GUILTY SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #39

[worm]

So they let him grow it out for the trial?

He was in jail waiting for trial but they took him on to the state pen today and they cut their hair.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Looks like he is so over this case.

 

[Gardenista]

Interview with Dr. Kinsey

 

[MyJoey]

Watching Dateline JM on the stand, I do feel bad for him. I get the feeling he has looked up to AM, maybe he is torn between what his head knows and his heart feels. As close as this family is, it would be hard to wrap your brain around someone you love so much killing his family.

 

[alexwood]

I had forgotten about it but I keep coming back to AM tears and him being “distraught” and wondering if Paul wasn’t supposed to be around while AM shot MM.

If those tears were real early on, that’s the only reason that makes sense.

AM wasn't under any do or die deadline to get rid of MM. He could have postponed it until PM wasn't around (IMO).

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

I would think the dogs would have gotten blood on them if they were out running around.

Is that maybe also why water at the kennels? If I remember correctly? In other words to wash blood from them too?
MO.

 

[arielilane]

IMO, he’s been bald on top for years, still had own hair on sides, wore a toupee. Most recently, full head shave.

 

[SouthernSleuther]

No, he was in county jail awaiting trial. Once they’re sentenced to prison, that’s when it gets shaved.

So they let him grow it out for the

So they let him grow it out for the trial?

 

[Ceska]

Interesting, and very bizarre.

"Engineer W.W. Bartlett testified that he did not see the car near the tracks until about 40 yards away, and that Murdaugh had his hand raised as though waving at the train crew. But when the train drew closer, the car started up and stopped directly on the tracks.".

Trouble with Trains: The crash – and lawsuit – that helped launch the Murdaugh dynasty

Midnight trains and tragic accidents are recurring themes that steam through the timeline of the Murdaugh family dynasty.

www.greenvilleonline.com

 

[Kembo]

@Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats

I will try my best to answer each of your questions and explain the rationale for each. I am changing order of the questions to make it easier for me to explain. Legal folk like to break down issues separately. Let's start with the character vs. motive evidence issue.

The rule governing this is Evidentiary Rule 404. I have only included the relevant language of the rule below. Here is a link to the rule in its entirety: Rule 404. Character Evidence; Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts

Character Evidence

• (1) General Rule: Evidence of a person’s character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.
• (2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case: a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it. This is the opening the door part of the rule.

Note the language; character evidence starts out at default as not admissible. In other words, a judge has no say at all in its admission. It is barred. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Only one way in otherwise. A defendant may offer character evidence, then the prosecution may offer evidence to rebut this. Notice that this requires the judge to determine the intention of the defendant in offering the character evidence. Did the defendant really offer this as character evidence, or some other reason? Was the particular evidence introduced inadvertently? Did it come out in testimony that the defendant intended to show something other than character?

Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts (the "Motive" part)

• (1) Prohibited Uses: Evidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.
• (2) Permitted Uses. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Again, note the language. Other crimes evidence to show character in conformity therewith is not admissible. It is completely barred. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Not even something a judge can consider. The default is non-inclusion. Only can be used to show motive, intent, and so on as described above. Even if admissible, it is only so at the discretion of the judge, as evidenced by the "may be" language of the exception.

This is when the next pertinent rule of evidence kicks in. That is Rule 403.

• The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_403.

Under 403, any and all relevant evidence can be excluded by the judge for the above reasons. In other words, the rule expects the judge to determine whether any relevant evidence, including and not limited to character and/or motive evidence is prejudicial, confusing, cumulative, and so on. Even if relevant, it should not be admitted as a general rule.

So how would I answer your questions? First, I would say that generally Rule 404 means "don't include the character evidence." That, in my opinion, is where all judges should start. They should lean to non-inclusion.

Next, did the defendant open the door? In my opinion, yes, but only after the state put on its case. The state witnesses testified to his character, then the judge had to determine the intent of the defense questions to these witnesses. The state placed the defense, inadvertently, in a position where the character evidence was inevitably introduced. I could swing either way on this issue. I don't know if the defense would have introduced any character evidence at all in their case-in-chief; they probably would have.

Now the motive issue, which falls under the 404 "other crimes" section. I think the prosecution should have been allowed to use any information relevant to show motive, which included his financial crimes. However, this is where I got a sick feeling in my stomach when it was included. It became extremely cumulative, extremely confusing, and IMO possibly prejudicial to the jury. Murdaugh is such a piece of garbage outside of the question of the murders that I think it hard to separate his misdeeds. Thus, I do believe this will come down to a prejudice issue, not only on Rule 404 grounds but also on Rule 403 grounds.

None of this reflects poorly on Judge Newman. He made tough calls on these issues, and he certainly has reasonable arguments for the evidence admission. I think a lot of legal types simply see it differently. Nothing wrong with that. As Bruce Hornsby said, "lawyers dwell on small details." We argue. We disagree. That's what we do for a living.

I hope this has helped you, and I hope I answered your questions sufficiently.

Thanks so much for clarifying this succinctly. IMO any prejudices the jurors brought with them to the courthouse were confirmed directly by AM when he looked them all in the eye and lied to them about why he lied. Even without knowledge of the financial crimes, it is not reasonable to think that a loving husband and father would not immediately tell LE that he was at the scene of the crime just moments before, and would have demonstrated regret at having left them. To me, the best direct evidence is the absence of reasonable evidence--a blue shirt and pair of shoes that disappear for no reason, an absence of tears, an absence of any credible reason for lying, an absence of any calls to BM warning him, an absence of gunshot and rifle sounds carrying across the Moselle property to AM's ears. The best evidence of malice was the absence of evidence.

 

[Cool Cats]

So they let him grow it out for the trial?

They don't shave their heads in jail, besides he was innocent until proven guilty.

They shave inmate's heads in some State Prisons. Not in NY, not in MI or OH, not in many others, just in some states. And only initially. They can grow their hair back.

 

[arielilane]

I’m watching the Dateline too.

Still so amazing that it was Paul himself who ultimately recorded key evidence with the Bubba kennel video - in his own murder investigation.

He helped to put his killer behind bars for life.
Sad it turned out to be his own father.

Didn’t watch it tonight. Dateline used to be a favorite show of mine. Appreciate update.

 

[alexwood]

IMO, he’s been bald on top for years, still had own hair on sides, wore a toupee. Most recently, full head shave.

Wow! If he wore a toupee, it must have been one heck of a high-dollar rug! I never noticed that! If so, his was much better than Trump's (for example), which doesn't even match his hair color anymore! (C'mon Donald, let loose of your grip on the $$; buy a new carpet for your head!)

 

[DeDee]

wow Tinsley was just on Court TV and said he thinks or has indications that AM was planning the murders back in December 2020...just like he said to MM's sister, "the person who did this had been planning it for a long time."

Did Tinsley explain while on CTV why he felt the murders were planned months in advance? What, in particular, happened in or around DEC 2020 to make Tinsley form that supposition?

2015 - July 8 Stephen Smith, 19, dies (PM was 16, his brother, 19)
2016 - AM buys two .300 blackout firearms for sons for Christmas
2018 - FEB Gloria Satterfield dies
2018 - APR AM orders; Maggie picks up replacement for Paul's lost .300 blackout firearm
2019 - FEB 24 Mallory Beach boating death
2019 - APR 18 Paul is indicted on Mallory's 20th birthday
2020 -
2021 - May 6 Paul found pills; sends "We've got to talk" text to Alex
2021 - June 7 CFO confronts AM, $792,000 missing
2021 - June 8 Paul, 22, and Maggie, 52, are murdered

 

[Seattle1]

I just saw AM's new mugshot. His head is shaved. Is that routine?

When the convicted are sentenced to DOC, they first enter a holding center for inmate intake and evaluation processing, which is expected to last for several weeks. The average time is normally about 45 days. In my experience, the shaved head is routine when doing their intake.

 

[worm]

Didn’t watch it tonight. Dateline used to be a favorite show of mine. Appreciate update.

The episode is very well done.

 

[MassGuy]

I’ve seen almost none of this trial, as I haven’t had any time during the day. Waters was solid, and Alex dug his own grave under cross.

 

[LetsSolvIt]

So they let him grow it out for the trial?

I think the defense team didn't want him to look like a convict. With a full head of hair, oxford shirts, and a sports jacket he appeared to be an upstanding lawyer and citizen.

 

[jjonez]

Have we figured out If Alex wears a wig, or if they shaved his head? I’m going wig, because most guys are gray at his age and his hair had a lot of color.

Scratch that, I’m being told it’s protocol.

MOO.
His hair is grey (well, white) it was much redder in pictures from his younger years.
Also, I’ve seen a pic showing his “head injury” after the “roadside shooting”. In that pic, it looks to me like his own hair.

 

[NottaYutz]

He was in jail waiting for trial but they took him on to the state pen today and they cut their hair.

I have wondered if Alex has a toupee.