Michael Skakel may get a new trial...

Bob001

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
16,613
Location
US of A
A judge has ordered that convicted murderer and Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel should get a new trial. Prosecutors are appealing the ruling. Skakel was convicted in 2002 of murdering a Connecticut neighbor, Martha Moxley, in 1975 when both were 15, and sentenced to 20 years-to-life.

Assume for the sake of discussion that Skakel actually did commit the murder (which he and the Kennedy family dispute; some people point the finger at his older brother). If he had been caught and prosecuted at that time, he almost certainly would have been treated as a juvenile. Is it right to convict and sentence someone as an adult -- in effect, punishing him for failing to exercise an adult's judgment -- for a crime he committed 27 years earlier when he was 15? I'm no fan of this rich sleazebag, but this seems like a miscarriage of justice. What should happen in a case like this?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/23/justice/michael-skakel-retrial/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Skakel
 
Bob001 said:
A judge has ordered that convicted murderer and Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel should get a new trial. Prosecutors are appealing the ruling. Skakel was convicted in 2002 of murdering a Connecticut neighbor, Martha Moxley, in 1975 when both were 15, and sentenced to 20 years-to-life.

Assume for the sake of discussion that Skakel actually did commit the murder (which he and the Kennedy family dispute; some people point the finger at his older brother). If he had been caught and prosecuted at that time, he almost certainly would have been treated as a juvenile. Is it right to convict and sentence someone as an adult -- in effect, punishing him for failing to exercise an adult's judgment -- for a crime he committed 27 years earlier when he was 15? I'm no fan of this rich sleazebag, but this seems like a miscarriage of justice. What should happen in a case like this?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/23/justice/michael-skakel-retrial/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Skakel
Click to expand...

My .02 is that he was sentenced at the time of conviction and that sentence should not be subject to any mitigating factor for his age at time of the offense.

Had he been arrested, tried and convicted as a juvenile that would be a different issue, but he was convicted and sentenced as an adult and imo sentenced appropriately.
 
BStrong said:
Had he been arrested, tried and convicted as a juvenile that would be a different issue, but he was convicted and sentenced as an adult and imo sentenced appropriately.
Click to expand...

Why bother with juvenile courts? Just hold off all arrests until after they turn 18.
 
Bob001 said:
A judge has ordered that convicted murderer and Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel should get a new trial. Prosecutors are appealing the ruling. Skakel was convicted in 2002 of murdering a Connecticut neighbor, Martha Moxley, in 1975 when both were 15, and sentenced to 20 years-to-life.

Assume for the sake of discussion that Skakel actually did commit the murder (which he and the Kennedy family dispute; some people point the finger at his older brother). If he had been caught and prosecuted at that time, he almost certainly would have been treated as a juvenile. Is it right to convict and sentence someone as an adult -- in effect, punishing him for failing to exercise an adult's judgment -- for a crime he committed 27 years earlier when he was 15? I'm no fan of this rich sleazebag, but this seems like a miscarriage of justice. What should happen in a case like this?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/23/justice/michael-skakel-retrial/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Skakel
Click to expand...

From wiki: Twenty-three states have no minimum age in a least one judicial waiver or statutory exclusion provision allowing for the transfer of juveniles to adult court. In states where a minimum age is specified for all transfer provisions, age 14 is the most common minimum age.
 
Jungle Jim said:
From wiki: Twenty-three states have no minimum age in a least one judicial waiver or statutory exclusion provision allowing for the transfer of juveniles to adult court. In states where a minimum age is specified for all transfer provisions, age 14 is the most common minimum age.
Click to expand...

The prosecutors can choose whether or not to send juveniles to adult court. I'm willing to bet that a 15-year-old Kennedy would have gotten every possible break the law allows. And generally speaking, in 1975 the authorities were more willing to see a juvenile offender -- even a killer -- as a troubled kid rather than a dangerous criminal. I'm not defending Skakel, but someone at age 42 is not the same person he was at age 15.
 
Someone has made a terrible mistake. He's a member of the Kennedy family! If there were any justice in America he would be exonerated and given a Senate seat for life pronto.
 
He avoided prosecution for almost 30 years. It stopped being a childish decision when he stopped being a child, so adult court is where it belonged.

I think he got just what was coming to him.
 
ravdin said:
Someone has made a terrible mistake. He's a member of the Kennedy family! If there were any justice in America he would be exonerated and given a Senate seat for life pronto.
Click to expand...

You meant "he's an enemy of the Cheney family so he has to be prosecuted"?
 
Hard to believe he admitted jacking off in a tree watching the victim but by some odd coincidence someone else beat her to death that same night. :rolleyes:

As for being a juvenile, I don't know what things were like in the 70s but for crimes like murder, a lot of teens are tried as adults. Given the circumstances, sexual nature and the brutality of the crime, it's hard to see he would have been tried as a juvenile.

From Wiki:
Over the years, both Thomas and Michael Skakel significantly changed their alibis for the night of Moxley's murder. Michael Skakel claimed that he had been window-peeping and masturbating in a tree beside the Moxley property from 11:30 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. Two former Elan students testified they heard Michael Skakel confess to killing Moxley with a golf club. Gregory Coleman testified that Skakel was given special privileges, saying Skakel bragged, "I'm going to get away with murder. I'm a Kennedy."[9][10]
Click to expand...
 
Bob001 said:
A judge has ordered that convicted murderer and Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel should get a new trial. Prosecutors are appealing the ruling. Skakel was convicted in 2002 of murdering a Connecticut neighbor, Martha Moxley, in 1975 when both were 15, and sentenced to 20 years-to-life.

Assume for the sake of discussion that Skakel actually did commit the murder (which he and the Kennedy family dispute; some people point the finger at his older brother). If he had been caught and prosecuted at that time, he almost certainly would have been treated as a juvenile. Is it right to convict and sentence someone as an adult -- in effect, punishing him for failing to exercise an adult's judgment -- for a crime he committed 27 years earlier when he was 15? I'm no fan of this rich sleazebag, but this seems like a miscarriage of justice. What should happen in a case like this?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/23/justice/michael-skakel-retrial/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Skakel
Click to expand...

I find it completely and utterly unbelievable that Icky Mickey failed to adequately represent the murderer at his trial. I am certain Skakel got the best defense the Kennedy money could buy, which is far more than the other 99% of the population would have received. This ruling must be some kind of political payback favor.
 
I never found the evidence against Michael Skakel very compelling. There was another person that seemed to me a lot more likely to have committed the crime. Only there were problems with making a case against them.

As far as being a member of the Kennedy family, I think that might actually work against him (as some of the comments here make clear).
 
newyorkguy said:
I never found the evidence against Michael Skakel very compelling. There was another person that seemed to me a lot more likely to have committed the crime. Only there were problems with making a case against them.

As far as being a member of the Kennedy family, I think that might actually work against him (as some of the comments here make clear).
Click to expand...
The Skakels hated the Kennedys and thought them low rent. The Skakels were old money rich before olde Joe imported a bottle.
 
Last edited:
The Skakels were old money?

George Skakel was the patriarch (and father of Ethel Skakel Kennedy) began his career around 1910 as a railroad clerk. He later went into coal mining and, with partners, ultimately founded the Great Lakes Carbon Corporation. This company was quite successful and made Skakel a millionaire.

George Skakel had started his career as a freight-rate clerk on the Sioux City Line of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway. He was not in the Social Register in 1938, nor was he a member of Greenwich’s exclusive Round Hill Club, whose president at the time was Prescott S. Bush, grandfather of the current president of the United States. In the studied opinion of Greenwich’s Old Guard, the Skakels were no more than “rowdy Irish micks,” as biographer Jerry Oppenheimer once wrote. Link
Click to expand...
 
The police did a lousy job in the initial investigation and the names and wealth involved were probably the reason. The police treaded much too lightly.

The other point is that Michael Skakel had access to high priced defense attorneys. One has to wonder how that money plays into this judge's decision.

Is there any reason to think years later the witnesses who said Skakel confessed to the crime had any reason to make that story up?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The police did a lousy job in the initial investigation and the names and wealth involved were probably the reason. The police treaded much too lightly.

The other point is that Michael Skakel had access to high priced defense attorneys. One has to wonder how that money plays into this judge's decision.

Is there any reason to think years later the witnesses who said Skakel confessed to the crime had any reason to make that story up?
Click to expand...

In a lengthy 2003 Atlantic article, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. makes a pretty strong case that the Skakel family cooperated extensively with the police, even submitting to polygraphs, and that police focused on Skakel to the exclusion of other suspects, including a family tutor with a violent history and a gardener who bragged that he raped women as a German soldier during WWII.

As to the account of Skakel's confession to two fellow students:
[Gregory] Coleman told the grand jury that while at Elan he had heard Michael confess to the murder five or six times. At Michael's probable-cause hearing, two years later, Coleman amended that estimate to two times. To explain the discrepancy, Coleman said he had shot heroin an hour before his grand-jury testimony. He admitted to shooting twenty to twenty-five bags a day and said that he was on methadone during the probable-cause hearing. He was incarcerated at the time and had made two requests to Connecticut authorities for cash and a reduced sentence in return for his testimony.....
Click to expand...

John Higgins was another Elan bully. At the trial Higgins said that he had been on guard duty with Michael when Michael spontaneously began relating his memories of the Moxley murder. According to Higgins, Michael recalled a party that night at the Skakel house, after which he rummaged in the garage for golf clubs; he remembered running through pine trees afterward and waking up at home. That story is obviously contrived. There was no party that evening, and there has never been a garage at the Skakel house. Higgins refused to sign a formal statement, take a polygraph, or allow the police to tape his phone calls to them. They recorded him anyway, and used the tape to force him to testify at the trial. Higgins later admitted to lying to Garr about his knowledge of Michael's confession.
Click to expand...

Other Elan witnesses testified that they had never heard Michael confess while at Elan. Higgins "had a reputation for not being truthful," one witness said, and "seemed to really like making Mike Skakel's life miserable." For two years Michael was continually spat upon, slapped, and deprived of sleep. He was serially beaten with hoses and by students wearing boxing gloves, forced to wear a dunce cap and a toilet seat around his neck, and subjected to a long inventory of other tortures. .... Elan's administration encouraged students to accuse Michael himself of Martha's murder as part of the school's humiliation therapy. Students like Coleman and Higgins had incentives to report such confessions; they would have been rewarded with extra privileges and elevated status and power.
Click to expand...

Sure raises some doubts in my mind.

RFK's article is pretty detailed, and it challenges a lot of what we think we know about this case.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...scarriage-of-justice/304759/?single_page=true
 
ABC10 said:
The Skakels hated the Kennedys and thought them low rent. The Skakels were old money rich before olde Joe imported a bottle.
Click to expand...

I dunno who was older money, but this is what RFK Jr. says about the Kennedys and the Skakels:
But Michael never identified himself as a "Kennedy cousin." On the contrary, the Kennedy and Skakel families were never close. The Skakels were Republicans who took steps against my father that my mother considered hurtful, and the families' relationship was distant for many years. I rarely saw the Skakel boys growing up, and would not have been able to identify Michael or his brothers in 1975.
Click to expand...
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...scarriage-of-justice/304759/?single_page=true
 
Bob001 said:
In a lengthy 2003 Atlantic article, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. makes a pretty strong case that the Skakel family cooperated extensively with the police, even submitting to polygraphs, and that police focused on Skakel to the exclusion of other suspects, including a family tutor with a violent history and a gardener who bragged that he raped women as a German soldier during WWII.

As to the account of Skakel's confession to two fellow students:

Sure raises some doubts in my mind.

RFK's article is pretty detailed, and it challenges a lot of what we think we know about this case.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...scarriage-of-justice/304759/?single_page=true
Click to expand...
Much as I like some stuff RFK Jr does, he also harbors some CT beliefs.

Plait on Slate on RFK Jr's beliefs; Follow up on Slate from Plait reiterating the charges after RFK Jr's 'staff' contacted Phil

So he's a family member and he has some serious credibility issues.

On the other hand, it took years of pressure and complaints about the police doing a poor job on the initial investigation before the investigation was re-opened and Skakel finally charged. That doesn't sound like the account RFK Jr reported of family cooperation and thorough police investigation at the outset.

It was not until 1997 that Fuhrman and Dorothy Moxley managed to get around a dissenting body of state authorities to arrange for renowned pathologist Dr. Michael Baden to review the autopsy papers. He uncovered certain details that conflicted with previous police documents that spoke of many bruises on the body, leading to the conclusion that Martha Moxley was bludgeoned to death by the golf club. While the reports accurately concluded that the force of the club must have been tremendous to break into pieces, details pretty much overlooked an obvious stab wound that told much about the killer's attack and the girl's last desperate moments.
Click to expand...

Of course if you believe the less than credible claims of the OJ Simpson defense that Fuhrman sought to frame OJ, perhaps you also discredit the events that led up to Skakel finally being tried. I have always found Fuhrman credible and a competent detective.


In fairness to Skakel, we might wonder if the admission Skakel made that he masturbated in a tree looking in the victim's window was obtained by poor police interrogation practices.

As for the witness' to his confession not being exact in their accounts, that's how memory works. It's only in ignorance every inconsistency in a witness or suspect interview is given equal weight.

What would make me question those witness accounts would be motive, like a plea deal of a cell mate claiming to have overheard a confession. Such testimony should not be allowed in trials.



I'd have to review the rest of the evidence. If there is something exonerating Skakel, I'll keep an open mind. But at the time he was tried, it seemed they had a pretty solid case against him, and it seemed it was one they could have made near the time of the murder.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
In a lengthy 2003 Atlantic article, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. makes a pretty strong case that the Skakel family cooperated extensively with the police, even submitting to polygraphs, and that police focused on Skakel to the exclusion of other suspects, including a family tutor with a violent history and a gardener who bragged that he raped women as a German soldier during WWII.

RFK's article is pretty detailed, and it challenges a lot of what we think we know about this case.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...scarriage-of-justice/304759/?single_page=true
Click to expand...

Given RFK Jr's well-documented problems with the truth, if he said the sky was blue I'd check.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
....
As for the witness' to his confession not being exact in their accounts, that's how memory works. It's only in ignorance every inconsistency in a witness or suspect interview is given equal weight.

What would make me question those witness accounts would be motive, like a plea deal of a cell mate claiming to have overheard a confession. Such testimony should not be allowed in trials.
....
Click to expand...

Kennedy discusses at length what motivated the witnesses, one of whom -- Coleman -- was actually dead at the time of Skakel's trial. The judge allowed transcripts of his grand jury testimony to be read at the trial, which of course means that the defense had no chance to cross-examine or challenge him, and the jury couldn't observe his demeanor.

RFK, a former prosecutor himself, also contends that Skakel's defense made several big mistakes, starting with failing to challenge the validity of the prosecution itself. He says that at the time of the murder a five-year statute of limitations was in effect.

RFK makes numerous specific statements of fact. They're either true or they're not. If they're not, somebody with detailed knowledge of the case should be able to say so. But the fact that a judge has ordered a new trial inclines me to believe that RFK might be right. In any case the article is worth reading.
 
Bob001 said:
...
RFK makes numerous specific statements of fact. They're either true or they're not. If they're not, somebody with detailed knowledge of the case should be able to say so. But the fact that a judge has ordered a new trial inclines me to believe that RFK might be right. In any case the article is worth reading.
Click to expand...
Well you claimed one of those true or not statements was that the police were thorough at the time of the murder. The evidence that led to a trial 10 yrs after the fact does not support that assertion.
 
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

RFK's claims are worthless. Like any advocate, he places assumption, innuendo, and distortion above documented fact. For those who deal in reality, Judge Bishop's decision is not shocking. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. His decision to grant a new trial for this dirtbag has raised eyebrows among legal pundits for its arrogance and ignorance of the law.

If you read Judge Bishop's decision, you'll be struck by its focus on how the defense should have presented their case. Last time I checked, appellate judges were not supposed to play substitute defense counsel.

The case against Skakel was weak, but no weaker than the cases put forth in other high profile murder trials (e.g., Drew and Scott Peterson). The only REAL shocking aspect of this case is that Skakel had to spend 11 years in prison before the Kennedy's influence took hold on Judge Bishop.

The ineffectual counsel argument is usually reserved for those who have a Public Defender, but Skakel had the best legal defense that money could buy. This type of argument is considered to be a Hail Mary defense and the decision reeks of power and influence.

Skakel received a fair trial and he was convicted of brutally murdering Martha Moxley. This decision is a travesty and I hope that the 4th Circuit Court overturns Judge Bishop's decision and sends Skakel back to his concrete bunker.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
...

RFK, a former prosecutor himself, also contends that Skakel's defense made several big mistakes, starting with failing to challenge the validity of the prosecution itself. He says that at the time of the murder a five-year statute of limitations was in effect.
Click to expand...

Not sure that even Greenwich, CT, wealthy people and all, has a statute of limitations on murder and this was definitely murder.
 
KatieG said:
Not sure that even Greenwich, CT, wealthy people and all, has a statute of limitations on murder and this was definitely murder.
Click to expand...

Well, according to this, a five-year statute of limitations on non-capital murders really was in effect in 1975. The legislature changed the law in 1976, and the defense appealed the conviction on that basis and lost. RFK claims that the defense would have had a better chance of winning the argument at preliminary hearings before the trial rather than after the conviction.
http://articles.courant.com/2006-07...elle-haven-ethel-skakel-kennedy-martha-moxley
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/0...ppeals-murder-conviction-to-us-supreme-court/
 
JTF said:
RFK's claims are worthless. Like any advocate, he places assumption, innuendo, and distortion above documented fact.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. RFK Jr. is a relative, an advocate and a jerk. What specific claims does he make about the other possible suspects, about Skakel's purported confessions, about Skakel's purported alibi witnesses for his whereabouts at the time of the crime, about the Skakels permitting unlimited searches of their home, etc., etc., that aren't accurate?
 
My personal opinion is that if he did it then although the crime was committed young, the lieng about not doing it has been as an adult.

Which makes it irrelevant to his age at the time (if that makes any vague sense)

Therefore he should have the book thrown at him.
 
Bob001 said:
Well, according to this, a five-year statute of limitations on non-capital murders really was in effect in 1975. The legislature changed the law in 1976, and the defense appealed the conviction on that basis and lost. RFK claims that the defense would have had a better chance of winning the argument at preliminary hearings before the trial rather than after the conviction.
http://articles.courant.com/2006-07...elle-haven-ethel-skakel-kennedy-martha-moxley
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/0...ppeals-murder-conviction-to-us-supreme-court/
Click to expand...
So which is it then, there's not convincing evidence he did it, or he should get off on a technicality?
 
Bob001 said:
Fair enough. RFK Jr. is a relative, an advocate and a jerk. What specific claims does he make about the other possible suspects, about Skakel's purported confessions, about Skakel's purported alibi witnesses for his whereabouts at the time of the crime, about the Skakels permitting unlimited searches of their home, etc., etc., that aren't accurate?
Click to expand...

I don't recall what they missed, and I haven't read Mark Furhman's book, but I do know the case was reopened based on Furhmans' investigation and a conviction followed. I vaguely recall at the time of the trial that the investigators were not thorough when it came to the murder weapon.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So which is it then, there's not convincing evidence he did it, or he should get off on a technicality?
Click to expand...

RFK contends that the defense lawyer was inept, and gives the failure to challenge jurisdiction as one example. He also says that the defense lawyer didn't confront prosecution witnesses aggressively or present defense witnesses who could have helped Skakel's case, and didn't present other possible suspects -- one of whom was given immunity in exchange for his testimony.

You really don't want to read the article yourself, do you?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...scarriage-of-justice/304759/?single_page=true
 
No, I don't. I looked at the evidence at the time Skakel was tried, a decade after he should have been. You cite the opinion of a relative who has no cred, and claim the fact Skakel's high paid lawyer didn't argue a technicality is evidence he was incompetent. That's not an argument Skakel was innocent. It's an argument he didn't pay enough for a 'dream team'.

You do know you are not presenting anything supporting a wrongful conviction, right? Your whole argument is the high paid lawyer should have gotten Skakel off.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, I don't. I looked at the evidence at the time Skakel was tried, a decade after he should have been. You cite the opinion of a relative who has no cred, and claim the fact Skakel's high paid lawyer didn't argue a technicality is evidence he was incompetent. That's not an argument Skakel was innocent. It's an argument he didn't pay enough for a 'dream team'.

You do know you are not presenting anything supporting a wrongful conviction, right? Your whole argument is the high paid lawyer should have gotten Skakel off.
Click to expand...

Not a decade. 27 years. I'm not making any argument at all. RFK Jr. is contending that Skakel didn't commit the crime and should never have been tried, let alone convicted, and he makes specific statements to that end that are either true or false. Three people say they were with Skakel elsewhere at the time of the crime. Are they lying? If the case was as cut and dried as you think, why did it take 27 years to bring it to court? Why not read the article before you reject it? What are you afraid you might learn?
 
Bob001 said:
Fair enough. RFK Jr. is a relative, an advocate and a jerk. What specific claims does he make about the other possible suspects, about Skakel's purported confessions, about Skakel's purported alibi witnesses for his whereabouts at the time of the crime, about the Skakels permitting unlimited searches of their home, etc., etc., that aren't accurate?
Click to expand...

Without being on the jury that tried the case I don't know. But I have zero inclination to trust RFK Jrs' article based on RFK Jrs' credibility. Let's face it, this guy would have the negative credibility of a typical internet crank if he didn't have the famous name.
 
The article is nothing but assertions with no factual evidence to back any of them up. If any of them are true there must be evidence verifying them. For example, Michael was miles away watching Monty Python until 11:20PM. Obviously no one will believe this just because it is asserted by a family member who is known to twist the truth. Where is the backup proof of this? I don't recall specifically, but didn't they think the murder occurred after midnight anyway?

The article itself means nothing. If you can verify the assertions with factual evidence, that would have much more meaning and would then be information to compare with the trial witness testimony.
 
Bob001 said:
Not a decade. 27 years. I'm not making any argument at all. RFK Jr. is contending that Skakel didn't commit the crime and should never have been tried, let alone convicted, and he makes specific statements to that end that are either true or false. Three people say they were with Skakel elsewhere at the time of the crime. Are they lying? If the case was as cut and dried as you think, why did it take 27 years to bring it to court? Why not read the article before you reject it? What are you afraid you might learn?
Click to expand...

~Money Money Money, Money~
 
ravdin said:
Someone has made a terrible mistake. He's a member of the Kennedy Bush family! If there were any justice in America he would be exonerated and given a Senate seat for life baseball team and then made president pronto.
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
Let me just respond to one of Kennedy's ridiculous arguments:

Don Mallard, a physician who knew Michael and who examined Martha's body, told Mrs. Victor Ziminsky, a Skakel family friend who later told me, that it was "impossible" that Michael could have wielded a golf club with the savagery or strength needed to shatter the shaft and drive it through Martha's body.
Click to expand...

Seriously? A 15-year-old boy couldn't shatter a golf club shaft by swinging the club at a girl's head? Let me tell you, an eight-year-old boy could easily shatter a golf club shaft by swinging it against a tree. Note as well the absurd, third-hand nature of the testimony. A Skakel family friend told Kennedy that another person (a doctor) told her that it was impossible.
 
Legal Con Artist

BOB: As I pointed out to you in a prior post, Judge Bishop's decision was deemed as "shocking" by several legal pundits and his argument for ordering a new trial was based solely on the legal strategy put forth by Skakel's high priced attorney.

Again, last time I checked, appellate judges are not supposed to play substitute defense counsel.

Again, the ineffectual counsel argument is considered a Hail Mary or last ditch defense that RARELY passed muster, and when it is successful, it usually involves representation by a Public Defender.

Again, the nature and circumstances of this decision reeks of power and influence.

Again, by any measurement, Judge Bishop's decision is the height of arrogance and ignorance of the law.

Hopefully, the 4th Circuit Court will see through Judge Bishop's ruse, and put Skakel back where he belongs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Klause Barbie, Nazi war criminal/CIA operative...
Replies
4
Views
1K
The Don
The Don
R
2nd Amendment, On Trial in Supreme Court
Replies
3
Views
2K
BobK
B

Back
Top Bottom