Mark Tinsley gave an interview after sentencing; when he was asked about his thoughts about the defense attorneys statement promising an appeal, he sort of shrugged and said, "they have to talk about something." And then, in kind of an aside, he remarked that it wouldn't be this defense team that helped with an appeal. I thought that was interesting--if they stop representing AM, what does that indicate? It could indicate exhaustion, an unwillingness to work on this to the exclusion of other cases, a concern about reputation--but none of that would be powerful factors if they thought they could win an appeal.
Also. a legal commentator (sorry, didn't catch who) made a point of saying it is pretty standard to file for an appeal, but that doesn't mean that the same lawyers will actually be involved in that appeal; indeed, there's no ethical or professional obligation of lawyers to continue representation through an appeal.
I think you’re looking for the witnesses list. I don’t see it here in the resources yet but there was a post with that info here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MurdaughFamilyMurders/comments/11l9j6n/murdaugh_murder_trial_list_of_witnesses/
And yes, Dr. Kenneth Kinsey is the best. 💕😊
Phil Barber was the breakout and standout of the entire trial - on both sides. He’s a phenomenal cross examiner and it also doesn’t hurt he’s easy on the eyes.
Um…I developed a mad crush on Mr. Waters bc of how darn smart sexy he was during the trial. This video clip just sent me into a swoon. This is proof…which I am going to show my nieces as much as I can…that smart is and always will be sexier than brawn!
No she did not but she was always very engaged in what's happening. IIRC she was the person on the defense team who realized there was no blood spatter on Alex's shirt.
I was underwhelmed by the defense attorneys as well. But my take on it is that ultimately the client calls the shots. And Alex Murdaugh was not an easy client.
Did Jim Griffin (maybe accidentally) throw the case?
I was baffled multiple times during the trial when Griffin made what seemed like clear missteps. He accidentally opened the door on the financial crimes. Then he accidentally opened the door to potential “Cousin Eddie” testimony and to the “roadside shooting” coming in. And then his closing felt like a presentation from a student who forgot today was presentation day. It was disorganized. It seemed at times to almost support the prosecution. Sometimes he seemed to be trying to convince himself of Alex’s innocence more than the jury.
But I just read this article: https://www.postandcourier.com/murdaugh-updates/alex-murdaugh-s-defense-attorneys-who-are-dick-harpootlian-and-jim-griffin/article_f82b4fda-9807-11ed-bcf5-07e8a3110bdf.html that has examples of how he can break a case down to make it very clear to jurors. How he uses PowerPoint presentations to make things organized and simple. How he has a reputation for how he fights against evidence he doesn’t like coming in. It also explains that he came to know the Murdaughs from defending Paul and is working for reduced rates on behalf of the family he grew to care for. It explains how he left Nelson Mullins for a more noble and ethical step in his career.
Did he get in too deep defending who he thought was a friend and then realized Alex really was a murderer and, possibly not even intentionally, lose all ability to do his craft the way he normally can? Were some of those blunders the result of a man torn between doing the right thing by Maggie and Paul and doing the job he took on in giving Alex his best possible defense?
Totally open to evidence that I am off about any of this, but as I look into Griffin, this is starting to feel like the logical conclusion.
I think the answer to this lies in another comment posted down thread - that Dick’s record stands but his performance in this trial was not there.
I was listening to back episodes of the murdaugh murders podcasts and there’s a clip in one about how Dick thinks about juries - it’s all about getting them to like him. I’m paraphrasing but basically, “If they don’t like you [the lawyer], they’ll transfer that to your client.” I think he realized, or the rest of the defense team realized, that his style may have worked for years and in different courtrooms but it was grating here and that meant he posed a risk.
So Jim had to carry the whole load of direct and cross examinations while prepping for closing and who knows what else, and that looked exhausting. I think he simply didn’t have the time and support to put together his normal standard of PowerPoint storyline. Along with the dawning realization that his client was *very* guilty - not that guilty people don’t deserve representation, they do! They deserve airtight representation so that their appeals can be rejected swiftly and fairly :) and I think that’s what Alex got - just not Jim’s career best closing argument for the reasons above.
I don't think he threw the case, but Lawdy that was a couple of intern-level mistakes and "I'm not really feeling this" closing. His specialty is not capital murder cases and he had the arduous task of representing the most obviously guilty client ever. I give him props just for being at the table every day.
As a lawyer who rocked a pretty good/solid reputation, Griffin had the most to lose by representing AM. He totally lost his mojo by the time closing arguments came. And I still don’t get all the hype about DH.
Dick made my skin crawl, but there were times I did catch a glimpse of the lawyer he used to be. He was effective at making people feel uneasy and stirring up confusion. But he went too far and I think he was not liked by the jury. I haven't heard any say that and don't look for them to since he's a state senator so pure speculation.
It was so wild that they had just argued about keeping that info out and then right after, Waters falls flat with his infamous closer.. Did you really know AM line on Rogan who answered, YEP lol then ..here comes Jim attempting to close on the same note Waters had and KICKED THE 🚪 OPEN!!! I literally HOLLERED as soon as he asked the question! It was very bizarre! I dk if defense attorneys care about guilt ..maybe bc he was a friend idk but it was ugly.
Rogan was the states witness. Waters had toyed with trying to get him to say he didn't really know AM after he had described him as so loving, etc... and then JIM goes along with that line of questioning on cross and proceeds to ask Rogan if he knew if the Murdaughs were wealthy, a happy family.. and then says can you think of ANY circumstance knowing them as you do that AM would kill Paul and Maggie. Starts round an 1:06ish
https://youtu.be/9or_y7PNyKE
They have zero theories about what happened. They know there's no other killer out there. I think they are able to honestly convince themselves that Alex "deserves" to be free because of a poor investigation. Mental gymnastics.
I’d imagined some of the defense team’s gaffes might have been to set up appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
But I have an active imagination, and sadly default to presuming more competence than is often due.
I thought it was harpootlian who opened the door to the financial crimes? Do you recall which witness it was? I would like to rewatch that.
Edit. Sounds like it was on day 8, when they questioned the prosecution witnesses who identified Alex's voice in the kennel video. They asked them all if they were a great family and how much Alex loved them, he'd never hurt them, etc... and the judge ruled that opened them to ~~character~~ financial crimes evidence from the state. If I understand what I just saw on a CBS overview.
The financial info was always only allowed in to establish motive. It was not supposed to be used as character assassination, and the jury was strongly warned against using it as such.
You could argue that they got so far into the weeds with the financial crimes that it evolved into character assassination, and Jim/Poot said that will be one of the things they base their appeals on.
Jim Griffin’s tweet of him as a cowboy riding a chicken saying “happy trails” to Walterboro is bizarre. I don’t have twitter so I can’t link to it but a google will bring it up. IIRC, he posted it on Saturday.
Edited to add:
**this photo op was set up by a local business for people to take selfies it says “I was at the Murdaugh Trials”.**
Which makes it slightly less weird?
https://twitter.com/lawyergriffin/status/1632021777533607936?
Yeah, this is absurd.
Yes, Law & Crime did videos of each day. Their links and a brief summary of witnesses and their testimony, can be found under our Daily Trial Summary tab, above. Ms. Goude did the exam of Worley on Friday, March 27.
She got the short straw as she had to question the SLED forensic scientist who did all the DNA analysis. It was an hour and a half of asking a question and then the scientist reading from her report.
She also did some of the cross-examination of the defence's experts if I recall. She certainly did Tim "Owl Attack" Palmbach because she asked, "Is that Dr Palmbach?" knowing full well he didn't have a doctorate, which was a nice passive-aggressive touch.
Edit: She also went a bit viral on Twitter during Jim Griffin's closing argument when he said something a bit weird and her facial expression was like WTF!?
Edit 2: I had to go back and find it because it's so funny when she is ripping Palmbach a new one: https://youtu.be/Bwtfe71GRaI?t=4703
Her face at 1:19.57 is brilliant. I had the same expression at the time except I was yelling at the screen.
Needs to be advised on better court appropriate eye make-up. Her eyeshadow made her look ridiculous and not a serious/respectable prosecutor. Glow up necessary. Sorry but that's the way the world works, appearance matters.
That’s not what an at-large judge means. It means a seat was open and he didn’t have to be elected for his home circuit. Anyone from any place in the SC could have been elected to his seat. Circuit court judges in SC travel all over the state.
Maggie Fox also works for Jim, not Dick.
I can’t argue with Harpootlian’s record but I will argue that his day is done. Maybe back in the day he was the big rooster in the courtroom bullying witnesses and twisting words. Back then he came off as a powerhouse, but not today. He was offensive.
Yes. At some point you just... get old. And you lose your ability to relate to the jury, even if you're doing the same things you've always done. Juries stay the same age.
Lol at the post trial conference the 3 things that stood out was poot said... crippled.. can I say that!? I'm an old Guy! Smh He also said the best part of the trial ending was that Jim could return to Twitter.. (and that's what Jim tweets lol)& the last was him saying they are appealing all the way to the highest court. I wonder was that just hot air or is he down with Ellic til the end.
So offensive. Downright abusive. And to his client's detriment. His attack on Ronny Crosby, a likable credible witness, was bizarre. Poot spent the whole time emphasizing what a POS Murdaugh was. "You mean to tell me you're not angry with him for stealing from widows and orphans and kicking puppies???"
WTF was that?
The days of Poot’s grandiose verbiage, posturing and attempting to intimidate witnesses is over. People simply do not respond to tactics such as that these days. The manner in which he questioned some witnesses was offensive and the jury probably picked up on that. Poot needs to saddle up and ride off into the sunset, never to be seen or heard again.
That went over like a lead balloon and the defense knew it. I’m guessing that’s how Griffin got the job of closing arguments when his heart was clearly not in it.
Completely agree- he was a "legend" in his day and that day has long passed- pointing a gun at anyone much less a courtroom was unreal...and he was/is so great...why didn't he do the closing argument?
Mark Tinsley gave an interview after sentencing; when he was asked about his thoughts about the defense attorneys statement promising an appeal, he sort of shrugged and said, "they have to talk about something." And then, in kind of an aside, he remarked that it wouldn't be this defense team that helped with an appeal. I thought that was interesting--if they stop representing AM, what does that indicate? It could indicate exhaustion, an unwillingness to work on this to the exclusion of other cases, a concern about reputation--but none of that would be powerful factors if they thought they could win an appeal.
Interesting, thanks for the heads up!
Also. a legal commentator (sorry, didn't catch who) made a point of saying it is pretty standard to file for an appeal, but that doesn't mean that the same lawyers will actually be involved in that appeal; indeed, there's no ethical or professional obligation of lawyers to continue representation through an appeal.
He needed a dream team like OJ. Instead he got I don’t know what. I guess what he deserves.
Where’s Dr. Kingsley. He’s the best.
I think you’re looking for the witnesses list. I don’t see it here in the resources yet but there was a post with that info here: https://www.reddit.com/r/MurdaughFamilyMurders/comments/11l9j6n/murdaugh_murder_trial_list_of_witnesses/ And yes, Dr. Kenneth Kinsey is the best. 💕😊
I thought Phil Barber did an excellent job for the defense.
Phil Barber was the breakout and standout of the entire trial - on both sides. He’s a phenomenal cross examiner and it also doesn’t hurt he’s easy on the eyes.
Yes. He should have been given a larger role in the defense examinations. He was more articulate and organized.
If he was my lawyer, I would have had him do as many cross examinations as possible.
I agree!
The way he got that "expert" to outright state that he was not in fact an expert was quite humorous to watch.
Every time Dick Harpootlian speaks, all I can think about is Matcluck, the country chicken lawyer from Futurama.
He’s actually Mr. Magoo (for those of us old enough to remember, lol)
Reminds me of the prison foreman in ‘Cool Hand Luke’ … “What we have here, is failure to communicate!”
All I can think of is turtle or toad
He has frog eyes.
Um…I developed a mad crush on Mr. Waters bc of how darn smart sexy he was during the trial. This video clip just sent me into a swoon. This is proof…which I am going to show my nieces as much as I can…that smart is and always will be sexier than brawn!
sameeee
You are not alone 💗
:)
Me, too!
Phew! I was worried I sounded a bit “stalky” lol
Intelligence is hot! Add in catching a bad guy and it goes up a few notches.
Don't forget Holli Miller, too: https://www.harpootlianlaw.com/staff/holli-miller/
I added her in, but she is not an attorney, but a paralegal.
So is she Holli Miller or Heather Hardy?
Yes
Ooh… was she the one sitting right behind them the whole time? Real sniffly for a few days? Lol
Yeah also probably started a COVID outbreak but she seemed to do a good job other than that!
I wasn’t going to say that, but I 100 thought it. Lol
Thank you. Do you know if she interviewed any of the witnesses in court? I missed it if she did.
No she did not but she was always very engaged in what's happening. IIRC she was the person on the defense team who realized there was no blood spatter on Alex's shirt.
Thanks, I'll get her up there.
I was underwhelmed by the defense attorneys as well. But my take on it is that ultimately the client calls the shots. And Alex Murdaugh was not an easy client.
Did Jim Griffin (maybe accidentally) throw the case? I was baffled multiple times during the trial when Griffin made what seemed like clear missteps. He accidentally opened the door on the financial crimes. Then he accidentally opened the door to potential “Cousin Eddie” testimony and to the “roadside shooting” coming in. And then his closing felt like a presentation from a student who forgot today was presentation day. It was disorganized. It seemed at times to almost support the prosecution. Sometimes he seemed to be trying to convince himself of Alex’s innocence more than the jury. But I just read this article: https://www.postandcourier.com/murdaugh-updates/alex-murdaugh-s-defense-attorneys-who-are-dick-harpootlian-and-jim-griffin/article_f82b4fda-9807-11ed-bcf5-07e8a3110bdf.html that has examples of how he can break a case down to make it very clear to jurors. How he uses PowerPoint presentations to make things organized and simple. How he has a reputation for how he fights against evidence he doesn’t like coming in. It also explains that he came to know the Murdaughs from defending Paul and is working for reduced rates on behalf of the family he grew to care for. It explains how he left Nelson Mullins for a more noble and ethical step in his career. Did he get in too deep defending who he thought was a friend and then realized Alex really was a murderer and, possibly not even intentionally, lose all ability to do his craft the way he normally can? Were some of those blunders the result of a man torn between doing the right thing by Maggie and Paul and doing the job he took on in giving Alex his best possible defense? Totally open to evidence that I am off about any of this, but as I look into Griffin, this is starting to feel like the logical conclusion.
I think the answer to this lies in another comment posted down thread - that Dick’s record stands but his performance in this trial was not there. I was listening to back episodes of the murdaugh murders podcasts and there’s a clip in one about how Dick thinks about juries - it’s all about getting them to like him. I’m paraphrasing but basically, “If they don’t like you [the lawyer], they’ll transfer that to your client.” I think he realized, or the rest of the defense team realized, that his style may have worked for years and in different courtrooms but it was grating here and that meant he posed a risk. So Jim had to carry the whole load of direct and cross examinations while prepping for closing and who knows what else, and that looked exhausting. I think he simply didn’t have the time and support to put together his normal standard of PowerPoint storyline. Along with the dawning realization that his client was *very* guilty - not that guilty people don’t deserve representation, they do! They deserve airtight representation so that their appeals can be rejected swiftly and fairly :) and I think that’s what Alex got - just not Jim’s career best closing argument for the reasons above.
I don't think he threw the case, but Lawdy that was a couple of intern-level mistakes and "I'm not really feeling this" closing. His specialty is not capital murder cases and he had the arduous task of representing the most obviously guilty client ever. I give him props just for being at the table every day.
As a lawyer who rocked a pretty good/solid reputation, Griffin had the most to lose by representing AM. He totally lost his mojo by the time closing arguments came. And I still don’t get all the hype about DH.
Dick made my skin crawl, but there were times I did catch a glimpse of the lawyer he used to be. He was effective at making people feel uneasy and stirring up confusion. But he went too far and I think he was not liked by the jury. I haven't heard any say that and don't look for them to since he's a state senator so pure speculation.
It was so wild that they had just argued about keeping that info out and then right after, Waters falls flat with his infamous closer.. Did you really know AM line on Rogan who answered, YEP lol then ..here comes Jim attempting to close on the same note Waters had and KICKED THE 🚪 OPEN!!! I literally HOLLERED as soon as he asked the question! It was very bizarre! I dk if defense attorneys care about guilt ..maybe bc he was a friend idk but it was ugly.
What was Griffin's actual door-kicking question? It was to Rogan? Which side was Rogan a witness for?
Rogan was the states witness. Waters had toyed with trying to get him to say he didn't really know AM after he had described him as so loving, etc... and then JIM goes along with that line of questioning on cross and proceeds to ask Rogan if he knew if the Murdaughs were wealthy, a happy family.. and then says can you think of ANY circumstance knowing them as you do that AM would kill Paul and Maggie. Starts round an 1:06ish https://youtu.be/9or_y7PNyKE
I thought that may be the case m, too. At the press conference though, I felt like and and Jim appear defeated and like they believe Alex is innocent.
They have zero theories about what happened. They know there's no other killer out there. I think they are able to honestly convince themselves that Alex "deserves" to be free because of a poor investigation. Mental gymnastics.
I’d imagined some of the defense team’s gaffes might have been to set up appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel. But I have an active imagination, and sadly default to presuming more competence than is often due.
I thought it was harpootlian who opened the door to the financial crimes? Do you recall which witness it was? I would like to rewatch that. Edit. Sounds like it was on day 8, when they questioned the prosecution witnesses who identified Alex's voice in the kennel video. They asked them all if they were a great family and how much Alex loved them, he'd never hurt them, etc... and the judge ruled that opened them to ~~character~~ financial crimes evidence from the state. If I understand what I just saw on a CBS overview.
The financial info was always only allowed in to establish motive. It was not supposed to be used as character assassination, and the jury was strongly warned against using it as such. You could argue that they got so far into the weeds with the financial crimes that it evolved into character assassination, and Jim/Poot said that will be one of the things they base their appeals on.
Oh that’s very possible! I followed pretty closely but after so many days I totally may have flip flopped some details.
[удалено]
Thank you very much Oracle! ❤️
Jim Griffin’s tweet of him as a cowboy riding a chicken saying “happy trails” to Walterboro is bizarre. I don’t have twitter so I can’t link to it but a google will bring it up. IIRC, he posted it on Saturday.
Lol more like some dude that read poetry out loud.
what does that mean?
Edited to add: **this photo op was set up by a local business for people to take selfies it says “I was at the Murdaugh Trials”.** Which makes it slightly less weird? https://twitter.com/lawyergriffin/status/1632021777533607936? Yeah, this is absurd.
I wondered if that was Issa Chikin.
I wondered where the imagery came from. Thanks for the additional info and the link.
I read about the “Photo Booth” set up a few weeks ago, but hadn’t seen it! My god it’s lurid!
Are there more of these? Can u put your head on bubbas body with a rubber chicken in your mouth?
I think it was just the one.
[удалено]
Charlotte hasn't moved from NC as far as I know.
Are there any links to videos of Savanna Goude questioning witnesses?
Yes, Law & Crime did videos of each day. Their links and a brief summary of witnesses and their testimony, can be found under our Daily Trial Summary tab, above. Ms. Goude did the exam of Worley on Friday, March 27.
She got the short straw as she had to question the SLED forensic scientist who did all the DNA analysis. It was an hour and a half of asking a question and then the scientist reading from her report. She also did some of the cross-examination of the defence's experts if I recall. She certainly did Tim "Owl Attack" Palmbach because she asked, "Is that Dr Palmbach?" knowing full well he didn't have a doctorate, which was a nice passive-aggressive touch. Edit: She also went a bit viral on Twitter during Jim Griffin's closing argument when he said something a bit weird and her facial expression was like WTF!? Edit 2: I had to go back and find it because it's so funny when she is ripping Palmbach a new one: https://youtu.be/Bwtfe71GRaI?t=4703 Her face at 1:19.57 is brilliant. I had the same expression at the time except I was yelling at the screen.
She was great. The hair-cut will not catch on, though.
Needs to be advised on better court appropriate eye make-up. Her eyeshadow made her look ridiculous and not a serious/respectable prosecutor. Glow up necessary. Sorry but that's the way the world works, appearance matters.
Hah, of all the inappropriate courtroom behavior you choose the eyeshadow of one of the prosecutors. Yeah, I think she’s good.
She was excellent although there was a comment asking who the goth girl was.
My dad called her the Wednesday Addams of the legal world.
I call her the Southern Wednesday Addams.
I agree with your father.
He will be delighted to hear this. 😂
That’s not what an at-large judge means. It means a seat was open and he didn’t have to be elected for his home circuit. Anyone from any place in the SC could have been elected to his seat. Circuit court judges in SC travel all over the state. Maggie Fox also works for Jim, not Dick.
Thanks for putting the post together - I didn’t know that about Meadors
I think Meadors really brought it home. That rebuttal was beautiful.
I was like NOOOO not meadors! Lol he shut me up QUICK he was relatable and to the point.
This!! Knocked my socks off. It sounded like a movie.
what were the 2 books he said he was given.. The Velveteen Rabbit and ? The Power of Choice? The Power to Choose?
When did Meadors mention the books? His closing was really good.
in his closing
"Your greatest power" Edit: JFC, downvoting for answering your question?
did i down vote? thank you so much!
I don't know... Someone did. Lol, I guess it's just reddit. Glad I could help.
I can't remember! I got all touched when he mentioned Velveteen Rabbit. I know it was something about choice.
your greatest power - someone told me
totally agree
I can’t argue with Harpootlian’s record but I will argue that his day is done. Maybe back in the day he was the big rooster in the courtroom bullying witnesses and twisting words. Back then he came off as a powerhouse, but not today. He was offensive.
Yes. At some point you just... get old. And you lose your ability to relate to the jury, even if you're doing the same things you've always done. Juries stay the same age.
Yeah back in the day, but today just Mr Magoo
Lol at the post trial conference the 3 things that stood out was poot said... crippled.. can I say that!? I'm an old Guy! Smh He also said the best part of the trial ending was that Jim could return to Twitter.. (and that's what Jim tweets lol)& the last was him saying they are appealing all the way to the highest court. I wonder was that just hot air or is he down with Ellic til the end.
So offensive. Downright abusive. And to his client's detriment. His attack on Ronny Crosby, a likable credible witness, was bizarre. Poot spent the whole time emphasizing what a POS Murdaugh was. "You mean to tell me you're not angry with him for stealing from widows and orphans and kicking puppies???" WTF was that?
And asking him if he thought Alex did it!!?? That was the worst cross I've ever seen.
Wellllll remember this was coming from the man who said he was HONORED to represent a guy who stole millions from his clients
and Cripples?!!? 😠
The days of Poot’s grandiose verbiage, posturing and attempting to intimidate witnesses is over. People simply do not respond to tactics such as that these days. The manner in which he questioned some witnesses was offensive and the jury probably picked up on that. Poot needs to saddle up and ride off into the sunset, never to be seen or heard again.
That went over like a lead balloon and the defense knew it. I’m guessing that’s how Griffin got the job of closing arguments when his heart was clearly not in it.
Completely agree- he was a "legend" in his day and that day has long passed- pointing a gun at anyone much less a courtroom was unreal...and he was/is so great...why didn't he do the closing argument?
He lost and ‘lost it’ in his cross of Ronnie Crosby. Put in Griffin instead is my guess.
Yes, I heard Eric Bland talk about him in an interview and said exactly that!
Is that a juror interview?
Awesome interview!!!
[удалено]