Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
89. Mickey Sherman did present an alibi defense
Sat Nov 2, 2013, 08:12 PM
Nov 2013

Mickey Sherman did present an alibi defense. The jury did not believe his witnesses:
Brother Rushton 19
Brother John 16
Cousin Jimmy Dowdle 17 (AKA Jimmy Terrien)
Cousin Georgeann Dowdle - in her early twenties

A new witness has come forward -38 years later! Georgeann's beau Denis Ossorio. He is the only non-family member to claim Michael was across town at 10 pm.

RFK Jr. laments, “They never heard the testimony of the people who said he couldn't have done that…….. and if those people had come in and testified…”

Who is he talking about? Which five people have not been heard? All family members he listed [Rush Jr, Julie, John Skakel, Jimmy Dowdle and Georgann Dowdle] did testify at Michael’s murder trial.

Jimmy Dowdle’s older sister, Georgeann Dowdle, did testify at trial. On Sherman's direct she testified that she saw her brother and cousins Rushton Skakel, John Skakel, Michael Skakel arrive at her backcountry Greenwich home around 10 p.m. on the night of the murder.


BY MR. SHERMAN:


Q. When did Rushton Skakel, John Skakel, Michael Skakel and Jim Dowdle, your brother, when did they arrive at your home that evening?

A. I would say probably between 9:30 and ten at night.

Q. And, you saw them there?

A. I did.

Q. And, when did they leave?

A. Probably about 11 but, 11:30, but I am recalling on what I read from my document.



When cross-examined by John Benedict she admitted she told the grand jury she only heard the group, and because she did not see them, she could not say for sure whether Michael Skakel was with the group.


BY MR. BENEDICT:

Q. On page ten, beginning of line 22, [Grand Jury testimony of GeorgeAnn Dowdle taken September 22, 1998] do you recall seeing your brother, James, any time that evening? Answer, I am not sure that I saw him. I think I heard him. I was in my mother's library which is off the living room and I was in there with my beau at the time and I didn't really venture out. Question, when you say you have heard your brother James, you mean his voice or just noises or what? Answer, his voice but I am not sure. I don't know who was there at the time. There were a lot of voices. Question, there were a lot of voices? Answer, um-uh. Question, so it was just more than your brother James? Um-uh. Question, as you look back now, were you able to recognize any of the voices besides your brother's? Answer, I just know that they were cousins but I don't recollect whom was there. Question, by cousins, you mean children of Rushton Skakel? Answer, Skakels, yes. Question, as you look back today, can you tell whether or not you heard the voice of any specific child? Answer, no. Question, of Rushton Skakels? Answer, no, I really don't remember.

MR. BENEDICT: The state has no further questions at this point.


Georgeann Dowdle, reportedly, left the courtroom in tears.


Rush Jr. did testify at trial. He testified that he, Michael, Jimmy Dowdle and John Skakel all went to Terrien/Dowdle's house that night - not from 6 pm to midnight as in RFK Jr.’s claim, but from about 9:30 pm to about 11: 10 pm. No mention of Georgeann, her beau, or her brother, John Dowdle (more on him later),

Trial testimony of Rushton Skakel Jr.:

Q. And, who watched the movie with you -- the television show with you at Terrien's?

A. At Terrien's?

Q. Yes.

A. Jimmy Dowdle, my brother John and my brother, Michael.



Julie Skakel did testify at trial. She testified that she did not go to the Dowdle/Terrien’s. In fact, her infamous “Michael, come back here!” testimony placed Michael’s Monty Python alibi in doubt.


John Skakel testified that he no longer remembered who went to the Terrien/Dowdle's house that night, but he stood by his 1975 statement wherein he said Michael was with them. At trial he was specifically asked if he recalled “bumping into” Georgeann Dowdle, that night. He said he did not.


Trial testimony of John Skakel:

Q. Do you remember anybody being up there other than Jim Terrien, of course, when you got up there that night?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Do you recall coming across Terrien's mother?

A. No.

Q. Do you recall coming across Terrien -- Terrien had two sisters, is that correct, one Tedesh (ph) and one Georgeann?

A. Yeah, and then a sister Anne and then another sister Alexandra.

Q. Do you recall bumping into specifically Georgeann when you got up to the Terrien house that night?

A. No, I don't.


Jimmy Dowdle testified that he watched the show with Rush, John Skakel and Michael in both his own room and his brother John's room. No mention of his brother John Dowdle or Georgeann’s beau.


Trial testimony of Jimmy Dowdle

Q. And, Michael Skakel watched the show?

A. Yes.

Q. Rushton, Jr. watched the show?

A. Yes.

Q. John Skakel watched the show?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have a sister, Georgeann?

A. I do.

Q. She was in the house?

A. She was.

Q. Did she watch the show with you or do you know where --

A. No, she didn't watch it with us.

Q. She was in and out or where was she?

A. She was just in another section of the house.

Q. You saw her then, though?

A. I did.

The only person in RFK's "Fab Five" who did not "come in and testify" at trial is Georgeann's beau, Denis Ossorio.


From Bishop's Memorandum:

At the habeas trial, Dennis Ossorio, now seventy-two years old, testified that in 1975, he, as a psychologist, was operating a program for women. He indicated that he then had a personal connection to Dowdle and that he had been at the Terrien home in the evening hours of October 30, 1975, visiting with Dowdle and her daughter. He testified that, while there, he had visited with the Skakel brothers, including the petitioner, and Terrien, while they were watching the Monty Python show on television. He indicated that he was in and out of the room where the others were watching Monty Python while Dowdle was putting her daughter to bed. Finally, he indicated that he left the Terrien residence at about midnight and was not sure whether the Skakels had left before him.

http://nypost.com/2013/10/24/skakel-wants-bail-so-he-can-see-his-son/

“I’m 70 and sometimes have some lapses,” Ossorio, a former psychologist from Rye Brook, NY, told The Post. “But there were certain things that were indelible about that evening that imprinted on my memory.”


I wonder if one of those lapses is his age? Bishops seems to think he is 72. I don't have the habeas trail transcription in front of me, but I recall Ossorio also placing John Dowdle - Jimmy and Georgeann's brother, at the Monty Python party. According to Michael Skakel in Dead Man Talking:

http://campyskakel.yuku.com/topic/3686/DEAD-MAN-TALKING-A-Kennedy-Cousin-Comes-Clean


Afterward I wandered off to my older cousin Johnny’s room. He was away somewhere.



According to the prosecution’s habeas trial post trial brief - with the exception of Georgeann’s mention of a nameless beau - no one claiming to be at the Dowdle/Terrien’s that night mentioned the presence of Denis Ossorio or anyone else not related to the family - not to the police in 1975, not to the grand jury and not at the murder trial.

Where has Denis Ossorio been all these years? In the Greenwich area! Why didn’t Georgeann contact him to give his statement to the police in 1975 or to testify at the grand jury in the late 1990's or at Michael’s murder trial in 2002? Why didn’t Rushie or John Skakel or Jimmy Dowdle think to mention him as a non-family member corroborating witness to the police in 1975 or before the murder trial or during one of Michael’s numerous appeals? What is up with that?

What caused Ossorio to come forward now after Michael has been rotting in prison for 11 years? Michael claims he gave Mickey Sherman Ossorio’s name before the trial. Mickey denies it. If true, what would have prevented Mickey from contacting Ossorio? He’s listed in the phone book! No money saving motive there. If Mickey did, in fact, ignore Michael’s pleas, what kept Michael from looking him up? Oh, I forgot – hiring an attorney is like riding on the Concorde, once you buy the pricey ticket you just sit back and enjoy the ride. Even if you learn the jet is way off course, low on fuel, and a phone call could prevent it from crashing and burning? Really, Michael? How could the Hon. Thomas Bishop fall for such utter BS?

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

If this is true, is it possible for any perosn using a public defender to have a constitutionally Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #1
There are many bright, hard working public defenders. Shrike47 Oct 2013 #15
That's true, but burnout happens quickly Warpy Oct 2013 #33
I am not saying they aren't bright, but they are grossly overworked. Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #39
Overworked and severely underfunded . . . markpkessinger Oct 2013 #70
Yes elleng Oct 2013 #19
Of course but it does raise the questrion of whether the states are adequately funding these offices rug Oct 2013 #29
Sherman was not a public defender iirc yardwork Oct 2013 #79
wow...10 yrs to get a another trial. madrchsod Oct 2013 #2
Yeah, well too bad. He certainly acted guilty. Think of all the years Martha lost. marble falls Oct 2013 #5
"acted guilty"? "Think of all the years Martha lost"? pnwmom Oct 2013 #7
You don't think the lost years that Martha lost speaks for some sort of justice...... marble falls Oct 2013 #11
The years she lost doesn't mean someone should be convicted pnwmom Oct 2013 #13
And he'll admit guilt to a lesser charge at best, jump bond at worst. He's not walking.... marble falls Oct 2013 #16
He did it Scairp Oct 2013 #28
And he used a 6 Iron to beat her skull in warrant46 Oct 2013 #30
None of his DNA or fingerprints or hair or fiber pnwmom Oct 2013 #51
I guess its up to the Jury again warrant46 Oct 2013 #52
Despite the family money, this defendant did not hire even pnwmom Oct 2013 #53
An alibi defense in my state requires a defendant to file a Notice Of Alibi warrant46 Oct 2013 #55
How come you only saw a couple of these filed? pnwmom Oct 2013 #60
Not many alibis in most criminal cases warrant46 Oct 2013 #63
this is incorrect inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #102
No, that isn't it. pnwmom Nov 2013 #103
I was responding to this quote by you inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #104
What is incorrect? The lawyer did fail to put on the alibi defense pnwmom Nov 2013 #105
THIS is incorrect: The lawyer did fail to put on the alibi defense inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #107
"An" alibi defense isn't sufficient. Sherman failed to put on pnwmom Nov 2013 #108
you mean alibi witness, not defense - there was an alibi defense inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #110
No, it doesn't come down to believing what Michael told Sherman. pnwmom Nov 2013 #111
you don't know what you are talking about inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #112
I should have said that the Grand Jury testimony put Sherman on notice. pnwmom Nov 2013 #113
No one had any reason to believe he could alibi Michael. inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #115
It was up to the defense attorney never to assume anything. pnwmom Nov 2013 #116
If you read the previously posted case law cited by the State's Attorney, Susann Gill, inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #118
The previously posted case is irrelevant because the judge's ruling now pnwmom Nov 2013 #120
The judge's decision is being challenged. inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #122
This judge has written an extremely strong decision. pnwmom Nov 2013 #123
They never found the grip end of the golf club inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #94
True. But that doesn't change the fact that we don't know pnwmom Nov 2013 #96
unlike the tutor and the gardener.... inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #98
There is no reliable report that he did so. When you only weigh pnwmom Nov 2013 #99
It's not hard inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #109
Three people said he was in the next town, watching a movie. pnwmom Oct 2013 #31
Sorry, that is bullshit Scairp Oct 2013 #37
Your "case" is bullshit. The fact that the cops did a poor job on the case pnwmom Oct 2013 #38
You do understand what you are doing right? Scairp Oct 2013 #42
I'm taking the side of someone who is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. pnwmom Oct 2013 #44
didn't he admitt that climbed a tree and masturbated while peeping in her window? nt arely staircase Oct 2013 #47
That isn't murder, is it? And that tree was 300 yards pnwmom Oct 2013 #49
so that is his alibi? "I was on the other side of the house peeping in a window and arely staircase Oct 2013 #57
No, his alibi is that he was in a different town at the time the DA says pnwmom Oct 2013 #58
ok arely staircase Oct 2013 #66
Dominick Dunne ran basically a hate campaign pnwmom Oct 2013 #67
Dunne kind of had a dog in this fight Scairp Oct 2013 #75
different versions different trees inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #114
Yes Scairp Oct 2013 #68
The tree was 300 yards away from the tree near where she was found. pnwmom Oct 2013 #77
This is incorrect. inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #119
On the opposite side of the very big house from where Michael pnwmom Nov 2013 #121
more than an hour after her death? inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #124
By the state of her stomach contents, the death was no later than 10 p.m. pnwmom Nov 2013 #125
They need not agree on the time of death inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #126
But they wouldn't be able to agree that he was the killer pnwmom Nov 2013 #127
What other witnesses? inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #128
You didn't bother to read the judge's opinion, did you? pnwmom Nov 2013 #129
I thought you were still discussing the time of death inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #130
Have you read the opinion yet? n/t pnwmom Nov 2013 #131
Of course, I have. inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #132
Lie detector tests are bullshit alarimer Oct 2013 #73
Fine. There were 5 witnesses and we can pretend there were no pnwmom Oct 2013 #74
Lie detector tests are bullshit - yes they are inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #87
welcome to DU gopiscrap Nov 2013 #88
Hey! They're as accurate as a shiny new dime! rock Nov 2013 #91
No he did not. He put himself up in a tree 300 yards away pnwmom Oct 2013 #50
Mickey Sherman did present an alibi defense inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #89
because they spent those years appealing for various other reasons TorchTheWitch Oct 2013 #83
Michael Sherman was a showboating fool, and that trial was a joke alcibiades_mystery Oct 2013 #3
"in all likelihood guilty"? It never seemed that way to me. pnwmom Oct 2013 #8
I always seriously doubted his guilt. liberalhistorian Oct 2013 #25
+1,000,000 n/t duffyduff Oct 2013 #36
You're right Warpy Oct 2013 #34
Agree sbout Sherman. I followed that trial. yardwork Oct 2013 #80
I wonder how many poor people get retrials because their lawyer sucked BeyondGeography Oct 2013 #4
That was my first thought. nt madinmaryland Oct 2013 #6
Many try and a few succeed. Shrike47 Oct 2013 #17
They're not eligible..... BronxBoy Oct 2013 #40
Probably not nearly enough. But when someone with money pnwmom Oct 2013 #45
I'm very glad about this I never thought he was guilty in the first place Rene Oct 2013 #9
Me neither, I'm equally glad liberalhistorian Oct 2013 #26
Weren't Mark Furman and Lucienne Goldberg Rozlee Oct 2013 #10
Dominick Dunne nt ANOIS Oct 2013 #12
Him, too. And also Jeffrey Toobin, who had his ass handed to him tonight duffyduff Oct 2013 #24
Furman wrote a book pointing the finger at Michael TorchTheWitch Oct 2013 #85
THE Mark Fuhrman?! KamaAina Nov 2013 #133
*Fume* Rozlee Nov 2013 #134
Derp. KamaAina Nov 2013 #135
Robert Kennedy makes a very strong case for Skakel's innocence here: pnwmom Oct 2013 #14
And that's why we don't allow family on juries. Michael also admitted guilt to his father. marble falls Oct 2013 #18
Have you read the article? Kennedy made a very detailed case. pnwmom Oct 2013 #21
You are correct. There was reasonable doubt all over this case. n/t duffyduff Oct 2013 #23
Family friend Mildred “Aunt Cissy” Ix told the grand juror: inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #90
Third hand testimony from someone who couldn't remember pnwmom Nov 2013 #92
She claims her best friend's husband told her inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #93
He dressed Toobin down tonight, and Toobin had to backtrack a bit duffyduff Oct 2013 #22
If every murder case.. sendero Oct 2013 #54
I'm sure it seems like an awfully long time for him, too. nt pnwmom Oct 2013 #59
The Kennedy menfolk look out for each other. nt Laffy Kat Oct 2013 #56
Thanks, read the entire piece and then his father's take on gambling in 1962. Much to think about. freshwest Oct 2013 #82
Corrections by prosecutor Benedict, attorney, Eugene J. Riccio, and Greentown author, Tim Dumas inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #95
Well, the judge agrees with the defense that Sherman didn't pnwmom Nov 2013 #97
huh? inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #100
I was responding to your very first point: that Sherman pnwmom Nov 2013 #101
This is incorrect. Skakel did not accuse Sherman of failing to pursue an alibi defense inmyhumbleopinion Nov 2013 #106
Good. That was a witchhunt by media solely because this guy was a "Kennedy" cousin. duffyduff Oct 2013 #20
There is zero evidence that anyone other than Michael Skakel killed Martha Moxley. Sheldon Cooper Oct 2013 #27
There were no fingerprints, DNA, or witnesses that connected pnwmom Oct 2013 #32
There is zero evidence Skakel did it. This was a media-orchestrated witchhunt. n/t duffyduff Oct 2013 #35
Finally Scairp Oct 2013 #43
Then there's also zero evidence that anyone other than I killed her, too. Mr.Bill Oct 2013 #84
The burden of proof . . . markpkessinger Nov 2013 #117
Did the almost Kennedy admit it or not? Redford Oct 2013 #41
No, he didn't. n/t pnwmom Oct 2013 #65
Was there ever any doubt that they would eventually find a judge to make this ruling? hughee99 Oct 2013 #46
He will be found guilty again, as his own words damned him, irrevocably. nt msanthrope Oct 2013 #48
No, they didn't. And 5 witnesses put him in the next town pnwmom Oct 2013 #61
Yes--they did. You forget that Michael Skakel taped the book proposal where msanthrope Oct 2013 #62
What you don't realize is that he put himself in a different tree pnwmom Oct 2013 #64
I don't think Mickey Sherman believed the alibi defense, and I think he refused to suborn perjury. msanthrope Oct 2013 #71
Well, at this point he's legally innocent till proven guilty. pnwmom Oct 2013 #72
I bet he regrets masturbating in the tree (nt) Nye Bevan Oct 2013 #86
Poor lawyer treestar Oct 2013 #69
"Media" has hounded the Kennedy family... Mike Nelson Oct 2013 #76
Just another case of if one is... MicaelS Oct 2013 #78
That should be the standard in all trials: freshwest Oct 2013 #81
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Judge Sets Aside Convicti...»Reply #89