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

[lucegirl]

Be careful when fake sleeping, mid trial, at the defense table. I have an attorney friend who is a medical malpractice defense attorney, and a really good one; but during a trial several moons ago, he pretended to be bored with plaintiff’s witness, reclined back in his chair, propped his ankle up atop his opposite leg’s thigh, and started to pick lint off of the sock of the propped up ankle to act theatrically bored. Well - he ended up flipping backwards over and out of the chair, and caused such a disturbance the judge adjourned for a break. My friend then was in the elevator during the break with several jurors who just burst out laughing. I don’t think anything came of it legally in terms of the case, but OMG, I will never forget hearing the story, and there is not an occasion that goes by where I see this friend, and somebody always says, ‘I hope you weren’t picking lint off your sock!”

 

[Warwick7]

I don’t see any reasonable doubt, timeline, data from phones and cars place him there, I think his lies are relevant, why lie about being at the kennels in that specific time frame only the killer would know that is when they were killed. He had time to hose off at the kennel, have a change of clothes ready, he had ample opportunity to stash weapons at Almeda and dispose of them later . What was he doing walking around Almeda before he went into the house? The weapon they are referring to is the the one to replace the one that was missing. Alex testified that it had never been replaced but a friend of Paul’s testified that it had been replaced and they were shooting it a few months before the murder. Another witness testified that it had been replaced. That gun now is nowhere to be found. Casings were found where the friend said they were shooting it that match casings at the murder scene. Moo

Boom!! Bam!! Great post!!

 

[Kembo]

He's not on trial for the financial stuff - that comes next. But the Prosecutor sure isn't presenting it that way.

Which is why the Prosecutor should have skipped on down. Just put it on a bullet list. They KNOW. They HEARD. Just say PONZI SCHEME CRASHING and spend 3 minutes. Same with the pills. We KNOW. Skip on down.

He needed a consultant who knows how to teach and persuade. Even the best learners cannot handle more than 3-4 main points per day in a contentious or unfamiliar matter. WHY is he talking about Alex's own alibi? We KNOW he was lying. Just reconstruct what happened.

Walk us through what you, Mr Prosecutor, imagine to have been the lead-up (on that day or maybe over a couple of days) to the events of that night. He's just all over the place because, like most public speakers, doing an entire day of lecturing/persuading is mentally exhausting. Looks like the Prosecutor made sketchy bullet points and did not think in terms of overall rhetoric and oratory. HE puts in too many details (it is no longer relevant about dying dad or boat case).

These were my thoughts exactly.

 

[mickey2942]

See, i watched this trial (due to recovery from surgery) and I can see why he could say this. I think this could be a hung jury… I know I might have an unpopular opinion on the outcome.

I have been watching on and off, and I think that the closing tomorrow will be interesting. The defense wanted the jury to go to Moselle, so, it must be something that will be tied into the visit today, that will be included in the closing.

 

[DeDee]

I'm going to have to rewatch. Here's the video for anyone who missed it

Whoever prepared Moselle with the quaint family touches hung Alex's shirt in the window. I do believe it's the one Alex wore to the kennels that SLED never asked to see.

@ 18:53 in Law & Crime Jury Tour of Crime Scene in your link ^^

 

[Warwick7]

And shot with a family gun.

When this first came out I was stunned. I thought, really? Really? You'll be dumb enough to use family guns...

Um yep and he pats himself on the back with his pride and rhetoric. He's theatrical and deceiving...

His concept for others around him is to remind them of who he is and his power. Much like Paul, walking around on dry ground in his underwear laughing at the circumstances.

Alex's sly undertones..."Oh you are getting married...I'll like to help with that." When that didn't work then it was "Guess what chick, your boss is a friend of mine.".....Yada yada yada....

So ya he uses the family guns and "expects" no one to be any the wiser.

 

[kaen]

I have been watching on and off, and I think that the closing tomorrow will be interesting. The defense wanted the jury to go to Moselle, so, it must be something that will be tied into the visit today, that will be included in the closing.

Hmm... if it was DH closing, I would say it would be the flower pot that got connected. If it was the tech lawyer, the ghost shirt. Since it is JG, then it has to be the bike----the tiny assassins were brought to the property by Auntie Em riding with them in the basket?

That is all I got. LOL.

 

[Twistinginthewind]

I noticed AM writing and talking to JG like he was still a lawyer. Wonder if he took notes to tell JG what to say tomorrow?

You can bet your bottom dollar he did. AM is a trial attorney who's on trial for a double homicide. Of course he's leading the charge in his case, and his defense attorneys must take heed of his admonitions, especially at this juncture in the trial in these final moments, as it were, for him to make his final moves. "We shall see on the morrow" what the accused murderer has "up his sleeve"!

MOO

 

[Warwick7]

Here is AM explanation for lying and why he continued to lie where he quotes Sir Walter Scott.

That is why Waters quoted it today, saying he agreed with one thing AM said on the stand…. Oh what a tangled web we weave

https://twitter.com/x/status/1628788744424914944

If it was only about embezzling that he is apologizing for, why not include Buster??

Why is he only apologizing to Maggie and Paul?

Because he murdered them.

 

[justtrish]

Be careful when fake sleeping, mid trial, at the defense table. I have an attorney friend who is a medical malpractice defense attorney, and a really good one; but during a trial several moons ago, he pretended to be bored with plaintiff’s witness, reclined back in his chair, propped his ankle up atop his opposite leg’s thigh, and started to pick lint off of the sock of the propped up ankle to act theatrically bored. Well - he ended up flipping backwards over and out of the chair, and caused such a disturbance the judge adjourned for a break. My friend then was in the elevator during the break with several jurors who just burst out laughing. I don’t think anything came of it legally in terms of the case, but OMG, I will never forget hearing the story, and there is not an occasion that goes by where I see this friend, and somebody always says, ‘I hope you weren’t picking lint off your sock!”

Is it bad I would love if one of those at the defense table would cause a similar ruckus and it be on the live feed? Some of their antics need something to knock them off that crazy train.

 

[LaborDayRN]

Someone was definitely in the house today. Watching the video posted by Law & Crime Network it can be seen that curtains are being pulled back as vehicle drives by as though someone is peering out to look.

I have to admit that I'm VERY suspicious of who might have staged the house and grounds. Were they trying to cause a mistrial? After all, it WAS the defense who brought up the idea of having the jury go to Moselle.
Edited for typo.

 

[justtrish]

Well this would be a wild one for the BINGO card.. but what if ALEX the big man Murdaugh takes the floor to do his own closing?

 

[sunshineray]

A bit confused on your take...was he authentic or not?

I do not believe he was, no

 

[LaborDayRN]

Murdaugh knows the rules in his Detention Facility and knows full well that a pen is contraband and is a major security issue.
The Officers that removed the contraband from his jacket have a duty it to their Supervisor along with writing out a disciplinary report so he can attend a disciplinary hearing or wave that hearing.

Yes, he placed that in his pocket intentionally and he cannot plead ignorance because he is handed an inmate rule book right off.

He knew it is against policy, yet he placed contraband in his pocket right there in the courtroom. RIGHT THERE IN THE COURTROOM!!!

Hopefully the Officers reported that, like I said, the Officers have a duty to report.


I hope that the prosecutor brings that up in the rebuttal.

I could go on more about this but do not want to bore anyone.

You in no way "bore" anyone! I for one am really glad we have someone with your work history here with us.

 

[Cindizzi]

JUST WAIT for the Daybell/Vallow trial!!

Talk about a bizarre complex case! But I’ve never followed it here on WS or kept up with it. It definitely tugged at my heartstrings when I heard about JJ and Tylee on the news.

I just don’t have the emotional strength to devote I guess.

I NEVER meant to get so invested in this case !

My husband is going to take away my devices if I don’t take a break Lol

Seriously, the only trial I plan to follow in the near future is one I’ve been waiting 3=years for. Not to go off topic but I will never forget the cold January day that I first saw Gannon Stauch’s face on my morning news. I live 5 miles from where he once lived.

Hoping and praying for Justice for Maggie and Paul.
Then I gotta take a break.

I’m so grateful for all of y’all here!

 

[MyJoey]

What I’m having a hard time with is AM shoots PM, MM is only 12-15 feet away and must have seen PM falling as she’s headed towards him….she would have seen AM head towards her, why didn’t she turn to run? How did AM get within 3 feet of her and she was shot in the front..another words I would be expecting her to be shot from behind. Maybe her brain just didn’t process what she was seeing that fast to turn. Also AM would have switched guns so there would be an extra few seconds there to process it. I believe he’s totally guilty, just having a hard time picturing how he was facing them both when he shot them.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1631126662543753216

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1631125291048345603

 

[sunshineray]

I think he realized he messed up his case with his testimony.

On another note, today, we were finally focused on the two victims, PM and MM. They were imperfect but they were victims of a horrific crime-- being killed by the person who had always promised to protect them. i can only imagine the betrayal that MM felt as she saw what he had done to PM, even though she could only process it for seconds. I hope the jury gives them justice.

I think of the promises of love, honor and cherish...then you have kids and it's all that and then some. I think CW did very well in his description of how the murders went down. He needed to for Maggie and Paul. It's all so horrifying and senseless. People sometimes forget about the prosecutors. They have sons or wives, sisters or brothers and daughters. Such heavy responsibility to speak for the the dead, the murdered. This was an especially bad one, a man who shoots his wife and child in cold blood. They deserve thanks for their dedication. JMO

 

[Kembo]

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 dhave suggested

My trial attorney husband’s opinion is that the jury not hearing the defense closing until tomorrow favors the prosecution. The jury will have tonight to think about what CW told them and showed them today without the defense’s contradictory input. They are likely to be well influenced by CW before they even hear JG. His OO.

I thought CW did a terrific job. I thought he was systematic in building his argument and I hung on every word. He wove in everything that I thought he needed to.

Got a big kick out of AM. I don’t think he nodded his head one time about anything after CW pointed out his body language during his testimony. LOL. What a manipu1at0r!

I am hoping your husband is right. My concern is that the jurors will be rested and focused on the defense tomorrow morning. If CW had finished earlier in the afternoon, I think the jurors would not have been amenable to listen to JG, and perhaps not as mentally willing to agree with what he might have argued.