⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️

[CLEMSON96JDH]

Two tidbits I learned this week (I’m sure I missed many) were

(1)that someone doused Murdaugh’s Hampton house with diesel fuel and tried to set it on fire…..

(2) alex called Blanca the morning of the “attempted suicide” to get his health insurance info (Tinaley testified he did not have life insurance also)

So we got:

Attempted house fire
Smith kid’s hit and run
Housekeeper’s death
Boat wreck
Stolen gun
Financial thefts
Murders
Insurance scam

Lawd

 

[GrayCourtStomp]

I couldn't help but belly laugh when they sent the sacrifial lamb 3rd council up against Tinsley for the second time with the jury present. Buddy had one quick question and was outta there. That smoke he did not want.

 

[88MechEng]

So… what does the Prosecution have left to present next week? The blood spatter t-shirt and possibly some DNA evidence? I know Fitsnews reported that Cousin Eddie may testify to Alex confessing to the crime, but I doubt that happens. It seems that something is still missing in the State’s case.

 

[jeffcoat]

Two tidbits I learned this week (I’m sure I missed many) were

(1)that someone doused Murdaugh’s Hampton house with diesel fuel and tried to set it on fire…..

Was this introduced in court? I haven't seen that before. Interesting. He probably did it to get sympathy.

 

[gooddogjudge]

Was this introduced in court? I haven't seen that before. Interesting. He probably did it to get sympathy.

No. I believe it happened 10-12 years ago.

 

[MojitoJoe]

So… what does the Prosecution have left to present next week? The blood spatter t-shirt and possibly some DNA evidence? I know Fitsnews reported that Cousin Eddie may testify to Alex confessing to the crime, but I doubt that happens. It seems that something is still missing in the State’s case.

They may include the following as well: Medical examiner/coroner. SLED's lead investigator, Owens. The third SLED interview with Alex on August 11.

 

[GrayCourtStomp]

Now I’ve heard it all. And that’s saying a lot with this case.

I appreciate the way you've handled yourself ITT's. You don't choose family and it can be tough.

 

[ReserveTiger]

Two tidbits I learned this week (I’m sure I missed many) were

(1)that someone doused Murdaugh’s Hampton house with diesel fuel and tried to set it on fire…..

(2) alex called Blanca the morning of the “attempted suicide” to get his health insurance info (Tinaley testified he did not have life insurance also)

So we got:

Attempted house fire
Smith kid’s hit and run
Housekeeper’s death
Boat wreck
Stolen gun
Financial thefts
Murders
Insurance scam

DIRTPICKER FAMILY

Lawd

FIFY

 

[ReserveTiger]

Two tidbits I learned this week (I’m sure I missed many) were

(1)that someone doused Murdaugh’s Hampton house with diesel fuel and tried to set it on fire…..

(2) alex called Blanca the morning of the “attempted suicide” to get his health insurance info (Tinaley testified he did not have life insurance also)

So we got:
DIRTPICKER Family
Attempted house fire
Smith kid’s hit and run
Housekeeper’s death
Boat wreck
Stolen gun
Financial thefts
Murders
Insurance scam

Lawd

FIFY

 

[other1]

Was this introduced in court? I haven't seen that before. Interesting. He probably did it to get sympathy.

Should have used gas. It's pretty tough to light diesel with a match

 

[nmerritt11]

So it's sort of unnecessary for a juror to take notes??

I think if going to church with my grandparents. I used the paper and pencil to doodle and couldn’t tell you a damn thing that was said.

It’s easy to distract yourself with pencil and paper if you don’t feel like listening

 

[other1]

I think if going to church with my grandparents. I used the paper and pencil to doodle and couldn’t tell you a damn thing that was said.

It’s easy to distract yourself with pencil and paper if you don’t feel like listening

I'm capable of doing it quite well without paper and pencil.

 

[tigerjimp]

Not an hour but he had more than enough time...he is there waiting his chance and would only take a few minutes and then time for a quick shower.

Feel he is guilty and likely premeditated. Laugh at defense saying , well they all seemed to be getting along well as a family minutes before. What the heck does that mean. He is not gonna come in guns blazing. He is gonna be calm and wait for the right moment. This guy is evil and crooked and a master manipulator. That is what the prosecution is bringing out. Also, the whole family dynamics changed over the past few years.

He is also a narcissist. Those who think he could not sink to kill his family are just stupid.

In addition, how many lies has he been caught in/proven in this trial ? If innocent why would he even need to lie? To me his mom's caretaker and his family's helper should have changed anyone with doubts mind. Alex tried to manipulate them and their memories. Certainly stung the defense as they quickly asked for a mistrial.

Now the fact the police allowed her to enter and clean the house the next morning as Alex CALLED her and asked her to do is appalling .

The VOLUME of circumstantial evidence in this trial if people are listening is overwhelming.

Fully agree. Also, he only needed enough time to throw his clothes in a bag, rinse off, and toss on a t and shorts. He could have ditched everything after his short stop at his Mom’s before he went back to “discover” them dead, which is why he wanted the house keeper to extend the amount of time he was there. I think the defense was/is going to push the “not enough time” narrative hard, which is why they blew up when she said he was there only 15 to 20 when he had asked/bribed her to say 40.

 

[CLEMSON96JDH]

I couldn't help but belly laugh when they sent the sacrifial lamb 3rd council up against Tinsley for the second time with the jury present. Buddy had one quick question and was outta there. That smoke he did not want.

My man Tinsley said he went to law school every day carrying an orange backpack 😂😂😂

 

[BarnwellTiger]

I couldn't help but belly laugh when they sent the sacrifial lamb 3rd council up against Tinsley for the second time with the jury present. Buddy had one quick question and was outta there. That smoke he did not want.

Assume this happened on Friday? I would like to go back and hear/see that one. It's clear that that's a lot of friction b/t Tinsley and the AM camp.

 

[CLEMSON96JDH]

They may include the following as well: Medical examiner/coroner. SLED's lead investigator, Owens. The third SLED interview with Alex on August 11.

The 3rd interview appears to be very important. The local solicitor begged off the case that day and was quoted as saying “due to events that occurred today, I am turning this over to the AG’s office….”

 

[murdaugh]

The fact one doesn’t leave a note doesn’t rule out suicide. There are no rules to follow when you commit suicide

I was refuting something another poster said. I’m well aware most don’t leave a note. I also know the specifics of how he got struck by the train and I’m adding that it wasn’t suicide. That’s all.

 

[GrayCourtStomp]

My man Tinsley said he went to law school every day carrying an orange backpack 😂😂😂

I loved that. He knew 100% he was trolling all the Cocks in there. Dude makes me wanna sue someone 😅

 

[GrayCourtStomp]

Assume this happened on Friday? I would like to go back and hear/see that one. It's clear that that's a lot of friction b/t Tinsley and the AM camp.

 

[LUV DEM TIGERS]

It seems that something is still missing in the State’s case.

I think the only thing missing is a video of him actually pulling the triggers.

 

[RaleighTiger]

Can someone explain to me like I am five what the purpose of the defenses line of questioning to Tinsley was? What exactly were the trying to get at about the process type stuff?

 

[FallsChurchTiger]

100 pages and counting.

Big question. If you are the defense do you put Alex on the stand? That's the biggest piece of drama left.

I think you almost have to, to give him a shot and dealing with the alibi issues and inconsistencies in what he's on record as saying and what is contradicted by other testimony and digital/technical evidence.

 

[gooddogjudge]

I was refuting something another poster said. I’m well aware most don’t leave a note. I also know the specifics of how he got struck by the train and I’m adding that it wasn’t suicide. That’s all.

I hesitate to ask but I am genuinely curious...do the specifics you believe differ from the sworn testimony from the court case 80 some odd years ago?

Or do we interpret the testimony differently?

I do realize that the testimony wasn't about a suicide note but rather the way the car inexplicably pulled onto the tracks and Murdaugh waved as the train approached. The article detailing this info was posted earlier in this thread.

I feel for you and all the others affected by this tragedy.

 

[castlesl]

Can someone explain to me like I am five what the purpose of the defenses line of questioning to Tinsley was? What exactly were the trying to get at about the process type stuff?

Part of the State’s case (in providing for a motive) is that the walls were closing in on Alex. No one knew of the financial crimes to the tune of almost $14 million. The boat case was 100% likely to expose that. Tinsley was asking for a list of all institutions where Alex had money so he could subpoena the records. Tinsley testified that Alex basically offered a small amount of money for the boat case and said he was broke as justification for such.


Likewise had there been issues with Maggie (yet to be determined), a divorce would likely do the same thing. In order for Alex to stay out of jail and be ruined, he needed to not have any cause for someone to poke around his finances.

The theory is that Alex killed both Paul and Maggie to prevent the discovery of financial crimes. Tinsley testified had the killings been, or suspected to be, by vigilantes (seeking justice for the Malory Beach death) he would have dropped the Murdaugh’s from the case since he still had Parker’s on the hook.

So the inference is Alex would have known that and known that if he could pull off killing them both and not have it fall on him, then he would likely skate by and not be found out.

 

[TigerTC]

It’s just wild that that guy just lured them there to kill them. Maybe he did, but I’m not sure what he gained from it.

He certainly had no idea Paul was taking that video. What’s weird is, I have no idea how they’re going to defend that. Maybe they won’t even try, but that seems crazy.

It’s highly likely that he did it or knew about it. Also, not impossible that he didn’t do it. If he simply said, “I swung by the kennels on my way to mommas and told them I’d be back” this wouldnt be so cut and dry. But I guess they’re doubling down on the fact that he wasn’t there?

Crazy story for sure. I have no idea what to believe but won’t be shocked by any outcome.

What say you?

I say that the State has put on a lot of evidence, most of it tiny pieces of a big picture, that take away any reasonable doubt about Alex committing the crime.

I also understand that the State has not finished its case, nor has the Defense presented its case. However, the trajectory of a typical prosecution is that they will present the strongest evidence last. So while I know what I believe now, I have not made up my mind.

However, as of today, there is no other fair and reasonable interpretation of the evidence other than that Alex killed Maggie and Paul.

 

[Clemblack]

100 pages and counting.

Big question. If you are the defense do you put Alex on the stand? That's the biggest piece of drama left.

I think you almost have to, to give him a shot and dealing with the alibi issues and inconsistencies in what he's on record as saying and what is contradicted by other testimony and digital/technical evidence.

I would. Alex is extremely affable and charismatic. I'd put him on the stand and let him tell his side of things. IMO that is the defense's best, and perhaps only, chance at a hung jury.

 

[GrayCourtStomp]

Can someone explain to me like I am five what the purpose of the defenses line of questioning to Tinsley was? What exactly were the trying to get at about the process type stuff?

Part of the State’s case (in providing for a motive) is that the walls were closing in on Alex. No one knew of the financial crimes to the tune of almost $14 million. The boat case was 100% likely to expose that. Tinsley was asking for a list of all institutions where Alex had money so he could subpoena the records. Tinsley testified that Alex basically offered a small amount of money for the boat case and said he was broke as justification for such.


Likewise had there been issues with Maggie (yet to be determined), a divorce would likely do the same thing. In order for Alex to stay out of jail and be ruined, he needed to not have any cause for someone to poke around his finances.

The theory is that Alex killed both Paul and Maggie to prevent the discovery of financial crimes. Tinsley testified had the killings been, or suspected to be, by vigilantes (seeking justice for the Malory Beach death) he would have dropped the Murdaugh’s from the case since he still had Parker’s on the hook.

So the inference is Alex would have known that and known that if he could pull off killing them both and not have it fall on him, then he would likely skate by and not be found out.

This, The defense is trying to use Tinsley's testimony as the clock was ticking , the 10th was doomsday so he was forced into action on the 7th. He never said any of this btw, it's a narrative they are trying to create.

Problem is they sent 'that boy' to question a grown ass man.

 

[other1]

For me, if he was innocent why all the lies and him trying to get people to say certain things in his favor. If he had nothing to hide then why the lies.

 

[RaleighTiger]

Part of the State’s case (in providing for a motive) is that the walls were closing in on Alex. No one knew of the financial crimes to the tune of almost $14 million. The boat case was 100% likely to expose that. Tinsley was asking for a list of all institutions where Alex had money so he could subpoena the records. Tinsley testified that Alex basically offered a small amount of money for the boat case and said he was broke as justification for such.


Likewise had there been issues with Maggie (yet to be determined), a divorce would likely do the same thing. In order for Alex to stay out of jail and be ruined, he needed to not have any cause for someone to poke around his finances.

The theory is that Alex killed both Paul and Maggie to prevent the discovery of financial crimes. Tinsley testified had the killings been, or suspected to be, by vigilantes (seeking justice for the Malory Beach death) he would have dropped the Murdaugh’s from the case since he still had Parker’s on the hook.

So the inference is Alex would have known that and known that if he could pull off killing them both and not have it fall on him, then he would likely skate by and not be found out.

Thank you for this. But what was Murdaugh's lawyer trying to get at with his questions to Tinsley. Seemed like he was focused on the process.

 

[RaleighTiger]

This, The defense is trying to use Tinsley's testimony as the clock was ticking , the 10th was doomsday so he was forced into action on the 7th. He never said any of this btw, it's a narrative they are trying to create.

Problem is they sent 'that boy' to question a grown ass man.

The defense or the prosecution?

 

[castlesl]

If the hearing had gone forward on the 10th, that event would likely start the clock on his financial crimes being uncovered and beyond the point of no return for Alex.

The defense is saying that isn’t true, that the 10th was just another point in a trial proceeding that had many months ahead.

The question is why would Alex kill them when he did? Defense is saying there was not a compelling reason for him to do so on the 7th, the state is arguing there is because of the hearing on the 10th.

 

[RaleighTiger]

If the hearing had gone forward on the 10th, that event would likely start the clock on his financial crimes being uncovered and beyond the point of no return for Alex.

The defense is saying that isn’t true, that the 10th was just another point in a trial proceeding that had many months ahead.

The question is why would Alex kill them when he did? Defense is saying there was not a compelling reason for him to do so on the 7th, the state is arguing there is because of the hearing on the 10th.

Ah, I see. That clears it up.

 

[castlesl]

The defense or the prosecution?

Prosecution, defense is arguing there wasn’t an immediate issue for Alex.

 

[castlesl]

This, The defense is trying to use Tinsley's testimony as the clock was ticking , the 10th was doomsday so he was forced into action on the 7th. He never said any of this btw, it's a narrative they are trying to create.

Problem is they sent 'that boy' to question a grown ass man.

You seem confused. Tinsley 100% said it would have been doomsday for Alex had the hearing gone forward.

 

[CLEMSON96JDH]

If the hearing had gone forward on the 10th, that event would likely start the clock on his financial crimes being uncovered and beyond the point of no return for Alex.

The defense is saying that isn’t true, that the 10th was just another point in a trial proceeding that had many months ahead.

The question is why would Alex kill them when he did? Defense is saying there was not a compelling reason for him to do so on the 7th, the state is arguing there is because of the hearing on the 10th.

Yes. Unfortunately, Poot's associate couldn't muster the courage to battle Tinsley again. The associate tried and failed in the en camera hearing and Tinsley made him look like a fool.

It is a crucial element of the motive. Alex is paying Griffin and Poot all this money to defend him and they refused to do one of the most crucial parts of their job (cross examine Tinsley).

 

[castlesl]

Yes. Unfortunately, Poot's associate couldn't muster the courage to battle Tinsley again. The associate tried and failed in the en camera hearing and Tinsley made him look like a fool.

It is a crucial element of the motive. Alex is paying Griffin and Poot all this money to defend him and they refused to do one of the most crucial parts of their job (cross examine Tinsley).

The issue isn’t their lack of ability per se, it is the facts, they are what they are and they are not on the side of the defense.

 

[CLEMSON96JDH]

The issue isn’t their lack of ability per se, it is the facts, they are what they are and they are not on the side of the defense.

Fair enough. But I'm pissed if I'm the defendant and my counsel does nothing to refute/minimize/explain away what the prosecution has let the witness tell the jury.

 

[GrayCourtStomp]

You seem confused. Tinsley 100% said it would have been doomsday for Alex had the hearing gone forward.

I'm not confused at all maybe you need to re-listen and work on reading comp.

Basically the only question they asked him in front of the jury was "your previous testimony was it's fair to say there'd be no explosion on June 10th".

 

[GrayCourtStomp]

The defense or the prosecution?

Tinsley said there wouldn't be a huge explosion on the 10th ,but it would start the clock. The defense is using that as if he said Alex had no choice on the 7th with his back against the wall . Then spinning it as if the trial was nowhere near ready to be heard,citing different motions yet to be heard in the early stages etc.

 

[Mr Peter North]

Yes. Unfortunately, Poot's associate couldn't muster the courage to battle Tinsley again. The associate tried and failed in the en camera hearing and Tinsley made him look like a fool.

It is a crucial element of the motive. Alex is paying Griffin and Poot all this money to defend him and they refused to do one of the most crucial parts of their job (cross examine Tinsley).

Because they knew the answers to the questions ….. they send their sacrificial lamb to get slaughtered by Tinsley …hence they don’t look incompetent to the jury.
Poot is an absolute POS.