Infection_Ag11 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

It always seemed less than likely that he committed the murders.

ANd maybe his debt, stealing and harming others was the actual motive.

---

...minutes before they were murdered...

It literally couldn't have been anyone else.

---

How do you know exactly when they were killed?

It could have been dozens or even hundreds of other people.

---

Between the time of reporting, his cellphone data and the TOD assessment there's only about a 25 minute window in which they could have been killed. Between that, the other evidence against him and the complete absence of any evidence anyone else was there there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to even suspect it could have been anyone else.

Every single argument against his guilt boils down to "well you can't prove it wasn't someone else". Which isn't how any of this works.

---

The only known time of the murders is between 8:48 and 10:06, roughly 80 minutes.

My argument is that you can/t prove it was him and that's the only argument that "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" need. Bringing up other possibilities helps add doubt but it's cetainly not the only argument.

---

TOD estimates are extremely accurate when bodies are found so soon after death.

---

Those estimates are only accurate if they are based on good data. In this case, the coroner used his hand to guess at the temperature of their armpits. Doesn't seem very scientific to me.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Guitarsoup said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Overturned because of the behavior of members of the court, not because of any new evidence or actual concern that he might be innocent.

He'll be easily convicted at his new trial. The evidence against him remains definitive and overwhelming. He obviously murdered them.

---

I think he either pulled the triggers or directed them to be pulled by the guy he has shoot him, but I also don't think it was right to introduce all the financial stuff to his trial. I think that was more prejudicial than probative. And because neither his wife nor son had a insurance policy, he didn't get a financial benefit that would take care of his financial problems

---

And it's insulting to the intelligence of every thinking person for someone to see his cellphone data and surrounding events and expect them to come to any other conclusion that he was dumping the guns and trying to create a flimsy alibi.

---

One of my biggest issues with the whole theory that Alex did it and then hid evidence is that the timline to do all of it is extremely tight. Possible but difficult even with having pre-planned. And almost none of it was done well except for getting rid of the murder weapons. So he planned it so well that he made the weapons dissappear but then screwed everything else up?

---

That's typically how most plans like that go. And again, you have to want to have doubt to look at the totality of events and believe it's reasonable to think he didn't do it.

---

The presumption should always be innocence. That is my want. Alex will spend the rest of his life behind bars based on the financial crimes alone and he should. I do not care about him but I also don't want a murder to go unsolved just because everyone hates Alex.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

Are there really people that are less than 100% convinced this dude did the crime?

The Snapchat video with his voice on it was enough to make me believe he absolutely did it.

---

I would question a lot about someone who believes with 100% certainty that Murdaugh is guilty, the first thing being where did they get their info about the case?

---

Do you not believe that it was AM's voice in the Snapchat video? I saw testimony from people that know him intimately that say without a doubt it was him.

OK....so let's say, just for a sec, it WASN'T him (tongue planted firmly in cheek)....

Who DID do it? What other motive, or motives, are out there to murder this guy's wife and kid?????

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Modern crime TV has completely destroyed the average Americans idea of "reasonable doubt" and it's one of the reason I think there's a strong argued for getting rid the jury system entirely. It's just fundamentally broken (for other reasons as well).

---

Are you insane? How do you plan to get rid of the jury system?

---

Just imagine Auntie Bev being the only deciding party of Karen Read…no jury. Yuck!!

Come Out Roll said:

---

OK....so let's say, just for a sec, it WASN'T him (tongue planted firmly in cheek)....

Who DID do it? What other motive, or motives, are out there to murder this guy's wife and kid?????

---

Paul was the driver (drunk) of the boat when it crashed killing a girl? Because that happened.

He made a lot of people mad and owed a lot of people a lot of money. His kid specifically was likely responsible for the death of another teenager when he was drunkenly driving a boat and wrecked it. There was also some speculation he may have been involved with some drug issues.

Based on the evidence we saw at trial though, I think he's either guilty of doing it himself or he had someone help him. I'm just still not getting how he could have killed his son at such close range with a shotgun yet there's zero forensic evidence of blood on him, on his clothes, or in his car and there was practically no time to shower. Nothing in the shower drains either. He would have had to have been wearing some sort of protective layer of clothing and got rid of it, which is possible but it's a missing item of evidence. I absolutely think he was there at the time of the shooting.

There's a plausible theory that a couple of guys were out there lying in wait and ambushed them, but why would they not have killed Alex too? Also no reason for his wife's phone to be on the side of the road on the route to his mother's house which is his supposed alibi.

I think the most likely scenario is he paid someone to do it just like he paid for his suicide attempt and perhaps he chickened out and decided he didn't want to die that day either. Maybe he paid them to kill all three of them.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Modern crime TV has completely destroyed the average Americans idea of "reasonable doubt" and it's one of the reason I think there's a strong argued for getting rid the jury system entirely. It's just fundamentally broken (for other reasons as well).

---

Are you insane? How do you plan to get rid of the jury system?

---

Bench trials for both civil and criminal cases work well in many thriving democratic societies all over the world. Several EU nations are currently in the process of slowly weeding out jury trials entirely.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Bench trials for both civil and criminal cases work well in many thriving democratic societies all over the world.

---

And those countries do not have federal Constitutions such as ours. They do not have the same concepts of due process that we do.

So you are advocating for amending the Constitution by throwing out due process?

---

I think a strong argument can be made based on modern data regarding jury ethnic/racial bias, the correlation between trial location and likelihood of conviction based on crime, gender and race and the worsening disconnect between what lay people view as justifying reasonable doubt and reality that jury trials are no longer or soon will no longer be the most reliable and fair means of administering justice.

We've lost the things about our society that made the jury system so good. And in the absence of that, it can eventually become a detriment to due process.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Several EU nations are currently in the process of slowly weeding out jury trials entirely.

---

And that is a bad thing.

---

I'll happily take my chances with a judge over 12 average American citizens in 2026. Not that they can't/wont be biased, but they're far more likely to have the IQ and required knowledge of legal nuance than people largely selected on the basis of how gullible a group of lawyers believe them to be. It worked once, I would argue we are I the process of watching that system's reliability crumble.

I still expect guilty but getting the financial crimes excluded is very beneficial to his odds. His odds are still very long though

DannyDuberstein said:

---

I still expect guilty but getting the financial crimes excluded is very beneficial to his odds. His odds are still very long though

---

As recently saw in the retrial of Karen Read, prosecution witnesses can be impeached through their testimony in previous proceedings. And when I was watching those prosecution SLED witnesses (crime lab) they were a bit shaky in their testimony. Reason being, the crime scene was never properly secured nor monitored as to who was tromping around where. Nor did they secure the house and as the news spread, there was a crap ton of civilians going in and out of there that night as well.

The forensics are subject to attacks by the defense for failing to follow their own procedures.

Guitarsoup said:

---

The clerk is the one that worked directly with the jury everyday.

She made their arrangements. Let them know if court was starting late or if it was being canceled for the day and things like that.

She also went in and told them to watch Alex closely because he lies

---

That's very peculiar. In Texas, and I assumed everywhere, the Bailiff is the ONLY person allowed to have any contact with the jurors at all, and he is professionally trained.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Several EU nations are currently in the process of slowly weeding out jury trials entirely.

---

And that is a bad thing.

---

I'll happily take my chances with a judge over 12 average American citizens in 2026. Not that they can't/wont be biased, but they're far more likely to have the IQ and required knowledge of legal nuance than people largely selected on the basis of how gullible a group of lawyers believe them to be. It worked once, I would argue we are I the process of watching that system's reliability crumble.

---

Your core assumption seems to be based on the idea that political biases don't infect the judicial ranks and we know that's not true. Any system built around humans will be prone to biases. The judiciary has become extremely politicized, see the judicial gymnastics that lead to Trump being convicted of 34 felonies by tying a misdemeanor beyond the statute of limitations to a federal crime that didn't exist. IMO putting your life in the hands of one potentially biased person is worse than putting it in the hands of 12.

LOYAL AG said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Several EU nations are currently in the process of slowly weeding out jury trials entirely.

---

And that is a bad thing.

---

I'll happily take my chances with a judge over 12 average American citizens in 2026. Not that they can't/wont be biased, but they're far more likely to have the IQ and required knowledge of legal nuance than people largely selected on the basis of how gullible a group of lawyers believe them to be. It worked once, I would argue we are I the process of watching that system's reliability crumble.

---

Your core assumption seems to be based on the idea that political biases don't infect the judicial ranks and we know that's not true. Any system built around humans will be prone to biases. The judiciary has become extremely politicized, see the judicial gymnastics that lead to Trump being convicted of 34 felonies by tying a misdemeanor beyond the statute of limitations to a federal crime that didn't exist. IMO putting your life in the hands of one potentially biased person is worse than putting it in the hands of 12.

---

I specifically said otherwise, it's just that I would prefer a group of biased individuals who know the law and are reliably of well above average intelligence than a group of people of the caliber that tend to end up on juries.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

I think a strong argument can be made based on modern data regarding jury ethnic/racial bias, the correlation between trial location and likelihood of conviction based on crime, gender and race and the worsening disconnect between what lay people view as justifying reasonable doubt and reality that jury trials are no longer or soon will no longer be the most reliable and fair means of administering justice.

We've lost the things about our society that made the jury system so good. And in the absence of that, it can eventually become a detriment to due process.

---

Jury trials in Texas changed drastically in the early/mid 90's. Prior to that, the jury wheel was composed of registered voters. Under pressure from minority groups, the legislature (or courts, can't remember which) required the jury wheel to add everyone with a driver's license. The difference in juries was night and day, and not for the better, in both civil and criminal trials.

You know… judge jury abs executioner

Joe Deertay said:

---

abs executioner

---

New abdomenal workout name!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Modern crime TV has completely destroyed the average Americans idea of "reasonable doubt" and it's one of the reason I think there's a strong argued for getting rid the jury system entirely. It's just fundamentally broken (for other reasons as well).

---

Are you insane? How do you plan to get rid of the jury system?

---

ask@grok of course.

BigRobSA said:

---

Joe Deertay said:

---

abs executioner

---

New abdomenal workout name!

---

bonfarr said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

Are there really people that are less than 100% convinced this dude did the crime?

The Snapchat video with his voice on it was enough to make me believe he absolutely did it.

---

I would question a lot about someone who believes with 100% certainty that Murdaugh is guilty, the first thing being where did they get their info about the case?

---

Do you not believe that it was AM's voice in the Snapchat video? I saw testimony from people that know him intimately that say without a doubt it was him.

---

I do believe it. That makes him a liar, not a murderer

Come Out Roll said:

---

OK....so let's say, just for a sec, it WASN'T him (tongue planted firmly in cheek)....

Who DID do it? What other motive, or motives, are out there to murder this guy's wife and kid?????

---

Tell me you don't know about the case without telling me you don't know about the case. Even if you've only watched the terribly one-sided Netflix documentary, you should know there were plenty of motives for killing a Murdaugh, Paul specifically.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

I'm just still not getting how he could have killed his son at such close range with a shotgun yet there's zero forensic evidence of blood on him, on his clothes, or in his car and there was practically no time to shower. Nothing in the shower drains either. He would have had to have been wearing some sort of protective layer of clothing and got rid of it, which is possible but it's a missing item of evidence. I absolutely think he was there at the time of the shooting.

---

This is, in my opinion, the biggest hole. Somehow he (overweight with a bad knee) cleaned himself perfectly and hid the guns perfectly while traveling at least hundreds of yards total all in around 20 minutes and yet still has holes in his plan? Oh and that short 20 minute time frame? He is the one that set it. He could have made it an hour and given himself more time to clean up if he'd wanted to.

And why use 2 guns if it was just him? How does that make sense?

Thanks. Becky. At least you gave me something to watch.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

chickencoupe16 said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

Are there really people that are less than 100% convinced this dude did the crime?

The Snapchat video with his voice on it was enough to make me believe he absolutely did it.

---

I would question a lot about someone who believes with 100% certainty that Murdaugh is guilty, the first thing being where did they get their info about the case?

---

Do you not believe that it was AM's voice in the Snapchat video? I saw testimony from people that know him intimately that say without a doubt it was him.

---

I do believe it. That makes him a liar, not a murderer

---

Sure, but it's a part of the larger picture. When you combine all the evidence with being caught in multiple lies about the events of that night it creates a pretty clear picture.

Lying doesn't mean you killed someone, but lying about your activities before/during/after a murder when the only evidence that exists all points to you means I get to consider that you might be lying to cover up the fact that you killed someone.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

I'm just still not getting how he could have killed his son at such close range with a shotgun yet there's zero forensic evidence of blood on him, on his clothes, or in his car and there was practically no time to shower. Nothing in the shower drains either. He would have had to have been wearing some sort of protective layer of clothing and got rid of it, which is possible but it's a missing item of evidence. I absolutely think he was there at the time of the shooting.

---

This is, in my opinion, the biggest hole. Somehow he (overweight with a bad knee) cleaned himself perfectly and hid the guns perfectly while traveling at least hundreds of yards total all in around 20 minutes and yet still has holes in his plan? Oh and that short 20 minute time frame? He is the one that set it. He could have made it an hour and given himself more time to clean up if he'd wanted to.

And why use 2 guns if it was just him? How does that make sense?

---

Ignoring for a moment that some of these issues aren't nearly as problematic as some portray them to be, the requisite alternative explanation is exponentially more implausible.

It would require someone, or multiple individuals, with an unnamed motive who were NOT on site at the time Alex is documented as being there to have shown up to this remote area nearly immediately after he claims he left without being seen coming or going, kill two people with his guns, leave no trace whatsoever that they or their vehicle were ever there and now 5 years later not one whisper of it get out in a circle where everyone knows everyone.

I watched a lot of the trial also and I'm in the camp of he was being threatened that they (drug dealers, bad guys he owed money, etc) would kill his family or him if he didn't pay up or he hired a midget hit man. Trajectories were screwed up based on my recollection.
He's a POS, but didn't seem like the killer type, just the **** up type that would let it happen or hire someone really terrible at doing it.

He was in the area when it went down.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Several EU nations are currently in the process of slowly weeding out jury trials entirely.

---

And that is a bad thing.

---

I'll happily take my chances with a judge over 12 average American citizens in 2026. Not that they can't/wont be biased, but they're far more likely to have the IQ and required knowledge of legal nuance than people largely selected on the basis of how gullible a group of lawyers believe them to be. It worked once, I would argue we are I the process of watching that system's reliability crumble.

---

The profound ignorance of this statement, especially from a supposed professional, is astounding.

---

Second this.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Several EU nations are currently in the process of slowly weeding out jury trials entirely.

---

And that is a bad thing.

---

I'll happily take my chances with a judge over 12 average American citizens in 2026. Not that they can't/wont be biased, but they're far more likely to have the IQ and required knowledge of legal nuance than people largely selected on the basis of how gullible a group of lawyers believe them to be. It worked once, I would argue we are I the process of watching that system's reliability crumble.

---

That is really true in my county.

Our juries will likely give the maximum sentence while the judge is ready to give a minimal sentence

A few years ago, one 28 year old man had a 14 year old girlfriend in my county. He was arrested and pled guilty to statutory rape.

The judge was ready to give him the shortest prison sentence he could. However, the man wanted to do no time in prison. The judge told him that it was possible to get probation from a jury and so he requested a jury determine his sentence.

Big mistake.

The jury didn't like it one bit and gave him the maximum sentence.

People keep saying there wasn't a motive, but I think there was. The wife had found out about a bunch of things and was most likely going to leave him. She was already staying out at the lake house and didn't really want to come back. His son was probably facing a prison sentence for the involuntary manslaughter of the girl on the boat.

He also lied about the dogs causing the fall of the housekeeper/friend and defrauded her family out of $4 million not including all the money he defrauded from his own company.

As messed up as he was on drugs that time and his ego, I could absolutely see him thinking well I don't want my son going through that and if my wife is leaving me, what do I have to live for? Anger can get the better of anyone in a circumstance, especially someone like him completely high.

Plus, don't forget the video of the friends dog who the son was taking care of who took a video of the dogs tail very shortly before he was killed and I believe Alex Murdaugh's voice is heard on it. This was very close to the time the murders were done.

I think there's more than enough to show that he's most likely to killer.

But if I was on the jury, I would've had to really look at everything very closely. The guy is an absolute piece of **** and it would not surprise me at all if he did it, and I believe he did but even if that is overturned, hopefully he at least spends a long time in prison for the money stuff.

For those interested, in addition to the true crime docu series that came out some years back, there was a more recently released hulu dramatization called Murdaugh: Death in the Family that is really well done.

Patricia Arquette plays Maggie

chickencoupe16 said:

---

He's a terrible person, there's no doubt. But there's no where near enough evidence to convict him for murdering his family nor is there a reasonable motive. He'll lose again at a new trial but that's not because the state will prove he did it. He'll lose because the jury pool is beyond tainted.

---

He was there at the EXACT time of the murder! lol

And he lied about it! Lol

This is a laughably ridiculous post.