Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Saturday Morning News

Interview With Wendy Murphy of New England School of Law

Aired June 08, 2002 - 08:25   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Time now for a look at this week's high profile cases. Two trials involve the murders of young girls, one on the East Coast, one on the West, and big business is in the legal spotlight in Texas, as the Andersen case moves toward a verdict.

For a closer look at these cases, we're joined by Wendy Murphy of the New England School of Law in Boston.

Hi, Wendy.

WENDY MURPHY, NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW: Good morning, Kyra.

PHILLIPS: Well, let's talk Michael Skakel here for a moment. What key piece of evidence do you think was it that influenced the jury?

MURPHY: Well, I'd have to say that the strongest evidence was a mountain of confessions, admissions, statements that Michael made repeatedly over the years implicating himself in Martha's murder. Not all of them were outright confessions, but there were enough and they were varied enough to come to the able with a great deal of credibility and weight.

And in a sense, I think, the fact that there were so many and that he made statements to so many different types of people, to his chauffeur, to a hair dresser, to various friends and students, to a man he was working on a book deal with, that it was just an insurmountable kind of evidence and pile of evidence, because it's very difficult to explain to a jury why you would implicate yourself in a murder. It's the kind of evidence that most people think wouldn't exist if you weren't, in fact, guilty.

PHILLIPS: Do you think this was why he didn't take the stand? Do you think lawyers were concerned that he may say something and sort of bury himself?

MURPHY: Oh, there's no question that he would have been destroyed on the stand with those admissions. I mean, he'd have to explain away each and every one of them. And you might get away with explaining one or two or even three. But when you get to the sixth and the seventh, I think the jury would have been raising their eyebrows and just would have been aghast at his effort to try to continue to say I'm not sure why I said that then and let me give you another excuse for this one. No. I mean, I do think it was a serious decision to not put him on the stand. I'm sure that some of the jurors were sitting there saying wait a minute, you're right in this courtroom. You're one of us. If you didn't do it, why aren't you telling us exactly where you were that night and why aren't you explaining all of these pieces of information that seem to damn you?

PHILLIPS: Now, part two. Everyone's talking about this cover- up. I mean, power and money can definitely protect somebody. Do you think it protected this man for 27 years?

MURPHY: You know, it's such an interesting component of this case, because I actually think it cuts both ways, Kyra. On the one hand, in the early days of this investigation in particular, the wealth and the influence and particularly the Kennedy connection definitely served to insulate this family from suspicion. It kept law enforcement sources and police at bay. They were quite deferential in the early days.

On the other hand, the fact that there was a Kennedy family aspect to this case and the fact that there was celebrity and wealth kept in on a front burner for so many of us. Every time there was a Kennedy in the news, somebody would mention oh, that Skakel case.

So it was both a good thing for the Skakels, especially in the early days, and it was the very thing that I think kept the pressure on the law enforcement folks and ultimately led to the conviction of Michael Skakel.

PHILLIPS: All right, Arthur Andersen. Today, 10:00 a.m. Eastern time, expecting to resume deliberations. You think this is a slam dunk, don't you?

MURPHY: Well, you know, it does look like a slam dunk on paper. But the jury's been out for a while now and it's anyone's guess. You know, the tough thing about a case like this and proving obstruction of justice is that you have to show that the destruction of documents and e-mails was intentional. In other words, you have to prove what was in the mind of the individual who was doing the destruction of the documents and the e-mails.

And that can be a tough thing for a jury to decide, especially when in a corporate setting there's a lawful reason to destroy documents. All corporations have some kind of document destruction policy and if they abide it, it's very difficult to decide that this was somehow a crime.

But we all know that the destruction was taking place in the midst of their awareness that they were under investigation. And so I think it comes to the table very, very solid, as a very solid case for the prosecution that I'd be surprised to see the jury walk away from.

PHILLIPS: Only one witness, though. Is that enough?

MURPHY: Well, when it's one really strong witness and it's an insider, who has an awful lot to lose by not telling the truth, then I think it carries extra weight. I mean the presumption will be that the corporate folks, particularly at the highest levels, will protect themselves. They have an awful lot to lose. And so the fact that there's only one who dared to come out and dared to tell the truth and who's cooperating and, by the way, is testifying in a way that's consistent with what the law enforcement and police and FBI are saying about the pattern of destruction and the timing of the destruction, I think gives that one witness a great deal of weight.

PHILLIPS: All right, Wendy Murphy, New England School of Law in Boston, thank you so much for your insight this morning, Wendy.

MURPHY: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com