I get my news from the Pack, anyone got a cliff notes version? Is this dude guilty?
Have we discussed the Alex Murdaugh trial?
- Thread starter jethreauxdawg
- Start date
I had managed to not hear about it until Monday. Thats the benefit of not watching news, I guess.
Later that night, I saw Netflix has a series on it.
So then I went down the rabbit hole and holy hell that guy needs to be put away for life. He can justifiably be put away for half a dozen things, really.
What a disgusting family and person.
^ guilty until proven innocent,
Later that night, I saw Netflix has a series on it.
So then I went down the rabbit hole and holy hell that guy needs to be put away for life. He can justifiably be put away for half a dozen things, really.
What a disgusting family and person.
^ guilty until proven innocent,
I watched the series, had heard very very little about it prior and I would say he most definitely killed his wife and son.
His son that was driving the boat that killed the girl was very tragic and that could have and should have probably been prevented if the other two guys on the boat not let him drive.
His son that was driving the boat that killed the girl was very tragic and that could have and should have probably been prevented if the other two guys on the boat not let him drive.
I'll be honest, I didn't think there was any way this guy could have killed his wife & son, but after seeing the series on Netflix.... Yeah, he's a big enough piece of entitled **** to do it.
Hold up, there is a Netflix series out before the trial is even over? Whoa. I’m very late to this story apparently.
I've listened to podcasts on it years ago. He did it no doubt. Not only that, but he embezzled tens of millions from his law firm and his clients, his housekeeper "fell down the stairs" at his house and died, and his 17 year old kid killed a girl in a drunken boating accident. And, there's speculation his 2 kids were involved in a hit and run that killed a homosexual kid in their town. Story is way deeper than this trial.
I actually watched the Low Country doc on HBO Max a couple of months ago because I randomly stumbled upon it and lived in SC for a few years. I was surprised as hell at the twists that came along with the story. Then a couple of weeks ago started seeing it on morning news, then the Netflix series. Seeing the way the kids acted is why I hated USCe when I lived there, they reminded me of Ole Miss brats too much.
The Netflix series isn't about the murder of the wife and son. It's about all the other stuff (including a few more dead people) that they have supposedly gotten away with in the past
This guy was a big-time drug addict who stole millions of dollars from partners and clients. The guy had problems but that doesn't mean he's a killer. There are plenty of people who would have motive to kill him, but I have not seen a motive for him to kill his wife and son. He could have been the target, but wife and son were wrong place at the wrong time. I am not saying he is innocence but there is no motive or the motive the Prosecutor is pushing sounds like a big-time reach. I watched his testimony. It was obvious he is a lawyer, and he made the Prosecutor look like an amateur. I am at 50/50 on his guilt. I think it ends in hung jury.
I've done some business with that family. He's gonna get away with it (murder).
Why wasn't the jury sequestered? Seems like that would be basis for a mistrial.
Sequestering the jury is a big deal. You're going to tell jurors that the guys life is in your hands but you can't be trusted to not watch the news or read about the case? And just to be safe, you can't do anything for work at night or hang out with your family? I would probably get thrown in jail for contempt of court if I was on a jury that was attempted to be sequestered.
I haven't paid attention to it but the little commentary I've seen on it from people I think actually understand the law and criminal prosecutions basically agreed that the prosecutor wasn't doing a good job. They weren't as convinced he did it. They basically said he's certainly a bad guy that deserves to be in jail for some things, but that while he is a bad enough human being that he could have done this particular crime, they haven't seen convincing evidence that he actually did do it. That came early on in the trial, so maybe the prosecution did better after that.
If he did not do it, there is an unfortunate amount of circumstantial evidence that suggest he did.
He is going to jail for a long time--not counting the murder charge.. could be 2 people were involved in the shooting.. why would you shoot the son with a shotgun and the wife with a 300 blackout? no doubt Alex is a scum bag and a liar but not sure if he killed his wife and kid.
As someone that has not been following the trial very close at all my question has become if he did not do it then what would be a reasonable explanation for who did? Alex will get to see me one day, but I just am having a hard time believing that this man, corrupt as he may be, could or would do this to his wife and kid.
I mean maybe the pills or maybe the need for more money, but you have to be a pretty hardcore guy to leave your kids brain laying on a sidewalk with a shotgun.
I mean maybe the pills or maybe the need for more money, but you have to be a pretty hardcore guy to leave your kids brain laying on a sidewalk with a shotgun.
I saw some sort of show a while ago on it (well before the Netflix series) about the drunken son in the boating accident and the housekeeper. They might have had some info on the son and wife too. Once I started the Netflix show, I remembered I had watched a show on it already.
I hate jumping to conclusions - but yeah he did it. If he is truly innocent, it is likely the most unlikely set of events to transpire to make someone look guilty in all of human history.
You need to watch the Netflix series. But to answer your Q, his defense is it was someone that avenged the death of the girl that his son killed in a boating accident. (I don't buy that)
The Netflix series documents the way he tried to intimidate the police and victims and frame other victims of the boating accident, you'd better understand this guy. The defendant is using this same MO to get out of the murder of his wife and son.
I've followed it via podcast for a couple of years, when the boat crash and the embezzlement of the maid family's settlement came to light. Very strong circumstantial evidence, but sloppy work by LE and the prosecution could lead to a hung jury. It's 50/50.
I listened to the old podcast months ago. I tried watching the netflix documentary but it was just repeating what I knew from the podcast. This week, I took the time to listen to all of his testimony. I have a difficult time finding a motive for killing his wife. However, there is some evidence that his wife was starting to discover some financial issues. She is rumored to have visited a divorce attorney (i dont think any testimony about it has been offered). I can understand that his son was causing him a lot of pressure lingering from the boat wreck (civil and criminal trial). I think with the pressure building from his financial issues, exposure of stealing 9 million dollars from clients, litigation piling up, and his oxycodone/oxycotin addition (admitted to taking 1500 plus mg a day), his house of cards, family legacy, and reputation were collapsing. For whatever reason, he saw killing his son and wife as a distraction or end to some of the issues. I believe he did it.
The timeline is too convenient. A timeline that he admittedly lied initially about. He admits to lying about seeing his son and wife minutes before they were killed. He now says he left them at the kennels, went back to camp house, took a nap, visited his mom and came back and found them all within about 1 hour and 15 minutes. Minutes after he left seeing them for last time, both his wife's and son's phone cease activity. Defense contends that the killers just happened to show up during this window. I think that is way to convenient.
Then, he hired a guy to kill him months after so his other son could collect life insurance. The murder attempt was unsuccessful and he initially lied about it.
He is a former prosecutor and attorney for 30 years. His grandfrather and dad were a prosecutors. This guy knew what it took to create an alibi and cover his tracks. Only thing he didnt anticipate was SnapChat which exposed his lie about the last time he saw his wife and son.
The murder scene definitely helps him. Two different weapons. Brutal killings. Five shots to his wife. Shotgun blast to back of head of son. But once again, he knows what it would take to make the murder scene look like someone with a lot of hatred and vengence committed the act.
This guy has admittedly lied to everyone. Why would the jury believe they are the only ones he is now telling the truth to?
The timeline is too convenient. A timeline that he admittedly lied initially about. He admits to lying about seeing his son and wife minutes before they were killed. He now says he left them at the kennels, went back to camp house, took a nap, visited his mom and came back and found them all within about 1 hour and 15 minutes. Minutes after he left seeing them for last time, both his wife's and son's phone cease activity. Defense contends that the killers just happened to show up during this window. I think that is way to convenient.
Then, he hired a guy to kill him months after so his other son could collect life insurance. The murder attempt was unsuccessful and he initially lied about it.
He is a former prosecutor and attorney for 30 years. His grandfrather and dad were a prosecutors. This guy knew what it took to create an alibi and cover his tracks. Only thing he didnt anticipate was SnapChat which exposed his lie about the last time he saw his wife and son.
The murder scene definitely helps him. Two different weapons. Brutal killings. Five shots to his wife. Shotgun blast to back of head of son. But once again, he knows what it would take to make the murder scene look like someone with a lot of hatred and vengence committed the act.
This guy has admittedly lied to everyone. Why would the jury believe they are the only ones he is now telling the truth to?
No offense or anything but I would never have time to watch the series. I just was curious from glancing at a few news reports.
I’ve watched the HBO doc and stuff on 20/20 or ID on him and his family. Any of you watched the HBO and Netflix? If so, is it worth watching it as well
I've watched more than I should have and can't really get a grasp on whether he's guilty or innocent. The jury is gonna have a tough decision to make either way. I feel like he's guilty, but there is no real solid evidence or smoking gun against him. My dad used to tell me when I was young that it's better to let 10 guilty men walk free than to convict one innocent man to a life in prison. Even though I think he's guilty, I predict he'll walk free. I wouldn't be placing bets on this at all.
He specifically asked for his wife and son to come to that property which is very isolated. His cell phone is the only one that pinged on the property besides his wife and son. The caliber of the murder weapons are two that he owned and no one can find them now. He lied about being there until the recording on his son's phone was discovered. His wife was living in a separate home and was apparently going to divorce him. His fingerprints were on his wife and sons phone. The clothes he was wearing that day were changed and never found. So let's see. He arranged for them to be on a very isolated property, lied about being there, told the housekeeper to lie about the time-frame, owned the caliber of murder weapons, and no one else's cell phone was in the area. He murdered them.
The guy is going to jail for the fraud anyway. He won't likely see freedom again for a long time, if at all.
What ever came up in the trial about a blue tarp or jacket? I thought I remember that being a key piece of evidence that his parent's caregiver saw him with that night
Or maybe he was secretly a SPSer and it was just his blue tent
Or maybe he was secretly a SPSer and it was just his blue tent
He may be guilty as hell of murder but you better remember that television is the biggest liar there is. I worked in television production. They can make anyone look guilty or innocent because they can put the emphasis of the story where they want to while ignoring things detrimental to their story. They would make politicians blush and convince you that the Devil never existed. I know that has been said before that, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Oh I don’t doubt that whatsoever. I believed Steve Avery was innocent for the longest time
He was allegedly seen at his parent's house carrying something that was covered in what appeared to the caregiver to be a blue tarp. A blue rain coat was found at his parent's house that had gunshot residue on it.
Not to get in any debate, but after watching the second season of Making a Murderer, I would have enough doubt to convict him. I haven't heard the prosecution's side of it, but there are some details in there that at least cast serious doubt in my mind.
His surviving son stated their primary residence was at that property, and it was only 20 minutes from town.
They had three houses, Hampton, this property and a beach house. They spent a lot of the summer at a beach house. They spent the least amount of time in Hampton.
Didn't her sister testify that she knew of no marital troubles between them? Im asking because I didn't see her testimony, what i asked above is 2nd hand.
Last edited:
One this that i find vastly differently between here and there. The Murdaugh kids (multi millionaires from generational wealth) went 1-12 in public school. In central MS, families with barely two nickels to rub together will struggle to send their kids to the lower rated private schools (Canton, ERA, Hartfield - which is obviously on the way up, etc.). I can't imagine the public schools in Hampton being better MC, Germantown, NWR or Brandon.
There are plenty of multimillionaire families that go to MC, Germantown, NWR, Brandon, Tupelo, and schools on the coast and in north Mississippi. Most of the people struggling to send their kids to private school don't live in those school districts. Some certainly do, and they're usually going to be sending their kids to private school because of wanting a nominally religious school or just wanting a smaller school. Being in a class with 100 people is pretty different than being in a class with 400 or more.
Latest posts
-
Will Rogers just threw a TD, NBC
- Latest: FlotownDawg
-
-
Meanwhile, Arkansas taking it to Tennessee.
- Latest: IBleedMaroonDawg
Get unlimited access today.