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

[Jurisprudence]

I think it peculiar that no juror would speak to the defense.... That is until the defense found a wedge to coax a couple of them to open their doors.

I also think those slimy attorneys used the clerk's co-authored book as bait.

The bottom line, nobody had any complaints about the clerk for more than four months until after the defense told them they should.

Let AM have a new trial -- nothing will change. He'll be reconvicted as a double murderer. JMO

[BBM] I disagree with that. The answer here is we don't know.

It seems from the filing that they were bothered from the start. It wasn't until the defense started working on the appeal (remember they filed their notice of appeal in this case soon after the verdict (in March)) that the defense began to uncover this.

Whether he is convicted again or not is not germane imo. He must get a new trial if the evidentiary hearing bears these facts out because our system of justice depends on this and demands it imo.

jmo

Alex Murdaugh's attorneys file notice of appeal in double murder case

Alex Murdaugh's attorneys have filed a notice of appeal for the former lawyer's convictions and sentences on Thursday, court records show.

abcnews.go.com

 

[worm]

The fact that this happens in a case the AG himself was involved in is a real confidence builder too.

 

[Gardenista]

Egg lady's affidavit about the refrigerator people was wild.

 

[Jurisprudence]

I don't think this is enough to overturn the verdict. Of course JG & DH are going to latch onto anything they even remotely think may work, but I think they are overblowing the severity of this.

This author, I refuse to use her name, needs to take a long hard look at herself in the mirror. She is a member of the Court! Why would she 'allegedly' put a trial verdict in jeopardy by writing this dime store novel? I bet it made very little actual money honestly.

I'm remaining positive this won't result in anything being overturned or a new trial.

MOO

MOO I don't think he'd be going anywhere. I think he'd remain in custody. At the end of the day the man is facing life in prison for the financial crimes - something I personally think the judge in his murder trial was at fault in allowing. I think (and this is only my opinion - I know others have strong views the other way) that Judge Newman let in far too much on the financial crimes. His rulings arguably forced Murdaugh to have to take the stand, compelling Murdaugh to be a witness against himself. I didn't like that trial. I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I'm saying with the way it played out I was left with "Well, I guess I'll never be able to decide for myself."

All jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Thank you. She was a court reporter for 12 years and decided to run in 2020 to replace the retiring Colleton County Clerk of the Court. The term of office is four years and this was her first term.

I think it will probably come down to whether or not the defense can also cite the clerk violated anything in the 2014 Clerk of Court Manual, pursuant to the provisions of S. C. CONST. Art. V, § 4.

I do not see anything about a Code of Conduct or Ethics in the tab for "Jury Management."

SC Judicial Department

This strikes me as a bigger concern than losing her job, which is likely good as gone regardless. Being convicted of even a misdemeanor in her job would not be a good thing.

SC Code § 16-9-350

jmo

 

[Seattle1]

Looking at the Exhibits -- I didn't find smoking guns but instead the affidavit of Juror 630 (Exh-A) and the Affidavit of the dismissed Juror 785 (Exh-H). No bombshells!

In Exhibit B, DH's assistant Ms. Miller affirms Juror 741 indicated she would sign an affidavit but they were unable to arrange a suitable time/place. Really? In other words, this affidavit is the defense's interpretation, and it also states that Juror 741 was the first former juror to state how the Clerk made statements to jurors about the evidence before deliberations.

In another affidavit, Ms. Miller also affirms discussions with Juror 326 who did not specifically recall the Clerk telling the Jurors not to let the defense mislead them (Exh-H), but provided he and others were discussing the case prior to deliberations. When asked if the Clerk was inserting herself in the trial process, Juror 326 responded "I could see this." No reason was given why Juror 326 did not agree to provide the defense with an affidavit.

IMO, AM's defense did what they do best -- blow more hot air than substance.

Nonetheless, I don't disagree that the Clerk should not have been expressing her personal opinion before or after the trial. But I also don't believe there was any intention by the Clerk to harm the case or cause a serious error. I don't think she's as worldly as she is being portrayed. She writes in her book that the trip with Jurors to NY was the first time she'd been on an airplane! (Exh-D). MOO

 

[twall]

Egg lady's affidavit about the refrigerator people was wild.

Yes it is. What is with people signing a sworn affidavit without reading it? If anyone else is following Idaho student murders you will KWIM.

 

[Seattle1]

This strikes me as a bigger concern than losing her job, which is likely good as gone regardless. Being convicted of even a misdemeanor in her job would not be a good thing.

SC Code § 16-9-350

jmo

Her job as Clerk of the Court is an elected position. She was elected by the People to fulfill a four-year term. I don't see her being recalled.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Maybe a silver lining, but I just re-watched the video of the judge dismissing the juror. She is inaudible, but at around the 10:45 mark, the judge responds that it was independent from issues relating to her ex-husband.

All jmo

This is a problem imo (a potentially big one if they find out who orchestrated it):

"On February 28, Ms. Hill questioned Juror No. 785 about the fictious post on “Walterboro Word of Mouth” alone in her office in the courthouse. Aff. of Juror No. 785 ¶ 3, Aug. 13, 2023 (attached as Exhibit H). She told Juror No. 785 that someone had emailed her stating her ex- husband, Tim Stone, posted on the “Walterboro Word of Mouth” Facebook page that Juror No. 785 had been drinking with her ex-husband, and that while drunk she expressed opinions on the guilt or innocence of Mr. Murdaugh. Ex. H ¶ 4. Juror No. 785 told Ms. Hill that never happened and that she had not seen her ex-husband in ten years. Id. Juror No. 785 asked to see the post, but Ms. Hill would not show it to her. Ex. H ¶ 5. Ms. Hill directly asked Juror No. 785 whether she was inclined to vote guilty or not guilty. Ex. H ¶ 3. Juror No. 785 said she had not made up her mind. Id."

Page 4.

https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/state-v-murdaugh-motion-to-stay-64f749cc71b67.pdf

 

[ch_13]

Why would she 'allegedly' put a trial verdict in jeopardy by writing this dime store novel? I bet it made very little actual money honestly

RSBM.

I'm not so sure about that. On the Amazon website the paperback is listed as #360 on the sales charts. That's across the entire Amazon printed sales catalog. There are also audiobook and kindle versions.

Between Amazon and Goodreads there are almost 300 ratings. If you consider how many buy an item vs how many will submit a rating they must have sold thousands. Plus the book is self-published, so the co-authors get to keep the lion's share of the profits.

I wouldn't be surprised if Hill earned tens of thousands from this book.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Her job as Clerk of the Court is an elected position. She was elected by the People to fulfill a four-year term. I don't see her being recalled.

I see her facing potential charges. (I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just being realistic imo of course)

jmo

 

[girlhasnoname]

MOO I don't think he'd be going anywhere. I think he'd remain in custody. At the end of the day the man is facing life in prison for the financial crimes - something I personally think the judge in his murder trial was at fault in allowing. I think (and this is only my opinion - I know others have strong views the other way) that Judge Newman let in far too much on the financial crimes. His rulings arguably forced Murdaugh to have to take the stand, compelling Murdaugh to be a witness against himself. I didn't like that trial. I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I'm saying with the way it played out I was left with "Well, I guess I'll never be able to decide for myself."

All jmo

I see it differently, which always makes for good conversation.

AM had to take the stand because he LIED and DENIED at being at the kennels. That is the only reason he took the stand, Paul had taken a video of him that he didn't know about until discovery. AM forced himself to take the stand, not the State.

His financial dealings spoke directly to a huge part of motive and his actions. I agree with the Judge letting it in.

He is a cold blooded killer IMO and I don't think this latest attempt by his 'dynamic duo' attorneys for a new trial will go anywhere. It may get them a few more bucks of whatever leftover money AM has. To me, it's a stretch for sure.

ALL MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

MOO I don't think he'd be going anywhere. I think he'd remain in custody. At the end of the day the man is facing life in prison for the financial crimes - something I personally think the judge in his murder trial was at fault in allowing. I think (and this is only my opinion - I know others have strong views the other way) that Judge Newman let in far too much on the financial crimes. His rulings arguably forced Murdaugh to have to take the stand, compelling Murdaugh to be a witness against himself. I didn't like that trial. I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty. I'm saying with the way it played out I was left with "Well, I guess I'll never be able to decide for myself."

All jmo

AM is already serving a life sentence for the murder of his 'beloved' Mags and PawPaw. His sentencing for his financial crimes is just the cherry on top. He defrauded innocent victims of millions of dollars without batting an eye using his family name and local power to wield persuasion over people.

What a disgusting, lying liar who lies. I hope he never sees a day as a free man again. Let him play Boss Hog in the prison courtyard.

MOO

 

[MTW2011]

for those who think this timing is strange, in regards to the FOX and Buster documentary stuff recently, I wanted to point out these details. I was a bit skeptical myself too but I found these details intriguing as far as timing goes.

The Clerk and author at the center of this recently appeared on several local news shows promoting the book. On August 4 she appeared in a video clip and news article per WLTX. On August 11 she was interviewed and appeared on WSAV news, both in video and an online article. And the book’s own website shared “Check back in soon for Book tour dates and locations!”, so maybe it is possible more media and local stops were happening. We don’t know exactly when Defense started talking to jurors BUT one Juror affidavit was taken August 14, the paralegal affidavit of talking to another juror was Sept 1, the ex husband/subject of the FB post affidavit was taken August 18, his attorney’s affidavit was taken Sept 4.

I mention this only to express that maybe some of the jurors did see some of this - online or elsewhere - and that is why broke some of the “silence” that defense mentioned in the press conference today. JMOO

 

[Jurisprudence]

I see it differently, which always makes for good conversation.

AM had to take the stand because he LIED and DENIED at being at the kennels. That is the only reason he took the stand, Paul had taken a video of him that he didn't know about until discovery. AM forced himself to take the stand, not the State.

His financial dealings spoke directly to a huge part of motive and his actions. I agree with the Judge letting it in.

He is a cold blooded killer IMO and I don't think this latest attempt by his 'dynamic duo' attorneys for a new trial will go anywhere. It may get them a few more bucks of whatever leftover money AM has. To me, it's a stretch for sure.

ALL MOO

Taking the stand for the kennels is different from trying the financial crimes case. In the process of that testimony he essentially convicted himself of the financial crimes. This was in fact because the judge allowed so much of that evidence in. As I watched that trial I was stunned about how much that "murder" trial was actually a "financial crimes" trial.

I do not say or think or opine in any way that another jury would acquit him. I'm only protecting the process. If this did in fact happen, he must be retried. We can't have this in our country. And while it may happen regardless when we never learn of it, we certainly can't turn a blind eye when we do learn of it. But we're getting ahead here. There will first be an evidentiary hearing imoo. If a new trial is in fact ordered I'm guessing it would have to be before a different judge given the comments made at sentencing. Again, it's just about avoiding the appearance of any impropriety.

All jmo, like everyone else here.

 

[Jurisprudence]

AM is already serving a life sentence for the murder of his 'beloved' Mags and PawPaw. His sentencing for his financial crimes is just the cherry on top. He defrauded innocent victims of millions of dollars without batting an eye using his family name and local power to wield persuasion over people.

What a disgusting, lying liar who lies. I hope he never sees a day as a free man again. Let him play Boss Hog in the prison courtyard.

MOO

If a new trial is ordered the conviction is set aside. jmo But, as I said, if a new trial is ordered, he would not be going anywhere anyway imo. Anything is possible of course, but I don't see him getting a new trial and walking out free on bond to await it. Not happenin imo.

jmo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Taking the stand for the kennels is different from trying the financial crimes case. In the process of that testimony he essentially convicted himself of the financial crimes. This was in fact because the judge allowed so much of that evidence in. As I watched that trial I was stunned about how much that "murder" trial was actually a "financial crimes" trial.

I do not say or think or opine in any way that another jury would acquit him. I'm only protecting the process. If this did in fact happen, he must be retried. We can't have this in our country. And while it may happen regardless when we never learn of it, we certainly can't turn a blind eye when we do learn of it. But we're getting ahead here. There will first be an evidentiary hearing imoo. If a new trial is in fact ordered I'm guessing it would have to be before a different judge given the comments made at sentencing. Again, it's just about avoiding the appearance of any impropriety.

All jmo, like everyone else here.

Again, I didn't see it that way. The Judge allowed his financial misdeeds in, people testified to that. It was proven by witnesses and documents.

AM could have chosen not to take the stand that was strictly his choice, and I believe even his attorneys advised him not to. But AM had dug himself into a big ole' with his lie about being at the kennels and by golly he was betting he'd get on that stand with his fake tears and snotty nose and persuade those jurors of his innocence.

It's what AM does best after all.

MOO

 

[Seattle1]

If this is True.... Alex Murdaugh will get a New Trial | If this is True.... Alex Murdaugh WILL get a New Trial | By Vinnie Politan Court TV | Facebook

If this is True.... Alex Murdaugh WILL get a New Trial

www.facebook.com

 

[Jurisprudence]

Again, I didn't see it that way. The Judge allowed his financial misdeeds in, people testified to that. It was proven by witnesses and documents.

AM could have chosen not to take the stand that was strictly his choice, and I believe even his attorneys advised him not to. But AM had dug himself into a big ole' with his lie about being at the kennels and by golly he was betting he'd get on that stand with his fake tears and snotty nose and persuade those jurors of his innocence.

It's what AM does best after all.

MOO

But that wasn't at issue. This was a murder trial. That evidence went to character and motive, not an element of the crime but juries expect it and defense counsel exploits the lack of one imo. Now motive evidence should come in imo. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the quantity. It caused him to repeatedly incriminate himself in crimes that were not yet properly before the court.

That's all. Moo

 

[lonetraveler]

I don't think this is enough to overturn the verdict. Of course JG & DH are going to latch onto anything they even remotely think may work, but I think they are overblowing the severity of this.

This author, I refuse to use her name, needs to take a long hard look at herself in the mirror. She is a member of the Court! Why would she 'allegedly' put a trial verdict in jeopardy by writing this dime store novel? I bet it made very little actual money honestly.

I'm remaining positive this won't result in anything being overturned or a new trial.

MOO

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.