|Mickey Sherman, Furhman and Detective Steve Carroll.|
By Bob Livingstone
Mark Fuhrman is not a recognized, legitimate police investigator, he is a scandalmonger. Like Lucianne Goldberg and Linda Tripp, these politically motivated publicity seekers do not promote the truth. They publicize malicious gossip and pervert justice in the process. Needless to say, it is not possible to expose a comprehensive biography about people who pervert justice because they evade criminal prosecution through secrecy and deception, and disclosure is necessarily sketchy.
In October 1996, Alfred S. Regnery of Regnery Publishing had received a pitch from literary agent Lucianne Goldberg on behalf of her client, Linda Tripp, a secretary in Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster's office and one of the last known people to have seen him alive. Tripp had met Goldberg through her friend Tony Snow, who encouraged her to write the book, tentatively entitled, Behind Closed Doors: What I Saw at the Clinton White House. However, after Richard Vigilante, on behalf of Regnery, met with Tripp and Goldberg to discuss the project, he determined that Tripp was not prepared to tell the "full story". Nobody ever does, under conspiratorial circumstances.
After rejecting Tripp's book, Regnery introduced Mark Fuhrman to Goldberg, who became his agent. Fuhrman, via Goldberg, pitched his own seven-page proposal for a book about the Foster case, Death in Fort Marcy Park: Who Killed Vince Foster which Regnery also rejected.
In the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, in which President Clinton had allegedly lied about sex, Goldberg appeared on Larry King Live and was asked, "What do you say, Lucianne, to those who say, 'It's about sex, who cares?'"
Conveniently forgetting that her client, Mark Fuhrman, was still on probation for his 1996 perjury conviction, Goldberg replied, "Well, I'm getting a little tired of that one, too. . . . This is [about] swearing falsely, which is, to me, the worst crime in the world. Because to swear falsely, you have to ask God to be your witness."
To cut to the chase, Lucianne Goldberg and Mark Fuhrman are self-serving, self-righteous, moralistic hypocrites who are ultimately responsible for framing Michael Skakel, and he is currently in prison because they routinely produce, manufacture and publicize malicious gossip at the expense of the truth.
When Mark Fuhrman published Murder in Greenwich about the then-unsolved 1975 murder of Martha Moxley and presented the preposterous theory that the murderer was Michael Skakel, nephew of Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Senator Robert Kennedy, the case was re-opened and Skakel was subsequently convicted of murder in June 2002.
The key prosecution witness was a drug addict named Gregory Coleman. Coleman's scripted testimony was bought and paid with money that assured both his cooperation and the supply of drugs that fuelled his testimony. According to Gregory Coleman himself, "I was on drugs when I came before the grand jury" and it doesn't get any clearer than that. Coleman was supplied with the money he needed to maintain his addiction and that is the currency which was used to railroad Michael Skakel.
John Regan, a New York attorney who once represented Mr. Coleman has recently indicated that the key prosecution witness was “an incorrigible drug addict” and says he “regularly engaged in dishonest, deceitful and criminal behavior in order to obtain money from his father.” If the prosecutor expected Coleman to do anything beyond lie in order to legitimize Fuhrman and Goldberg's bizarre theories about the Moxley murder, he doesn't know anything about how to investigate a crime.
Lucianne Goldberg edited Mark Fuhrman's book and conveniently ignored the fact that he is a convicted felon who has committed what she calls "the worst crime in the world". Let's repeat her words because the irony is delicious; "This is [about] swearing falsely, which is, to me, the worst crime in the world. Because to swear falsely, you have to ask God to be your witness." I suppose it's okay to cultivate the false testimony of a drug addict like Gregory Coleman, or to excuse some perjury and to condemn that which interferes with the agenda of Lucianne Goldberg.
The persecution of Michael Skakel began with a crime and ended with an atrocity. As soon as Dominick Dunne was passed a stolen copy of a private detective's report on the murder of Martha Moxley, Lucianne Goldberg called. Dominick Dunne was reading the report "and then, at that very moment," Dunne recalls, "I got a call from Lucianne Goldberg. The stolen report proves that Ken Littleton murdered Martha Moxley but in the hands of incompetent investigators and agenda-driven publicity seekers, the truth is conveniently adjusted. It is very interesting to note that Mark Fuhrman's book was edited by Lucianne Goldberg, because when push came to shove, Gregory Coleman attributed the following quotattion to Michael Skakel ["I'm gonna get away with murder. I'm a Kennedy"] and "Kennedy" is the holy grail of a Goldberg target.
Dominick Dunne's novel ''A Season in Purgatory,'' was based on the Moxley case, and when he suggested to Mr. Fuhrman that he write his next book about the Moxley murder, he obliged. Fuhrman wrote ''Murder in Greenwich,'' Intelligent book reviewers were not impressed and indicated that "among Fuhrman's controversial opinions is his conclusion that the killer is Moxley's neighbor Michael Skakel, a nephew of Ethel Kennedy and at the time the same age as Martha Moxley. Fuhrman argues that only Michael had both the opportunity and the temperament to commit such a crime."
Indeed, reviewers exposed the flaws in Furhman's arguments because the suggestion that Michael Skakel had either the temperment or the opportunity to commit such a crime is simply foolish. Michael Skakel was childish, skinny and drunk on the night that Martha Moxley was murdered.
Martha Moxley died on the evening of Oct. 30, 1975, in a frenzy of blows from a golf club. The blows had been so powerful that the club had shattered into three pieces, one of which was used to stab Miss Moxley though the neck. This was clearly not the work of a skinny, carefree, drunk, 15-year-old-child. This was the work of a raging, physically powerful madman like Michael Skakel's tutor.
Mark Fuhrman is clearly a total incompetent when it comes to his capacity to solve a nymurder, and he is so pathetic in that regard that he even wrote a book to claim that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone. Needless to say, his ability to embrace disgraced fiction like the preposterous claim that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone speaks for itself.
And while that is merely history, the current imprisonement of Michael Skakel is clearly nothing short of a grotesque miscarriage of justice.
The best thing about the Fuhrman investigation is that the Greenwich police did not cooperate with Fuhrman and investigators discounted his inquiry as irrelevant -because that is exactly what it was.
Mark Fhurman is not a competent, criminal investigator, he is a childish fool who manufactures evidence to suit his personal fancy. It doesn't take a genious to figure it out -the public gets it. Indeed one of you posted the following comment in the
following message board:
"During the initial stages of the investigation, Mark Fuhrman over and over and over again on all sorts of tv programs told us that Scott's alibi did not fit the timeline. But alas!! That all changed when the bodies were found. Now the timeline is groovy with Mark. What a chump."
It is not about the Moxley murder but it clearly betrays his common, modus operandi.
If Mark Fhurman needs "evidence" he just "makes it up" irrespective of guilt or innocence.
It is rather ironic that without the stolen Sutton Report that Dunne, Fuhrman and Goldberg used to implicate Michael Skakel, we would not be in a position to insist that he is not guilty. Rushton Skakel Sr. (Michael's father), paid a large sum of money to Sutton Associates to get prejudicial reports on his children, so that he would know, in advance, what kind of case the prosecution might try to bring against his children. Sutton Associates did not write a prejudicial report against Ken Littleton, and that is what makes their findings so explosive. Even without prejudice, Ken Littleton repeatedly and consistently implicates himself and that is what you call reliable evidence
These are the facts that the "non-prejudicial", Sutton Report exposed about Ken Littleton:
On October 30, 1975, a twenty-three year-old teacher and coach from the exclusive Brunswick School in Greenwich, Connecticut, spent his first night in residence as a tutor for the Skakel family children. It was a job, and a night, which dramatically changed the course of Ken Littleton's life for the worse. Young, athletic, handsome, and a recent graduate from Williams, it seemed his future was full of nothing but promise. In the wake of Martha Moxley's murder, however, Ken Littleton fell victim to heavy substance abuse and extreme psychiatric problems. He was arrested in the summer of 1976, on Nantucket, for grand larceny, breaking and entering, and burglary. His criminal record would grow from that point to include shoplifting, assault and battery, and numerous DWI convictions. Within five years, he was working on a loading dock.
Time has erased all doubt, with respect to the unanswered questions that implicate Ken Littleton.
While there is no doubt Littleton was profoundly affected by Martha Moxley's murder and its subsequent investigation, to what end his problems can be attributed to this event is uncertain. He is a haunted man, but why? Is he somehow responsible? Is he involved in some complicity, some conspiracy?
Ken Littleton is a wild card š literally and figuratively. If he is entirely innocent of any involvement in the murder of Martha Moxley, he has certainly gone to great lengths to make it seem otherwise.
A couple of years ago, the tabloid television program, A Current Affair, ambushed Littleton in Canada for an expose-style interview. Anxious, stuttering, and shaking uncontrollably, Ken initially tried to flee the encounter, but then awkwardly relented. He made a few comments and answered some questions while remaining just barely within the realm of coherence. He is a man who suffers from severe depression and alcoholism, and his demeanor is inherently disabled. In this regard, he is his own worst accuser.
Littleton's crime spree on Nantucket, which he attributed to his drinking problem, brought him swiftly to the forefront of speculation in the investigation of Martha Moxley's murder. The Greenwich Police Department's efforts to attach the crime to Tommy Skakel had proven futile. Their focus now shifted. Defenders of Littleton insist the continued harassment of the Greenwich Police š who frequently questioned Littleton while he was working š lead to his dismissal from teaching jobs.
Littleton probably did lose teaching jobs because of his status as a suspect and the Greenwich Police's continued efforts to build a case against him, but he has only himself to blame for their interest. His foolish crimes on Nantucket were a red flag to investigators. Furthermore, to this day, he has left many questions unanswered about his actions and whereabouts on the night of October 30, 1975.