re: Investigators When they KNEW Murdaugh lied (Page 112)

quote:

---

AGAIN, and as just mentioned in closing, circumstantial evidence is weighed exactly the same as direct evidence.

I want you to write that 50 times.

People really show their tv show legal expertise when they keep harping on this.

---

quote:

---

What does the prosecution have to prove to get a guilty verdict?

The Alex Murdaugh indictment alleges that he intentionally killed Paul Murdaugh and Maggie Murdaugh. In other words, he’s the one that pulled the trigger.

The charges do not include felony murder, conspiracy to commit murder, or any other theory of murder.

So even though hiring a hitman could result in a murder conviction or a similar charge with the same penalties, that’s not what’s charged here.

The prosecution must prove that Alex Murdaugh pulled the trigger. If he paid someone else to do it, even if he was there at the time, he is not guilty as charged.

Additionally, they must prove who he killed. If, for example, the jury believed he was one of two shooters but couldn’t determine who he shot, the verdict on both counts would have to be not guilty.

Each murder victim is a separate count that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to convict him of killing Paul, the prosecution has to prove that he killed Paul not that he killed either Paul or Maggie.

What is the burden of proof?

The burden of proof is reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is always 100% on the prosecution.

The burden of proof never shifts to the defense.

--It doesn’t matter if the defendant talked to the police.
--It doesn’t matter if the defendant lied to the police.
--It doesn’t matter if you think the defendant should want to know who killed his family.

The prosecution must prove that Alex Murdaugh shot and killed his wife and son. In order to do so, they must disprove any other theory that is reasonably supported by the evidence.

From the South Carolina jury instructions:

--The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

--The State is required to prove every element of the charged offense by evidence which satisfies the jury of the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

--The defendant is not required to prove his innocence. The burden of proof always remains upon the State of South Carolina to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

--What is a reasonable doubt in the law? A reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act.

--The term “reasonable doubt” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.

--The State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

--Some of you may have served as jurors in civil cases where you were told that it is only necessary to prove the fact is more likely true than not, such as by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence. In criminal cases, the State’s proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt.

--Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt.

--There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty. In criminal cases, the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. The law does not require that.

--If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty.

--If on the other hand you conclude there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and find the defendant not guilty.

The problem for the prosecution in this case is that the more you believe Alex Murdaugh is a bad person who was involved in bad things, the more reasonable it is that someone else killed his family.

---

quote:

---

Evidence That Alex Murdaugh Hired a Hitman

With all of that said, here is the evidence that points towards Alex Murdaugh hiring a hitman instead of pulling the trigger himself.

He hired Cousin Eddie to shoot him.
Months after the killing, Alex Murdaugh hired Cousin Eddie to shoot him in a drive-by shooting. Purportedly as a life insurance scheme to help Buster.

So now we know that he can hire a hitman (not necessarily cousin Eddie).

In addition, many of the family annihilator cases are murder-suicides, so he broke that profile.

He had his groundskeeper shoot his dog.
When Alex Murdaugh decided to put down one of his injured dogs, he couldn’t do it and had a groundskeeper do it instead.

Now his mental state could have changed, but he also does consistently seem like the kind of guy to hire someone else to do his dirty work.

Not enough time to clean up.
One of the biggest problems with the prosecution’s timeline is how little time Alex Murdaugh had to clean up after two very messy shootings.

If he only lures Paul and Maggie there and Cousin Eddie ambushes them as Alex leaves or shortly after, the timeline gets a lot easier.

The dogs are a nothing burger.
The prosecution made a big deal about the dogs not sensing anyone else. They were in a kennel and distracted by chickens, people, and other dogs.

Someone could have been off in the woods or in another hiding place at least until after the Snapchat video. Once the dogs are in the kennel, it gets a lot easier for someone to approach for an ambush.

So is the lack of cellphone tower pings.
It’s not a huge stretch to say that a hitman would know to leave his phone off or not bring it with him. Checking the phone towers only proves there wasn’t a sloppy criminal not that there wasn’t another criminal at all.

The lack of defensive wounds is also irrelevant.
There didn’t have to be a fight. This wasn’t a stabbing.

Paul could have been taken by surprise. Maggie was likely running away.

Problems with the gun evidence.
First, the murder weapon was never found or proven.

Second, if you do say it was a family gun, the prosecution asks why someone else would come without a gun? Because Alex Murdaugh hired him and told him where the gun would be.

It’s also a lot easier for Cousin Eddie (or whoever) to hide without a gun and not have to worry about a neighbor coming across him in the woods.

“They did him so bad.”
So Alex Murdaugh hires a hit man or two, lures Paul and Maggie to the kennels, and then leaves. Maybe he hears the shots, maybe he doesn’t.

But he doesn’t actually see them shot.

He goes to create his alibi. There’s really no reason he couldn’t have stayed out longer, but he gets upset about the situation and rushes back.

He was expected to find Paul and Maggie dead, but it was done in a way that was much, much worse than he was expecting to see. “They did him so bad.”

That’s Reasonable Doubt
The lies, the strange behavior, the being at the scene, and all of the other evidence point towards Alex Murdaugh being involved. But the evidence doesn’t prove who pulled the trigger.

All of the evidence fits with a hired hitman and some even fits it better. Even if you think the hitman is the less likely of the two possibilities, it’s still a reasonable possibility supported by the evidence.

This is not a civil case. The prosecution has failed to prove the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

quote:

---

circumstantial evidence is weighed exactly the same as direct evidence.

---

quote:

---

The Alex Murdaugh indictment alleges that he intentionally killed Paul Murdaugh and Maggie Murdaugh. In other words, he’s the one that pulled the trigger.

The charges do not include felony murder, conspiracy to commit murder, or any other theory of murder.

So even though hiring a hitman could result in a murder conviction or a similar charge with the same penalties, that’s not what’s charged here.

The prosecution must prove that Alex Murdaugh pulled the trigger. If he paid someone else to do it, even if he was there at the time, he is not guilty as charged.

---