SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #19

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
bestill said:
What is the point of this witness? Not getting it.
Click to expand...
Family dogs (3 labs) were normally kept at the main house, not in kennel. Point is dogs were kennelled night of murders which was unusual.
AM or MM would stop and check on PM/friends at the hangar/shed/kennel area if they were leaving property. Point is AM did not stop there to check on them before he left property to visit his mom night of murders.
 
twall said:
Family dogs (3 labs) were normally kept at the main house, not in kennel. Point is dogs were kennelled night of murders which was unusual.
AM or MM would stop and check on PM/friends at the hangar/shed/kennel area if they were leaving property. Point is AM did not stop there to check on them before he left property to visit his mom night of murders.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I hope the jury figured all of that out. jmo
 

The state calls its 30th witness, Charleston resident William McElveen, a close friend of Paul Murdaugh.

McElveen reiterates what we heard from Paul's friends Rogan Gibson and Will Loving about the Murdaughs, including how Paul was notorious for using his phone all the time and how Alex/Maggie treated their sons' friends like their own family.

McElveen testifies he hung out with Paul in Charleston two days before he was killed. They went out to a bar on Isle of Palms, the Windjammer, that weekend.

Griffin questions McElveen. Alex’s relationship with Paul: “They had a very good relationship. They were kind of best friends in a way. They were close.” Alex’s relationship with Maggie: “From everything I’ve seen, it was great too. I’ve never seen anything negative.”

Griffin establishes with McElveen that Murdaugh was upset and crying when Paul’s friends went to Moselle to see the family after Paul’s death. No more questions for McElveen. He steps down. We’re on a 15-minute break.
 
twall said:
Family dogs (3 labs) were normally kept at the main house, not in kennel. Point is dogs were kennelled night of murders which was unusual.
AM or MM would stop and check on PM/friends at the hangar/shed/kennel area if they were leaving property. Point is AM did not stop there to check on them before he left property to visit his mom night of murders.
Click to expand...
Thank you. If some of us didn’t get it, probably some of the jury didn’t.
 
clearskies1 said:
I know. I watched the testimony. What I was trying to get at is why you said that the State is not going to ask Crosby what AM said about the night of the murders "unless the judge allows it come in". What is there for the judge to rule on re allowing it come in? What is left to decide about that??
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The Judge is ruling overall on the 404b motion and not to any particular testimony. Now the ruling itself could limit the testimony/evidence but I didn't hear any such limits being imposed.

The prosecution purposefully did not elicit testimony about the meeting. Now that the motion has been granted, during the questioning in front of the jury the prosecution will then elicit that testimony. It was more about strategy. You don't want to let the defense know exactly what the witness will say unless necessary which it wasn't. They are "saving" the critical testimony for the jury.
 
twall said:
Family dogs (3 labs) were normally kept at the main house, not in kennel. Point is dogs were kennelled night of murders which was unusual.
AM or MM would stop and check on PM/friends at the hangar/shed/kennel area if they were leaving property. Point is AM did not stop there to check on them before he left property to visit his mom night of murders.
Click to expand...
What’s the significance of the family dogs being kenneled that night though they typically weren’t?
 
HawthorneJuniper said:
Not exactly. The Judge is ruling overall on the 404b motion and not to any particular testimony. Now the ruling itself could limit the testimony/evidence but I didn't hear any such limits being imposed.

The prosecution purposefully did not elicit testimony about the meeting. Now that the motion has been granted, during the questioning in front of the jury the prosecution will then elicit that testimony. It was more about strategy. You don't want to let the defense know exactly what the witness will say unless necessary which it wasn't. They are "saving" the critical testimony for the jury.
Click to expand...
Last week the State said that Crosby's testimony is expected to be about the murders -- not about the financial motive/404b issue. I understand the strategy of surprising the defense about the substance.
 
Someone may have already cleared this up- butI think the Prosecution wanted to get on the record the Judge’s ruling that the defense could not object to the actual Crosby testimony (what was said) based on attorney client privilege because it had been waived by virtue of the open discussion among other 3rd parties. There is no attorney client protection if you don’t have an expectation of privacy - which is established with evidence of open conversation that anyone could here. This way - the State can jump right to substance of the conversation without the defense jumping up and making a giant distraction in front of jury while the State is dropping a bomb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 217 more.
Total: 727 (members: 218, guests: 509)

Online statistics

Members online
218
Guests online
509
Total visitors
727
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,107
Messages
18,234,806
Members
234,294
Latest member
Tami.Jo
Back
Top