Michael Skakel appellate ruling due this morning.

So says the AP. I always thought that Skakel was done in by bad lawyering and he was convicted because the jury determined that one of the Skakel boys must have done it so they tagged the one in court. But I didn’t hear the evidence, so what do I know?

Should be an interesting decision, though our state Supreme Court is not exactly top-heavy with legal scholars these days.

UPDATE: Oops! He lost.

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

8 responses to “Michael Skakel appellate ruling due this morning.

  1. Anonymous

    So, Inspector, give us three items that point to Tommy.

    • Just from reading about the trial Anon, I didn’t see how the jury could decide beyond a reasonable doubt that either Skakel did it. But Mickey Sherman was so busy sucking up to media stars he never seemed to get around to actually, you know, defending his client. But again, I was not at that trial – juries can be and often are wrong, but they probably get things right more than I do.

  2. Byte

    Appeal denied.

  3. anon

    How does it go? Motive, means and opportunity?

    Do you need me to connect the dots with a solid line in the sand?

  4. The Duke of Deception

    Exactly the Duke’s thinking – Sherman (for whom the word “blowhard” was coined), mailed it in, probably thinking he couldn’t lose.

    The jury thought one of those little Kenn, er, Skakel shits did it, and chose to put the drug addled punk away.

    The Duke doesn’t really care if they got it right, ’cause one of ’em did it.

    • Yeah, Duke, it’s not exactly a family that stirs up spmpathy, but it’d really suck if Michaele didn’t do it and he rots in a jail cell for the next 20 years. On the other hand, if he didn’t and Tommy did, it’s in Tommy’s power to rectify the situation.

  5. Greenwich Gal

    I agree with you here CF! Mickey Sherman totally blew it on this one! I even told him so when I had dinner with him a while back. (Dinner party guest – I certainly did not invite him.) The evidence, scant as it was – totally circumstantial! The only thing tying Skakel to the crime was the word of a couple of drug addicted classmates who were, at the time of the trial – DEAD! Maybe the boy did it – poor screw up that he was – but you certainly, in my opinion you could not say he did without REASONABLE DOUBT!
    He also should have had the trial moved beyond Stamford into the Hinterlands where local gossip would not taint the jury pool – another bonehead move by Mickey. Also – there was a lot of damage done by Vanity Fair and Dominic Dunne who had a real bug in his pants about perceived justice and the like from the OJ Trial, granted he was accurate there. Yet, that publication is more interested in sensational headlines than in facts.
    The Mock Trial club from GHS could have done better.

  6. Greenwich Gal

    Another thought: I also think it was wrong to try this man as an adult when he was a juvenile at the time of the murder.
    Let’s for practical purposes say he is guilty. He was a 15 year old boy from a messed up family – a dead mother and a father who had no interest in parenting – basically no adult supervision at all. His tender psyche must have been under great stress and pain.
    Surely Mickey could have negotiated some type of trial where he was not given an adult sentance but some type of extenuating circumstance – as.of course, a juvenile facility would have been inappropriate as well. CF, your legal thoughts?