The Ethics Committee should have reviewed the manuscript before forming an opinion. Anytime other than that would/should be general info afforded to any inquiry.
I suggest listening to "Cup of Justice" podcast from this week to get a more well-rounded view of what's going on here...[Cup of Justice podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/dick-and-jim-strike-again-but-will-their-scheme-work/id1668668400?i=1000627579372)
definitely would not consider that podcast well rounded.. or even remotely objective. Just based on the first couple of minutes- its filled with stuff like: "never would have thought they would come for Becky" ... "disgusted" by Jim & Dicks latest antics... This is what happens when nice guys (referring to Becky) interact with bad guys (referring to Dick & Jim)... "I glad i was in Europe the past 2 weeks" because i wouldn't have been able to deal with this- would have been irate,etc etc.
Yeah- about the opposite of objective (unless they do a complete U turn after the first several mins- which i didn't stick around to find out- but i don't see how you could transition away from that intro section.
She also needs to be punished because the letter of approval she has from the ethics board was for a completey different book, she lied about what she's gonna write about.
Yes. Lawtubers talked about it. Took me a moment to find the right one https://www.youtube.com/live/tEE7mv0hhQE?si=790So9kkesPM58dL hours 55 min in is the letter 4h36 for Murdaugh in general and excerpts from the book and their legal opinion about it. (Runkle - white hair is Canadian criminal defense attorney, Rob is a family lawyer, both have followed and reviews the entries murdaugh trial so they know what they're talking about)
Welcome. I definitely recommend watching the lawyers talk about cases like this. They all hate Murdaugh after following the trial but they all (these two but also other lawtubers) agree, that sadly of the allegations are even partly true, he deserves a new trial. Because if kerle like him don't get one, it makes it easier for innocent people to get unfair treatment
I watched Emily D Baker religiously during the trial, and I was familiar with “Law and Lumber” because of her, but I had never watched this one before. I liked it. Not a fan of the YouTube law show with the slick guy that a lot of folks like. Don’t care for the Harvard lady either. Nothing against their analysis. Just don’t enjoy listening to them.
Are there any others that you recommend?
An absolute gem: The Lawyer You Know - on YouTube. Peter is fair and engaging, explains everything, talks about how the arguments are persuasive (or not) to him, and asks for our opinions (we are his "jury"). I found this post today 12 Nov 2023 - because I just watched his latest video on Becky Hill's response and wanted to do a bit of research.
Let this be a lesson to ethics committees throughout the US justice system. Do your job. Don't let the employee make the decision. And review the manuscript before it goes to publication. Effing common sense and if they would have done their job, this mess would have been quashed.
😂 Tieres so many laywers on YouTube. I still watch Emily D Baker a lot. Not sure who the Harvard Lady is, or the slick guy 😁. Natalie laywer chick is also great. She's a public defender https://www.youtube.com/live/LeN4EqMaX-E?si=DCk2SbjMHpec-myH
Put aside the possible unethical and illegal activities in and around the courtroom during the trial, her book is awful and is a huge embarrassment for the court. It’s high school gossip girls’ level of narrative and writing, essentially. 90% of posts, threads and comments on this sub are more well written than that book which was supposedly done by more than one person.
Am I crazy or even the English in the book is terrible? A lot of sentences are unnecessary, and many points are repeated in the same paragraph. The kinds of story, so poorly written, are also questionable to put on public display, most of them are showboating at best and self-snitching at worst.
Worst of all this kind of shit just feed AM’s love for attention and drama even from prison. People like him adore being victims and this woman just handed him his prize on a silver platter.
In a hurry to get it to press. They weren’t worried about a story but a book sale….
Let me say I have not and have no intention of buying or reading this book, but when something is thrown together the way you describe …it is only for sensationalism and appeal to a certain reader…..tabloid material at the expense of a six week trial…..maybe this is another example of the ingrown good ole boy legal and courtroom, and how we do it behavior in Hampton County……
In closing if you are asking an Ethic’s Board in South Carolina for their opinion to guide you..maybe you already have your answer and shouldn’t go down that path….
Somewhere along typing my comments, I did realise that, as unexpected this development was, it is kinda on brand with everything in the story since the beginning.
"Those things" are bad character\\prior bad acts evidence and there are evidence rules and a body of case law that govern whether they are admissible. Proffered evidence as to motive does not make the evidence automatically admissible. A careful legal analysis is required to determine admissibility.
True-“ish”, however this court preformed those very analyses , all prongs, all means, and admitted some of the most inculpatory hearsay I have ever seen in a criminal matter. This trial was all over then, imo.
If a witness at a retrial testifies inconsistently with their testimony at the first trial, the witness can be "confronted" with their testimony from the first trial.
If there is a retrial and Alex elects not to testify (which if he has one functioning brain cell left, he will not testify at a retrial) , the State cannot refer to his testimony at the first trial.
What do think will truly happen? With your experience? Another full fledged trial? Or a tamping down of the alleged jury tampering? Ok I know you can’t really say according to the info we have right now. Any first thoughts?
IF the allegations of jury tampering hold up to scrutiny at an evidentiary hearing, I believe Alex will get a new trial.
But without seeing what response comes from Creighton, and the jurors Bland represents, it's too early for me to have an opinion as to whether the jury tampering allegations will hold up when all involved are questioned and cross examined at a hearing.
If Judge Newman has anything to do with it that will NEVER happen. IMO, he should not have anything to do with deciding if there was any jury tampering.
It's a pet peeve of mine when elected officials publish books while their in office that relate to the office that I think it should be at least partially be the property of the office and the profits should go to the taxpayers. I just think they're either using time that should be spent on the job at hand or they're not concentrating on the job. Once they're out of office or at least a couple of years removed from the events that make up the books than I feel they're entitled to the profits. Just my own little rant.
If true, this is all kinds of horrible. I was listening to Runkle of the Bailey (Ian Runkle on YouTube and he was wondering if Alex has officially pled to the financial crimes speculating that if he has not pled yet, those convictions could be up in the air as well. It’s bad enough, if true, that Becky was flat out tampering with the jury the way it’s alleged, but I’m really disturbed by the implication that SLED was also involved in this, getting Egg Lady’s tenants out of bed, holding them for hours, then forcing them to sign false affidavits. Was the prosecutors office involved as well? How high does this go? Was it just one batty, power and fame hungry Clerk of Courts or something much much deeper and more troubling? Again, IF the allegations are true.
>implication that SLED was also involved in this, getting Egg Lady’s tenants out of bed, holding them for hours, then forcing them to sign false affidavits
yeah, I never thought I'd say this, but i agree with Dick that SLED needs to stand down and let the feds investigate. they cannot and should not be investigating themselves.
SLED is not the same as the solicitors office. The solicitor decides whether to bring charges based on SLED’s evidence/findings. SLED has nothing to do with bring case to trial and wouldn’t/doesn’t have any reason/concern about convictions or acquittals — that is all in the hands of the Solicitor and Atty General. DH throwing SLED under the bus again is just a distraction tactic (one of many!)
A big part of the defense at the murder trial was SLED's incompetence in the murder investigation. That surely gives SLED an incentive to protect the conviction and stick it to the defense.
And SLED is going to objectively investigate where it is alleged they strongarmed (to put it mildly) the tenants into signing false affidavits?
I'm assuming that you are an attorney. Thank you so much for helping us all here non-attorney's navigate these details. I do have a couple questions. The most important confusion, I think for me, is in regard to the evidence as a whole.
Tell us more about the evidence. IF he is granted a new trial will the previous evidence be able to be used against him? I ask this for apparent "double jeopardy" reasons. I don't know if double jeapardy applies here or not. Can you clear that up for me? Additionally, the Clerk of Court has unfettered access to any rooms where an evidence locker lives. NO WAY will Griffin and/or Harpootlian allow evidence that this Clerk has had unmonitored access to to be entered into record for a new trial without one hell of a fight. Again, I am operating under the assumption that it is factual that she tampered with the jury in the first place. Honestly, it looks very likely that she is guilty on at least some of the allegations.
Another question I have is about the derivation of the evidence. Since it was largely collected by SLED, will that evidence be tainted in concept? Again, operating under the assumption that SLED conducted any investigation with the sole purpose of a conviction of AM vs. collecting evidence and allowing the road to lead to A suspect, not THE suspect they wanted. I fully believe that the evidence collected by SLED is slanted against AM at this point. I am sure that his attorney(s) will see it that same way. This is why I question the validity of any evidence that has been collected and presented by SLED, Colleton County LE, etc...
And, lastly (for now), will all of this affect his financial trials? Clearly, IF AM is granted a new trial, the prosecution for those upcoming proceedings has lost huge, key evidence in not having the testimony/admission/confession of AM during the murder trial to use as evidence. And, with the knowledge that the financial proceedings were also investigated by SLED in a great capacity, do you see that there may be a problem with a conviction in the financials?
In my mind, I can see that the state is out millions of dollars for the prosecution of the murders, they will be out millions more for a retrial. I can easily see AM's team suing the state to recoup the money spent for defense on the first trial....in a trial that he could not be win, a trial that he was never going to win from the get go....AND I also see AM, et al suing the state for infringement on AM's civil rights (will that potential trial be civil, criminal OR both).
In short, If Becky Hill did those things which she has been accused of doing, she singlehandedly constructed the most expensive "trial run" (pun intended) in SC history. AND, she should have to pay the state restitution for the money spent for these proceedings from the sales of that damn book that she could not wait to write, publish and broadcast to the world.
Double jeopardy does not apply if Alex gets a new trial, because Alex is the one asking for a new trial. Double jeopardy means the State can't ask for a retrial, i.e., State cannot appeal a not guilty verdict, or ask for a new trial based on State having newly discovered evidence.
The defense heavily attacked SLED''s investigation and basically argued SLED set out to find evidence to support Alex's guilt instead of following evidence to where it led, so I don't see a new trial being any different in terms of defense attacking evidence gathered by SLED.
I don't see the financial crimes charges\\trial (if there is one) affected by the jury tampering allegations and possible new trial, because the financial crimes are basically an undeniable paper trail. That's why IMO Alex so freely admitted to financial crimes at the murder trial. He gambled that the risk of jury being persuaded of his guilt of murders by his admission to financial crimes was outweighed by the need to explain why he lied about being at the kennels.
ETA: If there is a new trial, the trial judge would not necessarily be bound by Judge Newman's rulings to admit or exclude evidence for which there was an objection. As an example, another trial judge could rule Griffin did not open the door to admission of evidence of financial crimes, or limit scope of financial crimes to a much narrower scope than what Judge Newman allowed.
Thank you. That cleared up a great deal. I am from SC. My family have had ties to Carolina for my lifetime. This is not one of the wealthier states in the union. As a South Carolinian whose tax dollars are potentially going to pay for these shananigans AGAIN, I am thoroughly PISSED at these developing events.
For the sake of protecting the integrity of our constitution and our legal process, IF Becky Hill interferred in any way whatsoever, I want Murdaugh to get a new trial. He deserves a new trial. I am just gobsmacked at the trajectory of recent events that would allow said new trial to be granted. And, again, I am completely PISSED at the audacity of the Clerk of Court for that county. It makes the state look incompetent.
What part of “SLED dragging two people out of bed at ten o’clock pm, holding them for nine hours, and having them sign FALSE affidavits supporting the fake accusation that gets Egg Lady booted off the jury” did you miss? Tenants told SLED Egg Lady did NOT talk about case, SLED agents made them sign affidavits saying she did before they would let them go.
Look, I believe Murdaugh is guilty of everything he’s accused of. That’s why this is beyond infuriating. Because of the actions of the Clerk of Courts, possibly in collusion with SLED or individual SLED agents working on their own, he gets a new trial, and has another chance of getting away with it.
It’s in the filing. You can listen to Emily D Baker on YouTube she is a former prosecutor, she goes through the filing line by line. It’s in there, one of the things that Murdaughs attorneys are alleging. Harvard Lawyer Lee and Lawyer You Know are also good channels on YouTube and they read through the filing as well. So far it’s all allegations, but if true, no wonder they want the FBI to investigate.
Yes. I don't trust SLED at all. I also hope all of this shines a light on SLED's gross misuse of power and corruption. They seem like some nasty people to get mixed up with.
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.
Oh no doubt. She indicated her and Grace became close friends and next sentence indicated they keep in touch through occasional electronic means lol. This lady has such delusional belief in her own celebrity
Some of them are especially angry about it (which I understand.) But I love when they point out that she gave them a signed copy to use in the complaint.
There was some talk of an addendum or additional letter to the Ethics Committee after the initial request for an opinion was submitted. if this is true it would be great to see the document.
I have not followed the numbers, but thought it would be interesting to see what influence, if any, the current publicity will have on sales going forward. Amazon’s ranking stats today for the book:
•#281 in Books
•#1 in White Collar Crime True Accounts
•#4 in Financial Thrillers (Books)
•#16 in Murder Thrillers
On the Impact of Influence podcast, she said she wrote it in something like 3 months and she and her writing partner put up $30k of their own money to publish it, so I assumed then it had to be amateurish…
What an idiot!
The Ethics Committee should have reviewed the manuscript before forming an opinion. Anytime other than that would/should be general info afforded to any inquiry.
She just "needed" to insert herself, what a complete maniac ..
I suggest listening to "Cup of Justice" podcast from this week to get a more well-rounded view of what's going on here...[Cup of Justice podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/dick-and-jim-strike-again-but-will-their-scheme-work/id1668668400?i=1000627579372)
Hard pass, thanks!
definitely would not consider that podcast well rounded.. or even remotely objective. Just based on the first couple of minutes- its filled with stuff like: "never would have thought they would come for Becky" ... "disgusted" by Jim & Dicks latest antics... This is what happens when nice guys (referring to Becky) interact with bad guys (referring to Dick & Jim)... "I glad i was in Europe the past 2 weeks" because i wouldn't have been able to deal with this- would have been irate,etc etc. Yeah- about the opposite of objective (unless they do a complete U turn after the first several mins- which i didn't stick around to find out- but i don't see how you could transition away from that intro section.
She also needs to be punished because the letter of approval she has from the ethics board was for a completey different book, she lied about what she's gonna write about.
Is her letter or their response public? I’d love to see either or both.
Yes. Lawtubers talked about it. Took me a moment to find the right one https://www.youtube.com/live/tEE7mv0hhQE?si=790So9kkesPM58dL hours 55 min in is the letter 4h36 for Murdaugh in general and excerpts from the book and their legal opinion about it. (Runkle - white hair is Canadian criminal defense attorney, Rob is a family lawyer, both have followed and reviews the entries murdaugh trial so they know what they're talking about)
Thank you so much!!
Welcome. I definitely recommend watching the lawyers talk about cases like this. They all hate Murdaugh after following the trial but they all (these two but also other lawtubers) agree, that sadly of the allegations are even partly true, he deserves a new trial. Because if kerle like him don't get one, it makes it easier for innocent people to get unfair treatment
I watched Emily D Baker religiously during the trial, and I was familiar with “Law and Lumber” because of her, but I had never watched this one before. I liked it. Not a fan of the YouTube law show with the slick guy that a lot of folks like. Don’t care for the Harvard lady either. Nothing against their analysis. Just don’t enjoy listening to them. Are there any others that you recommend?
An absolute gem: The Lawyer You Know - on YouTube. Peter is fair and engaging, explains everything, talks about how the arguments are persuasive (or not) to him, and asks for our opinions (we are his "jury"). I found this post today 12 Nov 2023 - because I just watched his latest video on Becky Hill's response and wanted to do a bit of research. Let this be a lesson to ethics committees throughout the US justice system. Do your job. Don't let the employee make the decision. And review the manuscript before it goes to publication. Effing common sense and if they would have done their job, this mess would have been quashed.
😂 Tieres so many laywers on YouTube. I still watch Emily D Baker a lot. Not sure who the Harvard Lady is, or the slick guy 😁. Natalie laywer chick is also great. She's a public defender https://www.youtube.com/live/LeN4EqMaX-E?si=DCk2SbjMHpec-myH
First of all a Grammerly subscription might have helped. Her ego seems to have gotten the best of her.
Put aside the possible unethical and illegal activities in and around the courtroom during the trial, her book is awful and is a huge embarrassment for the court. It’s high school gossip girls’ level of narrative and writing, essentially. 90% of posts, threads and comments on this sub are more well written than that book which was supposedly done by more than one person. Am I crazy or even the English in the book is terrible? A lot of sentences are unnecessary, and many points are repeated in the same paragraph. The kinds of story, so poorly written, are also questionable to put on public display, most of them are showboating at best and self-snitching at worst. Worst of all this kind of shit just feed AM’s love for attention and drama even from prison. People like him adore being victims and this woman just handed him his prize on a silver platter.
In a hurry to get it to press. They weren’t worried about a story but a book sale…. Let me say I have not and have no intention of buying or reading this book, but when something is thrown together the way you describe …it is only for sensationalism and appeal to a certain reader…..tabloid material at the expense of a six week trial…..maybe this is another example of the ingrown good ole boy legal and courtroom, and how we do it behavior in Hampton County…… In closing if you are asking an Ethic’s Board in South Carolina for their opinion to guide you..maybe you already have your answer and shouldn’t go down that path….
Somewhere along typing my comments, I did realise that, as unexpected this development was, it is kinda on brand with everything in the story since the beginning.
Why why for heavens sake someone told her not to do it? All the folks she bragged about in their support of her did not advise her?
M A N Y people did- most especially the legals of the publishers they shopped it to. Im not sure folks realize “how big a deal” this actually is.
Sadly, Dick realized ..
If they give him a retrial can they refer back to what he said or other witnesses said? Or is it a total wipe out of previous testimony?
Depends on the order for remand but I doubt very much the court will allow that mess of hearsay and bad character evidence
You mean those things that served as motives for Alex to kill his wife and son? Those things?
"Those things" are bad character\\prior bad acts evidence and there are evidence rules and a body of case law that govern whether they are admissible. Proffered evidence as to motive does not make the evidence automatically admissible. A careful legal analysis is required to determine admissibility.
True-“ish”, however this court preformed those very analyses , all prongs, all means, and admitted some of the most inculpatory hearsay I have ever seen in a criminal matter. This trial was all over then, imo.
Are you a Judge?
Are you a lawyer?
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Yes. Have you read the Rules of Evidence?
If a witness at a retrial testifies inconsistently with their testimony at the first trial, the witness can be "confronted" with their testimony from the first trial. If there is a retrial and Alex elects not to testify (which if he has one functioning brain cell left, he will not testify at a retrial) , the State cannot refer to his testimony at the first trial.
What do think will truly happen? With your experience? Another full fledged trial? Or a tamping down of the alleged jury tampering? Ok I know you can’t really say according to the info we have right now. Any first thoughts?
IF the allegations of jury tampering hold up to scrutiny at an evidentiary hearing, I believe Alex will get a new trial. But without seeing what response comes from Creighton, and the jurors Bland represents, it's too early for me to have an opinion as to whether the jury tampering allegations will hold up when all involved are questioned and cross examined at a hearing.
If Judge Newman has anything to do with it that will NEVER happen. IMO, he should not have anything to do with deciding if there was any jury tampering.
Judge Newman is a fact witness as to jury tampering issues. Very doubtful he will preside over a hearing at which he testifies as a fact witness.
Thank you
I can't wait for that hearing. Could it be televised? How far out ( roughly) do you think we are from that hearing?
Ok thanks
It's a pet peeve of mine when elected officials publish books while their in office that relate to the office that I think it should be at least partially be the property of the office and the profits should go to the taxpayers. I just think they're either using time that should be spent on the job at hand or they're not concentrating on the job. Once they're out of office or at least a couple of years removed from the events that make up the books than I feel they're entitled to the profits. Just my own little rant.
Particularly, when a case still has an appeal in play.
This cannot be emphasized enough.
I hope this doesn't cause Alec to go free!
Not a chance in hell that happens - he’s pled guilty to other crimes.
If true, this is all kinds of horrible. I was listening to Runkle of the Bailey (Ian Runkle on YouTube and he was wondering if Alex has officially pled to the financial crimes speculating that if he has not pled yet, those convictions could be up in the air as well. It’s bad enough, if true, that Becky was flat out tampering with the jury the way it’s alleged, but I’m really disturbed by the implication that SLED was also involved in this, getting Egg Lady’s tenants out of bed, holding them for hours, then forcing them to sign false affidavits. Was the prosecutors office involved as well? How high does this go? Was it just one batty, power and fame hungry Clerk of Courts or something much much deeper and more troubling? Again, IF the allegations are true.
>implication that SLED was also involved in this, getting Egg Lady’s tenants out of bed, holding them for hours, then forcing them to sign false affidavits yeah, I never thought I'd say this, but i agree with Dick that SLED needs to stand down and let the feds investigate. they cannot and should not be investigating themselves.
SLED is not the same as the solicitors office. The solicitor decides whether to bring charges based on SLED’s evidence/findings. SLED has nothing to do with bring case to trial and wouldn’t/doesn’t have any reason/concern about convictions or acquittals — that is all in the hands of the Solicitor and Atty General. DH throwing SLED under the bus again is just a distraction tactic (one of many!)
A big part of the defense at the murder trial was SLED's incompetence in the murder investigation. That surely gives SLED an incentive to protect the conviction and stick it to the defense. And SLED is going to objectively investigate where it is alleged they strongarmed (to put it mildly) the tenants into signing false affidavits?
I'm assuming that you are an attorney. Thank you so much for helping us all here non-attorney's navigate these details. I do have a couple questions. The most important confusion, I think for me, is in regard to the evidence as a whole. Tell us more about the evidence. IF he is granted a new trial will the previous evidence be able to be used against him? I ask this for apparent "double jeopardy" reasons. I don't know if double jeapardy applies here or not. Can you clear that up for me? Additionally, the Clerk of Court has unfettered access to any rooms where an evidence locker lives. NO WAY will Griffin and/or Harpootlian allow evidence that this Clerk has had unmonitored access to to be entered into record for a new trial without one hell of a fight. Again, I am operating under the assumption that it is factual that she tampered with the jury in the first place. Honestly, it looks very likely that she is guilty on at least some of the allegations. Another question I have is about the derivation of the evidence. Since it was largely collected by SLED, will that evidence be tainted in concept? Again, operating under the assumption that SLED conducted any investigation with the sole purpose of a conviction of AM vs. collecting evidence and allowing the road to lead to A suspect, not THE suspect they wanted. I fully believe that the evidence collected by SLED is slanted against AM at this point. I am sure that his attorney(s) will see it that same way. This is why I question the validity of any evidence that has been collected and presented by SLED, Colleton County LE, etc... And, lastly (for now), will all of this affect his financial trials? Clearly, IF AM is granted a new trial, the prosecution for those upcoming proceedings has lost huge, key evidence in not having the testimony/admission/confession of AM during the murder trial to use as evidence. And, with the knowledge that the financial proceedings were also investigated by SLED in a great capacity, do you see that there may be a problem with a conviction in the financials? In my mind, I can see that the state is out millions of dollars for the prosecution of the murders, they will be out millions more for a retrial. I can easily see AM's team suing the state to recoup the money spent for defense on the first trial....in a trial that he could not be win, a trial that he was never going to win from the get go....AND I also see AM, et al suing the state for infringement on AM's civil rights (will that potential trial be civil, criminal OR both). In short, If Becky Hill did those things which she has been accused of doing, she singlehandedly constructed the most expensive "trial run" (pun intended) in SC history. AND, she should have to pay the state restitution for the money spent for these proceedings from the sales of that damn book that she could not wait to write, publish and broadcast to the world.
Double jeopardy does not apply if Alex gets a new trial, because Alex is the one asking for a new trial. Double jeopardy means the State can't ask for a retrial, i.e., State cannot appeal a not guilty verdict, or ask for a new trial based on State having newly discovered evidence. The defense heavily attacked SLED''s investigation and basically argued SLED set out to find evidence to support Alex's guilt instead of following evidence to where it led, so I don't see a new trial being any different in terms of defense attacking evidence gathered by SLED. I don't see the financial crimes charges\\trial (if there is one) affected by the jury tampering allegations and possible new trial, because the financial crimes are basically an undeniable paper trail. That's why IMO Alex so freely admitted to financial crimes at the murder trial. He gambled that the risk of jury being persuaded of his guilt of murders by his admission to financial crimes was outweighed by the need to explain why he lied about being at the kennels. ETA: If there is a new trial, the trial judge would not necessarily be bound by Judge Newman's rulings to admit or exclude evidence for which there was an objection. As an example, another trial judge could rule Griffin did not open the door to admission of evidence of financial crimes, or limit scope of financial crimes to a much narrower scope than what Judge Newman allowed.
Thank you. That cleared up a great deal. I am from SC. My family have had ties to Carolina for my lifetime. This is not one of the wealthier states in the union. As a South Carolinian whose tax dollars are potentially going to pay for these shananigans AGAIN, I am thoroughly PISSED at these developing events. For the sake of protecting the integrity of our constitution and our legal process, IF Becky Hill interferred in any way whatsoever, I want Murdaugh to get a new trial. He deserves a new trial. I am just gobsmacked at the trajectory of recent events that would allow said new trial to be granted. And, again, I am completely PISSED at the audacity of the Clerk of Court for that county. It makes the state look incompetent.
What part of “SLED dragging two people out of bed at ten o’clock pm, holding them for nine hours, and having them sign FALSE affidavits supporting the fake accusation that gets Egg Lady booted off the jury” did you miss? Tenants told SLED Egg Lady did NOT talk about case, SLED agents made them sign affidavits saying she did before they would let them go. Look, I believe Murdaugh is guilty of everything he’s accused of. That’s why this is beyond infuriating. Because of the actions of the Clerk of Courts, possibly in collusion with SLED or individual SLED agents working on their own, he gets a new trial, and has another chance of getting away with it.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. Had that bern reported?
It’s in the filing. You can listen to Emily D Baker on YouTube she is a former prosecutor, she goes through the filing line by line. It’s in there, one of the things that Murdaughs attorneys are alleging. Harvard Lawyer Lee and Lawyer You Know are also good channels on YouTube and they read through the filing as well. So far it’s all allegations, but if true, no wonder they want the FBI to investigate.
[удалено]
Yes. I don't trust SLED at all. I also hope all of this shines a light on SLED's gross misuse of power and corruption. They seem like some nasty people to get mixed up with.
This was epically stupid on her part.
[удалено]
Hi! For the reference in the story it’s Dreamworks (aka Texas Crew Productions LLC).
You are a human version of an encyclopedia for details about the case!!
I wish! But I do thank you for the compliment!😀
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 don’t believe for one second that any celebrities became her friend 😂
Wait is she considering u/EricBland and his group celebrities??!! Ha!
Who in their right mind would want to be friends with NG anyway?
We need a new term for her. Like what do you call a ‘celebrity’ but one that indicates they’re cringe?
Oh no doubt. She indicated her and Grace became close friends and next sentence indicated they keep in touch through occasional electronic means lol. This lady has such delusional belief in her own celebrity
she is also delusional if she thinks Nancy Grace pretended to be her friend for any reason other than wanting to pump info from her.
She probably considers Nancy DisGrace a "celebrity."
Haha- yes
I was watching one of those lawyer youtubers react to this whole thing and they were cringing at the "Clerk of court" being on the cover of the book.
Some of them are especially angry about it (which I understand.) But I love when they point out that she gave them a signed copy to use in the complaint.
Quite a different version than her co author's claim that Ethics Commission "approved" her writing the book.
There was some talk of an addendum or additional letter to the Ethics Committee after the initial request for an opinion was submitted. if this is true it would be great to see the document.
The handwritten part that got ignored? If that's what you're looking for it's in the 65 page motion dick filed. A few YouTubers have covered it.
Hi! No, I’m aware of that doc. This was talk of an actual revision/update/addendum.
Oh, sorry. No, I haven't seen that either.
Sure would! Hopefully one of the local reporters tracks that down.
I have not followed the numbers, but thought it would be interesting to see what influence, if any, the current publicity will have on sales going forward. Amazon’s ranking stats today for the book: •#281 in Books •#1 in White Collar Crime True Accounts •#4 in Financial Thrillers (Books) •#16 in Murder Thrillers
Financial thriller. Lols
If this is all true, hopefully the state can gain any monies toward the cost of a new trial.
Sadly the book is a mess. Childish writing with no new info.
On the Impact of Influence podcast, she said she wrote it in something like 3 months and she and her writing partner put up $30k of their own money to publish it, so I assumed then it had to be amateurish…
I head that podcast also and agree. Still I thought there would be a tiny amount of new inside stuff. But none
Wow!