⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️

[touchdownbob]

This top legal mind didn’t finish his analysis. Yes the state experts came back and discredited the defense experts, but Kinsley also discredited his previous testimony and basically testified that “we don’t know what happened, it’s chaos.”

Tha pathologist got to say she was right and they were wrong, but the defense got her to admit she’s never done a shotgun case before.

Yes the law partner, who despite what he says is incensed with anger at alex, says you can hunt hogs in the day and that you always carry high powered rifles to eliminate them admits many times he was in that property without said high powered rifles discrediting the states point that Alex wouldn’t have had a .22 with him but a 300 blackout instead.

Basically we one again have people confirming what they want to be the truth instead of accurately presenting what happened.

This is why I think there’s a much better chance at acquittal than anyone is giving credit for.

When you’re on the jury you don’t get to hear what Netflix or “the top legal minds” or anything else for that matter about the case. You get to hear the case as presented in the courtroom. That’s it. How was it presented, how were the attorneys and witnesses received/viewed. Who handled their case better. That all has to matter.

I believe Alex killed them. I don’t believe the trial as presented should convict Alex.

You're starting to sound like Lil' Poot.

You claim, "Basically we one again have people confirming what they want to be the truth instead of accurately presenting what happened." Aren't you doing the same thing, but claiming to be the only one competent enough to follow the evidence.

He did it. There is ample evidence for a moron to reach a guilty verdict.

 

[nmerritt11]

Not sure what this means.

money rules the town...law enforcement is scared to pissed of the wealthy families that essentially own everything

Hampton is not the only town like that

 

[Larry_Williams]

money rules the town...law enforcement is scared to pissed of the wealthy families that essentially own everything

Hampton is not the only town like that

I’m not sure what that fact means as to how we view this case.

 

[poates6]

I’m not sure what that fact means as to how we view this case.

It’s not related to this case. It’s related to the boating incident and why Paul wasn’t locked up right away

 

[Larry_Williams]

It’s not related to this case. It’s related to the boating incident and why Paul wasn’t locked up right away

Huh?

 

[poates6]

You're starting to sound like Lil' Poot.

You claim, "Basically we one again have people confirming what they want to be the truth instead of accurately presenting what happened." Aren't you doing the same thing, but claiming to be the only one competent enough to follow the evidence.

He did it. There is ample evidence for a moron to reach a guilty verdict.

Once again. I believe Alex did it. Maybe he had help, maybe he set it up. I just believe he’s able to be so detached from emotion and reality he was able to do it.

However, LE and the prosecutors in this case have failed in my opinion. If I were on the jury and had only consumed what was presented, reasonable doubt is a conclusion any reasonable person could come to.

 

[poates6]

Huh?

View all the evidence in this discussion. Go back and re read.

You’ll get it.

 

[Larry_Williams]

View all the evidence in this discussion. Go back and re read.

You’ll get it.

Same to you.

 

[purple2]

I’m not pro defense. I’m pro discussing the case and seeing all sides and angles. I point out a lot for the defense in this thread because very few even see it, much less discuss it.

we see it.
we discussed it.
he's guilty

 

[touchdownbob]

I’m not sure what that fact means as to how we view this case.

I guess the fact that Alex and Gramps were all over LE, hospital staff, and witnesses after the boat accident is an example. The uncle rode away with the boat. And, Paul wasn't locked up for BWI. Those are a few things that would not or could not happen elsewhere.

The local cops didn't lock down Moselle after they arrived. They didn't secure the house and weapons. The Murdoch influence here?

Alex was able to leave the state for "rehab." Apparently crapping himself all the way to Atlanta. More influence?

Alex admitted under oath that he used his position/badge to "soften" LE. That's one way to put it and can be observed by his behavior throughout the trial.

 

[Larry_Williams]

I guess the fact that Alex and Gramps were all over LE, hospital staff, and witnesses after the boat accident is an example. The uncle rode away with the boat. And, Paul wasn't locked up for BWI. Those are a few things that would not or could not happen elsewhere.

The local cops didn't lock down Moselle after they arrived. They didn't secure the house and weapons. The Murdoch influence here?

Alex was able to leave the state for "rehab." Apparently crapping himself all the way to Atlanta. More influence?

Alex admitted under oath that he used his position/badge to "soften" LE. That's one way to put it and can be observed by his behavior throughout the trial.

I’m lost now.

I said the fact that corruption happens in other small towns has zero bearing on how I feel about this particular case. It doesn’t lessen my disgust, and shouldn’t lessen any of our disgust. That’s it. That’s all I said.

 

[Tiger Guru]

money rules the town...law enforcement is scared to pissed of the wealthy families that essentially own everything

Hampton is not the only town like that

While you're not wrong, I'd consider it just plain ol' corruption. Corruption is very real. Check out the Netflix Documentary about "White Boy Rick". It's not just limited to Colliton County or Detroit Michigan. Those are the minor leagues.

The Big Leaguers are wearing suites and representing this country.

But you're right, it usually stems from money. However, power is far greater than money. It's everywhere and every job, every town, county and state are slap full of corruption. Not innocent people who just aren't good at their job or got mixed up with the wrong people. These are people who are purposefully corrupt. It's not accident they get placed in positions of power nearly everywhere.

But that's a "conspiracy theory" that even it were true, what could we do about it, right?

 

[Game Well]

did anyone else notice during John Marvin's testimony that when he was talking about his businesses, he pronounced the first few Mur-dock, then one was pronounced Mur-daw - thought that was odd.

 

[khudge]

Any guesses for what the prosecution will hammer in their closing beyond the obvious of showing all the lies of AM?

I’d guess they’ll really hammer on why he lied about being there before they were murdered, pointing out that the only reason one would lie about being there is if they knew the TOD for Maggie and Paul. He didn’t distrust law enforcement because for the longest time, Murdaughs were law enforcement. What else am I missing that they might hammer home to the jury?

 

[poates6]

Same to you.

I’m lost now.

I said the fact that corruption happens in other places has zero bearing on how I feel about this particular case. That’s it.

The original response you questioned wasn’t in response to this case. It was in response to the boat case where Alex showed up with his family and their influence to cover up for Paul and what happened that night of the boat accident.

 

[poates6]

did anyone else during John Marvin's testimony that when he was talking about his businesses, he pronounced the first few Mur-dock, then one was pronounced Mur-daw - thought that was odd.

I also think it was wild that he wasn’t asked why he cleans up all the Murdock/Murdaugh scenes where someone dies.

 

[Larry_Williams]

Any guesses for what the prosecution will hammer in their closing beyond the obvious of showing all the lies of AM?

I’d guess they’ll really hammer on why he lied about being there before they were murdered, pointing out that the only reason one would lie about being there is if they knew the TOD for Maggie and Paul. He didn’t distrust law enforcement because for the longest time, Murdaughs were law enforcement. What else am I missing that they might hammer home to the jury?

The part about mistrusting law enforcement is a total farce. None of that adds up.

 

[Game Well]

Yep.

Absolutely disgusting and outrageous.

this is what we were referring to. Basically, why he didn't get put in jail. Lots of posts so lots of room for confusion.

I think we need the thread title changed back to "Counsel of Kinnils" for the final days. Only fair to the OP @OldMTPTiger - what do you think @Cris_Ard ?

 

[Larry_Williams]

The original response you questioned wasn’t in response to this case. It was in response to the boat case where Alex showed up with his family and their influence to cover up for Paul and what happened that night of the boat accident.

You’re continuing to miss my point. Not sure how.

 

[Larry_Williams]

this is what we were referring to. Basically, why he didn't get put in jail. Lots of posts so lots of room for confusion.

I think we need the thread title changed back to "Counsel of Kinnils" for the final days. Only fair to the OP @OldMTPTiger - what do you think @Cris_Ard ?

Ha!

THANK YOU

 

[touchdownbob]

Once again. I believe Alex did it. Maybe he had help, maybe he set it up. I just believe he’s able to be so detached from emotion and reality he was able to do it.

However, LE and the prosecutors in this case have failed in my opinion. If I were on the jury and had only consumed what was presented, reasonable doubt is a conclusion any reasonable person could come to.

The prosecution presented:
1. Motive (financial collapse/pressure, lawsuits)
2. Opportunity (he was present during the murders)
3. Eliminated defense theory (no other phones on the cell tower; no evidence of third party)
4. Murder weapons (were guns owned by AM)
5. AM Lied throughout
6. Asking others to lie (grand ma's housekeeper)
7. Suspicious behavior (cousin eddie murder/suicide BS, blue tarp at grand ma's, and so on)

The prosecution has done a more than sufficient job. Alex Murdoch killed his wife and son.

Edit: I want to add that I really, really, really wish that he hadn't.

 

[poates6]

Any guesses for what the prosecution will hammer in their closing beyond the obvious of showing all the lies of AM?

I’d guess they’ll really hammer on why he lied about being there before they were murdered, pointing out that the only reason one would lie about being there is if they knew the TOD for Maggie and Paul. He didn’t distrust law enforcement because for the longest time, Murdaughs were law enforcement. What else am I missing that they might hammer home to the jury?

If it were me I’d hammer this:

We’ve shown you Alex has no character and willing to lie to anyone and everyone, including his family and partners. He loved only himself.

Three people are confirmed at the kennels that night. 2 are dead, one is alive. The one that is alive has lied repeatedly about where he was and what he was doing since then.

Those are the facts. Those are the points everyone agrees on and have testified to. Both the prosecution and the defense.

Therefore the only conclusion is Alex murdered Paul and Maggie.

 

[Cris_Ard]

this is what we were referring to. Basically, why he didn't get put in jail. Lots of posts so lots of room for confusion.

I think we need the thread title changed back to "Counsel of Kinnils" for the final days. Only fair to the OP @OldMTPTiger - what do you think @Cris_Ard ?

Morning sir. No sir. Most of our subscribers have no clue what that is.

This thread is approaching 500,000 views. We'll keep the title as is.

 

[touchdownbob]

I’m lost now.

I said the fact that corruption happens in other small towns has zero bearing on how I feel about this particular case. It doesn’t lessen my disgust, and shouldn’t lessen any of our disgust. That’s it. That’s all I said.

If you're lost then I'm looking for a map too. How did we get here?

 

[nmerritt11]

I’m not sure what that fact means as to how we view this case.

oh gotcha.

I think what it has to do with the case is how they were allowed to work around the system. Norml investigation rules did not apply to them in boat case or the crime scene.

They had the power over rules...

 

[poates6]

Morning sir. No sir. Most of our subscribers have no clue what that is.

This thread is approaching 500,000 views. We'll keep the title as is.

I’m trying to get it to 500,000! I hope we do. Having some fun with Larry to get his post count up in this thread. Maybe we get Paul in next for some fun!

 

[khudge]

The part about mistrusting law enforcement is a total farce. None of that adds up.

Agreed. Body cam from the initial responder didn’t show any distrust of law enforcement. I’m not sure if that was introduced in the testimony or not. The interview in the vehicle right after it happened has so many oddities to it. He’s talking about just discovering his dead wife and son in the previous hours and he stops in the middle of talking about the call to 911 to say that the operator did a good job. I don’t care who you are and how everyone reacts differently to shocking events, no one feels the need to give a Yelp review of the 911 operator while your dead wife and son are likely still laying a couple hundred feet away. The guy is guilty and I just hope the jury reaches that conclusion. Wouldn’t be surprised at all by a hung jury though.

 

[1Clemson]

Morning sir. No sir. Most of our subscribers have no clue what that is.

This thread is approaching 500,000 views. We'll keep the title as is.

That's a lot of views. Any idea if this thread is generating new readers? Or is this just existing user views (which would be incredible)?

 

[clemsontiger02]

The prosecution presented:
1. Motive (financial collapse/pressure, lawsuits)
2. Opportunity (he was present during the murders)
3. Eliminated defense theory (no other phones on the cell tower; no evidence of third party)
4. Murder weapons (were guns owned by AM)
5. AM Lied throughout
6. Asking others to lie (grand ma's housekeeper)
7. Suspicious behavior (cousin eddie murder/suicide BS, blue tarp at grand ma's, and so on)

The prosecution has done a more than sufficient job. Alex Murdoch killed his wife and son.

Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is most often the correct one

 

[touchdownbob]

Agreed. Body cam from the initial responder didn’t show any distrust of law enforcement. I’m not sure if that was introduced in the testimony or not. The interview in the vehicle right after it happened has so many oddities to it. He’s talking about just discovering his dead wife and son in the previous hours and he stops in the middle of talking about the call to 911 to say that the operator did a good job. I don’t care who you are and how everyone reacts differently to shocking events, no one feels the need to give a Yelp review of the 911 operator while your dead wife and son are likely still laying a couple hundred feet away. The guy is guilty and I just hope the jury reaches that conclusion. Wouldn’t be surprised at all by a hung jury though.

He had a badge, so wasn't he part of LE or the criminal justice system? His only fear was getting caught.

 

[castlesl]

This top legal mind didn’t finish his analysis. Yes the state experts came back and discredited the defense experts, but Kinsley also discredited his previous testimony and basically testified that “we don’t know what happened, it’s chaos.”

Tha pathologist got to say she was right and they were wrong, but the defense got her to admit she’s never done a shotgun case before.

Yes the law partner, who despite what he says is incensed with anger at alex, says you can hunt hogs in the day and that you always carry high powered rifles to eliminate them admits many times he was in that property without said high powered rifles discrediting the states point that Alex wouldn’t have had a .22 with him but a 300 blackout instead.

Basically we one again have people confirming what they want to be the truth instead of accurately presenting what happened.

This is why I think there’s a much better chance at acquittal than anyone is giving credit for.

When you’re on the jury you don’t get to hear what Netflix or “the top legal minds” or anything else for that matter about the case. You get to hear the case as presented in the courtroom. That’s it. How was it presented, how were the attorneys and witnesses received/viewed. Who handled their case better. That all has to matter.

I believe Alex killed them. I don’t believe the trial as presented should convict Alex.

Say what? When did she ever say she hadn’t done a shot gun case? I think you misheard that.

Your analysis just isn’t objective. You seem to think the jury will view every witnesses testimony with as skeptical of an eye as they would view Alex’s. That they weigh each witness with the same level of trust. I promise you that is not the case. No one believes what Alex says.

The people that are struggling are likely not struggling with if they think he did it or not. They are struggling with what doubts are reasonable and which ones are not, just like you.

They probably see some of the flawed investigative work but ask themselves do those flaws really change anything? We know Alex changed his clothes (he says before the kennels, i say after he killed them), either way, I wouldn’t expect blood on his tee shirt. I don’t see that as a big deal one way or the other. If it is true it didn’t have blood on it, for me it has no bearing on the case. So if LE screwed up looking for blood, I just don’t care. The lack of blood doesn’t absolve him of anything.

To your last statment. If you think Alex killed him then you really should vote guilty. The bar is not what you believe should be reasonable to others. The bar is do YOU have reasonable doubt, let others decide for themselves. I am not sure you would say you think he is guilty if you truly believed there are reasonable doubts. I think you would say man, i just don’t know, not I belive he killed them but.

I prefer a different word to reasonable, I prefer logical or sensible. Is there logical doubt to Alex’s alleged guilt. Is there sensible doubt to the case the State has made.

 

[yemassee]

This top legal mind didn’t finish his analysis. Yes the state experts came back and discredited the defense experts, but Kinsley also discredited his previous testimony and basically testified that “we don’t know what happened, it’s chaos.”

Tha pathologist got to say she was right and they were wrong, but the defense got her to admit she’s never done a shotgun case before.

Yes the law partner, who despite what he says is incensed with anger at alex, says you can hunt hogs in the day and that you always carry high powered rifles to eliminate them admits many times he was in that property without said high powered rifles discrediting the states point that Alex wouldn’t have had a .22 with him but a 300 blackout instead.

Basically we one again have people confirming what they want to be the truth instead of accurately presenting what happened.

This is why I think there’s a much better chance at acquittal than anyone is giving credit for.

When you’re on the jury you don’t get to hear what Netflix or “the top legal minds” or anything else for that matter about the case. You get to hear the case as presented in the courtroom. That’s it. How was it presented, how were the attorneys and witnesses received/viewed. Who handled their case better. That all has to matter.

I believe Alex killed them. I don’t believe the trial as presented should convict Alex.

Good back and forth. I think the testimony from the experts is a wash and will be given little weight. To me, it comes down to whether people are moved by the timeline established by the phones and onstar, and Alec lying to law enforcement, or if they believe he had a happy family and could not have killed people he says he loved.

 

[PawsFan_]

I will give anyone on here $100 if they can explain that text to me.

Boom believes there was a shooter behind the grassy knoll in front of the book depository.

The shear sloppiness of the killings points the finger at Alex. His panicked actions over the next two hours point to that too.

 

[poates6]

Say what? When did she ever say she hadn’t done a shot gun case? I think you misheard that.

Your analysis just isn’t objective. You seem to think the jury will view every witnesses testimony with as skeptical of an eye as they would view Alex’s. That they weigh each witness with the same level of trust. I promise you that is not the case. No one believes what Alex says.

The people that are struggling are likely not struggling with if they think he did it or not. They are struggling with what doubts are reasonable and which ones are not, just like you.

They probably see some of the flawed investigative work but ask themselves do those flaws really change anything? We know Alex changed his clothes (he says before the kennels, i say after he killed them), either way, I wouldn’t expect blood on his tee shirt. I don’t see that as a big deal one way or the other. If it is true it didn’t have blood on it, for me it has no bearing on the case. So if LE screwed up looking for blood, I just don’t care. The lack of blood doesn’t absolve him of anything.

To your last statment. If you think Alex killed him then you really should vote guilty. The bar is not what you believe should be reasonable to others. The bar is do YOU have reasonable doubt, let others decide for themselves. I am not sure you would say you think he is guilty if you truly believed there are reasonable doubts. I think you would say man, i just don’t know, not I belive he killed them but.

I prefer a different word to reasonable, I prefer logical or sensible. Is there logical doubt to Alex’s alleged guilt. Is there sensible doubt to the case the State has made.

It will be interesting to see what comes about. For some there is reasonable doubt based on what the state presented and the defense presented.

Are any of those on the jury? We will see. Kinsley concluding he didn’t know what happened yesterday was a very big deal. Kinsley testifying that sled didn’t do a good job and didn’t even really use the tools they had correctly is a big deal.

 

[TopGun01]

I will also add that if the jury deliberates less than 3 days, I think they vote guilty, If it goes more than 6, no question it will be hung.

Somewhere between 3-6 and It is a coin flip.

Imo there is like 1% chance the deliberations take more than 3 days.

 

[godabo44]

Bottom line is two people were murdered. This wealthy lawyer who has much influence, money and power killed them. End of story.

 

[touchdownbob]

Poll for tomorrow:

How long will the jury deliberate?

1. Less than one day (hours)
2. 1-2 days
3. 3-5
4. 5-8
5. 8 or more

Something like this. I would go with 3-5 days.

@tigerbean what's your educated guess?

 

[castlesl]

Imo there is like 1% chance the deliberations take more than 3 days.

They may not, I don’t think the judge will let them deliberate less than 3 with out a verdict. I don’t believe there is anyway they come back with an acquittal. So by your way of thinking, it is guilty on all counts in 3 days or less.

I certainly wouldn’t argue against that, could very well happen that way.

 

[Clemblack]

This top legal mind didn’t finish his analysis. Yes the state experts came back and discredited the defense experts, but Kinsley also discredited his previous testimony and basically testified that “we don’t know what happened, it’s chaos.”

Tha pathologist got to say she was right and they were wrong, but the defense got her to admit she’s never done a shotgun case before.

Yes the law partner, who despite what he says is incensed with anger at alex, says you can hunt hogs in the day and that you always carry high powered rifles to eliminate them admits many times he was in that property without said high powered rifles discrediting the states point that Alex wouldn’t have had a .22 with him but a 300 blackout instead.

Basically we one again have people confirming what they want to be the truth instead of accurately presenting what happened.

This is why I think there’s a much better chance at acquittal than anyone is giving credit for.

When you’re on the jury you don’t get to hear what Netflix or “the top legal minds” or anything else for that matter about the case. You get to hear the case as presented in the courtroom. That’s it. How was it presented, how were the attorneys and witnesses received/viewed. Who handled their case better. That all has to matter.

I believe Alex killed them. I don’t believe the trial as presented should convict Alex.

I believe this also. And I must also believe the jury believes this.

 

[Cris_Ard]

That's a lot of views. Any idea if this thread is generating new readers? Or is this just existing user views (which would be incredible)?

Largely existing subs. Almost exclusively existing subs.