Jun 4, 2000 - Finally, at 3:45am, Moxley called the Greenwich police. They searched the Moxley house and neighborhood but found no trace of Martha

At around 10 o'clock on the morning of October 31, when Martha still hadn't returned, Moxley walked over to the Skakels' to see what she could find ...

WAITING FOR JUSTICE DORTHY MOXLEY'S TEENAGE DAUGHTER WAS BRUTALLY KILLED 25 YEARS AGO.

NOW THAT AN ARREST HAS BEEN MADE, SHE'S HOPING THE UNCERTAINTY WILL END AT LAST.

Boston Globe

......."I just can't believe it's finally happening," says Dorthy Moxley. "After so many years, I just can't believe it." Moxley sits in her Chatham, New Jersey, living room, facing a portrait of her two children. It's where she settles to talk on the phone and spend time with visitors. In the painting, Martha and John Moxley sit in front of a sofa with their cat and dog, looking as blond and....

Click for complete article

Filed Under: Murder

May 26, 2000 - Rosie's armed bodyguard: Staunch anti-gun comedienne admits need for protection

The bodyguard of actress, comedienne and staunch gun-control advocate Rosie O'Donnell has applied for a concealed gun permit, possibly to allow him to carry a gun when accompanying one of her children to public school later this year.

According to a report in The Advocate, police officials in Greenwich said they had not yet decided whether to issue the permit. But O'Donnell, interviewed by the newspaper, said the action was necessary because of threats made to her.

"The application, which is pending with the Greenwich Police Department, led to a rumor that the purpose of the permit would be to allow the bodyguard to legally carry a gun when accompanying O'Donnell's son to public school in September," the paper said.

O'Donnell told reporters that the bodyguard is seeking the permit at the behest of the security firm that employs him, not because she asked him to get one. She identified the firm as Kroll, and said the bodyguard is arranged by Warner Brothers on her behalf. Warner Brothers produces her television show, "Rosie O'Donnell"

She said the guard is currently unarmed, though trained in self-defense techniques, and that there was never any intention that he would carry a weapon to school -- a statement confirmed by Greenwich Superintendent of Schools Roger Lulow.

However, O'Donnell added that because of threats, she and her family -- including 4-year-old Parker who will be attending school next fall -- need protection, which she attributes ironically to her tough gun-control rhetoric.

"O'Donnell expressed concern that publicity about her son's attendance at a local school -- coupled with the information that the guard would be unarmed -- could make him vulnerable to harm," the paper said. No one is naming the school or O'Donnell's neighborhood because of the potential security issues.

And, Superintendent Lulow did confirm that the school's principal had been approached about whether an armed guard for Parker would be welcome at the school when he enters kindergarten in September.

"There was a request for information made to me that asked whether we allow security guards who carry weapons on school grounds," Lulow said.

Lulow said he initially did not know the answer to that question, but after researching state statutes, he found he was empowered to grant the request under special circumstances.

"But before going any further, the principal asked if we should check to see if the bodyguard is going to be armed, and we found out he won't be armed -- so it's academic," Lulow said.

The rumor spread nevertheless, causing angst among some local parents.

Meanwhile, Greenwich Police Chief Peter Robbins confirmed that O'Donnell's bodyguard, who he would not identify, had indeed applied to his department for a permit that would allow him to carry a concealed weapon.

"The facts are, (O'Donnell's) bodyguard has made an application for a carry permit," Robbins said. "It's under review, and I haven't yet granted a permit for this applicant."

The paper said O'Donnell's spokesman confirmed that O'Donnell was worried about potential threats -- which she did not name -- to her children.

Furthermore, O'Donnell herself justified her bodyguard being armed, though she remains a staunch gun control advocate.

"I don't personally own a gun," she said, "but if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem."

O'Donnell is a single mother with three adopted children: Parker, 4, Chelsea, 3, and Blake, who turns 1 this month.

Last year, after berating actor Tom Selleck on her TV show over his appearances in National Rifle Association-sponsored commercials and promotions, critics began to point to O'Donnell's association as pitchwoman for the K-Mart retail chain and its large retail gun-sales division.

The criticism led to the end of her relationship with K-Mart, which she said was her idea.

"It's only fair to K-mart that I stop doing commercials," she told reporters at the time.

However, the New York Daily News said sources within K-Mart told reporters that O'Donnell was fired by K-Mart executives because of all the negative publicity her vociferous anti-gun rhetoric was bringing on the company, a claim both O'Donnell and K-Mart denied publicly.

Transcript of Tom Selleck
& Rosie O'Donnell's NRA Discussion

Rosie: We're here with Tom Selleck who's a member of the NRA. Three months ago you joined the NRA.
*
Tom: I did. I actually joined to do an ad. Because, I've done a lot of consensus work for like the last 7 to 8 years and what disturbs me and I think disturbs a lot of Americans is the whole idea of politics now-a-days which seems to be, 'if you disagree with me, you must be evil' as opposed to 'if you disagree with me, you must be stupid'. That's very American.
*
You know, the demonizing of a group like the NRA is very disturbing. And that coupled with the idea that the government is getting into the idea of suing. We did it for noble reasons with tobacco. I think it was a mistake. Then they moved to gun makers, now they're suing television shows. Oliver Stone there's a suit on his movie.
*
I think the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and all of the Bill of Rights are extremely important. And somebody needs to stand up at times where... maybe some of our politicians are demagogue-ing issues. Reasonable people should disagree in this country; we should celebrate that, not consider it a threat.
*
Rosie: Right, but I think that the reason that people are so extreme against the NRA is because the NRA has such a militant strength, especially a power in Washington to veto or to stronghold any sensible gun law. They have been against every sensible gun law, until yesterday, including trigger locks, so that children, which there are 500 a year that die, don't get killed.
*
Tom: I'm not a spokesman for the NRA. In fact, all I can tell you is, I was a member when I was kid. I was a junior NRA member. I learned firearm safety. And from what I can see in the last three months, they don't do a lot of the stuff that you assume that they do.
*
Rosie: I don't assume.
*
Tom: They are for trigger locks. The NRA is for a lot of things as long as they're voluntary.
*
Rosie: They're against the registering of guns. We have to register cars. Why shouldn't we register guns so that when a crime is committed we can trace who has owned it?
*
Tom: You know, I understand how you feel. This is a really contentious issue. Probably as contentious, and potentially as troubling as the abortion issue in this country. All I can tell you is, rushes to pass legislation at a time of national crisis or mourning, I don't really think are proper. And more importantly, nothing in any of this legislation would have done anything to prevent that awful tragedy in Littleton.
*
What I see in the work I've done with kids is, is troubling direction in our culture. And where I see consensus, which is I think we ought to concentrate on in our culture is... look... nobody argues anymore whether they're Conservatives or Liberal whether our society is going in the wrong direction. They may argue trying to quantify how far it's gone wrong or why it's gone that far wrong, whether it's guns, or television, or the Internet, or whatever. But there's consensus saying that something's happened.

Guns were much more accessible 40 years ago. A kid could walk into a pawn shop or a hardware store and buy a high capacity magazine weapon that could kill a lot of people and they didn't do it.
*
The question we should be asking is... look... suicide is a tragedy. And it's a horrible thing. But 30 or 40 years ago, particularly men, and even young men, when they were suicidal, they went, and unfortunately, blew their brains out. In today's world, someone who is suicidal sits home, nurses their grievance, develops a rage, and is just a suicidal but they take 20 people with them. There's something changed in our culture. That's not a simple...
*
Rosie: But you can't say that guns don't bear a responsibility. If the makers of the TEC-9 assault rifle... Why wouldn't the NRA be against assault rifles? This is a gun that can shoot five bullets in a second. This is the gun that those boys brought into the school. Why the NRA wouldn't say as a matter of compromise, 'we agree, assault weapons are not good'?
*
Tom: I'm not... I can't speak for the NRA.
*
Rosie: But you're their spokesperson Tom, so you have to be responsible for what they say.
*
Tom: But I'm not a spokesperson. I'm not a spokesperson for the NRA.
*
Rosie: But if you put your name out and say, 'I, Tom Selleck...
*
Tom: Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not a spokesperson. Remember how calm you said you'd be? Now you're questioning my humanity.
*
Rosie: No, not your humanity. I think you're a very humane man. I'm saying that if you...
*
Tom: Let's just say that I disagree with you but I think you're being stupid.
*
Rosie: But you can't say that I will not take responsibility for anything the NRA represents if you're saying that you're going to do an ad for the NRA.
*
Tom: Really?
*
Rosie: You can't say that. Do you think you can?
*
Tom: Look... you're carefully skirting the issue. It's an act of moral vanity, Rosie, to assume that someone who disagrees with your political agenda to solve our problems, cares any less or is any less shocked...
*
Rosie: I never said you cared less.
*
Tom: Well, let me finish...
*
Rosie: Tom, I don't think you cared less. Nor do I think the men in the NRA cared less.
*
Tom: The women too.
*
Rosie: And the women. I simply said, why can there not be a compromise on the issue...
*
Tom: There IS a compromise! There's a compromise in enforcing laws. There's a compromise with not allowing kids with guns in school. The problem is, and what you don't seem to realize... you seem to have some sort of... look, we all hang out with people we agree with. And you have a one very one-sided view of the fact of what you don't understand...
*
Rosie: As does the NRA and the people you hang out with at the NRA have a one-sided view as well.
*
Tom: I don't hang out with people of the NRA...
*
Rosie: OK, well, you're saying that I hang out with people with my views. I'm just saying...
*
Tom: I said people tend to...
*
Rosie: We all tend to. The NRA does and the un-NRA does.
*
Tom: You know, this is a nice one-sided conversation but you keep interrupting me. Remember how civil you said we were going to be?
*
Rosie: I let you talk for four minutes without saying one thing! I did. I didn't say one thing! I simply asked a question on what their philosophies are. And you don't want to...

Tom: I told you... look, when do you want to get to television and violence...
*
Rosie: I agree! I agree.
*
Tom: ...and game shows...
*
Rosie: Game shows?
*
Tom: ...and how do you reconcile...
*
Rosie: You mean video games? I agree!
*
Tom: Please let me finish! Let me say just one thing. What you're really talking about... at least what I'm talking about... is are we a responsible enough society, in terms of television, in terms of guns, in terms of everything else, to be this free? That should frame the debate. My answer unfortunately, in this culture, is 'probably not'. But I'm going to down with the Civil Liberties ship, and all the Bill of Rights, and apply them equally. That's the way I feel. You can ask me specific questions about anything, but it's simply stupid political rhetoric.
*
Rosie: Well, it's not stupid political rhetoric. We also have freedom of speech, but you're not allowed to scream 'fire' in a crowded movie theater because it threatens the safety of other people.
*
Tom: I understand.
*
Rosie: Assault weapons threaten the safety of other people. There's no reason, in my opinion, to have them. You want to have a hunting rifle? Great! You want to have a handgun?
*
Tom: Do you really think the Second Amendment to the Constitution to guarantee hunting and target shooting? Do you really think that's what the Founding Fathers meant?
*
Rosie: I think the Second Amendment is in the Constitution so that we can have muskets when the British people come over in 1800. I don't think it's in the Constitution to have assault weapons in the year 2000. But I'm wrong? I guess...
*
Tom: (nods his head)
*
Rosie: You know, this is the problem. Here's what happens. The people with opposing views, there is no compromise because, you feel attacked, I feel attacked. You feel less understood...
*
Tom: I haven't attacked you. I've disagreed with you.
*
Rosie: And I've disagreed with you as well. But mine comes in the form of attacking because...
*
Tom: I haven't mentioned assault weapons once. I haven't mentioned a lot of things once. The nature of this debate... I didn't come on your show to have a debate. I came on your show to plug a movie. That's what's I'm doing here.
*
Rosie: And that's what we did.
*
Tom: If you think it's proper to have a debate about the NRA, I'm trying to be fair with you.
*
Rosie: As I am trying to...
*
Tom: But this is absurd. You're calling me a spokesman for the NRA.
*
Rosie: Tom, if you are a celebrity and you're doing an ad that says, 'I am the NRA', then what should have been...
*
Tom: Have you read the ads?
*
Rosie: I have read the ads.
*
Tom: Good.
*
Rosie: Did you read the ads?
*
Tom: I said them. I read them when I say them.
*
Rosie: Well, I do too. Well, this is not supposed to be a personal...
*
Tom: Well it's certainly very entertaining, look at the audience, they're just laughing and having a great old time.
*
Rosie: Well it's a serious subject. I don't think it's a lot to laugh about.
*
Tom: Well, that's fine.
*
Rosie: All right, well, this has not gone the way I had hoped it had gone. But, I would like to thank you for appearing anyway, knowing that we have differing views. I was happy that you decided to come on the show. And if you feel insulted by my questions, I apologize, because it was not a personal attack. I was meant to bring up the subject as it is in the consciousness of so many today. That was my intent. And if it was wrong, I apologize to you, on a personal level.
*
Tom: It's your show and you can talk about it after I leave too.
*
Rosie: Well, I thought I would give you an opportunity to discuss your side of it. Which is what I hope that I did. And if I was wrong I'm sorry. (Tom looks away from Rosie) Well, obviously, it didn't do much good.

Apr 27, 2000 Horrified onlookers Watch Greenwich Man Kill Himself

The man who plunged to his death Tuesday from a nine-story parking garage was Robert Mulford, 39, of Greenwich, police said Wednesday. Mulford died almost instantly of massive injuries from his fall at Washington Street and Columbus Boulevard.

Filed Under: Suicide

Mar 22, 2000 - Greenwich police mucked up the crime scene. They hadn't investigated a murder in 45 years and never got a warrant to search the house

Although Dominick Dunne may be the world's foremost chronicler of the rich and famous, he hardly avoids the seamier side of life in Manhattan, Beverly Hills, Newport, Palm Beach and other fashionable locales he knows like the proverbial back of his hand.

Crime in high places is his specialty, and much of Mr. Dunne's fiction has a common theme: rich people, aided by expensive defense lawyers, getting away with murder. A subject that gnaws at him, it has been his crusade ever since the killer ex-boyfriend of his 22-year-old daughter, Dominique, was released after serving 2 1/2 years of a 6 1/2-year year manslaughter sentence.

From: Dunne uses printed word to see justice done.

Filed Under: Murder

February 7, 2000 -- NYT -- Moxley Murder Case Is a Circumstantial Challenge for Prosecutors

It took a quarter-century for the police to make an arrest in the killing of Martha Moxley, the 15-year-old Greenwich girl bludgeoned to death with a golf club on the evening of Oct. 30, 1975.

But as lawyers prepare for a Tuesday hearing for Michael Skakel, arrested at age 39 in a murder prosecutors say he committed as a 15-year-old, the question is whether those 25 years produced enough evidence for a conviction.

There is no guarantee that the case will ever be tried before a jury; Mr. Skakel has been charged as a juvenile, and a judge must decide whether he should be tried as an adult.

But if State's Attorney Jonathan C. Benedict succeeds in getting the trial moved to State Superior Court, he will depend on a mix of physical and circumstantial evidence and incriminating statements -- including some physical evidence not yet publicly revealed.

The evidence includes:

*Two sections of a bloodied 6-iron golf club, part of a set owned by the Skakel family, that the killer used to beat and later stab Miss Moxley to death. One segment of the club, the handle, was never found.

*Sworn testimony from former neighbors and acquaintances of Mr. Skakel. Several former classmates from a school for troubled youths that Mr. Skakel attended more than 20 years ago have told a Connecticut grand jury that they heard Mr. Skakel confess to killing Miss Moxley. Neighbors of Mr. Skakel testified that he told them he had had a sexual relationship with Miss Moxley before her death, according to a retired Greenwich detective.

*A confidential report from 1995 in which Mr. Skakel and his brother Thomas, himself a former suspect in the murder, significantly changed the accounts they gave to Greenwich detectives in 1975 about where they were when the killing is thought to have occurred.

*Nine hours of audiotapes subpoenaed from a writer who helped Michael Skakel create a 38-page memoir over the last few years in which he professes romantic feelings for Miss Moxley, according to people who have read a transcript of the tapes.

Mr. Benedict also has physical evidence that is not yet known to the public. In a recent interview, Henry Lee, director of the Connecticut State Police and an authority on forensic crime investigations, said he had ''some forensic evidence'' from the crime, though he provided no details.

And late last month, a person in law enforcement with detailed knowledge of the investigation said prosecutors have other physical evidence against Mr. Skakel.

The person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the undisclosed evidence was not DNA, and on its own would probably not be enough to convict Mr. Skakel.

Though much of the prosecution's case is circumstantial, some trial lawyers say it combines physical evidence tying Mr. Skakel to the crime; a motive, jealousy; and a changed alibi that undercuts Mr. Skakel's credibility.

Mr. Skakel, who now lives in Florida with his wife, child and father, has consistently maintained his innocence and has declined to discuss the case.

Interviews with legal experts drew a wide range of views about the evidence.

''I don't think they can prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt; they don't ha,ve the evidence,'' said Alan M. Dershowitz, a law professor at Harvard University and a well-known defense lawyer.

But Elliot Peters, a former federal prosecutor in New York, noting the origin of the 6-iron used to bludgeon Miss Moxley, disagreed.

''Whoever killed this girl was in this guy's house or backyard,'' Mr. Peters said in a recent interview. The fact that the murder occurred in Belle Haven, an exclusive and private neighborhood in Greenwich where the Moxleys and Skakels lived, ''limits the universe of people who could have done it to a very small number.''

The blood-flecked golf club -- which the police believe was deliberately broken into three segments by the killer, who used one piece to repeatedly stab Miss Moxley -- is perhaps the most concrete but not the most powerful evidence in Mr. Benedict's arsenal, legal experts said.

With no fingerprints or other definitive forensic evidence, experts said, the two fragments are not sufficient to incriminate Mr. Skakel or the two other men who have also been viewed as suspects -- Thomas Skakel, now 41, and Kenneth Littleton, who arrived in the Skakel household as a 23-year-old live-in tutor the day Miss Moxley was killed.

The most incriminating evidence Mr. Benedict is expected to bring against Michael Skakel, aside from any new physical evidence, is the sworn testimony from Mr. Skakel's former classmates, according to several lawyers familiar with the case. Those statements, given to a grand jury convened 20 months ago, contend that Mr. Skakel confessed to killing Miss Moxley, said people who have spoken to these classmates.

Mr. Skakel, who attended a school for youths with alcohol and behavioral problems from 1978 to 1980, has denied ever confessing.

Other sworn statements from former neighbors describe a romantic link between Mr. Skakel and Miss Moxley, said Stephen X. Carroll, a retired Greenwich detective who investigated the Moxley murder.

Using grand jury testimony and accounts from friends that Miss Moxley had often flirted with Mr. Skakel's brother Thomas, prosecutors may try to prove that Michael Skakel killed her in a jealous rage, legal scholars said.

Investigators say they have little doubt that Miss Moxley knew her killer. Still, many defense lawyers said a case based largely on circumstantial evidence would not be strong enough to win a conviction, especially after so much time has passed. ''It seems to fall short of a precise pinpointing of who did it and how it was done,'' Mr. Dershowitz said.

Other lawyers, particularly experienced prosecutors, described the case against Mr. Skakel as difficult but winnable.

''Cases based on circumstantial evidence can be as powerful as cases based on physical evidence,'' said Joan McPhee, a former federal prosecutor in New York who is now in private practice in Providence, R.I. ''The strength of the case turns on how many interlocking pieces of evidence the prosecutor has.''

If the case goes before a jury, the job of Mickey Sherman, Mr. Skakel's lawyer, will be to hammer away at the details prosecutors are said not to know about the murder. He would be expected, for instance, to focus on uncertainties about the precise time of death, which the Greenwich police estimated to be 10 p.m. (others have put it at an hour or more later), and on the lack of witnesses who could place Mr. Skakel at the murder scene at that time.

In his original statement to the police in 1975, Mr. Skakel said he was at the nearby home of his cousin James C. Terrien at 10 that evening, watching television with his brothers Rushton Jr. and John and with Mr. Terrien. Mr. Terrien's sister Georgeann corroborated this account. Mr. Skakel went on to say that he arrived home after 11 p.m. and went to bed, though an edited copy of the Greenwich police file on the murder shows that no witnesses substantiated that portion of his account.

But a 1995 report by investigators hired by Mr. Skakel's father, portions of which were obtained by The New York Times, reveals that Mr. Skakel, at age 35, changed his account.

After returning home, according to the 1995 report, he sneaked out of his bedroom window around 11:30 p.m. and walked to the Moxley home, where he climbed a tree and tossed pebbles at Miss Moxley's window. When she did not respond, Mr. Skakel said, he masturbated in the tree and began to walk home. As he approached the area where Miss Moxley's body was later discovered, he told investigators, he heard a noise, threw something in its direction and ran home.

James C. Terrien, the former Los Angeles police detective who wrote a book about the Moxley murder suggesting that Mr. Skakel was the killer, called the revised story ''a well-crafted attempt to account for everything'' prosecutors might have found at the murder scene, including his hair and semen, and to explain his presence if any witnesses had seen him running from the scene. Mr. Fuhrman said he believed that the murder occurred closer to 11:30 p.m.

But if prosecutors want to link Mr. Skakel to Miss Moxley's death, Mr. Sherman said, ''it's incumbent on them to change the time of death. For many years the state has known that he has a very solid alibi for where he was at the time of the murder.''

Miss Moxley's autopsy, conducted a day after her body was found, estimated the time of death to be between 9:30 p.m. on Oct. 30, 1975, and 5 the next morning. Beyond the fuzzy timing of Miss Moxley's killing, Mr. Sherman would be likely to challenge the use of depositions from Mr. Skakel's former classmates as inadmissible, said Dante Gallucci, a criminal defense lawyer in Fairfield.

''Without those admissions, their case gets a hell of a lot weaker,'' Mr. Gallucci said. ''They're almost back to 1975 and they got nothing.'' The fact that nearly 25 years have passed since the murder would probably also help Mr. Sherman create reasonable doubt in a juror's mind, Mr. Gallucci said.

The absence of physical evidence has hounded the Moxley investigators from the beginning. For many years, Michael Skakel was not considered a suspect.

Suspicions fell first on his brother Thomas and then on Mr. Littleton. Thomas, the last person seen with Miss Moxley, originally told the police that he had left her at 9:30 p.m. the night of the murder and had returned home to write a school paper on Abraham Lincoln. The police, however, could not find any teacher who had assigned him such work.

In the 1995 investigative report commissioned by his father, Thomas Skakel also changed his story about his movements that night, saying he had left Miss Moxley about 9:50 p.m., not 9:30 p.m., after the teenagers had masturbated together near the area where her body was later found.

The revised account would have put Thomas, 17 at the time, in Miss Moxley's company only about 10 minutes before the time the police estimate she was killed. It would also account for any semen samples Dr. Lee, the state's forensic investigator, might have found when he reconstructed the killing in 1991.

Thomas Skakel's attorney, Emanuel Margolis, said his client was no longer a suspect.

The only other suspect investigated by the police was the Skakels' former tutor, Mr. Littleton, an athletic man who, some say, was the only person near the crime scene physically able to have beaten Miss Moxley so forcefully. Questioned continually over the years, Mr. Littleton has struggled with drug and emotional problems since 1975 and in 1976 was found to be untruthful on major questions about the murder in polygraph tests, according to the police file on the Moxley case. He was granted immunity in exchange for his grand jury deposition in 1998 and is no longer a suspect, investigators say.

A friend of Michael Skakel's, someone who has heard Mr. Skakel discuss the events of Oct. 30, 1975, time and again, said he was innocent.

''They have the wrong person,'' said the friend, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

''He didn't do it. If he had done something like this,'' the friend went on, describing Mr. Skakel as garrulous to a fault, ''he'd talk about it. He couldn't help himself.''

Filed Under: Murder

Jan 20, 2000

Jan 20, 2000- Michael Skakel, under suspicion from the start in the killing of 15-year-old Martha Moxley, turned himself in Wednesday after authorities issued a warrant for his arrest. Because Skakel was 15 at the time of the slaying on Halloween eve 1975, the case is initially being prosecuted as a juvenile crime. He was released on $500,000 bond.

The Moxley case has been the subject of several books, including a best-selling novel, "A Season in Purgatory," by Dominick Dunne, that became a TV movie. Dunne brought the case to the attention of former Los Angeles Police Det. Mark Fuhrman, whom he met while covering the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Fuhrman--plagued by accusations of racism as the lead investigator in the Simpson case--wrote his own book, "Murder in Greenwich," about the Moxley case. Fuhrman posited that Skakel killed Moxley in a jealous rage after seeing his older brother kiss her.

Sharply critical of the initial investigation by Greenwich police, Fuhrman provided the grand jury with evidence of a 1998 book proposal by Skakel to be called "Dead Man Talking" that reportedly made an incriminating reference to the Moxley killing. Skakel also discussed aspects of the crime in therapy sessions in the 1970s at an alcohol rehabilitation center in Maine, according to prosecutors.

Source: Kennedy Kin Surrenders in '75 Killing of Neighbor;... - Related web pages

Filed Under: Murder