What does everyone think of the Alex Murdaugh trial? (1 Viewer)

[Ronald Epstein]

I'll tell you what my gut says...

The guy is a con man. He stole millions from clients. He lied to the cops and had to fabricate an entirely new story when he was pinned to the kennel area moments before the murders took place.

So basically, the guy lied over and over and wants us to believe he didn't commit the crime.

In my mind, the guy murdered his wife and son.

However...

Murder weapon not found. No clear motive. The prosecution is having a very difficult time proving he did it.

I don't know if the jury can come back with a guilty verdict on this one.

 

[Lord Dalek]

Yeah he's gonna walk. Only circumstantial evidence and no motive means the prosecution is DOA. Anybody who's watched a couple episodes of Law & Order can tell you that.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Yeah he's gonna walk. Only circumstantial evidence and no motive means the prosecution is DOA. Anybody who's watched a couple episodes of Law & Order can tell you that.

...and it's a shame. I'm watching this and the guy is obviously lying. He can't remember specific things that should be prominent in his mind. Sometimes, he's being so careful with what he says -- throwing questions back to the prosecutor -- that you don't know who is interrogating who.

 

[Nick*Z]

I wouldn't say he'll walk. But owing to an FBI profiler's analysis, about the motives for a fraudster differing considerably from those of a serial murderer, it's a little hard to digest the prosecution's claim that Murdaugh killed his wife and son to draw attention away from his stealing is pretty ridiculous.

Why did he lie about his whereabouts at the kennel? There could be a lot of reasons. Fear of being linked to a double homicide is just one of them.

Alas, no one's really been digging into alternative theories of the crime.

His deceased son killed a young girl in a fatal boating accident and received multiple death threats at the time. Did someone related to the girl decide to get back at the son and mama just happened to get in the way? It's a viable alternative.

There's also the mystery surrounding the dead housekeeper, who somehow took a tumble down some stairs at the family home and never regained consciousness.

I've also heard some theories floated by some media pundits now that maybe the housekeeper knew about the fraud and Murdaugh whacked her to keep his good/bad thing going.

Nonsense and pure conjecture, actually. Why not pin the Kennedy assassination on him while we're at it?

And what about Murdaugh defrauding all those clients and shaming his law firm in the process?

Might a disgruntled ex-client have gone on the offensive with murder in their hearts to Murdaugh's home intent on killing him, but stumbling upon his wife and son instead, seeking revenge?

Just because Murdaugh was at the kennel moments before the crime took place, does not mean he committed the crime, nor does it mean he was even present when the crime happened.

No blood spatter on his clothes. None at all. Not even under examination with luminal does this critical lack of evidence put Murdaugh anywhere near the double homicide at the time it took place.

Unless the guy is a total psychopath (and, let's face it - he may be one), his contrition on the stand when asked about his killing his child and wife has been pretty darn convincing.

Let's be clear.

Murdaugh is pond scum.

He defrauded clients who came to him for help. He stole from old ladies, a paralyzed man, and others, helpless and desperately seeking his counsel and advice.

He's a pig. He needs to pay for those crimes with a healthy prison sentence and, if possible, remuneration for what he stole. Nothing less will suffice.

But a greedy pig does not a notorious murderer make. The prosecution's leap from a grotesque drug-addicted backstabber to ruthless killer is a stretch at best. Just saying.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I wouldn't say he'll walk. But owing to an FBI profiler's analysis, about the motives for a fraudster differing considerably from those of a serial murderer, it's a little hard to digest the prosecution's claim that Murdaugh killed his wife and son to draw attention away from his stealing is pretty ridiculous.

Why did he lie about his whereabouts at the kennel? There could be a lot of reasons. Fear of being linked to a double homicide is just one of them.

Alas, no one's really been digging into alternative theories of the crime.

His deceased son killed a young girl in a fatal boating accident and received multiple death threats at the time. Did someone related to the girl decide to get back at the son and mama just happened to get in the way? It's a viable alternative.

There's also the mystery surrounding the dead housekeeper, who somehow took a tumble down some stairs at the family home and never regained consciousness.

I've also heard some theories floated by some media pundits now that maybe the housekeeper knew about the fraud and Murdaugh whacked her to keep his good/bad thing going.

Nonsense and pure conjecture, actually. Why not pin the Kennedy assassination on him while we're at it?

And what about Murdaugh defrauding all those clients and shaming his law firm in the process?

Might a disgruntled ex-client have gone on the offensive with murder in their hearts to Murdaugh's home intent on killing him, but stumbling upon his wife and son instead, seeking revenge?

Just because Murdaugh was at the kennel moments before the crime took place, does not mean he committed the crime, nor does it mean he was even present when the crime happened.

No blood spatter on his clothes. None at all. Not even under examination with luminal does this critical lack of evidence put Murdaugh anywhere near the double homicide at the time it took place.

Unless the guy is a total psychopath (and, let's face it - he may be one), his contrition on the stand when asked about his killing his child and wife has been pretty darn convincing.

Let's be clear.

Murdaugh is pond scum.

He defrauded clients who came to him for help. He stole from old ladies, a paralyzed man, and others, helpless and desperately seeking his counsel and advice.

He's a pig. He needs to pay for those crimes with a healthy prison sentence and, if possible, remuneration for what he stole. Nothing less will suffice.

But a greedy pig does not a notorious murderer make. The prosecution's leap from a grotesque drug-addicted backstabber to ruthless killer is a stretch at best. Just saying.

All very good points.

But, if they can't pin this on him and there's reasonable doubt (as you have indicated here), then he's gotta walk away from this.

And let me ask a hypothetical question here...

If he is found not guilty and walks months down the road the murder weapon is found with his prints all over it, can he be tried again?

I really wish the murder weapon had been found.

 

[Jeffrey D]

All very good points.

But, if they can't pin this on him and there's reasonable doubt (as you have indicated here), then he's gotta walk away from this.

And let me ask a hypothetical question here...

If he is found not guilty and walks months down the road the murder weapon is found with his prints all over it, can he be tried again?

I really wish the murder weapon had been found.

If he’s acquitted, I don’t think he can be tried again for the same crime.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

The prosecutor is exhausted.

He's going over the same points having Murdaugh admit he lied. Same thing over and over yesterday and today.

There's nothing else here.

 

[Nick*Z]

All very good points.

But, if they can't pin this on him and there's reasonable doubt (as you have indicated here), then he's gotta walk away from this.

And let me ask a hypothetical question here...

If he is found not guilty and walks months down the road the murder weapon is found with his prints all over it, can he be tried again?

I really wish the murder weapon had been found.

You can't be tried for the same murder twice, regardless of what new evidence comes to light. That's why I really think the prosecution jumped the gun on this one.

They ought to have gone after Murdaugh for the fraud, nailed him to a cross for it, and then, once he was serving for those crimes, done a more thorough investigation into the murder. This backdoor approach, trying to get him on a murder charge by exposing the lies he told to indulge in his fraudulent activities while a drug addict is just dumb.

Think of it this way. If you've ever been under the influence of drugs or alcohol, how clear-headed was your thinking? As a life-long tea-toddler and non-drug user, my uneducated guess, gleaned only from observation of friends who have been 'feeling no pain', would still be - not very. Their judgment was impaired.

And let's put it another way. Directly, I ask you...have you ever told a lie?

I'll answer that one for you. Yes.
So, have I.

It's human to not entirely tell the truth always. Especially when self-preservation is involved. And let's be honest and human here - a lie is always told in service of self-preservation. Only the angels are exempt from that sin...and even then, perhaps not entirely.

Point is - and again - just because you told a lie(s) in your lifetime it does not follow through that you have also murdered someone without the law finding out about it...yet.

If we can agree on that overly simplified logic, then Murdaugh deserves no less consideration as the court of popular opinion just seems so gosh darn ready to hang him up to dry, based on the fact he lied to the world at large on just about everything he did over the last 10 years.

He was an addict. Addicts tend to lie more so and with cleverer resolve to feed their addiction while keeping it a secret from the outside world. And Murdaugh, despite his addiction, was a very - VERY - clever man.

Is he also capable of murder? Sure. Placed in the right set of circumstances, most of us are. Especially when self-preservation is the order of the day.

Did he actually commit murder?

Not so easy to answer that one. Especially given the slap-dash evidence assembled at trial. Badly done is badly done. And this has been very badly bungled indeed.

If he is a killer he deserves to fry. But that's an awfully big 'if' at this moment in time.

And I still cannot fathom a prosecution that would pin their entire hopes for a conviction on only an 'if' as opposed to a sure thing. I don't care how aggressive the prosecution has been - and it's been fairly aggressive. Smoke and mirrors are poor substitutes for irrefutable evidence to convict.

We've yet to see that in this trial. Nor are we likely to, thus leaving the jury to speculate - always a dangerous thing to do. Wait and see, I suppose.

But what a terrible justice for Murdaugh's Maggie and Paul. Especially, if Murdaugh is innocent, but convicted of something he actually didn't do!

 

[Ronald Epstein]

You can't be tried for the same murder twice, regardless of what new evidence comes to light. That's why I really think the prosecution jumped the gun on this one.

They ought to have gone after Murdaugh for the fraud, nailed him to a cross for it, and then, once he was serving for those crimes, done a more thorough investigation into the murder. This backdoor approach, trying to get him on a murder charge by exposing the lies he told to indulge in his fraudulent activities while a drug addict is just dumb.

Think of it this way. If you've ever been under the influence of drugs or alcohol, how clear-headed was your thinking? As a life-long tea-toddler and non-drug user, my uneducated guess, gleaned only from observation of friends who have been 'feeling no pain', would still be - not very. Their judgment was impaired.

And let's put it another way. Directly, I ask you...have you ever told a lie? I'll answer that one for you. Yes. So, have I. It's human to not entirely tell the truth always. Only the angels are exempt from that sin...and even then, perhaps not entirely.

Point is - and again - just because you told a lie(s) in your lifetime does not follow through that you have also murdered someone without the law finding out about it.

If we can agree on that overly simplified logic, then Murdaugh deserves no less consideration as the court of popular opinion just seems so gosh darn ready to hang him up to dry, based on the fact he lied to the world at large on just about everything he did over the last 10 years.

He was an addict. Addicts tend to lie more so and with cleverer resolve to feed their addiction while keeping it a secret from the outside world. And Murdaugh, despite his addiction, was a very - VERY - clever man.

Is he also capable of murder? Sure. Placed in the right set of circumstances, most of us are. Especially when self-preservation is the order of the day.

Did he actually commit murder?

Not so easy to answer that one. Especially given the slap-dash evidence assembled at trial. Badly done is badly done. And this has been very badly bungled indeed.

If he is a killer he deserves to fry. But that's an awfully big 'if' at this moment in time.

And I still cannot fathom a prosecution that would pin their entire hopes for a conviction on only an 'if' as opposed to a sure thing. I don't care how aggressive the prosecution has been - and it's been fairly aggressive. Smoke and mirrors are poor substitutes for irrefutable evidence to convict.

We've yet to see that in this trial. Nor are we likely to, thus leaving the jury to speculate - always a dangerous thing to do. Wait and see, I suppose.

But what a terrible justice for Murdaugh's late wife and son. Especially, if Murdaugh is innocent, but convicted of something he actually didn't do!

I hear you, Nick, but using Bill Maher's "I DON'T KNOW IT FOR A FACT...I JUST KNOW IT'S TRUE," the man is guilty. He did those murders. There was such a tight time frame between when he was at the murder scene and when it occurred.

The only mysterious part is the lack of blood on his clothes.

 

[Nick*Z]

I hear you, Nick, but using Bill Maher's "I DON'T KNOW IT FOR A FACT...I JUST KNOW IT'S TRUE," the man is guilty. He did those murders. There was such a tight time frame between when he was at the murder scene and when it occurred.

The only mysterious part is the lack of blood on his clothes.

Okay, but that's a massive mystery, my friend. It is virtually impossible to murder someone with a gun and not have powder residue and blood spatter all over your body and clothes. I've been watching Murdaugh for a bit on the stand now.

And even though he is sober at the moment, he really doesn't strike me as someone who would have or could have committed such a heinous crime in a spur of the moment and had the wherewithal to wear a full-on body suit to prevent him from becoming tainted with bodily evidence, and then, even more astutely, find a secure hiding place to ditch those clothes and appear, only moments later, shaken and teary-eyed to call 911 for help. Again, he was a full-on addict when these crimes occurred. Not thinking clearly.

Now, are we assuming pre-meditation here; that the crime was planned weeks, even months in advance? The immediacy of the crime scene does not suggest a carefully calculated crime occurred. It suggests a spur of the moment took place.

Was Murdaugh the 'spur of the moment' guy? Without blood everywhere? Really?!?

Makes my initial alternate theory about a revenge killing from someone skulking in the bushes seem all the more probable, doesn't it?

 

[Joel Arndt]

• Mr. Murdaugh is separately facing 99 state charges accusing him of financial thefts. His testimony under oath in the current case could aid the prosecution on many of those charges, and he could face decades in prison for the financial crimes alone, regardless of the outcome of the murder trial.

The above is an excerpt from a New York Times article I just received co-reported by Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs and Ben Shpigel. Found it to be interesting.

 

[Nick*Z]

• Mr. Murdaugh is separately facing 99 state charges accusing him of financial thefts. His testimony under oath in the current case could aid the prosecution on many of those charges, and he could face decades in prison for the financial crimes alone, regardless of the outcome of the murder trial.

The above is an excerpt from a New York Times article I just received co-reported by Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs and Ben Shpigel. Found it to be interesting.

Which only serves to reiterate my point - why the hastiness for a murder trial when evidence is slim to nil while the case against Murdaugh for fraud is a sound as a bell?

Which case do you think the prosecution currently proved - despite the fact we're supposed to be watching a murder trial?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

The prosecution gave its final wrapup yesterday with the defense set to give theirs this morning. It will be in the jury's hands this afternoon.

I have watched hours of documentary on Murdaugh that is airing on Netflix and HBO. There was a lot of additional, highly shocking information that I had no idea about.

This family has been tied to so many mysterious deaths and/or murders. I had no idea about Stephen Smith, the gay teen whose death was rumored to be caused by Buster Murdaugh. Then there's the housekeeper who just happened to fall down the stairs (it is rumored that Paul pushed her after finding his drug stash). On speculation alone, this family has no qualms nor remorse for killing others.

I'm confident that Murdaugh murdered his wife and son. Never, during this entire trial, did Alex plea for the killer(s) to be found. If he were innocent and loved his family as he should, there would have been more of an emphasis put on that aspect.

Instead, all Alex Murdaugh has done is lie over and over again -- as he has done over the years to his family, friends, and clients. The guy is scum!

All that being said...

The prosecution has not proven this case. If the jury were to follow their gut, they would find him guilty. However, the law says that the case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and unfortunately, it hasn't.

No matter. Murdaugh will still spend his remaining days in jail given the number of fraud cases filed against him and the confessions he has already made on the stand that he's guilty. His life is ruined and over. For most of the people living in Hampton, South Carolina, where the family's corrupt influence and power once prevailed, that will be justice enough for them.

 

[Edwin-S]

I think you meant the prosecution has not proven the case. You have defense in there.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I think you meant the prosecution has not proven the case. You have defense in there.

Thanks. That totally went unnoticed as I typed it out. I'll correct that portion. Thanks, Edwin.

 

[JohnRice]

No matter. Murdaugh will still spend his remaining days in jail given the number of fraud cases filed against him and the confessions he has already made on the stand that he's guilty. His life is ruined and over. For most of the people living in Hampton, South Carolina, where the family's corrupt influence and power once prevailed, that will be justice enough for them.

There have been a lot of comments here that the prosecution was premature in bringing charges. I have to wonder if they did it intentionally. Knowing they would probably never be able to produce enough proof in this case, but that the process of this trial would bury him in fraud charges and put him away essentially forever all the same.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

There have been a lot of comments here that the prosecution was premature in bringing charges. I have to wonder if they did it intentionally. Knowing they would probably never be able to produce enough proof in this case, but that the process of this trial would bury him in fraud charges and put him away essentially forever all the same.

John, I agree.

The only thing that puts this case in hyperdrive is the video taken at the kennel which puts Alex at the location moments before the family was murdered.

What a piece of evidence. Who would have ever thought?

I am unsure if he was charged and arrested before or at the time of the video surfacing. If it was before, then no, they really didn't have anything to tie him to the murders.

 

[JohnRice]

John, I agree.

The only thing that puts this case in hyperdrive is the video taken at the kennel which puts Alex at the location moments before the family was murdered.

What a piece of evidence. Who would have ever thought?

I am unsure if he was charged and arrested before or at the time of the video surfacing. If it was before, then no, they really didn't have anything to tie him to the murders.

I haven't followed it closely, but have definitely gotten the broad strokes. It really was a tectonic shift when that video came out with his voice on it, after he had repeatedly denied being anywhere near that place and time.

There was a similar event in another major news-making trial in the last week.

My gut feeling is that this family has quite literally gotten away with murder, and a lot more, possibly for generations. I have absolutely zero impression whether he committed this particular crime, but he and his entire family appears to have committed so many crimes through the decades. Time to pay, it would seem.

 

[JohnRice]

Then again, sometimes it’s a slam-dunk and nobody realizes it.

 

[Alex...]

Alex Murdaugh found guilty in the murder of his wife and son​

Live updates: Alex Murdaugh found guilty in the murder of his wife and son

The jury in the double murder trial of Alex Murdaugh has found him guilty of murdering his wife and son Follow for live news updates.

www.cnn.com