• Got_Bent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    He grew up super privileged, and probably thought he could get away with anything.

    So how did the affluenza defense not work?

    I think I missed the obligatory /s the first go round.

      • Maeve@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’m not understanding how the law firm didn’t manage to see this. Did he have inside accomplices?

        • ArtieShaw@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          There was at least one local accomplice: a banker who helped manage the accounts. They had been college buddies.

          No one at the law firm has been implicated, and it seems his real damages against them were to their reputation. His secretary claimed to have found something suspicious but hadn’t gotten around to asking him about it before the killings.

          One example crime: his longtime housekeeper had an accident on his property. Details were unclear, but she fell on some stairs, hit her head, and died in hospital. He convinced her sons, who are disabled, to hire him to file a claim against his own insurance, which he would then pay to them. Except he didn’t pay them. The banker opened a trust, took out his own fee, paid Murdaugh’s lawyer fee, and let Murdaugh sign it over to himself. tl/dr - shady shit, but largely confined to these two guys

          • Maeve@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Wow. I have no words. But I’m asking about the law firm, explicitly. Was no one monitoring the books? Are audits not typically done at least once per fiscal year? How did the books at the actual law firm balance?

    • stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      It worked one time on a minor, really. There may have been some other instances but we are hopefully more or less beyond that as a concept.

    • 520@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Because blatant cases of affluenza look pretty fucking bad on a judge’s record, and this case would be too blatant to let slide.