Son, 22, of prominent South Carolina legal family found murdered with his mom, 52, was 'targeted' - Murdaugh Trial

The main reason I find this funny is all of the doomsayer experts that said there would likely be an acquittal and how he put a human touch on the case.
 
cmcgraw2 said:
Judge said 30 to life on each murder conviction, with sentencing tomorrow. Where's all the money, is what people want to know I think.
Click to expand...
Why are some cases sentenced right away and others might take weeks to a month or more to sentence?
 
No clue, I think I heard the judge say there were other victims (of the financial crimes obviously) who wanted to make themselves heard. Also apparently the prosecutors didn't seek the death penalty but could have.

www.newsnationnow.com

Alex Murdaugh found guilty of killing wife and son

Alex Murdaugh, the patriarch of a once-powerhouse legal dynasty in South Carolina, has been found guilty of murdering his wife and youngest son.
www.newsnationnow.com www.newsnationnow.com
 
I hope he rots in prison. The main reason i follow these is the process. I am amazed how much the judge affects the trial outcome. This judge liked to say that he only deals with objections. It is amazing what got introduced by both sides without the other objecting.

I wonder if Alex will take the money to the grave vs burn down any and all accomplices. Plea deals or an FU from Alex? Lots and lots of financial victims out there in addition to the Beach family involved in the boating accident.
 
eboos said:
The main reason I find this funny is all of the doomsayer experts that said there would likely be an acquittal and how he put a human touch on the case.
Click to expand...
Did they pin an acquittal on anything in particular? The defense never had a solid case. His innocence was circumstantial as anything else in the case. Lack of doubt won out.
 
eboos said:
The main reason I find this funny is all of the doomsayer experts that said there would likely be an acquittal and how he put a human touch on the case.
Click to expand...
The talking heads affected me.

I thought he'd be acquitted.

It only takes one juror for a hung jury.
 
cmcgraw2 said:
Judge said 30 to life on each murder conviction, with sentencing tomorrow. Where's all the money, is what people want to know I think.
Click to expand...
All the money is or soon will be in the pockets of the lawyers. No one will collect a cent. I doubt his law firms professional liability insurance will cover much. The hunting camp is worth $3.9M but was in the wife's name so the most creditors would receive is 50%, son Buster inherits the rest of the mother's assets. (or whatever the lawyers leave) Wife did have $10M life insurance so son Buster will probably inherit that intact but I suspect the lawyers will be going after that also.

Murdaugh will get life in a SC state prison and will go to sleep each night with the vision of his son's head exploding. I call that justice.
 
TayNinh_66 said:
All the money is or soon will be in the pockets of the lawyers. No one will collect a cent. I doubt his law firms professional liability insurance will cover much. The hunting camp is worth $3.9M but was in the wife's name so the most creditors would receive is 50%, son Buster inherits the rest of the mother's assets. (or whatever the lawyers leave) Wife did have $10M life insurance so son Buster will probably inherit that intact but I suspect the lawyers will be going after that also.

Murdaugh will get life in a SC state prison and will go to sleep each night with the vision of his son's head exploding. I call that justice.
Click to expand...
You’d be surprised how much a professional liability policy would cover.
 
Reptile said:
The talking heads affected me.

I thought he'd be acquitted.

It only takes one juror for a hung jury.
Click to expand...

Yeah but it's not like you think. I remember being on a jury for a drug dealer case and there was one hispanic woman who voted not guilty and the rest of us including myself voted guilty. However the police had a surveillance van and the drug dealer made one mistake. He left the apartment building and walked into the street conducting one drug transaction out in the open right in front of the surveillance van. We voted a number of time and went over the evidence a number of times to reach the guilty verdict.

Interestingly there were 2 people on trial in this case and after watching all the police evidence and testimony I went home scratching my head, thinking to myself what the hell did this second guy do except show up at the wrong place at the wrong time. He certainly wasn't a drug dealer but was being charged as a drug dealer. When we finally got to the jury deliberation one guy in the group asked the one question that I am pretty sure we all felt "Who here thinks that the second guy is not guilty?", and within that 15-20 minutes of deliberation we saved a guy from prison for doing absolutely nothing except being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
Yeah but it's not like you think. I remember being on a jury for a drug dealer case and there was one hispanic woman who voted not guilty and the rest of us including myself voted guilty. However the police had a surveillance van and the drug dealer made one mistake. He left the apartment building and walked into the street conducting one drug transaction out in the open right in front of the surveillance van. We voted a number of time and went over the evidence a number of times to reach the guilty verdict.

Interestingly there were 2 people on trial in this case and after watching all the police evidence and testimony I went home scratching my head, thinking to myself what the hell did this second guy do except show up at the wrong place at the wrong time. He certainly wasn't a drug dealer but was being charged as a drug dealer. When we finally got to the jury deliberation one guy in the group asked the one question that I am pretty sure we all felt "Who here thinks that the second guy is not guilty?", and within that 15-20 minutes of deliberation we saved a guy from prison for doing absolutely nothing except being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Click to expand...
I have been on a couple of juries and quickly learned that many of my questions about the case went unanswered. The jury, too often, gets a tunnel vision view of what went on. The sytem would be better if the jurors could submit questions for each witness (asked by the judge) with opportunity for the lawyers to cross examine after. As to the second person in your trial, maybe the cops knew that person and had strong reason to believe that they were involved in some way but had little or no proof. Maybe that person was a known associate of the guilty one so they threw them in as a bonus so to speak. But as a juror you cannot convict without proof so you guys did the right thing.
 
556USER said:
I have been on a couple of juries and quickly learned that many of my questions about the case went unanswered. The jury, too often, gets a tunnel vision view of what went on. The sytem would be better if the jurors could submit questions for each witness (asked by the judge) with opportunity for the lawyers to cross examine after. As to the second person in your trial, maybe the cops knew that person and had strong reason to believe that they were involved in some way but had little or no proof. Maybe that person was a known associate of the guilty one so they threw them in as a bonus so to speak. But as a juror you cannot convict without proof so you guys did the right thing.
Click to expand...

Well the police testimony did not actually jibe with the surveillance photos and videos. I'm guessing that the guy was someone known to the cops. In court he took the stand in his own defense and the prosecutor read his criminal record for all of us and it was extensive, still it didn't line up with the evidence. There just was no evidence of drug dealing, no nothing to tie that guy to the scene other than he stopped by and said hi to the drug dealer. He obviously knew the drug dealer but he wasn't actually drug dealing.
 
slugworth said:
Apparently a juror already did an interview with ABC.

Said it was a video tape on Paul’s phone that sealed it.
Click to expand...
That would be the one 5 minutes prior to the murders where the father/husband was heard talking in the background. Destroyed his alibi that he was visiting his mother with dementia at the time.
 
caboose84 said:
That would be the one 5 minutes prior to the murders where the father/husband was heard talking in the background. Destroyed his alibi that he was visiting his mother with dementia at the time.
Click to expand...
And not enough time to leave to go do what he eventually did, in fact do, without hearing the gun shots. Even if he was still driving to his mom's if narrowed the timeline drastically and worse of all it caught him in a lie that he wasn't at the kennels before he 'discovered' their bodies.
 
Matt_SERE said:
And not enough time to leave to go do what he eventually did, in fact do, without hearing the gun shots. Even if he was still driving to his mom's if narrowed the timeline drastically and worse of all it caught him in a lie that he wasn't at the kennels before he 'discovered' their bodies.
Click to expand...

His timeline fell apart, and his credibility was trashed.
 
He spoke twice just said he would never hurt his wife or his kid.

Judge poured it on good so he have it all that in his head while sitting in the prison cell
 

Similar threads

Targeted advertising
Replies
22
Views
419
alx
alx
Newport Beach carnage as homeowner in $5million mansion shoots intruder who broke in with an accomplice at 4am while his family was sleeping
Replies
12
Views
619
TJ4
T
Stephanie Brainerd, Mom of Two, Working A Second Job Delivering Pizza, Ambushed, Murdered By “Customers”
Replies
16
Views
695
Broc
Broc
Yesterday Was The 10 Year Anniversary Of The Bundy Family Cattle Ranch Standoff Against The BLM
Replies
4
Views
252
Matt_SERE
Matt_SERE
Gopher hunting with a 22
Replies
29
Views
446
peterk123
P
Back
Top Bottom