Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Michael Skakel Statement at Parole

Did Skakel issue reliable denial?
What would a reliable denial look like in this case? 

 It is very simple:

"I did not kill Martha" would be very strong and would then be needed to be reflected upon with "I told the truth" by Michael Skakel.  Headlines say he denied the crime at his parole hearing, where he was denied parole. 

Did he issue a reliable denial?

It would have to have had the three components that make up a Reliable Denial:

1.  First Person Singular
2.  Past Tense Verb
3.  Specific to the event or allegation.  

Here, he came close, but did not address the 3rd component.   What is "this crime" to him?  

Also, when first sentenced, years ago, he spoke, transcribed over 5 pages.  If you were innocent and standing before a judge, what would you say?  "I did not kill _____."  It would come easy, and often.  Skakel was unable to bring himself to say it, therefore, we are not allowed to say it for him. 

Please look at his original statement found HERE  Not only does Skakel not say that he didn't do it, he may have embedded a confession:  

"I have been accused of a crime I would love to tell them I did it so they could sleep at night."

"I would love to be able to say I did this crime so the Moxley family could have rest and peace...but I can't, Your Honor.  To do so would be a lie."

**************** From the associated press:

Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel was denied a bid for freedom Wednesday at his first parole hearing since he was convicted a decade ago of killing his neighbor in 1975.
Skakel, who proclaimed his innocence at the hearing, nodded and patted his attorney on the back after the three-person parole board read the unanimous decision. He will next be eligible for parole in 2017.
Skakel is serving 20 years to life for fatally beating Martha Moxley with a golf club in Greenwich when they were 15. Skakel is a nephew of Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert F. Kennedy.
Skakel spoke slowly and softly at the hearing at McDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield, saying: "I did not commit this crime."

1.  First Person Singular
2.   Past Tense
Yet, "this crime" is used, instead of saying "I did not kill Martha"; something he could not bring himself to say yesterday, nor years ago at his trial.  

In attendance was Dorthy Moxley, the victim's mother, who said losing a child is the worst thing in the world and Skakel should serve at least 20 years in prison.
"Martha, my baby, will never have a life," she said, her voice breaking.
Skakel told the parole board he prays every day that whoever committed the crime is brought to justice, but he is the wrong man.
"If I could ease Mrs. Moxley's pain in any way, shape or form I would take responsibility all day long for this crime," Skakel said. But, he added, "I cannot bear false witness against myself."
The heavyset, 52-year-old Skakel with gray, thinning hair wore a tan prison jumpsuit to the hearing. To support his claims of innocence, he told of how he became sober.
"I pose to you: How can a guilty man stay sober for 30 years with that kind of guilt on his mind?" he said.
Skakel also talked about his mother's death at an early age, his learning disability and a childhood in which he attended numerous schools. He said his ex-wife was recently diagnosed with his cancer, and he is concerned about his 13-year-old son.
"I'm at your mercy. The only power I have is prayer," he said.
The chair of the parole board, Erika Tindill, showed some skepticism as she pressed Skakel with questions. She said it was an odd situation for him to ask for early release while proclaiming innocence of the crime.
Skakel, convicted in 2002, is eligible for parole consideration because of laws in place at the time of the crime including good behavior credits.
In letters to the parole board, Skakel's supporters, including his cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr., say Skakel has helped alcoholics recover. They also portray him as religious and devoted to his son.
Many letters cite Skakel's art work in prison, saying he has made uplifting paintings that show his true nature, give joy to others and encourage family values.
Letters objecting to his parole cite the brutal nature of the crime and say releasing him early would be devastating to the victim's family.
"This person committed a heinous crime that gave many people a sentence of suffering that was irreversible," one of the letters states. "Why then should this person be given relief, when none is available for those who suffered the loss of a daughter, a sister, a dear friend."


Anonymous said...

Martha`s mom Dorthy is a wonderful woman who has been through so much and Michael Skakel is just where he belongs.

Lemon said...

"I'm at your mercy. The only power I have is prayer," he said.

Why would an innocent man have need of mercy?
Mercy is for the guilty, not innocent.

Jazzie said...

Thanks so much for covering this story. It's so close. Kripes. Reporters camped out pretty early this morning in front of MacDougall.

"If I could ease Mrs. Moxley's pain in any way, shape or form I would take responsibility all day long for this crime," Skakel said. But, he added, "I cannot bear false witness against myself."...

"I pose to you: How can a guilty man stay sober for 30 years with that kind of guilt on his mind?" he said.

"But 10½ years later, I can't do that," Skakel said. "If I could ease Mrs. Moxley's pain in any way, shape or form, I would take responsibility for this crime."

He said he prays to God and Martha that whoever did the crime "will be brought to justice."

"It just isn't me," Skakel said as Tindill and board members David May and Pamela Richards listened.

Parole Denied. Due to no reliable denial.

Jazzie said...

Keep praying dude.
It helps.

I pray for justice and truth.
For the silenced ones.

Anonymous said...

No, it was NOT due to no reliable denial. It was due to his lack of showing remorse for a crime he says he did not commit. Would YOU be remorseful for killing someone you did not kill? That would be the same as admitting you killed her.

BTW, have any of you read every statement this man has ever made relative to this crime? NO, you have not. You do not have the slightest idea on how many other occasions he has said, "I did not kill Martha Moxley". Many.

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

It's interesting that the question Skakel poses to the board in his defense refers to himself as guilty. "I pose to you, How can a guilty man stay sober...". An innocent person would never allow anyone to contend he is guilty, even for the sake of argument. In essence, his argument is that because he's been sober 30 years, he must be innocent. Laughable.

Jazzie said...

"I killed that chick. It got me excited."

Jazzie said...

ANON@ 10:20

"Wiggins, who is on parole for a fraud conviction in the 1980s, offered similar testimony about the confrontational tactics used on Skakel. "Did he ever say, 'I did it?'" Sherman asked. "No," Wiggins said. "He said, 'No, I did not kill Martha Moxley.'"

Second hand testimony.

Jazzie said...

Double negative.

Jazzie said...

Not related but relevant:

Anonymous said...

Jazzie said...
"I killed that chick. It got me excited."


Lemon said...

thanks for the links, Jazzie.

Anonymous said...

"I pose to you: How can a guilty man stay sober for 30 years with that kind of guilt on his mind?" he said."

If I beat a young lady to death in an alcoholic fueled rage I would have seriously considered giving up the booze too. Big woop.

Maybe technically he didn't commit this crime because he knows he is guilty of a worse offense? Premeditated? Who walks around with a golf club in the wee hours of the morning in the scenario he was in?

MaryK said...

I was hoping you'd cover this. I caught his lack of reliable denial in the news. Of course, Skakel is guilty.

Lara Martinez said...

I still have to read the whole statement, but what really stood out to me is his rambling nonsense about Jesus--he claims to be a born-again Christian, but he gets most of the well-known facts about Jesus wrong--Jesus didn't "walk around the world" to spread his message, he was never "put in jail" and Easter is not about Jesus as a "kid"--that's Advent & Christmas. So I believe his professed love for Jesus and his teachings is BULL$HIT. He also says that Jesus didn't have a job, so the fact that HE is unemployed should be viewed in that light. That's completely self-serving BS & all of the Christian points he makes is a huge sign of his LYING. He seems to be a pathological liar.

Anonymous said...

I didn't know Skankel has a 13-year-old son. Is he married? One thing we know...folks are funding his commissary account! :-p

Anonymous said...

Lara, I'm not being critical of your post, as I find it amazing that many claiming to be christians only believe what they have been told, read or misinterpreted in their exclusive version of the Bible, or heard, without looking any further.

For instance, the book on catholicism derived from the beliefs of a few back in about 1260 BC and this is what they practice. I don't know about subsequently, but at that time they were never given a copy of the KJV nor were they allowed to read it for many years afterwards. Although their book is lifted from the King James Version of the Bible, it has some very different scriptures and practices in it, and others that have been left out or modified from the original Bible.

The Jehovah's witnesses also have their own version of the Bible that was reproduced by their leader, which is where they get their teachings and follow. I can't imagine what the scientologists believe, they too having their own version of Rex Humbard's Bible and beliefs they follow.

So many well-meaning people who know who Jesus was/is are seriously confused, but that does not mean that Jesus doesn't love them as he knows our hearts, our thoughts and understands us and our confusion. Even the Jews know who Jesus is and realy WAS, that he was the Messiah, as they are the ones who created the BC (before Christ) calendar and the AD (after Divinity) calendar, making a separation of times between the two and acknowledging that Jesus was The Christ. They knew.

I don't know whether Michael Skakel is a pathological liar or not, nor can I read his mind, but I have come to seriously speculate that he DID kill Martha Moxley even though there were others there that night who were never considered as suspects including the tutor who had unaccounted for time, and including the fact that Michael was never polygraphed.

If there were no other indicators; anyone who could kill little animals in the manner he was said to have done, would have been quite capable of killing Martha. For killing those helpless animals alone, in the horrible ways he was described as doing, he deserved to serve the first ten years of his sentence, but of course, it doesn't work that way. IFF he did kill Martha, and it certainly would appear that he DID, he deserves life in prison WOP.

Lis said...

Anon, I think Lara's point was, he claims to be a Christian but has not gone to the trouble to learn who Jesus is. Bibles are accessible to anyone.

Lis said...

"I pose to you: How can a guilty man stay sober for 30 years with that kind of guilt on his mind?"

Is this an embedded confession- "a guilty man" ?

Jazzie said...

In the words of juror Cathy Lazansky:
"We worked very, very hard to find something that
would acquit Michael Skakel, we just couldn't."

Jazzie said...

Michael Skakel's Statement to Court: