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

This is definitely the most compelling of the closing arguments. Keep waiting on him to yell “tarnation!”

quote:

---

As a brief aside, while watching the Documentary last night, the sheer number of layers after layer of filth and corruption that emanated from that family has to be a modern American record.

---

Obligatory “the Clinton’s say hold my beer.”

quote:

---

while watching the Documentary last night

---

We started the Netflix one last night. I know it's highly praised, but they spent way too much time on the boat crash. The repetition was tiresome.

quote:

---

Is that a bad strategy when you are going for reasonable doubt?

---

In this case, I think so. Because the defense has some significant obstacles to overcome. AM being on the premises during the murder and lying about it.

The defense against that is shaky, imo. AM lied because that’s what addicts do. Well addicts are also unpredictable. This defense could easily lead back to “AM killed his family because he’s an unpredictable addict.”

If the defense wants to overcome this, imo they needed to orderly present the evidence that contradicts the prosecutions theory and some of it has to land. It can’t just be confusing for confusion sake to make jurors scratch their head, because they can just dismiss it and rely on the biggest piece of evidence here and that’s AM’s location and lie about that location.

has it go to the jury yet? We gonna do a poll?

He's guilty as homemade sin and then some, but you never know with jurys. i think an acquittal is out of the question but they might hang it.

quote:

---

He's guilty as homemade sin and then some, but you never know with jurys. i think an acquittal is out of the question but they might hang it.

---

I think he is guilty as frick too. I think a hung jury is most likely, but I would say I think their is a bigger chance of acquittal then a guilty. But you are right...who knows.
When I was the foreman on a trial, I thought for sure we would vote 12-0 on the first vote for guilty, but took 1.5 days of deliberation to bring the 2 over

quote:

---

While I think he's guilty as sin, why did the Judge allow testimony on his financial crimes and then give them instructions to not count it as evidence? WTF?

---

Only if it does not apply to motive.

Hung jury.

I don’t think he pulled the trigger, but he was involved.

quote:

---

Hung jury.

I don’t think he pulled the trigger, but he was involved.

---

This could well be true, but the defense presented no evidence of that theory (obviously because it would implicate Alex). So, this theory of Alex being involved but not shooting can't be used as an argument for reasonable doubt, because there's no evidentiary basis for that defense

I think the kennel video and him lying about it would be enough for some people (not me) to say guilty.

Involved could mean he let the killer(s) know when and where to be. Or it could mean he let the killer(s) know which weapons to use or maybe even provided the weapons.

Originally, my opinion was that his drug use/other illegal activity is what led Maggie and Paul to be killed. He was the cash cow in the operation which is why “they” left him alive and let Buster live (leverage).