⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️
- Thread starter OldMTPTiger
- Start date
Olde House Cafe isn't all bad
Of course there is Duke's
Of course there is Duke's
full disclaimer - trying to work and monitor -
so having said that, I am not sure - at first I assumed that they were showing that they got DNA samples from any and all possible people that might have been involved
but honestly - I have never had a DNA analyst explain the way that witness just explained - I realize she was speaking from the data - but surely the prosecution would know that this would cause more controversy if not CLEARLY explained
I will try to listen and read summaries, but if I am a blue-collar jury member and I just heard all that crap - all I know is I heard combinations of people which increased odds and so I am confused
if I am confused then I can't convict beyond a reasonable doubt
your question is spot on
they need to clarify
HONESTLY - if I am the defense then I don't cross this witness - that way no clarification and utter confusion
Prosecution had ALL WEEKEND to get this clean and make it smooth AND FAILED
Thx. I'm also curious because I know the person mentioned.
I have not followed all the coverage by any means but I've yet to see anything impressive from the female attorney for the state. I realize there's times for all of us to get necessary experience but question this being the case for the rookies.
This DNA segment could have been explosive but ended up as a snooze fest. Will be interesting to see how poot and team cross exam.
Yeah I don’t really understand having all these other attorney’s complete various parts of the questioning for the state. Waters is killing it and the biggest murder case in the state of SC since Susan Smith (and this might be bigger) seems like the time when you wanna have the best and brightest consistently.
so here is a summary from the DNA testimony I found online that makes it a little clearer - again not listening without interruption,so maybe it was this clear for the jury - we won't know until the verdict! - they are about to start back -
Next on the stand is SLED Forensic DNA analyst Sarah Zapata.
DNA contained in bodily fluids, and can be left behind by simply touching things.
Zapata is able to use samples and technology to create DNA "profiles" from what's collected at crime scenes and direct samples from a person (such as in a mouth swab). DNA is said to have "contributed to the mixture" from what's found in the sample, what's found at the crime scene, and is then compared against an unrelated third party.
Zapata is using the analogy of a see-saw to explain DNA test results. The see-saw may tilt strongly in the direction of one individual (meaning they contributed to the mixture) vs. the other. If the see-saw doesn't tilt to one side, the result isn't very strong.
Sometimes voluntary samples from a person are used to compare directly against evidence samples for that same person to demonstrate their DNA matching strongly. This is another scenario where the see-saw doesn't tilt.
Zapata uses the "grandma's cookie recipe" to show how matching DNA is compared. If the computer tool used to process the DNA spits out very similar recipes, the DNA can be assumed to match for contributions.
Zapata now preparing to review the DNA swabs she analyzed as part of the Murdaugh investigation.
First swab: Nolan Tuten (friend of Paul Murdaugh, brother of Nathan Tuten who testified Friday).
Next: DNA samples from .300BLK shell casings and swabs from shotgun shells. The DNA profile on the .300BLK casings was 510 billion times more likely to be from Maggie Murdaugh than an unknown person.
For the shotgun shells found in the feed room, DNA swabs were 15 octillion times more likely to be from Paul Murdaugh than an unknown person. Zapata says both the results for Maggie and Paul can be considered "single source" contributions to the DNA mixture, meaning it's very unlikely other DNA was present.
Now from the doorknob in the feed room: DNA sample is 15 octillion times more likely to be from Paul Murdaugh than a stranger.
Now onto the suspected blood samples from the shotgun Murdaugh had with him the night of the murders. The blood sample was found to be a mixture. 670 octillion times more likely the blood was from Maggie and an unknown second person, 210 quintillion times more likely it was Alex and an unknown third person.
Result was 48 quindecillion 48 followed by 48 zeros) times more likely Alex and Maggie contributed to the blood than 2 unknown strangers. Meaning, it was a near certainty their DNA profiles were in the blood on the gun.
The second swab from Alex's shotgun was not suitable for developing a DNA profile.
Now onto the second shotgun from the house that was tested. Both blood samples showed a mixture of DNA profiles, with incredibly strong certainty (hundreds of octillions of times more likely) for Maggie Murdaugh being a contributor to the mixture than a stranger.
Blood samples from Chevy Suburban steering wheel. Mixture from two individuals. Only 35 times more likely for it to be Maggie and another person than two strangers, but 100 quadrillions times more likely it was Alex and another person than strangers, 240 quintillion times more likely that it was both Maggie and Alex being the contributors than strangers. The first test (Maggie 35 times more likely) is not considered a strong result.
Left hand fingernail clippings from Maggie Murdaugh: Mixture identified. Paul and Buster were easily excluded, as was Alex (plus several others).
First scenario for mixture: Maggie and Claude (CB) Rowe. Rowe was included for testing because his alleles profile couldn't be visually excluded. Based on further testing, it was found 11 times more likely CB Rowe was the second contributor to the mixture than a stranger. Again, 11 times is moderate likelihood, per Zapata. It was a very low level of unidentified DNA found in the mixture (only three alleles). Possible any given person in the courtroom could have a similar DNA allele profile.
Fingernail clippings on right hand: Only Maggie's DNA present.
Paul Murdaugh's fingernail clippings: Paul's DNA.
Next on the stand is SLED Forensic DNA analyst Sarah Zapata.
DNA contained in bodily fluids, and can be left behind by simply touching things.
Zapata is able to use samples and technology to create DNA "profiles" from what's collected at crime scenes and direct samples from a person (such as in a mouth swab). DNA is said to have "contributed to the mixture" from what's found in the sample, what's found at the crime scene, and is then compared against an unrelated third party.
Zapata is using the analogy of a see-saw to explain DNA test results. The see-saw may tilt strongly in the direction of one individual (meaning they contributed to the mixture) vs. the other. If the see-saw doesn't tilt to one side, the result isn't very strong.
Sometimes voluntary samples from a person are used to compare directly against evidence samples for that same person to demonstrate their DNA matching strongly. This is another scenario where the see-saw doesn't tilt.
Zapata uses the "grandma's cookie recipe" to show how matching DNA is compared. If the computer tool used to process the DNA spits out very similar recipes, the DNA can be assumed to match for contributions.
Zapata now preparing to review the DNA swabs she analyzed as part of the Murdaugh investigation.
First swab: Nolan Tuten (friend of Paul Murdaugh, brother of Nathan Tuten who testified Friday).
Next: DNA samples from .300BLK shell casings and swabs from shotgun shells. The DNA profile on the .300BLK casings was 510 billion times more likely to be from Maggie Murdaugh than an unknown person.
For the shotgun shells found in the feed room, DNA swabs were 15 octillion times more likely to be from Paul Murdaugh than an unknown person. Zapata says both the results for Maggie and Paul can be considered "single source" contributions to the DNA mixture, meaning it's very unlikely other DNA was present.
Now from the doorknob in the feed room: DNA sample is 15 octillion times more likely to be from Paul Murdaugh than a stranger.
Now onto the suspected blood samples from the shotgun Murdaugh had with him the night of the murders. The blood sample was found to be a mixture. 670 octillion times more likely the blood was from Maggie and an unknown second person, 210 quintillion times more likely it was Alex and an unknown third person.
Result was 48 quindecillion 48 followed by 48 zeros) times more likely Alex and Maggie contributed to the blood than 2 unknown strangers. Meaning, it was a near certainty their DNA profiles were in the blood on the gun.
The second swab from Alex's shotgun was not suitable for developing a DNA profile.
Now onto the second shotgun from the house that was tested. Both blood samples showed a mixture of DNA profiles, with incredibly strong certainty (hundreds of octillions of times more likely) for Maggie Murdaugh being a contributor to the mixture than a stranger.
Blood samples from Chevy Suburban steering wheel. Mixture from two individuals. Only 35 times more likely for it to be Maggie and another person than two strangers, but 100 quadrillions times more likely it was Alex and another person than strangers, 240 quintillion times more likely that it was both Maggie and Alex being the contributors than strangers. The first test (Maggie 35 times more likely) is not considered a strong result.
Left hand fingernail clippings from Maggie Murdaugh: Mixture identified. Paul and Buster were easily excluded, as was Alex (plus several others).
First scenario for mixture: Maggie and Claude (CB) Rowe. Rowe was included for testing because his alleles profile couldn't be visually excluded. Based on further testing, it was found 11 times more likely CB Rowe was the second contributor to the mixture than a stranger. Again, 11 times is moderate likelihood, per Zapata. It was a very low level of unidentified DNA found in the mixture (only three alleles). Possible any given person in the courtroom could have a similar DNA allele profile.
Fingernail clippings on right hand: Only Maggie's DNA present.
Paul Murdaugh's fingernail clippings: Paul's DNA.
so on cross the defense is making it more clear about whose DNA is where on each shirt - again - their case, but not sure why?!?!?!?!?
basically just established that DNA from both Paul and Maggie on the shirt - but it is clearer that which was put forth by prosecution
basically just established that DNA from both Paul and Maggie on the shirt - but it is clearer that which was put forth by prosecution
I know that pre-trial the defense raised issues about the overall degradation of evidence due to multiple prosecution tests - so there is always a method to their strategy - a LOT remains to be cleared by both sides
yes,would def be open to the public, although there may be some limitations in this case for security purposes, and room for press , is my guess
So if the defense is arguing that there's "no" human blood on the shirt does that not also hurt their case that Alex said he touched/moved Paul's body which was covered in blood?
In and out following this thing but doesn’t the prosecution want to show there was no blood on Alex T-shirt and shorts? I thought the idea was he had changed from the clothes he killed them and is lying about rolling paul over.
I think also they are pitting this witness against another expert for prosecution that will testify later that contradicts this witness - again - prosecution has to show as best they can and in this case, they are showing everything so nothing is deemed hidden
now forensic pathologist showing jury pictures of Paul's autopsy
1st shot from a shot gun - not fatal within 3 feet from his right to his left with wadding stuck in chest and pellets moving into his left arm -
1st shot from a shot gun - not fatal within 3 feet from his right to his left with wadding stuck in chest and pellets moving into his left arm -
and is a good witness - like a likeable school teacher -
2nd shot - brain ejected and was delivered in a separate bag - only part of brain was brain stem
wound consistent with turning to left to face shooter
instantaneous death
wound consistent with turning to left to face shooter
instantaneous death
Last edited:
I think she said it arrived in a bucket. Ewwww.
Is it wrong to want to see the pictures?
They got there and got in line at 8:30. They started seating at 9:30. But they were the absolute last three to get in, so I'd suggect getting there a little earlier than that and expect an hour and a half wait-ish.
LMAO, they only eat fish. No meat whatsoever. So they don't ask my food advice often. Lol.
But, as @yungan pointed out, hard to go wrong with Dukes.
@tigerbean excellent post. Thank You. I have asked this before and nobody seems to know. Since they charged Alex with murder, do they need to prove Alex pulled the trigger? Or is proving he was there/involved somehow enough?
Maybe the most interesting estate I've gotten into.
As someone that did that as a job , removals for coroner/medical examiner and LE, be careful what you wish for my friend. I’ve seen every way a human can die and what humans are capable of doing to others, there is plenty I would love to unsee and plenty I still wake up to often.
With that being said if people found out what I did while at a bar I’d be surrounded like a celebrity or something. People have a morbid curiosity. Also learned almost every person has an uncle that worked as a security guard at a morgue that’s seen em sit up.
No they don’t
here they don’t have the triggers that were pulled
so it’s impossible
just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed them.
reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt, but a doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act
many times people are charged with conspiracy
that is not an option here because no one else charged
Seeing pictures of an autopsy will stick with you for a LONG time.
Interesting dynamic. Bet your Pop's is eager to learn em about that rabbit and gravy.
Being present for them is pretty rough, thought that’s what I wanted to do but after a year and some change that $h!t starts to weigh heavy on you. Props and respect to those that have to do it, takes a strong person
Just google the video of a Pennsylvania State Senator that committed suicide at a press conference and if you can get through that you MIGHT be ready for autopsy photos. I haven't googled it lately but I assume it is still out there because it happened a while back and was still out there a year or two ago.
Warning, don't search and look at that video if you are the least bit squimish. People think when someone commits suicide there is a small entrance wound and just a little bit of blood.
Welp.
We made it today for the highs and the lows. Thought we were going to be sent home with the Covid scare but we made it.
The DNA was excruciatingly painful. To listen live I really felt so sorry for the jury. And honestly think the defense drug it out to make it more painful.
Then the forensic pathologist brought it home. How could anyone do this to another human being….. No matter how big of scum PM may have been. And for a father to sit there and know he either directly or indirectly caused it. Sickening.
Summary. Thank you @tigerbean for your perspective.
We arrived a little after 7 and were safety admitted. Was told about 20 were turned away. But you can come to the after lunch portion and be admitted. Quite a few left at lunchtime and it’s first come first served for that.
Last edited:
From the outlet that teased last week we'd hear from Cousin Eddie, FITSNews shares this tonight (and if this is true, I'm driving over):
MURDAUGHS TRIAL
Reports: Alex Murdaugh To Take The Stand In His Own Defense Risky business …
by Will Folks | February 13, 20230
Multiple media outlets are reporting that disbarred South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh will take the stand in his own defense – assuming a Covid-19 outbreak on the jury doesn’t cause a mistrial in this high-profile double homicide case.
The move – which would be incredibly risky – was reported almost simultaneously on Monday afternoon by Andrew Davis of WSAV TV-3 (NBC – Savannah) and Riley Benson of WCBD TV-2 (NBC – Charleston, S.C.). Both Davis and Benson cited a “source close to the defense” in their almost simultaneous tweets breaking the news (here and here).
To recap: Murdaugh stands accused of killing his wife, 52-year-old Maggie Murdaugh, and youngest son, 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh, on his family’s hunting property in Colleton County, S.C. on June 7, 2021. He pleaded not guilty to those charges and is currently standing trial in Walterboro – a town located in the Lowcountry region of the Palmetto State, a place Murdaugh’s family ran like a fiefdom for more than a century.
Do I think Murdaugh will actually take the stand? It’s possible …
Do I think it is advisable, though? Absolutely not … and I suspect Murdaugh’s attorneys have probably advised him against doing so (especially seeing as the state’s case doesn’t appear to have definitively linked him to the killings, at least not beyond a reasonable doubt).
Putting Murdaugh on the stand would be a dangerous move for the defense – especially seeing as he has yet to explain why he lied to investigators (and others) about his whereabouts on the evening of the killings.
well said. That is one thing i cannot figure out. Why, why, why? When your law firm is literally printing money for years, and you still need more in Hampton County? Not only tragic, but sickening. Pure greed and gluttony I guess.
