Alex Murdaugh Trial: Expert says Maggie, Paul, and Alex's DNA was on shirt | Full video
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 фев 2023
- SLED Agent Sara Zapata testified about the DNA analysis she did in the Alex Murdaugh double murder trial. She says the white shirt he was wearing ahd a mixture of DNA from Alex, Maggie, and Paul.
Follow us on Twitter: @WLTX
Follow us on Facebook: @WLTXNews19
Check out our website: WLTX.com
#alexmurdaugh #murdaugh
![DDG - Straight Outta Pontiac [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ReAVcZuFERQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Does anyone think the fact Alex’s voice could be heard at kennel a couple minutes before murders took place is one of the best pieces of evidence of guilt ?
It shows he lied about his whereabouts and timeline which is always a bad thing.
I Do!!
Yes.
That’s the one worst piece of evidence against him, the fact that he lied about being at the kennel. Honestly it really doesn’t seem like they have any direct evidence. The DNA stuff is very weak.
Oh it's the guilty evidence!
If the attorneys are having a difficult time understanding her results, the jurors will too.
All the jurors need to know is who’s DNA is on that shirt
Yes, but it’s going to take a miracle to get that scientist to actually say that instead of all her technical jargon.
@@kellyyork3898 I completely agree. The DNA expert is using very technical terms and specialist jargon and is not explaining the results or process of the DNA analysis in simple terms, or language that anyone can understand. She does not try to rephrase her answers when she is asked for clarification. I have never heard such a complicated explanation of if the DNA matches or not.
The defense attorney got a hold of her. No shocker especially if she doesn’t know her own work.
@@ladybgail unfortunately that isn’t definitive enough. The testing as I barely understood it does not definitively say it is blood and of course her DNA could be on his shirt as they are husband and wife. If he was a stranger then it would be more damning to the defense.
In my humble opinion, the jury’s got no idea what the DNA experts are talking about
🤣🤣🤣
Not a problem. The statistics that will be described in layman's terms during summation. In all cases the blood on Murdaugh's shirt proves that there's a one in over ? (a number with 27 zeroes) that the blood was from Paul and Maggie! That's easy to understand!
I also agree this just puts the jury to sleep and plays in to the defence that the prosecution is just trying to set him up… not good when they go in to extreme detail like this at length imho
I think people can understand more than they are given credit by others.
PLEASE, ENOUGH FROM THE DNA EXPERTS... TOO MUCH OF ONE THING IS GOOD FOR NOTHING... IF IT TAKES THE EXPERTS YEARS TO LEARN THE SCIENCE OF DNA, THE JURY ISN'T GONNA COMPREHEND ANY OF IT IN 30-40 MINUTES... IT'S LIKE TRY'N TO LEARN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE IN A HALF HOUR...
I am an RN, and I think I almost understand what this witness is saying. I keep waiting for the attorney to ask her to put it in plain English. I could see the possibility that none of these jurors understand what she’s saying. She’s using way too many technical words. Her department needs to reevaluate how they testify
That's why the lawyer is asking questions.. otherwise she wouldn't be testifying she would submit a paper for people to read.. if anything is not understood its because the attorney didn't ask for clarification or put it in simpler terms... typically the Prosecution will go for supporting evidence and defendants will go for finding holes in the evidence. either way. jurors need to see that process happen .
I actually was just thinking this to myself. What the hell is she talking about? Nobody understands this unless you’re in the medical field. But for the average Joe, this makes no sense to me. It just sounds like she’s rambling nonsense. Could you please explain what the heck does all of this break down to?? please and thank you in advance
I think the volume of information offered is completely overwhelming. It's clear enough who is thought to be present and how likely. However any significant results are absolutely lost within the bulk of all those tests.
I think the jury will need to spend a large amount of time analysing this information.
I got the impression the Agent had to be very careful how she presented the results.
Obviously its very difficult giving this kind of information to a Jury.
I understood what most of everything she testifiied to.
Yeah this is what happens when educated smart people, who live for work and work with similar minded people, forget there are people in the world who aren't like them and need some things that are learnt through a long college education explained in simpler terms then they are used to talking in.
The timeline alone is enough to convict Alex! Guilty
Totally agree! That cell phone video on Paul’s phone that Alex couldn’t have ever anticipated or planned for - putting him next to Paul and Maggie 4 minutes before the shooting - is the single most important, undeniable piece of evidence. There is no getting around it.
@@charbam9506 is that the one where they're putting in a tree? It's light out outside or is that what they're talking about when they're asking do you hear two voices or three voices. In any case it's the strangest freaking thing just because he's always coming up with these schemes so he's definitely got an abnormal mind
@@charbam9506 I agree. Even i can tell it's Alex's voice but it's especially damning that literally everyone said they were 100% sure it was him
Then explain to me why Alex's DNA wasn't under Maggie's nails while their ground keeper Claude Rowe's was? DNA is much stronger evidence!
@@Minnastina They both were there! Alex paid him to be the second shooter. Phone records don’t lie, but Alex’s stated timeline does! She was dead 5 minutes after Alex was heard on cell phone video, after he said he wasn’t even at the kennels!
As a retired biology teacher and a person who minored in statistics while working on a Doctoral Degree; I would have simplified this evidence so that the jurors could understand exactly how it pointed to the defendant as the guilty party. I'm sure, some of the jurors had no idea what was being presented.
I sat through over 2 and a half hours of this, waiting for someone to finally say, "OK, can we now
put this into layman's terms so the jury can understand."..which never happened..
Did you not notice the stops?
@@eva4adam451 Sorry, not sure what you are referring to?
Thank you! Just like watching the prosecution in the OJ trial.
You need to get out more 😂😂
@@kerilockwood7819 😂🤣😂
Expert: "We cannot be 100% sure."
Also expert: "100 quadrillion times more likely."
Lawyer: "How much DNA... I guess?"
This was so painful to listen to.
I am not sure this lower understanding DNA answer she questions here. It she don't understood her DNA work including the jory wast time she better bring her laptoury for her in court
The older female Pathologist was brilliant. She could teach a 5-year-old.
These two ladies -- prosecution lawyer and witness -- are inept. Score one for the defense.
I wonder what the judge is thinking as she’s explaining
Wish these experts could give results in everyday language for jury.
For me too. lol
That’s actually the lawyer’s job, to elicit an explanation of technical jargon in lay terms.
To hear the first DNA expert, the Asian lady she had no personality at all. She had no idea what she was talking about outside her skill of knowledge.
@@challanger275: I think you mean YOU had no idea what she was talking about, lol.
@@rayray8687 dont you love it when people blame others for their lack of knowledge and understanding . its YOUR fault im not smart!
As an expert in their field, the technical jargon is needed for court purposes. If the agent summed down any of this information, they could lose credibility as an expert. While many want a simple and straightforward answer, it is the jury’s job to draw conclusions, not the analysts. They need to present the data they have in perfect detail with no bias - every effort must be taken to avoid this being labeled a mistrial; as that is obviously what the defense is hoping for.
The problem with that justification is it doesn’t win cases for the state, I saw two individuals who could not communicate or articulate an understanding. Bad questions + poor explanations = total confusion.
So I was hoping he couldn't do such a horrible crime.
Then his voice on the cell phone convinces me he did such a horrible crime.
But for some reason, maybe the cops screwing up, will allow him to go free.
Not guilty but not innocent either.
@@nancyfahey7518 so you want someone so vile,evil, cold-hearted and cold-blooded, actually dangerous,lying, thieving to go free?
@@vernareed2692 I didn't say that. Actually I was thinking out loud. I just can't fathom evil and cruelty like this. And I hope I never will.
@@nancyfahey7518 oh I see! Thank you for clarifying!! Right,I just can't imagine!!
Between this witness and the Doc, we had to hear ‘um’ a total of 564,9878,893 times today!! Damn!
Lol
OMG not a very well spoken presenter. I feel for her students if this is how she sounds when she is lecturing. Maybe she was very anxious. Which makes me wonder what might be going on behind the scenes. This witness seems overly anxious for someone who has testified in court 19 times. Very strange
Good thing it’s not the drinking game trip word!
are those numbers for or against the defendant..,if it’s against..,then he’s fried.! cooked in hot fat…grits and ham…!
Horrible witness
I believe she was good witness. I’m not highly educated but I understood her!!!
I completely understand her.
Of course she was saying DNA all over alex murdaugh ers tshirt 🙄
Murdaugh's attorney did a great job here. And the expert witness was so careful, competent, and confident that I was truly impressed by her.
Guilty, guilty, guilty!
He changed his clothes 🤬🤬🤬
Old Alec not looking too happy today. He doesn’t even have to fake cry today. 😮
He blinks like an anaconda.
Waste of time. Don't even bother. Go straight to comments if you want to learn something.
These evidence translation issues existed in the OJ trial too, but I think the difference is AM's credibility, character, and previously unknown ruthlessness, which may tip the scales for a state victory, hmmm..
Too bad OJ was guilty and walked....
@@moviestarmemories630 Only guilty by public opinion, remember, If it's aint fits, then you bests aquits..
@@moviestarmemories630 they and everyone knew OJ did it, but they feared another set of riots, as with the previous Rodney king -related riots. OJ is a psychopath and has split personality disorder
Thank you to this station for posting these videos
Attorney, "What does that mean?" Then the DNA witness says exactly the same thing. 😏😏
Exactly that’s because I don’t think she knows. She just came up with the numbers. Omg.
@@kathismith7441 more like it’s science and the meaning doesn’t change 👀
@@SweetMissMikka I know science and she’s new.
@@SweetMissMikka you know when they’re an true expert is when they can explain it in layman’s terms
@@kathismith7441 just because you don’t understand doesn’t mean she didn’t explain it properly. Get over yourself.
If Alec didn't have anything to do with the two murders, why did he make sure that his clothes that night disappeared
The attorney was trying her best to get the SLED DNA scientist to say, “Yes, Maggie’s blood was on the steering wheel,” but nope, all the scientist did was repeat her technical jargon. Good night nurse. Wake me when this testimony is over. I have no desire to relive my college biology classes.
Not something you enjoyed then?
🙄
Between the Atty asking questions and the DNA expert speaking it was like pulling teeth. .
Too statistical, let’s hope jury was awake.
The State’s own fault they prepared her for testimony.
One of the worst court interactions I have ever witnessed, just horrible.🤦🏾♂️
@@madashell7224 999
Why, why? This went on to long and started to get more confusing as this witness went on.
I think I kind of understood her but I think it's safe to say Alex def changed his shirt that night; for him to be that clean is crazy. Evidence doesn't lie.. no matter how good you try to convince yourself or tell a story. He never asked "Are my wife and kid okay" but instead keep confirming "They're dead right" that in of itself is VERY ODD.
People all react differently. He'd already checked the bodies and said so, and knew they were dead, but his brain wasn't apparently processing that information. He needed to hear someone else say it to make it real.
@@jellybean6778 Paul’s brains blown out wasn’t confirmation enough ?
@farahhjackson1018 not to someone who has just been severely traumatized by a scene or bad news. Same with chronic abuse and traumatization. Brains just don't process information the same. Plus, he was on drugs and I am sure that affected his ability to reason. I know when I see something very traumatic, or even hear of something shocking to me, I don't believe it's true or real. I know of others who do the same. You can see or hear about a tragedy and you think it's not or can't be true. There must be a mistake. I think that's part of what was happening with him.
@@jellybean6778 yeah I guess I do get what your saying… it didn’t fully trigger what he may have done or to that effect.
Alex Murdaugh was more concerned about setting an alibi because he knows who the Killer of Maggie and Paul but just wondering why Alex didn’t make sure Buster was there like he chose Maggie and Paul to be at the farm to terminate their lives? Is there a reason why?
20 points for Gryffindor if you watched her whole testimony without skipping through.
didnt skip one sec....30 to Ravenclaw, Gryffindors wouldnt sit through this...unless they were HG
The Jury is The Seeker😂😂😂
So, in layman terms the likely hood of AM being at the scene of the Murder is REALLY HUGE ! It's quite hard to follow and not get bored with this analysis. R.I.P Maggie and Paul and anymore of his Victims.
He lives there. DNA is on everything and transfered by touching the same things. So they established that DNA is transfered. And Paul's DNA is a combination of both Maggie's and Alex. This DNA analysis shows DNA is there. So what?
Why do we need to go through DNA school just to find out for what this lady is needed?
Said one Juror to the other.
Murdoch must be eating two packets of peppermints every day during the trial
I wondered what he was chewing . I figured it was those peppermint candies , lol
And two packets of Tums for his heartburn from the peppermints.
Well he can’t chew his tobacco.
Nerve pills...lol
@@glendaburrell7435 that’s so funny you said that . My first thought was that he was chewing tobacco but then I don’t think you can do that in court. Then I saw him constant biting and knew it was those peppermint candies. I’m sure he doesn’t get them In prison.
The shells and bullet shell are shown by DNA to belong to the family of 3 that were there. Can anyone believe that someone else killed them, by going into house to get ammunition for their gun, or get family guns, in order to kill Maggie and Paul? The ammunition clearly belongs to the family, and only one person of the 3 alive, who says he wasn't there. When Alex goes to do horrible crimes, he doesn't think,
Wouldn't their be someone's finger prints be on the ammunition while loading the gun?
not if you had gloves on@@shannonstearns5803
DNA evidence results being presented to the jury was NOT the time for Prosecutor Waters to let one of the younger minions take over. She was out of her league on the subject of DNA. It's positively painful to watch & listen to her flounder through this. It was a grave mistake to let this inept attorney ruin important testimony that the jury needed to have explained in detail. Mr. Waters will need to do some damage control...
COMPLETELY AGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I understand what she's saying, and I am not a nurse or a professional of any kind.
At what point are they just going to turn the mic up instead of repeatedly hounding people to lean into it
By the sounds of it, there are more guns in this property than they were in Fort Bragg I mean who goes around, leaving shotguns in trucks handguns in trucks, handguns in tractors, and on four-wheel-drive the place was an arsenal
lol !
An entitled family does. They know no one will come in to their property without permission.
…People who have more money than they know what to do with.
@@AlpacaRenee Or people with enough money to protect it.
@@mikehunt-fx7sf Yet not enough money to keep track of their own arsenal inventory. And no cameras on the property. Doesn't sound very responsible to me.
I have awful psoriasis this winter & that crap is like body dandruff basically! When I take my clothes off for a shower, dead skin goes everywhere. It's gross. My skin cells & skin get everywhere.
Eww, thats all I could think about when she was talking about shedding skin cells.
Tambien!! Although I'm homebound, I half-expect to be hauled in for all unsolved crimes in my zip code.
Get a dermatologist.TALTZ SHOT
@@sissy4506 I wasn't going to go because I got it last year and it was all over but it was just little spot. It's the same thing this year but the spots are more and they're a tad bit bigger. I wasn't a hundred percent positive what it was last winter but I know now. I heard about some pill you can take and it clears it up in like 2 days but it has side effects like nausea, vomiting and things that aren't worth it to me. I've never really experienced anything like this so it's very strange but I got to do something
@@honeybadger1847 lol right?!?!
I to suffer from psoriasis. I have in my lifetime gotten out of bed, and the bedsheets looked like someone poured cornmeal onto them, especially the bottom sheet. Going off a little here, but I was put on Ilumyia for psoriasis, my first shot cleared me totally in less than a month. After my second I was totally cleared, then one shot every three months. Not a cure, biologic meds don't cure, but they are very effective in keeping the disease under control.
If you approach this case scientifically (as you should), this testimony positively condemns Alex Murdaugh.
How does he explain not hearing 7 gunshots when he was only a few minutes away.
Stay consistent on names! The atty is calling Alex "Alex Murdaugh" and Agent Zapata is calling Alex "Richard Murdaugh"!!! The attorney should be reiterating that "Richard" is "Alex"!!!
It's for the judge or one of the attorneys to refer to the possibility of confusion caused by the use of the alternate name.
The State is making this trial unnecessarily complicated. Hopefully the jury can see beyond the science which does indicate the defendent"s guilt... Oh my God.. The State just asked What are "Alleles" . The average person doesn't need to know...or understand what they are. This is the States case to lose!!!
@ Dale yes absolutely unnecessary lengthy and the judge has reminded them of the lengthier trial more unexpected surprises may occur during trial.
dale - I was thinking this too. The DNA expert was throwing out so many odd numbers and science related DNA blood jargon that I became bored and lost. And I've got a graduate degree. Just not in this field of DNA. Prosecution needed to make this simple and relate it to the average person. Not everyone on jury duty sent to college. Even then it's a special field of expert knowledge. 🖐️😑
I agree and enjoy your comment. Just want to contribute one thing to it: If Americans got a good education at an elementary school level and their curi0sity thereafter were encouraged, then any situation in which science knowledge was required by them, they would figure most science of that situation out. But, Americans get generally a poor-- work-focused, only--education which prepares them to do menial jobs. And this system has dumbed-down the electorate, to the extent that people vote for goblins and myths for their legislative and governing representatives
@@usaloveme I have 2 graduate degrees from an Ivy League university and I didn't understand it. Turned it off when my eyes started to glaze over in 20 minutes. Really bad call by the State to go down this road. Even the attorney did not seem to understand what the expert was talking about.
@@debralevin4305 😄💕
Joy… I totally agree with
You; Alex being @ the
kennels just minutes before the murders was for me the game changer!!
I can't watch the woman attorney without thinking of Stewart from Letterkinney. Go ahead, slap me for saying it...
She was spooky
I'm no attorney, but this lady messed up and missed many opportunities to make it clear that the weapon included Maggie and Alex were contributors to the mixture. She didn't even ask intelligent questions 🙄 the witness looked lost at half her questions
This attorney questioning is a complete joke
Wait.... that's 2 cups of flour in grandma's cookies??? Wtf. Her analogies totally lost me
That figures Einstein.
Don't forget the seesaw! 😂😂
She was not a great communicator because she assumes people can make the next step. What she meant was:
If you take Grandmas cookie recipe-all the ingredients are in balance so that if you double the recipe all ingredients are doubled- that’s like a formula-but if you know only the recipe where it’s been made much larger like for a cafeteria of people- and you lost the original recipe- you could reconfigure the recipe so long as you applied the formula based on the 2 cups that you know Grandma had.
It was a bad analogy because she didn’t fully explain it.
😂
If he can hire a hitman to kill himself (which is crazy) he can hire a hitman to kill his wife and son, which is what, imo I think he did! He can’t produce tears when crying is guilt! If any normal human being lost there immediate family would be totally distraught unless they are the culprits! This man is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt for hiring a hitman to kill his own family. Sick guy!
He is responsible for their hideous deaths. Some may have helped him but there’s no indication of their presence. He probably had help disposing of the 2 guns and his bloody clothes. Money talks. John Boy Marvin comes to mind. Or his drug dealer.
This witness is an example of an absolute consummate professional.
She is awesome. Although I do have to say, this field of evidence is quite confusing.
She did a great job though. Professional throughout.
Based on my knowledge of DNA results obtained by watching the Jerry Springer Show, I am 1000% confident that I understand roughly 10% of what this forensic scientist is explaining.
🤣🤣😂😅
when negatvie results came back Alex demenor completely changed from his behavor of the damage to each victim. Another trait of a narciss, He is just concerned about himself not the victims, If no evidence he looks relaxed,
I appreciate how simply the dna lady breaks everything down . I definitely followed every bit of it.
Atty asked "how likely" but didn't qualify "likely" in comparison to "what"; i.e., "likely to WHAT"; i.e., "likely to be Paul Murdaugh or Maggie Murdaugh or Alex Murdaugh," etc. The atty should've also stated aloud after each "'tillion," how many zeroes followed that. EACH TIME. C'mon, you're an attorney. BE SPECIFIC to make your case!!! "Was it three alleles"? Three alleles that WHAT?! BE SPECIFIC about what you're asking!!! How do these people get through law school?!?!?!
Where's the alleged weapons used in the killings? Where's the clothes Alex was wearing before the deaths of his wife and son? Where's his brown leather shoes he was wearing earlier? Did he shower, change his clothes and dispose of this clothes and the guns after the murders? If two shooters were there, who were they?
I believe it was him. Alone. Alex doesn't take responsibility for any of his actions. I don't believe at this point Alex would not use his accomplice as his fall guy by now.
Was he shooting 2 high power weapons at one time close up to his victims at different angles? I think it was said that they were 30 yards apart? Maybe it was 30 feet. Either way wouldn't the victim shot second run? Something just seems off to me. IDK.
@@RoeDarrigo maybe Paul and Maggie were together at the first shot and she did run to where she dropped.
@@AlpacaRenee could be but the switching gins part is what gets me confused.
@@RoeDarrigo He cornered Paul at the feed room. Maggie heard (or saw) the shooting and ran. IMO she knew he had killed Paul and she was next.
He already said he checked them both to see if if they had a pulse so dna is not going to work for this part if his trial but I hope it does anyway he’s so damn guilty of this sickening crime which is making me sick
If he really checked them he should have some blood on him
@@cherylmyke1693 now that crime scene was not secure long enough for a crime as huge as this that’s definite that’s why they only really went on about money
Both had their head shot off. He knew there would be no pulse. What a monster.
FAMILY dna on a shirt could be because they live together ? hugged , ANYTHING
This scientist is providing all the proof they’ll need! Excellent!!!
Why didn’t the police on the night of the murder put an officer in the front gate and stop every Tom Dick and Harry I’m driving on to the murder scene and would’ve stopped. All this is confusion is put an officer in the front gate straightaway nobody comes in nobody comes in.
No problem understanding the witness. She is articulate and speaks at a good speed.
I have 24 years of education and I could not make heads or tails of what this young DNA analyst was talking about. Cookies, marathons, seesaws, oh my. “Do you understand the words that are coming from my mouth?” Nope
Lol 😂😂😂 exactly. She doesn’t have a clue.
well then you are well educated in smelling bullshit. They just want to give the appearance of having evidence that is conclusive BUT it only concludes that there is nothing to conclude after attempting to conclude what the prosecutor wants... Butl let's take the jury on a roller coaster ride through the bull yard!
@@llee2096 it’s called circumstantial evidence and most trials are circumstantial evidence which is indirect evidence that juries will find a person guilty.
They never got the shirt he was wearing that day. He gave them the shirt he wore after he showered.
Seems he had it all meticulously planned out.
what a waste of time...i've enjoyed hearing the experts tho....I don't think ill be replaying this expert, tho
If AM’s convicted, I get he’ll commit suicide in jail.
Brilliant can’t wait 😊
*I bet
Hopefully they put him on suicide watch and have someone watching him 24/7 365 days of the year. I certainly wouldn't mind paying extra tax to make sure this is done. So he has to rott with no way out!
no he loves himself too much. All he will do in plot his next move.
Grandmas cookies, seasaw, running a marathon.... I'm so confused
😂
She's way out in the weeds. All she needs to do is say that they found all 3 people's DNA on Alex's shirt - Alex, Paul and Maggie. End of story. Then succinctly and clearly answer the questions as they are asked. All the people in this trial are ramblers. The whole thing could have taken a week less time if people didn't have to talk so much and go into unnecessary detail.
Tell me in great detail how you do your very complex job that I don't know how to do, so I can make sure you're doing it correctly.
The female prosecutor in black with black flat ironed hair was spooky. She reminded me of The Ring movie
What a stupid thing to say
I was thinking Adam’s family, but the ring works too, lol. Very interesting look.
@@embeth446 😄 Adams family will do!
Her twang is annoying & . BTW Alex is guilty. P.O.S.
She's not experienced enough to put it in layman's term
Lol
How could such complicated analyses be put into layman's terms? The witness is doing her job and it is not her fault if no one really understands the results she is providing. That is why she is an "expert". The more such forensic procedures and resulting analyses evolve, the more difficult it will be for any jury to comprehend the results. The only remedy I can suggest is that the results be peer reviewed prior to presentation to lend credibility to the results via duplication. I believe that using layman's terms would compromise what the statistical results conclude.
@@lindamerz3168 Absolutely.
Agreed! It's irritating me!
So that the jury isn't confused, the prosecutors need to point out that the ammunition that killed Maggie and Paul belonged to the family, that it came from their house and no one else's. No one else came to kill his family, only he is left alive from ammunition that belongs to the family
Clever lady sticking to the rules of her job.
No Princess. She kept the information meaningless for the jury. She could have used names instead of numbers for the testee.
It’s good to have a professional like that..she is serious with her job..she should be working for a law firm on the East Coast..she’s too professional for the South…!
@@1_Sandra_Sandi_too “Heh. You said ‘testee.’”
~Beavis, 1995
I tried to listen to this in earnest - esp. as I have an interest in Genetics …but this just consisted of meaningless technical terminology and failed to “tell the real …any…story”. It accomplished nothing- it just goes to show that a “dry” lawyer + “dry” witness is not a fruitful combination.
Wow that a great comment 👍
You really sound smart and intelligent
Do you care for a chat and get to know each other more better?
I thought the witness made it too hard for the jury to relate to what she was saying. She was addressing the jury like she was at a science conference.
@b.kentrelljoyner6654 it was blah blah blah...it's not that people probably couldnt truly get it it was just blah to listen to...u just tune out after a while then later u like wait what 😂
Blood splatter is more important than DNA. IMO .. His story is that he came from his moms, and when he got there , they were dead... so he should have blood SPLATTERS on his shirt.. Blood splatters means he was there AS they got shot.. so that alone would destroy his credibility and make him a liar.. whether someone else shot them and he was there or he shot them.. If they live at the same house i dont see what their DNA being on his shirt would signify .. id already expect their DNA to be on his shirt.. the blood is more important to the case. but identifying the DNA does TIE THE BOW on that whole theory. So ig its in their best interest to leave no room for doubt. and its good they take their time and detail these things because people get away with murder all the time probably for simply not taking evidence seriously. DNA doesnt mean blood . it means DNA .. so its important to seperate the two and make sure the Jurors know that.. infact jurors should be taught this before they even take on case that includes this stuff. but hey.. ignorance is bliss right. lets blame the experts for doing their job lol
I feel like my brain was just scrambled
Yeesh, get this witness an Ativan.
This painful to watch.
Was he ever asked to produce the Speary shoes and Sea Foam shirt? Did I miss this?
The guns and those clothes are missing. Convenient
Who is responsible for the investigation here? (or lack thereof)
He is not required to provide them with anything. That's not how it works
I'm in one of those nightmares you can't wake up from. The lawyer keeps asking the same clueless questions and the witness keeps giving the same long answers. Again and again and again.
EACH are dying of embarrassment, and EACH can't wait to be out of the spotlight.
A missed opportunity by The State. No forest summary, just incomprehensible weeds. Terrible
The female lawyer is not very good. The witness just needs to show an example of high probability of the dna being the suspects. There are graphics to help understand this.
Where was Buster at this time?
I like the judge he just tells and get on with it don’t tell me this this is the piece of evidence which is 965. Just get on with it
Loved this, I'm also 42, very ups and downs in my career but still sticking at it.
Speak normal, not science. Either way for anyone who didn't get it. Pretty much AM did it. His DNA was there along with his family.
I’m sorry but she’s a really bad scientific communicator. Talking way too fast with WAY too much info that was not needed to be repeated throughout. No way did those jurors keep up with that.
There is a way to talk about detailed, complex ideas in a way that a lay person can understand, and it still being totally accurate. You explain all of the confusing parts at the beginning and then you simplify and speak to the idea you’ve already explained. I’ve seen other court cases where this is done perfectly. It would be a good idea for her to watch other cases and take tips. She needs to think of what she’s doing as TEACHING someone very basic surface level stuff who has no idea about anything she’s talking about. AND SLOW DOWN. My god that poor court stenographer.
She was speaking just fine
The audio is too low . Thanks for a fascinating show. I just would appreciate it being easier to hear.
i know. wearing my earbuds ang.
None of this info is useful to the jury if they can’t understand it. HUGE waste of time to present the info like she did instead of putting it in layman’s terms. I took multiple forensics and biology courses in college and even I’m having trouble understanding it. It doesn’t need to be made this complicated. You just need to state what DNA was found and where.
My humble opinion - visual aides would have helped in the presentation this material. Too much repetition without clarification- not helpful. They didn't really do their best work when they prepped this witness for her testimony. She seems anxious. She has testified in court 19 times . Something seems funky to me.
How on earth did Maggie have Claude c b rows DNA under her nails? Maybe they were having an affair! Maybe it was Claude their gardener that killed them... coz the way Maggie was murdered was really brutal & personal to her killer, where as Paul just seemed to b murdered for being there/being in the way.🤔
The affair I can believe but Alex was the beneficiary of Maggie’s properties!
Hmmm...I don't think she meant C's DNA was actually there, just that at 'first glance' it was not as easily ruled out like the others were.
Correct me, if I'm misunderstanding that.
And we know in Maggie will, that is clearly a man’s hand writing, imo of course woman’s penmanship is clearly different from a man’s.
@Suzu M. no, I think you are exactly right.
The conclusion was NEVER that Maggie had claude's DNA under her nails. You are correct, imo... as I understood this testimony to be presented.
Yes, it was technical & seemingly redundant ar times, but imo it was clearly defined as to its conclusions (without actually verbally stating a definitive 'conclusion'.)...which I doubt would have been allowed to verbally state as a fact.
I wish they would just say what the items are and what was tested off them, instead of saying the evidence item number and swabs and stuff.
Closed captions????
Alex should just save everyone money and time and admit that he shot them both and say where the guns and bloody clothes are at. The person who did his laundry said the clothes he wore that morning to work have not been seen again.
I was under the impression that DNA evidence was indisputable
It is but you can’t tell with this so called expert.
The defense is eating her alive.
You are incorrect. Not THIS type of DNA 'evidence', any way.
It's not 'direct evidence' only statistical - that's why all the expression of mathmatical exponents.
Sure, specific DNA on victim, compared to a (one) suspect is binary (black/white- Y/N.) It either matches. Or doesn't.
But that's not what this is. It's statistical among 3 family members, plus several peripheral persons.
So, NOT the same thing...
It's more of a generalized 'ruled out', rather than definitively 'ruled in.'
You are comparing apples to oranges here to try to say DNA evidence is always indisputable.
@kathi smith no, not true.
And please stop calling this expert witness 'so-called' because you could not understand the gist of her expert testimony.
@@barbarafairbanks4578 yes I could bozo
Totally unnecessary and impossible-to-understand line of questioning. Just need to ask "What do the DNA results show?" Period, that's it. No one, especially the jury, is looking to get a PhD in the protocols of DNA analysis and it is obvious that even the attorney doesn't really understand what the "expert" is talking about. This line of questioning is "totally in the weeds" and I turned the video off after 15 minutes. Similarly, I bet the jurors stopped listening around that time.
This is the most annoying and unhelpful witness I’ve ever seen.
This young lawyer could have asked her what the odds were if these reluctant could be from other people, as opposed to those tested.
The lawyer is not doing a good job of condensing and summing up. A more experienced lawyer needs to be doing this - it is very important!
The defense is going to jump all over that "unidentified contributor" and will say there was another killer, not their wonderful father defendant Alex.
I am wondering why there was 2 different guns. His wife was shot more times with a more powerful gun. It the person was specifically after Paul it seems like it would be the opposite. Now if something was stolen, maybe, but nothing was
@@ladybgail I think Alex used 2 different guns to throw people off and question whether or not there were 2 killers. Just like you're doing now.
@@looking4things669 it’s possible but pretty difficult unless he had them both ready to go close by but the thing is he’d have to be very meticulous about that.
Alex planned this out so of course he used to loaded guns , he threw away the guns and clothing and his bloody shoes before he called police.
I was thinking that too. Maggie was shot the most. If it was a vendetta against Paul, wouldn’t he of gotten hit more times then her? Also the shooter was 2-3 feet from both of them. That’s awful close. More personal. Then again they could say it was some psychopath who went on a random killing spree. But I don’t think that’s what happened either. Also both of them didn’t run from their killer and was shot from the front not the back initially. I want to know who got shot first. Has anyone said that yet?
This is painful! I blame the witness, and the lawyer
Wow! Such a stark contrast between defense and prosecution attorneys
I’m from the south - so, I’ve heard some real country accents … this female lawyer -I can’t even listen to what she is asking?? Is she is being extra annoying on purpose or is this her real voice ? I mean, come on !
She has a strong one but she is easy compared to some nurses down there I have listened to. Could not understand a damn thing they were saying.
Seriously! She looks like a cross between Billie Eilish and Shelly Duval, which just adds to the wtf-ness of her presence.
She needs a trim. I think she cut her own hair or went to someone who doesn't know how to cut hair.
@@uneeky5785 I agree
I’m from Missouri and I didn’t even notice it 😅
This was a horrible way to explain the DNA evidence, to much, to complicated.
In case people are confused by her lack of answers, the scientific staff who do forensic lab tests are not supposed to know anything about the case in order not to bias the outcome. They focus on the sample and the result, deliberately NOT what it would mean for the case. They also may not correlate their tests to the results of other tests. Both is done for the same reason; if you expect a certain result and know how to interpret them in the context of the case, you may be biased in interpreting the outcomes.
SLED and all law enforcers agencies tried from day one (night one), that Alex was guilty and looked at no one else. He is a thief and liar, Yes, but has no reason to murder his wife and son. No insurance on them and they were a happy family. The prosecution has an army of attorneys thrown at this. The main prosecutor is condescending and just repeats the same questions multiple times. Getting old.
How did Alec get rid of the evidence? Where are the guns and his cloths? I believe he had an accomplice!
I totally agree. He was there and and watched. He has millions stashed somewhere on his 1700 acres and paid them off. Accomlices took off with the two missing guns and family bullets that AM brought to crime scene. He had paid a guy to kill him, so his surviving son to get his life insurance, so he knows the sleeves that will do the murders..
I believe it was the brother he kept calling
Alex looks awfully sick to his stomach for someone who claims to be innocent.
dudes got some serious time ahead and its not fun being on the world stage
Small foot prints-???,hair clumps and a broken earing??? Why has this stuff not been deeply investigated??
I have watched every second of this trial and this Is the First Time i have Heard of this stuff ...
.being the Shooter 5.foot tall ...i want to know more about this stuff
As a juror, I would have felt unable to convict Alex on the basis of evidence described here. Thankfully, the kennel video took care of any reasonable doubt in one's mind. Belated thanks to Paul for his making the video.