GUILTY SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton #40

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is clear that AM was a very high functioning drug addict for years....that was confirmed by so many in his law office being shocked including his best friends. I assume that night he did not appear impaired and therefore no drug test done on him...I mean seriously he was treated more like a witness than suspect. So my only experience with a very high functioning alcoholic who ran a successful business and raised a family etc. However only those of us extremely close saw the times where he got out of control....I have been thinking that maybe this "addiction" was overblown and a convenient excuse to hit the rehab in tough times...the way he spoke of it was interesting. I feel it was part of the alibi. Not one person that I remember came forward to say yes I saw AM extremely compromised, passed out or in some altered state. That seems odd for someone that purported to take 60+ pills a day. Not one person reported him "high" or were those the people that he killed? Maybe..

Very good points.
We only have AM’s word about his weekend detoxing sessions that supposedly Maggie helped him with.
I have seriously doubted from the get go that AM was much of a drug addict.
 
I kind of think it's the opposite. The pundits were the ones with 'low information'. Throughout the trial I was surprised by how many just didn't seem to grasp how damning all the tech data was to Alex's case. It seemed like a lot of the commentators just couldn't follow how all the GPS data, chats, cellphone internals, etc. established a very solid timeline for the murders. And I was also shocked at how many seemed to think that Alex did a great job on the stand, when to me it was clear that he was a faker and a liar. For a while I thought I was living in crazytown.

The jurors may not have known much about the case going in, but they were clearly attentive during the proceedings. And, collectively, they understood the evidence backwards and forwards. When a couple of them had questions, the others were able to quickly clear up any misunderstandings. While the pundits were focused on the horse-racing aspect, the jurors were less concerned about the prosecution's presentation style and just needed to focus on whether there was sufficient evidence to convict.
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.
 
WOW. Apparently, AM has a history of violence. A Psychologist weighs in.
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 just can’t see/hear anything hostile in that kennel video tho. They all sound normal. Someone upthread used the word “snapped” and I tend to agree.
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.

From what we know about Alex, he will slap you on the back one moment and then stab you in the back (metaphorically or literally) the next. I completely believe that he could be acting natural around Maggie and Paul even while preparing to shoot them a few minutes later.
 
i had missed the "pedi" message. I am dumbfounded that when a family that spends money as they did ..the husband would question a Pedi which I am certain was a routine appointment along with mani. That gives me a real insight into Maggie getting more and more savvy about impending financial doom...a small clue but for a woman who is used to unlimited hair/nail and other appointments....being able to furnish multiple very large homes...clearly a lavish lifestyle...and AM is questioning and going to talk with her about a "pedi"????
I interpreted entirely differently. I see it as... !! - good for you!!

MM probably had a mani/pedi every two weeks. What woman doesn't love to relax in a vibrating chair, soaking in warm bubbling water, and have feet and legs rubbed? Hair appointments are usually every 4 weeks, most are standing appointments.

I always refer to it as my "body maintenance program".
Moo...
 
Last edited:
Will someone please explain how the 9 jurors were able to convince the 2 jurors that thought AM was not guilty to change their views?
Or really just in general?
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.
 
I wonder why Dr. Kinsey didn't mention in his testimony (about Paul's phone) that the pocket that the phone was in had elastic on the top, making it impossible for the phone to have just "popped out' as AM had said. This cut is from his report that the defense filed in their motions for sanctions (page 51):

View attachment 407139
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!
 
I kind of think it's the opposite. The pundits were the ones with 'low information'. Throughout the trial I was surprised by how many just didn't seem to grasp how damning all the tech data was to Alex's case. It seemed like a lot of the commentators just couldn't follow how all the GPS data, chats, cellphone internals, etc. established a very solid timeline for the murders. And I was also shocked at how many seemed to think that Alex did a great job on the stand, when to me it was clear that he was a faker and a liar. For a while I thought I was living in crazytown.

The jurors may not have known much about the case going in, but they were clearly attentive during the proceedings. And, collectively, they understood the evidence backwards and forwards. When a couple of them had questions, the others were able to quickly clear up any misunderstandings. While the pundits were focused on the horse-racing aspect, the jurors were less concerned about the prosecution's presentation style and just needed to focus on whether there was sufficient evidence to convict.
THIS!
 
I don't think it was about hiding drugs that day and I don't think he snapped. I think there was planning involved -- getting them both to Moselle and then seemingly not being happy that Maggie stopped for a pedicure, thereby delaying her arrival. I think her delay threw his plans off. To get them down to the kennels he probably wanted her to get home with a fair amount of daylight still left. With her getting home late, I think he rushed them through dinner to get them to the kennels. Also, the later it happened the more suspicious his visit to his mother would be. Despite his mistakes, he got too many things right (weapons and clothes disposal) for me to think he did this in the heat of the moment. JMO.
 
I was doing free-lance work at the time BUT my husband had a great job and we had a family member who provided free childcare. So my situation was very different. I think there are more single income homes these days and also the cost of living is crazy... which makes it financially impossible... in those (and your) circumstances I totally understand being unable to serve on a jury. I'm just more "judgey" about some professionals who can afford to serve but just don't want to be bothered. I hope that makes sense.
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.
 
Wow, would you have the video? Did they show at the trial?
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
 
At 7:05:55 PM Alex sent message to "Maggie Mae" stating "Paul said u were getting pedi !! Call when u done"

I have always wondered about the 2 exclammation points after pedi. IMO it shows that Alex was indeed stressed about money because If I had receieved a message like this from my husband the 2 exclamation points after pedi would signal to me that he was pissed I was spending money we didn't have. It reminds me of a few messages I sent to my son when he was first away at college regarding his $100 a week fast food purchases because we had agreed he would eat a few meals in the cafeteria and he would follow the agreed upon fast food budget.

(I edited this post to remove the extra screenshot photos attached to the link to Cathy Russon's tweet, in doing so it removed the link to the pedi message tweet. If anyone wants the link to the tweet I can post it seperately)




View attachment 407147
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.
 
It's on Netflix.
I wonder why prosecution didn't use this in the trial.

I felt much of Netflix, was out of context, and word of mouth by paid actors (friends). Did not see much of the Netflix validated in the actual trial.

Not saying he is innocent, just a great opportunity for all to make a little cash on the side. I would love to know how much each were paid. Everyone loves good old southern family dirt. Now I know why so many of families secrets were "taken to the grave".

Moo....
The article discussed, the media capitalism of the Murdaugh murder, OJ Simpson, and more. Every media outlet has jumped on board to capture Increased rating/advertising.

 
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.

Yes, I was on a "mock jury", and the people wavering, told why they felt that way. Then, everyone who was on "guilty" explained their reasoning, it went around the table a few times, and then the "hold outs" changed their minds after listening to everyone else.

After that experience, I could understand why no defense would want me near a jury. And in the "mock jury", it probably helped them to know which people to cross off during jury selection.
 
MP said that MM told her everything, but did anyone outside of BM, PM and MM, and maybe Blanca, know that AM had a drug problem? Well, until it came out publicly?
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.
 
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 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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
2,322
Total visitors
2,490

Forum statistics

Threads
589,962
Messages
17,928,373
Members
228,020
Latest member
DazzelleShafer
Back
Top