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

[Seattle1]

@Cindizzi I know I read somewhere in the very beginning of this mess, that it was said BH had received 'permission' to write the book. Do you happen to have that link or post, I can't find it. I am very intrigued to learn who gave her the permission.

Thanks!

I heard it on Court TV by the co-author. RH cleared it with the SC Ethics Commission around 5/2/23. MOO

ETA: Actually, she received an informal opinion from the Commission.

 

[Gardenista]

@Cindizzi I know I read somewhere in the very beginning of this mess, that it was said BH had received 'permission' to write the book. Do you happen to have that link or post, I can't find it. I am very intrigued to learn who gave her the permission.

Thanks!

Her co-author said it

 

[Vern]

Has MS. Hill denied the allegations of the different interactions with the Jurors?

She has.

Alex Murdaugh's Fame-Hungry Clerk Rebecca Hill Tainted Jury for Profit, Attorneys Claim in Demand for New Trial

Alex Murdaugh's lawyers claim a South Carolina court clerk tainted the jury for "money" and "fame."

radaronline.com

As for Hill, she denied the allegations. "It's totally not true," she told The Daily Beast. "This is crazy.”

Murdaugh Lawyers Claim Fame-Hungry Clerk Tainted Jury

They are appealing his murder conviction and demanding a federal investigation—but the clerk denies wrongdoing.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[MTW2011]

I’ve seen this clip and some others, as he also went on CourtTV, and I mean this in the most respectful way possible; I do not think he is helping her by sharing some details of what he knew, what she may have said, or what she did or didn’t do.

I think he has the best of intentions and feels like he needs to advocate for his friend and co-author, but I am a bit worried some of these details may not help her/her counsel (should it come to that) in the future. JMOO

 

[Diddian]

Naturally, DH blamed SLED for the removal of the juror (egg lady). Bringing her back into the fold for the allegations against the Clerk is certainly rich....

I guess she decided (with the help of JG and DH) to take back those eggs she was going to give away to other jurors, give them time to rot, and then toss them at the jurors and the Court instead. She's certainly found her own kind among JG and DH. I'd say AM too, but I think he is on a whole 'nuther level of corrupt beyond redemption.

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699755796161024297

 

[ch_13]

I guess she decided (with the help of JG and DH) to take back those eggs she was going to give away to other jurors, give them time to rot, and then toss them at the jurors and the Court instead. She's certainly found her own kind among JG and DH. I'd say AM too, but I think he is on a whole 'nuther level of corrupt beyond redemption.

This seems awfully unfair to me.

There were two reasons the juror was removed.

One was supposedly a Facebook post that her ex-husband made claiming that they had spoken about the trial. But both the juror and her ex say that they hadn't spoken in years and she had a restraining order against him. Also it seems that the person who made the post went by "Timothy" on Facebook while the ex went by "Tim". The post was subsequently deleted so no one knows exactly what was written, but evidently it was made by a different man.

The second was that her tenant's co-worker said that she spoke about AM's guilt or innocence with the tenant. She claims she didn't and supposedly the tenant also says she didn't. It's important to note that her affidavit only says, "I never discussed the merits of the Murdaugh case...nor did I express an opinion on Mr. Murdaugh's guilt or innocence." Could they have simply talked about her being on the jury, which I believe was common knowledge in such a small town? And then in a game of telephone the co-worker heard something different?

I believe Judge Newman was correct to remove this juror based on the information he had at the time. However, the juror also has a right to tell her side of the story. Nothing I've heard from her makes me think she's corrupt or in league with the defense attorneys.

 

[Chelly]

Seems to me she should have known writing that book was a bad idea.

 

[MTW2011]

I heard it on Court TV by the co-author. RH cleared it with the SC Ethics Commission around 5/2/23. MOO

ETA: Actually, she received an informal opinion from the Commission.

have you seen this opinion anywhere? if it is “informal” is it not released to the public? Thank you

 

[Diddian]

This seems awfully unfair to me.

There were two reasons the juror was removed.

One was supposedly a Facebook post that her ex-husband made claiming that they had spoken about the trial. But both the juror and her ex say that they hadn't spoken in years and she had a restraining order against him. Also it seems that the person who made the post went by "Timothy" on Facebook while the ex went by "Tim". The post was subsequently deleted so no one knows exactly what was written, but evidently it was made by a different man.

The second was that her tenant's co-worker said that she spoke about AM's guilt or innocence with the tenant. She claims she didn't and supposedly the tenant also says she didn't. It's important to note that her affidavit only says, "I never discussed the merits of the Murdaugh case...nor did I express an opinion on Mr. Murdaugh's guilt or innocence." Could they have simply talked about her being on the jury, which I believe was common knowledge in such a small town? And then in a game of telephone the co-worker heard something different?

I believe Judge Newman was correct to remove this juror based on the information he had at the time. However, the juror also has a right to tell her side of the story. Nothing I've heard from her makes me think she's corrupt or in league with the defense attorneys.

We see this differently. IMO, no person has a right to be on any particular jury. Knowing this, most who have been excused by the judge gather our belongings and get on with life. However, I believe this woman felt wronged for having been excused - and not just because she felt personally maligned, but also because she WANTED the special attention that comes with serving on a jury in a high profile case and that was taken away from her. IMO, that is why she took her eggs with her - a gift she had promised other jurors. That was a vindictive act.

So, I read the affidavit from that juror and consider it indicative of the expression of vindictiveness.

ETA: Continuing to read through the motion and supporting exhibits, I see in the Clerk's book that the Clerk understood the eggs to be a gift TO this juror from another juror. If so, I misunderstood at the time this occurred and the juror was simply collecting her belongings, including that gift. Nevertheless, I still believe this juror believed she personally suffered a loss from being removed from the jury and that is what is coloring her memories and driving her compliance with DH and JG in AM's interest now. Otherwise, why not bring these things to the Court's attention AT THE TIME they occurred.

 

[Seattle1]

have you seen this opinion anywhere? if it is “informal” is it not released to the public? Thank you

"Advisory Opinions" are published by the Commission.

My understanding is the clerk received an "informal opinion" dated 5/2/23. I've not seen it (letter) but it's out there.

House Ethics Committee

www.scstatehouse.gov

 

[ch_13]

We see this differently. IMO, no person has a right to be on any particular jury. Knowing this, most who have been excused by the judge gather our belongings and get on with life. However, I believe this woman felt wronged for having been excused - and not just because she felt personally maligned, but also because she WANTED the special attention that comes with serving on a jury in a high profile case and that was taken away from her. IMO, that is why she took her eggs with her - a gift she had promised other jurors. That was a vindictive act.

So, I read the affidavit from that juror and consider it indicative of the expression of vindictiveness.

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

But just a couple of points.

The juror didn't actually take back anything. Another juror had brought in the eggs and gifted them to her:

Newman's exchange with the juror Thursday was pleasant. He asked her if she needed the bailiff to get any of her things from the jury room. She said she had her purse and a dozen eggs that a fellow juror brought for each juror from his farm.

Second, following the trial she has turned down all interview requests and has refused to talk about the case at all.

'Murdaugh Murders' Trial: 'Egg Juror' Doesn't Want To Talk - FITSNews

Attorney: "She earned through her public service the right to have her wishes respected."

www.fitsnews.com

That doesn't strike me as the actions of someone looking for fame and attention.

 

[girlhasnoname]

@Cindizzi I know I read somewhere in the very beginning of this mess, that it was said BH had received 'permission' to write the book. Do you happen to have that link or post, I can't find it. I am very intrigued to learn who gave her the permission.

Thanks!

Replying to my own post. Thanks @Seattle1 and @Gardenista for the info.

BH's co-author states that they did run the premise of the book being written by COC through media attorneys and the SC State Ethics Board before they even started.

Do I think it was a bad idea? Absolutely, I said it way back when I first heard she was going to write one.
Do I think DH & JG are blowing this waaaaay out of proportion? Absolutely, it will be interesting to hear the response by the AG's office.

JMO

 

[Diddian]

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

But just a couple of points.

The juror didn't actually take back anything. Another juror had brought in the eggs and gifted them to her:

Newman's exchange with the juror Thursday was pleasant. He asked her if she needed the bailiff to get any of her things from the jury room. She said she had her purse and a dozen eggs that a fellow juror brought for each juror from his farm.

Second, following the trial she has turned down all interview requests and has refused to talk about the case at all.

'Murdaugh Murders' Trial: 'Egg Juror' Doesn't Want To Talk - FITSNews

Attorney: "She earned through her public service the right to have her wishes respected."

www.fitsnews.com

That doesn't strike me as the actions of someone looking for fame and attention.

I did edit my post after continuing to read the motion and affidavits and learned that the Clerk understood the eggs to be a gift to the excused juror from another juror.

As to what the excused juror is seeking - I'd need to know how quickly DH and JG got to that juror after she was excused to decide what I think about her turning down interview requests. If their association with that juror began quickly afterward, she may have been advised to say nothing about the case and her role in it other than to them.

I do find it troubling that the Clerk may have overstepped her bounds as Judge Newman himself stated when he was told by the juror that the Clerk had privately questioned her; that was for Judge Newman to do and NOT for the Clerk to do, unless at his bidding and in circumstances that are properly documented. I'd like to know whether Judge Newman followed up with the Clerk to determine the full circumstances of such interactions and I would also like to know whether he had any awareness at the time that the Clerk had sought guidance from the ethics commission about writing a book about the case. That information would seem necessary in determining whether excusing the juror was adequate action at that time to ensure the integrity of the trial process.

 

[LaborDayRN]

I don't understand why there is so much anger directed at AM, his attorneys, the jurors who have come forward under oath, and people in the legal community that see the potentially grave issues here, and not instead directed at the Clerk. If this is true, and we do not know yet, the Clerk is the one who turned this case upside down. No one else.

jmo

But that's just it. We don't yet know if it's true. IMO
Accusations aren't fact until proven to be so.
ETA: I'm also not confortable with the accusers (referring to the defence in A.M.'s case)

 

[ch_13]

I did edit my post after continuing to read the motion and affidavits and learned that the Clerk understood the eggs to be a gift to the excused juror from another juror.

As to what the excused juror is seeking - I'd need to know how quickly DH and JG got to that juror after she was excused to decide what I think about her turning down interview requests. If their association with that juror began quickly afterward, she may have been advised to say nothing about the case and her role in it other than to them.

I do find it troubling that the Clerk may have overstepped her bounds as Judge Newman himself stated when he was told by the juror that the Clerk had privately questioned her; that was for Judge Newman to do and NOT for the Clerk to do, unless at his bidding and in circumstances that are properly documented. I'd like to know whether Judge Newman followed up with the Clerk to determine the full circumstances of such interactions and I would also like to know whether he had any awareness at the time that the Clerk had sought guidance from the ethics commission about writing a book about the case. That information would seem necessary in determining whether excusing the juror was adequate action at that time to ensure the integrity of the trial process.

All that is fine, and I don't disagree with anything you've written here.

I only objected to calling her corrupt--at least until we know more about what has transpired.

 

[Diddian]

Relistening to AM's attorneys' press conference, I suspect that they will not stop at seeking a new trial; they will seek to have AM's testimony struck so it cannot be used as evidence against him in a new trial. I suspect they will claim that the decision to have AM testify was based upon where the state of trial proceedings (incl. juror's reactions as discerned by their behavior, demeanor, posture, etc.) at that time -AND that those discernible juror reactions reflected the Clerk's improper influence. (Their allegation.)

ETA: Also interesting... if they ARE successful in such efforts, I assume AM's testimony also could not serve as evidence against him in the other cases involving financial crimes, stealing from clients, etc.

 

[kittythehare]

@Cindizzi I know I read somewhere in the very beginning of this mess, that it was said BH had received 'permission' to write the book. Do you happen to have that link or post, I can't find it. I am very intrigued to learn who gave her the permission.

Thanks!

brian Entin reported it last night, link is here.. just a few posts back, he interviewed her co-author and established she had passed it through an ethics lawyer and somebody else..

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The jurors likely won’t face any penalties unless they were found to lie under oath if a hearing is held.

Judges usually ask jurors throughout a trial if they have talked with anybody about the case. Why didn't they speak up then?

 

[Gardenista]

I did edit my post after continuing to read the motion and affidavits and learned that the Clerk understood the eggs to be a gift to the excused juror from another juror.

As to what the excused juror is seeking - I'd need to know how quickly DH and JG got to that juror after she was excused to decide what I think about her turning down interview requests. If their association with that juror began quickly afterward, she may have been advised to say nothing about the case and her role in it other than to them.

I do find it troubling that the Clerk may have overstepped her bounds as Judge Newman himself stated when he was told by the juror that the Clerk had privately questioned her; that was for Judge Newman to do and NOT for the Clerk to do, unless at his bidding and in circumstances that are properly documented. I'd like to know whether Judge Newman followed up with the Clerk to determine the full circumstances of such interactions and I would also like to know whether he had any awareness at the time that the Clerk had sought guidance from the ethics commission about writing a book about the case. That information would seem necessary in determining whether excusing the juror was adequate action at that time to ensure the integrity of the trial process.

Dick and Jim's buddy, McCullough, said he was repping jury members by the end of the trial to protect them from the media