I have not followed the full trial start to finish, but I lean to a guilty charge by the jury, primarily because of the damning forced admission by Alex Murdaugh last week that he lied about being present minutes surrounding the murders. His confession to lying is a double whammy that I would think has to weigh heavily for the jury in that it a) conclusively puts him and no other potential suspect at the murder scene on the timeline, and b) proves indisputably that Murdaugh felt compelled to lie about the night of the double murders, most likely because the night of the murders he was frantically manufacturing his alibi and the evidence to create reasonable doubt.
It also crossed my mind, and I don't know if this was argued at trial, that if you make the leap of faith with this liar that he was present, but SOMEONE ELSE (like a 5' 2" vigilante murderer who was so on top of their game that they decided to show up on the hunting property without a firearm, and chose to use Murdaugh guns) killed Maggie and Paul, then it stretches the imagination too much that Murdaugh wouldn't have seen or heard the vigilante killers. He did not, and the cell phone tracking of Murdaugh's activity and movements on the murder timeline create serious improbabilities not in Murdaugh's favor.
But there I go being logical again.
Call your shot if so inclined.
E5
It also crossed my mind, and I don't know if this was argued at trial, that if you make the leap of faith with this liar that he was present, but SOMEONE ELSE (like a 5' 2" vigilante murderer who was so on top of their game that they decided to show up on the hunting property without a firearm, and chose to use Murdaugh guns) killed Maggie and Paul, then it stretches the imagination too much that Murdaugh wouldn't have seen or heard the vigilante killers. He did not, and the cell phone tracking of Murdaugh's activity and movements on the murder timeline create serious improbabilities not in Murdaugh's favor.
But there I go being logical again.
Call your shot if so inclined.
E5
