• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

OFFICIAL Murdaugh Family crime thread

It is pretty funny to see the courtroom trial footage and of course Murdaugh is the only person in the room wearing a mask. He can be orchestrating murder and corruption for decades but goddam if he'll risk spreading the 'Rona. Mask up, son!
 
TimmyClutch said:
Dude is so fucked, the firearm ID info is so damning.
Click to expand...
Did his lawyer give on of those perfunctory “Alex is devastated by the tragic death of his wife and child and looks forward to being completely exonerated” statements?
 
I thought both opening arguments were strong. I know VERY little about this case but have become fascinated in the last 72 hours. Maybe the guy is guilty as sin but I thought both sides presented strong arguments.
 
TheAbster said:
I thought both opening arguments were strong. I know VERY little about this case but have become fascinated in the last 72 hours. Maybe the guy is guilty as sin but I thought both sides presented strong arguments.
Click to expand...
Anybody know if this thing is being carried live on DirecTV? (and yes I did the search thing but couldn't find it)
 
TheAbster said:
I thought both opening arguments were strong. I know VERY little about this case but have become fascinated in the last 72 hours. Maybe the guy is guilty as sin but I thought both sides presented strong arguments.
Click to expand...
Are you able to summarize the high level defense argument? I know they wanted the blood spatter evidence thrown out. Just imagine they have an awful steep hill to climb.
 
Even if they get him off the murder charges the financial crimes stuff seems pretty black and white. Pretty sure he already admitted to stealing the life insurance payout from the housekeeper’s death too. So he’s pretty fucked.
 
TheAbster said:
I thought both opening arguments were strong. I know VERY little about this case but have become fascinated in the last 72 hours. Maybe the guy is guilty as sin but I thought both sides presented strong arguments.
Click to expand...
He is guilty. But he does he very good lawyers and is protected by the SC "good ole boy" network.
 
LilburnDeac said:
He is guilty. But he does he very good lawyers and is protected by the SC "good ole boy" network.
Click to expand...
Of course the jury will make the final decision, but got a feeling that the judge would not be a part of/beholden to the "good old boy" network, i.e. he won't be the equivalent of some newish referee calling a Coach K game in Cameron.
 
It is reported as fact, by Court TV, that the judge has allowed witnesses to be in the court room during the trial. I'm not a lawyer but doesn't this sound like a complete train wreck and a reason for an appeal if he's found guilty?

Case in point: First detective today was a little sloppy for the State re: scene contamination. Second detective for the State mentions MULTIPLE times he was "careful not to contaminate the scene"!!!!

Can a lawyer please explain how/why in the hell this helps either side other than allowing for embellished testimony!??

I don't get it.
 
Last edited:
WRS said:
Are you able to summarize the high level defense argument? I know they wanted the blood spatter evidence thrown out. Just imagine they have an awful steep hill to climb.
Click to expand...

Came out very strong saying Alex Murdaugh is absolutely innocent (duh)
Implied that the crime scene was disturbed and possibly contaminated due to local yocal cops first arriving
Implied that it could have been TWO or more suspects
Stated NO blood found on Alex Murdaugh at the scene. Given that Paul Murdaugh's head literally exploded, there should be blood all over Alex Murdaugh.
Stated Alex Murdaugh allowed them to search his entire home the night of the murders

Thus, he was 100% cooperative, distraught and the state has ZERO direct evidence other than weak circumstantial evidence that would be shown to be suspect.

...don't shoot the messenger. His arguments not mine.
 
TheAbster said:
Came out very strong saying Alex Murdaugh is absolutely innocent (duh)
Implied that the crime scene was disturbed and possibly contaminated due to local yocal cops first arriving
Implied that it could have been TWO or more suspects
Stated NO blood found on Alex Murdaugh at the scene. Given that Paul Murdaugh's head literally exploded, there should be blood all over Alex Murdaugh.
Stated Alex Murdaugh allowed them to search his entire home the night of the murders

Thus, he was 100% cooperative, distraught and the state has ZERO direct evidence other than weak circumstantial evidence that would be shown to be suspect.

...don't shoot the messenger. His arguments not mine.
Click to expand...
Interesting — thanks!
 
TheAbster said:
It is reported as fact, by Court TV, that the judge has allowed witnesses to be in the court room during the trial. I'm not a lawyer but doesn't this sound like a complete train wreck and a reason for an appeal if he's found guilty?

Case in point: First detective today was a little sloppy for the State re: scene contamination. Second detective for the State mentions MULTIPLE times he was "careful not to contaminate the scene"!!!!

Can a lawyer please explain how/why in the hell this helps either side other than allowing for embellished testimony!??

I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Depends on the nature of the witness. Experts are generally allowed to watch the proceedings so they can support or rebut testimony.

“Mr. Expert, were you in the courtroom when Mr. Detective testified X? Does that in any way change your opinion?”
 
DeaconCav06 said:
Depends on the nature of the witness. Experts are generally allowed to watch the proceedings so they can support or rebut testimony.

“Mr. Expert, were you in the courtroom when Mr. Detective testified X? Does that in any way change your opinion?”
Click to expand...

Thanks. Just seems odd but I'm not an attorney. Obviously the legal profession has put MUCH MORE thought into this than I have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top