MONROE -- A shoplifting incident at the Big Y supermarket Monday afternoon resulted in the chase of a suspect through the woods, police said.
David Wargo, 26, of High Ridge Road in Bridgeport, was arrested after the chase and charged with sixth-degree larceny, interfering with police, evading responsibility and reckless operation.
A store manager reported the shoplifting at 1:04 p.m. and employees followed the suspect, later identified as Wargo, out of the store, police said.
An off-duty Greenwich police sergeant saw Wargo fleeing and blocked Wargo's car with his personal vehicle, police said; Wargo backed into the car ...
Wednesday, November 7, 2001
Sunday, October 21, 2001
Oct 21, 2001 - While They're Protecting Us, Who's Protecting Them? - NY Times
.....But there are occasional employment-related disputes about reservists being called to active duty. Sean P. O'Donnell, a Greenwich police officer and member of a military police unit in Orangeburg, N.Y., is involved in a labor dispute over the way the town handles call-ups.
In the Gulf War, he said, Greenwich paid the difference between military pay and the employee's salary from the town. He said the town did not do it when he was called up to go to Bosnia for eight months in 1999 and 2000.
''When the flag came out waving, it was the politically correct thing to pay the individuals who got deployed,'' Mr. O'Donnell said. ''You run into the same financial difficulties whether you get called up for a popular war or something that doesn't get as much attention. If we can't take care of ourselves or, worse, our families, how are we going to stay in the job?
''This is a structural issue they're going to run into with all the Guard and Reserve members who are going to be called up,'' Mr. O'Donnell said. ''If the United States is going to rely so heavily on Reserve and Guard units, and leave the people hanging out there financially, you're going to lose very valuable, and very resourceful, soldiers, which is going to leave the whole country in a predicament.''
Lt. Michael A. Pacewicz, president of the Silver Shield Association, the town's police union, said while the policy in Greenwich calls for an unpaid leave, the policy was augmented during the Gulf War, and the union contends that should set a new standard.
''Officer O'Donnell was in Bosnia, he was called up by the military, he did exactly what you would expect of a patriot, and the town isn't treating him the same way as they did the people called up for the Gulf War,'' said Mr. Pacewicz. ''What they did in Desert Storm was a great thing, but you can't treat people differently if they were called up for Bosnia instead of Desert Storm, and we're afraid that they'll take the same position now.''
Greenwich officials did not return repeated telephone calls seeking comment. Mr. Venditto said people who are called up are covered by the Uniform Services Employment Re-employment Rights Act, which basically requires that if a member of the reserves is called to service, the company must let them go and keep the job open for them when they get back.
There is also a provision that employees come back with all the benefits such as vacation, sick time and insurances that they would have had on the day they left......
In the Gulf War, he said, Greenwich paid the difference between military pay and the employee's salary from the town. He said the town did not do it when he was called up to go to Bosnia for eight months in 1999 and 2000.
''When the flag came out waving, it was the politically correct thing to pay the individuals who got deployed,'' Mr. O'Donnell said. ''You run into the same financial difficulties whether you get called up for a popular war or something that doesn't get as much attention. If we can't take care of ourselves or, worse, our families, how are we going to stay in the job?
''This is a structural issue they're going to run into with all the Guard and Reserve members who are going to be called up,'' Mr. O'Donnell said. ''If the United States is going to rely so heavily on Reserve and Guard units, and leave the people hanging out there financially, you're going to lose very valuable, and very resourceful, soldiers, which is going to leave the whole country in a predicament.''
Lt. Michael A. Pacewicz, president of the Silver Shield Association, the town's police union, said while the policy in Greenwich calls for an unpaid leave, the policy was augmented during the Gulf War, and the union contends that should set a new standard.
''Officer O'Donnell was in Bosnia, he was called up by the military, he did exactly what you would expect of a patriot, and the town isn't treating him the same way as they did the people called up for the Gulf War,'' said Mr. Pacewicz. ''What they did in Desert Storm was a great thing, but you can't treat people differently if they were called up for Bosnia instead of Desert Storm, and we're afraid that they'll take the same position now.''
Greenwich officials did not return repeated telephone calls seeking comment. Mr. Venditto said people who are called up are covered by the Uniform Services Employment Re-employment Rights Act, which basically requires that if a member of the reserves is called to service, the company must let them go and keep the job open for them when they get back.
There is also a provision that employees come back with all the benefits such as vacation, sick time and insurances that they would have had on the day they left......
Friday, August 24, 2001
Greenwich Gets Its Wish as State Lottery Officials Stop Sales of Powerball Tickets - New York Times
The town of Greenwich today won permission to suspend sales of Powerball multistate lottery tickets on Friday, a move town officials said was needed because too many players with too many dreams of a $280 million jackpot were crossing the border from New York and creating nightmarish conditions for residents and the local police.
It is not the first time Greenwich has sought to prevent hordes of out-of-towners from New York and New Jersey from flocking here, the nearest town where Powerball tickets are sold. Officials made a similar but unsuccessful plea in July 1998 when the town was overrun with Powerball players after the jackpot climbed to a record $296 million.
But Friday's Powerball moratorium in Greenwich will be the first time that Connecticut lottery officials have ever suspended sales of tickets, said Diane Patterson, a lottery spokeswoman.
The numbers for the $280 million prize will be drawn on Saturday night. The odds of winning are about 80 million to 1.
Greenwich applauded the decision today, but other officials in Connecticut suggested that the town, one of the nation's wealthiest, is thin-skinned and a bit spoiled. Kevin B. Sullivan, the Democratic Senate president pro tem, said that Greenwich could set up lottery kiosks on the town beach, a reference to its residents-only beach policy struck down by the State Supreme Court last month.
Powerball tickets are sold in 21 states and the District of Columbia, but not in New York or New Jersey. Greenwich, which is the first stop in Connecticut for many visitors traveling by road or rail, has been the Powerball purchase point of choice for residents of Westchester County, New York City and New Jersey.
The current griping in Greenwich began earlier in the week, when the Powerball jackpot reached more than $190 million. Long lines could be seen outside numerous convenience stores along local highways and downtown. By Wednesday night's drawing, the jackpot reached $193.5 million. There was no winner, setting the stage for a rush on tickets for Saturday's $280 million bonanza.
This week, as in 1998, Greenwich police officials complained of numerous incidents of disorderly conduct, including public urination, as well as traffic congestion, street crowding and parking problems. Police Chief Peter J. Robbins said repeatedly this week that long lines of lottery players had distracted officers from their usual duties.
''We applaud the responsiveness of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation to our request for a suspension of sales.'' Greenwich's first selectwoman, Lolly H. Prince, said in a statement. ''We have experienced serious public safety and health issues. These include, but are not limited to, congestion and traffic that potentially could impede our public safety vehicles from responding to emergency calls.''
Powerball tickets will still be sold elsewhere in Connecticut on Friday. There are some 2,700 lottery sales outlets statewide, and officials urged players to use them.
State lottery officials said that since the record-setting jackpot in July 1998, they had developed emergency procedures for jackpots exceeding $100 million. Those measures, which have been in effect all week, include announcements urging out-of-state players to go farther into the state to buy tickets. Lottery machine maintenance workers are also on 24-hour alert.
Ms. Patterson, the lottery spokeswoman, said thousands of leaflets had been distributed at Metro-North Railroad stations in New York City informing residents that they will spend less time waiting in line to buy tickets if they travel farther into Connecticut. The emergency procedures also allow individual lottery retailers to limit each customer to $100 in tickets.
It is not the first time Greenwich has sought to prevent hordes of out-of-towners from New York and New Jersey from flocking here, the nearest town where Powerball tickets are sold. Officials made a similar but unsuccessful plea in July 1998 when the town was overrun with Powerball players after the jackpot climbed to a record $296 million.
But Friday's Powerball moratorium in Greenwich will be the first time that Connecticut lottery officials have ever suspended sales of tickets, said Diane Patterson, a lottery spokeswoman.
The numbers for the $280 million prize will be drawn on Saturday night. The odds of winning are about 80 million to 1.
Greenwich applauded the decision today, but other officials in Connecticut suggested that the town, one of the nation's wealthiest, is thin-skinned and a bit spoiled. Kevin B. Sullivan, the Democratic Senate president pro tem, said that Greenwich could set up lottery kiosks on the town beach, a reference to its residents-only beach policy struck down by the State Supreme Court last month.
Powerball tickets are sold in 21 states and the District of Columbia, but not in New York or New Jersey. Greenwich, which is the first stop in Connecticut for many visitors traveling by road or rail, has been the Powerball purchase point of choice for residents of Westchester County, New York City and New Jersey.
The current griping in Greenwich began earlier in the week, when the Powerball jackpot reached more than $190 million. Long lines could be seen outside numerous convenience stores along local highways and downtown. By Wednesday night's drawing, the jackpot reached $193.5 million. There was no winner, setting the stage for a rush on tickets for Saturday's $280 million bonanza.
This week, as in 1998, Greenwich police officials complained of numerous incidents of disorderly conduct, including public urination, as well as traffic congestion, street crowding and parking problems. Police Chief Peter J. Robbins said repeatedly this week that long lines of lottery players had distracted officers from their usual duties.
''We applaud the responsiveness of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation to our request for a suspension of sales.'' Greenwich's first selectwoman, Lolly H. Prince, said in a statement. ''We have experienced serious public safety and health issues. These include, but are not limited to, congestion and traffic that potentially could impede our public safety vehicles from responding to emergency calls.''
Powerball tickets will still be sold elsewhere in Connecticut on Friday. There are some 2,700 lottery sales outlets statewide, and officials urged players to use them.
State lottery officials said that since the record-setting jackpot in July 1998, they had developed emergency procedures for jackpots exceeding $100 million. Those measures, which have been in effect all week, include announcements urging out-of-state players to go farther into the state to buy tickets. Lottery machine maintenance workers are also on 24-hour alert.
Ms. Patterson, the lottery spokeswoman, said thousands of leaflets had been distributed at Metro-North Railroad stations in New York City informing residents that they will spend less time waiting in line to buy tickets if they travel farther into Connecticut. The emergency procedures also allow individual lottery retailers to limit each customer to $100 in tickets.
Thursday, August 23, 2001
8/23/09 Greenwich Police Overwhelmed By Powerball
Greenwich suspends Powerball sales for 24 hours
USA Today
Town officials got permission from the state lottery to suspend Powerball ticket sales Friday, saying they were overwhelmed by would-be millionaires from out of state.
The ban also applies in the Cos Cob, Byram, Riverside and Old Greenwich portions of Greenwich, the first Connecticut town on the Metro-North Railroad out of New York City.
Powerball — which is expected to have a jackpot approaching $300 million for Saturday's drawing — is offered in 21 states and the District of Columbia, but not in New York.
Customers standing outside a Greenwich gas station in a downpour Thursday evening were sympathetic — to an extent.
"You also have to understand, it's such a large jackpot," said Dominic Pizzimenti of Astoria, N.Y., who took a train to Greenwich. "Maybe if we hit the jackpot we can afford to live in Greenwich and complain like everybody else."
Inside the gas station, store manager Varinder Kumer said he wasn't going to miss the long lines.
"It's too many problems. People get angry," he said.
Tickets will still be available elsewhere in Connecticut on Friday, including towns further north on the railroad line such as Stamford, Darien and Norwalk, the state lottery said.
Greenwich Police Chief Peter Robbins said police have been so busy monitoring the long lines that even major crime investigations have been interrupted.
"We applaud the responsiveness of the Connecticut Lottery," said Greenwich First Selectman Lolly Prince. "We have experienced serious public safety and health issues."
Prince said traffic has been so bad it could be difficult for emergency vehicles to get through. She also said there had been numerous traffic accidents and incidents of children locked in cars while their parents stood in long lines outside lottery retailers.
The legal authority for the suspension was not immediately clear. A 1999 state law — which expired June 30 — allowed Connecticut towns to suspend Powerball sales for 24 hours if state lottery officials verified that a huge influx of players threatened public health and safety.
Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy said state officials had not talked to him about the matter. Malloy said sales in his town had not been too burdensome so far.
Malloy said if Stamford becomes inundated he would expect the same right to suspension as Greenwich.
Sgt. J. Paul Vance, the spokesman for the state police, said troopers had been assigned to eight locations in Greenwich to assist with crowd control between 8 a.m. and midnight daily.
Senate Majority Leader George Jepsen, D-Stamford, said many upstate legislators were wary of allowing individual towns to suspend lottery sales.
Senate Majority Leader George Jepsen, D-Stamford, said many upstate legislators were wary of allowing individual towns to suspend lottery sales.
Jepsen, who is now running for governor, said Greenwich legislators were seeking a unilateral right to shut down sales — "which might have been convenient for them, but not so convenient for the rest of the state," he said.
"Many upstate legislators feel that there are a lot of benefits to being a border town and having the proximity to New York City," Jepsen added. "Maybe there are drawbacks too, but the bad goes with the good."
Senate President Pro Tem Kevin Sullivan, D-West Hartford, said Greenwich residents were overreacting.
Sullivan suggested, with tongue in cheek, that Greenwich set up lottery kiosks on the town beach. The state Supreme Court ruled last month that Greenwich's residents-only beach access policy was unconstitutional.
Saturday, June 23, 2001
June 23, 2001 - Pilot Killed When Plane Crashes in Greenwich - NY Times
A pilot was killed yesterday when his plane crashed in Greenwich, Conn., after an aborted landing attempt.
The pilot, Vernn Haglund, 63, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., was flying in a six-seat private plane from Atlantic City to Westchester County Airport, on the Connecticut border. Mr. Haglund told air traffic controllers that he was having trouble with a directional instrument as he approached the airport, shortly before 9 a.m., in heavy fog, said Renee Johns, a spokeswoman for the airport.
''He was unable to see anything, and unable to land,'' she said. ''So he executed a missed approach. Obviously, after that he became disoriented.''
The plane crashed a few minutes later in a wooded area about half a mile away.
Frank Nestor, a lawyer who lives close to the crash site, said that he had been alerted by unusually loud plane noise above his house. Hidden by clouds, the plane circled very low for several minutes before crashing, he said.
''I didn't see it but I heard the sound of breaking wood or the fuselage of the plane coming apart, followed by an explosion and flames, which I could see about 200 feet from the house through the trees,'' Mr. Nestor said, adding that he ran toward the site, but could not get very close because of the flames.
Henry Stanton, the deputy commissioner of transportation for Westchester County, said the weather conditions were so bad that only one other plane had landed at the airport in the morning.
''To all practical purposes, the airport was closed,'' he said. ''The cloud ceiling was zero and the fog was right at ground level. But in these cases it's always the pilot's decision'' whether to land.
The pilot, a salesman, was on a business trip, Chief Peter J. Robbins of the Greenwich Police Department said. Mr. Haglung left Florida on Monday, with a stop in Atlantic City. The plane was registered to Heber Inc., of Fort Lauderdale.
No one on the ground was injured. The National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration were investigating the crash. The medical examiner's office said an autopsy was planned today.
Airport officials said there was no record of the plane having landed at the Westchester airport before.
The single-engine Piper Saratoga flown by Mr. Haglund was an older version of the plane that John F. Kennedy Jr. was flying when he crashed off Martha's Vineyard and was killed, along with his wife and sister-in-law, in July 1999.
The pilot, Vernn Haglund, 63, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., was flying in a six-seat private plane from Atlantic City to Westchester County Airport, on the Connecticut border. Mr. Haglund told air traffic controllers that he was having trouble with a directional instrument as he approached the airport, shortly before 9 a.m., in heavy fog, said Renee Johns, a spokeswoman for the airport.
''He was unable to see anything, and unable to land,'' she said. ''So he executed a missed approach. Obviously, after that he became disoriented.''
The plane crashed a few minutes later in a wooded area about half a mile away.
Frank Nestor, a lawyer who lives close to the crash site, said that he had been alerted by unusually loud plane noise above his house. Hidden by clouds, the plane circled very low for several minutes before crashing, he said.
''I didn't see it but I heard the sound of breaking wood or the fuselage of the plane coming apart, followed by an explosion and flames, which I could see about 200 feet from the house through the trees,'' Mr. Nestor said, adding that he ran toward the site, but could not get very close because of the flames.
Henry Stanton, the deputy commissioner of transportation for Westchester County, said the weather conditions were so bad that only one other plane had landed at the airport in the morning.
''To all practical purposes, the airport was closed,'' he said. ''The cloud ceiling was zero and the fog was right at ground level. But in these cases it's always the pilot's decision'' whether to land.
The pilot, a salesman, was on a business trip, Chief Peter J. Robbins of the Greenwich Police Department said. Mr. Haglung left Florida on Monday, with a stop in Atlantic City. The plane was registered to Heber Inc., of Fort Lauderdale.
No one on the ground was injured. The National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration were investigating the crash. The medical examiner's office said an autopsy was planned today.
Airport officials said there was no record of the plane having landed at the Westchester airport before.
The single-engine Piper Saratoga flown by Mr. Haglund was an older version of the plane that John F. Kennedy Jr. was flying when he crashed off Martha's Vineyard and was killed, along with his wife and sister-in-law, in July 1999.
Sunday, April 8, 2001
Apr 8, 2001 - The View From/Greenwich; For Abandoned Baby, It's Love to the Rescue - New York Times
IT was a stormy start for Baby John Doe, who was born during a rainstorm and left abandoned on the side of a cul-de-sac called Stormy Circle Drive in the Byram section of Greenwich.
But the skies have cleared since that morning in March, when a woman walking in the area found the infant naked and swaddled in a cloth, and rushed to call 911.
After being taken to Greenwich Hospital and treated for hypothermia and exposure, the infant is not only doing fine physically, but he is also attracting the attention of countless people who want to help him, to love him, to give him a home.
By Tuesday afternoon, the baby boy not only had his own lawyer and several sacks stuffed with presents, but he also left the hospital to settle in with his pre-adoptive family. The family was selected by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families, which would only say that t 1/2e family lives in Connecticut.
Rachel Wehmeier, a nurse in the neonatal intensive-care unit who was among the many nurses who cared for the infant during the last two weeks, said, ''God is certainly watching over him,'' adding that the nurses had ''all fallen in love with him.''
Ms. Wehmeier said that the family who received the baby would ''be blessed, because he is a beautiful, special boy.''
Deputy Chief James Walters of the Greenwich Police Department said a woman who lives in the Stormy Circle Drive area, whose name is being withheld, called 911 at 12:20 p.m. on March 22 after she spotted ''what appeared to be a small blanket that had some movement'' while she was walking along the roadside.
''Officers responded, found the bundle, unwrapped it and found an infant inside,'' Deputy Chief Walters said. ''He was rushed to the hospital where doctors confirmed he had been born no more than two hours prior.''
Police officers canvassed the area searching for anyone with information about the baby, a 5-pound 5-ounce, 19-inch African-American boy. But as of Thursday morning, no one had found the biological parents.
''We have several leads in Connecticut and New York and we're continuing to follow those,'' Deputy Chief Walters said.
He would not say what charges would be filed, if any.
''We're not even characterizing this as a crime at this point,'' Deputy Chief Walters said. ''We can't talk about charges until we find out what happened and why.''
The police and the Department of Children and Families said they believed it was the first abandonment case in the history of Greenwich, a mostly well-to-do community in Fairfield County with about 65,000 residents. Byram is a working-class community in the southwestern section, just across the Byram River from Port Chester, N.Y.
David Marantz, appointed by the Stamford Superior Court to be the baby's lawyer, said, ''This is the story of a baby who had a tough beginning, but whose life has already turned around to be wonderful, because of all the love around him.''
In abandonment cases where the parents are not known, the standard process is for the Department of Children and Families to publish a notice in the local newspaper and to ask a juvenile court to terminate the parental rights, Mr. Marantz said.
That process could take several months, during which time the child would be cared for in a pre-adoptive foster home. Kristine Ragaglia, commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, said that the temporary home ''could very likely become his permanent home.''
The department spent several days poring through a pool of licensed pre-adoptive families, narrowing the choice to six and finally to one last Monday. The decision did not take into account the parents' race, Ms. Ragaglia said, but it did require choosing a family that did not mind being ''legal risk pre-adoptive parents,'' which means there is a chance the pre-adoptive parents will have to return the baby if the biological parents show up and seek custody during the legal termination process.
''While that court process is going on, there's always a question mark,'' Ms. Ragaglia said. ''Emotionally, it can be a difficult process. But so far, no biological family or purported relatives have come forward, which makes things much easier.''
As for the family that was selected to care for the infant, Ms. Ragaglia said, ''There's not much I can tell you specifically because of confidentiality laws, but I guess it's safe to say they are very excited.''
The baby had remained at the hospital until Tuesday, not because of health problems, but because of the placement process.
''We're working on a permanency plan which involves having the pre-adoptive parents visit the baby in the hospital, learn all about the particular needs of the child, make absolutely certain that this is the right match,'' Ms. Ragaglia said. ''Our hope is that the pre-adoptive family will become the baby's permanent family.''
Gary Kleeblatt, spokesman for the Department of Children and Families, said: ''As tragic as it is that someone abandoned this infant, a lot of good has actually come of it. It's like the whole topic of adoption and caring for children in need has been galvanized by this child.''
The department has received a flood of calls from people offering to adopt the baby, Mr. Kleeblatt said. ''So many of these people who have called are now considering going through the process of becoming licensed and adopting another baby who may need a home,'' he said.
Mr. Kleeblatt credited Ms. Ragaglia with the department's rising number of adoptions in recent years. He said that since Ms. Ragaglia became commissioner in 1997, the number of adoptions statewide had nearly quadrupled, from 146 to 602 in 2000.
In Connecticut, there are 261 children in the custody of the Department of Children and Families who need homes. Of the 261, 148 are boys and 113 girls. Also, 114 of the children are African-American, 87 are Caucasian, 41 Latino and 19 are listed as other.
''There are 160 adoptive homes looking for children to complete their families,'' Ms. Ragaglia said.
Ms. Wehmeier, Baby John Doe's nurse, said she hoped the infant's story would inspire more people to adopt children.
''I'm adopted myself, so I know how important this is,'' said Ms. Wehmeier, who is in her early 30's. ''It's not that I wasn't wanted, but my parents understood that they couldn't care for me and they gave me up at birth. But I consider my adoptive parents my real parents, I love them so much. They live in the midwest and we talk every single week.''
Mr. Marantz said he hoped the Baby John Doe case would promote awareness of the safe haven law enacted last year. The law enables a mother to go to a hospital, deliver her child, get treatment and surrender custody to the hospital without being prosecuted.
''There should never be another baby abandoned on the street or in a Dumpster or anywhere for any reason, ever,'' he said.
But the skies have cleared since that morning in March, when a woman walking in the area found the infant naked and swaddled in a cloth, and rushed to call 911.
After being taken to Greenwich Hospital and treated for hypothermia and exposure, the infant is not only doing fine physically, but he is also attracting the attention of countless people who want to help him, to love him, to give him a home.
By Tuesday afternoon, the baby boy not only had his own lawyer and several sacks stuffed with presents, but he also left the hospital to settle in with his pre-adoptive family. The family was selected by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families, which would only say that t 1/2e family lives in Connecticut.
Rachel Wehmeier, a nurse in the neonatal intensive-care unit who was among the many nurses who cared for the infant during the last two weeks, said, ''God is certainly watching over him,'' adding that the nurses had ''all fallen in love with him.''
Ms. Wehmeier said that the family who received the baby would ''be blessed, because he is a beautiful, special boy.''
Deputy Chief James Walters of the Greenwich Police Department said a woman who lives in the Stormy Circle Drive area, whose name is being withheld, called 911 at 12:20 p.m. on March 22 after she spotted ''what appeared to be a small blanket that had some movement'' while she was walking along the roadside.
''Officers responded, found the bundle, unwrapped it and found an infant inside,'' Deputy Chief Walters said. ''He was rushed to the hospital where doctors confirmed he had been born no more than two hours prior.''
Police officers canvassed the area searching for anyone with information about the baby, a 5-pound 5-ounce, 19-inch African-American boy. But as of Thursday morning, no one had found the biological parents.
''We have several leads in Connecticut and New York and we're continuing to follow those,'' Deputy Chief Walters said.
He would not say what charges would be filed, if any.
''We're not even characterizing this as a crime at this point,'' Deputy Chief Walters said. ''We can't talk about charges until we find out what happened and why.''
The police and the Department of Children and Families said they believed it was the first abandonment case in the history of Greenwich, a mostly well-to-do community in Fairfield County with about 65,000 residents. Byram is a working-class community in the southwestern section, just across the Byram River from Port Chester, N.Y.
David Marantz, appointed by the Stamford Superior Court to be the baby's lawyer, said, ''This is the story of a baby who had a tough beginning, but whose life has already turned around to be wonderful, because of all the love around him.''
In abandonment cases where the parents are not known, the standard process is for the Department of Children and Families to publish a notice in the local newspaper and to ask a juvenile court to terminate the parental rights, Mr. Marantz said.
That process could take several months, during which time the child would be cared for in a pre-adoptive foster home. Kristine Ragaglia, commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, said that the temporary home ''could very likely become his permanent home.''
The department spent several days poring through a pool of licensed pre-adoptive families, narrowing the choice to six and finally to one last Monday. The decision did not take into account the parents' race, Ms. Ragaglia said, but it did require choosing a family that did not mind being ''legal risk pre-adoptive parents,'' which means there is a chance the pre-adoptive parents will have to return the baby if the biological parents show up and seek custody during the legal termination process.
''While that court process is going on, there's always a question mark,'' Ms. Ragaglia said. ''Emotionally, it can be a difficult process. But so far, no biological family or purported relatives have come forward, which makes things much easier.''
As for the family that was selected to care for the infant, Ms. Ragaglia said, ''There's not much I can tell you specifically because of confidentiality laws, but I guess it's safe to say they are very excited.''
The baby had remained at the hospital until Tuesday, not because of health problems, but because of the placement process.
''We're working on a permanency plan which involves having the pre-adoptive parents visit the baby in the hospital, learn all about the particular needs of the child, make absolutely certain that this is the right match,'' Ms. Ragaglia said. ''Our hope is that the pre-adoptive family will become the baby's permanent family.''
Gary Kleeblatt, spokesman for the Department of Children and Families, said: ''As tragic as it is that someone abandoned this infant, a lot of good has actually come of it. It's like the whole topic of adoption and caring for children in need has been galvanized by this child.''
The department has received a flood of calls from people offering to adopt the baby, Mr. Kleeblatt said. ''So many of these people who have called are now considering going through the process of becoming licensed and adopting another baby who may need a home,'' he said.
Mr. Kleeblatt credited Ms. Ragaglia with the department's rising number of adoptions in recent years. He said that since Ms. Ragaglia became commissioner in 1997, the number of adoptions statewide had nearly quadrupled, from 146 to 602 in 2000.
In Connecticut, there are 261 children in the custody of the Department of Children and Families who need homes. Of the 261, 148 are boys and 113 girls. Also, 114 of the children are African-American, 87 are Caucasian, 41 Latino and 19 are listed as other.
''There are 160 adoptive homes looking for children to complete their families,'' Ms. Ragaglia said.
Ms. Wehmeier, Baby John Doe's nurse, said she hoped the infant's story would inspire more people to adopt children.
''I'm adopted myself, so I know how important this is,'' said Ms. Wehmeier, who is in her early 30's. ''It's not that I wasn't wanted, but my parents understood that they couldn't care for me and they gave me up at birth. But I consider my adoptive parents my real parents, I love them so much. They live in the midwest and we talk every single week.''
Mr. Marantz said he hoped the Baby John Doe case would promote awareness of the safe haven law enacted last year. The law enables a mother to go to a hospital, deliver her child, get treatment and surrender custody to the hospital without being prosecuted.
''There should never be another baby abandoned on the street or in a Dumpster or anywhere for any reason, ever,'' he said.
Wednesday, April 4, 2001
April 4, 2001 - Man Accused in Cheerleader Voyeur Video Case - NY Times
A former music teacher at the Greenwich Academy in Connecticut was charged in a 56-count indictment today with shooting voyeuristic videos of high school cheerleaders from across Long Island and posting close-ups of the girls on a pay-per-view Web site, the authorities said.
The former teacher, Kevin Matthew Dern, 29, surrendered this morning to the authorities in Suffolk County, the site of the server for his Internet site, cheervideos.com, which is now closed.
He was charged with 53 counts of violating the civil rights of the cheerleaders, all teenage girls, by zooming in on them to catch glimpses under their skirts or down their blouses, said Drew Biondo, a spokesman for James M. Catterson Jr., the Suffolk district attorney.
Mr. Dern was also charged with three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, Mr. Biondo said, for three close-up video images of the underwear of three identifiable teenage girls.
Mr. Catterson said this was the first time his office had used state civil rights law in this kind of Internet case; Mr. Dern faces more serious criminal charges in Connecticut.
The police in Greenwich, who searched his condominium at 36P Putnam Green for the Suffolk authorities on Feb. 7, seized two computers, videotapes and 9,000 pornographic pictures, said Deputy Chief James A. Walters of the Greenwich police.
Mr. Dern surrendered to the authorities in Greenwich on March 11 on 20 felony counts of possession of child pornography and could face up to five years in prison on each count if convicted, Mr. Walters said.
After the police in Greenwich searched his home, Mr. Dern resigned from his teaching job. Mr. Dern's lawyer, Philip Russell of Greenwich, said Mr. Dern had pleaded not guilty in Suffolk County and in Connecticut. Mr. Dern is free on bail in both cases.
The former teacher, Kevin Matthew Dern, 29, surrendered this morning to the authorities in Suffolk County, the site of the server for his Internet site, cheervideos.com, which is now closed.
He was charged with 53 counts of violating the civil rights of the cheerleaders, all teenage girls, by zooming in on them to catch glimpses under their skirts or down their blouses, said Drew Biondo, a spokesman for James M. Catterson Jr., the Suffolk district attorney.
Mr. Dern was also charged with three counts of endangering the welfare of a child, Mr. Biondo said, for three close-up video images of the underwear of three identifiable teenage girls.
Mr. Catterson said this was the first time his office had used state civil rights law in this kind of Internet case; Mr. Dern faces more serious criminal charges in Connecticut.
The police in Greenwich, who searched his condominium at 36P Putnam Green for the Suffolk authorities on Feb. 7, seized two computers, videotapes and 9,000 pornographic pictures, said Deputy Chief James A. Walters of the Greenwich police.
Mr. Dern surrendered to the authorities in Greenwich on March 11 on 20 felony counts of possession of child pornography and could face up to five years in prison on each count if convicted, Mr. Walters said.
After the police in Greenwich searched his home, Mr. Dern resigned from his teaching job. Mr. Dern's lawyer, Philip Russell of Greenwich, said Mr. Dern had pleaded not guilty in Suffolk County and in Connecticut. Mr. Dern is free on bail in both cases.
Sunday, April 1, 2001
04/01/01 GREENWICH'S OTHER MURDER
GREENWICH'S OTHER MURDER - 1984 CASE REOPENED AMID SPOTLIGHT ON...
Boston Globe
GREENWICH, Conn. - Maryann Margolies has long accepted that the unsolved murder of her son can't compete for public attention with the fatal bludgeoning of fellow Greenwich teen Martha Moxley.
The killings were startlingly similar: Moxley was just 15 when she was found dead in the backyard of her family's estate in affluent Greenwich. Matthew Margolies was 13 when he was slain near his home in the Glenville neighborhood.......
Boston Globe
GREENWICH, Conn. - Maryann Margolies has long accepted that the unsolved murder of her son can't compete for public attention with the fatal bludgeoning of fellow Greenwich teen Martha Moxley.
The killings were startlingly similar: Moxley was just 15 when she was found dead in the backyard of her family's estate in affluent Greenwich. Matthew Margolies was 13 when he was slain near his home in the Glenville neighborhood.......
Tuesday, March 13, 2001
March 13th 2001 - POLICE WERE TOLD IN '80 OF SKAKEL SLAY TALK - NY Daily News
STAMFORD, Conn. - At least one person told Connecticut cops as far back as 1980 that Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel had implicated himself in the murder of teenage neighbor Martha Moxley, newly released court documents show.
Skakel's alleged statement was made more than 10 years before he became the prime suspect of investigators.
The nephew of Ethel Kennedy was charged with Martha's murder last year, 25 years after she was bludgeoned to death with a golf club in the tony Greenwich enclave of Belle Haven.
He allegedly told a fellow student at a school for troubled youths that he "might have committed the murder during [an alcoholic] blackout," according to an arrest warrant released yesterday along with hundreds of other documents in the case.
"That is something totally new to me," said Martha's brother, John. "Why didn't they question him back in 1980? I think that is a little troubling."
Martha, 15, was found dead outside her family's Belle Haven home. A broken golf club found near her body was traced to a set belonging to the Skakels.
The arrest warrant shows Connecticut investigators spoke to six students at the Maine school, Elan, that Skakel attended between 1978 and 1980. The other five students, who were interviewed in the 1990s, told accounts similar to the first student interviewed by cops in 1980. Two who said Skakel confessed testified last summer.
Greenwich police have been accused of mishandling the investigation from the start, with some critics charging they were intimidated by Skakel's wealth and Kennedy family ties.
"If in fact they had evidence to suggest that Michael Skakel was responsible, the earlier he would have been confronted with that, the better off we all would have been," said Skakel's lawyer, Mickey Sherman.
For years, Skakel's older brother, Thomas, was suspected of the murder because he was the last person seen with Martha. But in the early 1990s, attention shifted to Michael Skakel.
Skakel, 40, was initially charged as a juvenile when he was arrested last year because he was 15 when the slaying occurred. A judge ruled this year that he can be charged as an adult, which is why the court file was finally unsealed.
The file confirmed reports that Skakel allegedly pulled a knife on a family chauffeur in 1978 and had to be pulled off the railing of the Triborough Bridge.
On the way to his therapist, Skakel threatened driver Larry Zicarelli and jumped out of the car, the file said. Zicarelli told cops that Skakel yelled: "I've done something very bad. I'm in a lot of trouble. I've either got to kill myself or leave the country."
Skakel's alleged statement was made more than 10 years before he became the prime suspect of investigators.
The nephew of Ethel Kennedy was charged with Martha's murder last year, 25 years after she was bludgeoned to death with a golf club in the tony Greenwich enclave of Belle Haven.
He allegedly told a fellow student at a school for troubled youths that he "might have committed the murder during [an alcoholic] blackout," according to an arrest warrant released yesterday along with hundreds of other documents in the case.
"That is something totally new to me," said Martha's brother, John. "Why didn't they question him back in 1980? I think that is a little troubling."
Martha, 15, was found dead outside her family's Belle Haven home. A broken golf club found near her body was traced to a set belonging to the Skakels.
The arrest warrant shows Connecticut investigators spoke to six students at the Maine school, Elan, that Skakel attended between 1978 and 1980. The other five students, who were interviewed in the 1990s, told accounts similar to the first student interviewed by cops in 1980. Two who said Skakel confessed testified last summer.
Greenwich police have been accused of mishandling the investigation from the start, with some critics charging they were intimidated by Skakel's wealth and Kennedy family ties.
"If in fact they had evidence to suggest that Michael Skakel was responsible, the earlier he would have been confronted with that, the better off we all would have been," said Skakel's lawyer, Mickey Sherman.
For years, Skakel's older brother, Thomas, was suspected of the murder because he was the last person seen with Martha. But in the early 1990s, attention shifted to Michael Skakel.
Skakel, 40, was initially charged as a juvenile when he was arrested last year because he was 15 when the slaying occurred. A judge ruled this year that he can be charged as an adult, which is why the court file was finally unsealed.
The file confirmed reports that Skakel allegedly pulled a knife on a family chauffeur in 1978 and had to be pulled off the railing of the Triborough Bridge.
On the way to his therapist, Skakel threatened driver Larry Zicarelli and jumped out of the car, the file said. Zicarelli told cops that Skakel yelled: "I've done something very bad. I'm in a lot of trouble. I've either got to kill myself or leave the country."
Monday, March 12, 2001
March 12, 2001 - Update On Greenwich's 1984 MURDER CASE
Law enforcement officials have announced a renewed effort to solve the 1984 slaying of Matthew Margolies, a 13-year-old Greenwich boy who disappeared while he was fishing near his home. He was found five days later, stabbed and suffocated. Chief Peter J. Robbins of the Greenwich police said Thursday that his department was working with the state police ''cold case'' squad and that a former state police commissioner, Henry Lee, had agreed to help. Gov. John G. Rowland has increased a reward in the case to $50,000. David M. Herszenhorn
Friday, March 2, 2001
Mar 2, 2001 - Investigator Says Skakel Attempted Suicide in '78 - NY Times
STAMFORD, Conn., March 12 ? In an affidavit last year seeking an arrest warrant for Michael C. Skakel in the 1975 killing of Martha Moxley, the state's lead investigator said he had obtained evidence that Mr. Skakel once tried to jump off the Triborough Bridge after saying "that he had done something very bad, and that he needed to get out of the country, and that he had to kill himself."
The affidavit, among 347 pages of court documents unsealed today in State Superior Court here, suggests that prosecutors in the murder trial will seek to portray Mr. Skakel as having been an increasingly unstable youth, a teenage alcoholic who became infatuated with the pretty girl next door, bludgeoned her to death with a golf club and was later consumed by guilt that prompted confessions and the suicide attempt.
The affidavit also makes clear how the lead investigator, Frank C. Garr, who was a patrolman staffing the switchboard for the Greenwich Police Department at the time of Miss Moxley's death, is now the linchpin in the state's case. Until Mr. Garr began reworking the case in the early 1990's, officials had not regarded Michael Skakel as a likely suspect but had focused on his older brother, Thomas, and on the Skakel family's live-in tutor, Kenneth W. Littleton.
Also among the papers released today was a defense motion, yet to be considered by a judge, to have the murder charge dismissed. In it, Mr. Skakel's lawyer, Michael Sherman, argues that in 1975 Connecticut had a five-year statute of limitations on felony charges, including murder, that were not potentially punishable by death. Mr. Skakel maintains his innocence.
The case files had been sealed after the January 2000 arrest of Mr. Skakel, who is now 40, because he was initially charged as a juvenile. Both Mr. Skakel, a nephew of Ethel Kennedy, and Miss Moxley were 15 at the time of the killing. In January, a juvenile court judge ordered that he be tried as an adult, and the file was automatically unsealed today, 10 business days after his arraignment.
Amid the stack of mostly procedural documents, Mr. Garr's affidavit provided a dash of drama. Mr. Garr did not identify witnesses by name, but most of their identities were readily discernible to anyone familiar with the case. Among those he described was a "former employee" of the Skakel household who was involved in the incident on the Triborough Bridge in 1978.
The employee, a gardener and sometime driver named Larry Zicarelli, had driven Mr. Skakel to see his psychotherapist in New York City. According to Mr. Garr's affidavit, Mr. Skakel had been involved in "some sort of dispute" with his father, Rushton W. Skakel Sr. When the employee got into a car at the family's home in Greenwich, Conn., to take Michael Skakel to New York, Michael was holding a knife.
"He asked Michael, who was displaying a knife, why he was so upset, at which time Michael stated, `Shut up and drive, or I'll stab you,' " according to the affidavit. At one point, Mr. Skakel opened the door and told the driver "that he had done something very bad" and had to kill himself, Mr. Garr said in the affidavit.
Later, on the way home, Mr. Skakel jumped out on the Triborough Bridge. "Michael jumped out of the car and began to climb the bridge," Mr. Garr stated, recounting what he said the employee had told him. "He reported that he ran to Michael, picked him up and put him back in the car. Michael then exited the vehicle from the opposite side and again attempted to climb the bridge, stating that he was going to jump off."
The employee again put Mr. Skakel in the car and drove him back to Greenwich, the affidavit said.
Another witness in the affidavit described the teenage Mr. Skakel as a peeping Tom who tried to catch glimpses of naked women through their bedroom windows. The witness said Mr. Skakel had told him he had been sexually aroused on the night of Miss Moxley's murder and had masturbated in a tree before hearing a noise and running home. Miss Moxley's body was found under the tree the next morning.
A lawyer involved in the case identified this witness as Richard Hoffman, a writer who helped Mr. Skakel prepare a proposal for a tell-all book about the Kennedy family.
Several of the witnesses described in Mr. Garr's affidavit were former classmates of Mr. Skakel's at a school for troubled youths in Maine who testified at a juvenile court hearing last June. Their testimony ? that Mr. Skakel confessed to killing Miss Moxley ? led Judge Maureen D. Dennis to find that there was "reasonable cause" to believe he had committed the crime and to transfer the case to adult court.
Mr. Skakel's lawyer, Mr. Sherman, said today that he doubted the credibility of the state's witnesses and called the episode on the bridge "a skeleton of an incident that happened 23 years ago that had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Martha Moxley." He added, "I know he did have a very difficult ride to New York to see his therapist with his driver."
Mr. Sherman also repeated a complaint he had made about the affidavit's referring to witnesses by numbers rather than names. "It gives them an undeserved air of credibility," he said.
A secretary in the Bridgeport state attorney's office, where Mr. Garr is an inspector, said he would not be in this week and could not be reached.
Jonathan Benedict, the state's attorney in Bridgeport, who is the lead prosecutor in the Skakel case, said he expected several of the witnesses mentioned in Mr. Garr's affidavit to reappear at a probable-cause hearing scheduled to begin April 18.
Although prosecutors called fewer than a half-dozen witnesses during the hearing last June, the numbering of witnesses ? up to 45 ? in the affidavit suggests there are dozens of people the state may seek to call during trial.
Some of those witnesses may never be heard by the eventual jury in the case. Mr. Sherman is certain to ask the judge to exclude evidence and testimony for many reasons. Mr. Benedict would not discuss specific witnesses or evidence, saying only that it was "all pertinent information that we would probably expect to develop at trial."
The affidavit, among 347 pages of court documents unsealed today in State Superior Court here, suggests that prosecutors in the murder trial will seek to portray Mr. Skakel as having been an increasingly unstable youth, a teenage alcoholic who became infatuated with the pretty girl next door, bludgeoned her to death with a golf club and was later consumed by guilt that prompted confessions and the suicide attempt.
The affidavit also makes clear how the lead investigator, Frank C. Garr, who was a patrolman staffing the switchboard for the Greenwich Police Department at the time of Miss Moxley's death, is now the linchpin in the state's case. Until Mr. Garr began reworking the case in the early 1990's, officials had not regarded Michael Skakel as a likely suspect but had focused on his older brother, Thomas, and on the Skakel family's live-in tutor, Kenneth W. Littleton.
Also among the papers released today was a defense motion, yet to be considered by a judge, to have the murder charge dismissed. In it, Mr. Skakel's lawyer, Michael Sherman, argues that in 1975 Connecticut had a five-year statute of limitations on felony charges, including murder, that were not potentially punishable by death. Mr. Skakel maintains his innocence.
The case files had been sealed after the January 2000 arrest of Mr. Skakel, who is now 40, because he was initially charged as a juvenile. Both Mr. Skakel, a nephew of Ethel Kennedy, and Miss Moxley were 15 at the time of the killing. In January, a juvenile court judge ordered that he be tried as an adult, and the file was automatically unsealed today, 10 business days after his arraignment.
Amid the stack of mostly procedural documents, Mr. Garr's affidavit provided a dash of drama. Mr. Garr did not identify witnesses by name, but most of their identities were readily discernible to anyone familiar with the case. Among those he described was a "former employee" of the Skakel household who was involved in the incident on the Triborough Bridge in 1978.
The employee, a gardener and sometime driver named Larry Zicarelli, had driven Mr. Skakel to see his psychotherapist in New York City. According to Mr. Garr's affidavit, Mr. Skakel had been involved in "some sort of dispute" with his father, Rushton W. Skakel Sr. When the employee got into a car at the family's home in Greenwich, Conn., to take Michael Skakel to New York, Michael was holding a knife.
"He asked Michael, who was displaying a knife, why he was so upset, at which time Michael stated, `Shut up and drive, or I'll stab you,' " according to the affidavit. At one point, Mr. Skakel opened the door and told the driver "that he had done something very bad" and had to kill himself, Mr. Garr said in the affidavit.
Later, on the way home, Mr. Skakel jumped out on the Triborough Bridge. "Michael jumped out of the car and began to climb the bridge," Mr. Garr stated, recounting what he said the employee had told him. "He reported that he ran to Michael, picked him up and put him back in the car. Michael then exited the vehicle from the opposite side and again attempted to climb the bridge, stating that he was going to jump off."
The employee again put Mr. Skakel in the car and drove him back to Greenwich, the affidavit said.
Another witness in the affidavit described the teenage Mr. Skakel as a peeping Tom who tried to catch glimpses of naked women through their bedroom windows. The witness said Mr. Skakel had told him he had been sexually aroused on the night of Miss Moxley's murder and had masturbated in a tree before hearing a noise and running home. Miss Moxley's body was found under the tree the next morning.
A lawyer involved in the case identified this witness as Richard Hoffman, a writer who helped Mr. Skakel prepare a proposal for a tell-all book about the Kennedy family.
Several of the witnesses described in Mr. Garr's affidavit were former classmates of Mr. Skakel's at a school for troubled youths in Maine who testified at a juvenile court hearing last June. Their testimony ? that Mr. Skakel confessed to killing Miss Moxley ? led Judge Maureen D. Dennis to find that there was "reasonable cause" to believe he had committed the crime and to transfer the case to adult court.
Mr. Skakel's lawyer, Mr. Sherman, said today that he doubted the credibility of the state's witnesses and called the episode on the bridge "a skeleton of an incident that happened 23 years ago that had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Martha Moxley." He added, "I know he did have a very difficult ride to New York to see his therapist with his driver."
Mr. Sherman also repeated a complaint he had made about the affidavit's referring to witnesses by numbers rather than names. "It gives them an undeserved air of credibility," he said.
A secretary in the Bridgeport state attorney's office, where Mr. Garr is an inspector, said he would not be in this week and could not be reached.
Jonathan Benedict, the state's attorney in Bridgeport, who is the lead prosecutor in the Skakel case, said he expected several of the witnesses mentioned in Mr. Garr's affidavit to reappear at a probable-cause hearing scheduled to begin April 18.
Although prosecutors called fewer than a half-dozen witnesses during the hearing last June, the numbering of witnesses ? up to 45 ? in the affidavit suggests there are dozens of people the state may seek to call during trial.
Some of those witnesses may never be heard by the eventual jury in the case. Mr. Sherman is certain to ask the judge to exclude evidence and testimony for many reasons. Mr. Benedict would not discuss specific witnesses or evidence, saying only that it was "all pertinent information that we would probably expect to develop at trial."
Thursday, February 1, 2001
02/01/01 Judge Rules Skakel Will Stand Trial as an Adult
Skakel was indicted in January 2000 after a lengthy inquiry by a one-man grand jury. The grand jury's decision relied heavily on testimony from several of Skakel's former classmates at a Maine school for troubled youth. At a subsequent hearing in June, the classmates repeated their testimony that Skakel confessed to the killing.
Under the law in effect in 1975, when Moxley was beaten to death, Skakel could have been tried as a juvenile. Connecticut juvenile facilities cannot accept anyone over age 18, so Skakel could have gone free regardless of the outcome of a juvenile trial.
Suspicion shifted toward the younger Skakel brother in part because of research by former Los Angeles police Det. Mark Furhman, who wrote a book on the Moxley murder.
Under the law in effect in 1975, when Moxley was beaten to death, Skakel could have been tried as a juvenile. Connecticut juvenile facilities cannot accept anyone over age 18, so Skakel could have gone free regardless of the outcome of a juvenile trial.
Suspicion shifted toward the younger Skakel brother in part because of research by former Los Angeles police Det. Mark Furhman, who wrote a book on the Moxley murder.
Sunday, December 17, 2000
December 17, 2000 - Greenwich Seed Traps
On the Internet, Clues to Speed Traps
New York Times
....Mr. Warner sold the site to a group in Washington State a year ago, and the new company, Speedtrap.com Inc. has plans to link the warnings to other databases on drivers' safety.
New York Times
....Mr. Warner sold the site to a group in Washington State a year ago, and the new company, Speedtrap.com Inc. has plans to link the warnings to other databases on drivers' safety.
The site opens with a disclaimer: ''This service is not intended to promote speeding and complies with all current state and federal laws.''
But it is decidedly anti-authority.
A search for Connecticut traps finds that in the last three months, 20 anonymous drivers have posted warnings about traps in the state.....
.....in November, someone posted warnings that the Greenwich Police Department cruisers often wait along Route 1, for example, across from Greenwich High School, the Cos Cob firehouse, and a Mobil gas station near exit 5 of I-95. The writer called the cars ''a threat when traveling both north and south,'' and added, ''All are well-hidden and very dangerous.''Trooper Richard Alexandre, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, said the Internet warnings can't be very helpful because state police cars move radar traps daily.
''Our position would be that if it causes motorists to slow down on any given stretch of highway, based on the perception that there may be a police officer in the area,'' he said, ''we would consider that a good thing.''Monday, November 6, 2000
November 6, 2000 - The victim described the thief as a white male, 35 to 40 years old with brown hair and mustache. He was wearing a dark jacket ....
The victim described the thief as a white male, 35 to 40 years old with brown hair and mustache. He was wearing a dark jacket and a baseball cap. Anyone with information is asked to call the Greenwich Police Criminal Investigation Division at 203-622-8054 or Detective Timothy Powell .....
From: ROBBERY REPORTED AT GREENWICH ATM
Filed Under: Robbery
From: ROBBERY REPORTED AT GREENWICH ATM
Filed Under: Robbery
Monday, August 28, 2000
August 28, 2000 -- Boston Globe -- CAMPAIGNER GETS A SPEEDING TICKET IN CONN.
Jack E. Robinson, the Republican Senate hopeful, was ticketed in Greenwich, Conn., Friday night for driving nearly twice the speed limit, police said.
Robinson will contest the ticket, campaign manager Tom McCuin said yesterday. The candidate is scheduled to appear in Stamford Superior Court on Sept. 8.
Police stopped Robinson while he was driving about 62 miles per hour in a 2000 Cadillac DeVille on busy East Putnam Avenue, a major thoroughfare in Greenwich that has a speed limit of 35 miles per hour, Greenwich Police Sergeant Steve Carlo said. Robinson, 40, is challenging US Senator .......
Click for complete article
Filed Under: Speeding
Geo Tag: East Putnam Avenue
Robinson will contest the ticket, campaign manager Tom McCuin said yesterday. The candidate is scheduled to appear in Stamford Superior Court on Sept. 8.
Police stopped Robinson while he was driving about 62 miles per hour in a 2000 Cadillac DeVille on busy East Putnam Avenue, a major thoroughfare in Greenwich that has a speed limit of 35 miles per hour, Greenwich Police Sergeant Steve Carlo said. Robinson, 40, is challenging US Senator .......
Click for complete article
Filed Under: Speeding
Geo Tag: East Putnam Avenue
Friday, August 18, 2000
Aug 18, 2000 - In October of 1975, the respondent's home and the victim's home were located in the residential section of Greenwich .....
In October of 1975, the respondent's home and the victim's home were located in the residential section of Greenwich, Connecticut known as Belle Haven, a "gated community" with few access roads, and its own special police under the supervision of the Greenwich Police Department....
Monday, July 17, 2000
Jul 17, 2000 - Lt. Robert Brown, president of the Greenwich Police Department Silver Shield Association, which paid for the ad, said the ........
FED UP, COPS TRY TO SHAME TONY TOWN
Daily News
Cops in Greenwich, Conn., are seeing red over sluggish negotiations to renew a contract that expired a year ago.
So this week, the police union decided to put the issues in black and white - hoping to embarrass officials in the tony town by placing sarcastic classified ads in several newspapers, including the Daily News.
"COMMUNITY WANTED: Police department seeking community willing to pay competitive salary, compensation for dedication, loyalty, personal sacrifices & proven results," states the ad, which was scheduled to run in today's News.
Lt. Robert Brown, president of the Greenwich Police Department Silver Shield Association, which paid for the ad, said the association's 154 members have been working without a contract for the past year and have not received a raise in two years.
First Selectman Lolly Prince, the top elected official in Greenwich, said the town is "ready, willing and able" to address the issues through negotiation.
"We will entertain any proposal that they agree to among themselves," Prince said of the union and town representatives who have been negotiating for almost two years.
"Negotiations haven't been going well, so we went to binding arbitration," Brown said. "We are still negotiating, but it doesn't appear that we are going to reach a happy medium via negotiation."
Brown said that in addition to 77 other issues, cops are asking for a less than 4% raise and relief from costly health insurance that hits retirees hardest in one of the most affluent towns in the country. The expired contract sets the starting salary for a patrol officer at $38,618, rising to a top pay of $48,709. Such salary levels, Brown said, are 17% below those of comparable police departments.
"We just had a major upheaval with every union member that has retired, the town is self-insured . . . and they just raised the insurance, some from $200 to $900," Brown said. "In another incident, a fireman's widow was getting half of his pension and they raised the insurance rates and now she has to pay the town instead of receiving a paycheck."
Prince declined to discuss details of the contract, but she is expected to address the insurance issue during a meeting with police officers and other union members at Greenwich High School tomorrow night.
In her keynote speech during a luncheon for the local Chamber of Commerce in April, Prince boasted about the "healthy finance status" of the town, a median home price of $880,000 and a per capita income of $67,041.
"Right now, a lot of our young police officers that are getting married cannot even afford to rent an apartment because of the rates," Brown said. "It's a very affluent community."
Monday, July 10, 2000
Jul 10, 2000 - Greenwich police said they were called to a construction site off Shore Road in the Old Greenwich section about 1 pm Saturday ......
Greenwich police said they were called to a construction site off Shore Road in the Old Greenwich section about 1 pm Saturday after contractors turned up the bones. They were assisted by the state police western district major crimes unit. The remains are believed to be several ...
Wednesday, June 21, 2000
Jun 21, 2000 - Mr. Benedict's second witness was Thomas G. Keegan, the former chief of the Greenwich Police Department, who described how .......
2 Witnesses Say Skakel Confessed to 1975 Killing
On the first day of public testimony about the 1975 killing of 15-year-old Martha Moxley in Greenwich, two witnesses told a judge here today that Michael C. Skakel, a nephew of Ethel Kennedy, confessed to the killing in the late 1970's while he was attending a school for troubled youths in Maine.
The witnesses were both former classmates of Mr. Skakel's at the Elan School in Poland Spring, Me. One of them, John D. Higgins, described a confused and tearful admission in which Mr. Skakel said he had only fragmented memories of the crime. The other witness, Gregory Coleman, said Mr. Skakel brazenly told him: ''I am going to get away with murder. I am a Kennedy.''
Mr. Skakel, now 39, is charged with murder as a juvenile because he was 15 at the time Miss Moxley, a neighbor, was found bludgeoned to death under a tree in her family's yard. Today's testimony came on the first day of a ''reasonable cause'' hearing in which Judge Maureen Dennis will decide whether Mr. Skakel should face a jury trial as an adult.
It will be a crucial determination. If convicted in State Superior Court as an adult, Mr. Skakel would face a sentence of 25 years to life in prison. If convicted as a juvenile, he could spend little or no time in jail.
The stress of the day showed. As Mr. Skakel left the courtroom for the lunch recess, he broke down in sobs.
Nevertheless, just before the recess, Mr. Skakel's lawyer, Michael Sherman, skillfully set about undermining the credibility of Mr. Higgins, the first witness to say he had heard Mr. Skakel confess. Under cross-examination, Mr. Higgins admitted that he had repeatedly lied to investigators and that his interest in the Moxley case had been renewed only after he learned of a large reward for information in the case.
Unlike a trial, today's proceeding lacked the dramatic opening statements from opposing lawyers eager to persuade a jury. Instead, the prosecutor, Jonathan C. Benedict, simply called his first witness, Sheila McGuire, a neighbor and friend of Miss Moxley's who discovered her body on Oct. 31, 1975. Then he introduced a Greenwich map as the first exhibit.
Still, there was the sense of a momentous event. After a quarter-century, the details of this sensational case, chronicled in numerous best-selling books of varied credibility, were finally being disclosed under oath in a court of law. Dorthy Moxley, Martha's mother, sat in the front row of the packed, tiny courtroom. Dozens of television crews lined the street outside.
Mr. Benedict's second witness was Thomas G. Keegan, the former chief of the Greenwich Police Department, who described how investigators searching the Moxley property found three pieces of a golf club that they determined to be the murder weapon. The club, a 6-iron, was later found to belong to a set owned by Rushton Skakel, the father of the defendant.
Under cross-examination, the former chief was quickly asked by Mr. Sherman about criticism of his department for ''botching'' the Moxley case. Mr. Keegan testified that golf clubs, according to reports of witnesses, were routinely left in the Skakel yard, but he immediately rejected the implication that someone had come along, picked up a club and killed the girl.
''The theory was that some transient came through the yard and bludgeoned the girl,'' he said. ''That doesn't hold water.'' The former chief testified that the handle of the golf club, which had the name Skakel on it, was never found. ''My conclusion is that the person who killed Martha was aware that name was on the club,'' he said.
But Mr. Sherman seemed to win a final point. ''In the course of your investigation, did you find any evidence that Michael Skakel killed Martha Moxley?'' he demanded. ''No, sir,'' the former chief replied.
The bulk of the day's testimony focused on the two former classmates from the Elan School who told Judge Dennis that they had heard the defendant confess.
Mr. Higgins said that he and Mr. Skakel had been working as ''night owls,'' making sure other students did not run away, and were sitting on the porch of a dormitory building when Mr. Skakel described his role in the killing. ''He related to me that he had been involved in the murder of someone or thought that he had been,'' Mr. Higgins testified. He said Mr. Skakel was ''sobbing, crying'' as he confessed.
Mr. Higgins testified that Mr. Skakel offered disjointed memories of the night of the killing, that he had been in his garage going through golf clubs, then was running through some woods, noticed a pine tree and then blacked out, only to wake up in his bed the next morning. ''He eventually said that he, in fact, did it,'' Mr. Higgins testified.
Mr. Sherman quickly attacked Mr. Higgins's credibility, forcing him to admit that he had lied repeatedly to Frank Garr, a lead investigator on the case. Mr. Higgins admitted telling Mr. Garr numerous times that he had never heard Mr. Skakel confess, and that he contacted Mr. Garr again only after learning that a $50,000 reward had been offered in the case.
At one point, Mr. Higgins became so frustrated with the questioning that he slammed shut a binder. At another point, Mr. Sherman goaded Mr. Higgins, questioning the veracity of one of his responses by twice asking him, ''Is that your final answer?''
In afternoon testimony, Mr. Coleman, the other former student at Elan, said Mr. Skakel recounted to him that he had made sexual advances to Miss Moxley, and that when she rebuffed him, he ''drove her head with a golf club.'' Mr. Coleman, a convicted felon, was brought to testify from prison in the Rochester area.
Outside the courtroom, Mr. Sherman said that Mr. Skakel had broken down with emotion after hearing his former classmates lie about him on the witness stand.
But John Moxley, Martha's brother, said he believed the witnesses. ''I think he knows what's coming,'' he said of Mr. Skakel. ''They weren't tears of joy. I think reality is starting to tumble down around him.''
Tuesday, June 20, 2000
Jun 20, 2000 - Other likely witnesses are members of the Greenwich Police Department, which investigated Moxley's death, and a neighborhood girl ....
Other likely witnesses are members of the Greenwich Police Department, which investigated Moxley's death, and a neighborhood girl who discovered ...
One person who will not be testifying is former Greenwich police detective Steve Carroll, who has been critical in recent years of the ...
From: Kennedy kin's "mini-trial" opens in Connecticut
Filed Under: Murder
One person who will not be testifying is former Greenwich police detective Steve Carroll, who has been critical in recent years of the ...
From: Kennedy kin's "mini-trial" opens in Connecticut
Filed Under: Murder
Sunday, June 4, 2000
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
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
Friday, May 26, 2000
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.
Thursday, April 27, 2000
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
Filed Under: Suicide
Tuesday, February 22, 2000
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.
Monday, February 7, 2000
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
