South Carolina Mother and Son Murdered

[Howl]

Stephen Smith’s case is now being investigated as a homicide, South Carolina law enforcement says  

"The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division is investigating the death of Stephen Smith, a 19-year-old nursing student whose body was found in the middle of a South Carolina road in 2015, as a homicide, an agency spokesperson told CNN.

A SLED spokesperson also confirmed there were no indications in the investigation that Smith’s killing was a hit-and-run."

 

On 3/20/2023 at 9:08 AM, hoipolloi said:

I agree that this connection, if it exists, is not clearcut but SLED encountered *something* when they began investigating Maggies and Paul's murders that caused them to reopen investigation into Stevenʻs death.

Like maybe the coroner was bribed/intimidated into reporting this as a hit and run when it obviously wasn't?   Alternately,  the coroner was seriously bad at his job.

[hoipolloi]

12 hours ago, Howl said:

Like maybe the coroner was bribed/intimidated into reporting this as a hit and run when it obviously wasn't?   Alternately,  the coroner was seriously bad at his job.

The pathologist's report & conclusions from 2015 were just wack. I remember listening to Matney's podcast when she read from the report and my jaw dropped -- the whole thing was unbelievable. 

I hope that it was just incompetence. How terrible if the pathologist were bribed or coerced into misrepresenting evidence and stating false conclusions.

Edited March 22, 2023 by hoipolloi

[Howl]

59 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

I hope that it was just incompetence. How terrible if the pathologist were bribed or coerced into misrepresenting evidence and stating false conclusions.

Investigations into the boat crash and the murders of Maggie and Paull exposed the staggering level of power and generational corruption wielded  by the Murdaughs; anything is possible. 

I hope whatever the outcome, it brings some level of justice to the family of Stephen Smith. 

[Bluebirdbluebell]

I was trying to find out if anything more has happened with Alex Murdoch. This article is a few weeks old, but he is now saying he lied about the death of his housekeeper Gloria Satterfield! Here's an article from the local television channel (link):

Here's some excerpts from the article:

Quote

In response to a federal lawsuit from the Nautilus insurance company, which awarded nearly $4 million after her death, Murdaugh now claims he "invented" parts of the case and that no dogs were involved when Satterfield fell down the front steps at Moselle.

It's much different than what he previously said.

"She indicated that the dogs had caused her to fall," said Murdaugh to insurance adjuster Bryant McGowan after the incident.

Indicated? I thought she was pretty much unconscious from the fall.

Quote

Richter and Eric Bland represent the Satterfield family. They said Murdaugh can't be trusted.

No kidding.

Quote

"It's just more spin by him," said Bland. "He doesn't tell you where the money went — the $3.8 million. He doesn't tell you how Gloria died. It's just almost a perversion of the justice system to suggest that the Satterfield family be victimized again."

Yes, her family deserves the money.

Quote

"It's very convenient that the 3 people who could support or contradict Alex are all dead Paul, Maggie and Gloria," Bland said.

This is the first confirmation I've seen that Paul was in the house that night. Also while I think the family deserves financial restitution, Alex's admittance implies that something more sinister could have happened to her. 

This is the best article I could find from a good source, but there might be better articles out there. Also I hope more information continues to come to light.

Edited May 27, 2023 by Bluebirdbluebell

[Antimony]

18 hours ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

This is the first confirmation I've seen that Paul was in the house that night. Also while I think the family deserves financial restitution, Alex's admittance implies that something more sinister could have happened to her. 

This is the best article I could find from a good source, but there might be better articles out there. Also I hope more information continues to come to light.

Paul is on the 911 call with Maggie about the fall. 

[marmalade]

Chances are quite good that Murdaugh will get a new trial. It appears that the court clerk tampered with the jury on multiple occasions. Jim and Dick filed the paperwork today, and Runkle of the Bailey on YouTube broke it down. If the allegations can be proven (they actually deposed a couple of jurors), the clerk could be facing jail time.

[ifosterkittens]

22 minutes ago, marmalade said:

Chances are quite good that Murdaugh will get a new trial.

I guess the million-dollar question is now if Alex Murdaugh gets a new murder trial will he get to move to federal prison in the interim because he already plead guilty on the financial crimes at the federal level. Alex was in jail awaiting his murder trial, so maybe that would go back into effect? I haven't watched Runkle's video, but watched part of Peter Tragos from Lawyer You Know on Youtube, and he thought Alex is spending the rest of his life in prison just on the financial crimes, so might as well try to get into a federal prison instead of being stuck in SC state prison. Federal prisons usually have better accommodations and programs compared to state prisons. 

[marmalade]

Good question. Runkle didn't address Alex's living status. I believe I heard the court has 10 days to respond to these new claims. I wonder if they would try the clerk first to verify the claims as valid, or if the depositions are enough proof to go ahead and set up a new trial date for Alex?

Hopefully my girl Emily D Baker will address the logistics.

[TN-peach]

The court will have to have a hearing on the allegations in the motion by Alex's attorneys.  The jurors will have to testify under oath.  The court may even subpoena the other jurors to find out what was said.  If the court clerk said half of what is alleged that is bad, really, really, really bad.  No one can make comments to jury about the evidence (how gruesome the pictures are for example) and especially cannot comment about credibility of witnesses or the attorney's arguments. 

[hoipolloi]

This attorney has been following & commenting the Alex Murdaugh cases for a quite a while. She thinks that this is less clearcut than AMʻs lawyers would like everyone to believe:

Also, where is AM getting the money to pay these defense lawyers? They are not working pro bono & are not cheap. After the federal grand jury indictments for financial fraud, itʻs hard to believe that he has any funds to access whether or not they are under his control.

[TN-peach]

Regarding Juror's 785 statements - when she was asked by the Court if the Clerk has asked any jurors about the case and she said "not that she was aware of." One could argue that the Court was discussing the Facebook posts and Juror 785's ex-husband, Juror 785 could have interpreted that question in the context of the conversation - "no, she hasn't said anything to anyone else about ex-husband." 

On the other hand, you can argue she was asked by the Judge has the Clerk talked about the case to the jury and she denied.  It all comes down to how Juror 785 interpreted "the case" in the context of the question. 

[ifosterkittens]

3 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

Also, where is AM getting the money to pay these defense lawyers? They are not working pro bono & are not cheap.

I am working off of memory not facts (I'll try to find facts later), but not that long ago Jim and Dick were arguing Alex's retirement/401K (something through work) should be used to pay them because they exceeded the allotted 600K. It came as no surprise that Jim and Dick's bill well exceeded 600K and that's probably before expert witnesses and that super expensive rental they had near the courthouse.

Jim was (maybe currently is?) a good friend of Alex's, and I can see him volunteering some of his time, or giving a discounted rate with Alex knowing Jim will have to work on other cases because Jim still has his own bills to pay. I don't see Dick being generous with his time and giving a discount. I wouldn't be surprised if at least Dick has a guarantee from one of the Murdaugh siblings to cover his expenses (up to a point) if Alex can't produce it after a certain amount of time. Dick is no fool. If Dick and Jim are able to secure a retrial for Alex, it wouldn't surprise me if Dick wouldn't be part of the team if he wasn't being paid. I'm not sure what the third attorney Barber's (I think that's the name he was at the press conference with Dick and Jim but didn't say anything, just like in previous press conferences) connection to Alex is. 

I haven't watched this video on YouTube yet, but it is Peter Tragos (lawyer and legal commentator) from Lawyer You Know, and his coverage his reaction to the clerk of court's interview for anyone interested. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by ifosterkittens
Wouldn't not couldn't

[SassyPants]

I understand procedures, but man after reading the book The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist and seeing how so many poor and especially minority men were wrongly incarcerated for crimes, and even when proven they were wrongly imprisoned, how long it took for these men to be released, this really Ps me off. The justice system is so not equitable.

We all know this dude killed his wife and son. UN believable. Wonder if it was intentionally set up?

Edited September 6, 2023 by SassyPants

[ifosterkittens]

1 hour ago, SassyPants said:

I understand procedures, but man after reading the book The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist and seeing how so many poor and especially minority men were wrongly incarcerated for crimes, and even when proven they were wrongly imprisoned, how long it took for these men to be released, this really Ps me off. The justice system is so not equitable.

The justice system is not equitable, and it is frustrating and disheartening. 

1 hour ago, SassyPants said:

We all know this dude killed his wife and son. UN believable. Wonder if it was intentionally set up?

I whole heartedly believe Alex is the reason his wife and son are dead. I think he had a plan, he set it in motion, he is the reason they are dead, and I think it is likely he pulled the trigger on one of the guns and killed either Maggie or Paul. I don't buy the state's version of events. I don't think Alex shot and killed both of them alone, cleaned himself and the scene alone, disposed of Maggie's phone, his clothes and shoes and the guns alone all while leaving virtually no trace evidence in his vehicle. I think he hired/blackmailed someone to kill Maggie and Paul (to be clear I do not think that person was Buster). I think something went wrong, the timing was off, Alex didn't have the ability to place himself away from the house at the time of the shooting. I think Alex had to grab a gun and shoot one of them, and that other person or persons cleaned the scene and disposed of Maggie's phone, Alex's clothes and the guns. I know the state can't charge conspiracy to commit murder without the conspirator. Alex is guilty enough I'm not worried an innocent man was convicted, but I don't think he shot both of them and did it all alone. 

What do you think was intentionally set up? 

[SassyPants]

2 hours ago, ifosterkittens said:

The justice system is not equitable, and it is frustrating and disheartening. 

I whole heartedly believe Alex is the reason his wife and son are dead. I think he had a plan, he set it in motion, he is the reason they are dead, and I think it is likely he pulled the trigger on one of the guns and killed either Maggie or Paul. I don't buy the state's version of events. I don't think Alex shot and killed both of them alone, cleaned himself and the scene alone, disposed of Maggie's phone, his clothes and shoes and the guns alone all while leaving virtually no trace evidence in his vehicle. I think he hired/blackmailed someone to kill Maggie and Paul (to be clear I do not think that person was Buster). I think something went wrong, the timing was off, Alex didn't have the ability to place himself away from the house at the time of the shooting. I think Alex had to grab a gun and shoot one of them, and that other person or persons cleaned the scene and disposed of Maggie's phone, Alex's clothes and the guns. I know the state can't charge conspiracy to commit murder without the conspirator. Alex is guilty enough I'm not worried an innocent man was convicted, but I don't think he shot both of them and did it all alone. 

What do you think was intentionally set up? 

That Alex or the team encouraged the clerk…you know, trolling for a legal reason to force a new trial.

[Antimony]

On 9/6/2023 at 9:43 PM, SassyPants said:

That Alex or the team encouraged the clerk…you know, trolling for a legal reason to force a new trial.

Doubtful. If you can get jury tampering to work, you get an acquittal. You don't make a convoluted scheme to get convicted and then do this. 

In my eyes, even though we're going to get to hear from all the jurors, only one or them, even one who has already signed an affidavit, has to make such a claim on the stand. There's so much other evidence from the transcript and the book she published. Eleven could tell me this is all a lie and Hill never spoke to them and we would still have some major issues based on the evidence Hill put out into the world herself. 

The bit where Newman remarks that he is unhappy the Clerk talked to a juror about her ex-husband...that should have never have happened. He's right, and it shows an opportunity and a precedent for private communication. 

The bit in Becky Hills own book where she talks about the jurors going to Moselle and communicating with "their eyes" is also verboten. "Some of us either from the courthouse, law enforcement, or jury at Moselle had an epiphany and shared our thoughts with our eyes." Absolutely inappropriate. She's written it somewhat vaguely, but I'd be hammering at this in court if I was Poot or Jim. 

The very existence of the book is unethical and there's evidence in the filing that she lied to the ethics board when asking permission to write it. She provides identifiable and private information about jurors in the book. She released private information about their financial and personal affairs. 

Total absolute mess. 

As for Dick and Jim...I don't really think they care much for being paid. You can't bleed a turnip, and every lawyer knows that. I think for them, this is somewhat the thrill of the chase, the attention. It's decent PR if you want to be a defense attorney known for taking on difficult and desperate cases. Celebrity defense attorneys have launched careers this way before, and while Dick's older, Jim could do it. They both have relationships with Alex. I get that nobody works for free, but on the other hand, can you imagine being the type of grandstanding personality that both Dick and Jim are, the kind of guy who loves the attention of the court room, and handing the file over to another lawyer? Nah. 

[TN-peach]

22 hours ago, Antimony said:

Doubtful. If you can get jury tampering to work, you get an acquittal. You don't make a convoluted scheme to get convicted and then do this. 

In my eyes, even though we're going to get to hear from all the jurors, only one or them, even one who has already signed an affidavit, has to make such a claim on the stand. There's so much other evidence from the transcript and the book she published. Eleven could tell me this is all a lie and Hill never spoke to them and we would still have some major issues based on the evidence Hill put out into the world herself. 

The bit where Newman remarks that he is unhappy the Clerk talked to a juror about her ex-husband...that should have never have happened. He's right, and it shows an opportunity and a precedent for private communication. 

The bit in Becky Hills own book where she talks about the jurors going to Moselle and communicating with "their eyes" is also verboten. "Some of us either from the courthouse, law enforcement, or jury at Moselle had an epiphany and shared our thoughts with our eyes." Absolutely inappropriate. She's written it somewhat vaguely, but I'd be hammering at this in court if I was Poot or Jim. 

The very existence of the book is unethical and there's evidence in the filing that she lied to the ethics board when asking permission to write it. She provides identifiable and private information about jurors in the book. She released private information about their financial and personal affairs. 

Total absolute mess. 

As for Dick and Jim...I don't really think they care much for being paid. You can't bleed a turnip, and every lawyer knows that. I think for them, this is somewhat the thrill of the chase, the attention. It's decent PR if you want to be a defense attorney known for taking on difficult and desperate cases. Celebrity defense attorneys have launched careers this way before, and while Dick's older, Jim could do it. They both have relationships with Alex. I get that nobody works for free, but on the other hand, can you imagine being the type of grandstanding personality that both Dick and Jim are, the kind of guy who loves the attention of the court room, and handing the file over to another lawyer? Nah. 

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said.  Having it on the record that the Clerk spoke with juror alone about the Facebook post is alarming.  And one thing I haven't seen mentioned is how did the Clerk know the juror's ex-husband's name.  Did she use court databases to research the juror's backgrounds? Was she studying their questionnaires? How did she know his name?!

I completely agree the whole book is a HUGE ethics and privacy violation.  Her question to the ethics board was about legal procedure and the history of the legal process from the clerk's perspective with a mention of "famous South Carolina" cases.  She did not say that it was her diary from the trial.  No wonder the jurors came forward after the book was self-published. 

IMO, if the Clerk's intervention and invention of the Facebook posts are true (if) - I believe that will be enough for a new trial since the Clerk manufactured a controversy with a juror and then questioned the juror about it.  That is enough for me to grant a new trial. 

Also, the State's Ethics Board will be coming down hard on her hopefully because she should have never written this book while she was still in office.  And she should have never included so many personal details about the jurors.  That's is just wrong.

[marmalade]

Murdaugh Murders: A Southern Scandal Part 2 debuts on Netflix next Wednesday. I'll edit this post with the trailer.  With the latest turn of events, Part 3 is inevitable.

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by marmalade

[TN-peach]

I watched the new episodes last night.  It was great seeing Bubba doing well. Blanca and Ms. Shelly were the stars of the new episodes. 

But one of the first people you see is Ms. Becky Hill - my goodness woman have you not figured out that you are not the main character in this story.  (Well, now is kinda is but that is different)  I have never seen seen an interview of any one that is still on active duty in the administration of the court giving so many interviews about a case.  I can understand answering questions about the courthouse or "this is how a trial proceeds or who sits where" but not what she does. 

[marmalade]

13 hours ago, TN-peach said:

I watched the new episodes last night.  It was great seeing Bubba doing well. Blanca and Ms. Shelly were the stars of the new episodes. 

But one of the first people you see is Ms. Becky Hill - my goodness woman have you not figured out that you are not the main character in this story.  (Well, now is kinda is but that is different)  I have never seen seen an interview of any one that is still on active duty in the administration of the court giving so many interviews about a case.  I can understand answering questions about the courthouse or "this is how a trial proceeds or who sits where" but not what she does. 

Agreed. She's definitely taking full advantage of her 15 minutes. I'm surprised she didn't mention her book. 🙄

[TN-peach]

9 hours ago, marmalade said:

Agreed. She's definitely taking full advantage of her 15 minutes. I'm surprised she didn't mention her book. 🙄

Me too! One of the points the defense made in the original filing for a hearing on the allegations of jury tampering is that she requested one of the interviews mention her book.  It was a handwritten "addendum" to a contract.  Hysterical.  At one point, I tried to pause the video to see if I could see her book maybe in the background on a shelf but I couldn't really see anything. 

One new piece of information (or at least new to me as a trial watcher only) is that Paul was stopped by Department of Wildlife police a weekend or two before he was killed on a boat with friends with cooler full of beer.  We don't know any more information - whose boat, beer, who is on the boat with him.  I do remember that there was "gossip" that Paul was continuing to drink and party but this intervention by police so close to the hearings makes me wonder.  I am guessing there was no police report so the prosecution couldn't bring it in as evidence as part of the "growing storm." Or they just didn't want to make a victim look bad.

[marmalade]

Yeah, Paul seemed to be abusing alcohol at a rate even worse than similarly aged frat boys. But that's not a reason to be gunned down in cold blood. 

This family was so messed up. However, Blanca's interviews humanized Maggie. She came off as entitled and aloof to me. But she seemed to be kind to Blanca. 

[TN-peach]

On 9/22/2023 at 11:24 PM, marmalade said:

Yeah, Paul seemed to be abusing alcohol at a rate even worse than similarly aged frat boys. But that's not a reason to be gunned down in cold blood. 

This family was so messed up. However, Blanca's interviews humanized Maggie. She came off as entitled and aloof to me. But she seemed to be kind to Blanca. 

I agree.  That one text revealed at trial about "the Mexicans" and the Edisto property did not make her look good.

[Chocolate Lover]

Have the alleged financial irregularities been investigated or tried yet?

[TN-peach]

Is anyone watching the Lifetime movie? I don’t have Lifetime so I can’t watch it but I’ve read that it is bad.