Original subtitles

- When Martha walked in the room,

it was like the sun coming up in the morning.

- A 15-year-old girl, Martha Moxley.

- She was a straight-A student.

She had everything to look forward to.

- But on October 30th, 1975, Greenwich, Connecticut,

one of the nation's most exclusive communities,

bears witness to a brutal murder.

- Martha's body was found bludgeoned to death

with a golf club outside of her home in Greenwich.

- Police have few clues to follow,

and decades slip by with no arrests.

A heartbroken family holds its breath for answers.

Then...

25 years later, a new suspect is pulled into the limelight.

The heir to a family fortune, and a Kennedy cousin.

- Michael Skakel. - Michael Skakel.

- Michael Skakel.

- With a prominent family at the center of it,

his 2002 trial ignites a media firestorm.

And as the verdict echoes around the world...

- Michael Skakel found guilty of murder.

- ...the nation grapples with a new nightmare.

A young 15-year-old girl with a life of endless possibilities,

murdered by a member of American royalty.

- Twenty years to life given to Kennedy nephew,

Michael Skakel.

- But as firmly as the Moxley's believe

Martha's killer is behind bars...

- You know, he thought he could get away with murder.

- ...the Skakels and Kennedys stand by Michael's innocence.

- Michael Skakel was 11 miles away,

with five eyewitnesses, when this murder occurred.

- After 11 years of appeals

and millions of dollars in costs...

- The Moxleys do deserve their pound of flesh.

It just isn't me.

- All rise.

- A judge ruled that Micheal Skakel's original trial lawyer

provided an ineffective defense.

On October 23rd, 2013, a mother watches

as Skakel's conviction is overturned.

- An innocent man now goes free.

- I would like Michael Skakel to go back to jail

and serve the rest of his sentence.

- And on January 7th, 2019, a decision by the U.S.

Supreme Court effectively upholds the ruling.

43 years after Martha Moxley's death,

the same questions remain.

Why has justice been so elusive?

Does Michael Skakel really belong behind bars?

Or, did someone else get away with murder?

When I was a federal prosecutor in Washington D.C.,

my sole focus was to advocate tirelessly

on behalf of all the victims,

and provide their grieving families with the relief

of justice and convictions.

My goal in re-exploring the murder of Martha Moxley

is to clear away the distortion

from an infamous rollercoaster of a case

whose story has been twisted by media, money,

and privilege.

With the help of the world's preeminent crime experts...

- The first thing I said is, "The suspect knew the victim."

- I hope to provide a 360 degree view of the evidence,

test new theories,

and explore previously overlooked clues.

- Wait a minute.

Has somebody else actually committed the crime?

- To finally answer a question

that's haunted a grieving mother,

and the entire country,

for more than four decades.

Why has there been no justice for Martha Moxley?

- I spent over seven years investigating violent crimes,

like sexual assault and crimes against the elderly,

crimes against children.

But it's when I look at a crime through the eyes of a mother

that really--

I get this shared fuel that drives me to prevail.

When Martha's mother, Dorthy, and her family,

moved to the breezy shores of Belle Haven,

she did so expecting a sense of security and safety.

That, unfortunately, proved to be anything but true.

I'm hoping Dorthy can now help me get to know her daughter

a little better.

- I haven't seen those in a long time.

- Obviously, this beautiful young woman is Martha.

- This is Martha.

This was the picture for her high school ID card.

And so that was one of the last pictures

that was ever taken, yes.

- She's beautiful. A beautiful smile.

- She had her braces taken off her teeth recently.

And she was a very easy child.

She was a very happy person.

Liked people, people liked her.

- It's hard not to capture Martha not smiling.

- Smiling, yes.

- Here she is with her father. - With her father, yes.

- They say every little girl has her father's heart.

It must have been true for your husband as well.

- Yes, yes. It was.

Yes.

She was just a very wonderful person, I thought.

Makes me sad now.

You know, we had wonderful times.

I didn't realize this was gonna be so hard on me.

I really didn't.

- Tell me about the night she disappeared.

October 30th, 1975.

- Um, well...

she had stayed out late the weekend before,

and I remember saying that she was grounded.

But I thought, go ahead.

You can go. That's fine.

- It was the night before Halloween.

- Yeah. Yeah.

And, um, the time came when I thought she'd be home

and she wasn't.

And so then I called Helen Ix,

to see where she was.

And Helen is the one that told me

that she was with one of the kids in the neighborhood,

Tommy Skakel, the last she had seen her.

You know, before Helen went home.

And they were, at the Skakels.

- You must have stayed up.

- I did. I stayed up.

And I finally just fell asleep in the window seat

in the library.

And when I woke up the next morning, I went upstairs to see

if she was in her room and she wasn't.

- Martha was last seen leaving the home of her neighbor's,

the Skakels.

Relatives of America's First Family, the Kennedys.

As she crosses the lawn to her house,

someone assaults her so savagely...

that the steel golf club used in the attack

breaks into pieces.

- It was one of these neighborhoods,

the kids could just go meet people.

- It was a safe neighborhood, really.

- Yes. Yes.

Very safe.

Um, everyone liked everyone, it seemed like.

- What has it been like for you all this time?

- It-it hasn't been easy.

But, um...

but-but you learn how to adjust.

I don't cry very often anymore.

But I used to cry a lot.

- Dorthy, what do you want people to remember

about your daughter?

- Well, the new people that I meet,

they don't even have to know I had a daughter.

You know, I don't burden friends, new friends,

with my sorrows.

But the people that she knew, and who loved her,

will always love her.

A lot of people just can't handle it.

You just learn how to live with it.

- In the 43 years since the murder, the Moxleys

have left Belle Haven and Greenwich behind.

But I need to know,

what kind of world did Martha live and die in?

Her brother, John, was 17 at the time,

but the pain of coming back here...

never goes away.

What's it like for you to come back here?

- You know, it's been 43 years,

and it's one of those things where...

different times you feel different ways.

You know, you just can't help but wonder,

you know, what might have been.

If she had been allowed to live her life out,

you know, would she have been the CEO of a major corporation,

or would she have been the president of the Peace Corps?

Who knows?

I put a lot of effort in over the years

to make sure that I didn't go down that dark road

that I could never get out of.

So...

- You know, you look at this area.

It seems like a dream neighborhood.

- Yeah. No, absolutely.

I always thought, and I still think,

it's as good as it gets.

- The Moxley family moved here in the summer of 1974,

and were looking to make it their home.

But just one year later, Martha is murdered.

This is the street where your house was.

- Yeah.

- So, the house that you lived in is no longer here, right?

- Correct.

- Where was your house?

- Our house was on the piece of property

that are these next two houses on the left.

So, that house and this house.

- These two-- the brick house and that one?

- Yes.

- And this is the Skakel's old house.

- This is the Skakel home? - Yeah.

So, you can see how close the Skakel's house was to our house.

- So, it was really close. - Yeah.

And that looks exactly like it used to.

- My goodness.

The Skakel house is where Martha was last seen alive,

hanging out with teenage brothers

Tommy and Michael Skakel.

Their widowed father, Rushton Skakel,

is the heir to a family fortune from the coal industry,

and is the brother of Ethel Skakel,

wife of the late Robert F. Kennedy.

The night before Halloween is Mischief Night in Belhaven.

But for the Skakel brothers, it's just an excuse

for an alcohol-fueled party with no adult in sight.

Before it was over, Martha would be dead.

Where would Martha have been found?

- And the tree would've been, you know,

kind of up by where that chimney is,

if not, maybe a little bit farther back.

- Right where the trees are? - Yeah, right in there.

- But the tree is gone.

- Yeah, it was back a little bit.

- John Moxley is giving me a glimpse of a tight-knit community.

And it was inside this world that Martha's murder

would ignite intrigue and questions of whether

money and privilege could impair justice,

and began an enduring mystery surrounding

what really happened that night.

- So, we see where the clubhead is,

where the two pieces of the shaft of the club are,

as well as where the blood and the drag marks are.

- All murders are caused because money, sex, or revenge.

That's it.

- Mark, who do you think killed Martha Moxley?

- Martha Moxley,

beaten to death on her own front lawn.

Inside a wealthy enclave, sealed off from outsiders.

What can the place she died in

tell me about her murder?

I've gotten to know Martha a little

through her mother, Dorthy.

And had an insider's view of Martha's world

from her brother, John.

But as an investigator,

I always want to retrace a victim's last steps up close.

Because, sometimes, a tiny overlooked detail

can reveal something new about a murder.

The Moxley residence is now gone, which, of course,

makes it difficult to piece together

Martha's exact moments.

But one thing I can do is map out and mark the crime scene

inch by inch at another location

to see what that can tell me.

So, I'm going to go see Matt Steiner,

one of the top experts in the field

of crime scene reconstruction.

So, what do we have here?

- It's a bird's eye view of the scene,

showing relative positions of the evidence

and fixed features, like the home

and the driveway and Walsh Lane.

- Using the measurements from this diagram,

Matt has laid out a life sized recreation

of the crime scene on this playing field.

He's used cones and flags, as well as artifacts

to represent the Moxley property

and indicate where evidence was found

on the morning of October 31, 1975.

- This is Walsh Lane, right here.

The Moxley home is right there.

So, if we start over here at the driveway,

this would've been asphalt or concrete,

not grass, like we're standing on.

And this where we see our circular stains of blood

from the crime scene photographs from that day.

- So, you think maybe she was hit here.

- In the driveway.

And then, at some point, winds up over there.

- Do we know how?

- Possibly chased? Maybe she's stumbling.

Maybe she's disoriented from being struck in the head.

Then she falls and then hits some more.

She's bleeding for a period of time here.

And we have this pool that's created.

A saturation standing at the grass.

- Do we know how long?

- We do not know how long.

So the next piece of evidence is right by the pool of blood,

is our section of the shaft of the golf club.

Let's go towards the other side of the driveway.

- Here's another piece of the golf club, though.

- This is the other section of the golf club shaft.

Now we're at the broken golf club head.

- This is the third piece.

- And we're missing the fourth piece.

- According to investigators,

the golf club used in the attack on Martha

was smashed into four pieces on impact.

Three pieces of the club are recovered at the scene.

And Greenwich police determined that it was

a Tony Pena lady's six iron

from a monogrammed set of clubs

inside the Skakel's home.

But, to this day,

part of the puzzle is still missing.

The part that wasn't recovered was the handle?

- Was the handle, yes,

which had the leatherette grip on it.

- But that leatherette part would've had--

- Would've had definitely DNA,

by using that to-to hit somebody.

Could possibly also have fingerprints.

- How did that impact the investigation?

- It's all evidence.

So, you're missing some of your evidence.

- So, where do we go from here?

- She's dragged towards the tree.

- So, this curvy line here, this is the drag pattern?

- Yes.

This path starts to curve towards this large pine tree.

It probably took a bit to get the momentum up

to figure out the mechanics of dragging Martha.

And then the correction to figure out

how do I get to that tree.

- The tree was the goal. - The tree was the goal.

Between these two cones is where her body was found.

And that cone is the side of the pine tree.

- After my crime scene walkthrough,

one thing is clear--

the killing was prolonged.

And whoever did it also needed time to hide the body.

But I'd like to know more than just how Martha died.

It is possible that the injuries that caused her death

can help identify a suspect

as clearly as any eyewitness could.

I'm getting ready to meet with Dr. Henry Lee.

He's one of the most famous medical examiners

in the entire world.

He's investigated, he's consulted,

he's testified in, like,

a who's-who of high profile criminal trials.

He's also been intimately involved in this case

for decades.

So, just so I'm clear, from reviewing the autopsy report,

and reconstructing the scene,

is there any way for you

to conclude whether she knew her attacker?

A frenzy?

- Yes. - What do you mean?

A pursuit and then a frenzied killing?

Terms that, by definition,

describe a suspect seething with anger.

And a definite purpose.

But how exactly did the killer use a golf club to kill Martha?

Dr. Lee has recreated the mechanics of the murder

from medical and autopsy reports,

and can demonstrate for me.

So, on Martha's face, there were imprint marks.

Okay.

Soft tissue would have left the imprint of this--

- Right. - Okay.

We already know this was an up-close and personal murder,

and it took some time.

But Martha was not killed by the brute force

of the golf club that struck her,

but by the sharp tip of the broken shaft

that was thrust through her neck,

which indicates the sustained anger

of someone Martha may have known.

- In one of America's most exclusive communities,

while walking home across her lawn,

15 year-old Martha Moxley is beaten and stabbed so savagely

that investigators say the murder weapon,

a steel golf club, breaks into pieces.

With the help of world-renowned forensic scientist Henry Lee

and crime scene reconstructionist Matt Steiner,

I've come to the realization.

The up-close and personal nature of her attack

and the body's placement between the Moxley's

and their neighbor's house, the Skakel's,

means the assailant is likely someone Martha knew.

The golf club matches others from a set

inside the Skakel home.

So that points the finger even further.

But at who, exactly?

Back in 1975,

Greenwich police faced the same problem,

but they looked closely at the last two people

known to have seen Martha alive--

brothers Tommy and Michael Skakel.

According to their reports,

Martha arrived at the Skakel house with her friends

Helen Ix and Jeffrey Burns

around 8:45 PM.

Michael greets them, and they all go to listen to music

in the car in the driveway.

A short time later, Tommy joins them.

Martha sits between Tommy and Michael,

and Tommy tries to put his hand on her leg twice.

Around 9:30, Tommy and Michael's brothers,

John and Rushton Skakel, Jr.,

decide to drive over to their cousin's,

the Terriens.

Michael invites Martha to join them, but she declines

and heads home instead.

Tommy goes back in the house to do homework.

And then around 10 PM, Tommy watches television

with the family's live-in tutor.

11:30, Michael returns and goes straight to bed.

Greenwich police confirm the Skakel boys' alibis,

putting them in the clear.

So who else had the opportunity to kill Martha?

Veteran criminal profiler Pat Brown

thinks she knows the answer.

In Greenwich, Connecticut, Pat,

obviously this is a town that is

really kind of branded as a utopia.

- To have somebody so brutally murdered

is shocking to the police.

I mean, people think, "A lot of police, well,

"they don't see this all the time."

They don't.

First of all, somebody has to have opportunity.

And in my opinion,

the time frame for when the crime was committed

was very, very narrow-- 9:30 to 10:00.

- And why is that important, that narrow time frame?

- It's extremely important because we don't have

that many people who could have had access to her.

The police certainly looked at the neighbors,

but they also looked at the Skakel household.

So Michael had witnesses

that he was not on the Skakel property

between 9:30 and 10:00.

He was already with his buddies, off to another location.

He had alibi that he wasn't there.

Then the police looked at Tommy,

who was the last person to be with Martha,

who said, you know, "We kissed, and all that,"

and then she said, "I gotta go home," and she left.

And so he is basically seeing her leave.

He certainly had the opportunity,

'cause he could go right behind her,

and he could get a hold of the golf club.

But Tommy was a, not-not so great a suspect, but--

- Why do you say that?

- Simply because motive certainly wasn't really obvious there.

Was he really that upset if he kissed Martha and she said,

"No more, I got a- I got a curfew."

- So Tommy had access to the murder weapons,

he had opportunity, but he had no motive.

And it should be noted,

Tommy Skakel has always denied involvement in the crime,

and he was never charged or convicted.

- So Ken Littleton was a reasonable person to look at.

- Often away on business,

Rushton Skakel hired Ken Littleton

as a live-in tutor and companion for his sons.

On the night of the killing, the 23 year-old former teacher

had only just moved in hours earlier.

But Pat says it was Littleton's behavior after the murder

that is the key.

- Ken Littleton changed his story quite a few times.

And that's one of the reasons the police looked at him,

because usually people only have one story.

I mean, "This happened."

But when you keep changing your story

for what appears to be no good reason whatsoever,

you have to start questioning whether

that person had an involvement in the crime.

- One detail in Littleton's story didn't change.

- He was there present in the household.

And he is not accounted for the whole time.

- The night that Martha Moxley was killed?

- Correct. So he did have opportunity,

and he did have access to the golf club.

Ken Littleton could've seen Martha just walking,

and if he's psychopathic in nature,

he might just wanted what he wanted right then and there.

- He called and left a message on my answering machine

threatening to kill me.

- On October 30, 1975,

the same day that Martha Moxley

is killed in Bellhaven, Connecticut,

an outsider arrives in the private enclave

and takes up residence next door.

Skakel family tutor Ken Littleton.

Littleton's alibi that he was watching TV with Tommy Skakel

changes over time.

According to criminal profiler Pat Brown,

it's part of a disturbing pattern.

- This man had a lotta trouble with women.

He had very bizarre behaviors.

And just because some people didn't recognize it

at the age when he was there with the Skakels

doesn't mean he wasn't emotionally disturbed.

- You think Ken Littleton had some latent psychopathy?

- I'm not a psychiatrist, so I can't say,

"This man is a psychopath."

I can say he exhibits a lot of similar traits

and similar behaviors as other psychopaths.

I would call it a personality disorder of some sort

that is very, very concerning.

And it didn't start after this happened.

- How do you reconcile that with motive?

"It's all about me,

"and it's not about you. And if I want something,

"I should be able to have it."

He could've seen Martha just walking along and he's like,

"Well, I want to take that."

Right then and there.

- But doesn't it seem more far-fetched for Ken Littleton

to just happen upon Martha Moxley and murder her?

- He didn't happen upon her.

What I'm trying to get across here

is that they had probable cause to look at Ken Littleton.

They had the fact that he had opportunity.

He was also a big guy, a strong guy.

He was a football player, he was a rugby guy,

he was a baseball-- he was a big guy.

He certainly had a lot of strength,

could commit a crime easily.

- So do you think that Ken Littleton killed Martha Moxley?

- I would say the evidence that exists, as of today,

would put, in my opinion,

Ken Littleton still at the top of the suspect list.

- According to Pat Brown, Ken Littleton

had the capacity to kill, and lie to police.

And that's not all. By April of 1976,

Littleton is no longer welcome in the Skakel home.

That summer, police on Nantucket Island arrest him for a burglary

committed under the influence of alcohol and cocaine

in what amounted to a crime spree.

Was he suffering the mental anguish of taking

a young girl's life?

I'd like to ask someone who knew Ken,

so I've tracked down his ex-wife, Mary Baker.

A few years after the murder,

Ken started a relationship with her.

Mary, what's your connection to Ken Littleton?

- I was married to him from,

1983 until 1990.

- How did you meet him?

- To make a long story short, my father had died,

and my godparents asked me to go to Florida.

And I was at loose ends, so I-I met Ken in Florida.

- Did you know him very well when you first started dating

and married?

- No, and my judgment was not exactly what you'd call

stellar at the time.

But, you know, in retrospect,

anybody watching was very much against it.

But no, he left Florida with me.

And when I like decided to come home,

he came up to Ottawa.

- What did you ever hear Ken Littleton say

about Martha Moxley or her murder?

- Until later, nothing.

- When is the later?

- I don't think I talked to him at all about it

until we were long divorced, and

I made a couple of attempts to let him come up here.

But, he was still drinking,

and having psychotic breaks.

And, he called and left a message on

my answering machine, threatening to kill me.

- The police had come and gotten him,

and put him under a- a naked light bulb.

- Did Ken ever take a lie detector test?

- Many times.

- And to what you understand,

did he pass the lie detector test for fail it?

- No, he-he failed.

- An opportunity to kill, a history of

emotional disturbances,

and a failed polygraph

beg the question, did Ken Littleton murder

Martha Moxley that fateful night

43 years ago?

Did you think Ken was exuding guilt

or some other emotion?

- I was asking him, "Why do people think

"that you killed Martha?

"Why can't you prove that you didn't?"

- After Michael and Tommy Skakel's alibis

all but clear them, police then turn their attention

to their live-in tutor, Ken Littleton,

who is apparently a very troubled person.

His ex-wife, Mary Baker, says that Ken failed

numerous polygraphs during the Moxley

murder investigation.

What was your impression when he failed?

- I could see why.

He's his own worst enemy.

- How so?

- If he were drinking or drugging, he'd up

to be combative, difficult, obsessive.

And he didn't like the police,

because he'd already been arrested

in Nantucket.

After that, he was very resentful

of the inquiry into him.

- Do you think that Ken was involved at all

in her death?

- I told them everything I knew.

And that didn't involve anything about

Ken being a murderer.

- So Mary Baker says that Ken was not involved.

I'm not sure what to make of Mary's defense.

But if he was involved

in one of the nations'

most infamous murders, could he really have

hidden it from his wife of 7 years?

Martha Moxley's brother, John, shares a story

about what happened when he tried

to find out for himself.

- You know, the police looked at him real hard.

And Ken's life kind of raveled out of control

after that.

I went up to see him in Boston.

I asked him a lot of real hard questions,

and he broke down crying several times.

- Did you think

he was exuding guilt?

- I thought it was some other emotion.

You know, I was asking him, "Ken,

"why do people think that you killed Martha?

"Why can't you prove that you didn't?"

And you could just see that he was crumbling.

And, at first, I thought that maybe this might

lead to a confession.

But it was just the opposite.

It was, at the end, kind of a-a tragic plea

on his part to, you know, help prove he wasn't there.

- How did you end that meeting?

- You know, I walked out and I was convinced that

Ken didn't kill Martha.

You know, I look at him now as, you know,

as a tragic figure that got caught up in something

that, you know,

he had nothing to do with.

- To me, Ken Littleton isn't a killer.

He's someone who needed help, but got caught up

in the middle of a murder case.

But John's revelation doesn't move the search

into new territory.

And while police spend years trying to get

a confession from Ken, they never charge him.

But in the early '90's, the whole world of

forensic investigation is turned upside down

with the advent of DNA testing.

And around the same time, the Skakel family pays

a private detective agency nearly a million dollars

to prepare a definitive analysis of the facts

and evidence in the case.

Why?

Because with no arrest after two decades,

both Michael and Tommy Skakel were facing increased scrutiny,

and their father wanted to assess

their level of risk in any further

police investigation.

I wanna talk to one of the only people

ever to see that report.

Mark Fuhrman.

- In the process of the OJ Simpson trial,

I came to meet Dominick Dunne of "Vanity Fair"

and several books.

And he said, "I think you should

"look into this case.

"Maybe you could solve it."

- An employee of the firm that investigated

Martha Moxley's death on behalf of the Skakels,

leaked a highly confidential final report to

veteran crime journalist, Dominick Dunne.

What was in that report, and who was it written by?

- Well, Sutton is a group of

retired law enforcement,

some of which are FBI agents.

They do private security work

for people that can afford it.

Rushton Skakel hired the Sutton Associates

to see how exposed

the boys were.

This was a private report, never to be seen by anybody,

to say how exposed they are

and what they would do to account for that.

- What did the Sutton investigators

get out of Tommy Skakel about where he really was

that night with Martha?

- Well, Tommy, at the very least,

lied to the police about sexual contact

with Martha.

His involvement was extreme.

- But Tommy's not the only Skakel

who changes his story.

- Initially, Michael Skakel

leaves to go to the Terrien's house

at about 10:00.

Came home at 11:30, and he went to bed.

What he says in the Sutton report is,

"Well, I got back

"and I went over to the Moxley house.

"And I climbed up a tree and I threw pebbles

"at her windows, and she didn't

"come to the window.

"So I stayed there awhile.

"I masturbated in the tree."

Now, when I read this, I'm thinking to myself,

why would somebody make these statements

at this late day?

- So, showing, well, yeah, I may have been there,

and my DNA may be on the scene.

'Cause, of course, Michael Skakel's

aware at this point, now the Sutton report

has been written,

that technology has changed since 1975.

- Right.

Exactly.

If a defense attorney can attribute innocent actions

to criminal actions, you have reasonable doubt.

- By 1998, Martha Moxley's murder

is the most famous

cold case in America.

But former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman believes

the Skakels used the Sutton report

to create a false narrative.

Shielding a potential suspect in the family

with a plausible reason for why his DNA

might be at the crime scene.

- Now, when you look at Michael,

they also needed to develop a defense.

He's a troubled teen.

His mother died, and dad is non-existent.

And we know he was an alcoholic.

He goes into treatment facilities

as a young teen.

They are building this mental defect,

this personality flaw, to be able

to pull that card like a knife.

At the same time, they're hiding Michael.

Sending him to boarding school.

They kept him on the move.

All murders are because of money, sex, or revenge.

That's it.

It covers everything.

And so, you look at money.

This was not a family that had old money.

These were not billionaires.

And dealings of revenge are highly unlikely,

at the very best.

You don't have to be a homicide detective

to realize that this is most probably

a crime of passion.

So you have to have a connection.

And anger is part of that connection

that usually creates a homicide.

The first attack...

might have been something that

the suspect realized what they had done.

And there was a decision to be made.

Do I render aid,

or do I finish her off?

- It sends a chill down my spine, Mark,

when you ask that really--

an ominous question.

- It's actually kind of a psychological test

right there.

Which is more important?

This young woman or me?

Suspect made a choice.

So he finished her off.

Now the most important thing is,

don't get caught.

Then, the body was hid underneath the boughs

of an evergreen tree.

You know that the suspect has to hide the body

to expand the ability

for them to create an alibi.

- So even in a crime of passion,

someone would have the foresight

to be able to think, "don't get caught."

- Right.

It's like a child hiding something like

dirty clothes under their bed.

This is a very simplistic way

of hiding the body.

- Mark, who do you think killed Martha Moxley?

- Michael Skakel killed Martha Moxley.

- No doubt in your mind?

- No doubt.

He puts himself in the tree of the Moxley house.

I mean, how much closer do you wanna get?

- Michael Skakel has always denied

being involved in Martha's murder.

But according to Mark Fuhrman,

his family had more money, better connections,

and deeper roots in the community

than Martha's family did.

Fuhrman goes public in 1998.

His best-selling book, "Murder in Greenwich",

lays out his theory of how Michael Skakel

killed Martha Moxley.

In January 2000, police arrest 39 year old

Michael Skakel and charge him with murder.

Two years later, a jury convicts him,

finding him guilty.

And a judge sentencing him to 20 years to life

behind bars.

But after 11 years of well-funded legal appeals,

a judge rules that Michael's defense

was ineffective at trial, and overturns his conviction.

After 43 years, Martha's grieving mother,

Dorthy, and her brother, John,

still don't have justice.

And I'm still asking myself why.

In the next hour, I'll take a look at

a sensational murder trial decades in the making.

- 40 year old Kennedy nephew,

Michael Skakel, leaves a Stamford, Connecticut

courthouse moments after a judge rules

there's enough evidence to try him for murder.

- We've advanced one more step.

- Everyone who came forward,

did so at a price.

- Somebody who's on heroin

testifies in front of a grand jury.

- And test the evidence that put Michael Skakel away.

- I believe Michael when he said this

and when he said that.

- You assess his credibility and

you believe him? - I do believe him.

- Then, I'll take a deep dive into new theories.

- I keep going back to two people

who had severe crushes on her.

- Wait a minute, there's somebody else

that actually committed the crime.

- To shed new light on a murder

whose 40-year shadow just keeps growing.

- I think that they were there.

- He has a golf club from the Skakel property

in his hand, and he's carrying it around.

- Shocking, isn't it?

- As Martha's with me forever,

she's going to be with

Michael Skakel forever, also.

- Michael, did you kill her?

- For more information, go to Oxygen.com.