Strong circumstantial evidence and he lied on purpose, bigly. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

BluHorseShu said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Followed that trial everyday.

Alex is a real POS. But they never came close to proving he killed his wife and son. Zero evidence he was involved.

Did he maybe know about it? Hard to say. Maybe he did but he did not benefit from it in any economic way.

Having watched the trial, don't think he personally did it.

---

Well, I guess that's what makes our system unique. The jurors only have the information they're given AND a damning Netflix documentary, their ability to understand the info and to follow the instructions of the court without prejudice. Guess he could have used you on the jury.


I personally think its next to impossible to have a jury that is not influenced by their own personal biases or preconceived notions of the case all the time. Hopefully good attorneys can ferret them out before being selected, but even in todays climate, many people are going into those pools with an axe to grind.

---

FIFY

BlueTaze said:

---

Strong circumstantial evidence and he lied on purpose, bigly. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

---

Such as?

Old Army Ghost said:

---

a jury of his peers disagreeds with you

---

Is a jury who hears evidence that was not properly admitted through long established court rules really a jury of his peers? There is a reason courts are required to follow rules of evidence.

Shagga said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

a jury of his peers disagreeds with you

---

Is a jury who hears evidence that was not properly admitted through long established court rules really a jury of his peers? There is a reason courts are required to follow rules of evidence.

---

AggieHawg won't even acknowledge things Alex Murdaugh himself testified to. Let's stop pretending AggieHawg looks at these things with a careful and unbiased eye

This has nothing to do with Hawg. I didn't listen the trial, but I know one thing - when a publicity seeking court clerk tells jurors things that are not in evidence, and one of the jurors even admits that this influenced her, then the defendant deserves a new trial. I would believe the same if the defendant was Charles Manson. This judge's ruling is complete BS. I wonder if this judge was a Republican instead of a Democrat if her ruling would be the same.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Shagga said:

---

Old Army Ghost said:

---

a jury of his peers disagreeds with you

---

Is a jury who hears evidence that was not properly admitted through long established court rules really a jury of his peers? There is a reason courts are required to follow rules of evidence.

---

AggieHawg won't even acknowledge things Alex Murdaugh himself testified to. Let's stop pretending AggieHawg looks at these things with a careful and unbiased eye

---

Hawg never said Alex wasn't at the kennels, she said that he wasn't there "minutes" before the killing because when they were killed is not as 100% clear as the AG and Netflix want you to believe based on Maggie and Paul's phone usage.

I'm constantly on my phone all day too. I'm sure phone records would confirm that. That doesn't mean that any time I am not on my phone it proves I have been murdered.

Lots of other explanations for why they may have both stopped texting and using apps on their phones at around the same time other than them being killed at the exact moment they stopped using the phones.

For example, given they were down there messing with dogs, very possible they both stopped using their phones in order to do something with the dogs (wash them, spray out their kennels, etc). They may have been working on whatever task that was for 10-15 minutes without using their phones before they were actually killed.

For example, Hawg is on record in this thread saying, conclusively, Murdaugh's voice wasn't in the famous video even though Murdaugh testified at trial that was his voice.

Ghost91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Kraft Punk said:

---

He's on the Snapchat video hollering minutes before he brutally slaughtered his wife & son

Hope he gets a nice long life in prison before arriving in hell

---

No, he isn't.

---

What? Yes, he IS.

In the trial, he took the stand and said that he was never at the kennels that day/evening. At ALL.

Then after the Snapchat video was shown - in which you see/hear him plain as day - he RETOOK the stand and admitted that he WAS there and that he had lied in his prior testimony. The testimony that he gave just days before to the SAME jury. Unbelievable.
Of course he spun it to say that he arrived at the kennels two seconds before the video and left two seconds AFTER the video and only lied because it would look bad.

Zero credibility. GIANT circumstantial evidence. Guilty. Done. Go away forever.

---

What trial were you watching because Murdaugh only took the stand one time (when called by his own defense attorneys after the state had introduced the Snapchat video as evidence) and his story on the stand never changed.

Are you mixing up videotaped interviews with detectives from before he was arrested with him actually being on the stand?

TheAngelFlight said:

---

For example, Hawg is on record in this thread saying, conclusively, Murdaugh's voice wasn't in the famous video even though Murdaugh testified at trial that was his voice.

---

I don't think that's what Hawg was saying but I would defer to her. I think she was saying he wasn't on Snapchat video minutes before the killings. That is not the same as saying it wasn't him on the Snapchat video at all. I think she is disagreeing on timing but again I can't read her mind so will defer

he's is the background talking on the snapchat but the statement was that it was mere minutes before they died. That was what I was objecting to. The use of timing the snapchat to the murders.

Who moved Maggie's phone?

unmade bed said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

For example, Hawg is on record in this thread saying, conclusively, Murdaugh's voice wasn't in the famous video even though Murdaugh testified at trial that was his voice.

---

I don't think that's what Hawg was saying but I would defer to her. I think she was saying he wasn't on Snapchat video minutes before the killings. That is not the same as saying it wasn't him on the Snapchat video at all. I think she is disagreeing on timing but again I can't read her mind so will defer

---

Okay. AggieHawg says conclusively 8:44pm wasn't "minutes" before they were killed. So, what time does AggieHawg know they were killed?

Go to the one hour 3 minute mark.



The former jurors are in the jury room and being brought in to be questioned one at a time. Only, they still have their cell phones and are watching the CourtTV feed of what is happening in the courtroom.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

unmade bed said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

For example, Hawg is on record in this thread saying, conclusively, Murdaugh's voice wasn't in the famous video even though Murdaugh testified at trial that was his voice.

---

I don't think that's what Hawg was saying but I would defer to her. I think she was saying he wasn't on Snapchat video minutes before the killings. That is not the same as saying it wasn't him on the Snapchat video at all. I think she is disagreeing on timing but again I can't read her mind so will defer

---

Okay. AggieHawg says conclusively 8:44pm wasn't "minutes" before they were killed. So, what time does AggieHawg know they were killed?

---

Well, Paul sends a Snapchat to a friend about a movie at 8:48pm so pretty likely both he and his mom are alive at that time. Then Alex calls 911 at 10:07 pm saying they both have been shot.

So the murders happened sometime between 8:48 and 10:07. Hard for anyone to conclusively say when between those times. It seems to me that trying to say it had to be between 8:48 - 8:50 because that's when they stopped using their phones is about as reasonable as saying it had to be between 10:03-10:05 because that was right before Alex found their bodies.

Again, lots of explanations for their phones not being used after 8:48 that don't involve them both being killed at that time (for example Paul's was at 1% battery).

aggiehawg said:

---

BlueTaze said:

---

Strong circumstantial evidence and he lied on purpose, bigly. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

---

Such as?

---

-Cell phone footage putting him at scene of murder after he lied about his whereabouts.
-Same ammo and guns he stored at the estate.
-Witness claims crying drug addict AM says "I did him so bad"

I'm not looking to litigate this, there was prob more things I missed. The guy was an opiod addict on verge of being financially ruined and his family called him out.

You think there is still reasonable doubt, and that someone else out there randomly commited the double homicide. I dont.

Right, so per usual, AggieHawg stated as fact something that isn't fact. Again, she's not a reliable narrator of legal cases. And per usual trying to deflect the conversation.

But enough about that.

Re: when their phones were no longer used, I wouldn't agree it's "as reasonable" to believe they were murdered at 10:03pm as 8:50pm. There's nothing suggesting anything about 10:03pm. Two phones no longer being used within 30 seconds is something.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Right, so per usual, AggieHawg stated as fact something that isn't fact. Again, she's not a reliable narrator of legal cases. And per usual trying to deflect the conversation.


Re: when their phones were no longer used, I wouldn't agree it's "as reasonable" to believe they were murdered at 10:03pm as 8:50pm. There's nothing suggesting anything about 10:03pm. Two phones no longer being used within 30 seconds is something.

---

Maybe. Going back just to 5:00 that day below are also time chunks of at least 7 minutes when both Paul and Maggie's phones are not being "used" (meaning they are not accessing apps, sending messages, placing or receiving calls. This doesn't take into account received messages or incoming calls that aren't answered):

5:29 PM - 5:38 PM
6:33 PM - 6:40 PM
6:40 PM - 6:53 PM
7:07 PM - 7:18 PM
7:18 PM - 7:31 PM
7:39 PM - 7:50 PM
7:56 PM - 8:07 PM
8:07 PM - 8:23 PM

So it's not all that unusual for 7 minute to go by without either phone being used by the user. Given the extremely tight timeframe already, if Maggie and Paul were killed at 8:55 and not 8:48, it would have been virtually impossible for Alex to have been the shooter.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23685616-murdaugh-murders-timeline-full

You are wasting your time but I applaud the effort.

unmade bed said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Right, so per usual, AggieHawg stated as fact something that isn't fact. Again, she's not a reliable narrator of legal cases. And per usual trying to deflect the conversation.


Re: when their phones were no longer used, I wouldn't agree it's "as reasonable" to believe they were murdered at 10:03pm as 8:50pm. There's nothing suggesting anything about 10:03pm. Two phones no longer being used within 30 seconds is something.

---

Maybe. Going back just to 5:00 that day below are also time chunks of at least 7 minutes when both Paul and Maggie's phones are not being "used" (meaning they are not accessing apps, sending messages, placing or receiving calls. This doesn't take into account received messages or incoming calls that aren't answered):

5:29 PM - 5:38 PM
6:33 PM - 6:40 PM
6:40 PM - 6:53 PM
7:07 PM - 7:18 PM
7:18 PM - 7:31 PM
7:39 PM - 7:50 PM
7:56 PM - 8:07 PM
8:07 PM - 8:23 PM

So it's not all that unusual for 7 minute to go by without either phone being used by the user. Given the extremely tight timeframe already, if Maggie and Paul were killed at 8:55 and not 8:48, it would have been virtually impossible for Alex to have been the shooter.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23685616-murdaugh-murders-timeline-full

---

The longest gap on that is 16 minutes. Again, I don't think it's "just as reasonable" to think they were murdered (by someone) at 10:03 as it is sometime much closer to 8:48.

aggiehawg said:

---

Followed that trial everyday.

Alex is a real POS. But they never came close to proving he killed his wife and son. Zero evidence he was involved.

Did he maybe know about it? Hard to say. Maybe he did but he did not benefit from it in any economic way.

Having watched the trial, don't think he personally did it.

---

You evidently didn't hear the evidence that he took a call with his wife and son at the location they were murdered (via time stamp and the person that called him) while put his alibi of "I feel asleep on the couch" as an outright lie.

While they didn't tie back to murder weapons/ballistics to Alex M, the circumstantial evidence combined with his multitude of lies was OVERWHELMING.

Go to 3 hour 56 minute mark for testimony by Becky Hill.




ETA: She got destroyed on cross by Poot.

South Carolina Supreme Court overturns Alex Murdaugh's murder convictions and orders a new trial in the 2021 killing of his wife and son. https://t.co/hQLJNcG6Bl pic.twitter.com/fhw8EVVj8Z

— CNN (@CNN) May 13, 2026

Quote:

---

The South Carolina Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned Alex Murdaugh's murder convictions and ordered a new trial in the killing of his wife and son in June 2021, saying the trial was marred by the "improper" influence of the county clerk Becky Hill.

---

Quote:

---

Murdaugh's attorneys appealed the murder convictions, saying the trial was tainted by a county clerk's improper comments to jurors, prejudicial evidence and failures at trial.

---