The Jurors did not see all the surrounding Press, Netflix, etc accounts, guesswork by many. They focused on Facts, Evidence presented, and Testimony from both sides, listened very carefully, and came to the Verdict. Good call.
I watched this last night, but wasn’t sure if it was an allowed link. It’s an amazing video!!! The doctor goes into extensive detail about the family dynamics throughout the years of the Murdaugh dynasty, and the secrets that have been kept.
I lean towards this was premeditated and carefully planned. (Although not carefully enough.) For example, that evening he either left his cellphone back at the house or had the phone turned off so it couldn't track him.
I interpreted entirely differently. I see it as... !! - good for you!!
Wow, would you have the video? Did they show at the trial?
www.courttv.com
I've been on juries where people changed their minds after discussing questions. It's not about being convinced or strong-armed as much as it is hearing someone else's interpretation of something that made you feel one way at first. The short time frame doesn't surprise me. It could be something very simple, like a juror thinking they'd heard that AM called Buster immediately, and they felt he was thinking about protecting the rest of his family and therefore he couldn't be the killer. Being reminded by the rest of the jury that he'd called multiple people, including PM's friend, before thinking of his surviving child could have been enough for that juror to rethink how they felt about AM. Another example that happened in a jury I was on: One juror was holding out because it was bothering them that the sentence for the crime was so high. They thought the guy was guilty but felt bad to send him to prison for that long. Others told them that one, we're not allowed to consider the potential sentence, and two, the judge has discretion on the length of the sentence. Five minutes, and they felt comfortable voting guilty. I've been on five juries and never had a unanimous vote the first time around.
My guess is Paul had the phone in his hand when shot. How would AM know that is popped out of his pocket? Perhaps, he had been shot and reached into his pocket? What did the man who the defense called as an expert witness say? Remember him? The guy who was throwing his phone around the office one Saturday afternoon? YIKES!
THIS!
Totally makes sense! I had to stretch to make it work, but it was doable and I thought it was worth it. I remember during one jury selection, a prospective juror being a bit huffy and self-important about even having to be there at all. She was reminded during voir dire that she was not, in fact, more important than the justice system of the United States.
IDK for sure what video the OP is mentioning but I believe it's the drone video and it's on here somewhere..maybe in the media thread. In that drone video JMM and BM are seen removing 8 guns from Moselle however, that video was taken in September right after AM was arrested..not 2 days after the murders. IRRC, Blanca and her husband were going to no longer be staying at Moselle and to leave those weapons there in an unoccupied house would be an extremely irresponsible thing to do. jmo
IMO the pedi message with exclamation points was because he was angry that she had taken the time to do that and she would get to Moselle later. Cut into the daylight hours left to get them to kennels for his attack. JMO.
I wonder why prosecution didn't use this in the trial.
How can we be SURE he had a drug problem? Because he had drugs on him? Were any hospital, rehab reports available and entered into evidence to say he was a drug addict and/or to the magnitude he claimed? He was into drugs..how many he took is wildly overstated by him..60 a day, then he said, i dont know? He had drugs around..for what real purpose, in the quantities he alleges he spent money on, were NOT for personal use. He took drugs for over a decade and NO ONE KNEW? No way... One other thing...Almost universally, pill addicts, when confronted with the huge cost of maintaining or the difficulty of OBTAINING, turn to heroin.
I believe there was much press coverage of the events long before jury selection...they simply could not get a jury that had not heard about the family and the case...DH of defense said that and was concerned that each side could not individually voir dire each juror. They were probably asked if they can set aside any opinions and judge strictly based on evidence presented during trial. I remember thinking jury selection went super fast. We know very little about each juror and their background. But I do think no matter what jury saw press in advance of the case and probably saw the worldwide media attention outside the courthouse. Both were hard to escape.
