SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #26

[Walela]

Agree, ridiculous to waste court time on the financial crimes, if this can be proven they'll get confessions or just drop other charges...what's the point if he's serving life in prison anyway

I believe the government will definitely go after the tax evasion to get their money. Evading the state taxes is tantamount to stealing from every person in South Carolina. Seems like AM forgot that it's a big no-no to steal from the government because the government doesn't like competition.

What bothers me most about the financial crimes is that if he's found NG in this trial, he will be eligible for bond in the financials and who knows what nefarious activities he will get into when he's out in the public. He seems to be doing great in jail..making friends..playing games..getting extra commissary, etc. He can have a nice life inside and still satisfy his criminal longings.

jmo

 

[minor4th]

Long post ahead —> Here are all the factors that point overwhelmingly to Alex’s guilt:
1. At the murder scene 4 minutes before M & P we’re shot. He either shot them himself or he heard or saw them being shot because he couldn’t have walked back to the house before they were shot. Obviously he shot them.

2.He gave false alibi for the time of the murders (on the couch napping). Repeatedly falsely claimed he had not been to kennels after dinner.

3. His secret life was about to be exposed to his family and the world. Typical family annihilator.

4. Paul and Maggie were only at Moselle because he beckoned them there. And then he lied and said Maggie came because she was worried about him.

5. Family weapons were used to commit the murders. The shotgun Alex was holding can’t be ruled out as murder weapon.

6. Paul’s 300 Blackout never found.

7. Maggie’s phone handled immediately after death and was disposed of along the route Alex drove minutes later.

8. Alex changed clothes at some point and the clothes and shoes he had been wearing have never been found.

9. AM tried to get Blanca to say he was wearing different clothes; he tried to get Shelley to say he was at mother’s house twice as long as he actually was there.

10. Called 911 17 seconds after Suburban stopped at kennels. No time to check pulses and turn Paul over and move his phone like he told cops.

11. Driving 80 mph on his way back from Alameda at 10:00 pm on a dark dangerous road.

12. Failed suicide

13. Confronted by P and M about bags of pills in his laptop shortly before murders.

14. Mad at Paul for costing him millions due to drunk boat crash that killed Mallory.

15. Drove past driveway to tree line and out buildings at mom’s house, likely hiding weapons and clothes.

16. Blue tarp carried into mothers house, likely concealing evidence.

17. All other suspects with possible motive have been ruled out.

18. P and M must have known and trusted their killer because no defense wounds.

19. He said he went to work 8:30-9:00 but it was actually after noon when he left for work. He had all morning to make preparations for killing.

20. No activity on his phone, no steps logged for AM at all between 8:05 pm and 9:02. He left his phone in the house when he went to kennels around 8:30.

21. When he texted and called Maggie at 9:00 ish to tell her he was leaving - he had just seen her at the kennel (and the defense has now admitted that), so these texts/calls were sent for the sole purpose of concealing his whereabouts at the murder scene.

There’s probably more. Feel free to add on to this list.

 

[clearskies1]

I'm curious about SC law in the case of a defense like this one. I thought AM was supposed to have an alibi defense, but if he switches to SODDI, is that permitted? I would expect so - although his lawyers might have to claim they only found out about this possible other person or persons after trial started? Didn't they have to file something with the court about the overall nature of their defense? I don't know if SC does that or not, but many states do.

If you're right, then putting him on the stand might be necessary, because who else could testify to why he lied?

IMO.

SODDI is not inconsistent with an alibi defense. You’re saying you weren’t there so someone else must have done it. Also, they seem to be glomming on to the original press release saying no danger to the public as evidence that LE decided early that AM did it, i.e., why he might lie. JMO

 

[Derph]

I know people react differently, but if that was me, I would be not be within eye sight of my dead family members as police taped off the scene and started investigating. Even once sheets were placed over them I would want to be away from the horror. Seems very odd to me that he is hanging around there. Is he there to keep tabs on LE? JMO.

BINGO!

 

[General wooster]

The state took 20 days and still haven’t gotten me any closer to believing AM is guilty. Their case is100% circumstantial. And it’s a WEAK circumstantial case IMO. The best evidence they presented was the Onstar data IMO. And I wonder EXACTLY how accurate that even is. They want to bring up his financial crimes and addiction problems. Yes, he is a and a thief and he’s screwed a lot of people over. But IMO there is a very bold line between financial crimes and killing your family. IMO

Respectfully, I shall refrai from responding. You have not responded to the case presented by the state. I would honor your thinking with some specific reference to the critical issues.

 

[10ofRods]

My point was more that the decision to prosecute is made by the criminal justice system on behalf of the community (for prevention of crime, punishment through jail time, etc) rather than purely on behalf of victims.

For example, police often don't invest extensive resources into investigating, catching and prosecuting burglars. It is not their priority, although the homeowner really, really wants their items back.

JMO

Okay - I get you now. I didn't get that we were speaking "purely" about one thing or the other. Criminal justice/criminal charging isn't purely on behalf of the community, either, IMO. Lots of variables, I think.

And sometimes, LE does investigate burglaries - depends on the community/tax base, IMO. In some places, burglary is more likely to be investigated than a missing person, IMO.

At any rate, my point is that it is entirely possible under SC that AM would be required as part of the criminal case to pay restitution (and I think the statute specifically says this is desirable because it saves the State and the wronged parties another, civil trial).

The law actually cites another reason, as well: the rehabilitative effect on the criminal:

2018 South Carolina Code of Laws :: Title 17 - Criminal Procedures :: CHAPTER 25 - JUDGMENT AND EXECUTION :: Section 17-25-322. Restitution to crime victim by person convicted of crime; hearing; determination of method, manner, and amount; entry of o

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

(Under #3)

It also states that another reason for restitution is:

(5) the mental, physical, and financial well-being of the victim.

So I'd guess there are very good reasons to have trials for the financial crimes.

IMO.

 

[clearskies1]

Have they said what they think happen with the hose?

Not that I know of. Guess they could try to claim Maggie or Paul hung it back up. Not saying that scenario makes sense but who knows what they’ll say.JMO

 

[Walela]

Agree, no conscious, able to justify to himself any action he deemed necessary. I don’t think he has the ability to be emotionally attached to anyone despite being very adept at mimicking genuine emotion. The defenses attempt to rehabilitate his character at any opportunity given is ridiculous because his actions belie any perceived "goodness". MOO

IMO, the defense trying to rehabilitate his character is like a pin the tail on the donkey game only it's pin the emotions on Alex. A 2 dimensional person trying to live in a 3 dimensional world...something's missing somewhere. jmo

 

[Boodles]

I feel the same. I also didn't realize, until watching that video - how close Paul & Maggie's bodies were to each other.
I wonder where she was when Paul was shot? From her location, it looks like she was running from the kennels when shot?

I believe Maggie heard the shots that hit Paul, came running toward him, as a mother would! Then Alex shot her. She was facing toward the shooter as she approached the kennel from the hangar. He shot her the first two times while they were facing each other!

I think she then turned to get away and that’s when she sustained the 2 fatal shots, the first from the back/side as she was bent over or partially down, which went through her breast into her head, the second from around the back straight down into the back of her head.

 

[minor4th]

Oh I forgot about the hose:
22. The hose was off the hook during Paul’s video of the dog. When police arrived, hose was hung up again. Random killer wouldn’t hang hose back up but Alex would out of habit (after washing up).

 

[Derph]

Agree, ridiculous to waste court time on the financial crimes, if this can be proven they'll get confessions or just drop other charges...what's the point if he's serving life in prison anyway

It's not. All the other people Alex ripped off deserve their day in court and justice for his crimes against them!!

This article goes into them. Alex Murdaugh’s 19 indictments and 99 financial charges explained

Particularly this paragraph...

"“He checks all the boxes on being a serial pen slinger, a serial thief,” Bland says. “He’s an equal opportunity stealer. He steals from those that died, those that were injured, people like Jordan Jinks that were friends with him, the Satterfields who went to high school with him, Gloria Satterfield who raised his children for 24 years. There’s no bounds of indecency that he will not cross.”

 

[Warwick7]

As I had posted in past threads and performed some test at an outside gun range the time it would take to shoulder and shoot the first victim twice set the shotgun aside and shoulder the rife then five into the other victim took me under ten seconds while moving about with the rifle, .223. I had the rifle already slung on shoulder and rounds were chambered in both. I see it boots on the ground that both victims knew the killer and were just going about with the usual and the assault came quickly with seconds of surprise and shock to see who the killer was. Maybe up to a minute or more for it to all play out as I see it and more time was spent on the hasty cleanup of clothing and area before moving on to stash weapons and alibi.

And I conned my daughter into helping me and I set up-- me trying to pull up, run over, check for pulses, try and turn her over Yada Yada Yada.

Just turning her over alone was 17 seconds by itself. No way could all that be done in 20 seconds. And I would have got blood and brain matter all over me.

Under 10 seconds moving with your rifle--wow!!!

 

[10ofRods]

I don’t mean to be cruel. But I don’t understand a suicide watch of a murderer. If he kills family and then wants to kill himself, why stop him? I guess keeping him alive to hear the verdict of guilty is good.

Having worked in jails and prisons, I can say that the average employee (whether uniformed or not) is humane and dislikes being traumatized any further than necessary. There are medical personnel working in jails and prisons, too - and those doctors, nurses and others are there for a reason - we don't just throw people in cells and let them waste away or develop bed sores, etc. So if suicidality is noticed, it is addressed.

Where I currently live, all new deputy sheriffs are trained for community policing. Their first assignments are the jails.

Being a jailer is rather awful, especially at the intake/court adjacent jail. They work that for two years. They must never lose their tempers or treat inmates in any way outside of regulations. The prisoners assault the jailers, heckle them, spit on them, etc. But the goal of the training and the job is that the jailers must preserve these people until their trials (once sentenced, we have another couple of jails and of course, prisons in the state). Some young deputies have lost their jobs for responding inappropriately - because the job is to protect and to serve.

While in jail for trial, the person is still innocent, which is a further reason. Police take it really seriously if they can't deliver a living person to the courts and to prison, if that's what's coming next.

Having said all that, I have myself muttered something like your sentiment to a psychiatrist (family member). Despite having truly negative feelings about some patients, a doctor must still do their best to prevent harm to the person, including suicide (even if they're hellbent on it and blockaded with explosives in an apartment building...)

This training plan in my county results in far fewer officer-involved incidents of misconduct compared to two nearby counties that do not require two years of patience training in jail. In my county, after 2 years in the jail, they spent 1-2 years as a bailiff before they go on regular patrol (and some of them go back to being bailiffs, as a preference, as patrol isn't for everyone, either). And our longterm jail has won awards of various kinds (mostly to do with recidivism but also with inmate and employee health - we don't have as many jailers out on work-related disability as the next door counties).

IME/O.

 

[Lillymac]

I know. The question was about a different cabin — the cabin that AM used for some living purposes after the murders.

Sorry! Should have replied to Boodles..

 

[Walela]

Trauma induced temporary amnesia exacerbated by opiod addiction? Yes, I just made that up, but they may have a psychiatrist who will testify to some such phenomenon.

That's a possibility...something we've never heard of. It's always a smart defense move to hire a dissenting expert opinion even if it's dissenting from their own opinion that AM was of "sound mind" and able to answer questions. Afterall, he had lawyer lawyers and friend lawyers with him at every interview and no one stopped him from talking. jmo

 

[Walela]

Was there ever a definitive answer on who actually drove AM’s dad to the hospital? It’s been said it was AM and then I heard his brother actually did. And when?

From the group text MM received that day, I believe it was John Marvin that drove him and it was 6-7.

 

[10ofRods]

SODDI is not inconsistent with an alibi defense. You’re saying you weren’t there so someone else must have done it. Also, they seem to be glomming on to the original press release saying no danger to the public as evidence that LE decided early that AM did it, i.e., why he might lie. JMO

I'm referring to the legality of it, not the actual defense.

In some states, the defendant has to file paperwork saying that they are going to use a SODDI defense - and they have to be specific. They can't just throw it in there at closing.

I thought for sure I'd seen someone here post the relevant filing by the defense, in which they state they're going to use an alibi defense. My question was: do they have to withdraw that formally and file a SODDI defense statement? I believe many states require this - I'm asking about SC.

As to the optics:

Using a blanket SODDI defense in closing is one thing. To really use it as a defense, the defense has to plausibly point to other people - meaning, names and reasons. That's why it's not usually allowed in, without notifying the judge. I suppose the defense can say anything it wants at closing (but can it accuse a vague person? is that allowed - that's my first question). But to actually put forth a SODDI defense, I do think they need to have a particular person or persons in mind and let the judge know that - as it's not okay to fling accusations at some other person during the trial of a particular person (another proceeding is needed for that). I think.

That's my set of questions. The alibi defense has been pretty much demolished. If AM wants to argue that he somehow was off the property and out of hearing 4-5 minutes after he was known to be in the presence of the victims, he has two problems - one is that he didn't hear the shooting and has no specific alibi for those 4-5 minutes, and the other is that someone else had to do it. Can he argue this during the defense portion without having notified the Court? Is it okay with the Court if AM's defense sort of vaguely says, "There were lots of other people who could have done it"? I suspect this latter approach is the best AM's defense can do - but they will have no evidence of these other killers to present.

When the Judge gives jury instructions, this will all be relevant. I think.

IMO.

 

[detectivewannab]

Yes, that is what civil court is for, per my comments above.

JMO

The Law firm paid back all the people. In my opinion this should of been caught a long time ago.

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

Suicide was never an option IMO just for that reason.

Yes, defense is throwing some hail mary‘s, despite how implausible, hoping one lands causing a hung jury moo

 

[LavenderGooms]

It definitely wasn’t AM. I think in the beginning the story was that AM was visiting him in the hospital and that was his alibi. Not to the police but to the public.

This shows texts that day to AM and MM and the whole family from both AM’s brothers about the Dad in the hospital

https://www.fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2023/02/murdaugh-murders-timeline-full.pdf

Thank you! Oh boy that’s a lot to take in, but now I can see that MM at least knew that she wasn’t going to see him that day before she got to moselle. JMM said only one visitor at a time and no night visitors.