GUILTY SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #40

[justtrish]

Behavior Panel is not an approved site, they aren't listed on page one of this thread.

I'd like to read further about their analysis, if you're interested in posting it.

The biggest take away I am getting with the words is he is giving a reason for almost every action he took and he's going into major details about things not really related to the murders. They all seem in agreement that someone that has just came upon their loves ones like this and we are talking 3 hours after he discovers them he is doing this interview in the police car and he is giving an excuse for every action that he (Alex) thinks is off. Innocent people don't typically think their actions are wrong so they don't need to justify them.

Side not they do a lot with the body language and they have said a lot about that, but I am not going to go into it because there's so many little things they mention and I was more focused on the words and how he is saying them).

So examples:
The gun he goes to retrieve: he say's "that's probably an over reaction" NOPE it's not an overreaction on a rural property where you just found your wife and son murdered.. you don't know if there is a threat.. that is actually a good idea, but he subconsciously thinks that might be seen as wrong so he justified his action by saying that.

When asked if there is anyone he can think of they should talk to tonight.. he goes into that story about what CB Rowe said to Paul and how it was off. Just all that detail about his story..

When asked why he came down there tonight he gives a long story about his mom and dad being sick and on and on..

Oh and one body language thing I will note because it's related to the words.. he is checking often to see if what he is saying is being believed. They had a word for it and I can't recall what it was.. but basically when he makes a statement his eyes dart over and back like he's checking their officers reactions and to see if he is being believed.

It really is interesting to see them because they play the interview and pause it then discuss those pieces and then play more of it and discuss. They each share something they are noticing and what it could mean. Of course nothing is 100%, but it's really interesting to hear their thoughts.

 

[Napoli]

I don't really buy the premise of the article, he would have been convicted whether or not he testified. Plus it's wrong on the facts:


Of course he knew about the video before the trial. It was turned over during discovery.

Sloppy work, CNN.

Which types of evidence must always be turned over by the prosecutor?


The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense.

This was not exculpatory. i am not a lawyer. i am not sure the prosecutor had to turn over the video to the defense. Anyone???

 

[Pruddennce]

So, I'm going backwards here, back to the night of the murders. In the video you can hear the hose running/splashing. Bubba is loose and has gone off to get a chicken. Do you suppose Alex may be wearing a raincoat or poncho over his clothes to hose down Bubba's kennel? maybe he's barefoot even, or flip flops. If I was going to be jetting water around a poopy dog pen I'd for sure have protective gear hanging from a nail to put on when I did that chore. How convenient.

we dont know what he was wearing. only have the 'tree video' from earlier, long pants, etc. all we know he had no blood transfer on his shorts and tshirt and footwear when LE arrived...(testimony) despite him telling LE he handled Paul's body and 911 he checked for signs of life. he was pristine.

all anyone knows is what he was wearing earlier, and what he was wearing after the 911 call when LE arrived.

does this look like a man who was in the middle of a bloody crime scene, handling a body(ies) when LE arrived. Nope. and right off, pointing the finger at the boat crash. IMMEDIATELY.

LE arrival at the scene:

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

The biggest take away I am getting with the words is he is giving a reason for almost every action he took and he's going into major details about things not really related to the murders. They all seem in agreement that someone that has just came upon their loves ones like this and we are talking 3 hours after he discovers them he is doing this interview in the police car and he is giving an excuse for every action that he (Alex) thinks is off. Innocent people don't typically think their actions are wrong so they don't need to justify them.

Side not they do a lot with the body language and they have said a lot about that, but I am not going to go into it because there's so many little things they mention and I was more focused on the words and how he is saying them).

So examples:
The gun he goes to retrieve: he say's "that's probably an over reaction" NOPE it's not an overreaction on a rural property where you just found your wife and son murdered.. you don't know if there is a threat.. that is actually a good idea, but he subconsciously thinks that might be seen as wrong so he justified his action by saying that.

When asked if there is anyone he can think of they should talk to tonight.. he goes into that story about what CB Rowe said to Paul and how it was off. Just all that detail about his story..

When asked why he came down there tonight he gives a long story about his mom and dad being sick and on and on..

Oh and one body language thing I will note because it's related to the words.. he is checking often to see if what he is saying is being believed. They had a word for it and I can't recall what it was.. but basically when he makes a statement his eyes dart over and back like he's checking their officers reactions and to see if he is being believed.

It really is interesting to see them because they play the interview and pause it then discuss those pieces and then play more of it and discuss. They each share something they are noticing and what it could mean. Of course nothing is 100%, but it's really interesting to hear their thoughts.

These are so interesting and seem on point, thanks for sharing

 

[ch_13]

Which types of evidence must always be turned over by the prosecutor?


The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense.

This was not exculpatory. i am not a lawyer. i am not sure the prosecutor had to turn over the video to the defense. Anyone???

I don't know if they had to turn it over, but the Alex did know about the video. From a response to a defense motion submitted by Creighton Waters in October:

However, if the defense needs further help for a start time, there is evidence of
which the defense is well aware showing Defendant’s presence along with the victims at the crime scene at 8:44 p.m.

The whole document is pretty interesting and worth reading, IMO.

 

[Napoli]

we dont know what he was wearing. only have the 'tree video' from earlier, long pants, etc. all we know he had no blood transfer on his shorts and tshirt and footwear when LE arrived...(testimony) despite him telling LE he handled Paul's body and 911 he checked for signs of life. he was pristine.

all anyone knows is what he was wearing earlier, and what he was wearing after the 911 call when LE arrived.

does this look like a man who was in the middle of a bloody crime scene, handling a body(ies) when LE arrived. Nope. and right off, pointing the finger at the boat crash. IMMEDIATELY.

LE arrival at the scene:

He said "I knew that they had been down here before I went to my mom's. How did he know that?

 

[Angela_Beckett]

Hope justice is near for Ms Saterfield and sons

SC Attorney Says Satterfield Case is Up Next

VIDEO: SC attorney Eric Bland said Creighton Waters told him that his office is going to schedule Gloria Satterfield's case for next month. (3/3/23)

www.courttv.com

 

[LetsSolvIt]

I watched this last night, but wasn’t sure if it was an allowed link. It’s an amazing video!!! The doctor goes into extensive detail about the family dynamics throughout the years of the Murdaugh dynasty, and the secrets that have been kept.

This is fascinating! “Hidden True Crime”

Explains so much — maintaining family myths, shame (often big dynamic in dysfunctional families), enmeshment …

Now I understand why everyone sat behind him and still maintains his innocence. OMO.

 

[Napoli]

we dont know what he was wearing. only have the 'tree video' from earlier, long pants, etc. all we know he had no blood transfer on his shorts and tshirt and footwear when LE arrived...(testimony) despite him telling LE he handled Paul's body and 911 he checked for signs of life. he was pristine.

all anyone knows is what he was wearing earlier, and what he was wearing after the 911 call when LE arrived.

does this look like a man who was in the middle of a bloody crime scene, handling a body(ies) when LE arrived. Nope. and right off, pointing the finger at the boat crash. IMMEDIATELY.

LE arrival at the scene:

Le says, there are quite a few tire tracks here. Are any of them yours? Am says no...(where is the tire track evidence??? ) There is none...

 

[turaj]

Listening to Gloria Satterfield's attorney Eric Bland he is commenting on Dick H.'s tactics and style and called him ANTIQUATED ...and that is exactly what it is...once upon a time he was effective in a different time and place but he is no longer effective in today's courtrooms. Bland felt that he might have been going to do the closing but they changed course given how the jury was reacting to him these past weeks. His style was so offensive and it did not play well with the jury.

 

[mickey2942]

I am listening to the behavior panel right now. Am I allowed to link their analysis? IF so I can edit and add it.

They said something so interesting. Those that are innocent almost never tell a story in chronological order. Also, they don't give justifiers with their answers.

They don't explain why they did what they did. They don't say I picked up his phone and then was going to do something with it.. not sure why and then put it down. They wouldn't justify the actions they took.

Right, because when you are telling the truth, often you roll your eyes back, because you are trying to "remember" things. And it is not usually told like a "story" absolutely verbatim. People who are lying usually add more details, things in memory, you probably wouldn't remember.

That, of course can always be different for others. But try it, when you are thinking, remembering something, usually you roll your eyes back.

 

[passionflower]

Another face of AM, right after being asked by CW if he was a "family annihilator". It was this reaction that cemented to me that he was capable of unspeakable violence if he felt his public image was about to be tarnished.

View attachment 407166

Video Source:

He looked so evil

 

[Seattle1]

I assume the same. I read somewhere (but can't find it) that initially, the estate goes to LM (Alec's mom) and only after she's gone do the kids get theirs - as is quite common in marital wills.

If we were talking 20 years ago, I think it could be possible that AM might have been subject to distributions from his grandfather's trust but ever since the year when federal income tax exemptions finally crossed the threshold from $675K to $1M in 2002, the idea that any Trust by RM3 would bypass his wife, and lose the portability of 2021's exemption at $11.7M, is ludicrous (to quote Dr. Kinsey), and hardly worthy of speculation here.

My understanding is there is no estate tax in South Carolina (or state estate tax exemption dollars subject to distribution at RM3's death).

And since one of the selling points for doing a Trust in the first place is that they are private documents, not recorded with the County Recorder's office (like a deed would be), and not filed with the court after death, I think we should be cautious accepting any valuation of RM3's Trust from a podcast as fact! JMO

ETA: We already know that in March 2022, long before arrest and conviction, AM disclaimed any interest in MM's Estate that might pass to him pursuant to the South Carolina laws of descent and distribution or intestacy," the document filed at Colleton County Probate Court states.

AM is a lawyer, from a family of lawyers, and I don't doubt AM didn't already renounce any Trust benefit for the protection and privacy of his mother, siblings, and surviving child.

Alex Murdaugh disclaims late wife's estate in latest court filing

Court records filed Monday show Alex Murdaugh has disclaimed interest in any property or assets owned by his late wife which would otherwise be passed to him. The estate of Maggie Murdaugh was to be passed to her surviving spouse at her death. Alex's wife, Maggie, and son, Paul, were found shot...

abcnews4.com

 

[Napoli]

I don't know if they had to turn it over, but the Alex did know about the video. From a response to a defense motion submitted by Creighton Waters in October:




The whole document is pretty interesting and worth reading, IMO.

However, if the defense needs further help for a start time, there is evidence of which the defense is well aware showing Defendant’s presence along with the victims at the crime scene at 8:44 p.m. The motion is without merit and should be denied. Respectfully submitted. I read it. It's vague..thats all it says... there is evidence of which the defense is well aware showing Defendant’s presence along with the victims at the crime scene at 8:44 p.m. Doesnt say video etc...

 

[clearskies1]

Which types of evidence must always be turned over by the prosecutor?


The Brady rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense.

This was not exculpatory. i am not a lawyer. i am not sure the prosecutor had to turn over the video to the defense. Anyone???

Here is the South Carolina rule that governs disclosures by the prosecution. It says in relevant part (BBM):

Upon request of the defendant the prosecution shall permit the defendant to inspect and copy books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions thereof, which are within the possession, custody or control of the prosecution, and which are material to the preparation of his defense or are intended for use by the prosecution as evidence in chief at the trial, or were obtained from or belong to the defendant.

SC Judicial Branch

www.sccourts.org

 

[arielilane]

Judge suffered the unthinkable just before overseeing Murdaugh case | Court TV

WALTERBORO, S.C. (AP) — The judge who sentenced Alex Murdaugh on Friday to life in prison for killing his wife and son has earned attention and plaudits

www.courttv.com

Judge suffered the unthinkable just before overseeing Murdaugh case​

Newman’s 40-year-old son, Brian, died just weeks before the Murdaugh trial would pull Newman away from his home for more than a month. As he handed down Murdaugh’s sentence for killing his own son, he added a small extra touch.

“For the murder of Paul Murdaugh, whom you probably loved so much, I sentence you to prison for murdering him for the rest of your natural life,” Newman said.

 

[clearskies1]

However, if the defense needs further help for a start time, there is evidence of which the defense is well aware showing Defendant’s presence along with the victims at the crime scene at 8:44 p.m. The motion is without merit and should be denied. Respectfully submitted. I read it. It's vague..thats all it says... there is evidence of which the defense is well aware showing Defendant’s presence along with the victims at the crime scene at 8:44 p.m. Doesnt say video etc...

To me it's obvious that it's the video and that the prosecutor had turned it over to the defense in discovery. SC Judicial Branch

 

[passionflower]

Is there a thread for Gloria?

When Gloria found the bags of pills, why was she AFRAID to tell Maggie so she told Paul, strange?

 

[SoBu]

Well, the situations are more similar that different...in that they are all *family annihilators *...with no prior history of family violence. As far as AM having a hidden romantic relationship, I think LE would have uncovered any people who may have been romantically involved with him by now. I don't see this as a motive in this case. Just my 2 cents.

All were In debt iirc

 

[LetsSolvIt]

Bland said he talked to Waters and was told Gloria's case is up next month.

About 2 minutes in

I want answers for Gloria’s boys but Sandy Smith has been waiting so long. Hope they are starting work on Stephen Smith’s death!!!