Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Alex Murdaugh 'Egg Lady' Juror Blasts Trial Clerk

Episode Date: May 14, 2026

For more than a year, Myra Crosby was known simply as the "Egg Lady" or Juror 785 from Alex Murdaugh's first double murder trial. Crosby was dismissed from the jury before deliberations began. She believed the former Clerk of Court, Becky Hill, lied to get her removed from the jury. Crosby is speaking out after the South Carolina Supreme Court mentioned her affidavit in its opinion granting Murdaugh a new trial. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy talks with Crosby and her lawyer in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guests: Myra Crosby https://www.facebook.com/p/Because-Enough-is-Enough-by-Juror-785-61559954840775/Joe McCullochCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

They read my affidavit. They saw what happened. And I think it's a sad shame that nothing has happened to Becky Hill. The juror known as the Egg Lady is just part of the reason why Alec Murdoch is getting a new trial in the horrific deaths of his wife, Maggie and son Paul. Now she and her lawyer are speaking about the bombshell opinion released by the state's high court. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy and this is Crime Fix. Coming to you from Columbia, South Carolina. I am standing in front of the Supreme Court of the state. This is where that bombshell opinion, the stunning opinion vacating Alec Murdoch's double murder conviction was released. In 2023, a jury found Alec Murdoch, a prominent member of a South Carolina legal dynasty

guilty of murdering his wife Maggie and son Paul at the family's Moselle hunting estate. But serious questions arose after the trial about clerk of court Becky Hill's conduct during the trial, specifically when it came to jurors. Hill pleaded guilty late last year to misconduct in public office and perjury charges related to the trial, but she was never charged with jury tampering. But some believe she should have been, specifically juror 785. She's Myra Crosby, who was known as the egg lady because she asked to retrieve a dozen eggs from the juror room after she was dismissed by Judge Newman before deliberations began. The reason? Judge Newman found that Crosby had discussed the case with her tenants.

What do you have in there? A dozen eggs, my husband. A dozen eggs. A dozen eggs. Now here's Becky Hill from a hearing in January 2024 talking about her interactions with the egg lady. You asked her questions before she was even examined by the judge. Did you know? Your Honor, I did not ask her any questions.

I find that the clerk of court is not completely credible as a witness. Ms. Hill was attracted by the siren call of celebrity. In the end, the justices here at the Supreme Court in South Carolina found that Becky Hill's actions were improper. The unanimous opinion stated, for six weeks in early 2023, the eyes of the nation focused on Colleton County where the state prosecuted notorious former attorney Richard Alexander Murm. for the murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul. Both the state and Murdoch's defense skillfully presented their cases to the jury as the trial court deftly presided over this complicated and high-profile matter.

However, their efforts were in vain because Colleton County Clerk of Court, Rebecca Hill, placed her fingers on the scales of justice, thereby denying Murdoch his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. And guess what? These justices actually cited the egg lady in their opinion. The egg lady was known as juror 785. The justices wrote, in contrast to Hill's testimony, juror 785 averred at the hearing before the trial court and in an affidavit Murdoch attached to his motion for a new trial that Hill interrogated her about the social media posts and whether she had been in contact with her ex-husband. In the affidavit, juror 785 related that Hill, knowing the juror's fears about her ex-husband, informed her that law enforcement, informed her that law enforcement.

enforcement officers questioned the ex-husband about the posts, offered to reinstate restraining orders jurors 785 had against him, and speculated that the Murdox probably got to the ex-husband when he called juror 785 on the morning of the verdict. Juror 785 asserted Hill asked her whether she and the other jurors were inclined to vote guilty or not and told her that everything Murdox said had been lies. She also stated that before Murdoch testified, Hill told the jurors not to be fooled by the evidence Murdox attorneys presented. So I'd like to bring in the egg lady. She is Myra Crosby, and she is also the author of Enough is Enough. Maira, thanks so much for coming on. How are you doing? And what are your

thoughts on this opinion by the Supreme Court vacating Alec Murdoch's conviction? I think it was 100% justified. I don't know. me, Monty, that would think otherwise, you have justice for this during this case. You know, I think back to that hearing back in January of 2024, where Justice Toll didn't allow you to testify, but your affidavit was admitted and Becky Hill was questioned about her interactions with you. What did you, how did you feel about that after watching that hearing? I was angry at first because, you know, everybody thought that I was out to get rich in writing a book. I never wrote my book until after the evidentiary hearing when I was denied life to tell my story.

I had proof what Becky was did to me and it was wrong on so many levels. What she said on that stand was a bunch of lies and she was only down to one count of surgery. You can go through that entire hearing. I'm thankful that the Supreme Court Justice did just that. They read it word for word. They read the sled report. They read my affidavit.

They saw what happened. And I think it's a sad shame that nothing has happened to Becky Hill. Well, she did have those, the charges that she pleaded guilty to, the perjury charge, the misconduct in public office, the obstruction of justice. She didn't get any jail time, though. Is that what you're referring to? No, I'm saying they should have actually investigated her for jury tampering. They said there wasn't enough evidence to charge her with jury tampering. Well, I find that hard to believe when the Supreme Court saw it. They stated it in their, you know, in their order.

They pointed it out, and nothing happened. They mentioned you the justices did in the opinion, and this was a unanimous opinion. This wasn't just three of the five. This was all five agreeing that Alec Murdoch deserved a new trial, and that Becky Hill was wrong, and that what she did with the jury was, wrong and they mentioned you in their opinion. When you read that they actually mentioned you and factored you into their decision, how did that make you feel? Indicated. I felt vindicated. I felt vindication for all his time that the things that you said

about me and it was very difficult. I felt vindicated. What were the things that were said about you? Oh, that I was not credible. I've had so many stories said that I was, you know, I was writing to Mr. Murdoch in jail. I've never met me, and I've only saw him before. You know, different things were said and over and over after hearing, oh, she's not credible, she's a liar, or she's taught this one, and she's talked to this one, and she's not for that one. No, that's incorrect. Justice told questions Ms. Hill on that about talking to me, and she's lied about that.

And she felt that when Justice the fool confronted her about that and said, well, how do you define that Judge Newman said he wasn't happy about you talking? She still denied it. I mean, now you've got the Attorney General's office saying that it was harmless error.

It's not harmless error. Yeah, fleeting and foolish, I think, or what they called her comments. in their argument. Take me back to when Becky Hill first approached you. And it was through Mr. Bill, if I'm not mistaken, correct?

Yes, ma'am. We were all in the jury room and Mr. Bill came in the jury room and summoned me and said, The clerk needs to speak with you. So I left the jury room and she took me into a private office and that's when she questioned me

about the alleged Facebook course that never was seen. And what happened during that conversation? I asked her to see it, and she couldn't find it. She asked me if I had had conversations with my ex-husband, had I been drinking with my ex-husband, and did I offer an opinion on the trial? And I told her I hadn't seen my ex-husband in over 10 years.

She used her phone to look up my Facebook page. I longed in through her phone. And she said, well, let me see a picture of her husband. And I told her, I said, I can't show you on my wife's page because I have him lost. And I told her that I had the training orders against him. And I was pretty shaken up. And she asked me, well, have you made up your mind about Alex? You know, have I made, come to a decision on a verdict?

And I said, no. I said, you know, I said, I just want to hear everything. I'm undecided right now. and I thought that was the end of it and it wasn't that afternoon I was pretty freaked out when we were back into the courtroom

I was sitting and the audience my ex wasn't out there and we went on a break that afternoon I went downstairs because I'm a smoker

and I went with the smokers and I was visibly upset and I asked one of the officers to call Becky down to where we were at and she came down and she reassured me that fled and I don't know if it was Collison County. They all went out there and talked to

my ex-husband and supposedly he was drunk and said he had removed the post. And she said she had went through the entire, I guess they had some kind of list that when people came to the courtroom, they checked him when they came in and she assured me that his name was not a lot. What was it like when you were summoned back into Judge Newman's chambers and then he questioned you? Well, he asked me when I got there. I don't know what I'm allowed to say and what I'm not allowed to say, but he asked me when I got in there, because I know I was when I was in there and I said, yes.

I said, look, as Becky told me about six of course. And he asked me just, and I talked to my friend and I told him that we had a really message of this and I had this training with him. That was basically for some of them. And he removed you. It sounded like, and according to the transcript, you know, it sounded like they were saying you did speak with your tenants about the case. And both of my tenants have adamantly said that was along. So moving forward, are you going to be following this case?

What are you going to be doing? I'm going to continue home with my life and move on. You know, I wrote the book, as you said, because enough is enough, but that I can. tell my story, you know. I mean, I have a little luck to get me food out and that's what I did. And, for her as Murdoch, I wish it the best. I hope he gets the Sarah Tric. And unfortunately, I don't think anything will ever have to make you feel, because of what she's done to herself, but she really should have charges brought against her for jury tampering. Yes, ma'am.

Do you think Alec Murdoch, do you think that he's factually innocent or to this day, do you believe that do you have an opinion, you sat through the trial for six weeks, you didn't get to deliberate? Do you believe he's factually innocent? Do you believe the state proved its case? I don't have an opinion as to his guilt for innocent. I still have a question that is not the answer to this day. What are those questions? My question one would be, you know, Why weren't there any murder weapons? Why did Sled light about the guns? If you have enough, try somebody for murder. And you say that you have these things, why would you say you have them if you don't happen? I just, there's too much questionability.

The timeline didn't add for me, and I had questions about that. Questions that might have been answered had I been in the jury. But it was valid questions. And, you know, I wanted to hear everything before I even started to do over it, which I think is what a juror coach to do. So, Myra, you are pushing for Becky Hill to be actually prosecuted for jury tampering in light of this opinion by the Supreme Court justices. I believe she should. Myra Crosby, thank you so much. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Now I'd like to bring in Joe McCullough. He is the attorney for Myra Crosby also represents juror Z and is a former law partner and long-time friend of Alec Murdoch's attorney, Dick Harputtly. And so, Joe, thanks so much for coming out here to the Supreme Court with us. Your reaction, first of all, to the case being sent back remanded for a new trial. Not a surprise. Based on, and I've been in this case from since before the murder trial. And knowing what I knew, going into the trial, watching the trial, and then watching the Supreme Court arguments, this opinion was inevitable.

It's an anticlimactic result, but an interesting opinion. An interesting opinion because it took Becky Hill to task. It said she put her hands or fingers on the scales of justice, and that was something I think all of us saw at that hearing in January of 2024. You know, the opinion is one of the politest reversals I've read in 49 years. Nobody really takes a hit except the Clerk of Court. What I found interesting is that the case, the opinion, really oozes with disdain about the Clerk of Court's misconduct.

In fact, if you'll bear with me, the footnote, one of the footnotes says, as her book title suggests, it turns out Hill was quite busy behind the doors of justice, thwarting the integrity of the justice system she was sworn to uphold. So, I mean, the Supreme Court meant no words in criticizing her. And this new trial, this reversal, is based entirely on her misconduct. And it does, in seven pages, deal with the financial issues. And what some would say was an error by the judge. Others would say overreaching by the prosecution, offering Too much evidence that they knew or should have done was beyond the pale and would lead to prejudice and maybe a new opinion.

But without the jury tampering, I'm not certain that 404B issues would have been enough to get a new trial. We heard from Myra earlier, but how is Jersey Mandy doing? Well, Mandy is relieved. She's stressed. She doesn't like this attention. And in fact, my role as their lawyers, Mara Crosby's lawyer and Mandy's lawyer began with their request to have me intercede and get the press not to talk with them. At some point, I think they're feeling that because of Ms. Hill's conduct, they felt they should talk to me about that, that information should come out.

and they were very courageous in that because they felt then and feel now, now that they've vindicated even more so that he did not receive a fair trial. What does trial to look like in your view? Because this is going to be a very different trial since the financial crimes evidence, it will be allowed, but not as much of it. Well, as a prosecutor and as a defense lawyer for most of my career, I've retried lots of cases. And they're difficult in one sense because you feel like it's refried beans. But they're a challenge in a different sense because you've got a script. You know what the other side

did in the first trial. You make adjustments. You use different witnesses. You use different approaches. And there are a couple of significant things I think that we'll see changes about. Mainly, I think the state will adopt a different motive. They're not going to have the advantage of a week and a half of financial evidence, evidence, because the Supreme Court says the next judge will not allow that. They can have a little bit of that, but not enough to make out that motive in the meaningful way they tried to do or successfully did in the first trial by prejudicing. So I think we'll see a different motive, perhaps, as I suggested at one point, temporary insanity, which we also call family annihilation.

It's Googledable, not something that you see a lot. In fact, Creighton Waters used that in his closing. The other adjustment, I think, is the cast of witnesses. Cousin Eddie, the famous Cousin Eddie, may very well in this trial emerge as a state's witness. There was a lot of conversation in anticipation in the first trial. Whether he would testify, the state made the decision not to call him. We'll see what they do this time. And Cousin Eddie, it seems like his case is still pending.

It hasn't been resolved. So is the state just kind of keeping him on ice in your view? Well, Cousin Eddie is, you could call it on ice or they're sitting on him like a hen sits on an egg, fully in my opinion anticipating the very real possibility of a new trial and they want to keep their options open. South Carolina Supreme Court really wants cases to move. They don't want cases growing old. And so I think, you know, I'm sure that Eddie and his lawyers would like to see his cases

resolved, but the prosecution has not seen fit to do that because I think they wanted to reserve him for use. What do you think about a change of venue? Will the defense go for a change of venue in this case? Well, I mean, my good friend Mark Tensley believes that it's a change of venue. should be left in Colleton. I'm not certain that the defense is going to agree with that. I think that they're concerned that that's a very small county where so much about this case played out through this first six-week trial.

It may create an insurmountable difficulty in selecting a jury that can be unbiased, objective, you know, black slaves. It's going to be a challenge. It's a small county with a limited. number of people. I guess you just call everybody that lives in Colleton County and hope for the vets. When does this trial happen in your view? Well, now that's an interesting question. The Attorney General announced yesterday that he intends to see this case retried very soon. And that raises two points. One, he positive that the need for a retrial was for the victims. I'm not certain the victims in this case, the Murdoch family and the, and Maggie's.

family would be in favor of a new trial. I'm just I'm not sure on that. But secondarily, the Attorney General, Mr. Wilson, is in the midst of an election campaign for governor. So as he's going to take four weeks out of a campaign between now and the election in November and sit at the council table and direct traffic as he appeared to do in the first trial, that's a big ask. So I don't know. My guess is 27, but it could be wrong. Could be wrong. Could be right. Could be right, but I think that both sides

are preparing for war before November and ready for it. Does Alec Murdoch take the stand in the next trial? I know from well, I know what I know from conversations that

not everybody on the defense side was in agreement with that decision and that was ultimately his decision. Because the case is going to be tried very differently, I think there'll be a whole different conversation. And my guess is, my prediction, I guess, is that he won't testify. And I think we could tell from the body language the last go-around from your good friend Dick Harputley and Jim Griffin, I think we could tell from the way both of them acted that

they weren't pleased with that decision. Well, you know, I've talked with them and I wouldn't talk about that conversation. But I think that they have said publicly, that that decision was Mr. Murdoz, that he's a skilled trial lawyer, was, and that he felt that he could persuade, be persuasive to a jury. Whether he was wrong, perhaps given what we now know going on behind the backstage with the clerk's coaching of the jury, as now the Supreme Court acknowledges, might not have mattered how persuasive he was. You will see in round We will. Joe McCullough. Thank you so much. All right. And that's it for this episode of crime

fix. I'm Angelette Levy coming to you from the Supreme Court in South Carolina. I will see you back here next time.