|
Author
|
Comment
|
yesjames
Registered User
Posts: 143
(6/25/02 6:53:51 am)
Reply
|
 How do we conclude this investigation?
I have been lead to believe that the reasonable
interpretations of Sween and others, is turned
into evidence by a competent Prosecutor.
But while most of us seek to determine the truth, Ken Littleton is still the one who is holding all the cards.
His silence, his stonewalling, his sympathisers and his immunity from the media and from prosecution, is holding back all of the evidence.
In my opinion, what Sween has done is what every good investigator must do, to bring a criminal to justice, and we need a good Prosecutor to get Sween to respond to all the questions that Sween has raised here:
www.skakel.shorturl.com
Is there anything that can be done, to get the truth out of Ken Littleton? There must be some way to hold him accountable.
|
Westport
Registered User
Posts: 219
(6/25/02 8:51:17 am)
Reply
|
How do we conclude this investigation?
It's obvious this is something that you are incapable of.
Ooooh Sween, Oooooh Sween, he prooved it - then he sat on it!
|
brenda
Registered User
Posts: 14
(6/25/02 9:10:07 am)
Reply
|
Re: How do we conclude this investigation?
Let's not conclude it. Let's open it. Is a transcript of the trial available to us? We can dissect and discuss it. Let's discuss the issues, not the opinions. Let's exchange OUR opinions, not sween's or furman's or dunne's. What about Littleton? I believe he is, at the very least, withholding information. So, he got immunity for testifying before the grand jury? what did he testify to? Do we know that? Do we have access to his testimony? Did Sherman? Did he use it? Did he dispute it?
|
yesjames
Registered User
Posts: 145
(6/25/02 9:42:32 am)
Reply
|
Sounds to me like Westport thinks I'm David Sween.
Westport, looks lke you think I am David Sween?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
|
brenda
Registered User
Posts: 15
(6/25/02 10:08:47 am)
Reply
|
Re: Sounds to me like Westport thinks I'm David Sween.
and, whoosh. any attempt at enlightened debate just flies over in preference to personal attacks. geez louise.
|
yesjames
Registered User
Posts: 148
(6/25/02 10:26:14 am)
Reply
|
sorry Brenda
But Westport has an intriguing mind. He thinks that the Skakels hired David Sween, and I know for a fact that they have hired a whole new team of lawyers, but even the Skakels are not dumb enough to flash their cards before they present them to a judge.
You know what I mean, inquiring minds want to know, and since Westport is in on this debate, don't you think we need his input. Or is there some way to ignore him, or me or anybody who does not suit some particular expectation?
All I know is that if a debate is not open and free-flowing, it's not a debate, and you can't really say I am limiting the flow, can you?
|
brenda
Registered User
Posts: 16
(6/25/02 10:44:48 am)
Reply
|
Re: sorry Brenda
Actually you are not only limiting the flow, you are obstructing justice. you claim to have proof that will free an innocent man, yet i posted the phone number of the police department and you have not called to divulge your information. By your own admissions you are guilty.
You DO have a lot flowing. Unfortuneately, it is silly, personal, argumentative and worthless to any intelligent discussion.
|
yesjames
Registered User
Posts: 150
(6/25/02 12:13:25 pm)
Reply
|
 hahahahahhahahhahahhahaha
hahhahahhhahhahahaha
|
brenda
Registered User
Posts: 19
(6/25/02 12:26:05 pm)
Reply
|
Re: hahahahahhahahhahahhahaha
I rest my case. now, back to serious discussion. does anyone know if Sheridan had access to Littleton's testimony? Wasn't it grand jury testimony? Would the defense be entitled to it? The prosecution sure would be, right? (having to plead legal ignorance but i would love to dig enough to see who knows what at this point.)
|
The Justice Club
Registered User
Posts: 185
(6/25/02 12:37:43 pm)
Reply
|
BRENDA!
The why do you assume your everlasting, habitual verbal sniping standpoint on 'yesjames' all the while as you spit :Quote:
"Unfortuneately, it is silly, personal, argumentative and worthless to any intelligent discussion." ?
just wonderin!
|
brenda
Registered User
Posts: 21
(6/25/02 1:19:53 pm)
Reply
|
Re: BRENDA!
Justice, you are also, by your own admission, guilty of obstruction of justice. I stand by my statement. i am trying to analyze and learn here. i find some information useful. i find some of you with nothing to add to any constructive purpose. A fifteen year old girl died. A fifteen year old and seventeen year old boy(s) lives were destroyed. When the whole thing is studied, maybe something good can come from it. This is a potential source of good. i have NO desire to waste my time in senseless arguments. From here on, if you have something constructive to add, bring it on and let's assimilate it. If you are only playing, i will not be asking anything of you or addressing you. If you TRULY believe Michael Skakel is innocent or if you believe he is guilty but a tragic figure, you can help. Or you can keep playing games. Your input ABOUT THE CASE would be great. Anything else i will just let slide right past me. i hope you decide to make worthwhile contributions.
|
yesjames
Registered User
Posts: 151
(6/25/02 1:54:19 pm)
Reply
|
 The Real Brenda has finally EMERGED !
In my personal opinion, Justice Club, if a stuffed shirt
like Brenda cannot figure out a way to defend Littleton,
then it is an absolute miracle that this guy is not in jail,
where he belongs.
Make no mistake about it, as the cooperative, Prosecution witness, Ken Littleton gave the Prosecution everything he had, in effort to create the impression that Michael was the murderer, and that essentially proved to be nothing at all.
The dilemma of anybody who seeks to create the false impression that Littleton was a co-conspirator is complicated by the fact that Littleton used the Skakel golf club, to set the Skakels up, and that proves that he acted without the cooperation of any Skakel.
This fact disturbs the Westport crowd so profoundly, that Westport even claimed that if Littleton wanted to set the Skakels up, he would have used a rock, to make it look like a street crime. Westport sounds like Mark Fuhrman without a ghostwriter. To counter speculation with fact, a social climber like Littleton decided to use a golf club, if he had used a rock, we would have heard about it by now.
Brenda knows quite abit about obstructing justice, so she should immediately contact the Police, to tell them that she cannot possibly think of any other way, to fabricate a phony defense for a murderer like Ken Littleton.
|
chrisdawson55
Registered User
Posts: 1
(6/17/02 9:26:18 am)
Reply
|
Ignorant people are giving Ken
Littleton a
foolish alibi.
I know David Sween, and when he claims that Ken Littleton is responsible for the murder of
Martha
Moxley, he knows what he is talking about. Dave has worked on criminal investigations that
routinely baffle the keystone cops and deceptive predators like Ken Littleton cannot
possible
cover up their mess.
In one particular case that Dave cracked a case where a cop had raped an attractive, 14
year old
runaway girl and in order to save his career, he slit her throat from end to end, to make
it
appear like it was a street crime. This guy thought that he could rely on one of those
textbook
alibis that FBI profilers provide, but he was wrong.
There is a whole lot of denial about sexual predators, and the old boys network might think
that
it can keep its dirty little secrets closely guarded, and as it typical,, Ken Littleton
would have
also averted attention, if this case was not so well publicized. Ken Littleton would have
gotten
away with murder, but he hasn't because any astute investigator clearly understands the
nature of
his denials.
It is not possible for the defense or the prosecution in this case, to accept the
conviction of
Michael Skakel, because if they do not understand the difference between a pimply 15 year
old and
a vicious killer, they are both incompetent. The only was to convict Michael Skakel is to
use a
whole bunch of fiction writers, to promote absurdities like the Skakels engaged a massive
conspiracy and used their own golf club to frame Michael Skakel. It imay be poor fiction,
but it
is not real life crime.
|
Karen555 
ezOP
Posts: 2090
(6/23/02 6:49:41 am)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: Karen, was a Ken Littleton's hairs found on Moxley's bod
According to Dr. Henry Lee, a hair consistent with that of Ken Littleton was found on Martha's body.
Since it was Littleton's first night on the job, I think his supporters are hard-pressed to explain how his hair got across the street on the murdered girl's body.
Now, if that had been Michael or Tommy Skakel's hair, I could understand it because she sat between them in the front seat of the car and *could* have gotten their hair on her. Moreso Tommy's since they were reported to have been "making out" after they got out of the car.
But, no it was not Tommy's hair and it was not Michael's hair .. it was Ken Littleton's hair. Very strange!
|
alanagreen
Registered User
Posts: 120
(6/26/02 3:19:30 am)
Reply
|
Truth hurts Littleton
www.skakel.shorturl.com
But why does it also hurt Westport, Inmyhumbleopinion,
Unbiased1 and Ghetto Whopper1?
Sure, sure, I know, they all want to hear what they call an "original" idea, but I am not an investigator, and I defer to the expertise of an experienced investigator like David Sween.
I know, I know, he is not a celebrity like Dominick Dunne, and we can all thank God for that.
|
Westport
Registered User
Posts: 233
(6/26/02 3:41:43 am)
Reply
|
Littleton
Last night while reading Fuhrman's book, something really caught me as suspicious. Littleton was outside in the Skakel yard raking leaves while everyone was at the Moxley's, and the body had been discovered. I found this odd that Littleton would even be raking leaves. I thought about why he would be outside at this time, and the conclusion I came to was that he was like a watch dog for the Skakels while they were inside. That was my impression.
You see, if I was Littleton (assuming he has no knowledge of the murder) I would have been closer to what was going on just out of curiousity. Not to get in the way, but to see what was going on! This is a murder of a neighbor that these kids knew!
Question? Would you go over and offer any help you could, or just stay away?
|
alanagreen
Registered User
Posts: 122
(6/26/02 3:46:22 am)
Reply
|
A watchdog on the first day on the job.
Highly unlikely -a real stretch. Sounds like good fiction.
|
 Karen555
ezOP
Posts: 2097
(6/26/02 4:11:33 am)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: A watchdog on the first day on the job.
Most people have the good sense NOT to burst onto a murder scene and offer to "help" the cops.
Why would the Skakels send Littleton outside to spy when Michael and his friend were sitting outside watching the whole melodrama?!?!!?
Do you REALLY think they trusted him THAT much after one night on the job??? Go spy for us??
I doubt they TOLD him to rake leaves either since they had a live-in gardener.
Mayyyyyyyybe Kenny was just curious for HIMSELF, no? Why must the Skakels be looming and lurking behind every action?
|
alanagreen
Registered User
Posts: 125
(6/26/02 4:34:24 am)
Reply
|
Just shows you how sneaky he really was.
This guy really gives me the creeps because I can just imagine how he 'raked the leaves' to get as much information as he could possibly gather, about the "sexy Martha Moxley". What a sneaky, sneaky man !
|
Westport
Registered User
Posts: 237
(6/26/02 4:36:47 am)
Reply
|
Outside
Well, you know I think Michael is guilty. So, I imagine then Ken might have been keeping on eye on Michael, and the event next door. With Ken outside, the Skakel's would have him out of the way to make the necessary phone calls, and so on.
Ken and Michael definately know the truth.
|
alanagreen
Registered User
Posts: 126
(6/26/02 5:00:49 am)
Reply
|
If Ken and Michael are equally sneaky
The Skakel Golf Club would not be the apparent murder weapon. If you would like to post your opinions about Michael's guilt, why don't you start a thread called,
'the truth hurts Michael Skakel'.
In the meantime, there is no reason to believe that Skakel and Littleton colluded in the murder of Martha Moxley, because the evidence implicates one of them and absolves the other.
|
Karen555
ezOP
Posts: 2103
(6/26/02 5:05:16 am)
Reply
ezSupporter
|
Re: If Ken and Michael are equally sneaky
If the other Skakel children sent Littleton outside to spy on Michael so they could make appropriate phone calls, do you wonder why the other kids didn't notice big ole Ken riding along after them as they drove around the neighborhood on their bicycles??
Since he was keeping an eye on Michael, he WOULD have ridden off after him, no?
|
brenda
Registered User
Posts: 37
(6/26/02 6:06:28 am)
Reply
|
Re: If Ken and Michael are equally sneaky
why raking leaves? Why not just watching? That's what i would be doing for a murder next door. Though i would not be surprised if he was told to do it. Either to get him out of the way or just to have him do it. Besides, i think the Furman book said "perhaps" raking leaves or something like that (also not going back to look it up). Littleton may have been just mulling around. That is not a proven detail, or is it? Again, i have not read everything.
|
yesjames
Registered User
Posts: 156
(6/26/02 7:00:38 am)
Reply
|
Indeed, the truth hurts ONLY LITTLETON ! ! !
If Westport and his alter ego, Brenda, cannot produce
a single fact to implicate Michael Skakel, in the murder
of Martha Moxley, it does not exist.
|
