What do the Teeming think of this case? Should Skakal be tried as an adult? Should the prosecution even bother with these witnesses to his confession, or have they hurt the credibility of the case? Is the case to old to even bother?
Needs2know
…statute of limitations for murder. Somebody killed the poor girl, and all of the evidence points to Mr. Skakel. Of course, we all saw what happened in the case of O.J. Simpson - one’s chances of getting away with murder seem to increase in direct proportion to one’s income.
Since Mr. Skakel’s father is a multi-millionaire, I don’t seem him sweating out a jail sentance anytime soon!
The murder weapon came from the Skakel house. From what I’v read I think Skakel did kill Martha.
There is a website devoted to this case. I read the profile done by The Academy Group, and as I have faith in whatever John E. Douglas and others in his league do, find that report most damning.
** Needs2know, ** I think he ought to be tried as an adult, regardless of what * he would’ve been tried as * had he been caught when the crime happened. What ‘could’ve or would’ve’ happened is ** irrelevant. **
But, I’m with egkelly, I don’t believe it will ever come to that, there most likely will never be a trial at all. Which is a shame.
YOU’RE ALL WRONG!!!
(Yes, I am God ;-))
I think it is ludicrous to suggest that we should try Skakel as an adult. The entire point of the juvenile system is to acknowledge that children are not as morally, emotionally, or cognitively developed as adults. Prosecutors routinely use the argument that people should be tried as adults based upon the, “the heinousness of the crime.” Does not the purpose of the juvenile system illustrate the basic concept that juveniles are equally undeveloped when they commit crimes that are “heinous” and those that are not “heinous?” The concept of trying Skakel as an adult is even more illogical than most requests to try people as adults. Simply because a person has matured does not mean that they should be held responsible to that level of maturity in relation to the crime. If a five year old were able to commit murder and this murder could not linked to him until he had matured, is this person responsible for not having gone back in time and repaired the damage that they had done as a five year old as they grew to realize the gravity of their crime?
threemae, most states have loopholes where juveniles can be tried as adults.
I agree with the others. Skakel will never see jail even though he probably killed her. The notoriety is probably the worst punishment we can expect for Skakel.
Once again, life mimics "Law and Order’. I think this case will go the same way.
The court will have to apply the law that was in effect at the time of the crime. And at that time, there was no loophole that allowed for juveniles to be tried as adults in that state.
Even if they ignore that principle, it’s very, very difficult to try a case for a crime that old. My guess, aquittal.
please give a link.
i have no idea of what you’re talking about?
Here’s one (slow):
Here’s a recent news story about developments in the case:
This case would likely generate some commentary without the Kennedy connection, due to it’s raising questions regarding juvenile crime and punishment, constitutional ex post facto protections and statutes of limitations.
So, what’s right? Juvenile justice attempts to deal with criminal acts with some recognition of the perpetrator’s immaturity. Similarly, adult criminal prosecutions can take into account a defendant’s inability to understand the consequences of his or her actions. In either juvenile or adult prosecutions, such condiderations should have no bearing on a determination of guilt; their weight should be felt in determining penalties. And, of course, nowadays it would not be unheard of for a 15 year old to be tried as an adult in many states.
If my quick read of a few things is correct (I have not been following this case), another point that’s been raised is that the crime of murder had a five year statute of limitations at the time of the crime, which was later removed so that there is no time limitation on prosecution for murder in that state at present. The defense, of course, prefers to live with the law as it was.
Personal prediction: he’ll walk, with perhaps a slap on the wrist; and eat some legal bills.
Anyone read “A Murder in Greenwich” by Mark Fuhrman (yes, the same one of OJ fame) ? He lays it out pretty well that Skakel probably did it. I think it MIGHT go to trial, but Skakel will do no time. He will likely be tried as a juvenile and people will complain that it’s the Kennedy influence causing that.
–tygre
How do you know he’ll get off because of his affiliation with the Kennedys. Perhaps that is working against him now. After all the whole premise behind him not being charged at the time was because of his family connections. Maybe this time the courts and the media plan to make up for all the Kennedys before him that looked guilty too but were not brought to justice.
I could have heard wrong but I believe that I read he can be charged as an adult because there was a law on the books that allowed a 15 year old to be charged. It was rarely used then, but it was allowable.
Needs2know
** godthreemae, ** except that Michael wasn’t ** five, ** he was fifteen years old in 1975, quite old enough to know how to hide what he had done, and a number of years since to stay hidden. He isn’t a five year old who had a tantrum and popped a playmate on the head with a Lincoln Log. You’re right in that case, but I believe you’re exaggerating, since I’ve yet to see a case of a child that young being brought up on murder charges.
And while the Kennedy’s were wealthy, the Skakels were known to be even more so, and extremely influential in the town. While Rushton Skakel (Michael’s father) gave the image of looking to ‘help the investigation’ he did exactly the opposite and instead offered up the young man he had hired to tutor his sons as a ‘better’ suspect. (RE:for him, that is) Which is why I agree with ** Lisa, ** the notoriety will be enough to keep him a prisoner while still technically free.