Holy **** that was fast. Maybe he shouldn't have testified after all.
Alex Murdaugh Trial-Verdict Watch
43,420 Views |
632 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by BadMoonRisin
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…
That reasonable doubt was ignored is bothersome to me…
Don't like setting this type of precedent being set…
People need to understand that if you start railroading defendants who are pieces of human garbage that railroading eventually finds the people who are completely innocent. You have to uphold the rights of everyone otherwise your rights may one day be taken away.
What I fear most about this case is a lost appeal. The state was allowed to introduce evidence of bad character that had nothing to do with the charges at hand. They were allowed to introduce copious hearsay evidence. They were allowed to ask a defendant on the witness stand about conversations he had with his own attorney.
What I fear most about this case is a lost appeal. The state was allowed to introduce evidence of bad character that had nothing to do with the charges at hand. They were allowed to introduce copious hearsay evidence. They were allowed to ask a defendant on the witness stand about conversations he had with his own attorney.
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.
Absolute piece of crap.
Personally I do believe he did it or at minimum had something to do with it. I also believe the state absolutely did not produce evidence to show he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. Scary that one can be convicted of a double murder solely on circumstantial evidence and a very weak motive.
But it isn't meaningless in this context, especially in light of the goings on this morning with booting of that juror who was being watched by SLED, interviewed by SLED agents including one who was a witness in this case? Probably Owen? the guy who lied to the grand jury twice?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…
Wabs said:
Personally I do believe he did it or at minimum had something to do with it. I also believe the state absolutely did not produce evidence to show he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. Scary that one can be convicted of a double murder solely on circumstantial evidence and a very weak motive.
Extremely scary…
Financial Crime Victim's attorney (for about 10 of them) just said what really can't be argued against - why would you lie to law enforcement about the last time you saw your family alive if you were truly concerned about finding the person who actually did it.
I hear you…but my overall point is, the state didn't prove anything, but he's found guilty…
Bunk Moreland said:Corn Pop said:Bunk Moreland said:
There's just no other way anyone else could and would have been the murderer given all the circumstantial evidence.
Fair, but that's not how our legal system works. It's the states responsibility to prove the guns were in his hands and he pulled the trigger. Which they did not do imo. They brought up a lot of circumstantial evidence and proved he was a POS. Nothing else.
I generally agree...but they don't have to prove the guns were in his hands and he pulled the trigger. They have to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's abundantly clear this jury found that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
How do you prove someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt without proving he was the one that he pulled the triggers? Seems like you bought into the character assassination…
He probably should not have But according to the law, that is his absolute right to do so. His lawyers were helpless once he made up his mind to testify. They could not stop him.Rodney Ruxin said:
Holy **** that was fast. Maybe he shouldn't have testified after all.
Rodney Ruxin said:
Holy **** that was fast. Maybe he shouldn't have testified after all.
Testifying was definitely a mistake, as it always is (obviously unless needing to prove self defense or other affirmative defense) but that's not what sunk him. His fate was sealed as soon as financial crimes and roadside fiasco were allowed in.
It has happened before. People get things wrong after experiencing trauma. Some people block entire hours out of their memory following traumatic situations. I was surprised he admitted to it on the stand. May have been better off saying he had no memory of it. I agree that was the best evidence the state had.Big Al 1992 said:
Financial Crime Victim's attorney (for about 10 of them) just said what really can't be argued against - why would you lie to law enforcement about the last time you saw your family alive if you were truly concerned about finding the person who actually did it.
Corn Pop said:Bunk Moreland said:Corn Pop said:Bunk Moreland said:
There's just no other way anyone else could and would have been the murderer given all the circumstantial evidence.
Fair, but that's not how our legal system works. It's the states responsibility to prove the guns were in his hands and he pulled the trigger. Which they did not do imo. They brought up a lot of circumstantial evidence and proved he was a POS. Nothing else.
I generally agree...but they don't have to prove the guns were in his hands and he pulled the trigger. They have to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It's abundantly clear this jury found that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
How do you prove someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt without proving he was the one that he pulled the triggers? Seems like you bought into the character assassination…
People have been found guilty of murder before without a gun or video or witnesses showing them pull the trigger. All of the evidence around the timeline, the phones, and his movements combined with the privacy of their property lead me to believe there is no other person who could commit the crime.
I'm also not saying that's how I'd rule if I were on the jury. I'm just clarifying what the jury was asked to do. I'd probably have been the type of juror who would have dragged it out for days and made them really convince me before considering flipping from NG to G.
Also...for whoever said the motive was thin at best...are you kidding me? His son was a major league **** up who was bringing insane attention to his life. He was a pill addict, he was estranged from his wife, and that very day he was caught stealing millions by his own firm. Add that to the multi generational pressure of the family dynasty and there's plenty of motive to rid yourself of some problems out of an emotionally fueled day where you feel like your life is crumbling around you.
If that were the law, you'd never be able to convict someone of murder without an eye witness.Corn Pop said:
How do you prove someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt without proving he was the one that he pulled the triggers?
There's no evidence he was estranged from his wife. The family had been getting attention for a long time. The financial stuff was mostly discovered after the murder, not before. And killing them solved none of that. They had no life insurance. He was making millions a year.Bunk Moreland said:
Also...for whoever said the motive was thin at best...are you kidding me? His son was a major league **** up who was bringing insane attention to his life. He was a pill addict, he was estranged from his wife, and that very day he was caught stealing millions by his own firm. Add that to the multi generational pressure of the family dynasty and there's plenty of motive to rid yourself of some problems out of an emotionally fueled day where you feel like your life is crumbling around you.
Not having policies on them before killing them would be very un-Murdaugh like
IMO these kinds of cases are the reason we have juries. The jury had to do what the prosecution couldn't: lock that rat up and throw away the key. The world is a better place with AM in a cell.
I'm not sure if people genuinely believe someone is going to say, "Wow, if some people say I'm a moron for not believing this, it clearly must be true."
It's not much a persuasive argument. It really just sounds like a bunch of miniature dachshunds barking because the first one one barked when it thought it heard something.
It's not much a persuasive argument. It really just sounds like a bunch of miniature dachshunds barking because the first one one barked when it thought it heard something.
Not a Bot said:There's no evidence he was estranged from his wife. The family had been getting attention for a long time. The financial stuff was mostly discovered after the murder, not before. And killing them solved none of that. They had no life insurance. He wasBunk Moreland said:
Also...for whoever said the motive was thin at best...are you kidding me? His son was a major league **** up who was bringing insane attention to his life. He was a pill addict, he was estranged from his wife, and that very day he was caught stealing millions by his own firm. Add that to the multi generational pressure of the family dynasty and there's plenty of motive to rid yourself of some problems out of an emotionally fueled day where you feel like your life is crumbling around you.makingstealing millions a year.
Good thing the jury didn't get fooled. AM is going to get his rectum resized.
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
32,064
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Control. Something he has done his whole life, control the narrative. To the point when he couldn't anymore. I still think he didn't do it but was warned that serious consequences could happen and this was it. So he lies to give him more time to think.Big Al 1992 said:
Financial Crime Victim's attorney (for about 10 of them) just said what really can't be argued against - why would you lie to law enforcement about the last time you saw your family alive if you were truly concerned about finding the person who actually did it.
Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
Also legit making it. He was bringing in $6-8 million a year in legit money or more IIRC. He was the firm's whale. It's why they looked the other way for so long. There's no way they didn't know what he was doing.
The way the firm paid out was they would take a low $100,000s salary then get a big dump payment at the end of the year. He was bad at cash flow and was making things "right" under the table with the firm by taking no-questions-asked loans from banks and paying them off.
That's why the 700k missing money being a motive made no sense. He could have walked into his personal bank and had that money in an account in five minutes. He'd done it before.
The way the firm paid out was they would take a low $100,000s salary then get a big dump payment at the end of the year. He was bad at cash flow and was making things "right" under the table with the firm by taking no-questions-asked loans from banks and paying them off.
That's why the 700k missing money being a motive made no sense. He could have walked into his personal bank and had that money in an account in five minutes. He'd done it before.
I can answer that. He actually said it on the stand. He had showered, changed, had dinner and was stretched out on te couch. He had spent the entire night the preceding Friday in the hospital. Saturday and Sunday, in Colombia for super regionals in baseball and apparently having some withdrawal symptoms. He's sick, exhausted and trying to lay down on the couch and doze off with the TV on. But Maggie wanted him to go down with her and Paul to the kennels (maybe she's worried he's taking pills again?) but he declines. Thought better of it, a few minutes later and took the golf cart down to the kennels to make her happy.Big Al 1992 said:
Financial Crime Victim's attorney (for about 10 of them) just said what really can't be argued against - why would you lie to law enforcement about the last time you saw your family alive if you were truly concerned about finding the person who actually did it.
He shows up. The Bubba/chicken thing happens and he leaves. The reason he doesn't want to remember the last time he saw her alive was that he was peeved at her and she was likely peeved at him.
The night before I lost my first husband, we had an argument. But the next morning, we "made up" in the married couple meaning of the words. When he left that morning, we kissed, promised to "make up" again when he got home that evening. He was killed in a car accident that day. My grief was deep, very deep but the one memory I could hold onto was the last time I saw him, smiling, grabbing my butt, saying he loved me and me saying the same to him.
He drove my car that day (for reasons that is a whole other story) and when the police gave me back the things they found in the car, they had taken the cassette tape he was playing at the time of the accident. It was a soundtrack of a movie that held very specific significance to us. He was playing that because he had bought it for me after that particular moment in our lives. Also in the car were flowers, caviar, a baguette, brie and champagne. How he wooed me to get me to marry him and how romantic he was.
I still cry when I hear that song but I knew he was happy and looking forward to getting back to me when he died. Made a huge difference to me in trying to get past his death and then my only brother's death a week to the day later. Brother had been with me for my husband's funeral just two days before his own death. He was there for me and took care of me when I was distraught. He was a banker, went to the bank for me and took care of that stuff for me safe deposit box contents, etc. He and I parted on very good term and then he was gone, too.
So remembering last words and encounters with a sudden loss can be a blessing or a much deeper wound.
Having said all of that, what do you think would have happened if Alex had said the last time he saw her alive was, "I was pissed off at her and she was pissed at me!"
This forum seems to look for the outlier data in the trials I have read on here. Simple answer is this worthless human being killed his family.
I also would expect an innocent man to show SOME reaction of disbelief. This scum acted like the piper came calling.
I also would expect an innocent man to show SOME reaction of disbelief. This scum acted like the piper came calling.
The verdict seems like a Lifetime Achievement Award for being a POS.
Not a Bot said:It has happened before. People get things wrong after experiencing trauma. Some people block entire hours out of their memory following traumatic situations. I was surprised he admitted to it on the stand. May have been better off saying he had no memory of it. I agree that was the best evidence the state had.Big Al 1992 said:
Financial Crime Victim's attorney (for about 10 of them) just said what really can't be argued against - why would you lie to law enforcement about the last time you saw your family alive if you were truly concerned about finding the person who actually did it.
I agree. His reasoning for lying to the cops was horrible, it was so bad in fact that I thought it actually was more likely he was being honest about why he lied. A semi-competent liar (and Alex was a top notch liar) would have been able to come up with something so much better than "my drug use made me paranoid and I didn't trust SLED."
Possible lies that would have made him look better:
- Trauma of seeing his wife and son dead at that location made his mind block out the last time he saw them at that location - until he heard the video and it triggered his memory of the dog/chicken.
- the last interaction he had with them was unpleasant and he had gotten angry with one or both of them over something petty (maybe the dogs) and was ashamed to recall it. He didn't think the omission was a big deal because he had surmised they were both killed right before he arrived back at the property.
It's just ridiculous to me that he wouldn't have come up with a better lie to explain why he initially lied, and as part of the lie maybe come up with a decent lie about your last communication with your son and wife instead of just going with "don't remember." (Note: I think it's possible he actually doesn't remember what they talked about but again, if he was lying already, have a good lie at least)
He should have never testified
That was modern day good ole boy justice we just witnessed. Jurors heard all the crap he did and it was just too overwhelming for them to ignore the facts from his past. Had they didn't know all the other backstories I doubt they find him guilty. He basically dug his own grave and now he has to lay in it.
If he actually did do this I'd love for him to give an interview explaining how he did it in such short time. It's so chaotic and impressive all the different variables and such short time.
Either way he's a giant POS and deserves to be in jail anyway.
If he actually did do this I'd love for him to give an interview explaining how he did it in such short time. It's so chaotic and impressive all the different variables and such short time.
Either way he's a giant POS and deserves to be in jail anyway.
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
32,064
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I was thinking the same thing, as far as his 12 step process now that he's guilty, he can apologize to Buster and the dogs and tell them how he did them in so efficiently but brutally.AustinCountyAg said:
If he actually did do this I'd love for him to give an interview explaining how he did it in such short time. It's so chaotic and impressive all the different variables and such short time.
Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:I was thinking the same thing, as far as his 12 step process now that he's guilty, he can apologize to Buster and the dogs and tell them how he did them in so efficiently but brutally.AustinCountyAg said:
If he actually did do this I'd love for him to give an interview explaining how he did it in such short time. It's so chaotic and impressive all the different variables and such short time.
I highly doubt AM will ever admit to doing it, but I too would love for him to and to further explain how he pulled it off - the two long gun murder, the cleanup, dumping Maggie's phone, etc.
Simple trials don't take six weeks unless there are a lot of victims.Marvin said:
This forum seems to look for the outlier data in the trials I have read on here. Simple answer is this worthless human being killed his family.
I also would expect an innocent man to show SOME reaction of disbelief. This scum acted like the piper came calling.
Guess you never heard about Waukesha Christmas Parade massacre.
Come on. You can't compare the two
He has an appeal process. Not a good idea for him.Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:I was thinking the same thing, as far as his 12 step process now that he's guilty, he can apologize to Buster and the dogs and tell them how he did them in so efficiently but brutally.AustinCountyAg said:
If he actually did do this I'd love for him to give an interview explaining how he did it in such short time. It's so chaotic and impressive all the different variables and such short time.
BUT for Buster? A How Dad Did It book? Son of Sam laws won't cover that, IMO.
Is SC a death penalty state?
Tony Franklins Other Shoe
Joined:
May 6, 2014
Posts:
32,064
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So let's take it to the next step, how does this go to appeal? State gets to fix their stupidity, but how does his defense get better? EVERYONE in the state and now across the nation knows what a POS he is so even if the next judge rules against allowing all the financial stuff and maybe even drug addiction in, is there any plausible path for a reversal?
I don't see it but have no legal background. Just seems like this has to be one and done. I just want to know if he pulled off a crazy scenario or if he somehow paid Odd Job to finish them off or Odd Job was the cartel hit man.
Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
I don't see it but have no legal background. Just seems like this has to be one and done. I just want to know if he pulled off a crazy scenario or if he somehow paid Odd Job to finish them off or Odd Job was the cartel hit man.
Person Not Capable of Pregnancy
Featured Stories
See All
Texas A&M adds former Tennessee CB Rickey Gibson III via transfer portal
by Ryan Brauninger
Thursday (1/8) Portal Storylines: So much for a 'quiet' day
by TexAgs Recruiting
12:30
23h ago
3.0k