Is Alex Murdaugh guilty ?
- Thread starter Snake006
- Start date
You know what it doesn’t show, he’s capable of murdering his own kid.
He stole from orphans, quadriplegics. He’s definitely capable.
Stealing from people you don’t have a relationship with regardless of their situation, is a far cry from brutally murdering two family members.
It seems as though the prosecution knows they haven’t proved murder beyond a shadow of a doubt. Hence the focus on the financial stuff. They could grill him on murder all they want and get nowhere. But he’s more than willing to fess up to any of the financial stuff. So at least they know he’ll go away for that.
You serious Clark? Stealing from people is worse than killing them?
Once again the Bible’s dead on. Easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than a rich man into heaven
Makes me think we'd better nail down exactly where the threshold for "rich" starts. What if God defines it differently than US politicians do? What if he defines it the same way a person in an African village might define it? Yikes.
FWIW, I don't think Murdaugh was rich by the time all this went down. Sounds like he was swimming in debt with a net worth in the red by 7-figures.
Hahahaha this pos was making 1-2 mil a year. Now the fact that he was a greedy plays right into the rich definition. You’re rich when you live in excess and can never get enough. Kinda like a glutton can’t eat enough. We were raised to live on less than you make, save for hard times and stay outta debt. It’s not hard as long as your not trying to fill a hole in your soul with material crap.
Agree with everything but the debt. I have to have debt or I pay more in taxes. That’s not my fault.
Not in South Carolina. Not according to what I have found. It would be a totally different charge of which they have no evidence.
Go watch the video where he was asked if he took a gun and blew his son's brains out. His mouth said "No, I did not". But his head was clearly nodding up and down saying yes. Not side to side. Sometimes you can make a lie come out of your mouth, but the involuntary body language exposes the truth.
IMO, another case that all comes down to each jury member's interpretation of "beyond a reasonable doubt." Much different than "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
When you look at the timeline of events, the critical lies in an attempt to fit that timeline, the coordination to get the victims in position, the heinous financial fraud which was allowed to be presented displaying his desparation and character, the "suicide" attempt, etc. ---- it collectively seems well beyond reasonable doubt.
The only other plausible scenerio --- a hit job coordinated by Murdaugh himself --- would have had to have been accomplished with Hollywood-like precision leaving no trail behind. He doesn't strike me as someone who could have pulled that off.
WIth all of that said, there's a good chance his testimony left at least one juror with some level of doubt. IMO, the prosecutor rambled on far too long and became unlikeable --- leaving room for Murdaugh to become somewhat of a sympathetic character with his old-fashioned, southern BS storytelling.
When you look at the timeline of events, the critical lies in an attempt to fit that timeline, the coordination to get the victims in position, the heinous financial fraud which was allowed to be presented displaying his desparation and character, the "suicide" attempt, etc. ---- it collectively seems well beyond reasonable doubt.
The only other plausible scenerio --- a hit job coordinated by Murdaugh himself --- would have had to have been accomplished with Hollywood-like precision leaving no trail behind. He doesn't strike me as someone who could have pulled that off.
WIth all of that said, there's a good chance his testimony left at least one juror with some level of doubt. IMO, the prosecutor rambled on far too long and became unlikeable --- leaving room for Murdaugh to become somewhat of a sympathetic character with his old-fashioned, southern BS storytelling.
Last edited:
I'm have the other take on the jurors, thinking there is "reasonable guilt" given his presence at the crime scene and the documented lies he has confirmed during his testimony. There is no doubt he has/is desperately trying to cover his guilt with deceit. A guilty vote doesn't send him to the chair, but additional jail time on top of the financial crimes, so they go with it.
We'll see. IMO, he's done either way with the admission of guilt in the financial crimes. The end goal at this point is a "not guilty" verdict on the murder charges and a plea deal on the plethora of state/federal charges of financial crimes. He likely wants to slide into a federal prison where he can peacefully play squash and chess until the end of his days on this planet.
That's why I think they go with a guilty, to make sure he goes to the "real prison".
That’s exactly where I was/am. 1/2-way through the cross, I was so sick of the prosecutor….. he came across - to me - as an arrogant, condescending butthole.
I don’t know if we’ll ever know the 100% truth. I want to see perfect justice. I don’t know that the prosecution has proven the case beyond reasonable doubt. I’ll be a little surprised if the jury can come back with a unanimous decision. (It has to be unanimous, right?)
True. However, stones come in a multitude of sizes. Few around us intentionally lob boulders at others.
Agree. That's the only reason it seems to me to bring it up. But, it also gives him an opportunity to come clean on any past misdeeds, an opportunity to be truthful in front of a jury.
Last edited:
Agree. It all circles back to any one individual's interpretation of "reasonable doubt." And if there is someone on the jury believe that this doubt has been established, will they be able to stand firm with resolve in light of the other 11 jury members taking the opposite stance.
In a perfect world, those who were defrauded and injured would also have recourse against the drug manufacturers. They purposely created hyper-addictive pills which have been shown time and time again the ability to turn otherwise decent people into monsters.
Someone please help me with this,, my mind is not seeing anything else,,, Alec shot Paul to stop the boat law suits,, he was so dope fkd he wasn't logical in his "way out",, he planned and accidental shooting but the first shot was wimpy shot 2nd shot was not planned,,, so when Maggie came running he had to grab another gun, with more than 2 shots, he never wanted to kill his best friend and the one who would dry his tears but she saw what happened
This makes perfect sense in my head but i have no one to talk to
This makes perfect sense in my head but i have no one to talk to
Someone please help me with this,, my mind is not seeing anything else,,, Alec shot Paul to stop the boat law suits,, he was so dope fkd he wasn't logical in his "way out",, he planned and accidental shooting but the first shot was wimpy shot 2nd shot was not planned,,, so when Maggie came running he had to grab another gun, with more than 2 shots, he never wanted to kill his best friend and the one who would dry his tears but she saw what happened
This makes perfect sense in my head but i have no one to talk to
That really wouldn't explain why Murdaugh called Maggie home from Edisto the night of the murders. Also, Alex was out of room in terms of accidental shooting claims. No one was going to buy that excuse again. He told Maggie's sister he believed the shootings took alot of premeditation and indeed that seems to be the case.
Someone please help me with this,, my mind is not seeing anything else,,, Alec shot Paul to stop the boat law suits,, he was so doped he wasn't logical in his "way out",, planned and accidental shooting, the first shot was wimpy shot, 2nd shot was not planned, so he couldn't say it was accident,,, so when Maggie came running he had to grab another gun, with more than 2 shots, he never wanted to kill his best friend and the one who would dry his tears but she saw what happened
This makes perfect sense in my head but i have no one to talk to
This makes perfect sense in my head but i have no one to talk to
He needed her to be there to have a witness to an accident, maybe ? It makes sense to me, imma country girl
i just can't get any other answer out of him not calling his other child to protect him from a psycho killer. He never intended Maggie that's why he's so messed up now.Thank you so much for your opinion
it's driving me nuts. I can't wait for the verdict reaction 
What makes you think they have even thought about that or know that is even a possibility.
I could think of so many scenarios that would be possible to pull that off. Even without Maggie. Hell they liked to plant food plots. Why not go out together and plow one up. He could have run Paulpaul over when he’s not looking. Say he fell off the tractor. No other witnesses and no phone data. Not any less brutal than blowing his brains out.He needed her to be there to have a witness to an accident, maybe ? It makes sense to me, imma country girl
That was a facetious comment by me. I knew it was and couldn't believe someone though otherwise. In a sense the hitman is a tad less responsible than the person who hires them. The one who contracts the killing is the market for murder for hire.
Him spending the rest of his life in S.C .State Prison vs some white collar prison in Fla. where he can play golf is the goal of the defence.
I don't think enough is being said about the CFO of the firm having a "hostile" confrontation with him about the missing $800K on the day of the murders. He clearly didn't have the money, but told them he still had it would get it to them soon. We also know that he had an umbrella liability policy on his property. When the housekeeper "died", he told her sons he had a big insurance policy and would make sure they are taken care of. Well, he pocketed the insurance money for himself and screwed her kids over. I'm wondering if the same happened here? If his motive wasn't to have another insurance claim so he could refund the money before anyone found out. Apparently the civil suits for the boat case went away with the murders as well. So it satisfies several itches:
- Cash in on insurance policy and settle "debts"
- Stops the civil lawsuits against the family from boat case
- Prevents Paul from having to defend himself from an obvious guilty position.
- Preserves the Murdaugh name
Another reason to fight the murder charges is I think he sees a possibility of calling in political favors and at some point getting a pardon or commuted sentence for the financial crimes...Not possible if he is convicted of murder....He has a lot of friends in high Democratic circles starting with his lawyer.
To my knowledge, there was no insurance incentive tied to the murders themselves. Neither the wife or son had life insurance policies.
Agree that video was linchpin. To take it a step further. Murdaugh's voice is probably not caught on video if dog doesn't catch the chicken. That's the universe serving up karma.
It's been reported they didn't have life insurance policies. But it's a fact that he had a large umbrella policy on his property...that's how he schemed money out of the housekeeper's family. So, we know he used that policy to embezzle money before. His back against the wall due to the meeting with the CFO that day, entire family name on the line, strung out on pills, at the scene minutes before the killing, with his guns. That's probably enough for me.
Yep...danged old Bubba and the chicken.
In the case of a murder, all insurance policies are frozen until the beneficiary is cleared. Sometimes, even if they are found "not guilty", the insurance coverage can be denied because the burden of proof in a civil case is less than a criminal case. So, as Alex testified, if anything, Maggie's death hindered his ability to get money quickly as she was not alive to sign any necessary loan documents.