Another subtle ”tell” in this video is when Alex asked if they’ve found any clues /evidence. The investigator says he’s talked to over 100 people and has collected fingerprint and DNA samples. Alex then says something to the effect of “so you think it was intentional,I mean planned….”. He’s giving so much more info than what is being asked of him, including that Paul was a little detective. What relevance did that have to any Q that was being asked?I just started watching AM's second LE interview and I noticed that whenever he says something that is true (like who he called on the way to/from his Mom's) he mostly looks straight ahead or out the side window, but whenever he's giving untrue details (like having napped and thought Maggie went to the kennels and didn't know where Paul went), he side-eyes the LE, like he's trying to gauge whether or not he's being believed. imo
Also, AM says when he got back from his Mom's and found no one home, he went "back" to the kennels - although he has said he was not at the kennels earlier, only had ridden around with Paul, went home for dinner, watched TV and napped and then went to his Mom's. The LE seemed to catch that because he repeated 'when you went back to the kennels', and asked if he saw a car or anything. I'm only about 20 minutes into it but it's more interesting than I thought it would be with the clues AM is unintentionally giving out.
It seems he has damaged so many lives. He got away with much in his silver spoon life. People like him sicken me. MOOExcept for the part that ALL of his finance crimes lead to the murders and his attempted suicide by hitman. Whether you like it or not they are all interconnected. The 1st domino fell and led to the other crimes. That's what I and practically the entire Low Country think.
Also he admitted everything to SLED because they had him completely dead to rights. He was cornered and had no more cards to play. Everything caught up to him and his decades of lies all came home to roost.
It all won't matter in the long run. He's going to be in jail for the rest of his life on most if not all the other financial crimes he committed.
Another subtle ”tell” in this video is when Alex asked if they’ve found any clues /evidence. The investigator says he’s talked to over 100 people and has collected fingerprint and DNA samples. Alex then says something to the effect of “so you think it was intentional,I mean planned….”. He’s giving so much more info than what is being asked of him, including that Paul was a little detective. What relevance did that have to any Q that was being asked?
Many possibilities/reasons for that are possible. We never know what goes on behind closed doors.I agree. Still doesn't change the fact that they reconciled enough to stay married for a decade and a half.
AM living his own Fantasy, creating stories all along he way. Serious character flaws IMOI just want the defense to answer this question: where is this insurance that Alex was having Cousin Eddie murder him for? We have had two people testify that there was no insurance. Even if he had insurance from work that was "free," he "resigned" on Sept 3, two days before the shooting. Unless he managed to negotiate some kind of package for leaving (can't think the firm would have been really inclined to extend offers of such at that point), that would have been gone. I have yet to hear anyone tell me where this claim of insurance is linked to.
They didn't die instantly, and Maggie's sister mentioned she learned the truth along the way. So heartbreaking. Often, the News will list some of the injuries that caused the death, so I'm sure she knows plenty, and the Forensic Pathologist's detailed report would just upset her more. MOOIt appears she arrived just in time to testify but she was aware that the pathologist provided that her sister suffered pain before her death and that PM's first wound was not considered fatal. (AM has assured her the victims died instantly).
Yes. She was living at the Beach house. Plenty stay to keep the family together, the children not having to uproot...Security is another reason to stay, but in any case, MM and PM were Murdered by this man. No excuse for that at all! MOOYou keep saying this, that the affair (or whatever) "wasn't enough of an issue for her to end the marriage." Well, consider this: 15 years ago, their younger son was 7. That might have been "enough of an issue" to stay until he was launched. For the last 2 of those 13 years, their son Paul faced serious charges in the death of Mallory Beach. Keeping a family intact for young children through high school is one reason people stay in a marriage, and presenting a united front in a crisis might be another. Now, I have no way of knowing for sure when this couple stayed together, but we also have no way to know why she stayed or what she thought of him. And why does any of this matter if she was separated and planning to divorce at the time of her death?
Personally, I think there was plenty of motive. That day, Alex found out that his entire world was about to crumble around his feet because his financial crimes were about to become known to his law partners, his family, and the world. His son's crime brought dishonor to the family and was going to cost millions to defend. A civil suit would take any money that remained. He was robbing Peter to pay Paul. He was running through hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars in a few months trying to service all his debts. He was addicted to opiods. Tinsley (the Beach family lawyer) credibly told him that he was going to have to turn over the beach house and Moselle and that Alex could go on a payment plan to pay off the rest over time but that any settlement that the Beach family would agree to would be substantially more than the value of those two properties. There may be other things that we don't even know about (personally, I think he may have been blackmailed). The house of cards he had built over two decades was about to come crashing down.I agree that AM had the means and opportunity, but the prosecution would need to come up with a reasonable motive for a premeditated killing in a circumstantial case. That's even tougher than what they're trying to do now. The prosecution's theory is that he acted quickly to kill them because on June 7 MT wanted his financial records, his accountant confronted him about the missing checks, and he received word his father was terminal. He was desperate, so he lured them to Moselle and then shot them that night. There really is no suggestion that he was desperate prior to June 7. What motive do you suggest for a premeditated killing? No witness has even remotely suggested he hated his family. Even if he was worried much earlier about being discovered, how would murdering your family help that situation? IMO
There’s good circumstantial evidence that when put together paints a clear picture of guilt. We don’t have that here. The circumstantial evidence against Scott Peterson, for example, was overwhelming.Yes, but the subject matter was the fact that it was all "circumstantial. "
Here's some info on the successfulness of an appeal reversal: Less than 7% for Criminal. Alex and Company can appeal until the cows come home or until Alex's money runs out. Which I believe it probably already has after paying Harpootlian and Griffin.The attempt to bring the affair in just shows the desperation of the prosecution. And I was mentioning it in real time before a ruling was put forth. So nobody was harping on anything. If anyone was harping it was the prosecution to bring in something that is yet again irrelevant to this case.
And that goes to the broader point I and a few others are making. This is a murder trial. This isn't the trial of his finances nor is it the trial of the roadside shooting. A prosecution can question his character whether the defense opens the door to it or not lol. The roadside shooting was sought after in an attempt to prove a motive AFTER the fact. Not to prove he is a liar. And as the defense points out, AM admitted to the whole thing as soon as he was questioned by SLED.
All of this is going to be brought up in an appeal. Whether the appeal is granted is yet to be seen if a guilty verdict is reached but it does in my opinion make it way more likely than if it wasn't allowed in.
Total | Criminal | Prisoner Petitions | U.S. Civil | Private Civil | Bankruptcy | Adminstrative Appeals | |
2011 | 8.7 | 6.5 | 7.6 | 7.0 | 12.4 | 10.1 | 8.2 |
2012 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 10.4 | 10.8 | 5.4 |
2013 | 6.8 | 5.8 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 11.8 | 10.8 | 7.5 |
2014 | 7.3 | 6.1 | 3.6 | 3.0 | 12.3 | 13.6 | 8.3 |
2015 | 8.6 | 6.9 | 4.6 | 4.2 | 14.2 | 24.4 | 7.8 |
Source: Table B-5, Statistical Tables for the Federal Judiciary, Dec. 31, 2011-2015 |
See that as well as he fumbles with paperwork, looses train of thought and rambles on over subject matter that leads to nowhere. Like watching someone get up to retrieve something then forget what they got up for.Dick Harpootlian is overrated; my sense is that Alex lost confidence in him and benched him pretty much.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.