Well, I have watched a bit of it here and there for the 5 or so weeks it has been going on, but today I saw most of the Prosecution's closing arguments, and it was powerful when they put it into a summary like that. The guy lied about his whereabouts at time of murder, and then when shown he was there at time of murder, and was "napping" when the the gun blasts went off, woke up a bit after that, sped to Alameda to be with mom and then sped back to house to call 911? All the phone calls made while he was mulling over the bodies? The changing of the clothes based on what the Blanca maid testified to? Powerful stuff. I don't think it matters what the defense closing argument will be...The jury will deliver a guilty verdict or be a hung jury. There is zero chance of an acquittal. That is my take.
Well, after hearing the closing arguments and the jury instructions, I am now ferklempt. Both sides put on great arguments, although I think the Prosecution's rebuttal closing was weak. But those jury instructions the judge gave were very stark. Combining that with what was heard in defense closing, I am now leaning more towards a hung jury or an acquittal. It seems that the time of death presented by the Prosecution was based on the phone records? WTF! Why didn't all the forensic folks establish a time of death outside of the "armpit measurement"? Good grief. Quite a complicated case for sure.
It was a complicated case with no firmly established a time of death, only supposition on the part of the prosecution. No reasonable motive, and zero hard evidence. What was firmly established beyond a reasonable doubt, however, was that the defendant was opiate addicted at the time of the murder, a white collar thief who had stolen from clients, partners and friends and lied. These were personal problems both victims were aware of at the time of the murders, though the general public was not until after the murders. It was also well known by the time the murders took place that the defendant's murdered, younger son had recklessly crashed a boat into a bridge, and a 19 year-old girl had died as a result. By inference then, by the time the murders took place, it would have been impossible for these two, accused and one of the victims, not to have had created numerous enemies; yet it seems nothing was mentioned of this. The prosecutions case rested on inability of the defense to eliminate any possibility, no matter how remote, that the defendant could have committed the murders. If the defendant is actually guilty, it was either quite a remarkable feat to pull off a double murder by, strangely enough both rifle and shotgun, and leave not a trace of gun or blood evidence that could definitively point to the defendant, or else the complete lack of hard evidence was an example of remarkably incompetent police work. We won't know which. As an educated person I could never in good conscience convict anyone under such circumstances, even if I could not rule out that the defendant may have indeed committed the crime. Startling was the total lack of any reasonable motive plus the testimony of family friends that the defendant was deeply in love with his wife, loved his son, and was emotionally close to both. I fear that the Murdaugh trial has spoken more of the risk of U.S. juries not understanding the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt" then it spoke to guilt or innocence. The Murdaugh trial suggests rather strongly, I would think, that the standard jury findings in U.S. criminal courts should be changed from the present "Innocent", or "Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" to "Not Guilty", "Guilty" or "Unpoven". U.S. criminal courts are very far from perfect. For general information re trial error in criminal cases see: innocenceproject.org
And the judge said that the jurors must not infer guilt because of that infidelity of the stealing of the monies, because it had no bearing on the case of motive, as per SC law.
And of course the prosecution spent days harping on Murdaugh's history of stealing and lies, and the judge allowed this in. The judge should have demanded that the prosecution present a reasonable argument of why this history is relevant. In the end the prosecution tried to tie Murdaugh's history to a motive , saying he murdered his wife and son to distract attention from his stealing. This is, on it's face, ridiculous. I think this conviction has an excellent chance of being tossed out on appeal on the basis of SC Law. The judge erred in letting this long history of the defendant's, uncharged as yet, crimes enter. What do you think?
The judge said quite specifically during their instructions that they are not allowed to infer any character of the defendant because he was involved in the boat case or the financial crimes case. The judgements by the jurors cannot be influenced by previous charges he was brought upon in those previous cases. They HAD to refer ONLY to the statics of the murder charges, based on crime scene evidence.
Yup. So I think perhaps the judge allowing the prosecution to rattle on for days about Murdaugh's financial problems and stealing may form the basis for an appeal. The judge telling the jury to ignore what amounted to about nine tenths of what the jury just sat through may not be enough, especially considering that the judge could have shut off this line of the prosecutions argument from day one. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
People I talk to in general don't seem to care that there is basically no evidence and no motive. If you watch true crime from 30 years ago the prosecution would have never even attempted this case without gathering more evidence but they don't need to now. I just can't believe someone can be convicted of shooting their own son and wife with two guns, no physical evidence and it is basically a slam dunk case. Ultimately, Murdaugh is seen for the privileged asshole he is and that is enough for the jury and basically enough for everyone else I have talked to. I really worry we are trending towards a type of Khmer Rouge collective insanity over the next 50 years. I read how great the show White Lotus is supposed to be so started watching but it just seems like a cultural mirror to this type of insanity. The type of person who finds White Lotus to be a good comedy show doesn't need evidence to convict Murdaugh. There is a huge bull market in the growth of this mindset and type of person.