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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
shefner said:
Well one thing is certain: Eddie will sing.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think he will. Maybe the first verse will go like this:

I'm the black sheep, baby
I'm in great demand
When the boss needs jobs doin'
I always lend a hand
Ain't gonna roll on my man, Alec
I've saved his *ss before
I always get top billing
He never wants to co-star
But now he can't defend me
Cos' he's lost his job
I have no choice to lay it out
I'll be talkin' non-stop
 
Born2BWild said:
His plan was to stage a murder so insurance would be paid.. Epic fail and probably much more to come, IMO. It’s either his embarrassment over the law firm theft of which he knew much more would be revealed, or worse - involvement in the murders of MM and PM that his final gesture would be to give Buster financial security. IMO.
Click to expand...
I’m going with B. JMO YMMV
 
@postandcourier

The sons of Gloria Satterfield, a former housekeeper and nanny for the Murdaugh family, have filed a lawsuit against Alex Murdaugh related to a settlement reached after their mother’s death.

Tony Satterfield and Brian Harriot allege they were not involved in the negotiations of a $505,000 settlement and have not received any of the money from that agreement.
The settlement was approved in December 2018 by Circuit Judge Perry Buckner, who would later recuse himself from another wrongful death case involving the Murdaughs the following year. Buckner reportedly gave the eulogy at the June funeral of family patriarch Randolph Murdaugh III, 81, who died after an illness.
 
Last edited:
Campizi67 said:
Each article or bit of info coming from the Murdaugh camp just seems so calculated. Almost like a prelim to what AM's defense team is working up for a possible trial.
Click to expand...


I try to remind myself that they are doing what lawyers do - advocate for and spin in favor of their client. It is not always about the truth. However in this case, they aren't doing him any favors (imo) with the inconsistent and outlandish public comments. For a team that is aware that this is being talked about and scrutinized (and has even released statements to refute public 'gossip) they are not doing the best job at 'reading the room' and responding accordingly.
 
imstilla.grandma said:
“It was the first conversation we’ve ever had with him where he wasn’t on opioids or oxy,” Harpootlian said.
Click to expand...

"Ever"? If his attorneys have always known Alex had an (alleged) longstanding opioid addiction, didn't they have a legal obligation to report him to the SC Bar? Alcohol / drug abuse is a top reason for suspensions / disbarments.
 
clearskies1 said:
Aren't banks supposed to report suspicious transactions? You would think he would be getting regular payments/distributions from the law firm -- not random one-offs of "converted" money. The bank is supposed to know their customers.
Click to expand...

With thousands of possible legitimate transactions, it can very difficult for a bank to categorize certain transactions as suspicious or not- and false accusations cost customers.

I am thinking that a bank's reporting of suspicious transactions would be limited to:

- Check kiting schemes (range from simple to very elaborate) where the bank might end up "holding the bag".

- Cash deposits over 10,000 (reporting is required by law). I believe that banks can also opt to report series of say, $9,500 cash deposits as suspicious. But.... they are not required to do so.
 
Lux et Veritas said:
"Ever"? If his attorneys have always known Alex had an (alleged) longstanding opioid addiction, didn't they have a legal obligation to report him to the SC Bar? Alcohol / drug abuse is a top reason for suspensions / disbarments.
Click to expand...

That is a good question.

I think they might have an ethical obligation to do so as "officers of the Court". Officers of the court then have a duty to advance the interests of the Court. The Court has an interest in insuring that representation is not impaired by drug use.

But.... whether they have a legal or BAR based ethical obligation to report him, the requirement could well be unenforceable. For example: "Wow, attorney "A" has a drug addiction? Gosh, I never knew- he must have managed it really well". No- I don't have alot of contact with him outside of work."

And of course, some addicts do actually manage their addiction to the extent that it does not impact their work. Thus on some occasions those obligated to report it would truly not know.
 
clearskies1 said:
Someone would agree to kill you/shoot you in the head...why would someone agree to do that? JMO
Click to expand...
And then they epically fail at it, so you decide to call 911 for help..??!! It just boggles the mind, the thought processes of these jokers. I guess that’s what being high will do to the brain? JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 174 more.
Total: 3,461 (members: 175, guests: 3,286)

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
3,286
Total visitors
3,461
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,298
Messages
17,966,942
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top