DallasAg03 said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

That has nothing to do with a divorce. Testimony in the trial was that she preferred staying near the coast during the summer and didn't like the hunting lodge because she was more of a girly girl. That's where she was staying. However, she loved the dogs and often took them back-and-forth between the properties. No evidence that she was deliberately trying to stay away from Paul or the county or whatever.

---

A reasonable person can conclude a couple living apart is having issues. Her son killed someone in a small town and you think she just prefers the coast!?

---

The state couldn't find any witnesses to say they were having marital problems. But her friends did say she didnt like staying in the small town where the family mainly lived because she was harassed and felt stares when out and about.

If I had a million dollar beach house, I'd probably rather spend the time there than at the 1700 acre hunting lodge while my spouse is working long hours on trials.



Seems like a nice place to read or whatever rich lawyer wives do.

Yes. That was the testimony of many people. No one in their circle, including her sister and family, believed that they were having marital trouble. They were not separated.

Guitarsoup said:

---

DallasAg03 said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

That has nothing to do with a divorce. Testimony in the trial was that she preferred staying near the coast during the summer and didn't like the hunting lodge because she was more of a girly girl. That's where she was staying. However, she loved the dogs and often took them back-and-forth between the properties. No evidence that she was deliberately trying to stay away from Paul or the county or whatever.

---

A reasonable person can conclude a couple living apart is having issues. Her son killed someone in a small town and you think she just prefers the coast!?

---

The state couldn't find any witnesses to say they were having marital problems. But her friends did say she didnt like staying in the small town where the family mainly lived because she was harassed and felt stares when out and about.

If I had a million dollar beach house, I'd probably rather spend the time there than at the 1700 acre hunting lodge while my spouse is working long hours on trials.

---

For the record I doubt she was actively pursing divorce. Her family had huge Civil and Criminal trials coming. Divorce would have been a disaster.

AM is an admitted lying junkie, her son is facing serious prison time and a PI lawyer is suing everyone. I'm not buying the happy marriage argument.

DallasAg03 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

DallasAg03 said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

That has nothing to do with a divorce. Testimony in the trial was that she preferred staying near the coast during the summer and didn't like the hunting lodge because she was more of a girly girl. That's where she was staying. However, she loved the dogs and often took them back-and-forth between the properties. No evidence that she was deliberately trying to stay away from Paul or the county or whatever.

---

A reasonable person can conclude a couple living apart is having issues. Her son killed someone in a small town and you think she just prefers the coast!?

---

The state couldn't find any witnesses to say they were having marital problems. But her friends did say she didnt like staying in the small town where the family mainly lived because she was harassed and felt stares when out and about.

If I had a million dollar beach house, I'd probably rather spend the time there than at the 1700 acre hunting lodge while my spouse is working long hours on trials.

---

For the record I doubt she was actively pursing divorce. Her family had huge Civil and Criminal trials coming. Divorce would have been a disaster.

AM is an admitted lying junkie, her son is facing serious prison time and a PI lawyer is suing everyone. I'm not buying the happy marriage argument.

---

That's fine. We had a six week trial where not a single person testified to them in an unhappy marriage. I would have to assume if the DA could have found a SINGLE person that said Maggie was unhappy or hated Alex, he would have called that person, because then you have motive. But he couldn't find a single person, not even Maggie's own sister, who believed Alex committed the murders.

Guitarsoup said:

---

DallasAg03 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

DallasAg03 said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

That has nothing to do with a divorce. Testimony in the trial was that she preferred staying near the coast during the summer and didn't like the hunting lodge because she was more of a girly girl. That's where she was staying. However, she loved the dogs and often took them back-and-forth between the properties. No evidence that she was deliberately trying to stay away from Paul or the county or whatever.

---

A reasonable person can conclude a couple living apart is having issues. Her son killed someone in a small town and you think she just prefers the coast!?

---

The state couldn't find any witnesses to say they were having marital problems. But her friends did say she didnt like staying in the small town where the family mainly lived because she was harassed and felt stares when out and about.

If I had a million dollar beach house, I'd probably rather spend the time there than at the 1700 acre hunting lodge while my spouse is working long hours on trials.

---

For the record I doubt she was actively pursing divorce. Her family had huge Civil and Criminal trials coming. Divorce would have been a disaster.

AM is an admitted lying junkie, her son is facing serious prison time and a PI lawyer is suing everyone. I'm not buying the happy marriage argument.

---

That's fine. We had a six week trial where not a single person testified to them in an unhappy marriage. I would have to assume if the DA could have found a SINGLE person that said Maggie was unhappy or hated Alex, he would have called that person, because then you have motive. But he couldn't find a single person, not even Maggie's own sister, who believed Alex committed the murders.

---

Well he killed her so the marriage wasn't that great.

BTW MM knew he cheated on her at least once and the sister said she still brought it up. The Judge did not allow this testimony. So I guess he wasn't always biased against AM...

Source https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime/2023/02/14/alex-murdaugh-trial-live-coverage-updates-day-17-testimony-livestream/69901822007/

DallasAg03 said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

That has nothing to do with a divorce. Testimony in the trial was that she preferred staying near the coast during the summer and didn't like the hunting lodge because she was more of a girly girl. That's where she was staying. However, she loved the dogs and often took them back-and-forth between the properties. No evidence that she was deliberately trying to stay away from Paul or the county or whatever.

---

A reasonable person can conclude a couple living apart is having issues. Her son killed someone in a small town and you think she just prefers the coast!?

---

You're actually making the point against a bad marriage. She preferred not being in the small town due to the negativity surrounding the boat accident, etc.

And by the way, the house at moselle wasn't a "hunting lodge"

Guitarsoup said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

agracer said:

---

I asked during one of the daily threads but did not get an answer.

How is there video of AM being with Maggie and Paul 'minutes before the murder" (which no one can definitely point to the actual time of the murders) and there is no video evidence* of the murders or events around the kennels after AM left?

* Video was on twich, or tic-tok or some other platform, yes?

---

The video was saved to Paul's phone but was never sent if I remember correctly. The state estimated time of death by when the cell phone activity ceased. Their timeline had the deaths occurring at that time because that's the last time phones were used. The last use of Paul's phone was around a similar time to Maggie, I am not sure exactly when. Testimony they were both avid cell phone users. But Paul's phone was on low battery mode at 2% battery. Maggie could have conceivably put her phone down somewhere or stop using it to do something with the dogs. It's not exact evidence, but it fits with the state theory of Alex doing it.

GPS data on Maggie's phone was lost in police custody because they didn't secure the phone properly in a faraday bag and the GPS data was overwritten. If that doesn't happen we likely have an exact time of death and exact path of the phone at the exact time it was transported. Police ****ed up.

---

Paul's dog video was at 8:44p. He sent texts after that at 848p. Paul's battery was at 2%

DA said death was at 850p

Maggie had 59 steps at 8:53-8:55p. DA claims she was running towards her son. But the DA also claimed that they were shot at 8:50p and 59 steps in two minutes isn't running for anyone.

Alex had 283 steps at 906p, then his Surburban was started. He called Maggie at 904 and 906, then texts her that he is going to check on his mom and drives there.

Alex back at Moselle at 9:56.

It was Alex that led police to her phone using the FindMyPhone app. They probably dont find it without that.

---

I'm pretty sure he's guilty, but either timeline is difficult to believe. Unless you think a third party was specifically gunning for Paul and/or Maggie, either the prosecution's timeline is somewhat correct or a third party looking for Alex went to the property, found Paul and Maggie instead, killed them both, then left without waiting for Alex. It seems of the three scenarios, the most likely would be Alex was the murderer himself. It is definitely the least complicated scenario.

If his own botched attempt at having himself killed is any indication, Alex didn't seem to have anyone he could trust around him who could successfully do a contract killing.

As for how quickly the lone juror changed his or her mind, there is plenty of research that shows people feel a lot of social pressure to fit in with a group. Unless that juror really convinced or really contrarian, it probably wasn't too difficult to get the lone person to cave.

DallasAg03 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

LMCane said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Quote:

---

Which docu-drama did you get this from? Exactly what evidence points to Buster? Not gossip but actual evidence?

---

Paul once referred to the victim using the f-word at a family dinner.

Also, Buster and the victim appeared in the same high school yearbook.

What more evidence do you want?

---

so you have evidence

that even though the townspeople and the school students knew Buster was getting "tutored" by the ONE GHEY GUY IN SCHOOl

he had no connections with Smith?

---

You want him to prove a negative?

Can you prove any connections to Smith? Who ever saw them together? Had they ever even spoken? Any evidence besides gossip and innuendo from HBO? Are you sure you're an attorney?

---

Why do you assume everyone that disagrees with you only watched a documentary? Is it reasonable to believe you struggle to make friends?

---

Maybe take the snark down a notch? He's mentioning the documentary because that is where the allegations that Buster or the Murdaughs had anything to do with the Smith's death come from. No Murdaugh has ever been named a person of interest in that death. SLED did announce they were going to take a look at that case after Alex was charged with murder, but didn't specifically mention anything about Murdaughs being involved. For all we know it could have been a ploy to put pressure on Alex.

Busters name was tied to the Smith death by a rumor. A SC Highway Patrol investigator (out of Charleston) interviewed several (3-4) classmates that classmates "heard" that Buster was involved and as the investigator narrowed down that the rumor started from some guy named Issac who had not personal knowledge. Because the Medical Examiner apparently screwed up and initially determined the death to be a hit and run, some people assumed a nefarious motive for her incorrect determination and attributed it to a cover up.

unmade bed said:

---

DallasAg03 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

LMCane said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

Quote:

---

Which docu-drama did you get this from? Exactly what evidence points to Buster? Not gossip but actual evidence?

---

Paul once referred to the victim using the f-word at a family dinner.

Also, Buster and the victim appeared in the same high school yearbook.

What more evidence do you want?

---

so you have evidence

that even though the townspeople and the school students knew Buster was getting "tutored" by the ONE GHEY GUY IN SCHOOl

he had no connections with Smith?

---

You want him to prove a negative?

Can you prove any connections to Smith? Who ever saw them together? Had they ever even spoken? Any evidence besides gossip and innuendo from HBO? Are you sure you're an attorney?

---

Why do you assume everyone that disagrees with you only watched a documentary? Is it reasonable to believe you struggle to make friends?

---

Maybe take the snark down a notch? He's mentioning the documentary because that is where the allegations that Buster or the Murdaughs had anything to do with the Smith's death come from. No Murdaugh has ever been named a person of interest in that death. SLED did announce they were going to take a look at that case after Alex was charged with murder, but didn't specifically mention anything about Murdaughs being involved. For all we know it could have been a ploy to put pressure on Alex.

Busters name was tied to the Smith death by a rumor. A SC Highway Patrol investigator (out of Charleston) interviewed several (3-4) classmates that classmates "heard" that Buster was involved and as the investigator narrowed down that the rumor started from some guy named Issac who had not personal knowledge. Because the Medical Examiner apparently screwed up and initially determined the death to be a hit and run, some people assumed a nefarious motive for her incorrect determination and attributed it to a cover up.

---

I actually think the documentaries are worth a watch - especially Netflix. It shows just how sloppy the police are/were in this area. They never even called Mallory's parents after the boat accident. Then they let PM's family behind police lines and remove the boat.

The documentaries are entertaining and do a good job of getting viewers interested in the case, but they can be misleading and can rely on unreliable narrators (like the parents of the survivors and victim) to state things as fact that are really only their impressions.

An example was the Murdaugh family being allowed to pick up the boat. That was definitely claimed by the parents on Netflix but it wasn't really what happened. John Marvin Murdaugh did bring the trailer for the boat to law enforcement, but the boat never left the custody of law enforcement and was impounded at State facility.

See my post below from another thread with links to police reports that Netflix didn't bother providing:

Quote:

---

As to John Marvin and the boat, he brought a trailer that fit that specific boat to the LANDING at the request of DNR and left the trailer with them. The landing and the crash site are two different places.

The boat was towed in the water to the landing and taken out of the water and impounded in a DNR facility outside of Charleston.

The boat was still in the water at the crash site when John Marvin took the trailer to the landing (which again was a different location) so it's not accurate that John Marvin had any access to the boat.

The way Netflix let the family and survivors tell the story and provided snips of reports for 2 seconds sure made it seem like John Marvin just pulled up to scene, hooked up the boat to a trailer and drug it out of there. Pure fiction.

Screenshots linked below.

https://i.imgur.io/e068Z8e_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

https://i.imgur.io/db4q77i_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

---

unmade bed said:

---

The documentaries are entertaining and do a good job of getting viewers interested in the case, but they can be misleading and can rely on unreliable narrators (like the parents of the survivors and victim) to state things as fact that are really only their impressions.

An example was the Murdaugh family being allowed to pick up the boat. That was definitely claimed by the parents on Netflix but it wasn't really what happened. John Marvin Murdaugh did bring the trailer for the boat to law enforcement, but the boat never left the custody of law enforcement and was impounded at State facility.

See my post below from another thread with links to police reports that Netflix didn't bother providing:

Quote:

---

As to John Marvin and the boat, he brought a trailer that fit that specific boat to the LANDING at the request of DNR and left the trailer with them. The landing and the crash site are two different places.

The boat was towed in the water to the landing and taken out of the water and impounded in a DNR facility outside of Charleston.

The boat was still in the water at the crash site when John Marvin took the trailer to the landing (which again was a different location) so it's not accurate that John Marvin had any access to the boat.

The way Netflix let the family and survivors tell the story and provided snips of reports for 2 seconds sure made it seem like John Marvin just pulled up to scene, hooked up the boat to a trailer and drug it out of there. Pure fiction.

Screenshots linked below.

https://i.imgur.io/e068Z8e_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

https://i.imgur.io/db4q77i_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium

---

---

I just went back and watched the netflix doc and I was wrong, it doesn't appear they claim John Marvin moved the boat. They claim it was moved by close friends of his in DNR. They also, show phone records of John Marvin calling members of the DNR the day of the crash and many days afterward.

Police and team were equally sloppy at Moselle. Another reason why some of us voiced concerns on what was reasonable doubt versus enough circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence was minimal at best and that included the video and that Alex is a grade A+ POS.

BBRex said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

agracer said:

---

I asked during one of the daily threads but did not get an answer.

How is there video of AM being with Maggie and Paul 'minutes before the murder" (which no one can definitely point to the actual time of the murders) and there is no video evidence* of the murders or events around the kennels after AM left?

* Video was on twich, or tic-tok or some other platform, yes?

---

The video was saved to Paul's phone but was never sent if I remember correctly. The state estimated time of death by when the cell phone activity ceased. Their timeline had the deaths occurring at that time because that's the last time phones were used. The last use of Paul's phone was around a similar time to Maggie, I am not sure exactly when. Testimony they were both avid cell phone users. But Paul's phone was on low battery mode at 2% battery. Maggie could have conceivably put her phone down somewhere or stop using it to do something with the dogs. It's not exact evidence, but it fits with the state theory of Alex doing it.

GPS data on Maggie's phone was lost in police custody because they didn't secure the phone properly in a faraday bag and the GPS data was overwritten. If that doesn't happen we likely have an exact time of death and exact path of the phone at the exact time it was transported. Police ****ed up.

---

Paul's dog video was at 8:44p. He sent texts after that at 848p. Paul's battery was at 2%

DA said death was at 850p

Maggie had 59 steps at 8:53-8:55p. DA claims she was running towards her son. But the DA also claimed that they were shot at 8:50p and 59 steps in two minutes isn't running for anyone.

Alex had 283 steps at 906p, then his Surburban was started. He called Maggie at 904 and 906, then texts her that he is going to check on his mom and drives there.

Alex back at Moselle at 9:56.

It was Alex that led police to her phone using the FindMyPhone app. They probably dont find it without that.

---

I'm pretty sure he's guilty, but either timeline is difficult to believe. Unless you think a third party was specifically gunning for Paul and/or Maggie, either the prosecution's timeline is somewhat correct or a third party looking for Alex went to the property, found Paul and Maggie instead, killed them both, then left without waiting for Alex. It seems of the three scenarios, the most likely would be Alex was the murderer himself. It is definitely the least complicated scenario.

If his own botched attempt at having himself killed is any indication, Alex didn't seem to have anyone he could trust around him who could successfully do a contract killing.

As for how quickly the lone juror changed his or her mind, there is plenty of research that shows people feel a lot of social pressure to fit in with a group. Unless that juror really convinced or really contrarian, it probably wasn't too difficult to get the lone person to cave.

---

Yes, I think it is likely that Murdaugh committed the murders (or ordered them), but there still isn't any actual evidence other than AM being a complete POS. White collar crimes doesn't mean the person will kill his family, and killing his family gained him nothing at all.

The timeline is problematic for both parties.

Also, how many murders of two people in the same place at the same time are done with two substantially different long guns by one person? A .300 BLK and a shotgun are very different. A rifle or shotgun + a handgun I could more easily understand.

The only shootings with multiple long rifles by a single person I can think of are the Las Vegas shooting (.556 and .308) and Charles Whitman (M1 and shotguns) and those were sniper shootings.

I have a hard time picturing him rolling in with a 300BLK on one shoulder and shotgun on the other. They had a pretty big arsenal of weapons to choose from there.

Guitarsoup said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

agracer said:

---

I asked during one of the daily threads but did not get an answer.

How is there video of AM being with Maggie and Paul 'minutes before the murder" (which no one can definitely point to the actual time of the murders) and there is no video evidence* of the murders or events around the kennels after AM left?

* Video was on twich, or tic-tok or some other platform, yes?

---

The video was saved to Paul's phone but was never sent if I remember correctly. The state estimated time of death by when the cell phone activity ceased. Their timeline had the deaths occurring at that time because that's the last time phones were used. The last use of Paul's phone was around a similar time to Maggie, I am not sure exactly when. Testimony they were both avid cell phone users. But Paul's phone was on low battery mode at 2% battery. Maggie could have conceivably put her phone down somewhere or stop using it to do something with the dogs. It's not exact evidence, but it fits with the state theory of Alex doing it.

GPS data on Maggie's phone was lost in police custody because they didn't secure the phone properly in a faraday bag and the GPS data was overwritten. If that doesn't happen we likely have an exact time of death and exact path of the phone at the exact time it was transported. Police ****ed up.

---

Paul's dog video was at 8:44p. He sent texts after that at 848p. Paul's battery was at 2%

DA said death was at 850p

Maggie had 59 steps at 8:53-8:55p. DA claims she was running towards her son. But the DA also claimed that they were shot at 8:50p and 59 steps in two minutes isn't running for anyone.

Alex had 283 steps at 906p, then his Surburban was started. He called Maggie at 904 and 906, then texts her that he is going to check on his mom and drives there.

Alex back at Moselle at 9:56.

It was Alex that led police to her phone using the FindMyPhone app. They probably dont find it without that.

---

I'm pretty sure he's guilty, but either timeline is difficult to believe. Unless you think a third party was specifically gunning for Paul and/or Maggie, either the prosecution's timeline is somewhat correct or a third party looking for Alex went to the property, found Paul and Maggie instead, killed them both, then left without waiting for Alex. It seems of the three scenarios, the most likely would be Alex was the murderer himself. It is definitely the least complicated scenario.

If his own botched attempt at having himself killed is any indication, Alex didn't seem to have anyone he could trust around him who could successfully do a contract killing.

As for how quickly the lone juror changed his or her mind, there is plenty of research that shows people feel a lot of social pressure to fit in with a group. Unless that juror really convinced or really contrarian, it probably wasn't too difficult to get the lone person to cave.

---

Yes, I think it is likely that Murdaugh committed the murders (or ordered them), but there still isn't any actual evidence other than AM being a complete POS. White collar crimes doesn't mean the person will kill his family, and killing his family gained him nothing at all.

The timeline is problematic for both parties.

Also, how many murders of two people in the same place at the same time are done with two substantially different long guns by one person? A .300 BLK and a shotgun are very different. A rifle or shotgun + a handgun I could more easily understand.

The only shootings with multiple long rifles by a single person I can think of are the Las Vegas shooting (.556 and .308) and Charles Whitman (M1 and shotguns) and those were sniper shootings.

I have a hard time picturing him rolling in with a 300BLK on one shoulder and shotgun on the other. They had a pretty big arsenal of weapons to choose from there.

---

I mean there is SOME evidence, the snapchat video proved he was there and lied about it.

The timeline, 2 different guns, no GSR or blood. These are three areas that I feel provide room for doubt. Big doubts especially with the timeline. Just don't how someone can commit two gruesome murders and clean up all evidence in the very short time period suggested by the prosecution.

AM very well may have been the shooter or been somehow involved with a contract to shoot them. I really don't know. But with the evidence provided at the trial, there is quite a bit of area for doubt.

NM. Have nice weekend.

Go to 3 hour 22 minute mark for a discussion of the 404 evidence under South Carolina law. Likely reversible error by the judge is the assessment.



Also in South Carolina, counsel does not conduct voir dire EXCEPT in death penalty cases. The judge selects the jury.

DallasAg03 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

BBRex said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

agracer said:

---

I asked during one of the daily threads but did not get an answer.

How is there video of AM being with Maggie and Paul 'minutes before the murder" (which no one can definitely point to the actual time of the murders) and there is no video evidence* of the murders or events around the kennels after AM left?

* Video was on twich, or tic-tok or some other platform, yes?

---

The video was saved to Paul's phone but was never sent if I remember correctly. The state estimated time of death by when the cell phone activity ceased. Their timeline had the deaths occurring at that time because that's the last time phones were used. The last use of Paul's phone was around a similar time to Maggie, I am not sure exactly when. Testimony they were both avid cell phone users. But Paul's phone was on low battery mode at 2% battery. Maggie could have conceivably put her phone down somewhere or stop using it to do something with the dogs. It's not exact evidence, but it fits with the state theory of Alex doing it.

GPS data on Maggie's phone was lost in police custody because they didn't secure the phone properly in a faraday bag and the GPS data was overwritten. If that doesn't happen we likely have an exact time of death and exact path of the phone at the exact time it was transported. Police ****ed up.

---

Paul's dog video was at 8:44p. He sent texts after that at 848p. Paul's battery was at 2%

DA said death was at 850p

Maggie had 59 steps at 8:53-8:55p. DA claims she was running towards her son. But the DA also claimed that they were shot at 8:50p and 59 steps in two minutes isn't running for anyone.

Alex had 283 steps at 906p, then his Surburban was started. He called Maggie at 904 and 906, then texts her that he is going to check on his mom and drives there.

Alex back at Moselle at 9:56.

It was Alex that led police to her phone using the FindMyPhone app. They probably dont find it without that.

---

I'm pretty sure he's guilty, but either timeline is difficult to believe. Unless you think a third party was specifically gunning for Paul and/or Maggie, either the prosecution's timeline is somewhat correct or a third party looking for Alex went to the property, found Paul and Maggie instead, killed them both, then left without waiting for Alex. It seems of the three scenarios, the most likely would be Alex was the murderer himself. It is definitely the least complicated scenario.

If his own botched attempt at having himself killed is any indication, Alex didn't seem to have anyone he could trust around him who could successfully do a contract killing.

As for how quickly the lone juror changed his or her mind, there is plenty of research that shows people feel a lot of social pressure to fit in with a group. Unless that juror really convinced or really contrarian, it probably wasn't too difficult to get the lone person to cave.

---

Yes, I think it is likely that Murdaugh committed the murders (or ordered them), but there still isn't any actual evidence other than AM being a complete POS. White collar crimes doesn't mean the person will kill his family, and killing his family gained him nothing at all.

The timeline is problematic for both parties.

Also, how many murders of two people in the same place at the same time are done with two substantially different long guns by one person? A .300 BLK and a shotgun are very different. A rifle or shotgun + a handgun I could more easily understand.

The only shootings with multiple long rifles by a single person I can think of are the Las Vegas shooting (.556 and .308) and Charles Whitman (M1 and shotguns) and those were sniper shootings.

I have a hard time picturing him rolling in with a 300BLK on one shoulder and shotgun on the other. They had a pretty big arsenal of weapons to choose from there.

---

I mean there is SOME evidence, the snapchat video proved he was there and lied about it.

---

Yes he was there, and yes, he lied about it; but, you do not hear Maggie or Paul say anything like "Why are you carrying those two guns?" on the video. The video is actually exculpatory to me. How does he go from pulling a bird out of the dog's mouth one minute to shooting two people with two different long guns in the next?

FireAg said:

---

D or R is meaningless to me…

That reasonable doubt was ignored is bothersome to me…

Don't like setting this type of precedent being set…

---

Guilty/not guilty verdicts in criminal trials don't really set precedents. I know you don't mean legally, but there just isn't a carryover effect to another jury trial with a different set of facts, defendant, jury, judge, and attorneys.

unmade bed said:

---

Jury was initially 9 guilty, 2 not guilty, 1 undecided. It took 45 minutes for the 3 to fall in line with the other 9.

Quote:

---

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/murdaugh-juror-says-cellphone-video-110045814.html

---

---

I can take more than 45 minutes to decide what I want to eat at dinner time. For someone to change their mind from not guilty to guilt in just 45 minutes is pretty crazy and likely means they were very weak-minded and susceptible to peer pressure.

Quote:

---

I can take more than 45 minutes to decide what I want to eat at dinner time. For someone to change their mind from not guilty to guilt in just 45 minutes is pretty crazy and likely means they were very weak-minded and susceptible to peer pressure.

---

The juror who said that about the 45 minutes to reach an unanimous guilty verdict said there was a lot of talking (which I took to mean yelling) to reach that verdict.

Branca's assessment of the trial starts at 29 minute mark.

aggiehawg said:

---

Also in South Carolina, counsel does not conduct voir dire EXCEPT in death penalty cases. The judge selects the jury.

---

If it was the same judge, he would choose the Satterfield kid, one of Smith's family, a Beach family member, one of the law firm's financial lady's family, etc.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Also in South Carolina, counsel does not conduct voir dire EXCEPT in death penalty cases. The judge selects the jury.

---

If it was the same judge, he would choose the Satterfield kid, one of Smith's family, a Beach family member, one of the law firm's financial lady's family, etc.

---

I was blown away when I heard that. Chris Adams on that stream is a SC criminal defense attorney who does death penalty cases said he was scared on his first death penalty case because he never had conducted voir dire before.

Having this judge, who clearly hates Alex on a personal basis, pick the jury? Just doesn't sit right with me. But a lot of the laws in South Carolina are screwy. No exclusionary rule for witnesses is still mind-boggling. The admission that SLED lied to the grand jury, a grand jury which this judge presided oevr and he never bats an eye at that? Multiple 5th and 6th Amendment violations which the judge ignores and even barked at defense counsel for even raising the issue?

All of the 404 propensity evidence and under 403 because of the more prejudicial than probative test, was a poor decision and one the judge should have ruled upon before trial so that defense could have appealed it if they so desired. But when he refused to rule until in the middle of the trial when they couldn't appeal mid-trial that was very calculated by the judge. Since he is also the judge for all of the financial crimes too.

Then the judge calls upon the Chief of SLED during victim impact? The Chief of SLED was a victim here?

Alex requests to make a statement to the court and reasserts his innocence of the murder charges and the judge calls him a liar and chastises him for that?

Such a bizarre trial from start to finish.

ETA: One more weird thing in SC law. Not only does the judge get to select the jury but he also selects the foreman of the jury.

Lying about being at the crime scene for 2 years, can and will be held against you. Circumstantial evidence when given in quantity can produce verdicts beyond reason doubt. I would also love for more of the evidence you listed but it's not required to reach a verdict.

DallasAg03 said:

---

Lying about being at the crime scene for 2 years, can and will be held against you. Circumstantial evidence when given in quantity can produce verdicts beyond reason doubt. I would also love for more of the evidence you listed but it's not required to reach a verdict.

---

That's fine. He lied about his timeline of movements, but also repeatedly asked for the police to pull the data from his and his family's phones so they could see he wasnt there.

There still was no evidence that he actually committed the murders. None.

The verdict was based solely on him being a POS.

Quote:

---

Lying about being at the crime scene for 2 years

---

He was already in detention for the roadside shooting and financial crimes. He was arrested on October 14, 2021. Just a few months after the murders. It is against prosecutorial ethics and ruled to in any way comment upon a defendant's assertion of their right to counsel nor their 5th amendment rights.

Ask yourself this, if the 404 and 403 evidence never was presented to the jury, would they have convicted him?

Not a Bot said:

---

Oh and here's the thing about the judge saying "the evidence was overwhelming." He did that on purpose. That's now on the record. When it goes to appeal the appellate court will see that the trial judge believed the evidence was overwhelming. Often the standard on appeal was whether any mistakes the judge makes would have changed the verdict. Judge snuck that in there to be used in his favor in the appellate court.

Absolute piece of crap.

---

That won't be a factor.

There are two records -- the Clerk's Record (filings) and the Reporter's Record. Obviously, everything stated in trial goes on the latter, but it is only reviewed by the appellate court as it is relevant to the appeal. In other words, the appeal will bring up the specific issues (by the defense) that it thinks are in error. The judge commenting on the evidence at the end of the trial probably won't be one of them, so this likely won't even be mentioned. The jury has already decided, so this didn't lead to any harm. Even if it is brought up, it won't carry any weight because it isn't an issue the judge has authority over.

Now, a ruling on a motion that the judge has discretion over is different. If the appellate review of that matter is not de novo (i.e. the court isn't reviewing it based on a legal standard that they apply like they're hearing it for the first time), but rather abuse of discretion, then they'll review how the judge ruled and take into account what he said or how he ruled accordingly based on the law (at least, ideally and in theory). The way politics permeates into courts these days, who knows.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

Oh and here's the thing about the judge saying "the evidence was overwhelming." He did that on purpose. That's now on the record. When it goes to appeal the appellate court will see that the trial judge believed the evidence was overwhelming. Often the standard on appeal was whether any mistakes the judge makes would have changed the verdict. Judge snuck that in there to be used in his favor in the appellate court.

Absolute piece of crap.

---

That won't be a factor.

There are two records -- the Clerk's Record (filings) and the Reporter's Record. Obviously, everything stated in trial goes on the latter, but it is only reviewed by the appellate court as it is relevant to the appeal. In other words, the appeal will bring up the specific issues (by the defense) that it thinks are in error. The judge commenting on the evidence at the end of the trial probably won't be one of them, so this likely won't even be mentioned. The jury has already decided, so this didn't lead to any harm. Even if it is brought up, it won't carry any weight because it isn't an issue the judge has authority over.

Now, a ruling on a motion that the judge has discretion over is different. If the appellate review of that matter is not de novo (i.e. the court isn't reviewing it based on a legal standard that they apply like they're hearing it for the first time), but rather abuse of discretion, then they'll review how the judge ruled and take into account what he said or how he ruled accordingly based on the law (at least, ideally and in theory). The way politics permeates into courts these days, who knows.

---

They can't bring up judicial bias in appeal?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Lying about being at the crime scene for 2 years

---

He was already in detention for the roadside shooting and financial crimes. He was arrested on October 14, 2021. Just a few months after the murders. It is against prosecutorial ethics and ruled to in any way comment upon a defendant's assertion of their right to counsel nor their 5th amendment rights.

Ask yourself this, if the 404 and 403 evidence never was presented to the jury, would they have convicted him?

---

If I was a juror deciding someone's life I'd want all the information to make my decision.

Quote:

---

If I was a juror deciding someone's life I'd want all the information to make my decision.

---

And people like you are the reason Rules 403 and 404 exist.

He's already been transferred to state prison.

aggiehawg said:

---

Also in South Carolina, counsel does not conduct voir dire EXCEPT in death penalty cases. The judge selects the jury.

---

Seems crazy to people that practice in Texas state courts. Cases are won and lost the second a lawyer stands up and starts talking to the panel.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Also in South Carolina, counsel does not conduct voir dire EXCEPT in death penalty cases. The judge selects the jury.

---

Seems crazy to people that practice in Texas state courts. Cases are won and lost the second a lawyer stands up and starts talking to the panel.

---

Precisely.

Was watching Law and Lumber stream from last night when the verdict was announced. The State AG Wilson held a triumphant presser afterwards with the prosecution team. All seventeen of them. And then haping effusive praise on how great SLED is.

Rob is a pretty mild mannered guy but even he was cringing at that spectacle.