SC - Paul Murdaugh, 22 and mom Margaret, 52, found shot to death, Islandton, 7 June 2021 #14

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Newman also issued a protective order — barring much of the materials from public dissemination — after prosecutor Creighton Waters made the strange claim that some of the evidence against Murdaugh is worth “over a million dollars to an unscrupulous hand.”


The look on AM’s face at link.

Creepy

Jmo
1662126121720.png
THIS should be a meme. Anyone think of an appropriate caption?
 
Murdaugh Murders: Feds Come Down Hard On Russell Laffitte, Accuse Him Of Lying To FBI


Of interest? According to the filing, Laffitte disbursed these funds even though he was “never named conservator or personal representative for (Arthur Badger).”

“Therefore neither Laffitte nor PSB should have ever obtained money on his behalf,” the filing asserted.

In addition to disclosing new details of his alleged defrauding of his clients, Laffitte also stands accused of lying to federal agents and prosecutors.

As a result of Laffitte’s alleged dishonesty, the feds are preparing to move against his “proffer” – meaning he would likely have to stand trial on his state charges before being tried federally.

A “proffer” in a criminal case is essentially an invitation to negotiation made by attorneys representing a defendant or the target of an investigation. The goal of a “proffer?” To exchange information in the defendant’s possession – and future testimony in court – in exchange for a favorable plea deal.

Laffitte’s proffer is now very much in jeopardy, according to the filing. Indeed, the government “fully intends” to file a motion asking the court to hold Laffitte “in breach of his proffer agreement,” according to its latest pleading.

Specifically, federal prosecutors rebuked the assertion of Laffitte’s attorneys – Bart Daniel and Matt Austin – that he never “breached his proffer agreements by failing to tell the truth.”
 
I’ve heard the rumbles about how the security of the crime scene is to become a “big deal” and I’m wondering for who? Is the defense going to throw doubt about allowing the accused and his family there? I don’t think the state will want to question it for obvious reasons. It seems that without something to gain, either side would want the issue.
I’m still interested to know why they told the people there how it was no threat and let this guy stay free with a gun. And if they didn’t know it was him, that really deserves an explanation. Why they couldn’t be honest is shady.
 
I’ve heard the rumbles about how the security of the crime scene is to become a “big deal” and I’m wondering for who? Is the defense going to throw doubt about allowing the accused and his family there? I don’t think the state will want to question it for obvious reasons. It seems that without something to gain, either side would want the issue.
I’m still interested to know why they told the people there how it was no threat and let this guy stay free with a gun. And if they didn’t know it was him, that really deserves an explanation. Why they couldn’t be honest is shady.
Shady, yes, and possibly intimidated by AM's tentacles of corrupted power and influence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
1,693
Total visitors
1,836

Forum statistics

Threads
605,502
Messages
18,187,979
Members
233,402
Latest member
Pandaqui
Back
Top