of consultation with Dr. Lesse."

By all means, Dr. Lesse's report deserves to be read in its entirety. The summation and analysis of that report contained herein is not intended as an alternative to reading the source material, and, in fact, is useful primarily to those who have already familiarized themselves, first hand, with Dr. Lesse's evaluations and conclusions.

Dr. Lesse reports that Tommy was a problematic and often unruly child affected by the death of his mother and the frequent absence of his father. Tommy functioned poorly in school, and lacked motivation for his scholastic endeavors: On the other hand, he distinguished himself as an athlete and was considered to be "popular" among both his male and female peers. Some degree of Tommy's disinterest in academic achievement is attributed, by Dr. Lesse, to a general lack of emphasis placed on scholastic endeavors in the Skakel family.

For the purpose of establishing whether or not Tommy may have experienced some organic neurological injury, Dr. Lesse questioned Tommy about any possible lapses in consciousness: On further questioning, as noted above, I could not elicit any specific evidences of aura, feelings of detachment, lapses of memory, aberrant behavior, episodes where he would have lapses of contact and become aware of himself in other areas. There was a denial of any recent memory loss, or that he had difficulty with recollection or situations that occurred in the past.

 
3


Much of the information Dr. Lesse collected and reported with regards to Tommy's behavior and other family problems was reported to him by Rush Jr., during an extended interview: Rush recalls hearing from the neighbors that "Mom had no control over Tom. If he got mad there was nothing she could do about it." Evidently the patient would be very responsive to a man who was large in size. For example, they would often threaten to call Mr. Phelps, a neighbor of large size who would come in and make Tom behave. "At times I think Tom brought Mother to tears." Rush stated that if the parents were away, "things could get out of hand." On those occasions they also threatened Tom with the idea that they would call Mr. Phelps in.

When he would get out of hand when his father was home, "Father would wallop him." Everyone missed the parents when they went away. "You could depend on Tom acting up when the folks were away."


Rush Jr. goes on to discuss his father's frequent struggles with alcohol, and the general presence of alcoholism in the family. "Father began to drink much more intensively after Mother's death. This appears to have become progressively worse. He was in High Watch Sanitarium for two weeks in February 1976 after an intensive drinking bout." In terms of Tommy, Rush describes his brother doing "a fair amount of drinking," Unlike his father, however, Rush reports that Tommy would be more easygoing while under the influence of alcohol.

He also characterized Tommy as being generally impatient and impulsive, but, at the time, beginning to mellow somewhat. For whatever reason, it seems that Tommy and his brother Michael were exceptionally difficult children who suffered from remarkably similar behavior disorders. Both were sent to see Dr. Ellen Blumingdale, a psychologist, for a period of time in 1971. Dr. Lesse reports: This evaluation was prompted by the temper outbursts that both Tommy and Michael had displayed and their constant battles with each other. At the time, Tommy was 12 and Michael was 10 years old.

Dr. Lesse devotes one section of his report to Tommy's ontological development: He has no recollection of having had any headaches or behavior patterns that were unusual following this hospitalization. There was no history of bedwetting, thumb sucking, and he denied that he was preoccupied with "bogey men." According to family attorney Tom Sheridan, however, both Tommy and Michael "well into their teens suffered from eneurensis [sic] (bedwetting)."

An important detail from Dr. Lesse's report: [Tommy] had responded spontaneously to the question as to "why are you here?" with the observation that be was a suspect as far as Martha Moxley's murder was concerned and that there was a desire to rule out any possibility of an organic or psychological problem that could have precipitated violent behavior that might have resulted in her death. We know Tommy was fully aware of the significance of his examination with Dr. Lesse.

Using the pseudonym Thomas Butler, Dr. Lesse arranged for Tommy to receive basic

 
4


psychological testing from Patrick de Gramont Ph.D., at Presbyterian Hospital's Division of Psychology, on March 15, 1976. Presumably, Dr. Gramont was unaware as to why Tommy was being tested, as well as unaware of his true identity. Unlike Dr. Lesse, then, Dr. Gramont was operating, we believe, without any preconceived notions or objectives. His report, both as it stands alone and as it compares with the ultimate conclusions of Dr. Lesse, is extremely telling.

Personally, Dr. Gramont reports finding Tommy to be a well-behaved and congenial young man. "Thomas related in a pleasant cooperative manner, and appeared to be at ease during the evaluation. He worked hard at tasks, and appeared to enjoy his success." From analyzing his test results, however, Dr. Gramont arrived at some grave conclusions with regards to Tommy's state of mind, emotional development, and capacity for impulsive and dangerous behavior. He also found some modest evidence to support the "organic neurological problem" theory put forth by Dr. Hale:

On the graphomotor tasks, none of the usual signs of organic impairment were evident. However, highly equivocal organic signs were found in his Rorschach responses, associated with visual organization. Later on, Dr, Lesse would opt to mention the first sentence but ignore the latter in his final report.

Dr. Gramont further reports: The Bender-Gestalt designs were accurately reproduced and recalled. The relatively small scale of his designs suggested constriction, depression, and low self-esteem, with possible impulse control problems associated with a need for structure. The figure drawings were well articulated and detailed. There is a striking contrast between the male figure who looks like a relatively content middle-aged man, and the female figure, which is poorly executed and looks ill at ease and somewhat menacing.

Dr. Gramont documents a pervasive degree of immaturity and impulsiveness evident in Tommy's test findings: The projective material indicates that Thomas has had a good deal of difficulty adjusting to the demands and responsibilities of adolescence, and that his judgement and reality-testing are highly erratic at this time. His outward adultlike manner is, in his words, a "mask," and inwardly, he feels, at times, very much like a passive, helpless child. As such, he experiences a profound sense of inadequacy, and an inability to assert himself sufficiently to survive in a competitive society. While suspicious of the motives or others, he is easily lead, and unable to establish his own needs and goals. The material also suggests that this passive orientation is a defense against the expression of a great deal of underlying resentment and hostility. And that grandiose fantasies and antisocial acting out appear to be the only release available to him, at a time when he feels so very unsuccessful and unaccomplished in his life.

Dr. Gramont goes on to elaborate about how the test results indicate a general feeling of helplessness in Tommy: His low esteem and repressed drive are particularly evident in sexual confusion, as illustrated on the SCT:

 
5

 
Usually he felt sex "made him unhappy."
After he made love to her, 'he got drunk."
My sexual desires "are very low."

 
He appears to have little insight into the extent of his underlying resentment and hostility; nor does be appear to fully recognize the relationship of these feelings to both his unresolved guilt feelings over mother's death three years ago, nor to the resentment that underlies his guilt feelings. Thomas' guilt is clearly conveyed in the following SCT response: I feel guilty about "death", and the following TAT story:
 
a lady, crying, depressed, unhappy. Maybe someone
died in the family. Close relatives, someone she's quite close
to. In some way she feels guilty."


 
That the figure, whose sex on the card is ambiguous, is identified as a woman, would suggest psychosexual confusion, based on an identification with mother, in addition to the conflicted feelings of anger and guilt.

Thomas' anger is apparently readily released in relation to women:

 
When she reused him, he "slapped her."
A man would be justified in beating a woman who "did not do as he said."


The extent of this anger is evident in the frequent Rorschach responses of "Crab" (Cards I, VII, IX, X), a response which has been related to underlying resentment and hostility, as well as to the possibility of an internalized rejecting and punitive mother figure. This possibility is reinforced by the Rorschach response "Beetle" two big eyes with little pinchers [sp] " (Card VI) in an area commonly associated to a vagina; and the response "Crab" (Card VII) to a card commonly related to the mother, as well as by the SCT response: As a child my greatest fear was "mother."

Dr. Gramont has presented a series of objective findings which, especially in light of speculation surrounding Tommy's involvement in the murder of Martha Moxley, are somewhat alarming. While Dr. Gramont by no means suggests Tommy is a raging monster on the verge of violent episodes, the diagnosis is still very telling. At the very least, it presents a great deal of insight into possible emotional and psychological disabilities that could have contributed to destructive behavior, and from which Tommy may still suffer to this day. Such destructive behavior may not even be something for which Tommy, in the eyes of the law, should be held entirely accountable. It seems odd, then how little attention Dr. Lesse paid to Dr. Gramont's findings. The following is the sum of his reporting with regards to Dr. Gramont's testing:

 
6


Psychologic Testing, March 15th, 1976

Tests Administered: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; Bender-Gestalt; Draw-A-Person Test; Rorschach; Thematic Apperception Test; Sentence Completion Test. A copy of the entire testing report is attached.

In summary, the patient is currently functioning in a high average range of intelligence overall with a full scale W.A.I.S. IQ of 113. The graphomotor tasks did not indicate organic interference signs.

The projective material indicated adjustment problems relating to the expression and integration of anger as well as to the establishment of a viable psychosexual identity. There was a low sense of self-esteem and a sense of frustration and deprivation. While he had some phobic and referential responses in the SCT and Rorschach, these were not prominent or significant. The diagnostic impression was that of an adjustment reaction of adolescence with anti-social trends. The anti-social trends on reviewing the entire psychological report were not dominant in the testing.


[Note: While Dr. Lesse wrote, "A copy of the entire testing report is attached, we have yet to ascertain whether or not this was, in fact, the case. It also remains to be seen whether or not such a report would have included Dr. Gramont's analysis, or merely a straight accounting of Tommy's scores and responses.]

After extensively documenting all the many tests and examinations conducted in his evaluation of Tommy, Dr. Lesse concluded his report with the following statements:

1. This patient does not have epilepsy, nor does he evidence any organic brain defects.

2. The patient does not manifest significant referential or paranoid behavior patterns. There is no evidence of any malignant sociopathic trends.

3. I could not document after repeated interviews, including a sodium amytal interview, that Thomas Skakel was responsible for the death of Martha Moxley .

4. I do not find any evidence that Thomas Skakel is a psychosocial risk to his family or to his community.


Before reaching these conclusions, Dr. Lesse interviewed Tommy a number of times about his actions and recollections regarding the night of October 30, 1975. One such interview was conducted while Tommy was under the influence of almost 0.5 gm. of sodium amytal dissolved in 10cc. of water. Since we do not, as of this writing, have access to the interviews Tommy gave to the police immediately following the murder, the account he gave to Dr. Lesse is our best indication of Tommy's original story. While Dr. Lesse did not document details from Tommy's

 
7


story given while under sodium amytal, he states it did not differ in content from the first telling. As has been previously mentioned in this section, Tommy has subsequently made revelatory amendments, alterations, and outright contradictions to this original story during the course of two pivotal interviews with Sutton Associates investigators--one on October 7, 1994, [footnote 1] and one February 6, 1995. In addition, there are significant discrepancies between his stories on these two subsequent dates.

In order to examine the significance of these amendments, alterations, and contradictions, we should first re-familiarize ourselves with the current general information regarding Tommy's actions on the night in question, The following excerpts are taken from the time-line, which incorporates all the pertinent data up to, but not including, Sutton Associates February 6, 1995 interview with Tommy Skakel.

OCTOBER 30, 1975 The following segments provide a general context for information regarding Tommy's activities on the night Martha Moxley's murder.

9:15 p.m.--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/94, [footnote 1] with Sutton Associates, at approximately this time he left the sun porch area and went outside to the side of the house to retrieve a tape cassette from his parents car. Inside the car, Tommy encountered Martha Moxley, his brother Michael, Helen Ix and Jeffrey [Geoffrey] Byrne, who were all listening to music. Soon after, he and Martha would move to the area around the shed, off the driveway, and begin "making out."

9:25 pm to 9:30 pm--Julie, while under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recounts seeing Martha and Tommy together: "Andrea decided she needed to go home, so half way through Ellery Queen, we got up, went out to the car, got in, the car keys weren't in the car so I asked Andrea to go back up to the house and get them. At the same (sic), as my window was down, I could hear Tommy and Martha talking at the back door." (p.8) " I couldn't hear absolutely clearly, but it seemed like whatever the plans were for that evening, Tommy wasn't interested and he was just going to stay home. I could hear the back door close after Tommy said good night to Martha. I could see Martha walking around the back fence and, about the same time that Tommy closed the door, Andrea tried to get in the front door, but she couldn't, so she rang the door bell. I could see Tommy slowly walking through the kitchen and ... I think looking through the glass to see who it was." Julie also recalls that Ken Littleton was there. (p.8-9)

9:30 pm to 9:35 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/94 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, Richard McCarthy and Manny Margolis, he and Martha Moxley commenced a sexual encounter at about 50 feet to the rear of the house, in the middle of the rear lawn, which concluded in mutual masturbation. Tommy estimates that the entire encounter lasted about twenty minutes. He last saw Martha hurrying across the rear lawn towards her home.

9:50 pm to 9:55 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/94, [footnote 1] and as noted above, this is approximately the time he left Martha Moxley and returned to his house after their sexual encounter. He last saw Martha hurrying across the rear lawn towards her home.

 
8


10:03 pm--According to Ken Littleton, when interviewed by Willis Krebs on 9/12/94, Tommy joined him in the master bedroom to watch The French Connection on television at around this time. "He came up," Littleton states, "approximately twenty minutes before the chase scene." The chase scene began at exactly 10:23 pm.

10:17 pm-- According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, this is the approximate time he joined Ken Littleton in the master bedroom to watch The French Connection-- approximately five minutes before the chase scene began at 10:23 pm. After the conclusion of the chase scene, Tommy said he went to the kitchen for food.

10:32 pm--This is when the chase scene from The French Connection would have concluded, and when, according to Ken Littleton, interviewed by Willis Krebs, Tommy left the master bedroom (p. 7)

11:45 pm--From his interview with Stanley Lesse, M.D., between 3/10/76 and 3/19/76, Rush Skakel says this is the approximate time he returned home from the Terrien's[Terriens']. He says that Tommy was in bed when he arrived.

1:15 am to 1:30 am--According to Julie, interviewed on 7/26/94, Mrs. Moxley called around this time to ask about Martha. "I went upstairs and asked Tommy where she was, when the last time he'd seen her. He said the back door, and then he had to study for a test. He was tired. So, I went back downstairs and told Mrs. Moxley the same thing." Julie added that Tommy was asleep, his room was dark, and that he didn't get out of bed.

Dr. Lesse reports an account of the night in question, from his interviews with Tommy, which deviates significantly from what Tommy has recently told investigators and now states to be the truth. Prior to the October 7, 1994 [footnote 1] interview, Tommy maintained that he last saw Martha by the side of the house at 9:30 pm. Dr. Lesse reports:

The patient was questioned as to his conversation with Martha Moxley. "I spoke to Martha for 5 minutes. Maybe it was two minutes, maybe more." He was asked "What did you speak about?" "I can't remember what we talked about. I remember when we broke up, she asked whether I wanted to meet later and go out hacking. I told her I couldn't because I didn't have time and I had homework to do."

The one detail of his conversation with Martha Moxley which Tommy could recall is untruthful. There was no homework assignment that night, despite the following elaborate account Tommy gave to Dr. Lesse:

"After I gave Andrea the keys, I went up to my room. I spent about 5 minutes with the group before going to my room. I studied English, reading something about log cabins. We were studying the Puritans. I studied for about 5 minutes. Then I needed a book that was

 
9


in the guest room. It was a book on Lincoln. I was on the third floor and that was downstairs. I was in the guest room for about 5 or 10 minutes and I brought the book back to my room. After another 5 or 10 minutes I went down to Dad's room to watch television with Ken and then I went back to to sleep."

Tommy tells Dr. Lesse, on one hand, he has no recollection of what was said between himself and Martha Moxley at the side of the house, but on the other hand, recites in specifically contrived detail, right down to the log cabins, exactly what he was doing after she left...carefully accounting for all his time in 5 minute blocks.

Tommy is also purposefully deceitful about his general feelings and attitudes towards Martha:

"I never knew her. She was a good friend of Michael's. I met her two or three times before that."

He was asked, "Was she a sexy girl?" "She did not appear to be a very sexy girl to me.'

"was she pretty?" "She was kind of pretty. She was quiet in her own way.'


Tommy is evidently trying to downplay any possibility he was attracted to Martha or had a sexual encounter with her. Dr. Lesse reports: While [Tommy] states that he is not shy and he got along well with girls, he denied intimate sexual activities and denied having sexual intercourse. He also denied any masturbatory activities.

Tommy also alludes to deceptions he made while being interviewed by the police: "What sort of questions were you asked at the police station?" "They questioned me about a lot of things. They questioned me about whether I had any sexual feelings or sexual desires or any sexual activity with Martha or whether I approached her sexually. I didn't like that because that's not like me and my family. They questioned me in pretty hard terms, terms we don't commonly use. They questioned me many times with regard to the details of what had taken place and what I had done.

In Dr. Lesse's professional opinion, Tommy was being truthful: I was particularly observant with regard to his reactions to my questions and to his overall demeanor during the repeated questioning. The patient responded promptly to all questions. He did not appear to take questions lightly on the one hand, nor did he appear to be extremely apprehensive on the other hand. He was questioned intensively as to who he felt may have committed the crime. He had no specific comments with regard to specific individuals. The patient did mention that there had been some kind of prowler in the area some time prior to October 30th.

Dr. Lesses's examination may have been tainted by a sympathetic disposition towards the patient which inhibited his ability to notice obvious inconsistencies--such as the way Tommy could not recall his conversation with Martha but could fully recall the fictional details of his subsequent

 
10


studying session. However, it is also possible that Tommy, to some degree or another successfully deceived Dr. Lesse.

The patient was questioned intensively with regard to any referential trends towards his peers or towards Martha Moxley. He was questioned intensively with regard to strong sexual desires towards girls or to Martha Moxley. I could not elicit any evidence of strong feelings towards the murdered girl. Indeed, this young man appears to be psychosexually very immature. I believe this interview is very valid. The patient was so anxious in relationship to the needle that the level of anxiety that was present would have tended to block or prevent a deliberate falsification of the response.

Lesse does not include any quotes from Tommy's testimony under sodium amytal, nor does he explain what exactly Tommy's "attitudes and emotions" were. Moreover, he seems inexplicably willing to overlook the obvious when it comes to evaluating Tommy's behavior. The test was performed in the patient's room. As the needle was inserted, he became extremely apprehensive once again, began to whimper and at times cried openly. "Please take it out, please take it out!" he held his body rigid and had to be reassured that nothing would go amiss. Dr. Lesse does not consider the possibility that Tommy's strong reaction to the test was not only fear of needles, but a fear of being exposed as a liar. Since we now know Tommy was, at the time, being untruthful, he had an understandable motive for fearing how the sodium amytal would effect him in this regard.

From the sodium amytal interview section of Dr. Lesses's report: [Tommy] was queried on a point by point basis as to the events that had taken place on the night of October 30th and on October 31st. He was repeatedly questioned with regard [^] his attitudes and emotions prior to, during and since October 30th. The patient's response did not deviate from that which he [sic] had been obtained by direct questioning when he was fully awake as they pertained to the Martha Moxley murder.

With his original story, which we now know to be partly untrue, we suspect Tommy may have passed one polygraph test and rendered another inconclusive. As such, we have good reason to suspect Tommy was able to deceive the polygraphers.

On October 7, 1994 [footnote 1] , Tommy broke down in tears and informed Sutton investigators that he had, in fact, spent at least an additional twenty minutes with Martha Moxley behind his house. From a Sutton Associates memorandum regarding this interview: They began an extended (20 minute) kissing and fondling session which includes mutual fondling (breast, vagina, and penis), and is concluded when both masturbate partner to orgasm. At this point (approximately 9:50 pm), both Martha and Tom rearrange their clothes and Martha says good night. She is last seen by Tom hurrying across the rear lawn towards her home. Tom stated that he did not open Martha's brassiere; however, he did fondle her breasts while his hand was under her outer garments and shirt. He further stated that he opened Martha's pants, slightly pushing them down. He fondled her vagina without pushing her panties

 
11


down. Thomas Skakel stated he soiled his clothing (underwear) when Martha brought him to orgasm, using her hand on his penis. He stated that upon leaving Martha, he re-entered his house, but never changed his clothing or showered.

Also during this interview with Sutton Associates investigators on October 7, 1994 [footnote 1] , Tommy reported that at approximately 9:30, while at the side (kitchen) door, he had a brief conversation with Martha Moxley who was in the driveway, and told her to wait inside the side door for him.

A number of eye witnesses, however, claim they saw Martha walk around the back and not go directly inside. At 9:30, Julie Skakel, for example, claims, "I could see Martha walking around the back fence and about the same time that Tommy closed the door, Andrea tried to get in the front door, but she couldn't, so she rang the door bell. I could see Tommy slowly walking through the kitchen and " I think looking through the glass to see who it was."

By all accounts, after helping them retrieve the car keys, Tommy watched as Andrea and his sister Julie drove off. Tommy maintained, on October 7, 1994 [footnote 1] , that Martha was consenting to a sexual encounter.

During his interview on February 6, 1995, however, Tommy would change this aspect of his story slightly. This time, he would state that Martha waited for him inside the house at her own initiative...without his having made any previous arrangements with her. Tom states that he re-entered the house, looked to his left and saw Martha standing there. When asked why Martha was waiting for him, he stated, "maybe she wanted more of Tommy." He claims, however, to have been surprised to find her standing there.

Another significant alteration in his story between these two Sutton Associates interviews relates to his initial flirting and "fooling around" with Martha at the side of the house, before 9:30. On October 7, 1994 [footnote 1] , he described that portion of their encounter as having some friction, since she forcibly rejected him twice. On February 6, 1995, however, he only recounted asking Martha if she wanted to "make love" at that time, and that she had stated no.

In terms of his alcohol consumption on the night in question, Tom told investigators, on October 7, 1994 [footnote 1] , that he had four or five beers at dinner, and then consumed additional beer at home, prior to being with Martha. This scenario implies that Tommy consumed about six or seven drinks in the space of two to three hours. On February 6, 1995, Tommy placed new emphasis on the quantity of beer he and others consumed, and also added that he had consumed one or two scotches at dinner.

With regards to why he did not go to the Terriens, Tommy cited fatigue as the reason on October 7, 1994 [footnote 1] . On February 6, 1995, however, Tommy insisted he could not recall a reason for staying home. With regards to whether or not, early on the morning of October 31, 1995 [sic], Tommy spoke directly with Mrs. Moxley on the phone, he did not recall doing such on October 7, 1994 [footnote 1] ,

 
12


but did recall doing such on February 6, 1995.

Another troubling point of conflict is when, exactly, Julie and Tommy were first made aware that Martha Moxley was missing. From her testimony thus far, Julie maintains that she first heard from Mrs. Moxley at some time around 1:15 am or 1:30 am--after which, she woke Tommy to ask if he knew anything, and then reported to Mrs. Moxley that he did not. Julie says that Tommy was asleep when she came into his room. From her interview on 7/26/94:

"I went upstairs and asked Tommy where she was, when the last time he had seen her. He said the back door, and then he had to study for a test. He was tired. So, I went back downstairs and told Mrs. Moxley the same thing."

Tommy may have had a relatively innocuous motive for lying to Dr. Lesse and the police in light of what happened to Martha, he may have been embarrassed, ashamed, frightened, didn't want his father to know, didn't want her mother to know...etc. This motive would originate after Tommy knew Martha had been murdered. After finding out that something profoundly unsavory had befallen her after their sexual encounter, Tommy might feel a reactionary, irrational associate guilt, and actively want to conceal their mutual masturbation incident out of innocent fear. When Julie came into his room at 1:30 am, however, Tommy was untruthful about the test and when he had last seen Martha.

When confronted with these inconsistencies and other points of confusion during his February 6, 1995, interview with Sutton Associates, Tommy could offer no clarification. Generally, his responses would be limited to "I don't know," or else he would not reply at all. Many divergent and damning conclusions can be drawn when speculating about the significance of these points, but any conclusions, good or bad, will remain only speculation without further cooperation and clarification from Tommy Skakel.

 
13




TOP OF PAGE


 
KEN LITTLETON
 
On October 30, 1975, a twenty-three year-old teacher and coach from the exclusive Brunswick School in Greenwich, Connecticut, spent his first night in residence as a tutor for the Skakel family children. It was a job, and a night, which dramatically changed the course of Ken Littleton's life for the worse. Young, athletic, handsome, and a recent graduate from Williams, it seemed his future was full of nothing but promise. In the wake of Martha Moxley's murder, however, Ken Littleton fell victim to heavy substance abuse and extreme psychiatric problems. He was arrested in the summer of 1976, on Nantucket, for grand larceny, breaking and entering, and burglary. His criminal record would grow from that point to include shoplifting, assault and battery, and numerous DWI convictions. Within five years, he was working on a loading dock.

While there is no doubt Littleton was profoundly affected by Martha Moxley's murder and its subsequent investigation, to what end his problems can be attributed to this event is uncertain. He is a haunted man, but why? Is he somehow responsible? Is he involved in some complicity, some conspiracy?

Ken Littleton is a wild card--literally and figuratively. If he is entirely innocent of any involvement in the murder of Martha Moxley, he has certainly gone to great lengths to make it seem otherwise.

A couple of years ago, the tabloid television program, A Current Affair, ambushed Littleton in Canada for an expose-style interview. Anxious, stuttering, and shaking uncontrollably, Ken initially tried to flee the encounter, but then awkwardly relented. He made a few comments and answered some questions while remaining just barely within the realm of coherence. He is a man who suffers from severe depression and alcoholism, and his demeanor is inherently disabled. In this regard, he is his own worst accuser.

Littleton's crime spree on Nantucket, which he attributed to his drinking problem, brought him swiftly to the forefront of speculation in the investigation of Martha Moxley's murder. The Greenwich Police Department's efforts to attach the crime to Tommy Skakel had proven futile. Their focus now shifted. Defenders of Littleton insist the continued harassment of the Greenwich Police--who frequently questioned Littleton while he was working--lead to his dismissal from teaching jobs.

Littleton probably did lose teaching jobs because of his status as a suspect and the Greenwich Police's continued efforts to build a case against him, but he has only himself to blame for their interest. His foolish crimes on Nantucket were a red flag to investigators. Furthermore, to this day, he has left many questions unanswered about his actions and whereabouts on the night of October 30, 1975.

While little in the way of sustantive [sp] evidence to this effect has surfaced, it is still a popular

 
1


theory among the media and the public that a cover-up was orchestrated to protect one or more of the Skakel children involved in the murder of Martha Moxley. Within this speculative paradigm, Littleton is usually delegated as the knowing witness and subject of a major pay-off. Dominick Dunne's best-selling novel, A Season in Purgatory, based loosely on the Moxley murder, tells the story of a young man who witnesses his best friend commit a brutal murder and whose silence is subsequently purchased by that friend's wealthy, somewhat Machiavellian father. The inconsistencies between fact and fiction are too numerous to mention, but the core element of someone outside the family, like Littleton, living with a scandalous secret, is very much a widely-held suspicion in this case. It is also a possibility, however fantastic, we will not dismiss out of hand.

Even if the theory has no merit at all, it seems, at the very least, as though Littleton occasionally aims to imply that such a scenario may have occurred. Why he does this cannot easily be determined. Again, it is difficult to sift through the real and the paranoid when listening to the voice of Ken Littleton. We must remember, he is a man with a genetic and socio-cultural predisposition to bipolar mood disorder stemming from stressful occurrences, from which he now suffers. He is also a serious alcoholic, allegedly "recovering" through the assistance of twelve-step programs.

We must consider that Littleton may be a guilty man, haunted by his actions, who seeks for the sake of self-interest to protect himself by throwing speculation towards others. For all his problems and pitiable weaknesses, he is still an intelligent and potentially conniving convicted felon who has failed two lie-detector tests regarding the murder of Martha Moxley.

We must also consider that Littleton may be a completely innocent man, merely haunted by the specter of suspicion. It is possible, as Littleton insists, that the stress of being suspected and questioned during the investigation caused him to fall into depression and deviant behavior. Again, he has been clinically diagnosed as having both a genetic and socio-cultural predisposition to such a reaction. In the course of our investigation, we have also found indications that the Greenwich Police Department has been over-zealous, and occasionally reckless, in their campaign to incriminate Ken Littleton. In the wake of their efforts, many allegations and innuendos about Littleton's character and subsequent conduct were divulged and promoted. Some of these we have found to be largely without merit. Others remain uncertain. Some have made their way into the media. Later in this section, we will look closer at these imputations and their significance.

Finally, we must consider that Littleton may be innocent of Martha's murder but guilty of not disclosing pertinent information--whether to protect her murderer(s) or not. It is clear, at the very least, that Littleton has held back. When questioned by one of Sutton Associates' investigators in Boston, where he currently resides, Littleton was asked is he saw Michael Skakel outside, throwing pebbles at Martha's window on the night of October 30, 1975. Based on off-hand comments Littleton made in a prior meeting, our investigator was left with the impression he might somehow be aware of such confidential details. Littleton first denied he had made any such comments about pebble-throwing. He said, flatly, no--he did not see Michael throwing pebbles.

 
2


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


neighborhood and its surroundings.

The offender was a social friend of the victim and had regular interaction with her, possibly on a daily basis. This familiarity with the victim, coupled with her good looks and flirtatious personality, helped foster his strong amorous feelings for her.

Littleton clearly did not have much contact with Moxley, if any. In all likelihood, he had no idea who she was prior to October 30, 1975. However, Michael Skakel has reported in interviews that Littleton asked him about Moxley in the kitchen of the Skakel residence on the evening of October 30, 1975--before she went off with Tommy. Littleton denies such a conversation ever transpired, holding vehemently to the assertion he never knew who Martha was until after she was murdered.

The fact that the offender in this case chose to confront the victim outside, and on her driveway, provides several useful clues in understanding his approach method and mindset. It is apparent that he, (1) knew the victim, (2) knew she would be coming home at around that time-frame, and (3) knew she habitually walked up her driveway and then across her front lawn in the direction of her front door.

Littleton would not have known such minutia about Moxley and her habits. But to say, as he has, that he didn't even notice her at all seems to be going too far in the other direction. She was in the house that evening on at least two occasions. By most accounts, she was very attractive and out-going. She and Tommy were cavorting very publicly by side of the house. Why wouldn't Littleton [^] noticed her? If he had, what would keep him from admitting that?

Still, the evidence of Martha's murder suggests Littleton would have had a hard time committing the crime as it happened:

At the initial point of encounter in this case, the victim did not feel threatened because she knew the offender.

Clearly, had he suddenly confronted her in her dark driveway, Martha Moxley would have felt uneasy and vaguely threatened by the imposing figure of Ken Littleton. Such a circumstance, inherently peculiar, would certainly have put young Martha on guard.

The bruising of the victim's inner canthus of both right and left eyes, as well as her broken nose, indicate that the attack was sudden and severe. We believe that the attacker punched the victim in the face with his fist without warning. The fact that no screams were heard and the victim had no defense wounds on her hands or arms indicate that she did not expect to be struck, as she knew the attacker.

When these factors are taken into consideration, it seems hardly likely that Littleton could have managed the crime. Remember as well, this was his first night on the job. Mr. Skakel was paying

 
4


Ken a handsome sum, as well as providing him free room and board. Coupled with his income from the Brunswick school, Littleton was now in a position to make a lot of fairly easy money. Would he, would anyone, jeopardize such an arrangement on the very first night?

It must be clarified, however, that although October 30, 1975 was Littleton's first night on the job, it was not the first time he encountered the Skakel children. He had already been tutoring some of them for at least a week. He knew a few from the Brunswick school (Michael attended another school). Unfortunately, we have limited intelligence as to the full nature of Littleton's relations with Tommy and Michael. This is one area of uncertainty particularly laden with rumor and innuendo. One rumor/allegation has Littleton involved in quasi-homosexual behavior with the Skakel boys. This detail, among others equally as dubious, was filtered into Dominick Dunne's A Season in Purgatory--a greatly embellished, but interesting indication of high-Greenwich-society rumors surrounding the case. Other rumors suggest Littleton did drugs, specifically cocaine, with the Skakel children, and may have even been their supplier. It must be emphasized that we have not come across any substantive evidence to support these theories. Further investigation is required to flesh out the true nature of Littleton's relationship with Tommy and Michael, both before and after the murder.

It certainly seems, today, as though Littleton got along better with Tommy. Reportedly, on April 7, 1976, Littleton was asked to sign a statement, put before him by the Greenwich Police Department, documenting circumstantial evidence against Tommy (essentially that he was out of the house for x period of time when the murder was alleged to have occurred). Littleton refused on the grounds that he believed Tommy was innocent. When asked about this occurrence recently, Littleton effectively denied it ever happened. This event, however, is the evidence most people cite when making the allegation that Littleton's silence and cooperation with a Skakel family cover-up were bought and paid for. If true, it is certainly curious why Littleton would have refused to sign a statement to that effect, since he still maintains, innocence or guilt aside, that Tommy was out of the house for x period of time on that night.

The true nature of what transpired on April 7, 1976, and the motive behind Littleton's actions or inactions (as the case may be), is something which demands further investigation and clarification. To, at the very least, rule out the scenarios, a background check on Littleton's finances and a search for any paper trail which could lead to Skakel money or influence should be initiated.

During an interview in Boston with a Sutton Associates investigator, Littleton said the following (paraphrased as per the notes and recollection of the investigator) with regards to Tommy: The only person I remember seeing that night was Tommy. You're probably interested in this, because I give him an alibi for a certain period of time. Tommy came up to my room, according to the Greenwich Police, at about ten minutes of ten. We stayed together about a half an hour, starting twenty minutes before the chase scene. We made small talk. We watched the chase scene. Then Tommy went upstairs to do his "infamous report on Abraham Lincoln."

 
5


There are a number of curious details in what Littleton is saying here. He is self-consciously aware of the significance of his recollections to the degree he believes Tommy is being provided with an alibi. He also cites when Tommy arrived in Mr. Skakel's room in terms of the Greenwich Police Department's report, as opposed to his own memory. He implies, as well, that he now knows Tommy's report was a front. Evidently, Littleton is looking back at the night of October 30, 1975 through a filtered and guarded perspective. He is highly aware of certain investigative details. Littleton has occasionally left interviewers with the impression he was trying to learn what was officially known about the case. With the Sutton Associates investigator who interviewed him in Boston, Littleton evinced this tactic to a moderate degree.

On the night of October 30, 1975, Ken recalls going outside because Nanny Sweeney asked him to check on the barking dogs. His recollection is hesitant, but he believes it was about 9:30 pm - soon after The French Connection had started. Going out the front door, he walked right along the circular driveway and stood by the cypress trees. He claims to have heard some "rustling." Interestingly, Littleton told our investigators that the rustling was coming from a spot in the darkness located about twenty-five yards into the back lawn. This could, conceivably, be where we now know, according to Tommy, that Tommy and Martha were having their sexual encounter.

Other aspects of Littleton's testimony, however, confound rather than support other accounts of the night's events. It should be noted, in the following excerpts from the time-line, that Littleton places Tommy back in Mr. Skakel's bedroom, watching The French Connection, before even Tommy says he is there. Other important sections have also been highlighted:

OCTOBER 30, 1975 The following segments provide a general context for information regarding Tommy's activities on the night of Martha Moxley's murder.

9:25 pm to 9:30 pm--Julie, while under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recounts seeing Martha and Tommy together: "Andrea decided she needed to go home, so half way through Ellery Queen, we got up, went out to the car, got in, the car keys weren't in the car so I asked Andrea to go back up to the house and get them. At the same (sic), as my window was down, I could hear Tommy and Martha talking at the back door. (p. 8) I couldn't hear absolutely clearly, but it seemed like whatever the plans were for that evening, Tommy wasn't interested and he was just going to stay home. I could hear the back door close after Tommy said goodnight to Martha. I could see Martha walking around the back fence and, about the same time that Tommy closed the door, Andrea tried to get in the front door, but she couldn't, so she rang the doorbell. I could see Tommy slowly walking through the kitchen and ... I think looking through the glass to see who it was." Julie also recalls that Ken Littleton was there. (p. 8-9)

9:30 pm--According to Jim Terrien, interviewed 9/23/93, this is approximately the time he left the Skakel residence for his house with Rush, John, and Michael. He recalls that Rush drove the Skakel's Lincoln. Before leaving, he remembers seeing Tommy at the front door.

--Under hypnosis, on either 1/6/93 or 3/15/93, John Skakel recalls being in the car with Rush and

 
6


Jim Terrien (see pages 7 to 9), and possibly someone else, but he cannot recall who.

--According to Ken Littleton, from his interview with Willis Krebs, he went outside at approximately this time "for three or four minutes" and heard leaves rustling by the cypress trees (p. 8 and p. 35).

9:30 pm to 9:35 p--
According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, Richard McCarthy, and Manny Margolis, he and Martha Moxley commenced a sexual encounter at about 50 feet to the rear of the house, in the middle of the rear lawn, which concluded in mutual masturbation. Tommy estimates that the entire encounter lasted about twenty minutes. He last saw Martha hurrying across the rear lawn towards her home.

9:50 pm--Helen Ix Fitzpatrick, interviewed on 8/6/92, recalls that her dog was barking wildly at around this time. This interview is not yet available for review.

--Julie, before being put under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recalls returning to the Skakel residence after dropping Andrea home (p. 3) at this time. Under hypnosis, on 3/5/93, she remembers hearing something in the bushes by the kitchen and then, "I see a crouched person running." Julie believes this individual was a man, someone bigger than herself, carrying a bundle under his left arm. The person ran past the kitchen, across the driveway, through the bushes." (p.10). Later, on 7/26/94, while again under hypnosis, Julie further characterized this individual as, "Crouched, big, dark, maybe even hooded."

9:50 pm to 9:55 pm--
According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, and as noted above, this is the approximate time that he left Martha Moxley and returned to his house after their sexual encounter. He last saw Martha hurrying across the rear lawn towards her home.

10:00 pm--From Folio 17, we know that Special Officer Morganti observed a white male, 6 feet tall, 200 lbs, late 20's to early 30's darkened rimmed glasses, fatigue jacket, tan slacks, blond hair, walking northerly on Field Point Drive. The subject said he lived on Walsh Lane. Morganti reported this information to the Greenwich Police Department at 5:00 pm on October 31, 1975, adding that, "This subject was later observed in just a very few minutes walking northbound on the west side of Otter Rock Drive, just north of the Walsh lane intersection." Morganti later confirmed that this individual was not Ed Hammond.

--From Folio 25, at approximately this time, Mr. And Mrs. Charles Gorman, of 21 Walsh Lane, interviewed on 10/31/75, recall hearing a dog barking.

10:03 pm--According to Ken Littleton, when interviewed by Willis Krebs on 9/12/94, Tommy joined him in the master bedroom to watch The French Connection on television at around this time. "He came up," Littleton states, "approximately twenty minutes before

 
7


the chase scene. The chase scene began at exactly 10:23 pm.

10:05 pm--Sometime soon after the Ellery Queen show concluded at 10:00, Julie, before being put under hypnosis on 3/5/93, recalls speaking with someone in the kitchen. She believes it may have been Ken Littleton. Under hypnosis, she says, "I'm sure it's Ken." She remembers asking him where everyone was, and then correcting him on the pronunciation of "Terrien." "I did not stay there long."
(p. 11-12) Julie states, under hypnosis, that she did not know, at that point, where Tommy was. (p. 13)

10:10 pm--From Folio 29, Mr. Bjork, interviewed on 11/1/75, reports letting his dog out at this time.

10:17 pm--According to Tommy Skakel, from his interview on 10/7/93 [footnote 1] with Willis Krebs, this is the approximate time he joined Ken Littleton in the master bedroom to watch The French Connection--approximately five minutes before the chase scene began at 10:23 pm. After the conclusion of the chase scene, Tommy says he went to the kitchen for food.

10:30 pm--
At roughly around this time, Steven [Stephen] Skakel recalls during his interview under hypnosis on 5/4/93, that he heard the Ix dog, Socks, [Zock] barking. In addition, he remembers hearing a young woman, either "Helen or Martha"," laughing behind the pool.

10:32 pm--This is when the chase scene from The French Connection would have concluded, and when, according to Ken Littleton, interviewed by Willis Krebs, Tommy left the master bedroom (p. 7).

Some important questions raised by the time-line excerpts: Julie says she saw Ken by the front door at around 9:25 pm-9:30 pm. Littleton says he wasn't there. The significance of this one detail could be negligible, but it marks the beginning of larger conflicts in testimony between Julie and Ken Littleton.

Could the crouched person Julie saw in the bushes by the kitchen at 9:50 pm have been Ken Littleton? His whereabouts are not yet accounted for at the time. Julie needs to be questioned as to where, if she was aware, Ken was when she entered the house after dropping Andrea off.

Could the person Officer Morganti saw at 10:00 pm have been Littleton? Morganti's description is certainly approximate. However, at around 10:05, Julie recalls, in compellingly specific detail, having a conversation with Littleton in the kitchen. We may not know where Ken Littleton was between 9:50 and 10:05, but it seems unlikely he was all over the place. He denies even speaking with Julie, but her testimony is strong. She fixes him in the kitchen at 10:05, appearing fairly normal. Had Littleton committed the murder at the time fixed by police and The Academy Group, it would have been extremely difficult for him to have handled the necessary post-murder precautions and rectifications without detection from Julie, or anyone else in the household. Specifically, The Academy Group and certain medical experts are of the opinion, as

 
8


indicated to them by forensic evidence, that the murdered [sp] would have to have been partially covered in the victim's blood.

Ken also contradicts the testimony of Tommy, Jim Terrien, and others who recount there having been a considerable amount of drinking going on during dinner at the Belle Haven Club. Littleton says each one of the older kids, including himself, had only one bottle of beer. This is a point which demands further investigation and clarification.

Point blank, our investigator in Boston asked Ken Littleton who he believes committed the murder of Martha Moxley. Once again indicating he could be withholding significant intelligence, Littleton answered, "No comment." Pressing a little further, our investigator then asked if Littleton believed one of the Skakel's was responsible. Littleton's response, again: "No comment."

Whereas Littleton has clearly been hesitant to direct any imputation towards Tommy, he has afforded Michael no such courtesy. In his interviews with our investigator, Ken continually expressed his feeling that Michael was both strung-out on cocaine and prone to sadistic behavior. Littleton concedes that he never actually saw Michael doing any coke, but learning from his own subsequent experiences, claims to now recognize certain symptoms of Michael's appearance and demeanor as having been consistent with habitual cocaine use. He made a number of references to the way Michael was, allegedly, using a powerful shotgun to shoot small animals with demonstrative, careless, and callous abandon, during the hunting trip on the weekend immediately following Martha's murder. He also recounted a time when, allegedly, Michael bludgeoned a squirrel with a golf club while on a golf outing. Littleton claims to have been disgusted by Michael's behavior. He also suggested a few times, through questions, speculation, and intuitive supposition, that Michael could have been involved in the murder--which Littleton suspects was committed later than investigators believe.

Littleton confided to our investigator in Boston that he has doubts about who was actually in the car that went to the Terrien residence, and who, as he puts it, is lying. The interviewer encouraged Littleton to ask about such doubts. Are we sure Michael was in the car? asked Littleton. Questioned as to why he felt Michael may not have been in the car, Littleton was less than forth-coming. He spoke around the question, mentioning how Michael would always refuse his tutoring assistance and seemed to be on cocaine. Littleton also suggested that Michael may have been getting the drug from a source at his school (Michael did not attend Brunswick). Our investigator took him back to the pivotal question once again, asking Littleton if he had anything more substantive than intuition which indicated to him that Michael was not in the car. Again, Littleton dodged a direct answer, instead speaking about how the crime must either be an individual act of madness or a conspiracy. "I have a definite feeling in my mind,' says Littleton, "that the murder was committed after 10:30 at night." At face value, this time is significant because it is after Littleton says Tommy left his presence.

Littleton told our investigators he believes Martha could have been lured out of her house, or could have been having a sexual encounter in the mobile home, and then been murdered later,

 
9


sometime around 11:00 pm and 12:00 am. "I have a definite feeling in my mind," he told our investigator, "that this murder was committed after 10:30 at night." This is a bold assertion to make, and certainly one which must come informed by more than just a blind guess. Littleton was asked, once again, to substantiate his suspicion. Why do you say that? he was asked. "Because," he responded cryptically.

When pressed a little farther, Ken revealed some of his rationale. Oddly, while apparently just theorizing off the cuff, Littleton came up with a number of general details which we now have good reason to believe are factual. Tommy, Littleton pointed out, appeared perfectly normal while watching the movie--suggesting he didn't commit a murder by that point. But after the movie, Tommy went upstairs around 10:00 to do his "fictitious report." Littleton says he could just as easily have gone out to meet with Martha Moxley. Martha either could have been waiting for him or he could have gone up to her house and, as Littleton said to our investigator, "thrown a pebble at her window or something like that."

Right there, whether wittingly or unwittingly, Littleton touched upon a crucial detail only very few people involved in this investigation are aware of. Michael has confessed to going outside to Martha's window, between 11:40 pm and 12:30 am, and throwing pebbles from a tree to get her attention. When, according to Michael, she did not come to her window, he masturbated himself to orgasm in the tree. We also have testimony from other, more trustworthy, sources -- much of it as nebulous but determined as Littleton's--suggesting Michael never went to the Terrien's (namely, from John Skakel, who was in the car and at the residence, and Andrea Shakespeare). We have also, as previously mentioned in this report, found indication that Martha Moxley could have gone home for a period of time on the night of October 30, 1975, before she was murdered.

How Littleton divined the inspiration for such educated guesses about what happened to Martha Moxley is of extreme interest to this investigation. Can his intuition be merely coincidence?

To our investigator in Boston, the fact that Littleton mentioned pebbles being thrown at Martha's window in conjunction with his assertion that the murder occurred after 10:30 and that Michael was somehow involved, suggested that perhaps he actually saw Michael outside of Martha's house between 11:40 pm and 12:30 pm [am]. As disclosed earlier in this report, Michael has testified, with regards to his late-night excursion, that after climbing down from the tree he stopped near a street light on Walsh Lane. Michael stated that he felt "someone's presence" in the area where Martha's body was eventually discovered. He yelled "into the darkness" and threw something at the trees. Still fearing what was there, he ran back to his house. Was it Littleton in the darkness? Is this why he knows Michael was out there throwing pebbles at Martha's window, but cannot disclose as much due to self-incrimination?

Careful not [^] come across in an accusatory or otherwise aggressive manner, our investigator broached the subject with Littleton again in a follow-up interview. Taking a provocative questioning liberty, he bluffed and told Littleton that Michael claims he actually saw him out

 
10


there. Is this why you mentioned the pebble-throwing to me? asked our investigator. Instantly guarded, Littleton first replied that he didn't think he had mentioned anything about pebbles in the previous interview. It became quickly clear Littleton was now on the back-peddle, once again holding back. He was asked if there was ever a time he saw Michael out there after hours? Did you see him throwing pebbles at the window? Ken's response: "No." Would you tell us if you did? Would you tell anyone if you did? Ken's response: "No."

A little later on in the interview, the conversation returned to this point. By now, Littleton was learning more about what Michael had told Sutton Associates. He seemed confused that Michael would be approaching Martha since he believed Martha and Tommy to have been "an item." He said John Moxley was the source for this information about Tommy and Martha's relationship. "I don't know," said Littleton. I find it very unusual that Michael would be involved in any quote, unquote, after hours activities." Littleton did not elaborate on this response. He did, however, point out how illogical it would be for him to have been sneaking around on his first night. Our investigator concurred with the improbability of such a scenario, and then came clean with the actuality of what Michael had reported, stating, "You said something about maybe someone was throwing pebbles to try and lure her out of the house, and then he comes up and tells me the same thing. That was the connection. Then he tells me, he's not sure who it was, but he saw someone else on the property."

Considering what he had just learned about Michael's activities that night, Littleton changed his position again. Speculating, he could now see Michael committing the murder at that point. Again, he referred to Michael's alleged cocaine use and his sadistic behavior while on the hunting trip as influencing his intuition on this matter.

Details about this curious hunting trip remain unclear and conflicted. Littleton asserts that he drove the Skakel family's recreational vehicle up to Windham with the rest of the family members. Others have stated that Littleton went up separately, taking his own car. The complete significance of this discrepancy is uncertain, but many allegations have been made about what actually transpired during this hunting trip. A [WW] face value, it seems to have been a vaguely indecorous reaction to a serious tragedy which struck close to home. At, reportedly, Mr. Skakel's request, the family members still around for the weekend were shuttled up to the country house in Windham for some hunting. Skeptics and conspiracy theorists suspect this could have been a contrived retreat designed for the family to orchestrate the particulars of their cover-up. There have been unsubstantiated reports of Skakel attorneys being present at Windham that weekend. Littleton has stated there were many lawyers present at the Skakel home the afternoon following the discovery of Martha's body. This has been denied by the family. Some suggest that since the family recreational vehicle was known to be a place the boys partied and took willing young women, perhaps there was pertinent evidence which needed to be cleaned out. By the same token, accusers of Littleton suggest the reason he took his own car could have been because it allowed him to dispose of his own incriminating evidence.

The truth of what transpired during that weekend is another aspect of this case which demands

 
11


further investigation. An aggressive look into exactly who had a hand in the Windham trip and the decisions of the family immediately following the murder must be initiated. The issue of how Littleton made the trip should be one of the foremost concerns.

Unfortunately, there are many issues with regards to Ken Littleton that need further investigation and clarification before any resolution can be reached as to his possible involvement in the murder of Martha Moxley. As mentioned earlier in this section, a great number of allegations and innuendos have been made against Littleton, particularly after Greenwich Police Detectives Soloman [Solomon] and Garr recently intensified their interest in him. According to Ken, he willingly submitted to their questioning, but finally relented after it was clear he was being given "the naked light-bulb treatment." Some of the allegations are as follows: 1) Ken Littleton had some sort of a sexual encounter with the wife of a fellow teacher from the Brunswick school at a softball picnic during the Spring of 1976. Although there were no charges brought, it has been alleged that Littleton was attempting to rape her. 2) Other somewhat similar incidents of teenaged girls bludgeoned to death are alleged to have occurred in close proximity to Littleton's whereabouts. 3) Littleton was arrested for DWI and Assault and Battery, after having been driving the wrong way down a street frequented by prostitutes. He mumbled that "he had to speak to the Kennedys."

On the other hand, here are a few details we know to be accurate: 1) Within a year of the murder, Littleton was given and failed two polygraph tests. At first, Littleton claimed he was being represented by Tommy's attorney, Manny Margolis, but then retained John Meerbergen. 2) After making a full confession with regards to his crime spree on Nantucket, Littleton is given a 5-7 year suspended sentence in May of 1977. He refused to submit to a sodium amytal interview regarding the murder of Martha Moxley in exchange for a reduced charge. 3) Littleton was arrested at least three times in Orlando, Florida. On February 14, 1982, his [WW] is convicted on charges of trespassing and disorderly conduct. When arrested, he gives a false name. On February 28, 1982, he is convicted of disorderly conduct again. On March 3, 1982, Littleton is convicted of shoplifting. We know he was drinking heavily at this point. 4) In subsequent years, he was arrested for numerous DWI offenses.

The period when Littleton was in Florida, however, is of special portent. Martha Moxley's father, before his passing, recorded in his papers that Littleton called him at that time and expressed condolence for Martha's death, saying he wanted to take a sodium pentathol test to help solve the case. When asked about this call by our investigator in Boston, Littleton initially denied ever speaking with Mr. Moxley. He claimed that only his wife had actually spoke [sp] to Mr. Moxley. When later confronted with the specific recollections of the call from Mr. Moxley's personal papers, Littleton conceded he may have spoken to him while in a state of severe intoxication, stating, "Maybe I spoke to him when I was really shit-faced." Littleton's accusers have pointed to this incident as an indication of his guilt and need for contrition.

Given his devastated existence, the notion that Littleton is somehow haunted by his actions, or inactions, regarding the murder of Martha Moxley, seems unavoidable. "I attribute [my life's

 
12


decline] as the environmental cause to my manic depressive illness. Bi-polar is the politically correct term now," says Littleton. From his own perspective, Ken seems to see himself as being somehow persecuted my [sic] the Skakel family. He recounted to our investigator an incident in Hull, Quebec, when Littleton claims to have been severely beaten and robbed. "I was jumped and robbed and left to die," he says, claiming to have actually been clinically dead for about four or five minutes following the assault. Littleton further intimated that he suspected the incident was an attempted hit on his life ordered by the Skakel family. As with a great deal more regarding Ken Littleton and his connection to the murder of Martha Moxley, this alleged incident needs to be investigated further.


 
13


TOP OF PAGE


 
JOHN MOXLEY
 
Martha Moxley's sole sibling, her older brother, John Moxley, was asked to take a polygraph by the Greenwich Police Department. It was an inconvenience he greatly resented, for understandable reasons. More than just an awkward formality, however, the polygraph was issued as a direct result of questions surrounding John's actions, both on the night of October 30, 1975, and immediately subsequent to his sister's untimely passing. In the eyes of a few people, John Moxley exhibited some suspicious behavior.

Normal, however, is a word without much portent when it comes to assessing the reaction of an individual to losing a loved one in such a horrible, tragic, and nearly inconceivable manner. John Moxley, only seventeen at the time, was dealing with an incredible loss: On the edge of his own property, his fifteen year old sister was horribly murdered. Debilitating feelings of futility and guilt must have certainly plagued him to one degree or another. It is understandable, given these circumstances, that John might exhibit some curious behavior.

Nonetheless, it is still necessary to examine the behaviors and inconsistencies which made John Moxley a suspect -- albeit a minor one --in his younger sister's murder. Even allowing for post-traumatic confusion, a few unresolved points still demand further clarification and examination; even if -- as we are fairly comfortable concluding at this point --John Moxley had nothing to do with the murder of his sister. He passed his lie-detector test.

During his first conference with a Sutton Associates representative on August 15, 1994, John suggested the Greenwich Police may have wanted him to take a polygraph for the following reasons: There was blood found in the basement of his house; and when John arrived back at his property on the morning of October 31, 1975, he saw a crowd of people gathered around and stated, "That's my sister over there." He believes this quote is what led the police to suspect he had some knowledge of Martha's death.

The blood in the basement was discovered by the Moxley's maid, Theresa Tirado. After speaking with Ms. Tirado, soon after the murder, the police arranged for a second interview with John Moxley. A few of Theresa's observations, made after she appeared for work at the Moxley residence at 8:00 am on October 31, 1975, were as follows (excerpted from Greenwich Police Files):

Mrs. Moxley informed Theresa that she did not have to do John's room because he was still asleep. A short time later, Theresa related, she went to the second floor to get some sleep, at which time she observed John's door to be open and the bed to be empty. Theresa further related that at 9:00 am while in the living room of the Moxley house, she heard a loud crash in the basement. She did not investigate nor did she tell Mrs. Moxley. Theresa related that she did not see John until approximately 9:15 am, at which time a friend came to visit [John Harvey].

She related that both boys watched TV until 11:00 am, and then both left and went out the back door to the wooded area behind the house. She related that John returned in approximately ten minutes and when he returned several unknown woman [WW] at the residence at the time, said to John,

 
1


"What happened?" to which he answered, "nothing, nothing." She related she did know to what they were referring. She stated, according to Mr. Silva, that during the time the two boys were outside she heard another loud crash in the basement, this time it was under the room in which the ping-pong table is located. John then left the house, and she believes he left in the car.

After the two boys left, she went to clean the room in which the boys had been watching TV, and related to Mr. Silva that she observed on one of the tables what appeared to be smears of blood as if from three fingers. She did not think anything of this and cleaned it up.


On November 6, 1975, John Moxley appeared at Greenwich Police headquarters for a re-interview related to the statements made by Theresa Tirado (excerpted from Greenwich Police files):

John stated, as he did on the interview of 11/5/75, that he had arrived at his house between 11:00 pm to 11:30 pm, on 10/30/75 and had gone to bed shortly thereafter.

At about 3:30 am, he was awakened by his mother who advised him that Martha had not come home. John proceeded to get dressed and went out to conduct a motor search of the Belle Haven area. His search also took him to Riverside, Cos Cob, and the Bruce Park areas of town. He completed his search at about 6:00 am, 10/31/75 and returned home.

Instead of returning to his bedroom to sleep, John advised that he was very tired and fell asleep on a sofa in the family TV room.

John woke up sometime before 9:00 am, 10/31/75 and a friend, one John Harvey, came over to the house. Both he and John Harvey watched some television and after securing the TV set, he and Harvey left the house and went to a wooded area to the rear of the residence. Their reason was to check behind an eight foot wall, directly to the rear of the house which had a large pile of brush in a pile [sic]. After checking there they returned to the house.

John could not recall any women asking him any questions that he would have replied "Nothing, nothing." He commented that he could have said something to that effect, but that it was possible that he made the statement.

When asked if he heard the two loud noises that Theresa had heard, John stated that he had not heard anything nor was he responsible for making them. He also stated that he does not recall John Harvey doing anything to cause the noises.

John further stated that neither he nor Harvey were using the weights in the weight-lifting room and that he could not recall either one of them picking a weight up and dropping it by accident, but added that it could have happened.

When questioned relative to the stains of three fingermarks on a table, John could not recall seeing anything like that. When asked if the possibility of either he or Harvey may have been [sic] fooling around with the weights and accidentally cut a finger existed, he stated no.

 
2


John further stated that the room is used by all members of the family and the stains that Theresa observed could have been food stains as everyone eats snacks in the room while watching TV. He also advised that this room is usually cleaned on a weekly basis by Theresa and he does not know if his mother cleaned it between times.

It seems a little curious that Harvey, who had been with John for most of the previous night, would arrive at the Moxley residence so early. This point was apparently never addressed. Harvey, evidently, assisted John in some informal searching for Martha that morning, but we don't know if he was summoned for that reason, or if he just arrived of his own accord.

John told the police they went out behind the house to look for Martha in a "brush pile". On the surface, this is a slightly strange inclination--not to mention an unlikely place to find one's sister. Furthermore, if John was making even a mildly concerted effort at looking at looking around the property for his sister, it borders on the incredible that he never noticed Martha's body, lying only yards away to the side of the house. She would not be discovered until hours later--sometime shortly after 12:00 pm.

As to where John went when, according to Theresa, he left in a car, we have no record. It would appear that he did not return to the Moxley residence until after Martha's body was discovered, and the crime scene was secured by the Greenwich Police.

In one of his recent interviews with Sutton Associates, John said, curiously, that it was not John Harvey, but someone named John Anthony who arrived that morning for a visit. What significance, if any, this discrepancy bears on the case remains to be seen. The police specifically recorded that young man who was with John that morning, and the previous night, was John Harvey.

During John's first interview with the Greenwich Police, he gave a detailed account of his whereabouts from 6:00 pm until he returned home sometime after 11:00 pm, that night. With him during those hours, according to the police reports, in addition to John Harvey, was another friend, Vincent Cortese. Both young men were questioned by the Greenwich Police, and each separately confirmed John's story. If Martha was murdered prior to 11:00 pm, John is almost certainly removed from suspicion.

It also stands to reason, then, that Martha probably suffered her primary attack either significantly before or after 11:20 pm, since John would have probably noticed, or heard, any unsavory activity around his property shortly after returning home --"Being seventeen years-old and having a baseball bat." Although his mother asked John to search for Martha soon after his arrival, at the time he told her not to worry, since Martha, in his estimation, would probably be home shortly. John does not believe Martha could have returned home and then gone out again, since, in his opinion, she would have certainly spoken with her mother as a means of demonstrating she was home.

Later on that night, sometime around 3:30 am, however, John finally began to search the area for his sister after his mother awoke him. Hence, the most glaring, and troublesome, inconsistency

 
3


related to the activity and whereabouts of John Moxley: His alleged meeting with Julie Skakel in the early hours of October 31, 1975. According to Julie, and recounted in compellingly specific detail while under hypnosis, she received a second call from Mrs. Moxley around 4:00 am on the morning of October 31, 1975:

Dr. Vrechek: And what then? What did she say?

Julie: That she was very concerned. Would I please go upstairs and ask Tommy again if he had seen her, what the circumstances are or were when they last saw each other. I went back up again and asked Tommy, are you sure? He said yes, the last time I saw her was at the back door. I went back downstairs and told Mrs. Moxley. She said I'm concerned. John, her son, was outside looking. Would you please help him?

Dr. Vrechek: Then what did you do?

Julie: I went downstairs...

Dr. Vrechek: Did you get dressed?

Julie: Yes.

Dr. Vrechek: Were you still aggravated at this point about the calls?

Julie: You know, I'm not sure.

Dr. Vrechek: What were you thinking?

Julie: I'm thinking that maybe Dad's away and there's maybe a situation that I'm going to get in trouble for. Again, I wasn't clear where all the other boys were. Maybe one of them was in the pool with her. I just don't know. So, I went downstairs and out the patio doors to meet John.

Dr. Vrechek: Was he at your patio door?

Julie: No. He was between the sunroom and the pool.

Dr. Vrechek: What was he doing?

Julie: Smoking.

Dr. Vrechek: Was it light out or dark?

Julie: Dark.

Dr. Vrechek: How could you see him?



 
4


Julie: I don't remember. It was very dark.

Dr. Vrechek: Did you see anything else? Was anybody else awake? Was the house dark or light inside?

Julie: I cannot recall, but I know that whenever Dad's away, I usually leave on a lot of lights.

Dr. Vrechek: So you went out side and met John. Was that the first time you've met him?

Julie: I'm not sure. I had seen him. I may have met him once briefly.

Dr. Vrechek: What did you do then? What was John Moxley doing?

Julie: We started yelling Martha's name at the pool, since we were standing right there. I started feeling ridiculous because John wanted me to go over to, across Walsh Lane onto his property and look for her. And it didn't make sense.

Dr. Vrechek: Because?

Julie: Because if she were in the area, she would have heard us calling. And if she were with someone, she wasn't about to answer.

Dr. Vrechek: Why would she be with someone? Well, why would she not answer?

Julie: Well, if she had been with a boy and didn't want her brother to know.

Dr. Vrechek: Had you seen her with a boy before?

Julie: Not alone.

Dr. Vrechek: So would you say you were still annoyed? It didn't make sense that he wanted you to go across to the Moxley property to look for Martha.

Julie: I just remember going across their front lawn and along the side of their yard. I think I said something like she's not around here. It's just that I want...it seems senseless to keep calling her name since our properties were so close. If she was [^] one or the other, she would have heard us.

According to John Moxley, none of this took place. In his second meeting with a representative from Sutton Associates, he was particularly adamant on this point. According to a memo regarding the meeting: [John Moxley] was advised that Julie, twice, under hypnosis, stated that she met him at about 3:30 that morning and that they did look for Martha. John is willing to take a polygraph examination on this and other issues regarding the night of October 30, 1975.

Whoever was out there looking for Martha with Julie that night, seems to have made a

 
5


concerted effort at leading Julie to the spot where Martha's body was eventually found. Julie recalls thinking how "senseless" and "ridiculous" it was that John wanted me to go over to, across Walsh Lane onto his property and look for her. And it didn't make sense." John Moxley says he was most definitely not out there looking for Martha with Julie. Getting to the bottom of this conflict - even though, on the surface, it might seem like a trivial detail -- is crucial to ruling out, conclusively, that John could have had anything at all to do with his sister's murder.

As to his own suspicions regarding the investigation, John Moxley is openly skeptical about the Skakel family. He recalls that there were a lot of lawyers, or "handlers, on the Skakel premises immediately following the discovery of Martha's body, and he questions the motives surrounding the hunting trip to Windham. It is his feeling that the Skakel family has been less than absolutely forthright and cooperative with respect to the Greenwich Police investigation.

John also remains suspicious of Ken Littleton. Over the last eighteen years, it seems like there's a couple of groups of people, the Skakels and Ken Littleton, that have never been able to prove conclusively they weren't involved."

To that end, John has been in contact with Littleton through Littleton's attorney. Somewhat improbably, he claims that Littleton's attorney once said to him, "What happens if he breaks down and admits to this? John reportedly responded, "We will take it from there." John also advised that the police could not believe it was said.

From a memo regarding John Moxley's September 7, 1994 interview with a Sutton Associates representative: John Moxley stated that in his view, Littleton is a very, very troubled individual. He believes that Littleton, at one time, had a sexual identity problem and that this belief was based on conversations he has had with several of Littleton's friends. He also volunteered that some of Littleton's friends thought that he may have been gay. John further volunteered that he thought that Littleton may have been using steroids, although this is only a feeling on his part and he has nothing to support his belief.

It was at this point in the interview that John stated that, in his own mind, he made a connection between the manner in which Martha's body was found, with her jeans and underwear rolled down" and the buttocks exposed, and Littleton's possible sexual problems. He believed that the body found in this position may have been as a result of Littleton "trying to fuck her in the ass."


Suffice it to say, the words chosen by John Moxley to convey this scenario struck our investigator as being offensively incongruent with the way one would expect a brother to speak of their deceased little sister. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, this amounts to very little. Nonetheless, it serves to illustrate, once again, that John Moxley has left a small but lingering doubt to his own credibility in this investigation. However, if John Moxley is telling the truth regarding this alleged meeting with Julie Skakel, we must find out who was with her that night, and why she is in some state of denial regarding that person's identity.

 
6


In a memo dated August 12, 1992, Sheridan noted, "Our objective in retaining Jim Murphy and his firm, Bishop Services [subsequently renamed Sutton Associates], is to uncover all evidence, credible or otherwise, tending to implicate or absolve any member of the Skakel family in the assault which resulted in the death of Martha Moxley on the night of October 30, 1975. Sheridan's decision was made as a result of new information regarding the investigation and a request for access to Skakel family members received from Jack Soloman [Solomon] and the Greenwich police department.

Access had been limited for quite some time. In early 1976, Skakel attorney Manny Margolis contacted the chief State's Attorney for Fairfield County, and the captain in charge of detectives of the Greenwich Police Department, to insist that all further and future police contact with the Skakel family be limited to contact directly through his office.

Apparently, Soloman [Solomon] claimed his interest in gaining access to Skakel family members was for the purpose of further implicating Ken Littleton as the offender. Soloman [Solomon] expressed this motive to Manny Margolis as well. What do I have to do to convince you that Littleton is our man?" Sheridan reports Soloman [Solomon] as saying at the time. Believing that if Littleton was indicted his defense lawyer would certainly "be dragging in" members of the Skakel family into the case, Sheridan was motivated to prepare for such a potentiality.

It remains to be seen, however, whether Mr. Soloman [Solomon] and the Greenwich Police were being entirely genuine and forthright with their motives for gaining new access to Skakel family members. Certain allegations they made regarding Littleton's supposed guilt seem to have been without merit. Soloman [Solomon] alluded to developments in the investigation which, at this point, seem to have been misleading or entirely false.

 
7

TOP OF PAGE


KEY

[^] MISSING WORD

[WW] WRONG WORD

[footnote 1] Two dates are given for Tommy Skakel's first interview with the Sutton Associates - 10/07/93 and 10/07/94