SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #23

[makayla]

Another observation is DO is not acting 100% confidently under the cross by JG, who would make me shake in my boots In the video interviews with AM he came across much more self-assured.

 

[arielilane]

Mr. Owen is not on trial. moo

 

[justtrish]

Wasn't there testimony earlier where they brought up him being heard on camera during the third SLED interview?

Yes it was during the third interview they brought this up to Alex.

Paul's friend that was communicating with him said during a phone call with Paul that night (I think this was the 8:40-8:44 call before Paul did the video that Alex is also heard on) he was 99% sure he heard Alex in the background when he was talking to Paul. I think that information was known the following day when they interviewed Paul's friend, but I don't think they had that snapchat video then.

 

[Kudzuu]

I was thinking after the CFO confronted AM that day the firm may have said deactivate his card so if he cones here he can be watched so he doesn't get rid of files?

That is SOP in the corporate world. Some places even have security escort you out. You are also ambushed, told you insurance expires at the end of the day and you can't come back in the building without an appointment. Been there done that. I felt shocked I was being treated like a criminal but I understand why they do it.

 

[CrownCowboy1]

Yep! The state has no case like I and a couple others have been arguing. 3 weeks leading up to a nothing burger testimony by the lead investigator! Waters didn’t even have the guts to do the direct of this nothing burger. He passed it off to the new guy! JMO

At the very least, their case is extremely weak. Now there is something to maybe the GJ was misled before trial? Seems like a horrible day for the state so far.

Next comes the defense and their turn. Poking holes in an already weak case.

 

[Cindizzi]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[10ofRods]

I respectfully disagree and although I understand what you are saying, claiming to bring this in to an already loaded trial after the finances as well as a motive AFTER the fact shouldn't qualifiy.

Now I don't know if the judge allowed it as I am just getting caught up. But as we have discussed earlier, it would definitely be something brought up as an aspect qualification for a potential appeal.

They had a whole hearing out of presence of the jury before the judge ruled. And I'm going with what the judge decided. Not sure why you think your view should be the judge's view, as I assume he's an expert in SC law and procedure.

It was thoroughly discussed (on the record) before the jury ever heard it. It was perhaps 10 days ago - I haven't been here every day, but I do remember that.

And the judge allowed it. I don't think it will be the kind of thing that, if appealed, will overturn whatever verdict is given.

IMO.

 

[justtrish]

All the shotguns were loaded with 2 different types of ammo though. I don't know the technicalities about shotgun bullets, but I heard them say every shotgun was checked and all of them had 2 different things, which was unusual.. so this defense attorney is just trying to make him out to be a liar when he just was mistaken when saying turkey and buck or whatever it was and in fact they all were loaded with 2 different bullets just like Paul was shot with 2 different ones, which is unusual for a shotgun to be loaded with 2 different ones.

 

[Seattle1]

I was thinking after the CFO confronted AM that day the firm may have said deactivate his card so if he cones here he can be watched so he doesn't get rid of files?

IMO, I think AM's mindset would be to seek assistance for entry to the office so that he would have a live witness. We know he's got experience with this exercise!

 

[CrownCowboy1]

They had a whole hearing out of presence of the jury before the judge ruled. And I'm going with what the judge decided. Not sure why you think your view should be the judge's view, as I assume he's an expert in SC law and procedure.

It was thoroughly discussed (on the record) before the jury ever heard it. It was perhaps 10 days ago - I haven't been here every day, but I do remember that.

And the judge allowed it. I don't think it will be the kind of thing that, if appealed, will overturn whatever verdict is given.

IMO.

<modsnip: rude> He came out with that ruling before the jury was allowed in today. And he was exactly right to not allow it.

"It did not survive the logical relevancy test and it goes more towards showing a propensity to cause violent acts which cause it to not survive the 403 analysis". "To allow this evidence is a bridge too far in going down this path of allowing essentially any and all evidence in". "We have guardrails to place things in a reasonable realm". "It does not meet the logical relevancy test".

Those are the judge's words. So again, it just didn't fly.

 

[bestill]

I feel for DO, he's under a lot of emotional stress during this testimony, I know the jury doesn't know that but it's really evident that he's off his game. JMO

 

[arielilane]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Kudzuu]

Did I hear that the car AM was driving went to his mother's house and gps tracked him into the back yard?????? Are they implying he may have been getting rid of evidence?

 

[Cindizzi]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[justtrish]

I feel for DO, he's under a lot of emotional stress during this testimony, I know the jury doesn't know that but it's really evident that he's off his game. JMO

I know defense lawyers have a job to do, but it always bothers me that they highlight investigative tools that LE are legally allowed to use and make it seem as if they are somehow doing something wrong when they do it. LE have tools they can use for a reason. Often when they tell a witness something, it causes them to misspeak or panic and say something that incriminates them or try to explain away why that might be. An innocent person is very unlikely to incriminate themselves when being told something to try to get a response indicating guilt.

 

[arielilane]

Break time

 

[Cindizzi]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Warwick7]

The prosecution case right now. We waited 3 weeks for this? Gonna take a Herculean re-direct or Alex is walking from this. I'm so depressed.

Alex in moo is not walking from this.

 

[arielilane]

https://twitter.com/AveryGWilks

Defense attorney Jim Griffin begins his cross-examination of David Owen. He establishes that Alex Murdaugh was in the investigators' "circle" from the moment he called 9-1-1 that evening.

Griffin: “Here, SLED and Colleton County Sheriff’s Department failed to take immediate steps to preserve evidence that could possibly” have led them to another suspect. Wouldn’t you agree? Owen: It wasn’t a failure.

Griffin: Whoever killed Maggie and Paul would likely have biological material on them from the blasts that killed the two victims, right? Owen: They would have some, yes.

Griffin: He would have had to brutally murder his wife and son sometime after 8:50 p.m. and 9:06 p.m. and dispose of the murder weapons, right? Owen: Yes.

Owen: We searched from the route from Moselle and Almeda several times, as well as waterways between the two homes. He also notes evidence shows Murdaugh didn’t stop that night on the drive between Moselle and Almeda.

Griffin establishes that SLED didn't search the Almeda home until months later. Owen said he didn't have probable cause. Griffin notes that the Murdaughs had given investigators carte blanche to search whatever they wanted.

Griffin is trying to establish that SLED and Colleton County sheriff’s deputies did not secure evidence at Moselle or Almeda that could either have exonerated Murdaugh or implicated other possible suspects.

Griffin is saying Murdaugh remained in the investigative “circle” because of investigators’ incompetence.

Griffin on investigators’ failure to search Murdaugh’s parent’s home at Almeda until months later: “Would you agree that that was an opportunity missed?” Owen: “Probably, yes.”

Griffin establishes that SLED did not show Shelley Smith a photo of the blue rain jacket until last month in preparation for trial. Owen said he asked Smith if it was the same color as the thing she saw Murdaugh carrying into the house.

Griffin establishes with Owen that SLED showed a bunch of Murdaugh relatives the rain jacket. Griffin: “Not a single family member recognized that blue rain jacket.” Owen: “No they did not.”

Griffin establishes that Owen would expect to find DNA in the blue rain jacket if someone had used it to wrap up the shotgun that killed Paul.

Griffin establishes that investigators found no blood, DNA or wet spots in the back of the Suburban, where you might expect to find it if he had transported the murder weapons in that vehicle.

Griffin establishes again that SLED found no blood or other evidence on the carpet or anywhere in the Moselle house.

Griffin: At no time prior to Aug. 11, did you ask Alex Murdaugh, where’s that blue shirt, where are those khaki pants, where are those shoes? Owen: I did not. G: And you have never asked him for those, have you? O: No sir.

G: And the reason you didn’t was because you weren’t concerned about those clothes. You were concerned about the white shirt, green shorts and shoes he was wearing when he called 911. O: Yes.

G: And you were actively investigating whether the T-shirt had evidence of high velocity blood spatter, which you would expect to find on whoever killed Paul. O: Back spatter, yes.

G: And your agency hired an expert to do that? O: Yes, we asked an individual to examine it to look for back spatter.

Griffin: Before you testified before the Colleton County grand jury, you prepared an outline of your presentation, right? Owen: Yes. G: And you followed that narrative? O: For the most part.

Griffin: And in that narrative, did you say an expert found multiple areas of blood spatter on the front of that shirt? Owen: Yes. G: And is that what you told the Colleton County grand jury. O: Yes.

Griffin: And y’all completely overlooked the fact that your own SLED lab tested his shirt for blood and found no blood. Owen: I had never seen that report. Says he found out about it in November 2022. Yikes.

Griffin is questioning why SLED tested Alex’s clothes for DNA, but not Maggie and Paul’s clothes. Griffin: “But Alex wasn’t the victim of any crime on the night of June 7, was he?” Owen: “Not to my knowledge.” Griffin: So what are you doing?

Griffin on blood spatter supposedly found on AM’s shirt: “You didn’t know then, but you know now that what you told the Colleton County grand jury was not correct?” Owen: “In reference to the shirt, correct.”

If it isn't obvious, acknowledging that the Colleton County grand jury was (perhaps accidentally) misled about key evidence before indicting Alex Murdaugh is not good for the state.

Griffin establishes that Owen wasn’t truthful in an interview with AM when he told him that there were multiple shotguns found in the house with buckshot and birdshot ammo. Griffin asks if Owen was mistaken or if that was an investigative tool. Owen: “Investigative tool.”

Griffin: “So you lied to him.” Owen: “I’m allowed to use trickery to elicit a response.” Griffin: But then you told the grand jury the same thing. “Were you mistaken then, or were you trying to trick the state grand jury?”

Owen says he didn’t mislead the grand jury. Griffin read his own testimony back to him. Owen told the grand jury there were shotguns at Moselle that were loaded with buckshot and birdshot. Griffin: “And that was not accurate, right.” Owen: Correct. Woof.

Griffin is comparing the inconsistencies in AM’s statements that Owen referenced earlier to inconsistencies in Owen’s own investigation. Griffin asks if it made any difference at all how long AM visited his mother, since the slayings had already been committed.

Griffin tells Owen that Alex was buying $50K/week in drugs from Curtis Smith, who owed money to a gang. Griffin establishes that SLED didn't collect DNA from those gang members and didn't put them into the investigative "circle."

Griffin has brought up the Cowboys gang a few times in this trial already. Likely trying to suppose there was someone else out there with reason to harm Murdaugh.

 

[Warwick7]

Oh no! Onstar data AM vehicle did not go to the kennels.

Back to square one: how did they get to the kennels?

Golf cart?

Yes golf cart.