I've always heard this is a real indication they think they're losing. But he is a lawyer so he will know how to tell lies no one can disprove.
Is Alex Murdaugh guilty ?
- Thread starter Snake006
- Start date
Exactly...this is a hail mary, which makes me believe they think they're in bad shape. The only alibi they have is blown up by his own lie to authorities. Interesting that he just said he would never "intentionally" hurt his wife or son. Dude is a seasoned life long attorney...words placed like that matter. Part of me thinks they're just trying to make a case that he did it, but he was strung out and didn't understand what he was doing. Or, I'm reading too much into it...lol.
i do believe they're going for an appeal at this point.
Last edited:
Like Hillary's judicious repeating of the phrase "I don't recall." No one can prove what you recall.
I don't think they wanted him to testify...didn't seem like it.
Yep...leave it up to the jury to decide what it means.
Watching the trial. Think Prosecutor is doing a good job. Would not want to be questioned by him.
He is much better than the defense attorneys.
I’d love to see the prosecutor bring in a dope dealer to testify as an expert witness that it’s impossible to spend 100k a month, week or whatever this lying pos said on pills. This guys a clown
Nope. Brady is for exculpatory evidence. I think the state has a surprise for ol Ellek.
Just saying he hasn't lied on the stand that we know of.....
He laid out a very compelling argument.
He lied to the SLED, and then he had to go with it, oh what a tangle web we weave, I believe was the quote. He implied & never came out and said it, but there are already undertones going that if ones spouse is killed your automatically the number one suspect.
By saying his law partner said don't talk with them unless he had a lawyer in conjunction with the whole "have you ever got nervous when a cop gets behind you, even if your not doing anything wrong" will resonate.
If he can play cool and not blow it while stonewalling Waters, he has a chance.
Waters is pinning everything on circumstantial evidence around the actual murders damned by the financial crimes. But ALEC, is admitting openly to all of that and owning all the financial crimes. It devalues every bit of the 4.5 weeks Waters ranted and raved about financials. Most of the 4.5 weeks, and again today I was wondering what the man was on trial for murders or financial crimes.
If I'm on the jury I'm wondering were are the guns are? Were are the witnesses? Why didnt you go check were Alec said he was that night?
That is an awful big property and 85% of the hunters on this page could easily walk up on that dog kennel and pull this off and slide right back into the wilderness and into an awaiting car. And I'll do you one better than the acoustics engineer. I'd go so far as to say it probably wasnt unusual for there to be gun shots going off on that property. So if Alec was inside as he says or even on the golf cart riding he may not have heard or subconsciously thought much about any shooting.
I personally like the way the founders adopted certain aspects of British common law and adapted parts to leave out star chambers, and no one was beholden to a monarch or all being man made power.
If the state can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he pulled the triggers so be it.
But I dont think they can! They had their chance and they simply did not lay out a case to convict the man, for me, and I hope others. I struggle with this part. I dont like seeing justice not served, but I would much rather reserve power than to freely give it to the state for unlimited prosecution. Hence one of my issues with RICO statues.
Think Blackstone's Ratio and later Franklin taking it even further: "Thus we presume an accused person's innocence until they are proven guilty. As the preeminent English jurist William Blackstone wrote,"that ten guilty persons escape, then that one innocent suffer." This principle can also be found in religious texts and in the writings of the American Founders. Benjamin Franklin went further arguing "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer."
So if Waters and Co. can not prove he did this heinous crime, set him free, for he will meet his maker and face his 2 slain family members in the end! But do not crucify the man merely on his other misdeeds and callous actions towards others. A time will come for those crimes to be judged, but that is not this trial.
In our haste to judge may we never give the state the benefit of the doubt, but may we always presume innocence until they can undeniably prove beyond any shadow, hint or whisper that a party is unquestionably guilty of the crime they are charged with. Least we go back to the crowns justice or worse some Starr chamber like the USSR or CCP.
I still think he knows who did it, he may have even been there. But there simply isnt enough, at least now, to convict him of the charges he is charged with.
But tomorrow is a new day!
Last edited:
I think his cross today was good. I don’t think AM devalued it by admitting to it. Waters is clearly going to get into the timeline and the actual murder, and AM is clearly going to try to talk around it. So before then, I think it was smart for him to remind the jurors what kind of monster he is. Looking into the eyes of a paraplegic and stealing his money is the lowest of low. These weren’t faceless strangers. He wasn’t sitting thousands of miles away hacking bank accounts. He established relationships with these people and gained their trust…then screwed them all over. I think that being the last thing jurors hear before getting into the murders was very important. But I’ve just got a feeling they’ve got something else they’re sitting on. And I thought it was interesting that he denied ever seeing or having a blue rain coat….basically calling ms Shelly a liar.
I think the worst case for the state is it’s hung, and they’ll try it again.
Don't think he pulled the trigger but he knows who did. If he talks, he probably knows his other son will be history.
This is the way I’m leaning which makes him not guilty of murder.
He’s going to jail one way or the other whether it’s stealing or murder so lock him up for your choice of crimes. As far as Jr is concerned it’s up to the girl’s family to make that right since the justice system won’t. That entire family is history thanks to a weak, limp wristed dad. Your grandfather would beat you to death himself if he were alive.
While I haven't watched every minute of the trial, I've at least kept up with it to a decent degree. If the prosecution had laid out air-tight, slam-dunk proof that he committed the murders, it would have been all over the news. I haven't seen or heard that either. I don't see where the state has proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe I'm naïve; gullible; too trusting...? But I'm beginning to think RAM is telling the truth when he says he didn't shoot them or hurt them. Besides, that lead prosecutor rubs me the wrong way - lol.
From the bits I've followed, the best the prosecution has done is show that it's feasible Murdaugh was there at the time of the murders. But the defense has shown it's equally feasible that he wasn't there.
All along I've said I believe he probably did it, but I had to catch myself yesterday on that point and ask why? Mostly I felt that way because it's too juicy to not be true...disgraced southern lawyer blows away his wife and son, and he seems to be generally a jerk.
I have no reason to believe he did it.
All along I've said I believe he probably did it, but I had to catch myself yesterday on that point and ask why? Mostly I felt that way because it's too juicy to not be true...disgraced southern lawyer blows away his wife and son, and he seems to be generally a jerk.
I have no reason to believe he did it.
Last edited:
I also can hardly believe he paid someone to shoot him and give him a flesh wound. Makes no sense because I can't see how it would possibly get him out of his financial woes. But he did do it. And that tells me he's at least capable of paying someone to pull the trigger.
Did the prosecution make a mistake not focusing just on the murders, rather than also bringing in his financial shenanigans too? Time will tell.
You don’t know anything about me how would you possibly know that last sentence?
Unfortunately, it's not supposed to be about whether or not he's believable. It's whether or not the prosecution proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. They have certainly not done that. He may still be found guilty, and maybe justly so, but the prosecution has not made the case.
Many a man convicted on circumstantial evidence and they certainly have plenty of that - most importantly placing him at the scene of the crime when he lied about being there.
Only problem I have with their circumstantial evidence is that the defense has raised significant reasonable doubt in each piece of evidence. To my knowledge, the prosecution hasn't produced a single piece of hard evidence. Sometimes you put enough circumstantial evidence together and it becomes hard to imagine a scenario where the accused didn't commit the crime. In this case, though, even with all the circumstantial evidence taken together, all you can say is it's plausible that he was there at the time the murders were committed.
If God was the Judge (and, He will be one day), and I had to put money on the truth, I'd put it on the fact that he did it.
In this case, though, if I were a juror, I'd have a difficult time. The prosecution has shown he's a scuzzy liar, but they haven't shown that he's a murderer.
The lie does not look good for him, but that can be explained many ways. If he is innocent maybe he panicked that he didn't have an alibi and lied to say he wasn't there.
I just don't think the prosecution has made the case, and that may partly be b/c the crime scene was horribly handled. As I understand it, the bulk of the cross-examination yesterday was on financial stuff. It implicates his character, for sure, but has nothing to do with him being a murderer.
Guy was born lying and will die lying. Guilty as charged. Nobody else benefits with the death of his wife and kids except parents of the girl they killed. They weren’t there he was
Paying someone to pull the trigger wouldn’t make him guilty of murder though.
I see nothing funny. You are pretending like you even know who I am. Which I highly doubt.
That’s not my understanding about the charge, so please correct me if I’m wrong. In South Carolina the statute when interpreted basically means he has to pull the trigger no? It would be a different charge if he set them up to be killed. Am I wrong on that?
Nope. He is under oath admitting to the financial crimes now. Makes the financial trials easier and shows Alex is an accomplished liar and does not care about anyone but himself.