⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️

[tigerbean]

anything in evidence is fair game to make inferences during arguments

just like defense will use to infer doubt or other options

I can’t wait to hear Waters do his closing - he is the star of this case - attorney wise
circumstantial cases are stronger when you have deceit by defendant because even if doesn’t testify he has been deemed a liar by even his own attorneys

maybe the defense has some evidence from Eddie Smith that creates doubt but I think that would be more evidence of a conspiracy

toward the very end yesterday Alex was smiling at a juror it seemed - maybe he is just desperate or maybe it was someone not in the jury - but it was weird

wondering if they have a juror they think is on their side

jurors can make decisions on the weirdest things.

In this case, a good ole boy Hunter might say that there’s no way he would hold that gun that way to shoot his son and that one thing may give them reasonable doubt

It’s the best system in the world but it’s amazingly unpredictable

I appreciate the compliments but it is truly the case of my legal career lifetime and I know many of the players so it hits home

It is a fascinating look at law/life/sin/judgment/human spirit

OJ trial was a little before my career started and a lot of that stuff was California based

 

[santee]

I believe he erased 2 of 5 calls to Maggie that night. From his phone. Cell phone company had a list of all calls. He couldn't erase them from their database.

Obviously calls you make or receive and delete are still on the database....point is people are making a big deal about him doing that. The fact he erased them means very little unless he almost never erased calls

 

[tuckertiger]

That smile comment reminds me of "The Runaway Jury" - book by Grisham.

 

[7tiget6]

Double murder probably qualifies for death penalty, but with it involving family members, and surviving children, it would probably be a more difficult verdict to obtain.

You better have solid evidence for death penalty. If a jury is deciding on life/death they want to be 100-% sure.

Check out the do not disturb feature. Itll do it for you automatically if youre in a meeting, at dinner, vacation, working out, etc and send an auto message.


Just link your schedule. You can also let your phone know who can contact you during those periods.


Like my wife can always call and ask me where the pepper is or whats for dinner no matter what my schedule shows.

There’s your answer🤣

 

[Tigerbomb]

Right now I think he is found guilty. However, once the defense calls their witnesses I'm thinking it will be tough to get all 12 jurors to convict.

 

[GoodWord28]

You better have solid evidence for death penalty. If a jury is deciding on life/death they want to be 100-% sure.

There’s your answer🤣

Members of the jury, Mrs. Murdaugh asked what was for dinner when there were leftovers of her favorite meal in the family’s refrigerator. My client clearly acted in self defense. I rest my case.

 

[RaleighTiger]

Stupid question, but where are we in proceedings? Prosecution rested it's case and Defense is up, right?

 

[Cbur31]

Question for the board:

Assuming Alex is found guilty (big if):

If he didn't have had a GPS enabled car, would he still be found guilty?

Seems like the GPS car data (along with the Snapchat video) is going to be the nail in the coffin for him.

 

[PawJourney]

anything in evidence is fair game to make inferences during arguments

just like defense will use to infer doubt or other options

I can’t wait to hear Waters do his closing - he is the star of this case - attorney wise
circumstantial cases are stronger when you have deceit by defendant because even if doesn’t testify he has been deemed a liar by even his own attorneys

maybe the defense has some evidence from Eddie Smith that creates doubt but I think that would be more evidence of a conspiracy

toward the very end yesterday Alex was smiling at a juror it seemed - maybe he is just desperate or maybe it was someone not in the jury - but it was weird

wondering if they have a juror they think is on their side

jurors can make decisions on the weirdest things.

In this case, a good ole boy Hunter might say that there’s no way he would hold that gun that way to shoot his son and that one thing may give them reasonable doubt

It’s the best system in the world but it’s amazingly unpredictable

I appreciate the compliments but it is truly the case of my legal career lifetime and I know many of the players so it hits home

It is a fascinating look at law/life/sin/judgment/human spirit

OJ trial was a little before my career started and a lot of that stuff was California based

I noticed the smile too. I think it appeared when the last witness, the attractive communication lady, was on the stand and she jokingly asked one of the attorneys was hitting on her. I thought the smile appeared at her and was likely his default behavior pre-incarceration. This courtroom used to be his wheelhouse, he likes women, and he probably still thinks he's in the entitled/respected column because he's a narcissist.

(Only AM knows his mindset. Maggie's sister's testimony haunts me. She said Maggie was willing to give it all up to make the boat case resolve and start all over again. That might have worked if AM wasn't deep into his web of financial fraud. Paul's crime was the accelerant in this situation and if Maggie was naively pushing to give it all away to the Beach family, she was the match.

Most people would commit suicide but he killed the people in his family who weren't lining up. I believe Cousin Eddie about the September botched suicide, but I think AM had planned to make it look like Cousin Eddie killed him, but AM got the better of him. I believe AM planned to kill Cousin Eddie and pin the murders on him.

Ozark is a lesser fictionalized version of what I think AM's actual life was/is.)

 

[sloanMB]

View embedded media

“and aharbin @harbinlaw” …ouch

 

[PawJourney]

Question for the board:

Assuming Alex is found guilty (big if):

If he didn't have had a GPS enabled car, would he still be found guilty?

Seems like the GPS car data (along with the Snapchat video) is going to be the nail in the coffin for him.

The State's circumstantial case relies on the electronic information - cellphone info (Snapchat video (at the kennels), clothing @ tree, and cellphone logs at 8:49 pm - presence at crime scene at time of death) and car GPS (which tracks his path that day). The State proceeded to trial without all of the recently acquired car GPS, but with the cumulative value, their case appears more solid.

Without the electronic evidence, what is the State's evidence to convict?

 

[Tigerbomb]

The State's circumstantial case relies on the electronic information - cellphone info (Snapchat video (at the kennels), clothing @ tree, and cellphone logs at 8:49 pm - presence at crime scene at time of death) and car GPS (which tracks his path that day). The State proceeded to trial without all of the recently acquired car GPS, but with the cumulative value, their case appears more solid.

Without the electronic evidence, what is the State's evidence to convict?

15 years ago Alex is a free man with no charges being filed.

Him being sloppy with the phones and choosing to drive a vehicle with OnStar did him in. If he would have had a plan to destroy Paul and Maggie's phones I doubt the state stood a chance.

 

[Every name taken]

Seeing something from Rogan on Paul’s phone and calling Rogan immediately and many times afterwards tells me a lot.

 

[Cbur31]

15 years ago Alex is a free man with no charges being filed.

Him being sloppy with the phones and choosing to drive a vehicle with OnStar did him in. If he would have had a plan to destroy Paul and Maggie's phones I doubt the state stood a chance.

My thoughts exactly. Makes one wonder how many people got away with these kinds of things back in the day

 

[Cbur31]

Seeing something from Rogan on Paul’s phone and calling Rogan immediately and many times afterwards tells me a lot.

What's your thoughts on that?

 

[Every name taken]

What's your thoughts on that?

Unlikely coincidence that he would call Rogan immediately after looking at the phone. I think he was worried about what Rogan knew. And to keep calling him time after time shows nervousness. He’s not family. And if the defense says he saw something on the phone and was calling to see if Rogan had any information then why didn’t he say to the cops “when I saw Paul’s phone I saw something to/from Rogan, you need to find him and see if he knows anything “

 

[Lot4tailgater]

anything in evidence is fair game to make inferences during arguments

just like defense will use to infer doubt or other options

I can’t wait to hear Waters do his closing - he is the star of this case - attorney wise
circumstantial cases are stronger when you have deceit by defendant because even if doesn’t testify he has been deemed a liar by even his own attorneys

maybe the defense has some evidence from Eddie Smith that creates doubt but I think that would be more evidence of a conspiracy

toward the very end yesterday Alex was smiling at a juror it seemed - maybe he is just desperate or maybe it was someone not in the jury - but it was weird

wondering if they have a juror they think is on their side

jurors can make decisions on the weirdest things.

In this case, a good ole boy Hunter might say that there’s no way he would hold that gun that way to shoot his son and that one thing may give them reasonable doubt

It’s the best system in the world but it’s amazingly unpredictable

I appreciate the compliments but it is truly the case of my legal career lifetime and I know many of the players so it hits home

It is a fascinating look at law/life/sin/judgment/human spirit

OJ trial was a little before my career started and a lot of that stuff was California based

To me, it’s obvious that LE thought/knew AM was their man from the beginning…hence the “there is no threat to the community” statement the next morning. That said, it took them over a year to charge him with the murders. Now it seems their most compelling evidence didn’t come to fruition until the trial had already begun. I get juries are unpredictable, but the state’s case was pretty weak without the car data…yet they still charged him. Curious what your opinion is on how the process worked (or didn’t work) prior to AM being charged. Is this something Poot can use on their case?

Thanks for all your insight thus far. I was intrigued by the case early on, lost interest, and recently picked back up on it mainly due to this thread and your comments.

 

[TopGun01]

anything in evidence is fair game to make inferences during arguments

just like defense will use to infer doubt or other options

I can’t wait to hear Waters do his closing - he is the star of this case - attorney wise
circumstantial cases are stronger when you have deceit by defendant because even if doesn’t testify he has been deemed a liar by even his own attorneys

maybe the defense has some evidence from Eddie Smith that creates doubt but I think that would be more evidence of a conspiracy

toward the very end yesterday Alex was smiling at a juror it seemed - maybe he is just desperate or maybe it was someone not in the jury - but it was weird

wondering if they have a juror they think is on their side

jurors can make decisions on the weirdest things.

In this case, a good ole boy Hunter might say that there’s no way he would hold that gun that way to shoot his son and that one thing may give them reasonable doubt

It’s the best system in the world but it’s amazingly unpredictable

I appreciate the compliments but it is truly the case of my legal career lifetime and I know many of the players so it hits home

It is a fascinating look at law/life/sin/judgment/human spirit

OJ trial was a little before my career started and a lot of that stuff was California based

Had there been a security camera recording the murder scene and OJ smiled into the camera, that jury still wouldn’t have convicted him.

 

[tigerbean]

strength of the circumstantial case is in the eye of the beholder unless there is a video of the act.

I think the onstar/GM stuff can be used by both but it did strengthen the prosecution’s existing case by matching what they presented

they timely asked for it and GM sent a half-assed response - like I mentioned earlier - big companies can be slack with subpoena responses

The prosecution had to analyze with what they had and either go forward or dismiss

With all the tangled web and lies, how could you not go forward

I just would have hoped - and maybe so did the prosecution - that he would have come clean even with a “somebody else did this and I am scared for Buster and me” story or connection

I think it would have allowed for some middle ground.

I just don’t get what he gains even if he wins

he will be OJ regardless

Buster’s love and affection or not

A jury may still acquit -

but we know this - he either did it or was there when someone else did

and that someone else (if they exist) was there because of him - whether because of debt/hired/accomplice

 

[PawJourney]

strength of the circumstantial case is in the eye of the beholder unless there is a video of the act.

I think the onstar/GM stuff can be used by both but it did strengthen the prosecution’s existing case by matching what they presented

they timely asked for it and GM sent a half-assed response - like I mentioned earlier - big companies can be slack with subpoena responses

The prosecution had to analyze with what they had and either go forward or dismiss

With all the tangled web and lies, how could you not go forward

I just would have hoped - and maybe so did the prosecution - that he would have come clean even with a “somebody else did this and I am scared for Buster and me” story or connection

I think it would have allowed for some middle ground.

I just don’t get what he gains even if he wins

he will be OJ regardless

Buster’s love and affection or not

A jury may still acquit -

but we know this - he either did it or was there when someone else did

and that someone else (if they exist) was there because of him - whether because of debt/hired/accomplice

If you were the prosecutor, would you have pursued the case based upon the evidence the State had at time of filing?

 

[yungan]

If paid I would. Lot of hours

 

[Solid Orange Blood]

There's a quote feature, my friends. It'd make our conversations flow a little more smoothly if put into use.

Thanks for all the updates folks.

 

[purple2]

strength of the circumstantial case is in the eye of the beholder unless there is a video of the act.

I think the onstar/GM stuff can be used by both but it did strengthen the prosecution’s existing case by matching what they presented

they timely asked for it and GM sent a half-assed response - like I mentioned earlier - big companies can be slack with subpoena responses

The prosecution had to analyze with what they had and either go forward or dismiss

With all the tangled web and lies, how could you not go forward

I just would have hoped - and maybe so did the prosecution - that he would have come clean even with a “somebody else did this and I am scared for Buster and me” story or connection

I think it would have allowed for some middle ground.

I just don’t get what he gains even if he wins

he will be OJ regardless

Buster’s love and affection or not

A jury may still acquit -

but we know this - he either did it or was there when someone else did

and that someone else (if they exist) was there because of him - whether because of debt/hired/accomplice

i have a question about the Onstar/gm subpoena..... how could GM have ignored it for so long. can they just ignore subpoenas?

this case would be much more in doubt if the onstar data did not arrive.

tia

 

[jeffcoat]

There's a quote feature, my friends. It'd make our conversations flow a little more smoothly if put into use.

Thanks for all the updates folks.

Haha. Yeah, I hate it. Someone posts something and you have no idea who they were replying to.

 

[Tigerrad]

The wife and I and some friends went to the trial today. We got there around 7:30 and probably were some of the last ones to get in. We told our wives it was their Valentine day gift. It was an experience and we met some really nice people. The jury looks like they were mostly gathered from a local trailer park and I don’t mean that as a knock on any of you that live in a TP. In fact, let me go ahead and redact the previous sentence. I think the evidence today is as close to the bloody glove as you can get, but we know how that turned out, so who knows.

I know one of the jurors is a Clemson graduate.

 

[Lot4tailgater]

i have a question about the Onstar/gm subpoena..... how could GM have ignored it for so long. can they just ignore subpoenas?

this case would be much more in doubt if the onstar data did not arrive.

tia

That was my point for discussion. @tigerbean addressed it in that the tangled web of lies eventually led to the indictment. I just think their case, while very plausible, hasn’t met the reasonable doubt standard without the onstar data. They took a year+ to charge him and they only had the car data evidence in the last week. Without the onstar data, the fact they zeroed in on him but still took that long to bring indictments would give me some doubt.

 

[ClemsonGentleman]

i have a question about the Onstar/gm subpoena..... how could GM have ignored it for so long. can they just ignore subpoenas?

this case would be much more in doubt if the onstar data did not arrive.

tia

I have aquantances that had a serious home invasion. They got the license tag of the rental car the alleged people were in. It was a rental car. Law enforcement had difficulty getting any info until the car was found in an airport rental car lot. Why????????????? Ridiculous!!!!

 

[tigerbean]

i have a question about the Onstar/gm subpoena..... how could GM have ignored it for so long. can they just ignore subpoenas?

this case would be much more in doubt if the onstar data did not arrive.

tia

like many big companies, responding and responding fully are two different events

their purpose is to make money for sharholders and protect their customer data

they don’t see it as a murder case subpoena, they see it as another piece of information requested

if the bare bones is given and accepted then they have protected data - not to help Alex Murdaugh evade prosecution but to help GM do as little as possible and for fewer people in society to know just how much data there is out there about each of us

for another example- in injury cases, even though you often need Cell phone data from Verizon etc, you have to get forms and waivers and orders and protective orders because they “want to protect their customers privacy” sometimes even when the customer has ok’d the release

FINALLY - think about how many cars there are with this technology and how much it costs GM to send someone to testify (there are means to consent to evidence being authenticated without appearance but not in a murder trial as defense shouldn’t agree to anything)

GM sees it as just another subpoena and not a subpoena from the crime of the century

 

[tigerbean]

That was my point for discussion. @tigerbean addressed it in that the tangled web of lies eventually led to the indictment. I just think their case, while very plausible, hasn’t met the reasonable doubt standard without the onstar data. They took a year+ to charge him and they only had the car data evidence in the last week. Without the onstar data, the fact they zeroed in on him but still took that long to bring indictments would give me some doubt.

these analysts have 100s of cases to work on

the attorneys have 100s-1000s to work on

do you know how much time it takes to complete these data comparisons?

Even with covid this case was made in 18 months - I have had murder cases take 3-5 years to get to court

The counter argument is that 1. he was not going anywhere because of financial crimes and 2. they were trying to exclude him as much as possible

better than charge him based on rumor and then dismiss

lots of moving parts which have culminated in a rather quick prosecution for such a major case

 

[tigerbean]

here is a reasonable doubt charge that the jury may hear before going into deliberations - there will be many charges - what the judge charges to the jury that the law is as they determine what the facts say as compared to the charged law - the jury is the “trier of fact”

The term “reasonable doubt” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of you may have served as jurors in civil cases where you were told that it is only necessary to prove the fact is more likely true than not, such as by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence. In criminal cases, the State’s proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty. In criminal cases, the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. The law does not require that.

If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty. If on the other hand you conclude there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and find the defendant not guilty.

 

[nmerritt11]

here is a reasonable doubt charge that the jury may hear before going into deliberations - there will be many charges - what the judge charges to the jury that the law is as they determine what the facts say as compared to the charged law - the jury is the “trier of fact”

The term “reasonable doubt” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of you may have served as jurors in civil cases where you were told that it is only necessary to prove the fact is more likely true than not, such as by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence. In criminal cases, the State’s proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty. In criminal cases, the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. The law does not require that.

If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty. If on the other hand you conclude there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and find the defendant not guilty.

The closing argument and how it is laid out by the state is going to be huge in my opinion of proving without a doubt he did it. If I am in a jury right now I don’t have any doubt he was 100%, at worst a contributor to the murders.

Even prior to the GM data, I had little doubt. That was the dagger for me as we move into Monday.

The lies, obvious cover up, and now the car data is too much for me at this point to not think he was a part of this murder

 

[RDTiger13]

I know one of the jurors is a Clemson graduate.

They must be the one that doesn’t live in a park.

 

[syarbor]

The closing argument and how it is laid out by the state is going to be huge in my opinion of proving without a doubt he did it. If I am in a jury right now I don’t have any doubt he was 100%, at worst a contributor to the murders.

Even prior to the GM data, I had little doubt. That was the dagger for me as we move into Monday.

The lies, obvious cover up, and now the car data is too much for me at this point to not think he was a part of this murder

That's pretty much where I am. I see the GM data as more of a confirmatory final nail in the coffin. It validates the prosecution case but didn't necessarily provide new info imo.

Between AM confirmed being on the property at the time of the murders, the kennel video which puts him at the scene within 4-5 minutes of the murders, the use of family weapon(s) during the murders, the cell phone data, AMs attempt to manipulate at least 2 witnesses, and finally the "iron clad" alibi that has been proven to be 100% false, it is unreasonable to think anyone other than AM could've been responsible IMO.

 

[nmerritt11]

That's pretty much where I am. I see the GM data as more of a confirmatory final nail in the coffin. It validates the prosecution case but didn't necessarily provide new info imo.

Between AM confirmed being on the property at the time of the murders, the kennel video which puts him at the scene within 4-5 minutes of the murders, the use of family weapon(s) during the murders, the cell phone data, AMs attempt to manipulate at least 2 witnesses, and finally the "iron clad" alibi that has been proven to be 100% false, it is unreasonable to think anyone other than AM could've been responsible IMO.

I think not parking in the parking area at his moms and only being there 15 minutes which would not be enough time to check on her, slowing down and then immediately speeding up where Maggie's cell phone was dropped, being at kennels only 17 seconds before 9-1-1 call after stating he checked for pulses and attempted to roll bodies yet no blood on him, change of clothes, previous clothes disappeared, etc etc

While all circumstantial....damning to have your entire story blown up and then all the phone calls and seeming cover up starting immediately

 

[Woody1405]

Does anyone think AM will testify? If he does testify and offers testimony about the multiple thefts and roadside shooting, does he give up his appeal based on the admission of that evidence?

 

[CLEMSON96JDH]

Does anyone think AM will testify? If he does testify and offers testimony about the multiple thefts and roadside shooting, does he give up his appeal based on the admission of that evidence?

I think Griffin and Poot are now so desperate that he may just testify. It would be idiotic on its face but they need a Hail Mary (or an idiot juror).

 

[TopGun01]

Yep - and I believe the same holds true here. AM only needs one juror, and in that small town I have little doubt that he will get one.

That may indeed happen. My father in law was raised in that area and won a nice lawsuit against General Motors years ago represented by one of the Murdaugh firm's stars (Johnny Parker). He also believes a hung jury situation is likely and that a retrial won't be in the cards. Regardless, AM will be a very old scorned man before he sees freedom again. And it won't be surprising to me if Buster's life also meets a tragic ending.

 

[Clemblack]

anything in evidence is fair game to make inferences during arguments

just like defense will use to infer doubt or other options

I can’t wait to hear Waters do his closing - he is the star of this case - attorney wise
circumstantial cases are stronger when you have deceit by defendant because even if doesn’t testify he has been deemed a liar by even his own attorneys

maybe the defense has some evidence from Eddie Smith that creates doubt but I think that would be more evidence of a conspiracy

toward the very end yesterday Alex was smiling at a juror it seemed - maybe he is just desperate or maybe it was someone not in the jury - but it was weird

wondering if they have a juror they think is on their side

jurors can make decisions on the weirdest things.

In this case, a good ole boy Hunter might say that there’s no way he would hold that gun that way to shoot his son and that one thing may give them reasonable doubt

It’s the best system in the world but it’s amazingly unpredictable

I appreciate the compliments but it is truly the case of my legal career lifetime and I know many of the players so it hits home

It is a fascinating look at law/life/sin/judgment/human spirit

OJ trial was a little before my career started and a lot of that stuff was California based

At this point in the trial, what chance do you think we'll have a hung jury? An acquittal?

 

[tigerbean]

anything can happen with a jury

I don’t see an acquittal (all 12 saying not guilty)

either hung jury or guilty

 

[GrayCourtStomp]

Sorry if this has been asked/answered and I missed it. If if the jury thinks AM had some involvement can they find him guilty, or is he on trial for murder as the trigger man?

People around me all have the opinion of "well if he didn't do it he had it done".I'm curious how that law works.