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.

---

That window is not accurate. Both victims quit using their phones within minutes of the time where the son's phone captured him on scene. He was there at the time that they died. Then lied about it.

Stop being obtuse.

ATX_AG_08 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.

---

That window is not accurate. Both victims quit using their phones within minutes of the time where the son's phone captured him on scene. He was there at the time that they died. Then lied about it.

Stop being obtuse.

---

Even without that there's a maximum window of 20-25 minutes after that footage was taken where it could have occurred when you combine all the known factors.

But for all intents and purposes yes, it's reasonably safe to assume they were killed very soon after it was taken based on this fact.

I don't think there was any testimony that Alex knew that Maggie had talked to a divorce attorney or that she was exploring divorce. Without him knowing that, there is no motive there.

Paul facing the BUI Involving death isn't a motive to kill Paul. There were also conflicting witness statements about who was even driving the boat as the drunk kids were not all ideal witnesses.

Five ppl on the boat said his son was driving and was also confirmed by a forensic crash reconstruction expert based on injuries, ejections, etc.

You need more evidence than that?

I only know the 30,000 foot view of this story. Did Murdaugh ever offer an explanation or theory as to might have done it if it wasn't him? Or was his defense simply "If you think I did it, prove it."

Guitarsoup said:

---

I don't think there was any testimony that Alex knew that Maggie had talked to a divorce attorney or that she was exploring divorce. Without him knowing that, there is no motive there.

Paul facing the BUI Involving death isn't a motive to kill Paul. There were also conflicting witness statements about who was even driving the boat as the drunk kids were not all ideal witnesses.

---

I thought the thing about the boat was pretty set. I've seen some of the footage from that night right after the cops came up on the kids. You obviously heard differently.

And if you're talking about someone who's that ****ed up on drugs and has legal issues piling up, losing his job, etc., he did and knowing that all the stuff his job was about to come out and that she would leave him I think it's all it took. It doesn't matter what he knew she was doing/knew.

I could totally see this guy with his ego just freaking out in the moment thinking he keeps saving his son from having to go to prison and preventing his wife from being disappointed in him. Or hell shooting the wife in the son coming up on it. I don't believe the man was thinking clearly around that time. From the work stuff alone I think he knew he was going to prison.

Too bad these egotistical *******s can't just kill themselves and leave other people alone.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

People have killed for much less.

Quote:

---

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

---

That is not beyond a reasonable doubt. And that is the standard. Court Clerk's improper actions aside*, the prosecution screwed up in multiple ways, IMO. There were no life insurance policies on Maggie or Paul. But for some reason, the prosecution just couldn't leave the issue of motive alone. They never have to prove motive as it is not an element of murder. The old adage is motive means and opportunity is just that an adage.

So the prosecution fought and fought and fought to get the financial crimes into evidence under a false reason that such went to motive. Judge letting it but then trying to give a curative instruction that they could ONLY consider the financial crimes as to motive and nothing else was grossly insufficient as EDB says, can't put the s*** back in the horse once the jury heard multiple days of that testimony. If anything, wouldn't that be a reason for Alex to kill himself? He did have insurance that would have benefitted his family. And he did try that a few months later.

*Becky Hill put a bug in the judge's ear about one juror that resulted in that juror being booted off of the trial. The woman became known as the "Egg Lady" because before he threw her out of the courtroom he asked if she needed to retrieve anything from the jury room. "My eggs." There was another member of the jury who had a bunch of chickens and brought fresh eggs in to give to other jurors.

Belton Ag said:

---

I only know the 30,000 foot view of this story. Did Murdaugh ever offer an explanation or theory as to might have done it if it wasn't him? Or was his defense simply "If you think I did it, prove it."

---

The thing floated was people that were mad at Paul because of the boat crash.

I think they would have pled out at some point. I have no doubt he was culpable, but there were a bunch of drunk/high witnesses that had various statements and that can be problematic in court.

Belton Ag said:

---

I only know the 30,000 foot view of this story. Did Murdaugh ever offer an explanation or theory as to might have done it if it wasn't him? Or was his defense simply "If you think I did it, prove it."

---

The defense tried to highlight (exaggerate IMO) how tight the time window would have had to be if it was him and the fact that there was no DNA evidence directly linking him to the crime.

There's just no way to explain away the mountain of circumstantial and digital evidence though. You have to play dumb to genuinely argue it's reasonable to believe someone else did it.

I went back to rewatch a few EDB videos of the trial. (She's a former Los Angeles Prosecutor for years and now a lawtuber.) In day 16 of the prosecution's case in chief, prosecution finally got to DNA results. (Said the prosecution was less than stellar.) I had forgotten this tidbit.

When Alex discovered the bodies, called 911 in 19 seconds (time when the car stopped and 911 call) then he went back up to the house to get another gun. That gun tested touch DNA for both Maggie and Alex. IF Alex had somehow disposed of the two guns used to shoot Paul and Maggie, why go get another gun? Unless he was afraid that the person who shot them was possibly still around?

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

This settles some discrepancy in case law between South Carolina and the federal standard.

The clerk of court, Becky Hill, frequently talked to the jurors about the trial and seemed to be pressuring them to convict.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the South Carolina standard was that the defense had the burden of proof to show that the clerk actually influenced the jury decision, which is why the visiting judge overseeing the post-trial hearings did not overturn the verdict. The federal standard in that circuit is that the government has to prove the clerk did not influence the jury as the influence is presumptive.

Also happy to see they ruled on the financial evidence. In my opinion it was a week of nothing but inappropriate character testimony. The judge allowed it because the prosecutors made a claim that it went to motive, but there was never a nexus established between his financial crimes and the murders.

---

I think you are right on all your premises.

I didn't know the clerk had already been convicted.

Morally a tough call by the South Carolina SC, but legally a very easy decision. Thus a unanimous decision.

aggiehawg said:

---

I went back to rewatch a few EDB videos of the trial. (She's a former Los Angeles Prosecutor for years and now a lawtuber.) In day 16 of the prosecution's case in chief, prosecution finally got to DNA results. (Said the prosecution was less than stellar.) I had forgotten this tidbit.

When Alex discovered the bodies, called 911 in 19 seconds (time when the car stopped and 911 call) then he went back up to the house to get another gun. That gun tested touch DNA for both Maggie and Alex. IF Alex had somehow disposed of the two guns used to shoot Paul and Maggie, why go get another gun? Unless he was afraid that the person who shot them was possibly still around?

---

Because that's exactly what I would do if I was trying to create plausible deniability. I'd want people to ask the very question you just did.

You could however argue that's unusual clarity for a man who just saw his wife and son murdered. I don't think too many people genuinely shocked by that scene would have their wits about them to that extent.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I went back to rewatch a few EDB videos of the trial. (She's a former Los Angeles Prosecutor for years and now a lawtuber.) In day 16 of the prosecution's case in chief, prosecution finally got to DNA results. (Said the prosecution was less than stellar.) I had forgotten this tidbit.

When Alex discovered the bodies, called 911 in 19 seconds (time when the car stopped and 911 call) then he went back up to the house to get another gun. That gun tested touch DNA for both Maggie and Alex. IF Alex had somehow disposed of the two guns used to shoot Paul and Maggie, why go get another gun? Unless he was afraid that the person who shot them was possibly still around?

---

Because that's exactly what I would do if I was trying to create plausible deniability. I'd want people to ask the very question you just did.

You could however argue that's unusual clarity for a man who just saw his wife and son murdered. I don't think too many people genuinely shocked by that scene would have their wits about them to that extent.

---

LOL! Just stop while you are way behind.

Understood. But I still think some of the timeline lends itself to his guilt but you're right that's not enough to convict, but I've seen people convicted on a lot less and people released for a lot more. But if I were on the jury, I would have to definitely listen to everything and see if I felt it was beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sure all the publicity about it hasn't put everything out there or has possibly presented it in a possibly questionable light

It being overturned definitely has to deal with a lot of these procedural errors and other things, A lot of questionable things regarding the trial, but I still think there's a lot of there, there.

This article says he could possibly be acquitted for the murders. But he will still have to serve for the fraud.

Quote:

---

Why Alex Murdaugh is more likely to be acquitted of murder after his first conviction was overturned.

Murdaugh, 57, has been serving two consecutive life sentences without parole for the brutal 2021 executions of his wife, Maggie, and their 22-year-old son, Paul, after a jury found him guilty of the slayings following a dramatic six-week trial in 2023.

Now, he he will get another chance to argue his long-professed innocence, after the court tossed the conviction over misconduct by former Colleton County Clerk Becky Hill.
Defense attorneys say a retrial could play out very differently than the first case.

"[Murdaugh's defense lawyers] can try to attack the case from a different angle, so I think he has higher odds of being acquitted now than he did before, simply because it's been some time and his team knows how people think about it," Columbia-based defense lawyer Tyler Bailey said…

…I think now the public opinion of him is out there all the Netflix specials, Hulu specials, public commentary…and this trial was highly publicized," Bailey explained.
"So his defense team has the benefit of knowing what everybody thinks, [and] they could find a new angle or way to present their case."

"If the defense completely reworks their strategy in presenting expert testimony, now that they know exactly what the prosecution is going to do…it could significantly improve his chances of acquittal," agreed fellow Columbia defense attorney Dayne Phillips.

Still, Murdaugh faces an uphill battle because of the mountain of evidence prosecutors presented the first time around.

"It's still an incredibly difficult position that he's in, given the strength of the evidence that the prosecution has against him," Phillips said.

---

https://nypost.com/2026/05/13/us-news/why-alex-murdaugh-is-more-likely-to-be-acquitted-of-murder-after-his-first-conviction-was-overturned/

The timeline that the prosecution themselves determined, is way to tight and doesn't quite jive with the On-Star from Alex's Suburban. Remember the trial was nearly three weeks in before the prosecution suddenly announced they had received that info from GM. Guess who else was trying to get that information from GM?

Alex's defense team and Alex himself. Yet the judge, already tired of the snail's pace the prosecution was taking for their case in chief, did not allow the defense time for their experts to review before the prosecution would call those witnesses. Normally, that evidence would have been excluded since it was so late but the defense realized it contradicted the state's timeline. Narrowed it even further. Alex's phone was connected to his vehicle outside the house at Moselle at the exact same time Maggie's phone was thrown to the side of the road about a mile away. And his vehicle started moving a few minutes (like three) later on his trip to his Dad's house in Alameda. (His Dad died two days after the murders. Dad was very ill.)

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

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.

---

How do you know the exact time of the murder?

ATX_AG_08 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.

---

That window is not accurate. Both victims quit using their phones within minutes of the time where the son's phone captured him on scene. He was there at the time that they died. Then lied about it.

Stop being obtuse.

---

How is that window not accurate?

The Supreme Court decision says they unanimously agree that the court allowed the prosecutor to go far too long and far too deep into AM's financial crimes.

DOG XO 84 said:

---

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!!

---

Yep, and the people that murdered Karen Read's boyfriend* keep selling the lie. What a case!

It was the FedEx guy apparently so says the aged attorney. Give me a break. He did it.

Yeah, Alex got screwed over big time in that trial.

I'm not convinced he is innocent but the prosecution's timeline didn't make sense and largely relied on the assumption that not using your cell phone means you are dead.

Alex is gonna die in jail, but if he murdered his wife and son, I really want to know how he managed to pull it off, because the prosecutor's theory seemed highly unlikely.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

ATX_AG_08 said:

---

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.

---

How do you know the exact time of the murder?

---

The cell phone data from Paul's & Maggie's phones show almost exactly to the seconds when the murders occured. Paul was on his phone constantly that evening (and Maggie to a lesser degree), including up to and after the Snapchat video. But less than 3 minutes after the Snapchat, Paul's activity ceases, including not reading a text from Rogan (Snapchat recipient) received 36 seconds after Paul's last phone activity. And Maggie's phone activity ceased 29 seconds after Paul's.

But some on this board believe it's just coincidental that both phones ceased activity at that time and/or that Alex left the scene immediately after the Snapchat. The scene he claimed to never be at until the Snapchat came to light. The existence of the Snapchat with Alex on it was his & his defense team's "Oh S*&t" moment. Without it, he's not convicted in my opinion.

I missed a call and text from a friend yesterday. I didn't reply until 45 minutes afterward because I was busy. Thank God I didn't die within seconds of putting my phone down.

System is set up to protect against innocents being wrongly convicted (beyond reasonable doubt, innocent until proven guilty, etc). Everyone deserves a fair trial. You can't have officers of the court influencing juries. The evidence is pretty overwhelming of his guilt so aside from the waste of taxpayer dollars, the result of a retrial will be the same as the first.

Yes, it is long but two very good criminal defense lawyers discuss the reasons why Alex deserves a new trial. So if one wants to understand why this has happened, listen to their analyses. Branca and Steve Gosney.

IMO the evidence was not overwhelming at all. I watched almost the entire trial and still don't know how he did it.

The state really had two key pieces of evidence and almost everything else was fluff or debatable.

- He was heard on a Snapchat video made by Paul's phone at the kennels.
- He lied to the investigators about being at the kennels that night.

Despite grizzly close-quarters shotgun injuries to Paul, there's no blood evidence. Nothing on him or his clothing. Nothing in or on the vehicle the state claims he was driving. No murder weapons recovered from the scene but very little time for him to stash them anywhere else. Maggie was shot with a different gun and a different trajectory. I'm not sure Alex is capable of physically moving as fast as necessary to commit both of these murders. No specific time of death. A lot of testimonial manipulation of the forensic data evidence from the cell phones, especially Maggie's phone. There was emotional manipulation of the jury with all of the orphan and Widow testimony. They also paraded around a bunch of guns that had nothing to do with the murders.

This is a big property with plenty of hiding places and access other than the roadway. The family had plenty of enemies. There's a reasonable hypothesis that someone else was lurking on the property waiting for Paul to be alone and ambushed him as they saw Alex driving back toward the house. Maggie may been collateral damage.

The investigation was so bad that we don't really know if they even considered that possibility.

Yeah, motive is a bit of a stretch. The kennel video is odd. Sometimes idiots that aren't even guilty lie because they are worried how something will look. This guy made a lot of enemies. I think he did it, but a good defense team learning from the mistakes of the first trial and many more limitations on what the prosecution can bring in, he at least has a shot

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

IMO the evidence was not overwhelming at all. I watched almost the entire trial and still don't know how he did it.

The state really had two key pieces of evidence and almost everything else was fluff or debatable.

- He was heard on a Snapchat video made by Paul's phone at the kennels.
- He lied to the investigators about being at the kennels that night.

Despite grizzly close-quarters shotgun injuries to Paul, there's no blood evidence. Nothing on him or his clothing. Nothing in or on the vehicle the state claims he was driving. No murder weapons recovered from the scene but very little time for him to stash them anywhere else. Maggie was shot with a different gun and a different trajectory. I'm not sure Alex is capable of physically moving as fast as necessary to commit both of these murders. No specific time of death. A lot of testimonial manipulation of the forensic data evidence from the cell phones, especially Maggie's phone. There was emotional manipulation of the jury with all of the orphan and Widow testimony. They also paraded around a bunch of guns that had nothing to do with the murders.

This is a big property with plenty of hiding places and access other than the roadway. The family had plenty of enemies. There's a reasonable hypothesis that someone else was lurking on the property waiting for Paul to be alone and ambushed him as they saw Alex driving back toward the house. Maggie may been collateral damage.

The investigation was so bad that we don't really know if they even considered that possibility.

---

Well said. And as lengthy as your post is, still just scratching the surface of how far short the prosecution failed in that trial. Even with a not good judge who allowed them to get away with too much, prosecution just kept pushing the bounds of ethical behavior.

Not ONE of the guns that the judge allowed into evidence was either of the murder weapons. Did the jury really understand that? "This gun hasn't nothing to do with the murders but we took them because the Murdaughs had them at their HUNTING ranch." Guns are bad. Owning them, makes one a murderer and the jury hated that family enough for being privileged for a long time fell for it.

A lot of lawtubers actually liked the judge because he was a courtly older judge. His rulings in pretrial and in trial were erroneous, notwithstanding.

The worst of all was kicking the Egg Lady off of the jury, after closings right before jury was going into deliberations. Why? Because CourthouseBecky thought she had found juror misconduct because of a post on social media that Becky believed was the former husband of the Egg Lady and was on contact with her and she had reasonable doubts that Alex was guilty. So Becky's book would not sell well with a hung jury, now would it?

Still can't believe that witch only received probation, Beck that is. She should have served 3-5 years for that crap.

Why don't we just check the optical reconnaissance satellites, it's all recorded in super high def?

NEW: Disgraced attorney Alex Murdaugh is suing Rebecca “Becky” Hill, the former court clerk who allegedly interfered with the jury that convicted him in the murders of his wife and son. https://t.co/LdfsXKwUwT

— NBC News (@NBCNews) May 18, 2026

Alex sues Becky.

Becky has to be judgement proof

Poot, Murdaugh lawyer, is on with Peter Tragos. First 15 minutes goes into the sloppy SLED crime scene investigation.


Remove the financial crime stuff and then the new jury will focus more on the lack of forensic evidence connecting Alex to the murders.