mark. to your point there, i ve covered so many trials. you talk to these jurors after ward. they always want to know why. nobody ex-complained why he killed his wife and son. it s the same here. there was never a link or explanation. they threw some they re ryes out there. there was never really hard information on he killed his wife and he killed his son because of this. you never have to prove motive. i m sure prosecutors all over the country are falling on that and they say it s true. you never know what is in someone s head. people kill for different reasons. we don t know. in a case like this where it s being alleged that other people likely did this, the question is why would le go it. they did advance a theory. it s to take away as the tension from the scrutiny he was facing because of finances?
continued. trace: he did it because he loved himself a lot more than he loved his wife and his son. a compelling argument. he did. anyone that knows anything about addicts, they re very self-centered and exhibited behavior that falls short of yourself. that said, if this trial is he a guilty thief, addict, liar, then they have proven it beyond all doubt. yes, he starts off at 2 1/2 strikes, not three. here s a man that could not tell the truth to save his life. it doesn t mean murder. you go to the physical evidence. you go to the circumstances. there s enough reasonable doubt if they wanted to find him not guilty and conversely if they wanted to discredit what he s saying and look at the evidence and see the lies for what they are, they can find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. mark, stand by.
murder of paul murdaugh, possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime involving the murder of margaret maggie murdaugh and possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent crime involving the murder of paul murdaugh. each indictment charges a separate and distinct offense. you must decide each indictment separately on the evidence and the law applicable to it uninfluenced by your decision as to any other indictment. the defendant may be convicted or acquitted on any or all of the offenses charged. you ll be asked to write a separate verdict of guilty or not guilty for each indictment. a defendant richard alexander
and point to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. it s possible the jury may come back and ask the judge to read that section of it again. there is so much this is a circumstantial evidence case. but what they re going to realize when they get into the deliberation room is the most significant piece of evidence. the fact that he was down at that kennel within minutes of there being shots and he lied about that until he was mandated to admit it with the snap chat that came from the friend s phone. that has to make them say, you know what? this case is a long case. but sometimes the most difficult questions are not difficult at all. sometimes putting this all together makes more sense than any other way of looking at it. this is a fascinating case. it s a very good point, judge. stand by. the judge is talking about reasonable doubt. watch.
for you, judge. the prosecution in this case, do you think they re happy? you think that they feel like they did what they could with this case? you know what? prosecutor is never happy. you always worry about whether or not you did the job you could have done. you always think of something, some argument that you could have made. the truth is, you have 12 people there. 12 smart people. never underestimate the intelligence of a jury. never underestimate the fact that they ve been listening, can call back and get the testimony reread to them and that they will understand that unless that they talk to each other, change each other s minds, they ll go on forever. i have faith in the system. i have to. i was part of it for to long. trace: thanks, judge. you talk about this, look at the case. you think about all the cases we ve covered. we brought up scott peterson, robert blake. seems as if the jury in some capacity always tends to get