South Carolina Mother and Son Murdered

[ifosterkittens]

@Antimony

Gloria Satterfield Timeline: 

July 8, 2015 Stephen Smith found dead. 

Feb 26, 2018 Gloria Satterfield died, death certificate lists manner of death as natural 

Feb 24, 2019 Mallory Beach died 

April 18, 2019 Paul charged for Mallory Beach

June 7, 2021 Jeannie (CFO) confronted Alex about missing $792K, that night Maggie and Paul were murdered

June 22, 2021 Stephen Smith's investigation reopened 

September 3, 2021 Alex confronted by his law firm, resigned

September 4, 2021 Chris Wilson (former BFF insisted on meeting with Alex at Alameda, got promissory note for $192,000 dollar he used to help replace missing $792,000, Alex told Chris money is gone, he messed up, had pain pill addiction)

September 4, 2021 hours after meeting with Chris Wilson Alex was "shot" by cousin Eddie in an attempted suicide for hire

September 6, 2021 Alex enters rehab

September 14, 2021 Cousin Eddie arrested for role in suicide for hire

September 15, 2021 SLED opens criminal investigation into the death of Gloria Satterfield, SLED says they'll investigate how Gloria Satterfield's estate was handled, Satterfield family filed lawsuit saying they haven't received a settlement

October 14, 2021 Alex Murdaugh charged with two felony counts of obtaining property by false pretenses related to the death of Gloria Satterfield. Alex was in drug rehab in Florida when arrested. 

October 19, 2021 Alex was denied bond, judge will reconsider after psychological evaluation

November 2, 2021, a judge ordered independent representatives to take over Murdaugh’s finances

March 2022 more charges against Alex Murdaugh and Cory Fleming related to Gloria Satterfield estate. 

May 4, 2022 more charges against Alex and Cory, Russell Laffitte also charged. "The state indictments on Murdaugh now total 79 charges for schemes to defraud victims of $8,492,888.31. He is being held at the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center. Officials say Fleming was suspended from practicing law on October 8. Authorities say he has been indicted for schemes to defraud victims out of $3,725,203.85. According to officials, the Grand Jury has indicted Laffitte for schemes to defraud victims out of $1,832,772.30."

June 2, 2022 a court approved a $4.3 million judgement in favor of the estate of the Satterfield.

June 6, 2022 SLED given permission to exhume GS's body

June 2022 The Satterfield family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Murdaugh.

July 14, 2022 Alex charged with murder of Paul and Maggie

All info from https://www.abccolumbia.com/2022/06/07/timeline-of-events-in-the-murdaugh-saga-one-year-since-the-deaths-of-paul-and-maggie/ and https://www.wmbfnews.com/2022/07/14/timeline-murdaugh-family-murders-investigations/

Edited February 13, 2023 by ifosterkittens
Added Stephen Smith and Mallory Beach

[Bluebirdbluebell]

Who died first- Maggie or Paul? That seems important for the prosecution cases, especially as they were killed with different guns. The different guns suggest a timeout in between the murders, even if it's only for a minutes. I would think that the prosecution would have to explain the two guns as part of it's case to tell the story of what happened. I would also think they would explain the order of the deaths as it goes towards motive.

[Antimony]

28 minutes ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

Who died first- Maggie or Paul? That seems important for the prosecution cases, especially as they were killed with different guns. The different guns suggest a timeout in between the murders, even if it's only for a minutes. I would think that the prosecution would have to explain the two guns as part of it's case to tell the story of what happened. I would also think they would explain the order of the deaths as it goes towards motive.

I think we're supposed to get some of that today from the medical examiner's PM testimony.

I don't believe, though, that it is easy to tell with a high level of confidence. I was in the lab, so I'm going to rewatch tonight. I think the best evidence for the order will come from scene re-creation because the times are so close together that rigor mortis and algor mortis aren't going to be that useful. (And, it started to rain shortly after, which is going to be a complication for caluclating based on body temperature, I think.) 

I'm not sure order goes entirely towards motive. I can write a narrative for either. But, I do think it's more likely Paul was killed first based on the orientation of the bodies at the scene.

Edit: @ifosterkittens - Thank you! I think there's plenty of evidence for anger towards Paul. Vaguely having a bad reputation. The Boat Case. But now, because of the 911 calls, there is some speculation that he would have some info on the circumstanes of Gloria's death. Maybe against the boat case that would be a drop in the bucket to Alex, maybe it didn't matter at all and it was really an accident and a subsequence crime of opportunity with insurance. It's so hard to get a good timeline when there are like...literally so many crimes here. What crime hasn't Alex Murdaugh done at this point?

Edited February 13, 2023 by Antimony

[ifosterkittens]

The timeline in this article is much more comprehensive of everything and has more dates for some of the Satterfield information than what I originally posted. https://www.wjcl.com/article/alex-murdaugh-timeline-murder-update-6/42774322#

[Bluebirdbluebell]

1 hour ago, Antimony said:

I think we're supposed to get some of that today from the medical examiner's PM testimony.

I don't believe, though, that it is easy to tell with a high level of confidence. I was in the lab, so I'm going to rewatch tonight. I think the best evidence for the order will come from scene re-creation because the times are so close together that rigor mortis and algor mortis aren't going to be that useful. (And, it started to rain shortly after, which is going to be a complication for caluclating based on body temperature, I think.) 

I'm not sure order goes entirely towards motive. I can write a narrative for either. But, I do think it's more likely Paul was killed first based on the orientation of the bodies at the scene.

Edit: @ifosterkittens - Thank you! I think there's plenty of evidence for anger towards Paul. Vaguely having a bad reputation. The Boat Case. But now, because of the 911 calls, there is some speculation that he would have some info on the circumstanes of Gloria's death. Maybe against the boat case that would be a drop in the bucket to Alex, maybe it didn't matter at all and it was really an accident and a subsequence crime of opportunity with insurance. It's so hard to get a good timeline when there are like...literally so many crimes here. What crime hasn't Alex Murdaugh done at this point?

What I heard was probably speculation, but it was my original understanding that Maggie was killed first. I have no firm evidence. 

[ifosterkittens]

7 hours ago, Antimony said:

c) If the tip off of the issues re: the missing $792,000 was part of the issue, it's worth noting that both Paul and Maggie were present at the death of Gloria Satterfield and could have, if everything else got discovered, blow that whole fraud wide open as well. Maybe Alex calls them both to Moselle to talk about this particular issue re: Satterfield.

I love all your theories @Antimony! You make an excellent point about Gloria Satterfield's death I hadn't considered. After Gloria's death Alex used his (for lack of better words) umbrella insurance policy to get a settlement for Gloria's death. We now know it was a substantial settlement and he didn't give it to Gloria's children as promised. Emily D Baker said because the umbrella policy was already used with Gloria Satterfield Alex wouldn't have had an umbrella insurance policy when Mallory Beach died a year later. 

Blanca (housekeeper) said Maggie told her (Blanca) that Maggie didn't think Alex was being truthful with all the financial stuff in the boat case. Perhaps Maggie assumed their umbrella insurance policy would cover a large settlement for Mallory Beach or cover a certain amount. It seems likely to me Maggie had no idea how Alex handled the Satterfield settlement. To me it is plausible that the meeting at Moselle the night of June 7th was to discuss something related to Gloria Satterfield. A fight about money and the insurance settlement related to Gloria Satterfield is plausible to me. Maybe Paul or Maggie suspected something was wrong a verbal argument ensued, things got heated and then Alex killed them. 

In the snapchat video from 8:44pm focusing on the dog Cash where Alex, Maggie and Paul are all identified by voice it doesn't sound to me like they just had a big argument. Maybe it wasn't a big argument, just some things were discussed before. Maybe there was an argument after the snapchat video that quickly escalated? Or maybe as you said before a gun was grabbed to kill the chicken/guinea Bubba had in his mouth and there was the fatal accident that Alex decided to cover up by killing the other person too. 

If the murders were not premeditated, if Alex had Maggie and Paul come to Moselle to discuss something (ie related to Gloria Satterfield, the boat case-criminal or civil, money in general) is Alex's phone inactivity a red herring? It is possible Alex was having trouble with his phone, turned it off to reset it, and came back to it latera? When he came back to the phone a little after 9pm was he then scrambling to establish an alibi by calling and texting Maggie? 

 

[Antimony]

21 minutes ago, ifosterkittens said:

If the murders were not premeditated, if Alex had Maggie and Paul come to Moselle to discuss something (ie related to Gloria Satterfield, the boat case-criminal or civil, money in general) is Alex's phone inactivity a red herring? It is possible Alex was having trouble with his phone, turned it off to reset it, and came back to it latera? When he came back to the phone a little after 9pm was he then scrambling to establish an alibi by calling and texting Maggie? 

Ack, I forgot the phone. I think we'll see this one go both ways. Some reports say that Moselle has a deadzone, and maybe he really just did forget it at the house. Maybe it was premeditated but not like this. I really struggle with imagining a premediated murder done this way. 

I'm re-watching the medical examiner and what we learn today re: Paul is that he is shot first in the shoulder (entering left) and it wouldn't have been fatal.  His arms are lowered, there is no defensive stance at this point. Then, Paul looks down and to the left at the shooter. A second shot (buck shot) passes through his skull (left to right, I think...) passes through and ejects the brain from his skull. This results in instant death. The takeways? Paul was not bracing for the first shot, and turned to look at shot number two. Again, point blank range, within 2-3 ft and confirming all the scenarios I made my husband run through with a dowel rod. (I did...do this. I did run my kneeling-accident trajectory against what we knew before today and it all aligns with what we learned today.) 

I don't think we've learned enough about the Gucci receipt yet. I heard some murmurs of more about it today, but nothing concrete.

[Bluebirdbluebell]

Was Buster actually living with the family when the murders occurred? My understanding was that Paul was living with his parents when he was killed, but Buster was not.

On 2/11/2023 at 2:11 PM, ifosterkittens said:

If Alex did kill Maggie and Paul, why did he spare Buster? Buster's involvement in the boat case was him giving Paul his license so he could buy alcohol, so it is relevant but probably not seen as a big deal to Alex. Legally big ramifications, but the act itself may be seen as no big deal by Alex and Maggie.

I was unclear whether Buster gave his id to Paul or if Paul stole an id from his brother. It's possible that Buster had more than one for some reason and Paul took an old one. 
 

6 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

Re: Buster & Paul. From the first, it seemed obvious that Buster was the golden boy of the two kids while Paul was the chronic fuck up. In fact, it was hard not to see Paul as a monster-in-the-making after reading the accounts of his behavior on the night of the boat crash. Now, like Mandy Matney, the longtime reporter on these cases, I wonder what he could have been if his parents had given a damn and gotten him the help he needed. How any parent could witness his endless drinking & out of control behavior without doing something is beyond me.

Finally, here is a great timeline + theories of the case. She updates it regularly.

I watched a program about the Murdaughs a while ago and they made Paul to be a terrible person. Not all of that information on the programs seems accurate, but certainly they went over the boat crash and how Paul behaved. The way they portrayed the boat crash is in-line with what hoipolloi says above. 

Both the prosecution and the defense seem to have no interest in portraying Paul as anything other than a good kid and innocent victim. The prosecution wants Paul to be a sympathetic victim. The defense is going with the  'happy family" defense. Paul being a jerk would blow a hole right through the "perfect family" defense. I guess if they made Paul look horrible, it would give Alex more motive. That's probably why the they're going the "happy, perfect family defense', because at the end of the day, the most important thing is motive: would Alex really have killed members of his own family?

6 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

It's baffling and criminal -- plus everyone around them had to have known about the excessive & underage drinking. Then again, when you read the accounts of the boat crash & its prequel, NONE of the adults in that circle of kids seemed to bat an eye about all the drinking the kids did that night. 

If you've known certain people (usually rich), this is not baffling or surprising. Lots of parents know their kids drink and drink a lot. My community wasn't rich, but relatively well-off. Plenty of parents looked the other way. Especially if the parents have drinking problems and started young. 

It helps that the kids on the boat were college-age and not children. 

[Antimony]

1 hour ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

What I heard was probably speculation, but it was my original understanding that Maggie was killed first. I have no firm evidence. 

Further in today's ME testimony. Maggie is shot from behind, and roughly from behind-to-the-left. I think given that Paul is shot in a manner that suggests he wasn't bracing himself, and that Maggie is shot as if she is running away, and becuase the present them in the order of Paul-then-Maggie each time, we can conclude that the prosecution's probable order is Paul first, then Maggie. 

I'm a little fuzzy on the direction of shots one and two (non-fatal) but last two shots are described as coming from behind. Autosopy diagrams might be released.

Edit: Unfuzzed. Shots one and two are coming from the front. She is facing the shooter, and they are within 3 feet. Close range. Then, we get a switch in orientation. Maggie turns around. Shot three comes at a strange angle, as if she is on her hands and knees. It passed through her breast and into her head. Shot four is execution style, back of the head, base of the skull. The last wound is on her wrist and could be a pass through for another shot or could be its own thing. Unclear. 

The narrative is therefore, she is shot twice by the shooter (I believe Alex) at close range. Maybe close because she thought he wouldn't do it. She turns, crumbles in pain, is shot again, and then shot execution style. 

Edited February 14, 2023 by Antimony

[ifosterkittens]

@hoipolloithank you for the timeline and theories link. I do wonder if the jury has that firm a grasp on the timeline because it is tight! 

@BluebirdbluebellI don't know Buster's or Paul's living arrangements. It seems Alex was living at the main house on Moselle. Blanca said Maggie was staying at the beach house in Edisto during renovation and Maggie liked staying at the beach house during the summer. I would guess Paul was not living with Alex at Moselle full time. Rogan said he and Buster lived in a house at Moselle one summer, and it sounded like a smaller house on the Moselle property, but I can't confirm that. Blanca said after Paul and Maggie were murdered Alex stopped staying at main house on Moselle, and she moved some of his clothes and toiletries to a small two-bedroom home (maybe on the Moselle property? maybe this is where Rogan lived with Buster a few summers ago?), this is where Alex had the conversation with Blanca about the shirt, he was wearing the day of the murder. If Paul lived full time at the main house on Moselle it wouldn't be unusual for him to be there Friday night June 7th, but the prosecution is arguing Alex called Maggie and Paul to be at the main house on Moselle. 

1 hour ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

I was unclear whether Buster gave his id to Paul or if Paul stole an id from his brother. It's possible that Buster had more than one for some reason and Paul took an old one. 

True, we do not know if Buster gave the ID to Paul, or if Paul stole it. All ISB and IANAL if Buster was going to say he did not give Paul the ID he would need more than just his word to make that argument. 

 

1 hour ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

Both the prosecution and the defense seem to have no interest in portraying Paul as anything other than a good kid and innocent victim. The prosecution wants Paul to be a sympathetic victim. The defense is going with the  'happy family" defense. Paul being a jerk would blow a hole right through the "perfect family" defense. I guess if they made Paul look horrible, it would give Alex more motive. That's probably why the they're going the "happy, perfect family defense', because at the end of the day, the most important thing is motive: would Alex really have killed members of his own family?

I think you are right about both the prosecution and the defense. In any situation it is difficult to accept a father murdering his son. Paul had criminal charges, Alex, Maggie and Buster had a huge civil lawsuit. No this doesn't automatically explain why Alex would kill Paul, but I can see how it is a possible motive. Paul's actions, and Alex's action (he tried to shift the narrative to say Connor was driving the boat) turned the tides against the Murdaugh family. This great untouchable family is no longer blindly treated with respect, people they thought loved, respected or at least feared them are now shying away or turning against them. I'm not crying for the Murdaughs, but it had to be a huge unwelcome change. I can see how that would factor into Alex's motive. I can see Alex saying to Paul, he's given him every opportunity, privilege, advantage, everything he would ever want, and Paul screwed it all up. Paul's actions didn't just blow back on Paul, but the whole family.

Not only did Paul's actions bring a whole shit storm on the Murdaugh family, but Alex had already committed a bunch of financial crimes, and now that they need huge retainers for the lawyers in Paul's criminal charges and the family's civil lawsuit, and the pressure is building. I don't doubt Alex cared about his son Paul, gave him everything he could, went to great lengths to protect Paul, but at the end of the day Paul ruined things and Alex cared about himself more. 

2 hours ago, Antimony said:

Again, point blank range, within 2-3 ft and confirming all the scenarios I made my husband run through with a dowel rod. (I did...do this. I did run my kneeling-accident trajectory against what we knew before today and it all aligns with what we learned today.) 

I love that you a reenactment with your husband!

[ifosterkittens]

Kurt from Uncivil Law (youtube) has consistently said he doesn't think the state has proven the case. He feels the evidence is weak and they are relying on inuendo instead of facts. In this video he gives a bit of a recap, and discusses potential appellate issues if Alex is convicted, and references the timeline @hoipolloiprovided earlier.  It is still live am I am posting, and I haven't watched all of it, but found what I did watch interesting and wanted to share.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hmuKQR5A2o

[TN-peach]

I am hoping that the prosecution's "timeline" witness will connect all of these dots and make some sense out of this case because otherwise the prosecution will lose. 

The Medical Examiner's testimony was difficult but it does seem like both Paul and Maggie were surprised by their attacker and their initial wounds do not show any real attempts at defensive posturing.  They were caught by surprise by whoever it was.

The prosecution's case is based on the theory that Alec was there and he lied, the weapons and clothes are missing, only someone familiar to Bubba could've removed the chicken and put him back in the kennel, and Alec is lying liar that lies, he steals money, and manipulates people but is that enough to overcome reasonable doubt? I don't know.

[ifosterkittens]

Per the timeline: Paul's last read text was at 8:48:59 and Maggie's was at 8:49:27. Presumably Paul and Maggie were shot right after Maggie's last read text. Alex's car starts at 9:06:49 goes to his mom's arrives back at Moselle at 10:00:36 and calls the police at 10:06:14. So according to the state in 16-17 minutes Alex got a gun and shot Paul twice, got a different gun and shot Maggie five (?) times. He stood close enough to both bodies so there was stippling- so within three feet while shooting. He gathered both guns, his shirt and shoes so he could later dispose of them. Maybe he took a shower, he at cleaned up enough that he didn't have blood smears, chunks of brain matter or flesh in his car or in the house. He changed into different clothes and shoes before leaving Moselle. He disposed of the guns and clothes and shoes he gathered earlier. Technically he has six minutes from when he returned to Moselle before he called the police, but the car moved a few times, so it isn't six uninterrupted minutes, and seems unlikely much cleaning, disposing of evidence, getting things in order could have occurred during that time. That timeline seems about impossible to accomplish so much alone and leave so little evidence. 

2 hours ago, TN-peach said:

The prosecution's case is based on the theory that Alec was there and he lied, the weapons and clothes are missing, only someone familiar to Bubba could've removed the chicken and put him back in the kennel, and Alec is lying liar that lies, he steals money, and manipulates people but is that enough to overcome reasonable doubt? I don't know.

We all have so many different theories because the state isn't giving us a clear motive (because they don't have one), and this is a case where motive matters. Alex stole a bunch of money because he's greedy- we all understand that. Why did Alex shoot his wife and son? I can speculate but can't say with great certainty. If we have this many questions, I bet the jury does too. The defense can hammer home the point to the jury if you don't think Alex can do all of that in 16-17 minutes by himself, he's the one who got the guns, who pulled the trigger, who cleaned up and disposed of the gun and clothes as the state is saying he did you have to acquit.

I think Alex is the mastermind, I think he hired someone to do this, I think it is possible something went wrong, and he had to get involved, maybe Alex shot one of them (not sure who). I think the hired person shot the other person, cleaned things up, and disposed of the guns and clothes while Alex went to establish his alibi by visiting him mama giving the hired person plenty of time to clean up. I would have to acquit. Even though I think he could have shot one I don't know who, and I can't flip a coin pick one and say beyond a reasonable doubt he killed Paul not Maggie or vice versa. It's terrible because I think Alex is the reason, they are both dead, but I don't believe he pulled the trigger on both of them, and those are the charges. 

[Antimony]

5 hours ago, ifosterkittens said:

Per the timeline: Paul's last read text was at 8:48:59 and Maggie's was at 8:49:27. Presumably Paul and Maggie were shot right after Maggie's last read text. Alex's car starts at 9:06:49 goes to his mom's arrives back at Moselle at 10:00:36 and calls the police at 10:06:14. So according to the state in 16-17 minutes Alex got a gun and shot Paul twice, got a different gun and shot Maggie five (?) times. He stood close enough to both bodies so there was stippling- so within three feet while shooting. He gathered both guns, his shirt and shoes so he could later dispose of them. Maybe he took a shower, he at cleaned up enough that he didn't have blood smears, chunks of brain matter or flesh in his car or in the house. He changed into different clothes and shoes before leaving Moselle. He disposed of the guns and clothes and shoes he gathered earlier. Technically he has six minutes from when he returned to Moselle before he called the police, but the car moved a few times, so it isn't six uninterrupted minutes, and seems unlikely much cleaning, disposing of evidence, getting things in order could have occurred during that time. That timeline seems about impossible to accomplish so much alone and leave so little evidence. 

We all have so many different theories because the state isn't giving us a clear motive (because they don't have one), and this is a case where motive matters. Alex stole a bunch of money because he's greedy- we all understand that. Why did Alex shoot his wife and son? I can speculate but can't say with great certainty. If we have this many questions, I bet the jury does too. The defense can hammer home the point to the jury if you don't think Alex can do all of that in 16-17 minutes by himself, he's the one who got the guns, who pulled the trigger, who cleaned up and disposed of the gun and clothes as the state is saying he did you have to acquit.

I think Alex is the mastermind, I think he hired someone to do this, I think it is possible something went wrong, and he had to get involved, maybe Alex shot one of them (not sure who). I think the hired person shot the other person, cleaned things up, and disposed of the guns and clothes while Alex went to establish his alibi by visiting him mama giving the hired person plenty of time to clean up. I would have to acquit. Even though I think he could have shot one I don't know who, and I can't flip a coin pick one and say beyond a reasonable doubt he killed Paul not Maggie or vice versa. It's terrible because I think Alex is the reason, they are both dead, but I don't believe he pulled the trigger on both of them, and those are the charges. 

Re: Bolded

The state may not call their spatter expert because apparently he is a diaster but it is entirely possible to shoot someone, even at close range, and come out relatively or entirely clean. The blood will go with the bullet, so away from the shooter, for the most part. I don't think Alex needs to be covered in it to have done it. 

I'm usually pretty skeptical of blood spatter but for that (small) conclusion, I agree with their field. I get more skeptical when they recreate whole narratives, etc. 

I do wish they would clarifying on three feet re:stippling for the jury. Three feet from the mouth of the barrel or three feet from the firing pin? For a rifle it matters.

I do think the evidence is all there - people have been convicted on way less - but the State doesn't tell a good story and a lot of lawyering is story craft. 

[TN-peach]

The splatter expert himself is a disaster and (IMO) the "science" of blood splatter is questionable.  The more you look into some of forensic sciences the more questionable they become (bite analysis, blood splatter, hair analysis (not DNA), fabric analysis).  Basically, they are not statically supported. 

[Antimony]

3 minutes ago, TN-peach said:

The splatter expert himself is a disaster and (IMO) the "science" of blood splatter is questionable.  The more you look into some of forensic sciences the more questionable they become (bite analysis, blood splatter, hair analysis (not DNA), fabric analysis).  Basically, they are not statically supported. 

This is what I teach on Thursday! Forensic Science (basics, history), Science Communication, and the role the interface of those things play in the court. The students are...constantly disillusioned. DNA is running into issues of touch and trace DNA at this point and it's almost been useless in this case because familial homicide (with the exception of noting very little DNA from unknown persons). It's the first time teaching this class, so it's been a little wild. Tomorrow is about Science in the Media, but so far we've done Scientific Method (with a tougher than usual emphasis on bias and controls) and the history of forensic science.

I think we're going to end up using the testimony from the gun shot residue expert witness and the DNA expert we got yesterday to talk about expert witnesses. Maybe the medical examiner (I like her, you can really tell she's a professor.)

[TN-peach]

Is the defense really going to argue that Paul killed Maggie and then himself?! That is the implication of the cross-examination of the ME. 

That seems GROSS! But everyone deserves a defense no matter how icky it might be but I don't know if the jury will agree it.  I think the defense risks offending the jury with this theory.  It is a better option that a third party did it, in my opinion. 

1 hour ago, Antimony said:

This is what I teach on Thursday! Forensic Science (basics, history), Science Communication, and the role the interface of those things play in the court. The students are...constantly disillusioned. DNA is running into issues of touch and trace DNA at this point and it's almost been useless in this case because familial homicide (with the exception of noting very little DNA from unknown persons). It's the first time teaching this class, so it's been a little wild. Tomorrow is about Science in the Media, but so far we've done Scientific Method (with a tougher than usual emphasis on bias and controls) and the history of forensic science.

I think we're going to end up using the testimony from the gun shot residue expert witness and the DNA expert we got yesterday to talk about expert witnesses. Maybe the medical examiner (I like her, you can really tell she's a professor.)

That is awesome.  I started going down the rabbit hole of forensics when I started reading Radley Balko.  His articles, especially about the Mississippi coroner and the bite analyst, were very interesting.  And down the rabbit hole I fell. 

[Antimony]

7 minutes ago, TN-peach said:

Is the defense really going to argue that Paul killed Maggie and then himself?! That is the implication of the cross-examination of the ME. 

That seems GROSS! But everyone deserves a defense no matter how icky it might be but I don't know if the jury will agree it.  I think the defense risks offending the jury with this theory.  It is a better option that a third party did it, in my opinion. 

I think so. He's trying to either get closer or further away from that 2-3 foot range, because that range is bad for him. Any point where he gets to confuse the issue is good for him, but it will be interesting to see if they have a counter expert waiting in the wings. 

If he wants to continue with self inflicted....weird choice. It's obvious but...shotguns are hard to shoot yourself with and they're even harder to shoot yourself twice with. I don't know how the jury will take whatever...Harpoot was doing this morning. 

(Also adding The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist to my To Read list...which is a very horribly terribly long list.)

[TN-peach]

I still haven't read the book just the articles he wrote prior to the book and it will enrage you.

[Howl]

@Antimony noted: 

Quote

both Paul and Maggie were present at the death of Gloria Satterfield and could have, if everything else got discovered, blow that whole fraud wide open as well.

Is there an implication that Alex murdered Gloria Satterfield for the umbrella insurance policy money?  He had to already have been familiar with how the scam worked when he suggested it to the surviving children at the funeral only a few days later. 

From what we know about her, I don't think Maggie would have been part of that plot. I haven't seen anything that implicates Maggie's in any of Alex' financial skulduggery.  On the other hand, she married into a family generational power and riddled with corruption so she had to have known of at least some things that went on. 

[SassyPants]

53 minutes ago, TN-peach said:

Is the defense really going to argue that Paul killed Maggie and then himself?! That is the implication of the cross-examination of the ME. 

That seems GROSS! But everyone deserves a defense no matter how icky it might be but I don't know if the jury will agree it.  I think the defense risks offending the jury with this theory.  It is a better option that a third party did it, in my opinion. 

That is awesome.  I started going down the rabbit hole of forensics when I started reading Radley Balko.  His articles, especially about the Mississippi coroner and the bite analyst, were very interesting.  And down the rabbit hole I fell. 

OMG that book. If you read that book and can still justify the death penalty, wow. The bite marks and how some were obtained. Unbelievable.

[Antimony]

33 minutes ago, Howl said:

@Antimony noted: 

Is there an implication that Alex murdered Gloria Satterfield for the umbrella insurance policy money?  He had to already have been familiar with how the scam worked when he suggested it to the surviving children at the funeral only a few days later. 

From what we know about her, I don't think Maggie would have been part of that plot. I haven't seen anything that implicates Maggie's in any of Alex' financial skulduggery.  On the other hand, she married into a family generational power and riddled with corruption so she had to have known of at least some things that went on. 

Some people have speculated. To the best of my recollection, this is because of several reasons;

a) Gloria's death was filed as being at another home that was not Moselle at first. Speculation is because each property had a different insurance policy. 
b) Gloria was hit in a car accident the day before her fall. Could be coincidental, but extremely unlucky woman is so.
c) Gloria's death certificate reported listed the COD as "natural" but it should have been "accident"
d) Alex makes sure to note that Gloria was there to pick up a check that day, not her usual work schedule. Avoiding workman's claim? Unclear.
e) Maggie is calm on the 911 call, but this is reportedly normal for her. Weirder, Paul states that Gloria "fell again". Very bizarre. Why have her get up if the injuries were as they describe to the operator? 
f) Daily Mail (via Eric Bland) reports that Gloria's injuries were as severe as "crushed skull and 12 broken vertebrae". Now, this was after exhumation, so I'm not sure what to make of that. It seems unusual for what was described, for sure. 

This goes either way for me, really. He could have planned a murder for an insurance fraud...I guess. But it seems more likely that it was a crime of opportunity. However, either way, Maggie and Paul were the only people who could have given details to contradict whatever story he sold the insurance company to get the pay out. I think it's possible that Maggie and Paul weren't consciously part of that plot, but Alex had made them part of it. 

Edit: Clarity!

Edited February 14, 2023 by Antimony

[hoipolloi]

18 minutes ago, Antimony said:

b) Gloria was hit in a car accident the day before her death. Could be coincidental, but extremely unlucky woman is so.

Hadn't seen this before. I thought that she was hospitalized from the time of her fall on Murdaugh property until her death.

I have always thought that her "accident" and death were highly questionable in many ways. Although SLED finally opened a criminal investigation into the circumstances years after the fact, it doesn't seem as though anything has come of it yet.

[Antimony]

1 minute ago, hoipolloi said:

Hadn't seen this before. I thought that she was hospitalized from the time of her fall on Murdaugh property until her death.

I have always thought that her "accident" and death were highly questionable in many ways. Although SLED finally opened a criminal investigation into the circumstances years after the fact, it doesn't seem as though anything has come of it yet.

Oh, this is my bad phrasing. Apologies!

It should be that she has a car accident the day before her fall. Her death was slower. Will edit!

[ifosterkittens]

5 hours ago, Antimony said:

The state may not call their spatter expert because apparently he is a diaster but it is entirely possible to shoot someone, even at close range, and come out relatively or entirely clean. The blood will go with the bullet, so away from the shooter, for the most part. I don't think Alex needs to be covered in it to have done it. 

Thanks for this insight he may have been clean or relatively clean. The "search" of his home and the vehicles seems suspect, so even if there was a little blood, brain matter, flesh I wouldn't be totally surprised if they missed it. SLED missed Maggie's wedding ring under the front seat of her car, Blanca found it after! My bias is coming through, I figured Alex wouldn't be big on clean up because per Blanca they didn't bother putting food away, washing their dishes, presumably he left the wet towel in the closet after a shower that Blanca found the next morning. I just assumed he wouldn't be thorough with cleanup, but if he wasn't that dirty than not much to clean up, and his freedom depended on getting away with the crime so he may have been more diligent than usual. 

I think him being relatively clean is supported by the khaki pants in the closet next to the wet towel Blanca found the next morning. We know the shirt and shoes are gone, but he left a pair of khakis, and Blanca seems meticulous, so I doubt she missed anything super obvious on the pants. @Antimonyyou always provide excellent insight and challenge what I was thinking, and I am truly enjoying all the speculating! 

Dick and Jim are Alex's good friends. They are doing their jobs as defense attorneys and zealously representing him, and I doubt they asked him if he did it, but I wonder what they really think of their dear friend Alex. Legally it doesn't matter if they think he did it or not, but late at night when they are struggling to sleep (or maybe that's just me) do they think that SOB killed his wife and son? Friends can forgive a lot, but I don't know about murder. Even if Alex is acquitted of the murders, he is facing so many financial crimes charges, and is beyond a reasonable doubt guilty he'll likely be going to prison for a long time, maybe the rest of his life so after the trials they won't be hanging out on the weekend.