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

Status
Not open for further replies.
And yet... where IS the money? NO WAY did he ingest enough drugs to account for all that money he stole.

So, where did it go? Gambling problem? Multiple mistresses with good taste in the things money will buy but poor taste in men? Multiple politicians with scratchy palms?

Where is it?
We'll see when and if the financial crime trials get underway.

But during the murder trial there were some tantalizing hints about land deals gone bad. I suspect that's what did him in. I think his million-dollar lifestyle wasn't enough for him and he wanted to build generational-style wealth (10s or 100s of millions). So he was using the stolen money for real estate speculation. It seems like he started stealing money just prior to the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-9. I wouldn't be surprised if he figured that once he was wealthy, he would simply replace what he stole and no one would ever be the wiser.

Of course we all know what happened during the crisis. Plenty of people were caught with their pants down because they had leveraged themselves up the wazoo to buy to real estate and other financial assets. Most of them could simply declare bankruptcy and move on with their lives.

But Alex couldn't. It would affect his standing as an attorney. But more importantly, the bankruptcy trustee would go over his books with a fine-toothed comb. There's no way he wouldn't have ended up in a penitentiary. His only option was to keep himself afloat by doubling-down and continue to steal from his clients, law partners, friends, etc. Maybe he kept hoping that there would be one big score which would dig him out of the hole.

It may also explain all the drugs. He could have turned to opioids as relief from the stress of constantly needing new sources of cash to remain solvent.

Anyways, that's my completely speculative theory.
 
Perhaps just a poor choice of words but I am not sure why she would include “thoughts spilled out” on the way back with the jury from the visit to Moselle property.

How did she know the jury prayed? Did they do this in the courtroom or in front of her presence? Perhaps more concerning, how did she know they prayed “specifically over the evidence”? Just seems a bit strange to me JMOO

(Attaching the kindle ebook version of the pages)
 

Attachments

  • 5E404C3E-C31E-4359-8FCB-50E48A7AF73E.png
    5E404C3E-C31E-4359-8FCB-50E48A7AF73E.png
    219.3 KB · Views: 19
  • C4498FA9-727E-4C24-9001-B9249C0297AF.png
    C4498FA9-727E-4C24-9001-B9249C0297AF.png
    220.1 KB · Views: 19
Perhaps just a poor choice of words but I am not sure why she would include “thoughts spilled out” on the way back with the jury from the visit to Moselle property.

How did she know the jury prayed? Did they do this in the courtroom or in front of her presence? Perhaps more concerning, how did she know they prayed “specifically over the evidence”? Just seems a bit strange to me JMOO

(Attaching the kindle ebook version of the pages)
Actually, this information was revealed by Juror #530 (Mr. McDowell) in his March 6, 2023, interview on L & C.

More than once, he reminded the interviewer that it wasn't about him or how he felt hearing or seeing certain things including the horrific photos of the victims but that it was his job to see them (evidence) for MM and PM.

It's well worth re-listening to hear how this juror describes the process the jurors took JMO


ETA: I think this early Juror interview is going to be powerful evidence for the Court when compared to the Juror affidavits tendered six months after the verdict.
 
Last edited:
Actually, this information was revealed by Juror #530 (Mr. McDowell) in his March 6, 2023, interview on L & C.

More than once, he reminded the interviewer that it wasn't about him or how he felt hearing or seeing certain things including the horrific photos of the victims but that it was his job to see them (evidence) for MM and PM.

It's well worth re-listening to hear how this juror describes the process the jurors took JMO

Oh, thank you for this.

I still wonder about some of the other very personal details of jurors she shared though. Did any juror who spoke to media talk about their difficulty in being a juror, the financial hardship it would cause, how they were way behind in child support payments, and that they had a bad history with the mother of their children?

I genuinely ask, as those are just one of the stories she shared about a juror in the book. In another, she revealed where a juror worked & for how long; another she shared some of the driving history of a juror who was having difficulty coming to trial and what they needed to do in order to comply with their law and not ruin their driving history. It seems like a bunch of details that, in my opinion, don’t further the story so I don’t know why such personal stuff was included.

The convos btwn Judge Newman & jurors in his chambers also seem very personal in nature, but I’m not sure if the jurors knew their convos would be published. Maybe they did and gave an ok to do so.
 
Oh, thank you for this.

I still wonder about some of the other very personal details of jurors she shared though. Did any juror who spoke to media talk about their difficulty in being a juror, the financial hardship it would cause, how they were way behind in child support payments, and that they had a bad history with the mother of their children?

I genuinely ask, as those are just one of the stories she shared about a juror in the book. In another, she revealed where a juror worked & for how long; another she shared some of the driving history of a juror who was having difficulty coming to trial and what they needed to do in order to comply with their law and not ruin their driving history. It seems like a bunch of details that, in my opinion, don’t further the story so I don’t know why such personal stuff was included.

The convos btwn Judge Newman & jurors in his chambers also seem very personal in nature, but I’m not sure if the jurors knew their convos would be published. Maybe they did and gave an ok to do so.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the book but offer the following:

I think this is somewhat of a gray area since the Jurors' identities haven't been released (except by the self-identified). Nonetheless, I can't imagine any personal anecdotes about Jurors being published without written permission from the subjects. Seems to me this is very elementary in publishing and something the lawyer reviewing the book would have addressed before the book's release.

I'm wondering if the Jurors giving affidavits were not featured in the book and feeling slighted. Recalling one of these Jurors alleging how no media wanted to interview her.

Also, I recall Judge Newman speaking publicly about a juror (without revealing their identity) where the employer or fellow employees intervened to allow him to serve on the Jury. This Juror was also described as prayerful by the Judge.

Isn't communication between a Judge and Juror in the presence of the lawyers for each side and/or with their knowledge?

Wasn't it the defense that pretty much broadcasted (leaked) the egg lady being favorable for the defense and how they fought tooth and nail to keep her on the jury?

Is there anything in the book (about jurors) OP is learning about for the very first time?

MOO
 

Murdaugh Murder Trial: Juror dismissed ahead of closing argument from defense (12 mins)​


Mar 2, 2023
The judge in the Alex Murdaugh trial dismissed a juror this morning ahead of the defense's closing argument. Judge Newman confirmed that a juror was removed after the juror had conversations with two people about the case.

ETA: In response to a question by the Juror, Judge Newman affirms the dismissal of the juror was totally independent of anything about the ex-husband.
 
Last edited:
Bland said BH is going to have the best defamation lawsuit against DH that he's ever seen.
Yikes.
But FWIW Bland has also vehemently defended the innocence of his friend who was accused and then convicted of murder - which all took place on video - so I try to take what he says with a big helping of salt.

His characterization that Harpootlian and Griffin “threatened” jurors at the presser that they better get attorneys was totally over the top IMOO. I did not hear anything that sounded like a threat whatsoever but JMOO.
 
Okay, confirming that Juror #741 was the sole remaining alternate.

Jurors polled:
193
254
326
530
544-f
572-f
578
589
630-f
729
826-f
864-f

The 'f' denotes what I believe was a female voice but this is MOO.

Of the polled Jurors above who voted AM guilty, I offer the following:

Juror #630 gave a sworn statement (affidavit) that she had questions about AM's guilt but voted guilty because she felt pressured by other jurors.

She also alleges that jurors frequently discussed the case between breaks before deliberations. Claims at the end of the trial, the Clerk came into the jury room a lot.

Juror #630 claims that jury foreperson #826 would tell the bailiff she needed to speak to the Clerk (Ms. Hill), and after the Clerk summoned to the jury room, foreperson #826 and the Clerk would go to another room to speak privately.

Juror #326 did not file a sworn statement but the comments he made to the defense were recounted in an affidavit by Ms. Miller from the defense team.

The defense talked to Juror #326 and his mother at his mother's house. He told the defense his vote changed based on the evidence.

When asked if the Clerk told Jurors not to let the defense mislead them, he could only recall the Clerk telling the Jurors that the photos (images) admitted as evidence would be disturbing.

Juror #326 provided that the jurors were stationed in two different rooms when not in the courtroom, and he was in the room with mostly men.

The juror said that the Clerk would visit the other room more often but he couldn't hear what she told the other jurors (including #630, #741, and #785) stationed in another room.

[I presume here, relative to the frequency of visits by the Clerk, he's telling the defense what jurors in the other room told him].

Juror #326 claims he and others discussed the case prior to deliberations but he did not discuss the case with anyone outside of the jurors.

As the jury was deliberating, both the bailiff and the Clerk told the jurors they could not take a smoke break.

After the Trial concluded, a Group chat was formed but he dropped out because "there were too many chats."
_________________

I'm not seeing much if any opportunity for a dismissed juror or an alternate! I think Ms. Becky and her book rubbed these two jurors in a bad way.

Juror #785 (egg lady) was dismissed from the jury for having improper communication. Juror #785 provided her sworn statement in an affidavit.

Juror #741 was the sole remaining alternate juror. #741 did not file a sworn statement but the comments made to the defense were recounted in an affidavit by Ms. Miller from the defense team.

Juror #741 was the first to allege the Clerk made comments about the evidence right before the defense put up its case.

According to their comments, seems to me Jurors #785 and #741 connected during their time on the jury, and where #741 claims #785 and #741 did not join in on conversations about AM. I think they've long been communicating and are aware of what each told the defense.

The way I see it, we have two jurors who did not vote on the verdict that came forward six months later to make serious allegations against the Clerk.

While I think the book should have waited, I'm still not feeling any ill intent by the Clerk.

ETA: I just learned of EB's claim the other jurors are prepared to report the opposite of the Jurors with allegations against the Clerk, It makes sense to me.
 
Last edited:
comparing Hill’s on the record statement about the Facebook post she found vs. her retelling of that in the book there appear to be some discrepancies.

On the record, in Chambers-
Judge Newman:
Well, she's confirmed she has an ex-husband who she has three restraining orders out against so —

MS. HILL: Right. So then we looked on Monday after you told me to try to go back and look for it.
——-
So at that moment in time, the Judge characterized her as already having discovered AND shared the restraining orders with him. Hill does not correct him, instead she replies with “right”.

In her book, “After Judge Newman interviewed the juror and corroborating witnesses about this situation, he removed the juror from the jury before court started that Monday morning. We learned later the ex-spouses hadn't seen each other in fourteen years and the former juror had three restraining orders against her ex-husband.”

I would hope what she said on the record was truthful, but at this point I just don’t know what to believe. I’m leaning more towards her retelling in the book is not the entire picture and what was said on the record being more truthful at this point. She didn’t learn “later” as the very person who discovered this information already shared it with the Judge…JMOO.
 

Attachments

  • 2DAE546B-1048-4B4E-ACC5-10707620B42A.jpeg
    2DAE546B-1048-4B4E-ACC5-10707620B42A.jpeg
    113.3 KB · Views: 6
  • 6857E469-439E-48EC-820F-511B772F72DE.png
    6857E469-439E-48EC-820F-511B772F72DE.png
    372.9 KB · Views: 6
  • 12C11B46-1FBE-4ACE-9045-785BA9AA1BAA.jpeg
    12C11B46-1FBE-4ACE-9045-785BA9AA1BAA.jpeg
    112.5 KB · Views: 6
Hill writes in her book that March 2, 2023 a chance meeting with a member of the public on the way to Moselle jury visit, sparked the idea for wanting to write this book (see image attached from book)

Her co author mentions on CourtTV around timestamp 7:40, when asked if “this was the master plan before trial started” (referring to writing a book), he responds “I don’t know about that” and explains he didn’t even meet her until 3 weeks after the trial.

On the Impact of Influence podcast in both Episode 130 and 140 (timestamp 22 minutes in), in response to “when did you decide to write the book?” Hill replies that she first got the idea to write the book “about 4 months before January” (the start of the trial).

Oh what a tangled web we weave…..
 

Attachments

  • 4ABB1473-B435-4089-B0D7-F2D4C05CB724.png
    4ABB1473-B435-4089-B0D7-F2D4C05CB724.png
    368 KB · Views: 6
Yikes.
But FWIW Bland has also vehemently defended the innocence of his friend who was accused and then convicted of murder - which all took place on video - so I try to take what he says with a big helping of salt.

His characterization that Harpootlian and Griffin “threatened” jurors at the presser that they better get attorneys was totally over the top IMOO. I did not hear anything that sounded like a threat whatsoever but JMOO.
I don't have a lot of admiration for EB, he sure does love to hear himself talk. I believe he's using this as his opportunity to 'shine'. Maybe he wants the fame and attention of Mark Tinsley??

I am glad that the jurors have an attorney if they feel they need one though.

moo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
542
Total visitors
728

Forum statistics

Threads
625,593
Messages
18,506,777
Members
240,819
Latest member
Berloni75
Back
Top