SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #22

[Seattle1]

As far as AM mentioning that he and Maggie were worried about Paul’s high blood pressure and swollen feet, imo those could be classic signs of alcohol abuse. Although Paul was only 22, it’s been said that he had been drinking heavily for years. ( sadly)

Perhaps it wasn’t so much a civil sit down dinner conversation with Paul about his health and drinking, but maybe an ANGRY Alex confrontation about it?

Sometimes spontaneous comments leak a bit of truth.

^^rsbm

I agree, @Cindizzi. It also follows that this could have been a heated conversation where PM walked out of the house and why AM allegedly had no memory of where PM went but he knew for certain that MM went to the kennels. Never mind that Blanca testified that MM was afraid to go to the dark kennels at night alone.

ETA: I need to rewatch the coroner's testimony more closely but I thought I heard her report that MM had caffeine and no alcohol but was silent about PM's toxicology.

This omission could have been intentional given there's been no settlement yet between the Beach family and the Estate of PM. I was also shocked that PM's bail conditions did not require him to refrain from alcohol and no drug/alcohol screening was required. Just another privileged release. JMO

 

[kaen]

As far as AM mentioning that he and Maggie were worried about Paul’s high blood pressure and swollen feet, imo those could be classic signs of alcohol abuse. Although Paul was only 22, it’s been said that he had been drinking heavily for years. ( sadly)

Perhaps it wasn’t so much a civil sit down dinner conversation with Paul about his health and drinking, but maybe an ANGRY Alex confrontation about it?

Sometimes spontaneous comments leak a bit of truth.

The boat crash was in February 2019.

Paul seemed to continue his reckless behavior even while out on bond. May 2020 he is pulled over for speeding ( while towing a boat!)

Not trying to victim shame, just thinking about AM’s attitude towards his son., perhaps fed up?
JMO

Alcohol and drug abuse would be the likely culprits. That said, the autopsy would let us know of there was indeed those kinds of physical manifestations based on organ health at the time of death.

This was a family where the housekeeper was surprised that the pots and pans were in the fridge the day after the murder. Normally, they would leave everything out for her to clean in the morning. It seems to me that the son's dysfunction was part of a larger family pattern of dysfunction. You have this murderer saying his son never put anything away but there was evidence given that no one put things away. The son lost guns and was careless. Yet, his father, a lawyer, with a lost gun doesn't report it, doesn't lock the other guns away, but rather swears in the police interview that he replaced it after it was lost. It is so interesting to see how the dysfunction runs through this man and he has no sense of it--no embarrassment, just is what it is.

 

[Seattle1]

The thing that struck me about this is he wanted it to clean up - steaighten up like Maggie does it. Like wanted it to look like she was there(all the time). If I’m not mistaken Maggie was at Edisto the weekend and did AM say he and Buster and or Paul went to ballgame?
Sounds like AM was alone at Moselle more then not.

Jmo

In the latest car interview released, AM does say that MM's parents are at the Moselle property and asks if the detective might stop by to talk with them -- give them some reassurance. It seems to me that while AM may have left the property the first night, he may have come back to Moselle for a couple of days when MM's parents were in town (from Summerville) for the funeral. Seems they had 2 services -- a public funeral at the gravesite the following day, and a private service a week later when the bodies were released. MOO

 

[Cindizzi]

Great assessment of this video. I had been thinking that the whole idea that he was at the house but thought he heard "them" was his way of trying to say that someone else was on the property. He heard them but know it could not have been them so it had to be the killers.

Also, all the gun talk about what they had was interesting. His son was the scape goat for all---he lost a gun, always left things around and not put away, great kid but very private with the phone--- as if he may have had a double life going on, etc. Innuendo, time and again. He is so manipulative and gets more so as the interviewers seem to not be liking him for the crime. It leads him to say how he said he touched his son's phone but didn't try to open it....while once again disparaging Paul, his phone use, etc. but he can't recall where Paul kept the phone, which pocket. If it were my kid, I would be remembering every little thing if they were killed-- what he smelled like, how he held the phone, which pocket, that I was at the kennel and left just before he was killed.

Was he angry about the confrontation (if there was one) about his health? This killer has so much to say but very little to say. It is clear to me that it was all obfuscation.

Why was Paul snap-chatting that conversation out at the kennel? And, thank goodness he did.

In the first SLED interview with AM in the car when he tells about Paul relating the conversation with CB Rowe where CB tells him the wild story about Black Panthers and Navy Seals, Alec starts scrolling through his phone and tells SLED that Paul was “ so taken aback’ that he started recording Rowe and sent it to Alec.

Alec KNEW that Paul loved to video and record Snapchats.

Imo that’s why Alec’s first thought was to grab Paul’s phone.

 

[kaen]

The thing that struck me about this is he wanted it to clean up - steaighten up like Maggie does it. Like wanted it to look like she was there(all the time). If I’m not mistaken Maggie was at Edisto the weekend and did AM say he and Buster and or Paul went to ballgame?
Sounds like AM was alone at Moselle more then not.

Jmo

Yes, I agree. He sounds like a chaotic man who did what he pleased. With his drug addiction, I would imagine the no one wanted to be around him. The frenetic actions at work were probably way worse at home. It is interesting to me that the prosecution has not focused on the amount of time in the prior months or weeks that Maggie and Paul had been there.

 

[kaen]

In the first SLED interview with AM in the car when he tells about Paul relating the conversation with CB Rowe where CB tells him the wild story about Black Panthers and Navy Seals, Alec starts scrolling through his phone and tells SLED that Paul was “ so taken aback’ that he started recording Rowe and sent it to Alec.

Alec KNEW that Paul loved to video and record Snapchats.

Imo that’s why Alec’s first thought was to grab Paul’s phone.

Yes, he did like to video and send odd things. What was odd about that interaction that led him to believe that it would be good to snap it? Was there a dinner confrontation with a wild dad who might still be at it coming to the kennel? What was his drug usage or alcohol usage like at that point?

I wish they had asked him all about the dinner conversation in detail and had gone over it and over it.

It could have just been a fun snap but I wonder if Paul thought he was going to get some good, outrageous dad footage to send to his friends. What did Paul's friends think about the dad?

 

[minusfour]

Oh no, oh no, oh no. How horrible. They both saw who killed them. Paul's brain arrived in a separate bag from the rest of him at autopsy. I am sitting here, stunned at how awful this is.

Until the trial started, and had been pretty confident I understood what had happened, that I was reasonably unshockable. Each day of the trial has shocked me, the enormous harm this man has caused, so many people. I didn't feel that tempted by the autopsy findings, or other physical evidence-I'd read about it enough surely-but I've found today fascinating and terrible. I must confess, I'd never watched the entire first LE on the scene footage.I finally did today, and agree with many of you, AM sounds very suspect in that.

So, there is some speculation that AM may testify. I would stay up overnight to watch that, the very horror of the man.

I've read about some fears held about the jury possibly being influenced, perhaps even one member. I don't know how much a risk that really is. I have always wondered whether people important enough to have any influence would actually use it in the way. Her really did burn everyone, and although his family show up every day in court, well they couldn't think much of him, could they? Whatever the outcome of this trial is, he'll face many more in the future. He probably has stuff on some people=what was the cash delivered to his office, when other people were visiting for, for instance. He will use this information, to the best of his crafty ability, to his advantage. No -one could credibly believe that he might shield someone long term, could they, in return for using their influence? He will eat these people for breakfast, when it suits him.

Can someone please tell me, could the missing gun used in the Cousin Eddie/AM roadside shooting, be the murder weapon?For what other reason might Cousin Eddie not remember where he disposed of it?

Thank you for all you comments, sharing of tweets and videos. It's grim, but I feel like I've got good company.

 

[mrjitty]

Does anyone think the accused might have used 2 weapons to create the impression of 2 shooters?

Seems like the only potentially 'clever' aspect to all this.

ETA: I see others do think this. I am surprised AM didn't think through the timings very well for his alibi - but maybe he is just a massive risk taker and thought they'd never look at him in that detail.

And I think that was the whole idea.

When this first broke...I thought oh no 2 shooters, oh no this is retaliation for the boating accident, oh no Alex or Buster will be next, oh no people have taken the law into their own hands and wanted vengeance.

That is what I was supposed to think.

Same with the road side fiasco. I thought hmmm... They must have come for him. Next will be Buster, they really are trying to eliminate each family member, omg!

Then someone on Websleuths said: "Wait a minute. That car has tires that don't/can't go flat. This is fake this is a set up."

If I had any suspicions along the way they all came to a head, with a car that can't have flat tires.

Yeah, were there 2 shooters? No, just one desperate, determined and dangerous dad...and husband.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Does anyone think the accused might have used 2 weapons to create the impression of 2 shooters?

Seems like the only potentially 'clever' aspect to all this.

I think the most clever thing he did was tell them he's going back to the house to get a gun. That could explain any blood in his car or any GSR.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Does anybody know if they're still planning to do a jury field trip to Moselle?

 

[TDoc72]

So AM kenneled Bubba first, then carried out the murders.
State will mention this, I would think.

State should read here. I’ve seen bunch of stuff on these threads that could be helpful in closing. Bubba and the no blood clothes and shoes are the 2 biggest.

 

[mrjitty]

It would be a colossal mistake for the defense to put AM up on the stand. I don't think they're going to do it. The state has not proven this case beyond a reasonable doubt. If he testifies, state will basically hammer him for being a fraud/liar such that anything he says on the stand can not be believed. ["Why should the jury believe anything you say? You've lied to everyone you know for 10 years, haven't you? But now you want to the jury to believe you're telling the truth?"] If he gets up there and tries to appear sympathetic and play victim, that will be worse at this point. There is no point in putting him up there. Since the jurors are not taking notes, by the time the defense finishes their case in chief, the jurors will have forgotten the state's case. There is no way this jury will agree on a verdict. Hung jury at best! JMO.

I agree these are the risks, but I do think the defence has a major evidential problem if no witness or evidence can explain his voice on the video.

Of course as is traditional, defence counsel will be given far too much latitude to sock puppet a version not in evidence ... maybe AM was scared to admit that he was at the crime scene before the shootings ha ha wink wink so he just thought he'd lie to investigators about his entire alibi as one does ... but look here is a timeline that magically almost fits ....

... but the evidential problem here is only one witness can come clean about the video and tell the real truth about his movements and if he doesn't do that, i don't see how the defence ever has a credible rebuttal for the idea that the shooter was caught on the video

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I don't know how much of this trial you followed but I don't know you could have missed the very famous Snapchat video which directly contradicts his alibi. Also don't see how anybody can say there is anything to doubt about his guilt considering he is proven to have been at the murder location less than 5 minutes before it happened.

The lie about not being there at the kennels at 8:44, when he obviously was, does not contradict the alibi. Nothing proves that he was there at the time of the murder, which could have been later than 8:50. An exact time of death has never been established. Yes, it looks bad for him, but it only takes one juror.

Being at the kennels at 8:45 p.m. absolutely does contradict his alibi that he was napping at the house before he left to see his mother. He lied. Explain the lie other than his guilt.

Pretend you're DH, and also explain how the phone activity stopping at 8:50 p.m. on BOTH phones by any reason other than it's because that's when they died.

It is when they died.

And there is no way he was at the kennels at 8:45 pm and didn't either kill them himself or know that they were killed at that time by someone else. If he's covering for someone else, he better speak up soon (and CB's phone data rules him out). But he should be convicted in either case, cuz that just means he hired someone.

But I know he did it because his phone was (deliberately) not in use between 8 and 9:00 pm.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Yes, I see Bubba. OMG. Heartbreaking.View attachment 402651

Hero dog, the reason for the best evidence in the case.

 

[Edvis]

Alcohol and drug abuse would be the likely culprits. That said, the autopsy would let us know of there was indeed those kinds of physical manifestations based on organ health at the time of death.

This was a family where the housekeeper was surprised that the pots and pans were in the fridge the day after the murder. Normally, they would leave everything out for her to clean in the morning. It seems to me that the son's dysfunction was part of a larger family pattern of dysfunction. You have this murderer saying his son never put anything away but there was evidence given that no one put things away. The son lost guns and was careless. Yet, his father, a lawyer, with a lost gun doesn't report it, doesn't lock the other guns away, but rather swears in the police interview that he replaced it after it was lost. It is so interesting to see how the dysfunction runs through this man and he has no sense of it--no embarrassment, just is what it is.

As one lays out the behavior and state of mind of this family it would be like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You're on the outside looking in and can see what's laying ahead but too far away to help. I'm thinking MM was the only one who still had a caring heart despite her status and dealing with the rest of them as they rode the rails carelessly.

 

[mrjitty]

Being at the kennels at 8:45 p.m. absolutely does contradict his alibi that he was napping at the house before he left to see his mother. He lied. Explain the lie other than his guilt.

Pretend you're DH, and also explain how the phone activity stopping at 8:50 p.m. on BOTH phones by any reason other than it's because that's when they died.

It is when they died.

And there is no way he was at the kennels at 8:45 pm and didn't either kill them himself or know that they were killed at that time by someone else. If he's covering for someone else, he better speak up soon (and CB's phone data rules him out). But he should be convicted in either case, cuz that just means he hired someone.

But I know he did it because his phone was (deliberately) not in use between 8 and 9:00 pm.

I agree - this appears fatal to the defence, even if counsel has leeway to engage in wild speculation during examination and closing. There is no way for the defence to introduce a new evidential version of what AM really did from 8.45 on, unless he testifies and somehow convinces a juror or two

 

[Edvis]

I too found the "blood pressure " conversation to be strange and out of place. I just watched it and have the link handy so will post it. About at the 12 minute mark.

I get the fact that some react differently to death but AM was throwing too much detail in as he recalled things.

 

[Seattle1]

I agree - this appears fatal to the defence, even if counsel has leeway to engage in wild speculation during examination and closing. There is no way for the defence to introduce a new evidential version of what AM really did from 8.45 on, unless he testifies and somehow convinces a juror or two

Listening to the latest car interview released, I also noted AM's story to investigators that the shop is located near the kennels and how he and PM typically spent time together tinkering near the kennels but this time they did not go to the kennels together at all. Instead, they went to check on the corn, sunflowers, and trees recently planted.

IMO, it's like AM told himself that under no circumstance can he place himself at the kennels on June 7, and he just can't help himself! MOO

 

[Seattle1]

Thank you! Do you know which attorney he is?

Danny Henderson, AM's personal attorney

 

[mrjitty]

"It's a long story ..."

< Sigh >