Convicted of murder with no proof but lots of suspicions that add up

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by kazenatsu, Mar 5, 2023.

  1. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A man has been convicted of the double murder of his wife and son, and was sentenced to life in prison.
    But there does not exist any single piece of real solid evidence against him. Rather there is just a long list of suspicious circumstantial evidence that adds up.

    In my personal opinion they were correct to find this man guilty of murder. However, there does exist a probability that he might not have committed the murder, since there is not really any single piece of proof.

    The man accused of murder is Alex Murdaugh. His wife and son who were killed were Margaret and Paul.

    The case centers on two pieces of evidence.

    Records show a call was made from the cellphone belonging to the son, shortly before his death. A close friend of the family, Rogan Gibson, testified that he talked to Paul at that time, 8:40 p.m, said that he heard Margaret's voice in the background and also another voice that sounded like Alex.
    This suggests that Paul was still alive at that time, unless the family friend was lying.

    The phone shows that at 8:44 p.m. Paul filmed a 50-second Snapchat video. Paul's hands and shoes can be seen in the video interacting with a dog, and the voices of Paul and Margaret can be heard in the video. The voice of an older man can also be heard in the distant background at three points in the video, presumably it was Alex. The video was taken inside a kennel building on the estate, the same area where the murder would take place.

    GPS data from Alex's car show that the car left the estate at 9:07 p.m.
    One minute later, driving at a speed of 42 mph, the car passed the same spot along the road where investigators recovered Margaret's cellphone from some bushes the next day, about a quarter mile away from the estate. After passing that spot the car then increased in speed, reaching 52 mph one minute later at 9:09 p.m.

    This suggests that Alex could have taken his wife's cellphone and then dumped it, although there is not really any good reason for him to have done that, perhaps it was just part of an attempt to make it seem like someone else had committed the murder.
    This was the same road that the family estate was on, so it does not show that Alex was the one who dumped the phone. The prosecutor might have been trying to represent this as some sort of "evidence" to the jury, but as far as I'm concerned, the issue of Marget's cellphone being dumped is irrelevant and does not show anything about whether Alex was guilty. It could be possible someone else dumped it later. I think the car speeding up is very flimsy evidence and does not show much, since the car had just left the estate only a minute before and it would be natural for the car to increase speed during that time.
    This seems to be a typical prosecutor trick, try to take very weak evidence that shows very little and try to make people think it shows something important.

    Margaret's phone did show someone had quickly looked at the screen between 9:06 to 9:07 p.m. This suggests either that Margaret was still alive at that time, or that the person who murdered her had her phone, and if the second of those possibilities were true then of course it would suggest that Alex was likely the one who did it.

    Records show that Alex Murdaugh made the 911 call at 10:06 p.m. after he found his wife and son shot. This was only 17 seconds after the car GPS data shows that Alex's car pulled up in front of the kennel building where the murder took place.
    In the 911 call he claimed he had touched both his wife and son's bodies to check for signs of life, and that when he moved Paul, his cellphone popped out of his pocket. He said he picked it up but then put it back down on his son.
    I think it strains belief that Alex would have parked outside the building, gotten out of his car, gone into the building, seen the situation, done those things he said he did and then called 911 on his phone within only 17 seconds. It is not impossible, but seems unlikely.
    I did a reenactment and it seems to me, in the very fastest realistic situation the time between the car stopping and the 911 call should not have been less than 24 seconds. This would suggest to me that Alex already knew they were dead when he pulled up to that building. However, it does not prove it, in my opinion. I also wonder if the data records might not have been absolutely accurate down to the exact second.

    The GPS data shows that Alex's car left his family's estate at 9:07 p.m. and arrived at his parent's home at 9:22 p.m. Then the car left his parent's home at 9:43 p.m. This would mean that Alex was only at his parent's home for 21 minutes.

    When interviewed by police, Alex initially said that he stayed at his parent's home for around 45 minutes to an hour.
    Investigators suspect Alex may have driven to his parent's home to try to establish an alibi for himself. However, it could also be possible that Alex's perception of how much time he spent at his parent's house was not accurate. Alex admitted to having a severe drug addiction problem, taking up to 60 pills a day of the opioid oxycodone. That combined with the trauma shortly afterwards of seeing his wife and son murdered could have made him not have an accurate perception of how much time he had spent at his parents home.

    Muschelle Smith, a black woman who worked as a caregiver to Alex Murdaugh's mother for more than 2 years, testified that Alex Murdaugh stayed just 20 minutes at the home. She also testified that a few days later Alex told her to tell authorities he had been there double the length of time, and offered "to help her out" with paying for her upcoming wedding and putting in a good word for her with her other job.

    So Alex seems to have tried to get this witness to lie to help cover up the facts. That looks very bad for him and makes him look guilty, but I do not believe that necessarily proves
    Even if Alex was innocent, he could have had good reason to worry that the authorities might believe he had committed the murder. He might have realized that his earlier account he gave to authorities of how much time he spent was or could have been inaccurate, and was afraid that would make him look guilty. I don't believe it is fair to assume that just because a suspect tries to cover up some evidence in a crime that means it should automatically be assumed they are always guilty. Consider this: even if it had not been for this caregiver's testimony, Alex could still have been found guilty. So there was a reason for Alex to want this woman to lie, even if he was innocent.

    Alex seems to have been the type of person who would instinctively resort to arm-twisting to try to cover up facts and protect himself or family. (He had earlier behaved similarly after his son Paul's boat crash, trying to get hospital workers to hide the fact his son was intoxicated) That could possibly have just been a personality defect and not a sign that was he guilty.

    Investigators testified that according to the car's GPS data, on the way to his parent's house that day and then on the way back the car reached maximum speeds of 74 mph and 80 mph. This was much faster than on his typical commute to and from his law firm, where he drove at maximum speeds of 60 mph and 54 mph.
    This makes it seem like he may have been rushing to his parent's house, trying to establish an alibi for that period of time when the murder was committed, making him look guilty.
    This is more circumstantial evidence suggesting he could be guilty, but it is weak evidence and does not really prove anything. In my opinion it is not fair to convict someone of murder because they happened to be driving faster than normal that day.


    The bodies of the wife and son were found dead from multiple gunshot wounds on the family's estate. Forensic investigators believe the woman was killed by shots from a rifle while the son was killed by a shotgun. Alex had later called police to report the murder.

    Investigators found evidence suggesting that Margaret had probably been shot with a rifle that was owned by the family.
    Marking on shell casings found at the murder scene matched other shell casing found in the hunting lodge on the estate.

    Of course it is possible that some intruder might have found the rifle at the estate and then used it to kill the two, but this unlikely. Or it is possible an intruder could have brought his own rifle, left shell casings from that rifle in the hunting lodge and then left shell casings at the other area where he shot the two victims, but this also seems exceedingly unlikely. Or someone else who might have previously been invited to the estate might have known where the rifle was kept and used it to commit the murder.

    Prosecutors proposed a theory that Alex Murdaugh murdered his wife and son in an attempt to gain sympathy and turn the spotlight away from his financial crimes. He had stolen a large amount of money from his law firm to pay for his opioid drug addiction.

    After 30 years, Margaret Murdaugh had become estranged from her husband Alex, living at the family's beach house and reportedly looking into divorce.

    In February 2019 Alex Murdaugh's son Paul had been intoxicated while steering a boat and crashed into a bridge, resulting in several of the boats passengers being thrown into the water. This resulted in the death of a 19 year old girl Mallory Beach. Beach's family began a lawsuit against Alex Murdaugh for the wrongful death, alleging that Alex Murdaugh and his brother Randolph, and Paul Murdaugh and his brother Buster, had conspired to cover up the cause of her death.
    In June 2021 at the time of his death Paul Murdaugh was just days away from what would have been a costly and expensive trial for Beach's death, facing criminal charges of boating under the influence. Alex Murdaugh was likely under a lot of pressure at that point.

    On September 3, 2021, Murdaugh resigned from the family's law firm after the firm confronted him over his years of suspected embezzlement. The firm would later sue him.

    The prosecutor seemed to manipulatively use a lot of emotion to try to sway the jury.
    In the closing argument on the prosecutor told the court that Alex Murdaugh was the only person "who had the motive, who had the means, who had the opportunity to commit these crimes" and that his "guilty conduct after these crimes betrays him."

    The murder took place on June 7, 2021 in South Carolina.

    There were also several other suspicious deaths in the area.

    In July 2015, 19 year old Stephen Smith was killed. While it looked like an accidental hit-and-run, one highway patrol trooper looking into the case noted the alleged accident scene looked staged. The Hampton County Coroner at the time objected to the autopsy ruling by the medical examiner. Several people interviewed by the highway patrol said that Stephen Smith had been with Alex Murdaugh's other surviving son, Buster, in what was perhaps a relationship.

    In February 2018, the Murdaughs' longtime housekeeper, Gloria Satterfield, suffered a severe head injury at the Murdaughs' estate and died 24 days later of complications including a stroke.
    According to criminal indictments and multiple lawsuits, Alex Murdaugh and two other men, banker Chad Westendorf and fellow attorney Cory Fleming, then conspired to steal Satterfield's $4.3 million insurance policy by misleading Satterfield's sons and diverting all the funds to Alex himself through a phony business. As part of the scam, Alex convinced Satterfield's sons to sue him for liability so that they would be able to receive a large liability settlement. But he then kept all the money for himself.
    Of course, taking advantage of the housekeeper's death to commit a scam for money does not necessarily mean Alex Murdaugh caused the death. However, Alex showed somewhat suspicious behavior around her death, arriving on the scene before the emergency medical workers and insisting he heard Satterfield say his dogs caused her fall, contradicting her own statement later that she had no idea what caused it.

    Only three days after the June 7 murders, Alex's father, Randolph III died. By itself, there was nothing suspicious itself about the death, his father had already been suffering health problems, but given the circumstances that it occurred so close to the other murders, and given that Alex may have been desperate for money at that point and would have benefited from his father's inheritance, it is suspicious.


    Alex Murdaugh found guilty in murder of wife, son - ABC News (go.com)
    New car data places Alex Murdaugh at the spot where wife’s phone was dumped – before he sped away | The Independent
    Snapchat Video Seemingly Discredited Alex Murdaugh's Alibi (distractify.com)
    Missing rifle Alex Murdaugh bought for his son Paul could be MURDER WEAPON | Daily Mail Online
     
  2. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    Likes Received:
    2,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, mostly circumstantial. While I disagree with the judge that once told me circumstantial and physical evidence are equal, enough circumstantial evidence can get beyond a reasonable doubt. Too many coincidences to explain. I think there was a little physical evidence though, like gunshot residue: Expert: Alex Murdaugh's clothes had gunshot residue after murders (wjcl.com)
     
  3. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,608
    Likes Received:
    11,196
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That gunshot residue should not have really proved anything. It's not surprising that someone who has guns and has a hunting lodge on their estate might have gunshot residue on their raincoat.
    Maybe the prosecutor presented that to the jury trying to get them to think it was evidence.

    I am not disagreeing with the verdict in this case, but it seems like the prosecutor presented a lot of very flimsy evidence to the jury trying to get the jury to think many pieces of that evidence showed more than it actually did.
    In my personal opinion this was kind of dishonest and manipulative of the prosecutor, but it's very common for prosecutors to do that. The prosecutor wanted to win their case and put this man in prison.

    There was plenty of evidence that he did all sorts of other bad and illegal things, so maybe the prosecutor figured that even in the unlikely event this man might have been innocent of the murders, it still would not have been that bad to send him to prison, because he was probably guilty of other things.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2023
  4. btthegreat

    btthegreat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    16,378
    Likes Received:
    7,057
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As my Dad ( former DA, Law professor) used to say 'beyond a reasonable doubt' necessarily precludes doubts that are not reasonable, otherwise the standard would be 'beyond any doubt'.
     

Share This Page