Good evening!
This is the first half of my jury-facing impressions (what would a juror think about MT’s 5/24 conduct/role/culpability at this point in the trial?) (also including “my color commentary”; phones and cameras don’t lie!) AMOO
After finally finishing the third interview, it dawned on me (and I have no doubt on most of you), that the State organized its case to put everything that LE knew, before it conducted the third MT interview, in front of the jury before the jury saw the third MT interview yesterday - such that the jury is “in the shoes” of law-enforcement, as if the jury is asking the defendant the questions in the third interview themselves, and hearing MT’s lies in real time with the benefit of a lot of facts in evidence that contradict her responses.
I was kind of starting to accept a certain media theme as far as the “nothing burger” case against MT - the State looks disorganized - blah blah. But the State’s timeline is massive and multilayered, and in many cases anchored by irrefutable electronic/video/cellular evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt IMO)(like in Murdaugh - uhm, yes siree, you were at the kennel, Alick ).
The D’s defense is essentially that MT was totally **clueless** about the whole deal. The D, and the pro-D media, love their innocent explanations. But the innocent explanations do not hold water against reality when you line them up (or weigh evidence like the jury will be instructed) and look at everything cumulatively.
The Jury will be instructed on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences. They will also be instructed about “credibility” of D - something the judge has highlighted a whole bunch as the actual issue at hand - “this is not about cell towers, it’s about this defendant’s credibility…”. Ouch.
I’m trying to put myself in the jury box; they only have pen and paper; no FBI tools (but they will get it in the jury room). They have to be able to sort out what is relevant and what is weightier to the exclusion of other evidence. So this is just a hypothetical mindset of a juror - trying to find truth amidst so much extraneous clutter and noise (horns).
MT’s Early Morning Activities on 5/24
She admits FD was not in bed (or shower) when she awakes at 6:30am - 6:40am which means she is the only person in the house (except daughter).
FD’s phone is placed at house by cell data from 5:34 am - 12:22 pm.
Within 5 minutes of her waking up, MT is “manipulating” FD’s phone which means the phone is recording user driven events that only a human could have made. If you isolate just the events that can only occur by human manipulation - there is a clear picture of MT literally sitting on top of FD’s phone all morning. Go back and listen to Attorney Manning’s presentation of the cell expert testimony- “Sir, is this another manipulation event that required a user to interact with the phone.”
All of the following manipulations are only the logical actions of MT (no reasonable doubt IMO):
6:45 am Unlocked
6:45 am Orientation change
6:46 am Orientation change
7:01 am Orientation change
7:01 am Unlocked
7:00 am - 8:00am 44 meters/ 66 steps
8:17 am Unlocked
8:26 am - 17 second incoming Andreas call answered
8:26 am - audio output speaker of Andreas call
8:31 am Orientation Change
8:31 am Unlocked
So between 6:44 am and 8:31 am she does not put FD’s phone down (except for the school drop - and she knows the phone has to stay at the house). Once back home, she is watching the missed calls on FD’s phone. She carries FD’s phone around the house. She is glued to it. She keeps unlocking his phone (like someone refreshing a computer screen in anticipation of something urgent). She sees all the activity. She is screening calls, waiting for the alibi call. Her electronic fingerprints are all over the place.
In her third version of the early morning- she didn’t pay any attention to FD’s phone (until it startled her in the office at 8:26 am). Just a mundane school day morning is her innocent “cover”. She was showering, getting ready, making strawberries, toast and Nutella. But she is so preoccupied with FD’s phone, and the impending Greek phone alibi call, that she forgets to make sure her daughter has sunscreen before dropping her off at school before 8:00 am.
Reasonable inference - MT knows FD is not home, and she knows what is happening because she is manipulating his phone (phone #1) in parallel with FD’s movements to provide cover. She knows which calls to take and which not to take. She knows to leave the phone behind for the school drop. Boom. Prior knowledge before the murder and overt acts to establish FD alibi.
Alibi Call
So in her third version, MT comes back to the house from school drop, goes to the office (because she has to print return labels for dresses from Lord & Taylor and certainly not to receive an alibi call at 8:26 am) and poof “Maywhinnie” is there in the office! (And there are sooooo many glass tables - inside and out). And out of literally nowhere FD’s phone “is there” by her computer, near the Lord & Taylor labels, on FD’s desk (“the square one”).
Then, as she is supposedly correcting her earlier lie from a prior interview (that she never saw/manipulated FD’s phone that morning), LE (and now the jury) catch her in a NEW lie. LE: “Was this the first time you saw FD’s phone that morning, in the office, (and not at 6:44 am when you started manipulating the phone - before you made toast…)? You didn’t see the phone in the bedroom when you went to turn off the alarm?”
Reasonable inference - boom again. The jury is now watching her lie to LE (knowing she is lying because of the prior phone manipulation testimony). She is also lying to the jury in real time during their viewing of the third interview. Juries do not like lies. She acts flustered by LE’s question - knowing full well she’s caught in another lie, and her fumbling around isn’t confusion, memory loss, or hunger; it is her realizing (panicking) that she is busted. This isn’t innocent behavior.
Suddenly, after arriving home from the school drop, and encountering KW in the office near FD’s phone, FD’s phone rings at 8:26 am (she is ready because she manipulated (unlocked) the phone at 8:17 am). She does not offer to LE that the FD’s phone rang. LE is starting to refer to their ginormous chart. LE: “And did FD’s phone then ring?” (Objection. Leading!). She says Kent is suddenly moving around the glass table. He is asking her “are you going to pick that up”, more flustering, and then static on the phone, “Hellloooooooo … Andreas is that you?”
Reasonable inference - she was waiting for the call because she found a way to be with the phone, unlock it right before the call, take the call for just long enough to register the call without having to stay on long enough to have an actual conversation that would not need explaining later.
After the Alibi Call and Just Before “Lunch”
She leaves 4JC, straight away, after the static-y call from Greece, to drive around. Lots of calls - called mom, dad, sister. Purses, rugs, supermarket.
Meanwhile, in the digital world, her phone is connecting with FD’s second phone, enroute from the crime scene.
Reasonable inference - if they are chatting away by phone right before lunch, 4 times, why aren’t they planning what leftovers to eat? She could have been warming up the meat and potatoes, so it would be ready, so they could soon thereafter start the cleaning projects at 80MS. But she doesn’t make lunch (even though they have lunch together everyday) and instead - she goes to the POND - but there is no one to pull her!!?
She is then back home at (11:52 am) in plenty of time to be surprised by FD, in the flesh (but not a tie), at 1:31 pm, yelling from atop the stairs, down to her, about lunch. (Oh there you are, FD! How did you get here?)
But there is no lunch (or romantic balcony scene) because they are both on video at 1:36 pm, her in a White Jeep, entering 80 MS (coming from the direction of 4JC) followed by him the Black Suburban with Thule and the FORE magnetic signage.
And we are only mid-day before 1) the driving madness; 2) 3 fires; 3) Starbucks; and 4) trash dumping.
I am completely fine if anyone wants to edit, add to, subtract, add, modify or anything to make sense of this madness!
