⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️

[Ole Tom]

I hear what you are saying, but a lot of your evidence points to he could have done it, not he did it.

The phone backlight going out isn’t as good a piece of evidence as you give it credit for.

I’ve called people before with one hand while doing lots of other things with my other hand.

The lying is bad, but this guy has been shown to be a pathological liar. I’m willing to bet he lies as much as tells the truth. That still doesn’t mean he pulled a trigger. That is what is being put on trial here.

Did he pull the trigger? The state has the burden to prove he did and they didn’t. On top of that the first day the defense calls witnesses they pop holes all over the circumstantial evidence the state presented.

In our system you are innocent til proven guilty. As a juror I have to start there. The prosecutor has to prove to me beyond reasonable doubt he pulled those triggers. They haven’t done that.

At this point the verdict should be acquittal. Law enforcement could have given the state a much better case than they did, but they failed at investigation in multiple phases in my opinion.

Your paradigm seems to be that lacking a confession, a living visual witness of a murder, and/or a murder weapon that fired the killing shots conclusively tied to the defendant, you would not vote to convict anyone of murder.

I don't find that to be a reasonable approach to justice. Two people are dead. A lot of circumstantial evidence points directly to AM as the killer. The defense has not finished it's case and they may raise some questions that will result in an acquittal; this week will be telling. If a single juror sees the cases as you do and acts in deliberations as you indicate you would, I think a hung jury is the best possible outcome for the defense. That may happen, which I think would be unfortunate. I mention jury deliberations because I think them to be important. Most of the time when a single juror decides he or she is never going to agree with the other 11, I suspect justice is being thwarted by a narcissistic juror.

I think OJ killed his wife and was acquitted and see that as a miscarriage of justice. I think when all is said and done in the Murdaugh case, I would see a hung jury or an acquittal as a miscarriage of justice.

Lots of people are tried and found guilty of murder on only circumstantial evidence. I think it unfortunate that rich, well known and well to do defendants often get away with murder due to societal prejudice in their favor when an average man or woman would be correctly found guilty of a crime they did commit.

Alex Murdaugh is not going to be executed. I expect he will spend the rest of his life in jail whether he is convicted of these murders or not. From that point of view, this entire trial is largely insignificant except for the pursuit of justice and accountability.

 

[RaleighTiger]

I hear what you are saying, but a lot of your evidence points to he could have done it, not he did it.

The phone backlight going out isn’t as good a piece of evidence as you give it credit for.

I’ve called people before with one hand while doing lots of other things with my other hand.

The lying is bad, but this guy has been shown to be a pathological liar. I’m willing to bet he lies as much as tells the truth. That still doesn’t mean he pulled a trigger. That is what is being put on trial here.

Did he pull the trigger? The state has the burden to prove he did and they didn’t. On top of that the first day the defense calls witnesses they pop holes all over the circumstantial evidence the state presented.

In our system you are innocent til proven guilty. As a juror I have to start there. The prosecutor has to prove to me beyond reasonable doubt he pulled those triggers. They haven’t done that.

At this point the verdict should be acquittal. Law enforcement could have given the state a much better case than they did, but they failed at investigation in multiple phases in my opinion.

Fair points but two things:

You say he is a pathological liar as if it somehow absolves him for lying about everything. It's not the lies so much as what he lied about - him being there within minutes of the crime and his covering up for everything associated with it. He didn't just lie. He lied for a reason. And that reason points to covering up his involvement in the crime, in my opinion.

And does the state have to prove he actually pulled the trigger or that he is responsible for their deaths? Serious question. I believe he is 100 percent responsible for them being dead beyond a shadow of a doubt. Evidence to me is quite clear on this, not only from that night but his actions, lies and interviews after the fact. Did he shoot both? I think so, but I don't believe that as strong as the above.

So it all depends on what the burden of proof is. I honestly don't know which it is, but would love input from the lawyers on here, especially @tigerbean

 

[PawsFan_]

I’ve called people before with one hand while doing lots of other things with my other hand.

TMI

 

[tigerbean]

omg - Mark Ball - former law partner testifying -

 

[PawsFan_]

In our system you are innocent til proven guilty. As a juror I have to start there. The prosecutor has to prove to me beyond reasonable doubt he pulled those triggers. They haven’t done that.

They've proven he was the only person at the scene of the crime when it happened. They were killed with his guns. They've proved he's lied to investigators multiple times.

If not him, then who?

 

[Clemblack]

I hear what you are saying, but a lot of your evidence points to he could have done it, not he did it.

The phone backlight going out isn’t as good a piece of evidence as you give it credit for.

I’ve called people before with one hand while doing lots of other things with my other hand.

The lying is bad, but this guy has been shown to be a pathological liar. I’m willing to bet he lies as much as tells the truth. That still doesn’t mean he pulled a trigger. That is what is being put on trial here.

Did he pull the trigger? The state has the burden to prove he did and they didn’t. On top of that the first day the defense calls witnesses they pop holes all over the circumstantial evidence the state presented.

In our system you are innocent til proven guilty. As a juror I have to start there. The prosecutor has to prove to me beyond reasonable doubt he pulled those triggers. They haven’t done that.

At this point the verdict should be acquittal. Law enforcement could have given the state a much better case than they did, but they failed at investigation in multiple phases in my opinion.

The totality of the evidence points to Alex and only to Alex. An individual piece here or there can be explained away. But all of it cannot be.

You point out that the "phone backlight" isn't a very good piece of evidence. But it is indeed evidence that points to Alex, just like the rest of it. You offer nothing with regard to the rest of the totality of the evidence, except your opinion that Alex has been shown to be a "pathological liar." But here's the thing - there's not evidence of that. A pathological liar lies for no reason or apparent benefit. Alex lies to cover up theft and murder. Simply no evidence of him being a pathological liar, and the state has smartly not argued that to my knowledge. If you have seen evidence of it, I'm all ears. Lying to cover up crime is NOT pathological lying. Alex's lies are calculated and purposeful.

I've stated in this thread before that some people will not convict without a video of Alex shooting his family. That would be your right as a juror. But there's no reasonable conclusion here other than Alex murdered his wife and son. Again, the totality of the evidence shows that clearly. The state is not tasked with proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that Alex killed them, only beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt here.

 

[MisterSlappy]

omg - Mark Ball - former law partner testifying -

He seems lovely.

 

[WCTiger]

omg - Mark Ball - former law partner testifying -

Am i missing something or is the defense surely regretting this witness??!

 

[MisterSlappy]

Am i missing something or is the defense surely regretting this witness??!

This is what happens when the right attorney crosses a weak witness.

 

[WCTiger]

This is what happens when the right attorney crosses a weak witness.

Seems to me to be a trojan horse type deal. Snuck into the defense side and “surprise, payback’s a beeotch!”

 

[TigerTC]

Nailed it. I said the same thing, this has to be the Waters Show. They are giving up layups to the defense on the (lack of) cross.

It's a marathon, not a sprint, and you have to share the labor.

You can't have your top running back in on every play, just like Waters can't handle every single witness -- especially if the witness is a highly technical one, as those can take a long time to prep an effective cross-examination for.

 

[LUV DEM TIGERS]

I’ve called people before with one hand while doing lots of other things with my other hand.

Please DO NOT give details.

 

[LUV DEM TIGERS]

Mother in law included

Well you do know when something bad happens in the Bahamas it is harder to investigate.

 

[TopGun01]

Griffin is good but honestly there are better criminal defense lawyers in the state of SC than the Harpo/Griffin combo in my opinion and certainly nationally.

Lord yes.

 

[Tigerman93]

I hear what you are saying, but a lot of your evidence points to he could have done it, not he did it.

The phone backlight going out isn’t as good a piece of evidence as you give it credit for.

I’ve called people before with one hand while doing lots of other things with my other hand.

The lying is bad, but this guy has been shown to be a pathological liar. I’m willing to bet he lies as much as tells the truth. That still doesn’t mean he pulled a trigger. That is what is being put on trial here.

Did he pull the trigger? The state has the burden to prove he did and they didn’t. On top of that the first day the defense calls witnesses they pop holes all over the circumstantial evidence the state presented.

In our system you are innocent til proven guilty. As a juror I have to start there. The prosecutor has to prove to me beyond reasonable doubt he pulled those triggers. They haven’t done that.

At this point the verdict should be acquittal. Law enforcement could have given the state a much better case than they did, but they failed at investigation in multiple phases in my opinion.

He didn’t lie about finding his ball in the rough. He lied about his whereabouts on the property on the night of his wife and sons brutal murders. So… acquittal because they don’t have video of Alex pulling a trigger?

It’s pretty simple:
- Alex claimed to have NOT gone to kennels that night, when in fact video places him there at 8:45.

- Maggie and Paul’s phones go silent for good at 8:50-8:52

-Alex car starts and leaves property at 9:06

-Alex makes random visit to sleeping mother well after usual visit time (caretaker tesitified bed time was usually 8:00pm)

-Alex later states to mothers caretaker he visited for 30-40+ minutes when in fact it was 20something minutes. Then follows that with “If you need help with the wedding/I can get you a higher paying job with the school you work for” bribery

-Alex arrives home at 10:05ish? And calls 911 17 seconds after car is parked, but he checked both Maggie and Paul’s pulses, pulled Paul’s phone from pocket and laid it on top of him… 17 seconds!!! I’m quick getting in and out of the car, but see how far 10 seconds gets you from the moment you put your car in park next time…

-Alex states to housekeeper of moselle property “I was wearing that vineyard vines polo the day you saw me” when in fact she remembered him in the light blue Columbia button up fishing shirt… Which has since disappeared…

Innocent until proven guilty is great and all, but when your whereabouts story is built on a multitude of lies when the murder of your wife and son took place, any reasonable person is going to view you as guilty. I only layed out 1/2 dozen bullet points. I think they have his car in motion within 300-500 yards of where Maggie’s phone was dumped and the screen orientation changed after getting tossed out the window as well.

 

[TopGun01]

Your paradigm seems to be that lacking a confession, a living visual witness of a murder, and/or a murder weapon that fired the killing shots conclusively tied to the defendant, you would not vote to convict anyone of murder.

I don't find that to be a reasonable approach to justice. Two people are dead. A lot of circumstantial evidence points directly to AM as the killer. The defense has not finished it's case and they may raise some questions that will result in an acquittal; this week will be telling. If a single juror sees the cases as you do and acts in deliberations as you indicate you would, I think a hung jury is the best possible outcome for the defense. That may happen, which I think would be unfortunate. I mention jury deliberations because I think them to be important. Most of the time when a single juror decides he or she is never going to agree with the other 11, I suspect justice is being thwarted by a narcissistic juror.

I think OJ killed his wife and was acquitted and see that as a miscarriage of justice. I think when all is said and done in the Murdaugh case, I would see a hung jury or an acquittal as a miscarriage of justice.

Lots of people are tried and found guilty of murder on only circumstantial evidence. I think it unfortunate that rich, well known and well to do defendants often get away with murder due to societal prejudice in their favor when an average man or woman would be correctly found guilty of a crime they did commit.

Alex Murdaugh is not going to be executed. I expect he will spend the rest of his life in jail whether he is convicted of these murders or not. From that point of view, this entire trial is largely insignificant except for the pursuit of justice and accountability.

I think a hung jury is very predictable. Only takes one person firm enough to hold out for a number of hours. I hope that's not the case. But reading the opinions of those in this thread for months, it's clear that more than 1/12 of our group would hang it up or acquit altogether. And we aren't Hampton County locals!!

 

[TigerTC]

Well you do know when something bad happens in the Bahamas it is harder to investigate.

Wrong thread for this. Wrong thread...

 

[Clemblack]

Mark Ball has been a terrible witness for the defense. Waters was able to show motive through Ball's testimony better than he was even able to through his own witnesses.

Again, just awful for the defense there. Wow.

 

[tigerjimp]

I hear what you are saying, but a lot of your evidence points to he could have done it, not he did it.

The phone backlight going out isn’t as good a piece of evidence as you give it credit for.

I’ve called people before with one hand while doing lots of other things with my other hand.

The lying is bad, but this guy has been shown to be a pathological liar. I’m willing to bet he lies as much as tells the truth. That still doesn’t mean he pulled a trigger. That is what is being put on trial here.

Did he pull the trigger? The state has the burden to prove he did and they didn’t. On top of that the first day the defense calls witnesses they pop holes all over the circumstantial evidence the state presented.

In our system you are innocent til proven guilty. As a juror I have to start there. The prosecutor has to prove to me beyond reasonable doubt he pulled those triggers. They haven’t done that.

At this point the verdict should be acquittal. Law enforcement could have given the state a much better case than they did, but they failed at investigation in multiple phases in my opinion.

If the evidence clearly indicates that AM was there at the time someone pulled the trigger, the two other people that were there are dead, and AM has not indicated that anyone else was there at the time. Who else could have "reasonably" pulled the trigger on at least one of the murders?

As a juror, would you reasonably believe that:

A. Paul and Maggie shot each other multiple times and killed each other, and AM does not want to tell that story
B. AM was not involved in the murders at all and is protecting one or more other people that used the family's guns to kill Paul and Maggie
C. The guns fell on the ground and the triggers pulled themselves multiple times killing a very unlucky Maggie and Paul, and AM does not want to tell that story
D. Is there another "theory" that exonerates AM as being involved in the murders to the point that he would not be guilty of murder?

There is no video of someone pulling the triggers, but someone clearly pulled the triggers. Are you saying that you could not reasonably convict based on a clear process of elimination?

 

[tigerbean]

here comes the footprint expert from Connecticut - maybe he can figure out a way to get the prosecution's foot(print) out of Defense's arse

he will go over really well based on his introduction

 

[Ghetto III]

Based on this trial I wouldn’t select either defense attorney to get me out of a speeding ticket. But I’m realizing it’s not intelligence or organization that makes a good defense attorney necessarily, but more the ability to manipulate and deceive.

 

[Clemblack]

Defense is 0 for 2 today. I cannot overstate how bad the first two witnesses have been for defense.

Their third witness is an expert from Connecticut. He should play very well in Walterboro, SC.

 

[MisterSlappy]

B. AM was not involved in the murders at all and is protecting one or more other people that used the family's guns to kill Paul and Maggie

Could he be an accessory to the murders then?

 

[Flopeye Mike]

I think a hung jury is very predictable. Only takes one person firm enough to hold out for a number of hours. I hope that's not the case. But reading the opinions of those in this thread for months, it's clear that more than 1/12 of our group would hang it up or acquit altogether. And we aren't Hampton County locals!!

Agree.
But how many Hampton County residents would love to see the Murdaugh clan get their just reward? You are NOT above the law.

 

[shortbus22]

Could he be an accessory to the murders then?

"Hand of one is the hand of all" in SC iirc. Maybe that has changed since DARE came to my elementary school in the early 90's lol.

 

[PawsFan_]

Well you do know when something bad happens in the Bahamas it is harder to investigate.

Just be mindful for your cell phone data and change into the same clothes later.

 

[castlesl]

I think a hung jury is very predictable. Only takes one person firm enough to hold out for a number of hours. I hope that's not the case. But reading the opinions of those in this thread for months, it's clear that more than 1/12 of our group would hang it up or acquit altogether. And we aren't Hampton County locals!!

I kind of wonder if the opposite happens. I think the Murdaughs were viewed as untouchable for generations and this is a chance to touch them in a big way. People tend to grow bitter at the chosen ones over time. It sounds like much of the town turned on them after the boat accident and there is so much irrefutable evidence, that in total, points the finger at AM in a big way.

Unless the defense can realistically introduce someone else that may have had motive and opportunity, I just don’t see how anyone reasonable can say he didn’t do it. To me it’s clear cut that if someone from the outside wanted to kill Maggie and Paul or anyone at Moselle for that matter, they would bring their own weapons to do so. They wouldn’t hope to find a shotgun and rifle left casually laying around.

 

[PawJourney]

Please DO NOT give details.

Make sure your Zoom camera is OFF.

 

[PawJourney]

Is this video online to watch or did y’all just see it while watching the trial?

You should have taken on leave during the trial. Or, if strapped for time, just follow this source (also includes great Clemson football content): https://clemson.forums.rivals.com/threads/⚖️-murdaugh-murders-trial-thread-⚖️.222133/post-5306962

For a serious answer, YouTube has several live feeds including CourtTV or Law & Crime (which I follow when schedule permits). They also upload the day's full content and also put shorter videos up for interesting testimony.

WATCH LIVE: Murdaugh Family Murders — SC v. Alex Murdaugh — Day 20

A small town in South Carolina prepares for the highest-profile murder trial seen in decades. Once-renowned in the area, disgraced attorney Alex Murdaugh fac...

www.youtube.com

 

[AvenueOfChampions]

If the evidence clearly indicates that AM was there at the time someone pulled the trigger, the two other people that were there are dead, and AM has not indicated that anyone else was there at the time. Who else could have "reasonably" pulled the trigger on at least one of the murders?

As a juror, would you reasonably believe that:

A. Paul and Maggie shot each other multiple times and killed each other, and AM does not want to tell that story
B. AM was not involved in the murders at all and is protecting one or more other people that used the family's guns to kill Paul and Maggie
C. The guns fell on the ground and the triggers pulled themselves multiple times killing a very unlucky Maggie and Paul, and AM does not want to tell that story
D. Is there another "theory" that exonerates AM as being involved in the murders to the point that he would not be guilty of murder?

There is no video of someone pulling the triggers, but someone clearly pulled the triggers. Are you saying that you could not reasonably convict based on a clear process of elimination?

That’s what I’m saying. The argument that the investigation was sloppy is irrelevant because Alex Murdaugh was sloppy, just like he was in his financial crimes. He left an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that he did it. Things he didn’t think of or even know they could trace.

Look how taken a back he is to the video of him fixing the tree in his blue shirt. “When was that taken?”

And by the looks of it, he expected his good ole boy attorneys to do a manipulation job and get him out of all this. Problem is, his attorneys look really small town on this big stage. Basically getting paid for hire witnesses that will attest to anything without any real expertise in the subject matter. Probably always worked before, but not now.

If you guys really don’t know that he did it by now with all that’s been presented, please, come see me. I’ve got some things to sell you.

The ones who know Alex best, know he did it.

 

[tigerjimp]

Could he be an accessory to the murders then?

Possibly, but AM has not said that anyone else was there and there is no evidence that anyone else was there.

 

[tigerjimp]

I think he really thought he would easily get away with it, but Karma did him in. Where would this case be without the two videos, the extensive phone data, and the extensive car data?

What the prosecution has wasn't even possible 15 years ago.

Seems like there were two main triggers:

1. The lawsuit discovery on his finances that was just days away
2. Being asked that day by his firm about the missing $800K

What I don't have a clear understanding of is why he killed Maggie. Had he told her something that would add fuel to the embezzlement fire? Did he suspect that she was going to divorce him already, or because of the embezzlement? Was he such a narcissist that he couldn't stand how she would react to the embezzlement? Did he believe that she would pin Paul's murder on him for some reason if he killed Paul?

Idk...

 

[stuk1]

Just be mindful for your cell phone data and change into the same clothes later.

And most definitely do NOT rent a car with OnStar!

 

[ClemsonFatty]

You should have taken on leave during the trial. Or, if strapped for time, just follow this source (also includes great Clemson football content): https://clemson.forums.rivals.com/threads/⚖️-murdaugh-murders-trial-thread-⚖️.222133/post-5306962

For a serious answer, YouTube has several live feeds including CourtTV or Law & Crime (which I follow when schedule permits). They also upload the day's full content and also put shorter videos up for interesting testimony.

WATCH LIVE: Murdaugh Family Murders — SC v. Alex Murdaugh — Day 20

A small town in South Carolina prepares for the highest-profile murder trial seen in decades. Once-renowned in the area, disgraced attorney Alex Murdaugh fac...

www.youtube.com

No, I was referencing the 8/11 video that @Clemblack was talking about. Did he see that 8/11 video while watching the trial or is there a place to go find it to view?

 

[santee]

Have a ? for attorneys on here.

Sawtwo separate gun experts on shows last night who were asked to comment on the expert yesterday sayin the shooter likely was 5'2". they said you cannot determine the height of a shooter . Gun can be held on many ways, etc. Also refuted some of the sound stuff and other things. They basically laughed at what the guy said but did say his delivery was smooth

My question is ...can the prosecution bring an expert in after the defense closes to call the bullshit for what it is ? At this point that is all the defense has other than no man would butcher his family like that and claiming the prosecution's stated motive is BS

 

[TigerTC]

Have a ? for attorneys on here.

Sawtwo separate gun experts on shows last night who were asked to comment on the expert yesterday sayin the shooter likely was 5'2". they said you cannot determine the height of a shooter . Gun can be held on many ways, etc. Also refuted some of the sound stuff and other things. They basically laughed at what the guy said but did say his delivery was smooth

My question is ...can the prosecution bring an expert in after the defense closes to call the bullshit for what it is ? At this point that is all the defense has other than no man would butcher his family like that and claiming the prosecution's stated motive is BS

Yes they can. A "battle of the experts" is common in a complex court case, whether criminal or civil.

 

[tigerjimp]

No, I was referencing the 8/11 video that @Clemblack was talking about. Did he see that 8/11 video while watching the trial or is there a place to go find it to view?

Google Link

 

[jeffcoat]

the state isn’t there for a paycheck

they have a salary - no more or no less

best part of a government job is the benefits

and the knowledge that your paycheck won’t bounce

Waters is a lifer - a lot of the others are trying to get experience

How much does a state attorney general make? And the other lawyers on the prosecution?

 

[jeffcoat]

Fair points but two things:

You say he is a pathological liar as if it somehow absolves him for lying about everything. It's not the lies so much as what he lied about - him being there within minutes of the crime and his covering up for everything associated with it. He didn't just lie. He lied for a reason. And that reason points to covering up his involvement in the crime, in my opinion.

And does the state have to prove he actually pulled the trigger or that he is responsible for their deaths? Serious question. I believe he is 100 percent responsible for them being dead beyond a shadow of a doubt. Evidence to me is quite clear on this, not only from that night but his actions, lies and interviews after the fact. Did he shoot both? I think so, but I don't believe that as strong as the above.

So it all depends on what the burden of proof is. I honestly don't know which it is, but would love input from the lawyers on here, especially @tigerbean

Agree. I have asked this before, does the state have to prove he pulled the trigger since they charged Alex, and only Alex, with "murder". Can't wait to hear the judge's directions to the jury.

 

[TigerSlalom]

Is there a website where all of these videos are located (i.e. tree video, etc.)?