Remember Lucianne Goldberg: In pursuit of Clinton? The conviction of Michael Skakel reflects absolutely nothing, beyond Lucianne Goldberg, in pursuit of Skakel.

Lucianne Goldberg edited Mark Fuhrman's book and that is the salient fact which explains the bizarre conviction of Michael Skakel.

Lucianne Goldberg does not deal in the facts, she manufactures delusions. In particular, the tactic to turn the former Skakel tutor, Ken Littleton, into a poor, helpless victim, is straight out of the Lucianne Goldberg play-book. The literary agent who persuaded White House employee Linda Tripp to tape her telephone conversations with Monica Lewinsky, precipitated the impeachment of a president. Why should the pursuit of Skakel produce an impact which is any less significant or bizarre?

The meticulous campaign to turn a disturbed man like Ken Littleton into a victim like Linda Tripp, is vintage Goldberg. Nobody bought the claim that Linda Tripp was a victim. The jury bought the claim that Ken Littleton was a victim, because the prosecutor [who was following the Goldberg/Fuhrman script] erroneously claimed that Michael Skakel murdered Martha Moxley.

A trained spy like Lucianne Goldberg is extremely deceptive, and it is her signature, not her fingerprints, which betray her role in the plot to frame Michael Skakel. Her leak-proof profile is so low, that she is widely regarded to be one of 'Dorothy Moxley's Angels' even though she has not publicly bragged about the conviction of Michael Skakel. Why not? Why doesn't Dorothy's angel brag about Michael Skakel's conviction, if it is legitimate? More importantly, is there anything legitimate, about the conviction of Michael Skakel?

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. He was reading the report "And then, at that very moment," Dunne recalls, "I got a call from Lucianne Goldberg." Surprise, surprise.

The point of the above rant is that Skakel Tutor, Ken Littleton evidently murdered Martha Moxley and instead of pursuing the murderer, prosecutors ultimately lynched Michael Skakel. The obvious question; "Is anybody pursuing the people who are evidently responsible for the disappearance of Laci Peterson?"

As an investigator, I have not determined a single reason to suspect that Scott Peterson is responsible for the disappearance of his wife, and having witnessed the obsession to Lynch Scott Peterson, I do not expect anything beyond the prejudicial zeal to create the impression that Peterson is guilty as charged [even though the police have not officially charged him with anything].

In my opinion, Scott Peterson's story is too spontaneous, to reflect the calculating mind of a cold-blooded murderer.

The relentless speculation and innuendo surrounding the disappearance of Laci Peterson is primarily geared towards promoting the claim that Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife and that reflects a level of ignorance that is absolutely astounding. Anybody who suggests that Scott Peterson murdered his own pregnant wife, without a single shred of evidence to support the claim, is astoundingly ignorant.

Scott Peterson, 30, told police he last saw his wife about 9:30 a.m. when he left to go fishing for the day at Berkeley Marina.

He said she was taking the family dog, McKenzie, for a walk at nearby La Loma Park. The fact that Scott went fishing has been confirmed. The family dog, McKenzie, returned without Laci, and the fact that somebody other than Peterson abducted her, is a reasonable assumption, unless of course, Scott Peterson and the family dog, plotted the abduction. The simple fact of the matter is, Laci disappeared and Scott Peterson cannot possibly be the perfect murderer because he does not have the perfect alibi. Scott Peterson has very limited knowledge about the abduction of Laci Peterson and if Scott Peterson was disturbed enough to murder his pregnant wife, it is difficult to believe that Laci Peterson would have vanished without a trace. A disturbed man is a sloppy murderer, the body would have been found, without delay, and if Scott Peterson is a cold-hearted genius, why doesn't he have an airtight alibi?

The evidence suggests that Scott Peterson is a clueless victim and good investigators do not seek to exploit the fact that Scott Peterson cannot prove that he did not murder his wife. Clearly, people who practice the level of "lynch mob" justice that is responsible for the successful conviction of Michael Skakel, are essentially framing their target.

If Scott Peterson is telling the truth about the disappearance of Laci Peterson, it is safe to assume that somebody as unscrupulous and as deceptive as Mark Fuhrman is, has convinced the Modesto police to pursue Scott Peterson the way Michael Skakel was pursued, and that means that we are witnessing the campaign to promote prejudicial information, to create the impression that Scott Peterson murdered his wife.

The intriguing question, of course, is who is trying to create the impression that Scott Peterson murdered his wife? In the Skakel case, it was people like Dominick Dunne, Lucianne Goldberg and Mark Fuhrman, and they managed to pervert justice so completely, we have been denied the opportunity to unravel the full scope of the serial, criminal career of the monster who brutally murdered Martha Moxley.

Law Professor, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. described the process, as it was used to lynch Michael Skakel, when he said;

Sutton's president, James Murphy, a veteran of fifteen years with the FBI, recently told me [RFK JR.] "While Rushton Skakel thoroughly believed his children were innocent, we were told that wherever the chips fall, they, the Skakel family ...want to know the truth and that the Skakel family recognized Mrs. Moxley's pain and have instructed that any information that develops which contributes to the solution of Martha Moxley's homicide is to be immediately shared with the Connecticut authorities. Both Murphy, who is now an ordained Catholic deacon, and Thomas Sheridan, who acted as the liaison between Sutton and the Skakel family, told me that they were certain Rushton would have turned any of his children over to the police if he thought they were guilty.

The Sutton files occupy thousands of pages, filling two file cabinets. At Sheridan's request the company assembled draft "portfolios" that made hypothetical cases against Tom and Michael Skakel and Ken Littleton. These portfolios construct a prosecutor's best case against each one. The one on Michael was titled "Michael Skakel, A purposefully Prejudicial Analysis of Michael Skakel and his Testimony." Sheridan recently told me why he had asked for scenarios to be constructed against any Skakel who might be considered a suspect: 'My old man told me to always ask for the worst case. That way you know you're not bullshitted." Murphy and Willis Krebs, a retired NYPD detective working for Sutton Associates, told me separately that they believed Michael Skakel was innocent."

Dominick Dunne, Goldberg and Fuhrman got their hands on burglarized, prejudicial, Sutton Reports and used them to create the impression that Michael Skakel had murdered Martha Moxley. Needless to say, the key to lynching a Skakel relied upon sustaining the false impression that the "murderer" and "the police "were at odds with each other, even though there was far more evidence to support the conclusion that Ken Littleton murdered Martha Moxley. Indeed, the relationship between the Skakels and the police does not explain the failure to prosecute Ken Littleton.

In January of 1976 Rushton had been hospitalized with chest pain soon after he realized that the police considered Tom a serious suspect. Rather than close ranks to protect a killer, as Dunne and Fuhrman claim the family did, Rushton initiated his own investigation to determine whether his children could have had any involvement in the murder. All the children underwent batteries of psychological tests and were hypnotized and injected with sodium pentothal-so-called truth serum, which disinhibits subjects. Michael, who was not a suspect at the time, took a sodium-pentothal test in 1980 and two more in the 1990's; after each one, Margolis says, psychiatrists concluded that he had not committed the crime. Tom was examined by prominent doctors and subjected to neurological and osychological testing at Presbyterian Hospital in New York City. In March of 1976 the doctors concluded, according to Margolis, that Tom could not have committed the crime. The Skakel family lawyers conveyed the results of these tests to the police.

Unfortunately, the thirst to prosecute Michael Skakel was misplaced because the person who had savaged Martha Moxley was obviously so violent and so deranged, that it was probably the work of a serial murderer, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested this obvious conclusion when he exposed the fact that Ken Littleton was a violent, disturbed, sexually abusive criminal.

When the Greenwich police learned of Littleton's arrest, they persuaded Nantucket prosecutors to offer to reduce Littleton's felony charge to a misdemeanor if he would submit to a sodium-amytal interview about the Moxley murder. Littleton refused and pleaded guilty to the felony -a plea that ended his teaching and coaching career.

In Februaqry of 1993 Littleton told the police that he was no longer willing to cooperate in the investigation. In 1994 Solomon told Sheridan that Boston authorities had impounded Littleton's car after a run-in with a Boston policeman. Sheridan recently told me that Solomon then showed him and Emanuel Margolis, Tom Skakel's lawyer, a black, three-ring binder containing photos of the bodies of teenage girls fatally bludgeoned within the vicinity of Littleton's various homes. Littleton was a suspect in the murders, Solomon told him. Solomon said he was trying to assemble an arrest warrant for Littleton in the Moxley murder. For unknown reasons the warrant was never obtained. In the summer of 1998 Connecticut's attorney general granted Littleton lifetime immunity and removed him from the suspect list in exchange for his testimony before a rarely invoked one-man jury called to indict Michael Skakel.

The pursuit of Scott Peterson has a similar, "lynch mob" feel to it, because as long as nobody has exposed a single shred of evidence to suggest that Scott Peterson fits the profile of somebody who is capable of murdering a pregnant woman, the suggestion is preposterous.

The Laci Peterson case has become a media circus and a volunteer center used to coordinate efforts to find Laci Peterson was closed the day after police talked to her family. The Modesto Police Department held a news conference where 28-year-old Fresno area resident Amber Frey said she had a recent romantic relationship with Peterson, but did not know he is married. This bizarre relationship is extremely perplexing to say the least, and the media is unfortunately too incompetent to clarify essential questions like; "what did you know and when did you know it?"

The media is very good at spreading rumor and innuendo but is extremely negligent when it comes to exposing the source of self-serving rumors. Consider the following media excerpt:

"But many in Modesto have suspected Peterson in the wake of rumors that he'd had an extramarital affair. Those rumors were confirmed by Frey, who said she had met Scott Peterson on Nov. 20.",

Another paragraph of the very same report, indicated:

"One month after a pregnant Modesto woman vanished, a tearful 28-year- old woman stepped forward Friday night to admit that she had carried on an affair with the missing woman's husband."

If one takes the media seriously, Amber Frey is the only source of the claim that she and Scott Peterson were having an affair, but does anybody really believe that?

On January 28, 2003, Scott Peterson was interviewed by Diane Sawyer, and the following revelation evidently made the police very nervous:

"Peterson said he told police about the affair immediately after his wife disappeared. 'Good Morning America' said police had no comment on that allegation."

The January 28, 2003 ABC news report about the fact that Peterson's secret affair was not such a big secret, was concluded in the following manner:

"In a press conference Friday night, Frey admitted that she had a romantic relationship with Peterson. When she discovered he was involved in the Laci Peterson disappearance case, Frey said she immediately called the Modesto Police Department on Dec. 30."

Amber Frey called the Modesto Police Department, 6 days after Laci Peterson disappeared, and ABC news calls that "immediate"? Hit me over the head here, but does anybody get the impression that somebody is trying to create the impression that Amber Frey called the police before Scott said anything about the affair? That's the impression I get. Needless to say, when Scott Peterson says "immediate" it means December 24, 2002.

On January 29, 2003, ABC news published the following report.

"During his interview with Sawyer, Peterson said that he told police on Christmas Eve about his affair with Amber Frey, the day Laci went missing. But after the interview, police told ABCNEWS that wasn't true. They said they learned of the affair on Dec. 30 when Frey, a single mom from Fresno, contacted them."

On January 30, 2003, the police said they would not respond to anything Scott Peterson told reporters, and the confirmation of the above, ABCNews report is consequently very, very weak.

Why would Scott Peterson place himself in a position to be called a liar by the police? This just does not make very much sense, given the fact that Amber Frey called the police 6 days after Laci Peterson disappeared, and ABCNEWS is evidently determined to call this "immediately". Very strange. Scott Peterson and the police should be on the same side here, but for some reason, they are clearly mortal enemies.

If Scott Peterson is telling the truth, then the police are evidently telling Amber Frey what to say.

In my opinion, Amber Frey's public statement about why she contacted the Police, is carefully scripted to fall in line with the impression that Scott Peterson murdered his wife. According to Amber;

"When I discovered he was involved in the Laci Peterson disappearance case I immediately contacted the Modesto Police Department."

That sounds way too scripted to believe.

I am more inclined to believe something like, "When I discovered that his pregnant wife had vanished, I was shocked."

Moreover, I am not too sure about the claim that Amber Frey did not know that Scott Peterson was married. Didn't she even suspect? I think it's fair to contemplate the possibility that somebody had coached her to say that she didn't know he was married, so that the police could rule her out as a suspect. The claim that she did not know he was married is too neat and tidy, and that is rarely the case, when human beings are involved.

It sounds like Amer Frey is evidently coached by the sort of people who believe that somebody like Paula Corbet Jones is a civil rights activist. Indeed, aren't they acting like they have the power to turn a sexual indiscretion into a capital offence?

I do not understand the conduct of Amber Frey and the police because in my opinion, they jeopardized the opportunity to find Laci Peterson. Why did the Modesto Police Department hold a news conference where 28-year-old Fresno area resident Amber Frey said she had a recent romantic relationship with Peterson? What's the point? Why did the police make that information public knowledge? Why weren't the police discreet, so they could investigate Scott Peterson without having him get defensive? A volunteer center used to coordinate efforts to find Laci Peterson was closed the day after police talked to her family about Amber, and that has certainly not helped to find Laci Peterson. Perhaps, the police were merely overwhelmed by the media circus that the disappearance of Laci Peterson attracted, and who can blame them for driving all the clowns out of town.

The media has been absolutely irresponsible where the Laci Peterson case is concerned, and the lapse is so glaringly transparent that it didn't even escape the notice of the student newspaper of Southern California, the Daily Trojan. The following editorial makes media irresponsibility very clear:

During the last few weeks, the news has been full of stories about Laci Peterson, the Modesto, California, woman who disappeared on Christmas Eve. At first, it was a legitimate news story. Peterson was eight months pregnant when she vanished, and her family scoured the countryside looking for her.

But during the past week, it has turned into a media circus. Newspapers revealed that Scott Peterson was cheating on his wife at the time. The extended family has issued several statements denouncing his infidelity. Finally, during the weekend, "the other woman" came forward to talk about their affair.

Now the story seems like a repeat of the Chandra Levy scandal, in which a Modesto woman vanished in Washington, D.C. Upon investigation, it turned out that she had been having an affair with Congressman Gary Condit. Although Condit had nothing to do with her disappearance, journalists pounced on the story and turned it into a sordid soap opera.

The difference between the "media circus" and a reasonable conclusion is absolutely extreme. According to the "media circus" Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife. According to the simple logic of reasonable students and frustrated people who post their impressions on message boards on the Internet,"the people who harmed Laci Peterson are as crazy as the people who murdered Chandra Levy. Needless to say, one gets the impression that the disappearance of Laci Peterson is impossible to understand until the truth about the murder of Chandra Levy is clearer and that should become more and more obvious as we abandon prejudices that lead to the wrong conclusion. We have created this perverse value system where the "media circus is the message" and we should learn to appreciate the fact that we are all unique and different, and we should not slant the facts to legitimize unwarranted suspicion.

On January 19, 2003, Scott Peterson spearheaded an effort to get missing-person fliers posted in Los Angeles.

On January 20, 2003, Police report that someone broke into the Petersons' home and burglarized it while Scott Peterson was in Southern California. Police later say that they have identified a suspect, and add that the burglary was not related to Laci Peterson's disappearance. What was the burglary all about? Why don't the Police inform the public. If the Police think that it is important to inform the public that Scott Peterson had an affair and took out a $250,000 life insurance policy on his wife, why do they not think that it is equally important to disclose information about a burglary which is in fact a criminal offence?

Are the people who burglarized Scott Peterson's home trying to frame him for the murder of his wife?

The Peterson home is a potential crime scene, real or imagined, depending upon the competence of any prosecutor who decides to target Scott Peterson, and the Police cannot possibly claim that the burglary is not connected to the disappearance of Laci Peterson, unless they know exactly who is responsible, for making Laci Peterson disappear.

Modesto police Detective Doug Ridenour says suspects were identified but not arrested, and that the break-in appeared to be unrelated to the disappearance.

I find it very strange that the home of Laci and Scott Peterson can be burglarized and the Police do not aggressively enforce the law in a manner which holds the culprits accountable. Scott Peterson is a victim who has lost his pregnant wife without explanation, and when his home was burglarized, was he treated like a victim whose rights had been grossly violated.

The bizarre, loathsome reality is that if Laci's abductors are not exposed, Scott Peterson cannot prove that he is not guilty of murder, and his credibility or lack thereof, is potentially a death sentence or a lifeboat. It is therefore not fair or proper to attack his credibility in the absence of solid evidence or proof, because if we abandon the principal that a man is innocent until proven guilty, a just verdict is a coin toss.