Dead Certain: The Martha Moxley Murder

Episode: "About Those Confessions..."

Host: Andrew Goldman (NBC News Studios)
Released: December 16, 2025

Overview

This episode dissects the confessions that were central to the 2002 conviction of Michael Skakel for the 1975 murder of Martha Moxley in Greenwich, Connecticut. Host Andrew Goldman scrutinizes the reliability of the so-called confession witnesses, the influence of the abusive Elan School environment, prosecutor tactics, and how the prosecution's closing arguments ultimately swayed the jury despite the lack of physical evidence. Interviews with Skakel, witnesses, and journalists challenge the confessions’ veracity and explore how pressure, rumor, money, and memory shaped the narrative and verdict.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

The Trial’s Climax and Immediate Aftermath

• Closing Arguments & Verdict
  • The episode opens with the climactic week of Michael Skakel's 2002 trial, highlighting the impact of Prosecutor Jonathan Benedict's closing argument.
  • “I thought it was one of the greatest closing arguments I have ever seen... For the first time, I thought the possibility of a conviction existed.” —Dominick Dunne, journalist (01:19)
  • The jury deliberates and on June 7, 2002, finds Skakel guilty. Skakel himself reacts with shock and disbelief.
  • “All of a sudden it's closing and I'm guilty... Took my breath away. Absolutely. Last thing I thought would happen.” —Michael Skakel (02:19)
• Personal Fallout
  • Skakel is sent to Garner Correctional Institute, separated from his young son, with his marriage falling apart.
  • The Moxley family, especially Martha’s mother Dorothy and brother Jon, express relief and the hope for closure after decades of uncertainty, although Dorothy’s mood is characterized more by relief than joy (03:16).

The Prosecution’s Case: Evidence and Confession Witnesses

• Weak Forensics, Strong Storytelling
  • “There was no forensic evidence, no physical evidence, no fingerprints, no DNA. There was nothing connecting him to that crime.” —Dominick Dunne (06:39)
  • The prosecution’s case leaned heavily on witness testimony and alleged confessions, especially those dating back to Michael’s time at the controversial Elan School.
• Elan School: A Pressure Cooker
  • Michael’s past at Elan, a harsh boarding school for troubled youth, becomes the crucible for many “confession” stories.
  • The show describes how Michael’s personality—eccentric, damaged, and rebellious—made him a convenient target for suspicion (07:05–08:43).
  • Ken Littleton, the Skakel family’s former tutor, described Michael as a violent and unstable youth, but his accusations lack corroboration and seem more rumor-driven than factual (08:43–09:32).
• Anatomy of the Key 'Confessions'
  • The star witnesses who claimed Skakel confessed were three former Elan students: John Higgins, Gregory Coleman, and Geron Ridge (who later recanted).
  • Host Goldman methodically unpacks how Higgins—after learning of a substantial reward and facing financial difficulties—changed his story from vague knowledge to claiming a direct confession. The episode questions whether the promise of money influenced his memory (11:15–17:20).
    • “As you may recall…Higgins first told police he’d never heard a confession. But after learning about the $100,000 reward, he changed his story.” —Andrew Goldman (16:08)
  • Similarly, Coleman’s reliability is called into question due to his serious drug problems, inconsistent stories, and the prospect of reward money. Coleman at times said he’d heard Skakel confess multiple times, but changed this under oath, citing heroin withdrawal (20:12–21:30).
  • Despite their checkered credibility, the prosecution presented them as crucial pieces.
    • “Just because someone ends up in jail or someone has a disease of drug addiction definitely means they're a liar?” —Greg Coleman, defending himself (22:36)
    • However, their testimonies were deemed questionable at best by legal professionals and even by those involved in the case.

The Role and Ethics of Reward Money

• Motivations for Testimony
  • After conviction, it’s revealed that the reward money, ultimately less than promised, was split among Segan, Coleman’s widow, and Higgins. This casts further doubt on the motivations behind the incriminating statements and the reliability of the witnesses (25:26–26:23).
  • “I did go through a lot of bullshit. Yeah, I’ll take it. Five grand.” —Chuck Segan on accepting reward money after testifying (26:12)

The Elan School Experience: Cultivating False Confessions?

• Ritualized Abuse & Forced Admissions
  • The school applied relentless psychological and physical pressure on Skakel to confess, including forced group confrontations, public shaming, and violence (29:12–36:20).
  • “They put a sign around my neck that said, hi, my name is Michael Skakel, and I’m a murderer... I had to repeat that seven times a day...” —Michael Skakel (35:36)
  • Michael, and multiple other former students, insist he never confessed—at most, under relentless pressure, he’d say “I don’t know” to stop the confrontations (37:06–37:12).
  • Even Joe Ricci, the head of Elan, stated before his death that Michael never confessed and accused others of being motivated by greed (37:53).
  • “He would have shared it with me. I trusted him... Michael was way too smart to have trusted those two. Coleman and Higgins, the two biggest bullies in the place who had beaten him alive, not only him, myself. Why would he trust them?” —Kim Freehill, former Elan student (39:17)
• Testing Memory and Motive in Testimony
  • Chuck Segan, despite testifying for the prosecution, says by the time of the trial he didn’t believe Michael was truly guilty, but admits the emotional toll and breakdowns Michael experienced raised questions (27:13–27:30).

Alibi Gaps: The Shakespeare Testimony

• Andrea Shakespeare’s Shifting Memories
  • Andrea Shakespeare’s trial testimony, which placed Michael at the Skakel house when others left, sharply undercut his alibi—yet her recollection differed significantly from what she told police in 1975 and 1991 (41:09–46:27).
  • The episode reveals that her recollection 25 years later contradicted prior statements and may have been influenced by outside sources, including Mark Fuhrman’s book and extensive media coverage (47:21–47:44).
  • “Had memory failed her twice? Or had she, like so many, simply become convinced by the relentless media coverage that Michael Skakel had to be guilty?” —Andrew Goldman (47:44)

Salacious Narrative: The Tree Masturbation Story

• Weaponized Weirdness
  • Michael’s admission years later that he had climbed a tree near Martha’s window to masturbate became central to the state’s argument, used to explain away potential DNA and provide a “reason” for guilt (48:20–49:29).
  • Skakel insists the story is true but not relevant to the murder and only admitted it due to his commitment to honesty in recovery (50:05–52:29).
  • “If I’m not honest, then I’m in pain.” —Michael Skakel (52:15)
  • The prosecution nevertheless wielded the story as suggestive evidence.

How the State Built the Case Despite Weak Evidence

• Appeals, Brady Violations, and Defense Errors
  • Michael’s 2007 appeal argued the unreliability of confession witnesses and alleged the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence (Brady violations), including alternative suspect sketches and reports. The appeal failed, with the court blaming the defense for not requesting evidence (53:43–56:38).
  • The episode suggests the prosecution’s narrative and witness flaws were compounded by a weak defense—foreshadowing deeper exploration of attorney Mickey Sherman’s failings in the next episode.
  • Notably, evidence is presented disproving the prosecution’s theory that Michael fabricated his masturbation story to preempt DNA—in fact, he told this story to friends and relatives years before DNA evidence was ever used in criminal trials (56:38–56:59).
    • “The story that he was telling at the time of trial was the same story that I’ve been hearing for 20 years. I had heard this story since 1983.” —Robert F. Kennedy Jr., recounting what he’d heard (56:38)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Sensationalism and Weakness of the Case:
  • “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want...” —Dominick Dunne quoting Donald Rumsfeld, on prosecution’s problematic witnesses (23:54)
  • “There are many ways to reward jailhouse snitches… but if you have snitches who aren’t incarcerated, the best enticement is money.” —Andrew Goldman (25:26)
• On the Power of Suggestion and Memory:
  • “Had memory failed her twice? Or had she, like so many, simply become convinced by the relentless media coverage that Michael Skakel had to be guilty?” —Andrew Goldman (47:44)
• On Psychological Pressure at Elan:
  • “They wanted an admission? Oh, they absolutely wanted an admission. And I’m like, this is insane... I finally realized the only way to stop them is just to say ‘I don’t know.’” —Michael Skakel (36:22)
• On Owning Up to the Tree Story:
  • “If I’m not honest, then I’m in pain.” —Michael Skakel (52:15)

Key Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment Description | |-----------|---------------------------------------------------------| | 01:09 | Impact of closing arguments; Dunne and the possibility of conviction | | 02:19 | Skakel’s reaction to shock guilty verdict | | 03:16 | Moxley family expresses relief after conviction | | 06:43 | Dunne and Skakel: No physical evidence connected Michael | | 08:43 | Ken Littleton’s dark view of Michael; rumors discussed | | 11:15 | Dissection of "confession" witnesses Higgins and Coleman| | 16:42 | Higgins’s changing story after reward introduced | | 21:30 | Coleman’s fluctuating accounts and addiction struggles | | 25:26 | Reward money split among witnesses; snitch motivation | | 35:36 | Michael describes the Elan humiliation rituals | | 39:17 | Kim Freehill challenges credibility of confession witnesses | | 41:09 | Andrea Shakespeare’s trial testimony scrutinized | | 48:20 | Prosecution’s use of masturbation story | | 52:15 | Skakel on honesty and recovery | | 53:43 | The 2007 appeal and Brady violation claims | | 56:38 | Evidence that Skakel told “tree” story long before DNA possible | | 58:21 | Teaser for next episode: Skakel’s defense problems |

Tone and Style

The episode maintains a skeptical, investigative tone, laced with dry sarcasm and transparency about the difficulties of memory, trauma, and bias in high-profile cases. Goldman is methodical but empathetic, allowing space for the messy humanity of all involved while exposing the mechanisms—both legal and psychological—that led to Skakel’s conviction.

Conclusion

This installment makes a compelling case that Michael Skakel’s conviction depended on precarious witness testimony—shaped by the toxic pressure of Elan School, financial incentives, and dubious memory—rather than hard evidence. It lays the groundwork for a deeper critique of both the prosecution’s and defense’s roles in the controversial trial, with promises of more revelations about attorney Mickey Sherman’s inadequacies in the next episode.