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
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Federal Workers Who Were Fired and Rehired by the Trump Administration

Published

on

Federal Workers Who Were Fired and Rehired by the Trump Administration

Even as the Trump administration continues to slash federal jobs, a number of federal agencies have begun to reverse course — reinstating some workers and pausing plans to dismiss others, sometimes within days of the firings.

Advertisement

Note: Some dates on the chart are approximate, based on available information.

The Office of Personnel Management on Tuesday revised earlier guidance calling for probationary workers to be terminated, adding a disclaimer that agencies would have the final authority over personnel actions. It is unclear how many more workers could be reinstated as a result.

Advertisement

Here’s a look at some of the back-and-forths so far:

Rehiring Some Essential Workers

Trump-appointed officials fired, then scrambled to rehire some employees in critical jobs in health and national security.

Advertisement

Workers reviewing food safety and medical devices

Advertisement

Around Feb. 15 The Food and Drug Administration fired about 700 probationary employees, many of whom were not paid through taxpayer money.

Advertisement

Workers involved in bird flu response

Advertisement
icon Around Feb. 14 The Department of Agriculture continued plans to fire thousands of employees, including hundreds in a plant and animal inspection program.
icon Days later The agency said it was trying to reverse the firings of some employees involved in responding to the nation’s growing bird flu outbreak.

Workers who maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal

Advertisement

icon Feb. 13 The Energy Department began laying off 1,000 of its probationary employees, including more than 300 who worked at the National Nuclear Security Administration, which maintains and secures the country’s nuclear warheads. A spokesperson for the Energy Department disputed that number, saying fewer than 50 at the N.N.S.A. were fired.

Rehired After Political Pushback

Advertisement

Public opposition from both Democrats and Republicans has also resulted in some fired workers getting called back.

Advertisement

Workers managing a 9/11 survivors’ health program

icon Around Feb. 15 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cut hundreds of employees, including 16 probationary workers who manage the World Trade Central Health Program, which administers aid to people who were exposed to hazards from the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.
icon Several days later After bipartisan pushback, the Trump administration said that fired employees would return to their jobs.

Advertisement

Scientific researchers, including military veterans

Advertisement
icon Feb. 18 The National Science Foundation fired 168 employees, or roughly 10 percent of its work force.
icon Less than two weeks later The foundation began reversing dismissals of 84 probationary employees, in response to a ruling by a federal judge and guidance from the Office of Personnel Management to retain the employment of military veterans and military spouses.

Temporary Reinstatements and Pauses on Firings

The firing spree has prompted a slew of lawsuits, which in some cases have resulted in temporary reversals.

Advertisement

Employees at a federal financial watchdog

Advertisement
icon Feb. 11 Officials fired almost 200 employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a financial industry watchdog, and ordered the rest to stop their work.

Advertisement

Employees at an international aid department

icon A day later A federal judge ordered the Trump administration to temporarily halt the layoffs.
icon Two weeks later The judge ruled that the administration could proceed with plans to lay off or put on paid leave many agency employees. U.S.A.I.D. moved to fire around 2,000 U.S.-based workers and put up to thousands of foreign service officers and others on paid leave.

Workers from multiple agencies have also filed complaints with the office of a government watchdog lawyer who himself has been targeted by Mr. Trump for termination. In response to requests from that office, an independent federal worker board has considered some of the claims and temporarily reinstated some workers.

Advertisement

Workers at the Agriculture Department

Advertisement

icon Feb. 13 The Agriculture Department began cutting thousands of jobs, including around 3,400 in the Forest Service.
icon Three weeks later The Merit Systems Protection Board issued a stay ordering the department to reinstate fired workers while an investigation continued.

Advertisement

Six workers from six federal agencies

Advertisement
icon Feb. 14 The Office of Personnel Management sent an email ordering federal agencies to fire tens of thousands of probationary employees.
icon Less than two weeks later The Merit Systems Protection Board temporarily reinstated six fired federal workers from the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs, and the Office of Personnel Management.

The back-and-forth and lack of transparency surrounding the administration’s cost-cutting moves have deepened the confusion and alarm of workers across the federal government at large, many of whom also have to interpret confusing email guidance and gauge the veracity of various circulating rumors.

“The layoffs and then rehires undermine the productivity and confidence not only of the people who left and came back but of the people who stayed,” said Stephen Goldsmith, an urban policy professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School and a former mayor of Indianapolis.

Advertisement

Are you a federal worker? We want to hear from you.

The Times would like to hear about your experience as a federal worker under the second Trump administration. We may reach out about your submission, but we will not publish any part of your response without contacting you first.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Trump has undermined US economic exceptionalism

Published

on

Trump has undermined US economic exceptionalism

Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free

In his first address to Congress since beginning a tumultuous second term, US President Donald Trump proudly claimed on Tuesday night that he was “just getting started”. That is a bad omen for the world’s largest economy. The optimism among companies and investors that came with the businessman’s election victory is rapidly waning. After the president confirmed tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China on Monday night, the S&P 500 initially erased all the gains it had made since the November polls. Consumer confidence has plunged. Manufacturers are reporting steep declines in new orders and employment, and bearish investor sentiment has shot well above its historic average.

Uncertainty is clouding the data and forecasts. Still, it is clear that the president has squandered what was a decent economic inheritance. Not long ago price pressures were fading, the US Federal Reserve was on the cusp of a steady rate-cutting cycle into a resilient economy, and the S&P 500 was gliding upwards. This is no longer true.

The depressing turnaround is a product of the administration’s pursuit of on-and-off import duties, and a chaotic policy agenda. The White House may believe it has a plan but America’s economic exceptionalism, from its relentless consumer spending and booming stock market to its reputation for dependable economic governance, is the collateral damage.

Advertisement

Personal expenditure — a bulwark of recent US growth — fell in January, by its most in nearly four years. With pandemic-era inflation not yet fully extinguished, and the reality of Trump’s price-raising tariff plans now dawning, consumers’ expectations for inflation in the year ahead have surged. The Fed has so far responded to forthcoming price pressures by putting rate cuts on hold, leaving borrowers facing a higher cost of credit. Elon Musk’s planned clear-out of public sector employees is also set to raise joblessness in an already cooling labour market.

Animal spirits are under pressure too. Perhaps naively, many businesses and investors expected import duties to be merely a negotiating tool. But Trump also believes tariffs are about “protecting American jobs”. After the latest salvo towards North American neighbours, the president offered a one-month reprieve for automakers on Wednesday, and was moving to broaden it on Thursday.

The unpredictability of tariff carve-outs, reversals and steps against other trading partners makes it impossible for businesses to plan. Retaliatory measures will also hurt exporters. The broader deluge of policy announcements — some of which have had significant geopolitical ramifications — adds to the decision-making paralysis facing boardrooms and traders.

Faith in US economic and financial institutions is also being tested. Trump has filled regulatory bodies with his chums. The Fed’s independence is an ongoing concern. Then there are zany economic ideas, from building a cryptocurrency reserve to a rumoured “Mar-a-Lago accord” to devalue the dollar. Some analysts note that the dollar’s recent weakness amid economic turmoil suggests financial markets may be beginning to question the safe haven status of the currency.

It is true that the administration’s tax cuts and deregulation efforts are yet to get started. But since they are likely to be paired with tariffs on more trading partners, rash policymaking and a clampdown on undocumented immigrants — which make up an estimated 5 per cent of workers — optimism around near-term US economic growth feels increasingly like blind hope. The contours of Trump’s economic agenda have sharpened. It is already worse than everyone thought, and he is just six weeks in.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Steve Carell announces that a charity will fund proms for students affected by LA fires

Published

on

Steve Carell announces that a charity will fund proms for students affected by LA fires

Steve Carell attends the “Despicable Me 4” New York Premiere at Jazz at Lincoln Center in June.

Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images

Steve Carell is making amends for a memorable but painful episode of The Office.

The Golden Globe-winning actor announced in a video posted on YouTube that the charity Alice’s Kids will cover the costs of prom tickets for hundreds of high school seniors in Altadena after a series of wildfires ravaged much of Los Angeles in January.

“Attention! Attention, all seniors,” Carell said in a video posted to the charity’s YouTube channel.

Advertisement

“Alice’s Kids wanted me to let you know that they will be paying for all of your prom tickets. And if you’ve already paid for your prom tickets, they will reimburse you for your prom tickets,” he said.

“It’s a pretty good deal,” he added.

YouTube

Advertisement

The Virginia-based children’s charity said that the prom promise will support approximately 800 students across six high schools, estimating the total cost to be around $175,000.

Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of Alice’s Kids, said Carell was asked to announce the pledge because so many young people binge-watched The Office during the pandemic.

“Steve has supported us for years. When I started talking to principals about paying for the tickets, someone at some point actually mentioned Steve’s name … and he told me that Steve was actually pretty popular with high schoolers because they ‘discovered’ The Office during COVID and they saw Despicable Me,” Fitzsimmons said in an email to NPR.

“So, I came up with the idea of having Steve announce our gesture, and he agreed immediately to cut the video.”

Carell’s promotion of this charitable act calls to mind one of the most polarizing episodes of the beloved American series The Office.

Advertisement

In the season six episode “Scott’s Tots,” Carell’s character, Michael Scott, famously pledges to pay for a class of high school seniors’ college tuition, only to reveal that he lacks the funds to fulfill his promise.

In contrast, students need not worry in this real-world scenario, as Alice’s Kids is fully covering the costs.

Continue Reading

Trending