Skip to content
Breaking News Alert Biden's Egregious Title IX Rewrite Blocked By Six More States

New York Times Writer’s Take On The Alex Murdaugh Murders Is The Reason Why Liberals Can’t Be Trusted On Crime

Farhad Manjoo is one of those people typically found in the Democratic Party and the national media, the type who can overcomplicate the simplest issue when it comes to policing and law enforcement.

Share

Two really great things happened in America last week: Democrat Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot lost her bid for reelection and sweaty South Carolina dynasty lawyer Alex Murdaugh was convicted of murder, both of which indicate this country isn’t yet ready to become a lawless war zone.

Lightfoot came in a distant third among her city’s voters, no doubt because they declared public safety as their top concern and Lightfoot had the honor of overseeing Chicago’s deadliest year in a quarter century. And a jury found Murdaugh guilty of killing his wife and young son, no doubt because he is a professed thief and the evidence pointed to no one else but him.

But, as always, never get too comfortable. Lightfoot still received nearly 20 percent of the vote and there exist some people who would have found a reason to acquit Murdaugh. Such a person to probably do both is The New York Times’ Farhad Manjoo.

Manjoo is one of those people typically found in the Democratic Party and the national media, the type who can overcomplicate the simplest issue when it comes to policing and law enforcement. But the police force doesn’t exactly mirror the ethnic diversity of the community! But we need to reallocate funding for social services! But even though the evidence is pretty damning, it doesn’t answer all my questions!

It’s all an excuse to make law and order seem like an obscure concept that requires less policing of criminals and more time to think, more studies, more committees, more councils.

After the jury rendered its verdict on Murdaugh last week, Manjoo wrote that he “worries” the jurors weren’t “cautious” in considering the evidence, much of which relied on geolocation smartphone data.

“I have little quarrel with [the jury’s] decision, but the lightning speed with which it came to its conclusion — about three hours — makes me deeply uncomfortable with how the criminal justice system might deal with all of the digital effluvia being spewed by our devices,” he said. “Unlike the jury, apparently, I worry that the evidence our devices produce can just as easily muddy the picture of a crime as clarify it.”

While I’m ecstatic that Manjoo didn’t say anything about equity — Murdaugh was a wealthy white man, even without the stealing — he still exhibits the same tendency of law enforcement-stupid liberals who can find any reason to doubt the American legal process. In Manjoo’s case, it’s that there may have been innocent explanations of why phone data of the Murdaughs fit the state’s theory of events that Alex killed his two victims, left the scene for a period of time, and then returned, at which point he called police and claimed to have happened upon the bodies.

“There were no witnesses, and the police found little forensic evidence to tie Murdaugh to the crime,” continued detective Manjoo. “They did not recover any murder weapons or any blood-soaked clothing; and because the murders occurred on Murdaugh’s property and he touched the bodies when he discovered them (he says he felt Paul for a pulse and touched Maggie on her waist), the evidence of his DNA found at the scene proves little.”

True, the trial didn’t conclude like a game of “Clue.” Prosecutors procured no weapon that was used at the scene of the murders. And the suggested motive — that Murdaugh committed the crimes as a Hail Mary in hopes of evading scrutiny over his financial wrongdoings — is less than satisfying. But the state had something better to work with — a murderer who admitted to the one thing that a murderer can’t admit if his hope is to get away with murder.

Murdaugh had told the police and everyone else, right up until the day he put himself on the stand to testify, that he was not at home in the time leading up to when his wife and son were shot dead there. It was only when he was confronted with irrefutable proof — a video recording by his son that featured Murdaugh’s voice in the background — that he finally admitted yes, he was there, perhaps within as little as five minutes before the murders.

Knowing that, a reasonable juror could look at counter-evidence showing Murdaugh’s phone was actually in Japan and he would still confidently vote to convict.

When not being outright evil, liberals like Manjoo are preoccupied with proving how thoughtful they are by raising questions that muddle otherwise easily solved problems.

Reasonable juror: So he lied to police, family, and friends about where he was at the time of the murders and only admitted to his deceit when there was no way to continue lying? Definitely guilty.

Manjoo: Ah, but it’s more complicated than that. What if he lied about his location for no discernible reason and his phone’s geolocation data was off by 50 feet? Technology is tricky, I’m not comfortable with that gaping hole in the case. Gonna have to acquit.

The verdict is in: People like Manjoo need to be kept as far away from crime policy as possible.


0
Access Commentsx
()
x