Why can't Martha's real killer be brought to justice? BECAUSE CONNECTICUT'S COURTS ARE A RUBBER STAMP.

"I had a club. I picked one up and swung it." - Tony Bryant

In 2002, Michael Skakel was wrongfully convicted of killing Martha Moxley, 26 years in the past with a golf club. The State of Connecticut RAILROADED him in a desparate reaction to the public uproar over the book, "Murder In Greenwich", in which the author (convicted purjuror Mark Fuhrman) named Kennedy Cousin Michael Skakel as the killer. Hundreds of thousands of people read the book and became enraged at Michael Skakel, the Greenwich Police, and the Kennedies.

What Mark Fuhrman refused to emphasize was that A NEGROID HAIR was found on the sheet used to wrap Martha's body, but it obviously does not match Michael Skakel's DNA. Michael Skakel is not African American, but new suspects Gitano "Tony" Bryant and Adolph Hasbrouck ARE.  In 2003, in a videotaped interview with an investigator, TONY BRYANT ADMITTED TO PICKING UP AND SWINGING A GOLF CLUB NEAR THE CRIME SCENE ON THE NIGHT OF THE MURDER. Tragically, SUSAN GILL, a major State's Attorney on the case, does not seem to think there is any reason to test the evidence to see if it matches Tony Bryant or Adolph Hasbrouck (the man Tony implicates). There is absolutely no physical evidence tying Michael Skakel to the murder. The prosecution ran a DNA analysis AT THE TIME OF THE TRIAL, and never once found any of Michael Skakel's DNA.  An FBI analysis showed that the African American hair did NOT come from the black police officer, nor did it come from any other known African Americans. Therefore, it must have come from Tony Bryant or Adolph Hasbrouck, whom the police did not know about until AFTER Michael Skakel's conviction.

Michael Skakel's wrongful conviction was a result of Mark Fuhrman's book, "Murder in Greenwich", and PAID WITNESSES*, some of whom had read the book. Most of the key witnesses had come forward in response to a reward, or to pressure from lead investigator Frank Garr who "cajoled, harrassed, or threatened" witneses (as stated by his close friend Len Levitt). At one point the reward was announced on Television, and it was increased to $100,000. The state's star witness was:

Gregory Coleman: Gregory Coleman was a hard core heroin addict who had a $50,000 tax lien on his house in New York State. When he saw the reward on television, he decided to call the telephone number that flashed on his TV screen. He had gone to the Elan School with Michael Skakel. He knew that Michael Skakel was interrogated about the murder while at the school. He called the number, and gave some information to the television station, hoping to get the reward. Shortly thereafter, Frank Garr (Connecticut Investigator) tracked Coleman down and a deal was worked out for Gregory Coleman to testify. Gregory Coleman, in addition to qualifying for the reward money, was given A NARCOTIC DRUG WITH THE HELP ON THE GREENWICH POLICE the night before he testified in the Grand Jury hearing (he was going through Heroin withdrawal, having recently been released from a New York State prison, and threatened to go home if he did not get a fix). The morning after in court, Gregory Coleman testified that he had heard Michael Skakel confess to the murder, a statement that is likely to be completely false.

The state called many other witnesses, but none claimed an outright confession quite like Gregory Coleman had claimed. John Higgins, who also testified for reward money, claimed that Michael Skakel made incriminating statements. His testimony, however, contains lies as described in Robert Kennedy's article, "A Miscarriage Of Justice". Reward money was likely John Higgin's motivation as well.

In addition, many of the other witnesses aggressively assembled by the State had read Mark Fuhrman's compelling book, had been influenced by the media sensationalism surrounding the case, or had been "cajoled, harrassed, or threatened" by Frank Garr (see "Conviction").

Mark Fuhrman's book was compelling because it focused on an artificial but sensational "Kennedy/Wealth Theme", and it also was based heavily on the "Sutton Reports". The Sutton Reports are a damn convincing work of fiction created by Sutton Associates, an investigative firm. What most people don't understand is that THE SUTTON REPORTS WERE INTENTIONALLY PREJUDICED AGAINST MICHAEL AND TOM SKAKEL. Under intense pressure from others, Rushton Skakel Sr (Michael's father). paid a large sum of money to Sutton Associates to get prejudicial reports on his children in case they were involved in the murder. Sutton Associates did NOT write a PREJUDICIAL report against Ken Littleton, however. A look at the actual police files would show Ken Littleton to be a much stronger suspect than the Skakels, but Sutton Associates wrote a pathetic report on Ken. It was especially pathetic given the evidence Former State Inspector Jack Solomon had against Ken. For example, WITHIN NINE MONTHS OF THE MURDER:

In July 1976, a woman in Nantucket, Donna Younger, woke up at 4 am and found Ken Littleton ontop of her. Ken told her to stay still and she'd enjoy it.

In July 1976, Ken Littleton was at a dance lounge called the Chicken Box, he slapped a woman (the dog warden for nantucket)

In Summer 1976, Ken Littleton was reported to be causing trouble with females at the Preston Airport Lounge.
Right afterwards, he went to the "Mad Hatter" bar and caused trouble (he threw a glass at a post and stole property)

In July 1976, he put his arms around young girl, stuck whale's tooth in her ear, and told her to follow him

On July 26, 1976, Ken Littleton was reported to have broken into a boat to steal some items

Summer 1976: Jack Solomon got information that Ken Littleton had needle marks in his arm and often spoke about drugs (particulary cocaine). The person giving this information believed Ken was capable of ANYTHING

July 1976: Jack Solomon learned that Littleton was doing cocaine with his girlfriend and he was forcing himself on her sexually

September 1976: Ken Littleton burgularized a gift shop. Around the same time, he also stole a statue of naked man from a front lawn and buried it in his back yard

The Nantucket Police got a search warrant to recover items that were stolen

Detective Steve Carol of the Greenwich PD contacted the captain of the Nantucket PD who knew Littleton and said he was wierd, sadistic, and self centered.

Ken Littleton failed every single polygraph about his involvement in the Moxley Murder

Mark Fuhrman's sensational book became a bestseller in Greenwich, CT and surrounding areas. Despite being written by a convicted perjuror, the public went into an uproar. This public uproar was intensified by the media, and local politicians were pressured to close the case. Immediately following the publication of Fuhrman's book, the State of Connecticut convened a ONE MAN GRAND JURY to indict Skakel.

Since Michael's conviction, Gitano "Tony" Bryant, an African American, reluctantly came forward with new information on the Moxley murder. In the 90 minute videotape, he admitted that he was near the crime scene, swinging a golf club, getting high on drugs, and smashing pumpkins on the night of Martha's murder. No one else has ever made this claim, and "Tony" says he knows without a doubt that Michael Skakel is innocent. In the videotape, "Tony" mentions that he thinks his friend Adolph probably killed Martha. Unfortunately, Tony ceased his cooperation with Skakel's lawyers shortly after the videotaped interview. He asserted his 5th amendment right against testifying at Skakel's hearing for new trial.

The State's Attorneys Office refused to follow the new leads seriously. Prosecutor Jonathan Benedict stated that the State would "entertain" the defense's claims IF a new trial was granted. DNA could turn the tables and set Michael Skakel free, but Susan Gill, Jon Benedict, and the rest are refusing to allow that to happen. In my opinion, the cronies in the State's Attorneys Office would rather keep Michael Skakel in prison, than be proven wrong --- that's as evil as it gets..

Sadly, despite a convincing argument for a new trial and a stellar performance by his new lawyers, Judge Karazin cowardly rejected Michael Skakel's petition for a new trial in October 2007. Was Karazin influenced by his peers in Stamford Superior Court such as Judge Kavanewsky? By letters from Dorothy Moxley? By people he was friendly with? By pressure from the state? By pressure from the media and/or by books he read? Nobody will ever know.

* - Opinion