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desire to cooperate with authorities was superseded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
|
