Alaina Kelley

In his case, he cited doctor-patient confidentiality as his reason for declining to testify or release information about Michael's time at Elon.

Unlike, yeah, unlike Skakel's contract with Sutton, the mutually assured privacy between a doctor and their patient is taken very,

very seriously in the legal system.

Yeah.

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 has just informed us that she's not positive, but she said because she doesn't know Connecticut law, but she knows mass law.

There is the possibility that Rushton Skakel, especially the father, would not be compelled to testify because of like the parent child.

It's kind of like a spousal.

It's privilege.

So that makes sense.

Now, again, they're claiming that his confessions, Michael's confessions, had nothing to do with his treatment.

So that's why 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 inadmissible.

Why is that hard to say?

Interesting.

Finally, in January 2000, the grand jury ruled that even without the incriminating statements made at Elon, there was sufficient evidence to charge Michael Skakel with the murder of Martha Moxley.

That's without the confessions.