SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #18

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #21
Is this defense lawyer the brother to one of the players (including those not breaking the law in any way) mentioned in this witnesses testimony? Last name begins with a W?
 
  • #22
  • #23
Noticeable difference in Alex's behavior today. No rocking at all, no sad face. Instead, he is laser focused and looks particularly uncomfortable and upset as this witness testifies.

MOO
Let's see what he does if the jury is allowed to hear this, I bet he'll have a different demeanor. JMO
 
  • #24
Murdaugh defense attorney Jim Griffin begins cross-examining Seckinger. He establishes that Seckinger had stopped - at least temporarily - looking into the missing $792K in fees when she learned Alex’s father was in the hospital with a terminal diagnosis.

Griffin seems to be making the point that Alex had no need to further thwart or delay Seckinger’s inquiry by killing Maggie and Paul later that evening.

We seem to be trying Alex Murdaugh on the financial crimes now. Murdaugh defense attorney Jim Griffin asks questions seemingly designed to lay some blame with PMPED for Alex’s thefts.

He asks if Murdaugh’s “Forge” scheme was documented in PMPED’s financial system dating back to 2015. Seckinger: “They were. They didn’t catch our attention before that.”

Griffin: “The information had been at your fingertips? 2015, it was there. ‘16, it was there. ‘17, it was there?” Seckinger: “That’s right.”

I would describe this exchange between Seckinger and Griffin as "cool." It is trending toward “icy"




 
  • #25
  • #26
  • #27
What is his point? That AM is a thief, has been for a long time, but the firm should have known sooner? Relevant why?
 
  • #28
  • #29
  • #30
  • #31
  • #32
State is so prepared and the Judge must appreciate this! Good job.
 
  • #33
What is his point? That AM is a thief, has been for a long time, but the firm should have known sooner? Relevant why?
Especially since the Jury is NOT even there to hear this.
I understand using it for motive, but the shouldn't the jury be hearing this so they can understand this opinion of motive ??

I mean, I love this last witness and all the wrong-doing AM has done being spoken about but.....
if it's meant to be for motive reason- then Jury should be there, IMO
 
  • #34
  • #35
  • #36
  • #37
Prosecutor is right, AM mentioned that boat case almost immediately AND he was confronted about his stealing that day, it was ALL coming to a head.
 
  • #38
  • #39
Could someone explain to me like I'm 5 how all of his financial misdeeds relate to motive to kill his son? That boat case was a civil case against him, Alex, correct? Wouldn't it still go on if his son was dead?
 
  • #40
I'm confused, what year is this? Just saw Ted Rowlands on Court TV call Seckinger, CFO at PMPED, "the numbers gal" at the firm.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
118
Guests online
2,545
Total visitors
2,663

Forum statistics

Threads
632,085
Messages
18,621,820
Members
243,017
Latest member
thaines
Back
Top