Breaking news!

Wow, who would have guessed?

Eric The(CubReporter)Hun[>]:)]

Sometimes there is justice

I don't disagree with the verdict, but I don't think it can be termed justice.

I wasn't in the court, so I won't argue the facts, but the problem I've had from the beginning is that the crime was committed 27 years ago, while he was a teenager. At the time, if the cops didn't screw up the investigation, he would have been tried as a juvenile.

Then after private interests of the victim's family got the case re-opened (no problem with this either) they find that the cops screwed up, and get the case to trial, but now he gets tried as an adult. Something wrong with this.

Something wrong with changing the rules of the game. As a juvenile, he would have served about 7 years (+ or -), as an adult he gets life.

Again, I don't disagree with the verdict, its just the changing of the playing field after the fact that bothers me.

The Kennedy Mystique must be losing some of its cachet in Massachusetts, nowadays!

About time!

[i][b][size=3]Till then sit still, my soul: foul deeds will rise,
Though all the earth o'erwhelm them, to men's eyes.[/size=3][/b][/i]

[u]Hamlet[/u], Act I, Scene 2.

Eric The(Shakespearean)Hun[>]:)]

I can only hope...but Skakel is such a 'minor' Kennedy it won't have any impact on the mystique.. now, if they want to take up Teddy's murder of Kopeckni...that would be justice!

Post from neilfj -

Hmmm. If so, the verdict and sentence cab be attacked on appeal, but I think that argument will lose.

In the meanwhile, they say 'confession is good for the soul' and I'm certain that Skakel now realizes that he would have been a great deal better off, if he had just confessed way back when, while the Kennedy family was at its zenith of power and influence!

He would have gone to the penal equivalent of a really lousy summer camp for a couple of years!

[i][b]Tres' gauche![/b][/i] But acceptable!

Eric The(Now!)Hun[>]:)]

I agree that the change from juvenile to adult won't win on appeal..but that doesn't mean it was right...just legal!

[red] [size=4]Justice delayed is justice denied![/red] [/size=4]

...but in this case, I am very glad that payback is a bitch!

You are right, [b]neilfj[/b], the verdict may not be right, but it will be held 'legal.'

'Right' would be beating Michael Skakel to death with a golf club when he's 15 years old, but we missed that option!

Eric The(AlthoughIWouldn'tMindMoxley'sFatherDoingItNow!)Hun[>]:)]

Finally. Thank $DIETY.

I mean, come on. Who the heck uses "I was in a tree, masturbating" as the cornerstone of their defense?!

WHO THE F**K MASTURBATES IN TREES?!?!

I mean, jeeze. Obviously Skakel had some issues, but uhhhh....what, is he part ape now? Is this some sort of secret Kennedy family hobby or ritual or something?

*shakes his head*

Ed

After this guys antics in the courtroom
it just shows his contempt for the non-
privileged class. There won't be any
tears shed for him on my part. The fact
that he did this when he was a teenager
means nothing, it was murder.

 Stepped-init [:(!]

While I won't comment on the "Tree masturbation" defense (Who knows, I may need it later in life), It is very good to see that POS actually take the rap for his crime.  Now, if only we could get the Murdering Ted convicted and reopen that rapists case, Bill.

Screw them all, Lee Harvey was only wrong in that he got caught and didn't finish off the rest of that clan.

A poetic Hun? Who'd of thunk it?

Looks like the "little people" won one for a change.

Squirrels???

hehe

Only the really [u]sick[/u] ones!

Eric The(OrTheHomelyOnes)Hun[>]:)]

Just wait for the appeal and see what happens after the Kennedy family can apply some political pressure.

Who wants to bet against the conviction being thrown out on appeal?

Yup, I'll believe there's justice when Ted get's the chair for killing his pregnant mistress.

Let's 'BAN KENNEDYS' for the children!!!!!

I'm rather fond of:

"For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak with most miraculous organ."

Hamlet (again) Act II, Scene 2.

Rather appropriate quote in regards to the solving of murders.

I would not be surprised if the conviction is overturned.

Everyone knows he did it, but there was no direct evidence linking him to the murder.

No DNA, nothing under her fingernails linking him to her, no physical evidence.

He said he was at the scene of the murder, but not when the murder occured.

The tree thing is a bit strange, but he is a Kennedy, so I guess that can be his excuse.

We will see.

Jay
[img]http://www.commspeed.net/jmurray/images/iroc-cop.gif[/img]

I think "the cops screwed it up", they have to prove beyond a Reasonble Doubt that he did it and there is also Double Jeopardy concerns if they bring a case they can't prove they may never be able to bring it again.

As far as the time passing, sure it would be better to get an immediate trial. But in a murder the victim is dead forever. So the killer should have just as long to worry about getting caught. Skakel is the one that dragged it on for 27 years, so he can bear the burden too.

I think something was reported that said Skakel's family hired a PI to CLEAR his name and more evidence of his guilt came to light. That is where the new "energy" for the prosecution came from. It's poetic justice, he was so arrogant that not only would he deny a murder, but he sought to declare himself innocent, and was taken down by the very investigation that was to clear him.


edited 'cause I type like I have hooves.

I don't know about the PI hired by Skakel's family. That wouldn't surprise me. From what I understand, there have been 3 books written about the murder..one by Mark Furman (fm OJ fame). Apparently all 3 books accused Skakel of the murder. It was these 3 books that got the prosecution off their ass. The police/prosecution used the information in the books as a basis for the new investigation.

It's easy to say that Skakel deserves what he got, but due to the police/prosecution ineptitude, it wasn't solved 27 years ago.
Regardless of what his attitude is, or how you feel about him, there is something wrong when the sentence changes just because time has passed. The sentence should be whatever is law when the action occurred.

My first response was incorrect about the amount of time regarding sentencing. If he was caught 27 years ago, he would have been sentenced to 18-24 months (juvenile sentence) as opposed to now, which would be 25 to life (Adult sentence). It is adding a minimum of 23 years to the imprisonment term just because he wasn't caught when the crime originally occurred.

You have to remember that 27 years ago, it would never have been accepted that a juvenile would get the same sentence as an adult. Trying juveniles as adults is a relevantly new occurrence. So what has happened is that he has been tried and sentenced according to new attitudes. To me, this seems fundamentally wrong.