ADVERTISEMENT

⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️

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.

You clearly are not falling the logic of the testimony. You are confusing the defense and prosecution or you just don’t get it.

The defense is trying to say that Alex does not have a motive for killing his son and wife. The State is saying that Alex did have a motive and the hearing (on the 10th of June) was the penultimate reason that, at least Paul, needed to be killed prior to the hearing. That action would postpone the hearing for at at least a period of time and possibly / likely indefinitely.

The whole reason Tinsley said he would drop Alex from the suit was so the Jury would understand, that had Paul been killed and the finger not pointed to Alex, but someone else (possibly those seeking their own form of Justice for Malory Beach), that he would not have wanted Alex as a defendant in the boat case. He would have dropped the Murdaugh’s altogether from the wrongful death trial.

It would have had the exact effect that Alex wanted, get him out of any situation that gives someone the opportunity to sniff around his finances.

Yes Tinsley said during the en camera testimony that there wouldn’t be an “explosion on the day of the 10th”, he wasn’t agreeing that the 10th hearing was irrelevant. As a matter of fact, he spent the entire cross examination time arguing with Alex’s defense attorney that the hearing to compel was very important and he was close to trial and the noose would tighten around Alex on the 10th.

Tinsley made the point that the judge was going to give him everything he asked for during that hearing and argued that is exactly what the judge did later in October when it was rescheduled. The defense argued differently. The defense seemingly didn’t even know there had been an order handed down from the October hearing.

Had the hearing moved forward on the 10th (absent the deaths of Paul and Maggie), Alex would have had no recourse (short of settling) that would get him out of having his financials exposed.

The defense tried to say the entire time that the boat case was many many months away from trial and there was no reason for Alex to kill Paul on the 7th. Tinsley said he was ready to go to trial in September, just a few months away. The defense said there was no way, too much to do etc. Tinsley argued that he didn’t need resolution on all the motions because they were irrelevant to the trial and with Alex’s defense attorney (Tillery) being diagnose with terminal cancer there was an urgency to get to trial and get the matter resolved as soon as possible.

You simply are not understanding the reason certain testimony is being elicited. The defense wanted Tinsley to say the hearing on the 10th was not a big deal and he refused to do it. He finally conceded that their would not be an “explosion” on the 10th, which there wouldn’t have been, but their would have been almost no way for Alex to stop his crimes from being discovered after that hearing.
 
Last edited:
You clearly are not falling the logic of the testimony. You are confusing the defense and prosecution or you just don’t get it.

The defense is trying to say that Alex does not have a motive for killing his son and wife. The State is saying that Alex did have a motive and the hearing (on the 10th of June) was the penultimate reason that, at least Paul, needed to be killed prior to the hearing. That action would postpone the hearing for at at least a period of time and possibly / likely indefinitely.

The whole reason Tinsley said he would drop Alex from the suit was so the Jury would understand, that had Paul been killed and the finger not pointed to Alex, but someone else (possibly those seeking their own form of Justice for Malory Beach), that he would not have wanted Alex as a defendant in the boat case. He would have dropped the Murdaugh’s altogether from the wrongful death trial.

It would have had the exact effect that Alex wanted, get him out of any situation that gives someone the opportunity to sniff around his finances.

Yes Tinsley said during the en camera testimony that there wouldn’t be an “explosion on the day of the 10th”, he wasn’t agreeing that the 10th hearing was irrelevant. As a matter of fact, he spent the entire cross examination time arguing with Alex’s defense attorney that the hearing to compel was very important and he was close to trial and the noose would tighten around Alex on the 10th.

Tinsley made the point that the judge was going to give him everything he asked for during that hearing and argued that is exactly what the judge did later in October when it was rescheduled. The defense argued differently. The defense seemingly didn’t even know there had been an order handed down from the October hearing.

Had the hearing moved forward on the 10th (absent the deaths of Paul and Maggie), Alex would have had no recourse (short of settling) that would get him out of having his financials exposed.

The defense tried to say the entire time that the boat case was many many months away from trial and there was no reason for Alex to kill Paul on the 7th. Tinsley said he was ready to go to trial in September, just a few months away. The defense said there was no way, too much to do etc. Tinsley argued that he didn’t need resolution on all the motions because they were irrelevant to the trial and with Alex’s defense attorney (Tillery) being diagnose with terminal cancer there was an urgency to get to trial and get the matter resolved as soon as possible.

You simply are not understanding the reason certain testimony is being elicited. The defense wanted Tinsley to say the hearing on the 10th was not a big deal and he refused to do it. He finally conceded that their would not be an “explosion” on the 11th which there wouldn’t have been, but their would have been almost no way for Alex to stop his crimes from being discovered after the 1Oth.
Fair enough. I just think the defense was trying to paint Tinsley's testimony as the 10th being an absolute deadline. I'm not saying it was irrelevant and wouldn't have started the pressure clock on Alex .
 
Fair enough. I just think the defense was trying to paint Tinsley's testimony as the 10th being an absolute deadline. I'm not saying it was irrelevant and wouldn't have started the pressure clock on Alex .
No. Defense kept after Tinsley to admit that 10th wasn't that big of a deal and he finally relented and said the fuse was lit and it was getting plenty of oxygen...waiting to explode soon thereafter if not the 10th. That was w no jury present.
 
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.

I get it, but David Boise himself wasn’t going to win on that point with Mark Tinsley.

Lawyering 101 - Don’t lose a gun fight at high noon in front of the town holding a knife.….

Better to avoid the fight altogether.
 
Fair enough. I just think the defense was trying to paint Tinsley's testimony as the 10th being an absolute deadline. I'm not saying it was irrelevant and wouldn't have started the pressure clock on Alex .

I have come to believe that had that hearing been a week later, Paul would likely have lived another week. It is that big of a deal in my opinion.

Not totally sure about why Maggie had to go, it has to be she was threatening divorce, house keeper testified her engagement ring was found under the seat of her car, so she wasn’t wearing it.
 
No. Defense kept after Tinsley to admit that 10th wasn't that big of a deal and he finally relented and said the fuse was lit and it was getting plenty of oxygen...waiting to explode soon thereafter if not the 10th. That was w no jury present.

I think we (I) are saying the same thing differently. The prosecution tried to make it look like a spark point. The defense tried to spin that testimony as that case wasn't close to ready for trial.
 
I think that by ordering the motion to compel, the bank accounts would have been seen by Alex's lawyer, Danny Henderson first. Danny is a partner at PMPED and he would have realized the theft from the law firm and that would have started the unwinding. Perhaps if that stuff came to light, then Maggie would have divorced him and kept all his assets. He had signed over his assets to her to try and shield them from Tinsley.
 
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?
They made it known that the hearing that would have caused Alex show his financial accounts had been scheduled for June 10th. 3 Days after the murders on June 7th. That hearing had been postponed several times because Tinsley & Alex's lawyer had both gotten cancer and were undergoing chemo.

Tinsley also testified that due to the murders he stopped pursuing going after Alex because he didn't want a sympathetic defendant (if his wife and son had been killed by some vigilantes).
 
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.
No way. You risk him confessing (A Few Good Men style) on the witness stand if they get him mad or can confuse him. Which I think they could given they have caught him in so many lies already.

I think, currently, with no weapons found and tied directly to Alex, that may give him 1 to vote not guilty
 
Last edited:
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.
IMO there is no way he testifies
 
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).


I think Poot did exactly what he should have done. He sent the other guy up there because Poot knew Tinsley would be a tough witness. If Tinsley would've dominated Dick Harpootlian the same way he did that other poor bastard, the media latches onto that and the jury possibly hears about it. That's bad for the defense.

Tinsley wipes the floor with what's-his-name when the jury isn't present, just as Harpootlian suspected he would. So when the jury is present, Poot tells his guy "just ask him this one question, then sit." I believe this is good strategy here for the defense. It's like walking Barry Bonds - you don't love it, but challenging him when he's hot is near suicide. A lesser attorney would've challenged Tinsley and lost, further damaging his case. IMO.
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure if I’ve ever posted on this thread. Not going all the way back to look. But read daily since the trial began and appreciate so many different opinions and perspectives.
So much so that the wife and I are on the way to Walterboro. Got to go set eyes on this for myself.
 
I think Poot did exactly what he should have done. He sent the other guy up there because Poot knew Tinsley would be a tough witness. If Tinsley would've dominated Dick Harpootlian the same way he did that other poor bastard, the media latches onto that and the jury possibly hears about it. That's bad for the defense.

Tinsley wipes the floor with what's-his-name when the jury isn't present, just as Harpootlian suspected he would. So when the jury is present, Poot tells his guy "just ask him this one question, then sit." I believe this is good strategy here for the defense. It's like walking Barry Bonds - you don't love it, but challenging him when he's hot is near suicide. A lesser attorney would've challenged Tinsley and lost, further damaging his case. IMO.
So well said. Tinsley dog walked 'that boy' and Poot knew that smoke needed to be diverted. He undressed that man. Thankfully they adjusted w the jury present to protect whatever dignity he had left.
 
I’m not sure if I’ve ever posted on this thread. Not going all the way back to look. But read daily since the trial began and appreciate so many different opinions and perspectives.
So much so that the wife and I are on the way to Walterboro. Got to go set eyes on this for myself.
Haha. I thought about going but doubt I could get in.
 
I’m not sure if I’ve ever posted on this thread. Not going all the way back to look. But read daily since the trial began and appreciate so many different opinions and perspectives.
So much so that the wife and I are on the way to Walterboro. Got to go set eyes on this for myself.

Noticed there are less and less people in the courtroom every day. Do you know if it is open to the general public? Can you show up and ask to be seated?
 
Noticed there are less and less people in the courtroom every day. Do you know if it is open to the general public? Can you show up and ask to be seated?
Yes. My in laws are retired and went down one day last week. They were the last people let in. This was bomb threat day so it was eventful to say the least. Lol
 
SIAP

the defense didn’t ask much

the best thing they got out of Tinsley was that he was unaware of any life insurance so defense can say no direct financial gain to the deaths
 
Last edited:
The COVID bomb has hit the trial.

They lost two jurors and the clerk of court. The concern is that they may have more jurors who were exposed last week who aren't yet positive.

Both parties are requesting to continue the trial a few days, lest they lose too many jurors.
 
Yes. My in laws are retired and went down one day last week. They were the last people let in. This was bomb threat day so it was eventful to say the least. Lol
We are on winter break and not that far away. We know several people involved and thought about riding over to be a part of history. What time do you have to be there to get a seat??
 
@tigerbean, morning sir.

What's your take on all of this so far? Any gut feel on the eventual outcome here?
Well I have a difficult view on things. I worked with Chris Wilson while in law school - got to know Alex ("Elleck") through Chris. They were a year ahead of me in law school. I have seem them sparingly since law school but would always speak to them at statewide law functions. Honestly have seen both of them a total of 10 times in 20+ years.

Alex and his firm were just massive producers in that portion of the state, so I can't understand why or how someone who printed money legally could have been so dishonest to those closest to him. I mean any lawyer in the state would have gladly had their cases and results and never once complained about ANYTHING.

As an attorney, I would like to think that the defense has more to offer when it's their turn. I can't explain their tactics so far. Either they are delaying to make at least one juror so disinterested they will just acquit; or they are grasping at straws because this is all they have. Sometimes the best lawyers seem to be fumbling and bumbling.

Harpootlian has so much experience on all sides - prosecution/defense/civil plaintiff/political - but I can't say I am impressed thus far. Griffin is more of a witness here than a lawyer. But that may be part of the plan - to try and throw in facts and storylines based on his intimate knowledge of the parties without having Alex testify.

I am really impressed with Waters presentation of the circumstances; sure, they could have done more - you always could do more. But, looking at the entire case, they have done well - albeit tedious - with the case so far. I am sure they have a final set of facts to end with. They have been well calculated in their case - but that's what a good prosecutor does - they get to go first and try to meet the burden.

As mentioned earlier, the defense still gets to put up a case. Let's just say with what I have seen, I would have handled the case in a different way if I was faced with the state's case. Sometimes less is more!

As we all know, you are often caught because of the coverup more than the action. Here, in this circumstantial case, Alex's downfall may be the lies, the lies, and the more lies.

I find it both fascinating (because I know these parties) and also just so sad because no matter what was going on, so many people's lives have been just utterly devasted and literally ended.

We are all sinners; we are all fallible; but it is just AMAZING to see someone who was born one step from home, forget born on third base, to have put himself in this situation.

All he had to do was wake up and go to work and he was set for life -

Is he guilty???? - I don't know what a jury will do - juries are fickle - but I know this: Alex Murdaugh's lifestyle either caused him to do it or his lifestyle caused someone else to do it (no evidence of this) - either way - Paul and Maggie are dead because of the lies and deceit in one shape or form.

The judge has done an excellent job with what is before him; the prosecution has done an excellent job with what they have; the defense - not sure yet????

just a tragedy of epic proportions.
 
Well I have a difficult view on things. I worked with Chris Wilson while in law school - got to know Alex ("Elleck") through Chris. They were a year ahead of me in law school. I have seem them sparingly since law school but would always speak to them at statewide law functions. Honestly have seen both of them a total of 10 times in 20+ years.

Alex and his firm were just massive producers in that portion of the state, so I can't understand why or how someone who printed money legally could have been so dishonest to those closest to him. I mean any lawyer in the state would have gladly had their cases and results and never once complained about ANYTHING.

As an attorney, I would like to think that the defense has more to offer when it's their turn. I can't explain their tactics so far. Either they are delaying to make at least one juror so disinterested they will just acquit; or they are grasping at straws because this is all they have. Sometimes the best lawyers seem to be fumbling and bumbling.

Harpootlian has so much experience on all sides - prosecution/defense/civil plaintiff/political - but I can't say I am impressed thus far. Griffin is more of a witness here than a lawyer. But that may be part of the plan - to try and throw in facts and storylines based on his intimate knowledge of the parties without having Alex testify.

I am really impressed with Waters presentation of the circumstances; sure, they could have done more - you always could do more. But, looking at the entire case, they have done well - albeit tedious - with the case so far. I am sure they have a final set of facts to end with. They have been well calculated in their case - but that's what a good prosecutor does - they get to go first and try to meet the burden.

As mentioned earlier, the defense still gets to put up a case. Let's just say with what I have seen, I would have handled the case in a different way if I was faced with the state's case. Sometimes less is more!

As we all know, you are often caught because of the coverup more than the action. Here, in this circumstantial case, Alex's downfall may be the lies, the lies, and the more lies.

I find it both fascinating (because I know these parties) and also just so sad because no matter what was going on, so many people's lives have been just utterly devasted and literally ended.

We are all sinners; we are all fallible; but it is just AMAZING to see someone who was born one step from home, forget born on third base, to have put himself in this situation.

All he had to do was wake up and go to work and he was set for life -

Is he guilty???? - I don't know what a jury will do - juries are fickle - but I know this: Alex Murdaugh's lifestyle either caused him to do it or his lifestyle caused someone else to do it (no evidence of this) - either way - Paul and Maggie are dead because of the lies and deceit in one shape or form.

The judge has done an excellent job with what is before him; the prosecution has done an excellent job with what they have; the defense - not sure yet????

just a tragedy of epic proportions.
This is outstanding.
 
I watched a video about the angle of the shotgun blasts. The first shot was from about 18 inches at an upward angle, first impact just under the level of the armpit. They speculated the shooter was holding the shotgun at his side and pointing upward, again from about 18 inches. Paul was inside the small room when hit with this shot. Sounds like the shooter came into the room and Paul was right there, not allowing the shooter to raise the gun up all the way. Second shot was from behind at an extreme nearly vertical angle, catching the base of the skull and sending his brain up until it bounced off the ceiling. Speculated that Paul moved forward after the first shot and the shooter fell with the crazy angle of the shot. There was absolutely no reason for Alec to check Paul for a pulse, his brain was laying at his feet.
 
Well I have a difficult view on things. I worked with Chris Wilson while in law school - got to know Alex ("Elleck") through Chris. They were a year ahead of me in law school. I have seem them sparingly since law school but would always speak to them at statewide law functions. Honestly have seen both of them a total of 10 times in 20+ years.

Alex and his firm were just massive producers in that portion of the state, so I can't understand why or how someone who printed money legally could have been so dishonest to those closest to him. I mean any lawyer in the state would have gladly had their cases and results and never once complained about ANYTHING.

As an attorney, I would like to think that the defense has more to offer when it's their turn. I can't explain their tactics so far. Either they are delaying to make at least one juror so disinterested they will just acquit; or they are grasping at straws because this is all they have. Sometimes the best lawyers seem to be fumbling and bumbling.

Harpootlian has so much experience on all sides - prosecution/defense/civil plaintiff/political - but I can't say I am impressed thus far. Griffin is more of a witness here than a lawyer. But that may be part of the plan - to try and throw in facts and storylines based on his intimate knowledge of the parties without having Alex testify.

I am really impressed with Waters presentation of the circumstances; sure, they could have done more - you always could do more. But, looking at the entire case, they have done well - albeit tedious - with the case so far. I am sure they have a final set of facts to end with. They have been well calculated in their case - but that's what a good prosecutor does - they get to go first and try to meet the burden.

As mentioned earlier, the defense still gets to put up a case. Let's just say with what I have seen, I would have handled the case in a different way if I was faced with the state's case. Sometimes less is more!

As we all know, you are often caught because of the coverup more than the action. Here, in this circumstantial case, Alex's downfall may be the lies, the lies, and the more lies.

I find it both fascinating (because I know these parties) and also just so sad because no matter what was going on, so many people's lives have been just utterly devasted and literally ended.

We are all sinners; we are all fallible; but it is just AMAZING to see someone who was born one step from home, forget born on third base, to have put himself in this situation.

All he had to do was wake up and go to work and he was set for life -

Is he guilty???? - I don't know what a jury will do - juries are fickle - but I know this: Alex Murdaugh's lifestyle either caused him to do it or his lifestyle caused someone else to do it (no evidence of this) - either way - Paul and Maggie are dead because of the lies and deceit in one shape or form.

The judge has done an excellent job with what is before him; the prosecution has done an excellent job with what they have; the defense - not sure yet????

just a tragedy of epic proportions.
Awesome. Awesome! Thanks so much. I knew you'd have a lot of interesting color on this. Such a wealth of information.

I'm most grateful, sir!
 
Well I have a difficult view on things. I worked with Chris Wilson while in law school - got to know Alex ("Elleck") through Chris. They were a year ahead of me in law school. I have seem them sparingly since law school but would always speak to them at statewide law functions. Honestly have seen both of them a total of 10 times in 20+ years.

Alex and his firm were just massive producers in that portion of the state, so I can't understand why or how someone who printed money legally could have been so dishonest to those closest to him. I mean any lawyer in the state would have gladly had their cases and results and never once complained about ANYTHING.

As an attorney, I would like to think that the defense has more to offer when it's their turn. I can't explain their tactics so far. Either they are delaying to make at least one juror so disinterested they will just acquit; or they are grasping at straws because this is all they have. Sometimes the best lawyers seem to be fumbling and bumbling.

Harpootlian has so much experience on all sides - prosecution/defense/civil plaintiff/political - but I can't say I am impressed thus far. Griffin is more of a witness here than a lawyer. But that may be part of the plan - to try and throw in facts and storylines based on his intimate knowledge of the parties without having Alex testify.

I am really impressed with Waters presentation of the circumstances; sure, they could have done more - you always could do more. But, looking at the entire case, they have done well - albeit tedious - with the case so far. I am sure they have a final set of facts to end with. They have been well calculated in their case - but that's what a good prosecutor does - they get to go first and try to meet the burden.

As mentioned earlier, the defense still gets to put up a case. Let's just say with what I have seen, I would have handled the case in a different way if I was faced with the state's case. Sometimes less is more!

As we all know, you are often caught because of the coverup more than the action. Here, in this circumstantial case, Alex's downfall may be the lies, the lies, and the more lies.

I find it both fascinating (because I know these parties) and also just so sad because no matter what was going on, so many people's lives have been just utterly devasted and literally ended.

We are all sinners; we are all fallible; but it is just AMAZING to see someone who was born one step from home, forget born on third base, to have put himself in this situation.

All he had to do was wake up and go to work and he was set for life -

Is he guilty???? - I don't know what a jury will do - juries are fickle - but I know this: Alex Murdaugh's lifestyle either caused him to do it or his lifestyle caused someone else to do it (no evidence of this) - either way - Paul and Maggie are dead because of the lies and deceit in one shape or form.

The judge has done an excellent job with what is before him; the prosecution has done an excellent job with what they have; the defense - not sure yet????

just a tragedy of epic proportions.
One reason they were successful was due to deceit , rigging juries, etc.

Developed a scheme to get big verdicts for plaintiffs, etc. That firm is not many levels above Alex. I actually think it is funny he skunked them as well for many years.
 
to follow up on my earlier post, I am watching the DNA testimony while at lunch - the prosecution needs to clear this up and I cant believe they let the younger prosecutor handle this important testimony

needs to be cleaned up so lay people can understand

after all the scentific mumbo-jumbo - you ask "so what does that mean to a non-scientist?"

"whose dna was it?"

never seen such a way to explain DNA

sometimes I have said - "what the heck did you just say?"
 
to follow up on my earlier post, I am watching the DNA testimony while at lunch - the prosecution needs to clear this up and I cant believe they let the younger prosecutor handle this important testimony

needs to be cleaned up so lay people can understand

after all the scentific mumbo-jumbo - you ask "so what does that mean to a non-scientist?"

"whose dna was it?"

never seen such a way to explain DNA

sometimes I have said - "what the heck did you just say?"
I hoping someone comes on here with some cliff notes later today to follow up with the DNA testimony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeffcoat
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT