[retiredguy123]

I watched the cross-examination of Alex Murdaugh today. The prosecutor was able to prove that Murdaugh was a liar, he stole money from his clients, and he was a drug addict. Murdaugh openly admitted to these things. But, all of that is totally irrelevant to the murder case. He never proved that Murdaugh killed his wife and son. What a waste of time. He better come up with a more convincing case than he has so far. My opinion.

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I watched the cross-examination of Alex Murdaugh today. The prosecutor was able to prove that Murdaugh was a liar, he stole money from his clients, and he was a drug addict. Murdaugh openly admitted to these things. But, all of that is totally irrelevant to the murder case. He never proved that Murdaugh killed his wife and son. What a waste of time. He better come up with a more convincing case than he has so far. My opinion.

I have not followed the trial. Has Murdaugh identified the "real killer"?

[Keefelane66]

Watched it afternoons for 2 days doesn't seem as an honest person who lies admitted embezzlement theft from client's.

[Pairadocs]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I watched the cross-examination of Alex Murdaugh today. The prosecutor was able to prove that Murdaugh was a liar, he stole money from his clients, and he was a drug addict. Murdaugh openly admitted to these things. But, all of that is totally irrelevant to the murder case. He never proved that Murdaugh killed his wife and son. What a waste of time. He better come up with a more convincing case than he has so far. My opinion.

I've watched the entire trial. Fascinating to watch an attorney (who may be a drug addict but in not a dull intellect) manipulate the prosecutor with such cleaver (effusive, detailed answers to questions NOT asked. At times I was amazed at the judge's restraint. I think Murdaugh will walk... another Casey Anthony, it only takes ONE. From what I have read on the rest of the UNRELATED charges involving unprofessional conduct and many financial crimes, he may well end up doing some prison time, but I predict NOT for double (or triple) murder.

[Taltarzac725]

He knows how to spin things in front of a jury. A trial attorney who taught at the U of MN Law School said that trial work is theater. It is who can tell the better story. This law professor was Irving Younger. His work is still worth a look. Irving Younger - Wikipedia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBP2if0l-a8

Originally Posted by Pairadocs

I've watched the entire trial. Fascinating to watch an attorney (who may be a drug addict but in not a dull intellect) manipulate the prosecutor with such cleaver (effusive, detailed answers to questions NOT asked. At times I was amazed at the judge's restraint. I think Murdaugh will walk... another Casey Anthony, it only takes ONE. From what I have read on the rest of the UNRELATED charges involving unprofessional conduct and many financial crimes, he may well end up doing some prison time, but I predict NOT for double (or triple) murder.

[Chi-Town]

The prosecutor gives me the impression that he is ill prepared in his presentation. Lots of fumbling around and notes shuffling. Murdaugh is playing him.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Chi-Town

The prosecutor gives me the impression that he is ill prepared in his presentation. Lots of fumbling around and notes shuffling. Murdaugh is playing him.

Some people are great con men and women. I just hope that the jury looks very carefully at the facts and that whoever the jury foreman is listens to everyone. SC Judicial Branch

[Rainger99]

Have only watched about 30 minutes of it and know very little about the case. Saw that he admitted numerous times to being a liar and stealing money but vehemently denied killing them.

From what I have seen, it is only a circumstantial case. There is no evidence connecting him to the murder. I don’t think they even found the weapons.

For those who have followed it more closely, do you think the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it?

[Ele201]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I watched the cross-examination of Alex Murdaugh today. The prosecutor was able to prove that Murdaugh was a liar, he stole money from his clients, and he was a drug addict. Murdaugh openly admitted to these things. But, all of that is totally irrelevant to the murder case. He never proved that Murdaugh killed his wife and son. What a waste of time. He better come up with a more convincing case than he has so far. My opinion.

I agree with you. The prosecutor seemed to lose control of the defendant during the cross exam. He should have maintained his composure, and asked the right questions leading directly to the night of the murder and placing Murdaugh there. Because that’s what this case is about.

Also I was surprised at how the defendant was allowed to talk so much, changing the subject at will. At times he seemed to be cross examining the prosecutor! That seemed unusual. And why did the judge let him get away with it? Anyway there’s still time for the prosecutor to convince the jury but he needs to regain his focus.

[RICH1]

another one of the great trial blunders in history!

[Heyitsrick]

One never knows what a jury will do, but based on the testimony he gave I cannot see how he could be convicted of murders. Financial crimes are another story, but he's already laid the case for being an addict. That could lessen penalties he may face there.

[msilagy]

Either way he will not walk and even if he is acquitted will be taken back to jail where he will serve many years for his financial crimes after trial.

[bobmarc]

Originally Posted by Caymus

I have not followed the trial. Has Murdaugh identified the "real killer"?

OJ Simpson

[PurePeach]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

Have only watched about 30 minutes of it and know very little about the case. Saw that he admitted numerous times to being a liar and stealing money but vehemently denied killing them.

From what I have seen, it is only a circumstantial case. There is no evidence connecting him to the murder. I don’t think they even found the weapons.

For those who have followed it more closely, do you think the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it?

No.

[PurePeach]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I watched the cross-examination of Alex Murdaugh today. The prosecutor was able to prove that Murdaugh was a liar, he stole money from his clients, and he was a drug addict. Murdaugh openly admitted to these things. But, all of that is totally irrelevant to the murder case. He never proved that Murdaugh killed his wife and son. What a waste of time. He better come up with a more convincing case than he has so far. My opinion.

Without evidence, which there is none, there is no way they can be 100% sure he killed them. No matter what the jury thinks, without proof it’s hard to convict. And after watching 2 full days of this trial, I’m no longer convinced he killed them either.