SC - Paul Murdaugh, 22 and mom Margaret, 52, found shot to death, Islandton, 7 June 2021 #3

[cvaldez1975]

South Carolina has a 2 strike and 3 strike law, PM was indicted 3 felonies? Could 2 of those have put him in the 2 strike law.? Prison had he been found guilty at trial?

idk about SC but here DUI manslaughters arent generally strikes. even though thye knew they had been drinking before operating, they didnt intentionally head out to hit someone. strikes are reserved for murder, attempted murder, rape, armed robbery, ADW with great bodily injury, carjacking, child abuse, stuff like that.

 

[lonetraveler]

Actually, the rules of evidence are less strict for a Grand Jury than they are in a trial. Far less strict, as no defense attorney is there to object and no judge is presiding to rule.

You are so right on this one. I served as Grand jury foreman for a year and it is so easy to find a 'true bill'.

 

[Luna20]

Circuit Judge Bentley Price asked SLED and the Colleton County Sheriff’s Office to justify the extensive redactions they applied to their public reports on the killings, which were only released after The Post and Courier filed a lawsuit. At a July 14 hearing on the blacked-out information, Edward Fenno, an attorney for the newspaper, argued that the agencies had been “unlawfully heavy-handed” in their approach...
In a brief to the court, Fenno countered that the law doesn’t let police withhold information based on hypothetical concerns. Police have to prove that disclosing information “ ‘would’ interfere” with their work or “ ‘would’ cause similar problems,” he wrote.
“The FOIA statute does not say ‘might’; it says ‘would,’ ” Fenno wrote.

At the July 14 hearing, Price said he would review the redactions and order the agencies to release more information if he concluded they had overstepped.

The agencies had previously resisted releasing even the heavily redacted version of their reports. SLED made them public only days after The Post and Courier sued the agencies for allegedly violating the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

SLED says it's still too early to release details on Murdaugh case, weeks after killings

This is the first time I’ve seen it mentioned that AM only works part time at the firm.

 

[sunshineray]

I keep thinking that AM loved his family & could never do that to them. I start to think maybe just a robbery gone wrong. But then that time of night not good for a robbery & why were the cameras off. I also do think MM & PM had come home & were stopping to feed the dogs.

Do we know that the cameras were turned off?

 

[Ann99]

Does anyone understand the strategy behind going for a Grand Jury vs Actually filing charges?
There must be pro and con to be considered by Prosecutor.

 

[swedeheart]

SLED says it's still too early to release details on Murdaugh case, weeks after killings

 

[Warwick7]

SLED says it's still too early to release details on Murdaugh case, weeks after killings

"In justifying their redactions, the agencies acknowledged that they blacked out all manner of details, including who found the bodies and where they were found, what vehicles and firearms were nearby, and which neighboring properties had security cameras."

Yes, but by June 21st much of this information had been released. So why redact it??

 

[sunshineray]

SLED says it's still too early to release details on Murdaugh case, weeks after killings

Thanks for the link to this article and the released and redacted reports.

Seems to me that in just looking at just the first officer on the scene, Sgt. Greene's reports, the reason behind the redactions were listed as having to do with the number of individuals at the scene when he arrived. Also redacted were the vehicles there and a firearm present somewhere. (Could have been a murder weapon or could have been in a vehicle or on a person, dead or alive I suppose)

The redactions about the individuals at the incident had nothing to do with the two dead victims as their presence was accounted and not redacted.

I'm taking that to mean Alex Murdaugh was not alone at the scene when Sgt. Greene arrived at the listed 2226 military time [10:26pm].

 

[Colorado303]

I have little personal experience with hunting dogs. But....

A ranch foreman told us the "Catahoula curs" on a large ranch in east Texas were working dogs used for cattle and hunting. He then told my son and I that though they were not dangerous, it was best to stay away from them and ignore them if they approached.

Likewise, a relative of mine who hunts told family guest that his birding dogs (larger type breed) kept at a friend's farm outside of town were not the most friendly and that if children especially were going to say "hi", he needed to be there.

Yet, another man I know has a professionally trained larger bird dog that is an absolute teddy bear. Likewise, I knew a man with bred, but not trained bird dogs that were extremely friendly. (so hard wired that they would get alert if one pretended to be raising an imaginary shot gun).

So.... Are hunting dogs more likely to be of the unfriendly, or friendly sort?

Would they be prone to bark aggressively at, or even attack aggressive strangers? Or, are the passive ones more common? How likely could a stranger approach the kennels of hunting dogs with out setting them off?

Dog person here. Unless they’ve been trained not to, even friendly dogs will bark if there’s a person somewhere where there usually aren’t any. They bark to warn them off. They bark to let other dogs know. And some bark because they want the person to come up and say hi.

I knew people who put anti-bark shock collars on their hunting dogs (caution— one needed emergency vet attention because the battery leaked on his neck) but unless the Murdough dogs had collars, been surgically “debarked” or had barking extinguished through training, there’s little doubt dogs would have been barking. If there were digs present at all that is. I still don’t know if that’s been confirmed.

 

[MoeInVA]

They also redacted what I believe was the name of one person interviewed.

The file names include names of key people … AM was one, another listed a name which is the last name of an attorney representing the convenience store that allegedly sold alcohol to PM and co that night. Another was redacted. I had wondered if it might be CC or a relative or lawyer of MB or a boat crash survivor.

 

[sunshineray]

It also said in that same article...BBM

"In justifying their redactions, the agencies acknowledged that they blacked out all manner of details, including who found the bodies and where they were found, what vehicles and firearms were nearby, and which neighboring properties had security cameras.

The agencies argue that such details should stay private in part so that investigators can test potential witnesses’ truthfulness. They also contend that details about the crime would likely “be misconstrued by the general public.”

I think they're right. If in fact someone else other than LE arrived at the scene first, it could be construed in all sorts of ways by the public, depending on who it was. But if it happened, it happened and has to be part of the record.

 

[T rex]

It also said in that same article...BBM

"In justifying their redactions, the agencies acknowledged that they blacked out all manner of details, including who found the bodies and where they were found, what vehicles and firearms were nearby, and which neighboring properties had security cameras.

The agencies argue that such details should stay private in part so that investigators can test potential witnesses’ truthfulness. They also contend that details about the crime would likely “be misconstrued by the general public.”

I think they're right. If in fact someone else other than LE arrived at the scene first, it could be construed in all sorts of ways by the public, depending on who it was. But if it happened, it happened and has to be part of the record.

In other words what they're saying is: there's something that doesn't look right but we're not going to tell you what it is because you might think it doesn't look right. IMO.

 

[Warwick7]

It also said in that same article...BBM

"In justifying their redactions, the agencies acknowledged that they blacked out all manner of details, including who found the bodies and where they were found, what vehicles and firearms were nearby, and which neighboring properties had security cameras.

The agencies argue that such details should stay private in part so that investigators can test potential witnesses’ truthfulness. They also contend that details about the crime would likely “be misconstrued by the general public.”

I think they're right. If in fact someone else other than LE arrived at the scene first, it could be construed in all sorts of ways by the public, depending on who it was. But if it happened, it happened and has to be part of the record.

In other words what they're saying is: there's something that doesn't look right but we're not going to tell you what it is because you might think it doesn't look right. IMO.

I never caught this before----but you both nailed this!

 

[stmarysmead]

It also said in that same article...BBM

"In justifying their redactions, the agencies acknowledged that they blacked out all manner of details, including who found the bodies and where they were found, what vehicles and firearms were nearby, and which neighboring properties had security cameras.

The agencies argue that such details should stay private in part so that investigators can test potential witnesses’ truthfulness. They also contend that details about the crime would likely “be misconstrued by the general public.”

I think they're right. If in fact someone else other than LE arrived at the scene first, it could be construed in all sorts of ways by the public, depending on who it was. But if it happened, it happened and has to be part of the record.

This is really quite problematic if true.

Because…it’s going to come out. Today, next week, next month, whatever it is… it’s coming out. When it does, let’s hope…for many reasons…that it doesn’t look like anyone has been handled differently by LE than any other citizen would be. Or that it doesn’t look like LE has been acting like a PR agency, shielding special friends from public gossip. Because, the latter is not their job.

Consider this headline…one of many JUST LIKE IT:


Attorneys: Law enforcement tried to protect Paul Murdaugh from blame in deadly Lowcountry boat crash

Let’s hope… because there may be local people sitting in their kitchens saying, “Do you remember when police questioned our kids about the SS death…but did you read in the papers, they never questioned the Murdaugh kids.” And there are certainly plenty of people reading the recent allegations about the boating accident investigation and considering how they themselves had been handled in the past. or just shaking their heads, feeling like second class citizens.

So now they…and an international audience…watch as the Murdaugh family and LE…interact again in this tragedy.

When all is revealed, for everyone’s sake, I hope faith is not further eroded by…

‘ details that are being withheld so they won’t be misconstrued by the public?’

Because by withholding whatever information and providing this reasoning, the question arises, who or what is being protected from being ‘misconstrued?’

If…just IF it should prove to be the case, that the brothers, including one who IIRC said he lives 30 minutes away…were on the scene when the police arrived…why is LE concerned with shielding them from misconceptions by the public? LE is not a PR entity…crafting favorable imaging for certain individuals.

In my opinion, this would just create more distrust about a cocoon of investigative comfort only available to certain people. It would just add fuel to an already burning hot fire of distrust, in my opinion. Fair or not. Deserved or not.

So I hope that when all is revealed, we can chide ourselves for ever doubting, and agree that this was just excellent and normal investigative procedure.

‘They also contend that details about the crime would likely “be misconstrued by the general public.”

 

[stmarysmead]

“Randy, who lives in the nearby town of Hampton, said he arrived at Alex's property about 15 minutes after the telephone call. It was a rainy night and first responders were already on site, and Randy recalled seeing the covered bodies of Maggie and Paul near the dog kennels, about a quarter of a mile from the main house.

"I could see the white sheets across the way," he said. "I still couldn't believe it could be them or that it could be true."

Alex was standing at a distance from the crime scene, looking on "in disbelief, crying and sobbing, and unable to talk," Randy said.

"He would try to talk and then he would break down," Randy added. "It was very difficult."

John, who lives further away in the community of Okatie, west of Hilton Head Island, said he got there about 30 minutes later. John and Randy stayed there for hours, comforting their brother, until they finally convinced him to leave.”

Brothers of prominent South Carolina family speak out after 2 relatives found dead

Just a reminder of what the brothers said in the interview. The bodies were already covered… by LE…when Randy arrived. John arrived later.

 

[stmarysmead]

Could they be keeping the time of AM’s arrival under wraps for now? Suppose they all arrived home together. PM and MM went to the kennels to let out the dogs. AM went to the main house. After they failed to come up to the house…maybe he went to the kennels to see what was going on.

Just guessing…

 

[Elley Mae]

It also said in that same article...BBM

"In justifying their redactions, the agencies acknowledged that they blacked out all manner of details, including who found the bodies and where they were found, what vehicles and firearms were nearby, and which neighboring properties had security cameras.

The agencies argue that such details should stay private in part so that investigators can test potential witnesses’ truthfulness. They also contend that details about the crime would likely “be misconstrued by the general public.”

I think they're right. If in fact someone else other than LE arrived at the scene first, it could be construed in all sorts of ways by the public, depending on who it was. But if it happened, it happened and has to be part of the record.

Why pray tell are they concerned what us minions think?

 

[stmarysmead]

For some reason, this case makes me think of Robinson’s poem…


Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean favored, and imperially slim.

And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good-morning," and he glittered when he walked.

And he was rich—yes, richer than a king—
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine, we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.

So on we worked, and waited for the light,
And went without the meat, and cursed the bread;
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet through his head.’

We don’t have a suicide here…but a double murder…but as the poem points out and as several of you have wisely said, ‘we don’t know what we don’t know.’

I think we are in for some big surprises in this case.

 

[Snoopster]

Thanks for the link to this article and the released and redacted reports.

Seems to me that in just looking at just the first officer on the scene, Sgt. Greene's reports, the reason behind the redactions were listed as having to do with the number of individuals at the scene when he arrived. Also redacted were the vehicles there and a firearm present somewhere. (Could have been a murder weapon or could have been in a vehicle or on a person, dead or alive I suppose)

The redactions about the individuals at the incident had nothing to do with the two dead victims as their presence was accounted and not redacted.

I'm taking that to mean Alex Murdaugh was not alone at the scene when Sgt. Greene arrived at the listed 2226 military time [10:26pm].

Regarding whether Alex was alone or not...I just presumed that he was as there is no mention of his name anywhere. Of course it's possible that he wasn't alone and they redacted the plural word 'witnesses' or someone else's name, but not necessarily.

I had looked at the unannotated redacted reports a while ago. Now that I am looking at the version that was annotated (by the Post and Courier, I presume), I am wondering about some of their presumptions about the redactions.

For example, in one report there is mention of the two bodies lying on the ground and then space for several words is redacted. The annotation says that the info redacted related to the location of the bodies. How do they know that? I had wondered if it is equally possible that the redaction related to the positioning or condition of the bodies, e.g. bound, or laying face down, etc.)

 

[Cryptic]

there’s little doubt dogs would have been barking. If there were digs present at all that is. I still don’t know if that’s been confirmed.

Thank you for your answer. It looks like the hunting dogs would likely bark whether the approaching person was a stranger, a friend, or the owners. Thus, a possible lack of barking would not mean necessarily mean the assailant(s) were known to the dogs.

Its been a long time since I heard the word "digs". What does it mean? Maybe food or treats in regards to dogs? As a side note, when my friends and I used the variation "dig", it was slang for "to really like".