This judge is the same judge of the Rittenhouse trial - hope he gets this one right.

There is testimony of Alex asking both Paul and Maggie to come home that day (Maggie, estranged from Alex, was staying at a beach property and told her sister that it was strange, Maggie’s sister told her to go) Paul also wasn’t at Moselle - that has to be powerful info.
Diabolical monster

Anonymous wrote:Prosecution was horrible. I still can't believe how awful. No excuse for it either.

I actually think the prosecution did do a good job, particularly Mr. Waters. The problem is a lack of forensic evidence directly linking him to the crime and the guilty beyond a reasonable doubt standard. This is not the prosecutors' fault. I honestly don't know what the jury will do.

Regarding whether he should have testified or not -- While this typically is not a good idea, my guess is that he thought he had to testify to try and explain away the last-minute kennel video that placed him at the scene of the murders just minutes before the murders. Otherwise, all they jury would hear is that he had lied about being at the scene and that the video that surfaced placed him directly there. I think he thought that he had to try and put some context around this. Not sure if it did him any good or not. I don't know if his attorneys would have even advised him not to testify in this situation. The defense hasn't really given any possibility of who else would have reasonably done the crime -- just that people were upset at Paul bc of the boating accident.

The murder weapons were not recovered, correct? That is another issue to overcome.

Anonymous wrote:Prosecution was horrible. I still can't believe how awful. No excuse for it either.

Do you really think Colleton County chooses from the best and the brightest for any employees?

Prosecution was horrible. I still can't believe how awful. No excuse for it either.

Anonymous wrote:Crime of stupidity. So he will get off because his behavior is just that unbelievable. As in “no one is that stupid.”

This stupidity defense seems to be working with former presidents and in Congress too.

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe that with all the evidence and obvious guilt of Alex, many are saying there might be an acquittal. The State has not met their burden and had many holes poked in their evidence/expert testimony by the Defense team for reasonable doubt. They are unable to pin the forensic murders on him; a liar and drug addict yes - but a murderer?

This is fascinating and horrible at the same time, the trial is wrapping up.

Having endured emotional abuse by a boyfriend, I believed OJ Simpson was guilty, especially after reading a couple of long form articles on his and Nicole's disturbing relationship. Yet the state prosecution was abysmal, allowing the defense to successfully sow a sense of doubt in jurors' minds. Perhaps this will happen with Murdaugh.

Crime of stupidity. So he will get off because his behavior is just that unbelievable. As in “no one is that stupid.”

I can’t believe that with all the evidence and obvious guilt of Alex, many are saying there might be an acquittal. The State has not met their burden and had many holes poked in their evidence/expert testimony by the Defense team for reasonable doubt. They are unable to pin the forensic murders on him; a liar and drug addict yes - but a murderer?

This is fascinating and horrible at the same time, the trial is wrapping up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it was a mistake for him to testify, so guilty
“Mags, Paul-Paul, trying to endear the jury using these nicknames. Admits to lying about being at the kennel as heard on Paul’s audio due to his addictions and paranoia

Are there any defense attorneys here who can speak to this? Isn’t it generally ill advised? Did he go against counsel?

It appears his counsel - properly, I believe - advised him NOT to testify. But Murdaugh is a narcissist who believes he can talk his way out of anything because he's never had to face consequences his entire life. Murdaugh testifying was a BAD IDEA - he put himself at the crime scene, and has admitted to lying about almost everything.
Except of course the murdering.

Anonymous wrote:Already admitted he lied repeatedly and that he was there at the kennels at 8:44 pm.

+1. So is he claiming he left and returned to find them dead? Or he was nearby when the murders happened? How does he explain the new timeline he proposes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I want to know where is all this money he stole. It was in the millions. It couldn't have all been drugs.


Debt. I doubt his firm was funding the lifestyle his family was living.
[Report Post]

Yep. He had lots of very expensive toys----beach house, hunting estate---none of which was income producing.

+1. He had at least 3 homes. I think I read the hunting property alone was worth $4M.

Anonymous wrote:I think it was a mistake for him to testify, so guilty
“Mags, Paul-Paul, trying to endear the jury using these nicknames. Admits to lying about being at the kennel as heard on Paul’s audio due to his addictions and paranoia

Are there any defense attorneys here who can speak to this? Isn’t it generally ill advised? Did he go against counsel?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This “South Carolina” sounds like a wretched place!

I have no idea what someone would willingly live in such an atrocious state.

+1

Defiantly a fly-over state.

Absolutely. There's definitely zero corruption in states like New York or Massachusetts.

What planet are you people living on?

or Indiana or Ohio

or Kentucky or Tennessee

or ...

Oh come on, this has some special flavor. It’s like if Southerners were mafia but not as good at it. There's some strange folks down there.

Yep and there are some that are very good at it.

Just finished the Netflix series (which is excellent, as they go). He's going down.