Connect with us

News

Alex Murdaugh ‘destroyed’ by fatal shootings of wife and son, surviving son testifies at double murder trial | CNN

Published

on

Alex Murdaugh ‘destroyed’ by fatal shootings of wife and son, surviving son testifies at double murder trial | CNN



CNN
 — 

Alex Murdaugh was “destroyed” by the deadly shootings of his spouse and son, his surviving son testified in his father’s double homicide trial Tuesday, because the protection labored to counter prosecutors’ allegations that Murdaugh is answerable for the killings.

“He was heartbroken. I walked within the door and noticed him, gave him a hug,” Buster Murdaugh stated of seeing his father within the hours after he discovered his mom, Margaret “Maggie” Murdaugh, and youthful brother, 22-year-old Paul Murdaugh, had been fatally shot. Alex Murdaugh was “simply damaged down,” Buster stated, including his father was crying and couldn’t actually communicate.

Buster Murdaugh was the third witness referred to as by the protection, which started its case Friday after prosecutors referred to as greater than 60 witnesses to bolster their argument Alex Murdaugh, 54, killed his spouse and son on the household’s Islandton property on June 7, 2021, in an try to distract from his alleged monetary crimes, which had been being quickly uncovered and for which he now faces 99 prices individually from the murders.

Alex Murdaugh has pleaded not responsible to 2 counts of homicide and two weapons prices within the killings, and the protection has painted Murdaugh as a loving father and husband being wrongfully accused after what it says has been a poorly dealt with investigation.

Advertisement

Within the final three weeks of the trial, prosecutors have tried to beat the shortage of any direct proof – similar to an eyewitness – tying Murdaugh to the killings. As a substitute, their case has relied closely on circumstantial proof that they are saying reveals Murdaugh lied to investigators and was on the scene simply minutes earlier than the killings.

His protection attorneys have criticized the prosecutors’ case as speculative and waved off their deal with his alleged monetary schemes as irrelevant.

The protection used Buster Murdaugh on Tuesday to undermine the testimony of a state witness who informed the court docket late final month he believed Alex Murdaugh inadvertently confessed to finishing up the murders whereas talking to investigators.

The witness, South Carolina Regulation Enforcement Division Particular Agent Jeff Croft, stated he believed Murdaugh stated “I did him so unhealthy” in reference to Paul’s physique throughout an emotional interview with investigators on June 10, 2021.

Advertisement

Croft didn’t observe up concerning the assertion, nevertheless, and the protection maintained Murdaugh as an alternative stated, “They did him so unhealthy” – a declare Buster backed up Tuesday.

The tape of the June 10, 2021, interview was not the primary time he’d heard his father say, “They did him so unhealthy,” Buster stated.

“The primary time I heard him say that was the evening that I went all the way down to Moselle,” he stated, referring to the Islandton property, “the evening of June the seventh.”

“Did he say that multiple time?” protection legal professional Jim Griffin requested.

“He did,” Buster stated.

Advertisement

The protection additionally sought to counter the testimony of a caretaker for Murdaugh’s mom, who testified for the state that Murdaugh visited his mom’s dwelling in Almeda the evening of the killings between 8:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. The caretaker, Mushell “Shelly” Smith, cared for Murdaugh’s mom from 8 p.m. to eight a.m. and testified late evening visits had been uncommon.

However the household adopted no set schedule when visiting his grandparents, which his father did typically.

“It might have been any time. We went over at lunch a number of instances, went over within the evenings so much, simply no actual set schedule,” Buster stated. “Simply form of mosey on over there.”

Earlier than his loss of life, Paul Murdaugh was being bullied on social media and in public for his alleged involvement in a February 2019 boat crash that killed 19-year-old Mallory Seaside, Buster Murdaugh testified, describing social media messages his brother obtained and confrontations in bars.

Paul had pleaded not responsible to prices in connection to the accident, and court docket information present the costs had been dropped after his loss of life.

Advertisement

Folks had been sending Paul messages concerning the crash, Buster stated, and “a number of instances he’d be strolling down the sidewalk and, you realize, a automotive comes by and they’d yell some stuff at him.”

“I knew he would exit at a bar and there’s anyone that wishes to speak about it, make a scuff about it,” Buster stated.

The accident and the following backlash from the neighborhood “form of consumed” his 52-year-old mom, Buster stated.

“She (was) massive on studying all of it. And when she learn the unfavorable stuff, you realize, (it) made her really feel upset and whatnot, and it in the end form of induced her to distance herself from Hampton,” the place the household had lengthy lived, he stated. Maggie felt folks on the town had been “looking at her and speaking about her,” Buster stated, and she or he stopped going to the grocery shops and pharmacy there.

Alex Murdaugh was sued by Seaside’s household after the boat crash, and prosecutors pointed to the lawsuit as a possible catalyst for the killings: Witnesses who testified for the state described a listening to in that case, set to happen three days after the deadly shootings, which might have revealed the state of Murdaugh’s funds and his alleged misdeeds. The listening to was canceled after the killings.

Advertisement

However Alex Murdaugh by no means appeared “overly anxious” concerning the civil case, Buster stated Tuesday. The felony case towards Paul was the precedence, he stated, as a result of “none of us thought that he was driving the boat” on the time of the accident.

The protection appeared to recommend final week that the killings may very well be associated to a monetary dispute with a drug gang, saying Murdaugh was shopping for $50,000 price of medicine every week from a person who was in important debt to a gang.

Alex Murdaugh cries while listening to his son, Buster Murdaugh, testify during his trial Tuesday.

Murdaugh’s legal professionals have beforehand acknowledged he struggles with an opioid habit and prosecutors offered proof Friday displaying Paul confronted his father a few stash of tablets a month earlier than he and his mom had been killed.

Buster testified Tuesday he “knew a little bit bit about” his father’s drug use, saying he was conscious that his brother and mom had discovered tablets. He described a number of efforts by his father to deal with his habit, together with going to a detox facility round Christmas in 2018.

Buster “thought that that dealt with it,” however there have been “a pair extra instances” his brother and mom would discover extra tablets.

Advertisement

Buster wasn’t current when his father was confronted about his drug use, he testified, however believed his response was largely “apologetic and sorry.”

Buster Murdaugh’s testimony Tuesday was adopted by that of Mike Sutton, a forensic engineer who labored to recreate the scene of the killings and testified that Alex Murdaugh couldn’t be the shooter as a result of he’s too tall.

Sutton analyzed bullet holes discovered on the scene, notably one left in a quail pen, in addition to the placement of shell casings discovered by Maggie’s physique to find out the trajectory bullets adopted after they had been fired. Based mostly on his evaluation, Sutton stated, the trajectory of the bullet would make sense if the shooter was between 5 ft 2 inches and 5 ft 4 inches tall.

If the gunman was taller, it could have required the shooter to carry the weapon in a low place – from the hip, for instance. Sutton indicated it could be even much less lifelike if the shooter had been as tall as Alex Murdaugh, who stands at about 6 ft 4 inches, requiring the killer to fireside whereas crouching over and holding the gun as little as his knees.

“It places the shooter or whoever fired the weapon, in the event that they had been that tall, it places them in an unrealistic capturing place,” Sutton stated. “It’s not an aiming place, it’s not a capturing place. … It will be very troublesome. You would need to be bending over and have your capturing hand down at or beneath your kneecap.”

Advertisement

“It simply makes it impossible {that a} tall particular person made that shot,” Sutton stated.

Sutton additionally analyzed the acoustics of gunfire on the scene, telling the court docket it was attainable for somebody to be inside the home and never hear a gun – just like the .300 Blackout rifle believed to have killed Maggie – fired on the property’s canine kennels, the place the our bodies had been discovered.

“You wouldn’t be capable of hear it,” Sutton stated.

“And the shotgun, I assume, was quieter, so I assume even much less of a chance to listen to that,” protection legal professional Dick Harpootlian stated.

“There have been instances we fired the shotgun, and in a quiet home you couldn’t hear it in any respect,” Sutton stated.

Advertisement

Prosecutor David Fernandez sought to undercut Sutton’s testimony throughout cross-examination, establishing that whereas his major experience is in accident reconstruction, he has no certification or coaching in reconstructing capturing incidents. Sutton has carried out unpublished research and assessments on bullet trajectories, he stated.

Fernandez questioned Sutton on his findings {that a} 5-feet-two-inch tall particular person was answerable for firing the weapon, asking Sutton if it was attainable that the cartridge casings from the fired bullets had been moved on the scene or ricocheted, which might affect his calculations. Sutton acknowledged it was attainable.

Sutton additionally acknowledged that the ammunition he used within the acoustics check was, whereas related, not the precise buckshot utilized in Paul Murdaugh’s homicide.

Moreover, Sutton testified he was employed by protection legal professional Jim Griffin to research the 2019 boat crash that killed Mallory Seaside previous to the murders.

Advertisement

News

Trumps to Attend ‘Les Misérables’ at Kennedy Center

Published

on

Trumps to Attend ‘Les Misérables’ at Kennedy Center

President Trump and the first lady, Melania Trump, are scheduled to attend the opening night performance of “Les Misérables” at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Wednesday night.

In some sense it is the culmination of the Trump takeover of the national cultural center. The president appointed himself chairman of the Kennedy Center in February, purged the traditionally bipartisan board and restocked it with loyalists. In March, he took a tour and met with his new board. “We’re going to get some very good shows,” he said at the time. “I guess we have ‘Les Miz’ coming.”

Mr. Trump’s tightening grip has upset a number of artists, and some members of the cast were expected to boycott the performance.

“Les Misérables” has long been one of Mr. Trump’s favorite shows, and the opening on Wednesday was expected to be a big night out on the town for the president’s friends and top allies, complete with a red carpet.

The flashy outing, to a musical with its climactic moments celebrating an anti-government uprising, coincides with one of the most volatile weeks of Mr. Trump’s second term.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s administration has sent soldiers from the California National Guard and the Marines into Los Angeles in response to days of protests over immigration raids.

Those deployments — over the objections of state and local officials there — have set off an extraordinary standoff between Mr. Trump and California’s governor, Gavin Newsom. In a televised address on Tuesday night, Mr. Newsom accused Mr. Trump of mounting an attack on democracy: “The moment we’ve feared has arrived.”

Continue Reading

News

Pentagon launches review of Aukus nuclear submarine deal

Published

on

Pentagon launches review of Aukus nuclear submarine deal

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

The Pentagon has launched a review of the 2021 Aukus submarine deal with the UK and Australia, throwing the security pact into doubt at a time of heightened tension with China.

The review to determine whether the US should scrap the project is being led by Elbridge Colby, a top defence department official who previously expressed scepticism about Aukus, according to six people familiar with the matter.

Ending the submarine and advanced technology development agreement would destroy a pillar of security co-operation between the allies. The review has triggered anxiety in London and Canberra.

Advertisement

While Aukus has received strong support from US lawmakers and experts, some critics say it could undermine the country’s security because the navy is struggling to produce more American submarines as the threat from Beijing is rising.

Australia and Britain are due to co-produce an attack submarine class known as the SSN-Aukus that will come into service in the early 2040s. But the US has committed to selling up to five Virginia class submarines to Australia from 2032 to bridge the gap as it retires its current fleet of vessels.

That commitment would almost certainly lapse if the US pulled out of Aukus.

Last year, Colby wrote on X that he was sceptical about Aukus and that it “would be crazy” for the US to have fewer nuclear-powered attack submarines, known as SSNs, in the case of a conflict over Taiwan.

In March, Colby said it would be “great” for Australia to have SSNs but cautioned there was a “very real threat of a conflict in the coming years” and that US SSNs would be “absolutely essential” to defend Taiwan.

Advertisement

Sceptics of the nuclear technology-sharing pact have also questioned whether the US should help Australia obtain the submarines without an explicit commitment to use them in any war with China.

Kurt Campbell, the deputy secretary of state in the Biden administration who was the US architect of Aukus, last year stressed the importance of Australia having SSNs that could work closely with the US in the case of a war over Taiwan. But Canberra has not publicly linked the need for the vessels to a conflict over Taiwan.

The review comes amid mounting anxiety among US allies about some of the Trump administration’s positions. Colby has told the UK and other European allies to focus more on the Euro-Atlantic region and reduce their activity in the Indo-Pacific.

One person familiar with the debate over Aukus said Canberra and London were “incredibly anxious” about the Aukus review.

“Aukus is the most substantial military and strategic undertaking between the US, Australia and Great Britain in generations,” Campbell told the Financial Times.

Advertisement

“Efforts to increase co-ordination, defence spending and common ambition should be welcomed. Any bureaucratic effort to undermine Aukus would lead to a crisis in confidence among our closest security and political partners.”

The Pentagon has pushed Australia to boost its defence spending. US defence secretary Pete Hegseth this month urged Canberra to raise spending from 2 per cent of GDP to 3.5 per cent. In response, Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese said: “We’ll determine our defence policy.” 

“Australia’s defence spending has gradually been increasing, but it is not doing so nearly as fast as other democratic states, nor at a rate sufficient to pay for both Aukus and its existing conventional force,” said Charles Edel, an Australia expert at the CSIS think-tank in Washington.

John Lee, an Australia defence expert at the Hudson Institute, said pressure was increasing on Canberra because the US was focusing on deterring China from invading Taiwan this decade. He added that Australia’s navy would be rapidly weakened if it did not increase defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP.

“This is unacceptable to the Trump administration,” said Lee. “If Australia continues on this trajectory, it is conceivable if not likely that the Trump administration will freeze or cancel Pillar 1 of Aukus [the part dealing with submarines] to force Australia to focus on increasing its funding of its military over the next five years.” 

Advertisement

One person familiar with the review said it was unclear if Colby was acting alone or as part of a wider effort by Trump administration. “Sentiment seems to be that it’s the former, but the lack of clarity has confused Congress, other government departments and Australia,” the person said. 

A Pentagon spokesperson said the department was reviewing Aukus to ensure that “this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president’s ‘America First’ agenda”. He added that Hegseth had “made clear his intent to ensure the [defence] department is focused on the Indo-Pacific region first and foremost”. 

Several people familiar with the matter said the review was slated to take 30 days, but the spokesperson declined to comment on the timing. “Any changes to the Administration’s approach for Aukus will be communicated through official channels, when appropriate,” he said.

A British government official said the UK was aware of the review. “That makes sense for a new administration,” said the official, who noted that the Labour government had also conducted a review of Aukus.

“We have reiterated the strategic importance of the UK-US relationship, announced additional defence spending and confirmed our commitment to Aukus,” the official added.

Advertisement

The Australian embassy in Washington declined to comment.

Continue Reading

News

Elon Musk says some of his social media posts about Trump 'went too far'

Published

on

Elon Musk says some of his social media posts about Trump 'went too far'

Elon Musk listens as President Trump speaks to reporters in the Oval Office on May 30. A week after the two traded social media disses and threats, Musk said Wednesday some of his posts “went too far.”

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Days after the very public breakup of President Trump and his former adviser Elon Musk, the latter appears to be doing damage control.

“I regret some of my posts about President [Trump] last week,” Musk posted on X, his social media platform, just after 3 a.m. ET on Wednesday. “They went too far.”

Trump has been active on social media early Wednesday, but has not responded publicly to Musk’s apology.

Advertisement

However, in a previously recorded podcast interview with the New York Post that aired on Wednesday morning, Trump said he had “no hard feelings” towards Musk.

“I don’t blame him for anything but I was a little disappointed,” Trump said, adding that he had not “thought too much about him in the last little while.”

When asked if he could forgive Musk, Trump said “I guess I could,” but that “my sole function now is getting this country back to a level higher than it’s ever been.”

The president told NBC News on Saturday that he has no desire to repair his relationship with Musk, saying he assumed it was over.

“I’m too busy doing other things,” Trump said, adding, “I have no intention of speaking to him.”

Advertisement

Trump was critical of Musk in that interview, saying the tech billionaire had been “disrespectful to the office of the president.”

But Trump also appeared to soften some of his stances. He said he hadn’t given any more thought to his earlier threat of canceling Musk’s companies’ federal contracts or investigating Musk’s immigration status, as Trump ally Steve Bannon had publicly suggested.

Meanwhile, Musk quietly deleted some of his more inflammatory tweets from the previous week, including posts endorsing a call for Trump’s impeachment, linking Trump to the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and saying Trump’s tariffs would cause a recession this year.

Trump said on Monday that he had no plans to discontinue Musk’s Starlink satellite internet system that was installed at the White House despite security concerns — though may move his Tesla, which he bought in March, off-site. And he told reporters he would not have a problem if Musk called.

“We had a good relationship, and I just wish him well — very well, actually,” Trump said. A clip of the exchange was posted to X, where Musk responded with a heart emoji.

Advertisement

The alliance that was 

The two had enjoyed a close relationship since 2024, when the tech billionaire poured almost $300 million into backing Trump’s reelection campaign.

Musk went on to join the new administration as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), becoming the public face of its controversial efforts to reshape the federal government even as government lawyers downplayed his role in court filings.

Musk’s whirlwind 130 days as a special government employee were marked by legal setbacks, clashes with Cabinet members and scant evidence to support DOGE’s claims of significant savings. His own business empire took a financial hit, with Tesla’s first-quarter profits plunging 71% compared to the same period in 2024.

Musk announced his departure from the government in late May, citing the end of his “scheduled time” in the position. At a final Oval Office press conference on May 30, Musk stood next to Trump as the president praised him as “one of the greatest business leaders and innovators the world has ever produced.”

But things soured quickly in the days that followed, fueled by Musk’s public criticisms of the president’s sweeping domestic policy bill, known as the “big, beautiful bill.” Musk wasted no time railing against what he called the “disgusting abomination,” saying it would increase the federal budget deficit and undermine DOGE’s cost-cutting efforts.

Advertisement

Trump and Musk’s war of words 

Social media sniping ensued.

Musk said Trump would have lost the election without his support, while Trump wrote that the “easiest way to save money” in the budget would be to terminate Musk’s federal subsidies and contracts, referring to Musk’s companies including Tesla and SpaceX.

Then Musk claimed without evidence that Trump’s Justice Department has not released the full Jeffrey Epstein files because Trump is in them — an allegation that Trump denied and called “old news” in a Saturday interview with NBC News.

While the White House did not directly comment on those allegations, press secretary Karoline Leavitt issued a statement denouncing the “unfortunate episode from Elon” and accusing him of opposing Trump’s bill because “it does not include the policies he wanted.” Trump has suggested Musk was disappointed because the bill proposes cutting subsidies for electric vehicles.

In his NBC News interview on Saturday, Trump suggested the feud with Musk had helped unite the Republican Party and made lawmakers see the benefits of his bill. It narrowly passed the House in May and remains under scrutiny in the Senate, where GOP leaders hope to pass it by July 4.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending