ADVERTISEMENT

⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️

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.


This is an excellent post.
 
I have nothing backwards, you seem to lack fundamental reading comprehension skills.

You are now using the word reasonable doubt we all know that isn’t what you really mean. Your previous posts speak for themselves. You specifically stated “beyond all doubt” just a few posts back which is what you are really looking for and you have said it repeatedly through this trial.

You have constantly highlighted insignificant things as legitimate reason to doubt AM’s guilt and dismissed hard evidence against him for confounding reasons.

You are right about one thing, we won’t agree. There may be a hung jury, I think it is more likely they convict, but I don’t view it as a complete slam dunk. It should be, but there are very gullible people in this world and it would not shock me to find out that a few are duped by ol Eleck.
It’s up to the juror to decide what he places weight where. Just like it is mine. In South Carolina it’s beyond reasonable doubt. I feel there is reasonable doubt in this case. I need more evidence that he pulled the trigger, the murder weapons being his which I think is reasonable doubt in would get me there. If they were here and they were his I would change. To me the acquired shot angle matters as well. If he his them in the woods or in a shed at his moms temporarily wouldn’t his car show him going back and parking in the same spot? Being there for a small time to get them. Cellphone would show similar stuff as well. Where is that evidence? To me it’s equally as reasonably that someone else did it over the boat case or a load of reason. I don’t have to have evidence to make that reasonable. I believe some of the circumstantial evidence still leads to that to be honest.

I also believe you are valuing some of the circumstantial evidence higher than I am. I don’t put a lot of faith in the steps and exactly how many it was. I also don’t put absolute faith in the gps on that SUV. Why, because I use GPS professionally almost every single day. I know its capability and its shortcomings. Especially in the Units and hardware that are on that suv. That to me creates enough doubt to render a not guilty verdict.
 
At this point, if I’m the prosecution, I’d call him as a rebuttal witness at this point concerning the roadside deal and maybe he goes off on what he knows about Moselle. Maybe enough jurors believe some of what he says and that gets you at least a hung jury and possible retrial. Worse case with a hung jury is the cloud of suspicion is still hanging over Alex head.


No sir. Prosecution is ahead and they know it. Friday was borderline devastating for the defense. I would not call Eddie Smith - he's too unpredictable.
 
It’s up to the juror to decide what he places weight where. Just like it is mine. In South Carolina it’s beyond reasonable doubt. I feel there is reasonable doubt in this case. I need more evidence that he pulled the trigger, the murder weapons being his which I think is reasonable doubt in would get me there. If they were here and they were his I would change. To me the acquired shot angle matters as well. If he his them in the woods or in a shed at his moms temporarily wouldn’t his car show him going back and parking in the same spot? Being there for a small time to get them. Cellphone would show similar stuff as well. Where is that evidence? To me it’s equally as reasonably that someone else did it over the boat case or a load of reason. I don’t have to have evidence to make that reasonable. I believe some of the circumstantial evidence still leads to that to be honest.

I also believe you are valuing some of the circumstantial evidence higher than I am. I don’t put a lot of faith in the steps and exactly how many it was. I also don’t put absolute faith in the gps on that SUV. Why, because I use GPS professionally almost every single day. I know its capability and its shortcomings. Especially in the Units and hardware that are on that suv. That to me creates enough doubt to render a not guilty verdict.
Seems to me if someone else pulled the trigger there would be evidence to support that. Tire tracks...nope those are AMs...footprints nope those are AMs. DNA...nope that's AMs (and a few others who were proven not to be there at the time).

Cellphone tower data? Nope. shows no other phones in the area other than the responding EMS.
 
[QUOTE="Clemblack, post: 5312793, member: 6202"

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.
[/QUOTE]
You are wrong about this. I don’t not see your response about a hand of one is a hand of all until now. SC does not differentiate between first and second degree. But they absolutely would in accessory. Which is what it would be if he paid for it or had it done. They would have to show that he got someone else to do it. A hand if one is a hand of all would not apply in this case because they have no evidence or haven’t presented any of another person being there. Now if he was there and didn’t pull the trigger then yes. They would have to have another suspect thought that suspect would also have to be in the act of said murder, which they would have to prove. None of that comes into this cases.
 
Reported and brought into court are 2 totally different things. The later is the only thing that matters.
I'll bet my house that if she had consulted a divorce lawyer the state would have presented such evidence. Every single witness spoke to the apparent love between them, including her sister!
 
thought maybe waters would try to hone in on AM’s fantasy land facts

how much did you pay for a pill

what was the check to eddie smith for on _____? how many pills?

Like mentioned above

I think paranoid and angry AM went to use pills after dinner and Detective PawPaw had taken them

so when he realized that he went down to the kennels and confronted him

Paul refused and AM lost it in a rage

then HAD to kill MagsMags or whatever he wants to call her today

I think the reasoning on how he could snap

financial was a ticking time bomb

Paul had him in a bind for the wreck

pills were the straw that broke his back

denying his fix may have been the trigger

he said he would never INTENTIONALLY hurt them
AM may have been a user, but I am guessing, based on the amount he was doing some trafficking's and/or laundering in order to get some money to cover his debts.

I can see where Paw Paw taking a stash that was part of a larger transaction to someone, would have pissed him off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eubyscott
It’s up to the juror to decide what he places weight where. Just like it is mine. In South Carolina it’s beyond reasonable doubt. I feel there is reasonable doubt in this case. I need more evidence that he pulled the trigger, the murder weapons being his which I think is reasonable doubt in would get me there. If they were here and they were his I would change. To me the acquired shot angle matters as well. If he his them in the woods or in a shed at his moms temporarily wouldn’t his car show him going back and parking in the same spot? Being there for a small time to get them. Cellphone would show similar stuff as well. Where is that evidence? To me it’s equally as reasonably that someone else did it over the boat case or a load of reason. I don’t have to have evidence to make that reasonable. I believe some of the circumstantial evidence still leads to that to be honest.

I also believe you are valuing some of the circumstantial evidence higher than I am. I don’t put a lot of faith in the steps and exactly how many it was. I also don’t put absolute faith in the gps on that SUV. Why, because I use GPS professionally almost every single day. I know its capability and its shortcomings. Especially in the Units and hardware that are on that suv. That to me creates enough doubt to render a not guilty verdict.

I don’t dispute that a juror has the right to make the judgment. I am disputing the level of reasonableness you have shown in previous posts. Sure this is somewhat nebulous concept as there isn’t a quantifiable scale for reasonableness.

I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I want to ask.

Are you saying you don’t believe the guns that were used to kill Paul and Maggie were the two missing guns from AM’s stash? If it could be proven those guns were in fact AM’s guns that would be meaningful for you?

Do you think the science that was used to show the shell casings found around both bodies matched other casings found around the property is unreliable or an inaccurate way of determining a link?

Would you not concede that if the guns used to kill Paul and Maggie were present and used on the property at some other time and they were the exact type of gun used to kill Paul and Maggie and they are now missing and unaccounted for that is pretty damning?

Do you not view that as a A=B=C=D so A = D type scenario?
 
No evidence whatsoever that Maggie was pursuing a divorce.


This is technically true. But there was testimony from housekeeper that she found Maggie's ring under driver seat of the Mercedes. If jury believes that to be true, why did Maggie put her ring there? Why wasn't she wearing it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghetto III
I think the closing has to tug at the hearts to “do the right thing” and help the jurors get there. The closing argument is really only for about 2-3 of them anyways. What are those 2 or 3 people struggling with? I think they are struggling with believing AM could kill Paul the way he did and maybe Maggie but Paul for sure.

I think you hit on the facts but you have to hit on the depth of ”sick” that Alex really is and I think you have to highlight the wrong things he has done to people he “cared” for. People he claims he still cares for today. He is capable of doing really bad things to people he cares for when something else bigger is at stake.

He cared more about his reputation, his family name, and not being discovered. He cared more about avoiding disgrace and jail time than he did his own flesh and blood. Paul and Maggie were a sacrifice he was willing to make to save his own hide. It probably wasn’t as hard for AM to make that decision given that Paul‘s stupid actions were what put him in this position to begin with. If not for the boat accident, none of this comes to light.

I don’t doubt that Alex loved Paul and Maggie at some level, but Alex loved himself more. He is the type of person that did everything with the goal of helping himself, making himself feel better, look better and it didn’t matter who had to suffer for it.

Alex wouldn’t have blinked an eye to kill me or you. It probably gave him pause to do what he did to Paul and Maggie, but as the evidence shows, he did it anyways. He decided that the only way he could avoid destroying 4 generations of legacy and his own life was to kill Paul and Maggie in such a way that it would distract from the ever so tightening noose around his own neck.

Every one is entitled to a defense and it is the job of the defense team to propose different theories And point the finger at others. The only theory the defense can come up with in this case is a nameless 5’2” social media vigilante. The facts are so convincing and shine the light so bright on Alex Murdaugh, the best they can come up with is a 5’2” social media vigilante. Who by the way was clairvoyant enough to know he didn’t need to bring his own weapon to perpetrate the crime.

No, we don’t have a video of Alex shooting Paul and Maggie. No, we don’t have an eye witness, but what we do have is a lot of hard facts about where Alex was and when. What he did before and after Paul and Maggie were killed and they all point the finger in one direction... Alex Murdaugh. There is no mistaking that Alex Murdaugh was one of 3 people at the kennels on the 7th of June at 8:45 pm. After 2 plus years of repeatedly lying to law enforcement, friends and family, Alex finally admitted what we have known all along. He was at the kennels that night. We also know that of the 3 people who were alive at 8:45 two died shortly later and he is the last one to see them alive.

Alex would have you believe he “got out of there” and went back to the house and didn’t hear all the gun shots. That he wouldn’t have simply driven by the kennels to tell Paul and Maggie he was leaving. The only reason Maggie came to Moselle was to go with Alex, but somehow she didn’t go.

Alex has lied repeatedly in this case, over and over changing his story to try and fit it to the facts so he looks less guilty. I would tell the jury don’t let him get away with that. Alex Murdaugh has admitted in this very court room to living the life of a criminal for the last 15 years, stealing from the destitute, corruption, drugs and who knows what we haven’t discovered yet. This is just one more crime in a long series of crimes committed daily.

Alex was a desperate man and he was willing to try a desperate act to get the focus off of himself. He killed Paul and Maggie and they deserve justice, they deserve to have the father and husband they trusted, and who gunned them down in cold blood, go to jail for his crimes.

Don’t let the duty entrusted to this Jurry fall to others in the financial cases. You are required to serve justice for these crimes, not them. Paul and Maggie deserve Justice, the people of Hampton deserve justice, the people of Colleton County deserve justIce, this very State deserves justice. Don’t let Alex Murdaugh off scot free because of his last name, because he happens to be skilled in the art of BS. Don’t let him fool this jury like he has fooled so many for years, return a guilty verdict.

A post length @Zothras would be proud of. 😉🤣
 
This is technically true. But there was testimony from housekeeper that she found Maggie's ring under driver seat of the Mercedes. If jury believes that to be true, why did Maggie put her ring there? Why wasn't she wearing it?
Because she got a manicure that day.
 
-dope paranoia
-deputy took GSR from him
-law partners told him to be careful
-got in the car with a specific SLED agent that he didn't trust
-and that he was asked by LE about relationship with Maggie and Paul

But he was lying to law enforcement before any of those facts existed.


This is accurate, except Alex told the jury he thought David Owen was a Sled agent that Alex claims had acted in bad faith in a trial that Alex was involved in a decade ago. Alex testified basically that he thought this "David" was that same "David" that he didn't trust. It's all BS.

Waters masterfully had Alex paint himself into a corner. All of the factors that Alex testified created his paranoia happened AFTER he had already lied to the VERY FIRST officer on scene.
 
This is accurate, except Alex told the jury he thought David Owen was a Sled agent that Alex claims had acted in bad faith in a trial that Alex was involved in a decade ago. Alex testified basically that he thought this "David" was that same "David" that he didn't trust. It's all BS.

Waters masterfully had Alex paint himself into a corner. All of the factors that Alex testified created his paranoia happened AFTER he had already lied to the VERY FIRST officer on scene.

Yeah - It was a pretty good job. How anyone can believe anything that comes out of AM’s mouth is beyond me.
 
Jurors can't consider that since it's never been presented as evidence. I would think her sister would have known and they would have asked her when she took the stand.

That is the one thing about this trial that has baffled me a little. The interesting thing was when Maggie’s sister testified. She said that she had to talk Maggie into going that night. Maggie didn’t want to go and you could tell that was haunting her.

I think Maggie may have given Alex an ultimatum and told him to either get clean for good or she was gone and she was staying at Edisto because she didn’t want to be around Alex.

I don’t guess we will ever completely know why he did what he did.
 
That is the one thing about this trial that has baffled me a little. The interesting thing was when Maggie’s sister testified. She said that she had to talk Maggie into going that night. Maggie didn’t want to go and you could tell that was haunting her.

I think Maggie may have given Alex an ultimatum and told him to either get clean for good or she was gone and she was staying at Edisto because she didn’t want to be around Alex.

I don’t guess we will ever completely know why he did what he did.
That could be...and would explain why dogs were not with her.
 
no inside info but eddie has given different statements - Alex had his chance to implicate him but did not

only thing I wonder is can the state get in the alleged admission to Eddie on why he wanted him to kill him on side of road


Prosecution does not want to do that IMO. Prosecution believes Alex is lying about wanting to die that day. They don't want to present anything that might lead jury to believe Alex was telling the truth about wanting to commit suicide.

It is clear there was no suicide attempt for a number of reasons. First, Alex is a lawyer and he knows good and well that the life insurance policy would indeed still pay out of Alex killed himself (Alex claimed he thought he had to fake being murdered in order for policy to pay). Also, no reasonable person would believe Eddie Smith missed Alex's huge head and just grazed it. And hell, even if he had missed - he would've shot him again.
 
I also believe you are valuing some of the circumstantial evidence higher than I am. I don’t put a lot of faith in the steps and exactly how many it was. I also don’t put absolute faith in the gps on that SUV. Why, because I use GPS professionally almost every single day. I know its capability and its shortcomings. Especially in the Units and hardware that are on that suv. That to me creates enough doubt to render a not guilty verdict.
As a professional navigator, I'd enjoy hearing you expound on the shortcomings of GPS.

GPS is one of the most revolutionary inventions of our lifetime. The signal civilians can use is accurate within 2 meters. Our military encrypted version is far more accurate than that.

Amazing considering I learned to navigate originally with a sextant.
 
Last edited:
Shows the mentality that existed in that town and how he had everyone snowed with his lies......just like he is trying to do to the jury

Calling his son Paw paw is the biggest joke.... never said his name in ant interview ever til the trial....the tears and dripping snot to go with the incessant lies is something to behold

If jurors cannot see through his BS, I feel sorry for them


The Murdaugh family, certainly to include Alex, did indeed call Paul "Paul Paul." But I agree that Alex's use of it at trial is intended to elicit sympathy from the jury, and Waters was smart to point out the fact that Alex had not said "Paul Paul" during any interview with LE.

It's clear that his use of "Mags," "Paul Paul," and "Ro Ro" is performative. It's also ridiculous to say those "names" during a murder trial, and in my opinion quite disrespectful to a dead wife and son.

Alex's entire testimony is performative. Every fascial expression, tongue movement, long pause, throat clear - it is all purely performative. I would be curious to know if there is any evidence whatsoever of Alex ever doing the tongue thing he's been doing on the stand. I would wager the answer is NO.
 
Last edited:
That is the one thing about this trial that has baffled me a little. The interesting thing was when Maggie’s sister testified. She said that she had to talk Maggie into going that night. Maggie didn’t want to go and you could tell that was haunting her.

I think Maggie may have given Alex an ultimatum and told him to either get clean for good or she was gone and she was staying at Edisto because she didn’t want to be around Alex.

I don’t guess we will ever completely know why he did what he did.
Yea, I was surprised they didn't press her more on why she didn't want to go. Yea, doubt we'll ever know because he's going to deny even if he's convicted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: my95GTHO
Yea, I was surprised they didn't press her more on why she didn't want to go. Yea, doubt we'll ever know because he's going to deny even if he's convicted.

They must know what the answer is going to be. It wouldn’t totally surprise me if Marian Proctor knows more but doesn’t want to say it in court and so she just keeps quiet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dandeman330
That could be...and would explain why dogs were not with her.

There was definitly something going on, the house keeper was even a little iffy on why she was in Edisto. There was work being done, but it was almost like that was a convenient excuse for her being there.
 
Prosecution does not want to do that IMO. Prosecution believes Alex is lying about wanting to die that day. They don't want to present anything that might lead jury to believe Alex was telling the truth about wanting to commit suicide.

It is clear there was no suicide attempt for a number of reasons. First, Alex is a lawyer and he knows good and well that the life insurance policy would indeed still pay out of Alex killed himself (Alex claimed he thought he had to fake being murdered in order for policy to pay). Also, no reasonable person would believe Eddie Smith missed Alex's huge head and just grazed it. And hell, even if he had missed - he would've shot him again.

Personally, I like the claim that he lured Cousin Eddie to the spot so he could kill him and claim self defense and pin the murders on him. It may not be accurate, but something else was up with that situation. A man who wants to kill himself will do so, and there is zero reasonability that AM thought suicide would negate his policy. Lie. Lie. Lie. Lie. Lie.
 
There was definitly something going on, the house keeper was even a little iffy on why she was in Edisto. There was work being done, but it was almost like that was a convenient excuse for her being there.
Well...Edisto in June is infinitely better than Moselle. I don't see her being there to be a big deal.
 
Personally, I like the claim that he lured Cousin Eddie to the spot so he could kill him and claim self defense and pin the murders on him. It may not be accurate, but something else was up with that situation. A man who wants to kill himself will do so, and there is zero reasonability that AM thought suicide would negate his policy. Lie. Lie. Lie. Lie. Lie.
Seems reasonable, especially as wacky as the rest of it is!
 
  • Like
Reactions: my95GTHO
The Murdaugh family, certainly to include Alex, did indeed call Paul "Paul Paul." But I agree that Alex's use of it at trial is intended to elicit sympathy from the jury, and Waters was smart to point out the fact that Alex had not said "Paul Paul" during any interview with LE.

It's clear that his use of "Mags," "Paul Paul," and "Ro Ro" is performative. It's also ridiculous to say those "names" during a murder trial, and in my opinion quite disrespectful to a dead wife and son.

Alex's entire testimony is performative. Every fascial expression, tongue movement, long pause, throat clear - it is all purely performative. I would be curious to know if there is any evidence whatsoever of Alex ever doing the tongue thing he's been doing on the stand. I would wager the answer is NO.

What are your thoughts on his non stop nodding and rocking while listening to testimony. And when he assumes the stand he stops? I seriously thought the guy had Parkinsons.
 
Well...Edisto in June is infinitely better than Moselle. I don't see her being there to be a big deal.

I wouldn’t argue against that, there was just some undertone to the whole thing that didn’t feel completely right.
 
IMHO the right thing to do would be to wait and see what happens with the financial crimes. Then see his sentencing for that. If he is going to basically die in prison anyway, imho the state would be doing the SC tax payers an injustice by spending the millions it will cost to go trough an additional trial.

Statistics also show that the state would be fighting an even larger up hill battle as the second trial tends to favor the defense at that point. The evidence won’t change so most likely you get a hung jury then which means it’s officially over without a new charge like accessory.

lol what?
 
[QUOTE="Clemblack, post: 5312793, member: 6202"

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.
You are wrong about this. I don’t not see your response about a hand of one is a hand of all until now. SC does not differentiate between first and second degree. But they absolutely would in accessory. Which is what it would be if he paid for it or had it done. They would have to show that he got someone else to do it. A hand if one is a hand of all would not apply in this case because they have no evidence or haven’t presented any of another person being there. Now if he was there and didn’t pull the trigger then yes. They would have to have another suspect thought that suspect would also have to be in the act of said murder, which they would have to prove. None of that comes into this cases.
[/QUOTE]


I have no idea what this post is referencing or if you were trying to respond to anything I said. If this was not a reply to me then my apologies for this post.
 
The body language experts say that when he says no but nods yes at the same time, he's admitting guilt.

I mean. That’s a typical response from a “body language” expert and I dont take much from that. I don’t think they know enough about his baseline to make that claim.

I’m speaking more to his continuous ticks when not answering questions.
 
Personally, I like the claim that he lured Cousin Eddie to the spot so he could kill him and claim self defense and pin the murders on him. It may not be accurate, but something else was up with that situation. A man who wants to kill himself will do so, and there is zero reasonability that AM thought suicide would negate his policy. Lie. Lie. Lie. Lie. Lie.


Alex is also a narcissist. He will not under any circumstance commit suicide.
 
I mean. That’s a typical response from a “body language” expert and I dont take much from that. I don’t think they know enough about his baseline to make that claim.

I’m speaking more to his continuous ticks when not answering questions.
Along with the lip smacking and tongue antics...all show guilt. But it's OK to ignore the experts. I'm just telling you what they've said. They could be making it up as they go for all I know.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT