SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton *Guilty* #42

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MTW2011 said:
I was a bit surprised too, until I read the letter she wrote to the Ethics Commission and their reply to her.

She had asked about a book focusing on high profile cases in the state in general, and “the process” of those cases. She did not ask about any particular case and made it sound like it would feature several.

Their whole opinion was centered around a book that is vastly different than what it ended up being. They may have said “ok” to that scenario but her book, obviously, focuses on one single case entirely. Her mention of having this idea for the book and starting “4 months before January”, the start of the trial, also makes one wonder why she represented the book the way she did when her own words say she already decided it was a Murdaugh specific book (she mentions this in Impact of Influence Episode 140).

In one of my above posts I tried to further explain how their “are prohibited from using any confidential information, as that term is defined in Section 8-13-100(7)” line, as IMOO much of her book details “confidential information” - per their definition - that she would not have obtained if she was not the Clerk.
Click to expand...
There are so many contradictions and things that don't line up. I hope they have get this in a courtroom soon!
 
A few more observations:

It sounds like the clerk was only allegedly influencing female jurors. The jurors were split into 2 rooms by gender. Very odd. I tend to believe the part where she went into the women’s room and met with the forewoman repeatedly. That part is troubling. I don’t believe she would pull the forewoman aside at Moselle in front of everyone. That’s crazy! I also note no one has accused the forewoman of trying to push everyone to a guilty verdict! So her and the clerk could’ve been talking about something else! Maybe they knew each other prior to the trial?

Anything the “egg lady” says I’m highly skeptical of at this point. I’m also not buying this idea that the clerk fabricated the Facebook posts from the ex-husband in order to boot “egg lady” because she was pro defense. I think it was reported to the clerk by someone in the community and she looked into it. Ofc she had no business confronting the juror herself! That’s the judge’s job.

The clerk had never been on an airplane before she flew to NYC with the jurors after the verdict! This woman was drunk off the attention from the media. She lost her way. She got high off her own sense of self-importance and role in this “historic” trial. She wanted to be visible and have influence.

There are significant discrepancies between how this clerk is being presented by others who knew her and how she presents herself in her own words! She comes off as a busybody to me. One of those ppl in the office that are on a power trip - they wanna be large and in charge, boss everyone around etc. Her and “egg lady” seem to have developed a weird relationship. Clerk seems to have treated ‘egg lady’ like an employee. Putting in her book that “egg lady” drove the judge “bananas”! Wow! And acting like she has psychic abilities to read the jurors, etc. Taking votes with members of the media on what the verdict would be. Too many things going on that preclude me from viewing her as a competent professional. I hope I’m wrong and if so then I’m sure she’ll be vindicated.

JMO
 
www.dailymail.co.uk

Becky Hill spotted after being accused of Murdaugh jury tampering

South Carolina court clerk Becky Hill was spotted the first time since Alex Murdaugh 's lawyers accused her of fabricating a Facebook post in order to get a juror thrown off the murder trial.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

The fact that she's still walking into that courthouse should worry everyone. Hopefully she's been reassigned pending the outcome of this investigation.

jmo
 
Seattle1 said:

Sep 8, 2023 #AlexMurdaugh #jury #appeal

Alex Murdaugh's lawyers have demanded a new trial for their client, claiming a county clerk tampered with and coerced the jury. They cited sworn affidavits from two jurors. Now, other jurors are denying those claims, according to their attorney, Eric Bland.
Click to expand...

I found it interesting he points out that cigarette breaks are a privilege not a right for the jurors.

He seemed to discount most other details in the juror’s affidavits, so I found it curious he tried refuting the “no smoke breaks during deliberation” claim.

Is that the only part of the affidavits / juror’s account for what happened he believed occured? And that’s why he’s trying to refute it?

Some mental gymnastics going on there
 
MTW2011 said:
I was a bit surprised too, until I read the letter she wrote to the Ethics Commission and their reply to her.

She had asked about a book focusing on high profile cases in the state in general, and “the process” of those cases. She did not ask about any particular case and made it sound like it would feature several.

Their whole opinion was centered around a book that is vastly different than what it ended up being. They may have said “ok” to that scenario but her book, obviously, focuses on one single case entirely. Her mention of having this idea for the book and starting “4 months before January”, the start of the trial, also makes one wonder why she represented the book the way she did when her own words say she already decided it was a Murdaugh specific book (she mentions this in Impact of Influence Episode 140).

In one of my above posts I tried to further explain how their “are prohibited from using any confidential information, as that term is defined in Section 8-13-100(7)” line, as IMOO much of her book details “confidential information” - per their definition - that she would not have obtained if she was not the Clerk.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link handy to the letter BH wrote and their reply? I don't remember seeing it (I could have completely missed it during the initial rush of posts) and I'd love to read it.

Thanks!
 
At the press conference earlier this week, Dick Harpootlian suggested that the jurors should get lawyers. How offensive is that? how threatening is that? Obviously, Miss Hill had to get lawyers and pay for them. If any juror feels like they need legal representation or just to get some advice please feel free to call Ronnie Richter and me. We would not charge a fee for the consultation or representation. It’s just disgraceful the people are having to pay for legal fees in this most unfortunate situation. EB

https://twitter.com/x/status/1699844909077839895

 
ch_13 said:
'He thought that Becky Hill was a friend of his. He has known her while he was practicing law.'

Unbelievable! He lied to his friends, cheated and stole from them. It's pretty rich that he's now claiming that he feels betrayed by a friend.
Click to expand...
This is not directed at @ch_13, I appreciate your post. You got to be a friend, to have a friend ... just ;) saying. moo
 
Vern said:
Perhaps.

BUT, she has categoricly DENIED these allegations. The investigation shall bear it all out in the end as to wheher or not any tampering has occured (I posted the link to her denial earlier).

As much as "Bland" may be accused of making a fool of himself, I am glad that the other jurors are seeking out counsel - as is their right.

He may not be the only one to end up looking "foolish" at the end of the day as there is a whole lot of people speiling about "Becky with the good hair" on this as if she were guilty without so much as an investigation having yet been done. It's not illegal to write a book. Full stop. She isn't the first to do so and she won't be the last. That has zero to do with whether or not she tampered with a jury or not.

I wonder, what are your thoughts on the presser where DH flat out stated that while at Mosul he watched the Clerk pull a juror to the side and talk to her despite the Judge having advised that there was to be no conversations at Mosul? YET, DH never spoke up or out, never said a word until that presser? Sly. How very ethical of him n'est pas? How absolutely foolish of him that is too - he's now made himself into a witness too if that statement in the presser was factual as far as I'm concerned so should be removing himself from further statements and/or activity on behalf of AM.

Given the foolishness exhibited by the Defence lawyers on this matter and others (using the guise of attorney/client privledge to act as interediaries for media interviews) I'm going to sit back and see what occurs with the investigation and let the chips fall where they may.
Click to expand...
Common sense and logic post... @Vern, needed more than a "like." Thank you and much appreciated.
 
worm said:
I wouldn’t doubt it if AM had half of the county in his pocket at one time. A guy who ropes bankers and lawyers into his cheating has some connections.
Click to expand...
Yep, and can't imagine the mess the financial regulators have had and are looking at. What a financial mess!!! moo
 
dbm - duplicate
 
Last edited:
I'm curious about the statements by alternate juror #741 and juror #326 that sometimes the jurors were kept in two separate rooms when not inside the courtroom, and what prevented the jurors from getting to the designated "Jury Room" located inside the courthouse.

Tour of the Jury Room uploaded March 2, 2023, by Court TV:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=607838381183774
 
Seattle1 said:
I'm curious about the statements by alternate juror #741 and juror #326 that sometimes the jurors were kept in two separate rooms when not inside the courtroom, and what prevented the jurors from getting to the designated "Jury Room" located inside the courthouse.

Tour of the Jury Room uploaded March 2, 2023, by Court TV:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=607838381183774
Click to expand...

I was a little curious too but I think the jury room (deliberation room) is set up to accommodate the 12 jurors who will deliberate and may not have been large enough for 18 people when they had 6 alternates - at least not comfortably seated at a table to eat for example. And I think that those who say it was the men in one and the women in another are not quite being accurate as one of the jurors said he was in a room that was “mostly” men so I suspect that at least originally they were simply divided up with 9 people in each room but I don’t recall the make-up of the original 18. At the end, they had 7 men and 7 women just before #785 was removed so it may have been just men in one and women in the other by then but I don’t think it always was which is why the juror said “mostly men”. I also suspect that putting mostly men in one room and the women in the other probably had more to do with the proximity to their respective restrooms but that’s just a guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 153 more.
Total: 4,404 (members: 154, guests: 4,250)

Online statistics

Members online
154
Guests online
4,250
Total visitors
4,404
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,522
Messages
17,970,305
Members
228,793
Latest member
aztraea
Back
Top