This ^^^^ A local Easley guy named Daryl Batts stole over $10M from friends, family, etc about 12-13 years ago. In court admitted he planned it for years. A great guy with a likable trustworthy personality. Less than a month before he was arrested he asked that a friend from the coast and myself invest in one of his funds. Timing was the only thing that saved us from becoming another victim. Pure sociopath. End of story is his sentence was only 10 years and he's now free. Murdaugh can certainly outlive the prison term if a murder conviction isn't secured.
⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️
- Thread starter OldMTPTiger
- Start date
On a serious note......
This thread is a case study into how hard this is for the prosecution and how the defense just needs to create doubt in one person.
The evidence is presented. Any reasonable man will have very little doubt who did it. Yet there isn't the "smoking gun" (pardon the pun) evidence that some juror may need to vote "guilty."
If I were to estimate, I'd say 75% of the folks in this thread think he is guilty.
I'd say 25%, in this thread, have some level of doubt and think the state hasn't proven he pulled the trigger.
The jury is likely made of a cross segment of South Carolina similar to this board (with the except that there's likely less ladies in this thread).
Cell phone lights, noise, clothes, 911 calls, Paw Paw, where AM sleep in the days after the killings, are all really just noise. Noise that will create confusion or doubt in one person's mind. That's all the defense needs.
The fact is they were all together at one point. Only one is still alive.
This thread is a case study into how hard this is for the prosecution and how the defense just needs to create doubt in one person.
The evidence is presented. Any reasonable man will have very little doubt who did it. Yet there isn't the "smoking gun" (pardon the pun) evidence that some juror may need to vote "guilty."
If I were to estimate, I'd say 75% of the folks in this thread think he is guilty.
I'd say 25%, in this thread, have some level of doubt and think the state hasn't proven he pulled the trigger.
The jury is likely made of a cross segment of South Carolina similar to this board (with the except that there's likely less ladies in this thread).
Cell phone lights, noise, clothes, 911 calls, Paw Paw, where AM sleep in the days after the killings, are all really just noise. Noise that will create confusion or doubt in one person's mind. That's all the defense needs.
The fact is they were all together at one point. Only one is still alive.
Coming into this late. Has it been mentioned or disproven whether Paul also used opiates? He was painted in the doc as mostly just a partier/drinker, I don't think drugs were mentioned. (Which having grown up in the low country... is shocking...)
I'm just curious if Paul knew about the drugs and if he himself took them from his dad, that might have been a motive for Alex. (Lot of ifs I know, but I'm just curious)
I'm just curious if Paul knew about the drugs and if he himself took them from his dad, that might have been a motive for Alex. (Lot of ifs I know, but I'm just curious)
My thoughts exactly.
This thread is a perfect snapshot of how the jury is likely thinking. If there are differing opinions in here, then the jury (average people like us) are likely thinking the same thing = hung jury.
No rocking or sobbing or fidgeting while answering questions from the prosecution about the events immediately preceding his son's head being blown off. It's almost like he can turn on the emotion when needed.
I certainly think Alex pulled the trigger, or had a big hand in planning/involved in this.
But some things that don't add up to me:
Alex is an experienced lawyer and smooth talker. So he knows what it would take to get off and cover his tracks. So why were there some simply mistakes made:
- Why not clean up the gun shells? Maybe dark and couldn't see them?
- If he took Maggie's phone, why drop it near the property?
- If he had the mindset to take Maggie's phone, why not take Paul's too? Because Paul's phone is proving to be the main piece of evidence against Alex (video).
But some things that don't add up to me:
Alex is an experienced lawyer and smooth talker. So he knows what it would take to get off and cover his tracks. So why were there some simply mistakes made:
- Why not clean up the gun shells? Maybe dark and couldn't see them?
- If he took Maggie's phone, why drop it near the property?
- If he had the mindset to take Maggie's phone, why not take Paul's too? Because Paul's phone is proving to be the main piece of evidence against Alex (video).
I would have asked - "So you don't remember the last conversation you had with your wife, who you deeply cared for? Most people would remember something that like and cherish it".
I was about to partner up with a genuinely likeable guy on a real estate venture I met thru my 9-5.
Turns out hed done some hard time for making about 5 million in 2012….by breaking into vacant homes that were REO and renting them out. He was trying to make an honest loving at that point, but I just couldn’t associate with that kind of thing
Well damn. He just admitted that he was in the golf cart the whole time. Which makes him 5’2”
Likely with a folded windshield for a gun rest like I said last night.
Obviously, Poot and team didn't like the "I got out of there"' statement by AM yesterday. You can tell he practiced a response to that.
He does seem to be Paw-Paw when he's talking about Paul in good memories or about what he "found" that night. Then he's Paul when talking about the boat case and legal troubles.
AM literally can not allow for just silence. If I'm Waters, I keep having long pauses in between questions or answers banking on the fact that AM is eventually going to open his mouth again unprovoked.
But the jury will deliberate. For example, let's say they take a vote and it's 9-3 for guilt. They'll talk, argue, deliberate, and the 9 try to convince the 3 to come to their side. They may succeed, they may not. Minds can and do change during deliberation. I've been a part of it.
To be clear, I'm not predicting a guilty verdict. If I had to predict at this point, I'd say 70% chance guilty, 25% chance hung, 5% not guilty.
He just said he did not intentionally delete phone calls. Interesting strategy
Pauses are a classic integrator tactic.
No one likes silence. Given the opportunity, a person will fill it. Not just AM, but me, you, anyone.
I’m not wound up in the least. Ive just noticed your posts stand out like a sore thumb and seems extraordinarily slanted—it’s a bit odd and feels like there is an agenda. Either to be contrarian or you have some connection. Just an observation and reason for my first responses in this thread. You’ve ignored a whole host of evidence and point out he couldn’t have thrown the phone out based on testimony of one “expert” when clearly there are many variables in the phone lighting up…and ergo he couldn’t have done it. Just odd.
I, too, haven’t watched any Netflix—I’ve read this blog and the guy on Twitter to get the blow by blow. Almost impossible for me to imagine someone else could’ve done it given the timeline…just almost impossible to reconcile that. Massive, unbelievable coincidence and maybe the luckiest man alive to have left minutes before an ambush.
Not sure a narcissist feels or has genuine emotions. They lack those feelings and have to mimic how others with functioning emotions act under a certain circumstance. Not hard to turn on/off a mimic response.
It's a mistake to deflect regular human responses on a narcissist.
You assume so much. This is a danger when trying to evaluate things for what they are. Not what you want them to be or hope them to be.
I didn’t say he couldn’t have thrown the phone out. I said that testimony by the expert gave me some doubt as to whether he threw it out. Just like the testimony that Alex’s vehicle didn’t slow down where the phone was thrown but was in fact in a continual gradual acceleration. This evidence and testimony was in direct contradiction to the prosecution and they prosecutors didn’t do what they could have done or should have done to eliminate that doubt.
I have no agenda. I don’t know anyone involved in this case in any way. I don’t have an expected or hoped outcome. I’m taking the testimony day by day and evaluating it.
He's taking a break to the bathroom so he can put some cayenne pepper in his handkerchief. Rub his nose when needed and he produces his snot waterfall again.
This sociopath is in the process of lying his balls off and is choking under pressure because he can’t keep track of all of his previous lies. 1st class POS.
"How do you explain those 283 steps in the 4 mins?" "You said you laid down. Did you hop on the treadmill,do some jumping Jack's while also making all those phone calls while you don't remember what you were doing?" Mercy
It would be nice if that happened. But imo without a murder sentence, AM will undoubtedly be free under bond at some point. And after another 2 years pass without daily attention to the crimes, a judge will sentence him to no more than 15 years as to the financial charges. He could possibly be out of prison before his 70th birthday. A scorned, despicable character. But free none the less. Who would have thought OJ would be playing golf in Florida less than 19 years after a murder trial and subsequent incarceration for armed robbery and kidnapping?
I think less than 1% chance of not guilty verdict. But I'm with you as to a 25% chance for hung jury.
There are different cross-examination techniques.
One is for the questioning attorney to ask leading (yes/no) questions and basically testify themselves. Sometimes the answers don't matter, just the questions. As long as the attorney has a good-faith basis to ask the question, they can ask leading questions and put that information out in front of the jury, even if the witness denies it.
Another method is to ask these open-ended questions. That method is often disfavored because you can't control the witness as well, especially a hostile witness. But good law enforcement interrogators never interrupt a suspect who is talking, and they string them along to keep them talking. That's what's happening here with Alex -- Waters wants to let him talk, talk, and talk as much as possible.
That’s doesn’t prove murder. Again he’s on trial for pulling the trigger. Anything other than that and he is innocent of the charge of murder.
I don't live in the state and have mostly ignored this story until the last few days. One question I have (that I didn't really see covered in the Netflix or HBO documentaries) is: wasn't there some discussion about blood spatter on Alex Murdaugh's clothing? Did I imagine that? Even the video to me seems to be mostly circumstantial but blood spatter would be much harder to BS your way out of. My uneducated guess, at the moment, is that he gets off unless there is real physical evidence of some type.
I guess I took a bad two days off from this thread because now I’m 12 pages behind. Damnit well now I know how I’m spending the rest of my Friday afternoon
I haven't watched all of the trial, so I don't know if the blood spatter has been introduced. Supposedly (before trial) the forensic specialist tested his shirt and said there was no spatter. Then he tested it again and said there was spatter. However, there wasn't enough of the shirt left for the defense to have their expert test it. So they probably were not allowed to present it, and if they did, the defense could probably discredit it.
Just curious - does the jury have any kind of supervisor or guidance? Or they all alone in the room. Just 12 people discussing, debating, arguing?
I think that’s because people don’t understand or have different understandings of beyond a reasonable doubt. They think every case has to have either a confession, or someone on camera committing the crime or dna on the victim or the murder weapon but that’s just not the case. If that were true then no crimes before 2000 would have been solved. Eventually you have to use common sense and realize that he had motive, has been proven to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the murder, has lied and tried to cover his tracks ever sense. Plus tons of other evidence. It’s pretty hard to fathom anyone else committing this crime.
I believe they are all alone, but they do elect a jury Foreman. Not sure if that is before the trial or before deliberation. @tigerbean ?
Absolutely. It's not Guilty beyond all doubt, but beyond "Reasonable Doubt". So far It's hard to get past 3 people being there at the same time, then only one leaving alive.
