I will say that he seems to compose himself rather quickly after these fits of emotion. Went from sobbing straight to “so what day do you want me to start with again?”
⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️
- Thread starter OldMTPTiger
- Start date
Dude has got the liar’s playbook down. Lots of words, lots of meaningless details.
Nobody’s falling for it!
Last edited:
So will has become a master at reading minds and body language……right.
Hung juries are always a possibility. One narcissist is all it takes for a hung jury. There is a narcissist or two on every long TI thread whose condition is transparent so such irrational people are not hard to find. Heck even Poot could find one during jury selection if only he could get his papers in order.
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not, but this doesn't make much sense
That’s possible. I could see how he could be livid at Paul because his stupidity cost a young lady her life and exposed the family to financial ruin. Maybe he killed Paul in a fit of rage. Could have killed Maggie because he was mad that she enabled his behavior or maybe she saw too much. However, if that’s the case, why didn’t the prosecution assert that. If they won’t state the truthful motive, it makes me doubt their entire case.
I bet they had a nickname that was offensive
the white one was called white boy or something like that
Starting to think Bubba did it. They’ve talked more about the dog than anything
The problem with your hypothetical motive, is that proof of such would need to come from the lips of Alex himself or some other communication he made. Truth is, we may never know what was going on in his mind at the time. This is the instruction that the jury will likely hear on "intent"
CRIMINAL INTENT IS A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF EACH CRIME THAT MUST BE PROVED BY THE STATE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
CRIMINAL INTENT IS ALWAYS A MATTER THAT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE JURY FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE SITUATION. THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE INTENT TO A MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY. THERE IS NO WAY MEDICAL SCIENCE CAN DISSECT A PERSON'S BRAIN AND DETERMINE WHAT HE HAD IN MIND, SO OUR LAW SAYS THAT CRIMINAL INTENT MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN TO HAVE EXISTED.
CRIMINAL INTENT IS A STATE OF MIND WHICH WHEN OPERATED JOINTLY WITH AN ACT IS THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. CRIMINAL INTENT IS A MENTAL STATE, A CONSCIOUS WRONGDOING. SO, IT IS UP TO YOU TWELVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO DO BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES SHOWN TO HAVE EXISTED. I TELL YOU THAT THE STATE MUST PROVE CRIMINAL INTENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT JUST AS IT MUST PROVE EVERY ELEMENT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH INTENT BY DIRECT AND POSITIVE EVIDENCE, BUT INTENT MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY INFERENCE IN THE SAME WAY AS ANY OTHER FACT BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ACTS OF THE PARTIES AND ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WHILE THE STATE MAY PROVE MOTIVE, IT IS UNNECESSARY THAT THE STATE DO SO. HOWEVER, THE STATE MUST PROVE INTENT.
about as good as possible for the defense
they tried to offer an explanation for everything
the fun should begin after lunch
they tried to offer an explanation for everything
the fun should begin after lunch
Agreed - I think it is almost unreasonable to draw the conclusion he didn’t do it.
He's definitely made up some ground and has raised some reasonable doubt about some of the circumstantial evidence.
The State has their work cut out for them during cross examination as this entire verdict will depend of how well they tear down his testimony.
Absolutely not true. Standard in a criminal trial is beyond a “reasonable” doubt not beyond “all” doubt which is what 100% certain would mean.
didnt he claim to read Mrs President Haley's body language? or am I misremembering?
It wasn’t out there in any meaningful way. A few people were asking questions at the law firm and they would have swept it under the rug and let him correct any mistakes if it hadn’t blown up.
For him to do nothing meant it would blow up, for him to try and do what he did, gave him a chance to get out of it. He just did a bad job pulling off the murder.
Agreed on exact times, not on where you were and where you went. He has been telling the same lies for 2 years up until today. He told the police 2 hours after he killed them he wasn’t at the kennel but took a nap. Both of those were lies and now he has admitted it.
I’ve heard nothing but vague answers almost like he’s making it up as he’s going along.
Tinsley said he would have dropped the boat case, so there is that significant piece tot he puzzle.
I appreciate your opinion and not a knock on you, but seems that everyone is further entrenched in their prior opinion. I knew what your answer would be before reading it.
Certain handles here are arguing not guilty, no matter what. Others are guilty, no matter what.
Because the prosecution doesn’t know exactly why he killed Maggie. You act like they know and won’t say. Why do stupid people do stupid things?
He definitely calculated that killing them would keep him from being discovered as a thief. There is plenty of evidence to suggest it likely would have worked if he had planned a better murder and alibi. He told so many lies that were easy to prove were lies.
I did hear he dropped Buster. I didn’t hear the whole thing was dropped. I thought I saw that it settled but I’m not sure.
Maybe he told his clients they were suing a broke and in debt man and not worth the effort? They would be way down the line in creditors even if there were assets.
After AM became the prime suspect in the murder and all the stealing was uncovered, Tinsley took a different approach. Had none of that happened (after the murders) he would have settled with AM for what he could get from insurance and whatever the last offer was. He stated that in testimony.
If you don't trust SLED, then why talk to them? One certainly has that right, and Alec should know that better than anyone. Heck, that is what he was telling the people in the boat crash that night at the hospital. Give me a break.
I don't know how anyone can consider AM credible.
He admitted within the first few minutes of that testimony that he's lied about being at the kennel until now. With that admission, he's admitting to have mislead investigators all this time and prevented them from finding the "real" killer. No one knows better not to lie to investigators than him - especially in that situation.
So now, he's on trial for murder after hearing all the evidence shown against him and people are supposed to believe he is suddenly telling the truth? He's the least credible witness of the entire trial.
But people will still believe him as this thread proves. I admit, he's somewhat convincing and I still think this ends up with a hung jury.
He admitted within the first few minutes of that testimony that he's lied about being at the kennel until now. With that admission, he's admitting to have mislead investigators all this time and prevented them from finding the "real" killer. No one knows better not to lie to investigators than him - especially in that situation.
So now, he's on trial for murder after hearing all the evidence shown against him and people are supposed to believe he is suddenly telling the truth? He's the least credible witness of the entire trial.
But people will still believe him as this thread proves. I admit, he's somewhat convincing and I still think this ends up with a hung jury.
This whole thing has been a big money maker for Folks. He's trying to drain every last cent he can out of it.
Couldn’t agree more. The only reason I don’t care a whole lot if it hangs is that we know he will never see the outside of a prison again just because of the crimes he has admitted. He wasn’t even offered bail before he was charged with murder.
I haven't really followed this thing until today - watched the Netflix show last night.
In this day and age, shouldn't a lawyer know all about electronic evidence and how to get away with a crime? He certainly covered up for his son enough...
In this day and age, shouldn't a lawyer know all about electronic evidence and how to get away with a crime? He certainly covered up for his son enough...
I watched most of it so far. AM did a lot of good for himself today. His testimony and the way he's given it so far is believable.
One thing that jumped out at me, when they were talking about Bubba and the chicken.
AM said something like, "I put the chicken on top of the box".
Attorney asks "then what did you do"
AM "I got out of there"
That exchange was quick and not much thought went into it. "I got out of there" seemed like an odd response.
I wish we knew more about the heat coming from Miami.
One thing that jumped out at me, when they were talking about Bubba and the chicken.
AM said something like, "I put the chicken on top of the box".
Attorney asks "then what did you do"
AM "I got out of there"
That exchange was quick and not much thought went into it. "I got out of there" seemed like an odd response.
I wish we knew more about the heat coming from Miami.
The "heat from Miami" was a picture of the guy's wife in a revealing bathing suit who sent the text.
There are people who believe he could be out in as little as 10 years on the financial stuff. I don't know how that all works but that would be a shame if it happened.
I don't know what this means.
I'm genuinely asking you to post more because I like hearing the opposing side. Echo chamber is no fun.
Do you still believe Alex is a pathological liar?
I followed the case some and the trial starting today in detail. Was there GSR on either of the two recovered phones? Finger prints? etc?
I assume it's not really possible to tell who was shot first, but I assume it was Paul and then Maggie.
Does the blood spatter in question lead to splatter from the AR or shotgun, or lack of splatter?
How in the hell can the state not subpena the guys who were seen in the drone aerial from the netflix doc removing guns from the house after the crime, their gps data, etc?
If Alex's whereabouts after the time of the shooting was his parents house, why wasn't that searched?
Is it impossible to determine which shotgun was used?
I think the defense keeps going on until judge calls it quits today to enable AM to go over his statements tonight and prep for tomorrow, if that's possible.
I assume it's not really possible to tell who was shot first, but I assume it was Paul and then Maggie.
Does the blood spatter in question lead to splatter from the AR or shotgun, or lack of splatter?
How in the hell can the state not subpena the guys who were seen in the drone aerial from the netflix doc removing guns from the house after the crime, their gps data, etc?
If Alex's whereabouts after the time of the shooting was his parents house, why wasn't that searched?
Is it impossible to determine which shotgun was used?
I think the defense keeps going on until judge calls it quits today to enable AM to go over his statements tonight and prep for tomorrow, if that's possible.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
**New** Our biggest question mark for Clemson heading into spring practice- Latest: J.Greenbeans
-
-
