SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #31

[Luna20]

I think they are disgusted with him insisting he wanted to testify.

Maybe they got a heads up on that misdemeanor charge coming.

I see it on the site but nothing came up in the search for todays date.

 

[BeachSky]

Maybe Rogan Gibson will be a quick rebuttal witness…

No, Alex never called me Ro Ro, and never her him call Paul Paw Paw

I still think AM might of taken RoRo out too.
Makes you wonder what convo that remaining son & g/f are having these days.

Moo

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'd guess "impersonating a police officer." He's lucky it was a misdemeanor, if so. Because that means he didn't commit a felony or otherwise use his badge(s) and cop car lights to harm anyone.

This is such a bizarre case.

IMO.

Isn't this guy (AM) one for the books? I think a team of top notch psychologists would have a field day studying him.

MOO

 

[otto]

Wonder if Alex has a nickname for Connor..

Maybe Con Con.. or wait that seems more appropriate as a nickname for Alex himself. Big Con Con man.

Yes, Connor should testify for the State, confirming that Alex and his father arrived at the hospital on the night of the boat accident telling the victims to remain silent; that Murdaughs would defend them. Within no time, it became apparent that Alex intended to frame one of the boat victims as driving the boat at the time of the accident.

Alex screwed up his extended insurance coverage by cashing in with Gloria Satterfield's trip & fall, leaving him with half a million extended coverage at the time of the boat accident. The victims were suing for 30 million.

Alex perjured himself in court today when he said that he at no time attempted to influence the boat accident investigation. It's all over Netflix that it is not true - from multiple witnesses.

Murdaughs were allowed into investigative areas that were off limits to family of victims. The Murdaugh family generations rallied together and tried to control everything about the boat accident. Fortunately, they failed.

 

[skyedaze]

Really? He let Alec incriminate himself. Wait until next week.

Although - I bet you may be accurately representing what the jury might be thinking.

I think if the jury doesn't find him guilty, it means that this county has its own justice system ("justice system.") But either way, it will still represent something of the local culture. AM's confident admission of SO many illegal acts will be interpreted differently than I would do.

The prosecution has not been hoodwinked. I believe most rational people who are disinterested jurors will find him guilty. But that might not be the case.

MOO.

I hope you're right.
I agree with letting him ramble to hang himself...but it's been going on for a while so it makes me feel like am is running the show. I know in my mind that's probably not the dealio...but it sure appears that way. And I am aware that a great many people are not intuitive enough to discern the difference.

 

[passionflower]

Did you see though, when the Bailiff or Law man went to the judge during the trial in progress and whispered things? Ya. I bet something was found in his cell or something sneaky.

Now we know the officer saw something or knew something! Will we know for sure what happened at the trial on Monday?

 

[clearskies1]

I have faith that CW will give a great Closing Argument. His Opening Statement was excellent -- punchy and to the point.

 

[10ofRods]

Yes, it's really all on CW to pull together the threads and weave the tale. I know he's been working on all the AM cases so has been immersed in the minutia of AM. I don't know how he is at closings but I'm hopeful he can do it well.

At heart it's a simple story and I don't personally see "reasonable" doubt. But I also feel like that courtroom is almost like a foreign country to me. I don't understand how anyone ever thought AM was great so I am concerned about how able the jurors are to see beneath the surface level "stuff" that seems so prevalent in that area where the Murdaughs were used to being treated as above the law. I personally find juries to be a wild card. If I were ever charged of a crime but was innocent I'd probably want a bench trial unless the Judge was substandard. I'd be more inclined to trust a Judge if I were innocent honestly.

For someone like AM, he wants common people as jurors. He's been pulling it over on people like that all his professional life. He still has confidence in his abilities

This is really perceptive.

The way he admits and (smugly) shows his use of two generations of Murdaugh police badges plays differently, locally. It is a foreign country - but I think that's part of the American judicial system (and I try very hard to be understanding about it).

Where I live, no major public figure has been treated as "above the law" and our DA"s and LE leaders know that. We don't have this inbred, generational system of "Solicitors" and attorneys.

His defense depends a lot, right now, on the various classes staying in their lanes.

IMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Yes, Connor should testify for the State, confirming that Alex and his father arrived at the hospital on the night of the boat accident telling the victims to remain silent; that Murdaughs would defend them. Within no time, it became apparent that Alex intended to frame one of the boat victims as driving the boat at the time of the accident.

Alex screwed up his extended insurance coverage by cashing in with Gloria Satterfield's trip & fall, leaving him with half a million extended coverage at the time of the boat accident. The victims were suing for 30 million.

Alex perjured himself in court today when he said that he at no time attempted to influence the boat accident investigation. It's all over Netflix that it is not true - from multiple witnesses.

Murdaughs were allowed into investigative areas that were off limits to family of victims. The Murdaugh family generations rallied together and tried to control everything about the boat accident. Fortunately, they failed.

I think that picture of Alex with that 'badge' hanging out of his pocket for all the world to see is the most damning thing in that case, even though he says he didn't realize he had it or that it was showing.

Pathological liar. IMO

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

The house and kennels are over 3 football fields from one another.

We live in a rural area, we hear dogs from well over a mile away which is our closest neighbor, he would be able to hear the dogs barking

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Special like the blue lights in AM car?

Yes. Exactly…… was assuredly in my mind then…. and with a tip to the venerable KMart too.

 

[Seattle1]

The Five': The 'most explosive moment' from the Alex Murdaugh trial today​

 

[HawthorneJuniper]

This is the link I have for jury instructions for SC

SC Judicial Department

www.sccourts.org

That's for municipal and magistrates courts. This is in the Circuit court. I haven't been able to find them. I thought maybe a lawyer would have put them up but can't find them. Just unsure why they'd be such a secret.

I found more on circumstantial evidence as that was a big issue in SC which resulted in the Logan instruction which must be read in certain cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence.

I found some quotes therein helpful in helping me to understand SC court jurisprudence on reasonable doubt & circumstantial evidence.
SC v Logan

the question is not whether circumstantial evidence carries the same probative weight as direct evidence, it clearly does. Instead, the pertinent inquiry is the proper means for evaluating circumstantial evidence and how the trial court may best instruct a jury as to its analytical responsibility. Grippon, 327 S.C. at 88, 489 S.E.2d at 466–67 (Toal, J. concurring). While direct and circumstantial evidence carry the same value, a jury cannot accurately analyze these two types of evidence using identical approaches. ....

Unlike direct evidence, evaluation of circumstantial evidence requires jurors to find that the proponent of the evidence has connected collateral facts in order to prove the proposition propounded—a process not required when evaluating direct evidence. ...

We have previously observed that this process requires two steps: "After concluding that a particular fact is true, the individual juror is called upon to ask: First, can I infer guilt from that fact? Second, if so, is there any reasonable explanation other than guilt?"

the circumstantial evidence instruction is best characterized as a construct requiring the State to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, while at the same time providing a framework for a "rational" and "cumulative" assessment for guiding the jury's consideration of circumstantial evidence.

I actually think that may be helpful. I was concerned that the instruction somehow diminished the weight of circumstantial evidence as a matter of law. But it's actually, IMO, setting out the exact type of analytical process that should be used with circumstantial evidence. It's basically just mandating the use of common sense.

I'm still nervous as AM has been successfully conning people for a long time. He's one of "them". But I'm hoping that cuts both ways.

 

[otto]

he testified she would sign papers without question. IMO he would not have been able to do anything with something in her name only. her living arrangements are more than meets the eye IMO. FACT: her housekeeper testified she was upset about the upcoming boat settlement, some $30mil which she said even if she liquidated everything it wouldnt cover it. she had no idea of his thefts at that point. Her reputation and community view of them had shifted significantly and maybe she was going to try to salvage what was left of her life...without him. possibly made up her mind to dump him. just the mere fact her housekeeper said she revealed info she was concerned he was keeping financial info from her, if she was smart, she would have started the digging process. hey, in a divorce, he was in financial ruin which she really didnt know the extent yet. and sadly, never would.

I think that, as his wife of many years who faithfully stood by him and raised their two sons, she was entitled to squat in the family home that she liked best. That was the Edisto Beach home. She was renovating the home with whatever money was left - she had just learned that they could not afford to buy the new house she wanted. Does anyone know when the Edisto Beach home renovations started with the "Mexican" crew?

She might have been weighing her options. As his wife, she goes down with the sinking ship. As the wife who is divorcing him, she can keep her home.

 

[10ofRods]

Isn't this guy (AM) one for the books? I think a team of top notch psychologists would have a field day studying him.

MOO

Absolutely - although we anthropologists have more latitude in terms of pulling in sociological and political profiles. I am astounded by this case and while I would like to think I could explain it to (Californian) students, I think they would not believe it.

They would not believe that he testified as he did. Which makes me wonder...did he do it for a "good" reason (his own conscience?) He seems to be wiggling closer to admitting guilt about everything (and, well, that makes many people feel sorry for him). I hope the jury realizes they are not his friends or his advisors or his therapists.

He is definitely one for the books (and very hard to believe).

IMO.

 

[minor4th]

I was so frustrated with the legal analysts and their perpetual song of “reasonable doubt,” I had to seek my husband’s opinion since he has no clue about anything related to this case. Hubby is a criminal defense attorney. The only evidence I told him about was the timing of the kennel video in relation to the murders and the fact that until yesterday, the defendant repeatedly lied and said he was not at the kennels. He agreed, hands down he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Then I told him about the murder weapons belonging to the family and never found. He literally laughed and said only idiots would find there to be any doubt, much less reasonable doubt. We then had a chuckle together, and I felt relieved. We agree that juries usually do the right thing.

 

[girlhasnoname]

This is really perceptive.

The way he admits and (smugly) shows his use of two generations of Murdaugh police badges plays differently, locally. It is a foreign country - but I think that's part of the American judicial system (and I try very hard to be understanding about it).

Where I live, no major public figure has been treated as "above the law" and our DA"s and LE leaders know that. We don't have this inbred, generational system of "Solicitors" and attorneys.

His defense depends a lot, right now, on the various classes staying in their lanes.

IMO.

@10ofRods I think the intense media presence and pressure is forcing people out of those lanes, maybe not even willingly. I mean there have been so many people fired over this case, LE agents, judges, bankers, lawyers; people with real clout.

I think the people of the 'low country' are demanding justice after years of this type of behavior by these abusers of power. At least I hope so.

MOO

 

[justtrish]

We live in a rural area, we hear dogs from well over a mile away which is our closest neighbor, he would be able to hear the dogs barking

Especially labs.. we've had several labs and they are loyal and protective of their people. Not so much vicious, but they bark and several of them together to feed off one another. If a stranger or two was down there after Alex rode off on the golf cart, then shot the 2 people down there that those dogs knew/loved I have no doubt they'd be barking.. I also suspect any random person that was down there hearing the dogs barking and knowing Alex is right up at the house or even if they aren't sure if someone is at the house would shoot the dogs to keep them quiet. That didn't happen. He heard nothing, dogs are safe, and Alex is safe.

 

[rahod1]

I was so frustrated with the legal analysts and their perpetual song of “reasonable doubt,” I had to seek my husband’s opinion since he has no clue about anything related to this case. Hubby is a criminal defense attorney. The only evidence I told him about was the timing of the kennel video in relation to the murders and the fact that until yesterday, the defendant repeatedly lied and said he was not at the kennels. He agreed, hands down he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Then I told him about the murder weapons belonging to the family and never found. He literally laughed and said only idiots would find there to be any doubt, much less reasonable doubt. We then had a chuckle together, and I felt relieved. We agree that juries usually do the right thing.

Unfortunately, in this case, you only need ONE juror to nullify a conviction. Yep...if ONE juror *buys* AM's BS...for at least a *reasonable doubt*.....it's OVER.

 

[skyedaze]

I think that, as his wife of many years who faithfully stood by him and raised their two sons, she was entitled to squat in the family home that she liked best. That was the Edisto Beach home. She was renovating the home with whatever money was left - she had just learned that they could not afford to buy the new house she wanted. Does anyone know when the Edisto Beach home renovations started with the "Mexican" crew?

She might have been weighing her options. As his wife, she goes down with the sinking ship. As the wife who is divorcing him, she can keep her home.

And get it renovated and decorated as she sees fit before dumping him.