I'm not taking one side of things. I am looking at the 65 page filing and saying what I see. I think there are 3 juror affidavits in there plus the transcript of the clerk and the judge discussing the egg juror's husband's comments. Plus the affidavit of the egg juror's husband who said there was no post by him. It is basically the word of the ex husband versus the county clerk.
I don't think that the other jurors would have known about the supposed Facebook post of the ex husband. It was the clerk who came across the alleged post, which she never found when she later looked for it but just found the supposed apology post by the ex. The ex says in his affidavit that is not his FB apology post.
Well Ihaven't read the thing and so you definitely have that on me. I need to at least find and read the affidavits but haven't managed to yet.
I don't think you are taking sides, I'm just saying going by one side is doing simply that, taking one side's claims. I haven't read that document but I get the impression you haven't read the AG's response or have you? And there will be more on that to come I imagine once the errors are corrected by the defense.
All three jurors have basically now made themselves out to be liars if these are their truthful and willing affidavits.
What gets me is the defense really needed BOTH of these things, the jurors AND the misconduct by the clerk and it seems uncanny they got both.
What I am saying about the other jurors IS do they corroborate the statements made by the clerk to the group, etc.? And if there are one or two or more who don't or dispute what these three say as untrue, then you don't see the defense sharing that. IF thee is such out there.
With regard to the egg juror,s something doesn't sit right here. There may be no remaining post allegedly seen BUT there is an apology post from a same name although slightly different version of the ex husband's name. This too is uncanny. So did the Clerk make up a fake account with this name to make it appear the post existed? Is she that savvy and knew how to do so with no trail? Or did someone else do it? It bothers me that THAT post DID exist, not the initial post but the apology post and I find it a bit hard to believe it just so happened and was not related. I would suspect someone did it to make it appear that way. First person thought would be the Clerk herself or someone close to her. For most people anyhow.
You say it is pretty much the Clerk's word versus the ex husband's but the juror herself should have also been questioned. From what I understand, if true, the Clerk questioned her on her own which IS wrong but the Judge would do so too imo even if the Clerk shouldn't have. What did she say? I am sure she probably agreed with the ex that the initial ALLEGED post held no truth?
The only way any of this makes sense is IF the 'Clerk or someone helping her made the apology post under the "same" name as the ex. If that's the case, then she is a done deal. If it is not the case, then someone else set this up for her to fall for it OR really said it or IS lyiing. And who does it benefit? First of all, it benefits the defense big time. Second it benefits the Clerk to not appear to be lying. We can take our pick... I guess it is possible a random post was found by someone of the same name apologizing for "something" but I find it far fetched to think that does not relate or was not faked to help someone or get someone to fall for it... Hard to put this into words that make clear what I mean but I think you will know what I mean.
Newman would have questioned the egg juror. Possibly all sides would have, at least they'd be present and that's how I think that would go. I'd like to know if true that it was found she likely shared her feelings, etc. on it with at least two or three others. That's' what I heard anyhow.
The one thing that falls flat for me in the defense argument is it was the book deal that was the reason for the Clerk's alleged influence and behavior. It's like when they try to give a motive for a murder that doesn't quite fit. Saying she hated Alex and wanted him to be found guilty and wanted to ensure justice wouldn't be miscarried for a Murdaugh again going free would be a better fit than their reasoning. I don't mean that's true either, I'm just saying it would be easier to believe than she had forsaken her reputation and all he rules she should have known for a book that may or may not have turned into any great sales whether Alex was found guilty or not. It just doesn't gel for me. Or she is one really stupid woman.
I guess for me, it is hard for any of us to know what will shake out and I come back to who swindles, manipulates and you name it AND pays off and gets in cahoots with witnesses and pretends to be with injured parties, etc. to sue his own insurance company and who this would benefit. And that is Alex. I look at the timing and crafting of all of it, the TV show, the charges federally, all of it and hmmmmm. I look at how it also gets Judge Newman off the case as he would now be a witness, that also is to their benefit. They need a judge that can be gotten to or he holds something over... I can't help it, look at what he has done and how they have played this.
Of course I want that to be the case also, that they go down and it is lies, coercion, bribes, etc. and a set up and so on.
It won't be the end of the world if he does get a new trial, and I trust he'd be found guilty again IF they haven't gotten to anyone in the meantime and depending on who presides, etc. but I'm expecting at least half of this to be blown out of the water and a response and investigation. Even without that, they have a high bar. I think some of it will matter and some won't get what they want.
This jury MADE their decision. EACH of them. They were polled. They took oaths. They were told daily of what to do and not do do like discussing the case. To change their minds now or say something I don't think likely would result in a new trial. It CERTAINLY would throw shade on the ones who have signed affidavits but that doesn't equal Alex gets a new trial or the reason they are doing this. The egg lady and clerk ARE a different story and kink. Part of getting a new trial if I understnad it would be to show the verdict would have been different. That is where the egg lady comes in AND perhaps the clerk and isn't that just wonderful...
I trust nothing down there in this part of low country.
I have a very early day today sigh. It's dark out and I am not prepared for yet another day and I should not be going on but man I need some down time. But as usual am about out of it and have to start getting ready in between trying to catch up some. I miss having time to read much or watch much to be up on more in cases. Like the affidavits here. I would have read them by now in a normal life.
Then there was the Delphi stuff, the Kouri Richins stuff, etc. and more and I've barely had a chance to look thoroughly at any of them.
