[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: smith
Date: 17 Mar 2007
Time: 07:29:01 AM
http://lpoter.info/homes/home-schooling-curriculum.html http://subwertex.info/colleges/utah_college_and_university.html http://dsatraw.info/university/university-of-california-riverside.html http://vxvyiwy.info/diamonds/diamond-solitaire-ring.html http://poytoty.info/mortages/amortization-calculator-mortgage.html
From: Jasper
Date: 06 Sep 2005
Time: 12:50:02 PM
Jean, …You’re right. This whole thinks looks to me like a setup to insure that Michael stays in prison by exhausting even the slim chance of another trial. …..When we first started following the story of the three black kids on the internet and Robert Kennedy Jr.’s story in the Atlantic, it looked as though Michael’s new lawyers were on to something. After all, why would one of the few black kids in Belle Haven on the night of the murders claim that two of his visiting black friends told him that they attacked Martha Moxley “caveman style” and beat her to death with a golf club if it wasn’t true? Still, there were several features of Bryant’s story that didn’t add up. I kept looking for information that bridged the credibility gaps but I never saw it. Instead, the gaps got wider with every examination of the details. ……The prosecutors were claiming that Mark Fuhrman and his Murder in Greenwich book had nothing to do with their prosecution of Michael Skakel and Fuhrman made a weak response suggesting that they could have been right. Fuhrman’s response was mystifying considering everything his second “Murder in” book meant to the rehabilitation of his image from a racist to a misunderstood super detective whose use of a racial epithet was taken out of context. ……..If the black kids did commit the murder I guessed that Fuhrman would have done enough in his investigation to find the incriminating evidence against them. I figured that he would have buried it for the sake of the new image of himself he was trying to create. Implicating two black males in the murder of a white female was no way to do it whether or not they were guilty. But the closer I examined the details of the two black kids’ second hand confession by way of the third black kid (Bryant) the less sense it made for all of the reasons stated by the prosecution and then some. The more I examined the prosecutors’ claim that Fuhrman had nothing to do with their prosecution of Michael Skakel, the less sense that claim made. Something big had to be missing from both reconstructions of the crime. ……..Fuhrman’s INVESTIGATION for Murder in Greenwich, as opposed to the book itself, turned up Greg Coleman, the most damaging witness against Michael Skakel. Coleman’s story had flaws that could have been exploited to discredit him if he hadn’t been one of a half dozen or so people (out how many thousands of drug addicts in Connecticut and New York?) who happened to die from a bad batch of illegal drugs. …….The Skakel and Kennedy family’s pursuit of Bryant’s story takes them as far away as they can get from Fuhrman and Coleman. I wonder what they would have done if they had known about the circumstances surrounding the death of Bill Wasz. Could this have been a reason that Bill’s death was so thoroughly hushed up? –Jasper