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

[Diddian]

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.

Fair enough. IMO, she either joined in the corruption of the attorneys OR she has been duped into joining with them, not realizing how much those attorneys are hanging what they claim upon the precise language used in what she signs her name to.

It seems kind of absurd to me: in this motion and the supporting affidavits, jurors seem to be excusing themselves from the responsibility of signing affidavits that use particular language which they now claim is different than what they orally stated, but it is the affidavit of this juror that uses particular language that supports the overall claims. Like having it both ways. What are we to believe when signed affidavits are to be considered both unreliable and reliable?

The juror's claims would carry more weight with me if they were expressed to the judge and at the time they occurred.

 

[Diddian]

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

Well, there you go...possibly. Look like a duck and quacks like one, but I guess someone is going to have to pull out their magnifying glass to see if the prints in the mud resemble duck prints.

 

[Simply Southern]

A little bit off topic…but…who pays $30,000 to self-publish a book?

And by the way, don’t be fooled by the hype that it is an Amazon Best Seller…it is but only in a very unique category - white collar crime true accounts. I don’t think any others have come out in the last couple of years in this category other than ones on Murdaugh & cryptocurrency - so it makes sense that this one released only about a month ago would have more recent sales pushing it to the “best seller” level for that category. It still gives no indication of how many have sold - though I’m sure that more will sell with all this going on.

Oh she’ll be a local celebrity, book signing in the local shops. She may be hoping for a movie deal, on behind the scenes.

My sister and I have a beach house not far from here. We attended one day of the trial, had lunch locally. I was amazed, the entire area was like a major tourist attraction, food trucks from as far away as Charlotte paid big bucks to set up, TV crews everywhere and a buzz of pure hate for AM.

<modsnip - no link from an approved source to statement of fact>

It gave me a bad feeling about justice for this man, who so many hated because he was rich.

All my opinion

 

[MTW2011]

Looking beyond the claims in the Motion, I am curious what others think of some of this.
In her own book (excerpt included in the original Motion), she mentions going with 3 jurors to NY for a media interview.

Why would the Clerk go with any juror(s) to any sort of media interview?
Was it acting still in her role as Clerk, or rather as some form of personal support?

If it was more personal support, why would one who holds the role as Clerk of Courts be engaging in any sort of personal support type manner with any jurors?
This single situation seems to be a lot like the adage of 'avoiding all impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety

I just cannot see why it would be a good idea to intermingle this, and I am thinking of this as the Clerk having the best intentions in the world. It still seems like it could be troublesome and/or questionable, IMOO.
We don't have to use anything the attorneys or jurors claimed for this, it is coming directly from her own words in her own book (so I am assuming she is telling the truth that she accompanied them on this trip)

 

[Pyrite]

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

Listening to the Prosecutors YouTube channel, they thought it was because the jurors saw her as an extension of the judge, as she was the person they had to go through to bring up any issues they had to the judge. So they didn’t think she was an ‘anybody‘ who counted.

I highly recommend listening to the whole show to see how a current and ex federal prosecutor see the issue and during the last 1/3 or so of the show they bring a defense attorney on board To see how he sees the issue. As an aside every attorney I’ve watched or listen to on this latest filing (the Prosecutors, Crime talk, Lori Hellis) all agree this is a very serious issue and if proven by a preponderance of evidence, AM will get a new trial. They also agree AM is guilty.

they focus mostly on the affidavit of Juror 36 being the most serious and not the egg lady.

MOO

 

[Diddian]

Oh she’ll be a local celebrity, book signing in the local shops. She may be hoping for a movie deal, on behind the scenes.

My sister and I have a beach house not far from here. We attended one day of the trial, had lunch locally. I was amazed, the entire area was like a major tourist attraction, food trucks from as far away as Charlotte paid big bucks to set up, TV crews everywhere and a buzz of pure hate for AM.
<modsnip - no link from an approved source to statement of fact>

It gave me a bad feeling about justice for this man, who so many hated because he was rich.

All my opinion

He isn't hated because he is rich; he is hated because (1) he made himself rich thieving from the poor and vulnerable (not to mention the theft from his wealthy partners), (2) he had a monumentally large case of entitlement (to the money he stole, to justice on his own terms) based upon family name and reputation, and (3) he murdered his wife and son.

 

[Simply Southern]

Imo, it was the cumulative demands. This shouldn't take long. You can't smoke until you reach a verdict. And, if you don't, you'll go to a hotel with nothing, no bags packed. This was not something the judge told them to be prepared for. She wanted a quick verdict and she used these tools and her power to exact it.

jmo

Does the court provide advance notice jurors may be sequestered?

Had a decision been made or was she just winging it?

Thanks

 

[Seattle1]

Fair enough. IMO, she either joined in the corruption of the attorneys OR she has been duped into joining with them, not realizing how much those attorneys are hanging what they claim upon the precise language used in what she signs her name to.

It seems kind of absurd to me: in this motion and the supporting affidavits, jurors seem to be excusing themselves from the responsibility of signing affidavits that use particular language which they now claim is different than what they orally stated, but it is the affidavit of this juror that uses particular language that supports the overall claims. Like having it both ways. What are we to believe when signed affidavits are to be considered both unreliable and reliable?

The juror's claims would carry more weight with me if they were expressed to the judge and at the time they occurred.

That was the issue I raised in my initial summary of the Motion/Exhibits -- the affidavit of the dismissed juror especially contradicts her earlier statements to the Court.

And then we have <modsnip: removed name variation>-- throwing all her fellow jurors under the bus for talking about the case before deliberations -- except herself, of course. SMH...

I think Ms. Becky had already incriminated herself just in various comments she's made while promoting her book -- definitely seemed to have difficulty separating herself as Clerk from the actual Jurors.

IMO, the defense could have easily started here with Ms. Becky rather than go for the kill --which is why they needed the select jurors. But DH can't ever resist the mean-spirited route. I doubt the cooperating Jurors have a clue they are being used (and good ole Uncle Joe (McCulloch) isn't going to tell them). Cough, cough.

It will be interesting how it plays out. I believe intent will play a large part in the resolution, as well as the verdict not being affected by the allegations. The evidence was overwhelming. JMO

 

[Seattle1]

Looking beyond the claims in the Motion, I am curious what others think of some of this.
In her own book (excerpt included in the original Motion), she mentions going with 3 jurors to NY for a media interview.

Why would the Clerk go with any juror(s) to any sort of media interview?
Was it acting still in her role as Clerk, or rather as some form of personal support?

If it was more personal support, why would one who holds the role as Clerk of Courts be engaging in any sort of personal support type manner with any jurors?
This single situation seems to be a lot like the adage of 'avoiding all impropriety and even the appearance of impropriety

I just cannot see why it would be a good idea to intermingle this, and I am thinking of this as the Clerk having the best intentions in the world. It still seems like it could be troublesome and/or questionable, IMOO.
We don't have to use anything the attorneys or jurors claimed for this, it is coming directly from her own words in her own book (so I am assuming she is telling the truth that she accompanied them on this trip)View attachment 445423

While the verdict was rendered and the trial complete, I think traveling with the Jurors to NY was just another example of Ms. Becky having trouble separating herself from the jurors. But I also see this from the perspective of a very small town where the residents including the subjects here were rocked to their core by this case. I don't doubt the Jurors looked to the personality (versus the position) for guidance and support. And just to emphasize the small world of some of the subjects -- the trip to NY was the first plane trip ever for Ms. Becky in her 55 years of life.

Nonetheless, the trip with the Jurors is the equivalent of the book -- not a good look while still holding the office of Clerk of the Court. JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

Does the court provide advance notice jurors may be sequestered?

Had a decision been made or was she just winging it?

Thanks

Not sure what "advanced" would mean and what their internal rules are but it seems quite clear that sequestration is the judge's decision, not the decision of the clerk of the court, and it would be especially improper to use the threat of sequestration as a means for them to conclude their deliberations.

jmo
[BBM]
"Only on rare occasions are members of a jury required to be kept together and away from home during the course of the trial. This is called sequestration. Sequestration occurs in cases involving considerable public interest and is resorted to by the judge when it is deemed necessary to protect the jury from undue exposure to publicity about the trial. While sequestration may be inconvenient, the juror must realize that the judge has determined the measure necessary to assure that justice is done. When the jury must be kept together, the court will see to it that your family is notified, and every possible effort will be taken to ensure your comfort."

Juror Behavior - South Carolina Judicial Branch

www.sccourts.org

The last sentence does seem to indicate that the judge may order it at the end of that day's deliberations, but that would be in the discretion of the judge, not the clerk. But, they never even got that far in this case. We'll never know if he would have done so but the jury had not been sequestered during the course of this trial. I remember remarking at the time that their verdict was so quick that there is no way they reveiwed it all jmo. That trial was 6 weeks long and they deliberated under 3 hours. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160581579/alex-murdaugh-murder-trial-verdict#:~:text=A South Carolina jury has,commission of a violent crime.

jmo

 

[kittythehare]

Not sure what "advanced" would mean and what their internal rules are but it seems quite clear that sequestration is the judge's decision, not the decision of the clerk of the court, and it would be especially improper to use the threat of sequestration as a means for them to conclude their deliberations.

jmo
[BBM]
"Only on rare occasions are members of a jury required to be kept together and away from home during the course of the trial. This is called sequestration. Sequestration occurs in cases involving considerable public interest and is resorted to by the judge when it is deemed necessary to protect the jury from undue exposure to publicity about the trial. While sequestration may be inconvenient, the juror must realize that the judge has determined the measure necessary to assure that justice is done. When the jury must be kept together, the court will see to it that your family is notified, and every possible effort will be taken to ensure your comfort."

Juror Behavior - South Carolina Judicial Branch

www.sccourts.org

The last sentence does seem to indicate that the judge may order it at the end of that day's deliberations, but that would be in the discretion of the judge, not the clerk. But, they never even got that far in this case. We'll never know if he would have done so but the jury had not been sequestered during the course of this trial. I remember remarking at the time that their verdict was so quick that there is no way they reveiwed it all jmo. That trial was 6 weeks long and they deliberated under 3 hours. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160581579/alex-murdaugh-murder-trial-verdict#:~:text=A South Carolina jury has,commission of a violent crime.

jmo

I'm not sure why deliberations would even be necessary after a trial as long as that and with so much damning evidence.
The State proved their case.
Individual jurors had made their own individual assessments, surely?

I really and truly doubt these antics affected their verdicts.

They're OTT for sure and theres lots of role faffing, she's their mother, their interpreter, the voice of the judge and their shepherd.
she would have irritated me.. just sayin'

it will be investigated but if their verdicts were unaffected it will not go for a retrial IMO

 

[Cindizzi]

https://x.com/mmdewittjr/status/1699799014387114154?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

[…]

Season 2 will feature "first-hand accounts from those who were there the days leading up to and following the murders, giving more insight than ever into that deadly night," including Blanca Turrubiate-Simpson (a former Murdaugh family Housekeeper) and Mushelle "Shelly" Smith (caregiver for Alex's mother, Libby Murdaugh), who became some of the most powerful witnesses at the trial.

The latest installment of Murdaugh Murders also features interviews with alleged Murdaugh co-conspirator and accomplice, Curtis Edward Smith (aka Cousin Eddie), and Gwen Generette, one of the trial’s jurors.

Morgan Doughty, Paul Murdaugh's ex-girlfriend, Anthony Cook, Paul’s friend, and Valerie Bauerlein, Wall Street Journal reporter, also return.

[…]

 

[Jurisprudence]

Jurors #630 and #785 submitted affidavits.

Jurors #741 and #326 did not. Instead, a paralegal submitted affidavits attesting to what they said when AM's attorneys spoke with them.

I assume the tweet is referring to the latter two jurors.

Oh, okay that makes more sense. I didn't realize he attached those as exhibits in addition to the sworn affidavits of the other 2 jurors (and I thought it was only one?).

Okay so this is the one (or 2) juror(s) who did not want to give an affidavit but who corroborated the events as retold by the 2 who did provide affidavits. The attys mentioned this in their interview (linked) at 3:40. I do not presume to speak for that juror but I will say imo it is not unheard of for witnesses in a highly charged case, political, emotional, or both, to not want to voluntarily provide this information but instead, would rather provide it under cover of subpoena. And it seems clear imoo that they feel confident that this is what's going on down there in this highly controversial case. You hear them say (at the mark):

"[If the Court of Appeals sends] this back for an evidentiary hearing and if they do that, we believe these jurors will, under oath, testify to the truth."

This would be via cover of subpoena

jmo

 

[kittythehare]

https://x.com/mmdewittjr/status/1699799014387114154?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

View attachment 445458



[…]

Season 2 will feature "first-hand accounts from those who were there the days leading up to and following the murders, giving more insight than ever into that deadly night," including Blanca Turrubiate-Simpson (a former Murdaugh family Housekeeper) and Mushelle "Shelly" Smith (caregiver for Alex's mother, Libby Murdaugh), who became some of the most powerful witnesses at the trial.

The latest installment of Murdaugh Murders also features interviews with alleged Murdaugh co-conspirator and accomplice, Curtis Edward Smith (aka Cousin Eddie), and Gwen Generette, one of the trial’s jurors.

Morgan Doughty, Paul Murdaugh's ex-girlfriend, Anthony Cook, Paul’s friend, and Valerie Bauerlein, Wall Street Journal reporter, also return.

[…]

Not for a billion would I ever watch that again while getting all the cases thoroughly mixed up and in a state of complete confusion1
The only one I understood was the case proving he killed them.
That was easy though because of the dog and the video and the voice.
He was there.

Dude had so many options for a decent life, fabulous ranch, lovely home, beautiful wife and kids but he didn't appreciate any of it. I was wondering how he felt about it being sold and I just received this feeling that he was never really there and the sale wouldn't affect him in the slightest.

Had he any emotional connection with anybody or any sentient being ever?

How did he run so long on empty?

 

[worm]

When we see “book deal” it lays a gray cloud over the whole thing to a lot of people regardless of anything else.

 

[Jurisprudence]

... 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.

[snipped by me]

I was surprised to learn this. I assumed she went through the proper channels at the County - of her employer. Learning she consulted an outside entertainment lawyer and the ethics commission for clerks statewide has me thinking the judge had no clue.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

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

Probably because logic dictates that "anyone else" wouldn't include the Clerk of the Court, the judge, or any other court personnel.

jmo

 

[Gardenista]

FITSNews

@fitsnews
·
1m

The S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) is reportedly preparing to release its first public statement on its investigation into allegations of jury tampering tied to the 2023 trial of convicted killer Alex Murdaugh. As soon as we get it, we will share it ... #Murdaughs

 

[Jurisprudence]

The juror's claims would carry more weight with me if they were expressed to the judge and at the time they occurred.

[snipped by me]

I can see them thinking she's in a position of authority, don't question it. (And, that's the whole problem when it comes down to it, isn't it?)

jmo

 

[Gardenista]

Eric Bland

@TheEricBland

It is our profound honor to be representing two of the jurors from the Murdaugh murder trial. Dick suggested that the jurors should lawyer up and that’s exactly what our new clients have done. They stand ready to participate in any proceedings that may follow, but we will ensure that they will not be harassed in that process. EB