The saga surrounding Alex Murdaugh has taken yet another dramatic twist after a random Georgia man was thrust into the centre of the convicted killer’s bid for a new murder trial thanks to his now-deleted Facebook rant about his wife’s aunt. Back on 15 February, Timothy Stone took to his Facebook page to fume that the family member had been “sticking her nose in my business”, according to court documents. Mr Stone said he made the post in response to a private argument between the pair and then later felt “terrible” about it and deleted it the next day. He then posted an apology on his account the next day, saying that he was driven by “Satan”. Little did Mr Stone know that this brief family spat would become central to the so-called “trial of the century” going on in Colleton County Courthouse – and efforts by convicted killer Murdaugh to be granted a new trial for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul. Earlier this month, Murdaugh filed a motion requesting a new trial on the basis that Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill allegedly pressured jurors on the case to return a guilty verdict against him. Central to the bombshell motion was the circumstances surrounding juror number 785 – who became infamous as the “egg juror” when she prompted some light-hearted relief by asking to pick up her “dozen eggs” from the jury room as she was dismissed from the case hours before deliberations began. Murdaugh’s attorneys claim the juror was dismissed from the case after Ms Hill told Judge Clifton Newman about the posts from Mr Stone, claiming that they were made by juror’s ex-husband as evidence that she was speaking about the case outside of the courtroom. Now, in a new court document filed by Murdaugh’s attorneys on Monday, Murdaugh’s attorneys Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin state that this was a case of mistaken identity. They say that the Mr Stone behind the posts is simply someone with a similar name to the juror’s ex-husband and that the post “had nothing to do with anyone associated with this case”. The Mr Stone behind the Facebook posts has given a sworn affidavit to Murdaugh’s legal team. “Mr. Stone is a resident of Georgia who has a name similar to the name of Juror #785’s ex-husband. Mr. Stone was the author of the “apology” Facebook post, previously submitted as Exhibit E to Exhibit 1, which Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Hill represented was evidence Juror #785 had discussed the evidence presented at trial with her ex-husband before deliberations began,” the document states. “In his affidavit, Mr. Stone avers that he has never been married to Juror #785 and that he has never posted anything to the Facebook group “Walterboro Word of Mouth”. He did post what Ms. Hill identified as the “apology” post by Juror #785’s ex-husband but it was posted to his personal Facebook page and not the “Walterboro Word of Mouth” group.” According to the motion filed earlier this month, Ms Hill had gone to Judge Newman on 27 February – the day after Murdaugh testified at his trial – claiming that she had seen a post in local Facebook group “Walterboro Word of Mouth” from juror 785’s former husband Tim Stone. The post purportedly claimed that the juror was drinking with her ex-husband and, when she became drunk, she expressed her views on whether Murdaugh was innocent or guilty. A follow-up post from an account called Timothy Stone apologised for the post saying that he was driven by “Satan”. When Ms Hill confronted the juror about the posts, the juror said she hadn’t seen her ex-husband in 10 years, the motion states. Ms Hill allegedly told the juror that SLED and Colleton County Sheriff’s Office personnel had gone to Mr Stone’s house and that he had confirmed he made the post. She then allegedly asked juror 785 whether she was inclined to vote guilty or not guilty – to which she said she had not made up her mind. Murdaugh’s attorneys claim that the original post was “fictitous” and that a download of Mr Stone’s Facebook shows he did not make either post. After the prosecution’s closing argument on the morning of 1 March, juror 785 said that the court clerk asked her again about what her verdict would be. When the juror said she thought prosecutor Creighton Waters’ closing statement was good but that she had questions because the murder weapons have never been found, Ms Hill allegedly told her “that everything Mr Murdaugh has said has been lies and that I should forget about the guns, they will never be seen again”. The juror said that around 10 minutes later, she was dismissed from the jury – just hours before jury deliberations began. During her dismissal, she was accused of having spoken to at least three people about the case. Outside of the Facebook post and her ex-husband, the court was contacted by a co-worker of the juror’s tenant who said that the tenant said her landlord was a juror and had expressed an opinion when delivering a fridge to the property. The motion from Murdaugh’s attorneys included affidavits from juror 785 and her former husband Tim Stone, who denied ever making the posts. Disgraced legal scion Murdaugh made several other damning accusations against Ms Hill as he accused her of tampering with the jury at his high-profile double murder trial – because she was driven by fame and a desire to secure a book deal. In the motion, Murdaugh’s attorneys claim that Ms Hill “tampered with the jury by advising them not to believe Murdaugh’s testimony and other evidence presented by the defense, pressuring them to reach a quick guilty verdict, and even misrepresenting critical and material information to the trial judge in her campaign to remove a juror she believed to be favorable to the defense”. Specifically, they claim that the clerk instructed jurors not to be “misled” by evidence presented by the defence and told jurors not to be “fooled by” Murdaugh’s testimony when he took the stand. She allegedly instructed the jury to “watch him closely,” to “look at his actions,” and to “look at his movements” on the stand – something at least one juror said they understood to mean that Murdaugh was guilty. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office responded to the allegations on Friday, saying that investigators probing the accusations had already found “significant factual disputes” with the claims. The prosecutors did not outline what the “factual disputes” may be but pointed to the number of media interviews made by Mr Griffin and Mr Harpootlian about the motion. The latest twist comes the same day that Murdaugh reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors on a string of financial fraud charges after he stole millions of dollars from law firm clients. In the agreement, signed on Monday, the double murderer will plead guilty to 22 federal charges including wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. Murdaugh is facing more than 100 state and federal charges over the multi-million-dollar fraud scheme. While he has reached a deal on the federal charges, he is heading to trial on the state charges in November. Murdaugh appeared in court last week for a hearing on the state charges which include stealing more than $4m from the family of his dead housekeeper Gloria Satterfield – who died in a mystery trip and fall at the family estate in 2018. It marked the first time that he was seen in court since his sentencing at his murder trial. Former friend and alleged co-conspirator Cory Fleming was sentenced to 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to the charges. Meanwhile, former friend and Palmetto State Bank CEO Russell Laffitte is also awaiting trial. Murdaugh is also facing charges over a botched hitman plot where he claims he paid an accomplice to shoot him dead two months after Maggie and Paul’s murders. For now though, Murdaugh is behind bars at the McCormick Correctional Institution in South Carolina where he is serving two life sentences for his wife and son’s murders. Maggie and Paul were found shot dead on the family’s 1,700-acre Moselle estate back on 7 June 2021. Alex Murdaugh had called 911 claiming to have found their bodies. During his high-profile murder trial, jurors heard how Paul was shot twice with a 12-gauge shotgun while he stood in the feed room of the dog kennels on the affluent family’s 1,700-acre Moselle estate. The second shot to his head blew his brain almost entirely out of his skull. After killing Paul, prosecutors said Murdaugh then grabbed a .300 Blackout semiautomatic rifle and opened fire on Maggie as she tried to flee from her husband. During the dramatic six-week trial, Murdaugh confessed to lying about his alibi on the night of the murders but continued to claim his innocence of the killings. The jury didn’t agree and the disgraced legal scion was convicted in March of the brutal murders. Read More Prosecutors cast doubt on Alex Murdaugh’s jury tampering claims - citing his lawyers’ TV interviews Smiling Alex Murdaugh appears in court in shackles as trial date set in financial fraud case Will Alex Murdaugh be granted a new trial? Legal expert weighs in

Facebook-parent Meta is the subject of four new complaints from human rights groups in Europe alleging that the algorithm it uses to target users with companies' job advertisements is discriminatory. Nonprofit Global Witness shared new research with CNN that it says shows the algorithm distributing job ads is based on gender stereotypes, and that it appears to be a global issue.

Apple is working on a software fix following reports that some of its new iPhone 15 models are overheating.

The sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has accused the United States of “gangster-like” hypocrisy for criticizing her country’s failed launch of a military spy satellite and insisted a successful launch will be made soon

Brazilian retailer GPA announced it received a new offer from Colombian billionaire Jaime Gilinsky to buy part of

Rookie Parker Meadows hit his first career homer with two out in the ninth inning, lifting the Detroit Tigers to a 4-1 win over the Houston Astros

A federal judge has denied Donald Trump's request for a new trial in the E. Jean Carroll case -- finding the jury who found that the former president sexually abused and defamed Carroll did not reach a "seriously erroneous result."

Here are 8 celebrities whose spiritual journeys saw them converting or embracing new faiths

Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s endowment lost 2.9% on its investments in the year ended in June, the second

Chinese organisers said Wednesday there had been "a lot of difficulties" but Asian Games venues were ready for the pandemic-delayed competition...

Pop star Bebe Rexha says she's OK after being hit in the face and injured by a cellphone hurled from the audience at a hometown show in New York City

Ben Lam became the latest player to see a yellow card upgraded to a red following a review from the TMO bunker during the Japan vs Samoa match at the Rugby World Cup. In the second half of the Pool D contest, Samoan winger Lam’s shoulder connected with the head of Japan back row Lappies Labuschagne while making a tackle, who went off for a HIA. Referee Jaco Peyper initially sent the flyer to the sin-bin but, using the bunker system, that was upgraded to a red card soon after, with the foul play review officer ruling that it was a shoulder direct to head with significant force and not enough mitigation to remain a yellow card. Lam’s dismissal was the seventh red card of the World Cup and is one of a number of disciplinary incidents which have shone a light on the consistency of officiating in this tournament. Arguably the most high-profile moment came on the opening weekend when an England player was shown a red card for the fourth time this year, as Tom Curry was sent off early in his side’s win over Argentina, following a head-on-head collision with Juan Cruz Mallia. However, apparent inconsistency among officials irked many, especially on social media, with other incidents of head contact across the opening weekend not being punished as severely. Later in that same match, Santiago Carreras only received a yellow card despite his leap in attempting to charge down a George Ford kick seeing his hip make contact with the England No 10’s head. During South Africa’s impressive 18-3 win over Scotland, Jesse Kriel’s tackle on Jack Dempsey in which his head clattered into that of his Scottish opponent wasn’t even reviewed by the TMO and wasn’t subsequently cited, while Chile captain Martin Sigren was only sin-binned despite a head-on-head collision while tackling a Japanese attacker. In the second round of action, New Zealand’s Ethan de Groot was sent off for his high hit during the clash with Namibia. But what are the laws around head contact and high tackles that referees are following and how do they decide on the punishment? Here’s everything you need to know: What are World Rugby’s laws on head contact? Head-on-head contact in the tackle comes under Law 9 of the Laws of Rugby Union, which covers foul play. Law 9.11 dictates “Players must not do anything that is reckless or dangerous to others, including leading with the elbow or forearm, or jumping into, or over, a tackler” and Law 9.13 goes on to say “A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.” If a player breaks these laws and the act is deemed to be reckless or dangerous, then the referee is entitled to issue a yellow or red card. World Rugby also clarify the intent of the laws, stating in their guidelines that: “ Player welfare drives World Rugby’s decision making for zero tolerance of foul play, especially where head contact occurs. The focus must be on the actions of those involved, not the injury – the need for an HIA [a Head Injury Assessment] does not necessarily mean that there has been illegal head contact.” What are the punishments for head-on-head contact? Ok, this is where things get technical and debates start to occur. In March 2023, World Rugby issued their latest ‘head contact process law application guidelines’ to guide referees on whether foul play has occurred and how it should be punished. The referee has to go through a four-step process (detailed below) to determine the extent of the foul play and the sanction. The four steps are: Has head contact occurred? Was there any foul play? What was the degree of danger? Is there any mitigation? Step 1 (has head contact occurred?) is relatively straightforward, with head contact including the head and the face as well as the neck and throat area. If any head contact is made at all, we move on to Step 2. Step 2 (was there foul play?) is a touch more complex. The referees are told to consider whether the head contact was either intentional, reckless or avoidable – e.g. the defender is always upright. If it was, the tackler will be penalised and they move on to Step 3. However, if the head contact was deemed not to be foul play, the game continues. Step 3 (what was the degree of danger?) – judged from high to low – determines the initial punishment. A degree of high danger is judged on any of: direct contact rather than indirect, a high-force impact, a lack of control from the tackler, the incident occurring at high speed, the tackler leading with the head/shoulder/elbow/forearm or the tackle being reckless. If the referee judges there to be a high degree of danger, a red card will be shown. Meanwhile, low danger is judged as indirect contact, low force, low speed or no leading head/shoulder/forearm/swinging arm and a yellow card or even just a penalty to the opposition may be awarded. The final step, Step 4 (is there any mitigation?) determines whether the punishment can be reduced by one grade (i.e red card down to yellow card or yellow card down to just a penalty). Mitigation includes a sudden or significant drop in height or change in direction from ball carrier, a late change in dynamics due to another player in the contact area, a clear effort from the tackler to reduce their height or the tackler having no time to adjust. However, mitigation will never apply for intentional or always-illegal acts of foul play. What about the Foul Play Review Officer/Bunker review? Introduced for this World Cup was the Bunker review system. This allows the referee to issue a yellow card to a player, sending them to the sin-bin while play goes on, where a Foul Play Review Official (FPRO) will then take another look at the incident and determine if the yellow card should be upgraded to red, allowing the game to continue rather than a long stoppage to debate this. This is what happened to Curry against Argentina. The referee crosses their arms to indicate a Bunker review will take place. Once a player is in the sin-bin, the FPRO has up to eight minutes to review the decision and decide if it warrants upgrading to a red card. If not, the player will return to the field after their 10 minutes in the sin-bin has elapsed. Read More Steve Borthwick questions World Rugby’s silence on red card inconsistency Ethan De Groot red card: Why was All Blacks star sent off at Rugby World Cup? ‘Ruining this World Cup’: TV presenter slams ‘grotesque’ refereeing as Wales beat Fiji Japan v Samoa LIVE: Rugby World Cup 2023 latest updates Scotland make sweeping changes for must-win Romania clash Australia coach says Wallabies can’t handle pressure as Rugby World Cup exit looms