⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️
- Thread starter OldMTPTiger
- Start date
True but financial stuff was allowed in against the defenses wishes. What did you expect them to do. Could backfire and a juror on the edge of guilty/not guilty and is one of the few holdouts might vote guilty to get a verdict thinking he is gonna be in jail anyway so it does not matter.
People think differently and you have no idea what each juror is thinking or specifically looking for to help them make up their mind.
Some on the jury could also look at the defense saying that as admitting evidence makes him guilty but just overlook it because he is toast anyway.
No. He has a degree from UofSC
I think the prosecution lost alot of ground on the cross and I expect a not guilty verdict or hung jury now.
Waters was doing great up until Alex got on to the stand and controlled things.
Waters was doing great up until Alex got on to the stand and controlled things.
No, they will not "look to him for guidance." No sir.
The stronger personalities will indeed take control in deliberations. That has ZERO to do with who the foreman is. These people are strangers.
Yes, if hung they will absolutely try this case again. No doubt.
Alex proved himself to be a master manipulator...even telling Waters that he (Waters) was better looking or in better shape than AM. Crazy. I expect a hung jury but disagree w your other statements.
I, for one, agree with you. Without any physical proof of any kind, the facts can be constructed to tell multiple different stories. Present in all of those stories is Alex Murdaugh and he has varying degrees of involvement depending on which story we look at. However, I just don't see the necessary proof to say that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I hope he rots in prison for his financial crimes and, if he did kill them, it actually eats at him until he loses his mind but I'm not sure that happens with sociopaths.
Misspoke....should have said some may look to him for guidance and not sure guidance is the right word....value his opinion/let him control somewhat or as you say it may be someone else on the jury
Anybody know the full makeup of the jury after the Covid changes
I believe AM unintentionally incriminated himself when asked by Waters if the dogs were barking at someone, or sensed someone, or sensed people there that didn’t belong at the kennels that night around 8:45 (when AM was at the kennels when the dog video was being made by Paul, but of course he lied about being there) Alex said no they weren’t barking because nobody else was there. And they know Paul’s and Maggie’s phones went silent forever around 8:49… just 3 to 4 minutes after the dog video was made. If Alex is forcefully saying that no one else was there, then common sense must tell you Alex unintentionally admitted he must be the killer.
In what way? Serious question here as I've aligned very closely with your posts. I didn't have the chance to follow yesterday and probably won't go back and listen today.
I'm very engrossed into this tragedy and it's eventual conclusion but, quite honestly, am a bit burnt out with the process.
Cliffs will be fine.
And, are there still defense witnesses yet to testify or has the case now gone to jury?
Thanks.
He also proved to me why he was worth what he as an attorney Alex is pretty good at the art of cross examination which you could see on full display the last two day. Waters got maybe one jab in on him in 2 days. Waters did awful with that cross examination but in order to really understand you have to have an understanding of how the game works.
The defense has 3 or 4 more witnesses I can’t remember what they said. The state then has a couple rebuttal witnesses. Attentive schedule kinda is Wednesday for closing arguments then the jury gets it. I suspect it will take longer. If I’m waters I’m pushing closing arguments to end late Thursday or early Friday. That’s a known tactic and there is a reason for it.
Apparently both sides have at least two more witnesses
This. Waters exposed Murdaugh’s selective memory very effectively. I’m not 100 % convinced that Murdaugh is the shooter but I am convinced he was there, knows what happened and participated in either the killing or the cover up. By virtue of “the hand of one is the hand of all” in SC I’m leaning towards a guilty verdict.
I think there is going to be a big moment still
wondering if Eddie Smith is a part of that
we will see
wondering if Eddie Smith is a part of that
we will see
Some of the reasons you have cited for your belief in Alex’s innocence don’t seem to weigh the evidence proportionally. You hang your hat on insignificant details while overlooking the most damning.
Maggie’s IPhone lighting up or not lighting up, the one bullet, the possibility one guy lied about blood splatter. There was conflicting expert opinions about the blood splatter. Owens didn’t totally make it up and lie, it was proven to be untrue later, he believed that to be true at the time. So because he did or didn’t lie, every lie Alex has told doesn’t matter or is essentially offset.
There doesn’t appear to be any balance in your discernment of the relevancy of various facts and how they pertain to proving or disproving the case.
Look I am not gong to lose a wink of sleep if Alex is acquitted or there is a hung Jury. I would have no problem with your stance if the bar for finding guilt was set higher than reasonable doubt.
I simply don’t find any of the things you have cited as “your problems with evidence” particularly reasonable. You conflate reason and struggle to differentiate between possible and probable. There are many different scenarios that are possible that you can point to and say Alex didn’t do it, very few, really none, are probable.
I agree you aren’t the only one and I think others that draw the same conclusion don’t understand what reasonable truly means. Reasonable is sound judgment, fair and sensible, not possible.
One other thing. The people who say that Alex had a hand in it but didn’t pull the trigger should still find him guilty because SC law doesn’t differentiate. The State would have charged him with the same regardless.
No. The foreman has zero authority. His opinion does not matter more than anyone else's. No juror has any reason to value the foreman's opinion in any way.
I do not know the full makeup of the jury.
The evidence shows Murdaugh is the shooter. If he "participated" in it, then he would have hired it done. And he would've been 2,000 miles away. He's not stupid enough to hire it done and stay on property, or have someone assist him and hope that person remains quiet.
I'm not concerned with where Alex was when he shot them. But do you think it's possible for him to place the shells inside the feed room? Pretty easy to do.
If he hired it done, he would've been out of town. He is not stupid.
Well, he was doing something with those 283 steps after he got back to the house that he doesn’t want to divulge.
I understand and feel you. It is why many are not defense attorney’s they would not be able to put food on the table. The majority of people needing a defense attorney are in fact guilty as charged.
Can you provide what you would cite as the reasonable doubt? What has the defense presented that you believe is reasonable enough? Do you view there being a difference in possible vs. probable?
I wouldn’t hold your breath on any guilt eating at Alex. Guilt has had 15 plus years to eat at him and then he still killed his wife and son.
According to WLTXs expert, the counsel cannot meet w defendant once he has taken the stand.
Agreed,
I think Alex was giving thought to killing Paul for awhile, he viewed it as a sacrifice he had to make for the Murdaugh clan, 4 generations of legacy demanded it. I think he added Maggie in last minute because they were on the rocks and he knew where it was going and was likely going to put him right back into the situation where someone would be snooping into his finances.
What he hadn’t really done was forced himself to plan the details in a thorough manner. I actually don’t believe Alex is all that smart. I think in someways (people, reading them and understanding how they will react and where his leverage is) he is brilliant. In pure facts and alignment of logic, I think he is only average at best.
When Jeanne Seckinger confronted him that morning and told him she had reason to believe he had lied about the Chris Wilson funds, that put Alex over the edge. Don’t think he had ever been accused of lying in that manner.
Sure he had tried to dupe the firm before whether it was the corporate card and personal expenses or taking his brothers money when the check was cut to Alex. All of those were easily explained and he knew an “I’m sorry” would suffice to get out of it. This would have been different. This was stealing from the firm, no question, no excuses whatsoever. It would likely lead to further digging into all of his finances at the firm unless some major event caused an outpouring of sympathy towards him and allowed him to course correct.
So he has the Boat case, the firm breathing down his neck and in a split second decided he was going to kill them both that night. He had gotten away with so much over the years, he probably just didn’t think anyone would look at him as long as there was no major piece of evidence that could point to him. Then Paul made that video.
Question for those that watched AM testimony from yesterday. Did Waters ask Alex at all why he lied About being at the kennels? What was the reasoning for lying to everyone for 2 years?
If he was pressed on the question. I am saying someone can reasonably assume that is likely what he meant.
AM has a jury of his peers, not a nationally normed focus group that likely skews more educated. Were any of CourtTVs mock jury from the Murdaugh fiefdom of the Low Country? Do you think the educational levels of the women are commensurate with AM's juries?
The totality of a person's life experiences play deeply into the perception of "reasonable" doubt. The South has a conflicting layer of Christianity that plays to both extremes on a jury (some sit in judgment in lieu of God; others find it unforgivable to sit in judgment and forgive in lieu of God).
AM gave a jury enough to acquit him on a circumstantial case. I believe it will be a hung jury. I agree with @tigerbean that the State should prosecute the financial crimes first and see how long AM's sentence is. I also agree that if AM is acquitted, he has a chance to return society.
If he didn't sock money away (and I think he didn't but spent it all like a drunken sailor), then he returns as a shamed and blighted man. The best thing AM has going for him is his family. They will stick by him (on his side) I believe.
You need to watch but yes. Waters completely debunked AMs reasoning for why and when he started lying. It was beautiful.
How can one reasonably assume anything about AM except he's a liar and a cheat and a horrible human being.
He basically said, "the dogs weren't barking at someone else because there was no one else there. Only the 3 of us."
Yeah - so I have a day job and have been trying to hit the high notes at night on YouTube, but wasn’t able to last night. I plan to watch it later today or maybe tomorrow afternoon.
