It should not have been dismantled.

William Cooper

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/william-cooper-podcast-channel/id1812487408

tl;dr: How come Alex Murdaugh's lead counsel fucked up the 2023 case so badly?

I'm not a lawyer and, as a German passport holder, would only describe myself as a "law enthusiast," if that makes sense, mostly within the US legal system. I do have knowledge of German and Thai law, but, compared to the US, very little.

In 2023, I avidly followed the trial of The State v. Richard Alexander Murdaugh. As a non-lawyer, I learned as much as I could by reading and watching everything in the public domain.

Now, my question is subjective. Very early on, it was reported that Murdaugh would be defended by lead counsel Dick Harpootlian as well as Jim Griffin, so I expected to see Harpootlian – from what I know, an extremely experienced criminal attorney making it up to Solicitor for the Fifth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina before going into private practice – for the lack of a better word, a "fight."

People describe him as being "aggressive" in his capacity as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney. He is a well-known, highly successful attorney in South Carolina, whose own website describes him as having "delivered the opening remarks in what would become the longest and one of the most highly publicized criminal trials in South Carolina history."

Jim Griffin, Murdaugh's second lead counsel, was also a well-established attorney in South Carolina and, according to his website, "was honored by the South Carolina Chapter of the American Board of Trial Advocates as the 'Trial Lawyer of the Year.'"

Now, the question that I can't seem to understand: Why did they fuck up so badly in the Murdaugh case? Let's set aside his and Harpootlian's victory in overturning and successfully arguing for a retrial; I'm only interested in understanding his defense strategy (or lack thereof) in the Murdaugh trial.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I might have judged him wrongly. But he did misstep at least once by opening the door to the financial side, which the impressive prosecutor, Creighton Waters, took full advantage of, establishing a clear motive for the double murder of his wife and son, including outright fraud.

Putting Murdaugh on the stand deserves its own chapter. Obviously, I can't say whose decision it was that brought Murdaugh to the stand, which everyone knows backfired spectacularly, especially with a bulldog of a prosecutor like Waters.

So, I'd like to know some rationale behind these decisions from real lawyers or people much more informed than I.

Thank you, and my apologies for the long text. And sorry if I've used any terminology incorrectly.

"When Tessa is raped by a colleague, her world implodes and it’s made clear just how brutal the British justice system can be for women, who, according to Rape Crisis, have a one in four chance of being sexually assaulted, while only 2.7% of reported rapes result in charges being brought."

Now the judge has ruled that French law applies, looks like the lawsuit is pretty much dead.

The former justice gives his views.

William Cooper

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/william-cooper-podcast-channel/id1812487408

Could this be legal?

Suppose I hold $1 million and give $1,000; I might owe roughly $300 in taxes, making the political contribution cost $1,300.

If a billionaire gives $1 million, the tax could be 100 percent—so $1 million in tax and $2 million total.

For someone like Zuckerberg with $100 billion or more, the tax might be 10 times higher, so a $1 million donation would incur $9 million in taxes.

For a trillionaire like Elon, a $500 million donation could be taxed at 100 times, totaling $50 billion.

This approach might prevent wealthy individuals from interfering with elections.

We should also apply this to anything with value: a tweet ad, a commercial, or similar items, using the cost as the donation amount.

The Supreme Court is allowing Trump to block immigration judges from postponing some deportation cases.

Donald Trump instigated a war against America’s democracy on January 6, 2021. He and his Republican allies would have crippled America’s democracy that day had his own vice president not refused to be party to the gravest constitutional offense a president can commit—the refusal to relinquish and peacefully transfer the power of the presidency to his duly elected successor.