In SC the State does not have to supply a motive, but according to the last hearing where AM waived bond, the State's Attorney said the financial charges of fraud, embezzlement etc. were directly related to the murder charges.From that article:
During his remarks before the court, Harpootlian took a dim view of the murder charges filed against Murdaugh – saying the state has presented “not much, if anything” related to a possible motive for the murders.
IMO, DH is spewing nonsense with a straight face and hoping his mere attitudinal bluster will appear to strengthen his argument.
Potential motivations I can think of without much struggle:
And these are just the things we know about.
- Anger at PM for his part in the boating accident which led to serious criminal charges against him and to civil litigation against AM, BM, and the RMIII Residence Trust (that defendant likely settled as it had been dropped from the litigation).
- Anger at the audacity of MM for engaging a financial audit of her family's finances. How dare she investigate and potentially expose those to anyone outside the family?
- Imminent death of patriarch, related inheritance issues, and determination not to have any part of that inheritance potentially subject to loss or division through divorce or litigation (or any MORE of that inheritance lost - if RMIII, acting on behalf of RMIII Residence Trust had already paid a settlement in the Beach litigation).
- Likewise, determination not to have the very valuable family name and reputation - already sullied by PM's behavior which led to boating accident - further sullied by discovery and revelation of other wrongdoing (see next).
- Fear of discovery of embezzlement of client funds through MM's audit of AM's finances (incl. any associated with PMPED).
Also, I am not familiar with SC law, but I doubt motive is an element that is required to be proven for a murder conviction. Even so, IMO awareness that strong motivation did exist does help individual jury members gain moral comfort in their weighty role of judging someone's guilt based on proof of the required elements.
Bond revocation hearing scheduled for Curtis Smith, alleged Alex Murdaugh accomplice
S.C. judge revokes bond for alleged Murdaugh accomplice, Curtis Smith
Curtis Eddie Smith lied about finances, violates house arrest 26 times, say prosecutors, remanded to jail.www.blufftontoday.com
On Wednesday, the AG’s office filed a motion to revoke bond with the State Grand Jury of South Carolina for two types of violations:
The motion alleges that during his June 28 bond hearing before the State Grand Jury Presiding Judge, Smith made false representations to the court about his financial condition, saying, “I ain’t got no money,” quoted the filing. After further investigation, prosecutors learned that Smith had on June 3 received a $78,166.20 insurance settlement check and on the day of the bond hearing had $58,478.52 in his checking account.
The motion further alleges that between the dates of July 6 and July 20 Smith violated the terms of his house arrest 26 times. While the terms of his house arrest limited him to leaving his residence only to go to work, church, school, doctor appointments or attorney consultations, Smith visited a nearby ACE Hardware, Food Lion, Walmart (multiple visits), six private residences, the Fort Jackson military base in Columbia, and made multiple trips to Dorchester Biomass, an electrical energy company in Harleyville, S.C. The visits range in duration from 11 minutes to 79 minutes.
Hahaha, Judge Newman is not playing. Love it!
I'm not sure it's a "stupid" thing as much as a "I can probably get away with it" thing. That is some serious entitlement going on.Stupid is as stupid does. IMO
You would be surprised the number of people who 100% avoid any type of news reporting. I think sometimes we at WS think we are 'normal' in how we follow certain cases. WE are really the outliers - they'll seat a jury.I think it will be impossible to find any jury pool In South Carolina that can be considered neutral or unaware of the circumstances of this case. What then?
I don't think the requirements of sitting on a jury is being unaware of the case, rather just not being prejudiced in guilt or innocence beforehand as you mentioned.I think it will be impossible to find any jury pool In South Carolina that can be considered neutral or unaware of the circumstances of this case. What then?
Agree 100% Elley Mae! However, anytime justice is stolen from one, it is stolen from all. Restoring confidence in the SC justice system will be difficult and take a lot longer than Alex paying back the money.I hope that the jurors are ppl just like the ones he stole from.
Jmo