NORWALK, Conn. — What went wrong? How could Michael Skakel be convicted after so many years despite an alibi and the absence of physical evidence linking him to the brutal murder of the pretty and popular girl next door, Martha Moxley?

In the weeks between Skakel's conviction Friday and his sentencing July 19, trial watchers, legal pundits and perhaps even people sipping java in fine coffee houses in Greenwich, Conn., where the gruesome murder took place, will be asking themselves such questions.

On paper, the case was a loser for the prosecution. Memories were frayed with the passage of time and some witnesses had sketchy pasts, including one who died of a heroin overdose last year. Even though Skakel made incriminating statements over the years, much of what he said seemed to come under duress at a controversial Maine reform school he attended in the late 1970s.

A quick reading of the pulse outside Judge John Kavanewsky's Courtroom C throughout the four-week trial showed that many who watched the proceedings anticipated an acquittal. There wasn't enough hard evidence. Too many doubts, they said.

But that feeling took a turn toward the prosecution Monday when the seemingly asleep-at-the-switch prosecutor, Jonathan Benedict, came alive and, in the estimation of Martha's mother, Dorthy Moxley, "connected all the dots." Was it Benedict's plan all along?

Prosecutor Jonathan Benedict

Benedict argued that Skakel was the only person with detailed recollection of his movements the night of the murder. He placed himself at the scene. Skakel did not testify, but he said in a 1997 tape recording which jurors heard that he went to his cousin's home but came home and could not sleep because he was "horny." He claimed he went out and tried to masturbate, but could not. Then he decided that he wanted to "get a kiss from Martha."

Only the killer, Benedict argued, would have reason to have such a specific recollection of a night more than 26 years ago. Skakel, of course, left out some key details, Benedict insisted. He left out the part where he picked up a six-iron that belonged to his deceased mother's set and used it to beat Martha Moxley over the head and face until she was unconscious and ultimately dead.

The attack was so brutal that the club broke into pieces. One piece, which prosecutors insist had the monogrammed letters of Skakel's late mother, was never found. "Nobody but a person with the last name Skakel would have any motive to destroy this part of the golf club," Benedict argued in his closing.

For his part, defense lawyer Mickey Sherman expressed confidence all along that Skakel would be acquitted based on lack of evidence and his belief that the prosecution's evidence didn't quite fit. He used metaphors about jigsaw puzzle pieces being shaved to fit.

"Let's talk about the forensic evidence against Michael Skakel," the defense lawyer told jurors during his closing argument. Then, Sherman, ever the charmer, paused for a few seconds. "Well, that's the end of that discussion."

His self-assured manner would turn sour following the announcement of the jury's verdict.

"We are bitterly disappointed," Sherman told reporters outside the courthouse. "There's no way to hide it."

On Friday, Sherman did not point to a single mistake he made, but in the coming weeks he will no doubt be on the defensive.

Why did he allow a police officer on the jury? Why didn't he put Skakel on the stand if Skakel wanted to testify so badly, as Sherman told reporters? Was his closing argument all it could have been?

Sherman has said that he knew the police officer from past dealings with clients and believed he was an articulate, intelligent man who would give the defense the benefit of reasonable doubt.

As for putting Skakel on the stand, Sherman has said, it would have been rife with pitfalls. Prosecutors would have grilled Skakel about all the statements he allegedly made. He didn't know if he killed Martha. He was drunk and blacked out. He could have killed Martha, or his brother could have. He must have killed her. And, "Yeah, I did it." No fewer than 11 witnesses testified that Skakel talked to them about the murder.

Although Benedict was criticized for what some considered ho-hum examinations of witnesses and a disjointed opening statement, Sherman appeared to let Benedict set the tone. If Benedict and his co-counsel were animated, Sherman turned it up a notch.

But Benedict clearly caught Sherman off-guard with the second half of the prosecution's closing argument.

"The defendant for the last 27 years has been trying to put some spin magic on his meanderings on the night of Oct. 30, 1975," Benedict told the jurors. He created an alibi, then told witnesses he was drunk and couldn't remember, and finally, tried to explain away the possibility of his semen at the scene of the crime, the prosecutor argued. Skakel, Benedict told jurors, "spun a web in which he has ultimately entrapped himself."

By the end of Benedict's close, however, it was too late. Sherman could not respond because the prosecution gets the last word.

And that's only fair. The prosecution bears the burden of proving criminal defendants like Michael Skakel guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

On Thursday, the third day of deliberations, jurors requested to rehear the rebuttal portion of Benedict's closing argument — a request that was denied by the judge since such arguments are not considered evidence — and that may have signaled an impending defeat for the defense.

On Friday, a jury of Kennedy cousin Michael Skakel's peers concluded that prosecutors had met their burden of proof.