SC - Paul Murdaugh, 22 and mom Margaret, 52, found shot to death, Islandton, 7 June 2021 #3

[stmarysmead]

Thank you for your answer. It looks like the hunting dogs would likely bark whether the approaching person was a stranger, a friend, or the owner(s).

Thus, a possible lack of barking would not mean necessarily mean the assailant(s) were known to the dogs.

Its been a long time since I heard the word "digs". What does it mean? Maybe food or treats in regards to dogs? As a side note, when my friends and I used the variation "dig", it was slang for "to really like".

I think that’s just an auto-correct and the word intended was ‘dogs’…we still don’t know for sure if dogs were present.

But I ‘dig’ your question…as I sit here in my ‘digs’ pondering this case. Lol

 

[MajorHoople]

Thanks. I will also add that my hunch, from being raised in “the sticks”, is that the entrance by the kennels and the farm equipment storage was the entrance the family used. In the pictures their mailbox is there. And even though there is a more direct entrance to the house (maybe used for company), the family likely used the other entrance to do a cursory check on everything on their way in.

The mailbox location is a very good observation.

 

[Elley Mae]

It also said in that same article...BBM

"In justifying their redactions, the agencies acknowledged that they blacked out all manner of details, including who found the bodies and where they were found, what vehicles and firearms were nearby, and which neighboring properties had security cameras.

The agencies argue that such details should stay private in part so that investigators can test potential witnesses’ truthfulness. They also contend that details about the crime would likely “be misconstrued by the general public.”

I think they're right. If in fact someone else other than LE arrived at the scene first, it could be construed in all sorts of ways by the public, depending on who it was. But if it happened, it happened and has to be part of the record.

....

This is the sentence before your bolded that caught my eye.

The agencies argue that such details should stay private in part so that investigators can test potential witnesses’ truthfulness.

? What witnesses? Weird

 

[Bridger]

The agencies argue that such details should stay private in part so that investigators can test potential witnesses’ truthfulness.

? What witnesses? Weird

…the witnesses yet to come forward who might incorporate information released by police into their confessions/accusations. This is just good basic police procedure. LE has to have some way to evaluate the veracity of witness stories, and the easiest way to do that is to hold back crime scene details, knowing that a true witness will be aware of things not released to the public.

 

[303gmf]

One night in 2017 I made one of the hardest decisions I've ever made. And that was in the midst of relatives and friends breathing down my neck. Without going into any great detail I was the only one with the legal right to go and retrieve my daughter from the jail.

In my town, when someone abuses alcohol and drinks nyquil in there own home, they take them by ambulance to the ER. Then from there they don't release them back home. They go straight to the county jail to dry out for one night.

She had been on a path that I could not turn her around from, no matter what I did. I made the decision that night not to bail her out, not to go and get her, not to retrieve her, but I made her stay there that night.

It scared her so bad, and to this day she tells me that was her turning point for sobering up. And she was in a cell completely alone away from other people.

So yes, I did remember that she was my daughter, and a very specific targeted way. And my daughter is alive today because I made that decision then.

The ultimate in tough Love!
Huge applause

 

[Elley Mae]

…the witnesses yet to come forward who might incorporate information released by police into their confessions/accusations. This is just good basic police procedure. LE has to have some way to evaluate the veracity of witness stories, and the easiest way to do that is to hold back crime scene details, knowing that a true witness will be aware of things not released to the public.

Understood.

I am just confused as to “who” would be a witness in this case. I feel that this was intentional and any witness/witnesses are the killers. Jmo

 

[CocoChanel]

Understood.

I am just confused as to “who” would be a witness in this case. I feel that this was intentional and any witness/witnesses are the killers. Jmo

“Witnesses” are also those who can confirm/corroborate or NOT the location and actions of any of the victims or other “witnesses” at the time surrounding the murders I think, right?

 

[MoeInVA]

I am a proponent of public records and media pushing for LE to defend each redaction.

That said, I do think it’s possible that at least one of the redactions could be to protect an innocent person who was interviewed. But if their name was unredacted we would have a whole round of news stories questioning their involvement.

From what I could see, that would only account for one redaction of many though.

But I did want to point that out. The last thing we want is unfair speculation on an innocent person who was possibly a victim or family member of a victim in a prior case associated with the Murdaughs.
JMO

They also redacted what I believe was the name of one person interviewed.

The file names include names of key people … AM was one, another listed a name which is the last name of an attorney representing the convenience store that allegedly sold alcohol to PM and co that night. Another was redacted. I had wondered if it might be CC or a relative or lawyer of MB or a boat crash survivor.

It also said in that same article...BBM

"In justifying their redactions, the agencies acknowledged that they blacked out all manner of details, including who found the bodies and where they were found, what vehicles and firearms were nearby, and which neighboring properties had security cameras.

The agencies argue that such details should stay private in part so that investigators can test potential witnesses’ truthfulness. They also contend that details about the crime would likely “be misconstrued by the general public.”

I think they're right. If in fact someone else other than LE arrived at the scene first, it could be construed in all sorts of ways by the public, depending on who it was. But if it happened, it happened and has to be part of the record.

 

[shefner]

Same, those who think AM had anything to do with it are barking up the wrong tree.

JMO

We can't say with full certainty that AM had nothing to do with this.

Upon hearing that AM had an, "iron-clad alibi," I cringed. The best time to initiate a contracted killing is when the mastermind is suddenly called away for an adequate period of time and he will have witness coverage. I'm not saying this is what happened here but simply stating one possibility.

We must also remember that we are dealing with a family that has spent decades involved in law and prosecutorial leadership. Those who hold such a rich history of criminal knowledge, authoritative power, and organized connections, would not be easily dismissed during a vigilant investigation.

 

[Elley Mae]

“Witnesses” are also those who can confirm/corroborate or NOT the location and actions of any of the victims or other “witnesses” at the time surrounding the murders I think, right?

Ok- So ppl that can say who was where when and remain anonymous for the time.

 

[Elley Mae]

Question about Stone not recusing himself for now.

Is he privy to all info/leads while there.

If he recuses himself is he still privy to info/leads?

 

[Sustained]

We can't say with full certainty that AM had nothing to do with this.

Upon hearing that AM had an, "iron-clad alibi," I cringed. The best time to initiate a contracted killing is when the mastermind is suddenly called away for an adequate period of time and he will have witness coverage. I'm not saying this is what happened here but simply stating one possibility.

We must also remember that we are dealing with a family that has spent decades involved in law and prosecutorial leadership. Those who hold such a rich history of criminal knowledge, authoritative power, and organized connections, would not be easily dismissed during a vigilant investigation.

BBM

That's why the JMO was appended to the post ...

 

[Warwick7]

This is really quite problematic if true.

Because…it’s going to come out. Today, next week, next month, whatever it is… it’s coming out. When it does, let’s hope…for many reasons…that it doesn’t look like anyone has been handled differently by LE than any other citizen would be. Or that it doesn’t look like LE has been acting like a PR agency, shielding special friends from public gossip. Because, the latter is not their job.

Consider this headline…one of many JUST LIKE IT:


Attorneys: Law enforcement tried to protect Paul Murdaugh from blame in deadly Lowcountry boat crash

Let’s hope… because there may be local people sitting in their kitchens saying, “Do you remember when police questioned our kids about the SS death…but did you read in the papers, they never questioned the Murdaugh kids.” And there are certainly plenty of people reading the recent allegations about the boating accident investigation and considering how they themselves had been handled in the past. or just shaking their heads, feeling like second class citizens.

So now they…and an international audience…watch as the Murdaugh family and LE…interact again in this tragedy.

When all is revealed, for everyone’s sake, I hope faith is not further eroded by…

‘ details that are being withheld so they won’t be misconstrued by the public?’

Because by withholding whatever information and providing this reasoning, the question arises, who or what is being protected from being ‘misconstrued?’

If…just IF it should prove to be the case, that the brothers, including one who IIRC said he lives 30 minutes away…were on the scene when the police arrived…why is LE concerned with shielding them from misconceptions by the public? LE is not a PR entity…crafting favorable imaging for certain individuals.

In my opinion, this would just create more distrust about a cocoon of investigative comfort only available to certain people. It would just add fuel to an already burning hot fire of distrust, in my opinion. Fair or not. Deserved or not.

So I hope that when all is revealed, we can chide ourselves for ever doubting, and agree that this was just excellent and normal investigative procedure.

‘They also contend that details about the crime would likely “be misconstrued by the general public.”

@stmarysmead if I ever come up missing, I want you to create a group here and come find me!! Lol!!

But on a serious note: Yes, why is LE concerned with shielding them from misconceptions by the public? LE is not a PR entity…crafting favorable imaging for certain individuals.

 

[TJW]

I have wondered whether RM4 was already at the scene when first responders arrived. He wasn’t far away. AM called him. Did he call him first? These are lawyers. I can see where there would be speculation if others were there before authorities. But, are we still just protecting the M family?

 

[sunshineray]

This is really quite problematic if true.

Because…it’s going to come out. Today, next week, next month, whatever it is… it’s coming out. When it does, let’s hope…for many reasons…that it doesn’t look like anyone has been handled differently by LE than any other citizen would be. Or that it doesn’t look like LE has been acting like a PR agency, shielding special friends from public gossip. Because, the latter is not their job.

Consider this headline…one of many JUST LIKE IT:


Attorneys: Law enforcement tried to protect Paul Murdaugh from blame in deadly Lowcountry boat crash

Let’s hope… because there may be local people sitting in their kitchens saying, “Do you remember when police questioned our kids about the SS death…but did you read in the papers, they never questioned the Murdaugh kids.” And there are certainly plenty of people reading the recent allegations about the boating accident investigation and considering how they themselves had been handled in the past. or just shaking their heads, feeling like second class citizens.

So now they…and an international audience…watch as the Murdaugh family and LE…interact again in this tragedy.

When all is revealed, for everyone’s sake, I hope faith is not further eroded by…

‘ details that are being withheld so they won’t be misconstrued by the public?’

Because by withholding whatever information and providing this reasoning, the question arises, who or what is being protected from being ‘misconstrued?’

If…just IF it should prove to be the case, that the brothers, including one who IIRC said he lives 30 minutes away…were on the scene when the police arrived…why is LE concerned with shielding them from misconceptions by the public? LE is not a PR entity…crafting favorable imaging for certain individuals.

In my opinion, this would just create more distrust about a cocoon of investigative comfort only available to certain people. It would just add fuel to an already burning hot fire of distrust, in my opinion. Fair or not. Deserved or not.

So I hope that when all is revealed, we can chide ourselves for ever doubting, and agree that this was just excellent and normal investigative procedure.

‘They also contend that details about the crime would likely “be misconstrued by the general public.”

Snipped and BBM

"...let’s hope…for many reasons…that it doesn’t look like anyone has been handled differently by LE than any other citizen would be. Or that it doesn’t look like LE has been acting like a PR agency, shielding special friends from public gossip. Because, the latter is not their job."

Couldn't have expressed it better

 

[Elley Mae]

"In justifying their redactions, the agencies acknowledged that they blacked out all manner of details, including who found the bodies and where they were found, what vehicles and firearms were nearby, and which neighboring properties had security cameras."

Yes, but by June 21st much of this information had been released. So why redact it??

Didn’t have a problem releasing reopened SS case, didn’t ask Sandy To not talk.

Jmo

 

[Warwick7]

Thanks for the link to this article and the released and redacted reports.

Seems to me that in just looking at just the first officer on the scene, Sgt. Greene's reports, the reason behind the redactions were listed as having to do with the number of individuals at the scene when he arrived. Also redacted were the vehicles there and a firearm present somewhere. (Could have been a murder weapon or could have been in a vehicle or on a person, dead or alive I suppose)

The redactions about the individuals at the incident had nothing to do with the two dead victims as their presence was accounted and not redacted.

I'm taking that to mean Alex Murdaugh was not alone at the scene when Sgt. Greene arrived at the listed 2226 military time [10:26pm].

I have wondered whether RM4 was already at the scene when first responders arrived. He wasn’t far away. AM called him. Did he call him first? These are lawyers. I can see where there would be speculation if others were there before authorities. But, are we still just protecting the M family?

Underlined and BBM

 

[sunshineray]

“Randy, who lives in the nearby town of Hampton, said he arrived at Alex's property about 15 minutes after the telephone call. It was a rainy night and first responders were already on site, and Randy recalled seeing the covered bodies of Maggie and Paul near the dog kennels, about a quarter of a mile from the main house.

"I could see the white sheets across the way," he said. "I still couldn't believe it could be them or that it could be true."

Alex was standing at a distance from the crime scene, looking on "in disbelief, crying and sobbing, and unable to talk," Randy said.

"He would try to talk and then he would break down," Randy added. "It was very difficult."

John, who lives further away in the community of Okatie, west of Hilton Head Island, said he got there about 30 minutes later. John and Randy stayed there for hours, comforting their brother, until they finally convinced him to leave.”

Brothers of prominent South Carolina family speak out after 2 relatives found dead

Just a reminder of what the brothers said in the interview. The bodies were already covered… by LE…when Randy arrived. John arrived later.

“Randy, who lives in the nearby town of Hampton, said he arrived at Alex's property about 15 minutes after the telephone call. It was a rainy night and first responders were already on site, and Randy recalled seeing the covered bodies of Maggie and Paul near the dog kennels, about a quarter of a mile from the main house.

"I could see the white sheets across the way," he said. "I still couldn't believe it could be them or that it could be true."

Alex was standing at a distance from the crime scene, looking on "in disbelief, crying and sobbing, and unable to talk," Randy said.

"He would try to talk and then he would break down," Randy added. "It was very difficult."

John, who lives further away in the community of Okatie, west of Hilton Head Island, said he got there about 30 minutes later. John and Randy stayed there for hours, comforting their brother, until they finally convinced him to leave.”

Brothers of prominent South Carolina family speak out after 2 relatives found dead

Just a reminder of what the brothers said in the interview. The bodies were already covered… by LE…when Randy arrived. John arrived later.

I wonder why the redactions explanation (annotating in red), in yesterday's court filings, of Sgt. Greene's report, which mentions the victims by name (not redacted) explains, "as well as which individuals were present at the incident location"? That's what make me think someone beside AM was there when Sgt. Greene arrived.

Why call AM in the redaction's explanation an "individuals" plural if he was the only live individual there when Sgt. Green arrived? They said he made the call, that's never been kept secret by LE

The full redaction explanation for that report's page read...
"The redacted information provides details about the evidence seized from the crime scene, as well as which individuals were present at the incident location."


SLED says it's still too early to release details on Murdaugh case, weeks after killings

 

[sunshineray]

Why pray tell are they concerned what us minions think?

Because it concerns the wealthy and their elected friends?

 

[sunshineray]

Regarding whether Alex was alone or not...I just presumed that he was as there is no mention of his name anywhere. Of course it's possible that he wasn't alone and they redacted the plural word 'witnesses' or someone else's name, but not necessarily.

I had looked at the unannotated redacted reports a while ago. Now that I am looking at the version that was annotated (by the Post and Courier, I presume), I am wondering about some of their presumptions about the redactions.

For example, in one report there is mention of the two bodies lying on the ground and then space for several words is redacted. The annotation says that the info redacted related to the location of the bodies. How do they know that? I had wondered if it is equally possible that the redaction related to the positioning or condition of the bodies, e.g. bound, or laying face down, etc.)

The red annotations were SLED's reasons as to why the information was being withheld. The judge will now look at those explanations and the unredacted pages and decide if more information can be unblocked for public viewing.

Edit: I'm talking to Sgt Greene's report as he was the very first LE who arrived on scene.