Table of Contents

The State of SC and their Consent Order with Myra Crosby is Questioned

COLUMBIA. S.C., — As the Richard Alexander Murdaugh case continues to grip the nation, a new controversy emerges—one involving the State of South Carolina’s alleged fraudulent actions in a consent agreement with juror Myra Crosby (Juror #785). This latest twist raises concerns about whether the State has misrepresented the truth to protect the integrity of the Murdaugh verdict, sparking renewed debate over transparency in the judicial process.

Crosby, who was removed during the Murdaugh trial, is now at the center of the legal fight over whether the sealed records regarding her dismissal should be made public. The State insists these records should remain confidential, citing a consent order that allegedly binds Crosby to keep the details under wraps.

However, Myra Crosby believes she is being defamed by certain podcasters and attorneys connected to them, who are repeating statements made by the State and Judge Clifton Newman about her. Crosby contends that the information contained in the sealed documents will reveal the truth behind her claims and expose the State’s misrepresentations. She contends that these documents will not only clear her name but also demonstrate defamation by multiple individuals, including attorneys, who have echoed what she says are false narratives about her.

These alleged defamatory statements, which could amount to defamation per se, raise an important issue: if Myra’s defense against such defamation relies on information controlled by members of the bar (namely, the trial court), at what point does a citizen’s right to defend themselves take precedence over the state’s public interest, or potential collusion and possible conspiracy involving members of the bar?

Fraudulent Intent by the State?

Crosby could potentially argue that the State acted fraudulently by misrepresenting what was in the sealed records. If the State is publicly presenting one version of the records which make it appear that Crosby was in the wrong and did talk, all the while concealing crucial details that exonerate her, it could amount to fraudulent misrepresentation by the State. Crosby’s legal team could assert that she entered into the agreement based on these false assurances, that had she known the full truth of what the State would say about her after the consent decree was agreed to, she wouldn’t have agreed to the nondisclosure terms in the first place.

Will Folks, the publisher of FITSNews, expressed skepticism of the State, saying,
“That is an incredibly dishonest framing of this debate, (by the State)… and further underscores my skepticism of the state’s handling of these matters.” This statement highlights the broader concerns surrounding the State’s approach to maintaining secrecy in the Murdaugh case.

The State’s Opposition and Deception

The State, represented by Attorney General Alan Wilson and Deputy Attorney General Donald Zelenka, claims Crosby entered a legally binding consent order, which should not be overturned simply because she has changed her mind. However, this argument is seen as suspect given that Crosby herself believes consent orders are not generally intended to be indefinite unless explicitly stated. A consent order is a legally binding agreement that typically resolves a dispute between parties, often without an admission of guilt or liability. The duration and terms of a consent order depend on the specific agreement reached by the parties and the court’s approval.

What’s at Stake?

The legal battle over whether these records should remain sealed goes beyond the Murdaugh trial—it speaks to the heart of public accountability and transparency. Murdaugh’s defense team, led by Richard Harpootlian and James Griffin, highlights how greater transparency in his financial crimes could have altered the course of his case, making it clear that the truth behind these documents could reshape the narrative surrounding the trial.

A Broader Cover-Up?

Crosby’s potential fraud claim rests on proving that the State intentionally concealed or misrepresented the contents of these sealed records. If successful, it could expose a broader conspiracy to protect the Murdaugh verdict at all costs. Meanwhile, the State’s argument that unsealing the records could interfere with the appeals process seems tenuous at best, particularly if the records contain information that undermines their version of events.

If you want to read Myra Crosby’s new book on being Juror 785, buy it here on Amazon.

As this legal saga unfolds, Crime and Cask News will continue to monitor these developments closely. With allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and secrecy, the public deserves to know the full truth behind the Murdaugh trial and whether the State is truly working in the interest of justice.

Stay tuned for more updates on the Murdaugh case and the latest on Myra Crosby’s fight for transparency. Contributions to this story by Elaine Greenwood of Super Woke News and FITSNews.

Connect with CC News Network:

Stay updated with CC News Network’s latest investigations, book releases, and appearances by following him on social media. Join the growing community of readers and true crime enthusiasts who trust James Seidel for his insightful analysis and gripping storytelling.

Over 1,200,000 Million likes of Tiktok alone!

Join Our Close to 100,000 Social Media Fans: