SC - Paul Murdaugh & mom Margaret Found Shot To Death - Alex Murdaugh Accused - Islandton *Guilty* #43

[worm]

Not much on this yet but I got it on yahoo and foxcarolina.com. This mother and son were found near a dog kennel on their property in Colleton County SC. Their family has a long history of connections to the legal system in the Lowcountry and the son, who was murdered, was currently facing charges in a boating accident causing death.

2 Murdaugh family members shot, killed in Colleton County SC homicide

_______________________________________________
Media, Maps, Timeline, Initial Reference List *NO DISCUSSION* Thread

APPROVED LOCAL SOURCES:
FITSNEWS
The Island Packet

APPROVED PODCASTS:
Murdaugh Murders by Mandy Matney
Impact of Influence - The Murdaugh Family Murders

Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25 Thread #26 Thread #27 Thread #28 Thread #29 Thread #30 Thread #31 Thread #32 Thread #33 Thread #34 Thread #35 Thread #36 Thread #37 Thread #38 Thread #39 Thread #40 Thread #41 Thread #42

 

[sds71]

Colleton Clerk Becky Hill denies Murdaugh jury tampering allegations, co-author speaks out

For the first time, Colleton County Clerk Rebecca Hill and her co-author address and deny allegations of jury tampering in the Alex Murdaugh case.

www.greenvilleonline.com

 

[Weki]

Something else that I’m wondering about is also the fact that these jurors wouldn’t have said anything if defense counsel hadn’t gone door to door knocking. I am uncomfortable with this. Who’s to say that <derogatory nickname> and Griffin didn’t use the release of the book and the things the clerk said as an opportunity to rile the jurors up? Would the jurors have come forward on their own?

I think it’s troubling that defense counsel can go knocking on jurors doors to try to get something for a new trial. If the jurors come forward on their own it’s one thing. In this case the clerk’s inappropriate comments on the jurors in her book served as a perfect opportunity for them. Prior to the book coming out doors were slammed in their faces.

 

[aafromaa]

Colleton Clerk Becky Hill denies Murdaugh jury tampering allegations, co-author speaks out

For the first time, Colleton County Clerk Rebecca Hill and her co-author address and deny allegations of jury tampering in the Alex Murdaugh case.

www.greenvilleonline.com

All I have seen regarding anything Becky Hill has said anywhere is this…

On Thursday, Hill maintained her innocence and denied all allegations to The Hampton County Guardian, but declined to comment further on the matter.

I haven’t seen an article or interview - just the 2 sentences above & posters referring to this - so i don’t now if she spoke to them in person or on the phone or sent an email, etc. or who she spoke to or had contact with at the HC Guardian.

Does anyone have any more information? I’m sure that her attorneys have asked her not to comment further but I’m trying to find out where this comment on Thursday came from and whether there is any additional info included with it.

 

[MTW2011]

All I have seen regarding anything Becky Hill has said anywhere is this…

On Thursday, Hill maintained her innocence and denied all allegations to The Hampton County Guardian, but declined to comment further on the matter.

I haven’t seen an article or interview - just the 2 sentences above & posters referring to this - so i don’t now if she spoke to them in person or on the phone or sent an email, etc. or who she spoke to or had contact with at the HC Guardian.

Does anyone have any more information? I’m sure that her attorneys have asked her not to comment further but I’m trying to find out where this comment on Thursday came from and whether there is any additional info included with it.

I cant locate it at the moment but will edit if I find it later. I saw a video of a local reporter encountering her in public and she appeared to hurry away without saying much at all.

Found that a bit ironic as just a few days before this she was busy on social media promoting the next few stops for her book tour and where she was having more signing events. I kinda feel bad for her co author getting some of the heat but his media appearances, in my opinion, will help her in the future. Her own words on various podcasts say she got the idea and started preparing for the book “about 4 months before JANUARY” aka before the start of the trial. Her co author has appeared on a few shows since this Motion was filed saying that they didn’t connect until 3 weeks after the trial. Even her own words in the book seem to contradict that.

He’s also said that they got the “OK” all clear from the Ethics Commission but thanks to some great reporters who got their letter we know that she asked them about a book focused on “the process” and not any specific case AND that they did not give any sort of “OK”. They said here are some questions to ask about the work and then you can decide for yourself. They even said she was strictly “prohibited” from sharing confidential info and per the State law, that is info obtained by the very nature of one’s elected role. Majority of the book is filled with info that the public wouldn’t have, it is info that someone in her role would hear/see/experience. Heck, that’s part of why she’s said that she wanted to write the book before.

See Impact of Influence podcast 136 or 140 if you want to hear some of what she says about the timeline in her own words. And see the last lines of their letter, posted in this thread I believe previously, they mention the “confidential info” and how that cannot be shared in furtherance of one’s own economic interests. Last I checked their book wasn’t free, so economic interests are totally in play. Especially when her co author has been telling media how much money they had to put up for the book, and the LLC they started in order to “publish” it under.

Anyways JMOO and all that.

 

[Teche]

https://x.com/fitsnews/status/1700105734166282694?s=61&t=Vp-AZ81ShrhzLNqqCFHAgA

View attachment 446109View attachment 446110View attachment 446111

I hope there’s an investigation and the clerk’s computer is searched to see if she used work time and court records to write her book.

 

[Teche]

I cant locate it at the moment but will edit if I find it later. I saw a video of a local reporter encountering her in public and she appeared to hurry away without saying much at all.

Found that a bit ironic as just a few days before this she was busy on social media promoting the next few stops for her book tour and where she was having more signing events. I kinda feel bad for her co author getting some of the heat but his media appearances, in my opinion, will help her in the future. Her own words on various podcasts say she got the idea and started preparing for the book “about 4 months before JANUARY” aka before the start of the trial. Her co author has appeared on a few shows since this Motion was filed saying that they didn’t connect until 3 weeks after the trial. Even her own words in the book seem to contradict that.

He’s also said that they got the “OK” all clear from the Ethics Commission but thanks to some great reporters who got their letter we know that she asked them about a book focused on “the process” and not any specific case AND that they did not give any sort of “OK”. They said here are some questions to ask about the work and then you can decide for yourself. They even said she was strictly “prohibited” from sharing confidential info and per the State law, that is info obtained by the very nature of one’s elected role. Majority of the book is filled with info that the public wouldn’t have, it is info that someone in her role would hear/see/experience. Heck, that’s part of why she’s said that she wanted to write the book before.

See Impact of Influence podcast 136 or 140 if you want to hear some of what she says about the timeline in her own words. And see the last lines of their letter, posted in this thread I believe previously, they mention the “confidential info” and how that cannot be shared in furtherance of one’s own economic interests. Last I checked their book wasn’t free, so economic interests are totally in play. Especially when her co author has been telling media how much money they had to put up for the book, and the LLC they started in order to “publish” it under.

Anyways JMOO and all that.

The Clerk of Court is elected and not an appointed position. I'm sure she won't be re-elected.

 

[aafromaa]

I’m still puzzled by the $30,000 to self publish. Many years ago - before e-books were a thing, I ”self-published” my testimony. It was before kindle & ebooks so it was all printed copies - which basically meant that self-publishing existed of hiring a printer and registering the copyright with the library of congress and doing the writing, editing, publishing, marketing, etc myself. My initial investment was about $3000 and when those copies sold I printed more (three times) and spent another $4000 so about $7,000 total in the 4 printings. I know that most self-publishers now are spending between $5,000 to $10,000 to get into it with a limited number of print copies and then to have ebooks and be listed on Amazon and such. I know the co-author mentioned they formed and LLC & hired an attorney but still $30,000 is a pretty big investment for self-publishing for first time authors. I‘m not sure why they felt the need to do an LLC and I’m puzzled why the attorney they hired didn’t give them better advice and suggest at the very least that it would be best to wait until the appeals process was over or steer them away from certain things like sharing info that might be confidential or have been deemed to come from her elected position or at least explained to them that the letter from the ethics committee was not “permission” and the one “to” the ethics committee did not accurately describe the book they were writing.

I do think they have a better chance now of getting the $30,000 investment back than they did before this motion for new trial was made public because I think more people like me who had no intention of buying the book before might be curious enough to spend $10 on the kindle version now just to be able to see what everyone is talking about - yes I admit it, I did

 

[Weki]

I’m still puzzled by the $30,000 to self publish. Many years ago - before e-books were a thing, I ”self-published” my testimony. It was before kindle & ebooks so it was all printed copies - which basically meant that self-publishing existed of hiring a printer and registering the copyright with the library of congress and doing the writing, editing, publishing, marketing, etc myself. My initial investment was about $3000 and when those copies sold I printed more (three times) and spent another $4000 so about $7,000 total in the 4 printings. I know that most self-publishers now are spending between $5,000 to $10,000 to get into it with a limited number of print copies and then to have ebooks and be listed on Amazon and such. I know the co-author mentioned they formed and LLC & hired an attorney but still $30,000 is a pretty big investment for self-publishing for first time authors. I‘m not sure why they felt the need to do an LLC and I’m puzzled why the attorney they hired didn’t give them better advice and suggest at the very least that it would be best to wait until the appeals process was over or steer them away from certain things like sharing info that might be confidential or have been deemed to come from her elected position or at least explained to them that the letter from the ethics committee was not “permission” and the one “to” the ethics committee did not accurately describe the book they were writing.

I do think they have a better chance now of getting the $30,000 investment back than they did before this motion for new trial was made public because I think more people like me who had no intention of buying the book before might be curious enough to spend $10 on the kindle version now just to be able to see what everyone is talking about - yes I admit it, I did

Co-author Neil Gordon was on a podcast just a few hours ago saying book sales have skyrocketed since the press conference. This is the best free publicity for this book. It may be the only thing that comes out of this.

I gotta agree with Eric Bland on this as much as I don’t trust the man. He said that jurors who rendered a verdict, got polled and confirmed it was their verdict and that they weren’t intimidated or influenced then come back 3 months later to say something else is bad for the Justice system. I think it’s bad for defendants, and its bad for victims/ the state. It makes a mockery of the jury process and deliberation. The appeal process is one thing but if jurors have to be picked apart post verdict we got big problems coming for the Justice system.

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701223262091403747

 

[Seattle1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701228458414592260

 

[MTW2011]

I know others already pointed out in response to his cases he found, but I wanted to share here. one of them was from 1892 and the other 1906. And no, those are not any typos.

In one of the cases it refers to a jury who was kept at a Hotel when not in Court and one juror overheard the bailiff say something related to the defendant’s guilt; the Court gave that defendant a new trial.

In his other case it involved a defendant who was looking to find some new evidence or testimony that would aid in a new trial, and he was appealing the court’s denials of him having free reign to ask previous jurors and witnesses whatever he desired. They were going to limit the scope of that, understandably so.

Perhaps most frustrating about his post is the assertion that the “Fourth Circuit held that…” and, once again as other attorneys already replied to him about on Twitter, the Court did NOT “hold” anything of the sort. It was literally an “unpublished” Opinion, in which the Court writes - literally - “Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).”

In layman’s terms the Court is saying they were not setting some precedent, future cases and Courts cannot and should not look to their case as precedent. Eric Bland doesn’t mention that the defendants got new trials, and actually misrepresents the truth when saying the “Fourth Circuit” held anything whatsoever. It’s a shame because many people follow him and believe what he writes. Not sure if it was intentionally obfuscating the truth or what. For someone who hates on Griffin and Harpootlian for misrepresenting the truth, seems he does an awful lot of it himself when it fits his own agenda. JMOO though.

Some sources for anyone interested in reading; he didn’t share the case names with his audience.

Pitt v. United States - Opposition

www.justice.gov

State v. Rowell, 75 S.C. 494 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read State v. Rowell, 75 S.C. 494, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[girlhasnoname]

I’m still puzzled by the $30,000 to self publish. Many years ago - before e-books were a thing, I ”self-published” my testimony. It was before kindle & ebooks so it was all printed copies - which basically meant that self-publishing existed of hiring a printer and registering the copyright with the library of congress and doing the writing, editing, publishing, marketing, etc myself. My initial investment was about $3000 and when those copies sold I printed more (three times) and spent another $4000 so about $7,000 total in the 4 printings. I know that most self-publishers now are spending between $5,000 to $10,000 to get into it with a limited number of print copies and then to have ebooks and be listed on Amazon and such. I know the co-author mentioned they formed and LLC & hired an attorney but still $30,000 is a pretty big investment for self-publishing for first time authors. I‘m not sure why they felt the need to do an LLC and I’m puzzled why the attorney they hired didn’t give them better advice and suggest at the very least that it would be best to wait until the appeals process was over or steer them away from certain things like sharing info that might be confidential or have been deemed to come from her elected position or at least explained to them that the letter from the ethics committee was not “permission” and the one “to” the ethics committee did not accurately describe the book they were writing.

I do think they have a better chance now of getting the $30,000 investment back than they did before this motion for new trial was made public because I think more people like me who had no intention of buying the book before might be curious enough to spend $10 on the kindle version now just to be able to see what everyone is talking about - yes I admit it, I did

Perhaps the media attorney suggested setting up the Company as an LLC to protect the parties from the very thing that is happening now.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Co-author Neil Gordon was on a podcast just a few hours ago saying book sales have skyrocketed since the press conference. This is the best free publicity for this book. It may be the only thing that comes out of this.

I gotta agree with Eric Bland on this as much as I don’t trust the man. He said that jurors who rendered a verdict, got polled and confirmed it was their verdict and that they weren’t intimidated or influenced then come back 3 months later to say something else is bad for the Justice system. I think it’s bad for defendants, and its bad for victims/ the state. It makes a mockery of the jury process and deliberation. The appeal process is one thing but if jurors have to be picked apart post verdict we got big problems coming for the Justice system.

I'm glad I read your post before I posted. Hah

I was just going to say that the jurors were polled and affirmed their decision that very day. The fact that Dick and Jim skulked around the Low Country to find alternates/jurors that they could bamboozle into questioning their verdict stinks to high heavens IMO. Is that even ethical by law to have the Defense lawyers contacting and/or interrogating former jurors of their client? IDK

I'm not defending the book at all, I think BH should have waited considering her position. I believe there are valid reasons to investigate her actions. What I don't believe is that there will be a finding that BH had "substantial influence" over the jury regarding their votes.

Griffin has been riding the media train after this case just as much as every other person looking to make $$$$ off of it. He was reprimanded recently for taping a phone call from prison between himself and Alex M for an upcoming TV special. What Defense lawyer does that? Pot meet kettle. I can't count the talking head segments he's done with his newly touted tile of "Defense Attorney for one of the biggest cases in recent history". He's everywhere.

<snipped>

Prison officials found Griffin recorded Murdaugh, who read excerpts from a journal he kept while standing trial earlier this year for killing his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and younger son, Paul, in 2021.

Griffin intended to use information from the recordings for a three-part Fox docuseries titled “The Fall of the House of Murdaugh,” which featured an interview with Murdaugh’s surviving son, Buster, according to a report.

“Your actions, whether you intended or not, assisted Mr. Murdaugh in violating our policy and could jeopardize your telephonic communications with him in the future,” said Dennis Patterson, SCDOC assistant deputy director of operations, in an email to Griffin dated Aug. 30.

Alex Murdaugh loses prison phone, tablet privileges after lawyer records phone call for documentary

ALL MOO

 

[arielilane]

Here’s a good case applicable to the Murdaugh jury situation: In the case of State v. Rowell, 75 S.C. 494, 56 S.E. 23, 29, a bailiff talked about the case being tried in the presence of one of the jurors and asserted that the defendant should be punished. The trial Judge held that there was nothing before him that the verdict was influenced by such statement. Upon appeal to this court, it was said: “Objections to verdicts on the ground that one or more of the jurors has been subjected to outside influences must be looked at in a practical way and every case decided on its own facts. Those cases are strongest in which the juror has lent himself to such influence as signified a willingness to receive advice or favors. Those, however, who are selected to serve as jurors must be considered to have personal firmness and conviction, and not be presumed to bend to every wind of opinion that blows around their ears. Where, without any misconduct on the part of the juror or the constable who had him in charge, an opinion was imprudently volunteered in the presence of the juror by another constable, we do not think it would be reasonable to reach the decision that the conclusion of this juror and the whole panel was influenced by it.” Based on that, The defense wrong. Appellate courts have room to affirm. This case also shows the trial court needs to examine this situation. Nothing in the filed affidavits says the jurors were influenced. EB

https://twitter.com/x/status/1701223262091403747

https://twitter.com/TheEricBland

 

[Weki]

I'm glad I read your post before I posted. Hah

I was just going to say that the jurors were polled and affirmed their decision that very day. The fact that Dick and Jim skulked around the Low Country to find alternates/jurors that they could bamboozle into questioning their verdict stinks to high heavens IMO. Is that even ethical by law to have the Defense lawyers contacting and/or interrogating former jurors of their client? IDK

I'm not defending the book at all, I think BH should have waited considering her position. I believe there are valid reasons to investigate her actions. What I don't believe is that there will be a finding that BH had "substantial influence" over the jury regarding their votes.

Griffin has been riding the media train after this case just as much as every other person looking to make $$$$ off of it. He was reprimanded recently for taping a phone call from prison between himself and Alex M for an upcoming TV special. What Defense lawyer does that? Pot meet kettle. I can't count the talking head segments he's done with his newly touted tile of "Defense Attorney for one of the biggest cases in recent history". He's everywhere.

<snipped>

Prison officials found Griffin recorded Murdaugh, who read excerpts from a journal he kept while standing trial earlier this year for killing his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and younger son, Paul, in 2021.

Griffin intended to use information from the recordings for a three-part Fox docuseries titled “The Fall of the House of Murdaugh,” which featured an interview with Murdaugh’s surviving son, Buster, according to a report.

“Your actions, whether you intended or not, assisted Mr. Murdaugh in violating our policy and could jeopardize your telephonic communications with him in the future,” said Dennis Patterson, SCDOC assistant deputy director of operations, in an email to Griffin dated Aug. 30.

Alex Murdaugh loses prison phone, tablet privileges after lawyer records phone call for documentary

ALL MOO

Exactly! At first I somewhat jumped on the bandwagon thinking AM’s due process rights were likely violated etc etc and he deserves a new trial. I agree what the clerk did in writing the book, adding personal details about jurors etc, questioning “egg lady” about her ex’s FB posts and so on is waaaaay outta line. I don’t believe this clerk is a true professional. And I don’t give her the small town excuse. She should know what’s at stake and act accordingly. Her behavior is highly questionable.

And I also think defense counsel poked and poked and the release of the book gave them the inciting opportunity they needed. There’s always going to be a couple jurors who enjoy the 15 mins a little too much on these high profile cases. It’s human. And defense is taking advantage. And you’re right pot meet kettle.

 

[Turnedaround28]

Something else that I’m wondering about is also the fact that these jurors wouldn’t have said anything if defense counsel hadn’t gone door to door knocking. I am uncomfortable with this. Who’s to say that <derogatory nickname> and Griffin didn’t use the release of the book and the things the clerk said as an opportunity to rile the jurors up? Would the jurors have come forward on their own?

I think it’s troubling that defense counsel can go knocking on jurors doors to try to get something for a new trial. If the jurors come forward on their own it’s one thing. In this case the clerk’s inappropriate comments on the jurors in her book served as a perfect opportunity for them. Prior to the book coming out doors were slammed in their faces.

I thought polling the jury after the end of the trial was routine. If the juror is not willing to be interviewed they can decline to be questioned. The defense could've just called, sure, but it is not something that is out of the ordinary.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I thought polling the jury after the end of the trial was routine. If the juror is not willing to be interviewed they can decline to be questioned. The defense could've just called, sure, but it is not something that is out of the ordinary.

I've never heard of one case where the Defense Attorneys for the Defendant literally knocked on juror's doors asking about their vote, I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I've just never been aware of it.

If there is one out there I'd love to read it.

JMO

 

[MTW2011]

I'm glad I read your post before I posted. Hah

I was just going to say that the jurors were polled and affirmed their decision that very day. The fact that Dick and Jim skulked around the Low Country to find alternates/jurors that they could bamboozle into questioning their verdict stinks to high heavens IMO. Is that even ethical by law to have the Defense lawyers contacting and/or interrogating former jurors of their client? IDK

I'm not defending the book at all, I think BH should have waited considering her position. I believe there are valid reasons to investigate her actions. What I don't believe is that there will be a finding that BH had "substantial influence" over the jury regarding their votes.

Griffin has been riding the media train after this case just as much as every other person looking to make $$$$ off of it. He was reprimanded recently for taping a phone call from prison between himself and Alex M for an upcoming TV special. What Defense lawyer does that? Pot meet kettle. I can't count the talking head segments he's done with his newly touted tile of "Defense Attorney for one of the biggest cases in recent history". He's everywhere.

<snipped>

Prison officials found Griffin recorded Murdaugh, who read excerpts from a journal he kept while standing trial earlier this year for killing his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and younger son, Paul, in 2021.

Griffin intended to use information from the recordings for a three-part Fox docuseries titled “The Fall of the House of Murdaugh,” which featured an interview with Murdaugh’s surviving son, Buster, according to a report.

“Your actions, whether you intended or not, assisted Mr. Murdaugh in violating our policy and could jeopardize your telephonic communications with him in the future,” said Dennis Patterson, SCDOC assistant deputy director of operations, in an email to Griffin dated Aug. 30.

Alex Murdaugh loses prison phone, tablet privileges after lawyer records phone call for documentary

ALL MOO

I think your part in bold is, I agree, one of the more difficult arguments for them to make.

However, I also think some of these specifics will help them

1) In official Court record, Hill describes how and WHEN she found a Facebook post by a “juror’s ex husband”. Judge Newman states he is “not too pleased” about the clerk speaking to a juror “as opposed to” bringing it directly to him first. I believe this shows both that he believed that is what she did and that he had some concern over it.

2) When asked if she could provide any evidence of the Facebook post she says they can’t find it again but instead her staff was able to find a post by the same person who said he apologized and deleted a post. This apology post was made on FEBRUARY 16 a full week before Hill claims she saw the original post. the timeline simply does not make sense. Hill’s details of this in her book do not match completely with what she said on the record, providing defense an opportunity to want to question what is the truth.

3) even if the social media post timeline made sense, a full Facebook account data download of the user is alleged to have no post of anything of the sort (I am ignoring his affidavit & focusing on parts that do not rely on just their claims set forth in the affidavits). Judge seemingly expressed concern & then the juror swiftly removed from the jury, after all the events of SLED showing up to the ex’s house, their claims of not having seen each other in nearly a decade, etc.

4) Hill connecting with a few jurors on her social media day after the trial, commenting on some of their photos and posts. (This I saw posted on Twitter earlier)

5) Hill’s writing in her book includes details like how everyone’s feelings just “spilled” out riding back to Moselle, references to what the jury was thinking and feeling, parts of conversations shared on the ride to/from Courthouse to Moselle. Once again providing defense an opportunity to question what is the truth, it is what she writes in her book, or something else?
Could be more to add but I’m not trying to make anyone read an essay here.

Conclusion, JMOO it may not need to be “she changed their votes with her influence” but rather “she appears to have done some things that even appear improper and we would like to investigate those further as even the appearance of impropriety is concerning, esp considering these allegations”.

 

[aafromaa]

Can the defense attorneys be called as witnesses in the hearing on the motion for new trial?

I want to know more about how they obtained their “new evidence”. For example, how they worded their questions…Did they ask general questions like Did you feel anyone had inappropriate conversations on the jury or inappropriate contact with the jury? Or did they ask more along the lines of Did you see the clerk having private conversations with the foreperson? Or did other jurors discuss the case prior to deliberations? Or was it more along the lines of We heard such and such, did you see or hear that?

They said jurors confirmed each other’s comments independently of one another but I don’t think it’s independent of one another if they went to them and said juror such and such said so and so, did you see that?

And if I’m not mistaken, in SC, there has to be a credible reason for defense to suspect there was misconduct to question jurors about deliberations. The attorneys spoke about hearing they should check out what happened in the jury room at the press conference but who said that in the first place?