Skakel Case Deposition Raises Eyebrows (real killer found?)

[NorthernSun]

"Did you kill Martha Moxley on Oct. 30, 1975?"

That question was posed to Adolph "Al" Hasbrouck of Bridgeport during a sworn deposition last week in Stamford. He responded by invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

In a development that Hope Seeley, a lawyer for convicted killer Michael Skakel, described as "huge," the man who has been cast by Skakel's lawyers as the more likely killer of Moxley refused to answer any of the hourlong string of questions put to him. He also did not bring to the deposition documents called for in the subpoena issued by Seeley and co-counsel Hubert Santos, including phone records dating from January 2002 - just before jury selection began in Skakel's trial - to the present.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-skakel0629.artjun29,0,2662923.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

Another Mark Fuhrman folly

[wakeme2008]

1. The DA is a Joke

"I expected him to take the Fifth," Benedict said. "He's represented by a lawyer. He did what anyone who had the good sense to retain counsel would do at this stage."


If he had nothing to do with it, why take the Fifth ...

[Warpy]

7. He is, he just doesn't want his rep ruined by admitting

he made a huge mistake.

I always had grave misgivings about this one, something I can only attribute to the gut feeling I get when something doesn't smell quite right.

Those gut feelings have rarely been wrong.

As for the DAs reasoning, he is WAY off base. "NO" would be much more expedient than allowing doubt by invoking the Fifth.

[Avalux]

2. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was correct?

He has always stood by his cousin Michael, claiming his innocence. Will be interesting to see how this story develops. :hi:

[noonwitch]

3. I was suspect of the conviction because of Fuhrman's involvement

Not because all the Kennedys have some kind of sterling reputation.

If Fuhrman hadn't been involved in the OJ case, they might have been able to get a conviction. He came across not only as a racist, but as someone with a personal agenda, and the jury didn't like that.

[WhiteTara]

4. wha? Furhman was involved in the Kennedy

case as well? That is Hugh!

[LisaL]

5. I think he wrote a book-that was the extent of his involvement.

Anyone can write a book.

[Kingshakabobo]

11. Was the book one of the reasons for re-opening the case?

I can't remember.

[sandnsea]

16. That book pointed to Michael Skakel

and the prosecution was based on it entirely. It was way way more than just any old body writing a book.

[LisaL]

19. And so freaking what? Prosecutor is supposed to have

his own brain, not follow someone's book.

[sandnsea]

20. But he did follow the book

Furhman is the one who went to Connecticut and started investigating in 1997. You can't talk about the Skakel conviction and ignore Mark Fuhrman.

[WhiteTara]

17. thanks! For a minute I thought he had been

an investigator! Yikes! that would have ruined any crime scene :hi:

[sandnsea]

21. He did

He went back there in 1997 and basically re-opened the case. All this supposed new evidence and interrogations and timelines all came about because of him. It was his theory, etc. The entire case. This is just stunning to me that people don't know this or are trying to defend Mark Fuhrman.

[WhiteTara]

34. Holy Sh*t!

That piece of crap ruined the O.J. case. I wonder who is paying him for this.

[NorthernSun]

6. I can't wait for the lawsuit if this is true

Fuhrman screwed up at least two murder cases because of his hatred of blacks and liberals. He deserves jail himself.

[LisaL]

9. He wrote a book.

What grounds would there be for him to be sued?

[NorthernSun]

52. Libel and slander

[HardWorkingDem]

8. BS - That jury was going to acquit no matter what....

Furman was a red herring in that case. That jury was going to acquit Simpson no matter what.

[NorthernSun]

13. Wrong

The defence was able to show Fuhrman (a robbery cop) was first at the Simpson murder scene and first to enter OJ's property alone without a warrant. Only one bloody glove was found at the murder scene later. Another was found where Fuhrman jumped over OJ's wall.

While OJ probably did the crime, Mark Fuhrman tainted the evidence to the extent that they could not convict him.

[zalinda]

14. I couldn't say for sure whether or not

OJ did it. But, there was a lot more inconsistencies than the Fuhrman stuff.......blood on the gate which wasn't found until days later, cops all over the place contaminating evidence and not one pic of the ice cream that was found by the front door which could have given a better time of death.

That crime scene was a circus and the LA clowns were all over the place, more like tourists than cops on a job.

zalinda

[HardWorkingDem]

29. Have you ever been involved in a "major" investigation before?

Well, I can tell you this - mistakes are made in EVERY investigation. EVERY ONE. Things are missed or overlooked quite often. Think of it - as an investigation goes on, more information is developed and more things examined and sometimes somethings that are later learned to be important, aren't seen that way at first.

There was much more evidence available that wasn't used for a variety of reasons (choice for one), but it is clear to anyone who has carefully studied this case, Simpson is guilty as hell.

[zalinda]

33. I understand that mistakes can be made

My only point is....I will not say he's guilty, when they didn't prove it. I watched the trial, not the commentators. And there were many questions that went unanswered. If I was on that jury, I wouldn't have convicted him either.

If there were much more evidence and they didn't present it, that is not the jury's fault. Theories aside, they did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Now is he innocent? I don't know that either. What I do know, is that people can have their reputations destroyed, by "someone knowing the truth", who has an agenda. You have to look no further than Max Cleland for the proof of that.

There were many books written about OJ and the trial. Every person made money off of those books, and each had their own agenda. Who are you to believe? The people who made million dollar book deals or what was presented in the trial. I believe the trial, he was declared not guilty.

zalinda

[zreosumgame]

36. not just Furman

the LA DA decided early on to try to frame a guilty man. and they could'nt even do that. Marsha needed to many 'hair days' or some shit.

[HardWorkingDem]

28. So what? Someone has to be first......

If you recall, the courts ruled a warrant was not needed to enter Simpson's property. Also, I believe Furman also investigated homicides as well.

Besides, the defense is the one that did the disgraceful tainting of evidence (EDTA, "contaminated" blood, the fake claim of "missing" blood, et cetera).....

[NorthernSun]

35. The OJ defense team pointed out the contaminated blood

They could not contaminate it themselves. Fuhrman was not on homicide (he admitted that on the stand) He rushed to the murder scene before the homicide detectives could get there. Then he insisted on accompanying them to the Simpson yard and went around the side and climbed over the wall alone. This along with his former run-ins with OJ made him a natural target for the defense team. If you want to convict someone of murder you need to follow the rules. (especially if they are wealthy)

[HardWorkingDem]

48. ALL blood from a crime scene will be "contaminated".....

Think of it - all things that come into contact with other things will be contaminated. The blood was not "contaminated".

Now here is what the defense did: They said the blood preservative EDTA was in Simpson's blood, therefore, it must have been spread by the police. Now here is the shocker: It is not common for EDTA to be in human blood. Many things people use every day have EDTA in them.

What the defense did was this - it put two illustrations (graph) up for the jury. One showed the level of EDTA in test tube preserved blood and the other was of Simpson's blood found at the crime scene. At first look, both illustrations looked the same, HOWEVER, the Simpson graph was amplified to make it look like his blood had the same level of EDTA as normally found in test tube preserved blood.

Now, how is that for ethical?

[LostinVA]

18. I agree , and some jurors said as much after the trial n/t

[wakeme2008]

24. And they should have

even the DAs know OJ did not do it.

[HardWorkingDem]

27. Your answer must be a joke...or at least I hope so....

I am aware of much more evidence in this case and am very comfortable stating, OJ Simpson killed these two people and got away with it.

I have been to several presentations on evidence in this case that wasn't covered in the media and it is ridiculous that Simpson walked away from this.

[wakeme2008]

32. lol I am not joking

OJ did not kill anybody, it was his son Jason and yes the DA knows that.

[zreosumgame]

37. um, dude...

why the hell would you do that? I mean really, you went to 'seminars' on OJ's case? Excusre me while I cough out a lung laughing at that :)

[LostinVA]

39. Why the sarcasm? Legal professionals do that all the time

As do advocates for certain special populations. This is par for the course.

Um, dude... Excuser me while I cough out a lung laughing at your not knowing that.:)

[HardWorkingDem]

49. No, I have been present at seminars where....

cases like OJ's have been discussed and evidence presented....

[LiberalFighter]

41. Who provided the evidence at the presentations?

Anybody can be an expert and even an expert can be an idiot.

[HardWorkingDem]

50. Professionals from the field.....

even the grand ole Dr Henry Lee...(who by the way mistook previous shoe prints in concrete as the mysterious set of second shoeprints).....

and why do Du'ers have to be so discourteous here.......

[Kingshakabobo]

10. Wasn't Skakel like the third person they were SURE did this crime?

I think he was the second person Dominic Dunn was SURE did this crime.

I've never been a fan of these 20 plus year old cases being reactivated without SOLID/IRREFUTABLE proof. I think there is a prejudice to FINALLY get justice for the family and I think that prejudice goes against the accused.

[LiberalHeart]

31. Dunn is who pulled Fuhrman into the case.

And Lucianne Goldberg was involved in hooking them up. Remember when Dunn came out during the William Kennedy Smith trial, saying he'd heard that Smith was present at the Skakel house the night of the murder? It wasn't true, of course. The idea here was to go after the Kennedys, to hell with the truth.

[LiberalFighter]

42. What was wrong also the law they used to prosecute the case.

It was always my understanding that a prosecution had to be based on law in effect at the time of the crime. In this case Skakel was not an adult at the time of the crime. Yet they prosecuted and convicted him as an adult.

[AngryAmish]

12. He took the 5th because this case is going nowhere

Every tort case has 4 things. Duty, breach of duty, proximate cause and damages. I have never heard of any civil case where one has a duty to confess to a crime to avoid putting another in jail. (I am also assuming it is Skakel v. Hasbrouck).

Instant prediction -- summary judgment in favor of Hasbrouck.

on edit - one actually has a Constitutional privilege not to confess. Again, no duty plus the affirmative defense of the 5th Amendment.

[pnwmom]

15. But what's the advantage to him over just saying "No"?

How would saying "no" incriminate him? I'm confused.

[2020]

23. If it's adjudicated as manslaughter, not murder, there may be a statue of

limitations issue. He may be off the hook for a manslaugher indictment because the statute has run. But if he commits perjury, they can get him for that. I'm just guessing here because you raise a very good question.

[pnwmom]

26. Hi 2020! Welcome to DU!

[sandnsea]

22. Only if you really would incriminate yourself

You can't take the 5th just because you don't want to answer questions. You really and truly have to think you might incriminate yourself. I don't exactly know whether they are afraid of being easily scapegoated or whether there is something more. But there was an African-American hair on the scene that they attributed to a police officer. The 3 boys WERE there and many people knew they came around Belle Haven. So I suspect they will be required to tell a judge why they shouldn't have to answer questions if they aren't guilty of anything and consequently can't incriminate themselves.

[dsc]

25. Did you even read the article?

This is a case asking for a new trial. Why it is a civil case, I admittedly don't know, but Hasbrouck isn't being sued, CT is.

[pnwmom]

30. Of course he has no duty to confess. But that assumes he's guilty.

If he's innocent, why doesn't he just say, "No, I didn't do it?"

[zreosumgame]

38. so you want cops peeking in your window?

and tapping your phone and internet and fiancial records? You cannot have any problem with all that happening these days unless you are GUILTY of something, right?

[pnwmom]

40. Of course not. But if they asked me if I killed somebody in a deposition,

I wouldn't hedge. I'd say no.

[zreosumgame]

43. almost never that cut and dried

how about if you had just had a public argument with that person? Or if it was your ex that you had gone through a really bad divorce with? Or how about if the question related to something not directly related to the hypothetical murder, but was part of a fishing expedition? would you not want your lawyer to answer that for you? you do realize that you do not get to have your lawyer with you in front of a grand jury?

[pnwmom]

45. This is a case where the prosecutor already has a conviction. He has

no interest in finding out that he was wrong. If this guy had simply said "no," that would have been the end of this.

But as to your question, if I didn't kill a person, I still don't know why I wouldn't just say so. Why would you think that saying no might tend to incriminate you?

[bling bling]

51. Never ever talk without your lawyer there.

Just FYI, if you are ever accused of something and being questioned, don't say anything without your lawyer. Nothing. This is especially true if you are talking to the cops. Whether you did it or not, don't talk. This is the advice I was given by my brother, who's a cop, after what he's seen first-hand when people talk without their lawyer's present.

[sofa king]

44. Heh. I'd say no, too--whether I did it or not.

But I guess I'm just a bad, temporarily free person.

I wonder, could the person be taking the Fifth for a different but related crime? Like perhaps witnessing the crime and failing to report it? Or maybe running a blackmail operation that's still within the statute of limitations? Does CT have "no accomplice" laws which allow facilitators to be charged with the original crime, sort of like Virginia (supposedly--I ain't no lawyer) has?

[pnwmom]

46. I think most people would, sofa king.

That's why it surprised people that he didn't. This is very unusual.

[tom22]

47. The legal proceeding that gave rise to the deposition

is a Petition for a New trial. In Connecticut this is in the nature of a civil proceeding. It allows for the granting of a new trial because of evidence discovered after the criminal trial. A criminal appeal (also going on) relies only on the evidence presented in court.
I assume this man was advised to take the Fifth because even an admission that you were in the area on the night the crime occurred would have some tendency to incriminate you.
The bulk of the evidence in the Michael Skakel consisted of the taped converstaions he had with an author in connection with a book proposal that he circulated a few years before he was charged. Not a good move on his part. His story for the book completely contradicted the story he gave to the police back in the 1970s.