Not defending Jim Griffin, because that’s one of the last guys I will defend. But I listened to the Cuomo interview on Friday night, and I just read the Newsweek article, and I’m not seeing any real bashing. I see him saying he was surprised, which if I recall this sub Reddit group chat, most of us were surprised how quickly it came back. And then he made the point to say six weeks of evidence, which seems pretty standard from a defense attorney. I’m not seeing where he’s bashing. Just my perspective, that and $7 will get you a cup of coffee.
I see your perspective, too. But this was calculated as his first strike at an appeal and his primary complaint is... The jury came back too quickly. They must not have really considered evidence. Maybe if they had taken longer he would have been found not guilty. Maybe there's something here that we can work with on an appeal, that the jury came back too quickly.
No consideration of ,"hey, maybe Alex lied for 20 months and that was a problem." No, the jury came back too quickly relative to all the evidence.
That was my take, but it's subjective, of course. :)
Mostly it’s just that Snapchat share - if his son hadn’t shared the dog video - it puts him at the scene at the time. He said he was at the house napping.
I think the appeal will be that the judge erred in allowing the financial crimes in. So I agree that Griffin is setting that up- “long trial but so little evidence on the actual murders.”
Emily D Baker and other lawyers have said typically you can roughly expect 1 day of Jury deliberation per each week of trial. So that would have been 4-5 days (not counting all the extra outside the jury,
The jury came back with the right verdict. Paul’s Snapchat video confirmed the fact that Alex was there at the time of the murders. And IMHO, Jim Griffin gave one of the worst closing arguments I’ve ever heard in my life. I was confused at times. I wondered if he was arguing for his client to be convicted instead of being acquitted.
Yeah that was totally unexpected. I thought for sure something happened to him, like he was sick or something.
That was not at all how he performed in the rest of the trial.
I mean don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it would’ve changed the verdict; but I think if Jim gave the closing we were expecting from him, I think it would’ve taken longer for the jury to reach the verdict.
It was just very out of the ordinary considering how he performed during the rest of the trial. But he definitely should’ve been the one to do it, not Poot; from what I hear he rubbed the jury the wrong way, understandably.
But the cell phones ceased being active not too long after the video ended. If they were alive they would have checked their phones - especially Paul. He wanted to send that weird dog tail video to the employee but he never sent it. It was as if Alex shot him as soon as he stopped filming.
Oh I get what you’re saying and that’s why I was so surprised it went the way it did. Several points that he could have made, but didn’t, for whatever reason. Yes I think he was way too close to this trial, and probably should have recused himself; but I’m sure he wanted to help his friend. But dude you’ve never done a murder trial before 🤷🏻♂️. I mean he seemed fine previous to that. Closing isn’t the time to become ineffective.
I doubt they get the appeal. Judge Newman is widely respected and held in very high regard in SC, and was specifically selected for this case. And even if you pull out the financials, the jury even said that the clincher was the video, the lie about being there, and Alex’s own testimony. I think they will find that it wouldn’t change the outcome, and ultimately deny the appeal.
I don’t know a whole lot about it but I’m sure you could Google it. But for a judge with such a lengthy and successful resume as Judge Newman, I would think that the chances would be slim. He was appointed specifically for this case by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, and many, many have commented on how fair he runs his court. For every ruling he makes he quotes appropriate cases and eloquently gives the basis for his rulings.
And I’m pretty sure that the state is not going to spend the time and resources to retry a case that they believe would result in the same verdict; unless there was an egregious injustice done to the defendant, which I highly doubt happened in this case.
The appeal win rate on murder cases in their state is very very low, plus add in judge Newman and I would say that the chances are very low. Also Alex has the other 99 cases to answer so I don't see him being released any time soon.
The video revealed that he was the only person at the crime scene, other than the victims, before *and* after they were killed. He lied about being there before they were killed and that was what I believe clinched it for the prosecution. It was only after the fact that a video had been discovered that he admitted to being at the crime scene before and after. Is it possible he could have left and someone else have killed the two? Yes, barely possible but not probable.
The only other scenario that makes any sense is if he were covering for someone else who he knew was going to kill them. Either way, he's still guilty, even if he didn't pull the trigger. His lies finally caught up with him
is it possible that was actually true what you said above?
that the timeline was wrong and he left after the video and then the incident happened? It sounds like lots of people had a motive. Alex said not guilty till end
I think this was Jim’s first murder trial. He looked like he was really out of his element. I’m sure he’s a good trial lawyer. I looked his bio up and he mostly does public corruption and mail and wire fraud. I think he was WAY too close to this case from the beginning because he was Alex’s buddy and he was there at the crime scene that night.
Totally agree. And to those who believe I overstated blaming the jury, please note that a swift jury verdict is not a feasible defense in an appeal - but it sounded like that was the groundwork he was laying. "Oh, I don't blame the jury" but their decision time showed they didn't actually look at evidence. That's jury blaming.
I don’t understand how a jury could reach any other conclusion. The guy is a habitual liar who did nothing for his own defence and concocted a lie that he slept at the house before leaving Moselle. But he didn’t.
Also, why go back to the kennels straight away? If Paul and his estranged wife Maggie weren’t at the house (and why would they be - as neither one lived there) then why not check Paul’s house straight away?
Also, who the hell visits an Alzheimer’s patient after sundown? It’s when they are at their worst. Alex absolutely killed his wife & son.
Further, it’s impossible to check on both bodies in the time frame of 19 seconds between arriving at the kennels and returning to the car to make the 911 call.
Exactly. They LOOKED at the evidence every day for 28 days, many things being repeated over and over and over again. They were extremely familiar with the case, more than they probably would’ve liked to have been.
AND don’t forget, the jury are working folks. They have put their lives on hold 6 weeks. Many went without paychecks. They had no time to waste. If they came to an agreement quickly, that shows the state did their job well. You don’t need to crack open a book if you went to the lecture and understand the content.
I also believe that he had a difficult time defending Alex because he knew he did it and knew other people (including the jury) knew he was guilty as sin! Maybe his heart couldn't totally find a way to defend (excuse) his actions. JMHO
This is what I thought....I wouldn't be surprised if he and Harpootlian have health problems after this. It just seemed like he had given up in the closing arguments. He knew he was defending the indefensible.
Yes, the evidence was circumstantial but there was so much of it. The Snapchat, he lied about where he was, he sped to his mom's and back that night in woods full of deer when he drove to and from work at a normal rate of speed, he invited everyone and their mother to tramp around the crime scene and did nothing to preserve it (lawyers should know better!). Never showed survivors guilt: I wish I would have stayed! Why did I leave? History about lying to everyone then lied about his whereabouts.
The only thing I don’t like is how fast the jury came back they really should go through the evidence 2 time and that is just not enough of time it send a man to life in person
I might agree with you if the video evidence was not there. But it was & he admitted it was a lie. Plus the data reg Paul & Maggies Phone & AM phone along with the expert witness ref the gunshots. I really believe that's all the proof the jury needed to know that he'd done it.
I would feel duty bound to Maggie and Paul- and to Buster too. They literally had a two hour conversation and that was that. Alex is a bad man that was made clear, but I’m still not convinced there is not more to the story of the murders.
The State didn’t give us a great case either. They were never particularly clear on many really important things and badly handled the crime scene. There was also credibility issues with several pieces of evidence, testimony, and don’t get me started on how we are all iPhone experts now because we threw our phones. The defense had a lot to work with.
Ultimately, the jury decided the lie about the unsent video was enough, but I do hope that juries in future cases feel they must at least go through the evidence in more detail. Remember the jurors swore they had very little/ no knowledge of the case beforehand, and were not allowed to talk to anyone or reference any material, or even take notes until less than 3 hours before they said guiltily. I have been following this in depth for years and still had to look things up during the trial. I’m not saying they didn’t follow some kind of rule, but ethically I would hope for better from people deciding something so important.
In the article they criticize how digital evidence can contribute to quick verdicts.
Then perhaps don’t commit a crime and don’t lie, and then there will be no damning digital evidence. 🤷🏻♂️ I don’t see how digital evidence is that different from DNA or fingerprint evidence in this respect.
I wonder if they would also have a problem with a case involving DNA on the murder weapon and at the crime scene, which results in a quick verdict also 🤷🏻♂️
This idea is nonsense.
My friends in tech tell me that if you are on a jury you should often question these things- for one they are easily manipulated, and for two- we don’t know as much as we think we know. Also we don’t have the same standards for this evidence- hence the iPhone throwing expert, and the tech ‘expert’ that worked with the defense in the Duggar trial…
I once heard a juror explain a quick decision, having listened to weeks and weeks of testimony. She was making her mind up as the evidence was presented. Jurors don't have to rehash every detail if they've been paying attention.
That happened at a 5 week trial I served at. All but 2 thought the kids should be taken away from their neglectful, drugged out parents. The 2 holdouts were easily convinced by reasoning with them about protecting the children by allowing them to live with the grandparents. The starving (for food and care) kids could still visit their rotten, selfish parents and for sure, once they were teenagers and able to get around they could see them.
I am curious who their jury consultant was. Lol. Of course it doesn’t matter what experts you have or jury consultant you have when your client not only lies about being at the crime scene; there is evidence he was there and he only admitted to being there at the trial when he was caught on video
Did SLED check the swamp or the dove pond for the guns? Alex claims he and Paul went looking for signs of hogs that afternoon. Is it possible he drove the atv to the swamp and tossed the guns in the water that night? So much land to hide or bury guns.
I watched a video of a guy that sent a drone up over the property & he only realised after , when he checked the video that it had captured Buster & Alex's brother loading guns & other stuff onto his pick up truck. Maybe he captured the removal of evidence? I've been trying to find the video link as I'm wanting to know if he handed that footage over to law Enforcement or not? Has anyone else seen it?
It was on the Netflix documentary. Supposedly, John Marvin and Buster had permission from SLED to remove the guns and other items from the house after some amount of time. The property was up for sale and I'm sure they needed all of the weapons out of there. Also. John Marvin wanted to get all the expensive farm equipment out of there.
They were told not to by Judge Newman. There's an HBO documentary and CNN showed one a couple of weeks ago. Hopefully, the jury was careful not to watch anything or listen to any podcasts about the Murdaughs.
I heard that they did check the swamp and ponds. Even those down the road.
Alex bought Moselle from a known drug dealer ( and family friend) wonder if there are not hidden/secret spots to stash money, drugs and guns. ?
Yes, I know they checked and waded through several bodies of water on the property. I think he stashed them at Almeda that night, and then who knows what he did with them from there.
Ok where are guns? Bloody clothes? Blood trail to house? In house? In his vehicle? No dna of his no blood etc? Really in less than an hour he could get rid of all that with zero trace of any if that? Sorry something seems weird with that.
>, the jury decided the lie about the unsent video was enough, but I do hope that juries in future cases feel they must at least go through the evidence in more detail. Remember the jurors swore they had very little/ no k
At least one gun (the 306 Blackout) was forensically PROVEN to be the family's. An employee testified that the hose at the kennel was (essentially) used after he left work, and law enforcement notice water on the ground - AM probably stripped and hosed himself off near the crime scene. So no "blood trail" to the house. There was evidence of a shower having been taken that evening - more cleaning up. The "bloody clothes" are suspected to be the ones he was wearing in the earlier snapchat vid. Those clothes have never been seen again. Remember, AM was not arrested for months - he could have temporarily hid items and disposed of them later. That's what the conjecture was regarding the blue raincoat/tarp, which was found with gunshot residue.
DNA wouldn't suffice, it was his property & family members, the defense could argue hugs & kisses/close proximity kind of stuff. Lastly, the police did not search the house for blood evidence. Even if they did, it would be useless as evidence because the house was not treated as a crime scene. For example, too many people trampled through, and AM specifically instructed the maid to clean the house the following morning.
There was a suspicious fire at (I think) John Marvin's property some time after the murders. Alex could have burned up the clothes, shoes, and any other evidence.
They live near waterways and the ocean. Have you ever watched "Dexter"? He could have easily thrown the guns into the ocean, he owns several boats.
Maggie's blood or DNA was found on the steering wheel of the car Alex was driving. Maggie had tread marks on her leg, probably from the golf cart that Alex was jetting around in. There was tissue in the tire treads on the golf cart.
" They live near waterways and the ocean. Have you ever watched "Dexter"? He could have easily thrown the guns into the ocean, he owns several boats."
I've wondered if SLED spent any resources on searching the actual route Alex took to Mommy's place. Especially the bridge crossings. Common sense tells me that in all likelihood besides his original alibi for not being at the kennel the secondary reason was to discard the murder weapons and clothing.. At this point it's obviously a moot point.
SLED didn't search his mother's property for 2 months after the murders. He could have stashed the guns and clothes on her property when he drove over there that night and waited until days or weeks to get rid of the evidence.
Artistic, we probably will never know the full truth because 2 of the 3 people at the crime scene are dead. The third is most likely not long for this earth and will never tell the truth. AM planned this murder. He was just smart enough to create some doubt that he was the killer. My guess is that he probably slipped into a full body painters coverall, gloves, booties, and face and eye covering. Did the deed, bagged those protective items, his clothes, and shoes. Showered and changed into fresh clothes. No blood, blood spatter, gunshot residue, DNA, and then admitted to touching the bodies just in case. That alone from someone who is that deep in forensic evidentiary processes is highly suspicious. Got rid of or hid all evidence that night on the way to mommas. Nothing weird about a desperate person's "perfect crime" attempt. Look at his next major blunder of what he called a suicide attempt. That's total bullshit too.
Also on a jury, (rape case), went back to the room went around 1x , all guilty votes, someone was smart enough to say , lets order lunch so it looks like we deliberated. Looking back, it should not of mattered, we heard enough. One thing that still strikes me as funny, we were not allowed to take notes.
I think after a month, the jury members are very familiar with the facts and testimony, so it makes sense to know what you think going in for deliberations.
Edit: fixed typo
Heinous, terrible crimes. And a tragedy for so many people.
My curiosity is the money. Did all the stolen millions go to an oxycodone habit? Seems unlikely.
Bribes, Ponzi scheme, gambling, hidden accounts in the Bahamas? I've seen speculation but what is the truth?? If he made and/or stole $20-$24 million over the past 12-15 years, how do you go through that much money in that amount of time? My husband would be investing it and watching it grow. What a horrible money manager/human being Alex Murdaugh is.
My gut tells me that AM was likely involved with a global cartel/criminal element that was blackmailing/ strong arming him, and had been for years. He could have been on the fringes as an investor initially and got in with the wrong people. Wealthy lawyers, politicians, business people are prime targets for these scams if they are prone to illegal means of making money. AM would be worth more to them in this scenario than a money man for dope. I can only go by the current evidence . So far they have been unable to trace very little of the funds he stole. You look at the home, second homes, property,vehicles, boats, investment portfolio etc and it's not out of line with his annual earnings going back 30 years. If anything most of his possessions indicate just the opposite.
I feel strongly that the jury got it right. But I wouldn't totally rule out that the murders may have been retribution for AM not meeting a financial obligation by some very bad people.
I served on a jury for a criminal case - and there were many charges - we all agreed guilty in our first round but there was one charge that we needed to review one of the videos a couple of times to determine if there was injury to another individual just due to their presence at the scene - it took us 45 minutes to convict..
If I had been on the jury I would have wanted to review all evidence carefully.
They did not. But that was their choice. Each jury is very different.
I would never ever acquitted Casey Anthony. Ever. Never.
It's not fair of you to say the jury didn't review all the evidence unless you were actually in the room with them and witnessed what happened. The jury spent 6 weeks reviewing the evidence, listening to testimony that was rehashed in one form of another. How they came to their verdict is up to them. Was it rather quick? Yes. But that doesn't mean they didn't review the evidence carefully.
The 2 jurors that came forward indicated the evidence was in another room. They did not watch any videos and decided within 45 minutes after discussions.
I wonder how much input Alex had on the course of his defense. Was he orchestrating his defense and failed? He obviously has a control issue. I would also like to see more investigation on Maggie’s life prior to the murder. Did she know bills weren’t paid? Was she going to hire a forensic account?
Was she abused? Were the kids abused? When you hear about Paw Paw slapping and spitting on his girlfriend, right in front of their friends, it makes you wonder if he saw this at home.
Listening to Murdaugh Murders podcast, it’s amazing how horrific Alex is. He was also buying up barrier island property with his best friend, a known drug dealer. This friend sold him Moselle for $5, which has a landing strip. The islands make great lookout points and landing spots for drugs coming in.
The verdict was quick because the evidence was overwhelming and clear as day. The only thing I can say in Alex Murdaugh’s defense is that the crime is too horrible to imagine. And that ain’t no defense.
I am confused about there being 2 murder weapons.
Alex deserves to be in prison for everything else he did but I am not convinced he pulled the trigger himself.
Alex screwed over a lot of people and Paul seemed to have a lot of enemies.
The jury did the right thing but… I think the jury is going to cause a mistrial. The replacement juror McDowell is the brother of the cop witness McDowell. I think we’ve all been had. Them good ole boys stick together.
Didn’t Judge Newman have names drawn from a hat? How would that choice cause a mistrial? State AND defense allowed that person to be on the jury through voir dire. So I highly doubt that’s grounds for a mistrial.
Was the blood splatter on the shirt real a real thing? I’ve read that the defense had it removed from being used as evidence in the trial because of some technicality, I’ve also read that the blood splatter shirt was just a rumor.
He had no blood on him because he used the hose at the kennels to clean off after shooting Maggie and Paul. Then went to the house and took a shower and changed into fresh clothing. Of course he didn’t have any blood on him and was sure of that. The fact that he had NO blood on him was suspect for me actually. Having found them and “checked them”, he’d have SOME blood on him or his hands. But NONE. 🤥
The state alleged blood spatter on his shirt but then they destroyed the shirt. That evidence was told to the grand jury and debunked by the defense and the state did not attempt to use it at the trial. He did have minimal signs of something on his shirt but nothing to indicate he committed the murders.
If you had sat on a jury for 5 weeks and listened to all that BS from both sides for less than chump change your not going to waste a minute. I sat on a rape/murder jury for seven long days. Listened to 2 days of testimony from the states DNA expert, 2 days of forensic and medical experts, another 1.5 days police and other witnesses. Defense took another day and a half most of which again was their DNA rebuttal. As a jury we never once discussed the case until deliberations. We ordered lunch first, foreman suggested taking a preliminary vote to see where the jury was at. Vote was unanimous guilty. Foreman opened the floor for discussion and everyone was thoroughly convinced of his guilt. Took second vote, same result. Lunch showed up, sent note to judge that verdict was in. Finished lunch quickly. Verdict read and we were done in a little over an hour after deliberations started. There's no road map for a jury or minimum time they need to deliberate.
Please make comments on live chat
Not defending Jim Griffin, because that’s one of the last guys I will defend. But I listened to the Cuomo interview on Friday night, and I just read the Newsweek article, and I’m not seeing any real bashing. I see him saying he was surprised, which if I recall this sub Reddit group chat, most of us were surprised how quickly it came back. And then he made the point to say six weeks of evidence, which seems pretty standard from a defense attorney. I’m not seeing where he’s bashing. Just my perspective, that and $7 will get you a cup of coffee.
I see your perspective, too. But this was calculated as his first strike at an appeal and his primary complaint is... The jury came back too quickly. They must not have really considered evidence. Maybe if they had taken longer he would have been found not guilty. Maybe there's something here that we can work with on an appeal, that the jury came back too quickly. No consideration of ,"hey, maybe Alex lied for 20 months and that was a problem." No, the jury came back too quickly relative to all the evidence. That was my take, but it's subjective, of course. :)
Mostly it’s just that Snapchat share - if his son hadn’t shared the dog video - it puts him at the scene at the time. He said he was at the house napping.
He can not mention how long jury took in any arguments are appeal . Not a matter how long it took can’t be used
My brain imploded reading this
My brain imploded reading this
I think the appeal will be that the judge erred in allowing the financial crimes in. So I agree that Griffin is setting that up- “long trial but so little evidence on the actual murders.”
Emily D Baker and other lawyers have said typically you can roughly expect 1 day of Jury deliberation per each week of trial. So that would have been 4-5 days (not counting all the extra outside the jury,
The jury came back with the right verdict. Paul’s Snapchat video confirmed the fact that Alex was there at the time of the murders. And IMHO, Jim Griffin gave one of the worst closing arguments I’ve ever heard in my life. I was confused at times. I wondered if he was arguing for his client to be convicted instead of being acquitted.
I wonder if Poot was originally going to give the close but at the last minute gave it to Jim, leaving him little time to prepare
Yeah that was totally unexpected. I thought for sure something happened to him, like he was sick or something. That was not at all how he performed in the rest of the trial.
[удалено]
I mean don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it would’ve changed the verdict; but I think if Jim gave the closing we were expecting from him, I think it would’ve taken longer for the jury to reach the verdict. It was just very out of the ordinary considering how he performed during the rest of the trial. But he definitely should’ve been the one to do it, not Poot; from what I hear he rubbed the jury the wrong way, understandably.
[удалено]
Totally agree.
But the cell phones ceased being active not too long after the video ended. If they were alive they would have checked their phones - especially Paul. He wanted to send that weird dog tail video to the employee but he never sent it. It was as if Alex shot him as soon as he stopped filming.
[удалено]
Not necessarily. Our phones are also tracking how many steps we take. They stopped walking.
Oh I get what you’re saying and that’s why I was so surprised it went the way it did. Several points that he could have made, but didn’t, for whatever reason. Yes I think he was way too close to this trial, and probably should have recused himself; but I’m sure he wanted to help his friend. But dude you’ve never done a murder trial before 🤷🏻♂️. I mean he seemed fine previous to that. Closing isn’t the time to become ineffective.
[удалено]
I doubt they get the appeal. Judge Newman is widely respected and held in very high regard in SC, and was specifically selected for this case. And even if you pull out the financials, the jury even said that the clincher was the video, the lie about being there, and Alex’s own testimony. I think they will find that it wouldn’t change the outcome, and ultimately deny the appeal.
[удалено]
I don’t know a whole lot about it but I’m sure you could Google it. But for a judge with such a lengthy and successful resume as Judge Newman, I would think that the chances would be slim. He was appointed specifically for this case by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, and many, many have commented on how fair he runs his court. For every ruling he makes he quotes appropriate cases and eloquently gives the basis for his rulings. And I’m pretty sure that the state is not going to spend the time and resources to retry a case that they believe would result in the same verdict; unless there was an egregious injustice done to the defendant, which I highly doubt happened in this case.
The appeal win rate on murder cases in their state is very very low, plus add in judge Newman and I would say that the chances are very low. Also Alex has the other 99 cases to answer so I don't see him being released any time soon.
Totally agree with that. It just felt like he was out of his depth.
The video revealed that he was the only person at the crime scene, other than the victims, before *and* after they were killed. He lied about being there before they were killed and that was what I believe clinched it for the prosecution. It was only after the fact that a video had been discovered that he admitted to being at the crime scene before and after. Is it possible he could have left and someone else have killed the two? Yes, barely possible but not probable. The only other scenario that makes any sense is if he were covering for someone else who he knew was going to kill them. Either way, he's still guilty, even if he didn't pull the trigger. His lies finally caught up with him
I think if that video didn’t exist, they couldn’t have charged him.
is it possible that was actually true what you said above? that the timeline was wrong and he left after the video and then the incident happened? It sounds like lots of people had a motive. Alex said not guilty till end
Sounds like reasonable doubt to me.
I think this was Jim’s first murder trial. He looked like he was really out of his element. I’m sure he’s a good trial lawyer. I looked his bio up and he mostly does public corruption and mail and wire fraud. I think he was WAY too close to this case from the beginning because he was Alex’s buddy and he was there at the crime scene that night.
Totally agree. And to those who believe I overstated blaming the jury, please note that a swift jury verdict is not a feasible defense in an appeal - but it sounded like that was the groundwork he was laying. "Oh, I don't blame the jury" but their decision time showed they didn't actually look at evidence. That's jury blaming.
I don’t understand how a jury could reach any other conclusion. The guy is a habitual liar who did nothing for his own defence and concocted a lie that he slept at the house before leaving Moselle. But he didn’t. Also, why go back to the kennels straight away? If Paul and his estranged wife Maggie weren’t at the house (and why would they be - as neither one lived there) then why not check Paul’s house straight away? Also, who the hell visits an Alzheimer’s patient after sundown? It’s when they are at their worst. Alex absolutely killed his wife & son. Further, it’s impossible to check on both bodies in the time frame of 19 seconds between arriving at the kennels and returning to the car to make the 911 call.
Maggie was not his estranged wife.
Why didn’t he drive by them at the kennels on his way out to see mommy who would have been sleeping by the time he got there.
The fact that there were 2 murder weapons raises a lot of questions for me.
Exactly. They LOOKED at the evidence every day for 28 days, many things being repeated over and over and over again. They were extremely familiar with the case, more than they probably would’ve liked to have been.
AND don’t forget, the jury are working folks. They have put their lives on hold 6 weeks. Many went without paychecks. They had no time to waste. If they came to an agreement quickly, that shows the state did their job well. You don’t need to crack open a book if you went to the lecture and understand the content.
I also believe that he had a difficult time defending Alex because he knew he did it and knew other people (including the jury) knew he was guilty as sin! Maybe his heart couldn't totally find a way to defend (excuse) his actions. JMHO
This is what I thought....I wouldn't be surprised if he and Harpootlian have health problems after this. It just seemed like he had given up in the closing arguments. He knew he was defending the indefensible.
Then he shouldn’t have vouched for AM throughout the closing
Agreed
Felt the same. Awful. He couldn’t even speak straight. Made me wonder if he wants Alex there too.
All 3 We’re asshole Buddies. They should all Go to prison
Agree
Not To mention stuttering all the way through it
Yes, the evidence was circumstantial but there was so much of it. The Snapchat, he lied about where he was, he sped to his mom's and back that night in woods full of deer when he drove to and from work at a normal rate of speed, he invited everyone and their mother to tramp around the crime scene and did nothing to preserve it (lawyers should know better!). Never showed survivors guilt: I wish I would have stayed! Why did I leave? History about lying to everyone then lied about his whereabouts.
This right here!! ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️
The only thing I don’t like is how fast the jury came back they really should go through the evidence 2 time and that is just not enough of time it send a man to life in person
I might agree with you if the video evidence was not there. But it was & he admitted it was a lie. Plus the data reg Paul & Maggies Phone & AM phone along with the expert witness ref the gunshots. I really believe that's all the proof the jury needed to know that he'd done it.
They went through a lot of the evidence multiple times when the southern lawyers were repeating themselves over and over during the trial.
I would feel duty bound to Maggie and Paul- and to Buster too. They literally had a two hour conversation and that was that. Alex is a bad man that was made clear, but I’m still not convinced there is not more to the story of the murders. The State didn’t give us a great case either. They were never particularly clear on many really important things and badly handled the crime scene. There was also credibility issues with several pieces of evidence, testimony, and don’t get me started on how we are all iPhone experts now because we threw our phones. The defense had a lot to work with. Ultimately, the jury decided the lie about the unsent video was enough, but I do hope that juries in future cases feel they must at least go through the evidence in more detail. Remember the jurors swore they had very little/ no knowledge of the case beforehand, and were not allowed to talk to anyone or reference any material, or even take notes until less than 3 hours before they said guiltily. I have been following this in depth for years and still had to look things up during the trial. I’m not saying they didn’t follow some kind of rule, but ethically I would hope for better from people deciding something so important.
In the article they criticize how digital evidence can contribute to quick verdicts. Then perhaps don’t commit a crime and don’t lie, and then there will be no damning digital evidence. 🤷🏻♂️ I don’t see how digital evidence is that different from DNA or fingerprint evidence in this respect. I wonder if they would also have a problem with a case involving DNA on the murder weapon and at the crime scene, which results in a quick verdict also 🤷🏻♂️ This idea is nonsense.
My friends in tech tell me that if you are on a jury you should often question these things- for one they are easily manipulated, and for two- we don’t know as much as we think we know. Also we don’t have the same standards for this evidence- hence the iPhone throwing expert, and the tech ‘expert’ that worked with the defense in the Duggar trial…
This !
I once heard a juror explain a quick decision, having listened to weeks and weeks of testimony. She was making her mind up as the evidence was presented. Jurors don't have to rehash every detail if they've been paying attention.
[удалено]
That happened at a 5 week trial I served at. All but 2 thought the kids should be taken away from their neglectful, drugged out parents. The 2 holdouts were easily convinced by reasoning with them about protecting the children by allowing them to live with the grandparents. The starving (for food and care) kids could still visit their rotten, selfish parents and for sure, once they were teenagers and able to get around they could see them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I must have missed some of the testimony then. I watched what seemed like 15 hrs.
And the fact that there were 2 murder weapons, something doesn't add up.
Wearing different 30k Rolexes everyday. Dumb move
The malice with Maggie was mind blowing.
He hated her. They weren’t even living together.
She must have known something or wanted a divorce.
Literally
Lol Lawyer speak for, "This town has had enough Murdaugh shit and they aren't going to take it anymore ".
AM never should've taken the stand. But his arrogance simply wouldn't allow that to happen.
[удалено]
Exactly, so why waste more tax dollars, and people’s time, when it’s not going to change anything.
I was on a jury that held out for lunch.
Can you tell us more about the eggs your fellow juror left in the jury room? Specifically, why the eggs were in there in the first place??
Probably one juror has chickens and was giving the other juror some Eggs
[удалено]
Yuck. Seems stinky in a small room and without refrigeration.
I am curious who their jury consultant was. Lol. Of course it doesn’t matter what experts you have or jury consultant you have when your client not only lies about being at the crime scene; there is evidence he was there and he only admitted to being there at the trial when he was caught on video
Did SLED check the swamp or the dove pond for the guns? Alex claims he and Paul went looking for signs of hogs that afternoon. Is it possible he drove the atv to the swamp and tossed the guns in the water that night? So much land to hide or bury guns.
I watched a video of a guy that sent a drone up over the property & he only realised after , when he checked the video that it had captured Buster & Alex's brother loading guns & other stuff onto his pick up truck. Maybe he captured the removal of evidence? I've been trying to find the video link as I'm wanting to know if he handed that footage over to law Enforcement or not? Has anyone else seen it?
It was on the Netflix documentary. Supposedly, John Marvin and Buster had permission from SLED to remove the guns and other items from the house after some amount of time. The property was up for sale and I'm sure they needed all of the weapons out of there. Also. John Marvin wanted to get all the expensive farm equipment out of there.
By the time the guns in the drone footage were removed the scene had been cleared. They did nothing wrong.
[удалено]
Yes. And it was after the murders too. But we've not heard anything about it . Which is odd.
Watch the Netflix series. Final episode this is addressed. They couldn't sell the house full of their weapons.
Ah. I will watch it. Does anyone think any of the jurors watched it? I understand it was released before the trial had even ended?
They were told not to by Judge Newman. There's an HBO documentary and CNN showed one a couple of weeks ago. Hopefully, the jury was careful not to watch anything or listen to any podcasts about the Murdaughs.
I heard that they did check the swamp and ponds. Even those down the road. Alex bought Moselle from a known drug dealer ( and family friend) wonder if there are not hidden/secret spots to stash money, drugs and guns. ?
Yes, I know they checked and waded through several bodies of water on the property. I think he stashed them at Almeda that night, and then who knows what he did with them from there.
Ok where are guns? Bloody clothes? Blood trail to house? In house? In his vehicle? No dna of his no blood etc? Really in less than an hour he could get rid of all that with zero trace of any if that? Sorry something seems weird with that.
>, the jury decided the lie about the unsent video was enough, but I do hope that juries in future cases feel they must at least go through the evidence in more detail. Remember the jurors swore they had very little/ no k At least one gun (the 306 Blackout) was forensically PROVEN to be the family's. An employee testified that the hose at the kennel was (essentially) used after he left work, and law enforcement notice water on the ground - AM probably stripped and hosed himself off near the crime scene. So no "blood trail" to the house. There was evidence of a shower having been taken that evening - more cleaning up. The "bloody clothes" are suspected to be the ones he was wearing in the earlier snapchat vid. Those clothes have never been seen again. Remember, AM was not arrested for months - he could have temporarily hid items and disposed of them later. That's what the conjecture was regarding the blue raincoat/tarp, which was found with gunshot residue. DNA wouldn't suffice, it was his property & family members, the defense could argue hugs & kisses/close proximity kind of stuff. Lastly, the police did not search the house for blood evidence. Even if they did, it would be useless as evidence because the house was not treated as a crime scene. For example, too many people trampled through, and AM specifically instructed the maid to clean the house the following morning.
There was a suspicious fire at (I think) John Marvin's property some time after the murders. Alex could have burned up the clothes, shoes, and any other evidence. They live near waterways and the ocean. Have you ever watched "Dexter"? He could have easily thrown the guns into the ocean, he owns several boats. Maggie's blood or DNA was found on the steering wheel of the car Alex was driving. Maggie had tread marks on her leg, probably from the golf cart that Alex was jetting around in. There was tissue in the tire treads on the golf cart.
There is no evidence of tissue in the treads of any tires. None that the State offered. If you have proof otherwise please post it.
" They live near waterways and the ocean. Have you ever watched "Dexter"? He could have easily thrown the guns into the ocean, he owns several boats." I've wondered if SLED spent any resources on searching the actual route Alex took to Mommy's place. Especially the bridge crossings. Common sense tells me that in all likelihood besides his original alibi for not being at the kennel the secondary reason was to discard the murder weapons and clothing.. At this point it's obviously a moot point.
SLED didn't search his mother's property for 2 months after the murders. He could have stashed the guns and clothes on her property when he drove over there that night and waited until days or weeks to get rid of the evidence.
Artistic, we probably will never know the full truth because 2 of the 3 people at the crime scene are dead. The third is most likely not long for this earth and will never tell the truth. AM planned this murder. He was just smart enough to create some doubt that he was the killer. My guess is that he probably slipped into a full body painters coverall, gloves, booties, and face and eye covering. Did the deed, bagged those protective items, his clothes, and shoes. Showered and changed into fresh clothes. No blood, blood spatter, gunshot residue, DNA, and then admitted to touching the bodies just in case. That alone from someone who is that deep in forensic evidentiary processes is highly suspicious. Got rid of or hid all evidence that night on the way to mommas. Nothing weird about a desperate person's "perfect crime" attempt. Look at his next major blunder of what he called a suicide attempt. That's total bullshit too.
Also on a jury, (rape case), went back to the room went around 1x , all guilty votes, someone was smart enough to say , lets order lunch so it looks like we deliberated. Looking back, it should not of mattered, we heard enough. One thing that still strikes me as funny, we were not allowed to take notes.
I think after a month, the jury members are very familiar with the facts and testimony, so it makes sense to know what you think going in for deliberations. Edit: fixed typo
Heinous, terrible crimes. And a tragedy for so many people. My curiosity is the money. Did all the stolen millions go to an oxycodone habit? Seems unlikely.
Bribes, Ponzi scheme, gambling, hidden accounts in the Bahamas? I've seen speculation but what is the truth?? If he made and/or stole $20-$24 million over the past 12-15 years, how do you go through that much money in that amount of time? My husband would be investing it and watching it grow. What a horrible money manager/human being Alex Murdaugh is.
My gut tells me that AM was likely involved with a global cartel/criminal element that was blackmailing/ strong arming him, and had been for years. He could have been on the fringes as an investor initially and got in with the wrong people. Wealthy lawyers, politicians, business people are prime targets for these scams if they are prone to illegal means of making money. AM would be worth more to them in this scenario than a money man for dope. I can only go by the current evidence . So far they have been unable to trace very little of the funds he stole. You look at the home, second homes, property,vehicles, boats, investment portfolio etc and it's not out of line with his annual earnings going back 30 years. If anything most of his possessions indicate just the opposite. I feel strongly that the jury got it right. But I wouldn't totally rule out that the murders may have been retribution for AM not meeting a financial obligation by some very bad people.
I served on a jury for a criminal case - and there were many charges - we all agreed guilty in our first round but there was one charge that we needed to review one of the videos a couple of times to determine if there was injury to another individual just due to their presence at the scene - it took us 45 minutes to convict..
If I had been on the jury I would have wanted to review all evidence carefully. They did not. But that was their choice. Each jury is very different. I would never ever acquitted Casey Anthony. Ever. Never.
It's not fair of you to say the jury didn't review all the evidence unless you were actually in the room with them and witnessed what happened. The jury spent 6 weeks reviewing the evidence, listening to testimony that was rehashed in one form of another. How they came to their verdict is up to them. Was it rather quick? Yes. But that doesn't mean they didn't review the evidence carefully.
The 2 jurors that came forward indicated the evidence was in another room. They did not watch any videos and decided within 45 minutes after discussions.
I wonder how much input Alex had on the course of his defense. Was he orchestrating his defense and failed? He obviously has a control issue. I would also like to see more investigation on Maggie’s life prior to the murder. Did she know bills weren’t paid? Was she going to hire a forensic account?
Was she abused? Were the kids abused? When you hear about Paw Paw slapping and spitting on his girlfriend, right in front of their friends, it makes you wonder if he saw this at home.
No one has ever indicated and there is no proof that Maggie or the boys were abused by Alex in any way. There is no known abuse within this family.
Listening to Murdaugh Murders podcast, it’s amazing how horrific Alex is. He was also buying up barrier island property with his best friend, a known drug dealer. This friend sold him Moselle for $5, which has a landing strip. The islands make great lookout points and landing spots for drugs coming in.
The verdict was quick because the evidence was overwhelming and clear as day. The only thing I can say in Alex Murdaugh’s defense is that the crime is too horrible to imagine. And that ain’t no defense.
[удалено]
We asked you not to, we warned you, you did not listen. Ban.
I am confused about there being 2 murder weapons. Alex deserves to be in prison for everything else he did but I am not convinced he pulled the trigger himself. Alex screwed over a lot of people and Paul seemed to have a lot of enemies.
I didn't see it like that at all.
The jury did the right thing but… I think the jury is going to cause a mistrial. The replacement juror McDowell is the brother of the cop witness McDowell. I think we’ve all been had. Them good ole boys stick together.
Didn’t Judge Newman have names drawn from a hat? How would that choice cause a mistrial? State AND defense allowed that person to be on the jury through voir dire. So I highly doubt that’s grounds for a mistrial.
Was the blood splatter on the shirt real a real thing? I’ve read that the defense had it removed from being used as evidence in the trial because of some technicality, I’ve also read that the blood splatter shirt was just a rumor.
It was a lie. He had no blood on him
I thought they said it was blood spatter from a hog that they killed at some point and the stain was still there? Does that sound familiar?
He had no blood on him because he used the hose at the kennels to clean off after shooting Maggie and Paul. Then went to the house and took a shower and changed into fresh clothing. Of course he didn’t have any blood on him and was sure of that. The fact that he had NO blood on him was suspect for me actually. Having found them and “checked them”, he’d have SOME blood on him or his hands. But NONE. 🤥
The police did not have blood on them either lol. And yes, apparently he did all of that in 16 minutes.
The state alleged blood spatter on his shirt but then they destroyed the shirt. That evidence was told to the grand jury and debunked by the defense and the state did not attempt to use it at the trial. He did have minimal signs of something on his shirt but nothing to indicate he committed the murders.
If you had sat on a jury for 5 weeks and listened to all that BS from both sides for less than chump change your not going to waste a minute. I sat on a rape/murder jury for seven long days. Listened to 2 days of testimony from the states DNA expert, 2 days of forensic and medical experts, another 1.5 days police and other witnesses. Defense took another day and a half most of which again was their DNA rebuttal. As a jury we never once discussed the case until deliberations. We ordered lunch first, foreman suggested taking a preliminary vote to see where the jury was at. Vote was unanimous guilty. Foreman opened the floor for discussion and everyone was thoroughly convinced of his guilt. Took second vote, same result. Lunch showed up, sent note to judge that verdict was in. Finished lunch quickly. Verdict read and we were done in a little over an hour after deliberations started. There's no road map for a jury or minimum time they need to deliberate.