I haven't followed the case in any detail, so I don't have an opinion.
There was an interview with one of the jurors, and he outlined what tipped him over to guilty. It was the video, the fact that Murdaugh lied about having been at the kennels, and finally Murdaugh's admission that it was his voice on the video.
Originally posted by piqué: i find it very odd that the jury convicted with no physical evidence whatsoever. where is the *proof* that he committed the murders?
just because he's a pathological liar and an embezzler--and admits it!--doesn't mean he is a murderer.
to the contrary, there was dna of an "unknown man" under his wife's fingernails. how come the investigators didn't follow up on that?
And they never found the murder weapons. And the motive the prosecutors came up with is pure speculation.
I thought people had to be *proven* guilty.
One thing I got from law school and a short time of practicing law was how easily innocent people could be convicted.
-------------------------------- Several people have eaten my cooking and survived.
Posts: 25850 | Location: Still living at 9000 feet in the High Rockies of Colorado | Registered: 20 April 2005
