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

[Robert Crawford]

I guess this time, the bill has to be paid!

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I am in shock. It was totally unexpected.

Only 3 hours of deliberation, too!

Even the attorneys on the news channels were predicting a hung jury.

Good riddance!

 

[Jeffrey D]

I am in shock. It was totally unexpected.

Only 3 hours of deliberation, too!

Even the attorneys on the news channels were predicting a hung jury.

Good riddance!

Interesting how unpredictable even these murder trials can be. I know by your previous comments that you thought the prosecution didn’t make a good enough case, then the jury takes so little time to put the guy away.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Interesting how unpredictable even these murder trials can be. I know by your previous comments that you thought the prosecution didn’t make a good enough case, then the jury takes so little time to put the guy away.

It's perplexing.

If you have been following this case, there are definitely reasonable doubts including no murder weapon.

All the prosecution had been doing was painting him out to be a liar who kept changing his story to fit his alibi.

However, that seemed enough for the jury to convict him. I am guessing that they saw Alex Murdaugh for what he was.

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's perplexing.

If you have been following this case, there are definitely reasonable doubts including no murder weapon.

All the prosecution had been doing was painting him out to be a liar who kept changing his story to fit his alibi.

However, that seemed enough for the jury to convict him. I am guessing that they saw Alex Murdaugh for what he was.

I don't think it's perplexing at all. They simply didn't believe a word he said and think he was culpable for the death of his family members. To convict him after only three hours of deliberation tells me, they have no doubt he did it.

 

[Jeffrey D]

It is interesting that a guilty verdict came in so quickly, considering the murder weapon that could link him to the action hasn’t been found yet, and did the prosecution establish a motive during the trial?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

I don't think it's perplexing at all. They simply didn't believe a word he said and think he was culpable for the death of his family members. To convict him after only three hours of deliberation tells me, they have no doubt he did it.

I'm not doubting the verdict

I think the jurors came back with the right verdict and it reflects what I assume how all of us have thought about this case.

It is interesting that a guilty verdict came in so quickly, considering the murder weapon that could link him to the action hasn’t been found yet, and did the prosecution establish a motive during the trial?

That's the perplexing part.

Technically, the case was never proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The weapon was never found.

But, hey, the jury saw Murdaugh for what he was and had no issue rendering a quick, unanimous guilty verdict to get themselves home by the weekend.

 

[Jeffrey D]

The next case that will likely be in the national news, and the one I’ll be keeping tabs on is the Doomsday Cult couple in Idaho that are accused of murdering the woman’s two children. That will be very interesting- the defense can make a compelling argument that the woman’s deceased brother did it, due to the bodies being found by way of the brother’s cell phone pings, and the prosecution will have to prove the accused was actively involved.

 

[Nick*Z]

The jury's haste is obscene. They did not consider the facts or the alternative theories, of which there was PLENTY of reasonable doubt. They saw an opportunity to convict a man guilty of his grotesque greed and thievery on a charge of murder for which the evidence was overwhelmingly in his favor that someone else had committed these crimes.

 

[ChristopherG]

The jury's haste is obscene. They did not consider the facts or the alternative theories, of which there was PLENTY of reasonable doubt. They saw an opportunity to convict a man guilty of his grotesque greed and thievery on a charge of murder for which the evidence was overwhelmingly in his favor that someone else had committed these crimes.

says you

 

[Robert Crawford]

The jury's haste is obscene. They did not consider the facts or the alternative theories, of which there was PLENTY of reasonable doubt. They saw an opportunity to convict a man guilty of his grotesque greed and thievery on a charge of murder for which the evidence was overwhelmingly in his favor that someone else had committed these crimes.

I didn’t know you were in the jury room.

 

[Malcolm R]

Sounds like plenty of reasons to appeal for years to come.

 

[Edwin-S]

The jury's haste is obscene. They did not consider the facts or the alternative theories, of which there was PLENTY of reasonable doubt.

That is quite an uninequivocal statement for someone not on the jury to make.

 

[The Drifter]

YES!!!!! AM is a murdering, thieving, lying P.O.S. & deserved life in prison without parole - at the least. The jury got it right - for once! Kudos to the jury for all of their hard work in this case.

I saw the video of the authorities questioning him right after the murders, and AM was obviously not being treated like a suspect here - as he should have been. If AM were poor/middle class & under the exact same circumstances (i.e., if his wife & son found murdered on his property while he was there) - the approach & treatment by the authorities would have been completely different. And, if he were poor/middle class, he certainly wouldn't have had the $ to hire an expensive lawyer - and a public defender would have been assigned to him.

I don't see why anyone believes that the lack of blood/blood spatter & lack of a murder weapon (that they could find) somehow "proves" his innocence. He could have easily:
1)Cleaned himself up;
2)Thrown out and/or disposed of his bloody clothes (if they had blood on them) where they couldn't be found;
3)Disposed of any other incriminating evidence, etc. where it couldn't be found;

And do all of this before the authorities came out to the scene.

There was cell phone footage placing him at the scene. And, he obviously had motive and opportunity. Going along with this, he is a proven liar & this was clearly shown at the trial. So, I don't believe anything this P.O.S. says/said.

AM was a lawyer, so he clearly knows how the system works & he also obviously knew how to play the system.

I'm sick & tired of wealthy scum-bags literally getting away with murder. I was following this trial fairly closely, and felt that AM would walk due to the money, power, and influence he & his family have held in this community for generations. And, I'm glad I was very wrong.

 

[Nick*Z]

I didn’t know you were in the jury room.

You don't have to be in the jury room to know after weeks of testimony, 3 hrs. to render a verdict is too short a deliberation. It just is, especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.

 

[Robert Crawford]

You don't have to be in the jury room to know after weeks of testimony, 3 hrs. to render a verdict is too short a deliberation. It just is, especially when a man's life hangs in the balance.

In your opinion without seeing and/or listening to all of that testimony.

 

[Nick*Z]

YES!!!!! AM is a murdering, thieving, lying P.O.S. & deserved life in prison without parole - at the least. The jury got it right - for once! Kudos to the jury for all of their hard work in this case.

I saw the video of the authorities questioning him right after the murders, and AM was obviously not being treated like a suspect here - as he should have been. If AM were poor/middle class & under the exact same circumstances (i.e., if his wife & son found murdered on his property while he was there) - the approach & treatment by the authorities would have been completely different. And, if he were poor/middle class, he certainly wouldn't have had the $ to hire an expensive lawyer - and a public defender would have been assigned to him.

I don't see why anyone believes that the lack of blood/blood spatter & lack of a murder weapon (that they could find) somehow "proves" his innocence. He could have easily:
1)Cleaned himself up;
2)Thrown out and/or disposed of his bloody clothes (if they had blood on them) where they couldn't be found;
3)Disposed of any other incriminating evidence, etc. where it couldn't be found;

And do all of this before the authorities came out to the scene.

There was cell phone footage placing him at the scene. And, he obviously had motive and opportunity. Going along with this, he is a proven liar & this was clearly shown at the trial. So, I don't believe anything this P.O.S. says/said.

AM was a lawyer, so he clearly knows how the system works & he also obviously knew how to play the system.

I'm sick & tired of wealthy scum-bags literally getting away with murder. I was following this trial fairly closely, and felt that AM would walk due to the money, power, and influence he & his family have held in this community for generations. And, I'm glad I was very wrong.

The absence of a murder weapon and blood spatter doesn't prove innocence. But it does provide 'reasonable doubt' which is something any jury needs to consider. Otherwise, mere location alone is enough to convict anyone of any crime, regardless of motive and evidence.

Let me put it to you another way. Picture this. You're at home having a BBQ dinner with your wife and child in your backyard when suddenly the phone rings. It's your neighbor across the street. He's calling from work and because he just installed a home alarm on his house. It's buzzing and he asks you to just walk across the street to have a quick look, call him back and let him know if, in fact, it's a false alarm.

You hang up, excuse yourself from the table, and walk across the street. In that brief period of time the man from whom you were buying drugs, or your wife's jealous lover, or the father of the daughter you accidentally killed in an auto smash up the previous summer (that wasn't ruled your fault) arrives at your home from the back alley. He ambushes and slaughters your wife and kid, looks around for you, doesn't see you, and decides to get the hell out of there before you return or the neighbors notice anything is wrong.

Now, you come home and find the mess. You panic. You call a neighbor, your brother-in-law, your parents, the police, 9-11, perhaps not necessarily in that order. You're not thinking clearly. You're overwrought.

The police arrive. They question your neighbors. None of them saw a thing. They didn't even see you walk across the street. The neighbor who asked you to do this favor? The best he can say is that he asked but doesn't know whether or not you did as he asked because you never called him back.

Suddenly, you're alone. The police start digging into your past. They find out you're a recreational drug user whose been skimming off the top at your place of work and they assume you're guilty of some pretty awful things. You deny it at first because you know how bad it looks. But then, they show you the evidence. Now, you look positively guilty.

And everyone's ready to accept the worst because you weren't a very social guy in the neighborhood. Not really. You kept to yourself. So, now, everyone thinks your scum.
Where do you turn?

As I said before, Murdaugh is a gross pig of a human being. You have to be to steal from clients who were depending on you to save their lives in a desperate situation. You were greedy, arrogant, and deceitful. You're guilty of fraud. NOT murder! But nobody wants to believe you. If you're guilty of one crime, everyone assumes you're guilty of the other.

Where do you turn?

As a last ditch effort, you confess to all the awful stuff you did because you're hoping someone, anyone will realize you'd have to be a total idiot to admit to all these horrible acts and not see how they could be misconstrued as a prelude to murder. Your profile doesn't fit a cold-blooded killer. But it doesn't matter. You're guilty in the court of popular opinion. Everyone wants to hang you out to dry.

The jury knows this, knows that they are tired of being sequestered and apart from their families, and knows that if they just vote to convict, no one will be protesting outside their front door accusing them of being accessories after the fact.

So, they convict. Simple - yes. Justice served?!?...I have a real problem with that one.

 

[Edwin-S]

The absence of a murder weapon and blood spatter doesn't prove innocence. But it does provide 'reasonable doubt' which is something any jury needs to consider. Otherwise, mere location alone is enough to convict anyone of any crime, regardless of motive and evidence.

Let me put it to you another way. Picture this. You're at home having a BBQ dinner with your wife and child in your backyard when suddenly the phone rings. It's your neighbor across the street. He's calling from work and because he just installed a home alarm on his house. It's buzzing and he asks you to just walk across the street to have a quick look, call him back and let him know if, in fact, it's a false alarm.

You hang up, excuse yourself from the table, and walk across the street. In that brief period of time the man from whom you were buying drugs, or your wife's jealous lover, or the father of the daughter you accidentally killed in an auto smash up the previous summer (that wasn't ruled your fault) arrives at your home from the back alley. He ambushes and slaughters your wife and kid, looks around for you, doesn't see you, and decides to get the hell out of there before you return or the neighbors notice anything is wrong.

Seriously, that doesn't hold any water with me. It's ridiculous.

A jilted drug dealer shows up at the house, doesn't see you and decides to take it out on your wife and kid. It's nonsense. If his drug dealer was intent on killing the dude, he would just stake the place out and wait until he came outside. He would then drive by and plug the guy. If anyone else got caught up when the bullets flew then the dealer would be, " Cest la vie"

He isn't going into the house, stable or whatever and say, "well, your husband is not here, so I guess I'll kill you two instead". Even if he did do that, you yourself stated that everyone was unaware. If that is the case, the killer would have just remained there and finished the job when the main target came back.

 

[JohnRice]

I'm no legal expert, but I do understand the fundamentals of how the system is designed.

Both prosecution and defense are involved in deciding on the jury. 12 jurors and usually two alternates are chosen. The trial proceeds, for as long as it takes. In this case, as I understand, it lasted about six weeks. It's during that six weeks (in this instance) where the jurors make their individual decisions. Once the trial is over, instructions are given and the jurors are polled. If all 12 agree, based on the guidelines of the court, then their job is basically done. There is no need to deliberate longer. That doesn't mean they only took three hours to decide. They took six weeks to decide. Then it's just a matter of completing the forms. It seems fairly clear that in this case, all 12 felt the prosecution made the case. To say it again, they all agreed, so there's nothing more to deliberate. Only one person has to disagree to stop conviction.

This guy has legal power, and appeals will come.

 

[Nick*Z]

Seriously, that doesn't hold any water with me. It's ridiculous.

Oh, but a drug-addict/lawyer bringing two guns to a spur of the moment murder, shooting with world class precision, execution style on his own wife and child, then deftly to bury the clothes that must have contained blood spatter, and to take a shower, and make a zillion phone calls in seconds and call the police, and make it so no evidence whatsoever can be found even today, does? That makes sense to you.

Murdaugh was not a pro-assassin. He didn't have Mafia credentials. And he had to kill both wife and son at close range. Not from across the room. Did he hold a gun in each hand.

Because according to the medical examiner, wife and son died within moments of one another. Or did he fire one gun into one victim, put it away and then fire the other into the second victim without the second victim fleeing or attempting to protect themselves? No, defensive wounds on either the wife or son?

Is any of this getting through? It's a near impossible for a world-class marksman with decades long honing of his craft to commit these crimes in the manner the prosecution holds dear that it actually happened.