Murdaugh trial...

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Seattle, Mar 2, 2023.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    I think Alex Murdaugh is guilty of murdering his wife and youngest son but it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up with a hung jury. The prosecution's case as to why he might have done it is rather weak I think. They say it was to be a more sympathetic character as more people were learning about all the money he had been stealing from the law firm and from clients.

    That doesn't seem like a compelling reason to kill your wife and son. If it was just the wife, I think they were living apart and a divorce may have been in order it might make more sense. Even then there wasn't a lot of motive since everyone was trying to sue him so sheltering assets under his wife's name was still better than the alternative. Killing his son makes no sense.

    Yet, I think that he did do the murders but I think there might be enough doubt for some jurors to not be able to convict. We'll see.

    Anyone else following this trial?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I think it makes sense if you’ve been following the case. Murdaugh killed his wife and son because everything he did, had to do with money and his reputation. His family’s legacy. His wife found out about his financial crimes a month prior to her death, through the civil lawsuit against Paul their younger son, who killed someone in a boating wreck. Paul didn’t go to jail …because this family is what white rich privilege looks like. They owned that small town.

    So, the trial sort of disappeared after their murders, and that’s what Alex wanted plus he wanted life insurance money and would inherit the estate with her out of the way. I think a lot of the assets were in her name and she hired her own accountant. He’s guilty and if you watch the closing argument of the prosecution, he connects the forensic dots of why it was most likely Alex who killed them.

    The state doesn’t have to prove motive, just that he did it. But it takes only one juror to hold out because they fear him, or feel sorry for him. Which I think jurors should have to write a small paragraph and sign why they chose their verdict. A case like this is too significant to just be left to one or two random juror’s emotions.

    He’s guilty, from what I’ve heard of the case. I think people confuse all doubts with reasonable doubt. You can have doubts, but are they reasonable? He lied where he was that night. He lied that he wasn’t at the kennels, why? Because that’s the crime scene. Three people were at the dog kennel that night, two are dead and the one that survived lied about being there. It’s not that complex but the defense wants to get the jury lost in the fluff.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    The jury is deliberating, now. Doubtful a jury of 12 will unanimously acquit in this case (imo), but all it takes is one juror to create a hung jury. We’ll soon see…

    If it’s a quick verdict, back tomorrow, he’s guilty. If this heads into the weekend, I can see a hung jury but you never know.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    I agree that he's guilty both because he was there and there is no evidence that anyone else was, because he lied about it and because he tried to have himself killed (what innocent person does that)?

    I just think if there is anything for a jury member, so disposed as to find him innocent, it would be because it makes little sense (doesn't have to make sense however) for him to kill his son. People do irrational things all the time as well as stupid things so I do believe that he is guilty.

    Even the fact that there is no physical evidence, in a way, points to him. If you have a crime scene with no evidence left behind and you have two possible suspects, one a regular person and one an experienced lawyer, it would point to the experienced lawyer, IMO since he knows how to clean up a crime scene and to construct an alibi.
     
    wegs likes this.
  8. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Absolutely agree. However, I don’t put it past him killing his son, knowing his backstory. He’s a narcissistic sociopath. But, I don’t think he wanted to, which is why he was sobbing on the stand. Although that could be an act. He killed his son because (imo) then, the boat trial would go away, or so he thought. And it actually did because the town rallied around him as they felt sorry for him. So, the boat trial disappeared for a while.

    I think he regrets killing his son but in his mind, he had to do what he had to do to exonerate his family name and find some money to pay his way out of all his financial crimes. I’m amazed that his family, a bunch of racist rednecks, became this prominent, wealthy family of the town. Talk about big fish in a little pond.

    I hope the jury gets it right.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2023
  9. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    Definitely a case of the old boy's club existing in modern times. He isn't likely to ever be out of prison even if he isn't convicted in this case. That's pretty bad. Actually, when you watch all the backstory documentaries about this family, there is no one in it that comes out looking good.

    Potentially they could all have ended up in prison depending on how the facts turned out. The housekeeper accident that "tripped" over the dogs is questionable and the wife was right there. The oldest son "may" have been involved with the gay guy killed near their property, the younger son caused a death with the boat "accident", Alex has a history full of nothing but bad acts and it's the same going back in his family lineage.
     
  10. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Yes, it’s really gross to learn of that family’s “legacy.” So, suppose the jury is deadlocked and it’s a hung jury, will he be allowed to go home?

    He has been incarcerated all this time in their local city jail, I believe.
     
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    I guess it depends on whether the prosecutor would re-try the case. It also depends on all those other cases against him. Some are probably civil but some must be criminal as well so he probably isn't going home would be my guess.
     
  12. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    I just learned today that the land "Moselle?" has already been sold, most of the proceeded are being help in a trust pending the outcome of all the cases filed against him but the eldest son got about $500k and has settled the boat charges against him (providing his brother with his ID).
     
  13. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    That’s interesting, I forgot about the older brother “Buster” breaking the law by giving Paul a fake ID. That whole family, wow…sadly, even the wife seemed crazy. The housekeeper died and she sounded like she was bothered that she had to call 911. They treated people like trash.
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    Buster went to law school for a year or so and submitted work that wasn't his own and was kicked out so he isn't a lawyer and has some job but no real money so being a "Murdaugh" is about all he has going for him. The wife was way too impressed with the Murdaugh name as well and though she was better than everyone. The whole family is a mess.

    The sons of that housekeeper sued and won an insurance settlement of 4 million and Alex Murdaugh kept that as well.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Guilty on all charges! That was a very quick verdict but it was the correct one. He lied where he was and he lied numerous times on the stand, under oath. That was it for me.
     
    Seattle likes this.
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    You beat me to it!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    wegs likes this.
  17. geordief Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,118
    I heard it here first!
    Yes lying is a great eye opener.
     
    wegs likes this.
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    I still don't totally get it even though I do believe that he did it. I don't get the amount of money that he needed to get by illegal means when you consider that some years he made a million dollars legitimately.

    An OxyContin addiction couldn't cost more than he made or almost no one would be (could afford to be) addicted to it. We never heard anything about his drug provider in any of the investigations that went on.

    His financial crimes had already come into the open so I don't see how blowing the head off his son helped.

    I guess he just got used to a lifestyle that even his salary couldn't keep up with plus the drug addition plus the potential liability that he would have due to his son's boat accident and I believe he and his wife were largely living apart. Maybe it was just a case of killing two birds with one stone? Kill the son and the boat liability would go away? Kill the wife to do avoid the messiness of divorce?

    Maybe his need for public attention will result in a book deal, detailing what really was going on in his head will come up in the future?
     
  19. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
  20. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    From what I’ve read about the case, it sounds like his wife was completely in the dark about his financial crimes. She was aware of all of the allegations against the family but perhaps she thought they weren’t “real.” Once she realized that she literally had no money because their combined assets were being frozen as the boat civil suit started to take shape, she separated from him and wanted a divorce. He was at that time, the beneficiary of the estate, should she die. As far as Paul goes, I think he killed him to make it look like it was a vigilante/revenge type murder from people who hated them in the town or drug dealers.

    At this point, he seemed like a desperate man willing to do anything to regain his financial power and his reputation in the community. Maybe he was paying other people off to go away so they wouldn’t bring a lawsuit against him for the money he stole from them. Personally, I don’t believe he had a drug habit. There was really no proof of this, rather, I think he was selling drugs.

    He lured Maggie to the estate property the night of the murder and his son happened to be there, babysitting his friend’s dog. So, I honestly think the more I’ve read about this now, that he felt like he had to shoot Paul to make it look like crazy vigilantes were seeking revenge. And he also knew, the boat trial would simmer down when these murders took center stage in the town.

    His defense lawyers said earlier today that they plan to appeal the verdict in ten days. It won’t change anything. It’s very hard to win an appeal, especially with such a violent crime like this one.

    Did you watch the judge’s sentencing today? His speech to Alex Murdaugh? If not, you should check it out. That judge is a class act, but of course Alex spoke up and said “I respect the court, but I’m innocent.” The judge spoke about how he remembers the Murdaugh family running the legal system for decades in the “Low Country,” and how he respected him (Alex). It really is moving, and many judges wouldn’t have bothered. But, it shows that the judge wasn’t only presiding over a case but he was also watching someone he knew for years, spiral out of control.

    Personally, I think something is mentally wrong with him in addition to his personality disorders. Such a sad, crazy story.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2023
  21. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    There is also a question of principle: There are people I believe are guilty, but would protest their conviction.

    The Murdaugh trial is an in-between for me. My actual opinion is that I don't care insofar as there are many spectacular murders, and I start to resent entertainment-grade attention given to trials. MSNBC, for instance; the question wasn't really the news itself, but the ratings value. At one point, someone asked someone else about the lack of physical evidence, and the essence of the explanation was the idea that the jury had just had enough, which, in turn, isn't really grounds for conviction, but this is cable news, so it all works out, somehow.

    I'm pretty sure he's guilty, but I would have to actually be a juror before I can tell you I would convict. The standard is, "beyond a reasonable doubt".

     
  22. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    I didn't watch any of the network commentary but I get your point but whether the cable news feels that it all works out or not, IMO, doesn't really matter. It's just noise as is most commentary.

    Alex was there, lied about it for over a year until he couldn't lie about it. He tried to make it look like someone related to the boat case tried to kill him. The gun used was a family gun. No one else was indicated so that's beyond a reasonable doubt it can certainly be argued, IMO.

    I think the prosecution should have argued that we don't know exactly why Alex did it, people do crazy things all the time but in the case all the evidence does point to him and to no one else.

    Wegs brings up a point, that if true, helps explain Paul as well. If it's true that he just happened to be there. However, I seem to recall that Alex asked both his wife and Paul to be there that night.

    I don't think it's just a case of Alex being a "bad apple". I think that is certainly the case but there is a certain heavy-handedness in the way his father and grandfather ran things as well.

    Supposedly Alex's father once called an attorney to "handle" a problem in another county, the attorney did handle it and Alex's father thanked him and asked how much do I own you? The attorney said "nothing, just consider it a favor". Alex's father said (half jokingly and half serious) "well, if you ever need to kill a man, just drag him into our county and we'll take care of it"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The interesting thing about the current case and the life sentences is that, with 99 other cases against him, he wasn't likely to ever get out of jail even if he wasn't convicted of these two murders.
     
  23. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    I have a new theory and it’s plausible imo, but…I don’t believe that he initially planned to kill Paul. He wanted to kill Maggie for financial reasons and she was leaving him. Paul was there all day “driving around” with his dad, but all three were down by the kennel eventually that night, and I think that AM felt no one in a million years would think he’d kill his own son. That night, he was interviewed and the lies began, but a telling point was when he almost immediately started telling the police that his son was receiving hate and threats online over the boat accident. To push blame elsewhere. And it could be people out to get him and his wife, to get back at him. I just found that odd that he started setting up his theory as soon as police arrived. The police looked at each other with bewilderment, but also in fear. Fear that they were potentially talking to the murderer. In nearly every case where a wife/husband/kids are murdered, it’s the spouse who did it.

    As a side note, I learned today when legal experts were discussing the sentencing of Murdaugh, that firing squads are gaining in popularity for certain states to use them for convicted felons who get the death penalty. What? Ugh, that sounds sinister.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2023

Share This Page