Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Alex Murdaugh Defense: ‘Killer is Short’

Episode Date: February 21, 2023

Alex Murdaugh's defense team began their day in court by calling Buster Murdaugh to the stand. He insisted that his father was “heartbroken” and “destroyed” after finding the bodies of his wife and son. The disgraced lawyer seemed to wipe away tears as his son said, “He asked me if I was sitting down … he sounded odd and then he told me that my mom and brother had been shot.”   We also learned in testimony that just after discovering the bodies, Murdaugh searched online for a popular South Carolina restaurant. His phone records show a search for  ‘Whaley’s Edisto’ in Safari browser” at 10:40 p.m. This timeline shows Murdaugh was still at the crime scene just  15 minutes after the first cop arrived. The restaurant he searched is one of the oldest in Edisto — where the Murdaughs’ main house is located.   Later in the testimony, a forensic expert testified that Alex Murdaugh was too tall to be the shooter.   Joining Nancy Grace today: Joshua Ritter - Criminal defense attorney, partner at El Dabe Ritter Trial Lawyers, former Los Angeles County deputy district attorney, Twitter @joshuaritteresq,  Chris McDonough -Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective; Host of YouTube channel- ‘The Interview Room’ Dr. Heidi Sievers -Founder- Sievers Forensics; Bloodstain pattern Analyst/Lead Consultant; Author: 'The $#*+ You Can't Make Up: Dark humor and Unhealthy Coping Mechanisms;' Twitter:@thebloodstaindr Dr. Michelle DuPre - Former Forensic Pathologist, Medical Examiner, and Detective: Lexington County Sheriff's Department; Author: 'Homicide Investigation Field Guide' & 'Investigating Child Abuse Field Guide;' Forensic Consultant  Anne Emerson - Senior Investigative Reporter, WCIV ABC News 4 (Charleston, SC); Host of Award-Winning DAILY Podcast: 'Unsolved South Carolina: The Murdaugh Murders, Money and Mystery;' Twitter: @AnneTEmerson  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. The jury is on their lunch recess. We all hustled away from the testimony to join you live. A lot happening in the courtroom. The defense is taking the lead right now. We saw the remaining surviving son, Buster Murdoch, on the stand. And boy, do they need a friendly witness. Because let me tell you something, we now learn that as he is standing next to his dead wife and dead son, their bodies riddled with bullets, Alex Murdoch takes time to look up a local restaurant and take a gander at a bikini picture.

Yes, you heard me right. Take a listen to this. I think you have in the timeline later on, he reads some spam text message about, I think there's a picture of a woman in a bikini. I wouldn't call it a spam text message. It's from Michael Gunn, who would be one of his friends. A group text.

A group text, yeah. And then he Googles the name of a restaurant in Edisto Beach. Is that correct? That is what comes up on his phone. So he would seem to be in a state of shock. None of that makes any sense, does it? You're not going to Google the name of a restaurant after you find your son murdered.

I'm not Alex Murda. I don't know what he was thinking at that moment. I probably wouldn't be on my phone. Do you believe he was Googling a restaurant, or do you think he was fat-fingering the phone because he was in shock? I have to go off of the data and that's what the data shows. And you believe that calling family and calling someone that the prior testimony was was like another son is unreasonable in the circumstances? I would say so yes given the fact that you just arrived to the scene. Fat fingering the phone.

No, no. That can't be when you look up a restaurant by name. If you put in the wrong letters, you'll get some crazy result. Not a local restaurant. What, was he planning to go out for dinner after? And you hear the lawyer trying to rehabilitate these awful facts that are coming from the witness stand by saying, well, you know, wouldn't you expect him to call his family? Yes, but that's not the first call that Alex Murdoch made after finding his wife and son dead.

Take a listen to this. The first person he called after hanging up with 911. Was it Rogin? I have it 10-17-46. He calls Randy Murdoch. And that's his brother, correct? That is correct. Who was the second person he called?

He iMessages Randy and then calls Randy Murdoch again. And then John Marvin. John Marvin is another brother, correct? Yep, at 1019. And then the third person he calls is Rogan, is that correct? At that time, yes. And is that about two minutes and 30 seconds after that first screen on time? That's correct.

I didn't hear any mention of Alex Murdoch calling his son Buster, but he did manage to squeeze in a call to Rogie. That would be Rogan Gibson. Rogan Gibson, remember, was the recipient of the video with Alex Murdoch's voice in the background. You saw him earlier in the state's case positively identifying Murdoch's voice at the kennel, the scene of the crimes, minutes before Maggie and Paul were murdered. So why is he contacting Rogan Gibson before he calls Buster? You know, straight out to Joshua Ritter, well-known defense attorney, partner at L. Dabb Ritter Trial Lawyers and former L.A. County Deputy District Attorney.

Joshua, thank you for being with us. What do you do with a client who's standing right beside his wife and son's dead bodies and he looks up a local restaurant? Yeah, it's a problem and it's something they're going to really have to deal with because, listen, it doesn't make him a murderer that he's making these phone calls and he's looking up restaurants. But how do you get jurors to wrap their heads around that? You can say all you want about how different people behave differently when they're in shock and none of us know how we would behave. But I'm sorry. At the bottom of the list of things that we would be doing is looking up a restaurant.

And you're right. They're going to have to do something about that to give some sort of explanation to jurors that they can hang their hat on. Otherwise, this looks like the conduct of, at the worst, a guilty man, and at the very least, somebody who just doesn't seem to care about what he's standing right next to. Okay, can I just correct you on one thing, Joshua Ritter, and I know you're a high-profile defense attorney, but I have never once said, oh, everybody reacts differently when they're grieving. That's not, no. That was what you would say when you have a criminal defendant that's doing something that is unacceptable to most people, such as, I don't know, bringing your mistress to a funeral or, which I've seen in other cases, not this one that I know of, or looking up a local restaurant while you're standing beside your wife and son's dead body. And another thing while I'm on it, straight out

to Chris McDonough, director of the Cold Case Foundation. I found him on a YouTube channel, his channel, The Interview Room. Chris McDonough, fat fingering means something different it means you obscure the thing you mean to click on with your finger that's what fat finger a phone fat fingering a phone means that you're you can't see the screen because of your fingers are in the wrong place. That does not explain looking up by name a local restaurant right after you call 9-1-1 and you're thumbing through looking at your friend's bikini pictures. Yeah, Nancy, I mean, it just doesn't make any sense, right? I mean, the gentleman is standing right there. His son's body parts are separated from his body. His wife has been riddled with bullets.

You might as well check to see what's for dinner this evening. And, oh, hey, there's a couple of fallacious photographs. I might as well take a look at those, too, while I'm waiting for the authorities to arrive. You're 100 percent right. It just does not fit the narrative of the totality of these circumstances. And I've got to give it to Joshua Ritter, high profile defense attorney joining us. Someone that is callousing cold toward his wife and son and is looking up his next dinner date online where he's going to have dinner. That does not a killer make,

but I can tell you this much. It's not good. Would you at least agree with that, Joshua? Oh, a hundred percent. I mean, listen, the picture that it creates is absolutely awful. And they did it. The prosecution did a good job of laying that out that like you're literally standing next to the bullet riddled dead bodies of your wife and child, I don't even know if you could be on your phone at all and it make any kind of explanation. And what explanation are they going to provide for at that moment? What he's thinking about is a restaurant location. There has better be a really good explanation for it. Otherwise, like we said, doesn't make him a killer, but certainly looks awful in front of those jurors.

Dr. Michelle Dupree joining us, forensic pathologist, medical examiner, former detective and author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide. Dr. Dupree is joining us from there in South Carolina. Dr. Dupree, needless to say, you and I have seen a lot of dead bodies. We've seen them in person, at the morgue, at a crime scene. You know, I find it really interesting that he's standing a few feet away from a horrific crime scene. Both his wife and son literally, as I said earlier, were riddled with bullets. Their words, not mine. Paul's brain was down by his ankles and he's thumbing through his phone. I mean, I would think that would be, you've seen a lot of crime scenes. Can you really look away and plan supper? Really?

Nancy, I have never seen or heard of anything quite like this. This is appalling. I don't know how someone that you love could do that. You know, you've got a lot of experience at crime scenes, but I would be willing to bet this may have been Alex Murdoch's first homicide scene. Well, take a listen to this. So as an investigator, do you do you think it would be terribly unreasonable that after calling other family members, someone would call the person who is the best friend of the dead son who had multiple missed messages and calls and even a call coming in during the 911 call? Is calling that person to ask what's what happened what's going on is that to you as an investigator an unreasonable thing to do after calling other family members I would as an investigator think that would be very odd given the scene in the whole

situation that you're on the phone constantly yes that you're standing there next to your that's on his phone is ringing someone, and you call that person after calling other people. Yes, because I am standing over my son and wife, and just witnessing that for the first time, I would think that would be to have someone on their phone constantly like that right after. Given the scene and the situation, yes, as an investigator, I would think that is very odd. It wouldn't be someone trying to find out what happened.

At that moment, that would be the last thing that would probably come through my mind. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace I want to go straight out to Dr. Heidi Severs, the founder of Severs Forensics, an expert in bloodstain pattern, lead consultant, author of, you can't make this up, Dark Humor.

You can find Dr. Heidi Severs at seversforensics.thinkific.com. Dr. Seavers, you've seen a lot of juries. Now, the evidence that you typically bring in regarding blood stain patterns and ballistics, you know, very highly technical jargon. Juries understand it. They're a lot smarter than many people. Give them credit. I find it really difficult to believe this jury is going to fall for the fat finger excuse why Alex Murdoch is looking up his next meal at a local restaurant or a bikini picture a friend sent? I agree, Nancy. I think you hit the nail right on the head there that they are much smarter than many people give them credit for. And they have also heard extensive and extensive scientific

testimony this entire trial, breaking down some of those complex processes as it comes to DNA, ballistics, bloodstains, things of that nature. So for them to catch on and understand the applicability of that type of evidence, but to believe that in a midst of intense emotion, you're fat fingering a local restaurant and looking at bikini pictures, I just don't think they're going to catch on to that. Guys, as I mentioned right at the get-go, and we are live at the courthouse, Buster Murdoch, the surviving Murdoch's son, has been on the stand almost all morning. He had a lot to say. So without any further ado, let's go straight in and listen to what he has to say about the so-called reward for information about the murders.

Some point in time, you and your father announced a reward? Yes, sir. Ellick and Buster Murdoch announced today a reward of $100,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who brutally murdered Paul and Maggie on June 7, 2021? Now, in the body of this, there's an expiration date on this reward. What's your understanding of the purpose of having an expiration date? I'm not real sure.

Okay. What do you say? It says to be eligible, the person claiming the reward must submit the tip to Slatter Crime Stipers by September 31, 2021? Yes, sir. Straight back out to Chris McDonough, director of the Cold Case Foundation and star of the interview room. But I forgot to mention that he is a former homicide detective and has handled literally hundreds of homicide investigations. You know, I've seen a lot of families put forth rewards desperate for any information. I've very rarely seen a time limit put on the reward. Sidney, wasn't there a time limit put on the Suzanne Morphew case? Hey, if you can find the killer, you get get this or give me information about the

killer you get this reward up until uh-oh the clock struck midnight you're a pumpkin again so have you ever seen that before no absolutely not and you know that case was also written with his nephew and in this case here we have you know, the son who obviously gets caught, you know, not knowing why that expiration date is there. I mean, we're not talking about, you know, the death of these two individuals in this press release. That's what I call it. It's a press release. It's not a reward release because, you know, press releases become stale after a certain point in time and they should have an expiration date on them, but not a reward if they were sincere about wanting to find the killers.

You know, Joshua Ritter, I'm listening to what Chris McDonough is saying and he's handled, I guess, going on 500 homicide investigations. Have you ever in all of your years, Joshua Ritter, seen a murder case where the family puts out a reward, but they treat it like it's a carton of milk. There's an expiration date. Hey, after this date, yeah, never mind. Don't want to know who killed him. No, I've never seen it. But even worse is why wasn't he prepared for that question? Why didn't they, I mean, they didn't discuss this all beforehand, the things that he might be cross-examined about. That might be one of the things that pops up is, hey, this is problematic. We all know how this looks. There has to be some good reason for why we put this expiration date

in there. But the young man was caught off guard, as was pointed out. And he's asked the question and he gives a very weak answer. I mean, it's the answer that he knows. He doesn't know why. He has no explanation for it. And that was a moment really missed by the defense. Again, something they're going to have to provide an explanation for. You know, Joshua Ritter, you're pretty smart.

You're absolutely correct. You know, when you go into a case, Joshua, as I always would as a prosecutor, first, I would spend all my time getting my case ready. Then, with my spare time, I would try to figure out what are they going to do? Because I want to shoot it down before they can even bring it up. I want to destroy their theory, which I know to be a lie, before they can introduce it before the jury. I've got to destroy it before it starts. Hey, let me ask you, Christine, if you don't mind, I want to look at Buster Murdoch on the stand again based on what Joshua Ritter has just said. Is Buster Murdoch totally caught off guard? Did they not prepare him for this most obvious attack?

Take a listen to our cut nine. Some point in time, you and your father announced a reward. Yes, sir. Ellick and Buster Murdoch announced today a reward of $100,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons who brutally murdered Paul and Maggie on June 7th, 2021. Now there's a, in the body of this, there's a expiration date on this reward. What's your understanding of the purpose of

having an expiration date? I'm not real sure. What you see is it says, to be eligible, the person claiming the reward must submit the tip to Sleato Crime Stoppers by September 31, 2021? Yes, sir. Did you notice Chris McDonough when he said that, when Buster said, I'm not real sure? He looked right over at his dad, and then he looked back. Like, what the heck? I noticed it. He looked right over there his dad and then he looked back like what the heck did you i noticed it he looked right over there and then back because he had to be thinking what you didn't tell me they

were going to ask that yeah a great observation dancy and and you know let's take that a little bit further right i mean he's basically a surrogate uh testimony for his father. The defense is just feeding him. And there were even times in his testimony where he would kind of get stuck and the defense would fill in the void and you would see that same look, you know, back over at his father. So what a great observation you had there. Good, good one. Hey, Chris McDonough, I want you to repeat something because now I've got Ann Emerson. Ann Emerson, senior investigative reporter, WCIV, ABC. Ann, she's a star of Unsolved South Carolina, the Murdoch Murders, Money and Mystery podcast, which is incredible. Ann, I want you to hear what Chris McDonough had to say about this reward announcement

being more like a press release. Tell her, Chris McDonough, your theory. Yeah, so my theory is, obviously, the two of them got together. I would submit that dad probably drove the conversation here. And when you read that, it reads more like a press release versus a reward fund. Hey, we're looking for information. And it kind of ties the family's narrative into the public forum with an expiration date. And I find that interesting. It's the same month also that the fake shooting takes place. So maybe the exploration was in correlation to that event. Ann Emerson with me as I mentioned from WCIV and Unsolved South Carolina Podcast. Ann just coming out of the courtroom. Ann tell me how is the jury responding

to Buster Murdoch on the stand? They were very attentive this morning, Nancy. They were paying a lot of attention. You know, we've also had a little bit of a another alternate brought into the mix because we had someone who had to stay out because the juror was sick. So we now have an alternate in in its place. So they were paying a lot of attention to what was going on with Buster. Obviously, this was heavy testimony. You know, it was one of the, you know, really coming out of the gates for the defense, right? They've had a couple of short witnesses, and now they've got Buster on the stand. So they were paying a lot of attention. I hear what you're saying, Chris, about this. It's a question we've

had ever since we started looking into this case, right? Like this is not new as far as the reward. We've been asking the same question about the expiration date since the beginning, and we still didn't get it cleared up with Buster on the stand today. And Buster was one of the people that was putting the reward out. So unfortunately, it's still a question of why they would have done that. Whether or not it was in September at the same time, you know, that event happened very early in September, the first weekend in September, and they were holding out for the whole month. But yeah, Nancy, incredible. You know, Buster started crying one or two times while he was up there, which was completely understandable. And you definitely felt the jury leaning in, trying to hear what he was saying and concerned for this kid up on the stand.

But also waiting to hear, could he clear up some of these things about his dad? Is he? One of the things. Is he a kid? Wait a minute. Is he a kid? Is he a kid? I guess. Is he a kid? How old is he? One of the things. Is he a kid? Wait a minute. Is he a kid? Is he a kid? I guess.

Is he a kid? How old is he? You look at him and you think of him. 26. How old is he? He's 26. Okay. Just hold on just a moment, Ann. Already enlisted with the Navy in the World War and had gone halfway around the world to fight the World War.

Had come back home and had married, gone back to school to study accounting and was starting a family. So I don't know that 26 is a kid. I don't think he is a kid. I think it's life skills, too. I mean, look at the life skills. They've been, you know, definitely coddled by their family. So, I mean, in a lot of ways, this is a guy that still looks at his dad and says, hey, dad, what do you think about what I'm saying right now? So to me, he does still act like a big kid in some ways. Joshua Ritter, and I'm not saying that I would have done this, because after all,

regardless of the fact that he is 26 years old, and is a grown man, he still has lost his mother and his brother in a horrible way. And now his father's on trial for double murder. But I would have considered really grilling him on the stand. I mean, he and his father issued the reward. It was their idea. His name is on the reward. What do you mean

you don't know why there's a shelf date? There's an expiration date. I mean, a shelf life, an expiration date. Why? I mean, it's your reward. Why did it end magically at the stroke of midnight at the end of September? They could have really grilled him on that and a whole lot more. But would it have been the right thing to do, Joshua Ritter? You're right. I mean, if he were anybody else that hadn't lost his mother and brother and now, you know, perhaps is losing his father to prison for the rest of his life, you could have seen that they would have had a lot of opportunity to really go after him for a point like that in particular. But I think the prosecution realized they had to take this kind of soft-handed approach because of the person that

you're dealing with. In fact, he opened up his cross by saying, I'm sorry about the loss of your mother and brother and made a point of kind of having this really human interaction with him of introducing himself and saying, you know, I'm going to just ask you a few questions here. So they you could tell that their tactic from the very beginning was they're going to ask the tough questions, but they're going to do it in a very soft handed manner. Okay. Joshua Ritter, let me just throw it out what I think I would have done in that situation. Much what the state did. I go easy on Buster Murdoch because I feel bad for him. He's lost his mother and his brother and his dad's on trial for double murder. He's lost everything, everything that matters. And that's his family. However, I think I would argue it to the jury in the end. You saw Buster. Didn't your heart go out to him? Now, let's analyze what he said about the expiration date on that reward. You know he didn't do that.

That was his father's money, his father's idea, his father's release. He didn't know why there was an expiration date, but Alex Murdoch knew because he didn't want anybody to come forward with the truth that he is in fact a double killer. Think about it. I think that's what I would do with that. I would save it for closing arguments. Yeah, a hundred percent. And really, the more you talk about it, Nancy, you brought this up. It's a missed opportunity by the defense that they didn't bring it up themselves on direct. Why didn't they realize that was a weak point that needed to be addressed? Here you have a person testifying who can essentially testify as a mouthpiece for his father and go,

hey, by the way, you guys put an expiration date on this. What was the reason for that? And it would have completely deflated this moment for the prosecution on cross. Missed opportunity that was exploited by the prosecution. Ann Emerson joining me, WCIV. And I noticed, hey, Christine, I don't know if we have this because it just happened. I don't know if we have it to play back for our viewers, but I can describe it. So they got Buster. The defense put Buster up on the stand, Buster Murdoch. And at some point they said, you know, when when what happened when you're when you got this call? And he said, I learned my mother and my brother were dead. And the camera went to Murdoch.

Christine, stay with me a moment. And I watched Murdoch at that precise moment. And he went, there was nothing there. And for those of you that can't see and you can only hear, he just took one finger, his hand went dab, dab right under his eyes. There was nothing there. And I went, you S.O.B. You're not crying. You're pretending you're crying. Oh, hold on. Wait a minute. Christine somehow has miraculously dug it up for me. Let's see it're crying. Oh, hold on. Wait a minute. Christine somehow has miraculously dug it up for me. Let's see it, Christine. I hope I'm right. Okay. Please play it. My dad called me. I can't remember the exact time, but it was later. He asked me if I was

sitting down and I was like, yeah. And then he sounded odd and then he told me that my mom and brother had been shot. I kind of just sat there for a minute, and I was in shock. But eventually we got our stuff together and drove down to Moselle. If we left around 10, 30, 11, got there sometime probably around 2 o'clock in the morning. And when you got there, did you see your dad? Yes, sir. His demeanor was, I mean, he was destroyed. He was heartbroken.

I walked in the door and saw him and gave him a hug and just broken down. Could he speak? Not really. Was he crying? Yes, sir. Okay, that was the right sound, but I didn't see the video. That was Buster on the stand, but right when he says, my dad calls and tells me my mom and my brother have been shot,

at that moment, it goes to Murdoch, and he's sitting there, and he takes one hand and he goes, boop goes boop, boop and wipes under his eyes. I mean, clearly not really crying. I mean, come on, man. Pinch yourself. Straight back out to Ann Emerson joining us, WCIV. Tell me what happened when Buster Murdoch was describing the moment he learned his mom and his brother had been murdered. Well, Nancy, also we have to set it up that we have not heard anything from Buster before, right?

We haven't heard any interviews. He's been very quiet up until this moment. And so we were all listening intensely to see how he would describe this moment. And you're right. It was one of those moments where he was kind of going through it. You almost felt like on a third-person level. You know, he was talking about that he noticed that his girlfriend was packing as he's talking because she could overhear the conversation. He was intent on getting through this part of what they wanted him to talk about, because the he did not

over he was not overly dramatic about that. He like you said, there wasn't a whole lot to read through the lines right then. But he looked like he was focusing very hard at just trying to get it out. And the jury was sympathetic. Of course, they're sympathetic. They're trying to follow along with Buster because this is something they just haven't gotten is that very, very close familial connection. So it did feel like it was getting a little bit of testifying from the defendant through Buster. I will state that the, as I did, I believe that the jury felt sympathy and empathy for Buster Murdoch. I can't even imagine going through life without my mom. And isn't Buster Murdoch back in law school now? And, you know, that's what we've been told. But we've also it's been under wraps a little bit. But that's certainly what I heard was that he was already re-enrolled, that he was supposed to go back as of January is what I understood.

But I haven't gotten a confirmation on that. But imagine going through law school and graduation and finding a job and so forth without your mom there supporting you and cheering you on. I have noticed every day I've been in the courtroom that his girlfriend was sitting right there with him. And I've got to say, having lived through something similar myself, in those moments when you first learn someone you love has been murdered, nothing seems real.

And he looks over and she's already packing. She has been with him throughout this. But we learned more from Buster Murdoch. Take a listen to our cut eight. Did you take any security precautions? No. Did you want any security protection? No, sir, I didn't.

Why not? Well, I didn't want to carry a gun or anything like that, and I also didn't want like a private security detail following me around just for lack of privacy. And at the time, the places that I was staying and the places that I were going, like I was staying at Rock Hill in my girlfriend's house who has, you know, alarm systems and security cameras and whatnot.

And then other than that, I'm staying in hotels. Man, Joshua Ritter, I've got so many hanks and charms and security systems and cameras on our home to protect the children, the dog, the fence, the this, the that, the camera, the warning signs, the works. But eerily, Alex Murdoch was not concerned about Buster Murdoch's safety.

Was he, Joshua? Doesn't appear to be. You're right. It's, you know, listen, these small little points add up all of this kind of bizarre behavior taking place afterwards. You're right. Again, the jurors doesn't make the man a killer, but the jurors are going to look at this and go, if I'm in that person's position and I just, my wife and child have been killed and I don't know who did it and they still might be out there, that person or persons, and I'm not going to take steps to make sure that my son is protected,

that I'm protected. I think many of those jurors are going to feel exactly that same way. And now they don't really have an explanation for it. But isn't that bizarre behavior that we can add to the list of bizarre behaviors. And again, we have gotten, we've been inundated with questions about Buster Murdoch. Did he do it? Where was he that night? What's his alibi? Why wasn't he arrested? Never once have I seriously considered Buster Murdoch as a suspect in this case, not even a POI person of interest. He was elsewhere at the time of the shootings. And I can guarantee you that if there were any remote interest in Buster Murdoch as the shooter, he would not have taken the stand. He would have taken the fifth.

He would have had a cadre of defense lawyers stopping him or surrounding him when he took the stand. No, there's no way this young man shot his brother and his mother. Never bought it from the beginning. Not buying it now. Which leads me back to Alex Murdoch. Now, Christine, let me ask for another control room miracle. Can I hear in our SOT 11, if you've managed to turn it around yet, the reconstruction expert called by the defense who insists the shooter not only shot from the hip, but he's kind of like a clairvoyant. He can say, and oh yeah, the shooter was really short.

Listen. So what does this depict? So this is the shooter making both shots. And you'll see, and there's a couple different angles I could show you, but they're really close. And they're in the right location relative to the empty shell casings so what that says it's not I'm not saying it's exactly there because there's some variables to it but I find it interesting that the two shot trajectories cross at a point where both shots can be made and they're at the

right location relative to those empty shell casings so in my opinion when these two shots were made, when these two shots were made, at least these two shots, that the shooter was standing right in that area. If you have the shooter shooting from the hip, it makes a lot of sense that with a little bit of movement, the shooter can produce both of those shots and have it agree with the evidence that Special Agent Worley collected. Okay, I'm just loving this because if you hear what he's saying to Dr. Michelle Dupree and then to Dr. Heidi Seavers,

he says, if not exactly there, then somewhere in that area, there are too many, and I'm quoting him, not exactly there, but in that area, a lot of variables could affect this. Dr. Michelle Dupree, what do you make of that? Nancy, I think most of this is just some guesswork. He tells a good story, but I don't think that it really forensically or scientifically necessarily adds up. You know, I took away four really important things from his testimony. And one, this is a shotgun. And a shotgun

is typically an aim and shoot. You know, you point and shoot it. It's a great home defense weapon for that reason. But you don't necessarily stand in a shooter's stance. And he discredits that for some reason. The other thing, what about the person kneeling? I mean, that could also explain a lot. And later on, and you'll probably get to this, but he talks about the casings. And we all know that casings are going to eject, and in this case we assume they eject to the right. But they do bounce, not so much on ground like that, but also first responders coming

into the scene, they're there to protect life. They're not worried about shell casings. I have seen them kick shell casings across a room. So they could have dislodged these from their normal space. In addition, he also testifies later that these go through a couple of buildings. They go through the kennel and they go through the quail pen. Well, that is going to slow down that projectile. Gravity is going to take over. It's going to lose kinetic energy. And I think that a lot of this is just conjecture. You know, I will never forget trying to determine whether at a crime scene,

the shooting was a murder or a suicide. And I saw the medical examiner investigators very carefully measuring where the expelled casings were, but it was a carpeted floor, and they took all the measurements, and I'm like, oh, thank heaven you got all that written down. They went, doesn't really matter because they bounce around on carpet, much less out in a wooded area at the dog kennels like you're describing. Okay, Dr. Heidi Seavers, founder of Seavers Forensics, what do you make of the assertion that there were two shooters, but the expert on the stand called by the defense said, well, maybe not exactly there the way I have it pictured in this recreation video.

There are too many variables, but maybe in that area. That's essentially what he said, Dr. Seavers. Yeah, Nancy, I think it's interesting that he brings up the fact that there are so many variables, but then essentially ignores the variables and still makes an assertion of this is the area it happened. And to kind of piggyback on what Dr. Dupree said, they're not taking into account kneeling, right? They even brought up that they actually measured the distance from the bottom of his foot to his kneecap to account for potentially holding it in that spot. But how about the height as if he was kneeling? And testimony from Dr.

Kinsey in days prior suggested that the shooter outside of the feed room when shooting Paul would have also been kneeling. So I think they totally disregarded that possibility. And another thing too, when we're looking at scenes like this, especially when you're on a property where people are known to have firearms and go shooting and hunting, there's something we do as well as sequencing evidence and whether or not it's something that is relevant. Yes, it is a bullet defect, but making 100% sure that was not from any prior time. And again, with not only first responders affecting the location of the casings, but also the shooter

as well. Her being shot multiple times, there obviously was a significant amount of time in that area where they could have easily been kicked around inadvertently. So guys, you heard me mention earlier that not only did the defense expert give this opinion that you just heard, but he also hypothesized that the killer was very short. Okay, Christine, you did it once. Could you do it again and pull up the sound where they identify the killer as being very short? Let's say if you put a 5'4 person even, or 5'5, 5'6, in kind of that shooting position from the hip,

you've got to move them all the way up to the quail pen. And it doesn't make any sense there because there's no shell casings, and it starts to not make any sense. I tried it with a 5-4, I tried it with a 5-9. Why didn't that work? Because it puts the person under the shed close to the quail pen. It doesn't make much sense being under there. There are no shell casings there. So in order to get the shooter at the cross of the two shot trajectories near the empty casings,

then you've got to lower that. In terms of Alec Murdoch, how tall is he? 6364. So could you say to a degree of engineering certainty, more probably than not, that Alec Murdoch on the night of June 7th did not fire that shot into the quail pen? In my opinion, it's very unlikely that he fired that shot. Hmm. Okay. So Dr. Michelle Dupree, what do you make of that? Oh, wait, is that Ritter jumping in or McDonough? McDonough. Go ahead, Chris.

Hey, Nancy, just as a couple of things to consider here, right? Some of these, you know, one-offs, the height of the shooter, et cetera. So I've done a lot of work with many experts like the two docs here. One thing that's not being considered, if we take a look at the very first video of the body camera of when the first responders got there, the officer, as he's getting out of his car, it's at that moment you see Alex start to emerge from that particular area. And so the question I would have for this particular witness is, what if somebody who's 6'4 is kneeling? And if that individual is kneeling, does that change the height and the trajectory of that round going downrange?

And then you would also have to take into consideration the height of the victims when that first round got off. And remember, these are such high-velocity rounds. As they're going down and forward, and the doctors know this more than anybody, is sometimes they have a tendency to tumble after they strike a particular item and in this case it looks like it was Maggie and so that could also change that trajectory again because if it hit bone if it went through flesh etc then that round coming out could go into all kinds of different directions, including what we're seeing here in the evidence that's being presented here.

So I think this is very subjective, and I agree with the two doctors here. There's just too many variables that have not been accounted for, and I hope to see the state take this on pretty quickly. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. You know, I want to hear what you said again. And Christine, could you play that video you were just showing? Chris McDonough joining us from the interview room about Alex Murdoch emerging when the cops got there, emerging from that particular area you described. Could you say that again as we watch the video? Nancy, so this clip here is when they actually get up to him.

But as the patrol car pulls up and he reaches in the back seat to grab his flashlight, if you could pull that piece up, you'll see Alex Murdoch will emerge from the left side towards Maggie. I thought that was a really interesting positioning that he took when the first responders got there. There's a lot of behavioral analysis that could go on with that particular piece of the puzzle, but you'll be able to see it on the clip when you back up to where the first responder is pulling up. So we also learn from Buster Murdoch the family position on Mallory Beach. And it's an eye-opener. Remember Mallory Beach is this gorgeous young teen girl that was on the boat with Paul Murdoch who actually had an alter ego that his friends called Timmy.

Because when he would drink too much, which apparently was often, a whole nother personality would emerge. And that night, apparently Timmy was at the wheel when Mallory Beach flew over the side of the boat, the Alex Murdoch boat, when Paul Murdoch crashed into cement pilings and Mallory Beach was killed. Take a listen to our cut six from Buster Murdoch. Were you sued? Yes, sir. Was your dad sued? He was.

Was your mother sued? Her estate became sued. Was your mother anxious about the civil lawsuit? Yes, sir. What was her biggest concern? I would say her biggest concern was reading articles after Mark Tinsley had made a statement about how much money he was wanting to collect

in the civil lawsuits, and I think it was to the tune of $40 million or something like that. He was trying to get in, and that made her anxious. What took priority, the criminal case against Paul or the civil case? The criminal case. You know, amongst the family, none of us thought that he was driving the boat. And Emerson, did he just say none of the Murdogs thought Paul Murdog was driving the boat. And Emerson, did he just say none of the Murdochs thought Paul Murdoch was driving the boat when Mallory Beach flew up against those cement pilings to her death?

He did, Nancy. And we've heard this now also from Marion Proctor, Maggie's sister. She also said that Maggie didn't believe that Paul was driving the boat and had told her so. Now, we also know that the night of, if we go back to that night of the boat crash, one of those reasons could possibly be because when Paul spoke to his grandfather, Randolph Murdoch, aka Handsome, and also was reaching out to his own father, they asked him who was driving the boat, and he said Cottontop, which was a nickname for Connor Cook. So possibly that's where this was coming from. I would have to guess that that's got to be part of why they thought that,

was because Paul told them himself that he thought it was Connor that was behind the wheel, at least at the beginning. That's what we heard from testimony from the cooks. Okay. All right. So Paul Murdoch is the source of the theory that he, Paul Murdoch, was not driving the boat the night Mallory Beach was killed, resulting in a multimillion dollar lawsuit against Paul Buster, Alex, and Maggie Murdoch. Okay, Dr. Michelle Dupree, you and I went to the location of the crash. You could see the cement pilings a mile away. We studied the statements of the witnesses on the boat. There were several other people on the boat that night and they all said Paul Murdoch

was driving and speeding in the dark and they were all begging him to stop. And in fact, when one girl begged him to stop, I think Paul Murdoch slapped her. Somehow one of the girls got slapped in the face that night. All of them begging him to slow down and get away from the boat wheel. Do you remember that, Dr. Dupree? I do remember that, Nancy, and you're absolutely right. That is what one of the girls said. And, you know, Paul wasn't driving the boat. Timmy was.

And Timmy is such an alternate personality. He completely changes. He becomes agitated, a little bit violent, and he starts to shake. His hands actually start to shake. And many of the people on the boat that night actually described that. And you can see that in one of the videos where he's beginning to walk down towards the boat on the pier. Dr. Dupree, please never say that again, that Paul was not driving, that Timmy was, because Timmy is Paul. That is Paul's alter ego as diagnosed by his friends. No shrink said that. That's basically Paul when he's drunk out of his gourd, and now he was behind a wheel with all these people there on the boat begging him.

And isn't it true, Ann Emerson, that the night of the crash, Alex Murdoch was spotted at the hospital going from room to room like a vampire trying to get the other people on the boat to not speak to police about the boating crash and to basically change their testimony. He did not want it out that Paul was driving. Well, Alec and his father showed up at the hospital that night, and they were going room to room. There's a lot of testimony, not just from the kids that were at the hospital, but also from the hospital staff and hospital security, because they ended up having to get involved, according to the testimony and the depositions that we've read through, that they were actually asked to get out of those rooms or stay out of those rooms. And I think even one of the passengers, Morgan

might have, Paul's girlfriend might have been the one that was like, I do not want him coming into my room to talk to me. Now, this has also led into another state law enforcement investigation as far as whether or not there was any interference with that investigation so that investigation actually is still ongoing but apparently they had maggie and paul who was just maggie and buster who was just come down off the stand convinced that paul was not driving okay i don't know that i got to dr he Heidi Seaver, founder of Seaver's Forensics, about the theory that the shooter was about 5'2 to 5'4. What do you make of that theory? I think it is definitely a strategy by defense to deflect from all of these other testimonies we've talked about today.

And just like we were mentioning those other variables, I think it's not taking into account those other variables. Although the witness brought up that there were variables, those seem to have been forgotten. So apparently we can't be 100% certain on location, but somehow we can be certain on the height. So again, just like the other people here have spoken about, that it seems like a little bit of a shot in the dark because we're not taking into account kneeling and firearm positioning. And just like that was mentioned, how that projectile can change angle and directionality based on what it strikes and may ricochet off of.

So Dr. Heidi Seavers, guys, you can find her at seiversforensics.thinkific.com. Dr. Seavers, when you say there are many variables, what do you mean by many variables that could affect the angle, the trajectory path of the bullet? So first we have to try and account if that defect was made by a bullet that struck straight into it, or if it went through or hit an intermediate object before then, such as the victim. So if it had gone through another intermediate object, such as the victim or anything else, it could have changed its directional path as well as the angle. So the angle that they're showing, one and a half, and I think there was another one that said three, a little bit of a difference there, that is subjective to those other variables. So that calculation is also being made as far as

the height based on where the shell casings are. And we've kind of all discussed that shell casings are light, right? They of all discussed that shell casings are light, right? They're very easily to be moved, kicked around and adjusted both at the time of the incident as well as the aftermath until crime scene personnel are able to document them. So from the time they're expelled from the firearm until the time that law enforcement and forensics can document them, there's a lot of time and a lot of people moving in and out that may not see those shell casings on the ground. And to bring up the body-worn camera from when they first arrived, you can hear law enforcement saying there's so many shell casings all over the place that match those 300

blackout casings. So that's what I mean by so many variables, both with the trajectory path of the bullet and if it struck an intermediate object, as well as what he's basing his analysis off of, which seems to be he has a lot of faith in the positioning of those casings. Mm-hmm. Everything you said is exactly correct as I understand the facts Dr. Seavers. Dr. Michelle Dupree in addition to what Dr. Heidi Seavers said you know she has all of the technical aspects of ballistics down cold. I was thinking of did the shooter what was the shooter closer to the body than depicted in that recreation they've got the shooter out here but if the shooter was actually right here hey Christine can we pull that up where you know they did the the

green line you know like when you're watching Fox football they they change the the line down the middle of the field for the first intense. So they create this line, this trajectory path. But what if the shooter was closer or further away? What if the shooter was kneeling? What if the grass was wet and their arm slipped when they actually pulled the trigger? What if the victim was moving? What if the victim was standing up? What if the victim was moving? What if the victim was standing up? What if the victim was crouched down when they saw a gun emerge? That's what I think about variables,

not really technical variables, all the correct ones and the precise ones that Dr. Seavers pointed out. But I'm thinking about the surroundings, the environment where the shooting took place. Dr. Dupree. Exactly, Nancy. And remember that there was stippling or tattooing on the body, which means that the barrel of that gun was probably approximately within three feet or so. I'm not sure that they took that into account. We don't know the length of the barrel. Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Hey, Christine, please leave that picture up. She's got the picture of us talking about Dr. Dupree. Now go ahead because I want to look at this recreation the defense did while you're talking. Okay, go ahead, Dr. Dupree. of the gun was approximately three feet or so away from the body. We don't know how long the gun barrel is, but we have some idea because we know that it's a long gun and it's a shotgun unless it was sawed off, which is unlikely to be at the hunting range. So that's something that I

don't think was taken into consideration either. Exactly. Ann Emerson, I'm running out of time, but I've got a couple of questions for Joshua Ritter. But first, I want to hear from you, Ann Emerson. Who else do we think the defense is putting on? Well, right now, this it looks like this could go on for quite a while in the afternoon. Now, we are hearing that there there could be even more family members, more certainly more experts. I know that they mentioned at least a couple more experts that they're going to be flying in. So I'm expecting them to be looking at more of these forensics in the crime scene. I did want to bring up, you know, there were a couple of interesting things as y'all are just talking about this forensics expert. You know, one thing is keeping in mind your audience.

And that audience is the jurors, right, during this trial, and I was watching them very closely with this new 3D flying over the shed and the crime scene. It's some information that they knew existed from the state, but it wasn't shown to them, really. They were looking at more of a two-dimensional drawing, so their interest was piqued. They understood flying through this a little bit better. So I think they got some points with that. But also just the optics of having, did y'all notice that there were like two figures on that Pharaoh 3D landscape? There were two figures. And I just don't think, I think that was very clever of the defense to keep that in the optics of this case. Because I think that's something they're going to be able to, visually, I think the jurors are thinking about that. Joshua Ritter, question,

and I'm going to do a lightning round with you since we're hearing everyone's making their way back into the courtroom. Do you think that because of what we heard today, that the jury will be taken to the scene? Yeah, I think they should be. I think that would be important for them to see. As much as a role that all of these angles and directions and distances have played, I think they should be. If I were the prosecution, I'd want them to see it.

Joshua Ritter, I've noticed in every single case I have ever tried or covered, the defense always projects they've got a huge witness list, and they never do. Maybe they decide less is more. But do you believe there are that many more witnesses for the defense? No, I think that they've probably put on the strongest witnesses that they have so far. And today, I would expect to see maybe one or two more. That is, you know, putting aside the million dollar question, if the defendant himself doesn't take the stand. That was my next question. Do you think you'll take the stand?

You know, so many people have speculated on this. As a defense attorney, you're always in the position where you don't want to put your client on the stand. But dealing with this man who seems to like to talk to police, seems to have an ego, and there's a lot of unanswered questions that only he can answer. This might be one of those rare, rare cases where you actually see him take the stand. You know what? I think there's too much of a downside

for him to take the stand. If he listens to his lawyers, I don't think he will do it. And regarding putting up more relatives, be careful what you ask for, Hart Pooley, and for you will get exactly what you want. You put relatives on the stand, they may be on cross-examination, open to discussing drug problems, lies in the past, possible affairs. I would be very selective about what relatives I put on the stand.

They may know too much to undergo or survive cross-examination. Okay, everybody's going back in the courtroom. Guys, thank you to all of our experts for being with us. We're going straight back in the courthouse. Thanks for being with us, everybody. Goodbye. You're listening to an iHeart Podcast.