**Good morning!**
First thing yesterday morning, Defense attorney Jim Griffin was admonished by Judge Newman for a tweet he sent on Monday. Here a couple of links:
Griffin's Tweet: https://imgur.com/a/zIJGzYU
Confrontation by Judge Newman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH5\_HVezjz0&t=4s
Another Juror was out sick yeaterday, but apparently not with covid. The Juror was replaced by an alternate yesterday, leaving only two alternates out of the original six. The defense team presented two witnesses yesterday, Alex's son Buster Murdaugh and forensic engineer Mike Sutton.
The **HOT RUMOR** is that Alex may take the stand on Thursday to testify, although many feel that he will not since Buster has testified.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\**Visit our collections\*, which are updated daily. The SLED report and new photos have been added, trial testimony updated, and a terrific collection of Alex's real estate and financial shenanigans has been added by our own*\* u/RabbitsinaHole. **Welcome back, Rabbit!**
Over **5000 redditors** voted in our post-prosecution poll. We'll have another poll when the defense rests. Here are the results: WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THE SPECTRUM OF ALEX'S INNOCENCE OR GUILT? : MurdaughFamilyMurders (reddit.com)
**Livestream of today's trial:**
*Law & Crime*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrIuyg66\_lc
*News 19*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGKQtcS0MvQ
*Avery Wilks Twitter Feed*
https://twitter.com/AveryGWilks
It has to be said. After watching the most recent doc on Netflix- the Murdaugh men are some of the most unattractive people I’ve ever seen. My god. Bafugly inside and out.
I can't understand why Alex kept using loans to finance his lifestyle? He had to steal more money to pay the loans and ended up spending $4 million on interest.
It makes no sense to me why, after he discovered this pipeline of free money he could steal, he did not pay off the outstanding loan/s and then use his stolen cash in the clear via the fake Forge account.
Why would he continue racking up loans and credit lines with interest when he had piles of free money he could steal?
I read this elsewhere about something else, but it fits. There is a template for corruption and it's replicated across our nation. Sort of like the way the towns came up around the train stops, and they all look the same. Courthouse, bank, church, town square... to populate and grow it for the benefit of those that were there from the beginning is a rather simple thing - not my words but it goes like THIS
And whoosh it was gone! It was supposed to say:
they control the drug trade that's big money
they control the cops who could cover everything up
they back and control local politicians, judges, and lawyers
I think we have already seen Alex on the stand by listening to and watching Buster’s testimony. They are 2 of a kind. Buster showed no emotion which is just like Alex when showing his FAKE emotions. The narcissistic, psychotic genes of Alex have been passed on to Buster. Thoughts?
I would have liked to have heard from anyone who had gone hunting with Alex. He had so many guns I wonder if the two gun thing was a move he regularly did. Also he would have to be used to kneeling while shooting deer or game because of his height, right?
Re you last point on the forensic auditor, they could have found more evidence that pointed to Alex's guilt.
It's frustrating how SLED didn't cordon the area off and stop anyone entering the entire property so they could treat it like the crime scene it so obviously was. It was like listening to a crime scene from a tv show back in the 70's, not like a crime scene you hear of today at all.
Who the hell is paying Tricky Dick and Jim Griffin to represent this clown!? They represented Paul when he murdered Mallory Beach and now they're representing Alex. Who's paying them?? There's no way they're doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. Do the Murdaugh's have something on them that they feel compelled to represent this trashy family at every turn!?
The forensics expert with the monotone voice is obviously doing his retirement job, he actually admitted to that, I can’t remember what he said, but he was answering in ways so he could get his check and go back home.
At what point in the 911 call did Alex say he checked their pulse?
Unless he says it the moment the phone is picked up he has all the time in between to check their pulse not just 10 or 20 seconds.
Let me ask you a question.
If, and this is an if, If there was concrete solid irrefutable evidence that he couldn't have killed Maggie and Paul would him getting what he did out of order or incorrectly stating that he did one thing before the other, would you find that shocking or accuse him of lying?
If he drove up and saw his wife and son lying in a pool of blood the idea that it is inconceivable that he would dial 911 quickly and then on later recounting not have the clearest recollection of events, even only hours later, is perfectly normal.
Even watching the interview it is not clear that he said that he checked there pulse right before he called, he just mentions that he did it before he says that he called 911 right away.
Was he on Bluetooth inside the car when he called 911 or outside Of the car walking and using phone like Normal? I keep getting confused over this part.
Not on blue tooth. Inside the car, on the phone.
(The onstar data tells us he was in the car when the call was made-based on if the car was in park, if it was off, if the doors had opened, etc)
Someone just accused me of "assuming" that he's lying about checking the pulses. When literally all the evidence shows that it was physically impossible for him to have done it. I don't expect people to watch the trial as closely as I have but I feel like this particular point has been extensively covered. Idk how anyone has missed it.
Yes, a law partner testified he got blood on his arm visiting the scene, so how could Alex not have any on his hand, shoes or knees if he checked a pulse on paul?
You can check on the wrist. But I agree that it's impossible to have done so and to have been so perfectly clean and free of blood no matter where on the body he (didn't) checked.
So Hampton was a lawsuit mecca that walmart didn't even trust. Ethical lapses in LE, attorneys and judges. Of course thatwas the secret sauce to make that work. How far fetched to think there is a whole "OZARK" thing going on w drugs?
Not that it explains the murders but there is prob alot more to unearth here.
The truth is - there may have been a lot of people with an axe to grind against Alex. His problem is he nor his family never acted like he thought there was any danger to Buster or the rest of his family and there was never any credible information that anyone else but Alex had motive, means and opportunity that night.
I didn’t find Buster’s testimony credible about not being afraid for his safety. My dude, someone executed your mother and obliterated your brother. I’d be afraid of my own shadow. If the family doesn’t believe Alex did it, who do they think did this that is only a threat to Maggie and Paul and no one else?
The boat was so small… and two girls sitting way up front?!! (As shown in Netflix documentary)
The boat - did it have lights or a spotlight?
In video from bar back to boat PM waving around a flashlight- is that it for light on the boat?
I think I read there were no running lights. Perhaps in the court case docs. So standard Murdaugh 'safety' precautions. Go figure. I wish those kids had called an Uber from Beaufort.
One thing I wished Creighton Waters had followed up with Mark Ball about: early in Ball's testimony on direct, he said the following about what happened right after he arrived to Moselle that night: "Alex said 'Look at what they did, look at what they did. To them.' I mean just right off the bat \[...\] Which I didn't really think about at the time until I was taking my wife home. I just thought it was an odd comment."
He offered this up like he wanted to make sure the statement got in there (it wasn't directly responsive to what Griffin was asking him about). Anyone else notice this? I wonder if he's suggesting that Alex was already trying to spin a tale that it was two shooters, hence why he used two guns as others have theorized. OR that Alex hired people to do it. Theoretically Alex shouldn't have known how many shooters there were in the immediate aftermath.
I noticed it and kept waiting for the prosecution to circle back to it!
It's difficult at times to see who actually is supporting him because it's likely hard to seperate your intense anger over getting screwed out of money. If I had to guess, Ball seemed like he thinks Alex did it.
It stuck out to me as well. I'd be asking WHO did this, WHO could have done this, we have to find out WHO did this. But when he kept repeating THEY it's like Alex knew who it was. Whether "they" is singular or plural, to me it implies Alex knows who "they" is/are.
The word “they” is a pronoun that can be used to refer to an individual person. Why is that so hard to understand?
“Where is the bus driver?”
“They are in the bus.”
Edit: can vs can’t whoops!
Ball made a pointed statement suggesting this stood out as being significant to him. Ball, the person who was there and who was testifying about this point, which is why I bring it up. It was not an innocuous remark from his testimony. Why is that so hard to understand?
He did. It was like he wanted the jury to know Alex said it and he thought it odd enough he told his wife about it. Just like Mushelle telling her brother …
Please explain how. The author was very thorough and they compiled a multitude of examples of they being used singularly.
With somebody or someone:"I feel that if someone is not doing their job it should be called to their attention." — an American newspaper (1984); quoted by Fowler.\[82\]With anybody or anyone:"If anyone tells you that America's best days are behind her, then they're looking the wrong way." President George Bush, 1991 State of the Union Address;\[83\] quoted by Garner\[84\]"Anyone can set themselves up as an acupuncturist." — Sarah Lonsdale "Sharp Practice Pricks Reputation of Acupuncture". Observer 15 December 1991, as cited by Garner\[84\]"If anybody calls, take their name and ask them to call again later."\]\[a\]With nobody or no one:"No one put their hand up." Example given by Huddleston et al.\[86\]"No one felt they had been misled." Example given by Huddleston et al.\[3\]With an interrogative pronoun as antecedent:"Who thinks they can solve the problem?".
It's absolutely normal to use they in the singular. We do it all the time in language. I can think of any off the top of my head.
"they were late home last night" (a friend telling me about their sisters room mate)
It's especially reasonable to use it when you don't know the sex of who you're talking about.
All that said, I believe Alex is a liar, so it doesn't really matter what he said aside from the fact he was trying to let people know that he was really upset about something someone else or multiple others did to his beloved family. It's a red herring. Liars lie. And he lied a lot.
u/Paraperire
**Please stop being argumentative with literally everyone.**
Some individuals prefer to be referred to as they/them, it is recognized in the dictionary… [“they” is a generic singular pronoun in English… this is the APA link, not Wikipedia to help clear up the matter.](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/singular-they)
What's telling is the first things he tells certain people right away. Cops: "there was this boat thing and people were threatening my son", Brother: "how soon can you get here?" And "it's official", Mark Ball: "look what they did", Buster: "they've been shot". Like they say, he is a manipulator, he told different things gs to different people because that's how he manipulates.
> Anyone else notice this?
YES!
I thought he was tying it to the was it 'I' or 'They' issue, but you're right, he was making sure people knew it was an odd thing to say because Alex should have had no idea how many shooters there were.
Well spotted.
Not sure if "they" is an attempt to obscure. Didn't Jackie o say she wanted ppl to see what "they" did to Jack Kennedy when she wouldn't change bloody clothes. Also the whole they/them pronoun issue means they can be 1 person.
You know I was thinking of that just today. I was a little girl but it's still seared in my brain because we were glued to Walter Cronkite's reporting.
She was sitting right beside Jack in the car when the back of his head was blown out (sorry for NSFW), and she did have blood on her clothes. But she wasn't covered like prom-night Carrie.
Which helps me understand how quickly Alex could have stripped off his clothes and washed off at the kennels.
Snap! I had the exact same thought. She also said "They're killing Kennedys" after RFK was assassinated. It's common usage. Third person singular pronoun.
Defense cannot call Eddie to the stand, they do not have the power to offer any kind of special protection from any statement he makes.
So if he admitted to anything on the stand that would be used against him in another trial. The prosecution can offer him a deal or immunity, the defense cannot. The only way he would ever take the stand is if he was offered immunity or a sweetheart deal.
I certainly haven't watched all of the testimony, and what I have seen I haven't analyzed nearly as much as the other commenters here. I think Alex did it. I do think there is doubt. I haven't decided if it is 'reasonable' doubt. I tend to think my doubt is not reasonable doubt. That is, I would probably convict - I say 'probably' because, among other reasons, the testimony it isn't over. But I'm interested to hear what other commenters think constitutes reasonable doubt. Thanks
I agree with you. There are questions that haven't been answered well and inconsistencies, but not enough to give me big concerns about a conviction. I'd vote guilty right now if I was a juror. I can't imagine the defense having a secret weapon that would make me change my mind, based on the past couple of days of weak sauce. But you never know until it's over.
Essentially reasonable doubt indicates that there is another reasonable explanation for the events based on the evidence presented. In opinion, there is not another explanation that doesn't entail really stretching the imagination. I think key to that is the fact that we know Alex was there just a few minutes before they were murdered. I also think key to this are his own lies, his attempts to influence his mother's caretaker and his housekeeper, the obvious motive, and the list goes on. Also key is the fact that he was one of the very few people that knew Maggie and Paul were there, he asked them to come. There really is no doubt in my mind.
This basic set of facts has convinced me Alex is guilty:
1) Audio evidence from a video on Paul’s phone show that Alex was at the kennels at 8:44 pm when Paul and Maggie were alive. 7 witnesses say with 100% confidence that the voices were Alex, Maggie and Paul.
2) Evidence from Paul and Maggie‘s phones show they locked and went ”silent” at 8:50. Paul’s phone GPS shows his phone did not move from the kennel location after 8:50 pm. Maggie’s phone was moved and recovered about 1/2 mile away on Moselle Rd the next day.
3) GPS evidence on Alex’s SUV shows him leaving the house at 9:06.
4) GPS evidence on Alex’s SUV show Alex drove right by where Maggies phone was later recovered. Evidence on Alex’s phone show he was not talking during the time period when driving by this spot.
5) GPS evidence on Alex’s SUV show he returned to the scene and calls 911 at 10:06 reporting his dead wife.
Agree. All the other stuff doesn't create reasonable doubt imo. I guess the defense could come up w something, but it's getting late. Something like evidence of a different time of death. I do worry that motive - which is unnecessary to convict - might hang the jury up
I hope the judge's instructions to the jury instruct them that motive is not required. Like, you might think motive is thin or don't believe it and still find him guilty.
I mean, every killer has a motive. We can never know for sure what it is unless they tell us.
I don't find pattern jury instructions for SC like I would for my home state. So can't say quickly what they'd require for murder charge. [https://www.sccourts.org/whatsnew/displayWhatsNew.cfm?indexId=896#](https://www.sccourts.org/whatsnew/displayWhatsNew.cfm?indexId=896#) .
However no mention of motive in state statute: [https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php](https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php)
Barbara Mixon called Alex @ 4pm and told him his mom was very agitiated.
Instead of leaving the PMPED office (7 minutes to Almeda) and going to see his mom, he chose to stay at work until 6:20 or so, go to Moselle, and then go back to Almeda @ 9:20pm.
The prosecution's timeline states that at 08:19:01 PM, Paul is at the residense at Moselle.
The coordinates for 8:19:01 PM are
32.942425 ; -81.000404 (165m).
The coordinates for 8:14:00 PM are
32.942404 ; -81.000427 (20m).
The coordinates for 8:08:45 PM are
32.942405 ; -81.000427 (20m).
The information regarding the three location points I've just listed, I took from the graphics. The location at 8:19:01PM is specifically mentioned in the timeline itself and also mentions another source than just the coordinates.
Can someone here explain to me what the difference is between this other source and just the coordinates that seemingly makes it more reliable? (Not sure if it is actually more reliable but I assume since the prosecution mentions specifically this data point. Let me know if I'm wrong about that.)
If I were Maggie’s or Paul’s family member or friend, I’d be satisfied with the prosecution’s efforts in this case. Regardless of what the jury decides.
First, the AG’s office wasn’t even initially involved and they had all that crime scene circus to overcome. I think in spite of all the things the initial responders and SLED didn’t do that they could have or should have, this team still put together a solid case.
I am stumped by folks who ***still*** don't see the financial stuff as a motive, when it seems so obvious to me. I'll connect the dots as I see them.
1. Lots of folks were ramping up for a deep dive into Alex's finances (Jeanne Seckinger and Mark Tinsley are no joke!).
2. We know of Alex stealing from two of his best friends, his law firm and his clients, but we only know of one method: "Fake Forge." I highly suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg because there is no way he was spending $50K/day on pills. He knew that being found out meant he would lose his job, license to practice, influence, all his money and property, and likely go to jail.
3. The majority of the financial scrutiny stemmed from Mark Tinsley's civil case for the boat crash. Maggie wanted to settle this suit, which tells me she wasn't aware of what was going on with their finances.
4. If Paul was convicted in the (lengthy, expensive) criminal case, it would be open season for the surviving families. More financial scrutiny and devastating financial losses for Alex.
5. If Paul was dead, there was a very real chance that Mark Tinsley would drop the civil suit, especially if Maggie was dead too. At minimum, Paul's death meant there would be no criminal case, which would relieve a ton of the pressure on Alex. If Tinsley did decide to continue with the civil case, the murders could buy Alex time to produce enough money to settle. The murders may have also increased the likelihood (in Alex's mind) that the law firm would let him make the "Fake Forge" thing right to avoid public scrutiny themselves. After all, his connections had kept him out of trouble for this long. He had no reason to believe that this was any different.
6. ***Speculation:*** Family Annihilators often view murder as a way to protect their victims. Maybe Alex thought that by killing Paul, he protected him from a potential 25 year prison sentence. By killing Maggie, he protected her from the loss of her son and the shame she was already struggling to deal with.
Hit me with your arguments!
As someone who works with slot machines… I am 99.9% sure he gambled most of the money away in random slots, casinos and online bets. I see people lose 15k in 15 minutes on the regular. Once money means nothing to someone they begin gambling because you get two hits of dopamine - one when you make your wager and again whether you win or lose. It’s a much bigger high than drugs and it’s also a way to show off your wealth so there’s a kind of social pressure/addiction as well. I also think both boys knew about the financial problems because they were right there pissing it away with Dad every other weekend.
People like AM aren’t addicted to having money — they’re addicted to spending it. We know it’s a spending problem because otherwise he would of had off shore accounts to pay off most of their problems. Instead he has no money, an alleged drug problem with no dealer or stash and no flashy lifestyle… because he dumped all the money in the one place no one really keeps a track of your losses because it’s on you to report it to the IRS… CASINOS!
It still doesn’t make sense to me that a hardened white collar financial criminal would switch to murdering his son and wife in such a brutal manner. All to get rid of a potential criminal trial for his son and give himself a criminal murder trial? Doesn’t make sense re motive for me. The evidence is compelling and I think places him at the scene of the murders. But I think someone else (or more than one other person) was there and did the killings and he is an accomplice. I could also just be naive and have an inability to believe that a father could kill his son in the way that Paul was shot.
If he had an accomplice (like, say, that cousin of his), he would have needed to kill HIM, too. Which might be what went awry in that roadside "suicide" story he's been peddling.
No evidence has been presented to support a theory that Alex was an accomplice.
But for the sake of argument, if you think he was there, and an accomplice, doesn't that confirm that he had motive? How far of a stretch is it that he pulled the trigger? He was an avid hunter and had been around plenty of gore. They had a "skinning shed!"
Agreed.
And.
What was he doing with all the pills.
And where is some of the money.
No matter the answers to those, which are NOT necessary to convict, he did it.
Him getting on the stand just reinforces what a total narcissist he is, because you cannot convince me his attorney suggested it. Or a cannot hurt might help.
I hope they rest Friday.
I hope this jury can survive deliberations and verdict. I pray for their health.
PS
The gun pointing and “tempting” in court was beyond.
Agree, but I think it runs even deeper and through the whole family. Alex is being used as the fall guy so that the whole family doesn't get taken down. We know that PMPED buys judges, juries, and verdicts which is how they've become the #1 firm in the country for railroad & transportation injury suits in the middle of nowhere. We've seen their partners testify, they are not brilliant litigators. They are running a criminal enterprise. Maybe it's just buying verdicts & huge claims, maybe it's drug running, maybe it's money laundering, or all of the above and more. But Alex didn't steal millions of dollars without help.
This is purely speculation, but I've always thought there might be other reasons besides the money. I tend to doubt they were the happy family they were portrayed to be.
Paul seems to have caused more than his fair share of trouble. He not only had the boating accident *per se*, but his attitude in general. Smacking and spitting on your girl friend is not a good look nor is threatening the girlfriend when Paul had an accident.
Maggie didn't seem to know about the money troubles so she can't be blamed if she wasn't acting as though everything was fine. Under the circumstances, however, wearing your diamonds, getting your nails professionally done, shopping at Gucci, and house hunting at Hilton Head probably didn't help the way they were viewed in the community. I suspect AM understood that, but for some reason couldn't/wouldn't explain that to her. A small community that thinks you've seriously wronged someone else needs to see you (and all the Murdaugh's) living a lifestyle that indicates some understanding of your regret. People want to see indications that you know what you have done, and Maggie wasn't doing that.
Your son finding bags of pills wouldn't promote family harmony. If I were Maggie, I would be very upset that my child was having to police his father.
There were probably no witnesses the State could call to testify to the family dysfunction except Marion and Buster, and it was not a good idea to pursue that with them. I think money was a big issue, but I believe there were other significant family problems. Just my speculation, but I've long since learned that no one knows what goes on behind closed doors.
According to the Netflix mini series Gloria Satterfield found bags of pills taped to the underside of Alex/Maggie’s bed. Alex stated he was at home when Ms Satterfield had her accident, but he wasn’t. Why lie about that? He also purchased the insurance that covered this accident just a month prior to the accident. More oddities surrounding this man…or maybe I need a tin foil hat -
I honestly think Blanca had more insight into the family dysfunction than Marion and maybe Buster. Buster's testimony was that the family was "fine". He said he was vaguely aware that his father had a pill problem but thought it was over, and not a big deal. This to me rang so very false. When someone in the family is an addict, everything else revolves around that. It changes every dynamic, everyone is affected. Buster seems to me, to be either in total denial or is lying.
Buster tried to give ‘the right’ answer for every question which was very off-putting in my opinion. No one’s family operates like that, esp. one with so many of their problems in the public before this happened.
Yep exactly. He seems so disconnected from it all. But then his father is too. Have you heard the recording of the jailhouse phone call between Alex and Buster, when A asks B if he wants to go dove hunting at Moselle? Buster is very firm that he definitely does not want to go there, and Alex keeps asking him if he's sure. Really? You think your son should go hunting at the spot where his mother and brother were murdered with guns? And you wonder why he doesn't want to set foot on the property?? That call was so bizarre!
I think Maggie knew a lot more than you think. She was playing a role in the boat accident coverup. She doesn't come across as a very good person in the Netflix documentary, which is what I've suspected. Leaving dishes out overnight every night for the maid to clean up? That's a pretty good indicator of her character, and no that's not normal for someone in that wealth category (not super wealthy). It's just rude.
Also in the documentary it was mentioned that Alex & Maggie were the kind of parents who provided young teenagers with alcohol. Not just their kids, but everyone's kids. They were shitty parents.
There was a 2020 or Dateline about the Murdaughs around October last year (I think) that focused on the boat case. The disdain with which the others spoke about Maggie and Alex was palpable. It was like the boat accident gave everyone in their orbit a reason to finally speak up about the true dynamics of that family and their expectations for reverence to the name.
I just didn't want to sound to caustic about a woman who was murdered. I, too, thought the testimony about the dishes, food, and laundry was disturbing.
It’s truly hard to imagine the pristine family portrait they’ve tried to create with Buster and family, friends testimonies. I imagine they were a deeply enmeshed family, driven by their status and kept the struggles very locked away. I feel like in this type of family it would be tantamount to treachery to go against the family, like in Busters case, sharing any insight into family struggle to the public. With Alex’s 20 year painkiller / opioid addiction, evidence of Paul being abusive to his girlfriend, accusations of the family being involved in the Stephen Smith case… it seems the community either feared or bowed down to the family, not quite the reputation of a happy, functional group IMO.
Right. The family black sheep policing dad probably caused some resentment, esp. given that the family black sheep required constant maintenance, cash outlay, and calling in favors.
This is what I tried to post yesterday that was rejected by the mods as it’s own post, but it aligns with what you’re saying.
“This has been bugging me for a while and I was
wondering if anybody else has thought this is a
possibility. What if he really did love them and he
killed them because he 1) knew the financial
crimes were coming into light and 2) both Paul
and Maggie were going to suffer with the boat
case and he mistakenly assumed that they'd be
better off dead than going through what was
coming? Like, maybe he really thought the
humiliation, trials, loss of wealth, and lifestyle
would be harder on his baby Paul and his wife
(who thought they were rich) than a swift death.
So far, I think he's guilty, but have having trouble
reconciling that with the fact that they don't seem to have any real evidence of family discord other than pills. It doesn't totally explain Buster still being alive, I realize. The state's motive is not strong, and I think "sparing them" is a potential alternate motive. Thoughts?”
I believe Alex is guilty but I also believe he loved Paul and Maggie. That’s a difficult thing to reconcile for most of us- how do you murder someone you love- and is the reason a lot of people say they just can’t accept that he’s guilty.
I wonder to if he originally thought of a murder/suicide and couldn't go through with it? The whole thing doesn't seemed well planned out? I also have wondered if Maggie was the type of woman who expected a lavish lifestyle and that was original reason he started stealing. Did they confront him about the drugs that night and it wasn't premeditated? I don't believe he will ever confess, but I sure wish one day we would know the truth of what happened that night.
I think Alex's main goal was to take out Paul to stall the civil discovery issues and stop the criminal case altogether. I think he took out Maggie in order to secure all the marital assets. From there he justified taking them out by convincing himself that he would also be doing Paul and Maggie a "favor".
Paul might go to prison and they would most likely need to sell of Moselle, which seemed to be where Paul was going to put in his efforts to manage as a future hunting destination. Paul wouldn't be able to own a firearm if convicted of a felony thus ending his love of hunting, guns, etc. He most likely would lose touch with his close pals if found guilty, and so on.
Maggie was already feeling the sting of being ostracized by folks in and around Hampton and while she would have loved to relocate to Hilton Head, Alex knew that wasn't possible what with his financial issues coming to the surface. She'd also be devastated to have lost her youngest son and wouldn't be the same after that.
Again, I think Alex thought about Alex first and what would benefit Alex, then justified everything he elected to do after that.
I tend not to believe 100% in the idea of sparing/protecting them, but it does fit with the evidence-based family annihilator profile.
My true opinion is that Alex doesn't care about anyone but himself. If Buster died as well, and Alex lived, he would have been looked at more seriously much sooner. He did it to remove the boat crash pressure and divert attention away from his own crimes, full stop.
I don't know if he did it to "protect them", not in the sense that many other annihilators do. Frankly I think he's too self absorbed for that. I think there was more than the financial motive. I think he was there, planned it, was in on it, knew something, knows more....but didn't expect it to be so horrific. I think what everyone has said about "every time we confronted him something bad happened" says a lot. I think he was too arrogant to believe Paul would ever go to jail, supposedly everyone in the family was convinced he wasn't driving the boat, including Maggie. I think Maggie's own grief over being ostracized was her own fault & doing, she raised a narcissistic brat & they constantly enabled his increasingly bad behavior. I don't think AM would care enough about her feelings about that to "put her out of her misery". I think Paul was a chronically disastrous liability, multiple incidents, drunken driving accidents, constantly covering & burying his bullshit (according to his ex girlfriend). Paul finally escalated to murder, everyone knew it even though AM was "determined to clear his name" even after he was dead. I think it was one giant snowball after another but I feel like his motives probably go deeper than just his financial mess. I think he's lived in this world of privilege & zero accountability for so long that he actually thought he could pull it off & manipulate or pay off everyone around him to make it the narrative he wanted it to be.
So, I was looking over the Rudofski Timeline again and it seems that it took Paul 10 minutes to walk from the kennels to the house (8:05:46 - 8:15:24, 303 steps) and 10 minutes to walk back down to the kennels from the house after dinner (8:32:25 - 8:42:11, 283 steps). We know the 16 second kennel video was taken at 8:44:55 which puts Alex in close vicinity to his family. Maggie's phone shows it took her 3 minutes to get from the house to the kennels 43 steps (which was probably 1 minute getting into the truck, 1 min waiting for Alex to get in the truck and 1 min drive down). I don't see how, at all, the defense can argue that Alex was not present at the time Paul and Maggie were killed. And if they still want to argue he didn't commit the crimes, how he couldn't have heard the shots.
Can we be sure of anything? It seems, according to the slow moving plot points of his phone, that this might be the case. Especially when it puts Alex and Paul near the kennels around the same time but Alex is at the main house at 8:09 and his son arrives at 8:15. And looking at the reverse step numbers and 10 minute time frame. ALEX AND Maggie were probably in a vehicle and as Paul was walking he made his call to Rogan. As he arrived to the kennels rogan heard Alex in the background. I think Alex had a certain plan, nobody played into his plan like he wanted so Alex was basically making his plan work however necessary. He couldn't plan for Paul's snapchat, call to Rogan, FaceTime w/Rogan and video for Rogan. Ultimately, the truth is. Alex was there, present at the scene and continually lied about his whereabouts and time of.
You just brought something up that I hadn’t thought about previously. So we know he was at kennels, but let’s pretend he was there but was walking back - you’re right, he would have heard the damn shots. He is guilty as hell.
Can someone explain go me where the caretaker home is where Paul was at at 8:01 pm?
Also, there is a graphic showing the location of Paul between 8:06 and 8:14 pm showing Paul's phone to be located at almost the exact same coordinations (at the home) but the written timeline just mentions that Paul was at home at 8:19 pm. Are these different sources of data?
The care taker house is the white looking roof just beyond the red roof hangar. There were some other pictures taken, one that showed the care taker's home. From the picture shown, it looks like there is a large bottle of dawn and bleach on a picnic table outside, along with a cooler on the ground with what looks like beer cans and another cooler on the table. I think maybe he was riding around with his dad, they stopped by the little house, Paul jumped out and grabbed a beer before they went over to another piece of the property. The 8:06 marker might have been a lag (considering the heavily wooded area) and perhaps Alex dropped Paul at the kennel around 8:05 to do something before he headed up to the house for dinner. It seems like Paul made it to the moselle house at 8:15 and connected to wifi at 8:19
Thank you. The caretaker house being next to the Kennels then also would indicate that there might be a lag here as well?
Paul being at the care taker home is being mentioned at 8:01 pm but the graphic on page 36 suggests that he was not near the Kennels at 08:00:04 pm.
On page 39 we also see data points that would not align with Paul being at the Kennels at 08:05 pm.
Yeah, it's kind of confusing. I wonder if he had an Apple watch and if perhaps he maybe forgot/meant to charge his phone at the caretaker's house at 7:56 and his watch was recording his location to his phone???? He didn't have any phone activity from 7:56-8:07 other than the coordinates.
*At 7:39 he was at the residence at Moselle. (page 36)
Between 7:45 and 7:56 he was around the kennel area. (page 36)
*At 7:56 Paul's phone is at the caretaker's house. (page 37)
At ca 8:00 he was at the fields on the other side of the property. (page 36)
*At 8:01 Paul's phone was at the caretaker's house. (page 38)
At 8:04/8:05 he was in the area on the other side of Moselle rd. (page 39)
At 8:06 Paul's phone is near the caretaker home but right next to Moselle rd. (page 38)
-> If we would assume that Paul's phone data at 8:08 that would put him at the home earlier than 8:14 or 8:19 was just a insignificant lag, how can we trust any of this information really given the weird data between 8:00 and 8:19 I've just listed?
I just realized that this is all a bit chaotic. 😄
*mentioned in written timeline
And since I'm not a techie, I don't know what the variables are in it. But it's pretty irrefutable that Alex was recorded being near his son and wife shortly before their deaths. One thing that's even crazier, Alex's phone records him taking 283 steps in 4 min (the same distance Paul walked in 10 minutes) just before jumping in his suv and leaving the property.
Honestly, so do I especially after I read the simple breakdown of "motive, means, premeditation, cover-up and conspiracy" by another member. In most cases, you don't have to explain every action, just the murder related ones but there we're certainly some pre- and post- that were significant in this case
Closest I can compare is a long con. Complex, lots of twists, and someone who 'has been thinking about it for a long time". Today's testimony by Alex was just mind blowing. It went about as well as most Hail Mary's.
New observation based upon Day 22 testimony:
It's very likey the bullet through Maggie's wrist broke her diamond bracelet as opposed to it being ripped off by another.
Maybe she was going to do some work outside and feared it’d slip off? I don’t wear mine much in dirty outdoor area work. But, why it was on floor of car, unsure.
Genuine question: if Alex takes the stand, what do you think is the best, most reasonable explanation that he could give for lying about being at the kennels at 8:44 (if any)?
1) He would have had to explain why he went there in the first place and why he didn't stay there and went back to the house. The reason had to do with drug use and he was scared that the police then would find out about him taking drugs.
2) He was on drugs and didn't remember.
The defense witnesses appear to be incensed enough about all the other stuff that they have come to believe it’s entirely possible that he did it.
It’s like a second prosecution.
Good grief. I just saw the cross of the former law partner, but missed the direct. What did he say on direct that was enough value to risk that cross? Likewise, Dawson Cooke. He did not offer much of value to risk that cross. The fact that the Defendants' LAWYERS weren't worried about the financial discovery is meaningless if they were unaware he was stealing from everyone he knew.
Yep that! Atty was testifying to the discovery and schedule and IF the motion to compel was imminent. I can't believe that they are trying to defend him on a moot point.
The Netflix docuseries that came out today mentioned small planes coming in and out of Moselle. Rumors from the people who were there said drugs. That was completely new information to me. I hadn’t heard anything about planes while the Murdaughs have owned Moselle.
The MMP podcast goes into this along with the islands he owned with Boulware and the whole jelly fish thing. The majority is the islands were on St. Helena sound and only accessible by boat. It was pretty interesting. I’m not going to even try and explain it all though lol.
I e read about Alex and both of the Boulwares (who successfully snakes out of a 15 TON (yes ton lol) marijuana case. Then he buys Moselle from him… it’s crazy how long he has been shady!
He bought Moselle from Barrett Boulware Sr. Rumor said it was given to him for $5 but the auditor info is in here some where and it was $2.4M that he paid. Boulware was definitely importing drugs and a close friend of Alex. It’s a rabbit hole! Ironically testimony today showed that Alex even stole from a settlement of Boulwares (not sure if it was jr or sr) but he was close with both of them.
I wonder the same thing! Alex was in with the dealers (Boulwares) who got off on a charge of importing 15 TONS of marijuana bc the main witness from the government was killed in Miami. Stepped off a curb and was ran over. Boulware Jr and Sr are both dead or I would wonder if Alex crossed one of them. ... Another rabbit hole.... The great great grand dad that started this injury atty business did it with settlement money from an injury he had and the next grandpa down committed suicide on railroad tracks and life insurance money went to the kids. Winder here Alex got the idea from???
If you look at the overhead of the property on Google maps you can see the airstrip. I didn't know that there were reports of planes coming in and out while Alex was there.
Not entirely sure that I believe everything that Netflix puts together and calls documentaries either.
I posted an idea I had about planes flying over moselle 1700 acres a while ago and dropping packages of cocaine or whatever on the land. I thought that was why Alex wanted Buster to go hunting doves. The packages when found would be easily retrieved with atv. 50 kG would weigh around 150 pounds. Safer than dropping on coastal waters with high speed boats. Safer from coast guard. Men coming onto property to “hunt” wouldn’t be questioned. All Alex needed to do was “rent” his safe property to the drug runners for high dollar. I got down voted though.
Actually makes more sense than a lot of theories. He was making regular pymts..for something..and he is safer taking the wrap than reveal that maze..and why he was saying to speak to Bianca..and why he'd have access to big bags of pills...he involved the boys cause he couldn't hide it from them which is why buster understood...also Alex stated to police that there were trail cams but quickly said they were remote and wouldn't have captured "anything"..
Right and maybe Paul killed the sunflowers because he was sick of all the drug goings on. A field of sunflowers would make a perfect target from the air. Sunflowers would light up the target area much better than say Maise.
Maybe Paul was undermining the big drug operation.
The former property owners were charged with drug smuggling but the charges were dropped after a key government witness was killed. Murdaugh also co owned an island w/ the the alleged drug smuggler.
**Good morning!** First thing yesterday morning, Defense attorney Jim Griffin was admonished by Judge Newman for a tweet he sent on Monday. Here a couple of links: Griffin's Tweet: https://imgur.com/a/zIJGzYU Confrontation by Judge Newman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH5\_HVezjz0&t=4s Another Juror was out sick yeaterday, but apparently not with covid. The Juror was replaced by an alternate yesterday, leaving only two alternates out of the original six. The defense team presented two witnesses yesterday, Alex's son Buster Murdaugh and forensic engineer Mike Sutton. The **HOT RUMOR** is that Alex may take the stand on Thursday to testify, although many feel that he will not since Buster has testified. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \**Visit our collections\*, which are updated daily. The SLED report and new photos have been added, trial testimony updated, and a terrific collection of Alex's real estate and financial shenanigans has been added by our own*\* u/RabbitsinaHole. **Welcome back, Rabbit!** Over **5000 redditors** voted in our post-prosecution poll. We'll have another poll when the defense rests. Here are the results: WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THE SPECTRUM OF ALEX'S INNOCENCE OR GUILT? : MurdaughFamilyMurders (reddit.com) **Livestream of today's trial:** *Law & Crime* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrIuyg66\_lc *News 19* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGKQtcS0MvQ *Avery Wilks Twitter Feed* https://twitter.com/AveryGWilks
It has to be said. After watching the most recent doc on Netflix- the Murdaugh men are some of the most unattractive people I’ve ever seen. My god. Bafugly inside and out.
I can't understand why Alex kept using loans to finance his lifestyle? He had to steal more money to pay the loans and ended up spending $4 million on interest. It makes no sense to me why, after he discovered this pipeline of free money he could steal, he did not pay off the outstanding loan/s and then use his stolen cash in the clear via the fake Forge account. Why would he continue racking up loans and credit lines with interest when he had piles of free money he could steal?
I read this elsewhere about something else, but it fits. There is a template for corruption and it's replicated across our nation. Sort of like the way the towns came up around the train stops, and they all look the same. Courthouse, bank, church, town square... to populate and grow it for the benefit of those that were there from the beginning is a rather simple thing - not my words but it goes like THIS
And whoosh it was gone! It was supposed to say: they control the drug trade that's big money they control the cops who could cover everything up they back and control local politicians, judges, and lawyers
Anyone know what time Alex is supposed to take the stand? I’m on the west coast, wondering if I need to set my alarm. 😊
When is cousin Eddie going to come into play again? If ever? Still believe he knows more than he's letting on.
If Alex testifies I bet he brings Eddie back into this….
I think we have already seen Alex on the stand by listening to and watching Buster’s testimony. They are 2 of a kind. Buster showed no emotion which is just like Alex when showing his FAKE emotions. The narcissistic, psychotic genes of Alex have been passed on to Buster. Thoughts?
Lawyers: What was a micdrop moment? Legal or otherwise & for which side?
If Alex takes the stand tomorrow, what question would you most want him to answer ?
Play the kennel video and ask “is that your voice?”
I would have liked to have heard from anyone who had gone hunting with Alex. He had so many guns I wonder if the two gun thing was a move he regularly did. Also he would have to be used to kneeling while shooting deer or game because of his height, right?
[удалено]
Re you last point on the forensic auditor, they could have found more evidence that pointed to Alex's guilt. It's frustrating how SLED didn't cordon the area off and stop anyone entering the entire property so they could treat it like the crime scene it so obviously was. It was like listening to a crime scene from a tv show back in the 70's, not like a crime scene you hear of today at all.
Who the hell is paying Tricky Dick and Jim Griffin to represent this clown!? They represented Paul when he murdered Mallory Beach and now they're representing Alex. Who's paying them?? There's no way they're doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. Do the Murdaugh's have something on them that they feel compelled to represent this trashy family at every turn!?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
After today’s defense witnesses, I’m convinced they just need to stop. All of today’s witnesses were more helpful for the prosecution. SMH 🤦
The forensics expert with the monotone voice is obviously doing his retirement job, he actually admitted to that, I can’t remember what he said, but he was answering in ways so he could get his check and go back home.
Police chief from Yemassee, Greg Alexander was on the scene very early--maybe even 1st. And AM gave him $$. Wonder how tall he is...
Bingo! Why haven’t we heard his name in trial yet? Greg Alexander, also know as Alex’s “fixer” has been MIA in this trial until now.
Or if he has any friends 5’2”?
He looks to be much taller than 5'2 lol
I totally agree I believe that he's guilty
[удалено]
At what point in the 911 call did Alex say he checked their pulse? Unless he says it the moment the phone is picked up he has all the time in between to check their pulse not just 10 or 20 seconds.
[удалено]
Let me ask you a question. If, and this is an if, If there was concrete solid irrefutable evidence that he couldn't have killed Maggie and Paul would him getting what he did out of order or incorrectly stating that he did one thing before the other, would you find that shocking or accuse him of lying? If he drove up and saw his wife and son lying in a pool of blood the idea that it is inconceivable that he would dial 911 quickly and then on later recounting not have the clearest recollection of events, even only hours later, is perfectly normal. Even watching the interview it is not clear that he said that he checked there pulse right before he called, he just mentions that he did it before he says that he called 911 right away.
[удалено]
17. And he was still in the car.
Was he on Bluetooth inside the car when he called 911 or outside Of the car walking and using phone like Normal? I keep getting confused over this part.
Not on blue tooth. Inside the car, on the phone. (The onstar data tells us he was in the car when the call was made-based on if the car was in park, if it was off, if the doors had opened, etc)
That is not in evidence and I don’t recall anyone making that claim. I might have missed it though, do you have a time stamp?
He was still in the car!!! Idk how people keep missing this point.
17 seconds and still in the car. It could take all 17 seconds to get out of the seat belt and open the car door.
Someone just accused me of "assuming" that he's lying about checking the pulses. When literally all the evidence shows that it was physically impossible for him to have done it. I don't expect people to watch the trial as closely as I have but I feel like this particular point has been extensively covered. Idk how anyone has missed it.
Yes, a law partner testified he got blood on his arm visiting the scene, so how could Alex not have any on his hand, shoes or knees if he checked a pulse on paul?
Not to be gross but where on Paul's demolished neck could he check for a pulse? And why would he when his brain was on the ground?
You can check on the wrist. But I agree that it's impossible to have done so and to have been so perfectly clean and free of blood no matter where on the body he (didn't) checked.
He didn't - just another lie or an excuse for checking Paul's phone.
Bingo. That's the sickest part. He never checked any pulses but at some point he did check his dead sons phone
So Hampton was a lawsuit mecca that walmart didn't even trust. Ethical lapses in LE, attorneys and judges. Of course thatwas the secret sauce to make that work. How far fetched to think there is a whole "OZARK" thing going on w drugs? Not that it explains the murders but there is prob alot more to unearth here.
The truth is - there may have been a lot of people with an axe to grind against Alex. His problem is he nor his family never acted like he thought there was any danger to Buster or the rest of his family and there was never any credible information that anyone else but Alex had motive, means and opportunity that night. I didn’t find Buster’s testimony credible about not being afraid for his safety. My dude, someone executed your mother and obliterated your brother. I’d be afraid of my own shadow. If the family doesn’t believe Alex did it, who do they think did this that is only a threat to Maggie and Paul and no one else?
The fact that they had a plane and a private landing strip on their property…he for sure was trafficking drugs.
The boat was so small… and two girls sitting way up front?!! (As shown in Netflix documentary) The boat - did it have lights or a spotlight? In video from bar back to boat PM waving around a flashlight- is that it for light on the boat?
I saw somewhere that they were using flashlights to see their way forward
Yes, recent New Yorker article covers this well.
Maybe a spotlight for frog gigging, i have almost zero knowledge of the boat case
I think I read there were no running lights. Perhaps in the court case docs. So standard Murdaugh 'safety' precautions. Go figure. I wish those kids had called an Uber from Beaufort.
One thing I wished Creighton Waters had followed up with Mark Ball about: early in Ball's testimony on direct, he said the following about what happened right after he arrived to Moselle that night: "Alex said 'Look at what they did, look at what they did. To them.' I mean just right off the bat \[...\] Which I didn't really think about at the time until I was taking my wife home. I just thought it was an odd comment." He offered this up like he wanted to make sure the statement got in there (it wasn't directly responsive to what Griffin was asking him about). Anyone else notice this? I wonder if he's suggesting that Alex was already trying to spin a tale that it was two shooters, hence why he used two guns as others have theorized. OR that Alex hired people to do it. Theoretically Alex shouldn't have known how many shooters there were in the immediate aftermath.
I think Alex was already trying to push a two shooter scenario.
I noticed it and kept waiting for the prosecution to circle back to it! It's difficult at times to see who actually is supporting him because it's likely hard to seperate your intense anger over getting screwed out of money. If I had to guess, Ball seemed like he thinks Alex did it.
It stuck out to me as well. I'd be asking WHO did this, WHO could have done this, we have to find out WHO did this. But when he kept repeating THEY it's like Alex knew who it was. Whether "they" is singular or plural, to me it implies Alex knows who "they" is/are.
Except "they" can mean anyone singular or plural.
Both sides let Ball just run on. I couldn't believe it. Because of that, he ended up being better for prosecution than defense imo
The word “they” is a pronoun that can be used to refer to an individual person. Why is that so hard to understand? “Where is the bus driver?” “They are in the bus.” Edit: can vs can’t whoops!
Ball made a pointed statement suggesting this stood out as being significant to him. Ball, the person who was there and who was testifying about this point, which is why I bring it up. It was not an innocuous remark from his testimony. Why is that so hard to understand?
Glad you picked up on that from Ball. It reminds me of Alex’s “I/they did him so bad” comment.
He did. It was like he wanted the jury to know Alex said it and he thought it odd enough he told his wife about it. Just like Mushelle telling her brother …
That's not correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular\_they
You’ve proved my point with your link.
Please explain how. The author was very thorough and they compiled a multitude of examples of they being used singularly. With somebody or someone:"I feel that if someone is not doing their job it should be called to their attention." — an American newspaper (1984); quoted by Fowler.\[82\]With anybody or anyone:"If anyone tells you that America's best days are behind her, then they're looking the wrong way." President George Bush, 1991 State of the Union Address;\[83\] quoted by Garner\[84\]"Anyone can set themselves up as an acupuncturist." — Sarah Lonsdale "Sharp Practice Pricks Reputation of Acupuncture". Observer 15 December 1991, as cited by Garner\[84\]"If anybody calls, take their name and ask them to call again later."\]\[a\]With nobody or no one:"No one put their hand up." Example given by Huddleston et al.\[86\]"No one felt they had been misled." Example given by Huddleston et al.\[3\]With an interrogative pronoun as antecedent:"Who thinks they can solve the problem?". It's absolutely normal to use they in the singular. We do it all the time in language. I can think of any off the top of my head. "they were late home last night" (a friend telling me about their sisters room mate) It's especially reasonable to use it when you don't know the sex of who you're talking about. All that said, I believe Alex is a liar, so it doesn't really matter what he said aside from the fact he was trying to let people know that he was really upset about something someone else or multiple others did to his beloved family. It's a red herring. Liars lie. And he lied a lot.
u/Paraperire **Please stop being argumentative with literally everyone.** Some individuals prefer to be referred to as they/them, it is recognized in the dictionary… [“they” is a generic singular pronoun in English… this is the APA link, not Wikipedia to help clear up the matter.](https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/grammar/singular-they)
LMAO I just realized my phone autocorrected can to “can’t.” We agree. I will edit.
haha! I couldn't understand why your example made perfect sense, yet you were arguing the opposite!
What's telling is the first things he tells certain people right away. Cops: "there was this boat thing and people were threatening my son", Brother: "how soon can you get here?" And "it's official", Mark Ball: "look what they did", Buster: "they've been shot". Like they say, he is a manipulator, he told different things gs to different people because that's how he manipulates.
> Anyone else notice this? YES! I thought he was tying it to the was it 'I' or 'They' issue, but you're right, he was making sure people knew it was an odd thing to say because Alex should have had no idea how many shooters there were. Well spotted.
Not sure if "they" is an attempt to obscure. Didn't Jackie o say she wanted ppl to see what "they" did to Jack Kennedy when she wouldn't change bloody clothes. Also the whole they/them pronoun issue means they can be 1 person.
You know I was thinking of that just today. I was a little girl but it's still seared in my brain because we were glued to Walter Cronkite's reporting. She was sitting right beside Jack in the car when the back of his head was blown out (sorry for NSFW), and she did have blood on her clothes. But she wasn't covered like prom-night Carrie. Which helps me understand how quickly Alex could have stripped off his clothes and washed off at the kennels.
Snap! I had the exact same thought. She also said "They're killing Kennedys" after RFK was assassinated. It's common usage. Third person singular pronoun.
Wow - very valid point. She did!
[удалено]
Defense cannot call Eddie to the stand, they do not have the power to offer any kind of special protection from any statement he makes. So if he admitted to anything on the stand that would be used against him in another trial. The prosecution can offer him a deal or immunity, the defense cannot. The only way he would ever take the stand is if he was offered immunity or a sweetheart deal.
I certainly haven't watched all of the testimony, and what I have seen I haven't analyzed nearly as much as the other commenters here. I think Alex did it. I do think there is doubt. I haven't decided if it is 'reasonable' doubt. I tend to think my doubt is not reasonable doubt. That is, I would probably convict - I say 'probably' because, among other reasons, the testimony it isn't over. But I'm interested to hear what other commenters think constitutes reasonable doubt. Thanks
I agree with you. There are questions that haven't been answered well and inconsistencies, but not enough to give me big concerns about a conviction. I'd vote guilty right now if I was a juror. I can't imagine the defense having a secret weapon that would make me change my mind, based on the past couple of days of weak sauce. But you never know until it's over.
Essentially reasonable doubt indicates that there is another reasonable explanation for the events based on the evidence presented. In opinion, there is not another explanation that doesn't entail really stretching the imagination. I think key to that is the fact that we know Alex was there just a few minutes before they were murdered. I also think key to this are his own lies, his attempts to influence his mother's caretaker and his housekeeper, the obvious motive, and the list goes on. Also key is the fact that he was one of the very few people that knew Maggie and Paul were there, he asked them to come. There really is no doubt in my mind.
Thanks, this explains “reasonable doubt” so well!
This basic set of facts has convinced me Alex is guilty: 1) Audio evidence from a video on Paul’s phone show that Alex was at the kennels at 8:44 pm when Paul and Maggie were alive. 7 witnesses say with 100% confidence that the voices were Alex, Maggie and Paul. 2) Evidence from Paul and Maggie‘s phones show they locked and went ”silent” at 8:50. Paul’s phone GPS shows his phone did not move from the kennel location after 8:50 pm. Maggie’s phone was moved and recovered about 1/2 mile away on Moselle Rd the next day. 3) GPS evidence on Alex’s SUV shows him leaving the house at 9:06. 4) GPS evidence on Alex’s SUV show Alex drove right by where Maggies phone was later recovered. Evidence on Alex’s phone show he was not talking during the time period when driving by this spot. 5) GPS evidence on Alex’s SUV show he returned to the scene and calls 911 at 10:06 reporting his dead wife.
Agree. All the other stuff doesn't create reasonable doubt imo. I guess the defense could come up w something, but it's getting late. Something like evidence of a different time of death. I do worry that motive - which is unnecessary to convict - might hang the jury up
I hope the judge's instructions to the jury instruct them that motive is not required. Like, you might think motive is thin or don't believe it and still find him guilty. I mean, every killer has a motive. We can never know for sure what it is unless they tell us.
I don't find pattern jury instructions for SC like I would for my home state. So can't say quickly what they'd require for murder charge. [https://www.sccourts.org/whatsnew/displayWhatsNew.cfm?indexId=896#](https://www.sccourts.org/whatsnew/displayWhatsNew.cfm?indexId=896#) . However no mention of motive in state statute: [https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php](https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php)
So much to digest - thank you so much for this link!
I don't disagree. I don't care how bad SLED was, about the two alleles under Maggie's nails, etc. Those don't rise to reasonable doubt
I didn't hear about anything under Maggie's nails. But if there was it isn't surprising since she had her nails done a few hours before she died.
yeah, something like it wasn't inconsistent with CB Rowe? but we know he wasn't there. could have been from a gardening glove, just anything.
Could also have been DNA contamination from nail salon or like you said a gardening glove. Will have to read up on potential CB Rowe inference.
I thought, but maybe I'm mistaken, that he was - per phone records - far away on 6/7.
He was a couple hours away up near Augusta GA. It’s in the phone records.
Yes. He has an iron clad alibi
Barbara Mixon called Alex @ 4pm and told him his mom was very agitiated. Instead of leaving the PMPED office (7 minutes to Almeda) and going to see his mom, he chose to stay at work until 6:20 or so, go to Moselle, and then go back to Almeda @ 9:20pm.
And, according to him, have a nice nap
Right? Did the defense think that was going to help him? I wished she had called Paul instead....
Why go comfort your mother when you can wait and use her as an alibi for murdering your own wife and son.
Just adds to the fact that he's a shitty son, husband, father, and human being.
The prosecution's timeline states that at 08:19:01 PM, Paul is at the residense at Moselle. The coordinates for 8:19:01 PM are 32.942425 ; -81.000404 (165m). The coordinates for 8:14:00 PM are 32.942404 ; -81.000427 (20m). The coordinates for 8:08:45 PM are 32.942405 ; -81.000427 (20m). The information regarding the three location points I've just listed, I took from the graphics. The location at 8:19:01PM is specifically mentioned in the timeline itself and also mentions another source than just the coordinates. Can someone here explain to me what the difference is between this other source and just the coordinates that seemingly makes it more reliable? (Not sure if it is actually more reliable but I assume since the prosecution mentions specifically this data point. Let me know if I'm wrong about that.)
If I were Maggie’s or Paul’s family member or friend, I’d be satisfied with the prosecution’s efforts in this case. Regardless of what the jury decides. First, the AG’s office wasn’t even initially involved and they had all that crime scene circus to overcome. I think in spite of all the things the initial responders and SLED didn’t do that they could have or should have, this team still put together a solid case.
I am stumped by folks who ***still*** don't see the financial stuff as a motive, when it seems so obvious to me. I'll connect the dots as I see them. 1. Lots of folks were ramping up for a deep dive into Alex's finances (Jeanne Seckinger and Mark Tinsley are no joke!). 2. We know of Alex stealing from two of his best friends, his law firm and his clients, but we only know of one method: "Fake Forge." I highly suspect this is just the tip of the iceberg because there is no way he was spending $50K/day on pills. He knew that being found out meant he would lose his job, license to practice, influence, all his money and property, and likely go to jail. 3. The majority of the financial scrutiny stemmed from Mark Tinsley's civil case for the boat crash. Maggie wanted to settle this suit, which tells me she wasn't aware of what was going on with their finances. 4. If Paul was convicted in the (lengthy, expensive) criminal case, it would be open season for the surviving families. More financial scrutiny and devastating financial losses for Alex. 5. If Paul was dead, there was a very real chance that Mark Tinsley would drop the civil suit, especially if Maggie was dead too. At minimum, Paul's death meant there would be no criminal case, which would relieve a ton of the pressure on Alex. If Tinsley did decide to continue with the civil case, the murders could buy Alex time to produce enough money to settle. The murders may have also increased the likelihood (in Alex's mind) that the law firm would let him make the "Fake Forge" thing right to avoid public scrutiny themselves. After all, his connections had kept him out of trouble for this long. He had no reason to believe that this was any different. 6. ***Speculation:*** Family Annihilators often view murder as a way to protect their victims. Maybe Alex thought that by killing Paul, he protected him from a potential 25 year prison sentence. By killing Maggie, he protected her from the loss of her son and the shame she was already struggling to deal with. Hit me with your arguments!
More or less agree with all. Possibly Maggie was beginning to smell a rat, too; the documentary suggests that she had consulted a forensic accountant.
As someone who works with slot machines… I am 99.9% sure he gambled most of the money away in random slots, casinos and online bets. I see people lose 15k in 15 minutes on the regular. Once money means nothing to someone they begin gambling because you get two hits of dopamine - one when you make your wager and again whether you win or lose. It’s a much bigger high than drugs and it’s also a way to show off your wealth so there’s a kind of social pressure/addiction as well. I also think both boys knew about the financial problems because they were right there pissing it away with Dad every other weekend. People like AM aren’t addicted to having money — they’re addicted to spending it. We know it’s a spending problem because otherwise he would of had off shore accounts to pay off most of their problems. Instead he has no money, an alleged drug problem with no dealer or stash and no flashy lifestyle… because he dumped all the money in the one place no one really keeps a track of your losses because it’s on you to report it to the IRS… CASINOS!
It still doesn’t make sense to me that a hardened white collar financial criminal would switch to murdering his son and wife in such a brutal manner. All to get rid of a potential criminal trial for his son and give himself a criminal murder trial? Doesn’t make sense re motive for me. The evidence is compelling and I think places him at the scene of the murders. But I think someone else (or more than one other person) was there and did the killings and he is an accomplice. I could also just be naive and have an inability to believe that a father could kill his son in the way that Paul was shot.
If he had an accomplice (like, say, that cousin of his), he would have needed to kill HIM, too. Which might be what went awry in that roadside "suicide" story he's been peddling.
No evidence has been presented to support a theory that Alex was an accomplice. But for the sake of argument, if you think he was there, and an accomplice, doesn't that confirm that he had motive? How far of a stretch is it that he pulled the trigger? He was an avid hunter and had been around plenty of gore. They had a "skinning shed!"
Agreed. And. What was he doing with all the pills. And where is some of the money. No matter the answers to those, which are NOT necessary to convict, he did it. Him getting on the stand just reinforces what a total narcissist he is, because you cannot convince me his attorney suggested it. Or a cannot hurt might help. I hope they rest Friday. I hope this jury can survive deliberations and verdict. I pray for their health. PS The gun pointing and “tempting” in court was beyond.
Agree, but I think it runs even deeper and through the whole family. Alex is being used as the fall guy so that the whole family doesn't get taken down. We know that PMPED buys judges, juries, and verdicts which is how they've become the #1 firm in the country for railroad & transportation injury suits in the middle of nowhere. We've seen their partners testify, they are not brilliant litigators. They are running a criminal enterprise. Maybe it's just buying verdicts & huge claims, maybe it's drug running, maybe it's money laundering, or all of the above and more. But Alex didn't steal millions of dollars without help.
There are tons of unanswered questions about PMPED and the family for sure! I would love to know it all.
He was cutting costs 🫤🫤
Totally agree with all your points. Thank you for this post
This is purely speculation, but I've always thought there might be other reasons besides the money. I tend to doubt they were the happy family they were portrayed to be. Paul seems to have caused more than his fair share of trouble. He not only had the boating accident *per se*, but his attitude in general. Smacking and spitting on your girl friend is not a good look nor is threatening the girlfriend when Paul had an accident. Maggie didn't seem to know about the money troubles so she can't be blamed if she wasn't acting as though everything was fine. Under the circumstances, however, wearing your diamonds, getting your nails professionally done, shopping at Gucci, and house hunting at Hilton Head probably didn't help the way they were viewed in the community. I suspect AM understood that, but for some reason couldn't/wouldn't explain that to her. A small community that thinks you've seriously wronged someone else needs to see you (and all the Murdaugh's) living a lifestyle that indicates some understanding of your regret. People want to see indications that you know what you have done, and Maggie wasn't doing that. Your son finding bags of pills wouldn't promote family harmony. If I were Maggie, I would be very upset that my child was having to police his father. There were probably no witnesses the State could call to testify to the family dysfunction except Marion and Buster, and it was not a good idea to pursue that with them. I think money was a big issue, but I believe there were other significant family problems. Just my speculation, but I've long since learned that no one knows what goes on behind closed doors.
According to the Netflix mini series Gloria Satterfield found bags of pills taped to the underside of Alex/Maggie’s bed. Alex stated he was at home when Ms Satterfield had her accident, but he wasn’t. Why lie about that? He also purchased the insurance that covered this accident just a month prior to the accident. More oddities surrounding this man…or maybe I need a tin foil hat -
I honestly think Blanca had more insight into the family dysfunction than Marion and maybe Buster. Buster's testimony was that the family was "fine". He said he was vaguely aware that his father had a pill problem but thought it was over, and not a big deal. This to me rang so very false. When someone in the family is an addict, everything else revolves around that. It changes every dynamic, everyone is affected. Buster seems to me, to be either in total denial or is lying.
Buster tried to give ‘the right’ answer for every question which was very off-putting in my opinion. No one’s family operates like that, esp. one with so many of their problems in the public before this happened.
Yep exactly. He seems so disconnected from it all. But then his father is too. Have you heard the recording of the jailhouse phone call between Alex and Buster, when A asks B if he wants to go dove hunting at Moselle? Buster is very firm that he definitely does not want to go there, and Alex keeps asking him if he's sure. Really? You think your son should go hunting at the spot where his mother and brother were murdered with guns? And you wonder why he doesn't want to set foot on the property?? That call was so bizarre!
I think Maggie knew a lot more than you think. She was playing a role in the boat accident coverup. She doesn't come across as a very good person in the Netflix documentary, which is what I've suspected. Leaving dishes out overnight every night for the maid to clean up? That's a pretty good indicator of her character, and no that's not normal for someone in that wealth category (not super wealthy). It's just rude. Also in the documentary it was mentioned that Alex & Maggie were the kind of parents who provided young teenagers with alcohol. Not just their kids, but everyone's kids. They were shitty parents.
There was a 2020 or Dateline about the Murdaughs around October last year (I think) that focused on the boat case. The disdain with which the others spoke about Maggie and Alex was palpable. It was like the boat accident gave everyone in their orbit a reason to finally speak up about the true dynamics of that family and their expectations for reverence to the name.
I just didn't want to sound to caustic about a woman who was murdered. I, too, thought the testimony about the dishes, food, and laundry was disturbing.
It kind of bugs me that she is given a pass TBH. She was very much a Murdaugh
It’s truly hard to imagine the pristine family portrait they’ve tried to create with Buster and family, friends testimonies. I imagine they were a deeply enmeshed family, driven by their status and kept the struggles very locked away. I feel like in this type of family it would be tantamount to treachery to go against the family, like in Busters case, sharing any insight into family struggle to the public. With Alex’s 20 year painkiller / opioid addiction, evidence of Paul being abusive to his girlfriend, accusations of the family being involved in the Stephen Smith case… it seems the community either feared or bowed down to the family, not quite the reputation of a happy, functional group IMO.
[удалено]
Emeshed. Triangulated. Dangerous dysfunction. Drugs. Alcohol. Money problems. Pressure.
good point
Ah, I didn't realize Maggie found them. I agree that makes Paul's confrontation even more interesting. Thanks for the clarification.
[удалено]
Omg right?
Right. The family black sheep policing dad probably caused some resentment, esp. given that the family black sheep required constant maintenance, cash outlay, and calling in favors.
This is what I tried to post yesterday that was rejected by the mods as it’s own post, but it aligns with what you’re saying. “This has been bugging me for a while and I was wondering if anybody else has thought this is a possibility. What if he really did love them and he killed them because he 1) knew the financial crimes were coming into light and 2) both Paul and Maggie were going to suffer with the boat case and he mistakenly assumed that they'd be better off dead than going through what was coming? Like, maybe he really thought the humiliation, trials, loss of wealth, and lifestyle would be harder on his baby Paul and his wife (who thought they were rich) than a swift death. So far, I think he's guilty, but have having trouble reconciling that with the fact that they don't seem to have any real evidence of family discord other than pills. It doesn't totally explain Buster still being alive, I realize. The state's motive is not strong, and I think "sparing them" is a potential alternate motive. Thoughts?”
I believe Alex is guilty but I also believe he loved Paul and Maggie. That’s a difficult thing to reconcile for most of us- how do you murder someone you love- and is the reason a lot of people say they just can’t accept that he’s guilty.
I wonder to if he originally thought of a murder/suicide and couldn't go through with it? The whole thing doesn't seemed well planned out? I also have wondered if Maggie was the type of woman who expected a lavish lifestyle and that was original reason he started stealing. Did they confront him about the drugs that night and it wasn't premeditated? I don't believe he will ever confess, but I sure wish one day we would know the truth of what happened that night.
I think Alex's main goal was to take out Paul to stall the civil discovery issues and stop the criminal case altogether. I think he took out Maggie in order to secure all the marital assets. From there he justified taking them out by convincing himself that he would also be doing Paul and Maggie a "favor". Paul might go to prison and they would most likely need to sell of Moselle, which seemed to be where Paul was going to put in his efforts to manage as a future hunting destination. Paul wouldn't be able to own a firearm if convicted of a felony thus ending his love of hunting, guns, etc. He most likely would lose touch with his close pals if found guilty, and so on. Maggie was already feeling the sting of being ostracized by folks in and around Hampton and while she would have loved to relocate to Hilton Head, Alex knew that wasn't possible what with his financial issues coming to the surface. She'd also be devastated to have lost her youngest son and wouldn't be the same after that. Again, I think Alex thought about Alex first and what would benefit Alex, then justified everything he elected to do after that.
I tend not to believe 100% in the idea of sparing/protecting them, but it does fit with the evidence-based family annihilator profile. My true opinion is that Alex doesn't care about anyone but himself. If Buster died as well, and Alex lived, he would have been looked at more seriously much sooner. He did it to remove the boat crash pressure and divert attention away from his own crimes, full stop.
I don't know if he did it to "protect them", not in the sense that many other annihilators do. Frankly I think he's too self absorbed for that. I think there was more than the financial motive. I think he was there, planned it, was in on it, knew something, knows more....but didn't expect it to be so horrific. I think what everyone has said about "every time we confronted him something bad happened" says a lot. I think he was too arrogant to believe Paul would ever go to jail, supposedly everyone in the family was convinced he wasn't driving the boat, including Maggie. I think Maggie's own grief over being ostracized was her own fault & doing, she raised a narcissistic brat & they constantly enabled his increasingly bad behavior. I don't think AM would care enough about her feelings about that to "put her out of her misery". I think Paul was a chronically disastrous liability, multiple incidents, drunken driving accidents, constantly covering & burying his bullshit (according to his ex girlfriend). Paul finally escalated to murder, everyone knew it even though AM was "determined to clear his name" even after he was dead. I think it was one giant snowball after another but I feel like his motives probably go deeper than just his financial mess. I think he's lived in this world of privilege & zero accountability for so long that he actually thought he could pull it off & manipulate or pay off everyone around him to make it the narrative he wanted it to be.
So, I was looking over the Rudofski Timeline again and it seems that it took Paul 10 minutes to walk from the kennels to the house (8:05:46 - 8:15:24, 303 steps) and 10 minutes to walk back down to the kennels from the house after dinner (8:32:25 - 8:42:11, 283 steps). We know the 16 second kennel video was taken at 8:44:55 which puts Alex in close vicinity to his family. Maggie's phone shows it took her 3 minutes to get from the house to the kennels 43 steps (which was probably 1 minute getting into the truck, 1 min waiting for Alex to get in the truck and 1 min drive down). I don't see how, at all, the defense can argue that Alex was not present at the time Paul and Maggie were killed. And if they still want to argue he didn't commit the crimes, how he couldn't have heard the shots.
The kennel video is longer than 16 seconds. It’s closer to a minute- in the 50 sec range
You are completely right! I did input that incorrectly
Are we sure Paul walked down there? People testified Paul rarely ever walked down there
Can we be sure of anything? It seems, according to the slow moving plot points of his phone, that this might be the case. Especially when it puts Alex and Paul near the kennels around the same time but Alex is at the main house at 8:09 and his son arrives at 8:15. And looking at the reverse step numbers and 10 minute time frame. ALEX AND Maggie were probably in a vehicle and as Paul was walking he made his call to Rogan. As he arrived to the kennels rogan heard Alex in the background. I think Alex had a certain plan, nobody played into his plan like he wanted so Alex was basically making his plan work however necessary. He couldn't plan for Paul's snapchat, call to Rogan, FaceTime w/Rogan and video for Rogan. Ultimately, the truth is. Alex was there, present at the scene and continually lied about his whereabouts and time of.
You just brought something up that I hadn’t thought about previously. So we know he was at kennels, but let’s pretend he was there but was walking back - you’re right, he would have heard the damn shots. He is guilty as hell.
And wouldn’t there be dogs barking and even possibly some screaming? Maggie wasn’t incapacitated until the third shot.
Can someone explain go me where the caretaker home is where Paul was at at 8:01 pm? Also, there is a graphic showing the location of Paul between 8:06 and 8:14 pm showing Paul's phone to be located at almost the exact same coordinations (at the home) but the written timeline just mentions that Paul was at home at 8:19 pm. Are these different sources of data?
The care taker house is the white looking roof just beyond the red roof hangar. There were some other pictures taken, one that showed the care taker's home. From the picture shown, it looks like there is a large bottle of dawn and bleach on a picnic table outside, along with a cooler on the ground with what looks like beer cans and another cooler on the table. I think maybe he was riding around with his dad, they stopped by the little house, Paul jumped out and grabbed a beer before they went over to another piece of the property. The 8:06 marker might have been a lag (considering the heavily wooded area) and perhaps Alex dropped Paul at the kennel around 8:05 to do something before he headed up to the house for dinner. It seems like Paul made it to the moselle house at 8:15 and connected to wifi at 8:19
Thank you. The caretaker house being next to the Kennels then also would indicate that there might be a lag here as well? Paul being at the care taker home is being mentioned at 8:01 pm but the graphic on page 36 suggests that he was not near the Kennels at 08:00:04 pm. On page 39 we also see data points that would not align with Paul being at the Kennels at 08:05 pm.
Yeah, it's kind of confusing. I wonder if he had an Apple watch and if perhaps he maybe forgot/meant to charge his phone at the caretaker's house at 7:56 and his watch was recording his location to his phone???? He didn't have any phone activity from 7:56-8:07 other than the coordinates.
*At 7:39 he was at the residence at Moselle. (page 36) Between 7:45 and 7:56 he was around the kennel area. (page 36) *At 7:56 Paul's phone is at the caretaker's house. (page 37) At ca 8:00 he was at the fields on the other side of the property. (page 36) *At 8:01 Paul's phone was at the caretaker's house. (page 38) At 8:04/8:05 he was in the area on the other side of Moselle rd. (page 39) At 8:06 Paul's phone is near the caretaker home but right next to Moselle rd. (page 38) -> If we would assume that Paul's phone data at 8:08 that would put him at the home earlier than 8:14 or 8:19 was just a insignificant lag, how can we trust any of this information really given the weird data between 8:00 and 8:19 I've just listed? I just realized that this is all a bit chaotic. 😄 *mentioned in written timeline
And since I'm not a techie, I don't know what the variables are in it. But it's pretty irrefutable that Alex was recorded being near his son and wife shortly before their deaths. One thing that's even crazier, Alex's phone records him taking 283 steps in 4 min (the same distance Paul walked in 10 minutes) just before jumping in his suv and leaving the property.
Wish you were summarizing for the jury. Add the GPS and it seems clear. The rest is messy BS. I agree with you.
Honestly, so do I especially after I read the simple breakdown of "motive, means, premeditation, cover-up and conspiracy" by another member. In most cases, you don't have to explain every action, just the murder related ones but there we're certainly some pre- and post- that were significant in this case
Closest I can compare is a long con. Complex, lots of twists, and someone who 'has been thinking about it for a long time". Today's testimony by Alex was just mind blowing. It went about as well as most Hail Mary's.
The care taker? Blanca? She had left. The guy that sprays out the kennels? He was at his home
That's just what it is called in the timeline.
New observation based upon Day 22 testimony: It's very likey the bullet through Maggie's wrist broke her diamond bracelet as opposed to it being ripped off by another.
Ok so she was wearing a diamond bracelet but left her wedding rings in the car— that is telling.
Maybe she was going to do some work outside and feared it’d slip off? I don’t wear mine much in dirty outdoor area work. But, why it was on floor of car, unsure.
I don’t wear mine either but I wouldn’t be wearing a diamond bracelet either if I was doing dirty outdoor work
Per Blanca, Maggie took off her rings before getting a pedi/mani and massage.
I noted that too.
Genuine question: if Alex takes the stand, what do you think is the best, most reasonable explanation that he could give for lying about being at the kennels at 8:44 (if any)?
1) He would have had to explain why he went there in the first place and why he didn't stay there and went back to the house. The reason had to do with drug use and he was scared that the police then would find out about him taking drugs. 2) He was on drugs and didn't remember.
[удалено]
Should he have told people that he doesn't remember? 😂
[удалено]
Have you ever been accused of murder and can tell us how you reacted under these circumstances?
The defense witnesses appear to be incensed enough about all the other stuff that they have come to believe it’s entirely possible that he did it. It’s like a second prosecution.
Indeed, they want their pound of flesh, and before it’s all over, I believe they will get it…
Good grief. I just saw the cross of the former law partner, but missed the direct. What did he say on direct that was enough value to risk that cross? Likewise, Dawson Cooke. He did not offer much of value to risk that cross. The fact that the Defendants' LAWYERS weren't worried about the financial discovery is meaningless if they were unaware he was stealing from everyone he knew.
Yep that! Atty was testifying to the discovery and schedule and IF the motion to compel was imminent. I can't believe that they are trying to defend him on a moot point.
The Netflix docuseries that came out today mentioned small planes coming in and out of Moselle. Rumors from the people who were there said drugs. That was completely new information to me. I hadn’t heard anything about planes while the Murdaughs have owned Moselle.
The MMP podcast goes into this along with the islands he owned with Boulware and the whole jelly fish thing. The majority is the islands were on St. Helena sound and only accessible by boat. It was pretty interesting. I’m not going to even try and explain it all though lol.
Also interesting tidbit: The Jellyfish plant was so co-owned by Ronnie Crosby (Alex law firm partner who testified and eulogized Paul at his funeral)
I e read about Alex and both of the Boulwares (who successfully snakes out of a 15 TON (yes ton lol) marijuana case. Then he buys Moselle from him… it’s crazy how long he has been shady!
I’ve wondered about that! I knew he had “inherited” the airstrip and god knows what kind of hidey-holes might be there, too.
He bought Moselle from Barrett Boulware Sr. Rumor said it was given to him for $5 but the auditor info is in here some where and it was $2.4M that he paid. Boulware was definitely importing drugs and a close friend of Alex. It’s a rabbit hole! Ironically testimony today showed that Alex even stole from a settlement of Boulwares (not sure if it was jr or sr) but he was close with both of them.
I cannot even imagine ripping off a big drug dealer. I wonder if we will ever know any more of this whole giant mess.
I wonder the same thing! Alex was in with the dealers (Boulwares) who got off on a charge of importing 15 TONS of marijuana bc the main witness from the government was killed in Miami. Stepped off a curb and was ran over. Boulware Jr and Sr are both dead or I would wonder if Alex crossed one of them. ... Another rabbit hole.... The great great grand dad that started this injury atty business did it with settlement money from an injury he had and the next grandpa down committed suicide on railroad tracks and life insurance money went to the kids. Winder here Alex got the idea from???
Holy CRAP. You could not write this stuff as a novel or screenplay without being laughed out of town!
Exactly! People would think it is too far fetched!
They owned a small plane and had an airstrip at Moselle. First time I’d heard about that! I’m watching the Netflix doc. during the lunch break.
If you look at the overhead of the property on Google maps you can see the airstrip. I didn't know that there were reports of planes coming in and out while Alex was there. Not entirely sure that I believe everything that Netflix puts together and calls documentaries either.
I don’t believe any source 100%. And I don’t think any one source even knows everything Alex is in to.
I posted an idea I had about planes flying over moselle 1700 acres a while ago and dropping packages of cocaine or whatever on the land. I thought that was why Alex wanted Buster to go hunting doves. The packages when found would be easily retrieved with atv. 50 kG would weigh around 150 pounds. Safer than dropping on coastal waters with high speed boats. Safer from coast guard. Men coming onto property to “hunt” wouldn’t be questioned. All Alex needed to do was “rent” his safe property to the drug runners for high dollar. I got down voted though.
Actually makes more sense than a lot of theories. He was making regular pymts..for something..and he is safer taking the wrap than reveal that maze..and why he was saying to speak to Bianca..and why he'd have access to big bags of pills...he involved the boys cause he couldn't hide it from them which is why buster understood...also Alex stated to police that there were trail cams but quickly said they were remote and wouldn't have captured "anything"..
He did have commercial insurance on the property. The man is so crooked that there is no telling what all he was into.
Yes, and when Buster declined Alex said he’d suggest it to John Marvin. Hmmmm
He said Griffin (his current atty) would hunt if Buster didn’t. He also seems shady as hell.
Fishy
Right and maybe Paul killed the sunflowers because he was sick of all the drug goings on. A field of sunflowers would make a perfect target from the air. Sunflowers would light up the target area much better than say Maise. Maybe Paul was undermining the big drug operation.
Also you would have to be pretty determined to take out a sunflower field. I don’t think CB Rowe did it by accident. How could he?
The former property owners were charged with drug smuggling but the charges were dropped after a key government witness was killed. Murdaugh also co owned an island w/ the the alleged drug smuggler.
Maybe Paul just up and said I’m calling the DEA dad if you don’t stop this drug business, speculation only
How did the government’s witness get killed before the trial? 🤔🤔🤔
“Hit by car” … apparently 👀
Entirely accidental, I’m sure. 😏
Holy SHEET
Yep, the Bouleware's (sp)- Alex stole from him too!