re: Alex Murdaugh found guilty

quote:

---

Anyone want to challenge that sustained, chronic drug use can rewire a brain to the point it rationalizes that it could commit the most despicable of crimes and get away with it.

---

I hear ya. But the state never offered that evidence/expert testimony.

This verdict was decided before the fact finders ever entered the jury box for the first time.
That community hates Murdaugh; he never stood a chance.
It’s a head-scratcher that trial was even held there.

Moral of this trial: Don’t ever say a word to the police … especially if you’re innocent.

quote:

---

Dude got railroaded

---

Dude blew his son's head off and then lied about being at the kennels for MONTHS... What kind of monster lies to cops about being at his family's murder scene if innocent. He used 2 weapons to try and taint the story because as a lawyer he knew how to throw people off... He either did it, or paid to have it done.
He needs to be put to death slowly and painfully.. He is a pre-meditated murderer. No railroading with this one.

Netflix

Feeding frenzy against White Privilege. They picked a good one.

Well said and concise

quote:

---

frick him and frick you too.

---

Ha!
It’s all good.
I just want justice for all —admittedly, a tough ask for such a complex task.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Take care.

quote:

---

see this going to appeal for a retrial.

---

I believe he more likely than not killed them. However if I were an objective juror I would have to have voted not guilty. The state did a bad job of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it in my view. What they did a great job of was using the innate prejudice against him in his county to their advantage and using a lot of bad acts not indicative of murder to show he was an arrogant crooked a-hole.

I think he might have done it, but I don't think the state proved it.

quote:

---

He got 6 life sentences

What?

---

I phrased that paragraph poorly. My “a murderer walked” wasn’t referring to the Brooks trial; it was about this/the Murdaugh one.

I know Brooks is toast.
My point: Brooks was a clear guilty—by every person on the planet (he admitted to running down his victims)—yet the jurors in his trial still deliberated longer than did this jury.

It’s unnerving.

Frankly, I was surprised. I was prepared for a hung jury - after several days.

I did not monitor the entire trial, but I did try to watch the closing arguments - saw maybe 3/4 of that.

What I fail to understand is a motive. I saw nothing that put him in a better situation after the murders, than he was in before. His financial crimes were going to put him away for decades anyway. *does SC even have a death penalty? - I heard nothing in any of the 'analysis' I happened to hear concerning that - seemed as though his murder conviction would have got him 30 years max(??)

The purely circumstantial evidence was overwhelming - and if this was a planned murder, it seems to me he would have arranged for a situation that was far more convenient than this -

actually PLANNING this method/sequence seems like the dumbest idea in the history of premeditated murder. totally unbelievable. <-- OR was he using this 'unbelievable' aspect as his 'get-out-of-jail-free card?? this seems even more unrealistic in my view.

So I am left with WHY? - and then Why THIS??

Again, my verdict would have been the good ol Scottish 'not proven' - I would have been content to let the financial crimes put him away for the rest of his life.

NOTHING about this case (to my limited exposure to it) makes any sense whatsoever.

And it may be that one thing I heard in the closing arguments = that the grand jury info that produced the indictment was flawed - much of the "evidence" proved to be erroneous - the only 'evidence' that the Grand Jury had was the coincidental timing of the events.

SO - on that basis alone I think I would have gone with the 'not proven' line rather than 'guilty as charged' - And left it up to the financial crimes to end his worthless presence In society.

The prosecution relied heavily on those financial matters to demonstrate the effects that drug addiction can have on a person. To me, if that is the foundation of their case, they should have presented some evidence as to how those two murders were at all beneficial to him. They utterly failed at that - all they ended up with was LIAR LIAR - GOTCHA.

On the other hand, I think the defense should have gone with insanity.

On the final hand, Murdaugh should have hired a real executioner to take his miserable life out before his family had to suffer the risk.

just my 2c.

quote:

---

There's no fricking evidence he committed the murders.

---

the system allows for circumstantial evidence to count

(unless the case is about election fraud)