Episode 793: The Murder of Martha Moxley (Part 2) | Forensic Files

Hey weirdos. I'm Ash. >> And I'm Elena. >> And this is Morbid. [music] [music] This is morbid. Morbid
[singing and music] in the afternoon. Um, and I'm trying to think of uh I saw cuz like last time I think we were like,
"Okay, like set your timers cuz we're about to start the episode." I saw some funny ass people being like, "It starts
at 69 seconds, so like [laughter] it starts at 0.03 seconds." >> So now you're never going to know when
it starts. [laughter] >> So I think you guys are funny. >> You guys are funny. >> But I don't think we have a ton of
business. Um, just some the normal stuff. If you guys haven't bought tickets to the live
show at Radio City, the 27th, >> buy tickets to it cuz I'm telling you, it's going to be a blast. We've we've
really nailed some stuff down. >> Yep. We're reeling it in. >> It's going to be fun. We have some fun
merch. >> Yes. >> Um we have a special guest and it's just going to be a really fun time.
>> Special fits from Romania. >> Yeah. Literally. >> So, get your butt there >> and then you can just wander around New
York. >> Yeah. All night. >> Actually, don't because I've been s I mean, you shouldn't anyway, but like
>> Yeah, it was always just a joke to begin with. I keep seeing these reports on the
news the last couple days of >> I don't watch the news. >> People are like they're getting film of
like in the middle of the night people are just going into manholes and then some people are like crawling out of
manholes. It's just like a group of men. >> What? >> Who and they don't know what they're
doing. >> Are they the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? >> That's the running joke.
>> That's the general consensus. >> But that's very dangerous. Like don't do that.
>> Like if you're one of those people, stop doing that. Also, like emerging from a
manhole, you could get sachary banked real quick. >> Absolutely. >> That's crazy.
>> Yeah, I'm saying. >> I was like, you're going into the sewers. >> That's what I'm saying.
>> Nobody knows what they're doing. Nobody really knows what the situation is. It's
been a couple nights of them fig like seeing these videos. >> I really hate that.
>> So, there So, that's going on. >> That's spooky. >> That's something that's pretty spooky.
Uh so, don't do that. But also, um, on a totally different note, um, what you should do is pre-order The Butcher
Legacy. >> Honestly, it's not even that much different of a note because your book
has some weird [ __ ] going on. >> Exactly. So, there's that. And also, um, I don't know if you've noticed, some of
you have, I'm doing a little uh, series, like a video series. >> I'm trying my hand at it. It's a lot of
work. I don't know how to put these videos together. I'm Anybody who puts videos together and edits and does all
this stuff all by themselves influencers in the wild. You have a [laughter] tough
job. >> Props to you for being able to edit a video cuz it's hard. >> It is hard.
>> Uh but yeah, so I'm doing a little video series where I'm going to go through the
chapters of The Butcher Legacy and give you give you a little sneak peek of every chapter. Little hints Easter eggs.
>> Yeah, Easter eggs. Exactly. >> So, keep a lookout for those. I'm putting them on TikTok and Instagram. Um
I think a couple of people might have thought it had to do with um the same Slicer game that that Morbid is doing
with >> Huntter Killer. Those are two different things just in case you were confused.
>> So these are not like game pieces or anything like that. We'll do another video.
>> Yeah, for sure. Um, so these are just keep a lookout for them. I'm calling them the evidence recovery series. So
keep an eye out. >> I love it. It's so fun. It was a very good idea. >> It's been a really fun thing to do. Uh,
and I'm trying to think if we have any other business. >> I think it starts now.
>> I think it starts. >> Oh, wait. Also, pre-order the Salem Slicer if if you want that game. The
game is so much fun. >> It's incredible. Yeah, it's really fun. >> A lot of people are getting theirs in
the mail, like the ones that we sent out. And like our friends and family are so excited.
>> I'm so excited to see everybody get them. Um, but yeah, I think that's it. >> Okay, it starts now.
>> Now. >> All right, Carl, stop your timer. >> All right, starts now. All right, so
when we last left, you guys >> Yeah, you left us on a [ __ ] cliffhanger. >> I sure did because I talked about the
Sutton report that was put together that was never made public. Only bits and pieces of it. I
>> swear. Yeah, I think that's the weirdest thing ever. Um but one of the things
that did come out from it was that Tommy Skakel lied about his whereabouts or or
more his actions that night. >> Yeah. >> Um cuz remember he said he just like went inside and started a project that
didn't exist >> on Abraham Lincoln >> that was proved to not [laughter] exist. >> And the teachers were like nobody.
>> But what else came out in this report was um some stuff about Michael Skakel.
>> Interesting. I did not see that coming. When you said that, I said claw. >> Yeah, it's pretty crazy. Now, as private
investigators were digging into the Martha Moxley case, the state's attorney was doing their best to keep the press
and the public, you know, in the loop with regard to the newly reopened investigation. Among other things, John
Solomon was eager to employ the latest technology in DNA cuz obviously that's coming out. That feels like it's going
to open a million doors. >> Yeah, that's huge. >> They hope that was going to identify the
suspect like bar none. The news that they might soon be able to identify the killer did prompt both Tommy and Michael
Skakel to have a change of heart with their initial stories. >> Oh. >> So that so the word comes out like,
"Hey, maybe we could identify someone like we have DNA. We have this sudden report." They were like, "Actually, we'd
love to tell you what we were actually doing that night." >> All righty. >> Um and they did admit to police that
they lied about the night of the murder and they would like to offer new alibis.
>> Okay. which obviously in and of itself does not identify them as murderers. >> It just doesn't look good
>> because unfortunately they were teenagers at the time. So you have to look at it like that.
>> Uh in Tommy's case, the alibi was more or less similar to what he had offered
the first time he was interviewed, but he dropped the story about doing the project that didn't exist.
>> The teachers were like, "Bud, you really got to stop this cuz we have no proof of
that. >> You're not doing a project on Abraham Lincoln is just not doing >> uh but he coped to being drunk at the
time." Okay, >> cuz remember they were young. They were like 15 years old at this point. They're
young. >> Michael's new alibi, on the other hand, was >> surprising cuz he had said he was at
another cousin's house, right? >> Yeah. So, like you just said, according to Michael, he returned from his
cousin's house around 11:00 p.m. Remember, >> but he didn't go to bed as he had previously stated before. He said he got
home around 11:00 p.m. and he just went to bed. I thought that was a little cray
cray because like these kids all like to have a lot of fun and go around, you know.
>> Now, this is a little shocking. >> Okay, >> what he did, he brought this forward.
>> Okay. >> Uh instead, he claimed he wandered around the neighborhood looking into the bedroom windows of his
female neighbors. >> Oh. >> Until that's not even the shocking part. >> Oh. until he returned home and climbed
the tree outside of Martha's window and masturbated in the tree. >> Oh, what the actual [ __ ]
>> Yeah, he just told investigators that. >> Yeah, he said that's what I was actually
doing. >> And what' they do when they heard that? >> I mean, I wasn't there, so I don't know
what their exact reactions were. >> How'd they proceed? I I imagine they said, "Oh,
>> yeah." >> Oh, okay. >> The [ __ ] >> Um, so what made his new alibi so surprising wasn't just that it outed him
as a teenage peeping tom in a public masturbator. Like those are pretty [laughter]
>> that's a big deal. >> Like that's that's a lot. But >> not a public masturbator.
>> I think the more what's crazy is the more shocking thing was that he essentially placed himself at the scene
of the crime >> crime scene. Yeah. >> Making himself now, not his brother Tommy, the last person to maybe see
Martha alive. >> Okay. >> The new alibi wasn't just a bizarre twist. >> That's just not even an alibi. No,
>> you can't call that an alibi. >> I guess it I mean, it is because it doesn't prove he murdered her.
>> His alibi is that he was masturbating outside her bedroom window. >> I'm not out here saying it's a good
thing to be doing. >> [ __ ] But technically it's an al you're telling them where you were. But and it
doesn't obviously make him just from that a murderer. >> No, just a creep. >> Just a creep. But what the bigger
problem there is like they were saying he placed himself at the scene of the crime essentially. So it's like that's
what makes it more like >> like sure that's an alibi but it's not a good scene of the crime.
>> Yeah. It also called into question the original timeline and it raised new questions about the reliability of the
original investigation which was already >> yeah pretty bad >> shaky. Now within days of the murder
investigators had ruled Michael Skaggel out as a suspect. That was in the beginning based on the fact that he was
confirmed to have been at his cousin's house when they thought the murder occurred around 1000 p.m.
>> Okay. >> He was they the cousins were like, "Yep, he was there." >> Yeah. >> But the only reason This is wild to me.
The only reason investigators believe the murder occurred at 10 p.m. was not based on medical examiner evidence.
>> Oh. >> Like it should be. >> Yep. >> They were basing it on reports from neighbors about the agitated barking
dogs in the neighborhood >> that were barking at 10 p.m. >> Got to be [ __ ] kidding me.
>> Yeah. >> You That's bas That's the same as like eyewitness testimony. Like that's never
that's not that reliable. And it's actually even worse because I was going to say that place that on the same level
as eyewitness testimony. >> You're literally saying animals made noises >> at a time one night,
>> so someone must have been being murdered. >> And you're relying on people's memory of
what time that was, which like again, people have shaky memories. >> And just the fact that dogs bark.
>> Yeah, >> dogs bark. >> My dog barks for no [ __ ] reason. Sometimes >> my dog barks sometimes when they see
their own reflection in the window. >> Yep. >> My dog barks at my other dog when my
other dog is laying down and she wants to play. >> Yep. >> My dog barks sometimes when they fart.
>> To bark. >> My dog burp. My dog barks when she farts, too. >> Sometimes it upsets them or the other
one barks when the other one farts. >> Dolores, when she farts, she she chases her butt and barks and I'm like, "Bitch,
that was you. >> That was you." It's almost like she's like mad at her butt for betraying her.
>> That's the thing. Like dogs are awesome. >> Yeah, >> dogs are awesome, >> but they're going to do wy [ __ ] for no
reason, >> but they're barking at their own farts. So, it's like we're we're using them as
a forensic tool now. Like, what when did that happen? >> Yeah, they're not canine dogs, babe.
>> That's insane to me to be like, "Well, dogs barked around 10 p.m., so that was
obviously when the murder happened." It's like, nope, I think they were just barking.
>> And again, like, not even to take the dogs out of it, you're relying on the neighbor saying what time that happened.
That's no good. >> What's even worse with this is the medical examiner had never really agreed
with investigators stated time of death >> and they're they're the expert I would
say on >> the medical examiner. Yeah. They got the actual bi physiological evidence that
shows that this is when >> they had actually placed Martha's time of death anywhere between 9:30 p.m. and
500 a.m. >> That's a big window. It was only because investigators believed the local dogs to
be more reliable than the medical examiner essentially >> that they were able to rule Michael
Skagel out in the first place. That was the only reason he was ruled out. >> That is so
>> because he had an alibi for when the dogs were barking. >> That's crazy. >> Not when the medical examiner is saying
it could have occurred. >> That's crazy. >> Yeah. Also, now that he'd admitted to
trying to trying to watch Martha through her window after he'd returned from his
cousin's home, >> Michael hadn't just ruled himself back in as a suspect. He'd effectively moved
himself to the top of the list. >> Yeah. You're masturbating outside of her window
>> and he's at the scene. >> Yeah. >> That's She was 200 ft from her house, right?
>> Like you're there. >> Yep. Now, although no one outside Sutton Associates knew it at the time, there
was a lot more that made Michael Skakel a strong suspect than just a bizarre new
alibi. And this was the Sutton report was like like their family hired that that law group. So, this is interesting.
>> Yeah. According to the Sutton report, because remember, we got little bits and
pieces of it. >> Yeah. Not the whole thing. At the quote, "At the very least, it is fair to say
Michael Skagel has, for whatever reason, often acted out in certain ways to arouse suspicion." Reportedly, Michael
once even confessed to the murder of Martha Moxley in a therapy session while a patient at the Elon treatment center.
>> Oh, [ __ ] >> In fact, while he was at the Elon School, Michael confessed multiple times
to murdering Martha Moxley in both group therapy settings and in private conversations.
>> Okay. Although he would later recant at least one of those confessions in an email correspondence with one of the
other students at Elon, the discovery of that information would have been damning
if it had been made public and it wasn't at the time. >> That's so tough. I know of like therapy.
>> Yeah, you have to be careful with that stuff. When he was informed of his son's
confession at the Elon School, Rush and Skakel immediately pulled the plug on the entire investigation, paying any
remaining fees and ending multiple years of work. >> Huh. >> Since everyone involved in the private
investigation had signed a confidentiality agreement, >> I wish you guys could see my face right
now cuz my face is saying, >> "What? >> What?" Uh well, all the people involved in the private investigation had signed
a confidentiality agreement, so they were all prohibited from disclo disclosing any information contained in
their report to law enforcement or to the public. >> And NDA, brother, >> once again, it seemed that Skel's money
and power had kind of shielded his family from any responsibility. But there was one thing he hadn't counted
on. >> Stop what? It was true that every investigator on the case had signed a confidentiality agreement,
>> but >> but the young employees who'd been tasked with organizing the information
for the investigators had not been required to sign anything. [laughter] >> When that young man, one young man who
shall not be named, >> he has remained anonymous learned that the report and Skel's confession to
murder were being shelved and would not see the light of day. He stole the report and sent it to Dominic Dunn. Not
all heroes wear capes. >> Because he had seen Dominic Dunn talking about the case on the news and he was
like, I think you should have this. >> Wow. That's always like my favorite part of a story when one person is just like,
I think you should look at this. >> I love when one person just is like >> Dominic Dunn had built a respectable
career for himself as a writer covering crime, but he al wasn't exactly an investigative journalist at the time.
like which >> he actually shifted a lot after the murder of his daughter, >> which is what was required if the Sutton
report was going to be put to good use. You need an investigative journalist of some sort.
>> So rather than pursue the story himself, Dunn forwarded the report to former Los
Angeles police detective turned author Mark Ferman. Okay. >> Whom Dunn didn't know personally, but he
respected the work he had done. >> Okay. Now, although he would eventually make a name for himself as an author and
journalist, Ferman first became a household name. Some people might be like, "Wait a minute.
>> The name sounded familiar." >> He was he became a household name across America during the OJ Simpson trial.
>> Oh, okay. >> In 1994, he was an LAPD detective and he investigated the murder of Simpson's
wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman >> and was the investigator who found the
notorious bloody glove. >> Oh [ __ ] During the trial though, several witnesses for the defense
testified that Ferman had previously made racist statements in their presence, leading the defense to charge
that Furman had tampered with evidence in order to obtain a conviction. Uh despite there being no evidence to
suggest the glove had been planted by anyone, the controversy and documentation of you know his past
essentially the the remarks he had made, it made him a pariah everywhere like in
law enforcement you know he retired in 1995 the next day the next day the very next day the next year and he did write
Murder in Brentwood about the Simpson murder in the trial. Oh >> okay. >> Murder in Brentwood had really impressed
Dominic Dunn. Um, and so when he came across the Sutton report, Ferman was the first person that came to Dun's mind.
Okay. Because he was like, "He knows how to do this shit." >> Yeah. >> Now, after reading the Sutton report,
Ferman placed a call to Dorothy Moxley, who by then had moved to New Jersey to live near her son.
>> Okay. Unlike Dunn, who'd written a fictional account of the case, Furman wanted to write a non-fiction account
and not only intended to emphasize the countless mistakes made by law enforcement, but he also wanted to
identify Martha's killer in this book. >> Uh he later said, "I felt like I had a
heavy burden on my shoulders. I just told this woman who's been waiting 23 years for some solution to her
daughter's homicide that I could solve it. So, I had no choice then. I actually had to go out and solve it." Now, with
Dorothy's consent, it's a lot to task yourself with. >> Now, with Dorothy's consent, Ferman got
to work digging into the case, but immediately ran into problems when word of his intentions reached the local
police. >> Ah, sensing that Furman was planning to smear them in the investigation with his
book, Ferman was shut out by local law enforcement and claims he he claims that he was threatened with arrest if he went
near any residents of Bell Haven. >> Allegedly. Allegedly, that's what is claimed.
>> Fortunately, he soon found an ally in retired Greenwich detective Steve Carol,
>> the original lead on the Moxley case. >> Okay. >> He later said his absence of ego at not
being able to solve this case was a great contribution because he admitted things that I think other detectives
wouldn't have. >> Okay. >> Which is like really impressive that Steve Carol I like that he said his lack
of ego at not being able to solve this case. Like he didn't go into this being like whatever we did all we could and
this isn't my fault. Like he was like no I think we [ __ ] up along the way and that's solved.
>> You have to be willing to admit fault. >> Yeah. Once Dorothy Moxley gave her consent for Carol to speak with Ferman,
the former detective became Ferman's greatest asset as he attempted to navigate a community that was very
vocally opposed to his presence. Now, the problem with the Moxley case is that regardless of how many mistakes
were made in the investigation, the fact remained that there also was little for
investigators to go like work with here. Journalist Joel Lang wrote, "As damning
as the evidence may seem, it proves little. >> Anyone might have," and this is true,
you have to look at first when you first look at this, you say, "Oh my god, how could it how could you not?" And it's
true. It's It looks damning. It does. When you really pull apart the pieces though, you go, "Well, you have to think
of every part of this >> cuz anybody could have taken >> anyone might have dropped the club
outside and anyone might have picked it up." >> Who knows if one of them had just had
the club, dropped it outside somewhere, someone found somebody stumbled upon it.
>> No one the police interviewed said that they saw Tommy with the golf club. >> Okay.
>> So, there's just that. And I'm just that just from like a purely like sure perspective. You know what I mean? Like
sure, somebody is it likely I don't know. >> Yeah. >> You know, like it's just But you have to
think of these things. >> It's too bad they weren't able to get any prints off of it.
>> I know. But I don't know. Maybe somebody was wearing gloves. Who knows? >> Maybe.
>> Now, in fact, even with all the circumstantial evidence pointing towards the Skakel house, investigators still
had the wrong person as their prime suspect in the case. Of course, the only people who knew that were contractually
bound to secrecy cuz remember, they were going after Tommy, >> right? But Ferman may have had the one piece of
evidence that would break the case wide open and finally shed light on the identity of Martha's killer.
>> Okay. >> In the spring of 1998, Ferman's book, Murder in Greenwich, Who Killed Martha
Moxley was published, much to the consternation and very much to the eyeire of the investigators at the
Greenwich Police Department and in the state's Attorney's Office. In the book, Ferman laid out the facts as they were
known, paying particular attention to the myriad of mistakes made by investigators, and asserts the widely
accepted theory that a wealthy and powerful family had stymied the investigation from the start.
>> I like that word, stymied. >> But the real bombshell was that Ferman took the rare step of naming the person
he believed was responsible for Martha's murder. >> That's bold. >> He named Michael Skakel.
>> Interesting. You got to be >> you got to have balls to do that because [sighs]
>> what for so many reasons. >> Yeah, Murder and Greenwich was an immediate bestseller and it also
attracted scathing criticism. Sure. >> Particularly from those Ferman sought to undermine with the book.
>> Uh like Frank Gar, a former Greenwich detective who was working for the state
at the time the book was published said, "Ferman has the luxury of not having to
back up anything he says. So he can name anybody he wants and he can say anything
he wants in that book which I was like technically you can't. >> No, >> not if he doesn't want to be sued.
>> I was gonna say. >> But Greenwich Police Chief Peter Robin shared a similar sentiment about the
work telling a reporter his real intent was to make money. I don't think he was necessarily attempting to solve a crime.
Like damn. Okay. So relying heavily on the Sutton report and interviews conducted with Michael Skakel's
classmates at the Elon School, Ferman laid out a very plausible case against Skakel while also exposing how the case
had been so badly botched by investigators >> in the first place. >> Mhm. >> Furman told a reporter, "I can find very
little they did correctly in the investigation. I don't want to be smug or arrogant about this, but I obviously
know much more than they do." >> Dang. Like [laughter] [ __ ] Now, on June 18th, just one month after the
publication of his book, Connecticut's Chief Court Administrator Aaron Mint announced that a one-person grand jury
comprised of Superior Court Justice George Thim was being called upon to review the evidence against Michael
Skaggel. >> Never in my life have I heard of a oneperson grand jury. That's the And
also, oh, so suddenly >> everybody doesn't like this book and they think like >> everybody thinks the book is a bunch a
croc of [ __ ] and all of a sudden they're like >> we are going to bring him [laughter] in
front of a grand jury. It's like wait which one is it? >> Make that make sense. >> Like interesting. Now the announcement
of the grand jury came as a surprise. Not only because like you said it consisted of one man, but also because
>> it's not so [laughter] grand. >> It doesn't seem grand. I don't know who George is, but he's got to be real
grand. >> I'm sure he's grand. like I'm sure he's a great guy, but >> but also because Connecticut does not
require a grand jury before felony charges can be filed. >> Oh, >> according to Connecticut lawyer Norman
Pattis, grand juries in Connecticut are only used for political purposes. Having
a grand jury provides insulation for a prosecutor in a politically sensitive case
>> because the decision to indict is made by a panel of anonymous citizens >> or just one
>> or just George >> or just [laughter] Grandmaster George. >> Just George. Also, I was like, I'm sure
he's a great guy. I really went out on a limb there. >> Who knows? >> Who? I don't know, George.
>> That he's a great guy, but I don't know. >> As a gal, you can never say you're sure
a man is great. >> No. So, I just I'd like to recant that. >> I I stay over here saying, "I don't
know, George." >> I hope that he's great is what I should have said. >> So, another way of saying all this is,
in other words, the district attorney can't be blamed if the accus isn't indicted because it was the grand jury
that made the decision, not the prosecutor. >> All right? So, it's just to keep them
from the I didn't do it. >> To anyone who had been following this case, it looked like whether
investigators liked it or not, the publication of Murder and Greenwich had managed to break the case somewhat.
Yeah. >> Like at least move something along, >> right? >> But when he was asked about the matter,
Detective Frank Gar dismissed the suggestion that the book had anything to do with the filing.
>> So then what? >> He said, "We've talked to hundreds of people and gathered some information
that was previously unknown. So, we reached a point where having a grand jury was an option.
>> The books added interest to the public and the media, but they had no impact on
the investigation. >> Was it like public pressure after people read the book? >> Whatever you say.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Sure. >> For decades, Martha Moxley's friends and family had desperately sought answers to
her remember brutal >> brutal murder, but were just again stymied. Since you like that word, they
were stymied at every turn. >> Yep. Now, after more than 20 years, it looked like Martha might finally get the
justice that she deserved. >> Of course, nothing in this case is straightforward at all.
>> No. >> And there was no reason to believe that would change. >> Oh. >> Uh, least of all just
Well, and least of all because of the publication of this book, you know. >> Yeah. So on July 12th, 1998, the one-man
grand jury proceeding, >> George, >> it began in Bridgeport where Justice George Thim began hearing testimony and
reviewing the evidence in the case. Among those seated in the gallery were Dorothy and John Moxley, who were
accompanied by former Greenwich detective Daniel Hickman. >> Hickman told a reporter, "I'm very glad
we're doing this. Glad we're investigating this matter a little further. I hope something comes out good
comes out of this for the sake of the family and the community." Yeah, >> given the number of times the Skakel
family had kind of thwarted investigators attempts to get answers into the Moxley case, it should come as
no surprise that the grand jury hearing was pretty similarly frustrating and it ultimately dragged on for 18 months.
>> Wow. Holy [ __ ] >> During that time, the majority of the Sko family members who were expected to
testify publicly stated their intent to skip the hearing. >> Is that allowed? I guess Rushton Skagel
was particularly adamant in his refusal, telling reporters, "I wasn't there personally. I was hunting when the
slaying happened, so he saw no reason why he should be there." >> Okay. I wonder I don't know if I'm just
like making this up, but I wonder if you could be held in contempt of court for not showing up to testify when you're
called upon. I would think so. >> I looked at Debbiey's just like shrugging [laughter] and being like,
"Yeah, usually right." >> Like, you would think. >> I would think. >> You would think.
>> Yeah, that's typical. It's It's interesting. >> Yeah. Okay. >> But others who refused to testify or
otherwise attempted to stonewall the prosecution uh including Sutton Associates detective Willis Krebs and
Elon School owner Joseph Reachi. >> Okay. >> Uh Krebs cited attorney client privilege
as his reason for not divulging the names of those interviewed during the investigation.
>> I mean that makes sense, I guess. >> But the judge rejected the claim and >> it doesn't [laughter] it doesn't make
sense. The judge rejected the claim and Krebs was compelled to release the names. Uh Reichi's refusal on the other
hand proved a more challenging matter cuz he's the Elon school. >> In his case, >> in the in his case, he cited doctor
patient confidentiality as his reason for declining to testify or release information about Michael's
time at Elon, >> which that's a lot more. >> Unlike Yeah. Unlike Skakel's contract
with Sutton, the mutually assured privacy between a doctor and their patient is taken very seriously in the
legal system. >> Yeah. >> Um Skakel's lawyer, David Grudberg, said it completely undercuts that privilege
if you can change the rules after the fact. In response, the prosecution argued that the confession quote had
nothing to do with Skakel's treatment or any illness, therefore should not be privileged information,
>> which I can get that >> which if you're saying he was talking in private conversations with like fellow
students, >> I would think yeah, that wouldn't have anything to do with his treatment.
>> Deb Deb has just informed us that she she's not positive, but she said cuz she
doesn't know Connecticut law, but she said knows mass law. There is the possibility that Rushton Skakel
especially being their the father >> would not be compelled to testify because of like the parent child. It's
kind of like a spousal privilege. >> Um so that makes sense I suppose. >> Yeah. No, I can see that.
>> I'm interested though cuz obviously it was more than him that refused. So I'm
like what did everybody else say? >> Yeah. Now again they're say they're claiming that his confessions Michael's
confessions had nothing to do with his treatment. So that's why [laughter] they should be allowed to have the doctor
testify. >> Ultimately, the judge sided with the defense and any statements Michael made
while at Elon were deemed inadmiss inadmissible. Why is that hard to say? >> Interesting.
>> Yeah. Finally, in January 2000, the grand jury ruled that even without the incriminating statements made at Elon,
there was sufficient evidence to charge Michael Skagel with the murder of Martha
Moxley. That's without the confession. >> I was just going to say, okay, so then
what's the evidence? But in an odd twist, >> this is the twistiest case I've ever
>> The arrest warrant in any associated documentation related to the case would not list Skakel by name as he was a
juvenile when the murder was committed. >> Okay. >> In response to news of the indictment,
Skakel's lawyer, Michael Sherman, told reporters, "If he's arrested, he's going to plead not guilty, come to court, and
we'll go to trial. He's innocent. He has nothing to do with this murder. This is
not a case that will result in a plea bargain." >> Okay. Now, as expected, on January 20th,
an arrest warrant was issued for Michael Skakel, who surrendered at the Greenwich
Police Department that afternoon, where he spent roughly 30 minutes before being
released on $500,000 of bond. >> Yeah, >> I that's shocking. >> For those who lived in Greenwich since
the murder occurred, it was a moment they never thought would come. Bell Haven resident Martha Mckentry said, "A
lot of people would like to see closure. If an arrest is heading towards that, then I think that's a relief for
everyone." >> Yeah. The arrest was followed by the usual cries of innocence from, you know,
Skakel's lawyer, Michael Sherman. But Skakel himself seemed interested only in protesting the arrest directly to
Dorothy Moxley herself. >> Oh. >> With Sherman's encouragement, allegedly, >> his lawyer.
>> Yeah. Michael reached out to Dorothy. Much to her surprise and uh disappointment,
>> she later said, "What he said to me was, Dorothy, I feel your pain, but you've
got the wrong guy." >> And she says, "I was incensed that he would call me Dorothy. I'm sorry, but I
do believe I deserve some more respect than that. He should have called me Mrs. Moxley, and he shouldn't have talked to
me. It wasn't the right thing to do." >> Yeah. There's so much wrong with that. Call her mother.
>> Yeah. like well like exactly what she said. Put some respect on her name. It's Mrs.
Moxley. >> And she said he shouldn't have called me at all. >> Shouldn't have called her at all. And
the fact that he didn't and said I I can feel your pain. No, you can't. >> You don't know a mother's pain whose
daughter was slaughtered >> 200 feet from her home. >> 15year-old daughter. Like no, you can't
feel her pain. Don't ever say that. >> Yeah. >> That's nuts. That whole entire decision
is nuts from start to finish. Now, two weeks later, on February 8th, Michael Skaggel was arraigned on one count of
seconddegree murder in juvenile court. After reviewing the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case, the
juvenile court judge had the case transferred to the criminal division of the superior court, ending the period in
which Skakel's name was withheld from any official documents. >> Oh, because now he's an adult. Now, the
case was preceded by the usual round of pre-trial hearings, but the prosecution was dealt a significant blow on August
7th, 2001 when their star witness, former Elon student Gregory Coleman, was found dead from an apparent drug
overdose. Coleman was one of the two students who testified to the grand jury that Michael
had confessed to killing Martha while at Elon, and his testimony was key to securing a conviction.
I just wanted to let that hang in the room for a minute. >> Fortunately, the judge allowed the
prosecution to present Coleman's deposition at trial in lie of his testimony. >> Okay.
>> But the lack of his presence was a major source of frustration, obviously. >> Now, Skaggel's trial began on May 7th,
2002 at the county courthouse in Norwok. As expected, the trial had drawn a ton of people, like a huge crowd of
observers and journalists, many of whom were hoping for an appearance of like a rich and famous attendee at the trial.
>> Yeah. >> And they weren't disappointed. I guess as early as the first day, many members
of the Skakel and Kennedy families were in attendance to support Michael. >> Including his cousins, Robert F. Kennedy
Jr. >> Shut up. >> And Douglas Kennedy. >> I didn't even know there was a Douglas.
Yeah, this is so many of them. >> I knew about >> the Kennedys are far reaching.
>> Uh Dominic Dunn said, "The thing that I've always found so curious about the Kennedys support of Michael is that
Michael wrote a treatment for a book in which he says absolutely terrible things
about his cousins, the Kennedys. And yet Bobby Kennedy Jr. was up here hugging him and supporting him.
>> Public public appearances, babe. >> Yeah. In his opening statement, prosecutor Jonathan Benedict laid out
the the state's case against Michael, stating with their belief that both Michael and Tommy had been vying for
Martha's attention. And while she had no real interest in either of them, she clearly favored Tommy a little over his
brother. Okay. And I think that >> based on her diary entries in her diary where like Michael was mad because she
was quote unquote leading him on. >> Yeah. He seemed he seemed kind of protective over his brother.
>> Yeah. And he seemed like Yeah. Now, it was the state's assertion that after the
group of friends had gone their separate ways that night, Michael returned from his cousin's house and coaxed Martha
outside and made a romantic or physical over overture, okay, >> to her. You know, when Martha rejected
Michael's advances, he became physical and eventually attacked her with the golf club.
>> Okay. >> Now, and I want to claim say this again that this was the prosecutor Jonathan
Benedict's like theory. Yeah, it was the argument saying that's what happened, >> right?
>> In his statement, Benedict acknowledged that it was incumbent upon the state to
prove not only that Michael was a killer, but that he had intended to kill Martha that night. To that end, the
prosecutor used a large projection in the courtroom to show the jury and observers the crime scene photographs,
showing the extent of the brutality Martha had suffered before her death. >> And he said, and I agree with him, I can
think of no photos more compelling of substantiating an intent to kill. Yeah, >> there was no way whoever did that to
Martha did not intend to kill her. >> No. >> No. As for how the case was finally
broken at the time, Benedict told the jury, "Sometimes some people simply can't keep a secret. That, as you will
see, is how things eventually unraveled for Michael Skaggel." >> In his client's defense, Michael Sherman
refuted the state's claims and their theory, arguing that after years of bad police work and pressure to solve the
case, investigators decided to just pin the murder on Michael. Okay. >> He said, "The case that we have is based
loosely on a very shaky house of cards and mostly wild cards and a few jokers as well."
>> Okay, let's not get super theatrical [laughter] with it. >> I'm not out here trying to judge uh
statements in a courtroom. >> I'm always out here trying to judge statements in a courtroom.
>> That made me go, [laughter] >> "Yeah, that's not a good >> cuz you could have just ended it at like
>> a shaky house of cards." >> Cuz I was nodding. I was like, "Yeah, I kind of jokers."
>> I love it. Mostly wild cards. Maybe a few jokers. I'd be like, "Nope. Try >> it. You over it.
>> Run it again, Michael. Run it again." >> He didn't run that with like Yeah. anyone.
>> He didn't read that for anyone, I feel. >> No. >> Read that in front of someone and see if
they go [laughter] >> that's like, >> "Yeah, I don't like it." >> Now, the state's case against Michael
was entirely circumstantial and it hinged very significantly on the testimony of Gregory Coleman, right?
>> Who'd heard Skel's confession, but he >> passed away, right? >> Yes. Coleman's death before the trial
was a big problem for Benedict. However, several weeks into the trial, the prosecutor was contacted by Jennifer
Peas, another former Elon student who offered to testify and corroborate Coleman's statement that Michael not
only confessed to the murder, but also that he believed, and I quote, he was going to get away with murder because he
was a Kennedy. [sighs and gasps] So, this is what Jennifer Peas was saying that she could back up. Uh she told the
jury that Coleman had confided in her that he thought Michael Skakel was quote sick and that Skakel had quote beat some
girl's head in and killed her with a golf club. >> Oh [ __ ] >> Yeah. The testimony from Jennifer Peas
went a long way to cooperating Coleman's earlier statements and those of his widow who testified prior to Peace.
>> Wow. On June 3rd, the prosecution and defense gave their final statements before the jury retired to deliberate.
>> That's today. >> Oh my god. That's I'm not kidding, guys. We do not purpose. >> Today is June 3rd, though. That's so
weird. >> What the [ __ ] >> This happens to us so often. I don't know. I had to stop you before you guys.
I swear on everything. We do not do this on purpose. Like, we a lot of times we're supposed to record
earlier than we do. >> Yeah. And then we don't. And when we do record, it ends up falling on the day.
>> Yeah, because we were gonna record this yesterday, but then we didn't. >> Yeah.
>> So, >> that's weird. [ __ ] That's weird. >> That's weird. Okay. Wow. Well, on June
3rd, the prosecution and defense gave their final statements before the jury retired to the deliberate. In his
closing remarks, Jonathan Benedict focused on the sheer brutality of the crime and Skakel's sense of
untouchability afforded to him by his family's wealth and power. >> He said, this is really graphic, by the
way. Okay. He said, "The act of stabbing her through the neck from one side through the other is the most emphatic
evidence of pure hatred, rage, and intent to kill." >> Mhm. >> Now, in his final argument, Michael
Sherman was blunt and simple. >> He didn't practice this one either. >> Good morning. He didn't do it. He didn't
do it. He doesn't know who did. He wasn't there when the crimes were committed, and he never confessed.
That's the whole case. Babe, that's not going to convince me of anything. That's just going to convince
me you didn't have your morning coffee. >> Yeah, that the [ __ ] >> I I feel like you you should have done
this earlier. >> Yeah. >> Like I feel like this is one of those that you were like, I did this before
breakfast. Like that was it. >> Just threw that one together. >> Yeah, that's a rough.
>> But then he just used the rest of it. So that was his like here's what I'm going
to >> here's my argument. >> He didn't do it. He didn't do it. He doesn't know who did. He wasn't there.
He never confessed. That's it. >> Are you going to tell me why though? And then the rest of the time he just used
to attack the prosecution, the witnesses, and the investigators for what he alleged was a concerted effort
to frame Michael. He said, "I have to tell you, this is the worstrun conspiracy I've ever seen."
>> Wow. >> Now, the jury deliberated for 4 days before finally coming out on June 8th,
my [clears throat] birthday. >> Hey. To find Michael Skakel guilty of the murder of Martha Moxley.
>> Oh, bad day for Michael. Now, when the verdict was read, Skakel swayed slightly
and shook his head in disbelief. From somewhere behind him, a member of the Skakel family shouted, "Oh my god."
Martha's family, on the other hand, was very happy with the jury's decision. >> You wait that long for justice for your
daughter. >> Dorothy told a group of reporters, "This whole thing was about Martha."
>> Yeah. >> I feel so blessed and so overwhelmed. This is Martha's day. I hope people
remember that. >> Oh. Now, when asked about the verdict his book had seemingly helped secure at
the time, Mark Ferman praised the jury. He said, "They were attentive. They gave
away nothing. They made no mistakes. Even when I talked to them, they said they were of one mind very early on that
he was guilty." Now, in late August, Skel went back to the Norwok court for sentencing. And when asked whether he
had anything to say for himself, Skel went on the offensive. He attacked his accusers and repeatedly professed his
innocence. Before passing sentence, Judge John Cavanooki's address to the court was pretty broad, just saying,
"For the last 25 years or more, a period well into his adult life, the defendant
has been living a lie about his guilt. Most importantly, this defendant has accepted no responsibility. He has
expressed no personal remorse to this present day. All of this persuades me to impose a sentence which on balance is
substantial." And with that, he sentenced Skakel to 20 years to life to be served at the Garner Correctional
Institution in New Town, Connecticut. Okay. Now, his appeals began almost immediately after the sentence. In 2004,
the Connecticut Supreme Court heard his claims that among other things, his constitutional rights were violated when
the state prosecuted him for a crime in which the statute of limitations had expired. Hm.
>> The argument depended largely on Skakel having been underage when the murder was
committed and the judge in juvenile court had aired in transferring the case to criminal court. In their conclusion,
the justices upheld the lower court's ruling, noting if the trial court aired in their actions, the defendant has not
established harm. Okay? So, they just kept it. They were like, "No." >> [snorts]
>> Now, in subsequent appeals, Skakel's defense team made a number of claims of improper conduct from claims of
prosecutorial misconduct to the credibility of witness testimony and beyond. >> Okay.
>> Each case was considered by the higher courts and rejected on the merits. Now,
then in 2013, Skel launched another appear appeal for a new trial. this time arguing that his original trial
attorney, Michael Sherman, was incompetent and was more interested in building his own reputation and
celebrity than he was in defending his client. >> Okay. >> Martha Moxley's friends, family, and
neighbors waited more than 25 years for her to see justice. And it felt like >> it had finally been found.
>> Yeah. >> But in November 2013, Judge Thomas Bishop agreed with Skakel's complaint
and ordered a new trial. >> Oh. [sighs and gasps] In his conclusion, Judge Bishop noted
that Michael Sherman, quote, was in a myriad of ways ineffective, and as such, there was no way to be certain that the
jury was acting on the best information available. >> Okay. >> To Martha's family, who had been
struggling through a frustrating investigation and decades of uncertainty in trials, the reversal was a massive
disappointment. >> Of course, it was, >> but one that was not entirely unexpected, unfortunately.
>> Yeah. >> Given the extent of Skaggel's resources. Mhm. >> Uh Dorothy Moxley told reporters after
Skel was released on bail pending a new trial. I guess I knew that the day would
come and she said it would have made my life much easier for this not to happen.
>> Oh, >> that must be >> I can't even like come up with how that would feel to have it like finally this
is over. We can start healing. >> Ever really believe it's true. >> But then it's just reversed. And that's
the thing. They And they were It's like holding your breath, waiting for the moment.
>> Like because she believed that they got it right. >> Yeah. >> But she never believed that it would
hold because she knows >> they have infinite resources. >> Now, like Dorothy Moxley, the
prosecution was ready when the reversal happened and had already started preparing for a retrial.
>> Okay. >> Fortunately, however, the prosecution wouldn't have to go that route. In 2016,
the Connecticut Supreme Court overruled the lower court and concluded that Skakel had in fact been given a fair
trial, even if he didn't feel as though the lawyer provided the best possible defense.
>> Okay. >> Uh, one of the justices wrote in their concurrence, "Sherman's defense need not
have been the best decision or even a good one. It need only fall within the wide range of reasonable decisions that
a defense attorney might make." >> Okay. To those who'd been watching the case from day one, the state supreme
court's decision seemed like an attempt to correct the previous injustice. >> But there wasn't much time to celebrate.
[snorts] >> Okay, this is up and down and up and down. In fact, despite having reinstated
the conviction, the question of whether Michael Sherman provided adequate representation would be argued back and
forth in the state supreme court for two more years until May 2018 when the court
ultimately reversed their original decision, their earlier decision, and agreed with Skakel's complaint that his
lawyer had been ineffective and thus he was originally deprived of a fair trial.
>> Okay. From the moment he was arrested in 1991, nearly everyone in Greenwich, Connecticut, watched and waited to see
how Michael Skakel's wealth and power would possibly help him in this scenario. They figured it was just a
foregone conclusion that it was going to come into play. >> Yeah. >> To the shock of many, that proved
ineffective when a jury found him guilty and a judge sentenced him to spend the rest of his life in prison. Mhm.
>> Securing Skakel's conviction in a lengthy sentence was a major victory for the prosecution who had to again contend
with really poor police work, missing evidence, the death of their star witness mid-trial.
>> Y >> but in truth, his conviction was just never a sure bet. >> Mhm. >> Uh the case there was a lot of
circumstantial stuff and there was a there was a lot of time between the crime and when the trial occurred. There
was just a lot that were >> a lot working against them. >> Yeah. Now that Skakel had once again managed
to win a new trial and was out on bail, the district attorney needed to decide whether they could feasibly secure the
same verdict nearly 30 years later. >> With many of their witnesses having passed away or simply forgotten the
important parts of their testimony cuz they're getting older, right? >> That's I don't remember 30 years ago.
>> No. And it's you can't necessarily rely on somebody's memory from 30 years ago
as you're on a jury. >> And everybody's memory is different. It's like I don't have a great memory.
>> Like my friend like Deb Debb will say things that are like remember when this
happened? I'm like oh [ __ ] Yeah. Like or I'll just be like no I don't remember
that. Like my brain my memory is just like weird. I remember weird [ __ ] I don't remember good [ __ ]
>> And it's like that. So you just can't be sure. >> Mhm. But in the end, Chief States
Attorney Richard Cullen Jello looked at the potential battle of a new trial and determined that retrying Michael Skakel
simply wasn't a good use of the state's resources. >> I hate when they say that. Like I get
what they're saying, but I just hate how it sounds. >> He said, "I believe the state cannot
prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the state is going to enter a null pros, which means to be
unwilling to pursue." Oh, >> once it was formally entered in 2021, the null pros resulted in a discharge of
the murder charge against Michael Skaggel. >> So, he was never necessarily proven
innocent. They were just like, "We think you did this, but we can't prove it." >> Basically, we just don't think we can
prove you guilty again. >> It's almost like what happened with the West Memphis 3. I know that's like a
whole different process. like a little that's more we're not saying what it's like basically they can't they they just
say that they did it. >> Mhm. >> And the state will let them go and that means they can't sue the state.
>> Oh, >> that's what it means with the West Memphis. That's an Alfred plea. >> Yeah.
>> This is them being like we just don't think putting resources to retrying you
will get us the conviction, >> but we still think you did it. But like, and I don't even know. I don't even know
if it's we still think you did it. I think it's just like >> we don't think we have we're not going
to put the resources forward because we don't think we could get a conviction again.
>> Wow. >> So, you will be released. >> Um, so although, so he was a free man once again.
>> Okay. >> Although it is possible that Skaggel could be charged again and taken to
trial. That is a thing. in the absence of the, you know, any new compelling evidence of his guilt, it seems pretty
unlikely because nothing has come out since then that points to him. >> Yeah. >> Regardless of the prosecutor's decision,
uh Dorothy Skakel remained convinced >> that they got it right the first time. >> Yeah.
>> Um while she was disappointed with the outcome, she told reporters she was quote satisfied with the efforts of
police and prosecutors. >> All right. >> So, like, damn. >> At least she had that
>> a very impressive outlook. >> Yeah, she did. That's >> But sadly, on December 24th, Christmas
Eve, 2024, Dorothy Moxley died >> at her home in New Jersey at the age of 92. >> Wow.
>> But from complications of the flu. >> Oh, that's awful. >> Now, technically, Martha Moxley's murder
remains unsolved to this day and is currently inactive. >> Oh, it should be active,
>> which makes me crazy. It should be active >> because regardless I that's like the
fact >> girl was murdered. >> The facts of the case I am not giving my personal opinion on this. The facts of
the case are Michael Skakel was convicted of the murder. >> Mhm. >> He was granted a new trial and they
chose not to pursue it. So he was freed. That's just the facts of the case. >> I don't know. Again, no more compelling
evidence has come forward to that we know of >> or that has been released, I should say,
or come public >> to say that he did it >> or that anyone else did it. And that's
what's really frustrating cuz it's like we don't have anything else. There's nothing else we can dig into.
>> They need to review that evidence. >> Why is did fingerprinting ever [ __ ] happen on that thing? I don't know cuz
also the golf club broke so I don't know if it was >> hard to who knows if they have both
parts. >> Yeah. I don't know. I don't know exactly what parts they were able to like or
what the parts what kind of condition they were in or >> she was discovered with her pants like
around her. >> Yes. And the the medical examiner said there was no evidence of sexual assault,
but there was red marks on her thighs that were like handprints that he believed were someone trying to wrench
her knees apart. But there was no biological evidence of sexual assault that they found.
>> Okay. >> That's not saying with 100% certainty. >> Yeah. >> But they were they were fairly confident
that they didn't believe. [sighs] Oh, I think this investigation just was tough.
>> It's got a lot around it. It's got a lot going on. But right now, you know, >> Michael Skel is not a con, you know, not
>> considered the person that did it. >> Yeah. >> Right now. >> But you know what we say, a cold case is
never cold. Exactly. And technically because this is it's open though, right? It's open but inactive.
>> It's it's unsolved and inactive. I think it's just >> Oh, yes. Okay. >> So, it's it's a bummer. I would love to
see it solved regardless of who is the person they identify. I would like it to be solved.
>> Yeah. >> Just for Martha's family. >> Yeah. Their their family deserves justice and so does Martha.
>> Yeah. And for the people who have, but there was there's a few names thrown around in this case. It would it would
be nice if you could, you know, exonerate those those names or prove that somebody did it.
>> Yeah. Just just have some certainty. >> You know, there's a lot of people that
were involved in this case that are thrown around here. >> Yeah. Yeah. Wow. What a what a brutal
case and just just >> it's awful. >> It's so awful and it's so messy and it's so young. Super promising.
>> It's so sad for so many reasons. >> Life ahead of her. >> Yeah. Doing everything right. Just being
a teenager in the ' 80s or the '7s. >> '7s. >> And this is awful. >> Just going to hang out with her friends
>> and in a place that like didn't have crime. >> Yeah. Like a safe, >> you know? Like, so like this is just
like >> even weirder and it's and it makes you think more that this was someone who
potentially knew her because like >> it's not like random strangers were >> being attacked or anything like that.
>> Sculpting around Bell Haven. >> Yeah. >> Except for that hitchhiker that they
claimed they saw that no one could ever Yeah. Nobody could prove if they existed
or not. >> Yeah. >> But who knows? >> You never know. >> I don't know. >> You never know.
>> Yeah. I think we need a fun fact. >> We do need a fun fact. Do you have a fun
fact? >> Tbby has a good one. >> Oh my god. I Debb Debb just found the greatest fun fact that just like ruined
my life with the visual as well cuz that is the cutest baby elephant I've ever seen in my life.
>> Elephants are my favorite. >> Baby elephants suck their trunks for comfort like a baby like would suck
their thumb or like a like a pacifier. And they suck their thumbs like just to or their their their trunk thumbs
>> just to soo themselves when they're tired, anxious, or away from their mamas.
>> And please look at this elephant. >> Oh my god. >> I think my entire life just changed
because of that picture of that big elephant. >> I love elephants so much. Elephants are
the best animals ever. They literally like they hold funerals. >> Oh, they take care of each other. They
live in communities >> protect. They save each other's babies. >> Yeah. Like they are We are not We don't
deserve elephants. >> We don't deserve them at all. >> We don't We don't deserve most animals
to be honest. >> My youngest had us watch a show on Disney Plus that was like called
Elephant, I think, or something. And it was just about a whole [ __ ] group of elephants.
>> Oh, honey, I'm f to watch. >> One of one of the elephants saved another one's baby.
>> They do. >> From being stuck in mud. >> Cutest thing I've ever seen. And they
like never gave up. They were like, "I'm saving this baby." So, elephants. >> Oh my god. Also, while we're talking
about that, Drew and I have been watching this show. I think it's on Hulu. It's about the San Diego Zoo and
it is so much fun. >> I don't necessarily recommend watching with your children because they do talk
about mating season. >> I [laughter] literally I was just about to recommend it to Elena because they
were talking about koalas and her girls love koalas, but then they were like, "He's about to have sexy time with the
other koala ladies." And I was like, "Okay, maybe don't have them." texted me and she was like, "Oh my god, they
should watch this." And then like 10 minutes later she was like, "Scratch that. They should not watch this
[laughter] yet." Maybe not yet. You probably have to talk. >> But if you're like an adult who loves
animals, it's a really good show. >> I love that. >> So check it out. >> Hell yeah.
>> And with that being said, we hope you keep listening >> and we hope you >> keep it weird.
>> Just not too weird. >> Not too weird that you leave this case unsolved. >> Yes.
>> Not that weird. >> [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music] [music]

On October 30, 1975, fifteen-year-old Martha Moxley failed to return home after a night out with friends in Belle Haven, an exclusive wealthy enclave in Greenwich, CT. The following morning, Moxley’s badly beaten body was discovered underneath a tree, just a few hundred feet from her house, triggering one of the most notorious murder mysteries in the state’s history.

MENTIONED IN THIS EPISODE:

Buy Tickets to MORBID LIVE at Radio City Music Hall on June 27th!

Buy Tickets to MORBID LIVE at Radio City Music Hall on June 27th!

Preorder THE BUTCHER LEGACY!

Preorder our collab with Hunt a Killer, THE SALEM SLICER

References

Associated Press. 1975. "Parents guarding children in Greenwich murder area." Connecticut Post, November 10: 2.

—. 1998. "1975 murder case before grand jury." Hartford Courant, July 12: 22.

—. 1998. "Fuhrman book on 1975 slaying points to Kennedy relative." Hartford Courant, May 10: 28.

Brown, Marian Gail. 2002. "Verdict shocks court observers 27 years after Moxley slaying." Connecticut Post, June 8: 1.

CNN. 2007. Moxley case: Excerpts from the Sutton Report. December 17. Accessed November 26, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/17/court.archive.skakel11/index.html.

—. 2002. Moxley Case: Who was Martha Moxley? Accessed November 21, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/17/court.archive.skakel9/index.html.

Connecticut Post. 1975. "Girl, 15, found murdered at her Greenwich home." Connecticut Post, November 1: 1.

Ellement, John, and Lisa Prevost. 2000. "Skakel is arrested in '75 Conn. murder." Boston Globe, January 20.

Gaines, Judith. 1998. "Grand juror to probe '75 Conn. murder." Boston Globe, June 18.

—. 1991. "Police taking a fresh look at 1975 murder of Conn. teen-ager." Boston Globe, October 7.

Hartford Courant. 2002. "Skakel jurors." Hartford Courant, July 28: H2.

Lang, Joel. 1997. "Martha's murder." Hartford Courant, May 18: 10.

Levitt, Leonard. 2004. Conviction: Solving the Moxley Murder . New York, NY: Regan Books.

Mahony, Edmund. 2020. "No retrial for Skakel." Hartford Courant, October 31: 1.

Merchant, Robert. 2016. "Skakel murder conviction reinstated." Connecticut Post, December 31: 1.

Ondek, Richard. 1976. "Prosecutor says family impedes murder probe." Connecticut Post, March 26: 1.

Owens, David. 2013. "Freed on bail." Hartford Courant, November 22: 1.

2003. Mugshots: Michael Skakel. Performed by Single Spark Productions.

State of Connecticut v. Michael Skakel. 2004. S.C. 16844 (Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut, June 23).

Tofig, Dana. 1999. "Suspect's lawyer seeks to suprress comments." Hartford Courant, May 27: B7.

Tuohy, Lynne. 2002. "A life, a death revisited." Hartford Courant, May 8: 1.

—. 2000. "Kennedy nephew facing arrest in killing." Hartford Courant, January 19: 1.

—. 2002. "No apology, no remorse." Hartford Courant, August 30: 1.

—. 2002. "One final chance to make their cases." Hartford Courant, June 4: 1.

—. 2002. "Prosecution puts on its rebuttal."

Hartford Courant

, May 30: 1.

Cowritten by Alaina Urquhart, Ash Kelley & Dave White (Since 10/2022) Produced & Edited by Mikie Sirois (Since 2023) Research by Dave White (Since 10/2022), Alaina Urquhart & Ash Kelley Listener Correspondence & Collaboration by Debra Lally Listener Tale Video Edited by Aidan McElman (Since 6/2025) Listener Tale Theme Music licensed from https://www.purple-planet.com Main Theme: Matti Paalanen — Trick or Treat — Provided by Jamendo Ad Music: Title: Artist: BlueJay Studio — Spooky Waltz — Provided by Jamendo

Brief Summary

The episode discusses the Martha Moxley murder case, focusing on Michael Skakel's confessions and the trial's outcome.

Key points

The Butcher Legacy Sneak Peek. Ash shares details about her upcoming video series on The Butcher Legacy.
Michael Skakel's Shocking Alibi. Michael Skakel's new alibi places him at the scene of the crime in a bizarre way.
Confession in Therapy. Michael Skakel reportedly confessed to the murder of Martha Moxley during therapy sessions.
Furman Finds an Ally. Retired detective Steve Carol becomes a crucial ally for Ferman in the investigation.
Ferman's Bold Claim. Ferman names Michael Skakel as the murderer in his book, stirring controversy.
The One-Person Grand Jury. A surprising announcement of a one-person grand jury raises eyebrows in the investigation.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

Oh, what the actual [ __ ]?

Reaction to Michael's shocking new alibi.

6:58WatchJun 4, 2026

Tension

75/ 100High tension

More from Morbid | Podcast

Solve the Crime

Read a real case one clue at a time, then see how your call held up against the investigators.