Is the video available? I heard the singing but wasn’t watching the screen at that moment.
SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #17
- Thread starter worm
- Start date
- Status
clearskies1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 3,892
- Reaction score
- 29,373
I really doubt it. Too far removed from the murders. More prejudicial than probative. JMO.
I totally agree with you on AM's exaggeration ability and propensity for using it whenever it suits him.
jmo
Twistinginthewind
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 2,442
- Reaction score
- 19,093
Just wondering if there are opinions on whether Paul would have seen it coming? That is, AM pointing the firearm straight at him from the front and his son seeing that his father was about to shoot him?
Although I've read about it and appreciated all the discussions on locations, distances, diagrams, debris, blood spatter, etc., I'm still not sure.
Probably just based on the overarching fact that the "back of his head" was blown off I thought that meant that his death was caused by a shot from behind, which kind of made sense to me, that someone depraved like AM would shoot him down from behind like a creepy coward.
Or was the first shot from a front angle (under his left shoulder I think?) that Paul would have seen who was shooting him, then when he fell and tried to flee, the second shot from behind finished him off?
TIA for straightening me out if anyone is up for it! JMOO as ever
clearskies1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 3,892
- Reaction score
- 29,373
It was admitted into evidence and I don't think it's under seal, so at some point it should be available to the public.
LetsSolvIt
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2021
- Messages
- 1,336
- Reaction score
- 14,954
Might have something to do with the Gucci receipt?
(Sorry I misunderstood what one or both of these users were asking for, in regards to which specific video)
too large to upload the video file here it says, so here’s a link to media with it
Edit: reporter clarifies this is “NOT” the “Snapchat video” and that tweet can be found here
He mentions that video is said to show Alex and Paul riding around the property.
clearskies1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 3,892
- Reaction score
- 29,373
If I understood the judge correctly, it sounds like tomorrow they will have a hearing with witnesses outside the presence of the jury to decide if there is clear and convincing evidence of Alex's alleged financial improprieties concerning the law firm. State obviously wants to get that evidence in to show motive. (BBM)
....
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent.
Note:
....
The rule does not set forth the burden of proof required for the admission of evidence of bad acts not the subject of a conviction and, therefore, case law would control. State v. Smith, 300 S.C. 216, 387 S.E.2d 245 (1989) (in a criminal case, evidence of other crimes or bad acts must be clear and convincing if the acts are not the subject of a conviction). Further, when the prejudicial effect of evidence substantially outweighs its probative value, the evidence may be excluded under Rule 403 which is consistent with prior case law. State v. Garner, 304 S.C. 220, 403 S.E.2d 631 (1991).
www.sccourts.org
RULE 404
CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE CONDUCT; EXCEPTION; OTHER CRIMES
CHARACTER EVIDENCE NOT ADMISSIBLE TO PROVE CONDUCT; EXCEPTION; OTHER CRIMES
....
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible to show motive, identity, the existence of a common scheme or plan, the absence of mistake or accident, or intent.
Note:
....
The rule does not set forth the burden of proof required for the admission of evidence of bad acts not the subject of a conviction and, therefore, case law would control. State v. Smith, 300 S.C. 216, 387 S.E.2d 245 (1989) (in a criminal case, evidence of other crimes or bad acts must be clear and convincing if the acts are not the subject of a conviction). Further, when the prejudicial effect of evidence substantially outweighs its probative value, the evidence may be excluded under Rule 403 which is consistent with prior case law. State v. Garner, 304 S.C. 220, 403 S.E.2d 631 (1991).
SC Judicial Branch
www.sccourts.org
clearskies1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2014
- Messages
- 3,892
- Reaction score
- 29,373
That's the video of the dog the night of the murders and discussion of the video of Paul and Alex riding around the evening of the murders. The OP was looking to see the Happy Birthday video that was 2 weeks before the murders.
Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 41,092
- Reaction score
- 427,314
passionflower
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,756
- Reaction score
- 11,520
How humiliating getting out of a van cage!
LetsSolvIt
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2021
- Messages
- 1,336
- Reaction score
- 14,954
There is a distinctive, whiskered gentleman who sits alone in the pew right in front of the Murdaughs every single day. He wears a jacket and tie everyday and seems like he is always centered in the pew.
Does anyone know who he is? He looks familiar and I would think "official" if he gets to sit in front of the family, right behind the assistant sheriffs.
Does anyone know who he is? He looks familiar and I would think "official" if he gets to sit in front of the family, right behind the assistant sheriffs.
bestill
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 9,008
- Reaction score
- 65,987
Nah, it's his chauffeured ride and his personal escort into court. He's special like that.
passionflower
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 28,756
- Reaction score
- 11,520
Silly question…… if AM is convicted of murders will there still be more trials about the embezzled funds? Tax evasion?
Yes. Restitution cannot be imposed if one is not convicted. I'm just wondering if they'll ever find the where all the money went.
jmo
pumpfe
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2018
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 572
That is what you would actually have to believe if you think that is AM's voice on that video. I mean they were literally killed seconds after that video was made, and AM at best would have to have been a witness to it. Today was a good day for the prosecution.
Megnut
A piece of peace is peace enough.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2018
- Messages
- 12,200
- Reaction score
- 211,150
At the very end, does AM say "thank you, babe"?!
Maybe he did routinely call MM by a pet name. Doesn't much matter if he used terms of endearment if, two weeks later, he was perfectly content to use a rifle to destroy her.
The defense is trying hard to package AM as a loving husband, father, provider who would never mow down his wife and son... but that's the trouble with monsters, they dress like everybody else. They're sometimes polite. They can be charming. Deceitful as the day as long but it can be hard to see it, impossible to expose it, dangerous to leave it when you live up close with it.
Jurors, take note. The family man, on his hunting estate, the fraudster who was living it up on stolen money, the man calling to his dog, with his wife and son nearby, based on the evidence, just minutes later, blew that wife and son apart. Having left his phone at the house. Having lured them to the kennels. Pre-planned. Premeditated. Cold. Calculated.
Counted the cost and did it anyway.
JMO
- Status