Talk:Murder of Martha Moxley

Parole

I recall when Skakel was about to be sentenced and the media were stating that, given the charges, he could be sentenced to a minimum of 10 years and eligible for parole in 7. The judge responded to this by stating that he would in fact spend at least 10 years and subsequently gave him 20 to life with eligibility after 10. But given the extensive appeals process, has his sentence taken effect nonetheless, meaning that despite continuous legal action, he could get out in 2012? And should there be a mentioning of the prison he was sent to? Thanks, Alan 74.130.228.165 (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well... I don't think speculation will cut it with the hard-core Wikidrones, so most of what you bring up would be branded non-factual POV opinion. But certainly the prison he's in should be mentioned. Proxy User (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

CNN said he would be eligible for parole in April 2013. That is of course no guarantee he will get it. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

if the judge gave 20 to life, then being paroled at 20 would be favorable. Parole after ten years is much too soon. Of course the offender wants to be paroled, but. It seems just like yesterday he was sentenced to 20 to life, so parole after ten years much too soon for a convicted murderer with a life sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.76.157.135 (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And it seems so, no getting out too earley. He will likely get out somewhere between 20 and 30, if he isn't dead first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.67.17 (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Biography

While this "article" talkes about Skakel's crime and conviction, it really has no biographical information in it. Isn't that in and of itself a bit telling of bias? Proxy User (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not really bias. It just an incomplete article. I came here myself to learn more about this guy so I'm a bit dissapointed as well that it is only the trial details . Those appear to be unbiased but more details about his life would be a nice addition to the article. Dman727 (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to add some biographical information about Michael Skakel and the Skakel family. However, as you would be aware, most of the information available in the public domain is the subject of conjecture. I only have the Fuhrmann and Dumas books and the Kennedy article to hand - would information drawn from the three of these be sufficiently balanced? DuchessofNewTown (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. Bobby Kennedy Jr. has written extensively about Skakel specifically and the Skakel's generally. Though he is a cousin of Skakel, he is also one of the best lawyers in the country (and has license to practice law federally and in Mass). There are articles in the New Yorker that shred the prosecution's case as well as point to the likely killer of M. Moxely. He also provides background on the Skakel family's upbringing, Michael's boughts with drink and drug abuse and his recovery from addiction. These aspects should all be in a decent wiki entry about him. Posimosh (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable Doubt

Reasonable Doubt June 2008

Dear Mr Sherman, We met in LA-southern california at the Ritz Hotel. I represented Branford Consultants and I pointed out to you that the Moxley's moved from Oakland, CA and they returned in the summer of 1975. John Moxley (martha's brother) was on the Montera Jr High School golf team coached by Des Leonard who had in his trunk extra golf clubs of which were Toni Penna's. Along with George Zador, John's wresling teammate, two of these clubs were in Connecticut the weekend of Halloween. If it weren't for the fact that George Zador was Barbara Hulse's friend and she was found murdered right after the weekend of your murder; you and I would not have met.

A few nights ago the program "Bio" played a Moxley/Greenwich program and Mr Dumas and yourself were interviewed. I was asked as a follow up why you didn't mentioned that "doubt" could have been shown by linking the events of three other murders including the Oakland Ca travel agent neighbor of the Moxleys, Mr Thomas Cook, who was bludgeoned to death that summer of 1975.

Seems to me you have completely ignored the strongest suggestions of fact that your client has been telling the truth? Sincerely, Mark Kropp, MD

Mark:

Of course I remember our meeting. I have forwarded your email to Hope Seeley who is handling Michael's appeal. I would like nothing better to see justice done here and to see Michael exonerated.

Mickey Sherman (Oaklandhillsca (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Relation to Senator Robert F. Kennedy

If Robert Kennedy is described as the husband of Skakel's aunt, wouldn't that make him his uncle. If it's important enough to mention in the article, describing him as the husband of Skakel's father's sister seems too convoluted when uncle is cleaner, and more common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.199.22 (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

True, making Skakel cousin to his supporter RFK Jr., a relationship I'll add to the article if it's not mentioned already. I'll leave to someone else improving the convolution you point out. --CliffC (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy was Michael Skakel's uncle. Robert F. Kennedy was married to Michael's aunt (Rushton Skakel's sister) Ethel Skakel. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who wrote a lengthy article about Skakel's trial & conviction which was published in the Atlantic Monthly, is Michael Skakel's first cousin.

Some questions

Was Micheal dating Moxley? Were she a Thomas having sex?--24.62.109.225 (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

if you call beating a girl with a golf club dating. As for as the sex, again, that was much the same as the golf club. Skankyal said he was jerking off to explain his DNA all over the place. Not to highlight details to familybwho may see this, but with the parole hearingncoming up, we must all see what we have here, a sex murderer who is also in denial. Until he faces truth, ther can be non rehabilitation. In the 20 to life range, the 20 seems much too soon, so parole after ten is notneven a reasonable consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.76.157.135 (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Who had redirected this article?

On this date this article redirects to the article on the victim.

Is this vandalism ?

G. Robert Shiplett 13:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not redirect this again without discussion. The original redirect included as part of the edit summary rationale: "He is only notable for her murder." 100% wrong: her murder is only notable because of him (who he is related to). See the title of this most recent AP article for confirmation of that... [1] Doc talk 13:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If her murder is "only notable because of Michael Skakel," then I will instead merge and redirect the content of Martha Moxley to this article. This is one of the cases where separate articles of the victim and suspect are completely pointless. In fact, almost everything from the Martha Moxley article, including all references and sources, is an exact duplicate of what already exists in this one. The only thing I left out is this section Moxley was born in San Francisco, California, to Dorthy and David Moxley and lived in Piedmont, California. Martha and her family settled in Belle Haven, an affluent section of Greenwich, Connecticut, which I really do not think anyone would care about, though this can easily be added to the Michael Skakel article if needed. In my opinion, this article should be renamed Murder of Martha Moxley, similar to Murder of Kitty Genovese or Murder of David Lynn Harris because it is technically not a biography, but a murder case and trial. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Skakel

The article should mention Thomas Skakel's age at the time of the murder: 17.

It seems roughly equally likely that Michael, Thomas or someone else committed the crime. Common sense, decency and also sound statistical reasoning suggests that if a sentence of 20 years is appropriate for this crime, then any one of the above 3 should be sentenced to 7 years. In addition, Michael was only 15 at the time, which suggests that the sentence should be even shorter.

BS - He was 15 then, but he is not 15 now. I do not care that the judge ordered a new trial. He was sentenced to 20 to live and he needs to do the 20. A new trial is not going to hepp here. Everybody already knows that he is guilty. He will be found guilty again and his only hope is to get some liberal judge to give him less time, which may allow release at the new sentencing. On the other hand, he could get more time this time and get 30 or 40 to life and he will do that time without parole. As long as he continues this nonsense about not accepting responsibility, he is not going to be paroled. Forget this new trial, he will not get bail and he will be convicted again. He was convicted and the conviction is not reversed, he only gets a new trial where he will be found guilty, if he actually gets the new trial. My bet is that this ruling is reversed on appeal, but he is already been found guilty and there is no presumption of innocence here. He did it, we all know he did it, and there is no way a honest jury will find him not guilty. Unless this same judge presides, he will be sentenced to more time after being found guilty a second time. The best deal for Skakel is the 20 to life he is serving and he should just do his time and be glad that he does not have life without parole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.139.3.68 (talk) 08:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The case is interesting because it illustrates a frequent drawback of the adverserial legal system: we are often rather unsure who committed a crime, yet the verdict is "all-or-none" and does not reflect the element of doubt. Juries should be allowed to make "probably guilty' or "probably innocent" verdicts, along the lines of the Scottish "Not proven" verdict. Paulhummerman (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This fact is especially problematic in old cases, cohered confessions, or, as in this case, a railroading after the fact. They accused and tried the easiest person to convict. The facts of this case have become irrelevant because of the copious and profound prosecutorial misconduct, and evidence tampering to fit the case (and not the facts.) Though, in an adversarial judiciary, cases are supposed to be thrown out on these contingencies, but they often aren't. Instead the win/lose dichotomy causes some prosecutors to double down on their theory of a crime and ridgedly cling to a conviction in a border-line case like this one. The trouble is, its the border-line cases that prosecutors "help" using underhanded actions and judicial deception (or outright criminality) which is compounded (in a justice sense) by the fact that by the time they leave the prosecutors office, the truth is often known, and they act accordingly so-as not to be found to have "helped" a border-line case become a slam-dunk. Posimosh (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Martha Moxley

Shouldn't Wikipedia have a separate article for the Murder of Martha Moxley? It is a significant and highly sourced event. It is very notable, and the subject of many books and documentaries. It seems odd that the article for the murder victim, Martha Moxley, redirects here to the article of her convicted murderer, Michael Skakel. Thought? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

See the "Who had redirected this article?" section for why she was redirected. For now, the murder page also redirects to this article. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 15:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I just now read that section. I still think that this is essentially an article about the murder case more so than a biography of Michael Skakel. I will leave my proposal to rename the article here for more discussion and a consensus. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This article is about the Moxley murder, and should be so named. I moved it, and Michael Skakel now is a redirect here. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I landed here whilst doing some administrative tidyups. As the move is less than an hour old, I will just note that some templates still need changing if the article is no longer a biography. ie BLP sources, Persondata, Infobox, Wikiprojects Periglio (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Good catch! Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Geoffrey.landis (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I have raised concerns about a source which is being used in this article at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Editors are invited to participate.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Martha Moxley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.courttv.com/trials/moxley/profiles/michael_skakel_ctv.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Gratuitous link?

This section mentions Michael Skakel having used masturbating as an alibi during the initial investigation. The term "masturbating" links to the wiki page on masturbating.

Is that a good thing? I don't have anything against masturbation, but that link struck me as more facetious than encyclopedic. It's definitely one heck of a tangent, at best.. I'd think most people sophisticated enough to turn to WP to read up on Kennedy lore wouldn't require the referral. Is there a policy preference to insert links wherever they can fit, or is it a matter of editorial discretion?

My concern is entirely aesthetic. Also, I'm new to editing, though a long time, avid reader. Thanks in advance for your feedback. Alefist (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Martha Moxley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125182902/http://www.savagewatch.com/moxleysketchsuspect.html to http://savagewatch.com/moxleysketchsuspect.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael Skakel article inside of this article

What's up with the section on Skakel that is formatted as an article, with an infobox? Very odd.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

See above in the Murder of Martha Moxley section. Back in 2014 his article was redirected here by consensus. IMO this made sense as that article really had little development and was a magnet for vandalism. Markvs88 (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Lede: Name the Judge, Give Some Reason Why a New Trial

In 2013, he was granted a new trial by a Connecticut judge and released on $1.2 million bail.

Instead it should be "In 2013, Judge "X" granted a new trial because (reasons). I haven't read into the Article, but already it smacks of bias and censorship. I suspect that later on in the Article, I'll find out that the murderer was wealthy and connected, and that's why he got a new trial, and it's also why the name of the Judge, and the legal argument behind granting him a new trial is missing from the Lede. Here because it turns out the news today said he's not getting a new, 2nd trial and came to Wikipedia to find out what the story was and instead I get more bias, censorship, etc... Bad enough the guy got away with murder, the least you could do is tell the truth of it instead of hiding it from the public.68.206.249.124 (talk) 23:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)