From: charlie
Date: 6/8/02
Time: 9:05:40 AM
Kari, it was fine to copy it.
And that isn't exactly what I said, but don't disagree with you.
As far as Skakel, I think even Martha's family was stunned he was convicted from they had said the day before on tv.
I have no idea whether he did it or not but I do know that they did not have any physical evidence and they had a few decade old statements and they had Michael on a list of original suspects where he was considered to be the least likely candidate.
There was reasonable doubt. Perhaps because the cops didn't do their jobs right at the time of the murders--perhaps not. But I"d bet that with all three of these guys, the DA's could put on a case like this at the same time at separate places and get a conviction in each one. Esp. if the pressure had been put on due to books being written, etc. as in Michael's case.
charlie