Mine fails a good bit, not nearly as much or as bad as the finger print but still fails a good bit.
⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️
- Thread starter OldMTPTiger
- Start date
I know it’s obvious. I’m just saying his only defense at this point would be he was in the shower. Because if he didn’t shoot them (he did) then he would’ve clearly heard the shots.
The house being only 300 yds from the kennels means loud Booms in the house.
Last edited:
So she takes those steps and not AM. What does that prove? She was alive 3 minutes later? Still doesn't mean that he didn't kill her at 2054.
But we know that's not the case because Paul is dead. He's not responding to texts anymore from his friend he is helping with the dog. That means there have been two shotgun blasts. You think Maggie didn't hear them. She did move more? AM still has plenty of time to get his phone at the main house at 2102.
Saw a brilliant theory on reddit. Wish I had thought of it:
All three of them took the golf cart from the house to the kennel, and Maggie left cell phone in cupholder of golf cart. Alex killed them but does not know where Maggie phone is (May have called it here in attempt to find it, I can't remember if he calls or not). This explains no Maggie steps from 8:31 to 8:53. Alex unlocks it when he finds it in cart at 8:49:26. It changes orientation over next several minutes, which is him while he's driving cart back to house. This explains also why he took it (he did not mean to) and why he tossed when he did.
All three of them took the golf cart from the house to the kennel, and Maggie left cell phone in cupholder of golf cart. Alex killed them but does not know where Maggie phone is (May have called it here in attempt to find it, I can't remember if he calls or not). This explains no Maggie steps from 8:31 to 8:53. Alex unlocks it when he finds it in cart at 8:49:26. It changes orientation over next several minutes, which is him while he's driving cart back to house. This explains also why he took it (he did not mean to) and why he tossed when he did.
I think GUILTY is the most likely verdict of the majority of the jurors. That could be quite a ways from a jury presenting a guilty finding to the judge in short order. I'd guess the prosecution was looking for straight forward people ready to vote UP or DOWN and had a feeling their case was overwhelmingly strong.
I'd guess the defense was looking for people who had trouble saying guilty and accepting the responsibility of putting a man in jail for life. The defense was just hoping to raise enough doubts to give the client a juror or two who would not vote guilty. Given the facts, I suspect a hung jury was the very best thing Poot and his team hoped to achieve.
I think the horror of the crime, the pure awfulness of the circumstances probably leaves some jurors with PTSD and nightmares. I would also guess that the lies that AM has admitted to, the rich guy got it made going down the stealing and drug rat hole is very hard for average people to ignore. It is inconceivable to me that a random selection of 15 people from SC would not be very sure AM badly lived his life and had done incomprehensible things. The judgement each makes is a personal judgement. I think AM's admissions make it possible for average folk to believe him capable of anything.
If I could bet $100 on GUILTY, NOT GUILTY or HUNG JURY, I think the odds would make the payoff for undecided by the jury VERY low. I think the payoff for NOT GUILTY would be high. I'd bet on Guilty and hope the jury did it's job for a moderate payoff to me, the disinterested guy just hoping to make a few bucks.
If the jury votes NOT GUILTY, I shall be astounded and confused.
80% of the defense case was testimony of Alex, Buster and John Murdaugh. That was a shit-tastic defense case IMO.
Do we know if all the jurors are from Hampton or Colleton County?
If so, I think there’s a real possibility some of them will convict him simply BECAUSE he is a Murdaugh. A convenient way to get back at the “ elitists of the world”, so to speak.
If so, I think there’s a real possibility some of them will convict him simply BECAUSE he is a Murdaugh. A convenient way to get back at the “ elitists of the world”, so to speak.
I'm asking which you think is more likely between guilty and not guilty? Disregard hung jury.
I don’t think there was any particular witness testimony that stood out for the defense other than their questioning of the sled agent and getting him to admit to misleading Alex and his team about blood on the shirt. The car data guy was decent and the gun shot recreator may have helped create some doubt.
Overall, I I would say that the Defense team was smart in framing the murder as brutal as possible every chance they had. That combined with several witnesses for the State that commented on how Alex loved his family especially Paul, will have an affect on jurors. I believe Alex probably helped himself some in showing emotion. At some level you have to buy in to a dad, that hasn’t shown evidence of public animosity with his family, being willing to kill his family members for whatever reason. Some people will not be able to do that and the defense did a good job of framing the case in that light.
I think AM was surprised that the shotgun didn't do the damage anticipated due to there being bird/turkey load in the magazine, so he had to grab the other gun to deal with Maggie...OR...if that gun was usually used for bird hunting, it likely only had two shells loaded. None in the chamber and two in the magazine.
As someone who lives on a large tract of land, uses a golf cart daily, and rides family around on it often, this is totally plausible. Phone is just not something you think to grab out of the cupholder or more likely the cubby hole on each side of the dash. My iphone X doesn't fit in the cupholder.
Also when SLED reviewed cell tower data no other phone pinged in that area around Moselle other than Alex, Paul and Maggie and then the phones on the first two responders to the scene. That supports the 12 year old 5’2” killler as they wouldn’t be old enough to have a phone
it blows my mind the people who just refuse to admit Alex did it. He was the only person there at the time of the murder and they were his weapons.
Last edited:
Why do you need evidence to prove or disprove who may have taken steps with her phone? The data says someone was taking steps.
I would liken it to positing any question about this case on why some technical data is what it is. We know Maggies phone ended up by the side of the road yet there isn’t any data to really indicate how. It doesn’t prove anything beyond someone placed the phone there.
How do we know Maggie didn’t walk the half mile down the road and place her phone there and then walk back? Because it would be asinine to think that. It isn’t a reasonable assumption.
When the totality of the evidence is balance the reasonableness points to AM. You like to cherry pick this data point or that data point and say that you can’t prove that was Alex therefore the whole case has doubt.
By your logic you can’t prove that a 5’2” vigilante didn’t do it, so Alex walks free.
@Boom4life Where are you getting that prosecutors spend less time in court? Being in front of a judge or preparing to be in front of a judge is basically the job description. Generally there are many more criminal defense attorneys (private/public eefender) than prosecutors in a given area. While private defense attorneys can have other clients (civil/family), the ones i know still dont have near the case load that I carry as a prosecutor.
Just curious, What do you do for a living?
The older , yet still acceptable jury charge, from back in my prosecutor days, is that a reasonable doubt is just that: it is a doubt that you can give a reason for. It is not a fanciful, whimsical, nor imaginary doubt. It is a doubt based in reason. The state does not have to prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt, only beyond a reasonable doubt........The standard charge was then eventually reworded a little further to define a reasonable doubt as a doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitant to act ( or hesitant to convict), for doubt often causes hesitation. When i later tried some cases as a criminal defense attorney for a couple years after leaving the solicitors office, I would often list the reasons in my closing argument to the jury that would or should make them hesitate to convict. I would argue, "When you feel that hesitation, that is reasonable doubt, and you will know that the state has not proven its case. And you should therefore return a verdict of not guilty."
Last edited:
Not even Alex himself claims to have taken a shower after leaving the kennels. He testified that he left the kennel and laid down on the couch.
Murdaughs’ brother…THAT is what it looks like when you’re sad someone died.
When is the prosecution going to ask, "why didn't you blow your brains out after Cousin Eddie supposedly "missed? This guy was a guru at manipulating money. He knew damn well suicide wouldn't have voided Buster's landfall. Why didn't he kill himself after Eddie "missed"? Because he never thought he'd get caught, arrested, or tried. He would NEVER, kill himself. He's a narcissist of the largest order. He thought he would get out of this with no problem. If it was up to local authorities he probably would have never been charged.. Above the law all of his life. See the boat accident footage of him with his badge on display, telling those kids what to say. But SLED got involved.
The fact that he called his wife twice, and text her at least once, but didn't bother to go out of the gate by the kennels on the way to his moms so he could talk to her, speaks volumes to me.
The fact that he called his wife twice, and text her at least once, but didn't bother to go out of the gate by the kennels on the way to his moms so he could talk to her, speaks volumes to me.
Question for the group:
I have been decisively engaged at work today. I caught up today's testimony thanks to Avery Wilks' Twitter feed.
Was anything today worth listening to? I'd be just as happy to start tomorrow morning listening to the live testimony and skip today's -- unless someone recommends otherwise.
I have been decisively engaged at work today. I caught up today's testimony thanks to Avery Wilks' Twitter feed.
Was anything today worth listening to? I'd be just as happy to start tomorrow morning listening to the live testimony and skip today's -- unless someone recommends otherwise.
Other than that, there’s a few posters in here who need to get a room so the rest of mankind can get back to enjoying this thread.
You think the "birdshot through the top of the shoulder going down into the body." was the 2nd shot? So the shot that blew his brains out didn't kill him?
Idk, both options are strange. How did the birdshot strike from the top down in his left shoulder from a shot from below? Can birdshot really blow back from a downward shot hard enough to dent a door and penetrate the wood above the door?
You're describing the 2nd shot which was the kill shot to the back of the head. The first was to his chest.
The first shot across the chest was buckshot. The second shot was birdshot. I agree he was surprised that the first shot didn’t do the job and suspect Paul ran towards him, maybe even to tackle him, when the second shot against his head rushing forward blew up his head.
AM looked like he was rewatching the scene while the testimony was happening.
No. The first shot across his chest that didn’t kill him was buckshot that went through his left arm. The second shot against his head that blew up his head was birdshot that penetrated his left shoulder from the top, most likely as he was bent over rushing forward towards the shooter.
I think the 5.2 12 year old theory got jettisoned by the defense today with the blowback testimony.
Still think Cousin Eddie was the fall guy. Cousin Eddie wounds Alex and Alex kills Eddie. The story would be Alex owed Eddie more money and Eddie killed his family to pressure Alex. When that failed to motivate Alex, he was going to kill him, but Alex was the "hero" in a gunfight. Just a crazy theory.
He already testified that he had taken a shower before going back to the kennels.
Oh I know. Just saying that's another spot he screwed up. If he had said he showered after the kennels, then you could maybe convince a juror that he wouldn't have heard the gunshots.
OK. You didn't say through his head and then penetrated his shoulder, so I thought you were not talking about the shot that blew his brains out.
There is a mountain of evidence that places the time of death within a few minutes of their phones going dead, but you use a molehill anecdote about your own phone not recognizing you as your "reasonable doubt." That makes zero sense to me.
No offense, but I believe you are going about this ass backwards. No, I do not believe the defense has the burden to show someone else did it. I believe you logically use the evidence to draw the most likely conclusion. And if you believe that conclusion without a reasonable doubt, then you have your vote.
No, the defense does not have to prove there was another killer. But as a juror, if you see all this evidence pointing to AM but still have a doubt, shouldn't a responsible, logical juror ask himself "If not AM, who?" And "where is the evidence to point to someone else?"
And before you say it's not the defense nor anyone else's responsibility to find the "real killer," you are not doing your job as a juror if you don't ask yourself where is any evidence that someone else did it if you have doubt. If there is none (and there is none in this case), that is another very strong data point amongst ALL the others that points back to AM.
Logic and data is what I am basing my beliefs on in this case.
Going by the descriptions of the photos as they were shown to the jury. I have to believe they were accurate with 12+ people looking at them.
i think the property is for sale and that no one has stayed there since the murders..
