SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #33

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm thinking it's this sex worker

Uggggh. Such mixed emotions after watching this. It almost feels as if the interview itself was exploiting the already exploited. I would be shocked if Alex never strayed in his marriage, but what does it have to do with the murder of Paul and Maggie? I hope the world is kinder to Lindsey, and that Alex never sees the light of day again because I believe he murdered Maggie and Paul. Ugh.
 
Yeah especially since he said he passed him so that leads me to believe prior to that he was behind him. I'm sure inserting the "escort" part was trying to make it not seem fishy because the good ole police chief was "escorting" him. Same one Alex paid $5,000 a month later for "his parents"

Also, he could have driven his wife's car. What was that about she had to take the kids to school? Come on it's a family emergency and you want to drive the truck that might break down and then how convenient it actually did, but not worries you police chief buddy is escorting you so right there near Almeda, you leave the truck on the side of the road. Coincidence? There are way to many of those with this case for my liking.

This is what happens when you are doing shady things and covering up for people in the past. There are too many connections and things that make me question their credibility to just take JMM story at face value. Everyone was being paid or getting favors and in this ones pocket, looking the other way, helping someone skirt responsibly for this, not getting charged for that, etc. In the end it makes it hard to believe they are genuine now then.

For JMM to say the boat case was blown up in the media.. no sir. A girl DIED and your family wanted to make it go away so your precious name wasn't tarnished meanwhile a girl is DEAD.. how would he feel if it was one of his kids that died? Saying that shows just how clueless he is and how protecting his family and their name is everything to him.. more important than the killer of his nephew and sister in law facing justice.
How much of that is independently verified?

That he called the cop and that he arrived at Moselle In the cop's car?

Maybe it's a Murdaugh trait to embellish/create stories around known facts.

JMO
 
Uggggh. Such mixed emotions after watching this. It almost feels as if the interview itself was exploiting the already exploited. I would be shocked if Alex never strayed in his marriage, but what does it have to do with the murder of Paul and Maggie? I hope the world is kinder to Lindsey, and that Alex never sees the light of day again because I believe he murdered Maggie and Paul. Ugh.
This is just a distraction from the Murders!
 
I wonder if the law firm was providing hotel receipts that are related to the escort who had been horribly abused by AM in North Charleston....
Didn't hear about that but there is an old DM article that says that MM wasn't happy in her marriage and that a charity luncheon check had bounced. Egads!
 
The whole “the trees have grown since then” is odd. No one has said that a shooter hid behind trees or that one escaped through a forest of narrow trees or anything other than the dogs running to a treed area to do their business And some fruit trees that were leaning over. A weak attempt on the prosecutor’s side to prevent the trip unless I missed something about the trees.

But no one has said otherwise, either. By showing the jury the lay of the land (and the trees), such matters may come into evidence. What else are they going for? Everything the jury is allowed to see or hear is...evidence.

How do we know that someone won't say (next, by the defense) that while the trees today are too bushy for an ambush, they weren't back then?

The prosecutor is pointing out that now the jury will have "facts" that didn't exist back then (and to me, that's a big problem, I like more traditional views of what constitutes evidence).

It's really about impressing on the jury how big the property is etc.

IMO
 
IMO, I can't for the life of me believe that Paul asked Alex to make that Dr appt. Moms and Dr's appts go hand in hand. Alex couldn't even give the reason why Mags went to her dr appt..." a stomach thing". What? An ulcer? A virus? Irritable Bowel? Lactose intolerance? He had no clue, because he wasn't concerned.
His testimony as I remember it was that she had several nagging health things and he couldn’t remember which one she went for that day.
 
The issue with the trees would be sound dampening and ability to see the lights at the kennel and house. If it is seen as secluded, there would be more of a chance of the jury thinking that AM could not hear or see from the house or the road.

Exactly.

The jury, not allowed to speak to each other or anyone else during this visit, will individually form an imaginative view of what happened back then.

If they are leaning toward favorable to AM for reasons unrelated to the property, they can now use their individual, personal impressions of the property to argue in the jury room. The defense knows this.

Hopefully, this will not be an issue. But the prosecution doesn't have the same recourse to appeal as the defendant.

The active elements in this case (humans moving, guns being fired) will be absent. How each juror will view this unusual bit of "evidence" remains to be seen. But there's an element of field trip to this, an element of "jury will remember what isn't so boring," which may well help the defense.

IMO
 
My point was addressing your point to say that RM3 was not driven to an important Dr appt in Savannah in an unreliable old farm truck. I guess you don’t believe they took him in Ms Libby’s car. Ok. That part of the logistics of the day doesn’t really matter.
I read it a second time and I still think the story is total malarkey. As I said, with one person driving an unreliable vehicle for no apparent reason whatsoever, it introduced a variety of ways that could have caused either Randy to miss his afternoon appointments or Handsome to miss his doctor's appointment. If JMM had broken down on the way to meet his brother, then what? I guess it's possible, but it seems like there must be more to the story than JMM is telling.
@Skigirl No, RM was driving JMMs truck and JMM was driving Miss Libby’s vehicle all day after meeting to get RM3 to the doctor.

PAUL was the one driving the unreliable vehicle until around 5 pm after JMM returned to his home in Okatie with his mother’s car.

Since Paul was going to Moselle than evening, JMM said to take Libby’s car back to Almeda on his way, and pick up JMMs truck (which was at Almeda) to take it to Moselle. Then when Paul came to work in Okatie the next morning, to bring JMMs truck back. That’s when and how JM got stuck (in the evening of 6/7) with an unreliable vehicle.

Maybe it’s hinky, maybe not. I think the Greg Alexander part is what’s hinky.
 
Last edited:
How much of that is independently verified?

That he called the cop and that he arrived at Moselle In the cop's car?

Maybe it's a Murdaugh trait to embellish/create stories around known facts.

JMO
There is that, and frankly, WHY? Is he in competition with AM for Knowing local LE? So many stupid deflections from the Murders!
Frankly, what do Mom or Dad have to do with Anything, other than to explain who Mom's Caregiver was/is with respect to her testimony?
In my mind, the Defense was trying to deflect from point by point FACTS, with all the irrelevant details, hoping the Jury will be sidelined/forget, which I hope they have not. Gosh, I'd feel like a wrung out rag by now listening to so much BS by the Defense. Ugh.
 
Didn't hear about that but there is an old DM article that says that MM wasn't happy in her marriage and that a charity luncheon check had bounced. Egads!
Also says he checked out of family and lots of corruption among the good ole boys. Buying and doing drugs . FAVORS from the police etc
 
Except to date we have no testimony on either side that they had less than a loving relationship. (Whether what went on behind closed doors is what family and friends thought was the case.) Even her sister said she thought things were ok between them. If Maggie had approached a divorce lawyer at some point, we havent heard from them. So if a new witness appears saying Alex was their lover, what will that prove? Many cheat and still remain married for years. If a friend of Maggie’s knew an affair was hurting her and she wanted out, wouldn’t the prosecution have brought that up by now?
Presumably unless there was a gag order. And I wonder why except that the one alleged affair would have been 15 years ago. Maybe others are not credible or they just can't corroborate, which happens with escorts sometimes.
 
And can I just say I sure hope Alex's lawyers are truly in their common sense part of their brain saying WTF. I know they are defending their client and all that.. I get it. But at what point are they thinking good grief this guy is a piece of work and so is many of the people around him. Well maybe they are too so they think he's normal. Now there's a thought. I guess they just might not see it for what it is. One person having this much drama surrounding them. I bet they sit back and think WHAT NOW quite often. :D

Hey Trish, can you please give me some context on this? I still have pages to go before catching up. TIA
 
Her wedding ring was under the front seat of her vehicle... That is a sign.
Not defending or refuting this, but putting this out there... many women take off their very pricy rings and rarely wear them, except for special occasions, and some have said she had gotten a manicure recently so possibly had taken it off for that.
 
Scares me - seems like there would be so many opportunities for jurors to be photographed by nosy press and paparazzi,etc. which could cause so many problems. Plus, the scene is so different from June 7, 2021. Those trees are now a more like a forest which was formerly more like a field between the house and kennels, IIRC.
Well, this is disturbing. "Juries and jury selection: Photography of jury selection is against the rules. Juries, once chosen, cannot be shot directly but may be in the background when panning or when cameras are focused on an attorney, witness or exhibit." Cameras in Court

So, does this mean that the jury can be legally photographed on the Moselle property?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
267
Total visitors
455

Forum statistics

Threads
609,290
Messages
18,252,003
Members
234,593
Latest member
Sarah78
Back
Top