The overlooked witness who might be key to deciding Michael Skakel's

[pnwmom]

guilt or innocence in the death of Martha Moxley: an alibi witness who was not related to the family.

Judge Bishop has ordered a new trial for Michael Skakel, on the grounds that he received an inadequate defense.

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-judge-orders-new-trial-for-skakel-in-1975-moxley-murder-20131028,0,731202.story?page=2

Bishop appears to have been swayed by one of those witnesses, Dennis Ossorio, a former psychologist from Rye Brook, N.Y., whose testimony bolstered Skakel's long-held alibi -- that he was with his brothers at a cousin's home watching a Monty Python show at the time of Moxley's murder.

Ossorio said he saw Skakel at the home watching the show that night because he was visiting his girlfriend at the time, Georgeann Skakel Dowdle, a cousin of Michael Skakel's. Skakel argued in his petition that Ossorio's testimony at trial would have helped him because the prosecution claimed that the only people who could support Skakel's alibi were family members.

Ossorio said that he was never questioned by police and never talked to Sherman.
In his ruling, Bishop noted that Ossorio "testified credibly," and that his testimony supported Skakel's "claim that during the likely time of the murder, he was away from Belle Haven, as he indicated."

If Sherman had put Ossorio on the witness stand, Bishop wrote, "there is a reasonable probability" that "the outcome of the trial would have been different."

[MADem]

1. I wonder why his family didn't scream bloody murder?

Why didn't they try the case in the press, and say "Hey man, he wasn't even THERE?"

Why is this secret, new witness just NOW coming to the fore?

Did the family want the most problematic Skakel jailed, regardless of his innocence or guilt?

Supposedly, if it wasn't this guy, it was his brother...?

Very odd that this has taken so long....

[pnwmom]

2. They did! They testified, but their testimony

apparently wasn't trusted by the jury. And I guess the family trusted the lawyer, Sherman, to know what he was doing.

This isn't a new secret witness -- that's the point. The police knew who was in the house that night and provided the information to the defense. The defense just failed to even interview the psychologist. Maybe Sherman thought the jurors would be more impressed with the Kennedy relatives than they were.

The defense lawyer, Sherman, was also faulted by the judge for his final presentation. He failed to explain to the jury the concept of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or innocent till proven guilty. Apparently he just gave a long, unprepared, rambling talk that the judge thought was completely inadequate.

[MADem]

3. What I don't understand is, if he was with this guy, why didn't his family say so?

Something's wrong here.

I will be the first to admit that I didn't follow this closely at all--I was abroad, so no gavel-to-gavel coverage; but I do seem to remember that the family seemed to have no problem with Sherman. Now, all of a sudden, it's his fault?

I should think the damn JUDGE should be the one instructing the jury about the law, and what they may or may not consider....

But who knows?

I think the mother of the dead girl thinks justice was done. I suppose time might tell--or maybe this will remain the Mystery of a Generation.

I get irritated when they call that guy a "Kennedy." He's not a "Kennedy," his weak association with them is through his aunt by HER marriage...but the right wing always used to love to point to him and say "Waaah, waaah, Kennedy-murderer-waah wahh!"

[gopiscrap]

4. I agree with you

[Boomerproud]

5. There would not be any media coverage about this if his aunt wasn't married to a Kennedy.

if this witness pans out, he'll be free "only because he was a "Kennedy". Trust me on this.

[MADem]

6. It won't be true, but Fox might play it that way. nt

[pnwmom]

7. The family apparently trusted the fancy lawyer to know what he was doing.

The lawyer had one of the relatives take a lie detector test, and it was passed. So he used that person's testimony, plus the other four relatives as corroborating witnesses. Apparently the lawyer (and the Skakel family) counted on the jury to be impressed with the Kennedy relatives -- but the judge basically instructed the jury that they could discount the testimony because it was by relatives.

Sherman should have followed up on one of the relatives' testimony to the Grand Jury -- that her "beau" had been present that night -- the man who turned out to be the psychologist, and was willing to testify. That the defense lawyer failed to follow-up on that is partly why the judge says he did such an inadequate job. He was put "on notice" about that witness (in the transcript of the Grand Jury testimony), and he didn't seek to interview him.

[duffyduff]

8. The late Dominick Dunne came up with the "Kennedy cousin" moniker.

Dunne was the one who spearheaded the witchhunt against Michael Skakel, and later Mark Fuhrman decided to shore up his beaten reputation by authoring a book about the case.

I wouldn't be surprised if Dunne, somebody who loved to hobnob with the rich and celebrities, was or felt shunned by the Kennedy family and decided to exact revenge through a series of Vanity Fair articles about the ancient case.

[MADem]

9. He wrote a book, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Season_in_Purgatory

[duffyduff]

11. He sure did. He got a lot of mileage out of the case. n/t

[msanthrope]

10. I think the appeal of fhis finding will be pretty interesting. Your questions are right on the

money..and this new witness was apparently at the.library, previously.

[MADem]

12. I'll bet the reality programs will dig up all the old footage and rehash this pretty quick! nt