Guitarsoup said:

---

AustinCountyAg said:

---

Hell, Alex already tried to kill himself. That's what he wants. He deserves to rot in prison and think about all the bull**** he did and have him haunt him.

---

Is the $10mm life insurance still in effect? Buster better keep up that premium when the son, grandson, great-grandson of the 14th District Solicitor shows up at state prison with the people that his dad put in for life.

---

I don't know, this guy is a stone cold killer that can go from jovially interacting with his family and their dogs to straight up blasting his youngest son's brains out in under 2 minutes and plus is apparently responsible for every suspicious death that has occurred on the low country for the past 10-15 years.

Maybe those inmates that the prior Murdaughs have sent to prison better watch their backs.

Quote:

---

Judge was speaking for all the people in that area that had been screwed over by the Murdaughs for decades out of fear. He finally got to publicly shame them. Had it comin'

---

WOW. Sins of the fathers much? Buster next?

AustinCountyAg said:

---

Hell, Alex already tried to kill himself. That's what he wants. He deserves to rot in prison and think about all the bull**** he did and have it haunt him. Life in prison is worse for him than death penalty.

---

That is part of the dark comedy in this whole thing. The dude smoked his youngest son and his wife and SLED made a mess of the scene but was hail mary'ed by a 30 second video. He finally snaps and arranges to have goofy cousin Eddie pop a couple of caps in him on the side of the road and he can't even get that right. You just can't script a movie like that.

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

Muy said:

---

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

---

I'd assume the upcoming civil trials will milk most or all of that dry.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Gui said:

---

Quote:

---

On the day that Maggie and Paul were found dead, Alex was approached by members of his law firm who had found out about the alleged thefts.

He had a court date three days later regarding those financial irregularities.

That, prosecutors allege, combined with being confronted by his family over his drug abuse, were the factors that led Murdaugh to commit murder.

---

His court case in 3 days was about Mallory Beach.

The other attorneys from his firm testified that they had asked him about the money, but he was under no pressure at the time of the murders.

---

Popping 60 pills a day and spending thousands a week to support the habit while your finances are unraveling and you're told by your own firm they know you're stealing, when you're as big as powerful as he is, and knowing there's a court date 3 days later about something else your stupid son did that will mean you have to spend more money to defend imo means the financial crimes, the pills, & the pressure due to the Beach situation all could easily support motive for him to go unhinged on who he in his pilled up state believes is causing the distress in his life. So he took it out on them.

---

Beach was going to be settled by insurance. That wasn't coming out of pocket just like the housekeeper.

Blowing his son's head off because he pops oxy and his son accidentally killed a girl on a boat doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it makes sense to addicts.

I can't tie these things together. Killing his wife and son did not make anything better for him. He didn't have giant life insurance policies. His father-in-law was a barber, so he didn't have money that would go to Alex in the event of his wife's death.

If he had a 10mm policy on the wife and he killed her and then could use the money to pay back money he was caught stealing and pay for his kid's DUI defense, sure. But that wasn't the case.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Muy said:

---

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

---

I'd assume the upcoming civil trials will milk most or all of that dry.

---

Which civil trials? Buster's money came from his mom's estate. Is he being sued?

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

AnglerAg92 said:

---

The cellphone and Onstar data also paint a very damning picture. This guy is nothing more than a very convincing liar who has made a living perfecting his craft.

---

Then he has his phone and Maggie's phone on his person when he ditches it by the side of the road, yet they weren't able to easily prove this? And wouldn't the steps be similar that they spent so much time on?

---

I must have missed this. Where was the evidence that he had Maggie's phone? Onstar evidence does not show that he stopped near where the phone was found on his way to or from his mother's house.

Muy said:

---

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

---

Not without a complete body makeover and move to some far point of the world. If that yokel sticks around there he will be hounded every single day. Dude stands out like a red headed sore thumb.

redcrayon said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Muy said:

---

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

---

I'd assume the upcoming civil trials will milk most or all of that dry.

---

Which civil trials? Buster's money came from his mom's estate. Is he being sued?

---

Sorry, not civil. They'll be criminal financial crimes trials. And the state will attempt to make the victims whole.

1939 said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

AnglerAg92 said:

---

The cellphone and Onstar data also paint a very damning picture. This guy is nothing more than a very convincing liar who has made a living perfecting his craft.

---

Then he has his phone and Maggie's phone on his person when he ditches it by the side of the road, yet they weren't able to easily prove this? And wouldn't the steps be similar that they spent so much time on?

---

I must have missed this. Where was the evidence that he had Maggie's phone? Onstar evidence does not show that he stopped near where the phone was found on his way to or from his mother's house.

---

That was my point, they never even came close to showing that when they presented the paths. The two phones would have had to overlap for a period of time.

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?

Bunk Moreland said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Muy said:

---

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

---

I'd assume the upcoming civil trials will milk most or all of that dry.

---

Which civil trials? Buster's money came from his mom's estate. Is he being sued?

---

Sorry, not civil. They'll be criminal financial crimes trials. And the state will attempt to make the victims whole.

---

Buster won't make any victim's whole. He isn't on trial.

If there is a family trust that built up well before Alex made his money, how can they take that from Buster? I can see them taking all of Alex's assets but not a protected trust. Then again, I'm just a sales guy.

redcrayon said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Muy said:

---

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

---

I'd assume the upcoming civil trials will milk most or all of that dry.

---

Which civil trials? Buster's money came from his mom's estate. Is he being sued?

---

South Carolina (and I think the IRS) is investigating Alex for not paying taxes on the money he stole. I assume they will say the properties are theirs.

DallasAg03 said:

---

I'm reading a lot of comments that don't know the difference between reasonable doubt and proof. It's a reasonable verdict to assume the only person alive at the scene of a murder did it. It's reasonable to assume he destroyed evidence. I'm not losing sleep over this, he got a fair trial. He had better defense lawyers than 99% of defendants

---

EXACTLY THIS

it seems that for weird myriad reasons, some of the posters here have a personal investment in proving he was not guilty

personally, I could care less. I have faith in the jury system

if 12 out of 12 jurors came to the conclusion he did it beyond a reasonable doubt- I take that as more likely than the keyboard attorneys here.

Quote:

---

Beach was going to be settled by insurance. That wasn't coming out of pocket just like the housekeeper.

Blowing his son's head off because he pops oxy and his son accidentally killed a girl on a boat doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it makes sense to addicts.

I can't tie these things together. Killing his wife and son did not make anything better for him. He didn't have giant life insurance policies. His father-in-law was a barber, so he didn't have money that would go to Alex in the event of his wife's death.

If he had a 10mm policy on the wife and he killed her and then could use the money to pay back money he was caught stealing and pay for his kid's DUI defense, sure. But that wasn't the case.

---

You can't tie together the rage and emotionally devastating feeling that your constantly ****ing up son could cause you that you have to deal with day after day after day, all while living a life of lies on pills, stealing from your company and committing fraud just to support your drug habit, your wife's spending habits and your kid's legal situations and having to adhere to being the most important man in the area and the pressure of generations of elitism that you now represent as the patriarch?

I can easily see someone who is super stressed out, constantly in an altered state, constantly having to be the 'solver' of problems who then resorted to his own crimes....on the day he was caught on his crimes and the jig was up deciding to make a horrific decision because he just needed at least all of that to end. Especially someone who is as smart as him and thinks he can do it by getting away with it.

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?

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Muy said:

---

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

---

Not without a complete body makeover and move to some far point of the world. If that yokel sticks around there he will be hounded every single day. Dude stands out like a red headed sore thumb.

---

He should write a book about being the lone family member his dad didn't kill.


SPARED.

Guitarsoup said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Muy said:

---

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

---

I'd assume the upcoming civil trials will milk most or all of that dry.

---

Which civil trials? Buster's money came from his mom's estate. Is he being sued?

---

South Carolina (and I think the IRS) is investigating Alex for not paying taxes on the money he stole. I assume they will say the properties are theirs.

---

Maggie's estate already went to Buster. Maybe Alex's assets are in danger but I don't think Buster can be held responsible for Alex's debts. But maybe I missed something. One of the properties (Moselle?) was only in Maggie's name.

redcrayon said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Muy said:

---

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

---

I'd assume the upcoming civil trials will milk most or all of that dry.

---

Which civil trials? Buster's money came from his mom's estate. Is he being sued?

---

Sorry, not civil. They'll be criminal financial crimes trials. And the state will attempt to make the victims whole.

---

Buster won't make any victim's whole. He isn't on trial.

---

Attorney's are trying to void the 2016 sale of Moselle to Maggie. If they do, then Buster wont' get that money and the sale of the property will be part of the assets that would get liquidated to pay the victims of the financial crimes.

Is there still a chance they go after Buster for being an accomplice to a cover up?

redcrayon said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Muy said:

---

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

---

I'd assume the upcoming civil trials will milk most or all of that dry.

---

Which civil trials? Buster's money came from his mom's estate. Is he being sued?

---

South Carolina (and I think the IRS) is investigating Alex for not paying taxes on the money he stole. I assume they will say the properties are theirs.

---

Maggie's estate already went to Buster. Maybe Alex's assets are in danger but I don't think Buster can be held responsible for Alex's debts. But maybe I missed something.

---

So if you are stealing from the IRS and South Carolina, make sure you assets put it in your spouse's name, even though you file married, so then the IRS can't get the assets?

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?

---

Do YOU have any evidence that YOU didn't kill the Smith kid? You seem to know a lot about him - that he was tutoring Buster Murdaugh and that he was the only gay dude in the school - so it seems like you may have some "connections" with him yourself, so now it's apparently on you to provide evidence you didn't murder him.

At least half of every asset is Maggie's not Alex's, but as a spouse you do assume all liabilities as well as assets.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Quote:

---

Beach was going to be settled by insurance. That wasn't coming out of pocket just like the housekeeper.

Blowing his son's head off because he pops oxy and his son accidentally killed a girl on a boat doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it makes sense to addicts.

I can't tie these things together. Killing his wife and son did not make anything better for him. He didn't have giant life insurance policies. His father-in-law was a barber, so he didn't have money that would go to Alex in the event of his wife's death.

If he had a 10mm policy on the wife and he killed her and then could use the money to pay back money he was caught stealing and pay for his kid's DUI defense, sure. But that wasn't the case.

---

You can't tie together the rage and emotionally devastating feeling that your constantly ****ing up son could cause you that you have to deal with day after day after day, all while living a life of lies on pills, stealing from your company and committing fraud just to support your drug habit, your wife's spending habits and your kid's legal situations and having to adhere to being the most important man in the area and the pressure of generations of elitism that you now represent as the patriarch?

I can easily see someone who is super stressed out, constantly in an altered state, constantly having to be the 'solver' of problems who then resorted to his own crimes....on the day he was caught on his crimes and the jig was up deciding to make a horrific decision because he just needed at least all of that to end. Especially someone who is as smart as him and thinks he can do it by getting away with it.

---

No, it does not make sense to me at all. I cannot imagine any situation where I would take a shotgun to my son's head and blow it off.

And in doing that, there was no benefit for Alex.

Quote:

---

No, it does not make sense to me at all. I cannot imagine any situation where I would take a shotgun to my son's head and blow it off.

And in doing that, there was no benefit for Alex.

---

Neither can I. But we probably both aren't capable of murdering our family or anyone else for that matter.

The benefit was for the noise to stop. There was so much going on in his life and Paul (and likely Maggie) were 2 of the problems. I know we can't rationalize that, but a sociopath could.

LMCane said:

---

DallasAg03 said:

---

I'm reading a lot of comments that don't know the difference between reasonable doubt and proof. It's a reasonable verdict to assume the only person alive at the scene of a murder did it. It's reasonable to assume he destroyed evidence. I'm not losing sleep over this, he got a fair trial. He had better defense lawyers than 99% of defendants

---

EXACTLY THIS

it seems that for weird myriad reasons, some of the posters here have a personal investment in proving he was not guilty

personally, I could care less. I have faith in the jury system

if 12 out of 12 jurors came to the conclusion he did it beyond a reasonable doubt- I take that as more likely than the keyboard attorneys here.

---

Both of you have serious reading comprehension skills then. Plenty of people here, in fact the great majority that say they would have decided not guilty, but are not shocked at the verdict at all. I really can't find anyone aghast at the verdict.

And maybe you could care a little less.

At least one juror has already talked to the press, not hiding his name. Any reason in this case for the jury to try to stay anonymous? The Murdaugh Mafia probably knows who they are anyway.

Bunk Moreland said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Muy said:

---

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

---

I'd assume the upcoming civil trials will milk most or all of that dry.

---

Which civil trials? Buster's money came from his mom's estate. Is he being sued?

---

Sorry, not civil. They'll be criminal financial crimes trials. And the state will attempt to make the victims whole.

---

Buster won't make any victim's whole. He isn't on trial.

---

Attorney's are trying to void the 2016 sale of Moselle to Maggie. If they do, then Buster wont' get that money and the sale of the property will be part of the assets that would get liquidated to pay the victims of the financial crimes.

---

Gotcha!

Guitarsoup said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Muy said:

---

So does Buster essentially walk away with all remaining family assets and go on with his life?

---

I'd assume the upcoming civil trials will milk most or all of that dry.

---

Which civil trials? Buster's money came from his mom's estate. Is he being sued?

---

South Carolina (and I think the IRS) is investigating Alex for not paying taxes on the money he stole. I assume they will say the properties are theirs.

---

Maggie's estate already went to Buster. Maybe Alex's assets are in danger but I don't think Buster can be held responsible for Alex's debts. But maybe I missed something.

---

So if you are stealing from the IRS and South Carolina, make sure you assets put it in your spouse's name, even though you file married, so then the IRS can't get the assets?

---

Ha. No. Hope Buster hasn't spent the money.

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

LMCane said:

---

DallasAg03 said:

---

I'm reading a lot of comments that don't know the difference between reasonable doubt and proof. It's a reasonable verdict to assume the only person alive at the scene of a murder did it. It's reasonable to assume he destroyed evidence. I'm not losing sleep over this, he got a fair trial. He had better defense lawyers than 99% of defendants

---

EXACTLY THIS

it seems that for weird myriad reasons, some of the posters here have a personal investment in proving he was not guilty

personally, I could care less. I have faith in the jury system

if 12 out of 12 jurors came to the conclusion he did it beyond a reasonable doubt- I take that as more likely than the keyboard attorneys here.

---

Both of you have serious reading comprehension skills then. Plenty of people here, in fact the great majority that say they would have decided not guilty, but are not shocked at the verdict at all. I really can't find anyone aghast at the verdict.

And maybe you could care a little less.

---

this is me. If the plaintiff wasn't a connected person like he is one could argue the entire investigation and trial was a sham and not fair. Hence, why I could vote not guilty for the trial.

However, with all the smoke around him and his family I can see the fire burning.

Muy said:

---

Is there still a chance they go after Buster for being an accomplice to a cover up?

---

What did he help cover up?

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

LMCane said:

---

DallasAg03 said:

---

I'm reading a lot of comments that don't know the difference between reasonable doubt and proof. It's a reasonable verdict to assume the only person alive at the scene of a murder did it. It's reasonable to assume he destroyed evidence. I'm not losing sleep over this, he got a fair trial. He had better defense lawyers than 99% of defendants

---

EXACTLY THIS

it seems that for weird myriad reasons, some of the posters here have a personal investment in proving he was not guilty

personally, I could care less. I have faith in the jury system

if 12 out of 12 jurors came to the conclusion he did it beyond a reasonable doubt- I take that as more likely than the keyboard attorneys here.

---

Both of you have serious reading comprehension skills then. Plenty of people here, in fact the great majority that say they would have decided not guilty, but are not shocked at the verdict at all. I really can't find anyone aghast at the verdict.

And maybe you could care a little less.

---

I think they've read the thread(s) just fine. Folks may not be "aghast" but they're certainly arguing this was a huge conspiratorial miscarriage of justice.

At the end of the day, he had to explain away a lot in order to create reasonable doubt and he couldn't do that. And his long time explanation turned out to be a lie.