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

[General wooster]

Court TV tonight said Dave Owens mother passed away last night. Then to testify today he had to be distraught.

Geez, terrible. Public service in all forms is only for the courageous. I had great respect for him today.

 

[CrownCowboy1]

I will say that I do like the prosecutor. Although the case is weak in my opinion, I think he has gotten the most out of it and is a really good lawyer. He comes across as very likeable. At least to me that is.

I also have a favorable view of the defense lawyers. They are really trying to do a lot with a huge amount of turmoil and other things going against them that their client has gotten into.

Personally, I think that he probably is guilty. With that said, I do not believe it has been proven to this point beyond a doubt and I can raise many doubts regarding this case in each instance. So I'd vote not guilty if I were a juror.

I hate that innocent people were killed and I hope that all involved can find peace one day. But this has definitely been an intriguing and interesting case to follow everyday. All respect to the victims of course.

 

[worm]

I keep coming back to this incomprehensible suggestion that any killer would come to a murder expecting to kill a victim with the victim’s own weapons. Two of them. What killer would rely on getting that access? What person would believe such an hallucination. AW is depending on it for sure. Otherwise, who is left? Talk about the turd in the punch bowl that folks keep trying to ignore…

Even if they knew that he may have the guns in his truck or building that’s still banking on them being there. I really don’t think The Cowboys selected them from the family gun rack.

 

[worm]

waiting for thread to flip before I post my thoughts for today

Its working on me too.

 

[Warwick7]

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]

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

 

[General wooster]

I will say that I do like the prosecutor. Although the case is weak in my opinion, I think he has gotten the most out of it and is a really good lawyer. He comes across as very likeable. At least to me that is.

I also have a favorable view of the defense lawyers. They are really trying to do a lot with a huge amount of turmoil and other things going against them that their client has gotten into.

Personally, I think that he probably is guilty. With that said, I do not believe it has been proven to this point beyond a doubt and I can raise many doubts regarding this case in each instance. So I'd vote not guilty if I were a juror.

I hate that innocent people were killed and I hope that all involved can find peace one day. But this has definitely been an intriguing and interesting case to follow everyday. All respect to the victims of course.

A juror must always remember that we are saying “beyond reasonable doubt”. Without a confession there is always that shadow of doubt. However, this is where reasonability tips the scale.

 

[CrownCowboy1]

A juror must always remember that we are saying “beyond reasonable doubt”. Without a confession there is always that shadow of doubt. However, this is where reasonability tips the scale.

Agreed. I'd still hold a reasonable doubt in my mind though. I realize I am in the minority.

 

[everlearning]

Quite a few years ago, I served on a murder trial. Both sides presented their cases. Closing argument time came, and both did a good job. The defense was pulling on my heartstrings. I knew he was guilty. Then, the prosecution gave their rebuttal. He brought us all back into reality. I remember his first rebuttal words, "Don't let the defense attorney get you confused with his bull." Nailed it.

The trial that I served on was not as convoluted as this one. Thank goodness! But the rebuttal made a huge difference. I'm believing that all this will be brought back around and tied up with a bow when closing arguments happen.

Jury members take their responsibility seriously. AM is guilty. It is hard to believe they will not find him guilty. Whoever gives the closing arguments for the prosecution will have to remind the jury they don't need to let all this good old boy bull confuse them.

 

[worm]

I don’t get into the money motive because as I’ve stated before, I think it’s possible that he would have good ole boy’d that stuff without the murders. Imagine his victims, who were poor and still lived in the area with a swarm of M family waving money in their faces to “forget” some stuff. I’d bet too that the AM ego was sure that he could survive it.

 

[rescuemom]

Ok....so....The defense opened the door to the roadside shooting testimony...

Defense table smirks.....

Dick says: "Here hold my beer."

This is not going to end well for the defense.

If it is implied the defense did this on purpose, why??

 

[Spartygirl]

Keep in mind these individuals own several vehicles each: there have been no allegations that Buster was at Moselle-- we know he was in Rock Hill. The black truck kept/used at the farm was known as Buster's truck (ref. Dale Davis testimony).

It follows that all 3 rode to the kennels together after supper.

While he was napping ??
Hmmmm

Just catching up here...the forensic autopsy lady was pretty descriptive with the gunshot wounds, IMO

While I have followed along since beginning and knew they had been shot, I was still a bit horrified listening to the details.

AM says he was napping, then went to see his mom

Video and 7-8 other witnesses place his VOICE and him at the scene of the murders.

His atty is a bumbling fool and definitely tries to confuse the witness on the stand and more than likely is confusing the jury. as is his MO

Hoping the jury gets all this mumble jumble straight.

 

[LetsSolvIt]

If it is implied the defense did this on purpose, why??

Defense may plan to pin Paul and MM's murders on CuzinE or at least one of them -- or plant that idea as doubt. They may be able to convince the jury that CuzinE was going to try to murder AM so he was the guy that killed Maggie and Paul. It's his word against Alex.

They may try position him as a criminal drug dealer / money launderer and not a credible witness, which could undermine whatever benefit the prosecution may get from his testimony.

They may be able to use the fact that he has never stated (at least to our knowledge) what he did with the gun from Sept. 4, implying that he also knows what happened to the murder weapons (like he's good at disposing of firearms) and connecting him to murders.

Or variations on these ideas ... OMO.

 

[Luna20]

I don’t get into the money motive because as I’ve stated before, I think it’s possible that he would have good ole boy’d that stuff without the murders. Imagine his victims, who were poor and still lived in the area with a swarm of M family waving money in their faces to “forget” some stuff. I’d bet too that the AM ego was sure that he could survive it.

I think that has been his biggest surprise. He has ruled the world (his little fish pond) for so long that he literally thought he was invincible. And I can see why. It’s clear that people were/are afraid of the family. So in his mind even if he was a suspect he banked on no one taking him on. I’m glad Newman isn’t backing down.

 

[geevee]

And I cringed when the defense asked Agent Owen if he could confirm whether or not anybody in LE ever asked AM to produce the clothes he was wearing in the leaning tree photo, and Owen replied he could not.

That was uncomfortable, but hopefully the jury will recall that LE couldn't get into Paul's phone for almost a year after his murder to see that video and know AM changed clothes twice after he got home, so asking for the clothes at that late date would be pointless.

 

[Gardenista]

Quite a few years ago, I served on a murder trial. Both sides presented their cases. Closing argument time came, and both did a good job. The defense was pulling on my heartstrings. I knew he was guilty. Then, the prosecution gave their rebuttal. He brought us all back into reality. I remember his first rebuttal words, "Don't let the defense attorney get you confused with his bull." Nailed it.

The trial that I served on was not as convoluted as this one. Thank goodness! But the rebuttal made a huge difference. I'm believing that all this will be brought back around and tied up with a bow when closing arguments happen.

Jury members take their responsibility seriously. AM is guilty. It is hard to believe they will not find him guilty. Whoever gives the closing arguments for the prosecution will have to remind the jury they don't need to let all this good old boy bull confuse them.

I too think rebuttals are extremely important (except when I think the defendant is NG and they make me mad lol). The thing about SC is if the defense does not put on a case, there is no rebuttal. That happened with this judge in the Rowland case, but that case was a slam dunk.

I'm sure the defense is thinking very carefully about whether or not they've poked enough holes that they don't have to put on a case. The no rebuttal advantage and getting the last word is huge.

 

[LetsSolvIt]

I found an interesting contrast between Alec in the Aug. 11 videotaped interview with Agent Owen & Agent Croft, and Alec today during the examination of Agent Owen.

Watching AM’s body language during the August meeting, I was thinking about The Behavior Panel: frightened — protecting his organs both internal and external; self-soothing gestures — flapping his legs at certain times, checking his privates, rubbing his arms; at times defensive — arms crossed tightly across chest and legs tightly crossed. Can’t remember what they said about posture but he was mostly slumping or leaning forward with elbows on knees perhaps again symbolic of organ protection out of fear. IMHO.

Of course most interesting was what he said and didn’t say in that August interview. MOO.

In contrast today, I was very surprised by Alec’s facial expressions during Agent Owen’s testimony. He was very intent but seemed relaxed and calm. I did not detect anger, fear, sadness, or concern, or if there was they were so momentary I did not really notice. OMO.
-----

A thought I had related to the tarp v. rain coat. If Alec had been planning this for a long time, as he surmised to MBP the murderer would have, perhaps he brought the tarp into the house at some point to confuse the issue since he realized Miss Shelly had seen him carrying balled up blue vinyl. In the same way two guns were used? MOO.
-----

Last – I *love* Johnny Meadors! I thought he did an excellent job today on redirect with Agent Owen.

 

[clearskies1]

I don’t get into the money motive because as I’ve stated before, I think it’s possible that he would have good ole boy’d that stuff without the murders. Imagine his victims, who were poor and still lived in the area with a swarm of M family waving money in their faces to “forget” some stuff. I’d bet too that the AM ego was sure that he could survive it.

Alex knew how civil cases go. Just like Tinsely he would know that the case against him would die on the vine if his family was the victim of vigilantes. So I think that's a viable motive to argue. JMO.

 

[LetsSolvIt]

I too think rebuttals are extremely important (except when I think the defendant is NG and they make me mad lol). The thing about SC is if the defense does not put on a case, there is no rebuttal. That happened with this judge in the Rowland case, but that case was a slam dunk.

I'm sure the defense is thinking very carefully about whether or not they've poked enough holes that they don't have to put on a case. The no rebuttal advantage and getting the last word is huge.

If they call expert witnesses wouldn't that count as putting on a case?

 

[Gardenista]

If they call expert witnesses wouldn't that count as putting on a case?

Yes, but they don't have to call any of them.