I’m not a true crime documentary (or as South Park called it “informative murder porn”) fan, but I am going to check out the new Netflix? show about this case, I know nothing about it and it sounds kinda interesting.
1 Like
I saw the one on CNN. It was interesting. That being said, I can’t watch trials on TV, and just assume this motherfucker will get off.
I can only imagine what would happen to me if I told the jury mid-trial, that everything I’ve said previously was a lie. For me, it would be “let’s hang him,” for this guy, it will be “see, he’s an honest guy.”
I liked the admission (by the son, I think) that yeah, it was normal to have rifles just laying around. Irresponsible doesn’t begin to describe these privileged mofos.
Mrs Hawk is following this like intensely. She says he readily admits he’s a lying thieving scum bag and a degenerate drug addict to boot. But that doesn’t make him a murderer. She says if she were on the jury she’d have reasonable doubt, as of now.
In the last few minutes, his new - as of yesterday - explanation of his whereabouts and movements is starting to unravel.
I realize this doesn’t have anything to do with the verdict, but who else would have done it without also taking out Murdaugh? For that matter, who wiped out their maid a few years back? I’m pretty sure he’s going to walk, but I think he’s guilty as sin. And I imagine he’s going to jail for a long time for theft, so it’s not like he’ll be free.
1 Like
Could be. I haven’t been following it, but she’s been sharing her doubts. The timeline was one that didn’t make sense to her. She found it entirely suspect. Also, they’ve never established a motive, never found the murder weapons (the victims were shot back-to-back with different guns), not one drop of blood on him, his clothes, his car, etc, despite a pretty bloody, gruesome scene, and apparently there was some “expert” who testified that the shooter(s) was between 5’2" and 5’5" tall? Murdaugh is 6’5". But he’s been on the stand for two days now, so who knows what epiphanies she’s had. I’m sure I’ll find out over margaritas and fajitas tonight.
1 Like
I don’t know, but I’m told the prosecution never established a credible motive. I guess that depends on who you ask though.
Yeah, I think the State rightly thinks he did it, but the motive they give is pretty lame. I just figure that he offed them, as they knew his guilt/association to the previous deaths/murders and either he was feeling anxious about further charges against him, or they were threatening to expose his culpability in those deaths/ murders.
And to merge this Limey’s Apple fetish, I’ve found out that your iPhone has far more capability than I ever imagined. For example, police can tell the exact moment your phone goes from portrait to landscape mode. It’s never entered my mind that such could be a useful piece of information, but it may convict or acquit a guy of brutally murdering his wife and son.
1 Like
I understand they’re claiming he did it to garner sympathy for the upcoming civil trial associated with the boating accident? That’d be a pretty extreme reaction.
1 Like
Well, that makes more sense than what I heard. I heard it was “he was trying to distract from his upcoming trial.” I haven’t been following closely though.
He’d have to do something pretty extreme, because he’s one of the most unsympathetic creatures I’ve ever seen.
Distract, get sympathy, whatever that means. But he thought that murdering his wife and son would somehow get him off?
He and his immediate family have been “adjacent” to a number of suspicious deaths and murders.
Hey, we’re in a world (and he’s in a state) where any wacko statement is as good as a fact.
They’re like Russians and windows…
I had a great, great, great uncle hanged for murder. It was a robbery gone bad, and he and his accomplice were the last judicial execution in Florida not carried out at the state level. So there’s my brush with infamy.
1 Like
He and his wife were estranged. He was an embezzler who was up to his eyeballs in debt and running out of sources of funds - legitimate and illegitimate. A divorce - with the associated financial disclosures - would be a nightmare.
I don’t know if they have any evidence that his wife was actually pushing for a divorce. I guess if they aren’t using this angle, they don’t have evidence to support it.
Prosecution does not have to establish a motive. Motive is not an element of proof in any criminal case. That is the first thing a minimally competent prosecutor tells the jury panel so that those prospective jurors who believe otherwise can be struck for cause.
I have not heard that a divorce was imminent, or that he and his wife were estranged. I’d heard “they had their arguments, like any married couple, but that’s about it”. But I don’t know. I’m sure I’ll get the full lowdown tonight.