ADVERTISEMENT

⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️

An interesting angle, but do you think Alex would have told his father about the embezzlement? Can't see him killing Maggie just over the divorce. Maybe his grandson for the string of deaths, but even that seems a stretch.

But who knows...

I just hope that they solve the case one way or another and it just doesn't hang out there and get cold. With all of the focus and attention, you would think that is has to get solved. My guess is that things may quiet down until November when court proceedings start again. Eddie's proceedings are going to be very interesting. I'm still not buying Alex calling 911 over a failed staged suicide attempt.
If only our offense was playing better, we'd have a lot more grassroots efforts focused on this case.
 
An interesting angle, but do you think Alex would have told his father about the embezzlement? Can't see him killing Maggie just over the divorce. Maybe his grandson for the string of deaths, but even that seems a stretch.

But who knows...

I just hope that they solve the case one way or another and it just doesn't hang out there and get cold. With all of the focus and attention, you would think that is has to get solved. My guess is that things may quiet down until November when court proceedings start again. Eddie's proceedings are going to be very interesting. I'm still not buying Alex calling 911 over a failed staged suicide attempt.
Maggie likely had enough dirt on AM to take everything from him in the divorce. I would imagine Granddaddy would not like that very much. Maybe a pride thing if nothing else, but just my theory from the start. I felt like the granddaddy had zero to lose here and took some pride in trying to salvage the family legacy. And God knows that kid Paul was doing a lot to sully the name.
 
People started with the narrative that Paul was the target and Maggie just happened into a bad situation. It looks just the opposite.

There is actually a post on Reddit where someone points out that during the 911 call it almost sounds like Alex says “Paul, why’d you have to get involved…”

Whether it’s the case or not, a nasty divorce can be enough motive in something like this, but boy did it turn out that Alex had many more reasons.
 
Maggie likely had enough dirt on AM to take everything from him in the divorce. I would imagine Granddaddy would not like that very much. Maybe a pride thing if nothing else, but just my theory from the start. I felt like the granddaddy had zero to lose here and took some pride in trying to salvage the family legacy. And God knows that kid Paul was doing a lot to sully the name.
She could have taken a lot, but South Carolina is a 50/50 state. So she could have got half.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tallulahtiger30319
Is it bad that I dont believe anything in this case unless it comes directly from Magnum TI?


No doubt. I've learned to trust only in the TI sleuths, economists, virologists, epidemiologists, et.al.





That said, it seems certain that Murdaugh family thought they were bulletproof (figuratively speaking) because of wealth and privilege.
 
Question for the attorneys.... Typically, an insurance policy like this will exclude coverage for fraud or intentional acts. Does their paying point to him having a good story to tell (that he was indeed duped?)
 
Question for the attorneys.... Typically, an insurance policy like this will exclude coverage for fraud or intentional acts. Does their paying point to him having a good story to tell (that he was indeed duped?)

Not sure about which policy you are referring. There is Alex's homeowner's and personal umbrella policies which covered the fall. The lawyer (Alex's friend) has his own malpractice policy which would cover allegations from his former clients that he did not follow the standard of care in the industry (usually evaluated using ethical guidelines or rules of professional conduct). If he did not ensure his clients received the funds of this settlement (intentional or otherwise) among other things, the clients have a solid case of malpractice.
 
Not sure about which policy you are referring. There is Alex's homeowner's and personal umbrella policies which covered the fall. The lawyer (Alex's friend) has his own malpractice policy which would cover allegations from his former clients that he did not follow the standard of care in the industry (usually evaluated using ethical guidelines or rules of professional conduct). If he did not ensure his clients received the funds of this settlement (intentional or otherwise) among other things, the clients have a solid case of malpractice.
Yes, referring to the malpractice policy of Fleming. I think most malpractice policies basically say we'll cover you for errors, accusations of substandard care, etc but NOT for outright fraud/criminal activity. So my question is why did the insurance company pay on his behalf? If they had strong enough reason to believe he had committed fraud (and not been duped), then it seems they would have denied the claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tallulahtiger30319
Yes, referring to the malpractice policy of Fleming. I think most malpractice policies basically say we'll cover you for errors, accusations of substandard care, etc but NOT for outright fraud/criminal activity. So my question is why did the insurance company pay on his behalf? If they had strong enough reason to believe he had committed fraud (and not been duped), then it seems they would have denied the claim.
I'm guessing the complaint alleged claims against the attorney for failing to comply with the standard of care (i.e. negligence) in addition to the potential other claims like fraud. If so, the covered claims trigger the insurer's duty to defend the entire complaint (the uncovered claims too). And, if the lawyer is denying the fraud claims (and since they'd already be defending the claim), the insurer may have just decided to go ahead and pay the claim.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tigerrad
Money flow issues impacting a lifestyle...generally not a good formula for martial bliss...could be a lever prompting consideration of external supplemental funding (i.e., insurance payouts)?

Alex and Maggie Murdaugh's relationship was in crisis, source reveals https://mol.im/a/10050605 via http://dailym.ai/android
I don't know. I tend to trust that Matney woman on this one, and she has been unable to confirm marital issues so far. But interesting article. Thanks for sharing. Had not seen it yet.
 
Lionsgate TV now engages with a scripted drama.

Going to be thriller if produced based on facts, but a bit too soon. Probably many more twists and turns (including the part where 'who killed Maggie and Paul' is revealed) before this saga is complete.
 
Going to be thriller if produced based on facts, but a bit too soon. Probably many more twists and turns (including the part where 'who killed Maggie and Paul' is revealed) before this saga is complete.
Hollywood could not make this stuff up. Now it’s being reported that others in the firm knew about the Satterfield case.
 
Have any of you heard that AM is singing like a canary to state officials?
It would not surprise me. It's really his only door out of the room at this point, to roll over on any other lawyers, judges, LEO's etc. that may have been in on his deals.

It often why you have to have patience in these investigations. SLED is usually piling up evidence a little at time - often times is financial and phone records, which can take time - to go and nail one person or conspirator to the wall and leave them with one way out - roll over on everyone else. That's one of the main ways you break cases like this open.
 
No doubt. I've learned to trust only in the TI sleuths, economists, virologists, epidemiologists, et.al.





That said, it seems certain that Murdaugh family thought they were bulletproof (figuratively speaking) because of wealth and privilege.

The WEZ, with a few notable exceptions, is a pretty high IQ crowd for a football message board.
 
His Dad just died and his mom has Alzheimer’s. He’s got a large inheritance coming his way. PMPED is just trying to transfer his stuff to them and then they will give it back later.
Is this thought process coming from thinking PMPED is in on the whole thing (corruption, cover ups, etc) and is trying to get his money so someone else doesn’t get it. Then after it’s all said and done, as long as the firm doesn’t go down as well, they’ll try and give that money back to AM?

Man that would be one hell of a twist.
 


So, Murdaugh law firm, to no one’s surprise, says Elleck “Alex” had been ripping off clients and insurance firms for years.

My question… if Alex indeed killed his wife and son (likely) and killed the house keeper and stole the benefits (very plausible) and covered the murder of Steven Smith, would you consider his actions to be worthy of the death penalty?

In my mind, it’s a perfect case of ruler dictating who lives and dies and benefiting the whole time. It’s like an authoritarian throwing a live person on the sacrificial fire to his own benefit. It doesn’t get any more evil than this, and the abuse of power and trust makes it even more despicable. If he’s willing to kill his own wife and child to protect himself, what form of evil is he not capable of? Would he be worthy of a death sentence?
 
My question… if Alex indeed killed his wife and son (likely) and killed the house keeper and stole the benefits (very plausible) and covered the murder of Steven Smith, would you consider his actions to be worthy of the death penalty?
Not sure. Does he wear cargo shorts? He went to the Uof, so he doesn’t woo hoo. Does he go to school board meetings and complain about things?
oh, hell, never mind. Fry his sorry ass
 


So, Murdaugh law firm, to no one’s surprise, says Elleck “Alex” had been ripping off clients and insurance firms for years.

My question… if Alex indeed killed his wife and son (likely) and killed the house keeper and stole the benefits (very plausible) and covered the murder of Steven Smith, would you consider his actions to be worthy of the death penalty?

In my mind, it’s a perfect case of ruler dictating who lives and dies and benefiting the whole time. It’s like an authoritarian throwing a live person on the sacrificial fire to his own benefit. It doesn’t get any more evil than this, and the abuse of power and trust makes it even more despicable. If he’s willing to kill his own wife and child to protect himself, what form of evil is he not capable of? Would he be worthy of a death sentence?
Anyone who has purposely killed multiple people, particularly at different times, or harms children(sandusky) deserve the death penalty, imo. Sign me up for the firing squad. Really wish we would go back to public hanging. I think some kids may think twice about their future life choices if they see someone dangling from a rope in person.
 
Anyone who has purposely killed multiple people, particularly at different times, or harms children(sandusky) deserve the death penalty, imo. Sign me up for the firing squad. Really wish we would go back to public hanging. I think some kids may think twice about their future life choices if they see someone dangling from a rope in person.
Some may think twice, but you know AM thought he would never get caught. Let’s see how smug he is when Tesla’s alternating current fries him
 
  • Like
Reactions: tallulahtiger30319


So, Murdaugh law firm, to no one’s surprise, says Elleck “Alex” had been ripping off clients and insurance firms for years.

My question… if Alex indeed killed his wife and son (likely) and killed the house keeper and stole the benefits (very plausible) and covered the murder of Steven Smith, would you consider his actions to be worthy of the death penalty?

In my mind, it’s a perfect case of ruler dictating who lives and dies and benefiting the whole time. It’s like an authoritarian throwing a live person on the sacrificial fire to his own benefit. It doesn’t get any more evil than this, and the abuse of power and trust makes it even more despicable. If he’s willing to kill his own wife and child to protect himself, what form of evil is he not capable of? Would he be worthy of a death sentence?

I still think Paul pushed Ms. Satterfield. Alex just used it to his advantage.
 
I still think Paul pushed Ms. Satterfield. Alex just used it to his advantage.
Satterfield could talk when she went to the hospital. I don’t think her sons are contending it was a murder( from the info I have read). They are looking for the settlement that Alex stole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yemassee
Satterfield could talk when she went to the hospital. I don’t think her sons are contending it was a murder( from the info I have read). They are looking for the settlement that Alex stole.
She never gained consciousness before her death. That's why it was ruled "accidental" because A Murdaugh's word was all authorities had to go on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tigerpaw00 and CT76
Satterfield could talk when she went to the hospital. I don’t think her sons are contending it was a murder( from the info I have read). They are looking for the settlement that Alex stole.

I read in the paper that Fleming’s law firm had given the sons back the fee they got from the settlement ($400K+) and some amount “the maximum allowed by their malpractice insurance”. Fleming and the firm claim, of course, that they were duped by Alex.
 
  • Like
Reactions: my95GTHO
Bump. Anyone else listen to the latest podcast? It’s crazy how the original crime that started this thread has taken a back seat to other crimes. Hopefully the guilty parties will all be held responsible.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT