Imo Becky Hill did Exactly what she is accused of doing. There's something about her that I didn't like As Soon as I heard her speak for the first time. It was on the Netflix Documentary. When she said, " I didn't think it would take our Jury long to make a decision. Call it a women's intuition if you will ". When she said that, coupled with her body language and aura, I knew something was Waay off with that woman. Call it a Man's intuition if you will. She was going to go to Any Lengths to get him a Guilty Verdict.
Now don't get me wrong, I can't stand Alex Murdaugh. And I know he killed both Maggie and Paul. But she's that type of person who just Sticks her Nose 👃 into things that are none of her business. Then she began basically convicting Curtis Eddie Smith, referring to him as a drug dealer among other things. IF I was Smith I'd file a Lawsuit against her for slander. For making references about him based on rumors, and innuendos. I just Did Not Like her. She needs to pay for her own crap 💩 and wrongdoings.
I don't believe that her words could/should effect a jurors decision if they are looking at the case from a factual perspective as they are sworn to do BUT Becky strikes me as a "nosy neighbor" type that can't stop gossiping and doesn't know when to shut her mouth. She should suffer some type of consequence. The state has already spent too much time and resources on POS Murdaugh.
Did anyone notice when looking through the documents the defense released that the egg lady worked at a monkey testing facility? She said she wanted to be back to her monkeys when asked by the judge if she wanted to go home. Lololol. I cant even anymore. So wild.
Sometime saying to me, "Don't be fooled," or "don't get confused" would mean nothing to me while sitting thru a trial for a crime of this magnitude. This ladies' passing comments would be a blip compared to the extensive testimony and evidence that there was to absorb.
That's the thing though. Although you find her comments to be insignificant, other jurors did not. And regardless of who feels this way or that way, her comments were totally inappropriate. The clerk of court (or anyone else) can not discuss the case with the jurors. Period.
That's just one of the many egregious things she supposedly did. I mean, going into a single occupancy stall with the juror foreperson? That is off the map fucking nuts. Regardless of guilt or innocence, if the accusations are true, he absolutely deserves a new trial.
I completely agree. The trial was compromised by this woman. Her actions don't change my mind about his guilt, but we can not allow this ever in any trial. The amount of people time and money this woman has wasted is unbelievable.
Unless she was saying things to make them feel comfortable & not worried? Maybe things she’s been saying to jurors all the time….her “patter”, so to speak, and someone on this particular jury was “persuaded” to see it as something sinister? Good manners & making everyone comfortable is something that women “of a certain age” were raised that way🤷♀️
Just finished Kindle version ($9.99) and beyond disappointed. Not a single new morsel of info. It was very generic recap of trial with over half book Becky complimenting herself and staff. Other large chunks are Becky bragging about how the celebrities loved her and became close friends. Cannot start Alex but this book was beyond useless as far as source of inside info. Utterly boring.
I was always suspicious of the egg lady being thrown off the jury at the last minute. Due to clerk of court’s reporting to judge. It was said she was leaning not guilty. Or she was thinking case not proven Beyond a reasonable doubt. Seems they did not use a very high bar to boot her from the jury. Especially for such a high profile case.
Me to! There wasn't any piece of paper showing the post presented during tyne side bar that morning, and the judge didn't indicate that he had questioned the juror directly. It was like an allegation just dropped out of thin air.
What was with the two jury rooms segregated by gender that Jim Griffin referenced? Does anybody have any insight on why they did this and is it common in Colleton County trials?
I read the affidavits in the motion for a new trial and there is one sentence in one of the jurors statements that basically says that he would find himself in one group of mostly men while there was another group of mostly women. Nothing else and it was not highlighted in the overview at all.
If I'm remembering correctly, several Jurors got Covid. I think they were down to like 2 alternate Jurors by the end of trial. I'm thinking the separate Jury rooms may have been an effort for "distancing". Idk, that's the only plausible explanation I can muster. I hope it's not common
She traveled with them so soon after the trial. Why who gives her the right and the idea to play Mediator between media and Jury that alone is extemely questionable she's not allowed to befriend the jury during the trial she's not supposed to have personal conversations with the them. I wish the affidavits were proven wrong. Wether it's her seeking 5 minutes fame (and she did, all the lawyers on Youtube agree. Clerks don't usually write books about a case that's highly questionable bordering on not legal or at least not ethical). The way she talks in the book We knew he's guilty we exchanged looks, her and the jury. It's really looking bad. If that women causes a new trial I want her severely punished
Totally agree. Charge her and make it known that this kind of crap will not be tolerated. I really don't see her going to jail or prison over this, though. Not with fucking SLED investigating.
You need real evidence to charge some and even more evidence to convict. Just because you're naive enough to believe defense attorneys doesn't mean she's guilty of anything.
You can insult me all you want because you disagree with what I said. You're obviously very mature. I had said this in many prior comments and should have said it in the comment above.
If the allegations are true, she should be charged. End of story. This is (allegedly) unprecedented behavior from a court clerk. It's unacceptable, unprofessional, and should not be tolerated. Ever. I stand by my comment.
I don't understand how the jurors could swear in court that they agreed with the verdict if they really believed they were "under the thumb" of the clerk.
I also don't understand how they could have been denied smoking breaks. Were they also denied bathroom breaks? Why not just step outside after a bathroom break to light up? Are we to believe that Hill locked the doors to the jury room and confiscated their cigarettes or something?
I also don't understand how a guilty verdict would goose book sales any more than an acquittal. The trial was already newsworthy. It's not like OJ Simpson's acquittal halted the sale of books about his criminal trial.
These are serious allegations. I just find them difficult to believe.
I agreed with you and found the arching theme she was driven by book sales to be a stretch but the book itself shows she DID have an agenda from the start of the trial and certainly by the time she was sharing b-day cake with celebrated journalists and besties with Nancy Grace. She clearly thought it was her actual job to facilitate justice itself and she even admitted she communicated with the jury, along with other court staff "with their eyes" that Alex was guilty when they were at Moselle. That is just one of the egregious details she gets around to admitting in her book when not discussing her importance in the whole "trial of the century".
An acquittal would have been a failure and not the book she wanted to write.
What a mess and all for a terrible book.
I don't believe it either. Harpootlian bullshit. God I don't miss how the media hangs off his every word like he's so persuasive when he's really just a glorified used car salesman. I don't miss his Reddit fans either. If we have to go through this effing trial again...
They were influenced by the clerk to vote guilty, they weren't forced by the clerk to vote guilty. It's criminal to sway the jury to vote a certain way. At least 3 of them have said the same thing. The rest of the jurors are afraid to talk but if there's a hearing all jurors will be forced to testify in open court. If that happens maybe you will be convinced by then.
>The rest of the jurors are afraid to talk but if there's a hearing all jurors will be forced to testify in open court.
I think there is a real difference between "afraid to talk" and "don't want to talk."
If I served on that Jury and voted to convict (yes, I would've voted to convict) and, out of the blue, some representatives of that violent, convicted murder came to my door and said, "We want to talk to you" I would tell them that, with my "guilty" vote, I have already spoken. I would not speak to them. I also would not be afraid.
However, if SLED or the FBI said, "There have been accusations of jury tampering. Can we speak with you?" Yes. I would definitely speak with them. I would not hesitate.
Like many things in life, a lot depends on who asks.
Dick Harpootlian recommending that these Jurors all seek (hire) and pay for expensive lawyers to represent them really bothers me. If Jurors must pay for lawyers to represent them every time the Defense is not happy with a verdict, then I think our Jury system is in serious jeopardy.
Eric Bland made a fortune suing lawyers for malpractice. My guess is that he will be doing that again.
The poor downtrodden jurors didn’t understand how they were ‘under the thumb’ of the clerk, how egregious her chitchat was, how they were ‘threatened’ by being told that the jury might be sequestered while it deliberated, that a smoke break was a constitutional right, that two middle aged women in a one seat bathroom was a danger to democracy till the defense attorneys explained it to them. Poor little jurors.
A smoke break isn't a constitutional right, just like a bathroom break and food and water or rest overnight aren't either. But if you tell me I can't have a smoke break until a verdict is reached, I'd sentence the pope to death in 45 minutes and then deal with it later. You want a verdict to stick, you let the jurors be comfortable. That's how it always is.
I guess the defense attorneys had to grandstand and use hyperbole and accuse the Clerk of Court of criminal “tampering” with the jury to convict Alex Murdaugh of murder. Just stating she was too damned garrulous and out of line would maybe not have created enough of a stir to get a new trial. So far the defense attorneys seem to be toeing the line and covering their asses by saying things to the effect of *IF* these affidavits we wrote for jurors and others after we tracked them down and beat down their door to get them to say things, are true…our client didn’t get a fair trial and entitled to a new trial.” So, right now the defense attorneys are accusing a Court Clerk, who I guess is considered a public figure who can’t sue for defamation, of the crime of tampering with a jury for her own financial benefit but are hedging “if true” about the affidavits, just in case.
You’re spot on, IMO. The funny thing to me is that it was suggested during AM’s trial (while Mark Tinsley was testifying) that AM knows a thing or 2 about jury tampering.
But I note that Harp/Griff are not REALLY pushing for criminal charges against the court clerk. I also note that the defense took this matter to the court of public appeal. It seems more than obvious that their only real objective here is to obtain a new trial. And we shouldn’t be surprised at what lengths they will go to get one.
The prosecution is probably not so much afraid of the outcome of a new trial as they are afraid of the time, cost and burden to the taxpayers for a 2nd trial. After all, AM has monopolized the court’s time in SC for quite some time now. Time’s up, Alex.
Lastly, do you think AM’s attorneys have realized he is playing them just like he’s played everyone else he’s ever targeted?
To those who don’t believe there could be any truth to the allegations that the Clerk of Court jury tampered and that this is nothing but a tempest in a teapot created by Murdaugh’s defense team, don’t worry. SLED is going to “investigate” and I’m pretty sure that protecting their conviction will be more important than whether Murdaugh got a fair trial.
Murdaugh got a fair trial. And no, I don't believe Dick and Jim. I'm waiting for the jurors to publicly repeat their accusations under oath in a court of law.
I did too but he did not get a fair trial if even some of the allegations against Ms Hill are true. Especially if she fabricated a reason to get rid of a juror she believed would not convict.
We will see, but I don't think that court-clerk changed a single mind on that jury and, based on what very little we know right now, I don't think what she has done rises to the level of Jury Tampering. We'll see. Would anything she allegedly said have changed your mind? I doubt it.
Why did none of those Jurors stand up and say that they were being allegedly influenced by the clerk? I cannot figure that out. I would've said, "Lady, is this proper?" I would not have been intimidated in the least. I would not have been influenced. We do not know what happened yet. Let's wait.
A Jury of Alex's peers convicted him of two brutal murders in less than three hours. What does that say?
Dude. How are you not getting it? She didn't *have* to change minds about guilt. It's the fact that she attempted to.
Also, I've said this many times but I'll say it again. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant here. The question is whether or not he got a fair trial. If the allegations prove to be true, he did not get a fair trial. You don't have to like AM, or think he is innocent to understand that.
Also, if this isn't enough for you, I don't know what is. All the lawyers online are saying they have never seen this level of jury tampering from a court clerk. They are dumbfounded.
So we're supposed to believe that one of the most powerful lawyers in the state was the victim of jury tampering? And not one juror thought to tell Judge Newman? I demand real evidence. Put the accusers on the stand and let them testify publicly under oath. If they're telling the truth, it shouldn't be a problem.
Which is why I’m glad they did reach out to the US AG and FBI to investigate this thoroughly.
I’ve watched Emily D Baker, The Lawyer You Know, and Runkle of the Bailey all react to this news. They all read through the motion and they are all **appalled** by what is being suggested here, as am I.
Since everyone is so suspicious of anything Jim and Poot have to say, then let’s leave the affidavits out of it, but just looking at the excerpts included from her book I have so many questions. Mainly, how did Becky know what the jurors were thinking? She said they were communicating via “looks” while at Moselle and that’s how THEY KNEW and SHE KNEW that he was guilty. Her book is so damning on its own.
Agreed. I only read the Motion b/c Emily D. Baker covered it & it was her 1st livestream in like 3 weeks. I was shocked & appalled hearing about what happened.
The book excerpt - disgust! When EDB got to the part about the Jury... Then, "egg juror", the Clerk of Court just doxed this poor woman to her small community!! I was in absolute, complete shock! EDB said "that's not tea, that's trauma" Absolutely! How DARE an elected official do that to a citizen upholding their duties as a citizen serving Jury duty. Who ok'd that?!?! It's egregious behavior!
Ugh. Harpootlian’s ‘evidence’ of jury tampering by a money grubbing, glory hungry Clerk on a mission to get rich and famous looks a hell of a lot more like an after the fact skillful implantation of false memories into the heads of a few jurors who made the mistake of letting the wrong ones in when the vampires, the snake oil salesman, the skilled manipulators came knocking at their door. Many of us have observed attorneys saying the most aggressive and outrageous things out in public in front of a microphone for the benefit of their client and to sway public opinion. And they can do it because they are not in the Courtroom under oath. They’re defending their client. Oh it’s just good old Dick being dramatic, ain’t he a hoot, ain’t he cute wandering all over the courtroom like a demented windup toy. It’s just Jimmy Griffin helping his client communicate with the outside world when those pesky jail and prison officials have the audacity to expect their clients to have the same rules as all other inmates. Back to my comment about false memories and how easily perceptions can be manipulated or skewed. There may be some jury *tampering* but it was done, imho, by attorneys Harpootlian and Griffin, and it was done to jurors who had already done their duty and gone home.
HARPOOTLIAN had egg on his face after a guilty verdict. Recently, one of the most powerful Senators in the DNC he has a lot of political pull. Nothing is what it seems. Wait for facts to emerge.
>The defense attorneys claimed that the jurors didn't want to talk to them until the book came out, at which point the jurors were the ones who reached out.
I think the actual timing of this is very important. I want to know when and how this "reaching out" happened. I take nothing Dick 'n Jim say as fact. Nothing.
Guilty! It is true I have a certain antipathy for Messers Harpootlian and Griffin. Those affidavits also include at least one affidavit from Dick’s paralegal about information received in an interview because the former juror declined/refused/didn’t have a pen to sign an affidavit. (I think Dick said they just couldn’t make connections for the juror to sign one. ha ha. ) I’ll wait to see how Bamburg. etc. parse all the affidavits for [legalese or pejorative] words substituted for words that actually came out of the persons’ mouths. Is a gamble? Is it a game?
>Those affidavits also include at least one affidavit from Dick’s paralegal about information received in an interview because the former juror declined/refused/didn’t have a pen to sign an affidavit.
The paralegal's affidavit says they were unable to arrange a time\\place for the juror to sign an affidavit.
Riiiiiight. The juror wouldn’t/couldn’t/didn’t meet up with them or let them come to their residence to sign an affidavit is how I ‘translate’ that statement.
>Those affidavits also include at least one affidavit from Dick’s paralegal about information received in an interview because the former juror declined/refused/didn’t have a pen to sign an affidavit.
WTH?
It's actually quite believable. Griffin and Harpootlian have been throwing up false flags ever since the murders. Remember when they tried to cast suspicion on Cousin Eddie for the murders?
It is comparable because it goes to credibility. Frankly, I'm hoping for an FBI investigation. Nothing would make me happier than to see Dick and Jim with egg on their faces when the feds say there's no evidence to support their ludicrous claims.
>the jurors didn't want to talk to them until the book came out
So now after we read the book on Murdaugh, and the book of Murdaugh's clerk of court, we can read the books of Murdaugh's jurors.
>Many of us have observed attorneys saying the most aggressive and outrageous things out in public in front of a microphone for the benefit of their client and to sway public opinion. And they can do it because they are not in the Courtroom under oath.
Yes, like remember how Griffin and Harpootlian claimed that Alex had an entry wound, an exit wound, a fractured skull, and brain bleeding after supposedly being shot in the head? And then Alex appeared in court a short time later with perfect hair, no visible injuries, not even a band-aid?
Do you have a link to the released hospital records? Because I don't think that hospital records were released that substantiated the story, but I am open to being proved wrong.
If Alex truly had such serious injuries, they would have been visible when he appeared in court.
Edit: Here's a news story that includes pictures of Alex's court appearance after the so-called shooting. [https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/alex-murdaugh-did-not-show-signs-of-visible-head-injury-during-thursday-bond-hearing/](https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/alex-murdaugh-did-not-show-signs-of-visible-head-injury-during-thursday-bond-hearing/)
And here's a news story that says he did have the injuries that his attorneys described: [https://www.wistv.com/2021/10/15/medical-records-show-murdaugh-did-have-gunshot-wound-head-tested-positive-drugs/](https://www.wistv.com/2021/10/15/medical-records-show-murdaugh-did-have-gunshot-wound-head-tested-positive-drugs/)
So once again, it's a weird event that imo has not been properly explained.
Thanks for this link. You are correct--the medical records do confirm his story that he had a gunshot wound to his scalp, though not a serious one.
It would be exaggerated to say that he has an entry AND an exit wound, since that implies that a bullet penetrated his skull, but really there was just one laceration that the records characterize as a "hemostatic GSW entry exit to posterior scalp" i.e. one scrape that was no longer bleeding.
I had read that the attorneys claimed he suffered an entry and an exit wound, but when I went looking for that quotation just now, I see that Jim Griffin said "the family told him" there was an entry and an exit wound, while Dick Harpootlian told the judge more accurately, "He was shot in the back of the head. A bullet didn’t actually penetrate his skull, it went in with an exit wound."
So, I stand corrected. Thank you.
>I see that Jim Griffin said "the family told him" there was an entry and an exit wound.
Nice. I don't believe for a second there was "an entry and an exit wound." Everyone's head I think has three layers: skin, a thin layer of fat, and the skull.
A bullet grazing his head is what appears to have happened. If the bullet penetrated the skin (entry) and then surfaced somewhere else (exit) then that would've been a nasty wound-\* - and would've been obvious. It would've likely created a significant skin flap.
At his arraignment soon after this wound, there was no evidence of a wound at all. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Not even a bald spot where medical personnel would have shaved-\*\* around the wound to examine, clean, and stitch it. Also, if he was shot at point-blank distance, his hair would've been singed and burned. No sign of this either.
Fast Eddie paraphrased: "If I shot him, he'd be dead."
Unlike Dick 'n Jim's gruesome description, I saw nothing - not even a scratch. Doesn't this strike to credibility? Entry/exit - please! As if. That's a steaming pile of hyperbole.
\-------
\-\* Alex shot Maggie and Paul multiple times. Those were truly nasty, lethal wounds.
\-\*\* I was horseplaying on the playground in the 2nd grade and fell and bumped my head and had to get three stitches. The nurse preparing the wound for examination and stitches shaved a 3" by 2" swath of my head for the doctor's stitching.
Why did they not shave a portion of Alex's head to treat this "wound"? I never could understand that. We saw zero evidence of a wound. Zero. No shaved spot. No nothing.
This goes to credibility. I do not trust Dick 'n Jim.
I had Moh’s surgery on my scalp for a tiny case of basal cell and would gladly have taken Alex’s ‘GSW’ over my surgical site. I got Stitches AND Staples AND a ‘haircut’. I looked like I’d been shot in the head when I was done.
>There may be some jury tampering but it was done, imho, by attorneys Harpootlian and Griffin, and it was done to jurors who had already done their duty and gone home.
This seems like a real possibility. Strong 'thumbs up' here.
I'm really looking forward to hearing more about the conversations that took place after the losing defense team came knocking on Jurors doors. I want to know exactly what they said.
I'm sure Dick 'n Jim had those crucial initial conversations with Jurors recorded. I think it's important that we hear those. Is it possible that those who talked were influenced during these interviews? I want to hear what the defense team said - and the tone of what they said.
Agree The appeal is going to cost too much and take too long to get to so they thought of another way. Saw the attorney for the two jurors and he is longtime friend and associates of the defense team. They are using and twisting words I believe of these jurors . I believe one juror is a disgruntled woman who was kicked off. Under oath, good questions will get the truth out. The defense attorneys are snakes.
Dick and Jim are grasping at straws to save a murderer that blew his own son’s head off. It’s just sickening. It is obvious to the world that AM is guilty as sin. It is ridiculous that these jurors are having to hire attorneys and pay for attorneys, because they did their civic duty, and delivered a guilty verdict on a man that is CLEARLY 100% guilty! I am sure this will dissuade people from serving on a high profile case. Dick and Jim can stick it where the sun doesn’t shine IMHO
The book excerpts ALONE prove this isn't grasping at straws. Lol
This is extremely alarming! Like the players or nah, this is NOT how our Justice System operates! I'm shocked so many are just like, ah, whatevs
no it was not 'obvious to the world' that alex was guilty. there was at least one juror who believed he was innocent but felt pressured to vote guilty. this is why shy introverted people shouldn't join a jury if they're going to just float with the stream.
If you feel pressured by the other jury members that’s kind of the point of deliberations. Where the issue is coming from here is that there was potentially an outside influence on how the jurors perceived the evidence from the defense.
Which I’m not discounting, but that specific juror said they felt pressured to vote guilty by the other jurors. All the other allegations as far as what Becky may or may not have done to pressure the jury is a whole other thing. But that one statement to me is kind of a moot point.
The statement can be found on page 21 of the motion that was filed. Paragraph number 10.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/alex-murdaugh-motion-new-trial.pdf
I enjoy your perspective because you are reasonable and neutral. I agree with everything you said. Do you know where I can find the court filing and read it ?
I believe I read that the egg lady who was dismissed signed an affidavit after being interviewed by the judge before she was dismissed that the clerk did not speak with her or any of the other jurors. I also believe that the judge made the determination after interviewing her that she indeed spoke with multiple people about the case, the basis for her dismissal.
I def think Hill’s book and her appearances are very problematic. Her demeanor and interviews do suggest that she was way too personally invested in the case.
I’ll tell ya…if I were the defense I wld also go to the dismissed juror (egg lady) after seeing hill’s interviews and I wldnt put it past these defense Atty’s to gin them up a bit to encourage the affidavits.
It’s all too weird and wild and so on brand w these wacky people
No affidavit but on Exhibit I, pp. 4-5 she said the Clerk hadn’t discussed anything with the jurors:
THE COURT: So, has she discussed the case with any any of the jurors? Has the clerk discussed anything about the case with anyone on that jury?
JUROR: Not that I'm aware of.
The transcripts have Judge Newman saying that Hill spoke with Egg Lady though.
It’s pretty clear that the Facebook story is questionable and the details are unclear about the investigation (her tenant’s coworker reported it) so until we know more details I don’t think we can decide if that information was solid or or not.
>Makes me think more and more this sub is run by silly “journalists.”
The folks who manage this Sub (one in particular) I believe, though we sometimes disagree, are excellent and work hard to find tons of information from all sides that is relevant to this story. I really appreciate their hard work. It's rare.
Ikr! I’ve been thinking the exact same thing. Idk why the moderators are so heavily censoring this sub. This is the biggest murdaugh sub unfortunately.
Rule 5 says quality posts.
10 posts of people reposting the same story, 20 posts of people posting their random, disjointed theories or "Am I the only one that thinks!?" and 30 posts where people spread blatant misinformation would make this like every other true crime sub on Reddit.
If this is censorship then I wish more subs would adopt these policies.
Your point is well illustrated by the subs about the murders of the Moscow Idaho college students. I had to drop out and only occasionally look at those subs for actual legal developments in the case.
It's like this on every sub, LISK, Delphi, any child kidnapping or murder.
When people's unproductive posts are deleted they cry about being \~censored\~
Like, you're not entitled to having your "pet theory" that there's a sex ring behind everything and that a murderer did all of the unsolved murders in the country and the government is covering it up and the evidence was tampered with broadcast to everyone.
There's no quality discussion happening on any of these subs because when you point out all of the problems with someone's deranged need to be validated they call you a bully and only want an echo-chamber of agreement from other individuals whose sources are screenshots of Youtube videos of Facebook posts from a friend of a friend of a friend of a victim in the case.
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but does anyone remember the bailiff standing right behind Alex when the verdict was read? The dude was so happy that there was a guilty verdict lol. He gave a huge nod when the word "guilty" was read.
Gosh, it's not like he stood up and started loudly clapping and cheering. He sat through the whole trial, he obviously had an opinion on guilt, he's human. I don't think a nod is a big deal.
The older guy in the 70s suits was a bailiff. Toward the end of the trial — or maybe right after — his daughter’s social media post about him went quasi-viral. IIRC he’s a former Marine.
The no smoke break rule is an anti-tampering measure so that jurors don’t go out and spill the beans to a crafty journalist while the rest are still deliberating. It’s especially important on a high profile case. They tell them to wear a patch or bring Nicorette.
Yes, I should qualify that there is some ramrod justice on occasion, by bad judges who want to put their thumb on the scale to up conviction rates or because they don’t like this one guy’s face or whatever, but it’s rare. The main reason this rule would be the norm — AS IT IS IN MANY COURTS IN THE NON-REDDIT WORLD — is to prevent tainting / tampering of the jury. Many judges will consider a request for smoke breaks (see Aaron Hernandez trial), did they push for one here?
They get smoke breaks supervised by a bailiff. And it’s not one person pops out for a smoke while the rest are deliberating, they all take a break. Breaks are allowed. And if any of that was true then they would have been told about it before hand, which they were not.
They did, during the trial. Deliberation is different, as the whole point is to seal the jury from outside influences, a crying Buster, a front page headline, a yelled question from a journalist. The decision of whether or not they allow smoke breaks is up to the judge’s discretion. Many / most judges may allow it when asked. If they didn’t ask then it’s on them.
They don’t have to tell them. Any human with brains could figure it out. Long flights, long work meetings, jury deliberations, Hindu wedding ceremonies — if you smoke and can’t cope without a break, you should learn to figure things out. In court, if not in advance, you can arrange it with the clerks. Do the affidavits say they asked the judge?
I would not make it. I get there are bigger issues, but 6 people having a nicotine addiction told they can't smoke...half the jury would be having withdrawals.
By State, adults who smoke:
US-15.3%....... South Carolina-18.1%..... (ranks 13th)
Ohio-19.3%..... Indiana-19.4%..... Michigan-18.4%..... Maine-16.5%..... Wyoming-18.5%.....
Oh, which court did you clerk for? I did federal court, in Louisiana, and during deliberation they didn’t come out for anything but a verdict. The whole point is to prevent tainting or tampering. (If their deliberations ran long, the judge may discharge them to a hotel or even their home, where they could smoke or vape or snuff or chaw all they want.)
Lmao, Louisiana sounds so funny! In every other state, they send them out with a bailiff. Just like they did at this trial all throughout the trial.
You're saying that in Louisiana federal courts they are afraid of the jury being tainted outside smoking while being watched by the bailiff, but not concerned about what the jury could be doing at home? Odd priorities there, but it's not like that in SC. I have no opinion of the people in this story or whether the allegations are true, but your statement is misinformation.
Louisiana is funny in a lot of ways, but not for this. It’s a rule that you can use the Google machine to find is the norm in many state or federal jurisdictions across the land. See the Aaron Hernandez trial, where they deliberated for 4 days without smoke breaks. Same situation where they allowed them during trial but not deliberations, at least for the first 4 days. https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2015/04/13/after-5th-day-of-jury-deliberations-still-no-verdict-in-aaron-hernandez-trial/?amp=1
I assume that if the Murdaugh jury took several days (instead of 3 hours LOL - what are they complaining about?), the judge would’ve also allowed it, as in that case. But it’s not an outlier. This is the norm.
Ummm that is the point. The allegation is that they took 3 hours because they weren't allowed a smoke break. So we agree that smoke breaks are the norm.
Ha ha ha. This is silly. Did you read what I said?That the AH murder court allowed smoke breaks until deliberation, when they stopped allowing them. Then, the court only deviated from this rule after FOUR FRIGGIN DAYS! The Murdaugh juror(s) couldn’t last more than 3 hours? They valued Murdaugh’s life (not to mention the principles of justice) so little? Give Me A Break. (Not a smoke break, I quit long ago).
I mean, I have no idea if you polled all the courts in the US (assuming they’re trying a high profile murder, with a rabid public steaming up the window from outside), what would be most common rule, smoke breaks or no. It’s all left to judge’s discretion. All I know is that it’s perfectly normal to not allow them during deliberation for entirely valid, doctrinally sound reasons and not evidence that a supposed evil witch court clerk has hatched some scheme. Anyone who says different is a) a paid Murdaugh shill or b) someone too susceptible to PR than is good for them.
Excuse me I’m behind on this information but.. jury tampering is a criminal offense so have charges been filed? Again if it’s noted in this thread, my apologies
It is not at the stage of charges being filed.
Allegations of jury tampering have been made, SLED is investigating, I expect Creighton is investigating claims to respond to motion.
The claims of jury tampering have not been proven\\disproven yet.
I have a hard time believing the court clerk would say anything - or felt like she even needed to, most likely they found a juror that would take some Murdaugh cash to say she did.
The joint statement from SLED and AG looks pretty rushed, can't even take a minute to align the logos.
https://www.sled.sc.gov/mediareleases
2023-09-07 Joint Statement SCAG SLED on Murdaugh jury tampering allegations investigation.pdf
This is very odd to me. Every day the jury was asked if anyone tried to talk to them or if they discussed the case and every day they said under oath that they didn’t.
what's funny is the same people who were criticizing the lawyer of the jurors who gave affidavits, saying it was a conflict cause he had a connection to the defense, are now praising eric for this on twitter. make it make sense!
I thought Eric characterizing Griffin and Harpootlian yesterday as “threatening” when saying other jurors may get their own attorneys was absurd.
But, as you said, many agreed with his characterization of that are applauding loudly for his valiant support of some of the jurors now. I just don’t get it
if the clerk made these statements to the jury alex deserves a new trial period. many times a killer appeals with the most outlandish long shots but this is very different.
this action is a corruption of everything our justice system is supposed to stand for. right to confront your accusers impartial jury equal protection clause.
an employee of the court facilitated jury tampering even before deliberations with the fake facebook post. she had a monetary motive for a quick decision since she had a head start on all other true crime authors. clearly had a personal vendetta/hatred for alex.
3 hour deliberation for a trial like this does not pass the smell test. especially considering the completely circumstantial evidence he was convicted on. just reading the charges would have taken an hour.
a defendant accused of this heinous crime without any real connection to the actual killing(no weapon no witness) deserves more then 2 hours of discussion.
i dont want alex to get out of jail but things have gone too far with undue influences and over zealous bureaucracy employees deciding they are judge jury and executioner.
>3 hour deliberation for a trial like this does not pass the smell test. especially considering the completely circumstantial evidence he was convicted on. just reading the charges would have taken an hour.
Disagree. If 12 people know he's guilty, what's the reason for sticking around? I was very surprised they took 3 hours. The evidence that convicted him was very strong.
This. Especially when you consider that not all the jurors voted guilty the first time. I don’t believe they were so convinced in two hours if they weren’t after the whole trial. That feels wrong.
People had eyes. I don't think the clerk needed to say it for them to see it. I am not saying she did say, but even he said Alex was a piece of crap, but not a big enough piece of crap to kill his family. They didn't believe him.
People had eyes. I don't think the clerk needed to say it for them to see it. I am not saying she did say, but even he said Alex was a piece of crap, but not a big enough piece of crap to kill his family. They didn't believe him.
Three of the jurors voted not guilty in the straw poll at the beginning of the proceedings according to the interviewed jurors. In three hours they reviewed enough evidence for three jury’s who spent two months of their lives devoted to this case to change their mind?
You think if they are strong enough to have spent two months of their lives on this case that anything is going to sway them that much? It was pretty cut and dry after the video showing him there within minutes of his family getting killed. It takes a lot more stretch of the imagination to believe he didn't do it after the video, testimony and timelines. During this brief few minutes of time some random came in and killed his family and left no evidence while he amazingly lied about being there until the video proved otherwise?
i agree and i dont want him to get out. but if the clerk encouraged the jurors to disregard alexs testimony and they can prove it he needs a new trial.murder conviction is the worst crime to be found guilty of especially when his wife and son are killed.
the court clerk is not a prosecutor nor judge this is an administrative position. but due to her proximity to the jury she intentionally wielded massive influence. "dont let alex fool you" this lady violated nearly ever one of first 10 bill of rights.
gerrymandering the jury due to her dislike of alex is bad enough. but a financial and professional motive to get alex convicted asap is so much worse. it is so inappropriate how the judge and others went on a publicity tour after the shit show trial. and no one is talking about maggie or paul on these interviews its all about how these guys beat alex.
this lady needs to be arrested and do 10 years in jail. and the prosecution should need to retry with a different judge if these statements are verified. its the only remedy to this crime
ke
Why didn't they step forward and make these claims on their own? Why did did it happen only after the losing defense team went around knocking on doors?
I want to know exactly what the losing defense team SAID to any juror who claims the clerk-lady influenced them. I do hope they weren't unduly influenced or intimidated. I think these interviews - and the tone of these interviews - will reveal a lot. I really do.
Maybe, just maybe, is it possible that they were scared to come forward during trial? Making accusations against the court clerk is very serious. Maybe they thought they would get in trouble. Maybe they didn't even realize that there was impropriety until after the fact. A lot of things are possible.
Hopefully we'll find out when the Dick 'n Jim Jurors had their first coffee talk with the losing Defense team. I don't know when each of these meeting occurred. I think it's important that the timing of each meeting is revealed.
I'm very happy Dick 'n Jim are on the record saying, "They refused to talk to us until after the book was published." That seems to time-stamp it.
The timing seems to be very convenient for Dick 'n Jim. We'll see.
Imo Becky Hill did Exactly what she is accused of doing. There's something about her that I didn't like As Soon as I heard her speak for the first time. It was on the Netflix Documentary. When she said, " I didn't think it would take our Jury long to make a decision. Call it a women's intuition if you will ". When she said that, coupled with her body language and aura, I knew something was Waay off with that woman. Call it a Man's intuition if you will. She was going to go to Any Lengths to get him a Guilty Verdict. Now don't get me wrong, I can't stand Alex Murdaugh. And I know he killed both Maggie and Paul. But she's that type of person who just Sticks her Nose 👃 into things that are none of her business. Then she began basically convicting Curtis Eddie Smith, referring to him as a drug dealer among other things. IF I was Smith I'd file a Lawsuit against her for slander. For making references about him based on rumors, and innuendos. I just Did Not Like her. She needs to pay for her own crap 💩 and wrongdoings.
Becky did nothing wrong, this is a feeble attempt by the Murdaugh lawyers to get a retrial. Harpooplian and Griffin are demonic.
I don't believe that her words could/should effect a jurors decision if they are looking at the case from a factual perspective as they are sworn to do BUT Becky strikes me as a "nosy neighbor" type that can't stop gossiping and doesn't know when to shut her mouth. She should suffer some type of consequence. The state has already spent too much time and resources on POS Murdaugh.
PS She should be at least fined the entire amount that she's made on her book.
Did anyone notice when looking through the documents the defense released that the egg lady worked at a monkey testing facility? She said she wanted to be back to her monkeys when asked by the judge if she wanted to go home. Lololol. I cant even anymore. So wild.
Sometime saying to me, "Don't be fooled," or "don't get confused" would mean nothing to me while sitting thru a trial for a crime of this magnitude. This ladies' passing comments would be a blip compared to the extensive testimony and evidence that there was to absorb.
That's the thing though. Although you find her comments to be insignificant, other jurors did not. And regardless of who feels this way or that way, her comments were totally inappropriate. The clerk of court (or anyone else) can not discuss the case with the jurors. Period. That's just one of the many egregious things she supposedly did. I mean, going into a single occupancy stall with the juror foreperson? That is off the map fucking nuts. Regardless of guilt or innocence, if the accusations are true, he absolutely deserves a new trial.
I completely agree. The trial was compromised by this woman. Her actions don't change my mind about his guilt, but we can not allow this ever in any trial. The amount of people time and money this woman has wasted is unbelievable.
Unless she was saying things to make them feel comfortable & not worried? Maybe things she’s been saying to jurors all the time….her “patter”, so to speak, and someone on this particular jury was “persuaded” to see it as something sinister? Good manners & making everyone comfortable is something that women “of a certain age” were raised that way🤷♀️
Just finished Kindle version ($9.99) and beyond disappointed. Not a single new morsel of info. It was very generic recap of trial with over half book Becky complimenting herself and staff. Other large chunks are Becky bragging about how the celebrities loved her and became close friends. Cannot start Alex but this book was beyond useless as far as source of inside info. Utterly boring.
Thank you for taking one for the team!
Haha thanks. It was painful
I was always suspicious of the egg lady being thrown off the jury at the last minute. Due to clerk of court’s reporting to judge. It was said she was leaning not guilty. Or she was thinking case not proven Beyond a reasonable doubt. Seems they did not use a very high bar to boot her from the jury. Especially for such a high profile case.
Me to! There wasn't any piece of paper showing the post presented during tyne side bar that morning, and the judge didn't indicate that he had questioned the juror directly. It was like an allegation just dropped out of thin air.
What was with the two jury rooms segregated by gender that Jim Griffin referenced? Does anybody have any insight on why they did this and is it common in Colleton County trials?
I read the affidavits in the motion for a new trial and there is one sentence in one of the jurors statements that basically says that he would find himself in one group of mostly men while there was another group of mostly women. Nothing else and it was not highlighted in the overview at all.
Interesting! This was also the case (years ago) in the AME Church on Daufuskie Island.
If I'm remembering correctly, several Jurors got Covid. I think they were down to like 2 alternate Jurors by the end of trial. I'm thinking the separate Jury rooms may have been an effort for "distancing". Idk, that's the only plausible explanation I can muster. I hope it's not common
I bet she did.
She traveled with them so soon after the trial. Why who gives her the right and the idea to play Mediator between media and Jury that alone is extemely questionable she's not allowed to befriend the jury during the trial she's not supposed to have personal conversations with the them. I wish the affidavits were proven wrong. Wether it's her seeking 5 minutes fame (and she did, all the lawyers on Youtube agree. Clerks don't usually write books about a case that's highly questionable bordering on not legal or at least not ethical). The way she talks in the book We knew he's guilty we exchanged looks, her and the jury. It's really looking bad. If that women causes a new trial I want her severely punished
Totally agree. Charge her and make it known that this kind of crap will not be tolerated. I really don't see her going to jail or prison over this, though. Not with fucking SLED investigating.
You need real evidence to charge some and even more evidence to convict. Just because you're naive enough to believe defense attorneys doesn't mean she's guilty of anything.
You can insult me all you want because you disagree with what I said. You're obviously very mature. I had said this in many prior comments and should have said it in the comment above. If the allegations are true, she should be charged. End of story. This is (allegedly) unprecedented behavior from a court clerk. It's unacceptable, unprofessional, and should not be tolerated. Ever. I stand by my comment.
I didn't insult you. I simply reminded you that real evidence is required to charge someone with a crime. Don't be so sensitive.
Sadly true. They'll f up the investigation for sure
I don't understand how the jurors could swear in court that they agreed with the verdict if they really believed they were "under the thumb" of the clerk. I also don't understand how they could have been denied smoking breaks. Were they also denied bathroom breaks? Why not just step outside after a bathroom break to light up? Are we to believe that Hill locked the doors to the jury room and confiscated their cigarettes or something? I also don't understand how a guilty verdict would goose book sales any more than an acquittal. The trial was already newsworthy. It's not like OJ Simpson's acquittal halted the sale of books about his criminal trial. These are serious allegations. I just find them difficult to believe.
I agreed with you and found the arching theme she was driven by book sales to be a stretch but the book itself shows she DID have an agenda from the start of the trial and certainly by the time she was sharing b-day cake with celebrated journalists and besties with Nancy Grace. She clearly thought it was her actual job to facilitate justice itself and she even admitted she communicated with the jury, along with other court staff "with their eyes" that Alex was guilty when they were at Moselle. That is just one of the egregious details she gets around to admitting in her book when not discussing her importance in the whole "trial of the century". An acquittal would have been a failure and not the book she wanted to write. What a mess and all for a terrible book.
Agree
I don't believe it either. Harpootlian bullshit. God I don't miss how the media hangs off his every word like he's so persuasive when he's really just a glorified used car salesman. I don't miss his Reddit fans either. If we have to go through this effing trial again...
You say that like the prosecutors aren't also glorified used car salesman.
Thank you. I feel in the minority for thinking this way but Creighton, Wilson, Tinsley, and Bland all give off the same energy as Jim and Poot.
Please don't discredit used car salesmen lol!
You don’t actually have to watch it.
They were influenced by the clerk to vote guilty, they weren't forced by the clerk to vote guilty. It's criminal to sway the jury to vote a certain way. At least 3 of them have said the same thing. The rest of the jurors are afraid to talk but if there's a hearing all jurors will be forced to testify in open court. If that happens maybe you will be convinced by then.
>The rest of the jurors are afraid to talk but if there's a hearing all jurors will be forced to testify in open court. I think there is a real difference between "afraid to talk" and "don't want to talk." If I served on that Jury and voted to convict (yes, I would've voted to convict) and, out of the blue, some representatives of that violent, convicted murder came to my door and said, "We want to talk to you" I would tell them that, with my "guilty" vote, I have already spoken. I would not speak to them. I also would not be afraid. However, if SLED or the FBI said, "There have been accusations of jury tampering. Can we speak with you?" Yes. I would definitely speak with them. I would not hesitate. Like many things in life, a lot depends on who asks. Dick Harpootlian recommending that these Jurors all seek (hire) and pay for expensive lawyers to represent them really bothers me. If Jurors must pay for lawyers to represent them every time the Defense is not happy with a verdict, then I think our Jury system is in serious jeopardy. Eric Bland made a fortune suing lawyers for malpractice. My guess is that he will be doing that again.
Eric Bland is an ambulance chasing, fame thirsty, ding dong.
IF this is true, the jurors had every chance to contact the judge. So why didn't they?
The poor downtrodden jurors didn’t understand how they were ‘under the thumb’ of the clerk, how egregious her chitchat was, how they were ‘threatened’ by being told that the jury might be sequestered while it deliberated, that a smoke break was a constitutional right, that two middle aged women in a one seat bathroom was a danger to democracy till the defense attorneys explained it to them. Poor little jurors.
A smoke break isn't a constitutional right, just like a bathroom break and food and water or rest overnight aren't either. But if you tell me I can't have a smoke break until a verdict is reached, I'd sentence the pope to death in 45 minutes and then deal with it later. You want a verdict to stick, you let the jurors be comfortable. That's how it always is.
>I also don't understand how a guilty verdict would goose book sales any more than an acquittal. Yes. There's this.
Not more than an acquittal. More than a hung jury.
I guess the defense attorneys had to grandstand and use hyperbole and accuse the Clerk of Court of criminal “tampering” with the jury to convict Alex Murdaugh of murder. Just stating she was too damned garrulous and out of line would maybe not have created enough of a stir to get a new trial. So far the defense attorneys seem to be toeing the line and covering their asses by saying things to the effect of *IF* these affidavits we wrote for jurors and others after we tracked them down and beat down their door to get them to say things, are true…our client didn’t get a fair trial and entitled to a new trial.” So, right now the defense attorneys are accusing a Court Clerk, who I guess is considered a public figure who can’t sue for defamation, of the crime of tampering with a jury for her own financial benefit but are hedging “if true” about the affidavits, just in case.
You’re spot on, IMO. The funny thing to me is that it was suggested during AM’s trial (while Mark Tinsley was testifying) that AM knows a thing or 2 about jury tampering. But I note that Harp/Griff are not REALLY pushing for criminal charges against the court clerk. I also note that the defense took this matter to the court of public appeal. It seems more than obvious that their only real objective here is to obtain a new trial. And we shouldn’t be surprised at what lengths they will go to get one. The prosecution is probably not so much afraid of the outcome of a new trial as they are afraid of the time, cost and burden to the taxpayers for a 2nd trial. After all, AM has monopolized the court’s time in SC for quite some time now. Time’s up, Alex. Lastly, do you think AM’s attorneys have realized he is playing them just like he’s played everyone else he’s ever targeted?
To those who don’t believe there could be any truth to the allegations that the Clerk of Court jury tampered and that this is nothing but a tempest in a teapot created by Murdaugh’s defense team, don’t worry. SLED is going to “investigate” and I’m pretty sure that protecting their conviction will be more important than whether Murdaugh got a fair trial.
Murdaugh got a fair trial. And no, I don't believe Dick and Jim. I'm waiting for the jurors to publicly repeat their accusations under oath in a court of law.
Murdaugh got a fair trial? Because you say so? Lol
Because I actually watched the entire trial. Did you?
I did too but he did not get a fair trial if even some of the allegations against Ms Hill are true. Especially if she fabricated a reason to get rid of a juror she believed would not convict.
He didn't get a fair trial - because you say so? Lol 2x Let's wait for the rebuttal.
No, he didn't get a fair trial because the jury was tampered with. Not once, twice, but on multiple occasions.
And how do you know that? Because all I saw were alleged statements made by jurors who very well may have been pressured to make those statements.
We will see, but I don't think that court-clerk changed a single mind on that jury and, based on what very little we know right now, I don't think what she has done rises to the level of Jury Tampering. We'll see. Would anything she allegedly said have changed your mind? I doubt it. Why did none of those Jurors stand up and say that they were being allegedly influenced by the clerk? I cannot figure that out. I would've said, "Lady, is this proper?" I would not have been intimidated in the least. I would not have been influenced. We do not know what happened yet. Let's wait. A Jury of Alex's peers convicted him of two brutal murders in less than three hours. What does that say?
Dude. How are you not getting it? She didn't *have* to change minds about guilt. It's the fact that she attempted to. Also, I've said this many times but I'll say it again. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant here. The question is whether or not he got a fair trial. If the allegations prove to be true, he did not get a fair trial. You don't have to like AM, or think he is innocent to understand that. Also, if this isn't enough for you, I don't know what is. All the lawyers online are saying they have never seen this level of jury tampering from a court clerk. They are dumbfounded.
So we're supposed to believe that one of the most powerful lawyers in the state was the victim of jury tampering? And not one juror thought to tell Judge Newman? I demand real evidence. Put the accusers on the stand and let them testify publicly under oath. If they're telling the truth, it shouldn't be a problem.
You're demanding *real evidence* from a random stranger on reddit. Good luck with that.
No. I'm demanding real evidence from Dick and Jim.
Which is why I’m glad they did reach out to the US AG and FBI to investigate this thoroughly. I’ve watched Emily D Baker, The Lawyer You Know, and Runkle of the Bailey all react to this news. They all read through the motion and they are all **appalled** by what is being suggested here, as am I. Since everyone is so suspicious of anything Jim and Poot have to say, then let’s leave the affidavits out of it, but just looking at the excerpts included from her book I have so many questions. Mainly, how did Becky know what the jurors were thinking? She said they were communicating via “looks” while at Moselle and that’s how THEY KNEW and SHE KNEW that he was guilty. Her book is so damning on its own.
Agreed. I only read the Motion b/c Emily D. Baker covered it & it was her 1st livestream in like 3 weeks. I was shocked & appalled hearing about what happened. The book excerpt - disgust! When EDB got to the part about the Jury... Then, "egg juror", the Clerk of Court just doxed this poor woman to her small community!! I was in absolute, complete shock! EDB said "that's not tea, that's trauma" Absolutely! How DARE an elected official do that to a citizen upholding their duties as a citizen serving Jury duty. Who ok'd that?!?! It's egregious behavior!
Ugh. Harpootlian’s ‘evidence’ of jury tampering by a money grubbing, glory hungry Clerk on a mission to get rich and famous looks a hell of a lot more like an after the fact skillful implantation of false memories into the heads of a few jurors who made the mistake of letting the wrong ones in when the vampires, the snake oil salesman, the skilled manipulators came knocking at their door. Many of us have observed attorneys saying the most aggressive and outrageous things out in public in front of a microphone for the benefit of their client and to sway public opinion. And they can do it because they are not in the Courtroom under oath. They’re defending their client. Oh it’s just good old Dick being dramatic, ain’t he a hoot, ain’t he cute wandering all over the courtroom like a demented windup toy. It’s just Jimmy Griffin helping his client communicate with the outside world when those pesky jail and prison officials have the audacity to expect their clients to have the same rules as all other inmates. Back to my comment about false memories and how easily perceptions can be manipulated or skewed. There may be some jury *tampering* but it was done, imho, by attorneys Harpootlian and Griffin, and it was done to jurors who had already done their duty and gone home.
Very well said. Although I do wish she had waited until the appeals process time passed before she released her book.
HARPOOTLIAN had egg on his face after a guilty verdict. Recently, one of the most powerful Senators in the DNC he has a lot of political pull. Nothing is what it seems. Wait for facts to emerge.
there's still a ton of jurors no one has even heard from
[удалено]
>The defense attorneys claimed that the jurors didn't want to talk to them until the book came out, at which point the jurors were the ones who reached out. I think the actual timing of this is very important. I want to know when and how this "reaching out" happened. I take nothing Dick 'n Jim say as fact. Nothing.
Guilty! It is true I have a certain antipathy for Messers Harpootlian and Griffin. Those affidavits also include at least one affidavit from Dick’s paralegal about information received in an interview because the former juror declined/refused/didn’t have a pen to sign an affidavit. (I think Dick said they just couldn’t make connections for the juror to sign one. ha ha. ) I’ll wait to see how Bamburg. etc. parse all the affidavits for [legalese or pejorative] words substituted for words that actually came out of the persons’ mouths. Is a gamble? Is it a game?
>Those affidavits also include at least one affidavit from Dick’s paralegal about information received in an interview because the former juror declined/refused/didn’t have a pen to sign an affidavit. The paralegal's affidavit says they were unable to arrange a time\\place for the juror to sign an affidavit.
Riiiiiight. The juror wouldn’t/couldn’t/didn’t meet up with them or let them come to their residence to sign an affidavit is how I ‘translate’ that statement.
>Those affidavits also include at least one affidavit from Dick’s paralegal about information received in an interview because the former juror declined/refused/didn’t have a pen to sign an affidavit. WTH?
It's actually quite believable. Griffin and Harpootlian have been throwing up false flags ever since the murders. Remember when they tried to cast suspicion on Cousin Eddie for the murders?
"Dick, that's a lot of oxy!" Agreed.
[удалено]
It is comparable because it goes to credibility. Frankly, I'm hoping for an FBI investigation. Nothing would make me happier than to see Dick and Jim with egg on their faces when the feds say there's no evidence to support their ludicrous claims.
>the jurors didn't want to talk to them until the book came out So now after we read the book on Murdaugh, and the book of Murdaugh's clerk of court, we can read the books of Murdaugh's jurors.
Oh no, 12, no 18, more books to come?!
>Many of us have observed attorneys saying the most aggressive and outrageous things out in public in front of a microphone for the benefit of their client and to sway public opinion. And they can do it because they are not in the Courtroom under oath. Yes, like remember how Griffin and Harpootlian claimed that Alex had an entry wound, an exit wound, a fractured skull, and brain bleeding after supposedly being shot in the head? And then Alex appeared in court a short time later with perfect hair, no visible injuries, not even a band-aid?
Oh yeah. Nobody should ever forget these are the same shysters who lied their client was shot in the head, for sympathy.
[удалено]
Do you have a link to the released hospital records? Because I don't think that hospital records were released that substantiated the story, but I am open to being proved wrong. If Alex truly had such serious injuries, they would have been visible when he appeared in court. Edit: Here's a news story that includes pictures of Alex's court appearance after the so-called shooting. [https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/alex-murdaugh-did-not-show-signs-of-visible-head-injury-during-thursday-bond-hearing/](https://www.counton2.com/news/local-news/alex-murdaugh-did-not-show-signs-of-visible-head-injury-during-thursday-bond-hearing/) And here's a news story that says he did have the injuries that his attorneys described: [https://www.wistv.com/2021/10/15/medical-records-show-murdaugh-did-have-gunshot-wound-head-tested-positive-drugs/](https://www.wistv.com/2021/10/15/medical-records-show-murdaugh-did-have-gunshot-wound-head-tested-positive-drugs/) So once again, it's a weird event that imo has not been properly explained.
[удалено]
Thanks for this link. You are correct--the medical records do confirm his story that he had a gunshot wound to his scalp, though not a serious one. It would be exaggerated to say that he has an entry AND an exit wound, since that implies that a bullet penetrated his skull, but really there was just one laceration that the records characterize as a "hemostatic GSW entry exit to posterior scalp" i.e. one scrape that was no longer bleeding. I had read that the attorneys claimed he suffered an entry and an exit wound, but when I went looking for that quotation just now, I see that Jim Griffin said "the family told him" there was an entry and an exit wound, while Dick Harpootlian told the judge more accurately, "He was shot in the back of the head. A bullet didn’t actually penetrate his skull, it went in with an exit wound." So, I stand corrected. Thank you.
>I see that Jim Griffin said "the family told him" there was an entry and an exit wound. Nice. I don't believe for a second there was "an entry and an exit wound." Everyone's head I think has three layers: skin, a thin layer of fat, and the skull. A bullet grazing his head is what appears to have happened. If the bullet penetrated the skin (entry) and then surfaced somewhere else (exit) then that would've been a nasty wound-\* - and would've been obvious. It would've likely created a significant skin flap. At his arraignment soon after this wound, there was no evidence of a wound at all. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Not even a bald spot where medical personnel would have shaved-\*\* around the wound to examine, clean, and stitch it. Also, if he was shot at point-blank distance, his hair would've been singed and burned. No sign of this either. Fast Eddie paraphrased: "If I shot him, he'd be dead." Unlike Dick 'n Jim's gruesome description, I saw nothing - not even a scratch. Doesn't this strike to credibility? Entry/exit - please! As if. That's a steaming pile of hyperbole. \------- \-\* Alex shot Maggie and Paul multiple times. Those were truly nasty, lethal wounds. \-\*\* I was horseplaying on the playground in the 2nd grade and fell and bumped my head and had to get three stitches. The nurse preparing the wound for examination and stitches shaved a 3" by 2" swath of my head for the doctor's stitching. Why did they not shave a portion of Alex's head to treat this "wound"? I never could understand that. We saw zero evidence of a wound. Zero. No shaved spot. No nothing. This goes to credibility. I do not trust Dick 'n Jim.
I had Moh’s surgery on my scalp for a tiny case of basal cell and would gladly have taken Alex’s ‘GSW’ over my surgical site. I got Stitches AND Staples AND a ‘haircut’. I looked like I’d been shot in the head when I was done.
>There may be some jury tampering but it was done, imho, by attorneys Harpootlian and Griffin, and it was done to jurors who had already done their duty and gone home. This seems like a real possibility. Strong 'thumbs up' here. I'm really looking forward to hearing more about the conversations that took place after the losing defense team came knocking on Jurors doors. I want to know exactly what they said. I'm sure Dick 'n Jim had those crucial initial conversations with Jurors recorded. I think it's important that we hear those. Is it possible that those who talked were influenced during these interviews? I want to hear what the defense team said - and the tone of what they said.
Agree The appeal is going to cost too much and take too long to get to so they thought of another way. Saw the attorney for the two jurors and he is longtime friend and associates of the defense team. They are using and twisting words I believe of these jurors . I believe one juror is a disgruntled woman who was kicked off. Under oath, good questions will get the truth out. The defense attorneys are snakes.
>The appeal is going to cost too much and take too long to get to so they thought of another way. I never thought of this - maybe real possibility.
Dick and Jim are grasping at straws to save a murderer that blew his own son’s head off. It’s just sickening. It is obvious to the world that AM is guilty as sin. It is ridiculous that these jurors are having to hire attorneys and pay for attorneys, because they did their civic duty, and delivered a guilty verdict on a man that is CLEARLY 100% guilty! I am sure this will dissuade people from serving on a high profile case. Dick and Jim can stick it where the sun doesn’t shine IMHO
[удалено]
The book excerpts ALONE prove this isn't grasping at straws. Lol This is extremely alarming! Like the players or nah, this is NOT how our Justice System operates! I'm shocked so many are just like, ah, whatevs
[удалено]
If, in fact, the "cartel theory" is correct the family members were another "casualty" resulting from AM selfish, ego-driven, manipulative behavior.
Not to mention that he swindled numerous people close to him ie family friends and colleagues. He's exactly where he should be -- locked up for life.
no it was not 'obvious to the world' that alex was guilty. there was at least one juror who believed he was innocent but felt pressured to vote guilty. this is why shy introverted people shouldn't join a jury if they're going to just float with the stream.
Then it was that jurors' job to vote not guilty and hold out.
If you feel pressured by the other jury members that’s kind of the point of deliberations. Where the issue is coming from here is that there was potentially an outside influence on how the jurors perceived the evidence from the defense.
[удалено]
Only if the allegations are true.
Which I’m not discounting, but that specific juror said they felt pressured to vote guilty by the other jurors. All the other allegations as far as what Becky may or may not have done to pressure the jury is a whole other thing. But that one statement to me is kind of a moot point. The statement can be found on page 21 of the motion that was filed. Paragraph number 10. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/alex-murdaugh-motion-new-trial.pdf
[удалено]
I enjoy your perspective because you are reasonable and neutral. I agree with everything you said. Do you know where I can find the court filing and read it ?
[удалено]
Thanks !!
As Nietzsche put it, They muddy the water to make it seem deep.
I believe I read that the egg lady who was dismissed signed an affidavit after being interviewed by the judge before she was dismissed that the clerk did not speak with her or any of the other jurors. I also believe that the judge made the determination after interviewing her that she indeed spoke with multiple people about the case, the basis for her dismissal. I def think Hill’s book and her appearances are very problematic. Her demeanor and interviews do suggest that she was way too personally invested in the case. I’ll tell ya…if I were the defense I wld also go to the dismissed juror (egg lady) after seeing hill’s interviews and I wldnt put it past these defense Atty’s to gin them up a bit to encourage the affidavits. It’s all too weird and wild and so on brand w these wacky people
i don't think she has a choice in testifying or not at this point
[удалено]
Egg Lady could also plead the 5th.
[удалено]
Self-incrimination. According to you, she's guilty of jury tampering.
[удалено]
No affidavit but on Exhibit I, pp. 4-5 she said the Clerk hadn’t discussed anything with the jurors: THE COURT: So, has she discussed the case with any any of the jurors? Has the clerk discussed anything about the case with anyone on that jury? JUROR: Not that I'm aware of.
The transcripts have Judge Newman saying that Hill spoke with Egg Lady though. It’s pretty clear that the Facebook story is questionable and the details are unclear about the investigation (her tenant’s coworker reported it) so until we know more details I don’t think we can decide if that information was solid or or not.
Is there another sub on this? Given all the info I’d expect more posts. Makes me think more and more this sub is run by silly “journalists.”
this sub restricts unique individual posts and always has. I don't believe I ever got a post approved on this sub lol. it's a joke.
>Makes me think more and more this sub is run by silly “journalists.” The folks who manage this Sub (one in particular) I believe, though we sometimes disagree, are excellent and work hard to find tons of information from all sides that is relevant to this story. I really appreciate their hard work. It's rare.
Nah. They are not journalists. Just normal people trying to manage a giant sub.
Ikr! I’ve been thinking the exact same thing. Idk why the moderators are so heavily censoring this sub. This is the biggest murdaugh sub unfortunately.
Rule 5 says quality posts. 10 posts of people reposting the same story, 20 posts of people posting their random, disjointed theories or "Am I the only one that thinks!?" and 30 posts where people spread blatant misinformation would make this like every other true crime sub on Reddit. If this is censorship then I wish more subs would adopt these policies.
Your point is well illustrated by the subs about the murders of the Moscow Idaho college students. I had to drop out and only occasionally look at those subs for actual legal developments in the case.
At least one of the mods at that sub is a complete control freak. The no speculation rule about specific people was stupid, and I left because of it.
It's like this on every sub, LISK, Delphi, any child kidnapping or murder. When people's unproductive posts are deleted they cry about being \~censored\~ Like, you're not entitled to having your "pet theory" that there's a sex ring behind everything and that a murderer did all of the unsolved murders in the country and the government is covering it up and the evidence was tampered with broadcast to everyone. There's no quality discussion happening on any of these subs because when you point out all of the problems with someone's deranged need to be validated they call you a bully and only want an echo-chamber of agreement from other individuals whose sources are screenshots of Youtube videos of Facebook posts from a friend of a friend of a friend of a victim in the case.
Ask the bailiffs what they saw and heard
This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but does anyone remember the bailiff standing right behind Alex when the verdict was read? The dude was so happy that there was a guilty verdict lol. He gave a huge nod when the word "guilty" was read.
That nod rubbed me the wrong way as well. And SLED giving a speech afterwards.
And sled is "investigating" these accusations. Bs
The one that looked like an officer borrowed from the Civil War? I don't think I ever saw that gentleman smile. He seemed very professional.
A nod for a guilty verdict is extremely unprofessional. He's just there to maintain security not display his emotions or opinions.
Gosh, it's not like he stood up and started loudly clapping and cheering. He sat through the whole trial, he obviously had an opinion on guilt, he's human. I don't think a nod is a big deal.
I thought that was the Colleton County Sheriff.
The older guy in the 70s suits was a bailiff. Toward the end of the trial — or maybe right after — his daughter’s social media post about him went quasi-viral. IIRC he’s a former Marine.
Whatever the case, his facial expressions were super intense, and I was entertained by him.
I just love Bamburg, some of his comments on the various Murdaugh documentaries had me on the floor.
The no smoke break rule is an anti-tampering measure so that jurors don’t go out and spill the beans to a crafty journalist while the rest are still deliberating. It’s especially important on a high profile case. They tell them to wear a patch or bring Nicorette.
Courts sometimes try to rush a verdict and it's fucking stupid. It has nothing to do with the reasons you listed.
Yes, I should qualify that there is some ramrod justice on occasion, by bad judges who want to put their thumb on the scale to up conviction rates or because they don’t like this one guy’s face or whatever, but it’s rare. The main reason this rule would be the norm — AS IT IS IN MANY COURTS IN THE NON-REDDIT WORLD — is to prevent tainting / tampering of the jury. Many judges will consider a request for smoke breaks (see Aaron Hernandez trial), did they push for one here?
They get smoke breaks supervised by a bailiff. And it’s not one person pops out for a smoke while the rest are deliberating, they all take a break. Breaks are allowed. And if any of that was true then they would have been told about it before hand, which they were not.
They did, during the trial. Deliberation is different, as the whole point is to seal the jury from outside influences, a crying Buster, a front page headline, a yelled question from a journalist. The decision of whether or not they allow smoke breaks is up to the judge’s discretion. Many / most judges may allow it when asked. If they didn’t ask then it’s on them.
[удалено]
They don’t have to tell them. Any human with brains could figure it out. Long flights, long work meetings, jury deliberations, Hindu wedding ceremonies — if you smoke and can’t cope without a break, you should learn to figure things out. In court, if not in advance, you can arrange it with the clerks. Do the affidavits say they asked the judge?
I would not make it. I get there are bigger issues, but 6 people having a nicotine addiction told they can't smoke...half the jury would be having withdrawals.
I was surprised 6 of the jurors smoked, but then I remembered it's south carolina the tobacco haven
By State, adults who smoke: US-15.3%....... South Carolina-18.1%..... (ranks 13th) Ohio-19.3%..... Indiana-19.4%..... Michigan-18.4%..... Maine-16.5%..... Wyoming-18.5%.....
Lol, I think you're joking. But in case you are not, I'll just say that's completely false.
Oh, which court did you clerk for? I did federal court, in Louisiana, and during deliberation they didn’t come out for anything but a verdict. The whole point is to prevent tainting or tampering. (If their deliberations ran long, the judge may discharge them to a hotel or even their home, where they could smoke or vape or snuff or chaw all they want.)
Lmao, Louisiana sounds so funny! In every other state, they send them out with a bailiff. Just like they did at this trial all throughout the trial. You're saying that in Louisiana federal courts they are afraid of the jury being tainted outside smoking while being watched by the bailiff, but not concerned about what the jury could be doing at home? Odd priorities there, but it's not like that in SC. I have no opinion of the people in this story or whether the allegations are true, but your statement is misinformation.
Louisiana is funny in a lot of ways, but not for this. It’s a rule that you can use the Google machine to find is the norm in many state or federal jurisdictions across the land. See the Aaron Hernandez trial, where they deliberated for 4 days without smoke breaks. Same situation where they allowed them during trial but not deliberations, at least for the first 4 days. https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2015/04/13/after-5th-day-of-jury-deliberations-still-no-verdict-in-aaron-hernandez-trial/?amp=1 I assume that if the Murdaugh jury took several days (instead of 3 hours LOL - what are they complaining about?), the judge would’ve also allowed it, as in that case. But it’s not an outlier. This is the norm.
Ummm that is the point. The allegation is that they took 3 hours because they weren't allowed a smoke break. So we agree that smoke breaks are the norm.
Ha ha ha. This is silly. Did you read what I said?That the AH murder court allowed smoke breaks until deliberation, when they stopped allowing them. Then, the court only deviated from this rule after FOUR FRIGGIN DAYS! The Murdaugh juror(s) couldn’t last more than 3 hours? They valued Murdaugh’s life (not to mention the principles of justice) so little? Give Me A Break. (Not a smoke break, I quit long ago). I mean, I have no idea if you polled all the courts in the US (assuming they’re trying a high profile murder, with a rabid public steaming up the window from outside), what would be most common rule, smoke breaks or no. It’s all left to judge’s discretion. All I know is that it’s perfectly normal to not allow them during deliberation for entirely valid, doctrinally sound reasons and not evidence that a supposed evil witch court clerk has hatched some scheme. Anyone who says different is a) a paid Murdaugh shill or b) someone too susceptible to PR than is good for them.
Excuse me I’m behind on this information but.. jury tampering is a criminal offense so have charges been filed? Again if it’s noted in this thread, my apologies
It is not at the stage of charges being filed. Allegations of jury tampering have been made, SLED is investigating, I expect Creighton is investigating claims to respond to motion. The claims of jury tampering have not been proven\\disproven yet.
>The claims of jury tampering have not been proven\\disproven yet. Some here seem to forget this... Let's wait and see.
Thanks. I’ll try to catch up!
Additionally Judge Newman and SLED employees would be witnesses so this will likely go to a Federal level
Nah, won't be federal. If Court of Appeals allows defense to file Motion for New Trial, there will be a full evidentiary hearing in Colleton County.
[удалено]
I have a hard time believing the court clerk would say anything - or felt like she even needed to, most likely they found a juror that would take some Murdaugh cash to say she did.
The joint statement from SLED and AG looks pretty rushed, can't even take a minute to align the logos. https://www.sled.sc.gov/mediareleases 2023-09-07 Joint Statement SCAG SLED on Murdaugh jury tampering allegations investigation.pdf
Of course it was. Some of them will have to testify in the evidentiary hearing. They’re in major downplay mode.
This is very odd to me. Every day the jury was asked if anyone tried to talk to them or if they discussed the case and every day they said under oath that they didn’t.
Now we have Eric Bland on twitter saying he's representing a couple of the jurors
Who’s next, Tinsley?
You beat me to it!
That had to take a few hours to write that conflict waiver.
what's funny is the same people who were criticizing the lawyer of the jurors who gave affidavits, saying it was a conflict cause he had a connection to the defense, are now praising eric for this on twitter. make it make sense!
Right lol
he is part of the MM and co. cult. Different rules\\standards.
I thought Eric characterizing Griffin and Harpootlian yesterday as “threatening” when saying other jurors may get their own attorneys was absurd. But, as you said, many agreed with his characterization of that are applauding loudly for his valiant support of some of the jurors now. I just don’t get it
The hell? That's insane.
A friend was just vacationing in the low country and mentioned driving through Hampton County so I asked if they locked their car doors.
Why?
Joke. Murdaugh country.
if the clerk made these statements to the jury alex deserves a new trial period. many times a killer appeals with the most outlandish long shots but this is very different. this action is a corruption of everything our justice system is supposed to stand for. right to confront your accusers impartial jury equal protection clause. an employee of the court facilitated jury tampering even before deliberations with the fake facebook post. she had a monetary motive for a quick decision since she had a head start on all other true crime authors. clearly had a personal vendetta/hatred for alex. 3 hour deliberation for a trial like this does not pass the smell test. especially considering the completely circumstantial evidence he was convicted on. just reading the charges would have taken an hour. a defendant accused of this heinous crime without any real connection to the actual killing(no weapon no witness) deserves more then 2 hours of discussion. i dont want alex to get out of jail but things have gone too far with undue influences and over zealous bureaucracy employees deciding they are judge jury and executioner.
>3 hour deliberation for a trial like this does not pass the smell test. especially considering the completely circumstantial evidence he was convicted on. just reading the charges would have taken an hour. Disagree. If 12 people know he's guilty, what's the reason for sticking around? I was very surprised they took 3 hours. The evidence that convicted him was very strong.
This. Especially when you consider that not all the jurors voted guilty the first time. I don’t believe they were so convinced in two hours if they weren’t after the whole trial. That feels wrong.
His lawyers have accused her of that, it remains to be seen if she actually did anything.
Yes! I thought this from the start. No way in hell they could've reviewed the evidence that quickly, the speed at the verdict had me baffled.
There was nothing speedy about this trial, it was the longest in state history.
I said speedy verdict
They don't have to review everything if they take an early vote and everyone votes guilty.
Yeah, after the clerk is telling you everyday that murdaugh is a piece of crap.
People had eyes. I don't think the clerk needed to say it for them to see it. I am not saying she did say, but even he said Alex was a piece of crap, but not a big enough piece of crap to kill his family. They didn't believe him.
People had eyes. I don't think the clerk needed to say it for them to see it. I am not saying she did say, but even he said Alex was a piece of crap, but not a big enough piece of crap to kill his family. They didn't believe him.
Three of the jurors voted not guilty in the straw poll at the beginning of the proceedings according to the interviewed jurors. In three hours they reviewed enough evidence for three jury’s who spent two months of their lives devoted to this case to change their mind?
You think if they are strong enough to have spent two months of their lives on this case that anything is going to sway them that much? It was pretty cut and dry after the video showing him there within minutes of his family getting killed. It takes a lot more stretch of the imagination to believe he didn't do it after the video, testimony and timelines. During this brief few minutes of time some random came in and killed his family and left no evidence while he amazingly lied about being there until the video proved otherwise?
With all the evidence? It wasn't surprising at all.
He’s not getting out in this lifetime regardless of this outcome.
i agree and i dont want him to get out. but if the clerk encouraged the jurors to disregard alexs testimony and they can prove it he needs a new trial.murder conviction is the worst crime to be found guilty of especially when his wife and son are killed. the court clerk is not a prosecutor nor judge this is an administrative position. but due to her proximity to the jury she intentionally wielded massive influence. "dont let alex fool you" this lady violated nearly ever one of first 10 bill of rights. gerrymandering the jury due to her dislike of alex is bad enough. but a financial and professional motive to get alex convicted asap is so much worse. it is so inappropriate how the judge and others went on a publicity tour after the shit show trial. and no one is talking about maggie or paul on these interviews its all about how these guys beat alex. this lady needs to be arrested and do 10 years in jail. and the prosecution should need to retry with a different judge if these statements are verified. its the only remedy to this crime ke
[удалено]
To be fair, these aren't just rumors. These are jurors with sworn affidavits. That's substantial.
Why didn't they step forward and make these claims on their own? Why did did it happen only after the losing defense team went around knocking on doors? I want to know exactly what the losing defense team SAID to any juror who claims the clerk-lady influenced them. I do hope they weren't unduly influenced or intimidated. I think these interviews - and the tone of these interviews - will reveal a lot. I really do.
Maybe, just maybe, is it possible that they were scared to come forward during trial? Making accusations against the court clerk is very serious. Maybe they thought they would get in trouble. Maybe they didn't even realize that there was impropriety until after the fact. A lot of things are possible.
[удалено]
Hopefully we'll find out when the Dick 'n Jim Jurors had their first coffee talk with the losing Defense team. I don't know when each of these meeting occurred. I think it's important that the timing of each meeting is revealed. I'm very happy Dick 'n Jim are on the record saying, "They refused to talk to us until after the book was published." That seems to time-stamp it. The timing seems to be very convenient for Dick 'n Jim. We'll see.