lunchbox said:

---

AM had blue lights installed in a lawfirm owned vehicle.

I don't think it moves a needle, but is funny

LOL - the local Sheriffs gave him permission to do so...goes to law enforcement giving him a lot of leeway

---

So it was not technically illegal at the time as they unofficially "deputized" him.

Wonder how many pictures of Creightin Waters' staff with badges on their dashboards will hit the internet now?

Is this the line of questioning that happens when they have no evidence?

Wabs said:

---

Is this the line of questioning that happens when they have no evidence?

---

Yes, pounding the table with character evidence. Orange hair man bad.

Why is Creighton going in this direction? Who cares about which big case he had when?

FWIW, to me the defendant is coming off as being truthful and the prosecutor seems to be reaching for some unrelated issue.

We are getting into asked and answered territory. Defense will start objecting.

ETA: If they want to, or they can let Waters keep badgering the witness.

Good lord he's being badgered about financial issues coming out of the 2008 recession and the cases immediately following. This is entirely irrelevant.

Prosecutor has the body language of a big *******.

WOW! AM was good at getting whopping settlements. He was the rainmaker for that firm. Absent the thefts, he was very good at it. Which is why his firm cut him as much slack as they did.

Dude stole a **** ton of money

Kozmozag said:

---

Dude stole a **** ton of money

---

About 8 million over ten years, is my understanding.

Did you have land deals go bad in 2008 and 2009?

What are we doing here?

Not a Bot said:

---

Did you have land deals go bad in 2008 and 2009?

What are we doing here?

---

I know I had some deals that went south and my stock portfolio took a hit.

BTW, Waters is having it both ways here. Now all of the attorney's fees were Alex's and not the firm's. That end of the year zeroing of accounts did not result in him getting every single penny of those fees.

BTW, Russell LaFitte being appointed conservator means he was getting fees and skimming too.

Russell had the duty to tell them as their conservator. He owed them a fiduciary duty too.

Well, I am reminded of Al Pacino. AM may be a bad guy, "BUT NOT A SNITCH!" on Russell.

At this point this just makes the defense closing easier.

"You know why they spent two weeks of testimony and five hours of cross on financial crimes dating back to 2010? Because they have no murder case."

Right now, wonder if either Alex or his attorneys are thinking this was a bad idea.

Well how many times are you going to ask that ****ing question?

I think Waters is just running out the clock today because he doesn't want to get into the murders yet.

He did finally get AM to say he sat down a client and looked him in the eye and lied to him. Not sure if the jury would get that he is trying to infer AM could do it to them too.

His testimony is making me think he didn't do it. Not every thief is a murderer. Not ever murderer is a thief. Maybe question him about the murder, and not the financial crimes.

I'm not on the jury and I picked up on it as soon as the questioning started

AM just said he did these financial crimes to people he cared about...

"I did them this way"

1991sir said:

---

His testimony is making me think he didn't do it. Not every thief is a murderer. Not ever murderer is a thief. Maybe question him about the murder, and not the financial crimes.

---

Defense is going to have to hammer that argument on cross. I hope Poot is up for it.

Part of the problem here was the internal record keeping of the firm with the difference between "Forge Consulting" and AM's DBA acoount (at a different bank no less) as just "Forge."

They should have checked the endorsements on the returned checks and the account information printed on the back.

Had a weird case of embezzlement wherein the payee was legit but the account information on the back on the returned checks showed they went into as many as 14 different accounts at the same bank where the bankers were good friends with the embezzlers. When I confronted the bank about the different accounts, their response was that it was a clerical error. So I called the FDIC to report it. They did not accept that excuse and the bank was fined.

Stealing money is different then blowing your sons brains out and shooting your wife multiple times.

Not a Bot said:

---

1991sir said:

---

His testimony is making me think he didn't do it. Not every thief is a murderer. Not ever murderer is a thief. Maybe question him about the murder, and not the financial crimes.

---

Defense is going to have to hammer that argument on cross. I hope Poot is up for it.

---

Under this judge's rules, has to be Griffin since he conducted the direct.

At which point does this not become cumulative?

The jury has to be getting sick of this line of questioning.

1991sir said:

---

Stealing money is different then blowing your sons brains out and shooting your wife multiple times.

---

I will agree with you there but it shows an indifference to those he "cared" about a decade before the murders. Escalation can happen.

I'm not saying I think he did it. I'm just typing what he said.

Recess for the day

Joe from Good Lawgic just made a good point about the point of this testimony.

Closing argument: "He lied to Taylor, he lied to Deon, he lied to the little old lady who lost her granddaughter..." on and on and on "and he looked you in the eye and lied to her too."

Murdaugh doesn't want to specifically say he looked a specific person in the eye and lied to them.

aggiehawg said:

---

Not a Bot said:

---

1991sir said:

---

His testimony is making me think he didn't do it. Not every thief is a murderer. Not ever murderer is a thief. Maybe question him about the murder, and not the financial crimes.

---

Defense is going to have to hammer that argument on cross. I hope Poot is up for it.

---

Under this judge's rules, has to be Griffin since he conducted the direct.

---

Sorry I typed cross but I meant closing.