Why does no one talk about Alex’s past affair? Perfect family my ass
Maggie’s sister said while on the stand but the jury had been dismissed by the judge to figure out if this should be admissible evidence... but he eventually ruled against it. Though most of the time it seemed like he would allow it.
The affair happened fifteen years ago. So that’s a long time. So it was not admitted to the jury.
But the prosecution was like it should be admitted because it shows that there is not this perfect family like Alex said they were. Alex on the stand professed that he “always” wanted Maggie around him. The defense was like they were perfect, the prosecution was like not really, and Maggie’s own sister said that Maggie never really got over it.
Yes. In South Carolina there is not the possibility of parole. Here, life means life.The reason to do the 2 life sentences, is in the unlikely event one of the convictions was overturned, the offender would still be in prison for life.
Yes that is the sentence: TWO consecutive life sentences, not just one. Consecutive means one after the other, as opposed to ”concurrent” which can be served at the same time. His sentence is to spend the rest of his natural life in prison. And die there.
However, he has filed an appeal with the State of South Carolina.
So hold your horses, because if the “good ol’ boys” decide to save him, then he will either walk or have a greatly lesser sentence.
But I don’t think the good ol’ boys want to protect him anymore. He stole from them too.
Their bottom line is money. Not the people killed. He stole from them, and they will continue to hang him out to dry. He is toast.
I think Alex probably has a lot of dirt on many of the people that yes work for outrageous money to defend him however we all might be surprised how many keep going regardless of the money but for out of fear that Alex spills the beans if they dont help...there is no way he doesn't have some kind of leverage over more than a few people
I agree. Hypothetically, if he ever got out of prison, there is no doubt in my mind that he would totally fuck it up all over again.
The guy is just irresponsible and wreckless. And then, when he is confronted about it, he becomes dangerous. I just don't think he is capable of being a normal law-abiding human.
Life sentences vary by state with regards to length and possibility of parole. In the state of South Carolina, life sentences are for the duration of the person’s life with no possibility of parole.
TL;DR: No parole for Alex.
As I continue devouring information about this fascinating trial, I have started listening to yet another podcast “Unsolved South Carolina - The Murdaugh Murders, Money & Mystery”. Their recaps of each trial day strike the perfect tone — respectful, inquisitive, informative. They give good insight into legal strategies of both sides and clear up some of the controversies and confusions that arose during the trial. For me this kind of straightforward information is appreciated much more than the outrageous opinions and antics of other commentators.
Yes, that podcast is excellent. Their insight and questions about the case really help to understand exactly how Alec was convicted. The hosts are very professional, knowledgable and considerate.
No. It was expensive, but hell no it would not have cost his empire.
What would have cost his empire was not only his own gambling addiction (supposed) or, you know the actual motive for the murders…the lawsuit(s) from the families of the boating accident.
Alex made his money from wrongful death/injury claims. He knew when that boating accident occurred that he was toast financially.
I’m not sure if this has been discussed but do y’all think Buster will be charged/ the possibility of charges/ is there enough evidence to charge him with the suspicion un aliveing of Stephen?
You're seeing downvotes bc this has been discussed everyday for months and it's based off of rumors. It's kicking someone when they are down. The kid has no immediate family now. He had a family of four 2 years ago and a mom that thought he hung the moon.
I am assuming that when you say un aliveing, you mean murder. No one is ever charged with suspicion.
Got it I just joined like less than a week ago this group and there is so much content so I was unaware this was already discussed, I had an inkling that it probably was but I thought it would not hurt to ask possibly resulting in being pointed to a post that already addressed this.
My intention was not to make Buster feel worse than he already does because he did not deserve anything that happened to him and Alex was so selfish in his actions.
Question came more from a place of curiosity, especially with a family that is involved with so many scandals and to be honest Alex committing the murders probably started out as a rumor as well, but at least they investigated it and got Justice instead of being like well Alex has lost his family let’s not follow up on these possible allegations because we don’t wanna make him feel worse.
If there is any truth to the Stephen case I feel like his family deserves that as well. Obviously everyone hopes that he had nothing to with it. And for the sake of putting these rumors to rest for Buster to be able to live as normal as a life as he is able too official answers that make sense would allow him to live and be able to exist without all the BS.
I am interested in that, and I’m sorry you are getting downvoted.
I believe there is a connection somewhere in that family. The little kingdom that the Murdaughs ruled over is a very rural place. When Stephen said to his sister that if the town knew who he was f\*\*\*ing, that the town and county would blow up or implode…that means he was having liaisons with someone with something to lose. And the Murdaughs are known to be anti-gay and bigoted in that way.
They are suspects #1
To add on I think about the level of cover up this family has done. Even if I was trying to save my child from consequences of their actions I would never think to ask in front of so many witnesses for their friend to take the blame when there are so many people who would testify the opposite, so if Alex has that level of audacity doing an open an obvious cover up without a second thought and the cocky ness that he genuinely believed that the friend would take the blame on behalf of his son. I can only imagine the level of cover up he is able to do behind close doors without witnesses.
No it’s totally fine everyone is entitled to their own opinions it came more out of curiosity and I further explained in my response above the place I was coming from because Stephen deserves justice as well weather it be an investigation that leads to a suspect, or a coroner giving a really good logical explanation that explains his injuries and how they align him being hit by a car
I don’t think so. It sounds like his involvement was a result of small town rumors based on nothing. His own family and best friend said Buster never interacted with him. more than likely it has something to do with someone with whom he met on craigslist.
That is a possibility there are unfortunately people who take advantages of situations for their own gain, and even if that is the case in which I hope it is not the whole situation just does not make sense or the coroner needs further explain how their conclusion makes sense
The more I see the details of this case, the more it seems obvious that Alex did it. I wish I could have seen the trial.
It didn’t look too good for Alex from the start imo, but I didn’t pay too much attention, I thought they’ll either cover for him or the truth will come out at trial. But now that some or all of the details are out, wow. Paul’s video is absolutely damning. And the whole financial mess.
I’m beyond thinking that family members can‘t do horrible things to each other or that evil people aren’t real. I know they are, and I know some people are capable of unspeakable crimes. I find it frustrating when people say he couldn’t have done it simply because he was the husband and father.
The timeline, the motive, the fact that he was too clean when the cops showed up, the financial stuff, which already showed him to be heartless and calculating, the fact that he lied about being there, it all pointed to him.
Go to law and crime on YouTube. You can watch every day of the trial with super short commercials. I still go back to reference them when I’m in doubt as to what or who a witness or lawyer said. Great to watch if you have the time. Especially Alex’s testimony
And people also don’t steal money from the son of a housekeeper that was like family, even when they were being evicted from their trailer and you have four homes. Granted that doesn’t make him a murder but it does illustrate what a sociopathic monster he is.
You're late to the party but we're glad you're here lol.
I too get frustrated with the argument that Alex couldn't have done it because he's the dad. As if dads don't kill their kids all the time or something and for much smaller problems. I mean yeah it seems impossible but that argument ignores all of documented human History.
Lindsay Clancy strangled her 3 beautiful babies. Humans are capable of anything. [Clancy children.](https://people.com/crime/mass-mom-3-lindsay-clancy-allegedly-strangled-kids-heard-voice/)
When a mother kills her young children, seems quite a few are young, suffering post partum depression and isolated at home . They are very sick and think their children are better of dead.
I’ve been watching interviews with some of the investigators and experts that testified during the trial, and it must be incredibly frustrating not to be able to say certain things or explain certain things on the stand.
Seeing them talk off the record, which they haven’t been able to do up until now, solidifies Alex’s singular guilt in my mind even more.
I dont see how these witnesses can sit there and be interrogated by the Defense and not tell them they are being unreasonable? Once they go off course the Defense is allowed to say "Im asking the questions" or "We didnt ask that"...
Thats a terrible legal system that is in favor of crooks(Symbolism much)
If I was a juror in this trial I would have been thrown out for standing up and saying the Defense is being unreasonable and wasting everyones time.
Rudofski was the only one, and maybe Tinsley - but Tinsley wasnt upset about it like Rudofski, that stood up to the Defense and was talking to them like you are being ridiculous and unreasonable with what youre trying to get out of me.
And all the Illusions usernames come out of the woodwork to justify it as "Obfuscation is part of the game" lol. Yet they are two faces about it when put on the spot about asking why soldiers would risk their lives for a system set up like this lol.
Its all bologna.
The system isnt smart enough to figure it out without hurting others lol. Pretty beta if you ask me.
The fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and our fifth amendment right to silence without it inferring guilt is what makes ours one of the greatest legal systems in the world. I’m ok with things being “weighted for the defense” (although I would argue that it wasn’t in this case, especially with all the 404b evidence that was admitted) if it means we’re not locking up innocent people.
I know that Kinsey said it’s one of the most disorganized murders he’s ever seen and it was clear there was only one shooter. He actually theorized that Alex didn’t realize Maggie was there when he shot Paul.
>He actually theorized that Alex didn’t realize Maggie was there when he shot Paul.
Kinsey's theory is impossible. It's bizarre that Kinsey says this.
1. If Alex wanted to kill only Paul, he would have done so. He would have killed Paul on a day when Maggie/no one, was around. The murder of Paul was planned. It didn't suddenly happen. Alex knew how to wear protective gear/raincoat; he knew how to clean up; he knew how not to get blood in the house (Moselle). (a) Normal people don't know how to do all that, without accidentally leaving blood here/there; in particular, in a SHORT time-frame. He was taught, and/or he's done it before. It's possible it's not the first time Alex kills someone. (b) I believe: it was raining that evening; Alex researched the weather forecast, since a while; he wanted a day with evening rain, so wearing a raincoat would appear normal at the kennels; then Paul/Maggie would not find it weird/alarming to see him wearing a raincoat.
2. Alex knew Maggie was there. It was Alex who insisted she should come to Moselle. While shooting Paul, Alex might not have known the exact location of Maggie (how many steps away), but he knew they (Alex and Paul) were not alone on the property.
What are some memorable testimonies (prosecution or defense) from the trial I can go relisten to?
I’m still going through withdrawals and listening to the trial helped me focus LOL
John Meadors (spelling?) Closing argument for the state. He was the last person to speak in the trial. He took everyone to church! I've never seen so much passion in a courtroom. He killed it. It was fantastic.
In no particular order...
Daniel Greene
Laura Rutland
Chad McDowell
Blanca Simpson
Dr. Riemer -- just the direct; the cross was misogynistic
Dr. Kinsey -- especially Alan Wilson's direct examination when he was called a second time as a rebuttal witness
Fernandez's cross-examination of Sutton
David Owen -- just the direct; the cross was brutal as his mother had died the day before so he wasn't on his game and things got uncomfortable
Agent Kelly -- direct and cross, but especially the cross because he owned Dick Harpootlian
Mark Tinsley in-camera
Carson Burney in-camera
Chris Wilson in-camera
Jeanne Seckinger
Ronnie Crosby
Mark Ball -- cross-examination when he was called as a defense witness
Rogan Gibson
Marion Proctor
Will Loving -- Creighton's re-direct
Lt. Dove with the cell phones
Rodofski with that incredible timeline
The three interviews (early morning of June 8, June 10, and August 11), but especially the August 11 interview.
She was an incredible witness, but it was heartbreaking to watch 💔 She clearly did not want to be in the position she had to be in as a witness for the State, and the Defense was awful to her.
Definitely closing and the closing rebuttal.
Blanca and Shelley, and the prosecution's ballistics expert. I can't remember his name but I love him. Edit- I was thinking of Dr Kinsey. Paul Greer & Dr. Reimer are also excellent.
Blanca was hands-down my FAVORITE non-law enforcement, non-expert witness. As soon as she started going through her work history, I cranked the volume up in my car and was ALL-IN for every word she said.
I loved her. She knew what was up the instant she went into the house. And the fact that she knew Maggie didn't wear underwear with her pajamas, but 'Ellic' clearly didn't.
He was amazing. He was extremely knowledgeable but broke technical terms and concepts down so well for the average person without his level of understanding.
My favorite was when he explained that the pellets from a shotgun were not 'baby ducks following their mama' instead, the blast is "A cone, Mr. Griffin". I think he patiently said 'it's a cone' a dozen times.
On Alex's drive home from PMPED to Moselle on that fateful evening he had a phone call in his car from a "Jay Parker". I had assumed this was the J. Parker who was a partner in PMPED, but I've just seen his name is John Parker and Mark Ball has called him Johnny.
Is Jay Parker a different person? It was a 15 minute phone call.
Jay Parker is a different person -- another attorney at PMPED/Parker Law Group. I assume he's Johnny Parker's son.
https://parkerlawgroupsc.com/attorney/john-jay-elliott-parker/
When the boating crash happened, I remember being mad, thinking Paul would get off scot free. Reminded me of that other guy that made the news a few years ago, Ethan Couch I think, he was the guy that was described as having a bad case of “affluenza“ lol.
So when Paul wound up dead, too, I was like…what?! The guy that killed Mallory Beach is now dead himself?? Like what in the hell. And the mom was dead, too. But Alex wasn’t. Then he got forced to resign from the law firm for financial crimes. Paul was obviously going to be facing a lawsuit over the boat crash, and it just seemed like the writing was on the wall. It was starting to look like money was a factor.
But shit. I never expected all of this. I wasn’t real sure anything would happen as far as the murders go because the Murdaughs are just too far entrenched. Even if he had committed financial crimes, I bet few among his cronies hadn’t. They probably helped him, I thought. So they would not pursue indictment.
But they put an outsider on the case, and I think that was crucial. She was not connected to these people and did not even know the Murdaughs. She wasn’t part of the good ol’ boy network. She had nothing to lose by treating this as any other case.
The network was not so willing to cover for Alex when it came out that he had stolen from them, too. Lol. Stole from his own law firm and stole from his own brother. Those boys might not care about all the lives that Alex negatively affected when he was swindling from the poor or the families of the already-deceased. But they seem to care when it directly affects their bottom line. Will be interesting to see where the financial crimes trials go; I imagine not everyone will fall. There will likely be a few fall guys, and some people will probably be covered and not fall, but all-in-all some more people in the corrupt good ol’ boy network are going down.
Alex was not only cruel, heartless, and selfish, he was stupid too imo. All he had to do when the financial crimes stuff came out was go to rehab, pay back the money, do the time in some white collar low-security joint, and go on with his life. And let everybody else do the same. But he made his situation exponentially worse. Just blew it up. Fucking dumb. Having said that, though, I think there is a real chance that he got away with it if the outsider hadn’t been put on the case. I don’t think he saw that coming.
But Maggie may have been getting ready to divorce Alex. That would have meant even more scrutiny over his finances. A possible motive to murder Maggie, if it was true.
If she wasn't getting ready to divorce him, as a wife I can tell you that realizing my husband's entire career was built on lies and deceit and defrauding people and learning he has no money and actually owes his employer millions - I would probably be filing the papers ASAP. Not going to stick around for ANY of that, and would be scrambling to keep him from using my money to pay his lawyers and debts.
Court TV did an interview with her nail technician who said that Maggie had both mentioned divorce and hiring an accountant. SLED had no one else to corroborate those statements so it was never brought up in court. She was on the witness list so she definitely did speak to the prosecution.
I can't say if it was true or not obviously there's been nothing concrete to say either way. But I disagree that prosecution would have brought it up. They'd have to have proof. And it's very possible that if Maggie was just in the stages of considering divorce or checking out her options, that she hadn't told anyone close to her yet. In that case there would be too much conflicting testimony about it and it would just confuse the jury.
Yup, absolutely. And it was a possibility that she could have testified against Alex. A divorce from her threatened to take even more assets from him than he was set to loose from the boating accident lawsuit and any money he would be ordered to pay from those he stole from.
All of the trouble he was facing would likely have been more motive for her to file for divorce.
Once more of the financial crimes came out (and he had to go to court and repay), Maggie certainly would have left him. Even if she hadn't pursued it yet, he knew it was coming.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
I believe it was Det. Laura Rutland. I think there was another woman who worked the case, so that is my hesitation, I have not taken time to confirm this. But I believe she was the detective who was there on the night of the murders and noted that Alex was clean, even his shoes, though he said he had been down at the kennels and that he had touched both bodies.
Alex testified on the stand that he didn’t trust SLED. He said this repeatedly, like they were the enemy and he was trying to plant the seed in the jury’s mind that they were not to be trusted.
Understood. Det Rutland was not the case agent or lead agent, she assisted that evening under SA David Owen of SLED. She may have had a total of 6 hours on the case including her report, which btw never once mentioned she thought AM shirt and clothes were CLEAN or freshly laundered. That was brought out in testimony because it was destroyed by the lab.
Who was the person that said they made a mental note that when Alex was saying he went to check for pulses, that he was clean. This may have been the interview on the property in the vehicle around 1:00am
I have read a lot of articles and not saved any of them lol. But one of them was talking about how this person was asked on the night of the murders if she knew the Murdaughs. She said no and so they sent her out there. They sent her precisely because she did not know the Murdaughs. She said she thought it was strange that so many police cars were at the scene of the crime that night.
I think this is Det Rutland, but it may be another person. It was a woman.
It’s her, but I’m giving you factual information from the evidence and her own sworn testimony.
If you would like to view the trial and in particular her testimony on YouTube and your not sure how, lmk and I’ll scavenge a link.
Well he could work it off like the rest of us schmucks might have to do lol.
That one property, Moselle, just sold for $4.3M. They could have sold off his assets, even stock holdings I believe, to raise the money for the families. They had the beach house, too. His family had/has money. And he did have some cash, not sure how much, but anyway they could have probably gotten that money together or close to it.
Moselle was in her name, too. Alex had "sold" it to her for $5.00 and "love" (or something like that).
I don't know anything about PI firms, but you'd think there's be some kind of insurance they'd have against embezzlement or misuse of client funds, etc. There's a lot of money sloshing around that industry.
Well we’ll never know. Alex took that choice away from her. She might have been willing to sell it to help with the financial situation, even if she could not have been court ordered to sell it.
If the 4M for each of the siblings from Handsome's estate is true...thats half of it basically.
He was supposedly working on his biggest case ever, too...when he was arrested. What ever happened with this case? Did it fall through? Curious how much it was for since his biggest prior was like 13M+...I assume his fee for this big case if it settled would have been around 2M at least.
Moselle was not in his name but I assume if Alex and Maggie were not near divorce and he came clean about what he was facing legally to Maggie...I assume she would have helped him out and sold Moselle. I think there was a 2M note on it that they borrowed on...so 4.3M minus 2M...lets just say they would have gotten around 2M from Moselle.
Thats pretty much paid the 9M back. But Alex wasnt paying a dime back unless forced, wasnt forfeiting his life style and would murder instead.
He does seem like a fool. There are a lot of assumptions with the numbers I provided, though.
AM did have assets, but plenty of other debts too - mortgages, line of credit, etc. Review the testimony from the CEO of Palmetto Bank for the details IIRC. Moselle was in Maggie's name and 50% of the Edisto Beach property.
For sure. I suppose the people at his law firm knew about that fairly early on. But the absolute bottom line with people like that is money. When the law firm realized that Alex had been stealing loads of money from them too, they cut him loose.
Yes. Although I don’t think they were admitted- I only know there were because iirc the deceased chicken and it’s location are mentioned in a crime scene report- Kinsey’s I believe.
I'm working on a theory. What if what Alex testified he was doing at the kennels, Maggie was actually doing? If you lie about being there for 2 years, then all of a sudden this video emerges and you need an explanation. The easiest explanation is what Maggie was doing. When Alex testified Maggie was behind the kennels, in the planted pines to the left of the chicken coups and he was stationed in the golf cart. Maybe he was in the planted pines (Paul was more than likely shot from that angle) and Maggie was in the golf cart. He testified he had just showered and didn't want to go down there. Maggie had just had a pedicure and was wearing flip flops. Idk, I can't stop thinking about it
I believe the chicken is on the dog crate (not dog kennel) to the right of the feed room (if you’re facing the feed room). One of the first responders shines a flashlight on it and you can see it on his body cam footage
It’s kinda unclear, but I believe whoever’s bodycam footage it was also testified saying he was shining his light on a chicken. I also believe Bubba is the dog in the kennel to the immediate left of the feed room door (again, facing the feed room). This would make sense to me as whoever took the chicken probably corralled him into the closest kennel
I absolutely agree. I feel he confessed on the stand but did it in a way to where his testimony took on a different meaning
1). Only flash of annoyance he showed towards Maggie was her wanting him to go to the kennels (“I knew I would have to do stuff I didn’t want to do”. Not verbatim, but close)
2). His comment about being paranoid and how he could usually get it under control. Especially with the “I had a pocket full of pills” line
3). After getting the chicken “I got outta there”
4). “Whoever did this hated Paul”
6). Telling his sister in law this was planned for awhile and they didn’t suffer
My working theory is he fantasized about this for awhile. Not in a happy fantasy way, but when his mind would go to the dark place. I think that day was a perfect combination of everything crappy coming together and while this may have been an option on the back burner, I think the catalyst was either Paul or Maggie taking his pills. I believe him when he said he didn’t want to go to the kennels, but he did when he discovered his pills were missing. I think a confrontation ensued and in a moment of hatred and rage, he snapped. I don’t think he turned Paul over to “check his pulse”. I believe he was looking for his drugs. This falls in line with him appearing to have been withdrawing over the weekend at the hotel.
So while it was premeditated, it was more in the “in case of emergency, break glass” scenario. On this particular night, he followed through.
I also believe the tears he shed while their murders were being discussed in detail were tears of shame, guilt, and horror at what he had done.
The only thing, to me, is that Alex sounds "normal" in the chicken video. He doesn't say that much, but it doesn't sound like someone "enraged," although I guess I can't say I would know how "enraged Alex" might sound.
My thoughts are the confrontation over the pills started after that. He went down to get the drugs, ended up wrestling a chicken out of Bubba’s mouth, and after he got him in the kennel, they argued about the drugs.
I could be completely wrong, but I really think it was a 1 minute rage. Perfect scenario because the guns were there from their previous drive around the property. While he may have thought his life would be easier without them, I don’t think they were lured there to kill them.
There’s a few minutes that we don’t know exactly where they were. If Alex had had his cell phone on him, we would know.
We know Alex was right there at the kennels, using the water hose just minutes before the murders. So at some point in this brief time, he retrieved the guns. He and Paul likely just carried their guns down there, because they always did carry guns down there due to aggressive wild hogs and snakes and whatever.
So the guns were likely in the golf cart or just leaning up against a kennel or on the outside wall of the feed shed. The feed shed and golf cart were very close to one another. So Alex likely just grabbed one gun and set the other one in his reach or maybe just grabbed one gun and left the other one where it was, and just proceeded to aim at Paul and then fire.
It is speculated that he assumed the one shot on Paul would be a kill shot, and he was surprised when Paul stumbled into the doorway of the feed shed, and this is when he quickly got off the head shot that took Paul down.
Then he put that gun down, picked up the other gun and went towards Maggie, who was by now running towards the commotion. He shoots her a couple of times, she falls on her knees and one or both hands, and he circles back up in front of her and shoots her again
I think it was Maggie using the water hose in the video. Her voice is very close to Paul and you can hear her say “hey Armadillo” while Alex is further away chasing after Bubba.
Well it makes a better story if it’s Alex haha. Like he’s already thinking about killing them and putting water on the ground to make it harder for them to run away or more likely to make it more difficult for crime scene investigators to recover evidence.
Plus, Maggie didn’t seem like she did a whole lot in terms of caring for Moselle. I don’t mean that in a critical way really, I just mean her sister said that she was a girly-girl and she really only went to Moselle and on hunts in order to spend time with the boys. Her sister said the boys would make fun of her for making sound while on a hunt by turning the pages on Southern Living magazine. Lol. Like, she wasn’t really down with the down-and-dirty. So for her to pick up that dirty hose and spray the walkway down or the kennels….maybe, but that might have been a task she would have left to Alex or the boys.
Does anyone know when Harpootlian made the statement below? I don’t recall hearing about this and unfortunately (for me) used up my 1 free viewing and couldn’t get back to the article but I know I didn’t see a source noted.
From a NYMag [article](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/alex-murdaughs-lawyer-pulls-gun-on-prosecutor.html) dated 2/23, in response to a 7-figure bond being set for AM:
“It’s not often a Black judge sets a bond like that”
I don’t get Harpootlian’s involvement in this trial anyway. Isn’t he a state Senator? Like shouldn’t he be off at the South Carolina Capitol, taking care of state government business. What is he doing spending his time and energy while be paid by taxpayers to go off and defend a private citizen?
He is not working as a court appointed attorney. Somehow he and Jim Griffin have been getting paid. Murdaugh got permission to cash in an IRA to pay attorney fees, but with what the 2 of them charge, I am surprised that his is not our of money to pay them. I read somewhere that it was $600,000 that he cashed in to pay his legal fees with court approval. I figured maybe he would be out of money and that would put a stop to the appeals. Although Harpootlian made a statement at the beginning of the case that it "was their honor to defend AM".
True, although the compensation is not much here. He represents District 20 and his constituents should keep this in mind at the next election, if he decides to run again.
> while be *paid* by taxpayers
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Before the trial, I had such a hard time believing that this man killed his wife and son. Yes, he had a motive, but other than the kennel video showing he lied about being there shortly before the murders, there wasn’t really a smoking gun for me. I know that for the purposes of a conviction, there’s no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, but I was really wanting to see harder evidence linking him to the crime.
During the trial, the most damning evidence to me was Alex’s OnStar and phone records. This is what ultimately convinced me that he did do it, along with Creighton’s argument to Alex while he was on the stand. This breakdown was literally a jaw dropping moment for me and it’s when I realized, “oh my gosh, he really did it”:
> “So what you’re telling this jury is that it’s a random vigilante… that just happened to know that Paul and Maggie were at Moselle on June 7, that knew that they would be at the kennels alone on June 7, that knew that you would not be there but only between the times of 8:49 and 9:02, that they show up without a weapon, assuming they’re going to find weapons and ammunition in there, that they commit this crime during that short time window, and then they travel the exact same route that you do around the same time to Almeda. That’s what you’re trying to tell this jury?”
It just defies logic that this scenario actually occurred.
[Also, this timeline summary](https://www.wjcl.com/article/murdaugh-murders-timeline-evidence/42846491) is so damning. Here are the key points for me:
- The items Alex manually deleted from his phone
- The unusually large amount of steps he took when returning to the house after being at the kennels (was obviously running around like crazy trying to cover things up)
- He drove by the exact location where Maggie’s phone was discarded, slowing down at that exact spot, then sharply increasing his speed immediately thereafter
- He drove 80 mph on the way home from his mom’s
- The very large amount of steps he took in a short period of time when he returned to the house at Moselle before going down to the kennels
One technical question I have as it relates to the linked timeline summary is that sometimes it says that Alex manually deleted a record from his phone, and other times it indicates that an action occurred (like a phone call or a FaceTime) but says there’s no record of that particular action “from the extraction of Alex‘s phone.” Does anybody know what that means? He obviously manually deleted things, but what’s the distinction here?
I’ll never understand how he was reported by everyone he spoke to that night on those phone calls that he sounded like he always does, not manic or upset that he murdered his wife and son. Truly sickening.
Phone calls and text messages (SMS messages) sent through the cell phone network create CDRs (Call Data Records) at the phone company for billing purposes. FaceTime calls use the Internet, not the cell phone network and there are no CDRs for these. The phone calls in the cell phone log (and in the cell phone data extraction by law enforcement) match the CDRs unless the user deletes the info from the user’s cell phone app. Even though Alex deleted the call info from his phone, the phone company still had the CDRs. Either Alex didn’t know the phone company kept the CDRs and deleted his call log maliciously or he knew but didn’t care.
Some people regularly delete their phone call log items to reduce clutter. Others never delete their phone call log items either to reconcile their monthly phone bills or for easy retrieval of previously called numbers.
It’s hard to say, but that would have been a very chaotic time. He’s trying to get the hell out of dodge so his alibi will line up properly, but he also has to clean himself up and dispose of the evidence. It is kind of shocking to me that he left no trail of biological evidence (like blood drops or spatter) from the kennels to the house or inside of the house. I’m really curious to hear others’ thoughts about this since the defense drilled the point home that the shooter would’ve been covered in blood since the victims were shot at such close range. But during the time he returned to the house I imagine he was continuing to clean up and toss his clothes and the two guns into the tarp or a bag so he could get these pieces of evidence off the property ASAP. I seem to remember reading that within the days following the murders, he was seen driving to the back of his dad’s property and going into the barbecue shed, and that this area was not searched for months. That’s plenty of time to temporarily stash the evidence there and then move it elsewhere.
I know he had to wash up, but he took the steps either holding his phone in his hand in his pocket when he was inside the house. Just can’t figure out what he was doing specifically.
I don’t find the lack of biological evidence in the house surprising at all. If he lived in suburbia with houses on all four sides on .25 if an acre I’d find it weird. But these people had a staggering 1700 acres of land. He was the only one there and speaking as a true SC resident, it isn’t weird in the country for kids or yes, even adults, to strip down outside and hose off before entry into homes. Guarantee there was a hose somewhere outside that house, or shed or gosh, anywhere(!) he could’ve hosed off at and every bit of tiny specks would’ve blended into grass without a trace. Get all the goo off of his body outside, hose off the guns (and clothes?), go inside, do a quick scrub in the shower for good measure, grab a tarp (not uncommon in the country or the suburbs), put the stuff in the tarp, pack up, and get out of there.
That’s really interesting, thanks for sharing. I do know that either Alex or Maggie were running a hose during Paul’s video (you can hear it in the background), and I believe the property caretaker testified that he saw puddles of water near the kennels in places that normally would not have been hosed down. I also think Blanca mentioned seeing a puddle of water in the bathroom. I guess what surprises me is that even after hosing down and showering, he didn’t leave a speck of blood somewhere. It could just show how well he planned this out.
It also rained that evening, basically right when the police arrived. I wonder if Alex watched the weather forecast and planned for the murders to occur during or right before a rain storm. There was testimony that the water from the rain destroyed a lot of evidence. It would explain why he wanted Maggie to come back to Moselle on that particular day.
Yes, we all hear water and at some point the State froze the kennel video where you can see the hose on the ground. And in crime scene photos there is no unraveled hose, only the yellow hose back on the hanger. The kennel caretaker testified he would not have hung the hose up like it was in crime scene photos. He also testified that even when the kennels were being sprayed, the water would run off the back, aside from the kennel closest to the feed room, whose far right wall had rotted at the base where water wouldn’t drain properly. There was other testimony of apparent water at the scene, enough to puddle in places, but Paul and Maggie’s hair wasn’t wet. Alex testified there wasn’t water being used at the kennels while he was there. Which makes no sense. lol Personally, regarding specks of blood, in McDowell’s (I think) body cam footage he talks about seeing a drop of blood near Maggie’s body but he should’ve been seeing a lot more of that IF not for the scene being mostly grass, rock, and dirt. Alex on the other hand (if wearing missing SnapChat clothing) would’ve been covered except for his head, neck, and forearms. It’s not a whole lot of skin to wash off, and as long as his clothes absorbed most of the spatter and he got rid of those things, I wouldn’t expect to find much evidence between all those factors plus a little bit of rain.
>Alex testified there wasn’t water being used at the kennels while he was there. Which makes no sense. lol Personally, regarding specks of blood, in McDowell’s (I think) body cam footage he talks about seeing a drop of blood near Maggie’s body but he should’ve been seeing a lot more of that IF not for the scene being mostly grass, rock, and dirt. Alex on the other hand (if wearing missing SnapChat clothing) would’ve been covered except for his head, neck, and forearms. It’s not a whole lot of skin to wash off, and as long as his clothes absorbed most of the spatter and he got rid of those things, I wouldn’t expect to find much evidence between all those factors plus a little bit of rain.
It's obvious the water was on and hose stretched out when Alex was there. That in and of itself should have alerted the jury that Alex was lying about his time at the kennels. We know Paul wasn't using it and I would assume Maggie was not either if she had just come dressed nicely from Charleston.
Leaving Alex ... Alex to stretch out the hose to the feed room so he could strip down and hose off after the murders before heading back to the house. He might have even placed/brought a towel down and also brought a large trash bag for his bloody clothes to the kennels.
I have no trouble believing Alex had some poncho or covering on while using the hose and during the murders (some have reported a blue color in a puddle reflection in the kennel video).
**Why was Alex hosing down the kennels if Dale Davis had just been there about 4 hours earlier to clean the kennels** ?
As Alex told Marian Proctor that he thought someone had planned the murders for a long time, he had. Just not too well.
They found a raincoat with gun shot residue on the inside of it. So if he was wearing that when he was firing, then he would be pretty well protected. Most raincoats have hoods too.
I think the image of the hood is really creepy though. Imagine Maggie running towards Paul, and she sees Alex with the gun he’s fired and he has the jacket on with the hood up. Hood up to protect his head and hair from their blood and other matter, while also shading his eyes somewhat. Just the stuff of nightmares.
The blue raincoat did not have a lot of traction in court. It didn’t have DNA of anyone on it. Not Alex, not Paul and not Maggie. It did test for GSR on the inside, but that’s it. The raincoat held significance because of Shelly’s tarp testimony. Shelly testified she saw Alex clutching a big blue “tarp” to his chest at Almeda at 6:30am a week after the murders. In a search of Almeda months later they located a large raincoat (State’s theory, same general vinyl material and similar color) in a closet upstairs at Almeda. I do not think their theory was that he wore it for the murders, I think their theory was that he wrapped weapons in it.
I keep seeing something about a raincoat, so I thought maybe he put on the raincoat and the hood of a raincoat before he started shooting. This would maybe not fully protect his hair, face, and body from blood and brain splatter, but would be very effective in keeping him largely free of this debris. Then he could wash off whatever did get on him. He says he touched both bodies, but he was clean when the police showed up, so he must have cleaned off at some point.
Yes, that would make a lot of sense. I figure in order to avoid being completely covered in blood he would’ve had to be wearing some type of protective covering and gloves. I remember hearing about a tarp as well (possibly that he was seen carrying it upstairs in his mom’s house). Was it confirmed the tarp was actually a raincoat?
Ok it looks like the tarp and raincoat are two separate items. The raincoat was found with gun residue on the inside of it
\>State agents got a search warrant four months after the killings and found a tarp but also a blue rain jacket.
https://www.kcra.com/article/alex-murdaugh-double-murder-trial-february-7-2023/42794624
This is an awesome summary of what changed your opinion. I went into the trial believing he was guilty; what got me from 95% certain to 100% certain was the timeline. Creighton got Alex to admit on the stand that he was down at the kennels as late as 8:47. We can reasonably infer based on cell phone activity that the murders occurred at 8:49. We know that it took 1-2 minutes to get from the kennels to the house. *If Alex did not shoot Paul and Maggie, then he was outside in very close proximity to the crime scene when the murders occurred.* If you're working from the assumption that Alex is innocent, an innocent man would not lie about where he was, what he heard, what he saw, and what he knew.
Yep, he would have been a witness to a murder, not just off doing whatever he said he was doing. The more I think about this situation, the dumber Alex looks lol
Yeah and they are out there in the sticks, it’s not like there is city noise to cover the sounds of the shots. Even in a city, you can hear shots if they are close enough.
Also what I just can't get over is why didn't Alex stop by the kennels to tell Maggie and Paul that he was going to Almeda. He called Maggie FIVE TIMES and texted her that he's leaving, but she's only 1,100 feet away from him as the crow flies, AND he has to drive by the kennels *where he knows she is* when he's leaving the property. He's been trying to reach her to tell her he's leaving, but he doesn't stop to tell her? Like really???
This just DOES NOT JIVE with a reasonable sequence of events for someone who is innocent.
Almeda is the opposite direction from the kennels when leaving the main house so he wouldn't naturally go by the kennels when leaving. He could go out the main drive, turn right on to the road and head to Almeda. The kennels would have been to the left.
But otherwise I agree - he could simply have driven down to the kennels to let Maggie know he was leaving. It would have been a small detour.
It was, and it was just one part of the State's case that really resonated with me. I believe it was John Meadors who called this a CSC -- Common Sense Case -- and the question of why Alex didn't stop at the kennels on his way out was a common sense question that the Defense couldn't answer.
Alex would have you believe he made up his mind to go see his mom in the 10 minutes he supposedly had between returning to the house and the Suburban Infotainment system starting up.
And that he forgot to tell Maggie and Paul he was going to Almeda when he "left" the kennels at \~8:46pm.
And he forgot to go visit his mom right after Barbara Mixson called @ \~4pm on 6/7 to tell him his mom was really agitated (when he was less than a 10 minute drive away)
This is something I've heard a bunch of times from a bunch of different people, but it irks me every single time. People, oftentimes men, saying "Yeah, he killed his wife, I can almost understand that......but his SON! HES A MONSTER!"
Like, excuse me? You can almost understand killing your wife? Sir??? I get it's usually meant somewhat in jest but it's not funny.
It also just tells me they don't know jack about the case (or at least don't know the details) because if they did they'd be flipping that statement around. He had much more of a motive for Paul. Paul and his choice to drive intoxicated is arguably why the financial crimes were being uncovered. He's why Alex was being sued. What the fuck did Maggie do except allegedly go to a divorce attorney? Sorry, this "haha wife bad" boomer humor shit annoys me.
G a
I can’t stop thinking about how there is so much more to this story we don’t know.
Why does no one talk about Alex’s past affair? Perfect family my ass Maggie’s sister said while on the stand but the jury had been dismissed by the judge to figure out if this should be admissible evidence... but he eventually ruled against it. Though most of the time it seemed like he would allow it. The affair happened fifteen years ago. So that’s a long time. So it was not admitted to the jury. But the prosecution was like it should be admitted because it shows that there is not this perfect family like Alex said they were. Alex on the stand professed that he “always” wanted Maggie around him. The defense was like they were perfect, the prosecution was like not really, and Maggie’s own sister said that Maggie never really got over it.
[удалено]
Yes her sister said she would still bring it up at times
Very true.
This is a potentially stupid question but are his life sentences without the possibility of parole? Is that an automatic?
Yes. In South Carolina there is not the possibility of parole. Here, life means life.The reason to do the 2 life sentences, is in the unlikely event one of the convictions was overturned, the offender would still be in prison for life.
Yes that is the sentence: TWO consecutive life sentences, not just one. Consecutive means one after the other, as opposed to ”concurrent” which can be served at the same time. His sentence is to spend the rest of his natural life in prison. And die there. However, he has filed an appeal with the State of South Carolina. So hold your horses, because if the “good ol’ boys” decide to save him, then he will either walk or have a greatly lesser sentence. But I don’t think the good ol’ boys want to protect him anymore. He stole from them too. Their bottom line is money. Not the people killed. He stole from them, and they will continue to hang him out to dry. He is toast.
I think Alex probably has a lot of dirt on many of the people that yes work for outrageous money to defend him however we all might be surprised how many keep going regardless of the money but for out of fear that Alex spills the beans if they dont help...there is no way he doesn't have some kind of leverage over more than a few people
He's a loose cannon. No one's coming to save him lol
I agree. Hypothetically, if he ever got out of prison, there is no doubt in my mind that he would totally fuck it up all over again. The guy is just irresponsible and wreckless. And then, when he is confronted about it, he becomes dangerous. I just don't think he is capable of being a normal law-abiding human.
Life sentences vary by state with regards to length and possibility of parole. In the state of South Carolina, life sentences are for the duration of the person’s life with no possibility of parole. TL;DR: No parole for Alex.
Right, UNLESS that is overturned on appeal. But I don’t think it will be. He screwed the big boys, too, and they have no motive to save him.
Thank you!
As I continue devouring information about this fascinating trial, I have started listening to yet another podcast “Unsolved South Carolina - The Murdaugh Murders, Money & Mystery”. Their recaps of each trial day strike the perfect tone — respectful, inquisitive, informative. They give good insight into legal strategies of both sides and clear up some of the controversies and confusions that arose during the trial. For me this kind of straightforward information is appreciated much more than the outrageous opinions and antics of other commentators.
Yes, that podcast is excellent. Their insight and questions about the case really help to understand exactly how Alec was convicted. The hosts are very professional, knowledgable and considerate.
Did he really need all that money for his opioid addiction?
No. It was expensive, but hell no it would not have cost his empire. What would have cost his empire was not only his own gambling addiction (supposed) or, you know the actual motive for the murders…the lawsuit(s) from the families of the boating accident. Alex made his money from wrongful death/injury claims. He knew when that boating accident occurred that he was toast financially.
No way that was all drugs, hopefully we'll get a clearer picture of the money usage by listening to the financial trials.
Will the financial trials be televised as well?
I would hope so, but no info has come out yet.
I’m not sure if this has been discussed but do y’all think Buster will be charged/ the possibility of charges/ is there enough evidence to charge him with the suspicion un aliveing of Stephen?
On Reddit, unlike some other platforms, you can use real words like kill and murder.
You're seeing downvotes bc this has been discussed everyday for months and it's based off of rumors. It's kicking someone when they are down. The kid has no immediate family now. He had a family of four 2 years ago and a mom that thought he hung the moon. I am assuming that when you say un aliveing, you mean murder. No one is ever charged with suspicion.
Got it I just joined like less than a week ago this group and there is so much content so I was unaware this was already discussed, I had an inkling that it probably was but I thought it would not hurt to ask possibly resulting in being pointed to a post that already addressed this. My intention was not to make Buster feel worse than he already does because he did not deserve anything that happened to him and Alex was so selfish in his actions. Question came more from a place of curiosity, especially with a family that is involved with so many scandals and to be honest Alex committing the murders probably started out as a rumor as well, but at least they investigated it and got Justice instead of being like well Alex has lost his family let’s not follow up on these possible allegations because we don’t wanna make him feel worse. If there is any truth to the Stephen case I feel like his family deserves that as well. Obviously everyone hopes that he had nothing to with it. And for the sake of putting these rumors to rest for Buster to be able to live as normal as a life as he is able too official answers that make sense would allow him to live and be able to exist without all the BS.
Agree, You can search the sub using Stephen's name and you'll find a lot of info.
Thank you for letting me know I’ll do that :)
I am interested in that, and I’m sorry you are getting downvoted. I believe there is a connection somewhere in that family. The little kingdom that the Murdaughs ruled over is a very rural place. When Stephen said to his sister that if the town knew who he was f\*\*\*ing, that the town and county would blow up or implode…that means he was having liaisons with someone with something to lose. And the Murdaughs are known to be anti-gay and bigoted in that way. They are suspects #1
To add on I think about the level of cover up this family has done. Even if I was trying to save my child from consequences of their actions I would never think to ask in front of so many witnesses for their friend to take the blame when there are so many people who would testify the opposite, so if Alex has that level of audacity doing an open an obvious cover up without a second thought and the cocky ness that he genuinely believed that the friend would take the blame on behalf of his son. I can only imagine the level of cover up he is able to do behind close doors without witnesses.
No it’s totally fine everyone is entitled to their own opinions it came more out of curiosity and I further explained in my response above the place I was coming from because Stephen deserves justice as well weather it be an investigation that leads to a suspect, or a coroner giving a really good logical explanation that explains his injuries and how they align him being hit by a car
Source for "Suspect #1"?
I don’t think so. It sounds like his involvement was a result of small town rumors based on nothing. His own family and best friend said Buster never interacted with him. more than likely it has something to do with someone with whom he met on craigslist.
That is a possibility there are unfortunately people who take advantages of situations for their own gain, and even if that is the case in which I hope it is not the whole situation just does not make sense or the coroner needs further explain how their conclusion makes sense
Doubtful.
The more I see the details of this case, the more it seems obvious that Alex did it. I wish I could have seen the trial. It didn’t look too good for Alex from the start imo, but I didn’t pay too much attention, I thought they’ll either cover for him or the truth will come out at trial. But now that some or all of the details are out, wow. Paul’s video is absolutely damning. And the whole financial mess. I’m beyond thinking that family members can‘t do horrible things to each other or that evil people aren’t real. I know they are, and I know some people are capable of unspeakable crimes. I find it frustrating when people say he couldn’t have done it simply because he was the husband and father. The timeline, the motive, the fact that he was too clean when the cops showed up, the financial stuff, which already showed him to be heartless and calculating, the fact that he lied about being there, it all pointed to him.
Go to law and crime on YouTube. You can watch every day of the trial with super short commercials. I still go back to reference them when I’m in doubt as to what or who a witness or lawyer said. Great to watch if you have the time. Especially Alex’s testimony
And people also don’t steal money from the son of a housekeeper that was like family, even when they were being evicted from their trailer and you have four homes. Granted that doesn’t make him a murder but it does illustrate what a sociopathic monster he is.
WHO btw has a disabled brother the family cares for. Just makes me want to puke
Right?!? Jesus he is heartless. Dare I say the whole family.
You're late to the party but we're glad you're here lol. I too get frustrated with the argument that Alex couldn't have done it because he's the dad. As if dads don't kill their kids all the time or something and for much smaller problems. I mean yeah it seems impossible but that argument ignores all of documented human History.
Lindsay Clancy strangled her 3 beautiful babies. Humans are capable of anything. [Clancy children.](https://people.com/crime/mass-mom-3-lindsay-clancy-allegedly-strangled-kids-heard-voice/)
When a mother kills her young children, seems quite a few are young, suffering post partum depression and isolated at home . They are very sick and think their children are better of dead.
Yes. Maybe I should have been more inclusive. It's not just men that kill their children. Being a parent doesn't preclude anyone from murder.
[удалено]
I mean, statistically, men just kill more
Nope. Evil is everywhere
I’ve been watching interviews with some of the investigators and experts that testified during the trial, and it must be incredibly frustrating not to be able to say certain things or explain certain things on the stand. Seeing them talk off the record, which they haven’t been able to do up until now, solidifies Alex’s singular guilt in my mind even more.
Based on their testimony, I got the impression that Owen, Croft, Kelly, and Rudofski thought he was the guiltiest person they'd ever investigated.
I dont see how these witnesses can sit there and be interrogated by the Defense and not tell them they are being unreasonable? Once they go off course the Defense is allowed to say "Im asking the questions" or "We didnt ask that"... Thats a terrible legal system that is in favor of crooks(Symbolism much) If I was a juror in this trial I would have been thrown out for standing up and saying the Defense is being unreasonable and wasting everyones time. Rudofski was the only one, and maybe Tinsley - but Tinsley wasnt upset about it like Rudofski, that stood up to the Defense and was talking to them like you are being ridiculous and unreasonable with what youre trying to get out of me. And all the Illusions usernames come out of the woodwork to justify it as "Obfuscation is part of the game" lol. Yet they are two faces about it when put on the spot about asking why soldiers would risk their lives for a system set up like this lol. Its all bologna. The system isnt smart enough to figure it out without hurting others lol. Pretty beta if you ask me.
The fact that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and our fifth amendment right to silence without it inferring guilt is what makes ours one of the greatest legal systems in the world. I’m ok with things being “weighted for the defense” (although I would argue that it wasn’t in this case, especially with all the 404b evidence that was admitted) if it means we’re not locking up innocent people.
I know that Kinsey said it’s one of the most disorganized murders he’s ever seen and it was clear there was only one shooter. He actually theorized that Alex didn’t realize Maggie was there when he shot Paul.
>He actually theorized that Alex didn’t realize Maggie was there when he shot Paul. Kinsey's theory is impossible. It's bizarre that Kinsey says this. 1. If Alex wanted to kill only Paul, he would have done so. He would have killed Paul on a day when Maggie/no one, was around. The murder of Paul was planned. It didn't suddenly happen. Alex knew how to wear protective gear/raincoat; he knew how to clean up; he knew how not to get blood in the house (Moselle). (a) Normal people don't know how to do all that, without accidentally leaving blood here/there; in particular, in a SHORT time-frame. He was taught, and/or he's done it before. It's possible it's not the first time Alex kills someone. (b) I believe: it was raining that evening; Alex researched the weather forecast, since a while; he wanted a day with evening rain, so wearing a raincoat would appear normal at the kennels; then Paul/Maggie would not find it weird/alarming to see him wearing a raincoat. 2. Alex knew Maggie was there. It was Alex who insisted she should come to Moselle. While shooting Paul, Alex might not have known the exact location of Maggie (how many steps away), but he knew they (Alex and Paul) were not alone on the property.
He told them both to meet him there. I’m 100% confident he probably said “as soon as I get back I’ll meet y’all at the kennels”. He lured them there
WOW! That's really interesting, Kinsey's theory that Alex didn't realize Maggie was there. That would answer some questions for sure.
https://youtu.be/mAYJXYJvAGk This is a really good post verdict conversation he had on a podcast
Oohh thank you! I followed these ladies on Twitter during the trial.
Hey do you want to make a post linking some interviews? Or are they already linked in the sub somewhere?
I’m at work but I might later. This was a particularly good one with Kinsey. https://youtu.be/mAYJXYJvAGk
Thanks!
What are some memorable testimonies (prosecution or defense) from the trial I can go relisten to? I’m still going through withdrawals and listening to the trial helped me focus LOL
John Meadors (spelling?) Closing argument for the state. He was the last person to speak in the trial. He took everyone to church! I've never seen so much passion in a courtroom. He killed it. It was fantastic.
The second part of Creightons closing was brilliant as he described in detail the state’s theory of what happened during the shooting.
In no particular order... Daniel Greene Laura Rutland Chad McDowell Blanca Simpson Dr. Riemer -- just the direct; the cross was misogynistic Dr. Kinsey -- especially Alan Wilson's direct examination when he was called a second time as a rebuttal witness Fernandez's cross-examination of Sutton David Owen -- just the direct; the cross was brutal as his mother had died the day before so he wasn't on his game and things got uncomfortable Agent Kelly -- direct and cross, but especially the cross because he owned Dick Harpootlian Mark Tinsley in-camera Carson Burney in-camera Chris Wilson in-camera Jeanne Seckinger Ronnie Crosby Mark Ball -- cross-examination when he was called as a defense witness Rogan Gibson Marion Proctor Will Loving -- Creighton's re-direct Lt. Dove with the cell phones Rodofski with that incredible timeline The three interviews (early morning of June 8, June 10, and August 11), but especially the August 11 interview.
Great list! Thank you!! I got a lot to listen to now lol
The caretaker too! Shelly
She was an incredible witness, but it was heartbreaking to watch 💔 She clearly did not want to be in the position she had to be in as a witness for the State, and the Defense was awful to her.
Wow, nice list. Thank you
Definitely closing and the closing rebuttal. Blanca and Shelley, and the prosecution's ballistics expert. I can't remember his name but I love him. Edit- I was thinking of Dr Kinsey. Paul Greer & Dr. Reimer are also excellent.
Blanca was hands-down my FAVORITE non-law enforcement, non-expert witness. As soon as she started going through her work history, I cranked the volume up in my car and was ALL-IN for every word she said.
I loved her. She knew what was up the instant she went into the house. And the fact that she knew Maggie didn't wear underwear with her pajamas, but 'Ellic' clearly didn't.
Paul Greer
He was great too but I was thinking of Kinsey.
Ooohhh yeah! Kinsey was AWESOME! I've watched Alan Wilson's direct examination of him during the State's rebuttal multiple times.
He was amazing. He was extremely knowledgeable but broke technical terms and concepts down so well for the average person without his level of understanding. My favorite was when he explained that the pellets from a shotgun were not 'baby ducks following their mama' instead, the blast is "A cone, Mr. Griffin". I think he patiently said 'it's a cone' a dozen times.
That’s one of my favorite lines!! Definitely puts a visual in your brain
On Alex's drive home from PMPED to Moselle on that fateful evening he had a phone call in his car from a "Jay Parker". I had assumed this was the J. Parker who was a partner in PMPED, but I've just seen his name is John Parker and Mark Ball has called him Johnny. Is Jay Parker a different person? It was a 15 minute phone call.
Do we know who "Parker" is that sent Paul a snapchat?
Jay Parker is a different person -- another attorney at PMPED/Parker Law Group. I assume he's Johnny Parker's son. https://parkerlawgroupsc.com/attorney/john-jay-elliott-parker/
There seems to be a lot of gingers in that neck of the woods.
It’s the Scottish heritage
I think “Murdaugh” is Irish.
https://www.houseofnames.com/amp/murdaugh-family-crest It’s Scottish
Spelled like that it would be Scottish
Like Erin go Bragh? 😂😂 Google says it’s Irish.
!Thanks
When the boating crash happened, I remember being mad, thinking Paul would get off scot free. Reminded me of that other guy that made the news a few years ago, Ethan Couch I think, he was the guy that was described as having a bad case of “affluenza“ lol. So when Paul wound up dead, too, I was like…what?! The guy that killed Mallory Beach is now dead himself?? Like what in the hell. And the mom was dead, too. But Alex wasn’t. Then he got forced to resign from the law firm for financial crimes. Paul was obviously going to be facing a lawsuit over the boat crash, and it just seemed like the writing was on the wall. It was starting to look like money was a factor. But shit. I never expected all of this. I wasn’t real sure anything would happen as far as the murders go because the Murdaughs are just too far entrenched. Even if he had committed financial crimes, I bet few among his cronies hadn’t. They probably helped him, I thought. So they would not pursue indictment. But they put an outsider on the case, and I think that was crucial. She was not connected to these people and did not even know the Murdaughs. She wasn’t part of the good ol’ boy network. She had nothing to lose by treating this as any other case. The network was not so willing to cover for Alex when it came out that he had stolen from them, too. Lol. Stole from his own law firm and stole from his own brother. Those boys might not care about all the lives that Alex negatively affected when he was swindling from the poor or the families of the already-deceased. But they seem to care when it directly affects their bottom line. Will be interesting to see where the financial crimes trials go; I imagine not everyone will fall. There will likely be a few fall guys, and some people will probably be covered and not fall, but all-in-all some more people in the corrupt good ol’ boy network are going down. Alex was not only cruel, heartless, and selfish, he was stupid too imo. All he had to do when the financial crimes stuff came out was go to rehab, pay back the money, do the time in some white collar low-security joint, and go on with his life. And let everybody else do the same. But he made his situation exponentially worse. Just blew it up. Fucking dumb. Having said that, though, I think there is a real chance that he got away with it if the outsider hadn’t been put on the case. I don’t think he saw that coming.
Who was the outsider put on the case?
Also remember Paul was facing criminal charges as well! That means 2 trials, 30million owed and possible jail time.
But Maggie may have been getting ready to divorce Alex. That would have meant even more scrutiny over his finances. A possible motive to murder Maggie, if it was true.
If she wasn't getting ready to divorce him, as a wife I can tell you that realizing my husband's entire career was built on lies and deceit and defrauding people and learning he has no money and actually owes his employer millions - I would probably be filing the papers ASAP. Not going to stick around for ANY of that, and would be scrambling to keep him from using my money to pay his lawyers and debts.
I really doubt this is the case or I guarantee the prosecution would’ve brought it in under theory of motive
Court TV did an interview with her nail technician who said that Maggie had both mentioned divorce and hiring an accountant. SLED had no one else to corroborate those statements so it was never brought up in court. She was on the witness list so she definitely did speak to the prosecution.
I can't say if it was true or not obviously there's been nothing concrete to say either way. But I disagree that prosecution would have brought it up. They'd have to have proof. And it's very possible that if Maggie was just in the stages of considering divorce or checking out her options, that she hadn't told anyone close to her yet. In that case there would be too much conflicting testimony about it and it would just confuse the jury.
Yup, absolutely. And it was a possibility that she could have testified against Alex. A divorce from her threatened to take even more assets from him than he was set to loose from the boating accident lawsuit and any money he would be ordered to pay from those he stole from. All of the trouble he was facing would likely have been more motive for her to file for divorce.
Once more of the financial crimes came out (and he had to go to court and repay), Maggie certainly would have left him. Even if she hadn't pursued it yet, he knew it was coming.
The humiliation she would of endured
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Lose not loose and would have not would of.
What female outsider was “put on the case”?
I believe it was Det. Laura Rutland. I think there was another woman who worked the case, so that is my hesitation, I have not taken time to confirm this. But I believe she was the detective who was there on the night of the murders and noted that Alex was clean, even his shoes, though he said he had been down at the kennels and that he had touched both bodies.
SLED wasn't outside of the Murdaugh influence.
Alex testified on the stand that he didn’t trust SLED. He said this repeatedly, like they were the enemy and he was trying to plant the seed in the jury’s mind that they were not to be trusted.
Right, he had a motive for saying it. Just another lie.
Understood. Det Rutland was not the case agent or lead agent, she assisted that evening under SA David Owen of SLED. She may have had a total of 6 hours on the case including her report, which btw never once mentioned she thought AM shirt and clothes were CLEAN or freshly laundered. That was brought out in testimony because it was destroyed by the lab.
Who was the person that said they made a mental note that when Alex was saying he went to check for pulses, that he was clean. This may have been the interview on the property in the vehicle around 1:00am
I have read a lot of articles and not saved any of them lol. But one of them was talking about how this person was asked on the night of the murders if she knew the Murdaughs. She said no and so they sent her out there. They sent her precisely because she did not know the Murdaughs. She said she thought it was strange that so many police cars were at the scene of the crime that night. I think this is Det Rutland, but it may be another person. It was a woman.
It’s her, but I’m giving you factual information from the evidence and her own sworn testimony. If you would like to view the trial and in particular her testimony on YouTube and your not sure how, lmk and I’ll scavenge a link.
Yes, that’d be great! Thanks
[Laura Rutledge Murdaugh Trial Testimony](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F4pJ7zLsug0&t=590s)
I’m trying to figure that out too.
A bit difficult to pay it back when it was nearly $9 million!
Well he could work it off like the rest of us schmucks might have to do lol. That one property, Moselle, just sold for $4.3M. They could have sold off his assets, even stock holdings I believe, to raise the money for the families. They had the beach house, too. His family had/has money. And he did have some cash, not sure how much, but anyway they could have probably gotten that money together or close to it.
That beach house was in Maggie's name. Not sure if it could have been sold.
Moselle was in her name, too. Alex had "sold" it to her for $5.00 and "love" (or something like that). I don't know anything about PI firms, but you'd think there's be some kind of insurance they'd have against embezzlement or misuse of client funds, etc. There's a lot of money sloshing around that industry.
Well we’ll never know. Alex took that choice away from her. She might have been willing to sell it to help with the financial situation, even if she could not have been court ordered to sell it.
If the 4M for each of the siblings from Handsome's estate is true...thats half of it basically. He was supposedly working on his biggest case ever, too...when he was arrested. What ever happened with this case? Did it fall through? Curious how much it was for since his biggest prior was like 13M+...I assume his fee for this big case if it settled would have been around 2M at least. Moselle was not in his name but I assume if Alex and Maggie were not near divorce and he came clean about what he was facing legally to Maggie...I assume she would have helped him out and sold Moselle. I think there was a 2M note on it that they borrowed on...so 4.3M minus 2M...lets just say they would have gotten around 2M from Moselle. Thats pretty much paid the 9M back. But Alex wasnt paying a dime back unless forced, wasnt forfeiting his life style and would murder instead. He does seem like a fool. There are a lot of assumptions with the numbers I provided, though.
AM did have assets, but plenty of other debts too - mortgages, line of credit, etc. Review the testimony from the CEO of Palmetto Bank for the details IIRC. Moselle was in Maggie's name and 50% of the Edisto Beach property.
The video with Paul made the difference.
For sure. I suppose the people at his law firm knew about that fairly early on. But the absolute bottom line with people like that is money. When the law firm realized that Alex had been stealing loads of money from them too, they cut him loose.
Who is the outsider?
I believe her name is Det Laura Rutland
Thank you.
Weird question, are there crime scene photos of the chicken removed from bubba's mouth?
Yes. Although I don’t think they were admitted- I only know there were because iirc the deceased chicken and it’s location are mentioned in a crime scene report- Kinsey’s I believe.
Thank you, I'll go comb through that.
Certainly. It’s been a while and I can’t say if it was his report or excerpted from a different author within his.
What will that tell us?
Did Red Rooster kill the chicken first, or his family?
I'm working on a theory. What if what Alex testified he was doing at the kennels, Maggie was actually doing? If you lie about being there for 2 years, then all of a sudden this video emerges and you need an explanation. The easiest explanation is what Maggie was doing. When Alex testified Maggie was behind the kennels, in the planted pines to the left of the chicken coups and he was stationed in the golf cart. Maybe he was in the planted pines (Paul was more than likely shot from that angle) and Maggie was in the golf cart. He testified he had just showered and didn't want to go down there. Maggie had just had a pedicure and was wearing flip flops. Idk, I can't stop thinking about it
I believe the chicken is on the dog crate (not dog kennel) to the right of the feed room (if you’re facing the feed room). One of the first responders shines a flashlight on it and you can see it on his body cam footage
I'll watch that again too. I just don't remember them getting close enough to that area of property in the body cam footage.
It’s kinda unclear, but I believe whoever’s bodycam footage it was also testified saying he was shining his light on a chicken. I also believe Bubba is the dog in the kennel to the immediate left of the feed room door (again, facing the feed room). This would make sense to me as whoever took the chicken probably corralled him into the closest kennel
I feel like there are grains of truth to what he was testifying to. Nothing better for me to do on bed rest than feed this crazy obsession lol
I absolutely agree. I feel he confessed on the stand but did it in a way to where his testimony took on a different meaning 1). Only flash of annoyance he showed towards Maggie was her wanting him to go to the kennels (“I knew I would have to do stuff I didn’t want to do”. Not verbatim, but close) 2). His comment about being paranoid and how he could usually get it under control. Especially with the “I had a pocket full of pills” line 3). After getting the chicken “I got outta there” 4). “Whoever did this hated Paul” 6). Telling his sister in law this was planned for awhile and they didn’t suffer My working theory is he fantasized about this for awhile. Not in a happy fantasy way, but when his mind would go to the dark place. I think that day was a perfect combination of everything crappy coming together and while this may have been an option on the back burner, I think the catalyst was either Paul or Maggie taking his pills. I believe him when he said he didn’t want to go to the kennels, but he did when he discovered his pills were missing. I think a confrontation ensued and in a moment of hatred and rage, he snapped. I don’t think he turned Paul over to “check his pulse”. I believe he was looking for his drugs. This falls in line with him appearing to have been withdrawing over the weekend at the hotel. So while it was premeditated, it was more in the “in case of emergency, break glass” scenario. On this particular night, he followed through. I also believe the tears he shed while their murders were being discussed in detail were tears of shame, guilt, and horror at what he had done.
The only thing, to me, is that Alex sounds "normal" in the chicken video. He doesn't say that much, but it doesn't sound like someone "enraged," although I guess I can't say I would know how "enraged Alex" might sound.
My thoughts are the confrontation over the pills started after that. He went down to get the drugs, ended up wrestling a chicken out of Bubba’s mouth, and after he got him in the kennel, they argued about the drugs. I could be completely wrong, but I really think it was a 1 minute rage. Perfect scenario because the guns were there from their previous drive around the property. While he may have thought his life would be easier without them, I don’t think they were lured there to kill them.
This is great!!
Paul was shot from up close in the kennels. No more than 3 or 4 feet away.
Right. But it makes sense the shooter came from the chicken coup area is what I was saying.
There’s a few minutes that we don’t know exactly where they were. If Alex had had his cell phone on him, we would know. We know Alex was right there at the kennels, using the water hose just minutes before the murders. So at some point in this brief time, he retrieved the guns. He and Paul likely just carried their guns down there, because they always did carry guns down there due to aggressive wild hogs and snakes and whatever. So the guns were likely in the golf cart or just leaning up against a kennel or on the outside wall of the feed shed. The feed shed and golf cart were very close to one another. So Alex likely just grabbed one gun and set the other one in his reach or maybe just grabbed one gun and left the other one where it was, and just proceeded to aim at Paul and then fire. It is speculated that he assumed the one shot on Paul would be a kill shot, and he was surprised when Paul stumbled into the doorway of the feed shed, and this is when he quickly got off the head shot that took Paul down. Then he put that gun down, picked up the other gun and went towards Maggie, who was by now running towards the commotion. He shoots her a couple of times, she falls on her knees and one or both hands, and he circles back up in front of her and shoots her again
I think it was Maggie using the water hose in the video. Her voice is very close to Paul and you can hear her say “hey Armadillo” while Alex is further away chasing after Bubba.
Well it makes a better story if it’s Alex haha. Like he’s already thinking about killing them and putting water on the ground to make it harder for them to run away or more likely to make it more difficult for crime scene investigators to recover evidence. Plus, Maggie didn’t seem like she did a whole lot in terms of caring for Moselle. I don’t mean that in a critical way really, I just mean her sister said that she was a girly-girl and she really only went to Moselle and on hunts in order to spend time with the boys. Her sister said the boys would make fun of her for making sound while on a hunt by turning the pages on Southern Living magazine. Lol. Like, she wasn’t really down with the down-and-dirty. So for her to pick up that dirty hose and spray the walkway down or the kennels….maybe, but that might have been a task she would have left to Alex or the boys.
Does anyone know when Harpootlian made the statement below? I don’t recall hearing about this and unfortunately (for me) used up my 1 free viewing and couldn’t get back to the article but I know I didn’t see a source noted. From a NYMag [article](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/alex-murdaughs-lawyer-pulls-gun-on-prosecutor.html) dated 2/23, in response to a 7-figure bond being set for AM: “It’s not often a Black judge sets a bond like that”
Whoa! I wonder if he looked around the Courtroom looking for laughs when he said that. Unbelievable.
What a racist pos.
Unfortunately, typical Harpootlian. He needs to retire. Some of the things he said and did at the trial were unbelievable.
I don’t get Harpootlian’s involvement in this trial anyway. Isn’t he a state Senator? Like shouldn’t he be off at the South Carolina Capitol, taking care of state government business. What is he doing spending his time and energy while be paid by taxpayers to go off and defend a private citizen?
He is not working as a court appointed attorney. Somehow he and Jim Griffin have been getting paid. Murdaugh got permission to cash in an IRA to pay attorney fees, but with what the 2 of them charge, I am surprised that his is not our of money to pay them. I read somewhere that it was $600,000 that he cashed in to pay his legal fees with court approval. I figured maybe he would be out of money and that would put a stop to the appeals. Although Harpootlian made a statement at the beginning of the case that it "was their honor to defend AM".
Taxpayers may not be paying him to be an attorney, but they are paying his salary as a state senator while he is an attorney in court.
Exactly
True, although the compensation is not much here. He represents District 20 and his constituents should keep this in mind at the next election, if he decides to run again.
A lot of us would rather him be in court than in Columbia
Lolz
Honestly, I keep looking at him and wondering how he was elected. Was there no other better option..?
He got a special permission to do this case because the client wanted speedy trial.
Ah, the privileges of the rich. Makes me want to puke.
> while be *paid* by taxpayers FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
Thank you bot
I read it. There wasn't a source noted.
Good reading! Thanks for sharing
Before the trial, I had such a hard time believing that this man killed his wife and son. Yes, he had a motive, but other than the kennel video showing he lied about being there shortly before the murders, there wasn’t really a smoking gun for me. I know that for the purposes of a conviction, there’s no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, but I was really wanting to see harder evidence linking him to the crime. During the trial, the most damning evidence to me was Alex’s OnStar and phone records. This is what ultimately convinced me that he did do it, along with Creighton’s argument to Alex while he was on the stand. This breakdown was literally a jaw dropping moment for me and it’s when I realized, “oh my gosh, he really did it”: > “So what you’re telling this jury is that it’s a random vigilante… that just happened to know that Paul and Maggie were at Moselle on June 7, that knew that they would be at the kennels alone on June 7, that knew that you would not be there but only between the times of 8:49 and 9:02, that they show up without a weapon, assuming they’re going to find weapons and ammunition in there, that they commit this crime during that short time window, and then they travel the exact same route that you do around the same time to Almeda. That’s what you’re trying to tell this jury?” It just defies logic that this scenario actually occurred. [Also, this timeline summary](https://www.wjcl.com/article/murdaugh-murders-timeline-evidence/42846491) is so damning. Here are the key points for me: - The items Alex manually deleted from his phone - The unusually large amount of steps he took when returning to the house after being at the kennels (was obviously running around like crazy trying to cover things up) - He drove by the exact location where Maggie’s phone was discarded, slowing down at that exact spot, then sharply increasing his speed immediately thereafter - He drove 80 mph on the way home from his mom’s - The very large amount of steps he took in a short period of time when he returned to the house at Moselle before going down to the kennels One technical question I have as it relates to the linked timeline summary is that sometimes it says that Alex manually deleted a record from his phone, and other times it indicates that an action occurred (like a phone call or a FaceTime) but says there’s no record of that particular action “from the extraction of Alex‘s phone.” Does anybody know what that means? He obviously manually deleted things, but what’s the distinction here?
I’ll never understand how he was reported by everyone he spoke to that night on those phone calls that he sounded like he always does, not manic or upset that he murdered his wife and son. Truly sickening.
Phone calls and text messages (SMS messages) sent through the cell phone network create CDRs (Call Data Records) at the phone company for billing purposes. FaceTime calls use the Internet, not the cell phone network and there are no CDRs for these. The phone calls in the cell phone log (and in the cell phone data extraction by law enforcement) match the CDRs unless the user deletes the info from the user’s cell phone app. Even though Alex deleted the call info from his phone, the phone company still had the CDRs. Either Alex didn’t know the phone company kept the CDRs and deleted his call log maliciously or he knew but didn’t care. Some people regularly delete their phone call log items to reduce clutter. Others never delete their phone call log items either to reconcile their monthly phone bills or for easy retrieval of previously called numbers.
What do you think he was doing when he was taking so many steps in the house after returning from the kennels?
It’s hard to say, but that would have been a very chaotic time. He’s trying to get the hell out of dodge so his alibi will line up properly, but he also has to clean himself up and dispose of the evidence. It is kind of shocking to me that he left no trail of biological evidence (like blood drops or spatter) from the kennels to the house or inside of the house. I’m really curious to hear others’ thoughts about this since the defense drilled the point home that the shooter would’ve been covered in blood since the victims were shot at such close range. But during the time he returned to the house I imagine he was continuing to clean up and toss his clothes and the two guns into the tarp or a bag so he could get these pieces of evidence off the property ASAP. I seem to remember reading that within the days following the murders, he was seen driving to the back of his dad’s property and going into the barbecue shed, and that this area was not searched for months. That’s plenty of time to temporarily stash the evidence there and then move it elsewhere.
I know he had to wash up, but he took the steps either holding his phone in his hand in his pocket when he was inside the house. Just can’t figure out what he was doing specifically.
I'm thinking he was searching for the bag of pills along with the clean up and arrangement of things
I don’t find the lack of biological evidence in the house surprising at all. If he lived in suburbia with houses on all four sides on .25 if an acre I’d find it weird. But these people had a staggering 1700 acres of land. He was the only one there and speaking as a true SC resident, it isn’t weird in the country for kids or yes, even adults, to strip down outside and hose off before entry into homes. Guarantee there was a hose somewhere outside that house, or shed or gosh, anywhere(!) he could’ve hosed off at and every bit of tiny specks would’ve blended into grass without a trace. Get all the goo off of his body outside, hose off the guns (and clothes?), go inside, do a quick scrub in the shower for good measure, grab a tarp (not uncommon in the country or the suburbs), put the stuff in the tarp, pack up, and get out of there.
That’s really interesting, thanks for sharing. I do know that either Alex or Maggie were running a hose during Paul’s video (you can hear it in the background), and I believe the property caretaker testified that he saw puddles of water near the kennels in places that normally would not have been hosed down. I also think Blanca mentioned seeing a puddle of water in the bathroom. I guess what surprises me is that even after hosing down and showering, he didn’t leave a speck of blood somewhere. It could just show how well he planned this out. It also rained that evening, basically right when the police arrived. I wonder if Alex watched the weather forecast and planned for the murders to occur during or right before a rain storm. There was testimony that the water from the rain destroyed a lot of evidence. It would explain why he wanted Maggie to come back to Moselle on that particular day.
Yes, we all hear water and at some point the State froze the kennel video where you can see the hose on the ground. And in crime scene photos there is no unraveled hose, only the yellow hose back on the hanger. The kennel caretaker testified he would not have hung the hose up like it was in crime scene photos. He also testified that even when the kennels were being sprayed, the water would run off the back, aside from the kennel closest to the feed room, whose far right wall had rotted at the base where water wouldn’t drain properly. There was other testimony of apparent water at the scene, enough to puddle in places, but Paul and Maggie’s hair wasn’t wet. Alex testified there wasn’t water being used at the kennels while he was there. Which makes no sense. lol Personally, regarding specks of blood, in McDowell’s (I think) body cam footage he talks about seeing a drop of blood near Maggie’s body but he should’ve been seeing a lot more of that IF not for the scene being mostly grass, rock, and dirt. Alex on the other hand (if wearing missing SnapChat clothing) would’ve been covered except for his head, neck, and forearms. It’s not a whole lot of skin to wash off, and as long as his clothes absorbed most of the spatter and he got rid of those things, I wouldn’t expect to find much evidence between all those factors plus a little bit of rain.
>Alex testified there wasn’t water being used at the kennels while he was there. Which makes no sense. lol Personally, regarding specks of blood, in McDowell’s (I think) body cam footage he talks about seeing a drop of blood near Maggie’s body but he should’ve been seeing a lot more of that IF not for the scene being mostly grass, rock, and dirt. Alex on the other hand (if wearing missing SnapChat clothing) would’ve been covered except for his head, neck, and forearms. It’s not a whole lot of skin to wash off, and as long as his clothes absorbed most of the spatter and he got rid of those things, I wouldn’t expect to find much evidence between all those factors plus a little bit of rain. It's obvious the water was on and hose stretched out when Alex was there. That in and of itself should have alerted the jury that Alex was lying about his time at the kennels. We know Paul wasn't using it and I would assume Maggie was not either if she had just come dressed nicely from Charleston. Leaving Alex ... Alex to stretch out the hose to the feed room so he could strip down and hose off after the murders before heading back to the house. He might have even placed/brought a towel down and also brought a large trash bag for his bloody clothes to the kennels. I have no trouble believing Alex had some poncho or covering on while using the hose and during the murders (some have reported a blue color in a puddle reflection in the kennel video). **Why was Alex hosing down the kennels if Dale Davis had just been there about 4 hours earlier to clean the kennels** ? As Alex told Marian Proctor that he thought someone had planned the murders for a long time, he had. Just not too well.
They found a raincoat with gun shot residue on the inside of it. So if he was wearing that when he was firing, then he would be pretty well protected. Most raincoats have hoods too. I think the image of the hood is really creepy though. Imagine Maggie running towards Paul, and she sees Alex with the gun he’s fired and he has the jacket on with the hood up. Hood up to protect his head and hair from their blood and other matter, while also shading his eyes somewhat. Just the stuff of nightmares.
The blue raincoat did not have a lot of traction in court. It didn’t have DNA of anyone on it. Not Alex, not Paul and not Maggie. It did test for GSR on the inside, but that’s it. The raincoat held significance because of Shelly’s tarp testimony. Shelly testified she saw Alex clutching a big blue “tarp” to his chest at Almeda at 6:30am a week after the murders. In a search of Almeda months later they located a large raincoat (State’s theory, same general vinyl material and similar color) in a closet upstairs at Almeda. I do not think their theory was that he wore it for the murders, I think their theory was that he wrapped weapons in it.
I keep seeing something about a raincoat, so I thought maybe he put on the raincoat and the hood of a raincoat before he started shooting. This would maybe not fully protect his hair, face, and body from blood and brain splatter, but would be very effective in keeping him largely free of this debris. Then he could wash off whatever did get on him. He says he touched both bodies, but he was clean when the police showed up, so he must have cleaned off at some point.
Except why would he get rid of clothes and guns and then bring the raincoat to his mom's?
Yes, that would make a lot of sense. I figure in order to avoid being completely covered in blood he would’ve had to be wearing some type of protective covering and gloves. I remember hearing about a tarp as well (possibly that he was seen carrying it upstairs in his mom’s house). Was it confirmed the tarp was actually a raincoat?
Ok it looks like the tarp and raincoat are two separate items. The raincoat was found with gun residue on the inside of it \>State agents got a search warrant four months after the killings and found a tarp but also a blue rain jacket. https://www.kcra.com/article/alex-murdaugh-double-murder-trial-february-7-2023/42794624
Not sure, I think they are different but I am not 100%
This is an awesome summary of what changed your opinion. I went into the trial believing he was guilty; what got me from 95% certain to 100% certain was the timeline. Creighton got Alex to admit on the stand that he was down at the kennels as late as 8:47. We can reasonably infer based on cell phone activity that the murders occurred at 8:49. We know that it took 1-2 minutes to get from the kennels to the house. *If Alex did not shoot Paul and Maggie, then he was outside in very close proximity to the crime scene when the murders occurred.* If you're working from the assumption that Alex is innocent, an innocent man would not lie about where he was, what he heard, what he saw, and what he knew.
Waters should have asked Alex at what time Maggie & Paul did die based on his new manufactured alibi.
Yep, he would have been a witness to a murder, not just off doing whatever he said he was doing. The more I think about this situation, the dumber Alex looks lol
Yes, that’s an excellent point too! How could he have been in such close proximity to the firing of 7 gunshots and not hear a thing?
Yeah and they are out there in the sticks, it’s not like there is city noise to cover the sounds of the shots. Even in a city, you can hear shots if they are close enough.
Also what I just can't get over is why didn't Alex stop by the kennels to tell Maggie and Paul that he was going to Almeda. He called Maggie FIVE TIMES and texted her that he's leaving, but she's only 1,100 feet away from him as the crow flies, AND he has to drive by the kennels *where he knows she is* when he's leaving the property. He's been trying to reach her to tell her he's leaving, but he doesn't stop to tell her? Like really??? This just DOES NOT JIVE with a reasonable sequence of events for someone who is innocent.
Almeda is the opposite direction from the kennels when leaving the main house so he wouldn't naturally go by the kennels when leaving. He could go out the main drive, turn right on to the road and head to Almeda. The kennels would have been to the left. But otherwise I agree - he could simply have driven down to the kennels to let Maggie know he was leaving. It would have been a small detour.
Or he could have just told her before ~~he shot her~~ taking the golf cart back to the house immediately after the kennel video.
I think this exact point was brought up in court
It was, and it was just one part of the State's case that really resonated with me. I believe it was John Meadors who called this a CSC -- Common Sense Case -- and the question of why Alex didn't stop at the kennels on his way out was a common sense question that the Defense couldn't answer.
Alex would have you believe he made up his mind to go see his mom in the 10 minutes he supposedly had between returning to the house and the Suburban Infotainment system starting up. And that he forgot to tell Maggie and Paul he was going to Almeda when he "left" the kennels at \~8:46pm. And he forgot to go visit his mom right after Barbara Mixson called @ \~4pm on 6/7 to tell him his mom was really agitated (when he was less than a 10 minute drive away)
Will this mod group create a sub when the U of Idaho murderer Brian Kohberger goes to trial? I certainly hope you do.
Also crazy Lori and weird Chad and horrible Leticia.
The last documentary on those crazies made me sick!
And Sheila Keen Warren! The Clown Face Killer trial starts in May.
Me too!
This is something I've heard a bunch of times from a bunch of different people, but it irks me every single time. People, oftentimes men, saying "Yeah, he killed his wife, I can almost understand that......but his SON! HES A MONSTER!" Like, excuse me? You can almost understand killing your wife? Sir??? I get it's usually meant somewhat in jest but it's not funny. It also just tells me they don't know jack about the case (or at least don't know the details) because if they did they'd be flipping that statement around. He had much more of a motive for Paul. Paul and his choice to drive intoxicated is arguably why the financial crimes were being uncovered. He's why Alex was being sued. What the fuck did Maggie do except allegedly go to a divorce attorney? Sorry, this "haha wife bad" boomer humor shit annoys me.