VERDICT WATCH SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #37

Status
Not open for further replies.
can someone tell me why his name is Alex but people keep referring to him and pronouncing it as Alec - even the lawyers were doing it

Even the judge while charging the jury alternated between 'Murdock' and 'Murdaugh'... This has also driven me crazy throughout this case the way all of the pronunciations are used interchangeably.
 
AM went to great lengths to protect and provide for his family. I don't think he would do that and go off and shoot them point blank.

There never is a good reason to murder, it's hard to get into the mind of any murderers but people are murdering everyday for reasons that are unfathomable to most of us.

If we have verified video of a murder, do we need to know why it happened to convict? Because we have pretty close to that in this one.
 
I have a theory pulled straight out of “Ozark.”

So, I have been flip-flopping on guilty vs not guilty. There is strong evidence that he was at the scene briefly before the murders, and lying about that shows consciousness of guilt. Yet other pieces of the puzzle don’t quite fit. But how could he have been at the kennels but also not be the shooter? And if it happened that way, why wouldn’t he finally tell the truth?

I keep going back to all the missing money. I know he had an expensive opioid addiction, but that can’t explain all the missing millions of dollars. Where did it all go???

Was Alex, like Marty in “Ozark,” increasingly tangled up with some kind of mob or drug cartel? Was he no longer able to pay them off or launder more money for them, and they killed his wife and son right before his eyes with his own guns as a lesson? They could have told him Buster and other family members would be next if he ever dared say anything. There is a history of organized crime and murder in SC.

Just throwing this out there to the wind. Have I been watching too many “Ozark” episodes?
I thought of that, too, originally. The reason I dismissed it was because I watched too many Ozark episodes.
 
He keeps saying his name as Elik, to my ear. And before the trial, several reporters says he goes by Alec. However, a large number of news outlets still say Alex and so do some of the people in court. He can't even be straightforward about names. Everyone has a nickname.

IMO
The forensic pathologist who did the autopsies, Dr. Riemer, her name is correctly pronounced REEMer, yet the Court TV crew consistently called her Dr. RIMEer. Everyone in the courtroom pronounced her name properly.
 
There never is a good reason to murder, it's hard to get into the mind of any murderers but people are murdering everyday for reasons that are unfathomable to most of us.

If we have verified video of a murder, do we need to know why it happened to convict? Because we have pretty close to that in this one.
We don't have a video of the murder in this case. We have a suspect in a video on a victims phone and the video was possibly taken minutes before the murder took place.
 
It was horrible. There was no passion. No conviction. It sounded disjointed and half-assed in my opinion. I sincerely feel that he just didn't believe in Alex AT ALL. That was a man just going thru the motions. He's a professional and just doing his job and for that I commend him. You can't fault defensive lawyers for doing their job. He was severely handicapped with Alex allegedly insisting on testifying. He had to lob him softball questions which just set the ball on the tee for the prosecution to unload on and destroy him.

I think the defense picked up on some kind of bad vibe from DH. He showed his @ss yesterday and I think deep down, knew that he wasn't going to be doing Alex any favors by doing the rebuttal. Maybe that put too much pressure on JG. He doesn't have the same flair and impact as DH, but I really think that DH got benched so to speak.

We'll see. I sincerely think that there really is no way to think that AM didn't kill them. The man is morally bankrupt. There is nothing in his moral bank account that leads me to believe he couldn't kill. He lost his soul a long time ago. I've said it in a previous post of mine there just isn't anything positive about that man. None!

The thing that really convinced me was his entire nonchalant attitude about Maggie. I never once got the feeling that he loved her. He didn't get upset when they were talking about her gruesome death, which I think we can all agree that her death was angry and violent. That usually doesn't come from strangers.

Looking back on his testimony he never expressed any signs of love for her. That word NEVER came out of his mouth. There was no emotional devastation for her loss. He was never inconsolable about her death. He never cried about how much of a loss it was for him going forward without her. We saw deep emotion and loss for Paul, but where was that for the woman he spent most of his life with? Where was the emotion for losing a life partner? Were was the passion for his wife?? He talked about her a little bit when prompted but it wasn't much.

The final nail in that coffin was when his brother came to the stand and really didn't express a whole lot of love and affection for his sister in law either. With the exception of one or two prompted statements I didn't get the sense he had much love for her either. I really don't think that marriage was a good as everyone thought.

I agree with all of this. I should have added "no emotion shown about loss of Maggie" to my summary diagram. It really was telling.

ETA: I've just added the following to my summary diagram in the "AM emotional response" section:
•Didn’t show emotion over loss of Maggie
•Never expressed guilt such as “I should have been there to save them.”
 
What if a juror is convinced that Ellick committed at least one of the killings, but believes another assailant was present? Does the juror still vote guilty, but only on half the counts, or….
Does anyone know how that would affect deliberations?
That's a good point. Someone here posted last night that former SC AG, Charlie Condon was interviewed and said the judge would instruct the jury that, where a juror might consider multiple shooters (including the defendant) to be involved, that "a shot from one is as a shot for all." But, I did not hear any such instruction.

Maybe the instruction is only given if the jurors raise such a question to the judge because to give that instruction in advance might be construed as the Court suggesting such a scenario?
 
This would be a much, much tougher case to win if not for that kennel video. Thank you, Bubba!
Very true, very true . . . and the chicken. Were it not for him getting snatched up by Bubba, we may not have heard Alex’s voice. That voice of his, when Maggie said that it was a Guinea that Bubba had, he sounded contemptuous and seemed to snarl back at her: "It's a CHICKEN!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
77
Guests online
2,683
Total visitors
2,760

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,944
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top