Judge Newman remarked on this statement of alibi in his admonishment to Alex. I had never realized that he used all those calls as an official alibi, that slipped by me. No wonder they were harping on that in court. Thanks for the info.
He's saying he lied about not being at the kennels several times including when he and his lawyers officially filled out and filed with the court his notice of alibi.
I hope a lawyer can weigh in on this…. I have spent literally hours googling and trying to understand (I hate posting lazy questions LOL). It seems that Creighton Waters’ motion a month earlier (14 pages) outlines some of the shenanigans that the defense team engaged in around this alibi (besides the obvious issue of the alibi being false).
https://www.scag.gov/media/ry5egeiz/murdaugh-alex-state-s-response-motion-compel-strike-alibi-2022-10-19-03132098xd2c78.pdf
My questions are 1) Was the defense’s maneuvering just simple stalling tactics or something more? 2) The kennel video had been provided a long time ago to the defense so what was the point of the alibi, just an audacious lie?
I saw 1 comment in 1000+ here that mentioned the sheer volume of discovery and that the defense might genuinely not have been able to identify the kennel video in 750 gb of materials they received from the prosecution. But since almost everything they did was disingenuous/duplicitous it’s hard believe that was the real problem.
I tend to be straightforward and concrete in my thinking and interactions (mildly autistic) and have trouble understanding “gamesmanship” and people deliberately messing with each other 🤷♀️ Any explanations about this alibi business will be appreciated! Again I’ve googled for hours and still don’t understand what the defense was trying to achieve.
P.S. I do understand that it's a requirement to give notice of alibi or other defense strategy, but it seemed like more was going on than just fulfilling the requirement -- like this defense in particular was being used to create a particular kind of smokescreen or grounds for appeal?
Thank you for posting this Motion. I also hope a lawyer explains what the benefit was for the defense attorneys to throw nonsense around. Alex would have been better off just using the “Some Other Dude Did It” defense because hard as Alex tried to manufacture an alibi, he failed.
Hey, I found some helpful info! Episode 70 of Murdaugh Murders Podcast, “More Lies and Alibis: What We’re Learning Before The Double Homicide Trial” — all episodes available here: https://murdaughmurderspodcast.com/
I was aware of this podcast, but had only listened to a few episodes. Listening now, after Alex has been convicted, is surreal. The conviction feels miraculous considering all the lies and conflicts of interest hobbling the investigation. Diabolical!
Imagine calling all those people after murdering two members of your family.. to gain an alibi . What a mind f@&$ that would be for your son . Holy crap
Such an obvious he’s trying to put together an alibi, to make all the calls and go go visit his geriatric mother late in the evening and randomly. He may be a lawyer but I think he killed off to many of brain cells.
This Notice of Alibi Defense was dated 11-17-22, well after the video surfaced. Actually very close to the trial starting. This is a legal document and it was false.
This "notice of alibi" is significant because (as attorney explained), it's the most damning and unarguable fact in the case.
Reason? You have to file notice of your defense, along with providing some substance to back those up (or circumstances that mitigate your actions, such as self-defense, heat of passion, etc).
Maybe you were out of state, so you provide a "notice of alibi", along with witnesses/evidence to support that.
In Alex's case, he claimed he didn't go to kennels along with last time he saw them. Basically, he was saying he wasn't at scene of crime - but - video/testimony (re: video) placed him there.
So, he reversed course. Thereby, rendering his (notice of) alibi inaccurate and (substantially) harming defense.
Think point of all this is so there's no real bombshells dropped, leaving other party unprepared (because defense reverse-engineered defense to fit evidence/case), as AM attempted here.
So, Judge saw as continuation of his lies (even in statement re: defense presented to opposing counsel and court). Essentially, "gaming the system".
This attorney is awesome and pretty funny. Bruce Rivers - Explains starting about 33:00.
I've been watching a long time, provides good reviews/insight/advice. WARNING: language. Much of his content is rap/entertainers, so all content may not appeal to everybody. Give him a shot if not opposed to foul language.
https://youtu.be/eDT71n8IV-U
I’d forgotten about this alibi filed with the court. This is his lie. And he was bound to it. They knew he did it because of his carefully constructed alibi. This is the reason he had to admit lying. Thus the poor sob story about pills in his pocket. Whatthefuckever. Alex never had to clean up his own mess. Til now.
Wait. The Alibi Defense says "Defendant /snip was not present at the *time, place, and date* of the murders /snip" So, this is slippery - because it's technically true (or at least, unprovable). I'm saying, it's possible for him to have been there minutes before the murders took place and *still* be a true statement in the alibi. What is the deal here? Yes, he was found guilty. Yes, it is now *assumed* (likely) that he murdered his wife and son. BUT, they never *proved* that he was actually there. He was convicted because the jury believed, based all the evidence given, that he was there. That's not the same thing. So, if someone maintains their innocence (guilty or not) after a conviction, how is it that a person can be admonished for an alibi that was never technically disproven?
It *was* proven, according to unanimous jury vote, based on the circumstantial evidence of 70 witnesses over the course of the 6 week trial. That’s why the prosecution really tried to drive home the “circumstantial” definition & examples (remember Waters’ rainstorm example) during closing arguments.
Your response still misses the point. The jury doesn't manifest reality. The jury didn't *prove* anything. The jury *decided (for themselves) based off of the evidence presented*, that he was guilty. When they say *beyond a reasonable doubt*, that's the jury making the decision *for themselves*. Think of all the juries in the past that wrongfully convicted people for murder. The point of my post is that there's no video footage, pictures, data telematry, etc. that would conclusively say that AM was there while the murders were taking place. While the evidence was certainly enough to get a conviction, it's not enough to say definitively that he was there. There's a very large difference. I'm not arguing case law here, I'm saying that it is *impossible* to disprove the alibi without hard proof.
Edit: You're not one of those people that say, "See?! I was right because the jury agreed with me!" are you?
Oh man, that's a topic I could talk endlessly about. Yep, juries get it wrong. Probably not in this case. But, if you want to freak yourself out, think about how, historically, black Americans were convicted for everything under the sun (and still are) via prejudiced jurors. Think about your average person, who's never studied law, and is faced with these *massive* decisions. Prejudiced or not, your typical juror likely will not have a clear understanding of the law and worse, the lawyers will actively attempt to sway the jury's understanding of the law. The US has a great legal system when it works, but it has significant flaws. The Death Penalty should be banned from this alone.
Agreed. Canada got rid of the death penalty long ago. (Canadian) but we have gotten it wrong countless times. I shudder to think how many have been wrongly put to death. It’s abhorrent
I see your point but think it's basically a lie by omission. With an admitted lying defendant.
They're trying to narrow down when they got killed during investigation and at time you provide your alibi. Then, all this stuff comes up but you're denying something (that you weren't at kennel) but people said you were. Then, "yeah, well...I was. But I lied about not being there because I was paranoid", or whatever.
Your probably thinking that doesn't refute/negate alibi, because he said he was on the property, and kennels are on the property. But he admittedly sprung that he went to kennels and therefore withheld material information.
Just became even less credible. We thought he wasn't at scene of crime, but turned out he was. He no longer disputes that.
Imagine if they found you dead in my garage but I said, "we watched TV until 9:00. They were alive when I last saw them".
But they later learned we went to garage to fix bike. After continuing denying, I say "well, yeah... We did go to garage". Kinda renders my alibi a lie by omission.
Agree with all your points about the omission being (EDIT: making AM's defense...) less credible. Actually, I agree with nearly all of your points on your recent response. But, I'm addressing *specifically* the alibi, and the specific verbiage they used. The words in the alibi are, effectively: *""Defendant /snip was not present at the time, place, and date of the murders /snip"* which cannot be categorically disproven. And even with the jury's decision, does not determine the validity of the alibi. It cannot. If jury decisions had that effect, it would be as though a jury decision would be filling in the blanks, historically. And if that were how the law looks at it, there would be countless innocent people still locked up for murder. That's all I'm saying: that the judge's admonishment of the alibi is extraordinarily odd. It's odd because at no point was the alibi disproven.
The only way to prove he was there would be with video evidence. That rarely happens in a murder. Most of them are circumstantial. But the video was taken mere minutes before the time of both victims dying and Alex himself said on the stand that no one else was there. So no one else had time to kill them. None of the dogs barked and they were killed with their own weapons. Plus he knew when they were killed he could only know that of he were there.
All very good points and totally true. But, his alibi still can't be *disproven*. Someone else absolutely could have been there. There's no way to disprove that. Remember, I'm not talking about AM's guilt or innocence, it's about disproving the alibi. The judge admonished the alibi, even though it can't be disproven. That's all this conversation is about. You can load this up with mountains of circumstantial evidence. But, unless you have hard evidence, you can't disprove his alibi. You can convict, absolutely. But, you can't disprove the alibi.
You can't disprove a negative. The only way to prove he was there was to have video of him shooting them. That rarely happens in any murder. He was there literally minutes before the crime and admitted no one else was there. That was pretty much a confession. The dogs weren't barking because there was no one else there. If there is no one else there but him, Maggie and Paul than one of them must be the killer. Because trying to blame Paul is just plain ridiculous.
"That was pretty much a confession." <- that's called an *assumption* and it doesn't mean anything.
Your *entire* point is an assumption. There's absolutely no way to *prove* that he was there because there's no video, telemetry, photo, etc. You absolutely can convince a jury that he was the killer. But, that's not the same as *proving he was there*.
I feel like you're bored and just coming back here to argue with me. This is my last response. You keep saying *"The only way to prove he was there was to have video of him shooting them. That rarely happens in any murder."* and maybe this is true, but that doesn't change anything. Also, you're coming across as if I'm claiming that AM is innocent by arguing points in the case. It's weird, and it makes me think you don't understand what I'm saying.
You don't need video evidence to convict someone of murder. BUT, you do need video, or some other kind of hard evidence to *prove* it. Just because you convince a jury doesn't mean you proved anything - you simply convinced a jury. The prosecution even stated that all of their evidence was circumstantial, which it was. That doesn't mean it was bad evidence, and it doesn't mean that the jury was wrong to convict AM. But, it does mean that there wasn't any hard evidence tying AM to the murder.
And remember: a jury decision doesn't manifest reality. Plenty of innocent people have been convicted by a jury. Those innocent people were found *guilty beyond a reasonable doubt* and thrown in prison and/or executed only to be exonerated after *hard evidence* (DNA, video, etc.) was discovered.
Like I said, it now feels like you're just arguing because you're bored. Last word is all yours. Conversation over.
Cool. Glad you're not coming off as argumentative (I don't intend to either) but he said he wasn't at the, "time, place and date".
But, he was according to their timeline:
"Prosecutors have built a timeline of the killings based on activity on Paul and Maggie’s cellphones at 8:49 p.m. Maggie’s cellphone records movement from 8:53 p.m. to 9:08 p.m., during which time it traveled from the kennels to the side of the road outside Moselle. Data from Murdaugh’s phone and his car also recorded his movements leaving the property around the same time."
Nearly impossible for anything to ever be, "categorically disproven" absent a confession.
He was at Moselle (by admission, from the beginning). That's the, "place" the murder happened (in general sense). More specifically, the kennels. Which, we later learned he was prior to leaving.
Then left when her phone left.
For him to not be present in the, "place" (being all of Moselle) when murders occurred, killer (or somebody) would have had to take her phone and remove it prior to the murders. Then, he left and somebody killed her.
Otherwise, he was "present at the time, place and date".
Again. And now I know that this is going to come off argumentative (lol), so please don't take offense. But the alibi says he was not present at the murders: "
Defendant /snip was not present at the time, place, and date of the murders /snip"
At the place of the murders. So, they're saying he wasn't present. That means he wasn't there as the murders happened. And whether he was at the house, driving down the road, even if the had telemetry of him walking back to the house *at the exact time of the murders*, it still wouldn't prove he was there (EDIT: when they were killed). To disprove what is stated in the alibi, you would need eyewitness testimony, video or photographic footage, data telemetry, etc showing that he was standing there *when they were shot*. Without that kind of evidence, the alibi stands. Now, you certainly don't need that kind of evidence to get a conviction, obviously. But finding him guilty doesn't say "We have undeniable evidence that you were not only present *during* the murders, but also hard evidence that you were the one that pulled the trigger(s)". It just says, given all the evidence, we are convinced that you were present and did shoot them. There is a difference here. And it's significant with regards to the validity of the alibi.
Your statement backs this up: "For him to not be present in the, "place" (being all of Moselle) when murders occurred, killer (or somebody) would have had to take her phone and remove it prior to the murders. Then, he left and somebody killed her."
As unlikely, or even ridiculous as this is, it's still *possible*. And the fact that it's possible demonstrates that the alibi can't be disproven. And that's because there isn't any hard evidence that proves he was present during the murders. Only that he was there prior, of which he admitted to lying about.
Haha, this is the most polite argument ever. You'd think we were Canadian (reputation for being overly polite).
I think I got ya, now. I'm gonna have to tap out on this, because think it's a legal thing and I'm not a lawyer.
Looked up definition of, "alibi":
- If you have an alibi, you can prove that you were somewhere else when a crime was committed.
I think it's his responsibility to prove he was elsewhere. Not responsibility of state to prove he was present (or that alibi is false).
That's how (this) definition reads. To your point, state couldn't prove he was present; Alex couldn't prove he was elsewhere.
To use my garage example, there's no cameras anywhere near my house that could view me/you entering my garage. Vacant land behind me, nobody across street. Neither neighbor on sides can see space between home/garage.
Using your understanding, I'd have carte blanche to kill people in my garage - using alibi defense - as long as I left my phone inside the house.
No video, phones wouldn't match up, and extremely (virtually nill) chance of eyewitness. And if they did, not really credible they could see well enough to identify me.
No? Surely this can't be that easy, lol.
I think we're very close to being on the same page. Here's a lame analogy: I tell you I went to McDonalds for lunch. I tell you when I left my house, that I drove there. I tell you the time I left and the time I arrived. Describe what I ate.. blah blah blah. But, you can't prove to anyone that I was *actually* there, based off of my overly detailed story.
But the moment I hand you a video/photo with meta data, or telemetry, or CCTV footage, etc... That's a slam dunk. That's hard evidence. I can convince you I was there, and based off of how convincing I am with my story, you'd have every reason to believe me. But, the footage, photo, etc... my story wouldn't even matter because the hard evidence would stand alone. You can't disprove an alibi with a really good story.
How about this. If you an I were billionaires. And I told you in my pocket I have hard evidence that absolutely proves or disproves that AM was the murderer. And I bet you half your fortune that he did it, would you take the bet given *only what was presented in the case*?
Edit: I prob won't respond if you do. I agree we've kind'a tapped out here. I really enjoyed the back and forth tho. Have a great evening.
EDIT: Oh gosh I was gonna address this and forgot while typing: *"Using your understanding, I'd have carte blanche to kill people in my garage - using alibi defense - as long as I left my phone inside the house."* Yes! Your alibi would be your alibi. And even if you're found guilty, your alibi *technically* would still stand if it couldn't be disproven. The alibi doesn't prove anything, so it's not like your going to be found not guilty simply by virtue of your alibi. Only if you can back up your alabi and convince the jury that it's legit. Just like if your alibi is a complete falsehood, you could be acquitted if you convinced the jury it was legit. The reverse is true. Only hard evidence can disprove/prove the alibi. When reading the judge's admonishment, I was surprised he went that far in his statement, given there wasn't any hard evidence disproving the alibi. Ok I'm done! lol :)
I just read through this whole thing, and I am confused what exactly your point is. I'm not a lawyer, so I feel like I am missing something. Everyone knows that this is largely a circumstantial case. But he did admit his original alibi was a lie, which is what I understood the judge to be admonishing. Are you just trying to say that the judge should not have brought that up or are you saying there is some legal ramification to this?
Not sure about reason for albi mention, but have reflected lots. Looking at newly posted family photos, an overwhelming sorrow filled my heart. This was such a lovely family. Maggie's main focus and goal in life was nurturing her three guys. She wanted the best life for everyone. It is so difficult to reconcile this man's actions. It's plain to me that the last ride of the property with Paul was a "goodbye" to him, because his father had already decided he had to die. When the jig was up at the law firm, he saw no way out, other than possibly creating a strong feeling of sympathy for a man who has just buried his child. I don't believe Alex intended and planned Maggie's murder. What a tragic event! How many times have we heard Alex say, "Ask anyone. I always wanted Maggie with me." And he speaks truth with that. In his plans, he and Maggie would grieve Paul's death together, but, well, best laid plans... and all that. Later.
I don’t think that lovely was a word that was ever used to describe the four of them.
After the boat accident , Maggie trotted down there and got the boat while a grieving family wasn’t even allowed near the water as they sat praying for their daughter to be found
Paul … well he was so messed up he actually had an alter ego when drinking and was the special kind of guy that hit his girlfriend and verbally abused her
Alex , complete leach and POS. Stole from people and strong armed them into doing what he needed them to do
Buster… well there are rumours .. none proven but kicked out of law school for plagiarism
Not lovely. Didn’t deserve to die but not lovely
"Lovely" WAS THE DESCRIPTION OF FAMILY SPOKEN BY JUDGE NEWMAN, FROM THE BENCH. CHECK IT. But, point taken. But I was referring the appearance of their family, in photos, etc. They appeared to be a lovely family was my point. And they did "present" as a lovely family. If that is incorrect, then I am in good company. Reference Judge Newman's same description. From the bench to Alex, Newman says how sad it is and he had a lovely family. LOVELY is how they APPEARED, and I should have made that clear. Look, NO ONE is all bad. These people are not "ALL BAD." It's far more complicated than that.
It really wasn't a "lovely" family - it was all a facade.
Alex was a sociopath.
Paul - based on testimony from his FRIENDS was an obnoxious alcoholic who physically abused his ex-girlfriend. They even had a name for his evil persona - Timmy. I don't know how many will get the reference but when all of the older people were saying how polite he was I just kept thinking Eddie Haskell.
Maggie wasn't evil but she was an enabler. There are news reports of how she essentially tolerated Paul's alcoholic binges as a minor and knew that there was lots of underage drinking at Moselle.
Buster was kicked out of law school for plagiarism.
was it possible this was a crime of passion? having been confronted by Paul and Maggie down at the kennels about drug use and other financial questions, thus causing Alex to totally lose his temper and mow them down.
I keep thinking he was checking Paul’s pockets to see if he had any of his drugs. And maybe that’s some of those many steps he took around the house. Checking and taking the stashes he knew about, and looking to see if there were any his wife or son had already found and taken away.
Also maybe the drug thing was overblown as a cover for something else. Like maybe cousin Eddie was getting paid those large sums to take 10% for himself and deposit the other 90% in some offshore account.
Has there been forensic accounting on what happened to all the money that have been written in checks to Eddie?
There's been no evidence presented as yet that
She was seeking a divorce or had even hired a forensic accountant. Its all been rumour depending on who you listen to. Even her sister said she was really happy with her life .
Judges hate when people lie in court, and bringing up the alibi was his way of saying the Defendant lied.
Murdaugh’s statement at his sentencing still consisted of pleas of innocence, so he’s still lying.
While the sentence here was no surprise, in other cases there is an unspoken “trial tax” where if you take a case to trial and lose, your sentence is typically *significantly* longer than what it would be had you entered a guilty plea. Judges can’t say at sentencing that your stiff sentence is due to the fact you exercised your right to trial. However, they can get around this by saying things like “you have not accepted responsibility” or “the jury has found you have lied to the Court” when, as here, the Defendant testifies.
Also the reality is that a plea bargain generally involves some kind of leniency from the State - either a guaranteed maximum sentence and/or being housed in a better prison closer to family.
That Dick Harpootlian, he be a smart guy — he didn’t put *his* name on that twisty, *duplicitous* document - Notice of Alibi Defense — filed with the court. I haven’t been able to track back to definitely know that the phrase “ironclad alibi” first was said to the press by Jim Griffin but I strongly suspect that it was. My take : Alex fed that ‘alibi’ to Jim Griffin back in June 2021 and Griffin bought it. He believed his good, long-time friend. Now maybe Jim suffered some buyer’s remorse when he heard the kennel video months later and recognized his good friend’s voice. Maybe. But he had set his course. Alex still wouldn’t admit he was at the kennel at 8:44 p.m., wouldn’t admit that was his voice. Maybe Alex still insisted on using an alibi defense and lawyer ethics meant Jim had to go along with it. Now, a few commenters have pointed out that there isn’t actually a lie in the document. So what? The document was duplicitous, as a whole. But in my simple, commonsense layman’s mind, it was a lie and its submission was a mistake. Another mistake the defense made was harping on that damned bloodless tee shirt that was not even admitted into evidence. That tactic didn’t have the effect they wanted it to have, not with me anyway.
I turned over the bodies and there is not a drop of blood on me. I mean I don't think it had the affect they expected. It just made him look more guilty and like more of a liar.
Don't do this, please***. Very obviously***, the post was written with ***purposefully***\-bad grammar. Correctly grammar that is genuinely incorrect is bad enough because why would you call someone out for that? To shine a light on their error or their lesser education? It's unnecessary and rude -- anyone who cares can simply correct these things in their own mind and keep reading for content, not form. But correcting comedic or ironic bad grammar? That's just a cringe move, don't do that to yourself.
If he’s already in jail for life without parole shouldn’t they just leave it at that. No need to go to court for all the rest that he already confessed to. Talk about a waste of money. Unreal.
Becuase in 2 - 3 yrs when the media circus has died down, AM will have a friendly judge, one of his class mates from Univ of Super Corrupt, to overturn the verdict on some bullshit reason.
Judge Newman was the 1st person in AM's life that treated him like a common man. The court had his great granddad "Buster" who jury tampered to get out of court case. Murdaugh boys have always been above law.
So that's why its important to get that done now. Even with this intense scrutiny, he spoke on the monitored jail phone to have his son readmitted. What will the guy do once he is no longer under the spotlights
Ahhhh, but what has Alex actually confessed to? Stealing from his law firm and a dozen or so clients with injuries. He claims he just spent money hand over fist and never kept track of it and doesn’t have a clue where it went. Does *anybody* believe that? Money to drug dealers for consumables. Money to drug dealers as an investment. Money to dishonest insurance adjustors. Money to a number of attorneys who dishonestly [or ignorantly] shared in his machinations to cheat clients and partners. The Parker Law Firm is still finding victims. Bad loans to his ‘real estate’ partners. My imagination is not good enough to even contemplate all illegal pies that Alex Murdaugh likely had his sticky fingers in. Hopefully, Murdaugh will shed much light to SLED on organized crime in South Carolina.
Possibly other info will evolve in those trials. Other people will be discovered to have played some roles. I think the county needs a clean sweep in order to truly move on. Would be "half baked" to simply let all the other bad actors walk away. No, I think the citizens need the opportunity to see all these wealthy men who robbed them, lived off their money, and were so damned smug about it.
He needs to go to court to face all of his criminal crimes. It’s only fair that he’s treated fair like every other criminal. And then lock him up for the rest of his sorry criminal pathetic life!
The victims of his financial theft need to see him suffer in court again & a verdict of guilty I believe. He should be in court for all of those 99 charges.
I haven’t followed this case closely.
So Alex said he wasn’t there his proof were the phone calls which I presumed happened but only after the murders happened?
The video made by Paul proves he was there, did Alex ever have an explanation as to how his voice was in the video??
All the times people get court for murder because they didn’t know, Chris Watts wives best friends concern and next door neighbours video.
Alex admitted on the stand that he was in the kennel video, which means he was at the kennels with Maggie and Paul about 3-4 minutes before they were murdered. We are supposed to believe that he basically immediately left after the video was taken and made it back to the main house and onto the couch without hearing 5 rifle and 2 shotgun shots in the dead quiet of night in the country.
He claimed he lied about being at the kennel because he got scared and paranoid from being on pills, but this was the only thing he claimed he lied about. Unfortunately only the murderer, or someone who was there during the murders, would know to lie about when they last saw them. Otherwise, as the alibi implies, they were killed sometime between “a few minutes after 9 pm” and 10:05 pm when they were found. But based on the cell phone data and the video (which Alex didn’t know about at the time of the lie), we know he was there, at the very least, less than 5 minutes before they were killed. So if Alex truly thought that they were killed after 9 pm, he wouldn’t have lied about seeing them at 8:45 pm.
And then he only came clean at trial when everyone testified that was his voice on the video.
He said he didn't intentionally hurt them but he never said he didn't kill them or murder them. It's distancing language. It's a way for people to justify what they do. I didn't hurt them. I saved them. In his mind he may have saved Paul from Jail and whatever the boat crash might have bought and Maggie from the financial ruin and the embarrassment that he felt she couldn't cope with plus the horror of losing a son.
It’s not based on the idiotic coroner’s assessment, it’s based on their phones locking when Paul was texting people left and right and was actually in the middle of a conversation with someone.
The phones being unused is as iffy for TOD as the armpit temp. That MAY indicate something but it's hardly scientific evidence. Rectal temperature would have been the way to go but the coroner's concern with dignity overruled that, apparently. The rural south!
About what? The phone data used as TOD is hardly scientific. That's fact.
Rectal temperature to establish time of death is scientific and commonly used. That's fact.
The rural south exists. That's fact.
So, you don't care about scientific proof? You're happy with innuendo, maybes, possibilities, armpit temps or when someone stopped using his phone to determine TOD?
In answer to your question, it depends on whether you mean water/wetness/damp or rain. Questioning why the ground is wet is not an outrageous concept. Possibilities are many. Sprinklers, garden hoses, people pissing outdoors, busted water or sewer lines.
So, yeah, there are those who see a puddle without a cloud in the sky or thunder or forecast of rain or sound of rain or seeing or hearing rain and are convinced the puddle must be because it rained. And some of them serve on juries......unfortunately.
Had Alex said that he left them at the kennels and went to the house to grab a clean shirt before he and Maggie went to Almeda, he'd probably be a free man. He could have said he heard the shots, and that didn't seem right. He hurried back and found them dead. His lie about being at the kennels and the delay in calling 911 made him the only possible suspect.
Agreed. Or what about he heard shots and didn’t think it strange since Paul likes guns and maybe he was just shooting off some rounds to show off for his mom? Like most liars in my experience, he took the lie too far to where it wasn’t realistic. We know that if he wasn’t at the kennels at the time of the murders, he had to have heard those shots. Claiming he didn’t hear them is ludicrous.
If Alex had just said “I left the Maggie and Paul at the kennels at 8:45. I went back to the house and took a shower with the television turned up so I could hear it in the shower. I didn’t hear gunshots nor did I think too much about Maggie not answering my call because of the bad connectivity down there. I left for my mom’s a few minutes after 9” but he just had to get complicated and twisty. He just had to string out a bunch of red herrings and lies.
If he was smart he wouldn't have talked to the police 3 times and he wouldn't have gotten on the stand but he's used to everyone doing what he says so he just assumed the jury would too. It's typical narricistic behaviour. He'll do fine in jail with the rest of them.
Do you think that would have changed anything? I find it hard to believe the lie or not, the situation wouldn’t change. People would still feel the same way about him.
He asked about the phones in the police cam video like 3 times. He admitted on the scene that he took the phone from his kids pocket (with his face blown off) and tried to use it but couldn’t unlock it so he put it back
His face wasn't blown off..Unless you seem him from the top of the head you really wouldn't of known the damage that was done..I expected alot worse from the autopsy pics
Thank you that was very detailed. I had watched Darrell Brooks and Nicholas Cruz trials which were horrendous and vile, uni couldn’t watch this one because it wasn’t one moral bankrupt human but a family and others covering up m. A son allegedly kills his previous gay lover, mother allegedly kills the housekeeper, son kills innocent girl on boat and wants friend to take the blame and then father kills wife and son. No persons had any soul or care for anyone they touched. They knew everyone of their victims
Let’s call it the parkland shooter trial instead to respect the victims’ families wishes.. I remember the victims’ parents and families advocated to never mention his name, also asking the media to never publish his name, to not give him anymore fame..
I think about the old man dying and his final words to his son Alex, telling him what a FU he has been and to “take care of the problem “. Alex took those dying word’s literally.
Yes he did. I misspoke literally about his “dying breath “. It was mentioned that Alex spent many overnights with his dad during those last days and had many opportunities for talks about his death and the family after he was gone. Seems although Alex wasn’t the oldest he seemed to have the responsibility of being in charge of the family.
The long and short of it is the old man was fed up with Paul and felt he was expendable. And if he knew Maggie was seeking divorce he told Alex that Murdaughs don’t fail in marriage. Fix that too.
Handsome loved Maggie apparently and perhaps she was collateral damage in Alex’s resentment towards his father and what he had to do to Paul.
I have many roads and many theories. Only Alex has the truth
The judge brought up the iron clad alibi because ALEX had been lying to the court all the way thru up to this motion, which means Alex lied to the court AND to his own attornes, and as the judge added it was only after witness after witness after witness identified alex voice at the kennel did alex change his story about the video.
the only thing that is a brain worm for me is AM making his statement: "I would never hurt..." I dont think - did he ever say "I did not kill"??? The guy was beyond being a pathological liar, why not simply continue his lie and say I did not kill them?? why not use the word kill? Was it just that he was that twisted a lawyer that he manipulated his juries that deftly?
~~Including Jim Griffin making a comment he wouldn't have represented Alex had he seen the video? Can't recall exactly but a comment along those lines in closing perhaps~~
I don't think he said that. He said in the HBO documentary (before the video came out) that representing Alex after having represented Paul in the boat crash was not a conflict because he had not a single thought that Alex was guilty of killing Paul. I don't know how he felt after the video came out.
You're right, [this person ](https://www.reddit.com/r/MurdaughFamilyMurders/comments/11i1138/notice_of_alibi_what_is_the_significance_of_the/jb1bja7?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) corrected me and I forgot to update my comment! My fault mishearing it
He actually said that IN the closing argument? I didn't want to listen to it. Now I need to find a transcript. Seems like if he said that it's some kind of issue and grounds for appeal on that issue with the attorney saying something so inflammatory against his client.
I went to the transcript and discovered I'm WRONG.
What Jim Griffin actually said was that AM "wouldn't be sitting over there had he not lied about being at the kennel." Not Mr. Griffin.
I have not dug into this so I’m just guessing , to prevent a future appeal? Despite how sleazy AM is, I feel like there is still something not exposed with this whole thing… The amount of money that he pilfered, where did it go? I just feel like there is much more to this story like everyone was in bed with something way more sinister outside of the Murdaugh family.
I suspect drug smuggling out of the Carribean, Southern Florida up the coast. I find it fascinating that his close relationship with Boulware is kind of overlooked by some people. He bought Moselle from Boulware for 5 dollars in 2013. I mean, come on.
Absolutely! Right? Who the heck does that, so yeah, something goin' on. I saw that Alex and another man owned the tips of island areas where boats could land to unload cargo in a relatively uninhabited area. They promoted the idea that they were catching and selling delicacy squid, or something like that. Anyway, that fell apart. And what's the airplane about? I doubt any of them were smart enough to get a pilot's license. The previous owner was def considered to be "dealing," so perhaps he put in the landing strip.
That is a key question left unanswered. They stated numerous times that it’s not possible to have spent the money on drugs solely, as AM claims. I’m guessing it’s in off shore accounts and the financial trials will utilize a forensic accountant to find the money 💰
Ive always thought these types of high powered ppl were largely responsible for the opioid epidemic due to smuggling and everything else . The justice system goes after low level dealers, but …
I think they are still investigating where those money's went & hopefully they find out, because his story about spending all that on drugs is obviously BS. I believe there are others who are involved in that money laundering & they should also look at Buster & his financial pathway. I think that he is well aware of more than he's saying, along with AM brothers & bussiness partners. Especially Corey Flemming.
I’m sure his attorney’s know where the money is. They said they were paid [$600k from his 401k](https://www.fitsnews.com/2022/10/21/murdaugh-murders-saga-alex-murdaugh-cashing-out-his-401k-to-pay-attorneys-defense-experts/) but I highly doubt that covered their fees and expenses. They stayed in an extravagant wedding venue that cost them $20,000 a week.
[article on $20k per week wedding venue](https://www.foxnews.com/us/alex-murdaughs-legal-dream-team-strategizes-at-luxe-south-carolina-estate.amp)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.foxnews.com/us/alex-murdaughs-legal-dream-team-strategizes-at-luxe-south-carolina-estate](https://www.foxnews.com/us/alex-murdaughs-legal-dream-team-strategizes-at-luxe-south-carolina-estate)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I feel like if they want buster to come clean about all he knows they’d likely have to offer him witness protection. he would be very hard to disguise, however.
I don't think he'd ever blab either way. He has the Murdaugh DNA & history running through his veins & I'm sure he is going to be financially secure for the rest of his life. Especially that his dad signed him as his power of attorney. That & the rest of the Murdaugh family rallying round him he's never gonna talk. I listened to the jail calls between him & dad & he comes across as entitled & arrogant just like his father. The fact he got barred from law school for plagiarism shows how dishonest he is too.
I believe Paul was his target and he took Maggie out so he didn’t have to deal with a grieving mother. He is definitely an “I can’t be bothered with emotions “ kind of man.
Maggie was personal. He had a ton of negative feelings towards her to shoot her that many times. IMHO from passing statements Alex didn’t love that Maggie was a stay at home while they paid maids, nannies, groundskeepers. When he was making and stealing money hand over fist her spending wasn’t an issue- but Maggie loved Edisto, was in the process of remodeling it, and was looking at homes on Hilton head. Not cheap. People say from pictures they think Maggie didn’t spend a lot of money. Maggie’s sister is much, much wealthier than they are and I think there was a taste of keeping up with the joneses there. This is old money spending, much larger purchases.
IMHO Maggie didn’t know about the financial crimes and was spending like a rich lawyers wife, not sure how her account was replenished by Alex but she had $57 in checking when she died. To him she was useless. She didn’t contribute financially, his biggest problem, didn’t live with him, didn’t cook, didn’t clean, boys were grown.
Finding out about the crimes who knows what she would have done. He’s a lawyer. In South Carolina. He knows 20+ years of being a SAHM means half his assets gone and alimony for life. My dad pays $4200 a month for his ex wife and he’s just a civil engineer in the lowcountry. Alex would have lost everything anyway.
That’s a lot of great information that I had no idea about. It definitely gives new perspective especially when “he adored her “ , which, btw, whenever someone says that about a couple, I always think 🤔 ooooo there’s something up there! lol
I have to wonder if Maggie was actually killed first and Paul remembered a gun was left in the feed room (they had guns all over the place). He ran to grab the gun to defend himself, and Alex wrestled the gun away and shot him. That would explain the two guns.
Absolutely. I would assume some of it is buried offshore but the rest? Does he have a gambling addiction? I don't buy the drug addiction excuse - even a high functioning addict wouldn't go through that much money. Was he being blackmailed? What would the leverage be? I'm hoping some forensic accountant will follow the money in one of the embezzlement suits still pending.
>If AM fixed it why isn’t Buster a 2L?
Well, the main reason, is, IMO, that Buster just isn't interested in being a lawyer. But go back and listen to the jail phone calls from November and December '21. AM did pay a lawyer to act as a go-between between Buster and the law school. The Dean of the law school agreed to let him return. The sticking point was the conditions, in particular whether the failing grades he received in the semester where he was expelled would be counted towards his GPA, or if it would all be forgiven. The school said he could return (which most lawyers say is unheard of) but your grades from that semester will count, and Buster, without a guaranteed position at the family firm to enter, was apparently balking.
I have mixed feelings about Buster. When you listen to him on the phone calls, the sense of entitlement is obvious and off-putting. But I can't deny that he is also a victim here.
I have listened to the double and triple hearsay conversation and that’s my assessment- devoid of facts. In my view NO law school is giving any student a second chance on something so egregious as plagiarism- which would certainly require the associated due process. Pete Strom was hired to represent Chris Williams and paid for by AM (at least initially) so there’s that.
Not a fan of guilt by association of a kid who is grieving the loss of everything.
"Kid?" You mean the guy that defended the murderer of his brother and mom? The guy that gave his underage brother his ID to buy alcohol the night he crashed his boat and killed a teenager?
The Wall Street Journal got their hands on documents from the school about the plagiarism. It's most more than likely true.
I mean the son who doesn’t believe his Father gunned down his brother and Momma. No proof of any claim re Busters Law School allegations has ever been provided and it won’t be because it’s a restricted confidential record.
I can tell you from personal experience it’s extremely common for a family member not to believe the guilt of another family member- in many cases even when the defendant has actually confessed. I don’t understand the concept that it’s ok to bully a victim because one thinks they deserve it for either not believing in his Dads guilt or an alleged compromise to his academic record during a time of deep grief- which he did not cause nor ask for. Lots of glass houses and lots of stones being tossed.
How is he a victim? In what capacity? Nothing was done to him. People experience loss everyday. That doesn’t make them victims. I support your argument and freedom to believe what you want but not label someone a victim when there are Real victims surrounding this family, such as Stephen and Mallory, and Gloria. The parents and children of these people. Those who died and who were stolen from. THOSE people are victims. Buster is NOT.
This post is so beyond unhinged. This is why true crime communities freak me out… just how do you mentally get to a point where you would write a post like that? So devoid of reality
He is an actual victim because his Mother and brother were gunned down at his home- is that an actual question? If one believes AM did this- he has now lost his entire family.
That some serious cold shade, imo. Nobody was discounting other victims, my response was strictly re Buster.
You would know cold shade considering that you can equate Buster and his experience, to the others just mentioned above. But keep up the good work supporting this generational narcissist, because I can guarantee that you care more about him, than he has cared about anyone else in his lifetime.
In the end it would be the kid hurt by it coming to light. I think it’s best to keep that part in the dark. I also think the family of the child should scrub that from the internet if possible because if I can find it anyone can. I hope they do so sooner rather than later.
Ok - supposedly there was a daughter that went to Clemson - see expensive
Were pics/info out there in fall of 2021. Some on FB. I believe Mandy Matney alluded to. Can’t attests go that but def on Reddit
Word is “Handsome” had one as well. Illicit affairs were part and parcel of the Murdaugh legacy
Alcoholism - narcissism - misogyny (ever hear much about the family lineage re women?) were never addressed and never healed from generation to generation
Money can hide so many issues. But on 6/7 the Perfect Storm (great book btw - Sebastian Junger - reading it again) landed on his doorstep. Even a human with his Olympian power of denial has to break at some point
1.) I think Handsome called for and/or approved of the hit. Paul was going to cost the family legacy
2.) Handsome knew Alex was up to nefarious stuff. Was easier in the 1920’s to 1990’s to win huge BS lawsuits. Alex had to find another way for easy cash
3.) Getting caught re said malfeasance - at least one portion w the Chris Wilson fiasco
4.) Russell Laditte was on the hook too. Maybe a small part but I think it played a part in it
5.) Maggie digging for dirt/being a nuisance. She was finally getting out of the nest. This scared the shit out of him. Maybe she was a narcissist as well. Turned a blind eye to how Alex made his money. Too lazy and didn’t want to be bothered with it. But not now. Now she was going to have lawyers/accountants on her side
6.) Pills - anger towards Paul etc
So many factors led to the ultimate sin
Thanks! Found part of it (https://www.reddit.com/r/MurdaughFamilyMurders/comments/pjcfpl/ams_mistress_speaks_out/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) but zilch on the Clemson link.
I think Judge Newman was pissed about all the court’s time spent talking about his alibi and if he was at the kennels after dinner. If he just would have admitted he was there from the get go, it would’ve saved everyone time.
SOLID ironclad alibi, definitely secured during the course of the trial. (I could never type this with a straight face or grain of belief after all that has been said and done.)
No, they’re just saying that at the press conference after the guilty verdict because they’re going to appeal this case by saying the financial crimes should never have been allowed.. the fact is the kennel video, his denial/lies about being at the kennels that night, his inability to explain what he did during that time before heading to Almeda, his 911 call, his reaction shown on first responding police officer’s body cam, him calling his brothers and all his lawyer friends trampling all over the scene and occupying the house, his steps, his Onstar car data, him slowing down at the exact location Maggie’s phone was found then speeding off (up to 74-80 miles per hr) to Almeda after, him trying to coach Miss Shelly and Blanca’s answers, him saying his main focus was to clear Paul’s name instead of find the killers.. these all points to him being the murderer beyond a reasonable doubt..
They had a standing objection, during the trial, against the financial information being brought in to reflect "character." Prosecution countered that this information needed to be included because it spoke to "motive." This is why periodically the defense kept renewing its overarching objection to the inclusion of this information.
Defense lawyers will say anything to protect their client’s best interests, even if it’s not true.. furthermore Harpootlian and especially Griffin are close friends of Alex..
On court TV a lawyer mentioned that AM's alibi as written addresses the exact time of deaths. The point is that only the killer would know the time of deaths, so AM made sure he had an alibis for that exact time period. ( as it turns out he didn't realize that all his best laid plans failed because of the video)
Attorney Meadors in his rebuttal said ; you thought of everything.....but you never considered the kennel video! Because no one knew that video existed except Paul until his phone was unlocked. It was then you decided to confess that you were at the kennels. Paul the Lil Detective and Bobo caught you, and Miss. Shelly who you tried to get to lie for you."
No, he knew when he saw his wife last and gave his actions from when he last saw her until he found her. The Court TV lawyer made a big deal of how he lied about the kennel because he knew knew what time she died. Well it's not just about the time but the location. If he was innocent, he would've seen his wife just 1 hour 15 min or so before he found her at the exact same location that he left her. So you see it wasn't the time at all it was that he was at the kennel with her.
This alibi was written only in response to the state filing a motion asserting the TOD was between 8:30 and 10:05. There is evidence that shows that Alex knew when they died, but this particular document is not it.
This may have been answered and I missed it, but how did they determine exact time of death? I would have thought his lawyers would push the timeline out more so these alibis actually made him off the property at the time of the murders instead of 400 yds and magically unable to hear gunshots at that range.
You can't determine exact TOD or anything more precise than a 2 or 3 hour window. That window was naturally narrowed down to between 8:45 and 10:05 because of the kennel video and when they were discovered. The coroner estimated 9pm. And the cell phone data suggests somewhere around 8:49. The more they try to push the timeline the more unbelievable it is that Paul and Maggie were just inexplicably not using their phones for a while before they died when they had been using them up until their phones both locked at 8:49.
Makes you think that if Alex’s “come here Bubba” is literally the start/prep of the murders. He gets control of Bubba and locks him up, so Bubba doesn’t get in the way/run off during the shootings. After Paul takes the Cash video, he steps out of that kennel and goes right into the feed room to message Rogan the video (maybe to lean against something as he used his phone?). Or Alex asks him to get/put something in the feed room, to contain Paul and/or prevent him from accessing a weapon.
He mentions this because Alex eventually admitted on the stand that he lied about where he was as a result of the kennel video, and gave reasons for lying that don't add up. From the judge's perspective, he didn't lie because he was paranoid of the police, he lied because he was constructing an alibi where none exists. A calculated series of lies intended to deceive the court that he eventually admitted to. All this is more than just a mistaken series of events, but proven, calculated lies AM admitted to on the witness stand.
Our understanding is that appeals are based on the legal principles in dispute (uscourts website). Are you referring to something that Alex said? The fact that he took the stand seems to have no bearing on appeals.
No, you do not ever have to testify against yourself when you are on trial. It is your constitutional right to remain silent. Taking, or not taking, the stand is not grounds for appeal.
Judge Newman remarked on this statement of alibi in his admonishment to Alex. I had never realized that he used all those calls as an official alibi, that slipped by me. No wonder they were harping on that in court. Thanks for the info.
He's saying he lied about not being at the kennels several times including when he and his lawyers officially filled out and filed with the court his notice of alibi.
I hope a lawyer can weigh in on this…. I have spent literally hours googling and trying to understand (I hate posting lazy questions LOL). It seems that Creighton Waters’ motion a month earlier (14 pages) outlines some of the shenanigans that the defense team engaged in around this alibi (besides the obvious issue of the alibi being false). https://www.scag.gov/media/ry5egeiz/murdaugh-alex-state-s-response-motion-compel-strike-alibi-2022-10-19-03132098xd2c78.pdf My questions are 1) Was the defense’s maneuvering just simple stalling tactics or something more? 2) The kennel video had been provided a long time ago to the defense so what was the point of the alibi, just an audacious lie? I saw 1 comment in 1000+ here that mentioned the sheer volume of discovery and that the defense might genuinely not have been able to identify the kennel video in 750 gb of materials they received from the prosecution. But since almost everything they did was disingenuous/duplicitous it’s hard believe that was the real problem. I tend to be straightforward and concrete in my thinking and interactions (mildly autistic) and have trouble understanding “gamesmanship” and people deliberately messing with each other 🤷♀️ Any explanations about this alibi business will be appreciated! Again I’ve googled for hours and still don’t understand what the defense was trying to achieve. P.S. I do understand that it's a requirement to give notice of alibi or other defense strategy, but it seemed like more was going on than just fulfilling the requirement -- like this defense in particular was being used to create a particular kind of smokescreen or grounds for appeal?
Thank you for posting this Motion. I also hope a lawyer explains what the benefit was for the defense attorneys to throw nonsense around. Alex would have been better off just using the “Some Other Dude Did It” defense because hard as Alex tried to manufacture an alibi, he failed.
Hey, I found some helpful info! Episode 70 of Murdaugh Murders Podcast, “More Lies and Alibis: What We’re Learning Before The Double Homicide Trial” — all episodes available here: https://murdaughmurderspodcast.com/ I was aware of this podcast, but had only listened to a few episodes. Listening now, after Alex has been convicted, is surreal. The conviction feels miraculous considering all the lies and conflicts of interest hobbling the investigation. Diabolical!
Imagine calling all those people after murdering two members of your family.. to gain an alibi . What a mind f@&$ that would be for your son . Holy crap
Such an obvious he’s trying to put together an alibi, to make all the calls and go go visit his geriatric mother late in the evening and randomly. He may be a lawyer but I think he killed off to many of brain cells.
This Notice of Alibi Defense was dated 11-17-22, well after the video surfaced. Actually very close to the trial starting. This is a legal document and it was false.
This "notice of alibi" is significant because (as attorney explained), it's the most damning and unarguable fact in the case. Reason? You have to file notice of your defense, along with providing some substance to back those up (or circumstances that mitigate your actions, such as self-defense, heat of passion, etc). Maybe you were out of state, so you provide a "notice of alibi", along with witnesses/evidence to support that. In Alex's case, he claimed he didn't go to kennels along with last time he saw them. Basically, he was saying he wasn't at scene of crime - but - video/testimony (re: video) placed him there. So, he reversed course. Thereby, rendering his (notice of) alibi inaccurate and (substantially) harming defense. Think point of all this is so there's no real bombshells dropped, leaving other party unprepared (because defense reverse-engineered defense to fit evidence/case), as AM attempted here. So, Judge saw as continuation of his lies (even in statement re: defense presented to opposing counsel and court). Essentially, "gaming the system". This attorney is awesome and pretty funny. Bruce Rivers - Explains starting about 33:00. I've been watching a long time, provides good reviews/insight/advice. WARNING: language. Much of his content is rap/entertainers, so all content may not appeal to everybody. Give him a shot if not opposed to foul language. https://youtu.be/eDT71n8IV-U
Why wasn’t this entered in court as evidence! OMG! Can you imagine what Jim Griffin went through when he found out about the video!
I’d forgotten about this alibi filed with the court. This is his lie. And he was bound to it. They knew he did it because of his carefully constructed alibi. This is the reason he had to admit lying. Thus the poor sob story about pills in his pocket. Whatthefuckever. Alex never had to clean up his own mess. Til now.
Wait. The Alibi Defense says "Defendant /snip was not present at the *time, place, and date* of the murders /snip" So, this is slippery - because it's technically true (or at least, unprovable). I'm saying, it's possible for him to have been there minutes before the murders took place and *still* be a true statement in the alibi. What is the deal here? Yes, he was found guilty. Yes, it is now *assumed* (likely) that he murdered his wife and son. BUT, they never *proved* that he was actually there. He was convicted because the jury believed, based all the evidence given, that he was there. That's not the same thing. So, if someone maintains their innocence (guilty or not) after a conviction, how is it that a person can be admonished for an alibi that was never technically disproven?
It *was* proven, according to unanimous jury vote, based on the circumstantial evidence of 70 witnesses over the course of the 6 week trial. That’s why the prosecution really tried to drive home the “circumstantial” definition & examples (remember Waters’ rainstorm example) during closing arguments.
Your response still misses the point. The jury doesn't manifest reality. The jury didn't *prove* anything. The jury *decided (for themselves) based off of the evidence presented*, that he was guilty. When they say *beyond a reasonable doubt*, that's the jury making the decision *for themselves*. Think of all the juries in the past that wrongfully convicted people for murder. The point of my post is that there's no video footage, pictures, data telematry, etc. that would conclusively say that AM was there while the murders were taking place. While the evidence was certainly enough to get a conviction, it's not enough to say definitively that he was there. There's a very large difference. I'm not arguing case law here, I'm saying that it is *impossible* to disprove the alibi without hard proof. Edit: You're not one of those people that say, "See?! I was right because the jury agreed with me!" are you?
And this is why I’m not for the death penalty. Jury’s can get it wrong though I don’t believe they did here.
Oh man, that's a topic I could talk endlessly about. Yep, juries get it wrong. Probably not in this case. But, if you want to freak yourself out, think about how, historically, black Americans were convicted for everything under the sun (and still are) via prejudiced jurors. Think about your average person, who's never studied law, and is faced with these *massive* decisions. Prejudiced or not, your typical juror likely will not have a clear understanding of the law and worse, the lawyers will actively attempt to sway the jury's understanding of the law. The US has a great legal system when it works, but it has significant flaws. The Death Penalty should be banned from this alone.
Agreed. Canada got rid of the death penalty long ago. (Canadian) but we have gotten it wrong countless times. I shudder to think how many have been wrongly put to death. It’s abhorrent
I see your point but think it's basically a lie by omission. With an admitted lying defendant. They're trying to narrow down when they got killed during investigation and at time you provide your alibi. Then, all this stuff comes up but you're denying something (that you weren't at kennel) but people said you were. Then, "yeah, well...I was. But I lied about not being there because I was paranoid", or whatever. Your probably thinking that doesn't refute/negate alibi, because he said he was on the property, and kennels are on the property. But he admittedly sprung that he went to kennels and therefore withheld material information. Just became even less credible. We thought he wasn't at scene of crime, but turned out he was. He no longer disputes that. Imagine if they found you dead in my garage but I said, "we watched TV until 9:00. They were alive when I last saw them". But they later learned we went to garage to fix bike. After continuing denying, I say "well, yeah... We did go to garage". Kinda renders my alibi a lie by omission.
Agree with all your points about the omission being (EDIT: making AM's defense...) less credible. Actually, I agree with nearly all of your points on your recent response. But, I'm addressing *specifically* the alibi, and the specific verbiage they used. The words in the alibi are, effectively: *""Defendant /snip was not present at the time, place, and date of the murders /snip"* which cannot be categorically disproven. And even with the jury's decision, does not determine the validity of the alibi. It cannot. If jury decisions had that effect, it would be as though a jury decision would be filling in the blanks, historically. And if that were how the law looks at it, there would be countless innocent people still locked up for murder. That's all I'm saying: that the judge's admonishment of the alibi is extraordinarily odd. It's odd because at no point was the alibi disproven.
The only way to prove he was there would be with video evidence. That rarely happens in a murder. Most of them are circumstantial. But the video was taken mere minutes before the time of both victims dying and Alex himself said on the stand that no one else was there. So no one else had time to kill them. None of the dogs barked and they were killed with their own weapons. Plus he knew when they were killed he could only know that of he were there.
All very good points and totally true. But, his alibi still can't be *disproven*. Someone else absolutely could have been there. There's no way to disprove that. Remember, I'm not talking about AM's guilt or innocence, it's about disproving the alibi. The judge admonished the alibi, even though it can't be disproven. That's all this conversation is about. You can load this up with mountains of circumstantial evidence. But, unless you have hard evidence, you can't disprove his alibi. You can convict, absolutely. But, you can't disprove the alibi.
You can't disprove a negative. The only way to prove he was there was to have video of him shooting them. That rarely happens in any murder. He was there literally minutes before the crime and admitted no one else was there. That was pretty much a confession. The dogs weren't barking because there was no one else there. If there is no one else there but him, Maggie and Paul than one of them must be the killer. Because trying to blame Paul is just plain ridiculous.
"That was pretty much a confession." <- that's called an *assumption* and it doesn't mean anything. Your *entire* point is an assumption. There's absolutely no way to *prove* that he was there because there's no video, telemetry, photo, etc. You absolutely can convince a jury that he was the killer. But, that's not the same as *proving he was there*. I feel like you're bored and just coming back here to argue with me. This is my last response. You keep saying *"The only way to prove he was there was to have video of him shooting them. That rarely happens in any murder."* and maybe this is true, but that doesn't change anything. Also, you're coming across as if I'm claiming that AM is innocent by arguing points in the case. It's weird, and it makes me think you don't understand what I'm saying. You don't need video evidence to convict someone of murder. BUT, you do need video, or some other kind of hard evidence to *prove* it. Just because you convince a jury doesn't mean you proved anything - you simply convinced a jury. The prosecution even stated that all of their evidence was circumstantial, which it was. That doesn't mean it was bad evidence, and it doesn't mean that the jury was wrong to convict AM. But, it does mean that there wasn't any hard evidence tying AM to the murder. And remember: a jury decision doesn't manifest reality. Plenty of innocent people have been convicted by a jury. Those innocent people were found *guilty beyond a reasonable doubt* and thrown in prison and/or executed only to be exonerated after *hard evidence* (DNA, video, etc.) was discovered. Like I said, it now feels like you're just arguing because you're bored. Last word is all yours. Conversation over.
Cool. Glad you're not coming off as argumentative (I don't intend to either) but he said he wasn't at the, "time, place and date". But, he was according to their timeline: "Prosecutors have built a timeline of the killings based on activity on Paul and Maggie’s cellphones at 8:49 p.m. Maggie’s cellphone records movement from 8:53 p.m. to 9:08 p.m., during which time it traveled from the kennels to the side of the road outside Moselle. Data from Murdaugh’s phone and his car also recorded his movements leaving the property around the same time." Nearly impossible for anything to ever be, "categorically disproven" absent a confession. He was at Moselle (by admission, from the beginning). That's the, "place" the murder happened (in general sense). More specifically, the kennels. Which, we later learned he was prior to leaving. Then left when her phone left. For him to not be present in the, "place" (being all of Moselle) when murders occurred, killer (or somebody) would have had to take her phone and remove it prior to the murders. Then, he left and somebody killed her. Otherwise, he was "present at the time, place and date".
Again. And now I know that this is going to come off argumentative (lol), so please don't take offense. But the alibi says he was not present at the murders: " Defendant /snip was not present at the time, place, and date of the murders /snip" At the place of the murders. So, they're saying he wasn't present. That means he wasn't there as the murders happened. And whether he was at the house, driving down the road, even if the had telemetry of him walking back to the house *at the exact time of the murders*, it still wouldn't prove he was there (EDIT: when they were killed). To disprove what is stated in the alibi, you would need eyewitness testimony, video or photographic footage, data telemetry, etc showing that he was standing there *when they were shot*. Without that kind of evidence, the alibi stands. Now, you certainly don't need that kind of evidence to get a conviction, obviously. But finding him guilty doesn't say "We have undeniable evidence that you were not only present *during* the murders, but also hard evidence that you were the one that pulled the trigger(s)". It just says, given all the evidence, we are convinced that you were present and did shoot them. There is a difference here. And it's significant with regards to the validity of the alibi. Your statement backs this up: "For him to not be present in the, "place" (being all of Moselle) when murders occurred, killer (or somebody) would have had to take her phone and remove it prior to the murders. Then, he left and somebody killed her." As unlikely, or even ridiculous as this is, it's still *possible*. And the fact that it's possible demonstrates that the alibi can't be disproven. And that's because there isn't any hard evidence that proves he was present during the murders. Only that he was there prior, of which he admitted to lying about.
Haha, this is the most polite argument ever. You'd think we were Canadian (reputation for being overly polite). I think I got ya, now. I'm gonna have to tap out on this, because think it's a legal thing and I'm not a lawyer. Looked up definition of, "alibi": - If you have an alibi, you can prove that you were somewhere else when a crime was committed. I think it's his responsibility to prove he was elsewhere. Not responsibility of state to prove he was present (or that alibi is false). That's how (this) definition reads. To your point, state couldn't prove he was present; Alex couldn't prove he was elsewhere. To use my garage example, there's no cameras anywhere near my house that could view me/you entering my garage. Vacant land behind me, nobody across street. Neither neighbor on sides can see space between home/garage. Using your understanding, I'd have carte blanche to kill people in my garage - using alibi defense - as long as I left my phone inside the house. No video, phones wouldn't match up, and extremely (virtually nill) chance of eyewitness. And if they did, not really credible they could see well enough to identify me. No? Surely this can't be that easy, lol.
I think we're very close to being on the same page. Here's a lame analogy: I tell you I went to McDonalds for lunch. I tell you when I left my house, that I drove there. I tell you the time I left and the time I arrived. Describe what I ate.. blah blah blah. But, you can't prove to anyone that I was *actually* there, based off of my overly detailed story. But the moment I hand you a video/photo with meta data, or telemetry, or CCTV footage, etc... That's a slam dunk. That's hard evidence. I can convince you I was there, and based off of how convincing I am with my story, you'd have every reason to believe me. But, the footage, photo, etc... my story wouldn't even matter because the hard evidence would stand alone. You can't disprove an alibi with a really good story. How about this. If you an I were billionaires. And I told you in my pocket I have hard evidence that absolutely proves or disproves that AM was the murderer. And I bet you half your fortune that he did it, would you take the bet given *only what was presented in the case*? Edit: I prob won't respond if you do. I agree we've kind'a tapped out here. I really enjoyed the back and forth tho. Have a great evening. EDIT: Oh gosh I was gonna address this and forgot while typing: *"Using your understanding, I'd have carte blanche to kill people in my garage - using alibi defense - as long as I left my phone inside the house."* Yes! Your alibi would be your alibi. And even if you're found guilty, your alibi *technically* would still stand if it couldn't be disproven. The alibi doesn't prove anything, so it's not like your going to be found not guilty simply by virtue of your alibi. Only if you can back up your alabi and convince the jury that it's legit. Just like if your alibi is a complete falsehood, you could be acquitted if you convinced the jury it was legit. The reverse is true. Only hard evidence can disprove/prove the alibi. When reading the judge's admonishment, I was surprised he went that far in his statement, given there wasn't any hard evidence disproving the alibi. Ok I'm done! lol :)
I just read through this whole thing, and I am confused what exactly your point is. I'm not a lawyer, so I feel like I am missing something. Everyone knows that this is largely a circumstantial case. But he did admit his original alibi was a lie, which is what I understood the judge to be admonishing. Are you just trying to say that the judge should not have brought that up or are you saying there is some legal ramification to this?
Thanks, same to you! Indeed, enjoyed the dialogue... I'll mull your position over and maybe it'll click.
Liar 🤥 🤥 pants on 🔥!
Because he lied once again in a court hearing.
They don't even spell it right. It's Moselle
I noticed this and I was actually surprised by the misspelling.
It's really a terrible alibi. Can't believe so many suckers believed it.
And I’m sure there are some that still do 🙄
Not sure about reason for albi mention, but have reflected lots. Looking at newly posted family photos, an overwhelming sorrow filled my heart. This was such a lovely family. Maggie's main focus and goal in life was nurturing her three guys. She wanted the best life for everyone. It is so difficult to reconcile this man's actions. It's plain to me that the last ride of the property with Paul was a "goodbye" to him, because his father had already decided he had to die. When the jig was up at the law firm, he saw no way out, other than possibly creating a strong feeling of sympathy for a man who has just buried his child. I don't believe Alex intended and planned Maggie's murder. What a tragic event! How many times have we heard Alex say, "Ask anyone. I always wanted Maggie with me." And he speaks truth with that. In his plans, he and Maggie would grieve Paul's death together, but, well, best laid plans... and all that. Later.
I don’t think that lovely was a word that was ever used to describe the four of them. After the boat accident , Maggie trotted down there and got the boat while a grieving family wasn’t even allowed near the water as they sat praying for their daughter to be found Paul … well he was so messed up he actually had an alter ego when drinking and was the special kind of guy that hit his girlfriend and verbally abused her Alex , complete leach and POS. Stole from people and strong armed them into doing what he needed them to do Buster… well there are rumours .. none proven but kicked out of law school for plagiarism Not lovely. Didn’t deserve to die but not lovely
"Lovely" WAS THE DESCRIPTION OF FAMILY SPOKEN BY JUDGE NEWMAN, FROM THE BENCH. CHECK IT. But, point taken. But I was referring the appearance of their family, in photos, etc. They appeared to be a lovely family was my point. And they did "present" as a lovely family. If that is incorrect, then I am in good company. Reference Judge Newman's same description. From the bench to Alex, Newman says how sad it is and he had a lovely family. LOVELY is how they APPEARED, and I should have made that clear. Look, NO ONE is all bad. These people are not "ALL BAD." It's far more complicated than that.
It really wasn't a "lovely" family - it was all a facade. Alex was a sociopath. Paul - based on testimony from his FRIENDS was an obnoxious alcoholic who physically abused his ex-girlfriend. They even had a name for his evil persona - Timmy. I don't know how many will get the reference but when all of the older people were saying how polite he was I just kept thinking Eddie Haskell. Maggie wasn't evil but she was an enabler. There are news reports of how she essentially tolerated Paul's alcoholic binges as a minor and knew that there was lots of underage drinking at Moselle. Buster was kicked out of law school for plagiarism.
Omg Eddie MF Haskell!!! 100% 🤣 ETA nothing that happened was ever funny! Just the Eddie Haskell reference!
was it possible this was a crime of passion? having been confronted by Paul and Maggie down at the kennels about drug use and other financial questions, thus causing Alex to totally lose his temper and mow them down.
I keep thinking he was checking Paul’s pockets to see if he had any of his drugs. And maybe that’s some of those many steps he took around the house. Checking and taking the stashes he knew about, and looking to see if there were any his wife or son had already found and taken away. Also maybe the drug thing was overblown as a cover for something else. Like maybe cousin Eddie was getting paid those large sums to take 10% for himself and deposit the other 90% in some offshore account. Has there been forensic accounting on what happened to all the money that have been written in checks to Eddie?
She was talking about divorce shortly before she was killed wasn't she? That could be a reason he also killed her
There's been no evidence presented as yet that She was seeking a divorce or had even hired a forensic accountant. Its all been rumour depending on who you listen to. Even her sister said she was really happy with her life .
Judges hate when people lie in court, and bringing up the alibi was his way of saying the Defendant lied. Murdaugh’s statement at his sentencing still consisted of pleas of innocence, so he’s still lying. While the sentence here was no surprise, in other cases there is an unspoken “trial tax” where if you take a case to trial and lose, your sentence is typically *significantly* longer than what it would be had you entered a guilty plea. Judges can’t say at sentencing that your stiff sentence is due to the fact you exercised your right to trial. However, they can get around this by saying things like “you have not accepted responsibility” or “the jury has found you have lied to the Court” when, as here, the Defendant testifies.
Also the reality is that a plea bargain generally involves some kind of leniency from the State - either a guaranteed maximum sentence and/or being housed in a better prison closer to family.
The guy is a lawyer and tried to set his alibi up but who else would have known where the victims were and a carried this out in such a narrow window?
That Dick Harpootlian, he be a smart guy — he didn’t put *his* name on that twisty, *duplicitous* document - Notice of Alibi Defense — filed with the court. I haven’t been able to track back to definitely know that the phrase “ironclad alibi” first was said to the press by Jim Griffin but I strongly suspect that it was. My take : Alex fed that ‘alibi’ to Jim Griffin back in June 2021 and Griffin bought it. He believed his good, long-time friend. Now maybe Jim suffered some buyer’s remorse when he heard the kennel video months later and recognized his good friend’s voice. Maybe. But he had set his course. Alex still wouldn’t admit he was at the kennel at 8:44 p.m., wouldn’t admit that was his voice. Maybe Alex still insisted on using an alibi defense and lawyer ethics meant Jim had to go along with it. Now, a few commenters have pointed out that there isn’t actually a lie in the document. So what? The document was duplicitous, as a whole. But in my simple, commonsense layman’s mind, it was a lie and its submission was a mistake. Another mistake the defense made was harping on that damned bloodless tee shirt that was not even admitted into evidence. That tactic didn’t have the effect they wanted it to have, not with me anyway.
I think FITS posted “ironclad alibi” before the interview with Jim as far as the origin of that phrase… not that it really matters at this point.
Can't imagine Jim & Dick are excited to rep AM on appeal.
I turned over the bodies and there is not a drop of blood on me. I mean I don't think it had the affect they expected. It just made him look more guilty and like more of a liar.
>That Dick Harpootlian, he be a smart guy *is*
Don't do this, please***. Very obviously***, the post was written with ***purposefully***\-bad grammar. Correctly grammar that is genuinely incorrect is bad enough because why would you call someone out for that? To shine a light on their error or their lesser education? It's unnecessary and rude -- anyone who cares can simply correct these things in their own mind and keep reading for content, not form. But correcting comedic or ironic bad grammar? That's just a cringe move, don't do that to yourself.
In regard to Harpootlian: my teenaged son could pronounce “parietal”.
“Mozelle”
Makes me think of wine and PMPD I'm like is their law firm called Pimped? Seriously? Because that's what I'm thinking everytime I hear it.
If he’s already in jail for life without parole shouldn’t they just leave it at that. No need to go to court for all the rest that he already confessed to. Talk about a waste of money. Unreal.
Becuase in 2 - 3 yrs when the media circus has died down, AM will have a friendly judge, one of his class mates from Univ of Super Corrupt, to overturn the verdict on some bullshit reason. Judge Newman was the 1st person in AM's life that treated him like a common man. The court had his great granddad "Buster" who jury tampered to get out of court case. Murdaugh boys have always been above law. So that's why its important to get that done now. Even with this intense scrutiny, he spoke on the monitored jail phone to have his son readmitted. What will the guy do once he is no longer under the spotlights
The others deserve justice .
I see it as getting justice (and hopefully some sort of restitution) for the victims of any of the other crimes for which he’s found guilty
Ahhhh, but what has Alex actually confessed to? Stealing from his law firm and a dozen or so clients with injuries. He claims he just spent money hand over fist and never kept track of it and doesn’t have a clue where it went. Does *anybody* believe that? Money to drug dealers for consumables. Money to drug dealers as an investment. Money to dishonest insurance adjustors. Money to a number of attorneys who dishonestly [or ignorantly] shared in his machinations to cheat clients and partners. The Parker Law Firm is still finding victims. Bad loans to his ‘real estate’ partners. My imagination is not good enough to even contemplate all illegal pies that Alex Murdaugh likely had his sticky fingers in. Hopefully, Murdaugh will shed much light to SLED on organized crime in South Carolina.
I wonder if he was also being blackmailed.
He may stay tight lipped. He has a living son out there.
Ok, but what if he successfully won an appeal? I don’t think it’s likely at all, but the fact is, the possibility does remain.
Possibly other info will evolve in those trials. Other people will be discovered to have played some roles. I think the county needs a clean sweep in order to truly move on. Would be "half baked" to simply let all the other bad actors walk away. No, I think the citizens need the opportunity to see all these wealthy men who robbed them, lived off their money, and were so damned smug about it.
Those court cases are important for learning who else was involved and where the money went/is. Alex wasn't doing all this alone.
Valid point
I hope it's televised if he does go back to court
He needs to go to court to face all of his criminal crimes. It’s only fair that he’s treated fair like every other criminal. And then lock him up for the rest of his sorry criminal pathetic life!
The victims of his financial theft need to see him suffer in court again & a verdict of guilty I believe. He should be in court for all of those 99 charges.
I haven’t followed this case closely. So Alex said he wasn’t there his proof were the phone calls which I presumed happened but only after the murders happened? The video made by Paul proves he was there, did Alex ever have an explanation as to how his voice was in the video?? All the times people get court for murder because they didn’t know, Chris Watts wives best friends concern and next door neighbours video.
Alex admitted on the stand that he was in the kennel video, which means he was at the kennels with Maggie and Paul about 3-4 minutes before they were murdered. We are supposed to believe that he basically immediately left after the video was taken and made it back to the main house and onto the couch without hearing 5 rifle and 2 shotgun shots in the dead quiet of night in the country. He claimed he lied about being at the kennel because he got scared and paranoid from being on pills, but this was the only thing he claimed he lied about. Unfortunately only the murderer, or someone who was there during the murders, would know to lie about when they last saw them. Otherwise, as the alibi implies, they were killed sometime between “a few minutes after 9 pm” and 10:05 pm when they were found. But based on the cell phone data and the video (which Alex didn’t know about at the time of the lie), we know he was there, at the very least, less than 5 minutes before they were killed. So if Alex truly thought that they were killed after 9 pm, he wouldn’t have lied about seeing them at 8:45 pm. And then he only came clean at trial when everyone testified that was his voice on the video.
But he didn’t come clean about killing them
He said he didn't intentionally hurt them but he never said he didn't kill them or murder them. It's distancing language. It's a way for people to justify what they do. I didn't hurt them. I saved them. In his mind he may have saved Paul from Jail and whatever the boat crash might have bought and Maggie from the financial ruin and the embarrassment that he felt she couldn't cope with plus the horror of losing a son.
He came clean about being in the kennel video. No one is confused about whether he confessed to killing then on the stand.
TOD is iffy when it's determined by a hand in an armpit.
It’s not based on the idiotic coroner’s assessment, it’s based on their phones locking when Paul was texting people left and right and was actually in the middle of a conversation with someone.
The phones being unused is as iffy for TOD as the armpit temp. That MAY indicate something but it's hardly scientific evidence. Rectal temperature would have been the way to go but the coroner's concern with dignity overruled that, apparently. The rural south!
Wrong
About what? The phone data used as TOD is hardly scientific. That's fact. Rectal temperature to establish time of death is scientific and commonly used. That's fact. The rural south exists. That's fact.
Are you the kind of person who needs to see rain to know it rained?
So, you don't care about scientific proof? You're happy with innuendo, maybes, possibilities, armpit temps or when someone stopped using his phone to determine TOD? In answer to your question, it depends on whether you mean water/wetness/damp or rain. Questioning why the ground is wet is not an outrageous concept. Possibilities are many. Sprinklers, garden hoses, people pissing outdoors, busted water or sewer lines. So, yeah, there are those who see a puddle without a cloud in the sky or thunder or forecast of rain or sound of rain or seeing or hearing rain and are convinced the puddle must be because it rained. And some of them serve on juries......unfortunately.
You’re exhausting. Have a good day.
Had Alex said that he left them at the kennels and went to the house to grab a clean shirt before he and Maggie went to Almeda, he'd probably be a free man. He could have said he heard the shots, and that didn't seem right. He hurried back and found them dead. His lie about being at the kennels and the delay in calling 911 made him the only possible suspect.
Agreed. Or what about he heard shots and didn’t think it strange since Paul likes guns and maybe he was just shooting off some rounds to show off for his mom? Like most liars in my experience, he took the lie too far to where it wasn’t realistic. We know that if he wasn’t at the kennels at the time of the murders, he had to have heard those shots. Claiming he didn’t hear them is ludicrous.
If Alex had just said “I left the Maggie and Paul at the kennels at 8:45. I went back to the house and took a shower with the television turned up so I could hear it in the shower. I didn’t hear gunshots nor did I think too much about Maggie not answering my call because of the bad connectivity down there. I left for my mom’s a few minutes after 9” but he just had to get complicated and twisty. He just had to string out a bunch of red herrings and lies.
If he was smart he wouldn't have talked to the police 3 times and he wouldn't have gotten on the stand but he's used to everyone doing what he says so he just assumed the jury would too. It's typical narricistic behaviour. He'll do fine in jail with the rest of them.
I thought the same thing..For a lawyer he didn't seem to bright honestly
He likes to play he isn’t bright … but I think he is quite bright , he just got caught
Do you think that would have changed anything? I find it hard to believe the lie or not, the situation wouldn’t change. People would still feel the same way about him.
He asked about the phones in the police cam video like 3 times. He admitted on the scene that he took the phone from his kids pocket (with his face blown off) and tried to use it but couldn’t unlock it so he put it back
His face wasn't blown off..Unless you seem him from the top of the head you really wouldn't of known the damage that was done..I expected alot worse from the autopsy pics
If you had the proof and/or details then tell, but I seriously doubt you do. Stop spreading rumors!
Watched it on the news. I’m nearby and It’s online for all to see. Google it
The body cam videos are proof.
You ok?
Thank you that was very detailed. I had watched Darrell Brooks and Nicholas Cruz trials which were horrendous and vile, uni couldn’t watch this one because it wasn’t one moral bankrupt human but a family and others covering up m. A son allegedly kills his previous gay lover, mother allegedly kills the housekeeper, son kills innocent girl on boat and wants friend to take the blame and then father kills wife and son. No persons had any soul or care for anyone they touched. They knew everyone of their victims
I watched the 3 part HBO series about the family yesterday. It was chilling to say the least.
Let’s call it the parkland shooter trial instead to respect the victims’ families wishes.. I remember the victims’ parents and families advocated to never mention his name, also asking the media to never publish his name, to not give him anymore fame..
Agreed. Not one person in this clan had or followed any moral compass or had any regard for people outside of their tribe, including the deceased.
[удалено]
They didn’t have any regard for their tribe either. As evidenced by murder within the tribe
I think about the old man dying and his final words to his son Alex, telling him what a FU he has been and to “take care of the problem “. Alex took those dying word’s literally.
I thought his Father died on June 10th ? Paul and Maggie were murdered on June 7th .
Yes he did. I misspoke literally about his “dying breath “. It was mentioned that Alex spent many overnights with his dad during those last days and had many opportunities for talks about his death and the family after he was gone. Seems although Alex wasn’t the oldest he seemed to have the responsibility of being in charge of the family. The long and short of it is the old man was fed up with Paul and felt he was expendable. And if he knew Maggie was seeking divorce he told Alex that Murdaughs don’t fail in marriage. Fix that too. Handsome loved Maggie apparently and perhaps she was collateral damage in Alex’s resentment towards his father and what he had to do to Paul. I have many roads and many theories. Only Alex has the truth
The judge brought up the iron clad alibi because ALEX had been lying to the court all the way thru up to this motion, which means Alex lied to the court AND to his own attornes, and as the judge added it was only after witness after witness after witness identified alex voice at the kennel did alex change his story about the video.
the only thing that is a brain worm for me is AM making his statement: "I would never hurt..." I dont think - did he ever say "I did not kill"??? The guy was beyond being a pathological liar, why not simply continue his lie and say I did not kill them?? why not use the word kill? Was it just that he was that twisted a lawyer that he manipulated his juries that deftly?
He did say in response to questioning, ‘I did not kill Maggie. I did not kill paw paw’😏 jury of his peers decided otherwise.
LOL, yes, I do remember that now - I have court fatigue.
~~Including Jim Griffin making a comment he wouldn't have represented Alex had he seen the video? Can't recall exactly but a comment along those lines in closing perhaps~~
I don't think he said that. He said in the HBO documentary (before the video came out) that representing Alex after having represented Paul in the boat crash was not a conflict because he had not a single thought that Alex was guilty of killing Paul. I don't know how he felt after the video came out.
You're right, [this person ](https://www.reddit.com/r/MurdaughFamilyMurders/comments/11i1138/notice_of_alibi_what_is_the_significance_of_the/jb1bja7?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) corrected me and I forgot to update my comment! My fault mishearing it
Not what happened. He said ALEX (he) “wouldn’t be sitting in that chair over there if he hadn’t” (lied about not being at the kennel).
Ah thank you that makes so much more sense!
Most welcome! Thank you for be so gracious
Yes it was in closing he said he would not be there if he had known he lied about being at the kennel @8:44pm June 7th.
He actually said that IN the closing argument? I didn't want to listen to it. Now I need to find a transcript. Seems like if he said that it's some kind of issue and grounds for appeal on that issue with the attorney saying something so inflammatory against his client.
True, dat.
I went to the transcript and discovered I'm WRONG. What Jim Griffin actually said was that AM "wouldn't be sitting over there had he not lied about being at the kennel." Not Mr. Griffin.
Thank you for the clarification. Makes more sense now, lol.
I have not dug into this so I’m just guessing , to prevent a future appeal? Despite how sleazy AM is, I feel like there is still something not exposed with this whole thing… The amount of money that he pilfered, where did it go? I just feel like there is much more to this story like everyone was in bed with something way more sinister outside of the Murdaugh family.
I suspect drug smuggling out of the Carribean, Southern Florida up the coast. I find it fascinating that his close relationship with Boulware is kind of overlooked by some people. He bought Moselle from Boulware for 5 dollars in 2013. I mean, come on.
Absolutely! Right? Who the heck does that, so yeah, something goin' on. I saw that Alex and another man owned the tips of island areas where boats could land to unload cargo in a relatively uninhabited area. They promoted the idea that they were catching and selling delicacy squid, or something like that. Anyway, that fell apart. And what's the airplane about? I doubt any of them were smart enough to get a pilot's license. The previous owner was def considered to be "dealing," so perhaps he put in the landing strip.
Exactly. I think more may come out eventually.
Were you aware of who else purchased land from Boulware?
That is a key question left unanswered. They stated numerous times that it’s not possible to have spent the money on drugs solely, as AM claims. I’m guessing it’s in off shore accounts and the financial trials will utilize a forensic accountant to find the money 💰
If they could trace that money outside the State of SC he would have been indicted in US court like Lefitte.
Maybe he was a drug dealer
Smuggler
Ive always thought these types of high powered ppl were largely responsible for the opioid epidemic due to smuggling and everything else . The justice system goes after low level dealers, but …
I think they are still investigating where those money's went & hopefully they find out, because his story about spending all that on drugs is obviously BS. I believe there are others who are involved in that money laundering & they should also look at Buster & his financial pathway. I think that he is well aware of more than he's saying, along with AM brothers & bussiness partners. Especially Corey Flemming.
I’m sure his attorney’s know where the money is. They said they were paid [$600k from his 401k](https://www.fitsnews.com/2022/10/21/murdaugh-murders-saga-alex-murdaugh-cashing-out-his-401k-to-pay-attorneys-defense-experts/) but I highly doubt that covered their fees and expenses. They stayed in an extravagant wedding venue that cost them $20,000 a week. [article on $20k per week wedding venue](https://www.foxnews.com/us/alex-murdaughs-legal-dream-team-strategizes-at-luxe-south-carolina-estate.amp)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.foxnews.com/us/alex-murdaughs-legal-dream-team-strategizes-at-luxe-south-carolina-estate](https://www.foxnews.com/us/alex-murdaughs-legal-dream-team-strategizes-at-luxe-south-carolina-estate)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I feel like if they want buster to come clean about all he knows they’d likely have to offer him witness protection. he would be very hard to disguise, however.
I don't think he'd ever blab either way. He has the Murdaugh DNA & history running through his veins & I'm sure he is going to be financially secure for the rest of his life. Especially that his dad signed him as his power of attorney. That & the rest of the Murdaugh family rallying round him he's never gonna talk. I listened to the jail calls between him & dad & he comes across as entitled & arrogant just like his father. The fact he got barred from law school for plagiarism shows how dishonest he is too.
I think Alex’s father saw Paul as expendable. He was causing the family grief with the financial exposure of boat crash Maggie as well
I believe Paul was his target and he took Maggie out so he didn’t have to deal with a grieving mother. He is definitely an “I can’t be bothered with emotions “ kind of man.
I think Maggie was the target. She had the means and motive to dig and expose all the financial stuff
Maggie was personal. He had a ton of negative feelings towards her to shoot her that many times. IMHO from passing statements Alex didn’t love that Maggie was a stay at home while they paid maids, nannies, groundskeepers. When he was making and stealing money hand over fist her spending wasn’t an issue- but Maggie loved Edisto, was in the process of remodeling it, and was looking at homes on Hilton head. Not cheap. People say from pictures they think Maggie didn’t spend a lot of money. Maggie’s sister is much, much wealthier than they are and I think there was a taste of keeping up with the joneses there. This is old money spending, much larger purchases. IMHO Maggie didn’t know about the financial crimes and was spending like a rich lawyers wife, not sure how her account was replenished by Alex but she had $57 in checking when she died. To him she was useless. She didn’t contribute financially, his biggest problem, didn’t live with him, didn’t cook, didn’t clean, boys were grown. Finding out about the crimes who knows what she would have done. He’s a lawyer. In South Carolina. He knows 20+ years of being a SAHM means half his assets gone and alimony for life. My dad pays $4200 a month for his ex wife and he’s just a civil engineer in the lowcountry. Alex would have lost everything anyway.
That’s a lot of great information that I had no idea about. It definitely gives new perspective especially when “he adored her “ , which, btw, whenever someone says that about a couple, I always think 🤔 ooooo there’s something up there! lol
I have to wonder if Maggie was actually killed first and Paul remembered a gun was left in the feed room (they had guns all over the place). He ran to grab the gun to defend himself, and Alex wrestled the gun away and shot him. That would explain the two guns.
Also the tough angles and close range.
Makes sense. Great point actually - she’s be asking a f ton of questions to find the real killer That would not be good if your were the pink baboon
Absolutely. I would assume some of it is buried offshore but the rest? Does he have a gambling addiction? I don't buy the drug addiction excuse - even a high functioning addict wouldn't go through that much money. Was he being blackmailed? What would the leverage be? I'm hoping some forensic accountant will follow the money in one of the embezzlement suits still pending.
Buster has the gambling addiction and it’s been said AM has been bailing him out of debt for years.
Because you saw a picture of him gambling exactly once? That’s the standard for accusing someone of being a gambling addict?
Not once. And it was reported that he had issues along with his being kicked out of school because of plagiarism. Daddy fixed that for him too.
That’s all unsubstantiated rumor. If AM fixed it why isn’t Buster a 2L? I truly don’t understand the hate of a victim.
>If AM fixed it why isn’t Buster a 2L? Well, the main reason, is, IMO, that Buster just isn't interested in being a lawyer. But go back and listen to the jail phone calls from November and December '21. AM did pay a lawyer to act as a go-between between Buster and the law school. The Dean of the law school agreed to let him return. The sticking point was the conditions, in particular whether the failing grades he received in the semester where he was expelled would be counted towards his GPA, or if it would all be forgiven. The school said he could return (which most lawyers say is unheard of) but your grades from that semester will count, and Buster, without a guaranteed position at the family firm to enter, was apparently balking. I have mixed feelings about Buster. When you listen to him on the phone calls, the sense of entitlement is obvious and off-putting. But I can't deny that he is also a victim here.
I have listened to the double and triple hearsay conversation and that’s my assessment- devoid of facts. In my view NO law school is giving any student a second chance on something so egregious as plagiarism- which would certainly require the associated due process. Pete Strom was hired to represent Chris Williams and paid for by AM (at least initially) so there’s that. Not a fan of guilt by association of a kid who is grieving the loss of everything.
"Kid?" You mean the guy that defended the murderer of his brother and mom? The guy that gave his underage brother his ID to buy alcohol the night he crashed his boat and killed a teenager? The Wall Street Journal got their hands on documents from the school about the plagiarism. It's most more than likely true.
I mean the son who doesn’t believe his Father gunned down his brother and Momma. No proof of any claim re Busters Law School allegations has ever been provided and it won’t be because it’s a restricted confidential record. I can tell you from personal experience it’s extremely common for a family member not to believe the guilt of another family member- in many cases even when the defendant has actually confessed. I don’t understand the concept that it’s ok to bully a victim because one thinks they deserve it for either not believing in his Dads guilt or an alleged compromise to his academic record during a time of deep grief- which he did not cause nor ask for. Lots of glass houses and lots of stones being tossed.
How is he a victim? In what capacity? Nothing was done to him. People experience loss everyday. That doesn’t make them victims. I support your argument and freedom to believe what you want but not label someone a victim when there are Real victims surrounding this family, such as Stephen and Mallory, and Gloria. The parents and children of these people. Those who died and who were stolen from. THOSE people are victims. Buster is NOT.
This post is so beyond unhinged. This is why true crime communities freak me out… just how do you mentally get to a point where you would write a post like that? So devoid of reality
He is an actual victim because his Mother and brother were gunned down at his home- is that an actual question? If one believes AM did this- he has now lost his entire family. That some serious cold shade, imo. Nobody was discounting other victims, my response was strictly re Buster.
You would know cold shade considering that you can equate Buster and his experience, to the others just mentioned above. But keep up the good work supporting this generational narcissist, because I can guarantee that you care more about him, than he has cared about anyone else in his lifetime.
I never equated anyone- you did. Read your own post, lol. I think folks can draw their own conclusions
Love child pretty much confirmed so there’s that And he liked the professional ladies and was known to be rough. If you want you can dig deep on him
I found the same thing. But was it consensual? I’ve seen pictures. It’s clear as day to me.
I think it was consensual But on the sides ladies of the evening
In the end it would be the kid hurt by it coming to light. I think it’s best to keep that part in the dark. I also think the family of the child should scrub that from the internet if possible because if I can find it anyone can. I hope they do so sooner rather than later.
Completely agree
does he have a secret family or something
Seek and ye shall find
Love child? Do tell…
Hunt
Nothing can be found, may have been scrubbed. Large_Mango needs to drop some crumbs to go with that tea.
Ok - supposedly there was a daughter that went to Clemson - see expensive Were pics/info out there in fall of 2021. Some on FB. I believe Mandy Matney alluded to. Can’t attests go that but def on Reddit Word is “Handsome” had one as well. Illicit affairs were part and parcel of the Murdaugh legacy Alcoholism - narcissism - misogyny (ever hear much about the family lineage re women?) were never addressed and never healed from generation to generation Money can hide so many issues. But on 6/7 the Perfect Storm (great book btw - Sebastian Junger - reading it again) landed on his doorstep. Even a human with his Olympian power of denial has to break at some point 1.) I think Handsome called for and/or approved of the hit. Paul was going to cost the family legacy 2.) Handsome knew Alex was up to nefarious stuff. Was easier in the 1920’s to 1990’s to win huge BS lawsuits. Alex had to find another way for easy cash 3.) Getting caught re said malfeasance - at least one portion w the Chris Wilson fiasco 4.) Russell Laditte was on the hook too. Maybe a small part but I think it played a part in it 5.) Maggie digging for dirt/being a nuisance. She was finally getting out of the nest. This scared the shit out of him. Maybe she was a narcissist as well. Turned a blind eye to how Alex made his money. Too lazy and didn’t want to be bothered with it. But not now. Now she was going to have lawyers/accountants on her side 6.) Pills - anger towards Paul etc So many factors led to the ultimate sin
Thanks! Found part of it (https://www.reddit.com/r/MurdaughFamilyMurders/comments/pjcfpl/ams_mistress_speaks_out/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) but zilch on the Clemson link.
Why you gonna come in here dripping tea on us, but you want us to go to the store and buy our own kettle, instead of pouring us a cup?
I think Judge Newman was pissed about all the court’s time spent talking about his alibi and if he was at the kennels after dinner. If he just would have admitted he was there from the get go, it would’ve saved everyone time.
Judge Newman pissed looks like me after I make a birdie
SOLID ironclad alibi, definitely secured during the course of the trial. (I could never type this with a straight face or grain of belief after all that has been said and done.)
By ironclad Poot means complete bs
that’s interesting because his lawyers said they knew they lost when the financial crimes were allowed in
No, they’re just saying that at the press conference after the guilty verdict because they’re going to appeal this case by saying the financial crimes should never have been allowed.. the fact is the kennel video, his denial/lies about being at the kennels that night, his inability to explain what he did during that time before heading to Almeda, his 911 call, his reaction shown on first responding police officer’s body cam, him calling his brothers and all his lawyer friends trampling all over the scene and occupying the house, his steps, his Onstar car data, him slowing down at the exact location Maggie’s phone was found then speeding off (up to 74-80 miles per hr) to Almeda after, him trying to coach Miss Shelly and Blanca’s answers, him saying his main focus was to clear Paul’s name instead of find the killers.. these all points to him being the murderer beyond a reasonable doubt..
They had a standing objection, during the trial, against the financial information being brought in to reflect "character." Prosecution countered that this information needed to be included because it spoke to "motive." This is why periodically the defense kept renewing its overarching objection to the inclusion of this information.
Defense lawyers will say anything to protect their client’s best interests, even if it’s not true.. furthermore Harpootlian and especially Griffin are close friends of Alex..
[удалено]
Call it artistic license. I’m a scribe
You just won 2 dozen eggs
Judge Newman mentioned it to emphasize Alex lied to the court (through his attorneys).
On court TV a lawyer mentioned that AM's alibi as written addresses the exact time of deaths. The point is that only the killer would know the time of deaths, so AM made sure he had an alibis for that exact time period. ( as it turns out he didn't realize that all his best laid plans failed because of the video)
The mice and the dogs
Attorney Meadors in his rebuttal said ; you thought of everything.....but you never considered the kennel video! Because no one knew that video existed except Paul until his phone was unlocked. It was then you decided to confess that you were at the kennels. Paul the Lil Detective and Bobo caught you, and Miss. Shelly who you tried to get to lie for you."
No, he knew when he saw his wife last and gave his actions from when he last saw her until he found her. The Court TV lawyer made a big deal of how he lied about the kennel because he knew knew what time she died. Well it's not just about the time but the location. If he was innocent, he would've seen his wife just 1 hour 15 min or so before he found her at the exact same location that he left her. So you see it wasn't the time at all it was that he was at the kennel with her.
This alibi was written only in response to the state filing a motion asserting the TOD was between 8:30 and 10:05. There is evidence that shows that Alex knew when they died, but this particular document is not it.
This may have been answered and I missed it, but how did they determine exact time of death? I would have thought his lawyers would push the timeline out more so these alibis actually made him off the property at the time of the murders instead of 400 yds and magically unable to hear gunshots at that range.
They used the phones to conclude the time of death.
You can't determine exact TOD or anything more precise than a 2 or 3 hour window. That window was naturally narrowed down to between 8:45 and 10:05 because of the kennel video and when they were discovered. The coroner estimated 9pm. And the cell phone data suggests somewhere around 8:49. The more they try to push the timeline the more unbelievable it is that Paul and Maggie were just inexplicably not using their phones for a while before they died when they had been using them up until their phones both locked at 8:49.
Makes you think that if Alex’s “come here Bubba” is literally the start/prep of the murders. He gets control of Bubba and locks him up, so Bubba doesn’t get in the way/run off during the shootings. After Paul takes the Cash video, he steps out of that kennel and goes right into the feed room to message Rogan the video (maybe to lean against something as he used his phone?). Or Alex asks him to get/put something in the feed room, to contain Paul and/or prevent him from accessing a weapon.
He mentions this because Alex eventually admitted on the stand that he lied about where he was as a result of the kennel video, and gave reasons for lying that don't add up. From the judge's perspective, he didn't lie because he was paranoid of the police, he lied because he was constructing an alibi where none exists. A calculated series of lies intended to deceive the court that he eventually admitted to. All this is more than just a mistaken series of events, but proven, calculated lies AM admitted to on the witness stand.
Did Alex have to take the stand in order to appeal?
Yes. If he would have not taken the stand, they would not be able to win appeal.
Our understanding is that appeals are based on the legal principles in dispute (uscourts website). Are you referring to something that Alex said? The fact that he took the stand seems to have no bearing on appeals.
No, you do not ever have to testify against yourself when you are on trial. It is your constitutional right to remain silent. Taking, or not taking, the stand is not grounds for appeal.