Crazy lawyer up.

Circumstantial evidence morphed into direct evidence. LOL.

Have to be very careful commenting upon a defendant obstructing justice for failure to speak to authorities. That's impermissible argument over a defendant's exercise of his 5th Amendment rights.

redcrayon said:

---

Crazy lawyer up.

---

And he's the regular murder prosecutor? That's scary.

LOUD NOISES!!!

He must be guilty.

Sounds like a Baptist preacher.

broken record post...Jim Griffin has a horrible delivery. It doesn't change my prediction Alex is found not guilty even though he likely is.

I think the defense laid out enough reasonable doubt, but is the jury buying it or listening to netflix, I mean the prosecution.

When the state says, "Maybe X happened, I don't know," that's reasonable doubt.

Geee, I don't know, if you have his timeline down so well about him hiding the guns, should have been easy to find them. You have his phone and vehicle data.

So the prosecutors get 2 closing argument sessions and the defense gets 1??

A jacket that has no connection to Alex. Zero.

AggieZUUL said:

---

broken record post...Jim Griffin has a horrible delivery. It doesn't change my prediction Alex is found not guilty even though he likely is.

---

He reminds me of the prosecutor in "My Cousin Vinny". IDENTICAL!

If Alex left a blue raincoat that he used in a crime in the closet, I'm thinking he would have gone back for it. If he left it there, it sat there for a long time.

Wabs said:

---

So the prosecutors get 2 closing argument sessions and the defense gets 1??

---

Yes. That's standard because of burden of proof is on the state. They get two bites at the apple just like in the evidentiary portion of the trial.

uses a rain jacket to dispose of guns, but decides to keep the jacket with evidence all over it? umm okay

aggiehawg said:

---

Wabs said:

---

So the prosecutors get 2 closing argument sessions and the defense gets 1??

---

Yes. That's standard because of burden of proof is on the state. They get two bites at the apple just like in the evidentiary portion of the trial.

---

Gotcha

You forgot to add the clap between "I" and "dentical"

AustinCountyAg said:

---

uses a rain jacket to dispose of guns, but decides to keep the jacket with evidence all over it? umm okay

---

Exactly! Wouldn't it be with the guns and clothes??

If I'm the jury I'm getting pretty bored at this point. This guy is up there talking like he's spinning a yarn or something.

I have paid zero attention other than to know the trial is happening and click on the daily threads every now and then.

My basic understanding is: he may have done it but SLED f'd up the investigation from the get-go. A slew of unrelated evidence that shows AM is a horrible and amoral person, but not a murderer was admitted.

Is it still called "jury nullification" if they convict him because they think he's guilty of *something* even if not murder?

Wabs said:

---

If I'm the jury I'm getting pretty bored at this point. This guy is up there talking like he's spinning a yarn or something.

---

That is the only thing he is doing.

This is stupid. Did the state ever apply for a search warrant for that blue shirt and those shoes?

And here we go with a 6th Amendment violation again. So his law partners were present and that's suspicious?

This guy is making me forget Jim's less-than-stellar delivery.

I haven't paid much attention to this thing, my wife has watched some of it. Have they been able to establish a motive for this guy? I know they've done quite a lot of work to establish that he's not a man of character, but is there an actual motive for him to kill them? The only thing I've been thinking is that if he struggles with drugs as much as they're trying to illustrate to the jury, which in turn has been the factor of a lot of his behavior, then I would also think he's so out of his mind that he could kill them for no reason at all.

Anti-taxxer said:

---

I have paid zero attention other than to know the trial is happening and click on the daily threads every now and then.

My basic understanding is: he may have done it but SLED f'd up the investigation from the get-go. A slew of unrelated evidence that shows AM is a horrible and amoral person, but not a murderer was admitted.

Is it still called "jury nullification" if they convict him because they think he's guilty of *something* even if not murder?

---

"Jury nullification takes place when jurors acquit a defendant who is factually guilty because they disagree with the law as written."

Max Power said:

---

I haven't paid much attention to this thing, my wife has watched some of it. Have they been able to establish a motive for this guy? I know they've done quite a lot of work to establish that he's not a man of character, but is there an actual motive for him to kill them? The only thing I've been thinking is that if he struggles with drugs as much as they're trying to illustrate to the jury, which in turn has been the factor of a lot of his behavior, then I would also think he's so out of his mind that he could kill them for no reason at all.

---

Their "motive" was extremely weak wobbling between wanting a continuincy for the boat case and his financial world coming down around him. Nothing at all around why he benefits at all from killing his wife and kid.

This is just a complete rambling **** show.

When the state's best evidence is Bubba the dog, they have a problem.

In my mind, Bubba the Dog is one of the state's biggest problems. That video, which purportedly happens a couple of minutes before the murders, not only shows that Alex is at the kennel, but it also shows that there's no argument and that Alex is focused on the dog.

Somehow within a couple of minutes Alex goes from taking a bird away from the dog to armed with two weapons and uses one to shoot his son point blank, and the other to kill his wife with.

Then he cleans everything up, drives back to the house, disposes of the weapons, and drives back down to the kennel where he calls the police.

The timeline fails imo.

I think he was at least in on the murders

but hypothetically- if it was NOT him...

then who ran onto the estate, hid, murdered his wife and kid 2 minutes after he walked out,

wasn't observed by the dogs in a kennel, and made a clean getaway.

You forgot goes to visit his mom. The timeline is unrealistic IMO.

LMCane said:

---

I think he was at least in on the murders

but hypothetically- if it was NOT him...

then who ran onto the estate, hid, murdered his wife and kid 2 minutes after he walked out,

wasn't observed by the dogs in a kennel, and made a clean getaway.

---

for the sake of argument....

from the pictures I saw it appeared the kennel back up to some woods. If it was dark anyone could have hid in the woods and waitied until they saw a golf cart drive off. Kill the two victims and run back into the woods through another persons property and get away

LMCane said:

---

I think he was at least in on the murders

but hypothetically- if it was NOT him...

then who ran onto the estate, hid, murdered his wife and kid 2 minutes after he walked out,

wasn't observed by the dogs in a kennel, and made a clean getaway.

---

If SLED had properly secured Maggie's phone, we would likely know the answer to that.

Not caught up today but it seems to me like Waters incessant hammering home that Alex had screwed all these people over in these financial crimes would invite many more potential murderers to the picture than just Alex.