ADVERTISEMENT

⚖️ MURDAUGH MURDERS & TRIAL THREAD ⚖️

I mean, thats the defense. If you assert poor finances as a motive, you’ve gotta show how he would benefit from the murders or his son and wife.



He’s guilty af, but im afraid hes gonna get off.


Broken alibi is all they have right now. We all know why he changed clothes. Its up to the prosecutor to show exactly what happened based on factual evidence and extrapolated by circumstantial evidence.


That first part is really really weak.
Tinsley already testified that he would not seek personal money from Alex had someone killed his family, correct?
 
I understand that. Im assuming, he knew the financial stuff was coming to a head. It's likely that he knew he was going down for them. Im just not sure what he gained for brutally murdering his son and wife.

While it wasn't official that he was being investigated, several conversations surely led him to believe they were on to him. Most of the testimonies given indicate that they had begun questioning the funds prior to the murders. Again, I'm just assuming he knew this. I find it hard to believe he was blindsided and panicked and just killed his family in desperation but managed to do it in nearly the most perfect way and planned it all out, which would also indicate he knew in advance if he planned it.

Maybe not, though. Maybe he thought I'm going down anyway I might as well kill everyone in my family.

The only questions to be asked were about 1 check (Chris Wilson) and the story was it was done to protect assets due to the impending legal issues with the boat crash.

When you get away with stealing large sums of money for years, you just don’t think you will get caught, you get good at convincing yourself you won’t get caught. He likely would have talked his way out of that check. Truthfully had things not turned south after the murders, the firm probably wouldn’t have brought it up again.

As long as he could keep from having someone else look over all his financials he would likely never get caught. If someone did, the end result is everything we see today minus the murders and murder trial. It is almost a certainty that the overwhelming majority of misdeeds would have come to light. I do think the murders and his involvement hastened the financial stuff.

I feel confident that killing Maggie was part of the plan, or he wouldn’t have pushed so hard for her to come. That leads me to believe that she was talking about a divorce and that would uncover all his sins as well.

I think he intended to shoot both with different guns because that would look like two shooters. He tried to come up with a way of doing it that made it difficult for the finger to point to him. Alex is likely not being prosecuted if the two videos don’t exist. It shows a pair of clothes disappearing and it puts him at the scene of the murders with in minutes of when it happened.

Prosecution doesn’t have a case if those two videos were never taken.
 
So, financial turmoil and jail time is going to happen no matter what?

How would that fold into a murder based on financial turmoil then? If thats the position and he has nothing to gain from murdering his family, whyd he do it?
I don’t think financial turmoil and jail time happen no matter what. If he had cut a deal with Tinsley in the immediate aftermath of the murders and law enforcement had not zeroed in on him, then I am not sure how much would have come out, as the law firm would have probably kept it quiet.

Either way, explain why he lied about being at the kennels just a couple hours after the fact. I’m sorry, but no one gets that confused about where they were a couple of hours earlier, especially when it was the last time you saw family members.
 
The only questions to be asked were about 1 check (Chris Wilson) and the story was it was done to protect assets due to the impending legal issues with the boat crash.

When you get away with stealing large sums of money for years, you just don’t think you will get caught, you get good at convincing yourself you won’t get caught. He likely would have talked his way out of that check. Truthfully had things not turned south after the murders, the firm probably wouldn’t have brought it up again.

As long as he could keep from having someone else look over all his financials he would likely never get caught. If someone did, the end result is everything we see today minus the murders and murder trial. It is almost a certainty that the overwhelming majority of misdeeds would have come to light. I do think the murders and his involvement hastened the financial stuff.

I feel confident that killing Maggie was part of the plan, or he wouldn’t have pushed so hard for her to come. That leads me to believe that she was talking about a divorce and that would uncover all his sins as well.

I think he intended to shoot both with different guns because that would look like two shooters. He tried to come up with a way of doing it that made it difficult for the finger to point to him. Alex is likely not being prosecuted if the two videos don’t exist. It shows a pair of clothes disappearing and it puts him at the scene of the murders with in minutes of when it happened.

Prosecution doesn’t have a case if those two videos were never taken.
Exactly. The videos are what sinks his case, as it would have been tough to dispute his alibi without them.
 
The only questions to be asked were about 1 check (Chris Wilson) and the story was it was done to protect assets due to the impending legal issues with the boat crash.

When you get away with stealing large sums of money for years, you just don’t think you will get caught, you get good at convincing yourself you won’t get caught. He likely would have talked his way out of that check. Truthfully had things not turned south after the murders, the firm probably wouldn’t have brought it up again.

As long as he could keep from having someone else look over all his financials he would likely never get caught. If someone did, the end result is everything we see today minus the murders and murder trial. It is almost a certainty that the overwhelming majority of misdeeds would have come to light. I do think the murders and his involvement hastened the financial stuff.

I feel confident that killing Maggie was part of the plan, or he wouldn’t have pushed so hard for her to come. That leads me to believe that she was talking about a divorce and that would uncover all his sins as well.

I think he intended to shoot both with different guns because that would look like two shooters. He tried to come up with a way of doing it that made it difficult for the finger to point to him. Alex is likely not being prosecuted if the two videos don’t exist. It shows a pair of clothes disappearing and it puts him at the scene of the murders with in minutes of when it happened.

Prosecution doesn’t have a case if those two videos were never taken.
You may be right. The reality is there's so much more testimony and evidence that will come.

I've heard tons of "potential motives" from divorce, to auditing finances and hiring other people, to collecting Maggie's estate, to getting rid of Paul because of exposing finances. but to this point haven't heard a thing of that nature.

So far, it seems they're hanging their hat on "Is that his voice you hear in that video". You're right in that if that video doesn't exist, they don't have a thing.

He told Chris Wilson he was guilty of all of that and knew he would eventually get caught. Bernie Madoff knew he was getting caught as well. He didn't murder his family beforehand to prevent investigation into his finances. But in reading about Bernie, he too knew it was coming to an end deep inside.

Of course, by the time the closing arguments are made, everyone will likely agree he did it. At least that's what i'm assuming. Im assuming they must have more than they currently have.
 
I don’t think financial turmoil and jail time happen no matter what. If he had cut a deal with Tinsley in the immediate aftermath of the murders and law enforcement had not zeroed in on him, then I am not sure how much would have come out, as the law firm would have probably kept it quiet.

Either way, explain why he lied about being at the kennels just a couple hours after the fact. I’m sorry, but no one gets that confused about where they were a couple of hours earlier, especially when it was the last time you saw family members.
Bc he murdered his family (allegedly)


Im just saying that the prosecution is having lots of trouble proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yemassee
Bc he murdered his family (allegedly)


Im just saying that the prosecution is having lots of trouble proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
I guess it depends on one’s definition of beyond a reasonable doubt. The state has not shown exactly what happened, but I believe, at least beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind, that he was involved.
 
If I was on the jury, and starting this case with the legal way of innocent until proven guilty I still haven’t been convinced he did it. Yes some strange things involving him close to the time of death but I still haven’t been pushed over that line that he murdered them. But that’s just me
 
I guess it depends on one’s definition of beyond a reasonable doubt. The state has not shown exactly what happened, but I believe, at least beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind, that he was involved.
That's the thing. Does the state have to prove he was involved or that he pulled the trigger?
 
I guess it depends on one’s definition of beyond a reasonable doubt. The state has not shown exactly what happened, but I believe, at least beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind, that he was involved.
What's wild is it varies from court to court and person to person. That's incredible considering the amount of power it holds and can ultimately change someone life forever.

I shared something earlier about how 925 people a year are falsely imprisoned. If they all had a jury, then that's 11,100 people a year who get it wrong. While far more get it right, who in the world wants to be a part of the 11k?

Feels like it should be a little more clearly defined and not such a grey area that allows you the ability to forever change someone's life. Nothing is perfect or fool proof but there should be a consequence for falsely sending someone to prison. Afterall, you got it wrong and changed that person's life. That whole thing is wild to me.
 
What was the motive?

whats the motive? Finances? Why not just file bankruptcy? Sell equity in other busine?
Well, one motive might be to hopefully avoid going to prison for embezzlement, getting fired, getting disbarred, and have no hope of getting a decent job again.
 
Bc he murdered his family (allegedly)


Im just saying that the prosecution is having lots of trouble proving beyond a reasonable doubt.
I guess it depends on one’s definition of beyond a reasonable doubt. The state has not shown exactly what happened, but I believe, at least beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind, that he was involved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeffcoat
There are several definitions of “beyond a reasonable doubt” usually it is defined as proof to a moral certainty. The truth is it means whatever a juror wants it to mean. My problem with AM is not him, then who? He was present and said he wasn’t. GSR on the blue jacket, asking the house keeper to lie, attempting to call his son’s video friend numerous times? The rifle having been shot on the property previously. Asking his wife to meet him at Mosele that night which she was uneasy about. Under what scenario was it possibly anyone else?
 
There are several definitions of “beyond a reasonable doubt” usually it is defined as proof to a moral certainty. The truth is it means whatever a juror wants it to mean. My problem with AM is not him, then who? He was present and said he wasn’t. GSR on the blue jacket, asking the house keeper to lie, attempting to call his son’s video friend numerous times? The rifle having been shot on the property previously. Asking his wife to meet him at Mosele that night which she was uneasy about. Under what scenario was it possibly anyone else?
 
You may be right. The reality is there's so much more testimony and evidence that will come.

I've heard tons of "potential motives" from divorce, to auditing finances and hiring other people, to collecting Maggie's estate, to getting rid of Paul because of exposing finances. but to this point haven't heard a thing of that nature.

So far, it seems they're hanging their hat on "Is that his voice you hear in that video". You're right in that if that video doesn't exist, they don't have a thing.

He told Chris Wilson he was guilty of all of that and knew he would eventually get caught. Bernie Madoff knew he was getting caught as well. He didn't murder his family beforehand to prevent investigation into his finances. But in reading about Bernie, he too knew it was coming to an end deep inside.

Of course, by the time the closing arguments are made, everyone will likely agree he did it. At least that's what i'm assuming. Im assuming they must have more than they currently have.

I think people look for reasons not to believe the horrible truth. They have a standard in their mind and tell them selves “surely know one can do to his own son, what Alex is accused of”. There most be some alternative. The facts are what they are.

- two guns are missing, the shells recovered from the area of the bodies were shot by guns that were shot on the property. Indicating that no one came prepared from the outside to perpetrate this crime.
- He lied about his alibi.
- Clothes are missing and he changed clothes.
- was present 3 minutes before the murders. you can’t run fast enough in 3 minutes to get out of ear shot of a black out 300 round or 12 gauge round.
- Weird phone activity after deaths
- witness tampering

I would likely convict him tomorrow based on the testimony that I have seen up to this point. Now maybe the defense offers some really compelling evidence that shows / provides doubt. But up to this point they haven’t.
 
There are several definitions of “beyond a reasonable doubt” usually it is defined as proof to a moral certainty. The truth is it means whatever a juror wants it to mean. My problem with AM is not him, then who? He was present and said he wasn’t. GSR on the blue jacket, asking the house keeper to lie, attempting to call his son’s video friend numerous times? The rifle having been shot on the property previously. Asking his wife to meet him at Mosele that night which she was uneasy about. Under what scenario was it possibly anyone else?
Agree. for there to be reasonable doubt that AM didn't do it, there needs to be reasonable possibility that someone else could've done it. Based on the evidence presented so far, it's not a reasonable possibility that AM wasn't involved imo.
 
It's probably best to wait until the prosecution finishes, the defense has its tuen, jury summations and jusge's charge to the jury before forming an opinion.

As for then who did it - ask OJ?
 
I think people look for reasons not to believe the horrible truth. They have a standard in their mind and tell them selves “surely know one can do to his own son, what Alex is accused of”. There most be some alternative. The facts are what they are.

- two guns are missing, the shells recovered from the area of the bodies were shot by guns that were shot on the property. Indicating that no one came prepared from the outside to perpetrate this crime.
- He lied about his alibi.
- Clothes are missing and he changed clothes.
- was present 3 minutes before the murders. you can’t run fast enough in 3 minutes to get out of ear shot of a black out 300 round or 12 gauge round.
- Weird phone activity after deaths
- witness tampering

I would likely convict him tomorrow based on the testimony that I have seen up to this point. Now maybe the defense offers some really compelling evidence that shows / provides doubt. But up to this point they haven’t.
I agree with a lot of what you point out, but dang that doesn’t seem like much time to ditch clothes, clean up, and leave no clothing evidence behind.
 
I’m not making a decision yet, but the prosecution continues to add facts toward his guilty. Hopefully they can tie it all together for the jury is a coherent closing argument.

One thing from today: what sort of vile human leaves their dinner pots and dinner dishes on the stove and in the living room for the housekeeper to clean up the next morning??
 
I’m not making a decision yet, but the prosecution continues to add facts toward his guilty. Hopefully they can tie it all together for the jury is a coherent closing argument.

One thing from today: what sort of vile human leaves their dinner pots and dinner dishes on the stove and in the living room for the housekeeper to clean up the next morning??
At least he had the decency to put his pot in the fridge for her after the murder
 
  • Like
Reactions: Every name taken
I’m not making a decision yet, but the prosecution continues to add facts toward his guilty. Hopefully they can tie it all together for the jury is a coherent closing argument.

One thing from today: what sort of vile human leaves their dinner pots and dinner dishes on the stove and in the living room for the housekeeper to clean up the next morning??
My guess is that Maggie intended to return to the house and would have put them away. I’m also assuming that one of the friends or family that were at the house that night put them in the fridge just to clean the kitchen a bit.
 
I could change clothes a dozen plus times in that hour. My wife, not so much.
Plus the 16 min drive each way. That’s 40 mins out of an hour. To stash guns, clean up without leaving any evidence around the scene or on the way back to the house or in the vehicle. After shooting someone point blank and blowing their brains all over the room. That is an insane timeline to not make any mistakes or leave any trace evidence
 
What's wild is it varies from court to court and person to person. That's incredible considering the amount of power it holds and can ultimately change someone life forever.

I shared something earlier about how 925 people a year are falsely imprisoned. If they all had a jury, then that's 11,100 people a year who get it wrong. While far more get it right, who in the world wants to be a part of the 11k?

Feels like it should be a little more clearly defined and not such a grey area that allows you the ability to forever change someone's life. Nothing is perfect or fool proof but there should be a consequence for falsely sending someone to prison. Afterall, you got it wrong and changed that person's life. That whole thing is wild to me.
Can’t you choose to have a judge or jury? Seems like if any human could understand the law and how it would be applied it would be a judge not 12 random people.
Also never understood a jury coming out saying we can’t come to a decision and a judge making em go back in, at some point somebody will be ready to go home and some suckers getting time or some piece of $h!t gets off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tiger Guru
Can’t you choose to have a judge or jury? Seems like if any human could understand the law and how it would be applied it would be a judge not 12 random people.
Also never understood a jury coming out saying we can’t come to a decision and a judge making em go back in, at some point somebody will be ready to go home and some suckers getting time or some piece of $h!t gets off.
I'm sure in a case like this 99.99% of defenses want a jury.
 
I’m sorry if this comes across rude in anyway but I’m definitely not gonna discuss in a semi public forum my thoughts on any of this. Over a coffee, beer or Diet Coke? No problem at all. As a matter of fact, I’d be glad to offer my 2¢ on the entire history of the family in the 2nd scenario. Bu the way the REAL Buster’s dad did not park his car on the tracks or try to commit suicide. I probably shouldn’t have even looked at this thread but I couldn’t help myself.


You are literally posting in this thread and sharing your thoughts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yemassee
his son's trial was likely going to bring down a lot of people. This is my thoughts on motive

1. Son was about to go to prison and in the process bring down the Hampton circle that had taken advantage of people for a long long time. So spare his son prison and spare others going down with him. He was such a narcissist and thought he had so much power he could make it all disappear and they would never suspect he did it. Thought same thing that many on here have said about being a husband and father...how could he be the one

2. Wife is about to divorce him and get everything. She likely knows a lot of what he has done and through getting Paul prepared for the trial likely learned more and Paul likely learned about it all as well. She had likely made it known she was not going to be civil through all of this. Hope more on the potential divorce comes out. That could be a big feather for the prosecution. With her gone, he could clean up his financial mess at least for a little while.

Then pair all that with the timeline, lies, luring his wife to the property, and connect all the dots...motive is there between finances, potential divorce, Paul's trial, and exposure or the entire ring of corruption...

I do not think you need multiple things for motive. It only takes one thing and to me there is quite a few and in group text with a lawyer who is on here, he agrees


Your lawyer friend is wrong. Don't need to prove any motive.
 
Exactly. The whole suicide thing by cousin eddie shooting him in the head is gonna be used as a defense pillar at some point imo.

The defense will say Its clear that he would kill him self to give his family insurance money before murdering him imo.

Well that would be an incredibly stupid argument for the defense to make. If he had "attempted suicide" by gunshot - whether self inflicted or not - he'd be dead. Alex has been around guns his entire life. Nobody, and no juror, is going to believe that was a suicide attempt.

Motive is unusual here, but that's because we look at it through our own lens of not being a narcissistic sociopath. The prosecution is building a very good case, though I admit they're going too deep into the financials and they risk losing the jury on a lot of the details. Motive is clear if you consider pretty much only the following:

- Seckinger confronted Alex at work on the murder date about the missing $792,000. At this point, Alex knows the jig is up and the walls are closing in. In his own warped sense of reality, he thinks he can still fix everything if he can just buy some more time. He always has.
- Tinsley testifies that he would've discontinued his pursuit of Alex's assets if public perception was that Alex did not commit the killings. Alex knew this very well. He wanted and desperately needed public sympathy.


But forget about motive, because the state doesn't have to prove it anyway. The evidence points to Alex and only to Alex. If we assume Alex is innocent, then we must also assume the following:

1. Someone wanted to kill both Paul AND Maggie. (This pretty much eliminates any boat case vigilante)
2. The killer learned on June 7th that Paul and Maggie were going to be at Moselle that night, when neither of them were primarily staying there.
3. The killer was able to stay out of Alex's view at 8:55, and kill both Maggie and Paul within a maximum of 4 to 5 minutes of Alex leaving their side.
4. Alex left Moselle at 9:06. So they were killed while Alex was at Moselle, but Alex heard no gunshots.
5. Alex wanted Maggie to go with him to his mom's, and even called and texted her before he left. But he didn't ride by the kennels, where he admits Maggie loves to go, because ....?
6. The killer or killers accessed the property (most likely on foot), while carrying two long guns instead of hand guns.
7. The killer wanted to kill Maggie and Paul, but did not wish to kill Alex.
8. If Alex knows the killer, he remains unwilling to tell law enforcement even though the bad guys have already killed his family and he is currently at risk of being convicted of their murders.
9. All of the blackout 300 shell casing evidence testimony is either a huge coincidence, or witness is lying about the casings around Maggie matching other casings on property.
10 Both missing 300 blackouts were stolen but were not reported to law enforcement.
11. Alex lied about his whereabouts leading up to and during the murders because of brain fog maybe? Drugs?
12 Alex called Rogan Gibson 5 times after discovering the bodies, but does not call Buster, because Alex just really likes Rogan Gibson a lot.
13. Alex offers to pay for caretaker's wedding and help her get a better job because he is kind.
14. Alex changed clothes, and shoes, after checking bodies for pulse and handling Paul's phone.
15. Housekeeper lied during testimony about Alex telling her in August 2021 what shirt he was wearing on June 7.
16. It's normal for Alex to visit his invalid mom at 9:30 PM on a Monday for 20 minutes
17. Alex had enjoyed some target shooting that day while wearing the clothes he was in when LE arrived. This left the GSR.
18. The state planted GSR in the blue jacket
 
Last edited:
What's wild is it varies from court to court and person to person. That's incredible considering the amount of power it holds and can ultimately change someone life forever.

I shared something earlier about how 925 people a year are falsely imprisoned. If they all had a jury, then that's 11,100 people a year who get it wrong. While far more get it right, who in the world wants to be a part of the 11k?

Feels like it should be a little more clearly defined and not such a grey area that allows you the ability to forever change someone's life. Nothing is perfect or fool proof but there should be a consequence for falsely sending someone to prison. Afterall, you got it wrong and changed that person's life. That whole thing is wild to me.


Just because a jury convicts an innocent person, that doesn't mean the jury "got it wrong." All manner of things can affect the outcome of a trial, including but not limited to lawyer and witness performance and judge's rulings. The jury makes their decision based on the evidence, as best they can. It is a good system, not a perfect system.

The state is proving this case beyond a reasonable doubt, IMO. Some jurors may not convict unless there's video of the killing, and that is their right as a juror. But I would argue that is irresponsible. They are tasked with considering the totality of the evidence and testimony. If they do that here, they will convict.
 
Last edited:
Your lawyer friend is wrong. Don't need to prove any motive.

To be fair never said you had to establish it…he just said it had been established.

But in this case…a father killing son and husband killing wife with a lot of circumstantial evidence I’d say motive is pretty important and if I’m on jury it’s hard to make a conviction with no hard evidence without it. I’d say that’s a big reason why they’ve gone to the extreme of proving it

But hey…you seem to be the expert here. I am far from it
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BarnwellTiger
What's wild is it varies from court to court and person to person. That's incredible considering the amount of power it holds and can ultimately change someone life forever.

I shared something earlier about how 925 people a year are falsely imprisoned. If they all had a jury, then that's 11,100 people a year who get it wrong. While far more get it right, who in the world wants to be a part of the 11k?

Feels like it should be a little more clearly defined and not such a grey area that allows you the ability to forever change someone's life. Nothing is perfect or fool proof but there should be a consequence for falsely sending someone to prison. Afterall, you got it wrong and changed that person's life. That whole thing is wild to me.
How the heck are all those the jury's fault. There are multiple reasons for this including rogue cops, prosecutors , awful defense and witnesses that misidentify to name a few

Also 925 out of how many trials.

It is a very good system but not perfect. Certainly wish it was but with humans involved mistakes happen
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT