No problem Columbo.
⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️
- Thread starter OldMTPTiger
- Start date
For sure .I was just messing around. I'm not a trial lawyer ,but get why testimony would have to be live before a jury. Even tho it's a huge time waster to do it all twice when we have a copy of the video.
Edit for @nmerritt11 ,meant to quote.
Edit for @nmerritt11 ,meant to quote.
The prosecutor who questioned her needs to retire. The state should have their best and brightest on this case and he clearly isn’t.
[/QUOTE]
Its interesting you say this. Some of the reporters/hacks/lawyer following this trial and reporting on twitter had the opposite opinion of the prosecutor.
[/QUOTE]
Its interesting you say this. Some of the reporters/hacks/lawyer following this trial and reporting on twitter had the opposite opinion of the prosecutor.
IMO Waters is excellent. Brunette lady and Mohawk guy are young attorneys and generally doing routine stuff like introducing evidence. Meadors seems like a very experienced attorney but unorganized. Very surprised they let the lady do the questioning of the SLED who found the raincoat.
I don’t know what Twitter opinion is but I am referring only to the older folksy male attorney that questioned Shelly Smith today not the lead prosecutor (Creighton Waters) or the female attorney.
The issue of life insurance for kids seems odd to me too. I know the manner in which such products have been sold and I think I understand the potential tax benefits, but........
Kids have no real debt and no obligations to protect. And in my view it makes no sense to buy life insurance on a child for investment purposes. I think there are much better ways to invest money than purchasing lifetime insurance. Since I think that, I think people with money should be unlikely to buy life insurance for kids or to need to be able to drum up cash out of an insurance policy.
The insurance companies have done a masterful job of marketing and influencing the law makers to the greatest advantage for the life insurance industry. Or so I think.
Buy Term. I think you get more that way if you live a long time OR if you die young.
Kids have no real debt and no obligations to protect. And in my view it makes no sense to buy life insurance on a child for investment purposes. I think there are much better ways to invest money than purchasing lifetime insurance. Since I think that, I think people with money should be unlikely to buy life insurance for kids or to need to be able to drum up cash out of an insurance policy.
The insurance companies have done a masterful job of marketing and influencing the law makers to the greatest advantage for the life insurance industry. Or so I think.
Buy Term. I think you get more that way if you live a long time OR if you die young.
Got damn Mark Tinsley fvcks. That's my council
How bout when he referred to the defense lawyer as "that boy"
My impression of Tinsley:
If I ever need to sue someone, he’s my guy.
If I ever need to sue someone, he’s my guy.
Yall know Tinsley is a Clemson grad, right?
Yes. Also when he countered AM's pathetic offer with sign over Moselle and the Edisto beach property then we can discuss a payment plan.
My assumption would be the biggest most heavy hitting evidence will be presented last.
I listened to Mandy’s podcast about Alex’s island purchases with Boulware, he was in deep with the drug importers.
Here's an interesting theory that to me, seems likely.
He shot Paul because he thought he could make it look like a suicide, but Maggie freaked out on him and wouldn't calm down and certainly wasn't going for it and he had to shoot her as she ran away.
I've always thought he knew and likely had something do with it, I just didn't think he actually did it. But this theory would be one I can see. He thought if he just got rid of Paul, his issues would go away.
However, the Jury isn't hearing any of this "financial" mess (to this point) which shows just how broke he actually was. Before hearing the financial issues, I felt like he hired someone, and they ambushed them at the kennels.
Now, Im not really sure what to think.
He shot Paul because he thought he could make it look like a suicide, but Maggie freaked out on him and wouldn't calm down and certainly wasn't going for it and he had to shoot her as she ran away.
I've always thought he knew and likely had something do with it, I just didn't think he actually did it. But this theory would be one I can see. He thought if he just got rid of Paul, his issues would go away.
However, the Jury isn't hearing any of this "financial" mess (to this point) which shows just how broke he actually was. Before hearing the financial issues, I felt like he hired someone, and they ambushed them at the kennels.
Now, Im not really sure what to think.
Last edited:
Tinsley was no joke on the witness stand. He very honest with his approach with the lawsuit.
Also, you never know when some slight like the Murdaughs being let into the boat crash area and the Beach family not given access can affect things like it did. From his testimony yesterday, that was the point that the Beach family said to go hard after the Murdaughs.
Also, you never know when some slight like the Murdaughs being let into the boat crash area and the Beach family not given access can affect things like it did. From his testimony yesterday, that was the point that the Beach family said to go hard after the Murdaughs.
I thought the judge ruled yesterday that the jury will be hearing the financial stuff
The difference between some here that will reach for guilty and will reach for not guilty is interesting to me. All the facts aren’t even in, but it seems clear that some guys here would find reasonable doubt in any story that doesn’t end with an actual video of the guy shooting someone. There are also people here who would fry the guy, no matter the case the prosecution presents.
Not hating on either side, but they are definitely there. It’s really no wonder how our country stays so divided on most topics.
Not hating on either side, but they are definitely there. It’s really no wonder how our country stays so divided on most topics.
agree way too early to tell but the fact remains that Alex has lied about pretty much everything up to this point
The real issue to me is … can the prosecution prove the charges.
Is he charged with 1st degree or 2nd degree murder?
You may be right and I missed that.
IMHO, if they hear the financial stuff, he's guilty of it all. If they don't get to hear that, I'm not sure what will happen.
My theory is Paul was to be a witness and survivor to a fake vigilante killing of Maggie set up by Alex. Or at least be able to confirm an alibi that Alex was not there or involved. Alex tells them he is going back to the house but doesn’t, or maybe he has someone else there to shoot when he leaves . Then something got twisted with Paul. Maybe he had a weapon or could not be separated from the execution area as planned and things got messy.
And that's my point. That is the actual question. But many here have shown that is not what they care about.
Some posters will find reasonable doubt in everything.
Some find guilt in the optics of it all, provable facts be damned.
The actual mechanics of coming to the correct legal ruling is lost on many.
Being a lying sleezeball isn't what he is on trial for.
I 100% believe he knows what happened. But if they can't "prove" what happened, he's gonna walk.
But I also think some won't be convinced, no matter what, save for a secret video recording of the entire incident. And even then, some guys I have read ITT would question whether the video was doctored.
I just find the polar opposites to be fascinating.
Well said.
It's kind of scary honestly just how much people can be persuaded. It's another example of a time in our society where "we believe what we want to."
With the power of the media today, I don't believe it's possible for many people to get a fair trial these days. It's extremely hard to not be persuaded these days and public persuasion is at an all-time high.
Someone said in regard to Covid:
"We're so easily duped and persuaded because we refuse to believe we can be duped or persuaded. We simply believe we're too smart for that."
Wild times for sure. Ive tried this entire time to remain "fair" and not have a "I know he's guilty so he must be" attitude. He's a bad dude but im not sure he's a killer, to this point. But then again, i'm not listening to Mandy or anyone else and simply watching the court.
My gut says he knows about it. Im just not sure how they prove it.
I have not followed this very closely so i dont know all the evidence. That said, I understand that he lied about not being there earlier that night and the cell phone location and video puts him there and then the fact he had different clothes on when police arrived. I dont know what to do with that other than be led to believe he killed them.
We do not have degrees of murder in South Carolina. Murder in South Carolina is the killing of a person with malice aforethought.
My wife, who's a school teacher, and I had an interesting chat with our family attorney. We asked about jury selection and education and occupation. I asked about school teachers. He said if he thought his client was guilt and was lying, he never wanted a teacher because they could always read a lie and heard many - my dog ate my homework. If his client was innocent, he liked teachers because they are stubborn and would stick to their opinion.
I made this statement after the first day and someone commented that the state of SC doesn't distinguis between 1st and 2nd degree.
"I think Alex was successful, not because of his work ethic, but his ability to establish relationships and to manipulate people into settlements and clients into liking him. So he did it through the art of bullshit, basically."
PMPED CFO
LOL
PMPED CFO
LOL
I know and have said that multiple times in this thread. I am not sure how they will prove he did it without reasonable doubt. It is mostly circumstantial evidence but that evidence proves he was there when he said he was not. They are proving motive and the evidence lends towards him being a part but is the evidence enough?
Who knows but if he gets off on this he will likely go down on the financial shit from the fake Forge account
Preserving insurability. Everyone dies. Under 18, most of the time no health questions. After 18, underwriting and health questions, so rates are higher.
Term is great for buying large amounts for short term needs. Problem is someone at 35 buys a 30 year Level term product and when it expires the new rates for term are 10 times what they were. If someone waits to buy final expense coverage (25,000)until their 65 or 70, they will pay per month what the cost would have been for two years of premium for a 8-10 year old. The 65 year old will be paying until they die.
Where as, You can pay a whole life policy for $8-10 a month when their young and the policy be paid out many times shortly after they are 18. Then you gift it to them.
There is not logical reason to buy high value policies for your kids unless they are going to part of your business at some point and you are thinking tax consequences if you and they are in the high value range of things to do. In insurance you are not allowed to create a Modified Endowment contract with the dividends and cash values so as a vehicle for creating wealth its not really workable.
Tinsley does an excellent job of explaining a large part of Alex's motive. Tinsley admits that he would have basically stopped pursing Alex personal assets after these murders (if Alex was innocent). Alex knew this, of course. Killing Paul and getting away with it would have potentially saved Alex millions of dollars.
Also, how bout this free advertising for Mark Tinsley? Can't beat it.
Also, how bout this free advertising for Mark Tinsley? Can't beat it.
Thank you for that. No wonder I couldn’t find that info in his charges.
That being said, it sounds “easier” to prove murder in this case…. However based on the evidence I’ve seen so far, I don’t think I could vote guilty as the charges are written or as I understand them.
I don't think they have to prove he did it. I think they can pretty much say the preponderance of the evidence says he orchestrated it. If they can prove he was there and the defense has no evidence of anyone else being present, then I think his goose is cooked.
I guess it ultimately depends on who the defense blames for their deaths. What benefit does anyone get from the wife and son being dead? The only person (however concocted it is) is Alex. We will see what tale the defense spins and how believable it is.
Last edited:
Millions of dollars that he said he didn't have, correct?
How the hell did the firm repay all of their clients and say afloat. That's a hell of a slush fund.
