Martha Moxley podcast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else listened to the new podcast and have any thoughts?? Honestly after listening to the whole thing, the only person who seems like he had the MO and the violent history to do it was the Skakel dad, but I guess he was out of town. The brothers and that tutor all sounded like pretty disturbed individuals but I can't really see any of them doing such a violent crime with zero history of violence to women (or anyone) before or after? I mean you don't beat someone in with a golf club to that extent- like, over and over and over- and then pull down the victims pants, hide her in a bush, without any kind of history of a build up of domestic violence stuff. And then just never commit any violent act ever again.

I mean…says who? By your reasoning, no one can ever commit violence, because they haven’t committed violence before.

Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear. I meant that usually violent behaviors escalate. Someone with no history of violence typically won’t commit a gruesome and personal murder like that to someone who they’d never abused before. Usually it’s the story of an abusive husband who escalates for months or years and then murders. Or the kid who abuses animals, hurts younger kids, then grows older and starts beating up people they don’t like without being provoked, and then escalates to killing someone, and then they do it over and over.

Someone can murder someone else with no history of violence, absolutely. But it’s usually something like a single gunshot , or hitting them with a car (like that woman who supposedly ran over her cop boyfriend), or something not so “personal”. Or, sometimes, a scuffle that goes too far, like a yelling match with your girlfriend and you shake her real quick, instantly regret it, but you snapped her neck when her head hit the wall.

To go to the gruesome lengths that this killer did, destroying her face and head like that over multiple blows, and then the thing with her pants , and hiding her body- that would be very unusual for a first violent act, especially if the perpetrator never was violent afterwords either. It seems like a crime that the perpetrator enjoyed doing, or got mad enough to do- either of those things point towards either killing again, or at least being a serial domestic abuser in the second scenario. Sort of like the skakel father.

DP. I don’t know if this is true. With the rise of dna they’ve actually discovered there are way more of these “one off” murders.

I also think people from toxic families and poor coping skills can do stuff like this when they are younger and at a life stage with max testosterone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else listened to the new podcast and have any thoughts?? Honestly after listening to the whole thing, the only person who seems like he had the MO and the violent history to do it was the Skakel dad, but I guess he was out of town. The brothers and that tutor all sounded like pretty disturbed individuals but I can't really see any of them doing such a violent crime with zero history of violence to women (or anyone) before or after? I mean you don't beat someone in with a golf club to that extent- like, over and over and over- and then pull down the victims pants, hide her in a bush, without any kind of history of a build up of domestic violence stuff. And then just never commit any violent act ever again.

I mean…says who? By your reasoning, no one can ever commit violence, because they haven’t committed violence before.

Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear. I meant that usually violent behaviors escalate. Someone with no history of violence typically won’t commit a gruesome and personal murder like that to someone who they’d never abused before. Usually it’s the story of an abusive husband who escalates for months or years and then murders. Or the kid who abuses animals, hurts younger kids, then grows older and starts beating up people they don’t like without being provoked, and then escalates to killing someone, and then they do it over and over.

Someone can murder someone else with no history of violence, absolutely. But it’s usually something like a single gunshot , or hitting them with a car (like that woman who supposedly ran over her cop boyfriend), or something not so “personal”. Or, sometimes, a scuffle that goes too far, like a yelling match with your girlfriend and you shake her real quick, instantly regret it, but you snapped her neck when her head hit the wall.

To go to the gruesome lengths that this killer did, destroying her face and head like that over multiple blows, and then the thing with her pants , and hiding her body- that would be very unusual for a first violent act, especially if the perpetrator never was violent afterwords either. It seems like a crime that the perpetrator enjoyed doing, or got mad enough to do- either of those things point towards either killing again, or at least being a serial domestic abuser in the second scenario. Sort of like the skakel father.

DP. I don’t know if this is true. With the rise of dna they’ve actually discovered there are way more of these “one off” murders.

I also think people from toxic families and poor coping skills can do stuff like this when they are younger and at a life stage with max testosterone.

Interesting- maybe you’re right! The above is always what I’ve learned but to be fair I haven’t actually studied it in about 20 years (it was a lecture in a college psych course that addressed criminal behaviors) I guess especially if he was blacked out it is possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else listened to the new podcast and have any thoughts?? Honestly after listening to the whole thing, the only person who seems like he had the MO and the violent history to do it was the Skakel dad, but I guess he was out of town. The brothers and that tutor all sounded like pretty disturbed individuals but I can't really see any of them doing such a violent crime with zero history of violence to women (or anyone) before or after? I mean you don't beat someone in with a golf club to that extent- like, over and over and over- and then pull down the victims pants, hide her in a bush, without any kind of history of a build up of domestic violence stuff. And then just never commit any violent act ever again.

I mean…says who? By your reasoning, no one can ever commit violence, because they haven’t committed violence before.

Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear. I meant that usually violent behaviors escalate. Someone with no history of violence typically won’t commit a gruesome and personal murder like that to someone who they’d never abused before. Usually it’s the story of an abusive husband who escalates for months or years and then murders. Or the kid who abuses animals, hurts younger kids, then grows older and starts beating up people they don’t like without being provoked, and then escalates to killing someone, and then they do it over and over.

Someone can murder someone else with no history of violence, absolutely. But it’s usually something like a single gunshot , or hitting them with a car (like that woman who supposedly ran over her cop boyfriend), or something not so “personal”. Or, sometimes, a scuffle that goes too far, like a yelling match with your girlfriend and you shake her real quick, instantly regret it, but you snapped her neck when her head hit the wall.

To go to the gruesome lengths that this killer did, destroying her face and head like that over multiple blows, and then the thing with her pants , and hiding her body- that would be very unusual for a first violent act, especially if the perpetrator never was violent afterwords either. It seems like a crime that the perpetrator enjoyed doing, or got mad enough to do- either of those things point towards either killing again, or at least being a serial domestic abuser in the second scenario. Sort of like the skakel father.

DP. I don’t know if this is true. With the rise of dna they’ve actually discovered there are way more of these “one off” murders.

I also think people from toxic families and poor coping skills can do stuff like this when they are younger and at a life stage with max testosterone.

I think the new one-off DNA murder discoveries are fascinating. There is a lot about criminal behavior we don't know or rely on old ideas. From what I've read too people often start criminal behavior by small acts like stealing, not necessarilybeing ciolent right away. Stealing and petty crimes can indeed be a gateway act to violent crimes for some. I think it's very possible that Skakel did bad things but did not get caught or it was covered up or ignored by the parents and possibly this was an escalation of increasing criminal behavior. I think their mother was deceased (?) along with neglect. The Skakel grandparents were big time alcoholics who were neglecfful to Mr Skakel, Ethel and the other kids. I think Mr Skakel was this kind of parent too. They were super rich and could buy their way out of problems. I think the kids had a lot of emotional turmoil and not enough attention.

[Anonymous]

I've been following it too and highly recommend to anyone who has payed attention to this case over the years. It is "in progress" being released weekly, so, if you just want to binge the whole thing, wait a month or so.

The reporter is doing a deep dive into reviewing the case, suspects, etc. He has lots of interviews including Michael Skakel and other members of the Skakel family. It isn't clear what his conclusion will be, though at this point he seems sympathetic to Michael Skakel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else listened to the new podcast and have any thoughts?? Honestly after listening to the whole thing, the only person who seems like he had the MO and the violent history to do it was the Skakel dad, but I guess he was out of town. The brothers and that tutor all sounded like pretty disturbed individuals but I can't really see any of them doing such a violent crime with zero history of violence to women (or anyone) before or after? I mean you don't beat someone in with a golf club to that extent- like, over and over and over- and then pull down the victims pants, hide her in a bush, without any kind of history of a build up of domestic violence stuff. And then just never commit any violent act ever again.

Former prosecutor and true crime aficionado here.

I can think of a number of cases where a perpetrator committed a horrific murder with zero criminal history and went on to live a law abiding life for decades before being apprehended.

Mix teenaged hormones with teenaged volatility and substance abuse and I have no doubt that one of those young men could have killed Martha in that horrific fashion and never gone on to kill again, or commit any other violent crime.

With respect poster I think you suffer from either a failure of imagination, lack of life experience or naïveté.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else listened to the new podcast and have any thoughts?? Honestly after listening to the whole thing, the only person who seems like he had the MO and the violent history to do it was the Skakel dad, but I guess he was out of town. The brothers and that tutor all sounded like pretty disturbed individuals but I can't really see any of them doing such a violent crime with zero history of violence to women (or anyone) before or after? I mean you don't beat someone in with a golf club to that extent- like, over and over and over- and then pull down the victims pants, hide her in a bush, without any kind of history of a build up of domestic violence stuff. And then just never commit any violent act ever again.

Former prosecutor and true crime aficionado here.

I can think of a number of cases where a perpetrator committed a horrific murder with zero criminal history and went on to live a law abiding life for decades before being apprehended.

Mix teenaged hormones with teenaged volatility and substance abuse and I have no doubt that one of those young men could have killed Martha in that horrific fashion and never gone on to kill again, or commit any other violent crime.

With respect poster I think you suffer from either a failure of imagination, lack of life experience or naïveté.

Hah! Probably all 3 (I’m OP). I guess I always think to myself that with true crime stuff, the most likely scenario is probably the correct one and the most likely suspect is usually the one who did it. Life isn’t a mystery novel. But in this case I guess all of the teenage guys that hung around that night sound like total live wires with messed up lives , so, there are a lot of likely people I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else listened to the new podcast and have any thoughts?? Honestly after listening to the whole thing, the only person who seems like he had the MO and the violent history to do it was the Skakel dad, but I guess he was out of town. The brothers and that tutor all sounded like pretty disturbed individuals but I can't really see any of them doing such a violent crime with zero history of violence to women (or anyone) before or after? I mean you don't beat someone in with a golf club to that extent- like, over and over and over- and then pull down the victims pants, hide her in a bush, without any kind of history of a build up of domestic violence stuff. And then just never commit any violent act ever again.

I mean…says who? By your reasoning, no one can ever commit violence, because they haven’t committed violence before.

Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear. I meant that usually violent behaviors escalate. Someone with no history of violence typically won’t commit a gruesome and personal murder like that to someone who they’d never abused before. Usually it’s the story of an abusive husband who escalates for months or years and then murders. Or the kid who abuses animals, hurts younger kids, then grows older and starts beating up people they don’t like without being provoked, and then escalates to killing someone, and then they do it over and over.

Someone can murder someone else with no history of violence, absolutely. But it’s usually something like a single gunshot , or hitting them with a car (like that woman who supposedly ran over her cop boyfriend), or something not so “personal”. Or, sometimes, a scuffle that goes too far, like a yelling match with your girlfriend and you shake her real quick, instantly regret it, but you snapped her neck when her head hit the wall.

To go to the gruesome lengths that this killer did, destroying her face and head like that over multiple blows, and then the thing with her pants , and hiding her body- that would be very unusual for a first violent act, especially if the perpetrator never was violent afterwords either. It seems like a crime that the perpetrator enjoyed doing, or got mad enough to do- either of those things point towards either killing again, or at least being a serial domestic abuser in the second scenario. Sort of like the skakel father.

DP. I don’t know if this is true. With the rise of dna they’ve actually discovered there are way more of these “one off” murders.

I also think people from toxic families and poor coping skills can do stuff like this when they are younger and at a life stage with max testosterone.

I think the new one-off DNA murder discoveries are fascinating. There is a lot about criminal behavior we don't know or rely on old ideas. From what I've read too people often start criminal behavior by small acts like stealing, not necessarilybeing ciolent right away. Stealing and petty crimes can indeed be a gateway act to violent crimes for some. I think it's very possible that Skakel did bad things but did not get caught or it was covered up or ignored by the parents and possibly this was an escalation of increasing criminal behavior. I think their mother was deceased (?) along with neglect. The Skakel grandparents were big time alcoholics who were neglecfful to Mr Skakel, Ethel and the other kids. I think Mr Skakel was this kind of parent too. They were super rich and could buy their way out of problems. I think the kids had a lot of emotional turmoil and not enough attention.

+1 all of the above plus drugs

[Anonymous]

Thank you for mentioning this podcast. I’ve read at least one book about the case and always thought Skakel was guilty as sin. The case was also mentioned in Ask Not: The Kennedy Men and the women they destroyed which also implicated Skakel. (Of course the book may have been biased)
Looking forward to hearing some other perspectives.