The Murdaugh Murders (podcast)

#151

Good point about the "they" remarks. Cunning. Shows premeditation.

Why did he throw Maggie's phone away and not Paul's?

#152

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 9:45 am Good point about the "they" remarks. Cunning. Shows premeditation.

Why did he throw Maggie's phone away and not Paul's?

I wish I could remember why I believed it made sense that he would throw Maggie's phone away and not Paul's.

Sometimes I will jot notes during testimony if something comes to me and I don't want to forget. One issue is that it was known he was able to get into Maggie's phone. He did not have the codes to get into Paul's phone. It's possible that part of the reason for ditching Maggie's phone is because he knew he would have a hard time convincing them he could not break into her phone, but it was actually true that he did not have the password to get into Paul's phone. But I do remember during one of the testimonies that it occurred to me there was an even better reason. I am totally dog dead tired and cannot remember what that reason was.

#153

Thanks. I don't intend to add to your already overloaded day.

#154

It has been confirmed that AM is going to testify. The judge read him his rights and under oath he said he understood them and that he intends to testify. So, they are putting a quick witness (supposedly) on the stand first, then apparently AM is going to take the stand.

Well, it's been established that he is very manipulative. I think he's going to testify for the same reason Elizabeth Holmes testified. They both believe themselves to be smarter than everyone else and I bet he believes he is going to be able to convince the jury he's a great guy and would never do such a thing.

Kendra · #155

CNN carrying testimony live at the moment. My goodness, that man can sniffle. A lot.

sad-cafe · #156

who is asking the questions? Defense or prosecution?

He is over-sharing a LOT of info for an "innocent" man

#157

I had to take my mom to get a CT scan and couldn't get internet on my phone, so I missed some of Alex direct so far.

But, I heard about the first 45 minutes to an hour. He had to change his story in so many ways. At one point his lawyer had to ask him why he lied about being at the kennels shortly before the murders. After some stammering and hesitation he said "because I didn't trust SLED".

So, he's going with that answer because the defense has been harping that SLED did not do a thorough investigation. And they are trying to get the jury to believe they settled on Alex as the killer on day one and that's why they didn't bother to do a good investigation.

One problem with that. It was I think 13 months after the murder until they finally arrested him. So, rushing to find him as the guilty party doesn't mesh.

Kendra · #158

Cross exam should be fun.

#159

Oh Kendra! Cross exam is going to be brutal.

Here is just one problem that the prosecutor can demolish him about - the change of clothing.

At no time during any interview when he was going through a blow by blow of his and Paul and Maggie's activities on that day did he ever mention that he changed his clothing. So, today on direct exam he told a story that makes perfect and good sense. He and Paul had going around the property looking at different things (remember they drove most of the time, so not a whole lot of walking) and he said without any hesitation that after Maggie got there he went to the house, took a shower and changed clothes.

Ok, that makes perfect sense. Except during interviews, SLED never knew that he changed clothing until after they found a video on Paul's phone and three months after the killings they asked him when did you change clothing. His response was telling. He hesitated and had that deer in the headlights look on his face. He stammered and stuttered and sounded like he was going to start to deny that he changed clothes. Then he started asking them questions, trying to get information from them about what they knew about his change of clothes. Finally the detective pulled out the video and showed it to him. Then, his response was "I don't know, I guess I changed clothes after dinner".

If he really did change after he and Paul walked the property and while Maggie was heating up dinner, why was it so hard for him to remember that. Especially because on the witness stand today his story is different and "I always did it that way".

oops.

But there is lots more.

He's going to be pulverized on cross.

#160

Court TV says John Grisham is in the courtroom today.

sad-cafe · #161

listening to him talk of his drug use pisses me off

As a crohn's sufferer i take hydro and oxy I take the same amount daily and have for years. it does not mean we escalate

sad-cafe · #162

dude sucks his tongue a lot

Kendra · #163

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 3:18 pm dude sucks his tongue a lot

Is that what it is? I thought he was sucking on a hard candy or something.

That sniffling is driving me nuts.

sad-cafe · #164

yeah he is sucking his tongue when he is not sweeping it around his mouth

Kendra · #165

I wonder where this line of questioning about the badges and the blue lights he had installed on one personal vehicle.

#166

Kendra wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:22 pm I wonder where this line of questioning about the badges and the blue lights he had installed on one personal vehicle.

I can only say what MY point would be. He had to explain why he lied multiple times about being at the kennel. His response is that he "did not trust SLED".

I think the prosecutor did a great job of showing that his family had a relationship with law enforcement that went back 100 years. He got special treatment. He got a badge for doing no work whatsoever, even admitted on the stand that he used it to get favorable treatment from law enforcement. The same law enforcement that he lied to because he "did not trust them".

OMG. I think they will bring Connor on to tell the jury that Alex told all the kids in the boat to say they did not know who was driving the boat. After attempting to get them to change their story about Paul driving the boat, Alex called Connor's parents to tell them that Connor was driving the boat, and "don't worry, with all my connections I will make sure I help Connor as much as possible". They briefly believed their son was responsible for the boat wreck that killed Mallory Beach. Not only did their son tell them no way was he driving the boat, but he asked them if they thought the Murdaughs would have him killed. He was friends with Paul, and even as a friend he was aware enough of the power and the kind of things the Murdaughs (not just Alex) were capable of and had been either known or suspected of doing.

#167

RVInit wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 5:26 pm
Kendra wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 4:22 pm I wonder where this line of questioning about the badges and the blue lights he had installed on one personal vehicle.
I can only say what MY point would be. He had to explain why he lied multiple times about being at the kennel. His response is that he "did not trust SLED".

I think the prosecutor did a great job of showing that his family had a relationship with law enforcement that went back 100 years. He got special treatment. He got a badge for doing no work whatsoever, even admitted on the stand that he used it to get favorable treatment from law enforcement. The same law enforcement that he lied to because he "did not trust them".

OMG. I think they will bring Connor on to tell the jury that Alex told all the kids in the boat to say they did not know who was driving the boat. After attempting to get them to change their story about Paul driving the boat, Alex called Connor's parents to tell them that Connor was driving the boat, and "don't worry, with all my connections I will make sure I help Connor as much as possible". They briefly believed their son was responsible for the boat wreck that killed Mallory Beach. Not only did their son tell them no way was he driving the boat, but he asked them if they thought the Murdaughs would have him killed. He was friends with Paul, and even as a friend he was aware enough of the power and the kind of things the Murdaughs (not just Alex) were capable of and had been either known or suspected of doing.

I have watched his direct and cross today. I agree with you, RV.

I think that the prosecutor is trying to show to the jury that Alex is using his "solicitor" badge to receive special treatment and to show that he has a close relationship with the police. His thinking was that once the police showed up to Moselle, that they would quickly dismiss him as a suspect because of the solicitor's badge prominently displayed in his vehicle. When they did interview him, he could lie with impunity and felt that his stories would not be challenged due to his position as long as they were plausible.

I notice that he wiggles when answering questions, and the prosecutor has to corral him and get him to answer the question directly. I don't think that this tactic goes over well with juries.

pjhimself · #168

. He got a badge for doing no work whatsoever, even admitted on the stand that he used it to get favorable treatment from law enforcement.

Power, access, special treatment.

Recessed today.

Seems to me his attorneys are confirming their recommendation to not testify by their facial expressions.

Tomorrow has to be more about the murder (timeline/onstar) evidence methinks.

The jury has to be bored to tears.

#169

pjhimself wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 5:43 pm
. He got a badge for doing no work whatsoever, even admitted on the stand that he used it to get favorable treatment from law enforcement.
Power, access, special treatment.

Recessed today.

Seems to me his attorneys are confirming their recommendation to not testify by their facial expressions.

Tomorrow has to be more about the murder (timeline/onstar) evidence methinks.

The jury has to be bored to tears.

Every statement you made. 100%

His attorneys have probably already poured themselves a row of doubles. I think there are many problems with his direct exam. He kept his cool, looked right at the jury, but the prosecutor is going to show why his answers are all complete BS. I'm pretty sure of that.

sad-cafe · #170

dang-my watching ended when deadline switched back. Law and crime network now charges grrr

pjhimself · #171

. jury, but the prosecutor is going to show why his answers are all complete BS. I'm pretty sure of that.

Perhaps. But, will the state convince all the jurors ? I’ve seen reports the jurors are intently paying attention
and others they’re not. Who knows ?

What I think is biased based on searches and experiences.
Supposedly the jurors don’t have access to Netflix, HBO or CNBC Greed revealing programs.

Starting to ramble so, done for now.

#172

pjhimself wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 6:54 pm
. jury, but the prosecutor is going to show why his answers are all complete BS. I'm pretty sure of that.
Perhaps. But, will the state convince all the jurors ? I’ve seen reports the jurors are intently paying attention
and others they’re not. Who knows ?

What I think is biased based on searches and experiences.
Supposedly the jurors don’t have access to Netflix, HBO or CNBC Greed revealing programs.

Starting to ramble so, done for now.

Yeah, I should have specified that I think the prosecutor is spot on enough to hit the points they would need to hit that have convinced me. But yeah, as to whether the jury will be convinced. I am somewhat doubtful that we will get a guilty verdict out of this one. I don't have doubt that he did it, primary because there is just too much circumstantial evidence that simply wouldn't be there if someone else had done it. But I can certainly see at least one juror that will not be convinced. And I wouldn't even be surprised if we get an outright acquittal.

Sometimes I shake my head when when someone I think is guilty gets off. Casey Anthony getting off blew me away. But I don't think I would be blown away if the jury doesn't convict Murdaugh. He and his family have gotten away with so much over the 100 year dynasty, it would not surprise me at all. I'm not sure I would be surprised if his family bought at least one juror. I'm not even kidding.

pjhimself · #173

. I'm not sure I would be surprised if his family bought at least one juror. I'm not even kidding.

Devious deduction Holmes. Not even my dubious mind considered that aspect. It certainly fits his profile/history.

Where would the money come from ?

And, oh by the way, how will testimony/admissions today impact the financial pending cases on that subject ?

#174

pjhimself wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 7:29 pm
. I'm not sure I would be surprised if his family bought at least one juror. I'm not even kidding.
Devious deduction Holmes. Not even my dubious mind considered that aspect. It certainly fits his profile/history.

Where would the money come from ?

And, oh by the way, how will testimony/admissions today impact the financial pending cases on that subject ?

I've heard a couple of lawyers say that this almost ensures that he is going to have to try for some kind of plea deal on the financial stuff because this testimony about the financial crimes can be brought into that other trial. It sounds to me like he took a huge risk getting on that stand.

I would be interested in hearing if the lawyers here agree with what I heard tv/youtube lawyers say,

#175

I do not think that he will be acquitted. There are just too many problems with his defense.

I think the prosecution is trying to draw a line from his deceit towards his uneducated, indigent, and ignorant clients (and he testified that he really liked his clients and wanted to do good by them) to his own family. If I were a juror, I would consider strongly how manipulative he is. Lies to his clients and steals their money. Brandishes his Get of of Jail Free solicitor's badge to gain advantage. Lies to his own family despite his crocodile tears. Then lies to the police.

I thought it was interesting when the prosecution questioned him about his real estate investing prior to the 2008 Recession. I think shortly thereafter was when he started to cook the books for the legal settlements that were received. I wonder if the prosecutor will return to this or not. I also wonder if part of the proceeds of his theft went into his real estate speculations and not necessarily into his opioid addiction.

And, speaking of his addiction, is there not some sort of 12-step rehabilitation process they go through much like AA?

So, a hung jury? Yeah, I think it could go 10-2 for conviction. But no acquittal.