Free Republic

Also apparently one of the drugs he was abusing can cause paranoia. My guess is that Murdaugh developed a paranoia centered aruond both Maggie and Paul, perhaps in part because they were the people he was around the most (ie, convenient targets for the paranoia to latch on to) but also due to the boat accident at least in regards to Paul.

But having said that, Murdaugh using paranoia as an excuse for lying to the police on the night of the murder doesn’t ring true to me. Mostly because paranoia is similar to narcissism in that there is an abnormal focus on oneself, though instead of self-love there is a nebulus fear of being harmed in some way. Yet after seeing people close to you killed, a normal reaction would be to go into shock and for your emotions to become numb for a period of time. Thus knocking aside paranoid feelings (or any feelings of self-preservation) at least until the shock wears off. Yet Murdaugh’s focus turns immediately to protecting himself.

That reminds me of what Nancy Grace said this morning on Fox, pointing out that Murdaugh testified that he felt paranoid about the police learning he was at the kennel which is why he lied. But why would saying he was at the kennel trigger paranoia? Wouldn’t it be normal for him to be at the kennel on any given day? And on the night of the murders when he ‘discovered’ the bodies, he (if innocent) wouldn’t have known when they were killed. 10 minutes earlier? 20 minutes? 30? An hour? So why would that have triggered any warnings UNLESS of course he knew that saying he was the kennel a couple hours earlier would put him there not only at the crime scene but also at the approximate time of when the murders occurred.

However i disagree with her on one thing. She thought it was a mistake for Murdaugh to testify but after the witnesses came forward saying that was his voice on the video, i think he and his team knew they had no shot of getting a hung jury unless they did something to shake things up. And the only thing that might shake things up would be for him to testify. A sort of Hail Mary pass, hoping that it might connect with one or more of the jurors who might let a sense of empathy towards him override rational thinking.

As cliche as it may sound, my theory is that Murdaugh has a Jekyll and Hyde thing going on. Namely, the Hyde (or monster side of him) was created/strengthened by his addictions and further strengthened by the stress originating from the aftermath of the boat incident involving his son Paul.

If this is so then it stands to reason that he might come to view the Hyde side as not really him, but instead something artificially created by painkillers and by a catastrophic event not of his own making but externally wrought by the actions of his son (which in turn might be why he wanted to kill his son, as the source of his whole life and reputation suddenly falling apart).

Therefore when Murdaugh testified something to the effect of "I would never intentionally hurt Maggie or Paul", what he really was saying is that at the time of the murder he (his body) was merely a puppet to this monstrous side of him that had taken over. (And on that note it would have been interesting if the prosecutor had jumped in and asked "You say you didn't intentionally hurt them, Mr. Murdaugh, but did your raise the gun with your arm and did you pull the trigger with your finger?").

Oh and one more thing. Murdaugh had prefaced the above statement by apologizing to his wife and son, which sounded extremely odd and almost like an admission of guilt. To me this was him acknowledging that he (his Jekyll persona if you will) held himself at least somewhat responsible for the killings even though he believed that he was being controlled by this other persona.

Just some general thoughts based off of some of the discussion here.

Regarding the dog, i think it’s likely he slept on the 1st floor even if his owner’s room was on the 2nd or 3rd floor. Also keep in mind that this was a party house (noisy) and apparently the girls were on the phone all the time, such as that very night with them calling the BF at close to 3am. So it probably wasn’t uncommon to hear them laughing and talking loudly, maybe even playfully shouting or screaming at times. Therefore it’s reasonable to think that the dog (and the other 2 roommates) learned to tune out most noises coming from upstairs.

Conversely, we don’t know what the acoustics were like in that house. Could be people on the 1st floor couldn’t hear much of anything happening up above, and that goes doubly for those sleeping inside a bedroom with the door closed.

As to the killer. It’s interesting that he probably entered from the back. If you see pictures of the house, it is kind of a strange layout since if entering from the front you find yourself (as expected) on the 1st floor....but from the back you instead find yourself on the 2nd floor. Was the killer just fortunate that the dog wasn’t on the 2nd floor (if indeed the dog was downstairs) or did he already know that? And if he knew, then perhaps he avoided going downstairs since that would obviously alert the dog who would start barking and thus put the killer in danger of having the cops called or s/o pulling a gun on him.

A few other odds & ends:

I don’t buy that the girls were nervous about s/t and therefore tried to call the BF. If they were nervous, they would have made sure all the doors and windows were locked and probably would have had the dog sleep upstairs with them as well.

As to the 911 call. Again i think the layout of the house comes into play here. The friends arriving at the house probably entered from the front and thus didn’t notice the blood dripping down from outside which i think was toward the back of the house. Still, the roommates at least should have seen bloody shoeprints leading away from the rooms or something of that nature.

Plus didn’t they go into the rooms or did the killer lock the bedroom doors behind him? And did he also remove his shoes so as to not leave bloody shoeprints? If he did those things, he must have watched a lot of CSI or similar shows and is a cold, calculating monster.

More likely though i suspect that the person calling 911 was in a state of shock which led to a poorly worded call. And/or perhaps this person reooiled at coming right out saying “they are dead”, instead using “unconscious person” in a euphemistic sort of way, or else somehow hoped against all hope that they were still alive.

I remember Wallace during the Mueller hearings would often say around noontime that this testimony or these witnesses are devastating to the President and he doesn’t see how he can survive politically. But of course that was before the Republicans had a chance to cross-examine the witnesses and by the evening the “devastating” bombshell would inevitably turn out to be a dud (much to his disappointment i’m sure). And so it’s no surprise that once again he jumps to a biased conclusion instead of waiting to see how everything plays out.

Oops, they omitted a key word in the 2nd paragraph which i’ll helpfully supply in CAPS:

“a broad coalition of CORRUPT top government and industry officials is declaring that....”

It’s not so much the “abandoning their base” part that bothers me. It’s the intentionally joining in on the mainstream media and Big Tech effort to sabotage the President that i view as unforgivable if not outright criminal.

In my opinion we need to support a media company owned by a true conservative patriot. I don’t know much about Newsmax in that regard, but i believe One America News fits that bill and that’s who i hope emerges in the aftermath of the Fall of Fox.

I never watched his show that much. Mostly just Fox & Friends and The Five, plus some weekend shows. But i did think he displayed real courage by not backing down to cancel culture and i respected that. At the same time though i never got the feeling he was a guy who had Trump’s back.

In my eyes, there is nothing Fox can do to make up for what they did. It wasn’t merely a bias problem, it was an intentional effort to affect the outcome of the race. Not just what they did on election night by slow-walking calls for Trump and accelerating calls for Biden, but also the phony polls and Chris Wallace teaming up with Biden at the debate. They could replace every single liberal on the network with a conservative and it still wouldn’t matter to me. This election was far too important to ever forgive or forget what they did.

Some of those pictured i don’t even mind. I’m fine with hearing opposing views as long as that person is intellectually honest about it (ie, not just 100% of the time defending everything their side does and 100% of the time attacking everything else....ala Juan Williams). The lady on the bottom left is a good example of that from what i’ve seen. The real problem wasn’t so much the lefty commentators but Fox stealthily injecting anti-Trump poison into their “news” coverage: the fake polls, the 1st debate debacle and the decision desk debacle are unforgivable and rise to the level of criminal activity to my mind.

I agree. My fear is that the process will take too long to play out and the dems will of course keep delaying things as much as possible. Hopefully something substantial will start breaking EARLY next week.

A couple days ago President Trump tweeted that “WE ARE MAKING BIG PROGRESS. RESULTS START TO COME IN NEXT WEEK.”

Several years ago i had OANN for a year before i had to switch to another provider which doesn’t carry it. But i remember thinking back then that if only OANN were as widely available as FNC that it probably overtake them in a few years. It’s a shame that never happened, but i suspect the powers-that-be made sure OANN was never given a fair shake.

For pete sake people, Fox has some good commentators and some morons. Intelligent people can pick and choose without being told “FOX BAD!”

The issue for many of us isn't Fox having a diversity of opinions. The problem is much more nefarious than that. For instance, whenever they cover big political events (like the Mueller hearings or the election) the panels are always weighted against Trump: they'll prominently feature Wallace, Baier, McCollum, Juan Williams, Donna Brazille...and in Trump's corner they'll have Dana Perino and occasionally an actual Trump supporter like Katie Pavlich.

But far worse is how their polling and election desk decisions might as well have come straight from the DNC. And let's not forget the hit job that Chris Wallace did during the 1st debate, while afterwards getting "atta boys" from Fox execs.

It's obvious that someone(s) high up had an agenda to hit Trump with as much "friendly" fire as possible while using shows like Tucker and Hannity essentially as a front for all the damage they were inflicting on the so-called straight news side of things. It's a shame for the many good conservative shows and guests that Fox has, but what Fox did to sabotage the president (and betray their viewers) cannot be undone and must not be forgotten or forgiven.

More here...https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8XRRBt1/geotus-report-dominion-deleted-2/c/

Unfortunately i'm seeing some posts there that seem to indicate these numbers may be based on not-so-solid data:

ThrowawayBrit 2 points 9 minutes ago +2 / -0 Yes. Like others on here I realised pretty quickly that it was predicated on counting rounding errors. It went surprisingly far and wide on Twitter regardless, made it to The Gateway Pundit and now presumably to OANN.

oh_hi_solidarity 1 point 6 minutes ago +1 / -0 The analysis is improper. You need to do a trend analysis of the final results vs baselines like Shiva. The original post here was flawed due to unreliability of timestamps data + precision rounding errors.

Manneq 1 point 6 minutes ago +1 / -0 We aren't sure if the edison data is the actual voting results. Therefore it wouldn't be evidence of anything really, not before we know for sure. And we don't.

KleineSchlachtmusik 1 point 7 minutes ago +1 / -0 Well, we'd like to think his team has inside info and will drop a bomb that will actually fix this mess. It's only unfortunate if he's sharing these reports for public opinion purposes but they don't have the goods. Hoping they come through and some traitors are punished.

For those like me who want nothing to do with twitter, you can check out DJT's tweets here:

https://gab.com/realdonaldtrump

So Trump meant to tweet “IT” and not the pronoun “it”?

No, i think he meant the pronoun.

"What do we know about Dominion?"
"[We know] It attempted to alter our election and got caught."

Now that the voting is over and they’ve done their best to take down Trump on the sly (via fake polls, fake debate moderator, fake decision desk), they are trying to sell us on all the tasty conservative fare they still have to offer in hopes we’ll forget the poisoned dished they served up previously. Sorry, but what they attempted to do is something that cannot be remedied by anything short of selling FNC to someone that can be trusted and who will clean house.

Fox must be banking on people having short attention spans and that they’ll be back watching again after all the dust settles. If questioned, they’ll just say there was a problem with the satellite feed and in the old days i could buy that, but there’s no longer any reason to extend them the benefit of the doubt. For when we needed them most here down the stretch to at least play it straight they (the “news” side of FNC) instead sabotaged Trump every chance they got: Wallace at the 1st debate, the fake Fox polls, and of course calling Arizona prematurely are just some of the more blatant things they did.

Faux was USED by the cabal against Trump.

It's sad but true that the left often takes over what were once respectable organizations, like Disney and Fox News (and many others), in order to further spread their corrupt ideology to an unsuspecting audience. A wolf in sheep's clothing type thing.

But mostly i think of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers movie where after a while the main character notices something is wrong and is like "gee, my father looks the same, the voice is the same and all...but somehow i get the feeling he's a completely different person on the inside!"

In Fox's case it was infiltrated by the likes of Paul Ryan and the Rupert boys (and their wives). They probably all gave themselves high fives on election night as mission accomplished.

I don’t dislike Tucker, and in fact i’ve come to respect his willingness to not back down to cancel culture, but i’ve never viewed him as particularly pro-Trump or frankly much of a team player. Most of the time this is a good thing for his show, because you can trust him to give his honest opinion.

However, in this case, i wish he were more of a team player whereby even if you think your side is going to lose, you just sit on the bench and keep quiet rather than bringing everyone down by saying “why bother, you know we can’t beat these guys!” Which is how this comes across.

In any event, my advice to him would be let’s wait and see. After all, President Trump has been said to have no chance of coming out on top many times in the past by many so-called experts. I wouldn’t bet against him.