It is but the state has not asked for it. They want life without parole...so they said. But when Waters was a bunny jumping up to say state wanted sentencing tomorrow morning?AustinCountyAg said:
Is SC a death penalty state?
Good question. Will one of the people with him that night finally flip?BadMoonRisin said:
Now that Murdaugh blood is in the water, how long until SLED announces charges against Buster for the 2016 death of Stephen Smith?
People keep asking me my opinion of the Alex Murdaugh trial. pic.twitter.com/G7F7F3S83Z
— O.J. Simpson (@TheRealOJ32) March 2, 2023
BadMoonRisin said:
Now that Murdaugh blood is in the water (pardon the pun), how long until SLED announces charges against Buster for the 2016 death of Stephen Smith?
Hell, doesn't matter what type of circumstantial evidence they have, they might just try and strike while the iron is hot.
Not a Bot said:
Emily is on Rob's channel right now.
Neither impressed with closings. Both think Griffin was too close to the family to be as effective as he could be. Emily confused why defense didn't hammer on the instructions.
That's not at all what I meant by my comment.Not a Bot said:BadMoonRisin said:
Now that Murdaugh blood is in the water (pardon the pun), how long until SLED announces charges against Buster for the 2016 death of Stephen Smith?
Hell, doesn't matter what type of circumstantial evidence they have, they might just try and strike while the iron is hot.
I can see the state making the case to the judge:
"Judge, his dad murdered his brother and Mom. He also stole a bunch of money. His dad is a bad guy. I think we need weeks of testimony on all of that to make sure the jury understands that could be Buster's motive in killing this boy."
Judge: "Even though the killing happened in 2016, it it fits the theory of the case. I'll allow it."
aggiehawg said: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.
Which docu-drama did you get this from? Exactly what evidence points to Buster? Not gossip but actual evidence?BadMoonRisin said:That's not at all what I meant by my comment.Not a Bot said:BadMoonRisin said:
Now that Murdaugh blood is in the water (pardon the pun), how long until SLED announces charges against Buster for the 2016 death of Stephen Smith?
Hell, doesn't matter what type of circumstantial evidence they have, they might just try and strike while the iron is hot.
I can see the state making the case to the judge:
"Judge, his dad murdered his brother and Mom. He also stole a bunch of money. His dad is a bad guy. I think we need weeks of testimony on all of that to make sure the jury understands that could be Buster's motive in killing this boy."
Judge: "Even though the killing happened in 2016, it it fits the theory of the case. I'll allow it."
I was merely saying that there was smoke swirling in the days, weeks, and months after Stephen Smith was found dead on that county road that Buster was responsible for it. AM controlled the neck of the PD to ensure that the head was never pointed in the direction of his son, much in the same way that he (less successfully perhaps) did when Paul caught a body by drunk driving into a bridge pylon. There was plenty of evidence that was ignored that might now be re-evaluated. And rightfully so.
ArcticPenguin said:
It doesn't mean that it should have been the basis.
Quote:
Which docu-drama did you get this from? Exactly what evidence points to Buster? Not gossip but actual evidence?
A lot more than that…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. What more evidence do you want?
Agree that Griffin should have been on the defense team so he couldn't testify but in the background. Barber was more than competent to handle this case and he was very direct, concise and very understandable. Even with tech crap.Quote:
Neither impressed with closings. Both think Griffin was too close to the family to be as effective as he could be. Emily confused why defense didn't hammer on the instructions.
Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:
If I'm in the jury room, not guilty. Too many key data gaps and I would be turned off by some of the prosecution's antics. The pellets and angle for the second shot on Paul make absolutely no sense for how the state presented it if you have any remedial shotgun experience. My wife watched the netflix deal and no portion of the trial and when I asked her what she thought, she said "POS for sure, but why did he use two different guns? That doesn't make much sense."
Gut feeling is that this jury is going to go a while and come back once or twice until the judge says to keep going and the last holdout craters for guilty.
Edited to add Tuesday 2:30 EST.
Ghost91 said:
Having said that, this verdict SHOULD make those who have been saying 'you can't convict a chronological liar thief of muuuurduuuur' and 'b-b-but there's no moooootiive' to reconsider their take and acknowledge that those assertions were NOT what the judge, the jury, and 90% of the population was basing their opinion on.
--------------------
Anyway, a nice victory today for proponents of 'ridiculously obvious circumstantial evidence can carry the day' over the 'b-b-but we don't have a 4K ultra-high def video of the suspect committing the crime' people.
Like what? All i heard was gossip and innuendo.ArcticPenguin said:A lot more than that…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. What more evidence do you want?
LOL. It will be before a Grand Jury Monday with that overwhelming evidence.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?
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 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.
Says someone who has never used a shotgun.Quote:
So wrong. I thought the prosecution witnesses on the kill shot on Paul were spot on. Exactly how it happened who knows but the direction of the shot from bottom up, glancing the shoulder, into the neck and out the back of his head is exactly correct.
FireAg said:Bunk Moreland said:
There's just no other way anyone else could and would have been the murderer given all the circumstantial evidence.
Then he's Houdini…
10 min…murder, clean up, and escape in 10 min…with two different weapons to boot…
Wrongaggiehawg said:Says someone who has never used a shotgun.Quote:
So wrong. I thought the prosecution witnesses on the kill shot on Paul were spot on. Exactly how it happened who knows but the direction of the shot from bottom up, glancing the shoulder, into the neck and out the back of his head is exactly correct.
Prove that without "tool marking" junk science that is the polygraph test admissible in the 50s.Quote:
Two weapons that VERY likely came from his house and both mysteriously disappeared.
So when you shoot your shotgun, the pellets narrow and concentrate when they pass through skin and tissue and the gases wait to explode when they come in contact with a closed structure such as a cranial cavity?aglaes said:aggiehawg said:Says someone who has never used a shotgun.Quote:
So wrong. I thought the prosecution witnesses on the kill shot on Paul were spot on. Exactly how it happened who knows but the direction of the shot from bottom up, glancing the shoulder, into the neck and out the back of his head is exactly correct.
Wrong
My question is who was there with him? There were two shooters.suburban cowboy said:
how did he do it?
obviously he was there, but how?
