VERDICT WATCH SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #36

[fred&edna]

Check out the Upstairs Left window at 11:51 and the Upstairs Right window at 11:54

There are two (parked) vehicles already on the property when they arrive... did both belong to LE or ??

 

[nodamselindistress]

Here in Florida lots of us like the old style bikes so I don't think it is weird in that respect. But it absolutely HAS NOT been sitting out there like that since the murders NO EFFIN WAY!

 

[BeachSky]

I think we can start with finding out who has access to the house. The murdaughs still own it till March 8th I believe is closing. Who is allowed inside?

I thought the helpful good bro JMM was over-seeing the Moselle property . He sure smiled a lot at the jury. I was half expecting a wink. JMO

 

[Loveallmyhorsesdogsandcats]

For sure as AM spun a good tale with lots of detail for someone strung out on meds.

And able to be consistent with the details throughout his strung out druggy days

 

[Luna20]

The women's bicycle (Maggie's, I assume) and what looks like a middle-school ceramic Christmas project of a pot that said "Buster" on it were both in front of the house; they weren't present in the sales photo for the estate. Someone had to put them there on purpose. The bicycle didn't show 18 months of outdoor weathering, and the pot was for Christmas. This was deliberate

Thanks! I wish someone would have gone there in advance to look for foul play. That was solely done on AM behalf.

Staged to look like a cozy and close family setting. Too bad it couldn’t be staged for the murders that happened there.

No one but family would have anything with Busters name on it so they incriminated themselves once again. Gosh they are just not bright!

 

[nodamselindistress]

Oh he definitely did it....I am just still not sure if the motive is a mixed bag and he wanted to spare them because he knew his downfall was coming soon. Thinking he was embarassed and did not want them to know about all his lies. I don't really know but it seems he really did love Paul.

 

[lucegirl]

By end of tomorrow- we will likely never be able to unhear the phrase “presumed innocent” which I assume will be the defense theme - as they say - when facts are against you argue the law and vise versa. So many facts they want to ignore. And that will be the defense’s job, I’m just not really looking forward to it.

So just focusing on the undisputed facts between 8:44 - 10:06, I’m trying to work out in my head, where could reasonable doubt be a factor for a juror - and by reasonable doubt I mean some actual evidence that causes a reasonable person to have doubt about the sequence of events that occurred (and could not have occurred) between the last time the victims were seen alive and the 911 call.

Is there reasonable doubt as to the time of death? I thought CW made the case that it isn’t reasonable to think either victim was alive after the phones went inactive shortly after AM left the kennel (murder scene).

Does anyone think the jury is going to kick around the idea that the murders happened after AM left the property? As CW says “I will leave that to the jury“, but other than the general “state did not prove case” reprise - what is the evidence that casts doubt on the cell phone inactivity? (Which by the way I find so chilling and haunting - the sound of silence - and the obvious concern Rogan had based on the uncharacteristic lack of response from either victim - yikes. I just can’t get past the silence and inactivity, emotionally, in terms of what it logically represents.)

Can you find reasonable doubt as to the identity of the killer (taking into account AM’s presence at the murder scene) from the conflicting expert testimony about number of shooters, height of shooters, and suicide theory. I personally think the sound of the gun shots would cast doubt on any scenario where AM leaves the murder scene right before the murders and hears nothing. Ergo - no grey ninjas.

The wild card will be all the noise including the “motive” which is not an element of the crime. I just hope the jury can find a way to focus (considering fatigue and everything they have gone through and have had to look at) on the facts that are not in dispute and the obvious inferences that follow from those facts.

I think CW tried to address the “unthinkable” problem - that jurors could have sympathy (tissue-passer) or just can’t accept the family annihilator concept - but I wish he would have gone farther and linked it to reasonable doubt “just because you, normal and rational juror, couldn’t kill your own wife and child or even conceive of it, isn’t evidence nor is it a basis to find reasonable doubt where you have accepted as fact that the murders happened between 8:44 and 8:51.”

AIMHO

 

[Aquarian]

I have a feeling this could be about the staging at Moselle for the jury view.

But, his email thing was before the went??

 

[jimg77]

They are so sneaky!

Can someone please link me to the video about this? Embedded video is not displaying on my end. TIA!

 

[Gardenista]

There's zero chance I'll be listening to the defense closing.

 

[BrownRice]

I can't imagine what sicko would stage the property with the bike, Buster Christmas deco and the stuffed chicken, but I believe authorities need to figure it out. It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

Don’t forget about the dead hog.

 

[Walela]

Reminds me of the first 48 TV show that follows real murder cases. They often interview people and over and over they tell people if they are worried about coming forward because they were around the area for drug reasons.. buying, selling, using, etc. they don't' care about that. They are trying to solve a murder. I think that is how it is most times unless it's something really major like a full drug operation going on somewhere.. a person with some pot or pills isn't going to be the focus of an officer arriving to a double homicide. Alex saying the pills in his pocket made him paranoid while his sons brain is outside his head just says a lot.

You know how sometimes you talk about things but don't really have much thought about them and then you see it mentioned again and suddenly you have an ah ha moment? The paranoia inducing pills in his pocket. Where did they come from and why were they in his pocket of all places. If he had them in the house at Moselle when he showered and changed before going to the kennel (according to him), why did he put them in his pocket? Why carry them around in your pocket? If he cleaned off elsewhere on the property where he had the shorts and t-shirt stashed, were the pills there also? Why drive with them to Almeda? Did he pick them up at Almeda before he came back? Were they stashed in the car? And if all his lawyer friends and his family were with him when he handed over his clothes, at what point did he ditch the pills? Are there any views of his bulging shorts front pockets on LE body cams? I'm pretty sure there were no pills in his back pockets when he was sitting down in the car during his interview. These unanswered questions are giving me reasonable doubt that there was ever a pocket full of pills on AM that night. A pocket full of pills doesn't fit the story IMO.
jmrttpmn

 

[Dexxie8]

Don’t forget about the dead hog.

I heard about that. Where was the dead hog?

 

[vls12345]

I can't imagine what sicko would stage the property with the bike, Buster Christmas deco and the stuffed chicken, but I believe authorities need to figure it out. It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

The chicken toy in the dog house looked waterlogged and/or like it had been exposed to the elements a bit. If there were trespassers at some point taking photos, I could see someone bringing it along to use in photos for their social media posts.

But, the Xmas deco pot and the bicycle and the clothing hanging in the window... staged. Could it have been JMM since he's apparently caretaker and it's still a family property for a few more days?

Idk, but it all feels wrong.

I do think photos of the reporter and photographer standing where Maggie and Paul had been definitely show how very close they were when they were murdered. It looks like it's the width of about a single-lane driveway (maybe a bit wider to accommodate a truck or tractor) between the shed and the dog kennels, so I am guessing that made an impression on the jurors.

All imo and moo.

 

[General wooster]

The state must be pretty confident if the AG decided to question the last witness and sat very prominently at the prosecution table. I'm betting dollars to donuts that if he thought that they were going to lose, he would not have wanted to associate himself with the trial.

Bad blood between him and DH…politics in the Lowlands is VERY personal.

 

[nodamselindistress]

chilling how close they were!

 

[Luna20]

Maybe he’s really a closet klepper

He’s seriously out of the closet now and not by his choice.

 

[BrownRice]

I heard about that. Where was the dead hog?

Not sure. Maybe at front gate but I don’t know for sure.

 

[clearskies1]

After 40 years of teaching complex subjects to adults, I say 3 hours, even with a break, is very long, no matter what the topic is (if you want the audience to remember anything). At least have bolded bullet points for the 4-5 main points (that's already pushing it for a 3 hour lecture).

The jury was offered the opportunity to take notes and declined notebooks and pens.


Every prison or jail I've been in has multiple examples of shanks made out of pens. They are one of the most common items to be used for murder or suicide. The state hospital for the criminally insane had a little museum of all the things inmates had used to make weapons, and a whole bunch were based off of pens.

IMO.


Exactly. But my complaint is that he needed to narrow down his repetitive points to the ones that will convict. Make them into slogans. Leave out the details. Make them **points.** Pointed. To the point. Financial malfeasance as motivation. Drugs as ??? To let the defense argue that he was too drug-addled to form intent? Maybe downplay that one a bit. I think the important points are that he lied and kept lying/changing his alibi. The video places him there. Guns from the household used. GPR on blue item taken to Mom's house. Lying about time at Mom's house. Lying about steps taken around Moselle. Missing clothing.

All of those last items are to one point: he lied and innocent people don't lie. That should have been the main point, one that everyone on the jury can relate to.

He did not repeat memorable phrases (bullet points). He had entire topic sentences, followed by several paragraphs, as if he was reading from a document instead of trying to narrow it down to repeated words and phrases. That's exactly what he didn't do. If he took a short list and kept hammering it, it would have stayed with them, been shorter, and if he had done it with some variation in tone (bullet points need more loudness; pause for Pete's sake; actually repeat it until you can see everyone heard it), it would have been better. He seemed exhausted. Everyone is likely exhausted, but that's not how you want the jury to feel during closing. Belaboring is exactly what he did - and that's not the same thing as "repeating" memorable phrases. That means going on and on about one's memorable phrase, to the point that the listeners forget there was a memorable point.

At least have a summary slide of all the main points. And an important point could have been made by the cyclical nature of Alex's lies. Alibi 1 - blown out of the water, so then Alibi 2. Also contradicted facts. Alibi 3 - muddled and lied about on the stand. I know he tried to do this at the end, but I would have done it twice and moved one version to the beginning.

Also, I think a lot of us would have included a few sentences about the psychological state of a man who 1) murders his family and then 2) lies to police, which = family annihilator. Don't just use a term the jury might not have heard before, define it and show how it fits. Takes 2 minutes, is emotionally engaging. I guess that's my complaint. I've seen many a closing argument, and seen juries persuaded (sometimes unfortunately) but the more engaging, emotional, less boring attorney. It didn't need to be much of that kind of engagement - just a teensy bit.

Legal question: are there going to be rebuttals as some here have suggested?

I didn't watch the whole thing. My mind started to fade. I got sleepy as it seemed repetitive. That said, I have a lot of respect for CW. He's doing a tremendous job. Towards the end, I sensed he wanted to make sure he had covered everything and had covered it strongly. So repetitiveness kicked in. But I understand -- it's a huge case and it's better to be safe than sorry. JMO.

 

[nodamselindistress]

There is absolutely NO EXPLANATION for the fact that the dogs did not alert or bark and the guns were family guns have since been disappeared and Big Red was there 2 minutes before it all went down...I just do not see how anyone can't get that!