are you watching the rekietalaw stream?
@mk I’ve been going back and forth between the Law & Crime coverage on Sling TV and the live feeds on YouTube. Today is pretty boring.
the whole trial is boring af. without commentary from nick and andrew i'd never watch this trial.
https://rumble.com/v29bzsu-alex-murdaugh-trial-day-14-2132023.html
@mk I’ve found some of the evidence and testimony to be pretty compelling. But the state has not yet made its case and I can’t believe they are set to rest. I do believe he did it.
@mk based on him luring them there, lying about being at the kennels and it being proven he was there. Snapchat showing he had different clothes minutes before, the nurse testifying he carried wadded up stuff that turned out to have gun shot residue on the inside, him having the housekeeper come the day of to clean his clothes, the shower, etc - and all the financial stuff coming to a head the morning of the murders. It’s a lot.
"and all the financial stuff coming to a head the morning of the murders"
i think all the state did -by forcing this stuff into the trial- is to show that there's a fuckton of people having a motive to hurt alex murdaugh (and by extention his family).
the state needs to proof that he killed his son and wife WITHOUT reasonable doubt...
i have a lot of doubt after the financial stuff.
"Snapchat showing he had different clothes minutes before,"
01:04:30 - https://youtu.be/gQBqZOYEpRI?t=3870
defense: "and you have never asked him for that blue shirt, those shoes and those khaki pants, have you?"
lead investigator: "no, sir"
tarp/rain jacket
"the nurse testifying he carried wadded up stuff that turned out to have gun shot residue on the inside"
LI = lead investigator
00:56:10 - https://youtu.be/gQBqZOYEpRI?t=3405
LI: "weapons in them at some time, because there's GSR in them"
defense: "we don't know that was 5 years ago, 3 years ago, 1 year ago?"
LI: "correct"
- no blood
- no dna
- no temporal correlation between the gunshot residue and the murders
the state misrepresent facts about the tarp to the jury.
"based on him luring them there,"
i haven't seen the whole trial. who said that alex was luring his wife and son to the kennels?
"and all the financial stuff coming to a head the morning of the murders."
what does the financialstuff have to do with the murder?
it feels very much like the state just wanted to throw some character evidence in show that alex is a thief...
none of the this had anything to do with the murder.
@mk come at me with evidence from the trial, instead of rhetoric from a podcast. Actually, stop coming at me. I’m enjoying forming my own opinions.
"come at me with evidence"
i can't proof a negative. the #state has the burden to proof the relevance to the murders.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
as far is i noticed (haven't seen the whole trial) they did not do that.
the character #evidence was -probably- #prejudice to the #jury.
a big #appeal point.
---
but i'm open to hear your argument why you think that the financial stuff was ok to come in.
"Actually, stop coming at me. I’m enjoying forming my own opinions."
the two sentences are contradictory. how do you want to get good opinions if you don't include all positions?
"from a podcast"
i don't know what podcast you're talking about.
i just watched live trial coverage from "Rekieta Law", "Good Lawgic" and "Emily D. Baker".
I wouldn't call this a "podcast". its more like a live trial reaction.
@mk I can’t believe they don’t have tons of alternates during Covid. They lost two today to it and I think one last week? It would suck to have a Covid mistrial!
i think is much more likely that the son got ambushed by a revenge-killer (for the death of the young girl during the "boat accident") and that the revenge-killer got surprised by the mother and had to take her out too.
@mk it would be horribly tragic if that was the case. I’ve watched some YouTube videos where they analyze his body language during the police interview. I thought it was fairly compelling.
"body language[..]fairly compelling."
body language isn't evidence, because its a subjective interpretation of someones behaviour. just like lie detector tests.
@mk of course it’s not evidence. I worked as a legal assistant for a decade and I am familiar with the law. I just think it’s interesting. Not trying to be argumentative. I enjoy following trials.