Episode 792: The Murder of Martha Moxley (Part 2)

Hey weirdos. I'm Ash. >> And I'm Elena. >> And this is Morbid. [music]. [music]. This is morbid. Morbid. [singing and music] in the afternoon. Um, and I'm trying to think of uh I saw. cuz like last time I think we were like, "Okay, like set your timers cuz we're. about to start the episode." I saw some.

funny ass people being like, "It starts. at 69 seconds, so like [laughter] it. starts at 0.03 seconds.". >> So now you're never going to know when. it starts. [laughter]. >> So I think you guys are funny. >> You guys are funny. >> But I don't think we have a ton of. business. Um, just some the normal stuff. If you. guys haven't bought tickets to the live. show at Radio City, the 27th, >> buy tickets to it cuz I'm telling you, it's going to be a blast. We've we've. really nailed some stuff down. >> Yep. We're reeling it in. >> It's going to be fun. We have some fun.

merch. >> Yes. >> Um we have a special guest and it's just. going to be a really fun time. >> Special fits from Romania. >> Yeah. Literally. >> So, get your butt there. >> and then you can just wander around New. York. >> Yeah. All night. >> Actually, don't because I've been s I. mean, you shouldn't anyway, but like. >> Yeah, it was always just a joke to begin. with. I keep seeing these reports on the. news the last couple days of. >> I don't watch the news. >> People are like they're getting film of. like in the middle of the night people. are just going into manholes and then. some people are like crawling out of. manholes. It's just like a group of men.

>> What? >> Who and they don't know what they're. doing. >> Are they the Teenage Mutant Ninja. Turtles? >> That's the running joke. >> That's the general consensus. >> But that's very dangerous. Like don't do. that. >> Like if you're one of those people, stop. doing that. Also, like emerging from a. manhole, you could get sachary banked. real quick. >> Absolutely. >> That's crazy. >> Yeah, I'm saying. >> I was like, you're going into the. sewers. >> That's what I'm saying. >> Nobody knows what they're doing. Nobody. really knows what the situation is. It's. been a couple nights of them fig like.

seeing these videos. >> I really hate that. >> So, there So, that's going on. >> That's spooky. >> That's something that's pretty spooky. Uh so, don't do that. But also, um, on a. totally different note, um, what you. should do is pre-order The Butcher. Legacy. >> Honestly, it's not even that much. different of a note because your book. has some weird [ __ ] going on. >> Exactly. So, there's that. And also, um, I don't know if you've noticed, some of. you have, I'm doing a little uh, series, like a video series.

>> I'm trying my hand at it. It's a lot of. work. I don't know how to put these. videos together. I'm Anybody who puts. videos together and edits and does all. this stuff all by themselves influencers. in the wild. You have a [laughter] tough. job. >> Props to you for being able to edit a. video cuz it's hard. >> It is hard. >> Uh but yeah, so I'm doing a little video. series where I'm going to go through the. chapters of The Butcher Legacy and give. you give you a little sneak peek of. every chapter. Little hints Easter eggs. >> Yeah, Easter eggs. Exactly. >> So, keep a lookout for those. I'm. putting them on TikTok and Instagram. Um.

I think a couple of people might have. thought it had to do with um the same. Slicer game that that Morbid is doing. with. >> Huntter Killer. Those are two different. things just in case you were confused. >> So these are not like game pieces or. anything like that. We'll do another. video. >> Yeah, for sure. Um, so these are just. keep a lookout for them. I'm calling. them the evidence recovery series. So. keep an eye out. >> I love it. It's so fun. It was a very. good idea. >> It's been a really fun thing to do. Uh, and I'm trying to think if we have any. other business. >> I think it starts now.

>> I think it starts. >> Oh, wait. Also, pre-order the Salem. Slicer if if you want that game. The. game is so much fun. >> It's incredible. Yeah, it's really fun. >> A lot of people are getting theirs in. the mail, like the ones that we sent. out. And like our friends and family are. so excited. >> I'm so excited to see everybody get. them. Um, but yeah, I think that's it. >> Okay, it starts now. >> Now. >> All right, Carl, stop your timer. >> All right, starts now. All right, so. when we last left, you guys. >> Yeah, you left us on a [ __ ]. cliffhanger. >> I sure did because I talked about the. Sutton report that was put together that.

was never made public. Only bits and. pieces of it. I. >> swear. Yeah, I think that's the weirdest. thing ever. Um but one of the things. that did come out from it was that Tommy. Skakel lied about his whereabouts or or. more his actions that night. >> Yeah. >> Um cuz remember he said he just like. went inside and started a project that. didn't exist. >> on Abraham Lincoln. >> that was proved to not [laughter] exist. >> And the teachers were like nobody. >> But what else came out in this report. was um some stuff about Michael Skakel.

>> Interesting. I did not see that coming. When you said that, I said claw. >> Yeah, it's pretty crazy. Now, as private. investigators were digging into the. Martha Moxley case, the state's attorney. was doing their best to keep the press. and the public, you know, in the loop. with regard to the newly reopened. investigation. Among other things, John. Solomon was eager to employ the latest. technology in DNA cuz obviously that's. coming out. That feels like it's going. to open a million doors. >> Yeah, that's huge.

>> They hope that was going to identify the. suspect like bar none. The news that. they might soon be able to identify the. killer did prompt both Tommy and Michael. Skakel to have a change of heart with. their initial stories. >> Oh. >> So that so the word comes out like, "Hey, maybe we could identify someone. like we have DNA. We have this sudden. report." They were like, "Actually, we'd. love to tell you what we were actually. doing that night.". >> All righty. >> Um and they did admit to police that. they lied about the night of the murder. and they would like to offer new alibis. >> Okay. which obviously in and of itself.

does not identify them as murderers. >> It just doesn't look good. >> because unfortunately they were. teenagers at the time. So you have to. look at it like that. >> Uh in Tommy's case, the alibi was more. or less similar to what he had offered. the first time he was interviewed, but. he dropped the story about doing the. project that didn't exist. >> The teachers were like, "Bud, you really. got to stop this cuz we have no proof of. that. >> You're not doing a project on Abraham. Lincoln is just not doing. >> uh but he coped to being drunk at the. time." Okay, >> cuz remember they were young. They were.

like 15 years old at this point. They're. young. >> Michael's new alibi, on the other hand, was. >> surprising cuz he had said he was at. another cousin's house, right? >> Yeah. So, like you just said, according. to Michael, he returned from his. cousin's house around 11:00 p.m. Remember, >> but he didn't go to bed as he had. previously stated before. He said he got. home around 11:00 p.m. and he just went. to bed. I thought that was a little cray. cray because like these kids all like to. have a lot of fun and go around, you. know. >> Now, this is a little shocking.

>> Okay, >> what he did, he brought this forward. >> Okay. >> Uh instead, he claimed he wandered. around the neighborhood. looking into the bedroom windows of his. female neighbors. >> Oh. >> Until that's not even the shocking part. >> Oh. until he returned home and climbed. the tree outside of Martha's window and. masturbated in the tree. >> Oh, what the actual [ __ ]. >> Yeah, he just told investigators that.

>> Yeah, he said that's what I was actually. doing. >> And what' they do when they heard that? >> I mean, I wasn't there, so I don't know. what their exact reactions were. >> How'd they proceed? I I imagine they. said, "Oh, >> yeah.". >> Oh, okay. >> The [ __ ]. >> Um, so what made his new alibi so. surprising wasn't just that it outed him. as a teenage peeping tom in a public. masturbator. Like those are pretty. [laughter].

>> that's a big deal. >> Like that's that's a lot. But. >> not a public masturbator. >> I think the more what's crazy is the. more shocking thing was that he. essentially placed himself at the scene. of the crime. >> crime scene. Yeah. >> Making himself now, not his brother. Tommy, the last person to maybe see. Martha alive. >> Okay. >> The new alibi wasn't just a bizarre. twist. >> That's just not even an alibi. No, >> you can't call that an alibi. >> I guess it I mean, it is because it. doesn't prove he murdered her.

>> His alibi is that he was masturbating. outside her bedroom window. >> I'm not out here saying it's a good. thing to be doing. >> [ __ ] But technically it's an al you're. telling them where you were. But and it. doesn't obviously make him just from. that a murderer. >> No, just a creep. >> Just a creep. But what the bigger. problem there is like they were saying. he placed himself at the scene of the. crime essentially. So it's like that's. what makes it more like. >> like sure that's an alibi but it's not a.

good scene of the crime. >> Yeah. It also called into question the. original timeline and it raised new. questions about the reliability of the. original investigation which was already. >> yeah pretty bad. >> shaky. Now within days of the murder. investigators had ruled Michael Skaggel. out as a suspect. That was in the. beginning based on the fact that he was. confirmed to have been at his cousin's. house when they thought the murder. occurred around 1000 p.m. >> Okay. >> He was they the cousins were like, "Yep, he was there.". >> Yeah. >> But the only reason This is wild to me.

The only reason investigators believe. the murder occurred at 10 p.m. was not. based on medical examiner evidence. >> Oh. >> Like it should be. >> Yep. >> They were basing it on reports from. neighbors about the agitated barking. dogs in the neighborhood. >> that were barking at 10 p.m. >> Got to be [ __ ] kidding me. >> Yeah. >> You That's bas That's the same as like. eyewitness testimony. Like that's never. that's not that reliable. And it's. actually even worse because I was going.

to say that place that on the same level. as eyewitness testimony. >> You're literally saying animals made. noises. >> at a time one night, >> so someone must have been being. murdered. >> And you're relying on people's memory of. what time that was, which like again, people have shaky memories. >> And just the fact that dogs bark. >> Yeah, >> dogs bark. >> My dog barks for no [ __ ] reason. Sometimes. >> my dog barks sometimes when they see.

their own reflection in the window. >> Yep. >> My dog barks at my other dog when my. other dog is laying down and she wants. to play. >> Yep. >> My dog barks sometimes when they fart. >> To bark. >> My dog burp. My dog barks when she. farts, too. >> Sometimes it upsets them or the other. one barks when the other one farts. >> Dolores, when she farts, she she chases. her butt and barks and I'm like, "Bitch, that was you. >> That was you." It's almost like she's. like mad at her butt for betraying her. >> That's the thing. Like dogs are awesome.

>> Yeah, >> dogs are awesome, >> but they're going to do wy [ __ ] for no. reason, >> but they're barking at their own farts. So, it's like we're we're using them as. a forensic tool now. Like, what when did. that happen? >> Yeah, they're not canine dogs, babe. >> That's insane to me to be like, "Well, dogs barked around 10 p.m., so that was. obviously when the murder happened.". It's like, nope, I think they were just. barking. >> And again, like, not even to take the. dogs out of it, you're relying on the. neighbor saying what time that happened. That's no good. >> What's even worse with this is the. medical examiner had never really agreed.

with investigators stated time of death. >> and they're they're the expert I would. say on. >> the medical examiner. Yeah. They got the. actual bi physiological evidence that. shows that this is when. >> they had actually placed Martha's time. of death anywhere between 9:30 p.m. and. 500 a.m. >> That's a big window. It was only because. investigators believed the local dogs to. be more reliable than the medical. examiner essentially. >> that they were able to rule Michael. Skagel out in the first place. That was. the only reason he was ruled out.

>> That is so. >> because he had an alibi for when the. dogs were barking. >> That's crazy. >> Not when the medical examiner is saying. it could have occurred. >> That's crazy. >> Yeah. Also, now that he'd admitted to. trying to trying to watch Martha through. her window after he'd returned from his. cousin's home, >> Michael hadn't just ruled himself back. in as a suspect. He'd effectively moved. himself to the top of the list. >> Yeah. You're masturbating outside of her. window. >> and he's at the scene. >> Yeah. >> That's She was 200 ft from her house,

right? >> Like you're there. >> Yep. Now, although no one outside Sutton. Associates knew it at the time, there. was a lot more that made Michael Skakel. a strong suspect than just a bizarre new. alibi. And this was the Sutton report. was like like their family hired that. that law group. So, this is interesting. >> Yeah. According to the Sutton report, because remember, we got little bits and. pieces of it. >> Yeah. Not the whole thing. At the quote, "At the very least, it is fair to say. Michael Skagel has, for whatever reason,

often acted out in certain ways to. arouse suspicion." Reportedly, Michael. once even confessed to the murder of. Martha Moxley in a therapy session while. a patient at the Elon treatment center. >> Oh, [ __ ]. >> In fact, while he was at the Elon. School, Michael confessed multiple times. to murdering Martha Moxley in both group. therapy settings and in private. conversations. >> Okay. Although he would later recant at. least one of those confessions in an. email correspondence with one of the.

other students at Elon, the discovery of. that information would have been damning. if it had been made public and it wasn't. at the time. >> That's so tough. I know of like therapy. >> Yeah, you have to be careful with that. stuff. When he was informed of his son's. confession at the Elon School, Rush and. Skakel immediately pulled the plug on. the entire investigation, paying any. remaining fees and ending multiple years. of work. >> Huh. >> Since everyone involved in the private. investigation had signed a. confidentiality agreement,

>> I wish you guys could see my face right. now cuz my face is saying, >> "What? >> What?" Uh well, all the people involved. in the private investigation had signed. a confidentiality agreement, so they. were all prohibited from disclo. disclosing any information contained in. their report to law enforcement or to. the public. >> And NDA, brother, >> once again, it seemed that Skel's money. and power had kind of shielded his. family from any responsibility. But. there was one thing he hadn't counted. on. >> Stop what? It was true that every. investigator on the case had signed a.

confidentiality agreement, >> but. >> but the young employees who'd been. tasked with organizing the information. for the investigators had not been. required to sign anything. [laughter]. >> When that young man, one young man who. shall not be named, >> he has remained anonymous learned that. the report and Skel's confession to. murder were being shelved and would not. see the light of day. He stole the. report and sent it to Dominic Dunn. Not. all heroes wear capes. >> Because he had seen Dominic Dunn talking.

about the case on the news and he was. like, I think you should have this. >> Wow. That's always like my favorite part. of a story when one person is just like, I think you should look at this. >> I love when one person just is like. >> Dominic Dunn had built a respectable. career for himself as a writer covering. crime, but he al wasn't exactly an. investigative journalist at the time. like which. >> he actually shifted a lot after the. murder of his daughter, >> which is what was required if the Sutton. report was going to be put to good use. You need an investigative journalist of. some sort. >> So rather than pursue the story himself,

Dunn forwarded the report to former Los. Angeles police detective turned author. Mark Ferman. Okay. >> Whom Dunn didn't know personally, but he. respected the work he had done. >> Okay. Now, although he would eventually. make a name for himself as an author and. journalist, Ferman first became a. household name. Some people might be. like, "Wait a minute. >> The name sounded familiar.". >> He was he became a household name across. America during the OJ Simpson trial. >> Oh, okay. >> In 1994, he was an LAPD detective and he.

investigated the murder of Simpson's. wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her. friend Ron Goldman. >> and was the investigator who found the. notorious bloody glove. >> Oh [ __ ] During the trial though, several witnesses for the defense. testified that Ferman had previously. made racist statements in their. presence, leading the defense to charge. that Furman had tampered with evidence. in order to obtain a conviction. Uh. despite there being no evidence to. suggest the glove had been planted by. anyone, the controversy and. documentation of you know his past.

essentially the the remarks he had made, it made him a pariah everywhere like in. law enforcement you know he retired in. 1995 the next day the next day the very. next day the next year and he did write. Murder in Brentwood about the Simpson. murder in the trial. Oh. >> okay. >> Murder in Brentwood had really impressed. Dominic Dunn. Um, and so when he came. across the Sutton report, Ferman was the. first person that came to Dun's mind. Okay. Because he was like, "He knows how. to do this shit.". >> Yeah. >> Now, after reading the Sutton report,

Ferman placed a call to Dorothy Moxley, who by then had moved to New Jersey to. live near her son. >> Okay. Unlike Dunn, who'd written a. fictional account of the case, Furman. wanted to write a non-fiction account. and not only intended to emphasize the. countless mistakes made by law. enforcement, but he also wanted to. identify Martha's killer in this book. >> Uh he later said, "I felt like I had a. heavy burden on my shoulders. I just. told this woman who's been waiting 23. years for some solution to her.

daughter's homicide that I could solve. it. So, I had no choice then. I actually. had to go out and solve it." Now, with. Dorothy's consent, it's a lot to task. yourself with. >> Now, with Dorothy's consent, Ferman got. to work digging into the case, but. immediately ran into problems when word. of his intentions reached the local. police. >> Ah, sensing that Furman was planning to. smear them in the investigation with his. book, Ferman was shut out by local law. enforcement and claims he he claims that.

he was threatened with arrest if he went. near any residents of Bell Haven. >> Allegedly. Allegedly, that's what is. claimed. >> Fortunately, he soon found an ally in. retired Greenwich detective Steve Carol, >> the original lead on the Moxley case. >> Okay. >> He later said his absence of ego at not. being able to solve this case was a. great contribution because he admitted. things that I think other detectives. wouldn't have. >> Okay. >> Which is like really impressive that. Steve Carol I like that he said his lack. of ego at not being able to solve this.

case. Like he didn't go into this being. like whatever we did all we could and. this isn't my fault. Like he was like no. I think we [ __ ] up along the way and. that's solved. >> You have to be willing to admit fault. >> Yeah. Once Dorothy Moxley gave her. consent for Carol to speak with Ferman, the former detective became Ferman's. greatest asset as he attempted to. navigate a community that was very. vocally opposed to his presence. Now, the problem with the Moxley case is. that regardless of how many mistakes. were made in the investigation, the fact. remained that there also was little for.

investigators to go like work with here. Journalist Joel Lang wrote, "As damning. as the evidence may seem, it proves. little. >> Anyone might have," and this is true, you have to look at first when you first. look at this, you say, "Oh my god, how. could it how could you not?" And it's. true. It's It looks damning. It does. When you really pull apart the pieces. though, you go, "Well, you have to think. of every part of this. >> cuz anybody could have taken. >> anyone might have dropped the club. outside and anyone might have picked it.

up.". >> Who knows if one of them had just had. the club, dropped it outside somewhere, someone found somebody stumbled upon it. >> No one the police interviewed said that. they saw Tommy with the golf club. >> Okay. >> So, there's just that. And I'm just that. just from like a purely like sure. perspective. You know what I mean? Like. sure, somebody is it likely. I don't know. >> Yeah. >> You know, like it's just But you have to. think of these things. >> It's too bad they weren't able to get. any prints off of it. >> I know. But I don't know. Maybe somebody.

was wearing gloves. Who knows? >> Maybe. >> Now, in fact, even with all the. circumstantial evidence pointing towards. the Skakel house, investigators still. had the wrong person as their prime. suspect in the case. Of course, the only. people who knew that were contractually. bound to secrecy cuz remember, they were. going after Tommy, >> right? But Ferman may have had the one piece of. evidence that would break the case wide. open and finally shed light on the. identity of Martha's killer. >> Okay. >> In the spring of 1998, Ferman's book, Murder in Greenwich, Who Killed Martha.

Moxley was published, much to the. consternation and very much to the. eyeire of the investigators at the. Greenwich Police Department and in the. state's Attorney's Office. In the book, Ferman laid out the facts as they were. known, paying particular attention to. the myriad of mistakes made by. investigators, and asserts the widely. accepted theory that a wealthy and. powerful family had stymied the. investigation from the start. >> I like that word, stymied. >> But the real bombshell was that Ferman. took the rare step of naming the person.

he believed was responsible for Martha's. murder. >> That's bold. >> He named Michael Skakel. >> Interesting. You got to be. >> you got to have balls to do that because. [sighs]. >> what for so many reasons. >> Yeah, Murder and Greenwich was an. immediate bestseller and it also. attracted scathing criticism. Sure. >> Particularly from those Ferman sought to. undermine with the book. >> Uh like Frank Gar, a former Greenwich. detective who was working for the state.

at the time the book was published said, "Ferman has the luxury of not having to. back up anything he says. So he can name. anybody he wants and he can say anything. he wants in that book which I was like. technically you can't. >> No, >> not if he doesn't want to be sued. >> I was gonna say. >> But Greenwich Police Chief Peter Robin. shared a similar sentiment about the. work telling a reporter his real intent. was to make money. I don't think he was. necessarily attempting to solve a crime. Like damn. Okay. So relying heavily on. the Sutton report and interviews. conducted with Michael Skakel's. classmates at the Elon School, Ferman.

laid out a very plausible case against. Skakel while also exposing how the case. had been so badly botched by. investigators. >> in the first place. >> Mhm. >> Furman told a reporter, "I can find very. little they did correctly in the. investigation. I don't want to be smug. or arrogant about this, but I obviously. know much more than they do.". >> Dang. Like [laughter] [ __ ] Now, on June. 18th, just one month after the. publication of his book, Connecticut's. Chief Court Administrator Aaron Mint. announced that a one-person grand jury.

comprised of Superior Court Justice. George Thim was being called upon to. review the evidence against Michael. Skaggel. >> Never in my life have I heard of a. oneperson grand jury. That's the And. also, oh, so suddenly. >> everybody doesn't like this book and. they think like. >> everybody thinks the book is a bunch a. croc of [ __ ] and all of a sudden they're. like. >> we are going to bring him [laughter] in. front of a grand jury. It's like wait. which one is it? >> Make that make sense. >> Like interesting. Now the announcement. of the grand jury came as a surprise.

Not only because like you said it. consisted of one man, but also because. >> it's not so [laughter] grand. >> It doesn't seem grand. I don't know who. George is, but he's got to be real. grand. >> I'm sure he's grand. like I'm sure he's. a great guy, but. >> but also because Connecticut does not. require a grand jury before felony. charges can be filed. >> Oh, >> according to Connecticut lawyer Norman. Pattis, grand juries in Connecticut are. only used for political purposes. Having. a grand jury provides insulation for a. prosecutor in a politically sensitive.

case. >> because the decision to indict is made. by a panel of anonymous citizens. >> or just one. >> or just George. >> or just [laughter] Grandmaster George. >> Just George. Also, I was like, I'm sure. he's a great guy. I really went out on a. limb there. >> Who knows? >> Who? I don't know, George. >> That he's a great guy, but I don't know. >> As a gal, you can never say you're sure. a man is great. >> No. So, I just I'd like to recant that. >> I I stay over here saying, "I don't. know, George.". >> I hope that he's great is what I should. have said. >> So, another way of saying all this is, in other words, the district attorney.

can't be blamed if the accus isn't. indicted because it was the grand jury. that made the decision, not the. prosecutor. >> All right? So, it's just to keep them. from the I didn't do it. >> To anyone who had been following this. case, it looked like whether. investigators liked it or not, the. publication of Murder and Greenwich had. managed to break the case somewhat. Yeah. >> Like at least move something along, >> right? >> But when he was asked about the matter, Detective Frank Gar dismissed the. suggestion that the book had anything to. do with the filing. >> So then what? >> He said, "We've talked to hundreds of.

people and gathered some information. that was previously unknown. So, we. reached a point where having a grand. jury was an option. >> The books added interest to the public. and the media, but they had no impact on. the investigation. >> Was it like public pressure after people. read the book? >> Whatever you say. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Sure. >> For decades, Martha Moxley's friends and. family had desperately sought answers to. her remember brutal. >> brutal murder, but were just again. stymied. Since you like that word, they.

were stymied at every turn. >> Yep. Now, after more than 20 years, it. looked like Martha might finally get the. justice that she deserved. >> Of course, nothing in this case is. straightforward at all. >> No. >> And there was no reason to believe that. would change. >> Oh. >> Uh, least of all just. Well, and least of all because of the. publication of this book, you know. >> Yeah. So on July 12th, 1998, the one-man. grand jury proceeding, >> George, >> it began in Bridgeport where Justice.

George Thim began hearing testimony and. reviewing the evidence in the case. Among those seated in the gallery were. Dorothy and John Moxley, who were. accompanied by former Greenwich. detective Daniel Hickman. >> Hickman told a reporter, "I'm very glad. we're doing this. Glad we're. investigating this matter a little. further. I hope something comes out good. comes out of this for the sake of the. family and the community." Yeah, >> given the number of times the Skakel. family had kind of thwarted. investigators attempts to get answers. into the Moxley case, it should come as.

no surprise that the grand jury hearing. was pretty similarly frustrating and it. ultimately dragged on for 18 months. >> Wow. Holy [ __ ]. >> During that time, the majority of the. Sko family members who were expected to. testify publicly stated their intent to. skip the hearing. >> Is that allowed? I guess Rushton Skagel. was particularly adamant in his refusal, telling reporters, "I wasn't there. personally. I was hunting when the. slaying happened, so he saw no reason. why he should be there.". >> Okay. I wonder I don't know if I'm just.

like making this up, but I wonder if you. could be held in contempt of court for. not showing up to testify when you're. called upon. I would think so. >> I looked at Debbiey's just like. shrugging [laughter] and being like, "Yeah, usually right.". >> Like, you would think. >> I would think. >> You would think. >> Yeah, that's typical. It's It's. interesting. >> Yeah. Okay. >> But others who refused to testify or. otherwise attempted to stonewall the. prosecution uh including Sutton. Associates detective Willis Krebs and. Elon School owner Joseph Reachi.

>> Okay. >> Uh Krebs cited attorney client privilege. as his reason for not divulging the. names of those interviewed during the. investigation. >> I mean that makes sense, I guess. >> But the judge rejected the claim and. >> it doesn't [laughter] it doesn't make. sense. The judge rejected the claim and. Krebs was compelled to release the. names. Uh Reichi's refusal on the other. hand proved a more challenging matter. cuz he's the Elon school. >> In his case, >> in the in his case, he cited doctor. patient confidentiality.

as his reason for declining to testify. or release information about Michael's. time at Elon, >> which that's a lot more. >> Unlike Yeah. Unlike Skakel's contract. with Sutton, the mutually assured. privacy between a doctor and their. patient is taken very seriously in the. legal system. >> Yeah. >> Um Skakel's lawyer, David Grudberg, said. it completely undercuts that privilege. if you can change the rules after the. fact. In response, the prosecution. argued that the confession quote had. nothing to do with Skakel's treatment or.

any illness, therefore should not be. privileged information, >> which I can get that. >> which if you're saying he was talking in. private conversations with like fellow. students, >> I would think yeah, that wouldn't have. anything to do with his treatment. >> Deb Deb has just informed us that she. she's not positive, but she said cuz she. doesn't know Connecticut law, but she. said knows mass law. There is the. possibility that Rushton Skakel. especially being their the father. >> would not be compelled to testify. because of like the parent child. It's. kind of like a spousal privilege.

>> Um so that makes sense I suppose. >> Yeah. No, I can see that. >> I'm interested though cuz obviously it. was more than him that refused. So I'm. like what did everybody else say? >> Yeah. Now again they're say they're. claiming that his confessions Michael's. confessions had nothing to do with his. treatment. So that's why [laughter] they. should be allowed to have the doctor. testify. >> Ultimately, the judge sided with the. defense and any statements Michael made. while at Elon were deemed inadmiss. inadmissible. Why is that hard to say? >> Interesting. >> Yeah. Finally, in January 2000, the.

grand jury ruled that even without the. incriminating statements made at Elon, there was sufficient evidence to charge. Michael Skagel with the murder of Martha. Moxley. That's without the confession. >> I was just going to say, okay, so then. what's the evidence? But in an odd. twist, >> this is the twistiest case I've ever. >> The arrest warrant in any associated. documentation related to the case would. not list Skakel by name as he was a. juvenile when the murder was committed. >> Okay. >> In response to news of the indictment, Skakel's lawyer, Michael Sherman, told.

reporters, "If he's arrested, he's going. to plead not guilty, come to court, and. we'll go to trial. He's innocent. He has. nothing to do with this murder. This is. not a case that will result in a plea. bargain.". >> Okay. Now, as expected, on January 20th, an arrest warrant was issued for Michael. Skakel, who surrendered at the Greenwich. Police Department that afternoon, where. he spent roughly 30 minutes before being. released on $500,000 of bond. >> Yeah, >> I that's shocking. >> For those who lived in Greenwich since.

the murder occurred, it was a moment. they never thought would come. Bell. Haven resident Martha Mckentry said, "A. lot of people would like to see closure. If an arrest is heading towards that, then I think that's a relief for. everyone.". >> Yeah. The arrest was followed by the. usual cries of innocence from, you know, Skakel's lawyer, Michael Sherman. But. Skakel himself seemed interested only in. protesting the arrest directly to. Dorothy Moxley herself. >> Oh. >> With Sherman's encouragement, allegedly, >> his lawyer. >> Yeah. Michael reached out to Dorothy.

Much to her surprise and uh. disappointment, >> she later said, "What he said to me was, Dorothy, I feel your pain, but you've. got the wrong guy.". >> And she says, "I was incensed that he. would call me Dorothy. I'm sorry, but I. do believe I deserve some more respect. than that. He should have called me Mrs. Moxley, and he shouldn't have talked to. me. It wasn't the right thing to do.". >> Yeah. There's so much wrong with that. Call her mother. >> Yeah.

like. well like exactly what she said. Put. some respect on her name. It's Mrs. Moxley. >> And she said he shouldn't have called me. at all. >> Shouldn't have called her at all. And. the fact that he didn't and said I I can. feel your pain. No, you can't. >> You don't know a mother's pain whose. daughter was slaughtered. >> 200 feet from her home. >> 15year-old daughter. Like no, you can't. feel her pain. Don't ever say that. >> Yeah. >> That's nuts. That whole entire decision. is nuts from start to finish. Now, two. weeks later, on February 8th, Michael.

Skaggel was arraigned on one count of. seconddegree murder in juvenile court. After reviewing the evidence and the. circumstances surrounding the case, the. juvenile court judge had the case. transferred to the criminal division of. the superior court, ending the period in. which Skakel's name was withheld from. any official documents. >> Oh, because now he's an adult. Now, the. case was preceded by the usual round of. pre-trial hearings, but the prosecution. was dealt a significant blow on August. 7th, 2001 when their star witness,

former Elon student Gregory Coleman, was. found dead from an apparent drug. overdose. Coleman was one of the two students who. testified to the grand jury that Michael. had confessed to killing Martha while at. Elon, and his testimony was key to. securing a conviction. I just wanted to let that hang in the. room for a minute. >> Fortunately, the judge allowed the. prosecution to present Coleman's. deposition at trial in lie of his. testimony. >> Okay. >> But the lack of his presence was a major.

source of frustration, obviously. >> Now, Skaggel's trial began on May 7th, 2002 at the county courthouse in Norwok. As expected, the trial had drawn a ton. of people, like a huge crowd of. observers and journalists, many of whom. were hoping for an appearance of like a. rich and famous attendee at the trial. >> Yeah. >> And they weren't disappointed. I guess. as early as the first day, many members. of the Skakel and Kennedy families were. in attendance to support Michael.

>> Including his cousins, Robert F. Kennedy. Jr. >> Shut up. >> And Douglas Kennedy. >> I didn't even know there was a Douglas. Yeah, this is so many of them. >> I knew about. >> the Kennedys are far reaching. >> Uh Dominic Dunn said, "The thing that. I've always found so curious about the. Kennedys support of Michael is that. Michael wrote a treatment for a book in. which he says absolutely terrible things. about his cousins, the Kennedys. And yet. Bobby Kennedy Jr. was up here hugging. him and supporting him. >> Public public appearances, babe.

>> Yeah. In his opening statement, prosecutor Jonathan Benedict laid out. the the state's case against Michael, stating with their belief that both. Michael and Tommy had been vying for. Martha's attention. And while she had no. real interest in either of them, she. clearly favored Tommy a little over his. brother. Okay. And I think that. >> based on her diary entries in her diary. where like Michael was mad because she. was quote unquote leading him on. >> Yeah. He seemed he seemed kind of. protective over his brother. >> Yeah. And he seemed like Yeah. Now, it.

was the state's assertion that after the. group of friends had gone their separate. ways that night, Michael returned from. his cousin's house and coaxed Martha. outside and made a romantic or physical. over overture, okay, >> to her. You know, when Martha rejected. Michael's advances, he became physical. and eventually attacked her with the. golf club. >> Okay. >> Now, and I want to claim say this again. that this was the prosecutor Jonathan. Benedict's like theory. Yeah, it was the. argument saying that's what happened, >> right?

>> In his statement, Benedict acknowledged. that it was incumbent upon the state to. prove not only that Michael was a. killer, but that he had intended to kill. Martha that night. To that end, the. prosecutor used a large projection in. the courtroom to show the jury and. observers the crime scene photographs, showing the extent of the brutality. Martha had suffered before her death. >> And he said, and I agree with him, I can. think of no photos more compelling of. substantiating an intent to kill. Yeah, >> there was no way whoever did that to. Martha did not intend to kill her.

>> No. >> No. As for how the case was finally. broken at the time, Benedict told the. jury, "Sometimes some people simply. can't keep a secret. That, as you will. see, is how things eventually unraveled. for Michael Skaggel.". >> In his client's defense, Michael Sherman. refuted the state's claims and their. theory, arguing that after years of bad. police work and pressure to solve the. case, investigators decided to just pin. the murder on Michael. Okay. >> He said, "The case that we have is based. loosely on a very shaky house of cards.

and mostly wild cards and a few jokers. as well.". >> Okay, let's not get super theatrical. [laughter] with it. >> I'm not out here trying to judge uh. statements in a courtroom. >> I'm always out here trying to judge. statements in a courtroom. >> That made me go, [laughter]. >> "Yeah, that's not a good. >> cuz you could have just ended it at like. >> a shaky house of cards.". >> Cuz I was nodding. I was like, "Yeah, I. kind of jokers.". >> I love it. Mostly wild cards. Maybe a. few jokers. I'd be like, "Nope. Try. >> it. You over it. >> Run it again, Michael. Run it again.".

>> He didn't run that with like Yeah. anyone. >> He didn't read that for anyone, I feel. >> No. >> Read that in front of someone and see if. they go [laughter]. >> that's like, >> "Yeah, I don't like it.". >> Now, the state's case against Michael. was entirely circumstantial and it. hinged very significantly on the. testimony of Gregory Coleman, right? >> Who'd heard Skel's confession, but he. >> passed away, right? >> Yes. Coleman's death before the trial. was a big problem for Benedict. However, several weeks into the trial, the. prosecutor was contacted by Jennifer. Peas, another former Elon student who.

offered to testify and corroborate. Coleman's statement that Michael not. only confessed to the murder, but also. that he believed, and I quote, he was. going to get away with murder because he. was a Kennedy. [sighs and gasps] So, this is what Jennifer Peas was saying. that she could back up. Uh she told the. jury that Coleman had confided in her. that he thought Michael Skakel was quote. sick and that Skakel had quote beat some. girl's head in and killed her with a. golf club. >> Oh [ __ ].

>> Yeah. The testimony from Jennifer Peas. went a long way to cooperating Coleman's. earlier statements and those of his. widow who testified prior to Peace. >> Wow. On June 3rd, the prosecution and. defense gave their final statements. before the jury retired to deliberate. >> That's today. >> Oh my god. That's I'm not kidding, guys. We do not purpose. >> Today is June 3rd, though. That's so. weird. >> What the [ __ ]. >> This happens to us so often. I don't.

know. I had to stop you before you guys. I swear on everything. We do not do this. on purpose. Like, we. a lot of times we're supposed to record. earlier than we do. >> Yeah. And then we don't. And when we do. record, it ends up falling on the day. >> Yeah, because we were gonna record this. yesterday, but then we didn't. >> Yeah. >> So, >> that's weird. [ __ ] That's weird. >> That's weird. Okay. Wow. Well, on June. 3rd, the prosecution and defense gave. their final statements before the jury. retired to the deliberate. In his. closing remarks, Jonathan Benedict.

focused on the sheer brutality of the. crime and Skakel's sense of. untouchability afforded to him by his. family's wealth and power. >> He said, this is really graphic, by the. way. Okay. He said, "The act of stabbing. her through the neck from one side. through the other is the most emphatic. evidence of pure hatred, rage, and. intent to kill.". >> Mhm. >> Now, in his final argument, Michael. Sherman was blunt and simple. >> He didn't practice this one either. >> Good morning. He didn't do it. He didn't.

do it. He doesn't know who did. He. wasn't there when the crimes were. committed, and he never confessed. That's the whole case. Babe, that's not going to convince me of. anything. That's just going to convince. me you didn't have your morning coffee. >> Yeah, that the [ __ ]. >> I I feel like you you should have done. this earlier. >> Yeah. >> Like I feel like this is one of those. that you were like, I did this before. breakfast. Like that was it. >> Just threw that one together. >> Yeah, that's a rough. >> But then he just used the rest of it. So. that was his like here's what I'm going. to.

>> here's my argument. >> He didn't do it. He didn't do it. He. doesn't know who did. He wasn't there. He never confessed. That's it. >> Are you going to tell me why though? And. then the rest of the time he just used. to attack the prosecution, the. witnesses, and the investigators for. what he alleged was a concerted effort. to frame Michael. He said, "I have to. tell you, this is the worstrun. conspiracy I've ever seen.". >> Wow. >> Now, the jury deliberated for 4 days. before finally coming out on June 8th, my [clears throat] birthday. >> Hey. To find Michael Skakel guilty of. the murder of Martha Moxley.

>> Oh, bad day for Michael. Now, when the. verdict was read, Skakel swayed slightly. and shook his head in disbelief. From. somewhere behind him, a member of the. Skakel family shouted, "Oh my god.". Martha's family, on the other hand, was. very happy with the jury's decision. >> You wait that long for justice for your. daughter. >> Dorothy told a group of reporters, "This. whole thing was about Martha.". >> Yeah. >> I feel so blessed and so overwhelmed. This is Martha's day. I hope people. remember that. >> Oh. Now, when asked about the verdict. his book had seemingly helped secure at.

the time, Mark Ferman praised the jury. He said, "They were attentive. They gave. away nothing. They made no mistakes. Even when I talked to them, they said. they were of one mind very early on that. he was guilty." Now, in late August, Skel went back to the Norwok court for. sentencing. And when asked whether he. had anything to say for himself, Skel. went on the offensive. He attacked his. accusers and repeatedly professed his. innocence. Before passing sentence, Judge John Cavanooki's address to the.

court was pretty broad, just saying, "For the last 25 years or more, a period. well into his adult life, the defendant. has been living a lie about his guilt. Most importantly, this defendant has. accepted no responsibility. He has. expressed no personal remorse to this. present day. All of this persuades me to. impose a sentence which on balance is. substantial." And with that, he. sentenced Skakel to 20 years to life to. be served at the Garner Correctional. Institution in New Town, Connecticut. Okay. Now, his appeals began almost.

immediately after the sentence. In 2004, the Connecticut Supreme Court heard his. claims that among other things, his. constitutional rights were violated when. the state prosecuted him for a crime in. which the statute of limitations had. expired. Hm. >> The argument depended largely on Skakel. having been underage when the murder was. committed and the judge in juvenile. court had aired in transferring the case. to criminal court. In their conclusion, the justices upheld the lower court's. ruling, noting if the trial court aired.

in their actions, the defendant has not. established harm. Okay? So, they just. kept it. They were like, "No.". >> [snorts]. >> Now, in subsequent appeals, Skakel's. defense team made a number of claims of. improper conduct from claims of. prosecutorial misconduct to the. credibility of witness testimony and. beyond. >> Okay. >> Each case was considered by the higher. courts and rejected on the merits. Now, then in 2013, Skel launched another. appear appeal for a new trial. this time. arguing that his original trial.

attorney, Michael Sherman, was. incompetent and was more interested in. building his own reputation and. celebrity than he was in defending his. client. >> Okay. >> Martha Moxley's friends, family, and. neighbors waited more than 25 years for. her to see justice. And it felt like. >> it had finally been found. >> Yeah. >> But in November 2013, Judge Thomas. Bishop agreed with Skakel's complaint. and ordered a new trial. >> Oh. [sighs and gasps]. In his conclusion, Judge Bishop noted.

that Michael Sherman, quote, was in a. myriad of ways ineffective, and as such, there was no way to be certain that the. jury was acting on the best information. available. >> Okay. >> To Martha's family, who had been. struggling through a frustrating. investigation and decades of uncertainty. in trials, the reversal was a massive. disappointment. >> Of course, it was, >> but one that was not entirely. unexpected, unfortunately. >> Yeah. >> Given the extent of Skaggel's resources. Mhm. >> Uh Dorothy Moxley told reporters after.

Skel was released on bail pending a new. trial. I guess I knew that the day would. come and she said it would have made my. life much easier for this not to happen. >> Oh, >> that must be. >> I can't even like come up with how that. would feel to have it like finally this. is over. We can start healing. >> Ever really believe it's true. >> But then it's just reversed. And that's. the thing. They And they were It's like. holding your breath, waiting for the. moment. >> Like because she believed that they got. it right.

>> Yeah. >> But she never believed that it would. hold because she knows. >> they have infinite resources. >> Now, like Dorothy Moxley, the. prosecution was ready when the reversal. happened and had already started. preparing for a retrial. >> Okay. >> Fortunately, however, the prosecution. wouldn't have to go that route. In 2016, the Connecticut Supreme Court overruled. the lower court and concluded that. Skakel had in fact been given a fair. trial, even if he didn't feel as though. the lawyer provided the best possible. defense. >> Okay. >> Uh, one of the justices wrote in their.

concurrence, "Sherman's defense need not. have been the best decision or even a. good one. It need only fall within the. wide range of reasonable decisions that. a defense attorney might make.". >> Okay. To those who'd been watching the. case from day one, the state supreme. court's decision seemed like an attempt. to correct the previous injustice. >> But there wasn't much time to celebrate. [snorts]. >> Okay, this is up and down and up and. down. In fact, despite having reinstated. the conviction, the question of whether. Michael Sherman provided adequate.

representation would be argued back and. forth in the state supreme court for two. more years until May 2018 when the court. ultimately reversed their original. decision, their earlier decision, and. agreed with Skakel's complaint that his. lawyer had been ineffective and thus he. was originally deprived of a fair trial. >> Okay. From the moment he was arrested in. 1991, nearly everyone in Greenwich, Connecticut, watched and waited to see. how Michael Skakel's wealth and power.

would possibly help him in this. scenario. They figured it was just a. foregone conclusion that it was going to. come into play. >> Yeah. >> To the shock of many, that proved. ineffective when a jury found him guilty. and a judge sentenced him to spend the. rest of his life in prison. Mhm. >> Securing Skakel's conviction in a. lengthy sentence was a major victory for. the prosecution who had to again contend. with really poor police work, missing. evidence, the death of their star. witness mid-trial. >> Y. >> but in truth, his conviction was just.

never a sure bet. >> Mhm. >> Uh the case there was a lot of. circumstantial stuff and there was a. there was a lot of time between the. crime and when the trial occurred. There. was just a lot that were. >> a lot working against them. >> Yeah. Now that Skakel had once again managed. to win a new trial and was out on bail, the district attorney needed to decide. whether they could feasibly secure the. same verdict nearly 30 years later. >> With many of their witnesses having. passed away or simply forgotten the.

important parts of their testimony cuz. they're getting older, right? >> That's I don't remember 30 years ago. >> No. And it's you can't necessarily rely. on somebody's memory from 30 years ago. as you're on a jury. >> And everybody's memory is different. It's like I don't have a great memory. >> Like my friend like Deb Debb will say. things that are like remember when this. happened? I'm like oh [ __ ] Yeah. Like. or I'll just be like no I don't remember. that. Like my brain my memory is just. like weird. I remember weird [ __ ] I. don't remember good [ __ ]. >> And it's like that. So you just can't be.

sure. >> Mhm. But in the end, Chief States. Attorney Richard Cullen Jello looked at. the potential battle of a new trial and. determined that retrying Michael Skakel. simply wasn't a good use of the state's. resources. >> I hate when they say that. Like I get. what they're saying, but I just hate how. it sounds. >> He said, "I believe the state cannot. prove the case beyond a reasonable. doubt. Therefore, the state is going to. enter a null pros, which means to be. unwilling to pursue.".

Oh, >> once it was formally entered in 2021, the null pros resulted in a discharge of. the murder charge against Michael. Skaggel. >> So, he was never necessarily proven. innocent. They were just like, "We think. you did this, but we can't prove it.". >> Basically, we just don't think we can. prove you guilty again. >> It's almost like what happened with the. West Memphis 3. I know that's like a. whole different process. like a little. that's more we're not saying what it's. like basically they can't they they just.

say that they did it. >> Mhm. >> And the state will let them go and that. means they can't sue the state. >> Oh, >> that's what it means with the West. Memphis. That's an Alfred plea. >> Yeah. >> This is them being like we just don't. think putting resources to retrying you. will get us the conviction, >> but we still think you did it. But like, and I don't even know. I don't even know. if it's we still think you did it. I. think it's just like. >> we don't think we have we're not going. to put the resources forward because we. don't think we could get a conviction.

again. >> Wow. >> So, you will be released. >> Um, so although, so he was a free man. once again. >> Okay. >> Although it is possible that Skaggel. could be charged again and taken to. trial. That is a thing. in the absence. of the, you know, any new compelling. evidence of his guilt, it seems pretty. unlikely because nothing has come out. since then that points to him. >> Yeah. >> Regardless of the prosecutor's decision, uh Dorothy Skakel remained convinced.

>> that they got it right the first time. >> Yeah. >> Um while she was disappointed with the. outcome, she told reporters she was. quote satisfied with the efforts of. police and prosecutors. >> All right. >> So, like, damn. >> At least she had that. >> a very impressive outlook. >> Yeah, she did. That's. >> But sadly, on December 24th, Christmas. Eve, 2024, Dorothy Moxley died. >> at her home in New Jersey at the age of. 92. >> Wow. >> But from complications of the flu. >> Oh, that's awful. >> Now, technically, Martha Moxley's murder. remains unsolved to this day and is.

currently inactive. >> Oh, it should be active, >> which makes me crazy. It should be. active. >> because regardless I that's like the. fact. >> girl was murdered. >> The facts of the case I am not giving my. personal opinion on this. The facts of. the case are Michael Skakel was. convicted of the murder. >> Mhm. >> He was granted a new trial and they. chose not to pursue it. So he was freed. That's just the facts of the case. >> I don't know. Again, no more compelling.

evidence has come forward to that we. know of. >> or that has been released, I should say, or come public. >> to say that he did it. >> or that anyone else did it. And that's. what's really frustrating cuz it's like. we don't have anything else. There's. nothing else we can dig into. >> They need to review that evidence. >> Why is did fingerprinting ever [ __ ]. happen on that thing? I don't know cuz. also the golf club broke so I don't know. if it was.

>> hard to who knows if they have both. parts. >> Yeah. I don't know. I don't know exactly. what parts they were able to like or. what the parts what kind of condition. they were in or. >> she was discovered with her pants like. around her. >> Yes. And the the medical examiner said. there was no evidence of sexual assault, but there was red marks on her thighs. that were like handprints that he. believed were someone trying to wrench. her knees apart. But there was no.

biological evidence of sexual assault. that they found. >> Okay. >> That's not saying with 100% certainty. >> Yeah. >> But they were they were fairly confident. that they didn't believe. [sighs] Oh, I. think this investigation just was tough. >> It's got a lot around it. It's got a lot. going on. But right now, you know, >> Michael Skel is not a con, you know, not. >> considered the person that did it. >> Yeah. >> Right now. >> But you know what we say, a cold case is.

never cold. Exactly. And technically. because this is it's open though, right? It's open but inactive. >> It's it's unsolved and inactive. I think. it's just. >> Oh, yes. Okay. >> So, it's it's a bummer. I would love to. see it solved regardless of who is the. person they identify. I would like it to. be solved. >> Yeah. >> Just for Martha's family. >> Yeah. Their their family deserves. justice and so does Martha. >> Yeah. And for the people who have, but. there was there's a few names thrown. around in this case. It would it would.

be nice if you could, you know, exonerate those those names or prove. that somebody did it. >> Yeah. Just just have some certainty. >> You know, there's a lot of people that. were involved in this case that are. thrown around here. >> Yeah. Yeah. Wow. What a what a brutal. case and just just. >> it's awful. >> It's so awful and it's so messy and it's. so young. Super promising. >> It's so sad for so many reasons. >> Life ahead of her. >> Yeah. Doing everything right. Just being. a teenager in the ' 80s or the '7s. >> '7s. >> And this is awful.

>> Just going to hang out with her friends. >> and in a place that like didn't have. crime. >> Yeah. Like a safe, >> you know? Like, so like this is just. like. >> even weirder and it's and it makes you. think more that this was someone who. potentially knew her because like. >> it's not like random strangers were. >> being attacked or anything like that. >> Sculpting around Bell Haven. >> Yeah. >> Except for that hitchhiker that they. claimed they saw that no one could ever. Yeah. Nobody could prove if they existed. or not. >> Yeah. >> But who knows? >> You never know.

>> I don't know. >> You never know. >> Yeah. I think we need a fun fact. >> We do need a fun fact. Do you have a fun. fact? >> Tbby has a good one. >> Oh my god. I Debb Debb just found the. greatest fun fact that just like ruined. my life with the visual as well cuz that. is the cutest baby elephant I've ever. seen in my life. >> Elephants are my favorite. >> Baby elephants suck their trunks for. comfort like a baby like would suck. their thumb or like a like a pacifier. And they suck their thumbs like just to. or their their their trunk thumbs.

>> just to soo themselves when they're. tired, anxious, or away from their. mamas. >> And please look at this elephant. >> Oh my god. >> I think my entire life just changed. because of that picture of that big. elephant. >> I love elephants so much. Elephants are. the best animals ever. They literally. like they hold funerals. >> Oh, they take care of each other. They. live in communities. >> protect. They save each other's babies. >> Yeah. Like they are We are not We don't.

deserve elephants. >> We don't deserve them at all. >> We don't We don't deserve most animals. to be honest. >> My youngest had us watch a show on. Disney Plus that was like called. Elephant, I think, or something. And it. was just about a whole [ __ ] group of. elephants. >> Oh, honey, I'm f to watch. >> One of one of the elephants saved. another one's baby. >> They do. >> From being stuck in mud. >> Cutest thing I've ever seen. And they. like never gave up. They were like, "I'm. saving this baby." So, elephants. >> Oh my god. Also, while we're talking. about that, Drew and I have been. watching this show. I think it's on. Hulu. It's about the San Diego Zoo and.

it is so much fun. >> I don't necessarily recommend watching. with your children because they do talk. about mating season. >> I [laughter] literally I was just about. to recommend it to Elena because they. were talking about koalas and her girls. love koalas, but then they were like, "He's about to have sexy time with the. other koala ladies." And I was like, "Okay, maybe don't have them." texted me. and she was like, "Oh my god, they. should watch this." And then like 10. minutes later she was like, "Scratch. that. They should not watch this. [laughter] yet." Maybe not yet. You. probably have to talk.

>> But if you're like an adult who loves. animals, it's a really good show. >> I love that. >> So check it out. >> Hell yeah. >> And with that being said, we hope you. keep listening. >> and we hope you. >> keep it weird. >> Just not too weird. >> Not too weird that you leave this case. unsolved. >> Yes. >> Not that weird. >> [music].

[music]. [music]. [music]. [music].

[music]. [music].

[music].