SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #24

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t find his lies enough to convict. The state’s burden is high. They can’t just say he’s a liar so he’s guilty. And that’s exactly what they’re doing - he’s a bad man and a liar so he did it. It’s not even close to beyond a reasonable doubt. JMO
What he's lied about are very important points to his alibi and his actions that night. Those are very pertinent lies, IMO, they matter greatly.
 
What he's lied about are very important points to his alibi and his actions that night. Those are very pertinent lies, IMO, they matter greatly.
I didn’t say they don’t matter. I said it’s not enough to convict. They have no other MATERIAL evidence that adds up to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. JMO
 
RSBM
Sorry if I overlooked this but did MM phone show being in the car traveling up the road...?
So far there I don't think there has been any gps data introduced to indicate where MM's phone was while AM was driving. There was testimony that unlike PM's phone, MM's phone and AM's phone did not generate a lot of gps data. JMO.
 
Last edited:
DH is a problem child.... children act better than him. imo
When attorney's act like this, it makes me think they have no other way to defense their clients actions other than theatrics and confusion. Maybe the jury isn't supposed to take that into consideration, but I think as humans they likely do. If what is being discussed is very incriminating and there is no real explanation that is innocent for whatever it is, then the defense attorney is acting a fool, I think wow what are they trying to hide/cover up/distract from?
 
Quick question if anyone knows: I've been following along listening to the trial on Youtube. Did Alex go straight to the kennels when he returned to Moselle? If so, how did he know they were even at the kennels? I missed that part this morning.
 
When attorney's act like this, it makes me think they have no other way to defense their clients actions other than theatrics and confusion. Maybe the jury isn't supposed to take that into consideration, but I think as humans they likely do. If what is being discussed is very incriminating and there is no real explanation that is innocent for whatever it is, then the defense attorney is acting a fool, I think wow what are they trying to hide/cover up/distract from?
It's very hard to UNhear anything IMPOV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
338
Total visitors
515

Forum statistics

Threads
608,572
Messages
18,241,725
Members
234,402
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top