SC - Paul Murdaugh, 22 and mom Margaret, 52, found shot to death, Islandton, 7 June 2021 #2

[StarryStarryNight]

And it may have been. But why file now, when the boating lawsuit may just fade away? Why now, when LE is searching for anyone who may have a motive for killing PM?

If CC wasn’t included in the list of suspects he will be now. IMO it seems like stupid timing unless his lawyers think they’ll try to pin the murders on CC too. I sincerely doubt he had anything to do with the murders and hope he has an “ironclad alibi”.

I don’t think the boating accident lawsuit is going to fade away. The criminal case will go away since PM is dead, but the civil suit against the Murdaugh family will continue. The Murdaughs are already being looking at for interfering in the investigation and manipulating things, so it makes perfect sense to me that CC would consider a lawsuit against the Murdaughs and the officers, claiming they attempting to frame CC to clear PM.
Just my thoughts in this crazy case.

 

[Cryptic]

And it may have been. But why file now, when the boating lawsuit may just fade away? Why now, when LE is searching for anyone who may have a motive for killing PM?

Given the totality, the lawsuit seems very weak.

In the end, I am thinking that the family hired the attorney who then proposed a course of action more suited to racking up billing hours than providing truly needed assistance.

I had one of those once...... .

 

[Colorado303]

This is purely conjecture…nothing more…but as an attorney working in that system, it may appear to him that the Murdaughs are wounded now. That people who kept silent out of fear will now speak up.

He may feel that the truth has been stonewalled but now…so much is coming out…that there’s a much better chance of prevailing than ever before.

Even the SS case is open again.

That attorney may feel that there has been a sea change locally regarding the supposed ‘power’ of the M family. Also, with all the media attention, others who once might have bern staunch allies of the Ms, May now feel that their actions are also being scrutinized.

But I’m just guessing…who knows?

That makes sense, especially if it’s just a complaint. I’m paywalled out from reading the articles. Is this just a complaint on how the investigation is being handled or is the attorney filing some kind of lawsuit?

 

[zencompass]

I also wonder if MM was (shot) killed first, from a distance.

It's a possibility - the "trajectory" test would have informed the investigators if the shots came "from a distance" and exactly where they came from.



Forensics Expert Explains How to Determine Bullet Trajectory

"Certified Crime scene analyst Matthew Steiner teaches the techniques forensics experts use to determine bullet trajectory in a crime scene, ranging from easy to difficult. Matthew shows how forensic analysts use protractors, string, lasers and 3D laser scanners to investigate crime scenes."

 

[stmarysmead]

That makes sense, especially if it’s just a complaint. I’m paywalled out from reading the articles. Is this just a complaint on how the investigation is being handled or is the attorney filing some kind of lawsuit?

I can’t get back on the Island Packet website…not sure what the problem is. I’ll try to answer if I ever succeed.

 

[Cryptic]

That makes sense, especially if it’s just a complaint. I’m paywalled out from reading the articles. Is this just a complaint on how the investigation is being handled or is the attorney filing some kind of lawsuit?

Good distinction between a complaint and a lawsuit. Complaints can be done quickly, dont need to legally prove anything, yet are a good way to express concerns.

Lawsuits are a different matter. Things need to be proven and as there is no money win, billing hours must be paid for as the are accrued.

 

[sunshineray]

After all I have read about what happened before the boat crash I can believe AC saying that.

I believe every word and am not surprised at any of it. It would have been any normal person's reaction, IMO

 

[Cryptic]

so it makes perfect sense to me that CC would consider a lawsuit against the Murdaughs and the officers, claiming they attempting to frame CC to clear PM.
Just my thoughts in this crazy case.

Any suspect can present a plausible alternative suspect at any time during an investigation and request that the police also investigate the named individual. Such an action would not be considered "framing". Framing would involve illegal actions by the police.

Friendly actions by the police would not constitute "framing" (answering legitimate questions by M's attorney ohh so fast and complete, quickly stopping procedures in the face of well presented legal arguments, speedily investigating a plausible alternative suspect etc) are not illegal


So far, the lawsuit seems based on:

- Wealthy guy used his rights to summon high end attorneys via speed dial. They then scrutinized the police procedures going on and challenged them with effective arguments. The police listened to them.

- They fingered my client as a plausible suspect- and he was investigated immediately! Yes, my client was in the boat, was heavily intoxicated, and nobody could initially say with certainty who was, or was not driving.

My guess is that quickly summoning high end lawyers who mount effective defenses is an SOP for wealthy black sheep gone criminally wrong. Such actions don't in and of themselves, constitute framing.
.

 

[sunshineray]

BBM

But LE does - most likely ...

1. AM was tested for gunshot residue after the murders
2. AM's phone was examined for suspicious calls/texts and where it was located throughout the day
3. Cameras were checked at the hospital where RM3 was taken by AM
4. AM's mother was interviewed to confirm he went back to her house
5. AM's vehicle was searched for weapons matching the crime scene

I'm sure there are even more than I've listed.

And yet no official word that he was seen somewhere else at the time of supposed deaths. If he was seen on video somewhere else I think LE would have said so...unless of course if LE is not confident in their 9-9:30 death timeline. So many questions

 

[Sustained]

And yet no official word that he was seen somewhere else at the time of supposed deaths. If he was seen on video somewhere else I think LE would have said so...unless of course if LE is not confident in their 9-9:30 death timeline. So many questions

It's only been a month - <modsnip> it could take months for LE to put it all together.

As one example, think back to the Bart Whitaker case in Texas. IIRC, it took about a year and a half to arrest the shooter and about the same to find and charge Bart.

 

[scapa]

Any suspect can present a plausible alternative suspect at any time during an investigation and request that the police also investigate the named individual. Such an action would not be considered "framing". Framing would involve illegal actions by the police.

Friendly actions by the police would not constitute "framing" (answering legitimate questions by M's attorney ohh so fast and complete, quickly stopping procedures in the face of well presented legal arguments, speedily investigating a plausible alternative suspect etc) are not illegal


So far, the lawsuit seems based on:

- Wealthy guy used his rights to summon high end attorneys via speed dial. They then scrutinized the police procedures going on and challenged them with effective arguments. The police listened to them.

- They fingered my client as a plausible suspect- and he was investigated immediately! Yes, my client was in the boat, was heavily intoxicated, and nobody could initially say with certainty who was, or was not driving.

My guess is that quickly summoning high end lawyers who mount effective defenses is an SOP for wealthy black sheep gone criminally wrong. Such actions don't in and of themselves, constitute framing.
.

Your analysis is spot on, but I wonder whether the real purpose of these moves and stories has less to do with making a strong legal case and more to do with forcing a reckoning with the relevant parties -- in other words, whether the strategy is taking a page from the Murdaugh family law firm's "sue to settle" playbook.

There has been a sea of recent coverage, much of it extremely critical of the Murdaughs, picking at these ideas of influence, corruption, favouritism, etc. I wonder how much of these narratives have settled and taken hold?

 

[Cryptic]

Your analysis is spot on, but I wonder whether the real purpose of these moves and stories has less to do with making a strong legal case and more to do with forcing a reckoning with the relevant parties -- in other words, whether the strategy is taking a page from the Murdaugh family law firm's "sue to settle" playbook.

Now that is a spot on analysis.

As you pointed out short and sweet- lawsuits don't need to rely on strong arguments at all. Rather, a substantial number simply rely on the target's willingness to settle.

As you implied, AM could probably have the lawsuit dismissed- unless the plaintiffs have real evidence of illegality. But.... that takes time. And.... in the meantime, the lawsuit stays on the docket as distraction.

No need to worry though. Just give us "C" amount of cash and the lawsuit will be withdrawn- by tomorrow. "C" is large enough to be meaningful, but so large that it is better to fight it.

Yes, I agree, that is M's playbook being used against him.

 

[genuineusa77]

This explains SC laws on Boating Under the Influence

South Carolina BUI Laws: Consequences, Offenses, Jail Time


A highlights:

“When you are operating a boat, you are presumed to have given your implied consent to agree to taking a blood or breath test if ever arrested for BUI. Many people do not realize this when they are operating a boat. If you refuse a blood or breath test for a BUI, there will be consequences.”

The only real consequence I could find to refusing a blood or breath test for alcohol was it can be used against you in court. The prosecutor can argue your refusal is an admission that you were drunk.

BBM: Wouldn't you think RM and AM being attorneys, would have know that when they stopped it.

 

[stmarysmead]

Law enforcement officers who responded to the 2019 boat crash that killed Mallory Beach described several inconsistencies and deviations from common police practices in their investigation, according to more than 400 pages of sworn testimony filed in Richland County Thursday.

The depositions — individual interviews with five law enforcement officers who responded to the boat crash scene — outlined decisions and inaction, whether intentional or by oversight, that appear contrary to investigative protocol.

None of the five survivors of the boat crash was given a sobriety test, for example. A key interview with a witness was apparently not recorded, despite the officer initially reporting that he had recorded it. No officer took as evidence a phone dropped at the scene by the 20-year-old eventually charged as the drunk driver, Paul Murdaugh.

snip


In one interview, former S.C. Department of Natural Resources officer and current S.C. Law Enforcement Division agent Michael Brock, the lead investigator of the crash, admits to being moved to an assisting role because of his relationship to the Murdaugh family — a relationship he disclosed to his team. Brock, in his deposition, also claims that he didn’t remember recording an interview with Anthony Cook, one of the occupants of the boat, even though his police report from the scene indicates five separate times that he did, according to the deposition.

During an interview with Brock, Anthony Cook indicated that Paul Murdaugh had killed Cook’s girlfriend, according to the deposition. Brock said Cook could have said that, but he didn’t remember, according to the deposition.


Read more here: https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/crime/article252618993.html#storylink=cpy


Read more here: https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/crime/article252618993.html#storylink=cpy

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Any suspect can present a plausible alternative suspect at any time during an investigation and request that the police also investigate the named individual. Such an action would not be considered "framing". Framing would involve illegal actions by the police.

Friendly actions by the police would not constitute "framing" (answering legitimate questions by M's attorney ohh so fast and complete, quickly stopping procedures in the face of well presented legal arguments, speedily investigating a plausible alternative suspect etc) are not illegal


So far, the lawsuit seems based on:

- Wealthy guy used his rights to summon high end attorneys via speed dial. They then scrutinized the police procedures going on and challenged them with effective arguments. The police listened to them.

- They fingered my client as a plausible suspect- and he was investigated immediately! Yes, my client was in the boat, was heavily intoxicated, and nobody could initially say with certainty who was, or was not driving.

My guess is that quickly summoning high end lawyers who mount effective defenses is an SOP for wealthy black sheep gone criminally wrong. Such actions don't in and of themselves, constitute framing.
.

I appreciate your perspective and I guess I’m just not so accommodating of the Murdaugh style. Defense attorneys certainly have the right to question things as you point out, but we’re talking about a a group of lawyers that showed up in a highly chaotic scene at the hospital and they weren’t just trying to protect PM’s rights, they were bullying officers and hospital personnel and even trying to talk with other witnesses who had been in the boat. There is a time and place for some things and they were way overstepping at that time.
From everything I have read the investigators seem to be the only people who had any question about who was driving the boat. The passengers all seemed to point at PM, so considering the connections some of the officers have with the Murdaughs, I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to question any influence.


frame (one)
To manipulate a situation so that an innocent person appears to have committed a crime (so that the actual criminal canavoid blame or detection).

to cause an innocent person to be blamed for a crime; to contrive evidence so that someone appears to be guilty.

This is exactly what the Murdaughs were trying to do in my opinion.

 

[stmarysmead]

SCDNR officer Austin Pritcher, according to his deposition, said Brock’s relationship to the Murdaugh family became an issue during the investigation. Pritcher and Brock, in their depositions, say that Brock’s wife, Sarah, used to work for the Murdaugh law firm.

Read more here: https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/crime/article252618993.html#storylink=cpy


▪ Now-retired SCNDR officer Robin Camlin said in her deposition that she requested officers to perform field sobriety tests on the two potential operators of the boat. She said Brock told her that neither person would agree to the test, the deposition said.

Brock, in his deposition, said he would have asked Pritcher to perform the sobriety tests on the potential drivers. Pritcher, in his deposition, says he offered Connor Cook a field sobriety test because he believed that Cook was the driver of the boat. Cook refused, according to the deposition.

Asked if he offered Paul Murdaugh a field sobriety test, Pritcher said no, according to the deposition. He said he didn’t remember why.


Read more here: https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/crime/article252618993.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Elley Mae]

Now that is a spot on analysis.

As you pointed out short and sweet- lawsuits don't need to rely on strong arguments at all. Rather, a substantial number simply rely on the target's willingness to settle.

As you implied, AM could probably have the lawsuit dismissed- unless the plaintiffs have real evidence of illegality. But.... that takes time. And.... in the meantime, the lawsuit stays on the docket as distraction.

No need to worry though. Just give us "C" amount of cash and the lawsuit will be withdrawn- by tomorrow. "C" is large enough to be meaningful, but so large that it is better to fight it.

Yes, I agree, that is M's playbook being used against him.

“C”

As some of us here are aware of what C is to that Family, AM RM BM it’s a massive amount compared to the “average” person in that area.

Jmo

I would love to see RB get a new lawyer/attorney.

 

[Warwick7]

From the articles that were linked:

*Further, the court documents allege the officers “may have information of a collusion and/or a civil conspiracy to shift the blame for the boat accident away from Paul Murdaugh by wrongfully shifting the focus to Connor Cook.

*In the depositions, attorneys question and nearly accuse three officers — Brock, Pritcher, and Keener — of falsifying their reports to favor Paul Murdaugh, which created confusion about who was driving the boat in the initial investigation.

*Yet, reports from Brock, Keener, and Pritcher were anything but clear.
For example, Anthony Cook told Brock that he knew Paul was driving at the boat and that “Paul Murdaugh killed (his) girlfriend,” according to a Parris Island military police officer’s sworn affidavit. But Brock didn’t write that in his report.
Instead, Brock wrote that Anthony “flipped out and was yelling at Paul” and didn’t write why he was angry at Paul Murdaugh in the aftermath of Mallory Beach’s disappearance...

*Robin Camlin, Brock’s supervisor at SCDNR, testified that she told Brock that both Connor Cook and Paul Murdaugh should be given a field sobriety test.

*Brock wrote in his report that he told Pritcher to give field sobriety tests to both Cook and Paul Murdaugh. However, Pritcher testified that Brock only told him to give Connor Cook a field sobriety test.

*Brock told Camlin that night that both individuals were offered to take the test.

(We could go on and on with what's in those links. It is shocking to say the least. This is bad...and its only going to get worse.)

 

[Elley Mae]

From the articles that were linked:

*Further, the court documents allege the officers “may have information of a collusion and/or a civil conspiracy to shift the blame for the boat accident away from Paul Murdaugh by wrongfully shifting the focus to Connor Cook.

*In the depositions, attorneys question and nearly accuse three officers — Brock, Pritcher, and Keener — of falsifying their reports to favor Paul Murdaugh, which created confusion about who was driving the boat in the initial investigation.

*Yet, reports from Brock, Keener, and Pritcher were anything but clear.
For example, Anthony Cook told Brock that he knew Paul was driving at the boat and that “Paul Murdaugh killed (his) girlfriend,” according to a Parris Island military police officer’s sworn affidavit. But Brock didn’t write that in his report.
Instead, Brock wrote that Anthony “flipped out and was yelling at Paul” and didn’t write why he was angry at Paul Murdaugh in the aftermath of Mallory Beach’s disappearance...

*Robin Camlin, Brock’s supervisor at SCDNR, testified that she told Brock that both Connor Cook and Paul Murdaugh should be given a field sobriety test.

*Brock wrote in his report that he told Pritcher to give field sobriety tests to both Cook and Paul Murdaugh. However, Pritcher testified that Brock only told him to give Connor Cook a field sobriety test.

*Brock told Camlin that night that both individuals were offered to take the test.

(We could go on and on with what's in those links. It is shocking to say the least. This is bad...and its only going to get worse.)

As it should, Let the truth be told.

 

[Warwick7]

As it should, Let the truth be told.

Yep! Because the isn't going away!!!