Editor's Note: As part of CNN.com's new Crime section, we are archiving some of the most interesting content from CourtTVNews.com. This story was first published in 2002.
(Court TV) -- Michael Skakel's courtroom demeanor was all wrong and his high-profile defense lawyer underestimated the ability of jurors to recognize a phony alibi when they saw one, four of the jurors who convicted the Kennedy cousin said in an interview with Court TV.
"I did not believe his alibi. There were several holes in that story," said jury foreman Kevin Cambra, making his first national television appearance since Skakel was convicted last Friday of the 1975 killing of Greenwich teen Martha Moxley. "He put himself at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder."
Cambra and jurors Christia Valentino, Cathy Lazansky and Laura Copeland sat down with Court TV's Catherine Crier and celebrity crime writer Dominick Dunne to discuss the sensational case and their reasons for finding Skakel guilty last week after three days of deliberations.
When Cambra announced the verdict just before 11 a.m. Friday, Skakel winced, bit his lip and swayed as he stood in place. An audible gasp was heard in the Norwalk courtroom where the jury of six men and six women had been listening to testimony since May 7.
Although many seasoned observers said that the jury would either acquit or deadlock because of a lack of physical evidence, the jurors said that not one member voted not guilty during the many informal polls taken over three days of deliberations. The task from the outset, Cambra said, was to convince the initially undecided, like him, to come to a decision.
"When we initially took the first poll, there were eight guiltys and four undecideds. There was not one not guilty," said Cambra, a father of two who works for a national driver training company.
"I felt the gentleman was guilty," agreed juror Christia Valentino, one of the more vocal members of the jury.
Like Cambra, juror Cathy Lazansky was initially undecided whether prosecutors proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt. Although there was no physical evidence linking Skakel to the crime, he told nearly a dozen people over two decades that he killed Martha or that he was drunk and unsure whether he or one of his brother's killed her.
Martha, a 15-year-old high school sophomore, was found lying face down with her pants and underwear at her ankles on Halloween in 1975. She had been beaten and stabbed to death with a golf club linked to a set owned by Skakel's late mother.
Skakel's much recognized defense lawyer, Mickey Sherman, argued unsuccessfully that the lack of physical evidence and the unreliability of statements his recovering alcoholic client made over the years amounted to reasonable doubt.
Among other things, jurors said the close-knit panel was generally in agreement about the following:
Although observers opined that police interest in Kenneth Littleton and Thomas Skakel as prime suspects might form reasonable doubt in juror's minds, the four Court TV spoke with this week said they were not distracted from the statements Michael Skakel made.
Prosecutors did not answer all the questions about Thomas Skakel, who was never charged, and jurors wonder whether how much Michael Skakel's family knew about the crime and whether he had assistance disposing of bloody clothes and the handle of the golf club that would have borne the name of the Skakel children's mother.
"There must have been a mess. There had to be a mess. Someone had to help," juror Laura Copeland said.
Skakel, the 41-year-old nephew of Ethel Kennedy, is housed without bail in a western Connecticut prison pending sentencing July 19. He faces 10 years to life in prison, under 1975 guidelines which apply.
Cambra and the jurors who spoke to Crier and Dunne agreed that there job ended with the verdict and they do not plan to watch as Skakel receives punishment.
"I think Michael Skakel will get what he deserves," Cambra said.
The jury foreman added at another point, "When we were going through deliberations, we were so focused on the evidence, the exhibits and the testimony. It had nothing to do with the fact that he was a Kennedy. It had nothing to do with the fact this story is 27 years old."
An appeal is certain. Among other things, Skakel is expected to appeal the transfer of the case from juvenile court to adult court and the judge's instructions to the jury, which the defense considered tipped in favor of the prosecution's largely circumstantial case. E-mail to a friend