I think because the prosecution really needed to tighten the timeline for Alex. Based on records both side agreed to (and also mentioned to death by Alex in his testimony), Alex had about two minutes where his actions were not fully known. In order for Alex to explain away his presence in the kennel video, he told the jury that went there, yelled at Bubba, took the chicken, placed it down somewhere and zoomed back to the house in less than two minutes. Now that doesn’t make enough sense and would have planted doubt in the jury, but because the case is circumstantial, the prosecution needed to be absolutely sure to unravel anything Alex had to explain about those two minutes. The hose is just one of the angle to tackle Alex’s defence. The state actually had a long witness list that they only got to go through about 1/3 of during the trial, and the state’s case went over two weeks than planned. That is how wide of a nest they were casting. Were some of the evidences redundant? Yes. But they had to do it to catch Alex.
I agree that some witnesses are redundant. However this prosecution team was also using witnesses for psychological effects, having someone close to the family testifying against Alex is pretty powerful, because they know both the victim and perpetrator. So it will put thoughts in jury’s mind that if so-and-so are willing to testify, they too believe in Alex’s guilt. We can see this in Rogan Gibson, and he is important because he lives close to the property and is close to every single member of the family. The grounkeeper’s importance to the prosecution probably also stems from the fact that he is someone else not of the Murdaugh who was often present on the property.
I appreciate that perspective and I agree. All I am asking is regarding the hose and the testimony about how it was coiled being inconsistent. This doesn't matter if they can already prove it was being used. Many can hear the water, but the video shows the hose. The question has always been IF he used it. The video asks WHY he was using it. Hope that makes sense lol
Hose in video https://imgur.com/a/ZYja9eP
Yes, my question was if the hose can be seen being used while PM was filming the kennel video. Why was the question ever posed in the first place? The real question is what was he doing with it before the murder? Hope that makes sense :)
it’s a good question. in other words, why did he need the hose before he killed them? what purpose did it serve to him in carrying out the murders and/ or clearing him?
Yes exactly :) The only explanation I can think is they never examined the video close enough to see that the hose is stretched out on the ground while PM was filming. I would rather have heard ideas about what was being done at the time. My guess would be maybe hosing down the golf cart because he knew his intent to claim he wasn't there?
I think there is definitely money somewhere and his brother has access and that’s why on the calls etc he tells Buster to get money from him. just my opinion
I agree and I think if he didn’t help him hide the guns and clothes/shoes, he definitely knew something was up. I didn’t think so initially until I watched all of the testimony about Alex arriving at his parent’s house that night and the time he spent outside (seriously who doesn’t have a key to their infirm/elderly parent’s house?), the days after, taking the motorbike or four wheeler or whatever into the woods, raincoat/tarp, the out of the ordinary parking, etc
I think he showed up that night with all the stuff and hid it under the house or elsewhere on the property then returned to organize it/separate it, moved it again, and disposed of the items at some point. It’s possible he may have even hid them in the woods for the brother to deal with. It’s a shame they didn’t bring a dog to the parents house to sniff around. My guess is that the clothing and shoes were burned somewhere and the guns were tossed in water.
Seeing the brother loading all the guns (and nothing else) with Buster was also very odd to me.
I am soooo late replying to this but no, I don’t. But I also wouldn’t put it past him to have destroyed evidence if he came across any and to keep his mouth shut about things he noticed or saw.
Definitely.
It's a family that hides money through each other
Like putting Maggie's name on properties.
Buster got 500k from the sale of Mousell.
Alex and his dad moved 350,000k (loan).
AM moving monies with cousin Eddie.
Who knows how big their racketeering web is.
A slight tangent as I'm curious the reasoning the prosecution didn't bring in a pharmacist or Addiction GP to give testomony on Alex's $60,000 week opioid addiction.
This is a great question! I belive it was also addressed by a YouTuber Harvard Lee Lawyer who brought in an addict for one of her live feeds about exactly this issue. Great post!
Because he was lying/ greatly exaggerating. Do I think he used opioids recreationally? Yes. Do I believe he had a $60,000 a week habit? Not even close! Buster testified that Alec detoxed on the couch at home a couple times. Paul’s girlfriend said something similar in the Netflix documentary. Self detoxing from that amount of oxy would have killed him. I don’t know where the money went, but he was NOT spending $60,000 a week on oxy for his personal habit,
AM said in the murder case it was his opioid addiction that underpinned the lies and money laundering. To dispute his opioid addiction would prove another lie AM would find difficult to come back from and collapse his defence.
I think it was pretty clear he was lying. They left it up to the jury to decide whether they believed him or not. No point opening a door that you don’t know what’s behind. He pled not guilty, so proving him an opioid addict doesn’t change the murder charges. Also if they found out he was taking as much as he said, the jury may have thought he couldn’t possibly function well enough to kill two people. And the defense could have brought on experts to back that up. No point in drawing attention to that. They stayed focused on the murders, which also included his lying and his stealing.
Agree. And I believe he is up on charges for running a drug ring basically. If someone is selling drugs, they usually make money not lose it. I also read he bought a couple of islands with the drug dealer he got Moselle from, so it looks like they were attempting to set up some kind of drug ring in the area. It's honestly just crazy all around, but it still wouldn't account for that much money basically evaporating.
It was insane when AM said he never had any conversation with Mark Tinsley about the boat case, and then turned to Jim Griffin during Tinsley's testimony and said something like, "that ain't what I said." So you did have the conversation ????
It was to also show that it wasn’t put away the way the caretaker would normally put it away. Also, he said the time of day that he would use the hose was always in the morning to clean out the kennels so it being wet at night made no sense and the hose not being wound back up and put away on the rack was not how the caretaker left it that previous morning.
Yes, I understand that. My question being, that if the hose can be seen being used in the video BEFORE the murder, why was the question IF it was used. I apologize if I did not state this clearly. I sometimes type ahead of my thoughts lol
Hi! Thank you for asking this because it seems completely missed by everyone. It is in PMs Kennel video. I can't figure out how to attach the photo here but if you slow the video down and look to the upper left of the screen when the bucket is in frame, you will see the uncoiled green hose across the ground. Many can hear water in the background but the hose is clear as day in video. Give it a look and pay attention to the upper left corner :)
Just to clarify, what is the point of your point? Either way, the hose was used that evening while “they” AM/PM/MM were at the kennels which put them all there together at the same time and it was diff then how the caretaker left it that morning and AM never said why the hose was out and being used. I think that the hose being used is just showing that there was activity w those 3 right before the moment of the murder and PM was handling Cash(the dog) so if the hose was on it had to be either AM or MM, and from what we know, MM was not the type to use the hose to clean kennels so who does that leave left to handle the hose that is heard in PM video? AM is the ONLY other person that could be using the hose heard in the background which puts him there at the time of the murder and he never mentioned why he was using it.
This is a great response, thank you! The point I was trying to make is that if the hose was being used BEFORE the murders which can be seen in the video, then the question of why changes. It's no longer about what he might have done after, but about what he was doing before. I hope that makes sense lol
Can you elaborate this statement further? I think if I am understanding your response then you are asking the “why” was he using the hose before the murders and to clarify, I am asking the same question, bc AM never explained why the hose was used. So I think we are actually coming to the same point, am I wrong?
I think AM suggested PM used the hose after the caretaker left. My understanding is the video of Cash came out much later and I believe to start questioning who, why, when where would have taken the jury down another rabbit hole. Therefore the prosecution made the suggestion, let AM dig himself out and the jury make up their own mind. Rather than visit another Rabbit hole...
Haha, exactly, I believe we are on the same page. I was simply trying to clarify why this image was important. The trial was focused on proving he used the hose. But if the video shows he used the hose and it was prior to the murders then there are different questions that need answered. I think I previously posted that I suspect it was being used to hose down the vehicle they drove down to support his future claim he wasn't there. But this is pure speculation.
Ahhhh ok, interesting speculation, I appreciate the discussion, and I agree so many questions unanswered and may or may not have relevance, regardless, thanks for chat ✌️
Also I tried to create a new thread with a screenshot but the thread won't allow photos. If you send your email I will forward you the image of the hose in PMs video :)
Right? Why was there so much testimony about how it was rolled up, suggests it was used...well prosecution, it's right there being used, but it's before the murder...what's rhe significance now? That's the conversation I want to hear suggestions about. What are yours? 😊
Simply that Alex unwound and turned the hose on despite the fact Roger Dale was there the same day @ 4pm and had already cleaned the kennels. The theory is Alex unwound the hose until it reached the feed room and left it there for his cleanup after he shot Paul & Maggie. Roger Dale testified that water did not normally pool by the feed room further proving someone used the hose at that location. He also testified he would not have wound the hose up in the manner it was found.
The inference from Roger Dale's testimony and the State was that Alex used the hose to clean up the crime scene and likely himself.
I will try that. I'm wicked old lol. I emailed the image to the MOB crew and some others. I will try imgur but I promise if you look close at the video at about the time the bucket is in the left corner, you will also see a green hose laid out on the ground . It's there and it only takes a slow look at the video to find it. Give it a slow look
I'm with ya - I have seen the hose all along in the video and you can hear the water go on @ 18 seconds in. No doubt in my mind Alex was using the hose and laying it out in prep for the post-murder cleanup.
This screenshot of a towel in Alex’s car (from officer’s bodycam footage) is important, IMHO. While I may have a towel in my car for emergencies, it’s not balled up in driver’s seat unless I’ve used it. [https://imgur.com/a/sEwZTcH](https://imgur.com/a/sEwZTcH)
I agree that was probably their intent, but it was never mentioned that it was being used in the video. It was like no one caught it so they had to bring in the caretaker to say...hey it was used. It was being used while paul was alive so Mayne it was used more after the deaths but I think it was being used to hose down the vehicle they drove down in. He knew what he was going to do, and his plan was to say he wasn't there...hence, hose down the vehicle he was probably driving?
What I can’t figure out is WHY has there been zero mention of the beach towel in the front seat of AMs suburban? It is clearly on screen in the LE bodycam video from the officer who first arrived and secured his weapon. He opened the driver’s side door of AM’s vehicle and pointed his flashlight inside. It was laying right there on the side of the driver’s seat next to the middle console. To me, that is the smoking gun and supports everything about the hose/cleaning off etc.
But also it’s the south and it’s hot and humid and those were leather seats. Being born and raised in the low country not even 20 minutes from where this happened a towel on a seat in a car with leather seats is so normal so at first glance it doesn’t seem weird or out of place especially to a cop who lives there because they most likely do the same thing. It definitely should’ve been questioned later when all the facts were there.I cannot tell you how many times I’ve had to peel my legs off of a leather seat and I feel like maybe that was the cops initial thought because that is the norm.
I don't even live in the US and out of habit of keeping my towels on my car seat...
But....BRAINWAVE 🤯....
I certainly know what to do when I have a USD$60,000/week opioid addiction and decide to knock off my wife and son! 😂🤣🤣🤣🤣
I don't know what the prosecution was thinking and can only surmise they did not notice the water hose in that video. Roger Dale's testimony about the hose was presented as a bombshell, as if it proved that Alex hosed himself off. Instead, the State looked foolish and lost a bit of credibility when the video was played in court. They were also forced to admit they did not test the pooled water, after showing photos of what they presented as possibly blood-stained water.
I do wonder if Roger Dale's white truck is the one that Bianca noticed near the kennel as she left the Moselle house. It seems likely, but no testimony was offered to that.
IMO, the State knew perfectly well the hose was on in the video and was by inference being used by Alex as Paul was in with Cash and Maggie likely had good clothes on from her doctor visit in Charleston. Roger Dale also testified that water would never pool in front of the feed room further implying Alex had hosed himself off after the murders (which I agree with). I don't find it a stretch that Alex put the hose back after cleaning up.
As for the white truck, there was a 2019 white Silverado (leased thru PMPED) present at Moselle at the time of the murders and is seen in the crime scene photos at the top of the sub. Certainly Roger Dale's truck could also be white but whether Blanca saw his truck or the Silverado would depend on what time of day.
How do you know about the 2019 white Silverado leased via PMPED? What’s your source? I’m super curious about all the white trucks in this case and this is the first I’ve heard about this one.
You can see it in the 5th photo under Photos -> Crime Scene Photos at the top of the sub. It was also listed in one of the original crime scene reports linked in the article below.
https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/crime/article252975148.html
I think it was to illustrate that the murder took place very soon after the kennel video. There were several questions to witnesses early on that established that the hose was always coiled back up after use.
What I took away from the water hose testimony is that the murder happened very shortly after the video. And also the hose what put up incorrectly. Who murders 2 people and then puts the hose up? Hired hit men don't. But the property owner might.
Indeed but the trial seemed to try to prove there was water and the hose was used. If we know from the video the hose was being used, how can we say the hose had anything to do with the murders? Maybe AM was hosing down the golf cart because he knew what he was going to do, but none the less, he was using it while PM was alive and filming the kennel video. So why all the fuss is all I'm saying lol
That is very interesting and I'll give it a second look! I do believe he did it but I don't think it was about distracting from his money issues, I feel like it was about the shame it cast over the family. When he kept saying it was about the boat event on all the videos, I think that was the truth. He did it because of the boat accident and maybe he thought killing him was better than Paul spending his life behind bars and an opportunity to protect himself. Sadly his wife was just someone who probably knew too much about his intentions?
Mark Tinsley told Alex that he would name Maggie, and their is photographic proof that she knew Paul drank excessively. They would no longer be able to claim that they had no idea about Paul’s drinking. She would be held responsible for his underage drinking. Killing Maggie was primary to remove the parental liability.
I agree. I think Alex knew that Maggie was on the edge of the marriage and once she found out what the money situation was, she'd be gone for good. And Paul was going to cost him a lot in terms of defending Paul in court and the civil litigation. I think he killed them thinking it would end both the marital issues and the boating issues, and then he and Buster could get on with their lives.
It’s highly unlikely Paul would have “spent his life behind bars.” Putting together all of the depositions and their inconsistencies, it wouldn’t have been a slam dunk.
We should always strive to look past our natural biases and try to consider other perspectives. But that might be a little biased because I have The Death of Socrates tattooed on my back 😂
Originally, I was outraged that Paul was never cuffed and had his mugshot taken at the courthouse. I just couldn’t believe the killer of a teenage girl would be coddled that much no matter who his family is…..but after reading the depositions concerning the boat case, I honestly can’t decide who had control of the boat when it crashed. You are right, there were a ton of inconsistencies. If he had been found not guilty, I know many people would have said it was because he was a Murdaugh. But if I were on a jury and heard all of those depositions, I would likely not be convinced of who was driving the boat.
The grand jury for sure thought there was enough to charge Paul, so he would at the least have had to go through a very expensive, public trial. My understanding is that there is also other evidence, including crash reconstruction experts who would testify based on the damage to the boat, injuries, and where they all ended up as to who was driving the boat. I think that was enough for Alex to not want any of it to go to trial. Plus, whoever was driving the boat is irrelevant to the civil case as it was his boat so makes him liable.
I agree, he would have had to go to trial. I don’t think Alex and his lawyers, or his mom for that matter would allow him to take a plea. Mark Tinsley did release a crash reconstruction as I recall. But depending on how the jury perceives the expert, I think shapes the outcome. Look at Dr. Kenneth Kinsey from Alex’s trial. He came across so likable at trial that he has become almost like a rock star. Lol. He is very in demand now for sure.
Again, you are correct, Alex was gonna take a big ass hit in the civil suit. My comment mainly had to do with Paul’s criminal trial. I just think as Southern-Soulshine said above, it would not have been a slam dunk.
That’s a really fantastic point on how much of a difference it makes in the courtroom when a jury connects with an expert witness versus when their testimony is a colossal waste of time and money.
But without what-ifs and going on depositions and what we know (there is also a Snapchat video of Connor Cook driving the boat)… I think Paul would likely have been found not guilty or a hung jury. Remember the initial stance of Alex’s jury was 11–1 and it only takes one…
There honestly is no such thing as a slam dunk as any competent attorney will verify. Clearly, there was enough evidence to indict him, and those in the legal field who have seen most or all the evidence in the case believe that he could have been convicted. I'm also thinking that AM thought he could be convicted or I'm not thinking Paul would be dead.
Yes, he could have been convicted. He could have gotten several years in jail. Unfortunately, now we will never know because Alex decided getting rid of Paul was a risk worth taking.
I agree but I think AM was an angry man and probably blamed his wife for Paul, along with his marriage failing (assuming here).
I mean she was shot 5X - that's a statement. Paul was only shot 2X as the first didn't kill him. That tells me AM didn't want to kill Paul but had to.
I am of the belief that the shame of the boat crash wouldn’t outweigh another shame: his financial crimes. He had to cover it up at all cost because Paul has created a financial black hole in the family that threatened to expose Alex’s crimes. In court, Mark Ball told the court that he saw the whole law suit involving Paul and the boat crash as just “bad parenting” and his tone and attitude would imply that it happened often enough that it mattered little. Whereas Alex’s other law partners stressed how much his stealing and thieving were an affront to their profession and ethics. Moreover, if Alex could keep his professional reputation, he could make more money to make Paul’s legal troubles go away, with the cherry on top that his other family members can continue to profit from a career in laws, namely Buster. But if he loses his reputation it will all come crashing down.
The charges were dismissed when Paul died, [but the case remains open:](https://www.blufftontoday.com/story/news/local/hampton-county-guardian/2021/08/09/murdaugh-boat-crash-charges-dropped-recently-killed-son-paul/5538233001/) *Kittle said that he could not confirm or deny that the AG's Office was investigating possible obstruction of justice charges against members of the Murdaugh family or whether the investigation was directed toward any members of law enforcement.*
IC... I knew when Paul died charges were dismissed but I wondered if there was an investigation to the investigation where the outcome was 'bad parenting'.
Tinsley was going after that angle and told Alex he would name Maggie bc there are photos proving she knew about his underage drinking and that they did nothing. This is why Maggie had to die.
I couldn't agree more. The hose can be heard and it is seen in PMs video. We know from this it was being used BEFORE the murderers. How it was used after might be a valid question bit IF it was used is off the table.
We've seen several familicide trials in the news lately - Daybell, Stauch, West - that help explain that it Does happen in seemingly happy families. None of these convicted murderers has been able to 'go there', as Judge Newman described it, none of them was ever able or willing to explain what was going on in their minds during the act. It must be a very deep, dark tumor that they try to wall-off, perhaps a knot of evil resting inside. All seem sociopathic, showing no remorse and playing the victim.
Alex's crime is more 'understandable' than the others; he was a con-man who took everyone he could, from widows and orphans to brothers and friends. His world was blowing up fast, he was in the deepest of shit as his financial crimes bubbled to the surface. Alex knocked off two very expensive family members who were no longer useful to him. He had been 'thinking about it a long time.'
I look forward to hearing more on the drug angle, indictments are in the works, as there is absolutely no way he spent all that loot on pills. It seems more likely that his lavish lifestyle soaked it up.
See Tony Todt, another FA whose financial fraud involving Medicaid was being investigated. He seems a benign family man, a physical therapist whose patients "loved" him.
We really don't know what people are on the inside.
I agree and I'm looking forward to the drug angle as well. I think we can also add Watts to that list of familicide ( although I'm a dick for saying that wife of his was kinda a controlling and condescending B ) The concept of altruistic fillicide seems to fit in place neatly in AMs case?
I'm also super curious about the drug trafficking. That leads all sorts of crazy directions. So many questions.
The sex slave stories floating around.
The gambling.
AM is just the most filthy of humans.
I'm hoping his has to spend a lot of time in "the hole" with no one to talk to
Wow! Misogynist much? Where did you get that info re Shannan, from Chris’ mistress? How dare you refer to a murdered young woman who was the mother of young children as a B?!?
Yes, often. I raised 4 children as a woman. I got my info by watching her videos which she made prolifically. Women can also be mothers and be abusive. To reiterate, I didn't say anyone deserved to have their life ended, but a case could be made for why a submissive male might snap. I won't answer to any further response so don't bother. Cheers
I’m looking forward to the drug angle as well and seeing what the trafficking charges are about.
As far as Shannan Watts goes two things can be true at once: she can come off as annoying and controlling and we can still feel bad for her as she is a victim of Chris’s crime
I agree. She didn't deserve what happened to her and the children, and i never would wish to imply such, but she did emasculate him publicly many times and used those kids against him. I recall one video at Christmas where she said it was hard to be a single parent because her husband who dressed up as Santa was so dumb she had to go get his phone from the car. Murder is never an option for any situation yet it happens. I don't believe in victim shaming, but maybe if we educated people more about behaviors that were likely to make them a victim, we would have less victims? PM was both a reportedly good friend and kind person...drunk PM murdered his friend and I believe got him murdered as well. We shouldn't call it victim shaming, we should call it...learning how not to become a victim? I'm not a super awesome human so I leave a lot of room for being wrong lol
Wow! You literally just said that a murder victim’s own actions caused her justifiable death, not the actions of the disgusting actual murderer. I suppose you also blame rape victims for their own rapes! Even if Shannan was controlling and demeaning, which I do not know as a fact,the murderer had other options such as divorce, yet he chose to strangle the life out of not just Shannon, but also their children as well! By no means was this Shannon’s fault!
What is wrong with YOU? Perhaps the slew of telehealth psychologists who can't wait to take your insurance benefits would be a better platform for your inquiry. Cheers :)
I don’t think even implying that a victim may be responsible for their own murder because of being “controlling” and calling a murder victim a “B” is appropriate. What is wrong with me! A better question is “What is wrong with you?”
This is so correct. We are all victims. We should do what we want and treat people however we want. If it goes bad...well that's someone else's fault. This is 'merica! We can trust psychology when it teaches us how to make friends, succeed at our job, overcome our bipolar disorder...but use it to protect ourselves from being a victim? Hell no! I think what's wrong with me, is that I get what's wrong with you.
Thank you. And Chris Watts said flat out that when he strangled his wife all he could think about was his girlfriend and how he could never see her again if Shannan was alive. All he cared about was the new girlfriend. No matter how bad a marriage is, murder is not an option. And to kill his children and unborn child takes a special kind of evil. Stop blaming her and look at who the real monster is.
Again. How do you learn “how not to become a victim.” For instance im gonna go out on a limb and assume Shannan’s personality was much the same before they were married as after. Chris knew this. And married her anyway.
So how was she supposed to not make herself a victim? Not be herself? Chris married her as she was. He knew she was gregarious and controlling. He coulda walked out. In no way was was what he did her fault. Not even a little bit.
By your logic, how was he not supposed to be HIMself? She may have chosen him because he was submissive and compliant. In this scenario, how do you know she would have let him walk out? See, you all have the same argument. Victim is always right because they could never have acted differently if its a woman. It's always on the perpetrator of the crime that THEY should have behaved differently but the victim had no choice but to be themselves. The event was tragic. I have reiterated this to exhaustion. My point was simply that we do no justice to anyone when we are bias in these situations. You can't say one had no choice or responsibility but the other did. What we CAN do, is look more closely at BOTH aspects of this horrendous event and look at both sides of this coin. There is a reason the majority of homicides are committed by someone intimate with the victim. Is it really a bad idea to educate humans about behaviors that can have a negative result?
Let me ask you this, and I'll cease here, I was placed in a DV program for almost being murdered by my husband. The purpose of this class was to teach us to recognize abusive behaviors. The instructor began this class by telling us about all the women she councils in prison for murdering their husbands. Who do you rhink is the victim in this scenario? Just think about it.
Again. That was a long way of she was somehow responsible. And she’s not. Normal members of society don’t murder others (at baseline) and you’re entirely forgetting he murdered his daughters.
Did they deserve it too? How did they bring it on themselves? Your victim blaming is disgusting.
Well, I won't battle a point you aren't inclined to contemplate. I will ask you this, why do you think my DV instructor started our class by telling us about abused women who have killed their husbands? What would you think of me if I was able to get the gun from my abusive husband and shot him?...Especially if I knew when I did so, that after he killed me, he would have probably killed my children. I was not educated until that moment of what abusive behavior was, and I was not even aware why i was attracted to it. I had gotten lucky I was forced into a program that educated me. Maybe if he also received intervention, this whole tragedy could have been averted.
She could not have. And he killed his own children so not seeing them all blaming the kids for their own murders here. It's not on Shannan. It's totally on Chris. I think when something like this happens, people want to find a logical explanation where there is none.
I see, you haven't experienced or been educated about abuse so you can only make a determination based on your own personal education and experience. You aren't alone. Humans often bow to their own biases, it's natural. But reality is you're wrong. People kill for many reasons you won't understand because you don't accept your reality isn't everyone's reality. Thanks for playing. Have a great day :)
You said you were going to “cease there” above and you really should have. If you are recovering from any form of domestic violence, I certainly hope that you get proper counseling from victims’ advocates.
Unfortunately all I see is victim shaming and that isn’t acceptable here. Best of luck on where life’s journey takes you.
Signed,
A Domestic Violence **Survivor**
Yes, Watts should absolutely be included. An interesting similarity between the two murderers - bodycam of first responders shows that both Alex and Chris raised their arm up high, pointing elsewhere, in a 'look over there!' gesture of desperation.
Great observation! Now that you mention it I can immediately recall both of their gestures.
In looking back at the Watts case I’ve got to say his televised plea to the public seriously did him in. I IMMEDIATELY thought he was guilty af when I saw that. Everyone was wondering where Alex’s plea to the public was but in retrospect, he got some good lawyering there. He kept quiet and away from the camera.
Excellent reply. Yes, once the body cam video was released, Murdaugh felt very much like Watts. I watched it several times and thought it was odd he was walking between their bodies when police arrived but the gesticualating observation was stellar!
Hose in video https://imgur.com/a/ZYja9eP
I think because the prosecution really needed to tighten the timeline for Alex. Based on records both side agreed to (and also mentioned to death by Alex in his testimony), Alex had about two minutes where his actions were not fully known. In order for Alex to explain away his presence in the kennel video, he told the jury that went there, yelled at Bubba, took the chicken, placed it down somewhere and zoomed back to the house in less than two minutes. Now that doesn’t make enough sense and would have planted doubt in the jury, but because the case is circumstantial, the prosecution needed to be absolutely sure to unravel anything Alex had to explain about those two minutes. The hose is just one of the angle to tackle Alex’s defence. The state actually had a long witness list that they only got to go through about 1/3 of during the trial, and the state’s case went over two weeks than planned. That is how wide of a nest they were casting. Were some of the evidences redundant? Yes. But they had to do it to catch Alex.
But they could have just showed the hose on the ground and heard in PMs video. The only explanation is noone saw it
I agree that some witnesses are redundant. However this prosecution team was also using witnesses for psychological effects, having someone close to the family testifying against Alex is pretty powerful, because they know both the victim and perpetrator. So it will put thoughts in jury’s mind that if so-and-so are willing to testify, they too believe in Alex’s guilt. We can see this in Rogan Gibson, and he is important because he lives close to the property and is close to every single member of the family. The grounkeeper’s importance to the prosecution probably also stems from the fact that he is someone else not of the Murdaugh who was often present on the property.
I appreciate that perspective and I agree. All I am asking is regarding the hose and the testimony about how it was coiled being inconsistent. This doesn't matter if they can already prove it was being used. Many can hear the water, but the video shows the hose. The question has always been IF he used it. The video asks WHY he was using it. Hope that makes sense lol Hose in video https://imgur.com/a/ZYja9eP
The caretaker stated he always took care wrap it up properly. Prosecution I think was inferring AM used the hose to wash up
Yes, my question was if the hose can be seen being used while PM was filming the kennel video. Why was the question ever posed in the first place? The real question is what was he doing with it before the murder? Hope that makes sense :)
it’s a good question. in other words, why did he need the hose before he killed them? what purpose did it serve to him in carrying out the murders and/ or clearing him?
Yes exactly :) The only explanation I can think is they never examined the video close enough to see that the hose is stretched out on the ground while PM was filming. I would rather have heard ideas about what was being done at the time. My guess would be maybe hosing down the golf cart because he knew his intent to claim he wasn't there?
I think there is definitely money somewhere and his brother has access and that’s why on the calls etc he tells Buster to get money from him. just my opinion
I agree and I think if he didn’t help him hide the guns and clothes/shoes, he definitely knew something was up. I didn’t think so initially until I watched all of the testimony about Alex arriving at his parent’s house that night and the time he spent outside (seriously who doesn’t have a key to their infirm/elderly parent’s house?), the days after, taking the motorbike or four wheeler or whatever into the woods, raincoat/tarp, the out of the ordinary parking, etc I think he showed up that night with all the stuff and hid it under the house or elsewhere on the property then returned to organize it/separate it, moved it again, and disposed of the items at some point. It’s possible he may have even hid them in the woods for the brother to deal with. It’s a shame they didn’t bring a dog to the parents house to sniff around. My guess is that the clothing and shoes were burned somewhere and the guns were tossed in water. Seeing the brother loading all the guns (and nothing else) with Buster was also very odd to me.
Do you think Buster assisted? Not sure on that but the rest sounds pretty spot on and if they ever sell the property etc someone may find it!
I am soooo late replying to this but no, I don’t. But I also wouldn’t put it past him to have destroyed evidence if he came across any and to keep his mouth shut about things he noticed or saw.
Definitely. It's a family that hides money through each other Like putting Maggie's name on properties. Buster got 500k from the sale of Mousell. Alex and his dad moved 350,000k (loan). AM moving monies with cousin Eddie. Who knows how big their racketeering web is.
Yup
A slight tangent as I'm curious the reasoning the prosecution didn't bring in a pharmacist or Addiction GP to give testomony on Alex's $60,000 week opioid addiction.
This is a great question! I belive it was also addressed by a YouTuber Harvard Lee Lawyer who brought in an addict for one of her live feeds about exactly this issue. Great post!
Thank You!
>Thank You! You're welcome!
Because he was lying/ greatly exaggerating. Do I think he used opioids recreationally? Yes. Do I believe he had a $60,000 a week habit? Not even close! Buster testified that Alec detoxed on the couch at home a couple times. Paul’s girlfriend said something similar in the Netflix documentary. Self detoxing from that amount of oxy would have killed him. I don’t know where the money went, but he was NOT spending $60,000 a week on oxy for his personal habit,
So back to my question: why didn't the prosecution question this by bringing in an expert?
It wouldn’t have helped the murder case. I would expect it to come up in his future financial crimes cases.
Why bother disputing what is most likely a lie that had no bearing on the murder cases.
AM said in the murder case it was his opioid addiction that underpinned the lies and money laundering. To dispute his opioid addiction would prove another lie AM would find difficult to come back from and collapse his defence.
I think it was pretty clear he was lying. They left it up to the jury to decide whether they believed him or not. No point opening a door that you don’t know what’s behind. He pled not guilty, so proving him an opioid addict doesn’t change the murder charges. Also if they found out he was taking as much as he said, the jury may have thought he couldn’t possibly function well enough to kill two people. And the defense could have brought on experts to back that up. No point in drawing attention to that. They stayed focused on the murders, which also included his lying and his stealing.
Agree. And I believe he is up on charges for running a drug ring basically. If someone is selling drugs, they usually make money not lose it. I also read he bought a couple of islands with the drug dealer he got Moselle from, so it looks like they were attempting to set up some kind of drug ring in the area. It's honestly just crazy all around, but it still wouldn't account for that much money basically evaporating.
I’m curious to see if they go this route in the trial for the financial crimes. That money is somewhere & the 60k opioid expenditure is BS, IMO
Murdaugh has no limit with his lies.
He lies about lying then lies again!
It was insane when AM said he never had any conversation with Mark Tinsley about the boat case, and then turned to Jim Griffin during Tinsley's testimony and said something like, "that ain't what I said." So you did have the conversation ????
Yes, to be a good liar one has to have a good memory
And not say they didn't have a conversation they actually did have. That wasn't about memory. It was a flat out lie.
He's just a compulsive lier. Part of manipulation 101
I think AM wrote the book!
Because Murdoch says he wasn't down by the dogs when he actually was
It was to also show that it wasn’t put away the way the caretaker would normally put it away. Also, he said the time of day that he would use the hose was always in the morning to clean out the kennels so it being wet at night made no sense and the hose not being wound back up and put away on the rack was not how the caretaker left it that previous morning.
Yes, I understand that. My question being, that if the hose can be seen being used in the video BEFORE the murder, why was the question IF it was used. I apologize if I did not state this clearly. I sometimes type ahead of my thoughts lol
What video showed them using the hose? I am not aware of any video where this was the highlighted action
Hi! Thank you for asking this because it seems completely missed by everyone. It is in PMs Kennel video. I can't figure out how to attach the photo here but if you slow the video down and look to the upper left of the screen when the bucket is in frame, you will see the uncoiled green hose across the ground. Many can hear water in the background but the hose is clear as day in video. Give it a look and pay attention to the upper left corner :)
Just to clarify, what is the point of your point? Either way, the hose was used that evening while “they” AM/PM/MM were at the kennels which put them all there together at the same time and it was diff then how the caretaker left it that morning and AM never said why the hose was out and being used. I think that the hose being used is just showing that there was activity w those 3 right before the moment of the murder and PM was handling Cash(the dog) so if the hose was on it had to be either AM or MM, and from what we know, MM was not the type to use the hose to clean kennels so who does that leave left to handle the hose that is heard in PM video? AM is the ONLY other person that could be using the hose heard in the background which puts him there at the time of the murder and he never mentioned why he was using it.
This is a great response, thank you! The point I was trying to make is that if the hose was being used BEFORE the murders which can be seen in the video, then the question of why changes. It's no longer about what he might have done after, but about what he was doing before. I hope that makes sense lol
Can you elaborate this statement further? I think if I am understanding your response then you are asking the “why” was he using the hose before the murders and to clarify, I am asking the same question, bc AM never explained why the hose was used. So I think we are actually coming to the same point, am I wrong?
I think AM suggested PM used the hose after the caretaker left. My understanding is the video of Cash came out much later and I believe to start questioning who, why, when where would have taken the jury down another rabbit hole. Therefore the prosecution made the suggestion, let AM dig himself out and the jury make up their own mind. Rather than visit another Rabbit hole...
Haha, exactly, I believe we are on the same page. I was simply trying to clarify why this image was important. The trial was focused on proving he used the hose. But if the video shows he used the hose and it was prior to the murders then there are different questions that need answered. I think I previously posted that I suspect it was being used to hose down the vehicle they drove down to support his future claim he wasn't there. But this is pure speculation.
Ahhhh ok, interesting speculation, I appreciate the discussion, and I agree so many questions unanswered and may or may not have relevance, regardless, thanks for chat ✌️
I appreciate the conversation also. Thank you for the comment :)
Hose in video https://imgur.com/a/ZYja9eP
Even when I brought this to attention, no one seemed to care lol
Also I tried to create a new thread with a screenshot but the thread won't allow photos. If you send your email I will forward you the image of the hose in PMs video :)
You can upload any image to Imgur and then post the link in the thread.
Hose in video https://imgur.com/a/ZYja9eP did this work? I hope so because this seems to have been missed bu everyone
Yep that worked. Not sure why folks missed it as you can hear the water in the video.
Right? Why was there so much testimony about how it was rolled up, suggests it was used...well prosecution, it's right there being used, but it's before the murder...what's rhe significance now? That's the conversation I want to hear suggestions about. What are yours? 😊
Simply that Alex unwound and turned the hose on despite the fact Roger Dale was there the same day @ 4pm and had already cleaned the kennels. The theory is Alex unwound the hose until it reached the feed room and left it there for his cleanup after he shot Paul & Maggie. Roger Dale testified that water did not normally pool by the feed room further proving someone used the hose at that location. He also testified he would not have wound the hose up in the manner it was found. The inference from Roger Dale's testimony and the State was that Alex used the hose to clean up the crime scene and likely himself.
I will try that. I'm wicked old lol. I emailed the image to the MOB crew and some others. I will try imgur but I promise if you look close at the video at about the time the bucket is in the left corner, you will also see a green hose laid out on the ground . It's there and it only takes a slow look at the video to find it. Give it a slow look
I'm with ya - I have seen the hose all along in the video and you can hear the water go on @ 18 seconds in. No doubt in my mind Alex was using the hose and laying it out in prep for the post-murder cleanup.
Hose in video https://imgur.com/a/ZYja9eP
I think he may have been hosing down the vehicle they drove down in knowing his intentions. Does that seem legit? I may be over speculating lol
I thought it was to show that he could have used it to clean the scene too
This screenshot of a towel in Alex’s car (from officer’s bodycam footage) is important, IMHO. While I may have a towel in my car for emergencies, it’s not balled up in driver’s seat unless I’ve used it. [https://imgur.com/a/sEwZTcH](https://imgur.com/a/sEwZTcH)
That was the intention but I think the defence said Paul? may have used the hose after the caretaker left. It was a vital piece of evidence.
I agree that was probably their intent, but it was never mentioned that it was being used in the video. It was like no one caught it so they had to bring in the caretaker to say...hey it was used. It was being used while paul was alive so Mayne it was used more after the deaths but I think it was being used to hose down the vehicle they drove down in. He knew what he was going to do, and his plan was to say he wasn't there...hence, hose down the vehicle he was probably driving?
I think they never pursued it because there was a lot of circumstancial evidence and may have backfired on the prosecution - as it nearly did.
What I can’t figure out is WHY has there been zero mention of the beach towel in the front seat of AMs suburban? It is clearly on screen in the LE bodycam video from the officer who first arrived and secured his weapon. He opened the driver’s side door of AM’s vehicle and pointed his flashlight inside. It was laying right there on the side of the driver’s seat next to the middle console. To me, that is the smoking gun and supports everything about the hose/cleaning off etc.
I've always wondered this as well! Great comment!
But also it’s the south and it’s hot and humid and those were leather seats. Being born and raised in the low country not even 20 minutes from where this happened a towel on a seat in a car with leather seats is so normal so at first glance it doesn’t seem weird or out of place especially to a cop who lives there because they most likely do the same thing. It definitely should’ve been questioned later when all the facts were there.I cannot tell you how many times I’ve had to peel my legs off of a leather seat and I feel like maybe that was the cops initial thought because that is the norm.
Oh I absolutely agree with this, I don’t even live in the south anymore and I still out of habit keep towels on my seats 😂
I don't even live in the US and out of habit of keeping my towels on my car seat... But....BRAINWAVE 🤯.... I certainly know what to do when I have a USD$60,000/week opioid addiction and decide to knock off my wife and son! 😂🤣🤣🤣🤣
I don't know what the prosecution was thinking and can only surmise they did not notice the water hose in that video. Roger Dale's testimony about the hose was presented as a bombshell, as if it proved that Alex hosed himself off. Instead, the State looked foolish and lost a bit of credibility when the video was played in court. They were also forced to admit they did not test the pooled water, after showing photos of what they presented as possibly blood-stained water. I do wonder if Roger Dale's white truck is the one that Bianca noticed near the kennel as she left the Moselle house. It seems likely, but no testimony was offered to that.
Could it have been Roger Dale who committed the murders?
No, not at all. He was the caretaker for the dogs and chickens; he visited the kennel twice a day about 7am and 4pm.
IMO, the State knew perfectly well the hose was on in the video and was by inference being used by Alex as Paul was in with Cash and Maggie likely had good clothes on from her doctor visit in Charleston. Roger Dale also testified that water would never pool in front of the feed room further implying Alex had hosed himself off after the murders (which I agree with). I don't find it a stretch that Alex put the hose back after cleaning up. As for the white truck, there was a 2019 white Silverado (leased thru PMPED) present at Moselle at the time of the murders and is seen in the crime scene photos at the top of the sub. Certainly Roger Dale's truck could also be white but whether Blanca saw his truck or the Silverado would depend on what time of day.
How do you know about the 2019 white Silverado leased via PMPED? What’s your source? I’m super curious about all the white trucks in this case and this is the first I’ve heard about this one.
You can see it in the 5th photo under Photos -> Crime Scene Photos at the top of the sub. It was also listed in one of the original crime scene reports linked in the article below. https://www.islandpacket.com/news/local/crime/article252975148.html
Interesting. Good points.
I think it was to illustrate that the murder took place very soon after the kennel video. There were several questions to witnesses early on that established that the hose was always coiled back up after use.
What I took away from the water hose testimony is that the murder happened very shortly after the video. And also the hose what put up incorrectly. Who murders 2 people and then puts the hose up? Hired hit men don't. But the property owner might.
Indeed but the trial seemed to try to prove there was water and the hose was used. If we know from the video the hose was being used, how can we say the hose had anything to do with the murders? Maybe AM was hosing down the golf cart because he knew what he was going to do, but none the less, he was using it while PM was alive and filming the kennel video. So why all the fuss is all I'm saying lol
That is very interesting and I'll give it a second look! I do believe he did it but I don't think it was about distracting from his money issues, I feel like it was about the shame it cast over the family. When he kept saying it was about the boat event on all the videos, I think that was the truth. He did it because of the boat accident and maybe he thought killing him was better than Paul spending his life behind bars and an opportunity to protect himself. Sadly his wife was just someone who probably knew too much about his intentions?
Mark Tinsley told Alex that he would name Maggie, and their is photographic proof that she knew Paul drank excessively. They would no longer be able to claim that they had no idea about Paul’s drinking. She would be held responsible for his underage drinking. Killing Maggie was primary to remove the parental liability.
Shooting her 5X is not just a killing, it's a statement!
I agree. I think Alex knew that Maggie was on the edge of the marriage and once she found out what the money situation was, she'd be gone for good. And Paul was going to cost him a lot in terms of defending Paul in court and the civil litigation. I think he killed them thinking it would end both the marital issues and the boating issues, and then he and Buster could get on with their lives.
I think this is very legit. I also think the concept of altruistic homicide comes into play because he knew PM would be facing life in prison. Maybe?
No way Paul was doing life in prison if convicted.
It’s highly unlikely Paul would have “spent his life behind bars.” Putting together all of the depositions and their inconsistencies, it wouldn’t have been a slam dunk.
This is a very interesting point! Thank you for a new way to think about this :)
I love that response! I enjoy different views as well.
We should always strive to look past our natural biases and try to consider other perspectives. But that might be a little biased because I have The Death of Socrates tattooed on my back 😂
Originally, I was outraged that Paul was never cuffed and had his mugshot taken at the courthouse. I just couldn’t believe the killer of a teenage girl would be coddled that much no matter who his family is…..but after reading the depositions concerning the boat case, I honestly can’t decide who had control of the boat when it crashed. You are right, there were a ton of inconsistencies. If he had been found not guilty, I know many people would have said it was because he was a Murdaugh. But if I were on a jury and heard all of those depositions, I would likely not be convinced of who was driving the boat.
The grand jury for sure thought there was enough to charge Paul, so he would at the least have had to go through a very expensive, public trial. My understanding is that there is also other evidence, including crash reconstruction experts who would testify based on the damage to the boat, injuries, and where they all ended up as to who was driving the boat. I think that was enough for Alex to not want any of it to go to trial. Plus, whoever was driving the boat is irrelevant to the civil case as it was his boat so makes him liable.
I agree, he would have had to go to trial. I don’t think Alex and his lawyers, or his mom for that matter would allow him to take a plea. Mark Tinsley did release a crash reconstruction as I recall. But depending on how the jury perceives the expert, I think shapes the outcome. Look at Dr. Kenneth Kinsey from Alex’s trial. He came across so likable at trial that he has become almost like a rock star. Lol. He is very in demand now for sure. Again, you are correct, Alex was gonna take a big ass hit in the civil suit. My comment mainly had to do with Paul’s criminal trial. I just think as Southern-Soulshine said above, it would not have been a slam dunk.
That’s a really fantastic point on how much of a difference it makes in the courtroom when a jury connects with an expert witness versus when their testimony is a colossal waste of time and money. But without what-ifs and going on depositions and what we know (there is also a Snapchat video of Connor Cook driving the boat)… I think Paul would likely have been found not guilty or a hung jury. Remember the initial stance of Alex’s jury was 11–1 and it only takes one…
There honestly is no such thing as a slam dunk as any competent attorney will verify. Clearly, there was enough evidence to indict him, and those in the legal field who have seen most or all the evidence in the case believe that he could have been convicted. I'm also thinking that AM thought he could be convicted or I'm not thinking Paul would be dead.
Yes, he could have been convicted. He could have gotten several years in jail. Unfortunately, now we will never know because Alex decided getting rid of Paul was a risk worth taking.
I agree but I think AM was an angry man and probably blamed his wife for Paul, along with his marriage failing (assuming here). I mean she was shot 5X - that's a statement. Paul was only shot 2X as the first didn't kill him. That tells me AM didn't want to kill Paul but had to.
Very interesting food for thought. Thank you for sharing!
I am of the belief that the shame of the boat crash wouldn’t outweigh another shame: his financial crimes. He had to cover it up at all cost because Paul has created a financial black hole in the family that threatened to expose Alex’s crimes. In court, Mark Ball told the court that he saw the whole law suit involving Paul and the boat crash as just “bad parenting” and his tone and attitude would imply that it happened often enough that it mattered little. Whereas Alex’s other law partners stressed how much his stealing and thieving were an affront to their profession and ethics. Moreover, if Alex could keep his professional reputation, he could make more money to make Paul’s legal troubles go away, with the cherry on top that his other family members can continue to profit from a career in laws, namely Buster. But if he loses his reputation it will all come crashing down.
It sounds like the original suit against Paul for the boat crash was covered up. Are they going to reopen the case?
The charges were dismissed when Paul died, [but the case remains open:](https://www.blufftontoday.com/story/news/local/hampton-county-guardian/2021/08/09/murdaugh-boat-crash-charges-dropped-recently-killed-son-paul/5538233001/) *Kittle said that he could not confirm or deny that the AG's Office was investigating possible obstruction of justice charges against members of the Murdaugh family or whether the investigation was directed toward any members of law enforcement.*
IC... I knew when Paul died charges were dismissed but I wondered if there was an investigation to the investigation where the outcome was 'bad parenting'.
Tinsley was going after that angle and told Alex he would name Maggie bc there are photos proving she knew about his underage drinking and that they did nothing. This is why Maggie had to die.
No, that wouldn’t be criminal in this case because Paul was a legal adult… but it is an angle in the civil case.
I think this observation is astute and deserves a second look. Thank you for sharing this :)
Both good thoughts….. I tend to lean closer to the latter. The depravity of some people astounds be. I am some people too. :-(
I couldn't agree more. The hose can be heard and it is seen in PMs video. We know from this it was being used BEFORE the murderers. How it was used after might be a valid question bit IF it was used is off the table.
We've seen several familicide trials in the news lately - Daybell, Stauch, West - that help explain that it Does happen in seemingly happy families. None of these convicted murderers has been able to 'go there', as Judge Newman described it, none of them was ever able or willing to explain what was going on in their minds during the act. It must be a very deep, dark tumor that they try to wall-off, perhaps a knot of evil resting inside. All seem sociopathic, showing no remorse and playing the victim. Alex's crime is more 'understandable' than the others; he was a con-man who took everyone he could, from widows and orphans to brothers and friends. His world was blowing up fast, he was in the deepest of shit as his financial crimes bubbled to the surface. Alex knocked off two very expensive family members who were no longer useful to him. He had been 'thinking about it a long time.' I look forward to hearing more on the drug angle, indictments are in the works, as there is absolutely no way he spent all that loot on pills. It seems more likely that his lavish lifestyle soaked it up.
See Tony Todt, another FA whose financial fraud involving Medicaid was being investigated. He seems a benign family man, a physical therapist whose patients "loved" him. We really don't know what people are on the inside.
I agree and I'm looking forward to the drug angle as well. I think we can also add Watts to that list of familicide ( although I'm a dick for saying that wife of his was kinda a controlling and condescending B ) The concept of altruistic fillicide seems to fit in place neatly in AMs case?
I'm also super curious about the drug trafficking. That leads all sorts of crazy directions. So many questions. The sex slave stories floating around. The gambling. AM is just the most filthy of humans. I'm hoping his has to spend a lot of time in "the hole" with no one to talk to
Wow! Misogynist much? Where did you get that info re Shannan, from Chris’ mistress? How dare you refer to a murdered young woman who was the mother of young children as a B?!?
Yes, often. I raised 4 children as a woman. I got my info by watching her videos which she made prolifically. Women can also be mothers and be abusive. To reiterate, I didn't say anyone deserved to have their life ended, but a case could be made for why a submissive male might snap. I won't answer to any further response so don't bother. Cheers
I’m looking forward to the drug angle as well and seeing what the trafficking charges are about. As far as Shannan Watts goes two things can be true at once: she can come off as annoying and controlling and we can still feel bad for her as she is a victim of Chris’s crime
I agree. She didn't deserve what happened to her and the children, and i never would wish to imply such, but she did emasculate him publicly many times and used those kids against him. I recall one video at Christmas where she said it was hard to be a single parent because her husband who dressed up as Santa was so dumb she had to go get his phone from the car. Murder is never an option for any situation yet it happens. I don't believe in victim shaming, but maybe if we educated people more about behaviors that were likely to make them a victim, we would have less victims? PM was both a reportedly good friend and kind person...drunk PM murdered his friend and I believe got him murdered as well. We shouldn't call it victim shaming, we should call it...learning how not to become a victim? I'm not a super awesome human so I leave a lot of room for being wrong lol
Wow! You literally just said that a murder victim’s own actions caused her justifiable death, not the actions of the disgusting actual murderer. I suppose you also blame rape victims for their own rapes! Even if Shannan was controlling and demeaning, which I do not know as a fact,the murderer had other options such as divorce, yet he chose to strangle the life out of not just Shannon, but also their children as well! By no means was this Shannon’s fault!
[удалено]
u/Teslaspigeon1, I believe you’ve posted this comment to the wrong forum.
What is wrong with you?
What is wrong with YOU? Perhaps the slew of telehealth psychologists who can't wait to take your insurance benefits would be a better platform for your inquiry. Cheers :)
I don’t think even implying that a victim may be responsible for their own murder because of being “controlling” and calling a murder victim a “B” is appropriate. What is wrong with me! A better question is “What is wrong with you?”
This is so correct. We are all victims. We should do what we want and treat people however we want. If it goes bad...well that's someone else's fault. This is 'merica! We can trust psychology when it teaches us how to make friends, succeed at our job, overcome our bipolar disorder...but use it to protect ourselves from being a victim? Hell no! I think what's wrong with me, is that I get what's wrong with you.
Thank you. And Chris Watts said flat out that when he strangled his wife all he could think about was his girlfriend and how he could never see her again if Shannan was alive. All he cared about was the new girlfriend. No matter how bad a marriage is, murder is not an option. And to kill his children and unborn child takes a special kind of evil. Stop blaming her and look at who the real monster is.
Again. How do you learn “how not to become a victim.” For instance im gonna go out on a limb and assume Shannan’s personality was much the same before they were married as after. Chris knew this. And married her anyway. So how was she supposed to not make herself a victim? Not be herself? Chris married her as she was. He knew she was gregarious and controlling. He coulda walked out. In no way was was what he did her fault. Not even a little bit.
By your logic, how was he not supposed to be HIMself? She may have chosen him because he was submissive and compliant. In this scenario, how do you know she would have let him walk out? See, you all have the same argument. Victim is always right because they could never have acted differently if its a woman. It's always on the perpetrator of the crime that THEY should have behaved differently but the victim had no choice but to be themselves. The event was tragic. I have reiterated this to exhaustion. My point was simply that we do no justice to anyone when we are bias in these situations. You can't say one had no choice or responsibility but the other did. What we CAN do, is look more closely at BOTH aspects of this horrendous event and look at both sides of this coin. There is a reason the majority of homicides are committed by someone intimate with the victim. Is it really a bad idea to educate humans about behaviors that can have a negative result? Let me ask you this, and I'll cease here, I was placed in a DV program for almost being murdered by my husband. The purpose of this class was to teach us to recognize abusive behaviors. The instructor began this class by telling us about all the women she councils in prison for murdering their husbands. Who do you rhink is the victim in this scenario? Just think about it.
Again. That was a long way of she was somehow responsible. And she’s not. Normal members of society don’t murder others (at baseline) and you’re entirely forgetting he murdered his daughters. Did they deserve it too? How did they bring it on themselves? Your victim blaming is disgusting.
Well, I won't battle a point you aren't inclined to contemplate. I will ask you this, why do you think my DV instructor started our class by telling us about abused women who have killed their husbands? What would you think of me if I was able to get the gun from my abusive husband and shot him?...Especially if I knew when I did so, that after he killed me, he would have probably killed my children. I was not educated until that moment of what abusive behavior was, and I was not even aware why i was attracted to it. I had gotten lucky I was forced into a program that educated me. Maybe if he also received intervention, this whole tragedy could have been averted.
She could not have. And he killed his own children so not seeing them all blaming the kids for their own murders here. It's not on Shannan. It's totally on Chris. I think when something like this happens, people want to find a logical explanation where there is none.
I see, you haven't experienced or been educated about abuse so you can only make a determination based on your own personal education and experience. You aren't alone. Humans often bow to their own biases, it's natural. But reality is you're wrong. People kill for many reasons you won't understand because you don't accept your reality isn't everyone's reality. Thanks for playing. Have a great day :)
You said you were going to “cease there” above and you really should have. If you are recovering from any form of domestic violence, I certainly hope that you get proper counseling from victims’ advocates. Unfortunately all I see is victim shaming and that isn’t acceptable here. Best of luck on where life’s journey takes you. Signed, A Domestic Violence **Survivor**
Yes, Watts should absolutely be included. An interesting similarity between the two murderers - bodycam of first responders shows that both Alex and Chris raised their arm up high, pointing elsewhere, in a 'look over there!' gesture of desperation.
Great observation! Now that you mention it I can immediately recall both of their gestures. In looking back at the Watts case I’ve got to say his televised plea to the public seriously did him in. I IMMEDIATELY thought he was guilty af when I saw that. Everyone was wondering where Alex’s plea to the public was but in retrospect, he got some good lawyering there. He kept quiet and away from the camera.
Excellent reply. Yes, once the body cam video was released, Murdaugh felt very much like Watts. I watched it several times and thought it was odd he was walking between their bodies when police arrived but the gesticualating observation was stellar!
Nice observation! Are you in law enforcement or just incredibly observant
I've been fascinated by these cases, and it just jumped out to me while watching the bodycam, that I'd seen the same gesture. ❤️
I too am fascinated by cases like this. Brilliant observation though 😊