
Christine Avery, and the Anonymous Email to Judge Newman
The Alex Murdaugh trial, one of the most significant and controversial in recent history, has left many questions in its wake, particularly surrounding the anonymous email sent to Judge Newman that led to the removal of a juror. At the center of this discussion is Christine Avery, a name that has surfaced amid speculation. However, is Avery a key player in a grand scheme, or could she be a scapegoat for actions beyond her control? Let’s explore the context with an open mind and focus on facts.
The Anonymous Email
The email sent to Judge Newman alleged improper behavior by a juror, prompting their removal. While the contents of the email remain sealed, its impact was undeniable. The decision to remove a juror significantly influenced the trial’s trajectory. But what role did Christine Avery play in this pivotal moment?

Who Is Christine Avery?
Christine Avery, a Walterboro resident and former Domino’s Pizza employee, is a figure whose proximity to the trial has sparked curiosity. She is reportedly acquainted with Becky Hill, the Colleton County Clerk of Court, and an active participant in the Luna Shark online community. These connections have fueled questions about her involvement in the trial’s controversies. Yet, it is important to remember that proximity does not equal culpability.
Avery’s work at Domino’s is noteworthy only because the pizza chain occasionally provided meals to jurors during the trial. While this detail situates her near the trial’s participants, it does not imply any wrongdoing. It is entirely plausible that her connections to Hill and Luna Shark are coincidental and unrelated to the anonymous email.
Connections to Luna Shark and Becky Hill
Christine Avery’s participation in Luna Shark’s Discord community and her alleged friendship with Becky Hill have drawn scrutiny. However, these relationships may not indicate any intentional misconduct. Avery’s acknowledgment of assistance from Luna Shark members, including Mandy Matney and others, should not be misconstrued without clear evidence. Support and collaboration within a community are not inherently suspicious.
A digital exchange between Avery and Luna Shark researcher Beth Braden, where Avery disclosed her authorship of the anonymous email, has been highlighted as a key piece of evidence. Braden’s response, expressing relief for Avery’s well-being, suggests a personal concern rather than evidence of conspiracy. The exchange’s tone indicates that Avery may have acted independently, albeit with some trepidation.


Was Avery Acting Alone?
One of the lingering questions is whether Avery authored the email entirely on her own or if others influenced its content. While some speculate that the email’s polished tone suggests external assistance, this remains unproven. If Avery did receive help, it is worth considering whether she fully understood the potential ramifications of her actions. This uncertainty raises the possibility that Avery herself may have been guided or even misled by others. If so, will Avery be the one left holding the bag?
Below are screenshots of the Luna Shark Discord acting in unison to file charges against Dick Harpootlian. You’ll see that they are not doing this without prior approval from Luna Shark. These exchanges would suggest some sort of conspiracy. If you knowingly conspired with others to draft and send a letter to the South Carolina Supreme Court accusing a lawyer of misconduct while fully aware that the lawyer’s actions were legal, it could be considered conspiracy to commit defamation or conspiracy to obstruct justice, depending on the intent and the content of the letter.
Many legal consequences could arise from this action, especially if SLED were to view it as an attempt to manipulate the judicial process or falsely malign the lawyer in question. Tell us in the comments if you view this exchange as an attempt to manipulate the judicial process.
In South Carolina, attorneys are clearly permitted to handle firearms in court for demonstrative purposes, such as during witness examinations, provided they adhere to specific legal protocols. The South Carolina Rules of Evidence govern the admissibility and use of such evidence, emphasizing relevance and proper authentication. Also to note, Harpootlian asked and received approval from Judge Newman to examine and hold the weapons. This was broadcast live on Court TV.
Luna Shark Discord

The Juror’s Perspective
The removed juror, Myra Crosby, has consistently denied discussing the Murdaugh case with anyone, including her tenants, who were reportedly questioned by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED). Crosby has stated that SLED’s late-night interrogation of her tenants was coercive, leading to the signing of affidavits under duress at the Colleton County Courthouse the next day. According to Crosby, these affidavits were later clarified during a meeting with Murdaugh defense attorney Dick Harpootlian, where the tenants reiterated that Crosby had not discussed the case with them. This was done in a sworn affidavit. If Crosby and her tenants are saying under oath, that Crosby did not discuss the case, only confirming that she was on the jury, then what exactly did Avery hear from Crosby’s tenant at work at Domino’s that led her to allegedly take it upon herself, and to reach out to Judge Newman directly? I think we’d all like to know from Avery. It must have been really bad for Avery to write a judge, let alone send it anonymously.
The decision to remove Crosby as a juror appears to have been influenced by an anonymous email, which contained references to her workplace.
Several sources who attended the trial daily have told CC News Network that many legal observers and members of the media believed Juror 785, Myra Crosby, may possibly be the one inclined to vote “not guilty.”
In her book, Because Enough is Enough, Crosby alleges that Christine Avery and Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill were acquaintances outside of the courtroom. Crosby also mentions that the only meal the jury had that was not from a locally owned establishment came from Domino’s Pizza—the same Domino’s where Christine Avery was employed. This connection raises further questions about the nature of Avery and Hill’s relationship. The now-debunked Facebook post, which Hill cited as evidence of Crosby discussing the trial with her ex-husband, was proven to be false. However, shortly after this accusation, Christine Avery sent the anonymous email to Judge Newman, alleging that Crosby had discussed the trial with her tenants—one of whom also worked at Domino’s alongside Avery.
Adding to the complexity is a digital exchange between Beth Braden of Luna Shark and Christine Avery. In the exchange, Avery informed Braden, “I am the one who emailed Judge Newman about the ‘egg juror.'” Braden responded, “I know you were freaked out, but I’m so glad it’s turned out and you’re okay!” This exchange suggests that Braden may have been aware of Avery’s concerns about sending the email before it was submitted to Judge Newman, raising further questions about whether there was prior communication or collaboration regarding the email between Braden and Avery.
However, no one is talking. Which one has to wonder why? Depending on what Avery may have heard at Domino’s, she may have just been doing her duty as a citizen by reporting what she thought was wrong. Why wouldn’t someone want to praise such courage? I say, show us the email, and let the public decide. She may end up being the hero. Unless there wasn’t much to it, and Avery was coerced into sending an email she didn’t herself write, to make whatever she heard at Domino’s to appear worse. If the latter is the case, this wouldn’t be good for Avery.
Now you’re into a host of possible charges, stemming from obstruction, to conspiracy, suborning perjury, and tampering with a juror. If an attorney had a hand in this construction or manipulation of the email to Newman, that raises many ethical concerns. Attorneys have an ethical obligation to uphold the integrity of the legal system. Directing or participating in any fraudulent activity, including providing false information to a court, violates several rules of professional conduct, such as:
- Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal: Attorneys must not knowingly make false statements of fact or law to a court or fail to correct false statements.
- Rule 8.4: Misconduct: Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation is grounds for disciplinary action, including disbarment.
Becky Hill’s Role
Let’s not forget Becky Hill. Becky Hill’s role in the trial has been a focal point of controversy, particularly regarding jury tampering allegations. Statements attributed to Hill about potential financial gains from a guilty verdict have cast doubt on her impartiality. However, it is critical to separate Hill’s actions from those of Avery. While Hill’s motivations warrant investigation, there is no direct evidence tying Avery to any misconduct on Hill’s part.
Expert Commentary: Anonymous Emails and Authorship
As part of this investigation, CC News Network reached out to Juror 785’s attorney, Joe McCulloch, for his professional insights. While McCulloch could not legally discuss the anonymous email in any form, he was able to provide valuable commentary in response to a hypothetical question. The question posed was:
“In your professional experience, how common is it for an anonymous email to exhibit a writing style or skill level that might not align with the public persona of the purported author? Hypothetically, if someone known for subpar grammar and spelling were credited with an email written at a high level of proficiency, could that suggest collaboration or influence from someone with stronger writing skills, such as an attorney or journalist?”
McCulloch’s response sheds much light on the issue:
“Anonymous emails offer a fabulous opportunity for fakery and misdirection, and often are an artifice used to avoid a defamation claim. The hypothetical you suggest of a person of subpar English skills, linguistic or writing skills producing a polished, urbane written product would generally and logically suggest assistance or another’s authorship. The converse hypothetical does not track the same logic. A poorly written message with improper grammar or syntax or misspellings may simply be an artifice to ‘cover one’s tracks.’ Many have speculated the famous message from Jack the Ripper ‘From Hell’ with many linguistic mistakes was a planned exercise to disguise the higher station in life and education of the author.”
This expert commentary adds further weight to the notion that the anonymous email’s possible polished nature could suggest some sort of external involvement.
Christine Avery’s writing.
Implications for Christine Avery
If Avery’s action of sending the email were indeed influenced by others, she may have unwittingly become a scapegoat in a larger narrative. As a community member with limited legal expertise, Avery may not have fully grasped the consequences of sending the email. Rather than viewing her as a primary instigator, it is worth considering whether she was used as a conduit by individuals with more significant stakes in the trial’s outcome. Who could those individuals be?
Implications for Justice in South Carolina
The anonymous email and its ripple effects highlight significant concerns about the integrity of the Murdaugh trial. If the email was, in fact, part of a coordinated effort involving individuals with vested interests, it undermines the fairness of the judicial process. Additionally, the connections between Christine Avery, Becky Hill, Luna Shark, and other key players warrant further investigation.
Especially when you look at other coordinated efforts to produce an outcome for which they desire, even though the facts don’t align with their alleged assertion. It makes one wonder, why would a grown adult falsely attack a person for just doing their job?
A social media instigator is typically someone who seeks to provoke others online through inflammatory, off-topic, or disruptive comments. Their behavior often stems from traits like attention-seeking, a lack of empathy, or a deep desire for control. Many instigators thrive on the anonymity of the internet, which allows them to act without fear of consequences. They may exhibit manipulative tendencies, narcissism, or hostility, using their actions to elicit strong emotional reactions. While some agitators act out of boredom or insecurity, others may have ideological or personal motivations, like revenge on everyone for a past experience that was hard on them.
Regardless of intent, their actions often create toxic online environments. We’re always trying to explore why. My grandma always use to tell me, “If you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face, don’t say it at all.”
If Avery’s intentions were true, and we’re giving her the benefit of doubt here, then stand tall, stand proud, and own it. Show us the email, tell us how it all went down, and how the email came to be. Again, we may have a desperately needed hero here in the already wicked Murdaugh saga. We pray we’re wrong, and hope she’s not being set up to be the patsy or sacrificial lamb, and end up the only one held accountable by the State in the end.
Transparency and Accountability
To restore faith in the judicial process, it is essential that the State of South Carolina investigate all aspects of this case thoroughly. This includes examining the connections between Christine Avery, Becky Hill, and Luna Shark. Including releasing all of Crosby’s files to the public. After all, according to Crosby, she would have hung the jury, and Murdaugh would only be in federal prison for financial crimes. Also, any inquiry should approach Avery’s role with fairness and without presumption of guilt. If Avery’s actions were misguided rather than malicious, this distinction must be recognized.
Conclusion
Christine Avery’s involvement in the Alex Murdaugh trial raises questions that deserve careful consideration. While her connections to key figures and her authorship of the anonymous email are notable, they do not automatically implicate her in wrongdoing. Instead, it is possible that Avery acted independently or under the influence of others without fully understanding the implications.
As the investigation unfolds, it is crucial to prioritize transparency and fairness. Christine Avery’s role should be examined in the context of all available evidence, with an emphasis on uncovering the truth rather than assigning blame prematurely. In doing so, justice can be served, not just for those directly involved in the trial but also for individuals like Avery, who may find themselves caught in the crossfire of a complex and highly scrutinized case.
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 1,400,000 Million likes of Tiktok alone!
Join Our Close to 100,000 Social Media Fans:
- X: @CCNewsNetwork
- TikTok: @CCNewsNetwork
- Facebook: CC News Network
- Talk Radio: 97.7FM WVFF – airs in the Low Country
- Amazon Books: Click here to follow
- Cameo: @CC News Network
- Spotify: @CC Records
- Unnamed Network: New True Crime Drama Series