SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton *Guilty* #42

[Jurisprudence]

I'm afraid I don't share your positive attitude. I've always been a pessimist. I feel like there will be a retrial and the verdict will not stand.

Will not stand - until it stands again maybe. We just don't know. The important thing here imo is that the case be tried correctly. If she in fact did what is alleged, she really messed this up.

jmo

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm afraid I don't share your positive attitude. I've always been a pessimist. I feel like there will be a retrial and the verdict will not stand.

Nooooooo lone, don't say that. The Motion by the Defense wasn't earth shattering IMO. There seems to be a lot of speculation as to what the Clerk and the jury fp said when they left the room. That doesn't mean is was for nefarious purposes. I hope to hear the responses.

These are just accusations at this point and this defense is playing every card they can. Let's see how it goes after the AG issues a statement.

MOO

 

[Pitsleuth]

If I have to listen to that man talk about Paw Paw again as if he didn’t viciously murder his own son in cold blood for personal gain, I will lose my sh**

 

[girlhasnoname]

If I have to listen to that man talk about Paw Paw again as if he didn’t viciously murder his own son in cold blood for personal gain, I will lose my sh**

I think I'd blow up my television seriously.

 

[Seattle1]

The talking heads on Court TV are disappointing (i.e., please read the docs before going on TV)! First, only two jurors actually signed affidavits and one of them was the dismissed juror.

The other two affidavits were by DH's assistant who submitted affidavits about her discussion with two other jurors.

In other words, two jurors gave sworn statements, not four.

 

[Vaderman]

I truly don't know what to make of this entire case. It has had so many twists and turns. I'm generally NOT one to lean into conspiracy theories, but my gut reaction has always wondered if he wasn't directly responsible for the murders, but his other illicit activitie got him entangled with those who were. No doubt he was present for the murders. Less certain he was the one who pulled the trigger.

I also ponder (again, not usually one to buy into conspiracy theories) if, given the level of corruption with this area, if something shady took place for these allegations to come about.

 

[lonetraveler]

Will not stand - until it stands again maybe. We just don't know. The important thing here imo is that the case be tried correctly. If she in fact did what is alleged, she really messed this up.

jmo

When I stated that the verdict would not stand, I was talking about the guilty verdict. Someone said that the verdict would still stand. I was replying that it would not. The trial would start over from scratch.

 

[Jurisprudence]

They've requested South Carolina U.S. Attorney Adair F. Boroughs open a federal investigation into the violation of Murdaugh's civil rights so she should be concerned about that imo.

In his letter to U.S. Attorney Boroughs, Harpootlian said

"... I write to request an urgent federal investigation of conduct by a South Carolina elected official during that trial. I have attached Mr. Murdaugh’s recent filing in the South Carolina Court of Appeals regarding this matter, ‘which describes jury tampering by the Clerk of Court for Colleton County, Rebecca Hill. Ms. Hill's conduct described in detail by jurors in sworn affidavit testimony implicates 13 U.S.C. § 242, which imposes criminal penalties on any person acting “under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, …

Ms. Hill acted “under color” of South Carolina law. She is the elected Clerk of Court charged with “jury management.” See S.C. Code tit. 14, chs. 7, 17; 3.C. Clerk of Court Manual ch. 4 (2014). Every interaction she had with any juror during the murder trial was under the pretense of authority granted by state law ... In our recent court filing, we assert that Ms. Hill's actions deprived Mr. Murdaughofhis rights under the Constitution ...

Murdaugh “may be the most unpopular man in South Carolina right now. He has become the symbol of the Lowcountry judicial corruption ... [but] Federal law enforcement has long acted as a shield that prevents popular passions against a hated person from injuring the rights enjoyed by all persons. I ask that it do so again here."

Murdaugh Defense US Attorney Letter in re: Hill

www.documentcloud.org

Alex Murdaugh's attorneys allege jury tampering by clerk of court, request federal investigation and new trial

COLUMBIA, S.C. — Defense attorneys for convicted killer Alex Mudaugh on Tuesday alleged that Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca “Becky” Hill unlawfully tampered with the jury that found Murdaugh

www.hastingstribune.com

Alex Murdaugh's Attorneys File Motion for New Trial, Claims 'Clerk of Court Tampered With the Jury'

Alex Murdaugh’s attorneys filed a motion for a new trial and requested a federal investigation, claiming a clerk tampered with the jury.

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Seattle1]

Nooooooo lone, don't say that. The Motion by the Defense wasn't earth shattering IMO. There seems to be a lot of speculation as to what the Clerk and the jury fp said when they left the room. That doesn't mean is was for nefarious purposes. I hope to hear the responses.

These are just accusations at this point and this defense is playing every card they can. Let's see how it goes after the AG issues a statement.

MOO

I've identified the Juror foreperson (in my mind) as Amie Williams -- did I read this somewhere? Ms. Williams was one of the three jurors who traveled to NY for the Today Show Interview. Thanks!

 

[Jurisprudence]

The talking heads on Court TV are disappointing (i.e., please read the docs before going on TV)! First, only two jurors actually signed affidavits and one of them was the dismissed juror.

The other two affidavits were by DH's assistant who submitted affidavits about her discussion with two other jurors.

In other words, two jurors gave statements, not four.

What did they say?

 

[BUF]

Her co-author is on CourtTV. FWIW, he said between them, they put up $30K to self publish the book. Wish they hadn’t!

 

[Gardenista]

Co-author said they ran it by the SC ethics commission and attorneys

Court TV Live Stream - Your Front Row Seat to Justice

Court TV brings you inside the courtroom for high-profile cases across the U.S.

www.courttv.com

 

[Jurisprudence]

The jurors who signed the affidavits were represented by counsel.

4:19

 

[Inthedetails]

Her co-author is on CourtTV. FWIW, he said between them, they put up $30K to self publish the book. Wish they hadn’t!

I haven't self-published but that seems really high. Is that normal to spend that amount of money to self publish??

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Co-author said they ran it by the SC ethics commission and attorneys

Court TV Live Stream - Your Front Row Seat to Justice

Court TV brings you inside the courtroom for high-profile cases across the U.S.

www.courttv.com

But, they obviously had no idea what she was (allegedly) doing behind the scenes, right? She merely asked for permission to do the book once the trial was over and she was cleared to proceed according to that co-author? Going through the appropriate channels to get clearance is a good thing (esp since it was likely required). But, it does nothing to help her here imo. This is not about the book's publication, except tangentially. This is something entirely (and seriously) different imo.

jmo

 

[Luna20]

The talking heads on Court TV are disappointing (i.e., please read the docs before going on TV)! First, only two jurors actually signed affidavits and one of them was the dismissed juror.

The other two affidavits were by DH's assistant who submitted affidavits about her discussion with two other jurors.

In other words, two jurors gave sworn statements, not four.

What was the intent behind this? Do they regret their decision? Do they want to be in the spotlight?

If the clerk did engage in the alleged activity what the heck was she thinking??

 

[twall]

The jurors who signed the affidavits were represented by counsel.

4:19

Joe McCulloch

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699145245592555901

 

[aafromaa]

Well well well I was not expecting this as the new evidence that had been mentioned. Hmmm. What a mess! I guess first I want to see the hearing on the motion to see if the accusations in the motions and accompanying affidavits are valid. I’m not sure that I followed or put much weight on the alleged conversations with the clerk and the dismissed juror (egg lady) but even if I put that one aside, if any of these other allegations regarding her statements to the jury prior to deliberations, or their conversations with each other, or threat of no smoke break, etc hold up in the hearing then I see no way for a new trial NOT to be granted.

But what if it turns out for example that the clerk’s conversation with the foreman where she came back and said you can’t ask any questions of the foreman was more along the lines of the foreman being asked questions prior to deliberations by members of the jury and not knowing how to handle that asked the clerk for some guidance and her response was to tell the jury they couldn’t ask questions of the foreman - not to refer to asking questions about her conversations with the foreman but meaning you can’t ask the foreman questions about anything pertaining to the trial until deliberations begin? Of course I still think she was overstepping her bounds if that was the case and she should have brought the foreman’s question to the judge if it happened that way, but would that reach the level of requiring a new trial? There are other things in the affidavits that raise questions for me regarding did the juror who signed that affidavit witness the statements first hand or make assumption about what was said or implied or hear from another what was said, etc.

And, I’m sure curious as to why no one would speak until the clerk’s book came out. I haven’t read the book - never even heard of it until today’s press conference - but why would jurors hold back until the book came out? And if a juror did feel the need to tell that there may have been some influencing of the jury or inappropriate conversation by and with other jurors, why not bring that up during the trial Or in the months since? Why wait until the defense team came knocking and the book had come out to report inappropriate conduct by other jurors and/or court officials?

I can’t just take the affidavits at face value and want to hear the jurors questioned under oath about them in the hearing of the motion. But if only 1/2 of what is alleged actually took place then I think a new trial is an appropriate request And is more likely than not to be granted.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Joe McCulloch

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699145245592555901

Yes. The key here though is that the state will say they signed the affidavits drafted by the defense and "Let's wait and see what the real story is when they get on the stand". They can't say this now. Because they didn't sign affidavits on the defense counsel's say-so. They were represented by counsel before the defense was even able to speak with them (as stated at 4:19 here #693). Their attorney read that affidavit before they put pen to paper guaranteed (imo). Makes no sense that he wouldn't.

jmo

 

[Gardenista]

Wonder if the state will seek the death penalty if he is given a new trial.