|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Following weeks of silence, the state of South Carolina is finally addressing why it doesn’t want the public to see hidden files linked to the controversial dismissal of a juror from Alex Murdaugh’s double homicide trial last year.
The debate over these public documents – which escalated to the S.C. supreme court earlier this month – is tangential to Murdaugh’s bid for a new trial on the basis of jury tampering allegations involving disgraced former Colleton County clerk of court Becky Hill.
Still, it has sparked interest among those following the Murdaugh saga – especially after the attorney pushing for the release of the documents hinted at potentially newsworthy revelations contained therein, adding that “the public should be entitled to see what happened backstage.”
Attorney Joe McCulloch has asked the court to unseal these files on behalf of his client, former Murdaugh juror Myra Crosby. Our audience will recall Crosby was dismissed as a Murdaugh juror on the morning the verdicts were handed down for allegedly discussing the case with two of her tenants. She has denied those allegations and stated her removal was the result of a conspiracy involving Hill and several others aimed at ensuring a guilty verdict.
According to motion (.pdf) filed before the supreme court earlier this week, prosecutors in the office of S.C. attorney general Alan Wilson – who successfully prosecuted Murdaugh for the 2021 murders of his wife and younger son, among other crimes – assert that the files should remain sealed because Crosby “fails to show why should not be required to adhere to the terms” of the order sealing the files.
***
That order was imposed by S.C. circuit court judge Clifton Newman – who presided over the Palmetto State’s ‘Trial of the Century’ from January 23 through March 3, 2024.
According to the state, Crosby agreed to a conditional release of the files to her lawyer last fall – although lead Murdaugh prosecutor Creighton Waters insisted at the time that neither McCulloch nor Crosby could “further publish or disseminate the materials.”
In other words, the state insisted these files go no further than McCulloch and his client.
Sources close to this case say Waters has “flatly rejected” any bid to release these documents – which include materials related to the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED)’s “investigation” into the allegations against Crosby by her tenants. SLED was the agency which investigated Murdaugh for the murders of his wife and younger son (controversially, at that).
Isn’t that a conflict of interest? Yes…
Regular members of our audience will recall I have previously questioned the impartiality of such an inquiry – as well as the impartiality of those currently tasked with prosecuting Hill on the jury tampering allegations.
To me, it seems clear their goal is to protect the guilty verdicts against Murdaugh at all costs as opposed to discovering the truth about “what happened backstage.”
Is keeping these files under wraps part of that campaign?
***
According to the state, Crosby’s bid to unseal these files “appears to be unprecedented” – and the supreme court would be wise to wait until Murdaugh files his initial appellate brief on December 10, 2024 before deciding how to rule on the matter.
“Once the initial brief is filed, the parties will have a better idea on how to treat this issue,” the state noted in its filing.
In urging delay, the state took a decidedly dim view of Crosby in its filing – arguing she was trying to “rescind a consent order that she entered into” with the objective of “making matters public that she originally agreed that she would not disclose.”
“She has changed her mind about the agreement she entered into with the court,” Wilson’s prosecutors noted. “The state has not changed its position.”
Really?
I’m sorry but the state’s own brief made it abundantly clear that it was Waters – not Crosby – who insisted on adding the non-disclosure requirement last fall. Are we now to believe that Crosby’s desire to have these files made public somehow constitutes her changing her mind? Or her going back on her word?
***
RELATED | THE EGG JUROR CONSPIRACY
***
That is an incredibly dishonest framing of this debate… and further underscores my skepticism of the state’s handling of these matters.
At the end of the day, these are public documents – and they must be released to the public. Why the state will not content to their release is concerning – and continues to breathe life into theories of a broader conspiracy to rig the Murdaugh jury.
“I have no idea what these requested records will show,” I noted in a recent column on this debate. “Perhaps the state fairly and dispassionately discharged its obligations to Murdaugh under the law. Perhaps not. But whatever information these records contain, it is public information – and must be released. And the state’s refusal to consent to it being released is troubling.”
Now, the state is going one step further – shamelessly misrepresenting Crosby’s position as a justification for keeping these files sealed (and for delaying any discussion as to whether they should be opened).
I have consistently argued in support of Alex Murdaugh’s guilt – and in favor of his sentencing. But as firmly as I believe he killed his wife and son (or knows who did and is lying about it), I believe his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was grossly violated – and that, as a result, he deserves a new trial.
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR …
Will Folks is the owner and founding editor of FITSNews. Prior to founding his own news outlet, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina, bass guitarist in an alternative rock band and bouncer at a Columbia, S.C. dive bar. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.
***
WANNA SOUND OFF?
Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.
21 comments
Whoever is capable of taking the Lord’s name in vain or of bearing false witness against his/her neighbor or of adultery (lusting in one’s heart according to Jesus Christ) is capable of murder. Epistle of St. James 2:11.
If you believe, as I do, that medical evidence makes it impossible for Richard Alexander Murdaugh (“RAM”) to have killed his wife and younger son and that the real killers were instrumental in pinning the two murders on RAM, you would worry, as I do, after reading Valerie Bauerlein’s assertion that Mark Tinsley has LITERALLY chosen a bullet for RAM, that the State’s delay is part of new conspiracy to get RAM killed in prison so that, with his death, ALL issues related to his January-March 2023 trial go away.
And a few more points.
Becky Hill is NOT the first to tamper with a jury in a criminal trial. At least two assistant-solicitors THIS CENTURY were definitely suspended for texting a sitting juror during a criminal trial urging the juror to not have sympathy for the defendant. See In the Matter of Michael O’Brien Nelson, SC Supreme Court (“SC S Ct”) Opinion 27327, filed 23 October 2013; and Matter of Jeffrey Alton Phillips, SC S Ct Opinion 28231, filed 14 August 2024.
Plausibly, the system wants RAM and all his appeals to LITERALLY die because the wrongs done by and to RAM were the culmination of long-tolerated, if not encouraged, and ever-more-festering boils within the system.
RAM did not kill Paul of Maggie; but RAM quickly surmised who did or who could have. After discovering the bodies, RAM stood genuinely wailing “Pau, Pau! I should have known.” RAM later told Maggie’s sister, “whoever did this has planned it for a long time.”
Whoever did this has also planned how to pin it on RAM. Then comes the honest and intelligent Myra Crosby and sees that the Prosecution’s case just does not add up. What to do but get her off the jury by hook or by crook?
I wish Congressman Wilson a speedy and full recovery. But I also wish the congressman’s brush with mortality would awaken his adopted son’s conscience to the fact that gaining a governorship or a U.S. Senator’s position on the blood of a man innocent of two murders is something for which he will one day have to answer in this world or the next.
How do you know what Alex said when he found the bodies of Maggie and Paul?
It’s on the bodycams of the first responders to the scene.
Otherwise, good to hear from you again, Kidd, although you seem to have gone to the other side on RAM.
God bless nonetheless.
No ma’am..I have not gone to the other side..I am still very much in the middle on all of this..I’m just curious because there was no cameras around when he found the bodies..The police wasn’t there yet when they were found..I think you meant to say after the police arrived because there is no way of us knowing what he said after finding the bodies but I do realize that you meant after the police arrived but it didn’t read that way in my opinion
It’s always great to see your comments and I always enjoy reading your perspectives in this case
Thanks Kidd! I have more detailed response to your second comment below.
And as concerning as Myra Crosby’s improper removal from the jury, if not more concerning, is the retention on the jury of the man who, according to Becky Hill’s own book, received “thousands of dollars” to stay on the jury instead returning to work to earn his keep and pay “his baby mama” the child support on which he was in arrears and at risk of contempt of court.
Becky Hill wrote that juror disclosed that to her on their expense-paid luxury flight to New York the day after the guilty verdict.
When will anyone seriously look into that and tell us where those “thousands of dollars” came from AND why?
I’ve been writing about that since I read it a year ago in Becky Hill’s book; but it is as if I were talking to a wall or walls.
No one cares anymore. They got their verdict and that’s all that was wanted to begin with. A guilty verdict. I thought I saw Judge Newman saying that even if the juror mentions to someone they are in the jury then that’s grounds for removal. If that’s true then Myra shouldn’t have been there to begin with. Myra stated that her friend was supposed to have wrote on Myra’s FB that Myra was in FB jail so that no one would suspect anything on why Myra wasn’t posting her daily postings. But messenger isn’t part of the punishment from FB when you go to jail on there so all they would have to do is message Myra to find out what happened.
I also have some other issues with some of the statements that Myra has made both on her affidavit to the courts but some things she has said in the interviews.
1. Her ex husband says he didn’t even know she was on the jury until he heard her voice when she was dismissed from jury duty. Myra says he called her the morning of the dismissal. Why? He wouldn’t have known anything about the FB post at that time to be calling her about and he wouldn’t have even known she was on the jury yet
2. Myra says in the in camera hearing that she hasn’t talked to her ex husband in many many years except once about her son being in jail..But she has a younger son as well and he has visitation with him so that’s exactly the truth. She does see her ex. On 1st, 3rd and 5th Friday of every month and again on that Sunday. So she lied under oath in the court room to the judges face!
Lots of lies and lots of twisting happening there
I do not know anything about Myra Catherine Crosby having a younger son or if that younger son is by her first ex-husband or if there is another husband in between Mr. Stone and Mr. Crosby.
What I did learn from Myra’s interviews and book is that she had been doxed early in the trial as had been (all?) other jurors. Apparently, that doxing is not denied by anyone. So, that might answer how Myra’s first husband might have known Myra was on the jury.
I’ve now read Myra’s book; and she does make some good points although they are lost and buried under a lot of unnecessary details and repetitions.
What I do know based on the official transcript of Richard Alexander Murdaugh’s (“RAM”) cases and my cases is how one prosecutor, David Amadeo Fernandez, common to both RAM’s case and mine operates.
I’ve been wanting to post some transcript experts from my cases since I read that Myra specifies David Fernandez as involved in her removal by fabricating the FaceBook story and getting affidavits from Mr. Crosby’s tenants.
Fernandez was a Columbia Assistant City Attorney (“CACA”) from his 2008 graduation from law school until he went to SC’s Attorney General’s (“SCAG”) office some time between 2014 and 2017.
Because your interest in my facts is valuable to me, I shall, God willing and FITS permitting, post those transcript excerpts in my next comments.
Thanks again for your interest and civility and God speed and God bless.
Dear KIDD, do you have OBJECTIVE proof that Myra Catherine has a younger son with Tim Stone, to whom Myra needs to take that younger son four times a month?
My certainty of Richard Alexander Murdaugh’s (“RAM”) innocence OF THE MURDERS is based on so many OBJECTIVE facts which I PERSONALLY know based on (1) my medical knowledge and training; (2) my own long experience with MOST of the VERY PROSECUTORS and JUDGES involved in RAM’s prosecutions for the murders AND for financial crimes; (3) the televised testimony and after-trial interviews and lectures by people in RAM’s trials; AND (4) my reading of complete books by Becky Hill, Mandy Matney, and Judge Gergel, and excerpts of books by others.
In that context, Myra Catherine Crosby’s new book and recent interviews are only the proverbial icing on the cake. BUT if she really lied about not having seen Tim Stone for 10 years, that would be disturbing to me.
So, please give your sources for your statement for MY peace of mind about Myra.
Thanks and God bless.
Continuing: This is what I said on Tuesday, 23 February 2010, in my opening statement to the jury in a General Sessions trial presided over by none other than now-retired-active SC Circuit Judge Clifton Newman:
[16-23] Let me tell you another story from the Bible, and that is the story of David. He saw Bathsheba who was a beautiful woman bathing, and he got lust for her. And he asked, “Who is this beautiful woman?” And they told him, “She is the wife of Uriah the Hittite,” and he said, “Bring him to me.” And he contrived to put Uriah the Hittite in the front of the battle, conspiracy, so that he gets killed and he did get killed.
[24 – page 18, line 7] And God sent Nathan, the prophet, and gave David this example. He told him there was a rich man who had a lot of cattle and a lot of goods and a big house and everything, and next to him was a poor man who had only one kid, one little goat, and the rich man got a visitor and he wanted to lay a feast for the visitor, give him something to eat. And instead of taking one of his many flocks of the rich man’s flocks, he took — he went and took that one kid goat from the poor man and slaughtered it and served it to his guests.
[8-11] “So what do you think of that?” Nathan the prophet asked King David? And King David said, “That man shall surely die. This is a horrible thing to do.” And then Nathan told him, “You are that man.” And that was God punishing David.
[12-16] Do you know how God punished David? David had two sons. One of them killed each other, and the one who killed the other took one of David’s wife (sic) for his wife. God put total strife in David’s house to punish him for doing something so horrible.
[17-23] What you will see here is that a woman by the name of Dinah Steele bought two buildings, two quadruplexes. Each one has four identical apartments, so she has eight identical apartments altogether. One is on 300 Byron Road, and the other is on 304 Byron Road. You will see that she was renting the six apartments, each of the six identical apartments, for less than $400 a month.
[24 – page 19, line 2] You will see that when I looked to rent one of the other two vacant ones, she said, “It’s $550.” And I did not know that she was renting to the others for more — for less. I’m sorry. And why did she do that? Because I’m a foreigner.
[3-5] And then you will see that my mother and I bought a sliver of land so I can build on it what, God willing, may be South Carolina’s [fisrt] completely solar house.
[6-12] You will see that after I bought it, mother and I bought it, we discovered – and we didn’t know before then – that the sewer lines from Dinah Steele’s building had been run across the land that we bought, and you will see that the reason it was done this way is for them to avoid paying the sewer fee when it was first built and that they continue to not pay the city the monthly sewer bill.
[13-19] How did they get away with it? Because in the City of Columbia sewer is not metered separately. Only the water usage is metered, and the sewer bill is a multiplier of the water usage. So because the sewer connections were in a roundabout way, no one knew. Not even the City of Columbia knew that she was getting sewer service and not paying for it, and certainly neither mother nor I knew that.
[20-25] And we closed on that piece of land, a very small piece of land. That’s — it didn’t even have an address. It was a piece of another property, and that case will come later. And thank God I had to get all the permits and all to make it buildable, and its address is 324 Byron Road and it’s right next to 304 Byron Road.
[page 20, lines 1-7] And we closed on that property on March 3rd, 2009. It was registered and the address was assigned on March 9th, 2009. I’m sorry. March 6, 2009. You will you will see that on March 12th, 2009, Dinah Steele discovered that I had bought that property and she knew – I didn’t know – but she knew that if I were to start building on it, I would discover the sewer scheme that she has.
[8-12] And she and one man called Larry Mason, they pretend to be married, but you will see that they are not married, and it doesn’t matter whether they are married or not married. What matters is that before several courts they went under oath and swore that they were married.
[13] You will see that they immediately tried to bully me.
[14-17] They wanted this land which is the only thing I have, and my only hope is to build according to my own inventions and with my own hands some place I can live in where no one will discriminate against me or try to push me around.
[18-21] You will see that on March 12th he called me by phone, Larry Mason did, and said, “Why don’t you go back where you came from, you Egyptian bitch?” And you will see that he said, “I will evict you from the apartment you’re renting.”
In the next comment, God willing and FITS permitting, I shall paste the transcript of what Fernandez falsely pretended I said.
Continuing: This is the City-of-Columbia-made transcript of what then-CACA Fernandez on 6 October 2010 FALSELY pretended I had said TO HIM, all to get me in contempt of court and distract from my demand for the false criminal charges against me to be dismissed:
[page 62, lines 1-3] Mr. Fernandez: I have witnessed this personally. She has done it to me personally. I would reference, Your Honor, two specific incidents. One occurred on August 20th —
[4] Defendant Faltas: Objection.
[5] Mr. Fernandez: Of this year, 2010–
[6-12] The Court: Ma’am, I’ll ask you to be quiet. I’ll give you time to respond at the appropriate time and this is not it and no more interruptions from you. This is going to be a very long day and you just keep making it longer and I don’t need that, no one in here needs that, you don’t need that. I want you to wait until I call upon you. I understand you don’t agree with anything he says. All right. Thank you. Go ahead.
[13] Defendant Faltas: I am objecting to his testifying.
[14] The Court: Ma’am, sit. Thank you. All right.
[15 – page 63, line 5] Mr. Fernandez: Your Honor, on August 20th, 2010, the defendant appeared at the office, city attorney’s office, located at 1401 main street with the premise of picking up discovery. There was I believe a video or a c.d. or something she was picking up for one of her cases. The staff in our office did not want to go down to pick it up because they are intimidated by the defendant. They want to have nothing to do with her. And so I volunteered to go down there. I did bring along with me Ms. Constance Holloway because I need something witnessed whenever I have any personal interaction with the defendant. And, Your Honor, the defendant engaged in numerous name calling. She specifically and repeatedly degraded my intelligence, my competence, my integrity. She made derogatory comments about my ethnicity or what she perceives my ethnicity to be. She was incorrect but that’s irrelevant. The defendant also made threats to my family. She specifically said that my wife and family would be raped for seven generations.
[6] Defendant Faltas: (sound) gasp
[7-9] The Court: Ma’am, one more outburst from you and you will be removed from the court and taken to the jail for contempt of court. Do you understand me? Yes or no and nothing more.
[10-13] Defendant Faltas: No, I do not understand you. I do not understand your inability to realize that when bad accusations like this are made against me they should be sworn and I have an opportunity to cross examine.
[14-16] The Court: Ma’am, you have a seat. When there are witnesses you will have an opportunity to cross examine. This is the attorney. He is always under oath in court, something that you are not so have a seat. One more outburst and you are out of here.
[18-20] Mr. Fernandez: To offer some prospective, Your Honor, the defendant frequently uses biblical references and biblical stories when trying to relate.
[21-23] The Court: I’m sorry. But would you please back up to what was interrupted. You were saying that your family was threatened.
[24 – page 64, line 7] Mr. Fernandez: Yes, Your Honor. The defendant said that for my — she consistently tells me that I am an evil person and she tells me that I am — she tells stories from the Bible about how God will smite the unjust and send them to hell and all sorts of things like that. There were stories being related to me and she said — she told one particular story which said my family would pay for my sins. My wife and family generations (inaudibhle). My wife would be raped for my sins and my family would be raped for seven generations.
[8] The Court: Raped?
[9-15] Mr. Fernandez: Raped. Yes, Your Honor. Your Honor, she frequently tells me that I will be going to hell for my sins and that God will wipe me off the face of this earth. She also threatened my law license which she’s — she’s frequently told me she will have my law license before she’s done with me and that she will go after my career with the City of Columbia and my employment.
So, I had told THE JURY how the Bible shows God punished KING DAVID for conspiring to get the innocent Hittite killed and take his wife. Then-CACA Fernandez FALSELY converted that to my threatening to get HIS “wife raped for generations to come.”
Noteworthy is that the City of Columbia had PHOTOS of one Corey/Cory Lamont Curry, a convicted PWID-crack-cocaine dealer, threatening to rape ME. Yet, the City of Columbia paid Hatchet-for-Hire Heather Weiss $70K/year IN ADDITION TO HER ASSISTANT SOLICITOR’S SALARY to bring false criminal charges against critics of the City and against political rivals of the City’s officials. So, Hatchet-for-Hire Heather had ME falsely arrested and prosecuted as if I had harassed that Curry, not the opposite.
Also, Hatchet-for-Hire Heather LIED to Judge Clifton Newman about that Curry’s criminal record. Hatchet-for-Hire Heather HERSELF had earlier convicted that Curry for dealing cocaine. Yet, when I later discovered and presented to Judge Clifton Newman OBJECTIVE proof of Weiss’ lies and subornation of perjuries against me, Judge Newman was totally indifferent.
Kidd is right: no one cares. They wanted a guilty verdict and they got it. They wanted to destroy my life and they did,
Further evidence against then-CACA-Fernandez:
On 3 March 2010, only two business days after I had, thank God and WITHOUT A LAWYER, defeated Hatchet-for-Hire Heather’s evil plan to get me convicted for harassment and sentenced to 46 years, yes forty-six because of weird statutory enhancements, I appeared before then-Columbia-Municipal-Judge, now-Federal-Appeals-Judge DeAndrea Benjamin, demanding dismissal of the other false charges CACA-Fernandez and Hatchet-for-Hire Heather had concocted against me (in case that harassment thing failed as, thank God, it did). Jurist Benjamin ORDERED then-CACA-Fernandez to give me discovery in 30 days.
After 30 days and no word from then-CACA-Fernandez, I wrote to Fernandez. He responded that no hearing had taken place except in my hallucinations. When I emailed him the written transcript of that hearing, he filed for an order to prevent me from communicating with him or be held in contempt of court.
This is THE David Fernandez presented aa a genius prosecutor.
He could get his way with one as rich as Richard Alexander Murdaugh (“RAM”) or someone as smart and innocent and, in Judge Clifton Newman’s TRANSCRIBED words “most pleasant and gracious” as Dr. Marie Faltas.
Every one should care, if not for RAM or for Dr. Faltas, but for themselves who may, God forbid, find their own FIGURATIVE necks under Heather’s hatchet with David Fernandez foot on the victim’s shoulder.
Every one should care because Jesus Christ said, “I was a prisoner and you did not visit me.”
Just to avoid any misunderstandings:
(1) “The Court” in the transcript of 6 October 2010 is NOT Judge Clifton Newman but a woman called Marion Oneida Hanna and dubbed “Hammering Hanna” because she was known to go into hammering fits when she was on the City of Columbia’s Municipal [so-called] Court.
(2) The only two times I was allowed to appear for a FORMAL transcribed hearing before Judge Clifton Newman AFTER my 22-26 February 2010 General Sessions jury trial were on Total Solar Eclipse Day 2017 and 28 December 2018. BOTH times I reminded Judge Clifton Newman of his right and duty to punish those who committed/suborned perjury in his court; but he was indifferent to my pleas.
(3) Because is thread is related to David Amadeo Fernandez and his habits of lying to courts, I shall, God willing and FITS permitting, paste hereunder the transcript of my cross-examination of Fernandez’s own witness, Lawyer Constance Holloway.
(4) Like Becky Hill, Marion Oneida Hanna used city resources to self-publish two so-called novels, which are easily two of the worst ever written in English. Unlike Becky’s book, which initially apparently gave her a $100K profit, Marion’s books were flops from the start. But more on that separately, always God so willing and FITS permitting.
Here is the relevant part of my 6 October 2010 cross-examination of Fernandez’s own witness, Lawyer Constance Holloway. Incidentally, please notice how Marion Oneida Hanna reacts when I asked Lawyer Holloway about the LEGAL meaning of the word “bastard”:
[page 133, line1] The Court: She said she did not know. Move on.
[2-3] Q. (by Defendant Faltas) Is your salary sixty-five thousand dollars–
[4] The Court: You have no — her salary is not relevant.
[5] Defendant Faltas: It’s public–
[6-7] The Court: No, it isn’t. It’s not relevant here. I don’t care how public it is. Move on.
[8-9] Q. (by Defendant Faltas) is your salary higher than what graduates of the same–
[10] The Court: Dr. Faltas, I said her salary is not relevant.
[11] Defendant Faltas: I’m trying to make a record, ma’am.
[12] The Court: I am telling you —
[13] Defendant Faltas: All right. I’ll ask another question.
[14] The Court: It better be relevant.
[15] Defendant Faltas: Yes.
[16-18] Q. (by Defendant Faltas) You said from here but not in the affidavit that I said black people normally go to church, is that correct?
[19] A. Yes. Well, (inaudible) black people (inaudible).
[20] Q. Yes. And what’s wrong with that?
[21-22] A. There’s nothing wrong with that statement but you continued to say that I must not be one of those black people.
[23-24] Q. Thank you. Are you one of the people who are Christian and go to church?
[25 – page 134, line 1] The Court: That is not relevant. You have no right to ask her about her religious affiliation.
[2-3] Q. (by Defendant Faltas) You heard — did you read Mr. Fernandez’s affidavit?
[4] A. Yes.
[5-6] Q. And did you hear him testify under guise of making arguments here?
[7] A. I heard him make a statement.
[8] Q. Okay. Did that statement refer to his family?
[9] A. Part of it did.
[10] Q. Are you aware of a biblical passage that says I am —
[11] The Court: We are not going into the Bible. You move on.
[12-13] Defendant Faltas: Ma’am, he’s contending that my biblical quotation was —
[14] The Court: She did not. She did not.
[15-16] Q. (by Defendant Faltas) Did you hear me threaten Fernandez’s family?
[17-18] A. I heard you say that his wife would be raped and his family would suffer for generations or (inaudible).
[19] Q. Raped by whom?
[20] A. I don’t recall that you (inaudible).
[21] Q. Did you hear I was going to rape her?
[22] A. No, I don’t recall you saying, David, I’m going to rape your wife.
[23] Q. Did you say I was going to send somebody to rape his wife?
[24] A. No, you did not say that.
[25] Q. Wasn’t that in connection with the biblical story of David?
[page 135, line 1] Mr. Fernandez: Your Honor, objection.
[2] Defendant Faltas: I am asking what she witnessed.
[3-4] The Court: No, you are asking her to interpret what you said and you are not going to ask her that. Go to something else.
* * * * *
[7] Q. (by Defendant Faltas) Is the word bastard a legal term?
[8] A. No.
[9] Q. (sound)
[10] A. A legal term?
[11] Q. Yes, ma’am.
[12] A. No. Derogatory but not illegal.
[13] Q. No, no, not illegal. A legal term.
[14] A. A legal term?
[15] Q. Yes, ma’am.
[16] A. The term bastard?
[17] Q. Yes, ma’am.
[18] A. I’m not aware of it being a legal term.
[19-20] Q. Have you ever looked in Black’s Law Dictionary? It has the term bastard in it.
[21] A. I have never particularly looked for that word.
[22] Q. Do you —
[23-25] The Court: Dr. Faltas, if you are going to keep up with the law then you need to go study your probate court cases, too. Let’s ask something that’s relevant or you go sit down.
[page 142, line 1] Defendant Faltas: Yes, ma’am, I am.
[2] The Court: Do it.
[3-6] Q. (by Defendant Faltas) And on that other day when I had given Mr. Fernandez one of my better writings were you aware that previously I had been serving the City by delivering copies to the security guard downstairs?
[7] A. Yes.
[8-9] Q. And they — he would usually call and someone would come and pick it up?
[10] A. Yes.
[11-12] Q. And that arrangement has been satisfactory, Isn’t that correct?
[13-14] A. I don’t know if the arrangement is satisfactory. (inaudible) describe it as satisfactory.
[15-18] Q. That day on August 20th, 2010, that you came with David Fernandez, isn’t it true that the reason David Fernandez was wanting to come downstairs was to give me those documents so he can try a case on August 30th?
[19-20] A. I know that he was turning over discovery. I don’t know what (inaudible).
[21-22] Q. And isn’t it true that the only thing he turned over was a cassette tape?
[23-25] A. I’m not sure. My purpose of going was so he could have a person there (inaudible). I didn’t review discovery, I didn’t look at what he was turning over to you.
[page 143, line 1] Q. Your purpose was to assist him but you didn’t observe —
[2-3] A. My purpose was to — as he indicated earlier that he always liked to have someone with him when he (inaudible).
[4] Q. But you weren’t observing what he was doing?
[5] A. I was not.
[6-7] Q. So you came to be a witness as to what he gave me but you didn’t notice what he —
[8-13] A. No, I did not come to be a witness and say David gave you one tape, David gave you two pieces of paper, David gave you (inaudible). That was not my purpose. My purpose was to assist him downstairs so that he could have the additional witness to hear interchange between the two of you because of your previous history with each other.
[14-15] Q. Okay. So that was a time when he of his own volition when it suits his purpose he came down and spoke to me, isn’t that correct?
[16-17] A. I’m not sure. I’m not sure of him ever coming down. I know the staff would normally go down and pick the documents up.
[18] Q. That day he did come down?
[19] A. He did come down because none of the staff wanted to go.
[20] Q. And did he bring with him the stamp (inaudible)?
[21] A. Yes, he did.
[22-23] Q. And did I give him documents showing that I have a hearing in General Sessions Court on August 30th?
[24-25] A. I didn’t read the documents but I know you asked him to stamp some documents (inaudible).
[page 144, line 1] Q. And did he?
[2-4] A. I think he did. I don’t recall. Things got so out of hand with the comments that you were making that I don’t recall if he (inaudible).
[5-6] Q. All right. And then did I have to pay either five dollars or (inaudible)?
[7-8] A. I do recall you paying some amount. I’m not sure if it’s five dollars but I recall you asking the security guard for change.
[9-10] Q. And do you recall my having told him that in the receipt he needs to put (inaudible) correctly?
[11-13] A. I recall you referring to him as an idiot (inaudible). Something in reference to you want the receipt to say received by or something.
[14-15] Q. So in fact he wanted me to sign a receipt saying that the money that I already had paid was still due, isn’t that correct?
[16-17] A. No. He wanted you to sign a receipt saying you had received the information and you paid I think it was five dollars.
[18-19] Q. In fact, that’s how the receipt ended but at the beginning he wanted me to sign —
[20] Mr. Fernandez: Your Honor, this isn’t a question.
[21-22] The Court: No, it’s not a question. Don’t argue with the witness and don’t make a statement.
[23-25] Q. (by Defendant Faltas) Fine. Did you witness my telling him that this is not a correct receipt because it shows that the amount due is still there but it doesn’t show that you received the payment?
[page 145, lines 1-2] A. I do recall you saying it was an incorrect receipt. I don’t recall why you said it was incorrect.
[3] Q. Do you recall his having corrected it?
[4-5] A. I recall him starting to make some changes to the receipt, handwriting on it.
[6] Q. And after he did that it was satisfactory to me?
[7] The Court: I don’t think she can make that assessment.
[8-9] Q. (by Defendant Faltas) Did I complain any more after he did the writing that I wanted to make it a correct receipt?
[10] A. Did you complain about the receipt?
[11] Q. Uh-huh.
[12-13] A. Well, you were doing so much complaining and making so many statements at some point (inaudible) zoned you out.
[14-15] Q. Zoned out. And that makes you a competent lawyer and a competent witness, right?
[16-21] The Court: Dr. Faltas, that’s it. You are not here to insult people. You are not here to laugh through this entire procedure as you have been doing all day. You are not here to argue with the court. We are here for a specific purpose. You sit down. I find you in contempt of court. We’ll get to the punishment in a few minutes. Have a seat.
[22] Defendant Faltas: May I say —
[23] The Court: Have a seat.
[24] Mr. Fernandez: No questions, Your Honor.
[25] The Court: All right. You may step down.
[page 146, line 1] (witness to the side)
Now, again God willing and FITS permitting, and NOT in defense of Becky Hill, I want to show that South Carolina’s criminal [so-called] “justice” system is set up to make the things Becky Hill and David Fernandez did to Richard Alexander Murdaugh (“RAM”) and to Myra Catherine Crosby (“MCC”); and the things Hatchet-for-Hire Heather and David Fernandez and Marion Oneida Hanna, among others, possible. The system not only enables robes gone rogue and prosecutors gone pits; it rewards them.
I previously documented two different assistant-solicitors who texted sitting jurors.
So, Marion Oneida Hanna is apparently a bastard in the Black’s Law Dictionary LEGAL definition of the word. Mr. Hanna’s obituary refers to Marion’s mother as the surviving “mother of his children,” not his wife or ex-wife. And that diminutive woman who birthed Marion also birthed out of wedlock with a man different from Marion’s biological father a hulk of a son who was apparently adopted, de-adopted, then re-adopted.
That known “bastard” in the LEGAL dictionary meaning, grew up have the screen name of “Bo Hopkins” and acquire some fame as Matthew Blasdell in the 1980s “Dynasty.”
The ever-jealous Marion fancied herself an actress, too, and filled her City of Columbia courtroom with florid theatrics.
Marion also fancied herself a beauty queen, a psychiatrist, an interior decorator, a painter, a charmer, AND an author.
On City time, Marion wrote, shopped, then self-published two books with essentially the same basic plot. The incomparable Marion-inspired heroine has super powers and ends up with a puppy-dog husband whom the heroine hates, outwits, and at the end either subjugates or kills.
The first book is “You Can’t Get There From Here,” which has a plot taken almost verbatim from the now-century-old suspicion/story that the Founding Murdaugh intentionally parked his car across the railroad in the path of an oncoming train to make it look like the train’s fault and sue the company for a huge settlement. In Marion’s version, her grandfather committed suicide that way because he had raped and impregnated the Marion-inspired figure and she almost died after obtaining an illegal abortion before which the Ob-Gyn raped the Marion-inspired figure, too, because it was a free one.
Adding to the shlock, the Marion-inspired figure’s brother is South Carolina’s or Georgia’s Clark Gable and Arnold Scharzenegger rolled into one. As a teenager, he rescues a whole bus full of students, gets rewarded with a scholarship to The Citadel in which he accumulates embarrassing stories about his colleagues; and, when the time comes to run for judge, he uses those stories to push out his rivals.
Rumors and jokes have it that Marion Oneida Hanna got appointed Columbia Municipal Judge because she “had pictures on somebody.” She certainly had not talent or merit for such, or any, public position of trust.
And the third element is a rival lady (in the first novel, the Marion-inspired figure’s grandmother; in real life, Marion’s mother-in-law) who ends up locked up in an insane asylum.
In the second novel, The Road to Mendocino, the Marion-inspired heroine’s rival is a beautiful young lawyer, daughter of a judge and law clerk to another judge, who also ends locked up in an insane asylum after being shot in the hand by the Marion-inspired heroine.
The plagiarism of Marion Oneida Hanna’s second novel is from Truman Capote’s “Unanswered Prayers” which consists of three novellas, in one of which a beautiful but poor wife is surreptitiously given abortifacient herbs by an insanely jealous rich husband who thinks the pregnancy’s father is a black or Arab man.
So, basically, talentless women without integrity climb the public employment ladder with a mix of sugariness some time, acquiring powerful people’s secrets other times, and outright violence as a final solution. When almost caught, that opportunist finds a despised person and beats up on him/her.
The opportunist’s name may be Rebecca Marie Hill or Marion Oneida Hanna or David Amadeo Fernandez, or any one else involved in framing RAM or trying to frame Dr. Marie Faltas. But the system needs a more thorough look NOW than it ever had before because it is no longer sustainable.
Since everything FITS in the last five years has a Murdaugh connection OR can be made to have one, here is my comment on Andy Fancher’s conspiracy theory insinuated on yesterday’s month in review just in case Google removes it from there:
I had missed the beginning of this live. Does Andy Fancher SERIOUSLY suggest the U.S. Government diverted Hurricane Helene towards a lithium-mining town in Appalachian North Carolina to punish some residents for resisting lithium mining?
I hope I get a straight answer to this question; and until I do, I will NOT comment on Andy, whom I had grown to respect.
I will, though, site one example of “stinking thinking” which keeps popping up every time more evidence of Becky Hill’s tampering with the Murdaugh jury is revealed.
The stinking thinking has it that Becky Hill was paid off by the Murdaughs to tamper with the jury so that Alex can get a new trial after the guilty verdict.
I don’t know that I can single-handedly stop the renewed waves of stinking thinking; but I hope there is truth to the hope that mightier than armies is an idea whose time has come.
And here is my mighty answer: If Becky was paid off BY ALEX to tamper with his jury, why would she not have directed the jury towards a not-guilty verdict and been done with it?
So, Andy Fancher, my dear REASONABLE Andy Fancher, would the money and power needed to (create and?) divert a whole Hurricane Helene towards a tiny mountain town not been more than enough to pay off the residents of that town to abandon it to the lithium mining company or whatever entity wanted that town?
Really, Andy. Either you take your investigative work seriously OR all you did so far was to build enough credibility to sell this story of a government-manufactured hurricane, a Category-4 at that. Cloud-seeding, yes. That has been known and established. But to manufacture a hurricane is to LITERALLY insist that moles can build mountains if they can build mole hills.
FITS, are you back at not letting my comments through instead of coercive-controlling yourself?
SubZero IQ … you are a perpetual mental health crisis. Poster child for reopening mental institutions. Where do I sign the commitment papers?
Opposite of “Veritas,” if you had to ask where to “sign the commitment papers,” you would never understand that you have no standing to sign anything on me. You are not my guardian or my co-habitant or anyone with whom I have any relationship, personal or professional.
BTW, mental institutions never closed; there has just been a movement (with mixed success) of treating as many patients as possible as out-patients rather than in-patients.
But I am on a permanent mission to shame liars and charlatans in the hope that at least some of them shall, God willing, mend their ways.
I have no PRESENT access to comment on Jen Wood’s most recent piece on the deadline approaching for complaints against judicial candidates. So I shall, God willing and FITS permitting, post my comments here and hope the staff of SC’s Judicial Merit Selection Commission (“SC JMSC”) takes them seriously this time.
I know that they require a written affidavit; and I had TIMELY submitted three last November and TIMELY supplemented them.
None other than the since-suicided Andrew Theodore Fiffick, IV received my TIMELY supplements and signed for them. But my affidavits were never sent to the voting members of SC JMSC.
One of my three affidavits was against the since-deceased Michael S. Holt, who had (by last November) kept a timely motion of mine to reconsider not ruled upon for two years. By now, my motion remains not ruled upon for three years despite a letter of concern about that delay being hand-delivered to SC Circuit Judge Jocelyn Newman in her capacity as Chief Judge for Administrative purposes last November.
This comment is NOT to criticize the now-defenseless deceased Fiffick and Holt but to bring attention to an overlooked power behind the throne: the so-called “Citizens’ Committees.”
These are NOT committees representing a cross-section of the citizenry, but committees of LAWYERS who serve in perpetuity without any control or review of their recommendations or activities. And these committees are the first threshold judicial candidates must cross.
These committees must, at the threshold, evaluate the judicial candidate’s “mental AND PHYSICAL health.” I am an absolute defender of disabled people’s rights and of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). BUT accommodating a physically disabled judge/judicial candidate is one thing; LYING about his/her physical health is another altogether.
At least TWICE this Century, the so-called “Midlands Citizen Committee,” chaired by Camden Lawyer William Tetterton, let through a judicial candidate as “physically healthy” knowing that said candidate had one figurative foot in the grave from incurable advanced cancer.
In his belatedly-broadcast investiture ceremony of 8 August 2014, now-SC-Chief-Justice Kittredge had behind him an empty chair with a robe as a supposed tribute to Michael Holt’s “two-year courageous battle with cancer.”
The tired cliches aside, that means Michael Holt was in the middle of his “battle with cancer” in November 2023, when William Tetterton presented candidate-for-reelection Michael Holt as “in excellent physical health.”
So, did Holt lie to the “citizens'” committee? Or did that committee (which has no doctors on it) lie to SC JMSC?
This is important though all FITS apparently cares for is getting judges elected who will totally deny the Eighth Amendment rights to not-excessive bail and to not-cruel-and-unusual punishment.
SC JMSC, if it is to inquire about candidates’ “physical health,” should have some mechanism of people (doctors for example) PROFESSIONALLY capable of assessing physical health OR require the candidates to undergo some REPORTABLE medical examination of the candidate’s physical and mental health by the candidate’s personal physician.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
If the litigants’ business is delayed for years or indefinitely while a judge “battles” cancer, SC JMSC is NOT doing its job.
I have complaints against two current judicial candidates which, God willing and FITS permitting, I shall post next knowing that going the affidavit route has not done me any good previously.
Perhaps the public shaming might work. We shall, God willing and FITS permitting, see.
So, my first complaint, (which would never see the light of day if I were to go the affidavit route) is against April Woodard Sampson, who MIGHT (among other things) have a figurative foot in the grave from recurring breast cancer.
Yes, April may or may not have been pulling her weight in 5th Circuit Solicitor Byron Gipson’s office; but that is totally irrelevant to her physical fitness for a judgeship.
In the solicitor’s office, April would be answerable to the elected solicitor. As a judge, God forbid, April will be answerable to no one for six years (if cancer lets her live this long) if she neglects litigants’ business while she “battles cancer” or promotes her charity “In the Middle.”
Come to think of it, perhaps this is a racket of letting through judicial candidates with one figurative foot in the grave so that his/her heirs would receive a judge’s pension.
And yes, April’s daughter is presumed innocent until proven guilty; but for there to have been probable cause for April’s then-teenage daughter to be charged with attempted murder, discharging a firearm into a dwelling, and several other crimes, says something about April’s character as a mother, and her expected character as a judge. Let alone whether April could abuse her power as a judge to intimidate witnesses against her daughter or to get a sweet plea deal for that daughter.
But all that is public knowledge.
What I know, and for which I have OBJECTIVE proof if anyone cares to look at it, is how April undermined my own self-defense when she was forced on me as a stand-by counsel and did NOT disclose that she was THEN in negotiations with the office of my very prosecutor to join that office.
I hope April has the decency to withdraw; but then again, if she had any decency, she would not have caused the delay of sixteen more months of the permanent dismissal of the false harassment charges contrived against me in 2009 by Hatchet-for-Hire Heather Weiss.
I hope FITS has the decency to let this comment of mine through and that Jen Wood has the honesty to follow up on it.