PAUL & MAGGIE MURDAUGH: South Carolina vs. Alex Murdaugh for Double Homicide of wife & son *GUILTY*

1623728103817.png
This case is being kept pretty quiet, no major details released to speak of (other than it does say there were two different guns used), but no info regarding who found them, who called 911, very little else.

Of interest, the grandfather died just a few days after these murders and it sounds as if he was ill from various articles so probably not unexpected. I think of the typical motives, did grandpa have a big estate? How big in the overall family of grandpa's on down? They sound like a pretty well known family and a powerful one in their state, more on that in the article.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok. So it isn't double jeopardy then?
No, not at all. It's totally legit. I do think however and feel in many cases this thought of "why aren't the feds charging too" as they don't always do so.

Daybell would be an example, why isn't Lori being charged by the feds for cheating social security and continuing to collect for Tylee re Joe Ryan, etc.? I doens't have to be the same crime a state had charged for either, or it can be. Sometimes I think some are just considered small potatoes so they don't OR enough is being charged against them at state level they don't deem it necessary, not sure.

In this case, the crimes violated both federal and state laws. Each is its own entity is the best I can put it. They are charging for the same crimes in this one but no, it isn't double jeopardy. The state didn't try them twice for the very same crime. It is the feds doing so. It may seem odd and like I said the one lawyer doesn't feel it right because it is the same crime in many cases being charged but it is the way it is and always has been that I know of. as she will say too.

Some types of cases the state lets the feds charges and doesn't bother themselves. Bank robberies would be an example often. Banks are federal. Human trafficiking or drug trafficking are usually federal, and the investigations are too, crossing state lines. Take a look at the DOJ website sometime, I used to follow to see what federal cases there were there, it seems to be a little know thing most people know they can do.

In this case, the federal charges bother me just a bit in that every one of these men would probably rather do their time in fed prison than state. And connections wouldn't be hard to believe. HOWEVER, the crimes are many and big enough and their damage to the justice system and that of trusting professionals is also big enough that federal charges make sense to me and why they would bother...

I don't know sh*t, am no expert but these are my thoughts. But no, it is not double jeopardy. Not in the least.
 
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.
She maintained she had not spoken to her ex in years when she was questioned at the time IIRC.

I did look at the AG response and the defence have so many days to resubmit with an affidavit from Murdaugh and a date/dates of when they discovered the issues. So we will have to look at another 65 pager so probably best to wait for that.
 
Federal plea deal includes a lie detector test.


Alex Murdaugh pleads guilty to 22 federal crimes​

In United States District Court of South Carolina, Murdaugh pleaded to a total of 22 federal charges, including:

  • One count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud;
  • One count of bank fraud;
  • Five counts of wire fraud;
  • One count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud;
  • 14 counts of money laundering.
The plea agreement states that Murdaugh's pattern of criminal activity dates back to July of 2011.
 
So I caught only minutes of a STS episode today during a 1/2 hour lunch that I had to use minutes of for other things, Blaand as he often does, he had Eric Bland on along with two female attorneys.

Bland is the one in the boat case, etc. on the RIGHT side. He said more than he has shared previously about it but I have mentioned before his jurors he represents are not going to align with the defense's claims basically (paraphrasing). At the time I believed it to be two he had. He has FOUR jurors he is representing pro bono. He confirmed they are NOT the ones the defense has affidavits from. Those are represented I believe or 2 of them by he said some attorney I forget who IS a good buddy of Pooter. He SAID the NOW FOUR are not telling the same story the defense is whatsoever and it does not align. A female attorney asked him what about the Clerk and those claims and I didn't think he'd answer more and he said they don't have the same story about that EITHER. All quite different. He went on to say he doesn't know what the other four or five would say, I guess he was taking is it Poot's three, his four, that makes seven and that leaves five of a 12 person jury?

He remarked about about Poot's threatening jurors in his PC that they better lawyer up as the reason he felt a need to offer services free to any juror. Said he has NEVER seen a lawyer that threatened jurors who gave up something like six weeks of their lives for $15 a day or something like that.

I watched MINUTES of this. I LIKE Bland and have seen not a single reason not to. He had Alex shaking in his boots at the no chance to settle, etc. Imo.

His jurors that he represents have doubled since I last saw him and he says unequivocally all four he feels safe in saying will have far different versions of things than the defense does about it ALL including the clerk. One can guess that also means that NOTHING went on as is said. There was something to about no pressure, it being their verdict or some such.

Again this was in MINUTES on a lunch hour. If I watch one thing tonight it will likely have to be that and not Delphi or Richins or any others, IF I even get a chance for that one.

I keep saying I will wait for this to shake out and I will. When I look at the two sides and who the defense IS and who they represent(!) when it comes to corruption, bribes, running around hopsitals and the county (Alex) getting clients to sue him and trying to tell witnesses in the boating accident who to say the operator was, etc. ), I lean one way MOST DEFINITELY as to who is lying or bribing or whatever here. And who NEEDS something like this, THEY DO and WHO would pull strings, bribe, etc.

These jurors (at least all the ones not dealing with Poot and his buddy) do not deserve this and thank goodness they have someone who will have their back if they feel the need to have someone (the other five should think about it).

I will say this, something hokey is going on here and there is ONE side of all of these people that would do such things. Not the majority of the jurors, and not the prosecution nor judge imo, clerk I will leave debatable as well as the jurors the defense has...

He's very professional and down to earth, Bland, he even said if they have what they say they have then there should be a new trial. But then went on to say when asked the truth from his jurors he is pretty sure won't support it and who knows what the ones not heard from will say, he just knows what his say. Paraphrasing I am of course.

So despite teh defense filing and all the hoopla it made, with others now it isn't sounding so absolutely shocking as it was. I didn't believe the MIB entirely anyhow...

Finally in the FEW minutes at the start of this show I got, there was a comment by a viewer saying he agreed with Bland how wrong it was for Poot to threaten jurors and while wearing his shades no less. LOL. That's going to stick the MIB, Men in Black, but I'm going to add old to it. And perhaps corrupt. And maybe condescending and chauvinistic...

Now we need to wait for the other side on the Delphi thing. Yeah such filings make a big splash because only one side came in out of the blue and created that splash and it takes time to hear the other side... We are starting to hear.

I believe the defense has ten days to correct their filing. Not sure from what date, probably the date of the AG accepted filing/response.
 
@Tresir and for anyone else who might follow this case, just listen to the first 18 minutes (and you may want to continue after that but just do that much lol) It starts out talking of Ellen Greenburg whose case could use attention but then goes into Murdaugh and Eric Bland is on sharing what he CAN or is allowed to by his clients, four jurors in this case.

I know you tresir have said you like written words and articles over videos but this is an attorney who is related to more than one Murdaugh case and who represents the "good side". He was just heard in the financial crimes, I believe he was on the stand in the murder trial and now he represents FOUR jurors. Written news articles sometimes aren't the same. Anyhow I am asking you to listen to the first 13 minutes and you can go on after if you like.

I'm not saying the defense claim is all bogus and neither is he BUT hear what he says about what his clients feel and will say and this whole thing is far from AS the defense says and far from an all true on one side deal, that much is clear.

No written article can give you what is being said here. He just said there isn't a decent bone in Poot's body and one of the female attorneys just said they came off as dickheads in the press conference.

NOTHING about Bland comes across to me as sensational, he spends time on these shows and he helps the families and now the jurors and he KNOWS the people he is talking of like Poot ane even then he doesn't go as far as he could about their claims, he does it the right way and does his job.

You are into this case and if you are, I think you need to see this. No article is going to give you what this does and he is integral in this case.

I'd recommend it to anyone who has followed the recent stuff by the defense in this case. These jurors or so it sounds have a far different story to tell. They aren't just protecting their butts I don't think if at all, they disagree with what is being claimed. My opinion anyhow.

 
I noticed myself during the press conference all the bluster at first when they were running it was one thing but Poot and Griff kind of faltered when questions were asked by the press.

Bland says there seems to be a real hit Griff knew this was going on during the trial and that is something hinted at too in the AG response, WHEN did they know because time matters as to IF you said anything when you first knew, etc. as I recall it in the AG response.

Worth watching.

I said earlier I first caught part of this on lunch break and I only now got to go find it and start watching the rest...

Here's another thought, anyone who just does news, I doubt news is covering what Bland is saying here, that would take work by the press or his seeking media out.

A bit sideways but I thought he was awesome last week in court on behalf of his clients in the financial crimes. Just a GOOD attorney seeking no spotlight, just representing his clients.
 
I noticed myself during the press conference all the bluster at first when they were running it was one thing but Poot and Griff kind of faltered when questions were asked by the press.

Bland says there seems to be a real hit Griff knew this was going on during the trial and that is something hinted at too in the AG response, WHEN did they know because time matters as to IF you said anything when you first knew, etc. as I recall it in the AG response.

Worth watching.

I said earlier I first caught part of this on lunch break and I only now got to go find it and start watching the rest...

Here's another thought, anyone who just does news, I doubt news is covering what Bland is saying here, that would take work by the press or his seeking media out.

A bit sideways but I thought he was awesome last week in court on behalf of his clients in the financial crimes. Just a GOOD attorney seeking no spotlight, just representing his clients.
I will try and watch it today but I like to see stuff in writing. Jurors speaking to a lawyer with no affidavits doesn't really mean much IMO. Does Bland identify his jurors by giving their juror numbers for example?

Things that need to be answered IMO -Were the jurors split up into two rooms as alleged? If that is true, were they split based on their guilty/not guilty viewpoints or on something else eg gender/smokers/married/race etc

Why were there two jury forepersons? Was the egg juror the first foreperson?

What are the full details of the egg juror disqualification, especially as it is now the subject of a motion for a new trial?

Just checked out the Delphi thread. OMG Odinists?
 
Last edited:
The way I see this is that the egg juror was one of the holdouts (I think it was 9 jurors said guilty and 3 said they were wanting to discuss it) so the clerk went online and found (or made up) the ex husbands comment that he was blabbing about his ex wife talking about the case. The next day she went to the judge and told him about it but the post was now gone and there was just an apology post. The judge dismissed the juror anyway. Without the egg juror holding out - they came to a quick decision.
 
This is an article about the final day of closing arguments. This is when the juror was dismissed and replaced with an alternate. The prosecution closing was the previous day.

 
Worth continuing. Bland knows them both and is friendly with Griffin and even though he knew Poot he doesn't talk to him at all any more, it is just too toxic.

Kind of shows what has happened in this area and the serious splits of people and sides, etc.

The above is finishing a comment I didn't finish last night as I was exhausted and went to bed go figure lol. Still am hours later.

Listening to more of it right now. It sounds like one of the affidavits is from the new juror who replaced the egg juror? Of interest they are also saying egg juror cooperated with defense from the start.

I did not know this, the defense was not ready to try this case. They asked for a speedy trial believing it would never happen and prosecution wouldn't be ready and prosecution surprised them and said let's do it basically and they were caught not ready (Poot and Griff). All four agree on this, say this. Well that's interesting. I did feel there was NO defense worth a lick during this trial but then what kind of defense is there for Alex, especially with his lies is what I kind of figured...
 
I will try and watch it today but I like to see stuff in writing. Jurors speaking to a lawyer with no affidavits doesn't really mean much IMO. Does Bland identify his jurors by giving their juror numbers for example?

Things that need to be answered IMO -Were the jurors split up into two rooms as alleged? If that is true, were they split based on their guilty/not guilty viewpoints or on something else eg gender/smokers/married/race etc

Why were there two jury forepersons? Was the egg juror the first foreperson?

What are the full details of the egg juror disqualification, especially as it is now the subject of a motion for a new trial?

Just checked out the Delphi thread. OMG Odinists?
I disagree. Those affidavits mean no more to me than what he is confirming his jurors will say. They may even mean less to me as the defense sought the jurors out and in Bland's case, jurors came to him with their facts. No, he does not give their numbers nor their names. However, the four sound to be giving similar accounts and unanimously and of course he is not going to out them.

I agree about if the jurors were split and why should be known. It seems unlikely at least with deliberations, was it said it was during the trial or with deliberations. IF true, I'd almost guess it was the smokers maybe wanting to be nearer to an outside exit but who knows and who knows what is true either at this point. Not for a minute do I believe they were split by race but I guess gender may be a possibility only if it related to where each bathroom may be located. I don't see this necessarily as a big deal and is maybe one that like the smoking thing is a lot of hot air over nothing. If it was not over deliberations (I can't recall?) then it really isn't unless divided intentionally for some nefarious reason. Our jurors could leave at lunch like everyone else, etc. make phone calls, go outside, go get a bite to eat with the normal directions of not discussing the trial with others, etc. It would very much depend what actually went on whether by choice or otherwise. You'd have to refresh me on what Pooter said re this.

Bland makes some remark that there were some things that disturbed the jurors during trial. They seem to relate to behavior by the egg juror as far as I can tell and perhaps the defense. I haven't listened to it all even YET, so little time I get in life which is getting VERY old, sigh.

I recall it being said that it was not normal or typical in some's mind for a judge to name a foreperson when apparently the jury already had one they decided on was it? Total speculation on my part but maybe someone appointed themselves one and others were not okay with it OR others appointed one and all were not in agreement with it and voiced it? I don't know where this thought comes from with me and it is just MY thought that pops into my head but perhaps he felt just him naming one would end any issues or something as it came from the judge? Since I FEEL Newman to be a moral and stellar judge (hopefully correct), I have to think there was a good and sound reason.

As I write this, I am starting to feel the egg lady was perhaps an issue throughout with other jurors...? Why am I thinking that? Little pieces of this and that coming together in my subconscious because I don't know where it is coming from...? I'm probably tired and not coffeed up and have it wrong lol.

Egg lady is front and center for various reasons. I am starting to think she was an issue and not because she thought him innocent. OMG is she the one that handed Alex a tissue? Oh boy. Or am I mixing up my cases?

Speaking of mixing up cases, yeah there is a lot breaking news on a few of them and I certainly can't keep up with it and it appears no one else is either. This case, Delphi and yeah Odinists, Greenburg, Richins and more...
 
The way I see this is that the egg juror was one of the holdouts (I think it was 9 jurors said guilty and 3 said they were wanting to discuss it) so the clerk went online and found (or made up) the ex husbands comment that he was blabbing about his ex wife talking about the case. The next day she went to the judge and told him about it but the post was now gone and there was just an apology post. The judge dismissed the juror anyway. Without the egg juror holding out - they came to a quick decision.
I don't think it is quite that cut and dried.

And whether she found or made up the post is a big factor.

And it doesn't explain why there happened to be an apology post, what are the odds that a similar or almost matching name made one for something? So either that one which was actually seen was crafted by the clerk or a "friend" or there was something to it all.

I would state just for the record that clerks and judges, etc. CAN follow things online, nothing against it.

It needs to be known what else if anything was found when questioning the egg jury by the judge AND what if any other issues there were regarding her during the course of the trial.

I am starting to reverse something in my head versus what the defense wants us to believe... WHAT if she was he defense's Ace in the Hole and it was becoming suspected by the other jurors...? Maybe there was another reason the defense was not ready for trial than they thought the State would never be ready on time and counted on it... Maybe they knew they had their "ringer"... Poot was way too relaxed for who he is during that trial... I think it bears keeping in mind who Alex and his attorney are and what they are capable of...

This is just starting to form for me as I wake up more and I will leave it there. to be pondered... The hardest thing sometimes and something I forget is we all have to remember we are seeing what they want us to see and one has to look at the why and what is NOT being said as they craft something all go for or latch onto to turn the focus and direction...

Right now I find myself wanting to know how this egg juror acted throughout with the other jurors etc.
 
man I have to get read for work but again WORTH watching. now they are saying no way did Poot and Griff go on dirt roads and were the first to knock on juror's doors as they claim, they would send an investigator first because they don't want to be called as a witness in their own sh*t... Hmmm. The three are lawyers and ONE is in the Murdaugh cases, stuff, on victims' side and they are well versed on the laws and ways of things.
 
Interesting part about Alex Murdaugh's history of fixing juries, and factual testimony by Attorney Mark Tinsley about it at the murder trial being discussed. in response to a viewer question...
 
Oh cripes didn't know this. If I have it right. So the House Minority leader of the State of SC represents/ed LaFitte. When Alex was on a leash, surrounded by not just deputies but SWAT members and more in court, the same man Ales was allowed to go talk to hug, shake hands with and talk to. This State and what goes on there is outrageous. I knew Poot and Alex had higher up political connections atlhough I can't name them all. I diid NOT know LaFitte was represented by someone with such connections and who is a State politician.
 
They are going so many different directions with different appeals, such as in the boat case and more, questions as to how Poot is getting paid. Bland stopped the $160,000 they tried to get so no money, etc. This came up in response to a question as to whether the four million from Alex's dad remains untouchable. It does allegedly. Dad had 16 mill divided between four kids. Sadly, we know if Alex could touch it, he'd be through it in an instant even if free in a usual lifestyle. Sounds like a lot of money until one thinks of what Alex can go through in six months.

Anyhow, these shows have details, a lot of it due to Bland, that we will never hear in the news and elsewhere. I have always wondered about dad's estate and have never been able to get an answer anywhere.
 
I disagree. Those affidavits mean no more to me than what he is confirming his jurors will say. They may even mean less to me as the defense sought the jurors out and in Bland's case, jurors came to him with their facts. No, he does not give their numbers nor their names. However, the four sound to be giving similar accounts and unanimously and of course he is not going to out them.

I agree about if the jurors were split and why should be known. It seems unlikely at least with deliberations, was it said it was during the trial or with deliberations. IF true, I'd almost guess it was the smokers maybe wanting to be nearer to an outside exit but who knows and who knows what is true either at this point. Not for a minute do I believe they were split by race but I guess gender may be a possibility only if it related to where each bathroom may be located. I don't see this necessarily as a big deal and is maybe one that like the smoking thing is a lot of hot air over nothing. If it was not over deliberations (I can't recall?) then it really isn't unless divided intentionally for some nefarious reason. Our jurors could leave at lunch like everyone else, etc. make phone calls, go outside, go get a bite to eat with the normal directions of not discussing the trial with others, etc. It would very much depend what actually went on whether by choice or otherwise. You'd have to refresh me on what Pooter said re this.

Bland makes some remark that there were some things that disturbed the jurors during trial. They seem to relate to behavior by the egg juror as far as I can tell and perhaps the defense. I haven't listened to it all even YET, so little time I get in life which is getting VERY old, sigh.

I recall it being said that it was not normal or typical in some's mind for a judge to name a foreperson when apparently the jury already had one they decided on was it? Total speculation on my part but maybe someone appointed themselves one and others were not okay with it OR others appointed one and all were not in agreement with it and voiced it? I don't know where this thought comes from with me and it is just MY thought that pops into my head but perhaps he felt just him naming one would end any issues or something as it came from the judge? Since I FEEL Newman to be a moral and stellar judge (hopefully correct), I have to think there was a good and sound reason.

As I write this, I am starting to feel the egg lady was perhaps an issue throughout with other jurors...? Why am I thinking that? Little pieces of this and that coming together in my subconscious because I don't know where it is coming from...? I'm probably tired and not coffeed up and have it wrong lol.

Egg lady is front and center for various reasons. I am starting to think she was an issue and not because she thought him innocent. OMG is she the one that handed Alex a tissue? Oh boy. Or am I mixing up my cases?

Speaking of mixing up cases, yeah there is a lot breaking news on a few of them and I certainly can't keep up with it and it appears no one else is either. This case, Delphi and yeah Odinists, Greenburg, Richins and more...
No, the old foreperson is the one who passed him a tissue. I don't think the egg juror was the old foreperson. According to the affidavits, the egg juror plus two other jurors were in one room and the others (9) were in the other room so I am wondering if they were divided based on guilty versus undecided/not guilty.

It wasn't split by the smokers because there were six smokers apparently. I found this out today by reading the affidavits again.

Regarding Murdaugh $16 million estate, that's something new I hadn't heard but probably that will be all in a trust that is untouchable, I bet.
 
Last edited:
Oh cripes didn't know this. If I have it right. So the House Minority leader of the State of SC represents/ed LaFitte. When Alex was on a leash, surrounded by not just deputies but SWAT members and more in court, the same man Ales was allowed to go talk to hug, shake hands with and talk to. This State and what goes on there is outrageous. I knew Poot and Alex had higher up political connections atlhough I can't name them all. I diid NOT know LaFitte was represented by someone with such connections and who is a State politician.
Clearly that's why he still hasn't been jailed yet.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,010
Messages
241,048
Members
969
Latest member
SamiraMill
Back
Top Bottom