Lawyer Reacts: Murdaugh Dismissal Update: Ms. Becky Fires Back, More Jurors Speak, Is Someone Lying? 

Agreed

Exactly. I hate to see it come to that, but I can't see how it can be avoided if any of this stuff is true.

Absolutely! And if this is found to be true, serious consequences should be had.

​@@wesner326exactly, and that not only effects this case, they will have to look into a lot of cases, that clerk was involved with.

There's not going to be a new trial. It's a big desperate attempt by Poot Nanny and Bif Grif in the good ol boys club..

💯

@@Planet_Shel ​, and Becky Hill's book keeps pushing the strange ideas that people die when the batteries on their cell phones do and that a man would kill his wife and younger son to gain A LITTLE MORE SYMPATHY than he was already getting from the impending death of his own father. I am tired of repeating this but am in the middle of reading Becky Hill's book and discovering more lies in it and shocking facts in it. Mark Tinsley contributed a thousand dollars to Mushelle Smith's Go-Fund-Me page DURING HER TESTIMONY. If that is not brazen bribing of a witness, what is? Mark Tinsley coveted Moselle in violation of the Holy Commandment "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house" and testified he threatened Alex Murdaugh to "burn [his] house down." That the system STILL protects Becky Hill and Mark Tinsley is corruption incarnate.

Hi former prosecutor. Tell us more!

​@@ward26102, Someone suggested Jean Toal instead of Judge Newman to hold the evidentiary hearing. The former Active/Retired South Carolina Chief Justice, for all her good qualities, is the one who fostered and nurtured the NEPOTISM, NEPOTISM, AND THEN MORE NEPOTISM culture of judging in South Carolina. She may have inherited it from her predecessors; but she did NOTHING to end it. HERE IS A BETTER IDEA: bring the three living and mentally competent RETIRED U.S. Supreme Court Justices: Kennedy, Souter, and Bryer; and ask them to sit in a panel of three. Sandra Day O'Connor is still alive but she suffers from that which hit her mother and from which the late Justice Ginsburg had been spared. In many countries, trial judges sit in panels of three. These are the countries without jury systems. But since this is a fact-intensive finding, it would be appropriate to have a panel of three jurists. Retired Justice Breyer was appointed by Bill Clinton and is Jewish. Retired Justice Souter was appointed by GHW Bush (father) and is Episcopalian. Retired Justice Kennedy was appointed by Ronald Reagan and is Catholic. Of the three, only Souter served as a state trial judge in New Hampshire and liked to speak to jurors after trials. But Breyer was once himself summoned for jury duty and showed up. He was, of course, not chosen by either side because each side feared the rest of the jurors will follow what a then-sitting U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice thinks. So, this may be the next best thing to the jury service Breyer never got to accomplish if that is on his bucket list. Once confirmed by the U.S. Senate, a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is confirmed for life and may, after retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court, sit (and at least Souter and O'Connor sat) on the federal circuit courts of appeals. But there is no chance of Richard Alex Murdaugh's ("RAM") case ever going to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where Souter sometimes sat after retiring from the U.S. Supreme Court. In my opinion free from false humility, this is the only way this fractured country will ever have any confidence in any FACT-FINDING involving RAM. The only problem with this idea is whether three advanced octogenarians can be convinced to come to South Carolina, whether Colloton County or Columbia; but may be the lure of some sunny days to escape the fall/winter drear of Boston and New Hampshire may do the trick. No joke. Really.

@@ward26102, no one in South Carolina would tell this story in its full breadth. It can be a big scoop for you AFTER you fact-check, which should be easy enough if you have Becky Hill's book "Behind the Doors of Justice." It turns out not only Becky Hill and the jurors of the Alex Murdaugh case wanted "their 15 minutes" but they put their children, too, with them. In Becky "Boo" Hill's book page 191, you see a photo of Boo's daughter with this caption: Country music star, Dustin Lynch, and my "plus one" (daughter Aubrey) spent time together in NBC's The Today Show green room. TRANSLATION: At least Becky Hill AND HER DAUGHTER flew expense-free to New York with at least three jurors who voted guilty, each of which PRESUMABLY has a "plus one," too. So, at least 8 people had a luxury junket to New York paid for with the blood and tears of Paul, Maggie, and Alex Murdaugh. It gets even worse: At pages 59-60 of her book, Becky Hill writes: What I learned on our flight to New York City after the trial was that three close friends of his [meaning of a male juror who voted guilty] all chipped in and paid the financially strapped juror his regular salary. For all six weeks of the trial! Several thousand dollars. TRANSLATION: Thousands of dollars were being paid DIRECTLY from an outside source to a juror who voted guilty to enable him to stay on the jury. WHO ARE THOSE THREE CLOSE FRIENDS? Why was it important for them that THIS juror serve on the jury? Was that even their own money or were they funnelling it from an outside source? That is way, way, worse than anything Becky Hill admits to about her own misconduct.

Agreed. The DH and JG need to be punished for dragging this poor clerk though the MUD with little to no evidence. It's all smoke.

Puuurlease excuse my grammar OCD lol, but the word "an" (plaintiff) should only precede words beginning with A, E, I, O, U. ❤😂

@Denny yes, his defense team is completely desperate. But the fact that jurors who voted guilty reached out to his defense lawyers?? Thats not a common thing at all. Attorneys also would not come forward without any proof. Especially with their level of experience, it would destroy their careers if it was found to be fabricated. My personal opinion is that she saw an opportunity to become famous and jumped on it.

@@vinceishere8058 I'm confused. Dick has been doing that the this whole trial? Where did you get the information a juror reached out to them? It's my understanding, not even ONE juror who deliberated and convicted Alex, has corroborated their story?? Did you read the State's response? THEY destroyed them. Meanwhile, 9 of the jurors who DELIBERATED have given the state Statement in support of the Clerk... Just because DH says it, doesn't mean it's TRUE.. Yikes.. DH included an affidavit from an attorney on his team LOLL.. I mean c'mon, HEARSAY YA THINK? Have you thought for a second that the "Mastermind" behind the Murders came up with this bullshit scheme to "change" the public perception so they can keep him out of State Prison?

She quite thoroughly investigated with all of her superiors if what she was doing was okay re: the book.

@auto_mata This! 👆 I ran out of room on my comment, but this too erodes public trust in our justice system. Thanks for bringing it to the conversation.

@@Ieezecafun fact, they didn’t say she’s in the clear

@@Ieezeca If you read the inquiry she submitted (several RU-vid channels have covered it), it's clear she was less than forthcoming about her intentions for the book she wrote. I don't think you can call what she did a "thorough investigation." While it remains to be seen whether this lady is guilty of jury tampering, I agree with @auto_mata that her integrity and judgment are questionable at best.

I always thought it was sus that she released a book and especially so soon after the trial.

She's an idiot. She has already said that she planned to write a book before the trial even started.

Yee haw, we appreciate your service and rationality - from a fellow Dallasite👏🏼

Just want to say hello, fellow Texan here. Born and raised in Arlington.

And, as my Mother-Law- used to say, You don't mess with Texas.

Wait, you never had conversations with the jurors? if the jurors asked about lunch breaks, did you pass the question on to the judge? Isn't that kind of thing the Clerk's job?

The United States should be very careful about putting the Jury on Trial after the Verdict. This is troubling because now we have Jurors needing to obtain Attorneys. This will impact future Jurors and their witnesses to be involved in High Profile Cases and Violent Crime Cases.

So true. @@5paces164

The Prosecution's response is FULL of black holes and EVERYTHING about it is misleading. The first black hole is that ONE of the TWELVE who actually deliberated REFUSED to be voluntarily interviewed by SLED. If that juror WAS influenced by Becky Hill, it does NOT matter in any way how many others were not influenced. The misleading part is that Becky Hill's denials are limited and in quotes which is TECHNICALLY not perjury if one word in the quotes is different. For example, if she said "don't believe him" but she denies saying "don't credit him," it is misleading but TECHNICALLY not perjury. Therefore, it should be full confrontation, not limited to pre-restricted questions. Another "cutie" by Becky Hill is that she denies giving the jurors business cards of media people "during the trial." If she gave them those business cards BEFORE or AFTER the trial, then her affidavit is misleading but NOT TECHNICALLY perjury. There is nothing funny or amusing about a man innocent of two murders getting convicted because four people, AT THE VERY LEAST, wanted and got a free luxury trip to New York. People have killed for less than that. But this whole trial was for more than that: to extort Alex and Buster Murdaugh into settling the boat crash case. This is our world now. Face it.

They should focus on things that can be verified. Like the Facebook post and egg lady’s tenants. That’s not he said, she said.

No, there needs to be an Evidentiary hearing. Then if any impropriety, a new trial, qhich is a shame as Alex is clearly guilty, new trial will cost taxpayers, and it won't bring back Maghie and Paul.

@@melvonmonkers3823 No, it won't bring Maggie or Paul back and yes, unfortunately it will cost the taxpayers money, BUT it is something that MUST be done not just for Alex, but for everyone who has the right to a fair trial. I know it's hard to accept that a guilty man may get a new trial, but we can't simply let it go because we don't want to take the chance of a different result. If we don't give him a fair trial than we take away our own chances of a free trial. It has to be the same for everyone to protect everyone.

Exactly. The fact that there are conflicting stories about Becky Hill’s behavior, should be enough for a hearing to investigate. If the jurors said she was disappointed when they didn’t do news interviews? Why is she so personally invested in this case?

@@MarieAntoinetteandherlittlesis The Prosecution's response is FULL of black holes and EVERYTHING about it is misleading. The first black hole is that ONE of the TWELVE who actually deliberated REFUSED to be voluntarily interviewed by SLED. If that juror WAS influenced by Becky Hill, it does NOT matter in any way how many others were not influenced. The misleading part is that Becky Hill's denials are limited and in quotes which is TECHNICALLY not perjury if one word in the quotes is different. For example, if she said "don't believe him" but she denies saying "don't credit him," it is misleading but TECHNICALLY not perjury. Therefore, it should be full confrontation, not limited to pre-restricted questions. Another "cutie" by Becky Hill is that she denies giving the jurors business cards of media people "during the trial." If she gave them those business cards BEFORE or AFTER the trial, then her affidavit is misleading but NOT TECHNICALLY perjury. There is nothing funny or amusing about a man innocent of two murders getting convicted because four people, AT THE VERY LEAST, wanted and got a free luxury trip to New York. People have killed for less than that. But this whole trial was for more than that: to extort Alex and Buster Murdaugh into settling the boat crash case. This is our world now. Face it.

That is sus, wonder why?

@@BamaCyncuz she’s gona get pressed on her actions and what she said. She shld be questioned there’s too much to ignore.

@@imalwaysright88 That should have been AM, phone changed to AG🫠

No doubt it's similar / reflective of why SLED didn't want their casework re-investigated...

It was not “her” it was the jurors should not be “interrogated”. And I agree they should not be intimidated by attorneys from either side. Trust the judge to question them. He is an honorable man.

Question: Wasn't all this revealed in HER BOOK? I absolutely feel, like I did weeks ago, that he should get a re-trial. Where am I wrong here?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? These scummy, bottom feeders make an accusation as a hail mary to end run our legal system (after harassing jurors for finding their client guilty, which also should absolutely should never happen) and you want to fire her? These attorneys are a disgrace and continue to get down in the mud with this thief and murderer, a complete and utter disrespect to Maggie and Paul.

Her writing a book was in bad taste and just cringe. Its Like she has been waiting for a cash-grab case. Now she’s doing interviews and making money off these people’s deaths. I mean she didn’t even wait a year. It sets a bad precedent.

Agreed- her book likely wasn't illegal but definitely done in horrible taste & horrible timing! It was a gross ego fest!

Hi Sheila 🌹🌹 How are you doing?

And we know is near the truth because even the judge said on record that he was “unhappy with the clerk interrogating jurors”

I agree and believe she didn’t recently become this bold… she just got caught this time!

@@theghost4282 The Prosecution's response is FULL of black holes and EVERYTHING about it is misleading. The first black hole is that ONE of the TWELVE who actually deliberated REFUSED to be voluntarily interviewed by SLED. If that juror WAS influenced by Becky Hill, it does NOT matter in any way how many others were not influenced. The misleading part is that Becky Hill's denials are limited and in quotes which is TECHNICALLY not perjury if one word in the quotes is different. For example, if she said "don't believe him" but she denies saying "don't credit him," it is misleading but TECHNICALLY not perjury. Therefore, it should be full confrontation, not limited to pre-restricted questions. Another "cutie" by Becky Hill is that she denies giving the jurors business cards of media people "during the trial." If she gave them those business cards BEFORE or AFTER the trial, then her affidavit is misleading but NOT TECHNICALLY perjury. There is nothing funny or amusing about a man innocent of two murders getting convicted because four people, AT THE VERY LEAST, wanted and got a free luxury trip to New York. People have killed for less than that. But this whole trial was for more than that: to extort Alex and Buster Murdaugh into settling the boat crash case. This is our world now. Face it.

The alleged Facebook post situation had ZERO to do with why Juror 785 (egg juror) was dismissed. This was stated by Judge Newman, ON THE RECORD in open court. She was dismissed for discussing the case, giving her opinion, outside of court with 2 of her tenants.

@@melvonmonkers3823 doesn’t matter. If there were ANY conversations that Becky had with jurors about the case, it’s misconduct. A judge stating on record her apparent speaking with jurors to get her kicked off lend undoubted support to the other Murdaugh claims. New trial 100%

This isn't from the prosecution, its BH & her lawyer-the fluffy white haired man seated prominently during the trial.

​​​​@@Ieezecaahh okay! I thought he said in the beginning it was from the prosecution with her signed statement attached.

@@IeezecaBH called the jurors uncredible? If that’s true, they can’t be trusted to render a verdict, can they? That comment will Vite her in the ass

@@Gidget_Lynn It is the response to the defense's request from the prosecution, you're correct. Yes, Becky Hill completed her affidavit with the assistance of her counsel, but it is attached to th response from the prosecution.

The book was taking it to an yet untouched level of irresponsibility by a court clerk! An absolutley wild action to take, much less while the trial is still ongoing with appeals... 🤯

I agree, and didn't the judge have a concern that she was "mixed up" in that business where the one juror was dismissed because her ex husband said something on line...and it came out to NOT even be her ex husband? But Becky had her nose all up in it. Seems sketchy to me now, thinking, "Did Becky deceitfully get that juror removed for some reason?"

So agree, hope she gets removed from office at least.

Awesome! Bam!!

I feel all jurors should be asked if anything beyond the presented evidence influenced their verdict. If the answer is yes then there has to be a retrial. If no, then there should be no retrial. It is the tax payers hard earned money and resources should not be wasted . Appropriate action should be taken against Miss Becky. That’s justice - the law may differ.

IT was a fair trial😊

Ditto

For this reason I think all court hearings should be videoed live for the world to see so Judges like in the Delphi case can be seen and heard. There is a lot of this unfairness in court rooms and no one sees it.

The while purpose of the affidavits was about her and her actions, why would they be talking about closing arguments? And as for the Facebook thing, am I wrong or did she just make that up? Wasn't there no such post ever?

The Prosecution's response is FULL of black holes and EVERYTHING about it is misleading. The first black hole is that ONE of the TWELVE who actually deliberated REFUSED to be voluntarily interviewed by SLED. If that juror WAS influenced by Becky Hill, it does NOT matter in any way how many others were not influenced. The misleading part is that Becky Hill's denials are limited and in quotes which is TECHNICALLY not perjury if one word in the quotes is different. For example, if she said "don't believe him" but she denies saying "don't credit him," it is misleading but TECHNICALLY not perjury. Therefore, it should be full confrontation, not limited to pre-restricted questions. Another "cutie" by Becky Hill is that she denies giving the jurors business cards of media people "during the trial." If she gave them those business cards BEFORE or AFTER the trial, then her affidavit is misleading but NOT TECHNICALLY perjury. There is nothing funny or amusing about a man innocent of two murders getting convicted because four people, AT THE VERY LEAST, wanted and got a free luxury trip to New York. People have killed for less than that. But this whole trial was for more than that: to extort Alex and Buster Murdaugh into settling the boat crash case. This is our world now. Face it.

@@marieassaad-faltas1299 he got convicted because of the evidence.. mainly because of him lying about being at the kennel but then Paul's video surfaced later. . he was was done ..

@@frisbeeshawn5356, for the nth time, Paul's video has NO importance because the Prosecution's supposed time of death is incorrect. Please read my detailed previous posts about that.

@@marieassaad-faltas1299 While I'm not convinced of Alex innocence, I do question the time of death and the timeline after, both of which should result in doubts for any reasonable person. The prosecution is using body temperature obtained by placing fingers under the armpits of the deceased and the last time the deceased used their cell phones to set the time of death. There is no need to explain why the method used to obtain body temperature is neither scientific or accurate, it just isn't. It isn't even the standard method of practice, a thermometer is the standard. Why wasn't one used? As far as the cell phones, I question this because according to Apples testimony, Paul's phone had 2% battery life immediately after he made the Cash the dog kennel video. As a decades long iPhone user, I know that when my iPhone has 2% battery life, there is no point in attempting to do anything with the phone. At 2%, a phone call will not connect and a text message MAY send, but the phone will shut down immediately after, and a video? No video will send at 2% and that's precisely why Rogan didn't receive it. Isn't it just as possible Paul was alive, but simply not using his phone? As far as Maggie, same thing. Isn't it possible she just wasn't using her phone? She was at the kennels to tend to the dogs, not to be on her phone. Based upon her clothing, it's likely her phone wasn't on her person, but rather sitting somewhere while she was working. The "last" time they used their phones simply doesn't seem as relevant as the prosecution wants it to be, particularly when you think about Paul's battery. If I were on the jury during deliberations, I would have insisted upon working out the time of death and timeline to make sure it make sense before committing to a guilty verdict. The way in which the timeline stands, the prosecution wants us to believe that Alex committed two murders, cleaned up himself and the area, hid the weapons and his clothing, went back to the house and spent time there, made phone calls, left to go to his parents, and got rid of Maggie's phone, all in 16 minutes. I have a hard time with this. If the time of death is not accurate, then that gives Alex even less time to have completed all of those tasks, including the actual murders.

I wasted 38 minutes waiting for Becky to respond?

@@dandydon6049 I hope you don't get this the wrong way because a lot of people don't extend a friendly 🥰🥰🥰 hand to strangers. Forgive 🙏🙏 me if I just invaded your privacy. But I hope you understand that I'm just trying to be a friend☘️🌺communication and friendship 🙏. Thanks💕

If she is found to have tried to influence the jury, you’d have to go back and look at the other cases she oversaw. A very time consuming and expensive endeavour

That's what I believe she has don't. Shes an opinionated middle-aged brat. She would clearly do this in my opinion

@@sallyannchappell5671only if those jurors spoke up.

She's got a great track record of her many past trials .. . She goes by the book. .

Hi Dawn🌹🌹 How are you doing?

That’s one way to look at it. The other way is to think that she was trying to manage a huge trial in their small town and make everything flow smoothly, as her job required. Her mistake was to underestimate the slickness of Team Murdaugh

Hi Mary 🌹🌹 How are you doing?

As the daughter of 2 English teachers with sloppy cursive, I could read it, too. 😂 Seems Peter missed the juiciest part about the egg lady knowing ahead of time they were going to the crime scene (her husband told her). Seems that was one of the reasons she was dismissed? And perhaps something about talking to tenants. I agree there should be a hearing, to dispel the rumors, but am not convinced there was any tampering. I do believe B.H. showed poor professional judgement with the book and questioning the juror (judge's job, not hers).

People have a difficult time reading my handwriting because it is a mixture of cursive and print. 🤷🏼‍♀️

I have add and we have notoriously bad handwriting. It goes with the territory. High IQ, terrible people skills and even worse handwriting…

@@DGuidiciI meant premier 👍👍

Hi pretty 🌹🌹 How are you doing?

This is the second jab at a mistrial, Miss Hill at best opened herself up to this accusation. She gets a day in court. Those poor jurors were hiding in their own homes from HarP & his minions.

I think there should be more focus on this and egg juror’s claims because there’s a record for it. Everything else is he said, she said and how do you decide who is lying?

I think they need to be questioned by the judge. He's the impartial one.

@@CMA.3636 the defence attorneys are the adversarial ones - that is important.

She was also close to the judge. They could have thought she wasn’t included.

Hi Rhonda🌹🌹 How are you doing?

Hi Julia🌹🌹 How are you doing?

That wasn’t what was used to kick her off.

@@JJ-zr6fu her improperly communication against court orders was exactly what got her kicked off. the affidavit is further evidence of that