Michael Skakel was convicted today for the murder of Martha Moxley. Now, I am all for justice and people have their day in court and bringing closure to certain issues. However, I think the jury convicted on largely circumstantial evidence and had nothing concrete in terms of fingerprints, eyewitnesses, or DNA. The "evidence" was mainly the memories of people who remember Skakel confessing to the crime while in a drunken stupor. Now, I know that may seem like good evidence but memories are hazy and I have to wonder why people would just now come forward when this was told to them years ago. I'm not defending the man as much as I am defending the judicial process and its integrety....I would not be surprised if an appeal was granted and this was all retried one more time...I think the evidence was a bit flimsy and was held together by dental floss. And some of the theories...oy vey....you would think we were watching The Young and the Chestless...I mean Restless...