⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️

[CUT93]

For those who have closely followed this trial, those who are certain that AM killed his wife and son, how much does motive play into your conviction that he did it? The primary drivers/motives behind why you believe he felt he reached a point where he was so compelled to kill his wife & son? Are you as certain about these motives (as you see them) as you are about the logistics of the case (murder scene in particular, given his whereabouts)?

Thanks!

I think he is guilty. However, I am not sold on a particular motive. I think there could be several possibilities. Family drug abuse argument, breaking point reached due to past problems with son/drugs/confrontation about theft that day at work, etc. In this case motive is just not that important to me.

Would I like to know- absolutely. However, the fact that I don't does not change the evidence. I think AM is probably a sociopath based on his years of taking advantage of those in terrible situations and covering up the likely involvement of Paul in the boating death. While he may very well have loved his son and wife, the strength of those emotions would not be the same as for you or me. Particularly if he thought their deaths would provide him some benefit.

 

[Boom4life]

The coroner determined the time of death. The phones merely support it.

Which even he admits its a window not finite. Move that time line and it introduces a pile load of doubt. The time line is tight, to tight in my opinion in some places.

 

[LUV DEM TIGERS]

For those who have closely followed this trial, those who are certain that AM killed his wife and son, how much does motive play into your conviction that he did it? The primary drivers/motives behind why you believe he felt he reached a point where he was so compelled to kill his wife & son? Are you as certain about these motives (as you see them) as you are about the logistics of the case (murder scene in particular, given his whereabouts)?

Thanks!

Cris, you the man. You know how to stir the pot. LOL Click,Click, Click, Click.

 

[Boom4life]

Why are defense attorneys generally so much better than prosecutors?

I’m catching up listening to Waters interview Alex and Waters comes across as such a little douche. Alex actually seems pretty likeable and charismatic.

Are prosecutors often aspiring to be defense attorneys one day or not necessarily? Just seems like generally defense attorneys are better at their jobs and more appealing to the jury.

Because they settle 90% of their case load. They simply don’t have the experience that defense attorneys do.

 

[GrayCourtStomp]

Why are defense attorneys generally so much better than prosecutors?

I’m catching up listening to Waters interview Alex and Waters comes across as such a little douche. Alex actually seems pretty likeable and charismatic.

Are prosecutors often aspiring to be defense attorneys one day or not necessarily? Just seems like generally defense attorneys are better at their jobs and more appealing to the jury.

Bc they make the big money.

 

[GoodWord28]

im going with guilty now. After testimony from the sob and reconsideration of the cellphone data, he’s there at the likely time of death. Any other murderer would have wanted him dead as well and wouls have found him napping inside the home..which turns out to be a lie (of many).

 

[Cavitybacks]

Bc they make the big money.

That was my assumption. Prosecutors, generally, seem to miss the mark on how they question and how to appeal to a jury. They come across as “wannabes” in these big murder cases.

Defense attorneys just seem to be much better attorneys. This Waters character is so condescending toward Alex. He acts like he has a personal agenda against Alex.

I think he is hurting his own case with how he interacted with Alex in the cross examination.

 

[Woody1405]

I don't like the prosecutor's motive theory. In my experience we often don't know motive. The family could have had a terrible argument at dinner and that's what set him off. We will never know. But you can't make up a scenario that anyone but Alex committed the murders.

 

[Clemblack]

im going with guilty now. After testimony from the sob and reconsideration of the cellphone data, he’s there at the likely time of death. Any other murderer would have wanted him dead as well and wouls have found him napping inside the home..which turns out to be a lie (of many).

Correct.

And Alex thinks it's a boat case vigilante. But that person wouldn't kill Maggie.

Who kills both Maggie and Paul? Only Alex.

 

[tallulahtiger30319]

He is terrible human being, but I am willing to admit Alex isn’t stupid enough to suggest that there was no possible way someon was in the woods waiting for him to leave. I think he simply meant no one was visibly present.
And not even the dogs thought anything wa

Look he is telling lie after lie, but that is a pretty easy one to keep straight.

And even the dogs thought nothing amiss.

 

[gooddogjudge]

Which even he admits its a window not finite. Move that time line and it introduces a pile load of doubt. The time line is tight, to tight in my opinion in some places.

If the timeline moves it gets condensed because it can only move one way.

 

[GrayCourtStomp]

I don't like the prosecutor's motive theory. In my experience we often don't know motive. The family could have had a terrible argument at dinner and that's what set him off. We will never know. But you can't make up a scenario that anyone but Alex committed the murders.

Can't make up a scenario? The 12 yr old 5'2" vigilantes strongly disagree. Stern objection.

 

[gooddogjudge]

Which even he admits its a window not finite. Move that time line and it introduces a pile load of doubt. The time line is tight, to tight in my opinion in some places.

If a shred of evidence suggested someone else was there...tire tracks, footprints, DNA, barking dogs, unknown guns, cigarette butt, cell phone tower data, ANYTHING...I could give your argument a fighting chance....but none of that exists. 3 people were there. 2 died and one lied...wonder if CW uses that phrase in his closing argument.

 

[sloanMB]

Check out Alex. Hakeem Pinckney in this video. Wish jury could see it.

View embedded media

“To be able to show a jury those things instead of tell them about it…the benefit is unexplainable. The best storyteller in the world cannot relay with full effect, the way video can.” -Alec Murdock

 

[gooddogjudge]

“To be able to show a jury those things instead of tell them about it…the benefit is unexplainable. The best storyteller in the world cannot relay with full effect, the way video can.” -Alec Murdock

The irony is pure!

 

[Boom4life]

If a shred of evidence suggested someone else was there...tire tracks, footprints, DNA, barking dogs, unknown guns, cigarette butt, cell phone tower data, ANYTHING...I could give your argument a fighting chance....but none of that exists. 3 people were there. 2 died and one lied...wonder if CW uses that phrase in his closing argument.

Those facts you listed are not enough for me to convict without doubt. Also evidence provided doesn’t erase that doubt for myself And others.


You look at it differently that I. The difference you look at the evidence and follow the states story. I try to create reasonable doubt in their story and see if the evidence eliminates it. He is innocent until proven guilty. It’s the states job for REMOVE reasonable doubt. That’s why I look at it the way I do.

 

[gooddogjudge]

Those facts you listed are not enough for me to convict without doubt. Also evidence provided doesn’t erase that doubt for myself And others.


You look at it differently that I. The difference you look at the evidence and follow the states story. I try to create reasonable doubt in their story and see if the evidence eliminates it. He is innocent until proven guilty. It’s the states job for REMOVE reasonable doubt. That’s why I look at it the way I do.

I look at it with a lot of common sense. What is your reasonable doubt again? 10 or 15 minutes isn't enough time to take a shower and wrap up some guns?

 

[Boom4life]

I look at it with a lot of common sense. What is your reasonable doubt again? 10 or 15 minutes isn't enough time to take a shower and wrap up some guns?

Drive to the house get rid of clothes, wash off a golf cart, clean up any trace evidence on himself without leaving any and get out of there. He had to gather the guns get them loaded in his truck. Gather up Maggie’s phone and fiddle with it. It’s tight and I like most think it leaves room for doubt. Here the problem if you’re still on the fence you can easily find doubt in this story . If you are the type of person that was going to convict him because he is a scumbag and want him to he guilty then you erase that doubt. I use you loosely and mean most people.

I’ll argue it’s conceivable that washing the cart, driving to the house, showering, getting rid of the clothes and loading the guns takes more than 15 min.

 

[gooddogjudge]

Those facts you listed are not enough for me to convict without doubt. Also evidence provided doesn’t erase that doubt for myself And others.


You look at it differently that I. The difference you look at the evidence and follow the states story. I try to create reasonable doubt in their story and see if the evidence eliminates it. He is innocent until proven guilty. It’s the states job for REMOVE reasonable doubt. That’s why I look at it the way I do.

If you had taken Philosophy 102 - Introduction to Logic -at Clemson, or anywhere else, I believe you'd think he was guilty. This is the perfect real world application of proving/disproving theorems.

 

[yoshi121374]

Those facts you listed are not enough for me to convict without doubt. Also evidence provided doesn’t erase that doubt for myself And others.


You look at it differently that I. The difference you look at the evidence and follow the states story. I try to create reasonable doubt in their story and see if the evidence eliminates it. He is innocent until proven guilty. It’s the states job for REMOVE reasonable doubt. That’s why I look at it the way I do.

So what's a different scenario that reasonably fits this situation?

Again, it's not about eliminating all doubt, just "reasonable" doubt.

 

[gooddogjudge]

Drive to the house get rid of clothes, wash off a golf cart, clean up any trace evidence on himself without leaving any and get out of there. He had to gather the guns get them loaded in his truck. Gather up Maggie’s phone and fiddle with it. It’s tight and I like most think it leaves room for doubt. Here the problem if you’re still on the fence you can easily find doubt in this story . If you are the type of person that was going to convict him because he is a scumbag and want him to he guilty then you erase that doubt. I use you loosely and mean most people.

I’ll argue it’s conceivable that showering, driving to the house, washing off the cart, and loading the guns takes more than 15 min.

Why does he have to clean off a golf cart? Who knows if it was anywhere close at the time of the murders.

 

[Boom4life]

So what's a different scenario that reasonably fits this situation?

Again, it's not about eliminating all doubt, just "reasonable" doubt.

I stated reasonable doubt. I think there is reasonable doubt that he couldn’t pull off the alleged in the time frame that’s hard for me. Again that’s not my only doubt. Time of death is another because that condenses the 15 min.

 

[Boom4life]

Why does he have to clean off a golf cart? Who knows if it was anywhere close at the time of the murders.

Ask the state they implied it in their cross.

 

[gooddogjudge]

I stated reasonable doubt. I think there is reasonable doubt that he couldn’t pull off the alleged in the time frame that’s hard for me. Again that’s not my only doubt. Time of death is another because that condenses the 15 min.

I wonder how many convictions are based on an absolute, to-the-minute exact time of death. Too many environmental factors, even when rectal thermometer used.

 

[gooddogjudge]

Ask the state they implied it in their cross.

Hmmm. I missed that. You sure you didn't infer it?

 

[Boom4life]

I wonder how many convictions are based on an absolute, to-the-minute exact time of death. Too many environmental factors, even when rectal thermometer used.

It would depend on the case. But it’s pivotal to the states case. Change that time of death just 10 min and he looks totally innocent except for lying. His phone would show he was gone and couldn’t have possibly done any of the other stuff during that time.

 

[Boom4life]

Hmmm. I missed that. You sure you didn't infer it?

I don’t believe so. It was around the time they were talking about where it was parked I believe. They also talked about the hose right. But I will be totally honest. After the trial and then reading everyone’s responses I can say some of it doesn’t run together. I’ll admit that.

 

[castlesl]

Because they settle 90% of their case load. They simply don’t have the experience that defense attorneys do.

One would generally assume that if 90% of the prosecutions cases are settled about 90% of the defense cases are settled as well, No?

 

[Boom4life]

One would generally assume that if 90% of the prosecutions cases are settled about 90% of the defense cases are settled as well, No?

Most defense attorneys don’t only do criminal law. Therefore they spend more time in a court room.

 

[gooddogjudge]

It would depend on the case. But it’s pivotal to the states case. Change that time of death just 10 min and he looks totally innocent except for lying. His phone would show he was gone and couldn’t have possibly done any of the other stuff during that time.

Right. Except all the victims' activities ceased before he left.

I've fallen victim just like @Clemblack Or someone Did last night. My apologies to @Clemblack if it was not you.

 

[CUT93]

Those facts you listed are not enough for me to convict without doubt. Also evidence provided doesn’t erase that doubt for myself And others.


You look at it differently that I. The difference you look at the evidence and follow the states story. I try to create reasonable doubt in their story and see if the evidence eliminates it. He is innocent until proven guilty. It’s the states job for REMOVE reasonable doubt. That’s why I look at it the way I do.

You said at one point that if it were proven his guns were the murder weapons, that would be enough for you. Why do you doubt it was his guns that were used? I am pretty sure the testimony proved that the shells/casings from the murder weapon came from the same gun in which shells/casings were found around other areas where the murders were not committed - some of which were obviously not shot within days of the time of death. I don't see how there could be any doubt the murder weapons were his. Please explain.

 

[gooddogjudge]

I don’t believe so. It was around the time they were talking about where it was parked I believe. They also talked about the hose right. But I will be totally honest. After the trial and then reading everyone’s responses I can say some of it doesn’t run together. I’ll admit that.

Someone put the hose up, yes, but that seems to be unimportant in grand scheme of things

 

[gooddogjudge]

You said at one point that if it were proven his guns were the murder weapons, that would be enough for you. Why do you doubt it was his guns that were used? I am pretty sure the testimony proved that the shells/casings from the murder weapon came from the same gun in which shells/casings were found around other areas where the murders were not committed - some of which were obviously not shot within days of the time of death. I don't see how there could be any doubt the murder weapons were his. Please explain.

He wants the actual guns. Too much doubt!

 

[GSMTiger]

That was my assumption. Prosecutors, generally, seem to miss the mark on how they question and how to appeal to a jury. They come across as “wannabes” in these big murder cases.

Defense attorneys just seem to be much better attorneys. This Waters character is so condescending toward Alex. He acts like he has a personal agenda against Alex.

I think he is hurting his own case with how he interacted with Alex in the cross examination.

not disputing things you bring up...just some thoughts I've had in regards to how Waters came across and handled the cross examination...

Why do you think Waters comes across that way? He is absolutely frustrated...but it was by AM's design.

Make no mistake...ole Ellick is no dummy. Early on in the cross examination he masterfully manipulates Waters to the point of frustration. Granted the questions Ellick faced from Jim Griffin were easy, softball questions to portray AM in a sympathetic and likable perspective to the jury...but AM answers them quickly with short and direct answers. No time wasted.

Now in contrast, watch the cross from Waters. Ellick regularly asks Waters to clarify the question...then he qualifies almost EVERY SINGLE ONE of his answers. He evades clear and direct answers. He is adamant and quick to admit all of the financial crimes, but ONLY if he can do it in a blanket and impersonal manner. He adds extra fluff to his answers to take up large amounts of time. He tries to draw out the cross examination as long as he can...

In my opinion, it's to numb the jury...produce boredom within the jury...to bring Waters to the point of frustration so Waters will be the bad guy in the jury's eyes for beating a dead horse. It's safe to say Ellick is an exceptionally smart man. At the same time, he is an exceptional manipulator. He likes to control the situation - either on display for all to see...or to control it low-key without it being obvious.

That's what I loved about the end of Waters cross examination. He baited Ellick (who unquestionably considers himself the smartest guy in the room) and got Ellick to paint himself into a corner. Then dropped the mic when it was clear that Ellick lied...even BEFORE any of the factors that he explained his lying on were in play.

Waters did a good job in the end...but make no mistake, Ellick was surgically precise in being the A-hole to rile Waters up.

I have no idea how the jury will vote, but In my estimation Ellick is likely guilty. Ellick is slimy, theatrical, and seems like he sold his soul long ago. He may care about some people in his life...but NOWHERE near as much as he cares about HIMSELF.

 

[castlesl]

I’ll argue it’s conceivable that washing the cart, driving to the house, showering, getting rid of the clothes and loading the guns takes more than 15 min.

It is conceivable, my son takes 30 min showers. It’s conceivable you could spend half a day doing the things you listed.

It also very conceivable all of it can be done in under 15 minutes with time to spare. I don’t think the golf cart needed to be washed, you have no idea, but it helps your argument so you throw it in.

It only takes about a minute to drive an electric golf cart at top speed 1150 feet. That is roughly the distance from the hangar to the house. 2 minutes to strip and throw clothes and guns in the back of the car, a 6 minute quickie shower, 2 minutes to get dressed and and you have 4 minutes left to grab a drink.

The idea that this is so tight it boarders on the unbelievable to some is just mind numbing.

Alex could have easily slipped on a pair of latex gloves right before he grabbed the gun to ensure no GSR on his hands.

 

[gooddogjudge]

not disputing things you bring up...just some thoughts I've had in regards to how Waters came across and handled the cross examination...

Why do you think Waters comes across that way? He is absolutely frustrated...but it was by AM's design.

Make no mistake...ole Ellick is no dummy. Early on in the cross examination he masterfully manipulates Waters to the point of frustration. Granted the questions Ellick faced from Jim Griffin were easy, softball questions to portray AM in a sympathetic and likable perspective to the jury...but AM answers them quickly with short and direct answers. No time wasted.

Now in contrast, watch the cross from Waters. Ellick regularly asks Waters to clarify the question...then he qualifies almost EVERY SINGLE ONE of his answers. He evades clear and direct answers. He is adamant and quick to admit all of the financial crimes, but ONLY if he can do it in a blanket and impersonal manner. He adds extra fluff to his answers to take up large amounts of time. He tries to draw out the cross examination as long as he can...

In my opinion, it's to numb the jury...produce boredom within the jury...to bring Waters to the point of frustration so Waters will be the bad guy in the jury's eyes for beating a dead horse. It's safe to say Ellick is an exceptionally smart man. At the same time, he is an exceptional manipulator. He likes to control the situation - either on display for all to see...or to control it low-key without it being obvious.

That's what I loved about the end of Waters cross examination. He baited Ellick (who unquestionably considers himself the smartest guy in the room) and got Ellick to paint himself into a corner. Then dropped the mic when it was clear that Ellick lied...even BEFORE any of the factors that he explained his lying on were in play.

Waters did a good job in the end...but make no mistake, Ellick was surgically precise in being the A-hole to rile Waters up.

I have no idea how the jury will vote, but In my estimation Ellick is likely guilty. Ellick is slimy, theatrical, and seems like he sold his soul long ago. He may care about some people in his life...but NOWHERE near as much as he cares about HIMSELF.

Well said.

 

[gooddogjudge]

It is conceivable, my son takes 30 min showers. It’s conceivable you could spend half a day doing the things you listed.

It also very conceivable all of it can be done in under 15 minutes with time to spare. I don’t think the golf cart needed to be washed, you have no idea, but it helps your argument so you throw it in.

It only takes about a minute to drive an electric golf cart at top speed 1150 feet. That is roughly the distance from the hangar to the house. 2 minutes to strip and throw clothes and guns in the back of the car, a 6 minute quickie shower, 2 minutes to get dressed and and you have 4 minutes left to grab a drink.

The idea that this is so tight it boarders on the unbelievable to some is just mind numbing.

Alex could have easily slipped on a pair of latex gloves right before he grabbed the gun to ensure no GSR on his hands.

Maybe it was you who got drawn in last night. Learn from your mistakes!

 

[castlesl]

Maybe it was you who got drawn in last night. Learn from your mistakes!

It’s this or taxes.….

 

[gooddogjudge]

It’s this or taxes.….

Hahaha! Did mine earlier today...well, I organized the materials earlier today.

As a one-time accounting major, once I switched majors I decided that I would never put myself thru that bullshvt again.

 

[PawJourney]

Definitely a topic that mixes with college football.