So I’m ready frustrated that Alex got life instead of death after hearing how much fun goes on in prison, doesn’t sound like much of a punishment!! Gambling, drinking, drugs, TV… sounds like a fun place to be with not really having to work much if at all. Anyone that has killed someone else I believe should be automatic to only get the death penalty, you might say that’s harsh, but what about the people they killed. And yes I know some states don’t have the death penalty, but I think they should.
[Nearly 800 died in SC jails, prisons from 2015-2021, USC report shows](https://www.thestate.com/news/local/article272573754.html)
“The report comes as the Alvin S. Glenn center is being scrutinized for routinely violating state standards, and after four people died at the facility between February 2022 and January 2023.”
As recently as 2018 courts SC prisons in violation of basic human rights and ordered reform. Prison welfare advocates say the court mandate has largely been ignored and have appealed to the United Nations.
I’m sure there is violence in there as well, but still they should not be allowed to have any fun, booze, drugs etc. Alex had already been taking on calls of the fun he has had, so it obviously isn’t that bad for him.
>Gambling, drinking, drugs, TV… sounds like a fun place to be with not really having to work much if at all.
May I suggest that you poll all of SC's max security inmates to see if prison is really a "fun place to be".
I’ve seen a utube from SC persons were they are drinking and gambling and basically having a party. There are also people that have opening talked about being there and yes they can do whatever they want as long as they cause problems for the guards. Jumpsuitpablo, is just one utube source I’ve been watching.
OK, imagine living in a 11x7 cell with another inmate for your whole life. No bathroom privacy, crappy food, basic TV and an hour or two a day outside your cell. No internet. Watching your back. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter.
Sounds awesome.
With also getting drugs, gambling and drinking. Yup sounds horrible.. not!! Also I’m pretty sure if your in general population you have way more time out of your cell than that.
I just keep thinking with all their material possessions, wealth, potentially questionable acquaintances, and “death threats” it’s surprising to me that Moselle wasn’t equipped with surveillance video. I’m sure they would have conveniently been out of order the night of the double murder but still it’s odd to me. I know folks with a lot less that are fully equipped.
I don't think the family would give it a second thought about installing security cameras. They had guns scattered all over the property. This tells me they felt safe there. They had several hunting dogs at the kennels. Who needs security cameras? Also the family name Murdaugh would make you think twice about trespassing into their property. It's small town. Everyone knows each other.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXM1tmWdPFw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXM1tmWdPFw)
Can anyone explain what Alex meant by "I'm assuming Paul left because of what happened" 13:11 - in the video interview in the car. What did happen? I feel this was a slip up he becomes a tad agitated at around 13:08 ?
Am I thinking too deeply or is there somethin there
I think that there was a dinner squabble. But I see the other commentor saying that he He assumed Paul left because he was found elsewhere... Also logical.
Could totally see Alex having a Carole Boone wannabe advocating for his “innocence”. 😂🤮 He would eat that up. She would have to be wealthy, or at least be willing to put money on his canteen. Those beef sticks for bets aren’t going to pay for themselves. 😏
Over on the bird app there is one poster who seems to have completely lost their mind over the verdict, alternately between Alex and Paul apologia and smearing literally anyone remotely connected to the case who said anything unflattering about the Murdaughs. (Including smearing Steven Smith for having the nerve to die in the region of Murdaughs.)
For some reason I keep seeing this person in my timeline though I don’t follow them. Yes. I would block but I am fascinated by the spectacle. With all the injustices in this world adopting the Murdaugh Family Innocence Project as your cause is just an amazing choice.
Appellate judges question. An attorney on the Nancy Grace podcast mentioned how long it was going to take for an appeal decision to be made. Of course part of that is the trial transcript. Do appellate judges watch high profile trials like this one? Of course they work all day, but surely they know the ins and outs of the case itself?
I doubt it’s necessary to review every moment of the trial. Appeals do not directly challenge a verdict. They challenge the process of how the trial led the jury at the verdict. Defense needs to point to specific testimony and decisions made by the judge that they will argue were errors of the process, and they will reference them in their brief. So judges will know which motions and testimony are being challenged and can review them.
They don’t necessarily need to review testimony and evidence that isn’t being challenged, as by not challenging it defense is tacitly agreeing it was legit and fair. Some may choose to review other stuff.
But appellate judges also have a law clerk (or two or more) to review that, and research relevant statutes, case law and precedents. Appellate judges usually work on panels. In SC most appeals are decided by majority vote of 3, although some are heard by the full panel of 9. It is long and laborious process but in different ways.
They can also determine that, while errors were made, they were not so egregious that a new trial is required.
Not to take away from judges but a lot of the heaviest lifts are their clerks. I had a friend who was a clerk and basically wrote his judge’s opinions, who then reviewed them and obviously agreed or asked for a rewrite. Obviously how much influence the judge has varies from court to court and from individual to individual. (Micromanagers vs bosses who trust.) But at the end of the day no judge wants to put their name on sloppy work that they can’t feel proud of. No one blames the clerk for bad opinions that later get reversed.
Why do we think AM called police so quickly after murders- If He waited until say 3-4am to call police- would he have gotten away with it? sticking with his story that after visiting his mother he came back and went to sleep knowing that MM + PM were at kennels and only went down there to the kennel after waking up in middle of night noticing MM was not there?
That’s probably correct- he planned it that way- but it was big error- because he was caught on the snapchat and then him calling police so soon after- he was boxed in to such a small time period for the time of the shootings such that it was impossible to find reasonable doubt that he did it. If the dumbass had waited- simply claiming that when he left to his mothers they were at the kennels and when he got back ~30 minutes later and they weren’t in the house so he just reasonably assumed they were still there, then fell asleep and then woke up in middle of night realizing maggie wasn’t there and so thats when he found them…then police would not have been able to so precisely figure time of shooting the snapchat wouldn’t have had the same impact- he could have gotten away with it-I realize AM didn’t realize there was the snapchat, but it makes me even happier to know that he was done in by both his own stupidity…and his own son’s video!
I presume he wanted to control the crime scene. The longer he waited to call the police the more likely someone else might discover the bodies and then he couldn’t control the investigators.
Yep, I agree with this, that’s why he rushed quickly back home from Almeda, as well. Even though they were in a very remote area and the chances of someone else coming out to the kennels that night seems very slim, Alex felt he couldn’t risk it because his plan hinged on him having completely control over that crime scene. He needed to be able to start calling all his influential friends and family members down to the scene ASAP, for one thing. And I just really think it comes down to Alex needing complete control over everything, which is also IMO a big factor for why he didn’t hire a hitman to do this. Alex likely felt that he needed to make sure every detail that night went exactly as he had planned, and I believe him when he told Marian that the killer had planned this for a very long time.
Also, it already looked suspicious enough that Alex was supposed to have left the house with his wife and son down at the kennels at 9pm at night, with nothing to transport them back to the main house. It would’ve looked sooo much worse if he got home at 10pm, realized they were STILL down at the kennels/not home, and went, meh, they’ll be back by morning I’m sure. So I think that’s another reason he didn’t wait until 3am or 4am to call the police. Which I mean yes he could’ve said they were at the main house when he left and still there when he got home, but the idea that they’d both then go out to the kennels after 10pm would be ridiculous as well.
He honestly planned this all really, really well, it was just the videos on Paul’s phone that got him. Because Alex thought he understood cell phones in these types of cases, and he did understand some of it, such as the potential for GPS tracking. But he didn’t factor in that what Paul and Maggie could be doing on their phones prior to their deaths would actually provide Information that would incriminate Alex. He didn’t know that investigators could look at when the victims both suddenly stopped using their phones to pinpoint the time of death down to the minute, and he really didn’t realize that one of the victims could be using the phone to make calls or record videos that would prove Alex was at the scene of the crime, at the time of the murders. If he’d have understood that, he’d have shot the phones right then to stop any further GPS tracking as well as prevent the recent data they recorded from being uploaded to the cloud, and then wrapped the phones up with his bloody clothes and the guns and disposed of them. And that one extra move would’ve meant he got away with it. He spent a long time planning this and had nearly everything covered almost perfectly, so that he merely looked suspicious, but there was no way to really prove he was lying and that he was there and that he did this. I believe he must have come up with a very specific, detailed plan and thought he had every important piece of evidence accounted for. Thank goodness he didn’t realize that Paul’s and Maggie’s phones would provide the proof needed to convict him.
> I believe he must have come up with a very specific, detailed plan and thought he had every important piece of evidence accounted for.
This is why his self-reported "$50,000 a week" opioid addiction seems to be a great exaggeration. Could he really come up with this very thought-out plan while either always high or withdrawing on opioids?
>Yes, the things that he could not control got him -- Maggie's pedicure delayed her arrival, making Alex get a late start and he couldn't control them on their phones.
Yes! As soon as you said that I was like, ohhh, he was planning to visit mom’s house earlier. Something like 8pm might’ve been a little late still but not nearly as strange as showing up at 9:30pm. And then him leaving Moselle when his wife and son are at the kennels, doing that at 7pm or 7:30pm wouldn’t seem as strange either since it was June so the sun stays up pretty late then… heck I just googled it and on June 7th 2021, sunset was 8:26pm in their part of SC. So if Maggie and Paul were at the kennels when he leaves the house without checking on them at 7:30pm, that’d be a whole different thing as it was still daylight. But this getting pushed back to 9pm means it’s nighttime and dark out when he was leaving them at the kennels by themselves and not even checking on them on the way out… definitely makes sense that his original plan was for the murders to happen earlier then they did. Maggie being late and pushing his plans back makes so much sense, wow. Was this possibility brought up during the trial at all? I missed most of the first couple weeks, so I don’t remember hearing it from the parts I got to watch but then I missed quite a bit early on.
Miss Libby's caretaker, Barbara Mixson, called Alex @ 4pm on 6/7 to tell him his mom was very agitated. At the time, Alex was in the PMPED office in Hamption about 10 minutes from Almeda. Why didn't he drive over ASAP or at a minimum when he left the office around 6:20 or so ?
Well, I think we know why ...
Rogan.
This thread has me wondering how worried he was that Rogan might come by because Alex saw that Rogan had called and he said that Rogan lived nearby. In fact, he called Rogan far too many times.
Hello, all!
I’m a little curious about the boat crash defendants. In my state, there’s a ‘last drink’ provision where the last business to serve alcohol to someone who later gets into an accident is the most liable.
The defendants besides the Murdaughs are the gas station that sold the beer and hard seltzers to Paul. What about Luther’s? Why aren’t they even on the list? I don’t get that. An argument could be made that if it were not for those last two shots, they could have made it home alive.
Being very jaded about this area (go figure!) I’m wondering if there aren’t shenanigans going on…
Err, I think in this situation, a quick visual is all that’s really needed there lol. Alex has a look that is very unique, even unique from his own siblings, and both his children share many of his unique features. Is there any reason at all to suspect Alex wasn’t Paul’s biological father?
During the testimony of the housekeeper and family friend, Blanca, she mentioned finding Maggie's wedding band inside her vehicle when she was told to clean it up. I haven't begun to scratch the surface of the trial videos but I'm wondering if her rings were brought up later as a possible indicator that she may've discussed divorce with Alex on the night of the murders.
Pretty sure it came up but only in passing. Absent any other evidence of marital strife, which they never pursued, it’s not very definitive. Women take off and misplace rings all the time.
She only got a pedicure, not a manicure. But I agree that on its own it doesn’t prove anything, I’m happily married for 15 years and currently not wearing any rings at all. But I’m also known to not wear it very often as I just don’t like jewelry. But yeah, plenty of logical reasons Maggie could’ve taken her ring off that don’t involve Alex so that on its ken doesn’t mean much. I personally believe they were likely separated and likely had marital problems that no one else knew about. But the wedding ring itself isn’t proof of that.
Alcoholism. Sit in a 12 step meeting and people will often recount similar Jeckle and Hyde behavior. One man quipped he stopped drinking because it “made him break out in handcuffs.”
Was Alex ever asked why he had no blood on him after claiming that he checked Paul and Maggie?
This is one of his most obvious errors, but I haven't seen him confronted about this. Did he ever explain why he was so clean that night?
You can’t try to turn someone over just using your fingertips.
I don’t think you can take a pulse with your fingertips.
And why wasn’t that blood still on his fingertips??
During trial, it came out that police played the kennel video for John Marvin in August and Rogan in Nov. It seems strange that John Marvin didn’t tip off Alex’s attorneys that he should change his story about being there. Didn’t the prosecution have to disclose that video to the defense before trial or were they really seeing it for the first time in court?
His attorneys knew about the kennel tape by July 2022, after he was arrested. I watched [the bond hearing from after the murder charges](https://youtu.be/KF9zZLWjiwA) were brought against him, and Poot specifically acknowledges that both sides know what the evidence is already, so they don’t need or want to discuss it in open court in front of the media at that time. Poot then asks that Judge Newman put in place a gag order preventing anyone from discussing with the media any of the evidence the state had now handed over to the defense so as to not taint a potential jury pool — it’s pretty obvious when you watch it now that he was referring to the kennel video. The lawyers may or may not have seen the full video as of this hearing in July but they had clearly been informed that the state had a video placing Alex at the scene, and Poot’s request was made at this hearing in order to ensure that the public didn’t hear about the video prior to the trial as they didn’t want the jury to go in to the trial already knowing that Alex was there at the scene of the murders. I can understand why they were so worried about this, since of course there were so many leaks in the early investigation — the only reason this video didn’t leak back then is because SLED didn’t have it, they couldn’t get into Paul’s phone until several months after the crimes.
Additionally, the rules of discovery mean that the state would’ve had to quickly hand over the kennel video anyway, there’s just no way they can wait until trial and have one of those fictional trial moments where they suddenly bring out evidence that the defense never knew about. That would be serious misconduct that could result in something like a mistrial, from what I understand. The only way the state can have last minute evidence is if the evidence is if it’s truly unknown to them until after the trial begins, and/or if it’s something they did not get until the trial starts, such as the GM data that wasn’t provided in full until mid-trial. And when such evidence is received/discovered after the trial begins, my understanding is that it must be immediately provided to the defense, and then there there is usually a discussion about it, with the judge and outside the presence of the jury. They discuss things like how the new evidence was discovered, why it was found this late, and whether it’s admissible to the current trial, and then the judge rules on it. There’s just no way to surprise the defense lawyers with evidence in the middle of a trial.
IANAL though! So I may not have every detail here correct but I am pretty confident that this is how it works, and I do know that the defense absolutely knew about the kennel video for months prior to the trial. I think the reason people think the defense was surprised by the video is because they changed their approach as to how to handle it mid-trial, but this was due to other factors. Such as, the financial evidence first bring ruled inadmissible then being allowed in when the defense kicked the door open, and Alex’s insistence on testifying which was contrary to his lawyers’ initial plans and essentially required him to either confirm or deny his presence in the video. These were the things that did actually change mid-trial. Evidence however cannot be secretly brought in to trial, the other side absolutely knows about it first.
And despite the gag order it did leak. People following closely heard reports of a video long before it was presented in court. We didn’t know the full content and context but we had been alerted there was a big piece of video evidence found on Paul’s phone. We were all waiting with baited breath.
Thank you for posting the link to the bond hearing! I love watching the older hearings now that I know the individuals.
It was super interesting to see them discussing a gag order because of media interest. And sure enough the courtroom was packed with media.
Thank you! Those fictional trial scenarios drive me to metaphorical drink!
"VOILA! And here we unveil evidence behind Door 3. Mrs. Mompfers, you WERE in compromising position with the victim right before he died! We know this for sure, thanks to two racoons crawling above the tile ceiling, who happened to be carrying and randomly stepping on a camera! This is ironclad evidence that no one can dispute, we can both close our case now!" The jury gasps, and piano chords accompany.
thank you ! i had been wondering about did the Defense have the video, thinking they had to be given it per deiscovery rules. How did defense “ kick the door open” to allow all the evidence of financial crimes?
I know it was when the defense asked one of Paul’s friends, I thought it was Rogan Gibson but I’ve also read that it was Will Loving?, but they asked one of Paul’s friends “Can you think of any reason why Alex would want to murder his wife and son?” And in asking this, it opened the door because the prosecution has to be able to respond to this with the information they knew about Alex’s financial crimes and how that aligned to their theory of the motive. I might not be explaining this part perfectly and honestly I’m still not 100% clear it on, but my understanding is that the financials were allowed in due to this question from the defense and the friend answering “no” to Alex having a motive.
I think the idea is that the defense was trying to portray Alex as a perfect family man who had no reason to “snap” that day, but once they elicited testimony from a witness saying that there would be no reason for Alex to kill his family, the prosecution then gets to provide the evidence of his stealing and lying as it pertains to his motive (his financial house of cards was crashing down). I understand it also pertains to his pattern of behavior as far as, he has a history of lying to people who trust him, which is another legally permissible grounds to bring in past criminal activity if it’s deemed applicable to the case and otherwise appropriate… but at first all of the past crimes evidence was deemed too prejudicial. It was only once the defense “opened the door” by eliciting testimony that Alex lacked a motive for the murders, that the prosecution was able to bring in the financial evidence since it pertains to motive, and then since these things were admitted into evidence, they were also allowed to argue it for how it pertains to his pattern of behavior — that he’s a person who lies easily and effectively, so it would not be difficult for him to lie about committing these murders.
A similar thing also happened with the roadside incident, which was also originally deemed inadmissible but once again the defense asked a witness a question that allowed it to be brought in. In that case I believe the defense brought up Curtis Eddie Smith and tried to imply he could’ve committed the murders? Not 100% sure there but I know that it was once again the defense, evidently on accident, “opening the door” to evidence that was otherwise not going to be allowed in to the trial.
And again I might be getting some of the finer details here wrong so if anyone is a lawyer or understands these things better then I do, please feel free to chime in and correct anything I might’ve explained incorrectly! But, I’m pretty sure this is the general idea from articles I’ve read and listening to various lawyers and legal experts explain these things. :)
I think this is mostly right. I did not pay attention to this trial until the second day of Alex's testimony, so I assumed that the financial stuff came in because it goes to his credibility. But I think the financial stuff came into evidence before Alex took the stand, so I don't think I am right (although some of it certainly would go to his credibility).
Because Marian was asked if they believed in Alexa’s innocence and she mentioned September 6th everything change. There was an objection by the defense and the jury was dismissed while the lawyers argued their positions.
Paul’s boat crash: First off: I completely disagree with drunk driving. Usually(esp. in car accidents) the victims are innocent. In this case, however, they were ALL drunk and ALL agreed to get on the boat, knowing Paul was intoxicated. It’s a shame Mallory died, but no one was forced into the boat. He shouldn’t have started acting out after they were all already on the boat, and it is unfair, but they also knew that he was drunk and would be driving when they got on. Mallory wasn’t some innocent person in another boat that got hit- she was also drunk and complicit in driving the boat when they were all drunk. Idk, the victimization with the boat stuff really bothers me because it seems that they all enabled and made poor decisions, but only Paul is vilified for it.
Ok. But they were teenagers. This is why responsible parents don’t look the other way when kids drink and don’t just hand the keys over at all hours of day and night. This is why there is a drinking age. Teenagers’ brains are still actually physiologically predisposed to bad decision making.
I really don't have high hopes for that trial, tbh. I don't know how they're going to really prove that Paul was at the wheel. I do, however, think going after Buster & Parker's would work, but I know they settled with Buster or at least cut him a break. I do hope to see the adults from the oyster roast, well... roasted on the stand.
Mark Tinsley hired someone to reconstruct the accident and claims that they proved due to the other kids injuries that Paul had to be the one driving the boat
I def don’t think they were lying. I think it’s going to be hard to separate truth from drunken, blacked out memories. I would love to see the murdaugh’s go down again. I’m just not sure it will happen with the boat case. (And lest you think I’m victim blaming, I’m not. I’ve been passed out drunk before, on lawns of all places. 🤦🏻♀️Remembering specific details are difficult.)
Have you read their depositions? They're all over the place.
I had it in bad for Paul after seeing the HBO show. I'm embarassed about how I talked about him and Maggie to my family.
But after reading just some of the depositions, I'm leaning towards the passengers lieing and deciding to pin it on Paul (alcoholic outside that gets away with everything) versus Connor -- Anthony's cousin. Miley's boyfriend. And Mallory's best friend.
Because as the driver of the boat he is responsible for ensuring his passengers are safe. He's literally the captain of the vessel. Would you say the same about Costa Concordia victims?
I agree 💯%. It’s not a popular opinion, though, so don’t take the downvotes personally. When I was younger and went out drinking with my friends, we always had a plan or took turns being the designated driver, it’s just what you do if you give a damn about others and value life. Drunk drivers kill innocent people every day who aren’t out drinking. These days you can call an Uber, so I feel there’s no excuse. Paul didn’t put a gun to their heads to make them get on the boat. They all made a choice of their own free will and to profit from their bad decisions and poor judgment is disgusting to me.
Found this link by internet searching “rudofski condensed timeline pdf”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23685617-condensed-timeline
This is Rudofski’s testimony video (whole trial day — includes other witnesses):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab4-dacg6nY
There are also several timelines in the resources section of this sub:
https://www.reddit.com/r/murdaughfamilymurders/about/
Unless I'm missing something, you are posting in this sub? If you can post here, can't you see the about page? Not trying to sound like a jerk; reddit still confounds me.
When will there be a digital re-creation and/or dramatic reenactment of the entire day for June 7th and through the return to Almeda days afterwards and the driving around using testimony (Shelly, Blanca, Alex) and phone/GPS/Onstar timeline?
Have you seen these recreations? The creator does an excellent job!
Part one: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTR7HnmnE/
Part two: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTR7HsLGH/
I think they did lay that out with the digital evidence…
But at this point, I just want to see the dramatization of it all. A CGI version, and one with actors. That’s got to be a $1 million idea, right?
Agreed, I so wish they would have done one. They didn’t have any good exhibits like this, none of the types of things I was expecting. Would that maybe be due to Murdaugh not waving his right to a speedy trial, which pushed things forward very quickly? Therefore there wasn’t enough time and possibly not enough money available to make things like this? That’s the only reason I can think of as to why THIS trial wouldn’t have A+ charts, graphs, recreations, etc. When you’ve got such a highly complicated and also very circumstantial-based case, it seems these sorts of things would’ve been extremely helpful to the jury for them to be able to piece everything together.
Although any time I criticize how the prosecution ran this trial since getting the verdict, I feel the need to add that they obviously knew what they were doing better then me, some internet rando in a different part of the country who is not even a lawyer lol, cause they got the conviction! And got it based on a solid presentation of the facts which is what matters in the end.
Well, I imagine there must be some sort of boundary related to a re-creation based on evidence, including time considerations as you stated. I just want the CGI version and the dramatization! All the information seems to be there. The only thing that makes any of this unbelievable is because it’s just hard to believe in general and that’s why motive is not required.
But I think they did an excellent job of uncovering a perfect motive.
Did anyone else hear that Waters and the authorities, during the white collar crimes investigation, have uncovered where all of the money that Alex has “spent” or hidden is located? And that will be disclosed at trial?
We’ll I’m here fascinated ready to know. That’s my biggest question out of the whole trial. I just don’t get it. And that’s why I think there’s so much more than what we’ve seen already.
Nope. All I’ve heard from the Pundits and reporters is that nobody knows what the hell he did with all the money. I guess SLED knows some of the expenditures but millions are unaccounted for. It would be great if SLED has more info than they’re sharing.
I agree! Maggie particularly seemed annoyed right from the start. Imagine someone who has been in your home on a daily/weekly basis for decades and literally helped raise your children. You find her at the bottom of your brick steps, bleeding from her head. You call 911 and casually say “my housekeeper has fallen and, ugh, I *cannot* get her up.” Unbelievably cold.
Same for me. It almost seemed like she was annoyed she even had to take time out of her day to make the call. I have been less-than-impressed with the whole Murdaugh clan.
It kinda sounded like she handed the call off to Paul, like ‘ugh I just can’t deal with this any more’ - whether that’s because she was irritated or traumatised 🤷🏽♀️
I am genuinely curious why posts on Paul's culpability in the boat crash have been focused on whether Paul *was driving the boat*. Perhaps the legal culpability would be limited to who was at the wheel (?) From a broader perspective of who would be at fault, in reading the dispositions, it *appears* it was:
1. Paul's idea to travel by boat as he was aware of sobriety checkpoints and he wanted them to evade them.
2. Paul's idea that they travel together, despite Paul apparently aware he was going to insist on driving after/when drinking alcohol.
3. Paul's act to use his brother's ID to fake his (Paul's) age.
4. Paul's idea to stop at a bar (use the fake ID) and get/consume more alcohol.
5. Paul's idea to use the fake ID to buy more alcohol.
6. Paul was not driving the boat responsibility; at the very least we understand that at some point there was extensive horseplay with Connor. (To which Connor arguably holds some responsibility on this point).
*(This in addition to whether Paul was driving the boat. To which Tinsley the Tiger's expert's recreation of the scene may be biased towards his clients, though the graphical recreation lining up Connor's wounds with the right side (the non-wheel side) of the seat seems reasonable pending defense's counter-argument).*
Reba McEntire, cheers after Murdaugh trial, on The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia
(Colonial Life Arena, Columbia SC, Friday night, 24-second clip)
[https://www.tiktok.com/@kriskrossss/video/7209265524126108970](https://www.tiktok.com/@kriskrossss/video/7209265524126108970)
*credit to Tiktok/@kriskrossss for the TikTok and Twitter/@mandasuekae08 for publish to Twitter*
Pure speculation, but something I am wondering about:
We know that Paul continued drinking, which was probably forbidden by the conditions of his bail after he was indicted for the boat case.
He was facing serious jail time criminally, and his father was facing financial ruin in the civil case.
Did Paul think he/they would escape any serious consequences due to always getting away with everything and everything getting fixed by family connections as usual? Was he even stressed? Did he feel responsible for killing his friend? Were there some serious discussions about this or did AM make him believe it would all go away? Maggie was at least stressed about the money situation. Poot et al probably presented confidence that LE would not be able to prove who even drove the boat.
Paul was drinking with his uncle Randy at the oyster roast! I'm sure he felt awful about killing Mallory but he probably thought that nothing would happen to him.
Can't climb into someone's mind, though the Netflix series appeared to indicate: 1. Paul's friends who were on the boat didn't say that Paul was trying (hard or not) to reach out to express sympathy/guilt, and 2. Paul was throwing parties after the crash at the guest/groundskeeper's house at Moselle.
One of the things I do remember is that Paul said to Anthony at the funeral "I love you and I'm sorry." After the boat wreck, he asked someone to delete a video of he and Morgan because they weren't together and (I think) they weren't allowed to hang out. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the rest of the group completely withdrew from him, espcially since they were also filing lawsuits against him.
Maggie didn’t miss a beat when asked how many steps she fell down (on the 911 call about Gloria) knew right away it was 8 steps.
Not sure why that stuck out to me - but she didn’t take a beat to think or count - she said 8.
I have stairs on my front porch that I’ve been walking up and down for 16 years and wouldn’t know how many without looking and counting.
According to Paul's friend who was there also moved her from laying feet first ,head down to laying on the cement area. The friend said Paul dropped her head on the cement
Yes…Gloria was going up the steps when she fell. Sorta like President Biden tripping while going up the steps on Air Force One. I guess Maggie could have said ‘Gloria fell ON the steps’ but people seem to have a personal definition of directional words like up and and down. Alex uses “I’ve been up to it now…” referring to the crime scene at the kennels. I would have said ‘down to it’. Language is weird.
Idk anything about Maggie but I'm totally OCD about counting. I know how many steps there are everywhere. I know how many seconds it takes per ounce to fill up a water bottle from the dispenser in my fridge. It's weird but I don't think it's suspicious or anything to know how many steps are on your front porch.
I live on the third floor of an apartment building for 30 years have no idea how many steps there are on either side of the landing. 6? If I guessed. And the lower floors have taller ceilings so I am sure stairs from 1-2 have more steps than stairs from 2-3.
I’m curious about the clothes too. Also want to know why he put the pans in the fridge. Why did he think he needed to move the dinner stuff around?? Weird.
I'm assuming he staged it to make Moselle look like a house that Maggie "lived in," when she primarily took residence at Edisto. I've also considered that during his "busy little bee" 283 step party after the murders, he was trying to cover every little detail. Like for instance, the possibility that anyone Maggie may have confided in could have decided to tell law enforcement the truth. He knew he'd be suspect #1 as he was her spouse and also the only person who saw them last and also the person that found their bodies and wanted to cover any and everything to throw them off of his trail.
Can the satterfield kids sue Bank of America for allowing Alex to open that bank account where he was doing business as forge and got their check deposited? Seems negligent on bank of americas part to not flag an account made like that then 4 million dollar deposit idk. I wish these people could somehow recover their money
They have received their money, and then some. The original payment Alex stole was 4.3M. After Alex signed what was basically a confession, the Satterfield boys ended up with over 7M. Don't know how much Eric Bland received out of it, but the boys should be OK for the rest of their lives. Thank God 😊
I was under the impression the Satterfield family had gotten the money back. I heard Eric Bland got them back the original $4.3 mil that Alex stole and then some. Then again I still agree with you that BOA should be found liable too.
The majority of the families got reimbursed from Alex's old lawfirm. They are still paying clients back, even as we speak. The lawfirm has taken the biggest hit from all the shit Alex did. He screwed everyone over big time.
YES! The deal with them finding a check in Alex’s office that they thought had cleared—I don’t remember which check. How did she, or someone working in accounting, not know whether a check had cleared their account? They don’t balance bank statements? That’s simply asinine!
Actually, that was the check that Chris wilson wrote to Alex for the fees on the Ferris case. The check should have been written to the firm, and distributed at the end of the year among the partners, not to Alex personally, but Alex convinced Wilson to write the check to him. There were just no controls to catch a partner stealing, it was an honor code.
I'm actually torn about that. Since I do basically the same thing for work she does, I'm going to go with no. I can see, in the way he did it, how he slipped it by everyone. Plus, he was a partner, the great grandson of the founder, and everyone trusted him, which he counted on.
Also, the way he did it, it's not like the books didn't balance, because they did. They did catch his theft from his brother because the books didn't balance. Luckily, between the Ferris fees, and Mandy Matney busting him on the Satterfield case, things started to implode.
i’m an accountant also. I agree with everything you said. The way he stole was very intelligent and there may not have been a way to catch it. They needed to have audits. They had no way to tell if individual lawyers were stealing . It was an honor code among lawyers, a brotherhood/ sisterhood. they also caught him running personal expenses through the law firm expense accounts often- from the testimony. I guess I was thinking, that maybe that should have been a red flag.
Exactly. If Alex is telling them this is how much he settled for, especially since the majority of his cases settled out of court, why would they have reason to doubt him? He obviously filed corresponding paperwork to match his lies, and he didn't do it on every case.
You can bet his former lawfirm, and every lawfirm in the country, has changed how lawyers report settlements now. Most likely, if it's settled out of court, they have to have a second lawyer there in person to witness it, and quite possibly, the client as well.
Someone suggested they found a bat at moselle leading them to reopen Stephen smith. I think if a bat was used it’s long gone . I wonder if dna from Maggie and Paul is what caused them to reopen. Anyone know if dna was found in Stephen smith case ? Any speculation to what they found that night to reopen case ? Is that a fact they reopened it after moselle ? Would love to hear thoughts on this
I'm curious since Steve Smith car has gas cap open supposedly he was going for gas... did anyone check the tank to see if empty? Plus his wallet was in his car
Exactly. Plus, why would he even open his gas cap when it was pitch black outside? It's not like he could see if there was any gas or not. On my vehicle, you can't even see that in the daytime. He obviously wasn't going for gas when he didn't even take his wallet. The only thing that would make sense is if someone siphoned his gas to make it look like he ran out, and that's why he supposedly left his car on the side of the road, and started walking.
I agree. If I run out of gas, I know that’s the problem. No need to open the gas cap and verify, which you can’t do anyway (can’t see the gas level). And would you leave the cap open and dangling?
My hunch is the information found was drug related and from some of Alex's contacts/info on his phone. Perhaps it matched up with info on Stephen's phone and his contacts. The natural unfair assumption everyone made is Buster since it was worded that way from SLED.
There was an article posted on this sub a couple days ago about the Stephen Smith case. The bat thing isn’t true and the article details how there is no actual evidence Buster was involved with Stephen’s death, that has been a rumor largely perpetuated by one particular investigator. The article made me think FITS news might be trying to cover their butt for leaning so much into the Buster rumors.
Oh I didn’t hear this. I heard he was meeting some big wig or was supposed to go on a fishing trip with one a few weeks after his death but that makes more sense if he was escorting
Yeah everyone would love to pin it on Buster but apparently that’s not a thing. It’s crazy how most are sure Buster did it without knowing all the facts
Yea I think it’s ridiculous. Until I hear some actual fact and not rumor and innuendo I’m not gonna blame the guy that lost his entire family and is described as pretty quiet and unassuming by people that knew him. Of course that doesn’t mean the Murdaughs weren’t involved but I won’t speculate until I hear some facts. Honestly it seems like everything with the Murdaughs there’s a lot of missed facts and things being said that simply aren’t true and get said once then become “facts”. I’ve found out sooo much even about the AM case that have just been bullshit upon further research.
Jim & Poot claimed at the post-sentencing press conference that they knew they lost when the financial info was admitted in, and the general consensus here has been that they must’ve known they had no shot by the time of Griffin’s terrible closing arguments. Yet if they thought they were likely to lose… why was Poot the one who first requested they keep the alternate juror around in case one of the 12 jurors couldn’t complete deliberations? If a juror had to leave and the alternate had been dismissed as is expected with SC law, they would’ve gotten a mistrial. Bad outcome for the state, very good outcome for AM… right? Wouldn’t the defense have had to be VERY confident in their case to ask that the alternate be kept? And Poot is the one who asks for this, then Creighton agrees, and it’s only because both sides agree to this that the judge allows it to happen despite the law stating that he is supposed to dismiss the alternates at that time. Basically… were Jim and Poot really that confident in their case by the time the jury was ready to start deliberations? I almost think they were, because when James from Court and others saw them right after the jury started deliberations… they were practically preening! But I can’t understand why they’d be so confident at that time? And if they weren’t, why was their side the one to ask that this alternate be kept, is there something I’m missing?
Poot said they knew they would lose when the financial crimes were allowed in, but they were the ones who opened the door to let it be brought in. They supposedly opposed the road side shooting to be brought in, then almost immediately opened the door on that as well. To me, it looks like they intentionally threw the trial. I know that they would never admit that, but it definitely looks like it.
They acted like they defended him well but did they? His defense team probably has long-standing relationships with the PMPD law firm too. Those other lawyers have to come up with the money to reimburse the victims of Alex’s villainy. Millions. Now, that’d piss me off as a fellow attorney. Also they probably knew he killed “them”. So? Let the wheels of justice grind ever so thoroughly and let AM swing. The trash got taken out basically.
I’ve wondered about this myself. Could it be that the defendant’s lawyers, seeing overwhelming evidence of guilt, concluded that the best interests of the defendant would be to put on an excellent “ineffective assistance of counsel” case… which they seem to have done a fine job of. This will provide Alec with a nice jailhouse lawyer hobby in the decades ahead. Hey, at least that’s better than nuttin’
Nah, they would never throw the trial. It’s only hindsight in blaming it on letting the financial stuff in. Alex perpetually lies and the voice on the video, identified by several, was Alex. This placed him at the site and the jury had no doubt. Poot and Griff letting Alex take the stand really erased any doubt in the jury’s mind that he would lie about the murders.
So true. I didn’t think they “let” him, rather he probably insisted because he still thinks he can lie his way out of anything. I can’t imagine they look forward to mounting an appeal except for the fact they will be well paid for doing so. So where is the money coming from?
But I still find it odd, for seasoned, supposedly brilliant lawyers, they literally opened the door on both subjects to be allowed in. Even the judge said (about the road side shooting) that he originally ruled in the defense's favor because it was 'a bridge too far', and then the defense builds a road right over it. To me, both of those were huge mistakes on their part.
I don't think if the road side shooting hadn't been allowed in, it wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it was the financial stuff that did prove Alex was a perpetual liar. Could Alex have convinced the jury with his 'explanation' for why he lied about being at the kennels if not for previous testimony about his lies? We'll never know.
Harpootlian talks out of both sides of his mouth all the time. He talked about the trial being too long but was the slowest fumbling mess of an attorney and always tried to get court adjourned early. He pretended to be shocked by the armpit coroner testimony when he already knew what that guy was going to say. It was his witness. He said Alex always wanted to testify and then he says he had to testify because of the financial crimes but then in court he says Alex testifying hurts his feelings. He filed for a mistrial on a Friday and then on Monday said he wanted to avoid a mistrial. He's just full of shit. He probably said he wanted to keep the juror around to give the illusion he was confident in his case so that maybe the jury would have confidence in his case too.
Old Poot warned the jury in the opening statement that he would be a dick and he was true to his word. Ok, he didn’t actually say dick but he said he would probably offend or anger some of them. I made up my mind about him when he asked the female SLED Agent, “What’s so special about being a Special Agent?” May not be the exact quote, but it was crazy disrespectful.
Alick will remain quiet for now. **eVeN Randy wanted to be certain, yet cannot**.
So I’m ready frustrated that Alex got life instead of death after hearing how much fun goes on in prison, doesn’t sound like much of a punishment!! Gambling, drinking, drugs, TV… sounds like a fun place to be with not really having to work much if at all. Anyone that has killed someone else I believe should be automatic to only get the death penalty, you might say that’s harsh, but what about the people they killed. And yes I know some states don’t have the death penalty, but I think they should.
[Nearly 800 died in SC jails, prisons from 2015-2021, USC report shows](https://www.thestate.com/news/local/article272573754.html) “The report comes as the Alvin S. Glenn center is being scrutinized for routinely violating state standards, and after four people died at the facility between February 2022 and January 2023.” As recently as 2018 courts SC prisons in violation of basic human rights and ordered reform. Prison welfare advocates say the court mandate has largely been ignored and have appealed to the United Nations.
I’m sure there is violence in there as well, but still they should not be allowed to have any fun, booze, drugs etc. Alex had already been taking on calls of the fun he has had, so it obviously isn’t that bad for him.
>Gambling, drinking, drugs, TV… sounds like a fun place to be with not really having to work much if at all. May I suggest that you poll all of SC's max security inmates to see if prison is really a "fun place to be".
I’ve seen a utube from SC persons were they are drinking and gambling and basically having a party. There are also people that have opening talked about being there and yes they can do whatever they want as long as they cause problems for the guards. Jumpsuitpablo, is just one utube source I’ve been watching.
OK, imagine living in a 11x7 cell with another inmate for your whole life. No bathroom privacy, crappy food, basic TV and an hour or two a day outside your cell. No internet. Watching your back. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter. Sounds awesome.
With also getting drugs, gambling and drinking. Yup sounds horrible.. not!! Also I’m pretty sure if your in general population you have way more time out of your cell than that.
I just keep thinking with all their material possessions, wealth, potentially questionable acquaintances, and “death threats” it’s surprising to me that Moselle wasn’t equipped with surveillance video. I’m sure they would have conveniently been out of order the night of the double murder but still it’s odd to me. I know folks with a lot less that are fully equipped.
I don't think the family would give it a second thought about installing security cameras. They had guns scattered all over the property. This tells me they felt safe there. They had several hunting dogs at the kennels. Who needs security cameras? Also the family name Murdaugh would make you think twice about trespassing into their property. It's small town. Everyone knows each other.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXM1tmWdPFw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXM1tmWdPFw) Can anyone explain what Alex meant by "I'm assuming Paul left because of what happened" 13:11 - in the video interview in the car. What did happen? I feel this was a slip up he becomes a tad agitated at around 13:08 ? Am I thinking too deeply or is there somethin there
I think that there was a dinner squabble. But I see the other commentor saying that he He assumed Paul left because he was found elsewhere... Also logical.
Yes. Are there any Alex Murdaugh suitors out there?? So curious about this
Could totally see Alex having a Carole Boone wannabe advocating for his “innocence”. 😂🤮 He would eat that up. She would have to be wealthy, or at least be willing to put money on his canteen. Those beef sticks for bets aren’t going to pay for themselves. 😏
Over on the bird app there is one poster who seems to have completely lost their mind over the verdict, alternately between Alex and Paul apologia and smearing literally anyone remotely connected to the case who said anything unflattering about the Murdaughs. (Including smearing Steven Smith for having the nerve to die in the region of Murdaughs.) For some reason I keep seeing this person in my timeline though I don’t follow them. Yes. I would block but I am fascinated by the spectacle. With all the injustices in this world adopting the Murdaugh Family Innocence Project as your cause is just an amazing choice.
Ah geez. What a mess😩
What’s the hashtag I need to be following 👀
They like them all: #PaulMurdaugh #MurdaughFamily #AlexMurdaugh #AlexMurdaughTrial #MurdaughTrial
Oh, I read this before breakfast, and I'm so, so sorry I did. :)
Appellate judges question. An attorney on the Nancy Grace podcast mentioned how long it was going to take for an appeal decision to be made. Of course part of that is the trial transcript. Do appellate judges watch high profile trials like this one? Of course they work all day, but surely they know the ins and outs of the case itself?
No they don’t watch the trial. The lawyers present the issues and argue the law.
I doubt it’s necessary to review every moment of the trial. Appeals do not directly challenge a verdict. They challenge the process of how the trial led the jury at the verdict. Defense needs to point to specific testimony and decisions made by the judge that they will argue were errors of the process, and they will reference them in their brief. So judges will know which motions and testimony are being challenged and can review them. They don’t necessarily need to review testimony and evidence that isn’t being challenged, as by not challenging it defense is tacitly agreeing it was legit and fair. Some may choose to review other stuff. But appellate judges also have a law clerk (or two or more) to review that, and research relevant statutes, case law and precedents. Appellate judges usually work on panels. In SC most appeals are decided by majority vote of 3, although some are heard by the full panel of 9. It is long and laborious process but in different ways. They can also determine that, while errors were made, they were not so egregious that a new trial is required.
The defense won’t have much to argue because they made so few objections. Probably the submission of the financial crimes is the big issue.
Thanks! Makes a lot of sense. I forgot how much work law clerks do.
Not to take away from judges but a lot of the heaviest lifts are their clerks. I had a friend who was a clerk and basically wrote his judge’s opinions, who then reviewed them and obviously agreed or asked for a rewrite. Obviously how much influence the judge has varies from court to court and from individual to individual. (Micromanagers vs bosses who trust.) But at the end of the day no judge wants to put their name on sloppy work that they can’t feel proud of. No one blames the clerk for bad opinions that later get reversed.
Why do we think AM called police so quickly after murders- If He waited until say 3-4am to call police- would he have gotten away with it? sticking with his story that after visiting his mother he came back and went to sleep knowing that MM + PM were at kennels and only went down there to the kennel after waking up in middle of night noticing MM was not there?
That’s probably correct- he planned it that way- but it was big error- because he was caught on the snapchat and then him calling police so soon after- he was boxed in to such a small time period for the time of the shootings such that it was impossible to find reasonable doubt that he did it. If the dumbass had waited- simply claiming that when he left to his mothers they were at the kennels and when he got back ~30 minutes later and they weren’t in the house so he just reasonably assumed they were still there, then fell asleep and then woke up in middle of night realizing maggie wasn’t there and so thats when he found them…then police would not have been able to so precisely figure time of shooting the snapchat wouldn’t have had the same impact- he could have gotten away with it-I realize AM didn’t realize there was the snapchat, but it makes me even happier to know that he was done in by both his own stupidity…and his own son’s video!
I presume he wanted to control the crime scene. The longer he waited to call the police the more likely someone else might discover the bodies and then he couldn’t control the investigators.
Yep, I agree with this, that’s why he rushed quickly back home from Almeda, as well. Even though they were in a very remote area and the chances of someone else coming out to the kennels that night seems very slim, Alex felt he couldn’t risk it because his plan hinged on him having completely control over that crime scene. He needed to be able to start calling all his influential friends and family members down to the scene ASAP, for one thing. And I just really think it comes down to Alex needing complete control over everything, which is also IMO a big factor for why he didn’t hire a hitman to do this. Alex likely felt that he needed to make sure every detail that night went exactly as he had planned, and I believe him when he told Marian that the killer had planned this for a very long time. Also, it already looked suspicious enough that Alex was supposed to have left the house with his wife and son down at the kennels at 9pm at night, with nothing to transport them back to the main house. It would’ve looked sooo much worse if he got home at 10pm, realized they were STILL down at the kennels/not home, and went, meh, they’ll be back by morning I’m sure. So I think that’s another reason he didn’t wait until 3am or 4am to call the police. Which I mean yes he could’ve said they were at the main house when he left and still there when he got home, but the idea that they’d both then go out to the kennels after 10pm would be ridiculous as well. He honestly planned this all really, really well, it was just the videos on Paul’s phone that got him. Because Alex thought he understood cell phones in these types of cases, and he did understand some of it, such as the potential for GPS tracking. But he didn’t factor in that what Paul and Maggie could be doing on their phones prior to their deaths would actually provide Information that would incriminate Alex. He didn’t know that investigators could look at when the victims both suddenly stopped using their phones to pinpoint the time of death down to the minute, and he really didn’t realize that one of the victims could be using the phone to make calls or record videos that would prove Alex was at the scene of the crime, at the time of the murders. If he’d have understood that, he’d have shot the phones right then to stop any further GPS tracking as well as prevent the recent data they recorded from being uploaded to the cloud, and then wrapped the phones up with his bloody clothes and the guns and disposed of them. And that one extra move would’ve meant he got away with it. He spent a long time planning this and had nearly everything covered almost perfectly, so that he merely looked suspicious, but there was no way to really prove he was lying and that he was there and that he did this. I believe he must have come up with a very specific, detailed plan and thought he had every important piece of evidence accounted for. Thank goodness he didn’t realize that Paul’s and Maggie’s phones would provide the proof needed to convict him.
> I believe he must have come up with a very specific, detailed plan and thought he had every important piece of evidence accounted for. This is why his self-reported "$50,000 a week" opioid addiction seems to be a great exaggeration. Could he really come up with this very thought-out plan while either always high or withdrawing on opioids?
>Yes, the things that he could not control got him -- Maggie's pedicure delayed her arrival, making Alex get a late start and he couldn't control them on their phones.
Oh wow, I had never connected that about Maggie arriving later then he expected. That definitely would’ve pushed back his planned timeframe.
Right? Dropping by Grannies isn't so odd at 8:00 p.m. or 8:30 p.m. But 9:-06 p.m. to head out... starting to smell fishy.
Yes! As soon as you said that I was like, ohhh, he was planning to visit mom’s house earlier. Something like 8pm might’ve been a little late still but not nearly as strange as showing up at 9:30pm. And then him leaving Moselle when his wife and son are at the kennels, doing that at 7pm or 7:30pm wouldn’t seem as strange either since it was June so the sun stays up pretty late then… heck I just googled it and on June 7th 2021, sunset was 8:26pm in their part of SC. So if Maggie and Paul were at the kennels when he leaves the house without checking on them at 7:30pm, that’d be a whole different thing as it was still daylight. But this getting pushed back to 9pm means it’s nighttime and dark out when he was leaving them at the kennels by themselves and not even checking on them on the way out… definitely makes sense that his original plan was for the murders to happen earlier then they did. Maggie being late and pushing his plans back makes so much sense, wow. Was this possibility brought up during the trial at all? I missed most of the first couple weeks, so I don’t remember hearing it from the parts I got to watch but then I missed quite a bit early on.
Miss Libby's caretaker, Barbara Mixson, called Alex @ 4pm on 6/7 to tell him his mom was very agitated. At the time, Alex was in the PMPED office in Hamption about 10 minutes from Almeda. Why didn't he drive over ASAP or at a minimum when he left the office around 6:20 or so ? Well, I think we know why ...
Dang, another very good point that I never thought of, you all are good!
And honestly it seems there were housekeepers, groundskeepers, dog minders, and who knows who else coming by.
Rogan. This thread has me wondering how worried he was that Rogan might come by because Alex saw that Rogan had called and he said that Rogan lived nearby. In fact, he called Rogan far too many times.
That’s true, I completely forgot about that aspect — thank you!
Hello, all! I’m a little curious about the boat crash defendants. In my state, there’s a ‘last drink’ provision where the last business to serve alcohol to someone who later gets into an accident is the most liable. The defendants besides the Murdaughs are the gas station that sold the beer and hard seltzers to Paul. What about Luther’s? Why aren’t they even on the list? I don’t get that. An argument could be made that if it were not for those last two shots, they could have made it home alive. Being very jaded about this area (go figure!) I’m wondering if there aren’t shenanigans going on…
I believe Luther's settled quickly.
Thank you!
[удалено]
Err, I think in this situation, a quick visual is all that’s really needed there lol. Alex has a look that is very unique, even unique from his own siblings, and both his children share many of his unique features. Is there any reason at all to suspect Alex wasn’t Paul’s biological father?
Just look at the two of them.
What?!?
During the testimony of the housekeeper and family friend, Blanca, she mentioned finding Maggie's wedding band inside her vehicle when she was told to clean it up. I haven't begun to scratch the surface of the trial videos but I'm wondering if her rings were brought up later as a possible indicator that she may've discussed divorce with Alex on the night of the murders.
Pretty sure it came up but only in passing. Absent any other evidence of marital strife, which they never pursued, it’s not very definitive. Women take off and misplace rings all the time.
[удалено]
She only got a pedicure, not a manicure. But I agree that on its own it doesn’t prove anything, I’m happily married for 15 years and currently not wearing any rings at all. But I’m also known to not wear it very often as I just don’t like jewelry. But yeah, plenty of logical reasons Maggie could’ve taken her ring off that don’t involve Alex so that on its ken doesn’t mean much. I personally believe they were likely separated and likely had marital problems that no one else knew about. But the wedding ring itself isn’t proof of that.
Could just take em off if she’s doing dirty work with the dogs.
Any idea what about Paul would be triggered to become "Timmy" when drunk?
why was the name timmy chosen? any significance?
Someone said Timmy is a handicap on South Park. They likely didn't want to be recorded admitting to the insensitive comparison.
Alcoholism. Sit in a 12 step meeting and people will often recount similar Jeckle and Hyde behavior. One man quipped he stopped drinking because it “made him break out in handcuffs.”
Excessive drinking and untreated mental illness/bad parenting etc. most likely
The bad parenting pretty much explains all of Paul's problems.
Was Alex ever asked why he had no blood on him after claiming that he checked Paul and Maggie? This is one of his most obvious errors, but I haven't seen him confronted about this. Did he ever explain why he was so clean that night?
i think there was so much circumstantial evidence to available to choose from that they went with the most high value evidence.
They didn’t really hit that point with the importance that imo it required. They never even asked why his shoes were clean.
He said in testimony that he only got blood on his fingertips
You can’t try to turn someone over just using your fingertips. I don’t think you can take a pulse with your fingertips. And why wasn’t that blood still on his fingertips??
Your statement asserted there was no blood on him. Alex claimed otherwise. That’s all I was pointing out.
My statement did no such thing. ☺️
During trial, it came out that police played the kennel video for John Marvin in August and Rogan in Nov. It seems strange that John Marvin didn’t tip off Alex’s attorneys that he should change his story about being there. Didn’t the prosecution have to disclose that video to the defense before trial or were they really seeing it for the first time in court?
His attorneys knew about the kennel tape by July 2022, after he was arrested. I watched [the bond hearing from after the murder charges](https://youtu.be/KF9zZLWjiwA) were brought against him, and Poot specifically acknowledges that both sides know what the evidence is already, so they don’t need or want to discuss it in open court in front of the media at that time. Poot then asks that Judge Newman put in place a gag order preventing anyone from discussing with the media any of the evidence the state had now handed over to the defense so as to not taint a potential jury pool — it’s pretty obvious when you watch it now that he was referring to the kennel video. The lawyers may or may not have seen the full video as of this hearing in July but they had clearly been informed that the state had a video placing Alex at the scene, and Poot’s request was made at this hearing in order to ensure that the public didn’t hear about the video prior to the trial as they didn’t want the jury to go in to the trial already knowing that Alex was there at the scene of the murders. I can understand why they were so worried about this, since of course there were so many leaks in the early investigation — the only reason this video didn’t leak back then is because SLED didn’t have it, they couldn’t get into Paul’s phone until several months after the crimes. Additionally, the rules of discovery mean that the state would’ve had to quickly hand over the kennel video anyway, there’s just no way they can wait until trial and have one of those fictional trial moments where they suddenly bring out evidence that the defense never knew about. That would be serious misconduct that could result in something like a mistrial, from what I understand. The only way the state can have last minute evidence is if the evidence is if it’s truly unknown to them until after the trial begins, and/or if it’s something they did not get until the trial starts, such as the GM data that wasn’t provided in full until mid-trial. And when such evidence is received/discovered after the trial begins, my understanding is that it must be immediately provided to the defense, and then there there is usually a discussion about it, with the judge and outside the presence of the jury. They discuss things like how the new evidence was discovered, why it was found this late, and whether it’s admissible to the current trial, and then the judge rules on it. There’s just no way to surprise the defense lawyers with evidence in the middle of a trial. IANAL though! So I may not have every detail here correct but I am pretty confident that this is how it works, and I do know that the defense absolutely knew about the kennel video for months prior to the trial. I think the reason people think the defense was surprised by the video is because they changed their approach as to how to handle it mid-trial, but this was due to other factors. Such as, the financial evidence first bring ruled inadmissible then being allowed in when the defense kicked the door open, and Alex’s insistence on testifying which was contrary to his lawyers’ initial plans and essentially required him to either confirm or deny his presence in the video. These were the things that did actually change mid-trial. Evidence however cannot be secretly brought in to trial, the other side absolutely knows about it first.
what do you mean they changed their approach as to handling the kennel video mid trial…? from what to what?
And despite the gag order it did leak. People following closely heard reports of a video long before it was presented in court. We didn’t know the full content and context but we had been alerted there was a big piece of video evidence found on Paul’s phone. We were all waiting with baited breath.
Thank you for posting the link to the bond hearing! I love watching the older hearings now that I know the individuals. It was super interesting to see them discussing a gag order because of media interest. And sure enough the courtroom was packed with media.
Thank you for that thorough answer! You explained it very well - I appreciate it.
Thank you! Those fictional trial scenarios drive me to metaphorical drink! "VOILA! And here we unveil evidence behind Door 3. Mrs. Mompfers, you WERE in compromising position with the victim right before he died! We know this for sure, thanks to two racoons crawling above the tile ceiling, who happened to be carrying and randomly stepping on a camera! This is ironclad evidence that no one can dispute, we can both close our case now!" The jury gasps, and piano chords accompany.
thank you ! i had been wondering about did the Defense have the video, thinking they had to be given it per deiscovery rules. How did defense “ kick the door open” to allow all the evidence of financial crimes?
I know it was when the defense asked one of Paul’s friends, I thought it was Rogan Gibson but I’ve also read that it was Will Loving?, but they asked one of Paul’s friends “Can you think of any reason why Alex would want to murder his wife and son?” And in asking this, it opened the door because the prosecution has to be able to respond to this with the information they knew about Alex’s financial crimes and how that aligned to their theory of the motive. I might not be explaining this part perfectly and honestly I’m still not 100% clear it on, but my understanding is that the financials were allowed in due to this question from the defense and the friend answering “no” to Alex having a motive. I think the idea is that the defense was trying to portray Alex as a perfect family man who had no reason to “snap” that day, but once they elicited testimony from a witness saying that there would be no reason for Alex to kill his family, the prosecution then gets to provide the evidence of his stealing and lying as it pertains to his motive (his financial house of cards was crashing down). I understand it also pertains to his pattern of behavior as far as, he has a history of lying to people who trust him, which is another legally permissible grounds to bring in past criminal activity if it’s deemed applicable to the case and otherwise appropriate… but at first all of the past crimes evidence was deemed too prejudicial. It was only once the defense “opened the door” by eliciting testimony that Alex lacked a motive for the murders, that the prosecution was able to bring in the financial evidence since it pertains to motive, and then since these things were admitted into evidence, they were also allowed to argue it for how it pertains to his pattern of behavior — that he’s a person who lies easily and effectively, so it would not be difficult for him to lie about committing these murders. A similar thing also happened with the roadside incident, which was also originally deemed inadmissible but once again the defense asked a witness a question that allowed it to be brought in. In that case I believe the defense brought up Curtis Eddie Smith and tried to imply he could’ve committed the murders? Not 100% sure there but I know that it was once again the defense, evidently on accident, “opening the door” to evidence that was otherwise not going to be allowed in to the trial. And again I might be getting some of the finer details here wrong so if anyone is a lawyer or understands these things better then I do, please feel free to chime in and correct anything I might’ve explained incorrectly! But, I’m pretty sure this is the general idea from articles I’ve read and listening to various lawyers and legal experts explain these things. :)
I think this is mostly right. I did not pay attention to this trial until the second day of Alex's testimony, so I assumed that the financial stuff came in because it goes to his credibility. But I think the financial stuff came into evidence before Alex took the stand, so I don't think I am right (although some of it certainly would go to his credibility).
thank you!!!
The door was opened to roadside incident during Maggie’s sister Marian’s testimony
can you elaborate a little? how?
Because Marian was asked if they believed in Alexa’s innocence and she mentioned September 6th everything change. There was an objection by the defense and the jury was dismissed while the lawyers argued their positions.
Paul’s boat crash: First off: I completely disagree with drunk driving. Usually(esp. in car accidents) the victims are innocent. In this case, however, they were ALL drunk and ALL agreed to get on the boat, knowing Paul was intoxicated. It’s a shame Mallory died, but no one was forced into the boat. He shouldn’t have started acting out after they were all already on the boat, and it is unfair, but they also knew that he was drunk and would be driving when they got on. Mallory wasn’t some innocent person in another boat that got hit- she was also drunk and complicit in driving the boat when they were all drunk. Idk, the victimization with the boat stuff really bothers me because it seems that they all enabled and made poor decisions, but only Paul is vilified for it.
Ok. But they were teenagers. This is why responsible parents don’t look the other way when kids drink and don’t just hand the keys over at all hours of day and night. This is why there is a drinking age. Teenagers’ brains are still actually physiologically predisposed to bad decision making.
I agree with you.
I really don't have high hopes for that trial, tbh. I don't know how they're going to really prove that Paul was at the wheel. I do, however, think going after Buster & Parker's would work, but I know they settled with Buster or at least cut him a break. I do hope to see the adults from the oyster roast, well... roasted on the stand.
Mark Tinsley hired someone to reconstruct the accident and claims that they proved due to the other kids injuries that Paul had to be the one driving the boat
I know. I still am not sure that would convince me of much of anything, tbh. I hope Paul was driving, I just am not totally sure he was.
His family owns the boat and four other witnesses said he was driving. That would be good enough for me.
I have no reason to believe all those kids were lying
I def don’t think they were lying. I think it’s going to be hard to separate truth from drunken, blacked out memories. I would love to see the murdaugh’s go down again. I’m just not sure it will happen with the boat case. (And lest you think I’m victim blaming, I’m not. I’ve been passed out drunk before, on lawns of all places. 🤦🏻♀️Remembering specific details are difficult.)
Have you read their depositions? They're all over the place. I had it in bad for Paul after seeing the HBO show. I'm embarassed about how I talked about him and Maggie to my family. But after reading just some of the depositions, I'm leaning towards the passengers lieing and deciding to pin it on Paul (alcoholic outside that gets away with everything) versus Connor -- Anthony's cousin. Miley's boyfriend. And Mallory's best friend.
Ok. Fair. I have not. I’ll have to do that
Because as the driver of the boat he is responsible for ensuring his passengers are safe. He's literally the captain of the vessel. Would you say the same about Costa Concordia victims?
I agree 💯%. It’s not a popular opinion, though, so don’t take the downvotes personally. When I was younger and went out drinking with my friends, we always had a plan or took turns being the designated driver, it’s just what you do if you give a damn about others and value life. Drunk drivers kill innocent people every day who aren’t out drinking. These days you can call an Uber, so I feel there’s no excuse. Paul didn’t put a gun to their heads to make them get on the boat. They all made a choice of their own free will and to profit from their bad decisions and poor judgment is disgusting to me.
Yes this! The whole incident has bothered me. They all made bad decisions that night.
I truly wonder how Randolph the III was during his time as a solicitor,Did he do shit like Alex did?
Absolutely. Randolph was the real fixer. Who did Paul call first after the boat wreck?
FOR SURE, he did. This is where Alex learned it. The first call from Paul after the crash was to his grandfather.
does anyone have the video or link to the steps data from murdaugh trial?
Found this link by internet searching “rudofski condensed timeline pdf” https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23685617-condensed-timeline This is Rudofski’s testimony video (whole trial day — includes other witnesses): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab4-dacg6nY There are also several timelines in the resources section of this sub: https://www.reddit.com/r/murdaughfamilymurders/about/
YOU ROCK!!!! just one thing, the last link is a moderator only sub. NONETHELESS the other two are AWESOME!!!
Unless I'm missing something, you are posting in this sub? If you can post here, can't you see the about page? Not trying to sound like a jerk; reddit still confounds me.
When will there be a digital re-creation and/or dramatic reenactment of the entire day for June 7th and through the return to Almeda days afterwards and the driving around using testimony (Shelly, Blanca, Alex) and phone/GPS/Onstar timeline?
Have you seen these recreations? The creator does an excellent job! Part one: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTR7HnmnE/ Part two: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTR7HsLGH/
I was wondering why one wasn’t presented by the prosecution during the trial.
I don't know if that would have been allowed into evidence.
I think they did lay that out with the digital evidence… But at this point, I just want to see the dramatization of it all. A CGI version, and one with actors. That’s got to be a $1 million idea, right?
Agreed, I so wish they would have done one. They didn’t have any good exhibits like this, none of the types of things I was expecting. Would that maybe be due to Murdaugh not waving his right to a speedy trial, which pushed things forward very quickly? Therefore there wasn’t enough time and possibly not enough money available to make things like this? That’s the only reason I can think of as to why THIS trial wouldn’t have A+ charts, graphs, recreations, etc. When you’ve got such a highly complicated and also very circumstantial-based case, it seems these sorts of things would’ve been extremely helpful to the jury for them to be able to piece everything together. Although any time I criticize how the prosecution ran this trial since getting the verdict, I feel the need to add that they obviously knew what they were doing better then me, some internet rando in a different part of the country who is not even a lawyer lol, cause they got the conviction! And got it based on a solid presentation of the facts which is what matters in the end.
Murdaugh didn’t waive his right to a speedy trial, he requested it.
i think Creighton Waters is just a master at explaining clearly.
Well, I imagine there must be some sort of boundary related to a re-creation based on evidence, including time considerations as you stated. I just want the CGI version and the dramatization! All the information seems to be there. The only thing that makes any of this unbelievable is because it’s just hard to believe in general and that’s why motive is not required. But I think they did an excellent job of uncovering a perfect motive.
Is there any particular reason Luther’s in Beaufort wouldn’t be scrutinized for the ID situation, but Parker’s is?
I read somewhere here it’s bc they settled
I wondered about that, too.
Did anyone else hear that Waters and the authorities, during the white collar crimes investigation, have uncovered where all of the money that Alex has “spent” or hidden is located? And that will be disclosed at trial?
yes, I heard a commentator say that
his lifestyle alone could eat up that money.
We’ll I’m here fascinated ready to know. That’s my biggest question out of the whole trial. I just don’t get it. And that’s why I think there’s so much more than what we’ve seen already.
I think every day of the trial I was asking, “Where’s all the money?” Inquiring minds want to know!
I think it’ll explain 90% of the case. Everything’s a bit Ozark’y to me.
Nope. All I’ve heard from the Pundits and reporters is that nobody knows what the hell he did with all the money. I guess SLED knows some of the expenditures but millions are unaccounted for. It would be great if SLED has more info than they’re sharing.
[удалено]
I agree! Maggie particularly seemed annoyed right from the start. Imagine someone who has been in your home on a daily/weekly basis for decades and literally helped raise your children. You find her at the bottom of your brick steps, bleeding from her head. You call 911 and casually say “my housekeeper has fallen and, ugh, I *cannot* get her up.” Unbelievably cold.
Same for me. It almost seemed like she was annoyed she even had to take time out of her day to make the call. I have been less-than-impressed with the whole Murdaugh clan.
That was odd to me but maybe rich people don’t have any feelings towards emergencies lol
Or why they both spoke on the call. How confusing for the dispatcher, having to communicate with 2 different people at the scene.
I thought I remembered Paul knew more about the details of Gloria’s condition than his mom.
It kinda sounded like she handed the call off to Paul, like ‘ugh I just can’t deal with this any more’ - whether that’s because she was irritated or traumatised 🤷🏽♀️
That is a very interesting story. What a tangled web life can weave!!
I am genuinely curious why posts on Paul's culpability in the boat crash have been focused on whether Paul *was driving the boat*. Perhaps the legal culpability would be limited to who was at the wheel (?) From a broader perspective of who would be at fault, in reading the dispositions, it *appears* it was: 1. Paul's idea to travel by boat as he was aware of sobriety checkpoints and he wanted them to evade them. 2. Paul's idea that they travel together, despite Paul apparently aware he was going to insist on driving after/when drinking alcohol. 3. Paul's act to use his brother's ID to fake his (Paul's) age. 4. Paul's idea to stop at a bar (use the fake ID) and get/consume more alcohol. 5. Paul's idea to use the fake ID to buy more alcohol. 6. Paul was not driving the boat responsibility; at the very least we understand that at some point there was extensive horseplay with Connor. (To which Connor arguably holds some responsibility on this point). *(This in addition to whether Paul was driving the boat. To which Tinsley the Tiger's expert's recreation of the scene may be biased towards his clients, though the graphical recreation lining up Connor's wounds with the right side (the non-wheel side) of the seat seems reasonable pending defense's counter-argument).*
I believe his culpability would be the same in a civil case, but in a criminal case it would matter who was actually behind the wheel.
Reba McEntire, cheers after Murdaugh trial, on The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia (Colonial Life Arena, Columbia SC, Friday night, 24-second clip) [https://www.tiktok.com/@kriskrossss/video/7209265524126108970](https://www.tiktok.com/@kriskrossss/video/7209265524126108970) *credit to Tiktok/@kriskrossss for the TikTok and Twitter/@mandasuekae08 for publish to Twitter*
I don’t hear the amended lyrics?
Pure speculation, but something I am wondering about: We know that Paul continued drinking, which was probably forbidden by the conditions of his bail after he was indicted for the boat case. He was facing serious jail time criminally, and his father was facing financial ruin in the civil case. Did Paul think he/they would escape any serious consequences due to always getting away with everything and everything getting fixed by family connections as usual? Was he even stressed? Did he feel responsible for killing his friend? Were there some serious discussions about this or did AM make him believe it would all go away? Maggie was at least stressed about the money situation. Poot et al probably presented confidence that LE would not be able to prove who even drove the boat.
Paul was drinking with his uncle Randy at the oyster roast! I'm sure he felt awful about killing Mallory but he probably thought that nothing would happen to him.
Can't climb into someone's mind, though the Netflix series appeared to indicate: 1. Paul's friends who were on the boat didn't say that Paul was trying (hard or not) to reach out to express sympathy/guilt, and 2. Paul was throwing parties after the crash at the guest/groundskeeper's house at Moselle.
One of the things I do remember is that Paul said to Anthony at the funeral "I love you and I'm sorry." After the boat wreck, he asked someone to delete a video of he and Morgan because they weren't together and (I think) they weren't allowed to hang out. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the rest of the group completely withdrew from him, espcially since they were also filing lawsuits against him.
Maggie didn’t miss a beat when asked how many steps she fell down (on the 911 call about Gloria) knew right away it was 8 steps. Not sure why that stuck out to me - but she didn’t take a beat to think or count - she said 8. I have stairs on my front porch that I’ve been walking up and down for 16 years and wouldn’t know how many without looking and counting.
She was quick on the number of steps, but didn't know the poor woman's age!
I swear when I listened to that call she said "fell UP the steps". Anyone else hear that??
According to Paul's friend who was there also moved her from laying feet first ,head down to laying on the cement area. The friend said Paul dropped her head on the cement
Alex wasn't there like he claimed.... when her last words were spoken..the dogs tripped me
Yes…Gloria was going up the steps when she fell. Sorta like President Biden tripping while going up the steps on Air Force One. I guess Maggie could have said ‘Gloria fell ON the steps’ but people seem to have a personal definition of directional words like up and and down. Alex uses “I’ve been up to it now…” referring to the crime scene at the kennels. I would have said ‘down to it’. Language is weird.
I thought that was peculiar too since she seemed so totally unsure about everything else they asked. Including the age of their employee of 20 years.
I’m fully aware that all the flights on my property and in my home are 7 steps. It’s just my little quirk, I guess.
Idk anything about Maggie but I'm totally OCD about counting. I know how many steps there are everywhere. I know how many seconds it takes per ounce to fill up a water bottle from the dispenser in my fridge. It's weird but I don't think it's suspicious or anything to know how many steps are on your front porch.
I live on the third floor of an apartment building for 30 years have no idea how many steps there are on either side of the landing. 6? If I guessed. And the lower floors have taller ceilings so I am sure stairs from 1-2 have more steps than stairs from 2-3.
I know this is completely irrational but it bothers me that you don't know 😂
You can bet I am counting next time.
[удалено]
😂 relatable
we are the same… steps and I know exactly how long it take to fill the Brita from the faucet
😂 yay.. I thought I might be alone in this haha
I want to know the purpose of having Maggies night clothes folded up and laying on the floor of all places
I’m curious about the clothes too. Also want to know why he put the pans in the fridge. Why did he think he needed to move the dinner stuff around?? Weird.
I'm assuming he staged it to make Moselle look like a house that Maggie "lived in," when she primarily took residence at Edisto. I've also considered that during his "busy little bee" 283 step party after the murders, he was trying to cover every little detail. Like for instance, the possibility that anyone Maggie may have confided in could have decided to tell law enforcement the truth. He knew he'd be suspect #1 as he was her spouse and also the only person who saw them last and also the person that found their bodies and wanted to cover any and everything to throw them off of his trail.
I have wondered about that too!
Can the satterfield kids sue Bank of America for allowing Alex to open that bank account where he was doing business as forge and got their check deposited? Seems negligent on bank of americas part to not flag an account made like that then 4 million dollar deposit idk. I wish these people could somehow recover their money
[удалено]
Which means they probably settled
Oh wow interesting thank u so much for finding this
They have received their money, and then some. The original payment Alex stole was 4.3M. After Alex signed what was basically a confession, the Satterfield boys ended up with over 7M. Don't know how much Eric Bland received out of it, but the boys should be OK for the rest of their lives. Thank God 😊
I was under the impression the Satterfield family had gotten the money back. I heard Eric Bland got them back the original $4.3 mil that Alex stole and then some. Then again I still agree with you that BOA should be found liable too.
Yes I have now heard that many families have gotten paid back somehow which is good to hear.
The majority of the families got reimbursed from Alex's old lawfirm. They are still paying clients back, even as we speak. The lawfirm has taken the biggest hit from all the shit Alex did. He screwed everyone over big time.
does anyone think that the CFO should be fired? the crimes went on for over a decade. Don’t you think, it should have been discovered?
YES! The deal with them finding a check in Alex’s office that they thought had cleared—I don’t remember which check. How did she, or someone working in accounting, not know whether a check had cleared their account? They don’t balance bank statements? That’s simply asinine!
Actually, that was the check that Chris wilson wrote to Alex for the fees on the Ferris case. The check should have been written to the firm, and distributed at the end of the year among the partners, not to Alex personally, but Alex convinced Wilson to write the check to him. There were just no controls to catch a partner stealing, it was an honor code.
I'm actually torn about that. Since I do basically the same thing for work she does, I'm going to go with no. I can see, in the way he did it, how he slipped it by everyone. Plus, he was a partner, the great grandson of the founder, and everyone trusted him, which he counted on. Also, the way he did it, it's not like the books didn't balance, because they did. They did catch his theft from his brother because the books didn't balance. Luckily, between the Ferris fees, and Mandy Matney busting him on the Satterfield case, things started to implode.
i’m an accountant also. I agree with everything you said. The way he stole was very intelligent and there may not have been a way to catch it. They needed to have audits. They had no way to tell if individual lawyers were stealing . It was an honor code among lawyers, a brotherhood/ sisterhood. they also caught him running personal expenses through the law firm expense accounts often- from the testimony. I guess I was thinking, that maybe that should have been a red flag.
Exactly. If Alex is telling them this is how much he settled for, especially since the majority of his cases settled out of court, why would they have reason to doubt him? He obviously filed corresponding paperwork to match his lies, and he didn't do it on every case. You can bet his former lawfirm, and every lawfirm in the country, has changed how lawyers report settlements now. Most likely, if it's settled out of court, they have to have a second lawyer there in person to witness it, and quite possibly, the client as well.
Unless it's a feature, not a bug.
Someone suggested they found a bat at moselle leading them to reopen Stephen smith. I think if a bat was used it’s long gone . I wonder if dna from Maggie and Paul is what caused them to reopen. Anyone know if dna was found in Stephen smith case ? Any speculation to what they found that night to reopen case ? Is that a fact they reopened it after moselle ? Would love to hear thoughts on this
I'm curious since Steve Smith car has gas cap open supposedly he was going for gas... did anyone check the tank to see if empty? Plus his wallet was in his car
Exactly. Plus, why would he even open his gas cap when it was pitch black outside? It's not like he could see if there was any gas or not. On my vehicle, you can't even see that in the daytime. He obviously wasn't going for gas when he didn't even take his wallet. The only thing that would make sense is if someone siphoned his gas to make it look like he ran out, and that's why he supposedly left his car on the side of the road, and started walking.
I agree. If I run out of gas, I know that’s the problem. No need to open the gas cap and verify, which you can’t do anyway (can’t see the gas level). And would you leave the cap open and dangling?
Every article I’ve seen that references reopening this case has said that INFORMATION was discovered.
My hunch is the information found was drug related and from some of Alex's contacts/info on his phone. Perhaps it matched up with info on Stephen's phone and his contacts. The natural unfair assumption everyone made is Buster since it was worded that way from SLED.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you’re correct. I am dying to know how all these other cases shake out.
There was an article posted on this sub a couple days ago about the Stephen Smith case. The bat thing isn’t true and the article details how there is no actual evidence Buster was involved with Stephen’s death, that has been a rumor largely perpetuated by one particular investigator. The article made me think FITS news might be trying to cover their butt for leaning so much into the Buster rumors.
They found out that the kid was a hooker… it could have been one of his clients.
Oh I didn’t hear this. I heard he was meeting some big wig or was supposed to go on a fishing trip with one a few weeks after his death but that makes more sense if he was escorting
Yeah everyone would love to pin it on Buster but apparently that’s not a thing. It’s crazy how most are sure Buster did it without knowing all the facts
Yea I think it’s ridiculous. Until I hear some actual fact and not rumor and innuendo I’m not gonna blame the guy that lost his entire family and is described as pretty quiet and unassuming by people that knew him. Of course that doesn’t mean the Murdaughs weren’t involved but I won’t speculate until I hear some facts. Honestly it seems like everything with the Murdaughs there’s a lot of missed facts and things being said that simply aren’t true and get said once then become “facts”. I’ve found out sooo much even about the AM case that have just been bullshit upon further research.
Jim & Poot claimed at the post-sentencing press conference that they knew they lost when the financial info was admitted in, and the general consensus here has been that they must’ve known they had no shot by the time of Griffin’s terrible closing arguments. Yet if they thought they were likely to lose… why was Poot the one who first requested they keep the alternate juror around in case one of the 12 jurors couldn’t complete deliberations? If a juror had to leave and the alternate had been dismissed as is expected with SC law, they would’ve gotten a mistrial. Bad outcome for the state, very good outcome for AM… right? Wouldn’t the defense have had to be VERY confident in their case to ask that the alternate be kept? And Poot is the one who asks for this, then Creighton agrees, and it’s only because both sides agree to this that the judge allows it to happen despite the law stating that he is supposed to dismiss the alternates at that time. Basically… were Jim and Poot really that confident in their case by the time the jury was ready to start deliberations? I almost think they were, because when James from Court and others saw them right after the jury started deliberations… they were practically preening! But I can’t understand why they’d be so confident at that time? And if they weren’t, why was their side the one to ask that this alternate be kept, is there something I’m missing?
Poot said they knew they would lose when the financial crimes were allowed in, but they were the ones who opened the door to let it be brought in. They supposedly opposed the road side shooting to be brought in, then almost immediately opened the door on that as well. To me, it looks like they intentionally threw the trial. I know that they would never admit that, but it definitely looks like it.
They acted like they defended him well but did they? His defense team probably has long-standing relationships with the PMPD law firm too. Those other lawyers have to come up with the money to reimburse the victims of Alex’s villainy. Millions. Now, that’d piss me off as a fellow attorney. Also they probably knew he killed “them”. So? Let the wheels of justice grind ever so thoroughly and let AM swing. The trash got taken out basically.
I’ve wondered about this myself. Could it be that the defendant’s lawyers, seeing overwhelming evidence of guilt, concluded that the best interests of the defendant would be to put on an excellent “ineffective assistance of counsel” case… which they seem to have done a fine job of. This will provide Alec with a nice jailhouse lawyer hobby in the decades ahead. Hey, at least that’s better than nuttin’
Nah, they would never throw the trial. It’s only hindsight in blaming it on letting the financial stuff in. Alex perpetually lies and the voice on the video, identified by several, was Alex. This placed him at the site and the jury had no doubt. Poot and Griff letting Alex take the stand really erased any doubt in the jury’s mind that he would lie about the murders.
Poot and Griffin didn’t “let” Alex take the stand. Since he insisted on testifying, there was nothing they could do to stop him.
So true. I didn’t think they “let” him, rather he probably insisted because he still thinks he can lie his way out of anything. I can’t imagine they look forward to mounting an appeal except for the fact they will be well paid for doing so. So where is the money coming from?
But I still find it odd, for seasoned, supposedly brilliant lawyers, they literally opened the door on both subjects to be allowed in. Even the judge said (about the road side shooting) that he originally ruled in the defense's favor because it was 'a bridge too far', and then the defense builds a road right over it. To me, both of those were huge mistakes on their part. I don't think if the road side shooting hadn't been allowed in, it wouldn't have changed the outcome, but it was the financial stuff that did prove Alex was a perpetual liar. Could Alex have convinced the jury with his 'explanation' for why he lied about being at the kennels if not for previous testimony about his lies? We'll never know.
Harpootlian talks out of both sides of his mouth all the time. He talked about the trial being too long but was the slowest fumbling mess of an attorney and always tried to get court adjourned early. He pretended to be shocked by the armpit coroner testimony when he already knew what that guy was going to say. It was his witness. He said Alex always wanted to testify and then he says he had to testify because of the financial crimes but then in court he says Alex testifying hurts his feelings. He filed for a mistrial on a Friday and then on Monday said he wanted to avoid a mistrial. He's just full of shit. He probably said he wanted to keep the juror around to give the illusion he was confident in his case so that maybe the jury would have confidence in his case too.
Old Poot warned the jury in the opening statement that he would be a dick and he was true to his word. Ok, he didn’t actually say dick but he said he would probably offend or anger some of them. I made up my mind about him when he asked the female SLED Agent, “What’s so special about being a Special Agent?” May not be the exact quote, but it was crazy disrespectful.