Author: Taylor Swift is not a hobby she is a lifestyle (🇺🇸 🇵🇱)

I was on the fence between a hung jury and an acquittal, but I think after today's cross of the former law partner, there's a really good chance of an acquittal. I'm also assuming closing arguments will drive home all of the important points.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2#45995536)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#45999695)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#45995588)

His dad was suspected of jury tampering back in the 80s, so I'm sure he's capable of fixing a jury himself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#45996130)

There's a lot to mull over, but I think the jury will be charged tomorrow. If they return a verdict within two hours, it will be an acquittal. Beyond that, we venture into the unknown. Depending on whether they ask questions (and what questions they ask), the longer it goes on, the closer it gets to a hung jury.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#45997937)

"My client is a lying shitbag who deceived people out of millions of dollars and was in the midst of a drug fueled criminally minded downward spiral, and was at the scene of the crime and his gun was used to murder his wife. But your honor, because reasons, he didn't do it. Because reasons."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#45998708)

How are Alex Murdaugh's business dealings relevant to the murder trial? They're not, but they go to motive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#45999740)

Think of criminal trials as having two novels, one for the prosecution and one for defense. And as witnesses testify and evidence is presented, it's like chapters in those novels. There are two stories, but there's only one story being told at the end, and the jury has to figure out which novel the chapters (evidence, testimony) fit into.

Now on the one hand you have the prosecution theory. He was addicted to drugs (check), his son called him on his bs (check), he was stealing millions from his partners (check), pretty well confirmed shitty, immoral person (check), at the scene of the crime (check), dude seemed evil, was having a downward spiral, amoral and willing to do anything, one of his guns was used, his alibi was shaky, he lied to investigators (check checked check check).

The defense job is to poke holes in this theory more than it is to provide a complete alternate sorry. But, they didn't really poke many holes in it. In fact, pretty much all of the chapters of the book add up to the prosecution theory. If you look at all the evidence as the jury will you will find a narrative that adds up to the story the prosecution is telling. An innocent man will have an easier time with his lawyers saying, well wait a minute, it didn't exactly happen like that. But, it did. The circumstantial evidence is significant here. And, unfortunately for the defense, all the chapters of evidence for into their novel.

Now, seeing as the defense has largely failed to tear down the prosecution theory, they are attempting to tell their own story. Now, they don't have zero chapters in their book, but it's a lot flimsier. "People want him dead" is vague. What people? There's no alternative suspect. "He covered for his son in a boat accident." Ok, who cares? "They never found a murder weapon. Two guns were used." Ok, maybe this could possibly sway a juror or two. It's not impossible. But, do the chapters really add up to prove the defense theory? I don't think so. This case has the feeling of maybe 10 chapters being in the prosecution theory and maybe 1 or 2 in the defense's. Overall, the prosecution is telling a very compelling story, and the defense is grasping at strings. It's impossible to know the outcome but strongly lean conviction.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#45999831)

Link? to my knowledge, no murder weapon was found. If you're referring to him owning a 300 BLK which was used to kill Maggie, well, the guy owned a LOT of guns.

>Overall, the prosecution is telling a very compelling story, and the defense is grasping at strings. It's impossible to know the outcome but strongly lean conviction.

I agree that he did it. I 100% believe he did it. But, and I readily acknowledge not having all the info the jury has, I don't know if they can really find him guilty of double homicide with the facts as they exist. Was there GSR found on him at the time of the murders? I suppose they claim he changed clothing. I know that the defense expert said that the shot that opened Paul's head for the world to see would have caused so much biological matter to explode out that shards of skull would embed in the shooter's body. Not sure I really buy it, but it was expert testimony.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#45999969)

You are right that there is some exculpatory evidence but to me it's not enough to acquit. The fact he lied for 20 months about not being near the kennel and then they have video of him at the scene of the crime is damming as fuck. He's going down 100%.

The funny thing about defense experts explaining how blood should have gone everywhere or nowhere or should have gone in this or that direction is stuff juries never care about. A gun went off, a guy died, that we know. He had hours to change. Rushing to see his mom was a good move. If they didn't have him on video at the kennels he might have gotten out of it but he was there oops one wrong move. He's gonna fry.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#46000016)

He said in his testimony he lied for almost two years because he was afraid of people thinking he did it because he was at the kennels at the time of the murder at something about hiding his opioid addiction lol. He is extremely done here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#46000040)

Also, how can they definitively prove he was at the scene two minutes before the murders? Is that based solely on the victims' body temperatures?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#46000044)

It'll be interesting to see how the defense downplays it tomorrow.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#46000068)

You, on the other hand, have at least five. I will be sure to notify your creditors a couple weeks after your vaccine case settles.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#45999677)

How exactly does killing his wife and son solve his big debt/embezzling problem? Life insurance?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#46000057)

He was likely not thinking clearly but thought somehow getting sympathy would help his problems go away.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#46000060)

including

- audio evidence proves he was at the scene minutes before the murders, and this is after he vehmently denied being anywhere near the scene

- cell phone shows frantic activity immediately after the time of the murders despite being otherwise pretty quiet all day.

- Onstar showed he drove on the road right by which was found his wife's cell phone;

- Onstar showed he was going 80 mph on the way to his moms house (to get there as soon as possible after the murders) on roads with much lower speed limits.

- when he got to his mother's place, his mother's caregiver testified that he told her to tell everyone he was actually at his mother's for 40 minutes, not 20 minutes. this so creeped the caregiver out that she called her brother, LEO, when he left.

- the caregiver also explained that his mom was sleeping the whole time, despite his claim that he was visiting with her.

- he has no explanation for why the clothes that he was wearing that day (and which he was wearing when he killed them) have gone missing. i believe he initially denied wearing those clothes until the video evidence showed that he was and the family maid testified that he was as well.

- caregiver testified that he carried something away covered in a raincoat a few days later early in the morning when he was visiting his mother. that raincoat tested positive for gunshot residue.

- he called his wife over to the house on the day of the murders to ostensibly visit his ailing mother with him. yet she didn't go with him to his mom's house. her sister testified to all of this bc she had a phone call with his wife where his wife thought it was unusual he wanted her over there.

and this is without even getting into his enormous financial fraud, scumbag drug abuse, and serial lying to everyone about everything.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#46000898)

THE DOG IS THE BEST WITNESS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#46001527)

tell us again about the crippling depression that prevented you from checking your mailbox

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#46002895)

you: legally-declared pauper & felon

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#46002899)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#46002915)

Any publicity is good publicity..

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5298947&forum_id=2Ã#46004076)