SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #30

[Gardenista]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1628908254859255808

 

[Batman's Mommy]

IMO, Waters was furious after watching AM blustering and snotting all over himself, when these emotion had not been witnessed by LE, over the murders of his wife and son, up until today, and IMO, AM was putting on a show for the jury.

All of us that follow true crime know that it is never a good idea for a defendant to take the stand in their own defense. This is trial, and the prosecution's case should be what is front and center as to proof, but when the defendant takes the stand, it becomes about the witness's credibility in the eyes of the jury. When AM decided to take the stand, AM was skillfully aware that this decision would change the focus of the jury to him, and his ability to get them to believe what he is saying versus the evidence/State's case. The burden of proof was shifted.

Usually, jurors are lay people unfamiliar with the legal process and the various preparations by the different parties, evidence exclusions, pre-trial motions and arguments, etc....

I completely understand Waters anger. If AM was willing to talk and admit to being at the kennels, why hadn't he already done so?

Also, JMO, but AM's lawyer jockeying was shown today. AM showed he is highly competent in understanding the system, working the system, and until 2021, AM was able to live a very extravagant life.

JMO. moo

 

[Seattle1]

I have a question.Does anyone know if he called Buster right after the murders?I know he said he called his brothers but what about his other son?You'd of thought he'd try Buster before his brothers.

We know from AM that he called Buster during the drive to or from Alameda on the evening of the murders but I don't recall him mentioning calling Buster later.

However, we heard from Buster during his testimony that he received the news about the murders from his dad. This call might be on the latest timeline by SLED Special Agent Rudofski.

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

SC Rule 404(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

Thank you, not understanding how you separate the two. Showing how he stole from the most vulnerable seems to inherently describe bad character.

 

[Aquarian]

I don't know..who killed them. I do know that an addictive person like AM could be like gambling addict and regarding money, also creating untold debts and problems for themselves. then coupled with an opioid addiction, a drug which completely numbs your feelings..this is typical of an addict and I know someone who
was a drug addict and she told me she had no remorse at the time over things she did to loved ones , including stealing money.

there could have been someone lurking on the property..I don't think they have the proof...or a good motive.
to make himself a simpathetic figure? to buy time? why kill your son? I just am not at all convinced. mOO

Thanks for responding. I do think his drug thing is pertinent. I’m not convinced he was taking all the drugs he’s claimed to have taken. I suspect he owed a lot of people money. I think he got in way over his head. The work pressure, MM and PM investigating his pill issue, the big boat deal coming down. He needed cash, fast. I think he felt with them dead, he’d get sympathy and some fast cash. Sick as it is, they became expendable. There wasnt time for someone else to be there without him knowing. The case isnt perfect, but using common sense for me, there isn’t any other reasonable explanation. Jmo.

 

[Derph]

I don't know..who killed them. I do know that an addictive person like AM could be like gambling addict and regarding money, also creating untold debts and problems for themselves. then coupled with an opioid addiction, a drug which completely numbs your feelings..this is typical of an addict and I know someone who
was a drug addict and she told me she had no remorse at the time over things she did to loved ones , including stealing money.

there could have been someone lurking on the property..I don't think they have the proof...or a good motive.
to make himself a simpathetic figure? to buy time? why kill your son? I just am not at all convinced. mOO

I say he killed them because they either found or took his pills. That alone is motive enough for me. Throw in all the other stuff and he had plenty of motive. And we all know he had the means ( he had a gun in his hand when the cops arrived, the same type of gun used in one of the murders) and he definitely had the opportunity as the video puts him at the scene of the murders minutes before they took place. He's 100% guilty beyond and reasonable doubt, IMO.

 

[detective not]

Where's the doubt in the kennel video?

Oh I agree, it’s damning, and, like I say in my opinion he likely did it, but, given everything else, it does not prove he did it, does not wipe out the possibility of other shooters who could reasonably if improbably waited for him to leave the kennels. also, prosecutors are trying to make the timeline precise when it really is too imprecise to convict on. It’s pretty much all they got, the kennel video, and without equally damning circumstantial evidence, I can’t get there.

 

[mickey2942]

I have friends whose kids went to school with the Murdaughs and knew them.

I have been following this thing closely ever since the boat accident, and today - today is the first time I have EVER heard of him being called "Paw Paw".

I don't know what he's on about.

I was confused this am, when he kept saying "Paw Paw", I thought he was talking about his father, not his son, Paul.

Now, I realize why AM was so adamant about removing chicken bone from Bubba at exactly 9:44, because that is the time of the recording Paul made, on his phone. I wonder why Paul was recording at that time. It absolutely time stamps AM at the scene within minutes of the shootings. Really interesting. AM just has no way of really explaining that he left and came back. He didn't realize that Paul made the recording.

 

[MassGuy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1628918701461323778

 

[Seattle1]

state actually pulled out of him how clients get prepped for trial.

I think this was in part to AM's height, and being able to best reach the microphone. JMO

 

[rescuemom]

I'm not fully understanding the cross on the financial crimes. The state can only use the financial crimes to show motive -- they can't use it to prove bad character. But the cross seems to be focused on his bad character. I know his credibility is in issue, but I'm finding this messy. JMO.

So stealing from the clients, orphaned, disabled or dead is not a sign of bad character???

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Oh I agree, it’s damning, and, like I say in my opinion he likely did it, but, given everything else, it does not prove he did it, does not wipe out the possibility of other shooters who could reasonably if improbably waited for him to leave the kennels. also, prosecutors are trying to make the timeline precise when it really is too imprecise to convict on. It’s pretty much all they got, the kennel video, and without equally damning circumstantial evidence, I can’t get there.

Unknown assassins of unknown motive were hiding in the woods waiting for a one minute window for Alex to leave because they only wanted to kill the mother and son not the much more repugnant father, while using the father's guns to commit the crime? It's called reasonable doubt, and not any imaginable possible doubt pulled out of one's nethers.

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

Good point. You don't even have to know the motive to prove murder, do you?

No you don’t. I don’t need the financial crimes to think he is guilty but I do see the value of understanding what a complete dumpster fire his life had become since the boat case. The lies surrounding the murders, the tight timeline showing his movements, family guns used, the black of blood on him and his shoes when he supposedly checked both for pulses and turned Paul over- impossible to not at least get blood on the bottom of his shoes. The repeated call to Paul’s friend immediately after calling 911.

 

[Batman's Mommy]

Oh I agree, it’s damning, and, like I say in my opinion he likely did it, but, given everything else, it does not prove he did it, does not wipe out the possibility of other shooters who could reasonably if improbably waited for him to leave the kennels. also, prosecutors are trying to make the timeline precise when it really is too imprecise to convict on. It’s pretty much all they got, the kennel video, and without equally damning circumstantial evidence, I can’t get there.

There were 7 dogs that were not alerting, and per AM attack chickens that also alert. IMO, if there were other people lurking, the dogs would have detected them.

JMO. moo

 

[Luna20]

No can’t see jurors, but I did see him get up out of the witness seat and grab some tissues in his hand. The judge and others got upset that he had gotten up.

I was referring to seeing this on “NBC”. It was a journalist who was there commenting on it.

I said to myself there goes the ‘one juror’. Passing tissue or anything to a defendant should be off limits.

He is sobbing, ‘engaging’ the jury face to face for sympathy. He knows how all of this works. He’s prepped clients for decades.

 

[minazoe]

I say he killed them because they either found or took his pills. That alone is motive enough for me. Throw in all the other stuff and he had plenty of motive. And we all know he had the means ( he had a gun in his hand when the cops arrived, the same type of gun used in one of the murders) and he definitely had the opportunity as the video puts him at the scene of the murders minutes before they took place. He's 100% guilty beyond and reasonable doubt, IMO.

okay now I'm seeing something else...and sorry if it's been mentioned, I am late to this game..but what if he wanted his pills? did his mom have pills at her house? what if he went back and was like give me my damm pills? but they wouldn't tell him where they were or whatever..what if he fired his gun to scare them but it hit
one of them and then he had to shoot the other witness..because he was PARANOID and freaking out...?

still I don't see it..they have to show me..so far I know he's a swindler..thats all I've got. I can't really blame him for being cunning in his description of events and steering to certain things..he is an attorney after all.

mOO

 

[clearskies1]

Thank you, not understanding how you separate the two. Showing how he stole from the most vulnerable seems to inherently describe bad character.

At the end of the day Judge Newman said the cross went to AM's credibility, which is fair game for all witnesses. So I guess that answers my question. But it is a bit messy I think.

 

[Seattle1]

Let's reflect.

Alec told us about Bubba and the chicken in slow motion, described Paul and Maggie's locations to be IMO accurate to where they were, not when he says he left for the house, but where they were when he opened fire.

It's something that from 8:46 to 9:06 he only recalls getting out of there, driving the golf cart and lying down for a minute or maybe not.

Big black hole of absent detail.

JMO

AM had many opportunities to come clean.

The following day -- when SLED investigators were questioning AM for the second time -- specifically about how the victims got to the kennels and questions about the vehicles, AM had the perfect opportunity to tell investigators that he was untruthful the night before and remembers that PM drove to the kennels ahead of AM and MM and they took the golf cart to the kennels (or however it happened).

Didn't believe AM then, now, or tomorrow! JMO

 

[Seattle1]

I just heard on NBC that a juror passed a tissue box to Alex! Did anyone see this?

No! But Court TV is reporting a juror was seen crying.

 

[meanddblj]

It also shows he has no remorse - to sit there and talk to these people you CARE so much about and rob them blind and not be haunted if you are normal. He is not normal, he is a sociopath and he eliminates what stands in the way of what he wants. The question I am still asking myself is if his family was not involved or knew of his plan to kill M & P because they knew they were a liability to the family name. Maggie was not going down without a fight and Paul was going to back his mom based on his stance about the pills. They were a liabilty to the bottom line. I think the whole family is involved in something they are trying to hide. Except maybe the sister who doesn't seem to put on affluent heirs but that could be just my limit view of her from only seeing her in court. Just seeing that badge in his pocket was all I needed to know about what matters to him. The blue lights he added to his car, the fake "deputy" title on his solictor card. What a joke. He was trying to make daddy proud at any cost - lie, cheat, steal, kill. Can't let daddy down. I believe in his sick and twisted way he loved MM and PM, but I do not believe he loved them more than his Murdaugh pomp and circumstance. Pride goeth before the fall. And I pray he is never able to hurt anyone else.