- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Investigators When they KNEW Murdaugh lied (Page 112)
Posted on 1/30/23 at 4:45 pm to CobraCommander83
Posted on 1/30/23 at 4:45 pm to CobraCommander83
Thought he said "they"; it was not very clear
Posted on 1/30/23 at 5:29 pm to pjk481
quote:
Thought he said "they"; it was not very clear
on Rekieta's stream... someone in the chat said they went back and listened to it again a couple more times and also heard "they"
Posted on 1/30/23 at 6:36 pm to rt3
I replayed it a couple of times but I swear he said I.
Here is the clip.
Audio Clip
Here is the clip.
Audio Clip
This post was edited on 1/30/23 at 6:41 pm
Posted on 1/30/23 at 6:46 pm to CobraCommander83
It’s definitely muffled. Honestly live I didn’t pick up either way. Then thought they. But to me it’s “they did him so bad”
Heard others in comments say they thought his muffled comment was “uhh…did him so bad”
Heard others in comments say they thought his muffled comment was “uhh…did him so bad”
This post was edited on 1/30/23 at 6:49 pm
Posted on 1/30/23 at 6:52 pm to real turf fan
quote:
all cummunications with
quote:wut
cummunications
Posted on 1/30/23 at 7:02 pm to pjk481
quote:
It’s definitely muffled. Honestly live I didn’t pick up either way. Then thought they. But to me it’s “they did him so bad” Heard others in comments say they thought his muffled comment was “uhh…did him so bad”
I’ll be curious how the defense responds to it tomorrow. That clip went viral really fast. People arguing he said they or I. I thought the prosecution did a good job rebounding from this morning. They are doing a good job laying their foundation but they still have a lot to prove that AM indeed killed Paul and Maggie. Starting to get in the meat and potatoes of the trial.
Posted on 1/30/23 at 7:03 pm to CobraCommander83
quote:
Maggie's phone was located away from the crime scene. Croft and other agents found it between a quarter and half mile away from the scene in a grassy area on the side of Moselle Road.
Heck, what happened to the dog with the hurt tail that was the reason for some of the calls?
Posted on 1/31/23 at 9:09 am to real turf fan
Posted on 1/31/23 at 9:39 am to real turf fan
I still think there was more than one person involved and helped Alex. I could be wrong but Alex doesn’t seem smart enough to carry out the murders on his own. He is sleezy and has had so much power all of his life. He knows and has people that will help carry out dirty work. Look at Cousin Eddie.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 9:44 am to SCLibertarian
That's some My Cousin Vinny type shite except this witness does want to admit he needs some thicker glasses... or in this case a better hearing aid
Posted on 1/31/23 at 9:45 am to pjk481
quote:
It’s definitely muffled. Honestly live I didn’t pick up either way. Then thought they. But to me it’s “they did him so bad”
Heard others in comments say they thought his muffled comment was “uhh…did him so bad”
First time hearing I heard I. Then they. Then “uhh…did him so bad”. I think it's vague enough to not be dispositive.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 9:46 am to CobraCommander83
Defense slowed down the clip at 1/3 speed to argue Alex said they and not I. When I listen to it normally, I can see the mixed results. If I listen to it normally with the speaker close to my ear, I hear I.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 9:58 am to Havoc
As Rekieta so rightfully points out... if the investigator hears "I did him so bad"... that would be followed up on IMMEDIATELY... not a month later
That would be a tacit admission and the investigator would want the suspect to talk on that topic more
The fact thus investigator didn't is either A) bad questioning skills or B) he didn't hear "I did him so bad"
That would be a tacit admission and the investigator would want the suspect to talk on that topic more
The fact thus investigator didn't is either A) bad questioning skills or B) he didn't hear "I did him so bad"
Posted on 1/31/23 at 10:05 am to CobraCommander83
I was leaning toward "I" but it's definitely not clear.
I think this is the first trial I've watched since OJ, and it's hard to follow what point they're trying to make sometimes with the hours of questioning. I'm working while I listen to it, so I don't know if it's just because I'm not focused on it, but I still need another source to recap it at the end of the day.
The questions about the guns and the casings have me completely lost. What is the prosecuton getting at? The audio clips are pretty informative and I can form an opinion based on what I'm hearing AM say, but listening to hundreds of questions without a summary of the prosecution's point is confusing.
I think this is the first trial I've watched since OJ, and it's hard to follow what point they're trying to make sometimes with the hours of questioning. I'm working while I listen to it, so I don't know if it's just because I'm not focused on it, but I still need another source to recap it at the end of the day.
The questions about the guns and the casings have me completely lost. What is the prosecuton getting at? The audio clips are pretty informative and I can form an opinion based on what I'm hearing AM say, but listening to hundreds of questions without a summary of the prosecution's point is confusing.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 10:09 am to rt3
quote:That would be a tack-it admission?
That would be a tacit admission
Posted on 1/31/23 at 10:13 am to lachellie
quote:
That would be a tack-it admission?
Objecshun
GROUNZ
Posted on 1/31/23 at 10:13 am to rt3
quote:
As Rekieta so rightfully points out... if the investigator hears "I did him so bad"... that would be followed up on IMMEDIATELY... not a month later
It’s blatantly obvious these people were being handled with kid gloves. The body-cam footage from search of gun room shows them lounging around discussing autopsies and funeral arrangements. Anyone else’s home would have been crime scene taped off that night. And they went to the brother’s hunting lodge to interview AM, Buster and the brothers three days later? Again, anyone else would have been asked to visit the police station for that.
Posted on 1/31/23 at 10:21 am to ILurkThereforeIAm
quote:
The questions about the guns and the casings have me completely lost. What is the prosecuton getting at?
It is confusing but I assume the point they are trying to prove that the guns used in the murders didn’t come from the outside but from AM. I think it brings up some very good points but without the actual guns used, it will be difficult to fully prove. My opinion is that guns used did come from AM/property. The casings found match old casings found around the property and match what was stored in the house. I just don’t see it being a coincidence that a random person would be using the exact type/brand ammo to carry out the murders
Posted on 1/31/23 at 10:22 am to lachellie
Now they're seizing random shell casings 4 months after the fact?
Posted on 1/31/23 at 10:28 am to lachellie
quote:
The body-cam footage from search of gun room shows them lounging around discussing autopsies and funeral arrangements.
That puzzled me. It was still part of the crime scene and they were allowed to hang out in the gun room. A lot of tampering could have happened. I know LE was not perfect in searching/handling the scene at the kennels. Things like that will happen but I found it unacceptable that family/friends/personal lawyers was allowed to hang out in the house when it was not fully searched completely. It would take much for there to be a piece of evidence that one of them could have picked up and put in their vehicle.
Back to top
