• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    11 months ago

    Newman described Murdaugh as being “empty” but hoped that “something will emerge within your soul.”

    Why? The criminally insane guy is clearly beyond any kind of empathy or remorse. Killing his wife and son, and 22 counts of fraud and money laundering, should be enough to not waste a single second hoping for anything from him.
    He grew up super privileged, and probably thought he could get away with anything.

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      11 months ago

      He killed his wife and son in an attempt to distract from the 22 counts of fraud.

      He didn’t just kill them out of the blue, it was a calculated decision in an attempt to use their “mysterious murder” to try to protect himself.

        • ArtieShaw@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          The pity/financial motive was presented by the prosecution, but I think there was more to it. Prosecutors generally avoid portraying victims as complete shits. But Paul was a complete piece of shit. And he was about to become a very expensive piece of shit.

          Paul (the son) was set to stand trial for a drunk boating accident that killed a teenager. It was scheduled for just days after he was murdered. He had a history of alcohol abuse, being belligerent, and hitting his girlfriends. He got into lot of trouble that needed to be smoothed over. His family also called him the “little detective” because he liked to go through his father’s things and report any drugs he found. (Alex was abusing pills). That must have brought a mix of shame and hatred.

          Alex’s father was also in hospice care at the time. He had been the family’s main fixer and local influencer for years.

          1. My son killed a young woman and her family is coming after us with a costly and embarrassing trial
          2. My dad’s not going to be around to help this time
          3. When I have to pay for the trial they’re going to find out about the finances/crimes
          4. My son, who is a shit, is monitoring my addiction and telling my wife what he finds
          5. My son appears to have no intention of being less of a shit in the future

          There were persistent rumors that Maggie was talking to a divorce lawyer, but I think that if they were true this would have been presented at the trial.

          And there were the other murders/deaths. Wikpedia has a disambiguation page.

          So basically, the son was an irritating shit who got into expensive trouble and was going to be bringing more trouble in days to come. He decided to kill Paul to make that go away. Then he added Maggie because at that point, why not? He’d be an obvious suspect if Paul was the only victim. If there are two victims from his family, it looks more like an outside party looking for retribution

          • Damn, you’ve making the dude sound logical.

            Almost got away with it. Or not. Did he almost get away with it?

            I understand the murder weapons are unrecovered and the only hard evidence tying him to the scene was the cell phone recording his son made, which was a stake through the heart of the defense, if you ask me.

            Sounds like his kid killed that dude in the side of the road and he maybe threw the old housekeeper down some stairs or something? Thoughts on those?

            • ArtieShaw@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Addict logic, I think. It’s not the best.

              I doubt there will ever be any good answers about the other deaths. The initial investigations (if any) were just too poor. In both cases there’s been a lot of rumor but no one (law or journalist) seems to be able to find convincing evidence.

              It may be some comfort and solace to their families to know that if those weren’t accidents the likely participants are dead or in prison.

              My main question is how he’s able to pay his lawyers. He was supposedly broke.

    • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      He grew up super privileged, and probably thought he could get away with anything.

      So how did the affluenza defense not work?

      I think I missed the obligatory /s the first go round.

        • Maeve@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I’m not understanding how the law firm didn’t manage to see this. Did he have inside accomplices?

          • ArtieShaw@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            There was at least one local accomplice: a banker who helped manage the accounts. They had been college buddies.

            No one at the law firm has been implicated, and it seems his real damages against them were to their reputation. His secretary claimed to have found something suspicious but hadn’t gotten around to asking him about it before the killings.

            One example crime: his longtime housekeeper had an accident on his property. Details were unclear, but she fell on some stairs, hit her head, and died in hospital. He convinced her sons, who are disabled, to hire him to file a claim against his own insurance, which he would then pay to them. Except he didn’t pay them. The banker opened a trust, took out his own fee, paid Murdaugh’s lawyer fee, and let Murdaugh sign it over to himself. tl/dr - shady shit, but largely confined to these two guys

            • Maeve@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Wow. I have no words. But I’m asking about the law firm, explicitly. Was no one monitoring the books? Are audits not typically done at least once per fiscal year? How did the books at the actual law firm balance?

      • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It worked one time on a minor, really. There may have been some other instances but we are hopefully more or less beyond that as a concept.

      • 520@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Because blatant cases of affluenza look pretty fucking bad on a judge’s record, and this case would be too blatant to let slide.