Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Alex Murdaugh’s First Words After Learning About New Trial Bombshell

Episode Date: May 15, 2026

The South Carolina Supreme Court has vacated Alex Murdaugh's convictions for 2021 murders of his wife, Maggie, and his son, Paul. Murdaugh has maintained he didn't commit the murders. Now, prosecutors and Murdaugh's attorneys are preparing for a re-trial that could look much different from the first. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy sat down with Dick Harpootlian as they discussed Alex's reaction to the Supreme Court win, his relationship with his son Buster and more in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: Dick Harpootlian https://x.com/HarpootlianSCCRIME 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.

His reaction was, you know, this is great. Hopefully if I get an acquittal to find the people who did kill Maggie and Paul, because they certainly haven't tried before now. Alec Murdoch's lawyer telling all about his client getting a new trial. Can't let the second most important court official in that courtroom try to influence the jury because she is writing a book and wants to sell more books. Plus, what is Alec Murdoch doing behind bars? And does he see his son Buster? I'm Anjanette Levy, and this is a special edition of Crime Fix coming to you from the

State House grounds in Columbia, South Carolina. Dick Harputlian has represented Alec Murdoch since 2021. And he said he's not going anywhere. He will be representing Alec Murdoch in a second trial and so will his entire team. He says he is getting the band back together. Those are his words. You'll recall that Alec Murdoch was swiftly convicted after a six-week trial and three hours of deliberation in 2023. He was convicted of the heinous murders of his wife Maggie and son Paul at the family's Moselle hunting estate in June of 2021. Alec Murdoch admitted he stole millions from clients, but maintained he was no murderer. On June 7th, 2021, did you take this gun or any gun like it and shoot your son Paul in the chest in the feed room at your property off Moselle Road?

No, I did not. Mr. Murdo. Did you take this gun or any gun like it and blow your son's brains out on June 7th or any day or any time? No, I did not. Murdoch appealed, claiming clerk of court Becky Hill tried to influence the jury so they'd vote to convict. Why? Because she wanted to write a book. And Murdoch's team presented a witness who said Hill believed a guilty verdict would sell more books. Alec Murdoch's first attempt to win a new trial failed in 2024. But now South Carolina's highest court has ruled unanimously

that Alec Murdoch's rights were violated by Becky Hill when she told jurors not to believe Murdoch or the defense. The court also found too much information about Murdoch's financial crimes was allowed into evidence to show motive for the murders. So Murdoch, despite serving a 27-year sentence for those financial crimes, is getting a second trial for the murders of Maggie and Paul. The case goes back to square one. The attorney general has vowed to retry Alec Murdoch quickly. I'm here with Dick Harputtlian, one of Alec Murdoch's defense attorneys. And actually, I spoke with him right as that opinion came out, although it was very brief. So Dick, thank you so much for talking with me.

I know you've had a long day. I called you and you said, I can't talk right now. I'm on the phone with Alec. And, you know, I'm sure you had a lot of calls. But what was it like talking with Alec Murdoch to tell him the news that he had won a new trial? Well, I think you've got to have context on that. Alec clearly has thought from the beginning,

this case would never be worse. He was very pessimistic about it. He said, I have never. had any judge ruling my way on anything. And so when we argued the case in front of the Supreme Court, and Jim and I got on the phone with him, and he said, how to go? He said, kind of great.

I mean, the justices asked us the right questions, and more importantly, asked the Creighton Waters and the prosecution team questions. They had no answers for. So we felt really, really good about our chances. And so the opinion came and we called him and he said, you know, I've heard that it got reversed. And he didn't, he told us when he told you, well, well, he said, I don't believe it. Then I don't believe it. Oh.

So when the opinion came in, we talked to him yesterday, he said, I read the opinion. I hear what you say. I still don't believe it. I said, what do you mean? He said, there's something going. He said, I can't put my finger on it. But I've been so pessimistic about this. I've never gotten to ruling my way.

It's just hard for me to believe that they're going to rule our way. I said, well, you know, rule of laws are alive and well in South Carolina. These justices looked at it and said, you can't let the second most important court official in that courtroom try to influence the jury because she is writing a book and wants to sell more books. And that she clearly said that to several people. and the judge, the justices talked about the financial, um, testimony, testimony about the financial crimes and have indicated that that,

that that shouldn't happen again in a retrial. Mm-hmm. To that degree, or maybe at all, it's, I mean, they urge the judge to look at it very carefully under the strict standards of the admission of what we call 404 crime. So, mm-hmm, to prove motives. So we went, we talked to him about the case. went through page by page, we talked about the issues.

And he said, I still don't believe it. I mean, he just believes that because of the notoriety, because of the common belief that he's guilty, that he wasn't going to get another trial. And, of course, I explained to him, these justices under the law, you're entitled to a new trial, whether you're a serial killer or a child molester or whether the worst are the worst. The law demands you get, the Constitution demands that you get a new trial. And again, I'm proud of our Supreme Court because the rule law prevailed unanimously. So did he ever obviously come around to realizing, yes, this is, he said he read it,

but he didn't believe it. Did the shock wear off? It did. He still, he's trying to try to try to figure out what does this mean. Now, you understand he got his sentence on the financial Grimes is enough to where he may never get out of prison. And if he does, it would be very old. So this isn't about getting out. It was never about him getting out of jail. But he has insisted he didn't kill Maggie and Paul. He wants whoever did caught.

And they're not going to, he believes they're not going to focus on even looking at those people until he's acquitted. Have you talked to Alec since yesterday, since Wednesday? We talked to him twice yesterday. We flew up to New York to do, this has been a lot of. World Wind tour for over the last 24 hours. Tim and I flew up. We talked to him yesterday morning

briefly and then yesterday afternoon when we got to New York. We're planning hopefully to go out and see him next week. And each you know, after the shock wore off, what was his reaction, you know, that you can share other

that's not privileged? Well, his reaction was, you know, this is great. hopefully if I get an acquittal, they'll find the people who did kill Maggie and Paul because they certainly haven't tried before now. And what does he spend his days doing? I mean, he's just hanging out in prison, talking to other inmates. I mean, is he still in segregation?

Well, no, he's got a job. He's in protective custody. He's in an institution where they have a PC unit and he's there and doing well and has a job. He does answer a lot of questions from other inmates. about legal issues. He was a lawyer. I mean, he's well liked and he's adjusted to it. He's been in prison, in jail or prison for five years now. So where do you go from here? Because the Attorney General Alan Wilson says, this is going to be retried. We're going to do it as quickly as possible, possibly this year. That seems, that seems nearly impossible. Well, the attorney,

it is impossible. The Attorney General is running for governor. The elections in three weeks. And that was a political statement. That wasn't a legal statement. He knows as well as we, and by the way, Great Waters was interviewed. He wasn't saying they could try it this year. I mean, he understands the realities are. The Chief Justice has to appoint a judge.

We have all kinds of venue issues to deal with. We have to serve discovery again. They have to respond to it. Any additional information. And we're going to be very careful to make sure that they have complied previously. We're not so sure we got to. everything the first time around. So we need, and that's millions of pages of documents.

Now, the great news is with the development of AI, since the first trial, revealing documents has become so much easier because you can use AI to analyze what, it's like, you know, what we had before was, you know, what is it, have control. Control F. Control F to search for a word. Now, I mean, you can search for phrases, ideas, whatever, and it's just that we're doing in other cases. It's amazing, and it's going to make it a lot easier for us to do that. Now, we've got to get all the documents loaded.

We've got the old ones loaded in a database, but anything new we get. And there's some things we learned after the trial we want to examine that may lead in a different direction. So, no. And, again, just the mechanics. of getting a judge appointed, having a pretrial hearing or status conference talk about how we're going to go about this. And you couldn't get that done by the fall. Let's drill down on that a little bit. What are some of the new things that you've learned since the trial that need to be explored?

You will find that out at the trial. Come on now. Give us a little bit. Are we talking about third party culprit evidence? Because I've heard some things. about potential third party suspects since the trial. Is that what you're talking about? Some of it.

Some of it. I mean, yes, we've gotten information since the trial of possible third party. But we, you know, we're not an investigative agency. We don't have the ability to go serve a search warrant. But as of now, as soon as this judge gets appointed, and we ask them what's called a fourth with order, which allows us to apply to him for subpoenas. We'll have subpoena power

so we can get records to try to validate what we've heard. And those won't be public, by the way. Right. How many third party culprit, you know, how many potential suspects, potential people have you heard about? Nice try. But we're not going to talk about specifics. I mean, anything tied to the boat case with Paul?

I really, I'm not going to go into, again, part of what we have that may prove very helpful in a retrial is we knowing and they don't. And no offense, I'm sure you're not going to call them, but they might actually watch this and learn what we're up to. And, you know, that's one of the advantages we have is we don't have to disclose that and won't. They'll learn about it and that person takes a stand. So when do you see this trial happening? Sometime next year, mid-year, maybe fall. 2027. Yeah, there's no way in hell what's going to happen before the end of the year.

Are you going to move for a change of venue? Yes. But, I mean, there's several different, I mean, if they're in a hurry to try what they ought to do, that time is agree with us, the venue ought to be changed, and try to work with us to find a venue that works for both of us that we think would be. Yeah. Where you might find. jurors.

No, it's, you know, one of the problems is it's, we're not going to find jurors who've never heard of the case. We're not going to find jurors who haven't read about it. But what you're looking for are jurors that can put aside what they've read, what they've heard, opinions they may have had, and base their verdict on what they hear in that courtroom. Last time Alec Murdoch took the stand, and that was his decision. I remember looking at your face as he was testifying. You didn't look really happy about it. That was my read on it. How did you feel about him testing?

I'm a hard guy to read. Are you? But I mean, I think if the question is, will he testify? If those, that decision is always made game day. I mean, it's, it's, it's, we get through the trial, we get to the point where that decision has to be made, that's when it'll be made. There's no preconception about whether you should testify or not testify. Did you want him to testify the last time? That would be attorney client.

Even just your opinion on? that what my opinion would be based on our discussions our discussions are protected and and I'm certainly not going to say what he said to me or what I said to him sure what about the kennel video I know I've asked you about this in the past I mean he said he had not been at the kennels and you've got that snapchat video of him you know talking to Bubba well what did the chicken what he tried to explain which he didn't explain very well is this two things one there's no question if you look at the investigation, when the cop showed up,

he's standing there with a shotgun, which the 911 person recorded him saying, hey, somebody's killed my wife and child, I'm unarmed, I'm going to go up to the house and get a weapon and come back. They pull up. A husband standing there with a shotgun, and 100 yards away is,

less than 100 yards away, is his dead wife and son. I mean, husband, dead wife, 99 times out of 100 is going to be the husband. And especially he's holding a shotgun. Okay? I mean, they didn't know at that point whether that was the murder weapon or not.

So they decided it was him that night. And how do we know that? Did they examine the feed room where Paul's body was for DNA or fingerprints? Did they try to get DNA or fingerprints? Did they look for fibers or hairs? No. There's a buddy footprint next to Paul's head. Turns out to be a Carlton County.

sheriff's deputy's foot they trouts the crime scene they did no forensics whatsoever they were there were talk vehicle tracks coming away from the bodies through the grass and actually going out the back way okay not up not going up to the house it was those were pointed well first of all you can sort of see them a little bit in photos but witnesses testified those vehicle tracks were there and the fire department fire chief who came, said, testified. He told the chief investigating officer,

he better preserve those tracks. That may be the murderer's vehicle. They came, drove all over and destroyed it. They destroyed evidence. Destroyed evidence. They took, so they have no forensic evidence because that night they decided they didn't need to do it.

He was the murder. What other explanation could there be? It's not just what we see on TV. I mean, we had a guy testify. Crime scene 101. You don't let anybody come in. You don't let them trouts walk through the blood in the feed room where he was executed. Propal was executed.

So they clearly decided it was him that night. He testified that when they asked him had he been down there, he thought, and he had some pills in his pocket too, that he didn't need to admit that that would put him. That would lock up their case. Yeah, I was down there. And here's the other point. The state says that he was down there moment, moments or minutes before they were killed.

Now, how does the state establish the time of death? Certainly not by the coroner who testified. He felt their heads. Remember that? Right. Okay. I mean, no scientific, no thermant, no... No thermometer in the liver.

Yeah. No, again, a lack of scientific approach to the case. no forensic determination of time of death at all. They say when Paul and Maggie's phones went dead. Right. Okay. Now, how do they know they went dead? Well, they said that there were no more texts.

Correct. Well, do they, and clearly several witnesses testified that down by the kennels, cell service went in and out. So the fact that they didn't text. to anybody doesn't mean that it didn't try to text anybody I mean that is I mean that's they stopped using their phones now on Maggie's phone there is a she tried to take a video of something and that's the last thing on there now it could be she heard the shots came around the corner saw saw Paul dead or be after you'd been

shot and was trying to take a video of who was there. Would she have done that if it was how? I don't think so. And then she shot. I mean, that's, I mean, we all believe that Paul was shot first. Even the state believes that. So, again, their case has more

holes in as one piece of Swiss cheese. And if the financial crimes hadn't led the jury to believe he was just a whole monster before they heard, any of the real evidence, they would have viewed it very differently. We believe. And they will in a retrial have that opportunity. Is cousin Eddie going to, in your view, make an appearance in this case?

Because you could have called him the last time. The state could have called him. Nobody called him. Everybody was waiting for him to be called. Well, here's the thing. He's a trained barking seal. He's been out for five years with an ankle monitor. He is confessed to trafficking.

and more oxy than anybody in the history of the state. He's looking at mandatory minimum 25-year sentences, cashed millions of dollars of checks from Allen and conceived. Now, he said some of it was he just cashed him and gave him the cash, but clearly he had a relationship with some local drug gang. And one of our motions, we noted that he took a polygraph about killing Maggie and Paul and failed it. there's a relationship there and some of the things we need we're going to try to develop

is that about the relationship with him and these drug gangs. Why would Cousin Eddie kill Maggie and Paul? You know, I can't say. I can't say. I mean, I really... You can't say or you don't want to say. Well, I would be hampering and hamstringing our case to say right now. Croton Waters needs to learn it at the same time as everybody else.

And I'm hoping they put Cousinetti on the stand because the cross-examination of him may very well prove Alex's innocence. Well, you put him on the stand. Well, the problem is if you put him on the stand, I mean, I don't know how I mean, right now we've never been given any sort of plea deal. I mean, I can't say he's a hostile witness and cross-examine him. he's my witness and allows them to cross-examine him and lead him.

I mean, there are rules here. It's true. The tactical reasons you do or don't do things. We'll see. But why is he still out of jail five years after the other case is over? Yeah, and his cases are still pending. They've not been resolved. Absolutely.

I also asked Dick Harputlian about the lead investigator on Paul and Maggie's murders. Sled Agent David Owen retired after Alec was convicted. but in the summer of 2025, a judge dismissed a murder case Owen was a part of investigating. Michael Colucci had been charged with murdering his wife Sarah Linmore-Kalucci in 2015. The state.com reported that a judge found Owen didn't turn over information that suggested Sarah may have harmed herself. David Owen was the lead investigator, the lead sled agent on this case. There have been some issues with him since the trial. There was another case in which he was accused of hiding some evidence.

Do you see that now becoming an issue? Will you seek to introduce that? Absolutely. Remember now when he testified before, he admitted he lied to the grand jury to get the indictment in this case, that he lied under oath to the grand jury. So he's willing to lie. The question is, and now this newest development, hiding evidence against the forensics in this case were nonexistent.

They don't have any forensic evidence. Or at least, look, with all the tools that they just built a $60 million lab for sweat, why didn't they look for hair, look for fiber, look for any, I mean, nobody went around and examined, well, there's the hair there. Let's take it, check it. Maybe Paul's, too, maybe somebody else, if it's unknown, let's run it against. It's the DNA database. I mean, it's, it's, I mean, it's just unimaginable case of the scale that they did not do the

just basic forensic detective work that would be done in any who done it. They didn't do it because he did it. And they decided it that night. How is, how is Alec Burdock paying for this? I mean, I know you've been asked this before, but he's supposed to. to not have any money. Well, when he hired us, he had money, and we got paid a significant fee.

Jim and I did. We take the position, I know this sounds, people just don't believe a lawyer would do this. Maybe that's a reflection on my profession, but we get hired on a criminal case. We get paid a flat fee. And that case ain't over until it's over. So you're not getting any more money?

You just took the handsome fee up front in the beginning, and now that's... I have been blessed to make a lot of money practicing law. Nice house, huh? Right. It's beautiful. And so is Jim. And I mean, I've had it happen before where a case has been sent back for retrial.

You don't charge you more money. You just go do it. It's not done. They hired you to do the case. You know, finish it. And, again, based on the evidence, based on being around Alec, Paul, and Maggie for a year before the murders. Every other week, they were in my office working on the boat, Paul's boat case. What I saw between the three of them, especially between Paul and Alec, convinces me that Alic could never, remember, whoever ever killed Paul pressed a shotgun to his head and blew his brains out, that was an execution.

Maggie on the ground, shot several times. Somebody put a bullet in the back of her head. Two executions. Now, if they got angry or, you know, then kill the wives and the kids not all the time, but if there was some blow-up or whatever. But, you know, their theory is gathering storm that asked about $750,000,

a fee that he didn't, that apparently wasn't supposed to the firm, account. He'd been caught doing that twice before, paid the money back. Oh, coer, coer. There was nothing to indicate this would be any different. None. There was no gathering storm. There was no immediacy to any threat to him. And certainly not two o'clock on that afternoon. If Alec was down at the kennels shortly before Paul and Maggie were murdered, do you think he has knowledge of who did this? Well, first of all, there's no other than this, they stopped using their cell phones.

There's no evidence he was down there shortly before they were killed. He could have been on his way to his mama's house, which after he was down there, he went up and got in his, he broke the golf cart up there, got in his car. He went inside for a few minutes and then got in his car and drove over his mom's house. When he gets to his mom's house, no blood, no brains, nothing, nothing on his shoes, no blood in the golf cart, no blood in the, he, in the car. And they said they checked, sweat agents checked every shower,

every drain, every piece of clothes they could find, found not one speck of blood or human remains anywhere in that house that night. No guns. I mean, you know, if this was a spontaneous,

the storm is coming. It was a really well-planned, spontaneous rid of any evidence whatsoever. There's no evidence no evidence pointing to him. So this is 100 percent going to trial. Absolutely.

No resolution other than a verdict. Well, they could dismiss it. That's the only other way verdict or dismissal of your property? Look at this evidence again, they'll go, especially a decision and we can't convict him. You know, maybe they'll have the good sense to say

we can't put it, we can in good conscience, put a case before a jury that would can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed this crime. I don't see it. I was a prosecutor for 12 years. I mean, I've written a book about one of my high-profile cases, tough to get a jury on, everybody. And he was convicted, but a bunch of stuff didn't come in.

And he got a fair trial, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. So I've done this work. I've been in their shoes. And there are many, many cases. You read about the cases where I got convictions. You don't read about the cases where I didn't go forward or I dismissed the case because I didn't think that it'd be that justice. And that's your job is to do justice or justice. Should Becky Hill be prosecuted?

Yes. Okay. For jury tampering. Well, look, clearly from the record of Supreme Court published yesterday, she attempted, even, I mean, I think they're saying for for, for, um, With Toll rule, and all the facts she found, Judge Justice, former Chief Justice Dean Toll, she made great factual findings about what she did, which was she said, you know, this is what she did.

If she said those things, or since she said those things, it burden shifts to us to prove it affected the verdict that a juror was affected by. That's not what the U.S. Supreme Court has said in Remmer, all the cases after that. It says once we prove that, the burden shifts to the prosecution to show beyond a reasonable doubt, it didn't matter.

But the fact of the matter is, these facts now are undisputed. At the minimum, it's an attempt, attempt to tamper with the jury, which is a crime. Can the Supreme Court make a referral for criminal charges? So do you think there is room for, because of the opinion that they issued or they released, should she be prosecuted?

I mean, we had a prosecutor go into court and say there was no evidence of jury. No, what she said was, what he said was, I don't believe I have evidence of, I have enough evidence that would convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that she committed jury tampering. And I think at that point, he was under the misapprehension of the toll opinion, which was he got to show it influenced somebody. If you walked into a store or Becky Hill walked into a store with a pistol and walked up to the counter, said, give me your money. And the court said, no. And she walks out. Has she committed an armed robbery? No.

Has she committed an attempted armed robbery? Yes. I mean, this is just, you know, this is criminal law 101. So, I mean, and Rick Hubbard, the guy that looked at, took care of the prosecution of Becky on the writing the checks to herself and perjuring herself in front of toll. He knows that. And by the way, it ain't his, really his responsibility.

The guy that hugged on her and called her Becky Boo, Becky, you know, he's the Alan Wilson, our attorney general, who's running for governor. and really doesn't want to get anywhere near this thing now. He needs to make some heart calls here. There needs to be a message said. She's the second highest court official in the courthouse during this trial. The jury's looking to her for direction. She is, as one of the justices said during their argument,

she's their Sherp. And so she has an unfair, it's not like somebody sees you in the grocery store and says, well, you know, to a juror, hey, that guy's guilty. This is their person they look to for their welfare while they're on the jury. It's, it's, it's, it's, it's incredible. Have you heard from Buster at all? Do you keep in contact with him? We do.

Jim Griffin talks to them more than I do. And of course, he and Alec talk and they visit. I mean, there's visits. Alec and Buster talk and visit? Yeah. Really? Really. I only ask because it sounds like there's been some reporting out there that that hasn't been going on.

So tell me, tell me about this. I don't think so. I think I can just report that they're very affable. They're very, they have a great relationship. You know, Buster had a baby, right? Did you know that? I don't think I knew that. Got married?

I knew he had, I knew he was married. Mary had a baby. Who did he name the baby after? Alec? Fizzled? I'd say they got a pretty good relationship. Yeah, I would say. So he's supporting his father.

Absolutely. And believes in his father's innocence. Absolutely. Anybody, and this is, you know, I heard Creighton Waters this morning say, well, you know, the victims deserve justice. Well, Maggie's parents don't believe he killed. Maggie. Oh, yeah. Maggie's parents do not believe that Alec killed.

That's my understanding. I haven't spoken to him. Has Alec met his grandchild, his grandson? I didn't know if he could take him to the prison. I don't think so. Any final thoughts? I just think that, you know, look, I've been doing this a long time. There are moments in which you say to yourself, this is why I do it.

And this is one of those moments. And again, all around us, everywhere in the country, we see the rule of law ignored by judges, by members of the executive ranch like prosecutors. This is a reaffirmation in what I believed in for 50 years. And I mean, I'm ecstatic about it. Even though it's going to hire a lot of time and money of mine and gems in our team, this is a great thing. So you're doing it essentially pro bono from the fee you were paid up front?

At this point, yes. Now, maybe some rich benefactor wants to contribute to them. And making more rich. That's a joke. The costs alone were $600,000 the first time around. On the defense side? Yeah. Just to stay where you were staying and experts.

Experts, experts primarily. And where we stayed wasn't that expensive, but it was less expensive than if we'd rented hotel rooms. Of course, there were no hotel rooms. you guys took them all. And what were there? Four hotels and motels and there were no hotels. Four motels and three restaurants. Did you eat it?

It's a cracker barrel a lot. I don't remember. Yeah, you put it out of your mind. That was traumatic. I know. I did try to patronize the local. Anyway, press conference coming up. Monday, one o'clock.

What are we going to learn? You'll learn it when you get there. Okay. We're going to talk about, answer any questions anybody else has about the trial. We've got a couple of announcements, I think you'll find fascinating. Same defense team?

Yeah. Everybody. Same, putting the band back. The vans back together. All right. Dick Rputtlian, I so appreciate you making time after such a long day.

Thank you so much. Anything else you want to add? Well, I just want to say that, One of the things we've seen since the Supreme Court argument is a different attitude about this case by a number of people, whether they're podcasts or reporters for newspapers or TV stations or whatever. They're beginning to get it. I think you get it. It's not open and shut. And that's the point that, you know, and again, when you fix the jury,

You can't take that verdict and say it stands for anything other than you can fix a jury. So, and I enjoy doing this. Can you tell that? I can tell. I can tell. Thank you, Dick. I really appreciate it. Dick Harputtley.

Thank you so much for coming. Yeah, thank you. And for the record, cousin Eddie Smith has always maintained he had absolutely nothing to do with the murders of Maggie and Paul. And remember, you can read more. watch more about the Murdoch case on Law and Crime Plus. That's our new app. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix coming to you from Columbia, South Carolina. I'm Ann Janette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.