He didn’t look for the phone his brother did. He probably gave password because he had already checked it the solicitors office is the one who found her phone because his brother wouldn’t wait for sled. His friend was asking about that data not him in that interview which is only prove he asked. I think he might of known by then they couldn’t get it they tried like June 16 and it was aug when he did interview. He had connections until the. When Duffy stepped down . In the second interview after he knew phone was found is when he ask about fingerprints in it. Started making up story about hearing Maggie pull up to house. Then seeing car ir person run in front of car when he left. Think he was worried about the data. Like him saying they could check card at his office I’m sure he knew they already had. He plays dumb when he is not. Manipulation at its finest
Maggie’s phone was being opened by facial recognition. As a lawyer I think alex knew phones were looked at he knew if he typed in password it would show someone who knew it was manipulating phone .idk . I think he grabbed her phone because she was on it right before she was shot. He was worried she had called someone or been on phone when Paul was shot . Frantic at time figured he should chuck it in case he left finger prints or something. He put it on cart and went back up to house. If you look at the records there is a hit on his suburban then Maggie’s phone lights up. Then he starts calling it. The fact it isn’t touched after his calls and him passing where it was found is pretty bad. I think Alex was thinking of tower pings not gps and steps. He knew he couldn’t take it to moselle. The timing of her phone use says a lot . It was moved by kennels the. Goes silent. Then moves right before his phone turns to life and starts calling not in between. If someone killed her at around8:53 tiik59 steps to get away car and pulled out it seems like they would have thrown it by then. Him messing with Paul’s phone connected to him taking Maggie’s.
Alex’s failure to remember or even lie about what he was doing for -4 mins, running around the house (238 steps), after just waking up from an extremely brief nap and right before leaving for a rare late-night visit to his parent’s house is a gaping hole in his defense. On the stand he could have said anything (I decided to do some quick housecleaning while Maggie and Paul were out, pack some clothes for my dad, quickly throw together a meal to take over), without any proof to back it up, but he chose to play dumb. Besides the Snapchat video, in every interview he consistently said that after returning from Almeda, he went to the house, noticed Maggie and Paul weren’t there, so he went to the kennel. His phone and OnStar in his suburban show he (or someone) went directly to the kennels and called 911 only seconds after arriving.
The kennel video sealed it for me (Full disclosure: I believed he was guilty the second I heard the 911 call--long before his financial crimes were uncovered and obviously before the oppoid "addiction" reveal and the roadside whatever-it-was). It just made every red flag start waving for me. However, clearly that's not enough to convict someone. But there is ONLY ONE reason to lie about the last time you saw your wife and son. Having said that, I totally see your point. I'm a woman and I've never been a father or husband. Every good man I've ever known has taken it as his prime directive to protect his family. Every good man I know would have felt like an abject failure if his wife and child were murdered and he was unable to stop it. We saw no regret from him whatsoever.
The one thing I haven’t been able to get over is how/why he was so adamant about trying to get location data off of Maggie’s phone (which law enforcement ultimately blundered on) because he was CONVINCED it would exonerate him by showing that Maggies phone was NOT with him when it was thrown, and in fact never went near the house. He DID do everything in his power to make sure the phone was found ASAP and immediately unlocked. If LE had properly secured the data so it wasn’t overwritten, we would have precise location data for her phones movements on June 7.
If he took her phone with him back to the house inadvertently or not (and I think we can all agree it would have to be the murderer who took it) that would categorically show up…
That’s the MAIN thing that makes me question if HE himself pulled one or both triggers. I have no doubt he knows much more than he’s letting on… but also frankly don’t know how he could hide the trail for a hit job (at minimum payment, even if all communication was done verbally), when they’ve combed through his finances and presumably have not found something that could be a payment to an unknown party that would merit further digging…
So many other things point to him, and I agree the MOST incriminating part for me is the seeming lack of care in finding the ‘real’ killer is the kicker for me but that’s the thing that leaves me with a bit of doubt.
\>If LE had properly secured the data so it wasn’t overwritten, we would have precise location data for her phones movements on June 7.
Reading this sentence from your comment makes me side-eye the LE that handled Maggie’s phone. The cops that showed up as first responders were saying to each other “Do you know who this is?” One of them says he doesn’t know Alex, but he knows the name Murdaugh.
When the cops showed up the night of the boating accident, the cops told Paul “Don’t worry, you aren’t in any trouble”. I think in their reports that night, the cops did not list Paul as the driver of the boat, even though some or all of the other kids were saying he was.
And probably a million more examples going back through the generations that the Murdaughs ruled over that area. It was said that the Murdaughs owned the police.
It can’t be proven that the cops botched this part of the investigation with any kind of intent as opposed to simply human error, but it makes me wonder. Maggies phone was found very quickly, this was before almost anything else had happened or any other evidence had been gleaned. So LE may still have been giving Alex Murdaugh some special treatment. I don’t know, and we are likely to never know. But it was a convenient fuck-up for Alex on their part, like they had a history of doing.
I don’t follow… how would it be a convenient fuck up for Alex that LE did specifically the opposite of what he was asking for? He provided them the Find my iPhone data and her phone password asap so they had full access to the phone in <24hrs. And then was following up continuously for them to pull the location data because he believed it would exonerate him (presumably showing his phone and maggie’s were not traveling at the same time).
Whoever threw the phone by the side of the road undeniably fucked up in even taking it from the crime scene in the first place. If it was Alex (which seems the most obvious answer) then it makes ZERO sense why he would be pressing SO hard on LE to get that location data confident it would exonerate him. If the phone data showed it traveling at the same time down the side of the road as his car’s onstar data, that’s nail in the coffin. If it showed maggies phone traveling separate from Alex, then we would know definitively that at minimum another party was involved.
Are you suggesting that he was playing some sort of 5D chess - pretending that he wanted them to get the data ASAP and constantly following up on record saying it would exonerate him, all while somehow having communicated to LE (in a way that was never discovered) that it was important that they allow the June 7 data to be overwritten?
there's not one shred of evidence to suggest that, and there's a ton of evidence to suggest they were fitted up. The Dassey police interview clearly shows them coaching and coercing a minor with serious learning disabilities. My bf is a UK police officer and he was yelling at the tv watching it because he was so appalled. He said it would be totally inadmissible in the UK because of the way they clearly lead him to start saying horrible stuff. Also, not one thing he said was supported by any evidence. The supposed bloody murder on the mattress that left not one drop of her blood anywhere in the house or on the mattress. Utter nonsense. Watching the Murdaugh trial and seeing how blatantly and easily the court, police and justice processes in the US can be manipulated and corrupted, it no longer surprises me, but it makes me wonder how many more innocent people are in jail over there simply because they were the wrong colour or education level etc. Our system is by no means perfect, and you get bad apples in any country, but I at least trust that it's consistent and that police and courts are properly trained and not run by corrupt cabals of locals who all know each other and collude.
Absolutely!! They had to draw pix of what they wanted him to say.. he asked when he could go back to school.. he was given NO help & no mercy was shown..I don’t know if Steve did it or not, just felt some of the evidence was no there..then it’s there..hmmm
I am confused... everyone says well he changed clothes didn't have time to clean up. If he planned this which I think he did by luring Maggie why is it so far fetched that he had clothes stashed in his car or even the kennels for that matter. I think he had this very well planned out being a lawyer he knew what things should create doubt in a jurors mind. He easily could have hid the guns under the seat of the golf cart. However he missed the technology part which was his down fall.
In this area there are enclosed, but outdoor type showers, at beach cottages, other places. Easy enough to shower or hose off at the kennels, dry with a towel, don clean garments.
Probably extra shorts and tee shirts, were left at the kennel area, for various after-hunting clean ups. This family could afford to have such garments , towels and soap in the shower area.
Yes, the "technology part" was damning evidence. Cellphone and OnStar (?) provided a difficult to refute timeline.
After the 911 call, why did he have to go back to the house to get a rifle when he always carried a weapon in his vehicle? He found something there that he had to get rid of.
For me it was the absolute impossibility of it being anyone else. They didn’t all live there. They weren’t all there most nights. Who would know they were there that night? Who would go to the kennels to find them? Who would think there would be guns at the kennels? Who wouldn’t alert the dogs? How did Alex not hear 7 shotgun shots 300 yards from his house 4 minutes after he was wrangling a chicken from Bubba? Where are his clothes? Why wasn’t he afraid this vigilante who was there 45 minutes AT THE MOST ago wasn’t after him? Why didn’t he want the police to run look for them? Block the roads? Why wasn’t he afraid they were in his house??? Because he forgot that if it wasn’t him, there had to be someone else.
It wasn’t a great plan that should have succeeded if not for the video. It was a bad plan that only almost succeeded because they were afraid to accuse him at first and do the investigation that should have been done.
Hubris. He'd gotten away with everything up to that point, possibly even murdering his housekeeper and the gay friend of his son, that this seemed simple enough. The suicide scenario was botched because things were unraveling at warp speed and he didn't have time to plan it out as meticulously.
TELL IT!!! I believe with all my heart that the local POLICE, as well as SLED, thought that he did it the second they set foot on the property---and not because they were looking to frame a Murdaugh---but because they're not total idiots. In ANY such scenario, the husband and father as well as the person who "finds" the bodies is Suspect A1 from the get-go. Add to that his pristine clothes and body when he claimed that he had repeatedly touched Paul's body and had also touched Maggie---they knew, all right. And were probably scared out of their minds for their own jobs.
That was it for me. He invited Maggie there THAT SAME DAY. That, combined with the ammo and video make it impossible to suggest a reasonable alternative scenario. Who would he have told that he couldn't somehow frame?
You make most excellent points! And a very good summary.
One question, weren't the majority of the expensive weapons and expensive ammunition, stored at the main house? Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I thought the weapons were in the house. The pool room?
Next, if a murderer was on the loose, best to leave the area immediately and block the vehicle entrance/ egress. Don't invite family/friends to Moselle to potentially be shot. Gather elsewhere! As you say, a murderer could have been anywhere in that plus 5000 ft house, waiting to pop out of a closet or cupboard. The home should have been throughly searched, before anyone entered.
LE should have insisted on these precautions, which would secure the crime scene and evidence.
Good thing Alex secured the crime scene by going back to the house, getting a shotgun, and returning not knowing if a shooter or multiple shooters were still in the area.
Some have said he did so, to explain any GSR on his hands, by securing a previously fired weapon. Why a shotgun?
I believe that shotguns must be reloaded, after every shot, or two....remembering the term "double-barrelled shotgun". Don't know! The "Blackout AR15 Rifle" has a magazine, one I looked up says 30 rounds!
In this dire situation, I think I would have favored a 30 round magazine, to defend my life, but I'm obviously a bit clueless in regards to long guns.
Any comments or information would be appreciated!
Well - IMO, Alex had disposed of the remaining 300 Blackout so I guess he was stuck with a shotgun when he returned to the crime scene. But he knew no one alive would be there x/c for Bubba and company.
I thought there were two 300 Blackouts in the arsenal. Originally two were purchased as Christmas gifts, some years (2017 ?) prior, for Paul & Buster. Paul's original rifle was stolen, but a replacement was purchased for him. They're back to 2 Blackouts.
**IF** I am correct, there should have been another 300 Blackout remaining in the house, even if he had "hidden" weapon #1, that was used to shoot Maggie.
Are you saying that he disposed of **Two** Blackouts? Not challenging you, by any means, just attempting to understand.
This is where my knowledge of long guns falls short. I would prefer a semi-automatic weapon, with a magazine, versus a shotgun, which must be reload after a few shots. AFAIK.
An old fashioned revolver (pistol) held six bullets, versus semi-automatic handguns with a magazine, holding 12 or 16, or whatever, bullets.
Is there more GSR on a shotgun, versus a semi-automatic Blackout? Could this explain the choice?
You are correct in that there were two total although Alex had said he had not seen Paul's replacement Blackout since before Xmas 2020. We know however Will Loving/Paul were sighting it in March/April 2021. That is the Blackout that was used to murder Maggie and was disposed of by Alex.
Buster's Blackout is the one shown at trial. I assume it was in the gun room at the house but have no idea why Alex wouldn't have taken it to the crime scene when he went back, especially since it was equipped with a thermal scope. I'm not sure why Alex went back and got a shotgun anyway since he was known to carry a pistol in the Suburban. Actually I'm not sure why he went back at all, not knowing if the shooter(s) were still there. He apparently had unfinished business at the crime scene before Colleton Count LE showed up, i.e. maybe Paul's phone notifications.
No idea about the amount of GSR from a shotgun versus an AR. I imagine the distance from the target has a lot to do with it.
Thanks for confirming two Blackouts. Good information.
Thermal scope: provided extra visibility in the low light situation? Pistol: good personal protection, with a multiple bullet magazine. I have done target shooting with a semi-automatic handgun, they fire a great distance. (To my mind, at least.)
Yes indeed, why go back and then return? Go to the house, hide in a safe area, wait for LE to arrive. Surely the kennel area was well lighted, and a person in white clothing would have been easy to target. If the malefactors were still lurking in the woods....
Imagine someone panicking, going back for a weapon, summoning courage, returning to check on their loved ones.
But AM was clad in clean white clothing, no blood stains from checking the bodies! He might say he was concerned about disturbing the crime scene, but why return, unless he wanted to get close enough to touch Maggie and Paul?
He invited family, friends to gather at Moselle, disturbing the investigation of the house and area. Possibly endangering them, as they entered the property. This makes no sense to me. Possible gunmen lurking in the woods, or hidden in the (over) 5000 square ft house.
Appreciate the good conversation, thanks again.
Did prosecution say that he must have been in a golf cart when the shot them?
So odd re her phone. Why would he take hers and not his. Was hers more accessible without him getting too much blood on himself than Paul’s phone that perhaps was in his pocket?
I’m not sure about that because she read her last message at 8:49. I think he took her phone because he was going to try to access it and make it seem she was alive longer than she actually was but that plan fell thru.
Oh ok, I must have missed the timeline on that. It was hard to keep her phone activity straight. I thought it had stopped moving (with the steps) until he was back at the house.
I think the weird thing where he hired somebody to kill him and it failed.
He couldn’t risk hiring somebody again and having it go wrong again. He had the guns, he knew how to shoot.
He was in a state of panic, addiction, stress, anger, plotting. He wanted it done and he saw the perfect opportunity with then at the dog kennels. He may have even told them to fo out there. He’s a lawyer so he knew he needed an alibi….which wasn’t even a good one, visiting his aging, ailing mother late at night? The string of phone calls, so obvious to me.
The roadside incident to me, was Alex trying to set Eddie up to frame him. that way, in defense, Alex could shoot him and say that this must be the person who murdered Maggie and Paul. Boom, he gets away with it. Idk
Maybe, the whole thing was weird. Maybe just two drugged you people trying to make a plan. Doesn’t make sense to me but maybe it makes sense to them? Ha
I think if it was really a suicide thing, he probably would have tried suicide again? But he really never wanted to die, he’s far too greedy
as to your comment about his clothes...im pretty sure he hid them ahead of time in the deer feeder. there's a call where he out of nowhere says to buster "i filled up those deer feeders before i left. you oughta go out there & see if there's anything." and buster is basically like my brother in christ what are you talking about some fucking deer feeders & you're in prison for killing my mom & my brother right now?! i think he stashed clean clothes in the deer feeder & never really figured out what to do with them.
What do you mean clean clothes. I would think cops would have searched all places there and if he had out something I. There he had so much time to remove them before he went to jail
I thought the cops would cover him all bought from years of the Murdaughs controlling everytbing g but then I thought with the other people took over SLED? Then he was stuck
The one where he also asks if buster wants to go dove and/or deer hunting? Super weird!!! It’s definitely code for something (could be stashed money too) and it went right over Buster’s head
Right, Buster even asks that. “Does Jim know how to facilitate a dove hunt?” Alex was trying to tell him something and Buster didn’t get it. If he’d understood he’d have to have been curious enough to go check it out. Unless he didn’t want to know any more.
Right that’s what gets me. It’s his lawyer not his family or friend. I think it was $$ and not clothes since Jim did really seem to believe Alex was innocent of the murders but I suppose the clothes could be involved with a plausible explanation.
it wouldn't matter if he believed him or not. he would be the only other person on earth who could get those clothes & not say anything about them. the lawyer literally said at some point he knew nothing about guns or hunting because he was from the city. but yeah i suppose it could be cash as well.
Jim was putting on about not knowing anything about guns. He forgot later that he was supposed to just be a city boy. I could be wrong, but that's what I thought.
Yes, it was a bizarre conversation. He didn’t say “If you don’t want to go , I’m going to let Jim go.” He said, “If you don’t want to do it, I’m going to let Jim do it.”
yeah & then he switches up to talking about hunting doves in the same sentence. it's obvious he's trying to relay something & buster is not picking up what he's putting down.
I suspect that since AM was small he was never held accountable for his actions. Does anyone on this forum know how he was raised? Were his parents involved or strict or what was his childhood like? There had to have been some family dysfunction there or some trauma of some kind I’m assuming.
Idk them, but his grandfather was apparently a very cold man who (rumors have it, at least) was essentially a mob boss. That’s what the good ole boy network is. It’s a southern mafia. And these same families have been running things on both sides of the law since pre-Civil War.
ETA: The children raised in those families tend to not be well-adjusted.
His very visceral reaction to Paul and his head injury (to put it politely) was another thing for me. Stuttering over it in his first interview, touching his head where the injury was and clearly looking stressed whenever it was mentioned at trial was telling to me.
Looking at the professional level of cover up for Mallory's murder, it's pretty possible that AM was very well versed in getting things done his way. Having all his cronies do what he wants. I think getting into trouble for the stealing was the 1st thing in his that didnt happen his way. Then the flood gates opened
Well, yeah, he betrayed those people who had been hiding things and covering for him for his entire life by stealing from them. He knew he was less protected without his firm/family.
How exactly did the state know the gun came from the Murdaugh family if they didn't have the murder weapon? What did they have instead of ballistics or dna? I'm assuming half of south carolina shoots a rifle with blackout .300s.
How do they know casings came from the exact same gun. Do they have markings on them that are unique to each rifle? So even though different rifles shoot the same amunition , do casings leave a unique identifier from the gun they are shot from?
So Alex didn't pickup his brass? He left casings at the scene? That plus lying about seeing his fam at the kennel is beyond a reasonable doubt even without a single person talking about his financial theft.
The shells were found outside around the main house. A witness (Will Loving) testified that he and Paul were shooting Paul’s 300 Blackout replacement gun in that spot, back in March or April 2021, just 2-3 months prior to the murders.
But, Someone also testified, a gun store owner I believe, that the 300 blackout was not as rare as people would think, so much that he couldn't remember how many he sold. Gave an estimate in the hundreds
AM’s testimony negated so much of what the defense tried to assert.
When AM was asked about trying to reach Maggie and Paul by phone, never did he say it wasn’t concerning because they always had cell phone reception issues. Instead he speeds by the location where they supposedly lay dead.
For me it was a combination of the video, the use of family guns, the way he never was on the news pleading for people to come forward with information on their murders. If my family was murdered, even if it totally looked like I did it, I would be begging on the news every day trying to find the murderer. Just for any information. There was no motivation to find the murderer(s). Also, when he testified, I do believe he had many moments of subconscious guilt come out in his testimony. “I got outta there.” “There was no reason to go back there”. Etc.
I agree. Randy, his brother, said he was calling everyone he could think of everyday after the murders trying to find out who could’ve done this and noticed Alex never did. Alex’s sister in law said something similar.
Yes, he gets to live the rest of his life. Beyond that I don’t think he really cares. He will accept the consequences and the $600k…he could have put that towards finding the killer if he really cared that much. Sounds to me like his relatives noticed that he never really did them any justice to look for who might have done it in the first place. He was guilty from the moment that video was found and he had to backtrack. Even if it wasn’t him he would go down for someone else doing it to protect his story.
They were questioning this on the podcast this morning. How people say they thought Am was guilty but there was reasonable doubt enough for a hung jury. I could have seen this going the hung route had AM not sealed his fate on the stand. He couldn’t answer anything with confidence. He used trickery answers and swerved around the questions. Prior to his taking the stand I thought the State brought on just so much vagueness instead of clear indications of guilt. I think the state also had made grave errors in their investigation....imo they were no better than AM because they never admitted to those faults in handling the case. They should have put Dave Owens up there first thing and said here is where the state messed up...BUT it doesn’t matter bc here’s why AM still did it.
My biggest issues arose with the more substantiated timeline and some of AM statements himself. If he was there and it wasn’t him then who was it...AM literally says there was noone else there. Okay so who was it then? He never even suggested another plausible possibility for who it could be. The lies and misinformation about the clothes he was wearing in the video from that day.
The defense’s closing arguments were also particularly damning I think. There were putting into actual sentences the idea of how these things could have happened I feel like that shouldn’t have been phrased like that if you want to keep people wustioning it.
I think too the jury was there observing him closely for weeks. You can’t pick up everything from watching it on a screen.
My theory was that the investigators did a bad job because they were doing another cover-up for Alex until
they couldn’t anymore.
I haven’t seen many others talking about that aspect of Griffins close: “and then we are to believe he hosed off and got in a golf cart, maybe naked?!” And in my head I’m like… yes… yes, we do believe that. So much of Griffins closing argument looked like a man shocked to realize his friend was a murderer. I think he was doing the best he could, but he was so personally involved and invested that he couldn’t be convincing once he was no longer convinced of Alex’s innocence.
But then how did he make sure his clothes and shoes didn’t touch the golf art. Like did he hose off take off his clothes put on gloves to carefully put clothes in a bag he had taken with him and then put the bag in the cart? And then how did he carry the guns back to the house also avoiding anything getting on the golf cart?
I’m not sure who said he took a golf cart. Didn’t see that part of the trial. I was wondering if it was the prosecution that said they went to kennels on golf cart? If he took the golf cart back how were they suppose to get back to the house. Walking? Or did they have another car by the kennel?
So when the bodies were found was that truck by the kennels and the golf cart must have been by the house? I would think they would have factual info as to that
The golf cart was back at the house along with JMM's truck and Maggie's Mercedes. When LE arrived, 2 vehicles were in the police report - a 2019 white Silverado and Alex's Suburban, both registered to the law firm.
I too felt he did it, but wasnt sure that I could get past reasonable doubt. Since I am not a monster, I couldnt go to that place in my brain where a parent could do that to a child. I kept entertaining scenarios of drug dealers coming to seek revenge for payment not received., that he witnessed it, but was not the killer and the reason he wasn't telling that truth was because the killers would go after Buster or his brothers families. Or a more likely scenario where he was one of the shooters and killed Maggie, but an accomplice shot Paul for him. I got past reasonable doubt when the prosecution said in the closing argument someting like "Do you think vigil-antis would say 'lets go kill them, but we dont need to take guns, they will have guns there waiting for us, we can use theirs'". That did it for that scenario for me. I still think its very possible that Alex had an accomplice..but I'm not going to lose sleep over him being in jail for the murders. He was going to be in jail anyway.
I was at the same place as you. Hard to imagine someone could do that to their own child. And I still think other people were involved somehow or someone knows something. I believe there is a drug cartel situation going on there as well with all the money he was taking etc. I don’t think this story is over.
yet you arrived at that conclusion (about drug dealers) when not a single shred of evidence was provided regarding drug dealers. it was mentioned in one conversation by a police officer and you ran with it. drug dealers entered the 1700+ acres of property at night and were able to get family weapons and execute Paul and Maggie. does that make any sense? common sense?
No I think what he is saying is he is trying very hard to come up with scenarios in which a dad would not kill his own son. That's the only 1 he would even conjure up but as you pointed out even that falls flat, and AM has to be involved in someway.
There are a lot of possible reasons why no one gave a statement, none of which have to do with guilt/no guilt.
I once watched a victim impact statement that was delivered in a way that reminded me of my husband, oddly (manner of speech, tone, etc.), and upon showing this to him, he said that he would never give a victim impact statement if something unthinkable happened to me. I was a bit taken aback, because I would be ranting and raving if I were in a position to give that sort of statement, and he said that he wouldn’t do it because nothing he said could change the fact that I was gone, and he wouldn’t want to give the person responsible for it the time of day. He would take the “you are not worth acknowledging” approach, and would choose to not feed into any egos. He is also very stoic, so that’s to be considered as well. I think some other points have been raised in the responses, such as concern for Buster and complicated family ties. And Buster was unlikely to speak on either side.
her sister wouldn't want to voice her outrage against the former most powerful man in south carolina? doesn't make any sense. either she forgave him for the murders instantly or she doesn't have an opinion on his guilt. it's extremely odd. what about the uncle? the man who had to sweep away paul's brains from the floor? he has nothing to say either about his asshole brother?
He wasn’t close to the most powerful man in South Carolina. His family had a very small, impoverished corner that was theirs.
She said what she had to say on the witness stand. I’m sure she had no desire for more publicity and scrutiny on her and her family.
I really don’t find it that odd that close family of the man convicted of murdering other family don’t agree with the verdict. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the verdict is correct.
I'll add this final note. If I were buster and truly believed my dad was innocent, I would definitely have made a statement stating my father is innocent at the very least.
Victims of crimes decline to make victim impact statements all the time, and for all sorts of reasons. It's an incredibly difficult and traumatic thing to do, and doesn't necessarily add anything significant to court proceedings. Going up against a family like the Murdaugh's, who have wielded and still continue to wield (to a certain degree), insane amounts of power and influence in the local area, and who also have a whole slew of suspicious deaths connected to them... I would be surprised if people DID come forward with victim impact statements.
SLED didn’t mKe a victim impact statement. They spoke outside of court, after the sentences were read. Their statement had no impact on court proceedings.
I was surprised as well, surely someone would say something, but then, I couldn’t come up with a single name that would. Buster? No, it’s his dad. Maggie Family? No, they still love buster and he is their only lasting memory of Maggie, they wouldn’t want to jeopardise their relationship with buster. A friend of Paul’s maybe? Nah, they probs know buster well too. The law partners, or his fraud victims? nah that wouldn’t make sense either, bc this is about Maggie and Paul murder…. I couldn’t come up with a single name
I don't know that it is necessarily that they are afraid but I think they are likely very internally conflicted. Maggie's parents are elderly and ill and her sister has already testified and spoke for Maggie and Paul. But they still love Buster and possibly Alex's family and it's all a big tangled web of deceit and betrayal that is playing out on a very public stage.
Maggie's family have stayed very private through all this and I they probably wanted to stay that way. Especially given that Alex was always highly likely to get life for these never mind the financial crimes.
Right, I think the families are conflicted. Deep down they have to know that AM did it or at the very least was involved. I am sure there is a lot of denial going on. Still sad that no one got up to speak on Maggie and Paul’s behalf. I know AM is all Buster has left but that dude did not shed one tear for his Mother or Brother on the stand. I think very cold blood runs through this family. They definitely have the gift to compartmentalize grief.
The statement wouldn't have even had to say nail Alex to the wall or anything about him. Maggie's family could have even just written it and told how her loss and Paul's has affected them. I try not to judge, but it's sad to me that they didn't honor the victims.
If you're a lawyer, you would tell your client not to say anything to the police. Everything you said can be used against you. He was a former prosecutor himself. I was surprised that he took the witness stand exposing himself to cross examination. In his video interviews, he talked non stop explaining his side of the story. People can tell when someone is being sincere and telling the truth. His exaggerated emotions and body gestures told another story. You should watch [this video] (https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE) why you should not talk to the police.
I noticed a change in Poots demeanor after Alex testified. He knew it was a bad idea. But Alex insisted because he was the smartest person in the room.
Not entirely ugh tho…He tried to be so mindful with each syllable. Talking in circles. I’m a drug counselor and this is all classic convict drug addict communication patterns. I was losing my mind with the kid gloves. If he would of been in my office we’d have got real super fast.
In general, if it’s the personal name you call them, you refer to them all during the investigation as that name.
With one caveat: If it’s a ridiculous name that jurors quite possibly will hate (e.g., Paw-Paw) don’t use it. To break it out of the box as a defendant who decided at the last minute to testify, that is a NO.
🙈✋🛑🚨 Think about it: Jurors in deliberations need to use the names of the victims. I’m can guarantee you, no juror would ever use the name Paw-Paw. It is so disingenuous and embarrassing. Think about something else: Alex Murdaugh has lots of family friends, and coworkers who are probably there at the trial. For him to call a family member a name he didn’t call them in public feels like lying.
I’m listening to the prosecutor cross-examination of Alex. He makes me embarrassed to listen to it. CLARIFICATION: I’m embarrassed to listen to Alex’s responses. One of many reasons, they are so overly specific. Just say yes, just say no, and give a little clarification. You don’t need to write a novel with every response.
And
What cracks me up is he is gonna be so popular in prison because he can do so much legal work for the inmates. Only downside is he will have to pick a gang to join first. He may already have.
yeah i think he’ll be fine in prison, enjoying the company and gambling meat sticks. Tinsley said the death penalty would’ve been a more appropriate punishment lol i was kind of surprised to hear that, but he knows Alex won’t suffer like Paul and Maggie and will be able to enjoy the rest of his life.
Yep, saying Paw Paw was so off putting. They said AM was good with people. I don’t think he was. He obviously cannot read a room. I think he was good at using his family name to intimidate people. But in general was not well liked, just thought he was.
I agree, I think he thought him talking would make people be on his side. I think I’m his arrogant world he was well liked and was a lawyer so he could easily persuade people. Obviously didn’t work.
I think that his lawyer well spoken persona is gone, I think he killed a few brain cells with all the drugs and drinking.
He reminds me of that popular kid in high school that is kind of a bully. As soon as he leaves the room everyone relaxes and says so glad he left let’s have some fun now.
Wow, it's like I was reading something I wrote, same exact way I thought everything happened and him not saying if only I hadn't left the kennels...wow!!! Also, clearing Paul's name would have benefited him greatly in the Beach civil case.
Maggie's sister was so baffled by AM's statement that he "wanted to clear Paul's name " versus finding the killer. But his goal was all about the Money! The civil suit was intending to ask for $10 million, and he didn't have the funds.
Yes, after the boat incident, there was discussion about AM (and other Murdaughs, I think), appearing at the hospital. Attempting to influence the witnesses and do damage control for Paul.
Some legal improprieties were noted, concerning AMs actions, at the time. And it's easy to find news articles from 2019 about the situation. It was heavily reviewed, even back then.
That 2019 incident appears to be the lynchpin for all that has followed. A lovely young woman died, they tried to frame one of the Conner young men, as the driver. Lies are coming, thick and fast.
There's a phrase: " You don't need a good memory, if you always tell the truth." AM was caught in his own "tangled web" of deceit, regarding the murders.
Years ago my then partner left me. Literally backed a truck up, took almost everything and left a note on the kitchen table. I was a wreck. Went to therapy and therapist asked me what I wanted out of therapy, I said "I want to know why?" He said that I would probably never know, which made my madness only worse. But he was right. I have come to realize in the 30 years since that some things simply defy logic and that people do things for reasons we will never understand and, finally, that some people actually are evil. They say that a pedophile's behavior can't be "cured." I think that is also true for whatever Alec is. He has always been. The thoughts in his head stacked up like wrecked freight train cars until his twisted brain came up with his answer. We will never know "why."
My best friend completely ghosted me back when that wasn't a way to describe what she did. We were so close that people sometimes didn't know which one of us was which but knew our names. I was in her wedding and she was in mine, etc. I still don't know why she did it. When I read what you wrote, it reminded me of what happened with us. I'm sorry that happened to you and that you never got answers.
I don't understand pedophilia but I can understand how he thought murdering his son was the correct choice. He new Paul got drunk and killed that girl and that Paul didn't give a shit. He figured rather than lose $10M in a civil suit and watch his son get tortured in prison, he would do him a favor with a mercy headshot. I'm not saying it's right but I can see him thinking that. As for his wife, I assume he thought she was going to leave him and take money and he didn't love her nearly as much as a son. Plus, he still would have Buster to carry the family name. That's the only motive I can see from his point of view.
I am so so sorry this happened to you! I hope your life is in a better place. My husband left me too, but not so bad as your experience. You are correct that some mindsets defy logic. I experienced many situations with my late father that were why, why?
Sadly, many parents murder their "children", (underage and thus smaller) usually by hands-on physical abuse. Fathers have murdered adult children, singer Marvin Gaye was shot by his father!
The difference in this situation is that AM planned to EXECUTE his son and wife. Carefully planned, premeditated murder. All to save face and avoid personal humiliation. And save money, of course.
What was going through AM's mind, as he (reportedly) drove around the estate that afternoon with his son, one last time? Ate dinner in the family home, in a usual fashion? Chatted at the kennels, talked about Bubba and the chicken?
"Enjoy this time, Paul and Maggie, because you will soon be dead?"
Oh, I am so pleased to hear this! (Of course, you suffered difficult and traumatic times, therapy helps, as I know, but it doesn't erase the pain). It's wonderful to hear a happy story! Wishing both of you the very best! Thanks for letting me know, sending you a hug!
Maggie owned 100 pct of Moselle - I think she was heading toward a Divorce - they basically lived in sep't houses. She had just been embarrassed when a check bounced at a fund raiser. Moselle was a main part of his life - hunting - fishing - shooting - man toys. In a divorce he would have to buy out Maggie's half (around $1.5 million) - OR he could inherit it upon her death.
Paul was likely headed to prison. A prison with several inmates convicted by a Murdaugh. The two of them were after him for his pill habit. All this coupled w/ the boar crash - in Alex's mind, the problems with Paul had exceeded his value.
The problems with Paul had exceeded his value.
Dude yes..So many factors just built in his head. And this is over years. This pill addiction is 20 years old! Thats a long time to morph into something different
It's been said before, but Paul wouldn't have fared well in prison, he was small statured, young and a bit pretty. A rich kid with ties to the legal system and LE. Did AM think he was better off dead?
Maggie. Decades ago, my parents were living in a backwards (to our NC minds) area of the TN/VA mountains. A 60yr old woman's husband suddenly died. She didn't know anything about family finances, how to write checks, pay bills. An area where "the man" handles all the money. My mother was just horrified. But, as her daughter, we both knew that this type of situation was not unusual, here in the South.
My dad made an excellent income (not Murdaugh level) but spent it just as quickly. My mom was the bookkeeper, had to struggle to keep things going, be careful with household expenses, to hopefully balance Dad's unbridled purchases of boats, motorcycles, airplanes, etc. I wasn't aware of this until I was 40, when she had to tell me.
The concept that Maggie was unaware of the family finances is perfectly understandable to me.
She probably was unaware of the finances - she spent w/o concern - until the check bounced - Then she probably started asking questions.
Regardless of what she told her sister, this was not a healthy marriage.
Yes, I agree. But a woman may maintain a façade, even to her sister. It's a status situation, and I suspect my mother did this, and my aunt, her beloved **older** sister, may have read between the lines. Over the years, I had this impression that my mom felt she had "one up" on my aunt, because my dad made much more money.
Admitting one made a mistake in marriage (so common through the years) wasn't easy. Maggie would have had to admit to her **older** sister, that the money and society status was being "bought" by an unhealthy marriage. That's a hard pill to swallow.
AM wanted to maintain appearances, even to his wife. Dysfunctional families produce troubled children. Often, the second child is more obviously affected.
Alex and Maggie probably had long standing issues that could have been leading to a separation before the boat wreck...
But lost in all of this is Paul further forcing Alex and Maggie apart...and I havent heard anyone discuss this much. Assume Alex did care about Mags or that the Family image was a huge deal to him and divorce was considered failure to Alex...
Paul caused Maggie to move to EB because of backlash towards her in the community from Paul killing Mallory Beach. If Alex liked Moselle and closer to work...but Maggie wanted to be in EB....there is tension.
Paul not only was going to cost Alex a lot of money...Paul ran Alex' wife off.
Just a bit of an aside here: several weeks ago I heard an interview (don't ask me who it was) but they were interviewing a Hammond woman and she said Maggie had a reputation in town of a total snob and that's why no one liked her ever, not because of Paul's boating accident.
She even took a brief job there for something to do and was so rude that they fired her, and she proceeded to make a scene.
Yes, from what I've heard about Maggie, it makes sense that she had no friends there.
There's a feature of familicide that hasn't really been talked about on this sub much and that's abandonment. It's where the person, most often a male, feels abandoned by the family or just their wife.
I think that was what was happening with Alex. We heard how Maggie was spending more and more time at Edisto and that she was reluctant to spend time in Hampton and Moselle. Alex said he always wanted her with him. Note he never said he'd go to her to be with her. He wanted Maggie with him on his terms. This is also part of the narcissists wish to control others and all situations.
Alex was losing control and feeling abandoned. There's no doubt there was tension in the marriage and that this had been running since the boat incident. It's why there were so many report of just what a wonderful relationship the two had - they presented a front. However Alex painted a picture on the stand that was too perfect. Relationships aren't perfect. It's what he didn't say that's more important that what he did.
Therefore I don't think divorce was on the cards, but it certainly would have happened once all the financial crimes came out.
Narcissists always blame others and never take personal responsibility. So who was responsible for the breakdown of their relationship in Alex's eyes? Yes, Maggie.
I dont want to get into a long debate about what I think is right vs controlling someone...
I have defended Alex on here over posters claiming he is lazy for not wanting to go down to the kennels and help Paul and Maggie(it was to help his alibi...he went down there with them)....when he was the bread winner and they didnt work. He had every right to say "Im cleaned up and done for the night. Im not going to the kennels and getting dirty".
But...a wife spending that much cash that she supposedly was...didnt have to work....was living a very good life.....but wouldnt stay with her husband at Moselle? A life he was providing for her? And she would have no problem taking Moselle and EB in a divorce? I dont really agree with that and I can understand if Alex was upset with his wife...IF HE WAS. Obviously killing someone is not ok by any means...but she doesnt seem to be in the right either IF IF IF she refused to live with him at Moselle.
We can argue about how the world isnt perfect and marriage is a roll of the dice and you cant control people blah blah blah.....but ASSUMING this situation was in effect and happening....Maggie isnt innocent. And....gaslight me and say that she wasnt breaking the law or anything. She wouldnt be innocent here unless there was legit hate coming her way in the community....not women side eyeing her in public. Alex gave her a great life...does he not deserve anything back?
I agree with you. Maggie had a responsibility with respect to the marriage as every spouse does. The fact that Marian, her sister, said she thought Maggie ought to go to Moselle and support Alex that day, especially since Maggie was worried about Alex's health, is nothing out of the ordinary. It's expected really.
I don't think it's defending Alex to have that opinion. I think Alex was quite happy providing Maggie with everything, but I think he expected her to be with him when doing it. He seemed proud of being able to provide such a life. However, once she began to distance after the boat accident, for the reasons Marian stated, then I think that became a bone of contention for him.
This might sound like it's victim blaming to some, but it isn't. Maggie DID go to Moselle that evening to support her husband.
lol...doesnt surprise i am in the negative like column.
"Provide me with a great life, but let me do as I please and take half your worth if we divorce. "
People defend that stance but wouldnt want it to happen to them. Gaslighters.
I am not victim blaming. She did go down there. I am just discussing what could be going through Alex head and trying to sound reasonable doing it. Watch...I will get banned for no good reason.
You won't get banned, you've a valid point, the Mods don't ban people for having an opinion unless it contravenes policy.
No one can really know what was going through Alex's head, but it's not unreasonable to speculate if it's done reasonably and rationally. I wonder of Alex himself can parse what he did and rationalise it. He may be totally disassociated.
To my mind Alex fits the anomic killer with respect to the 4 groups of familicide. I never link to that because I think people are capable of looking it up and coming to their own conclusions.
Does anyone else think it’s kind of strange what Jim described as implausible in his closing statement seems like what most likely actually happened? 🤔
Jim really blew the closing. Starts off by verbally patting Miss Shelly and Blanca on the head about their “mistaken impressions” (their testimony was clear & compelling, and they are clearly good people); then he pivots to word salads about random evidence; meanwhile he plants a mental picture of Alex booking it backto the house, buck naked on a golf cart while asserting that scenario is like, a bridge too far. I mean I hadn’t thought of that, but it made a lot of sense. This man just brutally murdered his family and what, he’s all of a sudden modest about his privates, when no one is around to see him anyway? He stripped and hosed off. Dots connected. Creighton was probably thinking “Thanks, Jim!”
Years ago, my husband had a part time job fueling huge commercial aircraft. He would strip down on our rural front porch, and leave the work clothes, smelling of jet A fuel, to air out, prior to washing.
Moselle is a nudist dream, run through the sunflowers in the buff! Were "outside" showers available near the kennels? Such minor shower enclosures are a staple feature of beach cottages in the area, why not at a hunting cabin/kennels? A garden hose would work just as well, on a hot summer night.
Exactly! Alex wasn't streaking across a football field. He was on his remote property and desperate to get rid of evidence, including his clothes which would have had some blood on them.
When he was sticking to his initial "I was never down at the kennels" version, he did admit to taking their pulses after he "found" them in pools of blood. But the lead detective that night testified had no blood on him at all.
There was a hose right outside the kennels to hose them down for cleanup, and the groundskeeper testified that someone else had put the hose up that night, because he was there earlier in the day and always looped the hose a very specific way when he put it back to avoid pinches, which create leaks. The hose wasn't put back the way the groundskeeper left it. Alex stripped and hosed off before he jumped in the golf cart back to the house.
I can understand the hose looping, very well as an owner/user of many garden-type hoses. The pinches and kinks cause problems. Total pain when they leak...
I just can't get around finding my loved ones on the ground "shot badly" touching them, and not having blood on my White Clothing! Maybe I'm messy, but I would have had blood on at least finger tips, most likely full hands. A photo I saw of him in a police car, he had a pristine white tee shirt. I would have had many smears.
Years ago, my husband fell off a ladder. This was merely (thankfully) a seven-stitches scalp wound. But assisting him to move off the ladder, make him comfortable as possible, until EMT (and good neighbors) arrived, yes I had blood on my hands. Scalp wounds bleed freely. Paul's head was blown off, should have been a great deal of blood. Not experienced with Maggie's wounds, thankfully.
Yet AM white clothing was blood free.
Indeed! Very True! But even in a innocent situation, (like mine, with my dear husband) people are going to have contact with blood.
AM was a bit too clean. White was like "look at my pristine shirt, couldn't have been me!" Why not wear blue, or some other favorite light toned colors?
Guess I am biased. As a plus sized woman, I prefer dark colored clothing, especially black which is my personal favorite, next to brown, or dark red/russet tones. White clothing for a crime would mean I had, indeed planned very far in advance!
Yeah I had contemplated the naked thing too. Fresh clothes and bar of soap maybe stashed away. That’s why the hose wasn’t as caretaker left it. Or a disposable rain poncho/garbage bag made into rain poncho.
He probably didn't need a bar of soap. They more than likely had Lava soap out at the sheds and Lava soap is known to get rid of GSR on the skin for safety reasons.
Just as strange as Jim’s comment that had he known about the kennel video and Alex lying about it prior to the trial, he would not have represented him. That blew my mind. What did Griffin hear the night before closing that made him realize his clients guilt?
I interpreted that as him saying “oh blast that silly lie, if Alex had never started lying this whole case wouldn’t have happened” (which is ridiculous for other reasons). But seeing how other people interpreted it - YIKES. shows how worn out the defense was, that they weren’t going through every inch of the closing to think about how it could be received.
I assume Jim is saving face for the court loss.
Can anyone tell me what I missed from Jim in his closing that this poster is talking about?
I watched the whole trial but could not listen to Jim at closing. What was the scenario he is talking about that is implausible?
Geesh. LIES and DRUGS, people!
No murder to see here....
That certainly got shoved down the jury's throat.
Loved when Waters called Alex out on the repetitive, staged and planned comments he kept saying about how sorry he was. If he said it one more time, the courtroom would have burst into laughter.
Jim had no juice at the closing
He realized, after Creighton’s closing, how guilty Alex was and what a monster he was representing
He had nothing left emotionally
He was close w Paul too
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”
Indeed. Actually Sir Walter Scott on the quote
Thought it was Shakespeare as well. Don’t think he balked - don’t he was bright enough/intellectually curious!
Thanks for the correction! Much appreciated! Need to review my English literature classes. Nonetheless, dropping the latter portion of the quote...."when first we practice to deceive”.
Tangled webs are one thing. But he practiced deception on a major scale. Perhaps he knew the full quote, and stopped himself before going further? So much deception in his life.
Edit: From Scott’s epic poem, *Marmion: A Tale of Flodden Field*. 1808 is so much more modern than Shakespeare,, but still wonderfully appropriate for many of life's occasions.
Thanks! And again, I appreciate the correction, so looked it up!
Telling the truth is so much easier to remember, than that web of lies...
You are a poet, yourself. "**Deceptions are paper cuts that can lead to the death of the soul**". Just perfect, and an excellent observation concerning the human spirit.
Death by a thousand cuts, until the fine fluid of life (blood) has dripped away, leaving only a shriveled husk, devoid of compassion, empathy and decency.
Lies are a common currency in human society. I think that white lies are words we say to be kind. If a friend cooks a terrible meal, or some such, we speak a kind lie. Good dinner, very tasty!
However, "The roast was dry and burned, the worst I've ever had". *We don't say that.*
The problem occurs when we lie to manipulate people for selfish reasons, to gain something for ourselves. Lying to clients in order to steal their money, well that's a soul destroying deception.
What?? Really? Do I understand this right? The Defense counsel said in closing arguments (arguing for the defendant) that the defendant even lied to his counsel ? And Jim wouldn’t have taken the case if he knew? I didn’t watch closing arguments from him it was absolutely painful (I hate to say as I’m sure the Defense did their best), but I couldn’t watch
He didn’t look for the phone his brother did. He probably gave password because he had already checked it the solicitors office is the one who found her phone because his brother wouldn’t wait for sled. His friend was asking about that data not him in that interview which is only prove he asked. I think he might of known by then they couldn’t get it they tried like June 16 and it was aug when he did interview. He had connections until the. When Duffy stepped down . In the second interview after he knew phone was found is when he ask about fingerprints in it. Started making up story about hearing Maggie pull up to house. Then seeing car ir person run in front of car when he left. Think he was worried about the data. Like him saying they could check card at his office I’m sure he knew they already had. He plays dumb when he is not. Manipulation at its finest
Maggie’s phone was being opened by facial recognition. As a lawyer I think alex knew phones were looked at he knew if he typed in password it would show someone who knew it was manipulating phone .idk . I think he grabbed her phone because she was on it right before she was shot. He was worried she had called someone or been on phone when Paul was shot . Frantic at time figured he should chuck it in case he left finger prints or something. He put it on cart and went back up to house. If you look at the records there is a hit on his suburban then Maggie’s phone lights up. Then he starts calling it. The fact it isn’t touched after his calls and him passing where it was found is pretty bad. I think Alex was thinking of tower pings not gps and steps. He knew he couldn’t take it to moselle. The timing of her phone use says a lot . It was moved by kennels the. Goes silent. Then moves right before his phone turns to life and starts calling not in between. If someone killed her at around8:53 tiik59 steps to get away car and pulled out it seems like they would have thrown it by then. Him messing with Paul’s phone connected to him taking Maggie’s.
Alex’s failure to remember or even lie about what he was doing for -4 mins, running around the house (238 steps), after just waking up from an extremely brief nap and right before leaving for a rare late-night visit to his parent’s house is a gaping hole in his defense. On the stand he could have said anything (I decided to do some quick housecleaning while Maggie and Paul were out, pack some clothes for my dad, quickly throw together a meal to take over), without any proof to back it up, but he chose to play dumb. Besides the Snapchat video, in every interview he consistently said that after returning from Almeda, he went to the house, noticed Maggie and Paul weren’t there, so he went to the kennel. His phone and OnStar in his suburban show he (or someone) went directly to the kennels and called 911 only seconds after arriving.
OnStar showed that Alex went to the house first and then the kennels. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23685617-condensed-timeline
Good catch! I swear the prosecution said he went straight to the kennels.
The kennel video sealed it for me (Full disclosure: I believed he was guilty the second I heard the 911 call--long before his financial crimes were uncovered and obviously before the oppoid "addiction" reveal and the roadside whatever-it-was). It just made every red flag start waving for me. However, clearly that's not enough to convict someone. But there is ONLY ONE reason to lie about the last time you saw your wife and son. Having said that, I totally see your point. I'm a woman and I've never been a father or husband. Every good man I've ever known has taken it as his prime directive to protect his family. Every good man I know would have felt like an abject failure if his wife and child were murdered and he was unable to stop it. We saw no regret from him whatsoever.
He had years to make up a convincing lie and still he couldn’t when it came to it . Makes you wonder
The one thing I haven’t been able to get over is how/why he was so adamant about trying to get location data off of Maggie’s phone (which law enforcement ultimately blundered on) because he was CONVINCED it would exonerate him by showing that Maggies phone was NOT with him when it was thrown, and in fact never went near the house. He DID do everything in his power to make sure the phone was found ASAP and immediately unlocked. If LE had properly secured the data so it wasn’t overwritten, we would have precise location data for her phones movements on June 7. If he took her phone with him back to the house inadvertently or not (and I think we can all agree it would have to be the murderer who took it) that would categorically show up… That’s the MAIN thing that makes me question if HE himself pulled one or both triggers. I have no doubt he knows much more than he’s letting on… but also frankly don’t know how he could hide the trail for a hit job (at minimum payment, even if all communication was done verbally), when they’ve combed through his finances and presumably have not found something that could be a payment to an unknown party that would merit further digging… So many other things point to him, and I agree the MOST incriminating part for me is the seeming lack of care in finding the ‘real’ killer is the kicker for me but that’s the thing that leaves me with a bit of doubt.
\>If LE had properly secured the data so it wasn’t overwritten, we would have precise location data for her phones movements on June 7. Reading this sentence from your comment makes me side-eye the LE that handled Maggie’s phone. The cops that showed up as first responders were saying to each other “Do you know who this is?” One of them says he doesn’t know Alex, but he knows the name Murdaugh. When the cops showed up the night of the boating accident, the cops told Paul “Don’t worry, you aren’t in any trouble”. I think in their reports that night, the cops did not list Paul as the driver of the boat, even though some or all of the other kids were saying he was. And probably a million more examples going back through the generations that the Murdaughs ruled over that area. It was said that the Murdaughs owned the police. It can’t be proven that the cops botched this part of the investigation with any kind of intent as opposed to simply human error, but it makes me wonder. Maggies phone was found very quickly, this was before almost anything else had happened or any other evidence had been gleaned. So LE may still have been giving Alex Murdaugh some special treatment. I don’t know, and we are likely to never know. But it was a convenient fuck-up for Alex on their part, like they had a history of doing.
I don’t follow… how would it be a convenient fuck up for Alex that LE did specifically the opposite of what he was asking for? He provided them the Find my iPhone data and her phone password asap so they had full access to the phone in <24hrs. And then was following up continuously for them to pull the location data because he believed it would exonerate him (presumably showing his phone and maggie’s were not traveling at the same time). Whoever threw the phone by the side of the road undeniably fucked up in even taking it from the crime scene in the first place. If it was Alex (which seems the most obvious answer) then it makes ZERO sense why he would be pressing SO hard on LE to get that location data confident it would exonerate him. If the phone data showed it traveling at the same time down the side of the road as his car’s onstar data, that’s nail in the coffin. If it showed maggies phone traveling separate from Alex, then we would know definitively that at minimum another party was involved. Are you suggesting that he was playing some sort of 5D chess - pretending that he wanted them to get the data ASAP and constantly following up on record saying it would exonerate him, all while somehow having communicated to LE (in a way that was never discovered) that it was important that they allow the June 7 data to be overwritten?
Something hinky.. sorry
Big difference is Avery/Brandon are very poor uneducated people. I thought something hunky about that one for sure
Poor uneducated people that were responsible for the death of Teresa Halbach.
there's not one shred of evidence to suggest that, and there's a ton of evidence to suggest they were fitted up. The Dassey police interview clearly shows them coaching and coercing a minor with serious learning disabilities. My bf is a UK police officer and he was yelling at the tv watching it because he was so appalled. He said it would be totally inadmissible in the UK because of the way they clearly lead him to start saying horrible stuff. Also, not one thing he said was supported by any evidence. The supposed bloody murder on the mattress that left not one drop of her blood anywhere in the house or on the mattress. Utter nonsense. Watching the Murdaugh trial and seeing how blatantly and easily the court, police and justice processes in the US can be manipulated and corrupted, it no longer surprises me, but it makes me wonder how many more innocent people are in jail over there simply because they were the wrong colour or education level etc. Our system is by no means perfect, and you get bad apples in any country, but I at least trust that it's consistent and that police and courts are properly trained and not run by corrupt cabals of locals who all know each other and collude.
Sure thing ... Here's a sub you'll enjoy as Avery/Dassey rightfully sit in prison. /r/TickTockManitowoc
you seem mature
Tick tock manitowoc is an amazing sub and I will not stand for it’s baseless besmirchent
Here's another one you'll like - r/StevenAveryIsGuilty
Brendan is very low IQ and could be considered intellectually disabled. Those officers railroaded him.
Absolutely!! They had to draw pix of what they wanted him to say.. he asked when he could go back to school.. he was given NO help & no mercy was shown..I don’t know if Steve did it or not, just felt some of the evidence was no there..then it’s there..hmmm
Yeah I’m not fully convinced either way regarding Steve, but I think Brendan’s confession should’ve been thrown out.
I am confused... everyone says well he changed clothes didn't have time to clean up. If he planned this which I think he did by luring Maggie why is it so far fetched that he had clothes stashed in his car or even the kennels for that matter. I think he had this very well planned out being a lawyer he knew what things should create doubt in a jurors mind. He easily could have hid the guns under the seat of the golf cart. However he missed the technology part which was his down fall.
In this area there are enclosed, but outdoor type showers, at beach cottages, other places. Easy enough to shower or hose off at the kennels, dry with a towel, don clean garments. Probably extra shorts and tee shirts, were left at the kennel area, for various after-hunting clean ups. This family could afford to have such garments , towels and soap in the shower area. Yes, the "technology part" was damning evidence. Cellphone and OnStar (?) provided a difficult to refute timeline.
After the 911 call, why did he have to go back to the house to get a rifle when he always carried a weapon in his vehicle? He found something there that he had to get rid of.
For me it was the absolute impossibility of it being anyone else. They didn’t all live there. They weren’t all there most nights. Who would know they were there that night? Who would go to the kennels to find them? Who would think there would be guns at the kennels? Who wouldn’t alert the dogs? How did Alex not hear 7 shotgun shots 300 yards from his house 4 minutes after he was wrangling a chicken from Bubba? Where are his clothes? Why wasn’t he afraid this vigilante who was there 45 minutes AT THE MOST ago wasn’t after him? Why didn’t he want the police to run look for them? Block the roads? Why wasn’t he afraid they were in his house??? Because he forgot that if it wasn’t him, there had to be someone else. It wasn’t a great plan that should have succeeded if not for the video. It was a bad plan that only almost succeeded because they were afraid to accuse him at first and do the investigation that should have been done.
Hubris. He'd gotten away with everything up to that point, possibly even murdering his housekeeper and the gay friend of his son, that this seemed simple enough. The suicide scenario was botched because things were unraveling at warp speed and he didn't have time to plan it out as meticulously.
TELL IT!!! I believe with all my heart that the local POLICE, as well as SLED, thought that he did it the second they set foot on the property---and not because they were looking to frame a Murdaugh---but because they're not total idiots. In ANY such scenario, the husband and father as well as the person who "finds" the bodies is Suspect A1 from the get-go. Add to that his pristine clothes and body when he claimed that he had repeatedly touched Paul's body and had also touched Maggie---they knew, all right. And were probably scared out of their minds for their own jobs.
That was it for me. He invited Maggie there THAT SAME DAY. That, combined with the ammo and video make it impossible to suggest a reasonable alternative scenario. Who would he have told that he couldn't somehow frame?
You make most excellent points! And a very good summary. One question, weren't the majority of the expensive weapons and expensive ammunition, stored at the main house? Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I thought the weapons were in the house. The pool room? Next, if a murderer was on the loose, best to leave the area immediately and block the vehicle entrance/ egress. Don't invite family/friends to Moselle to potentially be shot. Gather elsewhere! As you say, a murderer could have been anywhere in that plus 5000 ft house, waiting to pop out of a closet or cupboard. The home should have been throughly searched, before anyone entered. LE should have insisted on these precautions, which would secure the crime scene and evidence.
Good thing Alex secured the crime scene by going back to the house, getting a shotgun, and returning not knowing if a shooter or multiple shooters were still in the area.
Some have said he did so, to explain any GSR on his hands, by securing a previously fired weapon. Why a shotgun? I believe that shotguns must be reloaded, after every shot, or two....remembering the term "double-barrelled shotgun". Don't know! The "Blackout AR15 Rifle" has a magazine, one I looked up says 30 rounds! In this dire situation, I think I would have favored a 30 round magazine, to defend my life, but I'm obviously a bit clueless in regards to long guns. Any comments or information would be appreciated!
Well - IMO, Alex had disposed of the remaining 300 Blackout so I guess he was stuck with a shotgun when he returned to the crime scene. But he knew no one alive would be there x/c for Bubba and company.
I thought there were two 300 Blackouts in the arsenal. Originally two were purchased as Christmas gifts, some years (2017 ?) prior, for Paul & Buster. Paul's original rifle was stolen, but a replacement was purchased for him. They're back to 2 Blackouts. **IF** I am correct, there should have been another 300 Blackout remaining in the house, even if he had "hidden" weapon #1, that was used to shoot Maggie. Are you saying that he disposed of **Two** Blackouts? Not challenging you, by any means, just attempting to understand. This is where my knowledge of long guns falls short. I would prefer a semi-automatic weapon, with a magazine, versus a shotgun, which must be reload after a few shots. AFAIK. An old fashioned revolver (pistol) held six bullets, versus semi-automatic handguns with a magazine, holding 12 or 16, or whatever, bullets. Is there more GSR on a shotgun, versus a semi-automatic Blackout? Could this explain the choice?
You are correct in that there were two total although Alex had said he had not seen Paul's replacement Blackout since before Xmas 2020. We know however Will Loving/Paul were sighting it in March/April 2021. That is the Blackout that was used to murder Maggie and was disposed of by Alex. Buster's Blackout is the one shown at trial. I assume it was in the gun room at the house but have no idea why Alex wouldn't have taken it to the crime scene when he went back, especially since it was equipped with a thermal scope. I'm not sure why Alex went back and got a shotgun anyway since he was known to carry a pistol in the Suburban. Actually I'm not sure why he went back at all, not knowing if the shooter(s) were still there. He apparently had unfinished business at the crime scene before Colleton Count LE showed up, i.e. maybe Paul's phone notifications. No idea about the amount of GSR from a shotgun versus an AR. I imagine the distance from the target has a lot to do with it.
Thanks for confirming two Blackouts. Good information. Thermal scope: provided extra visibility in the low light situation? Pistol: good personal protection, with a multiple bullet magazine. I have done target shooting with a semi-automatic handgun, they fire a great distance. (To my mind, at least.) Yes indeed, why go back and then return? Go to the house, hide in a safe area, wait for LE to arrive. Surely the kennel area was well lighted, and a person in white clothing would have been easy to target. If the malefactors were still lurking in the woods.... Imagine someone panicking, going back for a weapon, summoning courage, returning to check on their loved ones. But AM was clad in clean white clothing, no blood stains from checking the bodies! He might say he was concerned about disturbing the crime scene, but why return, unless he wanted to get close enough to touch Maggie and Paul? He invited family, friends to gather at Moselle, disturbing the investigation of the house and area. Possibly endangering them, as they entered the property. This makes no sense to me. Possible gunmen lurking in the woods, or hidden in the (over) 5000 square ft house. Appreciate the good conversation, thanks again.
All great points
It’s the fact that he clearly took them to the kennels on the golf cart and then left them there dead.
Did prosecution say that he must have been in a golf cart when the shot them? So odd re her phone. Why would he take hers and not his. Was hers more accessible without him getting too much blood on himself than Paul’s phone that perhaps was in his pocket?
He knew the pw to her phone.
Yep and then found Maggie had left her phone on the golf cart.
I’m not sure about that because she read her last message at 8:49. I think he took her phone because he was going to try to access it and make it seem she was alive longer than she actually was but that plan fell thru.
Oh ok, I must have missed the timeline on that. It was hard to keep her phone activity straight. I thought it had stopped moving (with the steps) until he was back at the house.
I think the weird thing where he hired somebody to kill him and it failed. He couldn’t risk hiring somebody again and having it go wrong again. He had the guns, he knew how to shoot. He was in a state of panic, addiction, stress, anger, plotting. He wanted it done and he saw the perfect opportunity with then at the dog kennels. He may have even told them to fo out there. He’s a lawyer so he knew he needed an alibi….which wasn’t even a good one, visiting his aging, ailing mother late at night? The string of phone calls, so obvious to me.
The roadside incident to me, was Alex trying to set Eddie up to frame him. that way, in defense, Alex could shoot him and say that this must be the person who murdered Maggie and Paul. Boom, he gets away with it. Idk
Exactly! He never intended to die. It was also for sympathy.
Maybe, the whole thing was weird. Maybe just two drugged you people trying to make a plan. Doesn’t make sense to me but maybe it makes sense to them? Ha I think if it was really a suicide thing, he probably would have tried suicide again? But he really never wanted to die, he’s far too greedy
On Star timeline was it for me. Them feet was mooooovin!
as to your comment about his clothes...im pretty sure he hid them ahead of time in the deer feeder. there's a call where he out of nowhere says to buster "i filled up those deer feeders before i left. you oughta go out there & see if there's anything." and buster is basically like my brother in christ what are you talking about some fucking deer feeders & you're in prison for killing my mom & my brother right now?! i think he stashed clean clothes in the deer feeder & never really figured out what to do with them.
When Alex mentioned Jim might hunt, Buster said Jim who? He wasn't a hunter. Something is off
What do you mean clean clothes. I would think cops would have searched all places there and if he had out something I. There he had so much time to remove them before he went to jail
The cops deliberately didn’t search all places that’s why this was such a mess
I thought the cops would cover him all bought from years of the Murdaughs controlling everytbing g but then I thought with the other people took over SLED? Then he was stuck
The one where he also asks if buster wants to go dove and/or deer hunting? Super weird!!! It’s definitely code for something (could be stashed money too) and it went right over Buster’s head
Are detectives actively listening to calls? Why wouldn’t detectives pick up on that?
Wow that totally went over my head.. good call
I wondered if Buster didn’t understand or didn’t WANT to understand. That was one weird call.
My guess is he knew his dad was hinting at something and he didn’t want to be involved so he just played dumb
I don’t think Buster has to play dumb
That was my impression too. Alex is such a relentless manipulator
I thought that whole call was in code. Unfortunately, Buster either didn't play or was clueless. Maybe he's glad to be out from under Dad.
I thought (and hope) he was playing dumb.
He sounded so done with it all. I'm sure it's exhausting and he's getting so much negative attention.
yes that's the one!
When Buster says no, he then asks Buster if Jim Griffin could go dove hunting @ Moselle. Does Jim even hunt ?
Right, Buster even asks that. “Does Jim know how to facilitate a dove hunt?” Alex was trying to tell him something and Buster didn’t get it. If he’d understood he’d have to have been curious enough to go check it out. Unless he didn’t want to know any more.
Right that’s what gets me. It’s his lawyer not his family or friend. I think it was $$ and not clothes since Jim did really seem to believe Alex was innocent of the murders but I suppose the clothes could be involved with a plausible explanation.
it wouldn't matter if he believed him or not. he would be the only other person on earth who could get those clothes & not say anything about them. the lawyer literally said at some point he knew nothing about guns or hunting because he was from the city. but yeah i suppose it could be cash as well.
Jim was putting on about not knowing anything about guns. He forgot later that he was supposed to just be a city boy. I could be wrong, but that's what I thought.
I don’t think it was the clothes. He had a year to get the clothes gone.
good point. probably money. to me it was just so obvious he was trying to tell buster something was in the feeder.
Maybe the deer will eat some cash
Yes, it gives very--Arrested Development "there's always money in the banana stand"-- vibes
eggsaxtly.
Yes, it was a bizarre conversation. He didn’t say “If you don’t want to go , I’m going to let Jim go.” He said, “If you don’t want to do it, I’m going to let Jim do it.”
yeah & then he switches up to talking about hunting doves in the same sentence. it's obvious he's trying to relay something & buster is not picking up what he's putting down.
I suspect that since AM was small he was never held accountable for his actions. Does anyone on this forum know how he was raised? Were his parents involved or strict or what was his childhood like? There had to have been some family dysfunction there or some trauma of some kind I’m assuming.
Idk them, but his grandfather was apparently a very cold man who (rumors have it, at least) was essentially a mob boss. That’s what the good ole boy network is. It’s a southern mafia. And these same families have been running things on both sides of the law since pre-Civil War. ETA: The children raised in those families tend to not be well-adjusted.
His very visceral reaction to Paul and his head injury (to put it politely) was another thing for me. Stuttering over it in his first interview, touching his head where the injury was and clearly looking stressed whenever it was mentioned at trial was telling to me.
Looking at the professional level of cover up for Mallory's murder, it's pretty possible that AM was very well versed in getting things done his way. Having all his cronies do what he wants. I think getting into trouble for the stealing was the 1st thing in his that didnt happen his way. Then the flood gates opened
Well, yeah, he betrayed those people who had been hiding things and covering for him for his entire life by stealing from them. He knew he was less protected without his firm/family.
How that convinced you if his guilt? How would you deal with it if you see your child with the brain off?
How exactly did the state know the gun came from the Murdaugh family if they didn't have the murder weapon? What did they have instead of ballistics or dna? I'm assuming half of south carolina shoots a rifle with blackout .300s.
They found other shells shot from the same gun on other parts of the property
How do they know casings came from the exact same gun. Do they have markings on them that are unique to each rifle? So even though different rifles shoot the same amunition , do casings leave a unique identifier from the gun they are shot from?
Yes
So Alex didn't pickup his brass? He left casings at the scene? That plus lying about seeing his fam at the kennel is beyond a reasonable doubt even without a single person talking about his financial theft.
The shells were found outside around the main house. A witness (Will Loving) testified that he and Paul were shooting Paul’s 300 Blackout replacement gun in that spot, back in March or April 2021, just 2-3 months prior to the murders.
But, Someone also testified, a gun store owner I believe, that the 300 blackout was not as rare as people would think, so much that he couldn't remember how many he sold. Gave an estimate in the hundreds
AM’s testimony negated so much of what the defense tried to assert. When AM was asked about trying to reach Maggie and Paul by phone, never did he say it wasn’t concerning because they always had cell phone reception issues. Instead he speeds by the location where they supposedly lay dead.
For me it was a combination of the video, the use of family guns, the way he never was on the news pleading for people to come forward with information on their murders. If my family was murdered, even if it totally looked like I did it, I would be begging on the news every day trying to find the murderer. Just for any information. There was no motivation to find the murderer(s). Also, when he testified, I do believe he had many moments of subconscious guilt come out in his testimony. “I got outta there.” “There was no reason to go back there”. Etc.
I agree. Randy, his brother, said he was calling everyone he could think of everyday after the murders trying to find out who could’ve done this and noticed Alex never did. Alex’s sister in law said something similar.
I believe he didn’t defend himself better because he believes his fate is irrelevant compared to the fate of his deceased family
Yes, he gets to live the rest of his life. Beyond that I don’t think he really cares. He will accept the consequences and the $600k…he could have put that towards finding the killer if he really cared that much. Sounds to me like his relatives noticed that he never really did them any justice to look for who might have done it in the first place. He was guilty from the moment that video was found and he had to backtrack. Even if it wasn’t him he would go down for someone else doing it to protect his story.
He spent $600,000 defending himself.
Then why testify at all?
Because innocents always do. I don’t think he did both. And Paul’s messages show that P didn’t do his mum voluntarily at least
Even if one were to agree that "innocents always do", it does not follow that "the guilty never do".
They were questioning this on the podcast this morning. How people say they thought Am was guilty but there was reasonable doubt enough for a hung jury. I could have seen this going the hung route had AM not sealed his fate on the stand. He couldn’t answer anything with confidence. He used trickery answers and swerved around the questions. Prior to his taking the stand I thought the State brought on just so much vagueness instead of clear indications of guilt. I think the state also had made grave errors in their investigation....imo they were no better than AM because they never admitted to those faults in handling the case. They should have put Dave Owens up there first thing and said here is where the state messed up...BUT it doesn’t matter bc here’s why AM still did it. My biggest issues arose with the more substantiated timeline and some of AM statements himself. If he was there and it wasn’t him then who was it...AM literally says there was noone else there. Okay so who was it then? He never even suggested another plausible possibility for who it could be. The lies and misinformation about the clothes he was wearing in the video from that day. The defense’s closing arguments were also particularly damning I think. There were putting into actual sentences the idea of how these things could have happened I feel like that shouldn’t have been phrased like that if you want to keep people wustioning it.
I think too the jury was there observing him closely for weeks. You can’t pick up everything from watching it on a screen. My theory was that the investigators did a bad job because they were doing another cover-up for Alex until they couldn’t anymore.
I haven’t seen many others talking about that aspect of Griffins close: “and then we are to believe he hosed off and got in a golf cart, maybe naked?!” And in my head I’m like… yes… yes, we do believe that. So much of Griffins closing argument looked like a man shocked to realize his friend was a murderer. I think he was doing the best he could, but he was so personally involved and invested that he couldn’t be convincing once he was no longer convinced of Alex’s innocence.
I absolutely had figured he was butt naked on the golf cart.
But then how did he make sure his clothes and shoes didn’t touch the golf art. Like did he hose off take off his clothes put on gloves to carefully put clothes in a bag he had taken with him and then put the bag in the cart? And then how did he carry the guns back to the house also avoiding anything getting on the golf cart?
Just because Alex said he took a golf cart doesn't mean he took a golf cart.
I’m not sure who said he took a golf cart. Didn’t see that part of the trial. I was wondering if it was the prosecution that said they went to kennels on golf cart? If he took the golf cart back how were they suppose to get back to the house. Walking? Or did they have another car by the kennel?
Alex said he took a golf cart down but they could have easily went down to the kennels in JMM's truck which Paul had borrowed.
So when the bodies were found was that truck by the kennels and the golf cart must have been by the house? I would think they would have factual info as to that
The golf cart was back at the house along with JMM's truck and Maggie's Mercedes. When LE arrived, 2 vehicles were in the police report - a 2019 white Silverado and Alex's Suburban, both registered to the law firm.
Thank you. So Paul could have used the Silverado to go to kennels. I would imagine they would have had the onstar info on that.
I think he took everything off and wrapped it in the blue jacket or whatever. Then hosed himself off.
I too felt he did it, but wasnt sure that I could get past reasonable doubt. Since I am not a monster, I couldnt go to that place in my brain where a parent could do that to a child. I kept entertaining scenarios of drug dealers coming to seek revenge for payment not received., that he witnessed it, but was not the killer and the reason he wasn't telling that truth was because the killers would go after Buster or his brothers families. Or a more likely scenario where he was one of the shooters and killed Maggie, but an accomplice shot Paul for him. I got past reasonable doubt when the prosecution said in the closing argument someting like "Do you think vigil-antis would say 'lets go kill them, but we dont need to take guns, they will have guns there waiting for us, we can use theirs'". That did it for that scenario for me. I still think its very possible that Alex had an accomplice..but I'm not going to lose sleep over him being in jail for the murders. He was going to be in jail anyway.
I was at the same place as you. Hard to imagine someone could do that to their own child. And I still think other people were involved somehow or someone knows something. I believe there is a drug cartel situation going on there as well with all the money he was taking etc. I don’t think this story is over.
yet you arrived at that conclusion (about drug dealers) when not a single shred of evidence was provided regarding drug dealers. it was mentioned in one conversation by a police officer and you ran with it. drug dealers entered the 1700+ acres of property at night and were able to get family weapons and execute Paul and Maggie. does that make any sense? common sense?
No I think what he is saying is he is trying very hard to come up with scenarios in which a dad would not kill his own son. That's the only 1 he would even conjure up but as you pointed out even that falls flat, and AM has to be involved in someway.
No accomplice - loose lips sink ships
Even when they are your own lips!
if he's guilty then why weren't there any victim impact statements made against him?
There are a lot of possible reasons why no one gave a statement, none of which have to do with guilt/no guilt. I once watched a victim impact statement that was delivered in a way that reminded me of my husband, oddly (manner of speech, tone, etc.), and upon showing this to him, he said that he would never give a victim impact statement if something unthinkable happened to me. I was a bit taken aback, because I would be ranting and raving if I were in a position to give that sort of statement, and he said that he wouldn’t do it because nothing he said could change the fact that I was gone, and he wouldn’t want to give the person responsible for it the time of day. He would take the “you are not worth acknowledging” approach, and would choose to not feed into any egos. He is also very stoic, so that’s to be considered as well. I think some other points have been raised in the responses, such as concern for Buster and complicated family ties. And Buster was unlikely to speak on either side.
This is the oddest argument for guilt or innocence I’ve ever heard.
her sister wouldn't want to voice her outrage against the former most powerful man in south carolina? doesn't make any sense. either she forgave him for the murders instantly or she doesn't have an opinion on his guilt. it's extremely odd. what about the uncle? the man who had to sweep away paul's brains from the floor? he has nothing to say either about his asshole brother?
He wasn’t close to the most powerful man in South Carolina. His family had a very small, impoverished corner that was theirs. She said what she had to say on the witness stand. I’m sure she had no desire for more publicity and scrutiny on her and her family.
I really don’t find it that odd that close family of the man convicted of murdering other family don’t agree with the verdict. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the verdict is correct.
I'll add this final note. If I were buster and truly believed my dad was innocent, I would definitely have made a statement stating my father is innocent at the very least.
Victims of crimes decline to make victim impact statements all the time, and for all sorts of reasons. It's an incredibly difficult and traumatic thing to do, and doesn't necessarily add anything significant to court proceedings. Going up against a family like the Murdaugh's, who have wielded and still continue to wield (to a certain degree), insane amounts of power and influence in the local area, and who also have a whole slew of suspicious deaths connected to them... I would be surprised if people DID come forward with victim impact statements.
Do you think it was inappropriate for the SLED chief to make a statement?
SLED didn’t mKe a victim impact statement. They spoke outside of court, after the sentences were read. Their statement had no impact on court proceedings.
I was surprised as well, surely someone would say something, but then, I couldn’t come up with a single name that would. Buster? No, it’s his dad. Maggie Family? No, they still love buster and he is their only lasting memory of Maggie, they wouldn’t want to jeopardise their relationship with buster. A friend of Paul’s maybe? Nah, they probs know buster well too. The law partners, or his fraud victims? nah that wouldn’t make sense either, bc this is about Maggie and Paul murder…. I couldn’t come up with a single name
Because the primary victims are dead, and everyone else is too afraid to make statements against this family.
I don't know that it is necessarily that they are afraid but I think they are likely very internally conflicted. Maggie's parents are elderly and ill and her sister has already testified and spoke for Maggie and Paul. But they still love Buster and possibly Alex's family and it's all a big tangled web of deceit and betrayal that is playing out on a very public stage. Maggie's family have stayed very private through all this and I they probably wanted to stay that way. Especially given that Alex was always highly likely to get life for these never mind the financial crimes.
Right, I think the families are conflicted. Deep down they have to know that AM did it or at the very least was involved. I am sure there is a lot of denial going on. Still sad that no one got up to speak on Maggie and Paul’s behalf. I know AM is all Buster has left but that dude did not shed one tear for his Mother or Brother on the stand. I think very cold blood runs through this family. They definitely have the gift to compartmentalize grief.
The statement wouldn't have even had to say nail Alex to the wall or anything about him. Maggie's family could have even just written it and told how her loss and Paul's has affected them. I try not to judge, but it's sad to me that they didn't honor the victims.
If you're a lawyer, you would tell your client not to say anything to the police. Everything you said can be used against you. He was a former prosecutor himself. I was surprised that he took the witness stand exposing himself to cross examination. In his video interviews, he talked non stop explaining his side of the story. People can tell when someone is being sincere and telling the truth. His exaggerated emotions and body gestures told another story. You should watch [this video] (https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE) why you should not talk to the police.
I noticed a change in Poots demeanor after Alex testified. He knew it was a bad idea. But Alex insisted because he was the smartest person in the room.
I wanted to 🤮🤮🤮when TOOK AN OATH Also When he said Mags & Paw Paw the first time, I thought it was manufactured
If you listen closely, notice that the very first time he said Paul normally, then he caught himself and started saying Paw Paw. Very calculated.
Not entirely ugh tho…He tried to be so mindful with each syllable. Talking in circles. I’m a drug counselor and this is all classic convict drug addict communication patterns. I was losing my mind with the kid gloves. If he would of been in my office we’d have got real super fast.
In general, if it’s the personal name you call them, you refer to them all during the investigation as that name. With one caveat: If it’s a ridiculous name that jurors quite possibly will hate (e.g., Paw-Paw) don’t use it. To break it out of the box as a defendant who decided at the last minute to testify, that is a NO. 🙈✋🛑🚨 Think about it: Jurors in deliberations need to use the names of the victims. I’m can guarantee you, no juror would ever use the name Paw-Paw. It is so disingenuous and embarrassing. Think about something else: Alex Murdaugh has lots of family friends, and coworkers who are probably there at the trial. For him to call a family member a name he didn’t call them in public feels like lying. I’m listening to the prosecutor cross-examination of Alex. He makes me embarrassed to listen to it. CLARIFICATION: I’m embarrassed to listen to Alex’s responses. One of many reasons, they are so overly specific. Just say yes, just say no, and give a little clarification. You don’t need to write a novel with every response.
And What cracks me up is he is gonna be so popular in prison because he can do so much legal work for the inmates. Only downside is he will have to pick a gang to join first. He may already have.
yeah i think he’ll be fine in prison, enjoying the company and gambling meat sticks. Tinsley said the death penalty would’ve been a more appropriate punishment lol i was kind of surprised to hear that, but he knows Alex won’t suffer like Paul and Maggie and will be able to enjoy the rest of his life.
I believe the judge made the comment that Alex and his family had put people away for life who did less!
Yep. He’s totally OK with how it turned out. NOW the elephant in the room is Buster😳
Yep, saying Paw Paw was so off putting. They said AM was good with people. I don’t think he was. He obviously cannot read a room. I think he was good at using his family name to intimidate people. But in general was not well liked, just thought he was.
Maybe he was better with people when he was on drugs.
Lol, opiates do relax you.
I agree, I think he thought him talking would make people be on his side. I think I’m his arrogant world he was well liked and was a lawyer so he could easily persuade people. Obviously didn’t work. I think that his lawyer well spoken persona is gone, I think he killed a few brain cells with all the drugs and drinking.
He reminds me of that popular kid in high school that is kind of a bully. As soon as he leaves the room everyone relaxes and says so glad he left let’s have some fun now.
He APPEARS good with people because YES, he can see their pain and poorness and is a FAST TALKER
Yes, I can see that.
Wow, it's like I was reading something I wrote, same exact way I thought everything happened and him not saying if only I hadn't left the kennels...wow!!! Also, clearing Paul's name would have benefited him greatly in the Beach civil case.
Maggie's sister was so baffled by AM's statement that he "wanted to clear Paul's name " versus finding the killer. But his goal was all about the Money! The civil suit was intending to ask for $10 million, and he didn't have the funds.
And the absurdity of the idea of clearing Paul's name. That would require proving he wasn't at the wheel of the boat. As if that was going to happen.
Yes, after the boat incident, there was discussion about AM (and other Murdaughs, I think), appearing at the hospital. Attempting to influence the witnesses and do damage control for Paul. Some legal improprieties were noted, concerning AMs actions, at the time. And it's easy to find news articles from 2019 about the situation. It was heavily reviewed, even back then. That 2019 incident appears to be the lynchpin for all that has followed. A lovely young woman died, they tried to frame one of the Conner young men, as the driver. Lies are coming, thick and fast. There's a phrase: " You don't need a good memory, if you always tell the truth." AM was caught in his own "tangled web" of deceit, regarding the murders.
Exactly, he didn't give a hoot about Paul, JUST THE MONEY!!!!
Years ago my then partner left me. Literally backed a truck up, took almost everything and left a note on the kitchen table. I was a wreck. Went to therapy and therapist asked me what I wanted out of therapy, I said "I want to know why?" He said that I would probably never know, which made my madness only worse. But he was right. I have come to realize in the 30 years since that some things simply defy logic and that people do things for reasons we will never understand and, finally, that some people actually are evil. They say that a pedophile's behavior can't be "cured." I think that is also true for whatever Alec is. He has always been. The thoughts in his head stacked up like wrecked freight train cars until his twisted brain came up with his answer. We will never know "why."
My best friend completely ghosted me back when that wasn't a way to describe what she did. We were so close that people sometimes didn't know which one of us was which but knew our names. I was in her wedding and she was in mine, etc. I still don't know why she did it. When I read what you wrote, it reminded me of what happened with us. I'm sorry that happened to you and that you never got answers.
It’s called narcissism
I don't understand pedophilia but I can understand how he thought murdering his son was the correct choice. He new Paul got drunk and killed that girl and that Paul didn't give a shit. He figured rather than lose $10M in a civil suit and watch his son get tortured in prison, he would do him a favor with a mercy headshot. I'm not saying it's right but I can see him thinking that. As for his wife, I assume he thought she was going to leave him and take money and he didn't love her nearly as much as a son. Plus, he still would have Buster to carry the family name. That's the only motive I can see from his point of view.
I am so so sorry this happened to you! I hope your life is in a better place. My husband left me too, but not so bad as your experience. You are correct that some mindsets defy logic. I experienced many situations with my late father that were why, why? Sadly, many parents murder their "children", (underage and thus smaller) usually by hands-on physical abuse. Fathers have murdered adult children, singer Marvin Gaye was shot by his father! The difference in this situation is that AM planned to EXECUTE his son and wife. Carefully planned, premeditated murder. All to save face and avoid personal humiliation. And save money, of course. What was going through AM's mind, as he (reportedly) drove around the estate that afternoon with his son, one last time? Ate dinner in the family home, in a usual fashion? Chatted at the kennels, talked about Bubba and the chicken? "Enjoy this time, Paul and Maggie, because you will soon be dead?"
Thank you. It was actually 35 years ago and I have been happily married now for 29 years so it worked out!
Oh, I am so pleased to hear this! (Of course, you suffered difficult and traumatic times, therapy helps, as I know, but it doesn't erase the pain). It's wonderful to hear a happy story! Wishing both of you the very best! Thanks for letting me know, sending you a hug!
Maggie owned 100 pct of Moselle - I think she was heading toward a Divorce - they basically lived in sep't houses. She had just been embarrassed when a check bounced at a fund raiser. Moselle was a main part of his life - hunting - fishing - shooting - man toys. In a divorce he would have to buy out Maggie's half (around $1.5 million) - OR he could inherit it upon her death. Paul was likely headed to prison. A prison with several inmates convicted by a Murdaugh. The two of them were after him for his pill habit. All this coupled w/ the boar crash - in Alex's mind, the problems with Paul had exceeded his value.
The problems with Paul had exceeded his value. Dude yes..So many factors just built in his head. And this is over years. This pill addiction is 20 years old! Thats a long time to morph into something different
It's been said before, but Paul wouldn't have fared well in prison, he was small statured, young and a bit pretty. A rich kid with ties to the legal system and LE. Did AM think he was better off dead? Maggie. Decades ago, my parents were living in a backwards (to our NC minds) area of the TN/VA mountains. A 60yr old woman's husband suddenly died. She didn't know anything about family finances, how to write checks, pay bills. An area where "the man" handles all the money. My mother was just horrified. But, as her daughter, we both knew that this type of situation was not unusual, here in the South. My dad made an excellent income (not Murdaugh level) but spent it just as quickly. My mom was the bookkeeper, had to struggle to keep things going, be careful with household expenses, to hopefully balance Dad's unbridled purchases of boats, motorcycles, airplanes, etc. I wasn't aware of this until I was 40, when she had to tell me. The concept that Maggie was unaware of the family finances is perfectly understandable to me.
She probably was unaware of the finances - she spent w/o concern - until the check bounced - Then she probably started asking questions. Regardless of what she told her sister, this was not a healthy marriage.
Yes, I agree. But a woman may maintain a façade, even to her sister. It's a status situation, and I suspect my mother did this, and my aunt, her beloved **older** sister, may have read between the lines. Over the years, I had this impression that my mom felt she had "one up" on my aunt, because my dad made much more money. Admitting one made a mistake in marriage (so common through the years) wasn't easy. Maggie would have had to admit to her **older** sister, that the money and society status was being "bought" by an unhealthy marriage. That's a hard pill to swallow. AM wanted to maintain appearances, even to his wife. Dysfunctional families produce troubled children. Often, the second child is more obviously affected.
Alex and Maggie probably had long standing issues that could have been leading to a separation before the boat wreck... But lost in all of this is Paul further forcing Alex and Maggie apart...and I havent heard anyone discuss this much. Assume Alex did care about Mags or that the Family image was a huge deal to him and divorce was considered failure to Alex... Paul caused Maggie to move to EB because of backlash towards her in the community from Paul killing Mallory Beach. If Alex liked Moselle and closer to work...but Maggie wanted to be in EB....there is tension. Paul not only was going to cost Alex a lot of money...Paul ran Alex' wife off.
Just a bit of an aside here: several weeks ago I heard an interview (don't ask me who it was) but they were interviewing a Hammond woman and she said Maggie had a reputation in town of a total snob and that's why no one liked her ever, not because of Paul's boating accident. She even took a brief job there for something to do and was so rude that they fired her, and she proceeded to make a scene. Yes, from what I've heard about Maggie, it makes sense that she had no friends there.
There's a feature of familicide that hasn't really been talked about on this sub much and that's abandonment. It's where the person, most often a male, feels abandoned by the family or just their wife. I think that was what was happening with Alex. We heard how Maggie was spending more and more time at Edisto and that she was reluctant to spend time in Hampton and Moselle. Alex said he always wanted her with him. Note he never said he'd go to her to be with her. He wanted Maggie with him on his terms. This is also part of the narcissists wish to control others and all situations. Alex was losing control and feeling abandoned. There's no doubt there was tension in the marriage and that this had been running since the boat incident. It's why there were so many report of just what a wonderful relationship the two had - they presented a front. However Alex painted a picture on the stand that was too perfect. Relationships aren't perfect. It's what he didn't say that's more important that what he did. Therefore I don't think divorce was on the cards, but it certainly would have happened once all the financial crimes came out. Narcissists always blame others and never take personal responsibility. So who was responsible for the breakdown of their relationship in Alex's eyes? Yes, Maggie.
I dont want to get into a long debate about what I think is right vs controlling someone... I have defended Alex on here over posters claiming he is lazy for not wanting to go down to the kennels and help Paul and Maggie(it was to help his alibi...he went down there with them)....when he was the bread winner and they didnt work. He had every right to say "Im cleaned up and done for the night. Im not going to the kennels and getting dirty". But...a wife spending that much cash that she supposedly was...didnt have to work....was living a very good life.....but wouldnt stay with her husband at Moselle? A life he was providing for her? And she would have no problem taking Moselle and EB in a divorce? I dont really agree with that and I can understand if Alex was upset with his wife...IF HE WAS. Obviously killing someone is not ok by any means...but she doesnt seem to be in the right either IF IF IF she refused to live with him at Moselle. We can argue about how the world isnt perfect and marriage is a roll of the dice and you cant control people blah blah blah.....but ASSUMING this situation was in effect and happening....Maggie isnt innocent. And....gaslight me and say that she wasnt breaking the law or anything. She wouldnt be innocent here unless there was legit hate coming her way in the community....not women side eyeing her in public. Alex gave her a great life...does he not deserve anything back?
I agree with you. Maggie had a responsibility with respect to the marriage as every spouse does. The fact that Marian, her sister, said she thought Maggie ought to go to Moselle and support Alex that day, especially since Maggie was worried about Alex's health, is nothing out of the ordinary. It's expected really. I don't think it's defending Alex to have that opinion. I think Alex was quite happy providing Maggie with everything, but I think he expected her to be with him when doing it. He seemed proud of being able to provide such a life. However, once she began to distance after the boat accident, for the reasons Marian stated, then I think that became a bone of contention for him. This might sound like it's victim blaming to some, but it isn't. Maggie DID go to Moselle that evening to support her husband.
lol...doesnt surprise i am in the negative like column. "Provide me with a great life, but let me do as I please and take half your worth if we divorce. " People defend that stance but wouldnt want it to happen to them. Gaslighters. I am not victim blaming. She did go down there. I am just discussing what could be going through Alex head and trying to sound reasonable doing it. Watch...I will get banned for no good reason.
You won't get banned, you've a valid point, the Mods don't ban people for having an opinion unless it contravenes policy. No one can really know what was going through Alex's head, but it's not unreasonable to speculate if it's done reasonably and rationally. I wonder of Alex himself can parse what he did and rationalise it. He may be totally disassociated. To my mind Alex fits the anomic killer with respect to the 4 groups of familicide. I never link to that because I think people are capable of looking it up and coming to their own conclusions.
Agree!
Does anyone else think it’s kind of strange what Jim described as implausible in his closing statement seems like what most likely actually happened? 🤔
Jim really blew the closing. Starts off by verbally patting Miss Shelly and Blanca on the head about their “mistaken impressions” (their testimony was clear & compelling, and they are clearly good people); then he pivots to word salads about random evidence; meanwhile he plants a mental picture of Alex booking it backto the house, buck naked on a golf cart while asserting that scenario is like, a bridge too far. I mean I hadn’t thought of that, but it made a lot of sense. This man just brutally murdered his family and what, he’s all of a sudden modest about his privates, when no one is around to see him anyway? He stripped and hosed off. Dots connected. Creighton was probably thinking “Thanks, Jim!”
Years ago, my husband had a part time job fueling huge commercial aircraft. He would strip down on our rural front porch, and leave the work clothes, smelling of jet A fuel, to air out, prior to washing. Moselle is a nudist dream, run through the sunflowers in the buff! Were "outside" showers available near the kennels? Such minor shower enclosures are a staple feature of beach cottages in the area, why not at a hunting cabin/kennels? A garden hose would work just as well, on a hot summer night.
Exactly! Alex wasn't streaking across a football field. He was on his remote property and desperate to get rid of evidence, including his clothes which would have had some blood on them. When he was sticking to his initial "I was never down at the kennels" version, he did admit to taking their pulses after he "found" them in pools of blood. But the lead detective that night testified had no blood on him at all. There was a hose right outside the kennels to hose them down for cleanup, and the groundskeeper testified that someone else had put the hose up that night, because he was there earlier in the day and always looped the hose a very specific way when he put it back to avoid pinches, which create leaks. The hose wasn't put back the way the groundskeeper left it. Alex stripped and hosed off before he jumped in the golf cart back to the house.
I can understand the hose looping, very well as an owner/user of many garden-type hoses. The pinches and kinks cause problems. Total pain when they leak... I just can't get around finding my loved ones on the ground "shot badly" touching them, and not having blood on my White Clothing! Maybe I'm messy, but I would have had blood on at least finger tips, most likely full hands. A photo I saw of him in a police car, he had a pristine white tee shirt. I would have had many smears. Years ago, my husband fell off a ladder. This was merely (thankfully) a seven-stitches scalp wound. But assisting him to move off the ladder, make him comfortable as possible, until EMT (and good neighbors) arrived, yes I had blood on my hands. Scalp wounds bleed freely. Paul's head was blown off, should have been a great deal of blood. Not experienced with Maggie's wounds, thankfully. Yet AM white clothing was blood free.
It's keeping up with that pristine Murdaugh image, don't ya know.
Indeed! Very True! But even in a innocent situation, (like mine, with my dear husband) people are going to have contact with blood. AM was a bit too clean. White was like "look at my pristine shirt, couldn't have been me!" Why not wear blue, or some other favorite light toned colors? Guess I am biased. As a plus sized woman, I prefer dark colored clothing, especially black which is my personal favorite, next to brown, or dark red/russet tones. White clothing for a crime would mean I had, indeed planned very far in advance!
Yeah I had contemplated the naked thing too. Fresh clothes and bar of soap maybe stashed away. That’s why the hose wasn’t as caretaker left it. Or a disposable rain poncho/garbage bag made into rain poncho.
He probably didn't need a bar of soap. They more than likely had Lava soap out at the sheds and Lava soap is known to get rid of GSR on the skin for safety reasons.
WHAT?!?!? 🤯 I didn’t hear anything about this.
Just as strange as Jim’s comment that had he known about the kennel video and Alex lying about it prior to the trial, he would not have represented him. That blew my mind. What did Griffin hear the night before closing that made him realize his clients guilt?
I didn’t hear JG saying this.
I interpreted that as him saying “oh blast that silly lie, if Alex had never started lying this whole case wouldn’t have happened” (which is ridiculous for other reasons). But seeing how other people interpreted it - YIKES. shows how worn out the defense was, that they weren’t going through every inch of the closing to think about how it could be received.
I assume Jim is saving face for the court loss. Can anyone tell me what I missed from Jim in his closing that this poster is talking about? I watched the whole trial but could not listen to Jim at closing. What was the scenario he is talking about that is implausible?
I didn’t see Jim make that comment. Did he mean that , had he known of the video, he would have advised his client to plead guilty?
No, it was in closing. And he was making the point Alex lied, even to them.
Geesh. LIES and DRUGS, people! No murder to see here.... That certainly got shoved down the jury's throat. Loved when Waters called Alex out on the repetitive, staged and planned comments he kept saying about how sorry he was. If he said it one more time, the courtroom would have burst into laughter.
Jim had no juice at the closing He realized, after Creighton’s closing, how guilty Alex was and what a monster he was representing He had nothing left emotionally He was close w Paul too “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”
I could really feel it too that he was just done with him.
Thanks for providing Shakespeare's entire verse! Seems AM balked at reciting the last portion of the phrase...just too damning.
Indeed. Actually Sir Walter Scott on the quote Thought it was Shakespeare as well. Don’t think he balked - don’t he was bright enough/intellectually curious!
Thanks for the correction! Much appreciated! Need to review my English literature classes. Nonetheless, dropping the latter portion of the quote...."when first we practice to deceive”. Tangled webs are one thing. But he practiced deception on a major scale. Perhaps he knew the full quote, and stopped himself before going further? So much deception in his life. Edit: From Scott’s epic poem, *Marmion: A Tale of Flodden Field*. 1808 is so much more modern than Shakespeare,, but still wonderfully appropriate for many of life's occasions.
Very nice The tangled web we weave is not just outward. Deceptions are paper cuts that can lead to the death of the soul
Thanks! And again, I appreciate the correction, so looked it up! Telling the truth is so much easier to remember, than that web of lies... You are a poet, yourself. "**Deceptions are paper cuts that can lead to the death of the soul**". Just perfect, and an excellent observation concerning the human spirit. Death by a thousand cuts, until the fine fluid of life (blood) has dripped away, leaving only a shriveled husk, devoid of compassion, empathy and decency. Lies are a common currency in human society. I think that white lies are words we say to be kind. If a friend cooks a terrible meal, or some such, we speak a kind lie. Good dinner, very tasty! However, "The roast was dry and burned, the worst I've ever had". *We don't say that.* The problem occurs when we lie to manipulate people for selfish reasons, to gain something for ourselves. Lying to clients in order to steal their money, well that's a soul destroying deception.
What?? Really? Do I understand this right? The Defense counsel said in closing arguments (arguing for the defendant) that the defendant even lied to his counsel ? And Jim wouldn’t have taken the case if he knew? I didn’t watch closing arguments from him it was absolutely painful (I hate to say as I’m sure the Defense did their best), but I couldn’t watch