What a time to be alive!!!!!!!lololol
⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️
- Thread starter OldMTPTiger
- Start date
Still catching up. This meadors guy is not who I would want finishing my argument.
Trying to tell people “if you don’t agree with me, you have no common sense” is not a smart move for folks from the county of colleton. Know your audience.
Trying to tell people “if you don’t agree with me, you have no common sense” is not a smart move for folks from the county of colleton. Know your audience.
And as I as I have said all along, he had to pull the trigger on murder. Hand of one is a hand of all is not applicable. “The state must prove HE KILLED with malice.”
clemsongolfer2
Gold Member
I think he went to my high school - a year ahead of me class of 87 - Mark something - lineman and didnt do much in college football wise
sorry about my late response -
Waters - maybe he wanted to make it last until closing time yesterday - but it was too monotonous and too long
Griffith - was VERY unimpressed with his presentation - if your life was on the line, was that the argument you would want?
Meadors - brought it home if it can be brought home (still think hung jury) - he humanized the prosecution and he made it about narcissism - "There is only one person that can tell us what happened and he lied"
- "Alex may have loved Maggie, he may have loved Paul - be he loved himself more!"
He did it. There was not one piece of evidence found that there was anyone else there around the time of the murders. None. No tire tracks, phone activity, etc. All the evidence points to there being three people there. One of them is still alive and his guns have been proven to be the murder weapon. This person also lied about where he was and refuses to provide the clothing he was wearing at the time of the murders.
Wow, just saw footage of Griffin going over "why did he lie?"... "well he lied because...well he told you he lied....because he's an addict. He has a closet full of skeletons and didn't want any more scrutiny on what he did."
umm....probably not the best closing argument
umm....probably not the best closing argument
Do you think there could be a sense of regret with Griffin and he feels somewhat betrayed by his friend and may not be putting his full effort but just enough to not have some sort of malpractice issue?
So I guess I missed this and obviously don't know, but why did Waters and Meadors both get to have closing arguments?
You think meadors saying bubba had a sixth sense so he grabbed a chicken to make Alex talk is bringing it home? That meadors guy was not good at all. Griffin wasn’t good on presentation but better than meadors on substance.
The bottom line about these closing is this:
Both sides made vague arguments about the evidence that directly contradicts each other. The jury will have to go in there and retry the case in their discussions and I can’t believe there will be any outcome but hung jury. I think it will be a 6-6 or 7-5 type hung jury too.
If it's a hung jury do we ever find out how many were "voting" for not guilty and guilty?
I don’t know. I know the jury is free to speak after the trial is over, not sure if they can talk about that though.
will never happen...but I wish we could know Judge Newman's thoughts and personal opinion in regards to guilt or innocence.
How would you know when the scene wasn’t locked down and tracks not preserved?
I’m leaving it at this because at this point no one is changing anyone’s minds. We have made our minds up after hearing all this. I believe there are holes all in the states case that leave me with reasonable doubt I will list the topics they pertain to, time or death and the timeline in general, and the fact the phones didn’t ping together.
Well he is intelligent and from that area so I have a strong idea what he thinks
Why is that? He thinks Alex probably did it ........says he watched very little of the trial andsays he has not seen enough to make a firm decision
I mentioned this 20-30 pages back...I noticed a change in his demeanor when the state flipped his witness and law partner friend of 30 years, Mark Ball. I think it dawned on Jim then.
Jim and Paul were friends... you could tell. Mark and Paul were friends according to testimony.
Boom4life said:
And as I as I have said all along, he had to pull the trigger on murder. Hand of one is a hand of all is not applicable. “The state must prove he “killed” with malice. “
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, he didn't kill with love in his heart. I'll go with malice.
And as I as I have said all along, he had to pull the trigger on murder. Hand of one is a hand of all is not applicable. “The state must prove he “killed” with malice. “
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, he didn't kill with love in his heart. I'll go with malice.
Meadors hit a home run.
You have typed that couple times. But I didn’t see it come up at all in the trial. Obviously could’ve missed that discussion
At trial did the State make an issue of that: they subpoenaed him for clothes and he didn’t comply? Him not complying with that would be a HUGE issue during the trial.
I would think the State doesn’t know exactly what he was wearing at the kennels? They have video of riding around the property earlier during daylight.
They have tested the clothes he was wearing when LE showed up.
Meadors did a great job.
I was hoping he'd say something along the lines of "... if you find yourself overwhelmed by this entire process, I want you to ask yourself one very simple question - under what circumstance would you, having just found your dead family, lie about the last time you were with them. Under what circumstance?"
But still, he did great.
I was hoping he'd say something along the lines of "... if you find yourself overwhelmed by this entire process, I want you to ask yourself one very simple question - under what circumstance would you, having just found your dead family, lie about the last time you were with them. Under what circumstance?"
But still, he did great.
Yeah, this has me baffled as well. I don't know why they didn't go with the story that he just walked up on his wife and son brutally murdered and he was barely able to complete a cogent thought. I think most humans would be completely out of it, probably even if they pulled the trigger. I would have tried to retain a psychiatrist to testify what that type of shock/horror does to a person and it is completely understandable and he likely has no memory of what actually occurred which is why he continued the lie. But, they are good lawyers so I am sure there was a reason they had to stick with what they had.....probably because he wouldn't pass a psych exam
Mark - Low Bird is serious with buckshot! LOL
Didn't last long. Tore his knee and was done. I spoke w a player from that era and he didn't even realize he was on the team.
IMO, hard to say how well he did. I clerked for a judge right out of law school and Meadors was the solicitor who we dealt with the most and I always liked him and thought he did a good job. That is definitely his personality, but you never know with juries. They are finicky and unpredictable. You have to read the jury and know what approach to take. I thought Griffin struggled, but the jury may connect with him struggling with the mountain of information. They may think he is an idiot. Everybody want's the fire and brimstone, pound your fist lawyer as they think that will be effective, but more often than not, that backfires in my experience. If you are going to have a bad cop (a$$hole), you damn well better have a good cop.
The best lawyers I have ever dealt with (co-counsel or opposing) are ones who charm the crap out of your client and they don't even know they just got wrecked. Their ability to read a jury and weave the story that will move the jury in their direction is astounding. Its definitely different in the civil world, but there are some fantastic criminal attorneys as well that have that gift.
would you be willing to share your thoughts/evaluation (detailed or more vague) on how the prosecution and defense did over the course of the trial?
if not, no worries...just curious.
dude. Are you kin to AM?
This is what the defense hopes for. One person not smart enough to understand the concept of reasonable doubt.
Similar threads
