Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - ALEX MURDAUGH MAJOR TWIST: DOUBLE KILLER TO WALK FREE?

Episode Date: August 22, 2024

In a significant ruling, the South Carolina Supreme Court will determine whether interference from a court clerk influenced the jury's decision to convict Alex Murdaugh of killing his wife, Maggie, and youngest son, Paul. Murdaugh's lawyers allege that Becky Hill, the court clerk, attempted to sway the jury to secure a conviction in order to promote a book she is writing about the case, particularly focusing on the trial. Concerns about potential jury tampering were raised during the trial. Trial Judge Clifton Newman addressed the issue in an in-chambers discussion with defense and prosecution attorneys, expressing concern that court clerk Becky Hill might have had inappropriate contact with at least one juror, who was later dismissed from the trial. Following the trial, Murdaugh's attorneys sought to have Newman barred from hearing any appeals in the case; however, Newman retired before a decision was made. His replacement, retired Chief Justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court, Judge Jean Toal, ultimately rejected the claims of jury tampering. The South Carolina Supreme Court has now overturned Judge Toal's decision, meaning the state Supreme Court will consider whether Alex Murdaugh should be granted a retrial. Joining Nancy Grace Today:  Mark Peper – Criminal Defense Attorney, The Pepper Law Firm; X: @PeperLawFirm Dr. Bethany Marshall – Psychoanalyst; Instagram & TikTok: @drbethanymarshall, X: @DrBethanyLive, Appearing in the latest season of “Paris in Love” on Peacock – BOOK: “Deal Breaker: When to work on a relationship and when to walk away” Chris McDonough – Director at the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective; Host of YouTube channel: “The Interview Room" Dr. Michelle DuPre  – Forensic Pathologist and former Medical Examiner, Author: “Homicide Investigation Field Guide” & “Investigating Child Abuse Field Guide”, Ret. Police Detective Lexington County Sheriff’s Department Jennifer Wood – Director of Research at FITSNews.com; X: @IndyJenn_ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Does it ever end with this guy? Alex Murdoch, major twist. Will this double killer actually walk free? I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us. I can see his brain. Gee, I wonder why, Alex Murdoch. Because you shot him?

That's what a jury said. But now, in a stunning and very upsetting twist, it looks like Alex Murdoch could walk free. How? How is that possible? Because it appears, if I'm reading the two leaves correctly, what the South Carolina Supreme Court is going to do is grant him a new trial. Is that going to happen? So what? Am I supposed to believe him and his lawyers? Or the court clerk who is accused of wrongdoing? Hmm.

Speaking of lying and who to believe, listen. This is Alex Murdock. I'm 4140 South Moselle Road. and who to believe, listen. Are they breathing? No, ma'am. Okay. And is that your wife and your son? My wife and my son. Are they in a vehicle? No, ma'am. They're on the ground out at my kennel. He got in the head and he shot really bad.

Okay, so let me understand. I'm supposed to believe him and his lawyers over the court clerk. Straight out to Mark Pepper, high profile lawyer joining us, joining us out of Charleston with the Pepper Law Firm. Mark, I'm supposed to believe him. You can hear him lying. The jury found him guilty. Did you hear that? It's my wife and my son and all the screaming and the carrying on. It's all lies. I don't disagree.

And certainly the jury didn't. I mean, as you may recall, he took the stand for what seemed like forever. And everything that came out of his mouth was a lie. I'm not so sure why anybody would believe him at this point, Nancy. OK, did anyone tell Mark Pepper he's supposed to argue with me and take the other side? I'm happy to do that. Well, you may not necessarily have to believe him, Nancy. Maybe I don't either. But if the Supreme Court of South

Carolina believes that the jury tampering affected the outcome of his trial, it may not matter to them whether he was lying or not. If his Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial trial was violated, then they'll let him lie again on the stand at a new trial. That's the issue that's before us that's come out of this bombshell ruling last week by our Supreme Court. I'm stunned. Hold on. Straight out to Jennifer Wood joining us, director of research at Fitznews.com. F-I-T-S news. Fitznews.com, who was really all up in this story from the beginning, about three inches up Murdoch's tailpipe.

Jennifer, thank you for being with us. What is happening? How is this happening? You know, this is the story that will just never end. that Becky Hill, the clerk of court in Colleton County, now former clerk of court, tampered with the jury by talking to them about the merits of the trial and that one juror said that that affected her decision. One juror said it affected her decision. Jennifer Wood joining us from Fitz News. Did that one juror state it would have changed her decision had that not happened? Because that's the standard. That is the legal standard. It's interesting how she phrased it. She said that she felt influenced to find Mr. Murdoch guilty by Becky Hill's remarks before she entered the jury room.

Well, Jennifer Wood, you're absolutely correct. Let's hear it from the horse's mouth. Listen. Was your verdict influenced in any way by the communications of the clerk of court in this case? Yes, ma'am. And how was it influenced? To me, it felt like she made it seem like he was already guilty.

All right. And I understand that. That's the tenor of the remark she made. Did that affect your finding of guilty in this case? Yes, ma'am. That sound was from our friends at WLTX. Hmm. Okay, that is Gerard Z,

who says that an offhand comment by the clerk of court, Becky Hill, affected her decision. You know what? I find that really hard to believe. Dr. Bethany Marshall joining us, high profile psychoanalyst and author of Deal Breaker. You can see you're on Peacock right now and she's at drbethanymarshall.com. Dr. Bethany, how would an offhand comment by the calendar clerk, the court clerk, just kind of erase the weeks and weeks of testimony you've had where Alex Verloy got up there on the stand and was proven to be a liar, proven to be a liar and all that all the ballistics evidence all the nav system evidence all of the digital evidence yeah forget about that it was because becky hill yeah watch watch him on the stand like that made her vote guilty nancy, that's giving Becky Hill a lot of power, isn't it? You're right. Weeks of testimony, blatant lying on Murdoch's part.

Him getting up and taking the stand himself and being so unbelievable. Besides the fact, Nancy, there's Wadir before they choose the jurors. These jurors are very well schooled and taught as to how to engage in critical thinking when it comes to a trial. It's not like they enter the jury pool with absolutely no instruction. They're also a part of a community. They talk to each other, they talk things over. And then, Nancy, at the end of the day, there's just common sense. When you hear all this testimony, Murdoch shot his wife and son, the heinous nature of the crime. Why would one comment from a court clerk override all of that? It doesn't make sense. So I would wonder, you know, what else is motivating this juror? I'd have to examine

her in person to know, but it's something other than the fact that she was influenced. Okay. What exactly are the claims? Because yes, Becky Hill, and I'm not taking her side and I'm not taking anybody's side, but it's really hard for me to think of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Hey, the calendar clerk, the court clerk, made an inappropriate comment. She told the jury to hurry up with the verdict. And that somehow translates into a new trial. Yes, the court clerk made a book deal for $100,000. But does that mean Murdoch is not guilty? How did her having a book deal, which we may frown upon, but how does her having a book deal

get him a new trial? Shouldn't she just be reprimanded? Why do we have to have a new trial and jeopardize a true verdict? I'm not getting it. What exactly are the allegations? Because this is somehow turned into Becky Hill versus Alex Murdoch. I mean, if that's my choice, I'm clearly going to rule against Murdoch. But the law must be followed, whether we like it or not. First, what are the allegations? Listen. In a bombshell ruling, the South Carolina Supreme Court will consider whether interference from a court clerk helped sway the jury in convicting Alex Murdoch of killing his wife Maggie and youngest son Paul.

Murdoch lawyers say Becky Hill tried to get the jury to convict Murdoch to help push sales of a book she is writing about the case in general and specifically about the trial. Okay, I'm hearing that, but Jennifer Wood joining me, director of research, FitzNews.com. Yes, she had a book deal. Yes, she published a book based on the Murdoch saga. But what does that have to do with whatever she allegedly said to the jury? What did she say to them about a book deal? And how does she push them to get a guilty verdict? And how would a guilty verdict be more sensational than a not guilty? I mean, I sat through the evidence as you did, Jennifer Wood. I was not surprised when they found him guilty. It would have been much more

of an explosion if they had found him not guilty, like Totmom, like OJ Simpson, like Robert Blake. The shocker is they let him go. So how does her having a book deal somehow equate to them finding Murdoch guilty under duress? So testimony from Rhonda McElveen, who is the clerk of court in Barnwell County, South Carolina, and was in Colleton helping Becky out during the trial, was that Becky had told her that a guilty verdict would be better for her book sales. So that is the defense's argument that she was motivated to sell more books and was pushing the jury towards a guilty verdict. Okay, so because she made the comment, wow, my book is a lot better if they found him guilty. That has been used to claim her comments to the jury. I don't care if they were financially motivated.

I don't like it. But what matters is under the law, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mark Pepper, what matters under the law is did her comments, whatever the motivation be, did they affect the outcome of the trial? And, but for those comments, would there have been a different verdict? Isn't that what matters? I mean, it doesn't matter her motivation as to the comments. What matters is, did it affect the verdict? Right, Mark? That's a great point. It doesn't necessarily matter what she said.

What matters is whether it prejudiced Mr. Murdoch, the defendant in this case. How do we show prejudice? Well, we have one juror saying that but for the comments made to me by Becky Hill. And let's keep in mind, it wasn't just that one comment. That's not what she said, Mark Pepper. That is not what she said. Hold on. She did not say but for. Well, I was going to say it's not a but for test. It's simply did it have an outcome on the verdict? In other words, was it a fair and impartial verdict? And what this one particular juror is saying is that she influenced my vote. She doesn't have to go as for the law doesn't require you to say I would have voted not guilty. It simply says she influenced my vote.

She is an outside for she works for Colleton County. She's the clerk of court. She had 24-7 access to these jurors. She also mentioned to them, as testimony revealed at the hearing, that as he approached the witness stand that morning to testify in his own defense, she told the jurors, don't let him fool you. Don't let him fool you. That juror has said those comments affected her and therefore violated his six-minute right the prejudice is the only test that's going to be before the supreme court i don't know that it gets more blatant than that when you have an elected official influencing the jury verdict

or at least one of the jurors and it takes all 12 a unanimous verdict in the state of south carolina to convict one of those was influenced by Becky Hill's comments. Her name's Maggie Murdoch. Okay, and what's your son's first name? Paul Terry Murdoch. They are dead, aren't they? Yes, sir. That's what it looks like.

Ugh. Deja vu all over again. Joining me in all-star panel, including Jennifer Wood from Fitz News, to Dr. Michelle Dupree joining us, renowned forensic pathologist, medical examiner, former detective with Lexington County Sheriff's, and author of a brand-new book, Money, Mischief and Murder, the Murdoch saga, the rest of the story. And she, like me, endured every day of the trial and it was painful knowing what the evidence was to unfold. And then seeing Murdoch on that body cam where he's like crying and all upset. He just shot his wife and his son as his son was trying to get away.

And we believe Maggie Murdoch tried to stop him and she's dead too. And there he is crying and carrying on in front of the police when they get there, when they respond to that 911 call. Dr. Michelle Dupree, we're talking about Becky Hill and her book deal, and oh, she's so awful. Okay, granted, she should not have said a word to the jury, period. But good morning, there's lunch, and goodbye. That's it. According to jurors, she did speak, and at least one of them says it affected the verdict. Is that true? I find it hard to believe, but if the juror says that, that's all the court has to go on. Can we have a little reality check about what happened to Maggie and Paul.

And this is why I'm so upset. What was done to Maggie and Paul? Well, Nancy, first of all, I actually attended that hearing and I saw that juror who said that. And I have to tell you, I don't think she was that credible. There were some questions. In fact, one of the other attorneys actually wanted to bring her back. And Judge Toll denied that he wanted to bring her back so she could further explain her answer. So, I mean, this is crazy. I think it's absolutely crazy.

But what happened to Maggie and Paul is horrific. They were shot by someone that they loved, that supposedly loved them. And not just shot, but shot in a horrible way. Maggie was shot at least four times, maybe five, was shot twice with a shotgun. That is a devastating injury. And I think many people cannot get their head around how a father can do that to their son, or as he said, his child. You know, you stated that a shotgun was used as a murder weapon. Explain why that is so barbaric. Nancy, that is so barbaric because the shot that comes out of that is widespread. It, for lack of a better word, it literally can blow someone's head off.

And that is approximately what it did to Paul. You see in the photographs you're showing, this is brain matter, skull, tissue. There's no coming back from that. And to do this to someone that you love, that is a horrific way to die. And he was shot twice. Paul knew who was shooting him. Maggie knew who her assailant was. This is unbelievable.

And to have a new trial based on something like this is absolutely unbelievable. Brain matter, skull, blood. He is set for a new trial. I'm just, you know, to Chris McDonough joining me, director of the Cold Case Foundation. I found him on his hit YouTube channel, The Interview Room. But important to me, former homicide detective with over 300 death inquiries under his belt. Chris, do you see that photo? Blood was literally just absorbed by dirt. They were gunned down outside there at the dog kennel. The digital evidence places Murlock there. His own navigation system and his vehicle places him there. We can even see when he rolls his window down to throw Maggie's cell phone out of his car to go alibi himself en route to his mother's home where he stayed just long enough to then go back to the dog kennel and, quote, find, end quote, when you think about the barbaric nature of these two murders on the mother of your two children and your child, your child, it's just gut wrenching to think, Chris McDonough, this is going to be reversed over some offhand comments by the clerk.

Yeah, Nancy, I mean, if we take this right in its totality, this is a very barbaric act. The fact that you have the mother of now her deceased child is slaughtered in the same manner as the child herself himself and now you have the father who is that individual who's been convicted of this crime now think about this the father chooses a shotgun to blow the head off of his child but but he's not satisfied with that. He does it again. He fires that shotgun again. That's the coup de grace, just to make sure that that child is gone. And then that blood in the dirt, that's mom bleeding out from multiple gunshot wounds.

She's laying there. She may have witnessed her son being murdered by her ex, by her husband. And that child's father, this is barbaric. And now we measure that against two affidavits that were taken by the defense with these jurors. And one of the jurors says, well, you know, we didn't know we were going to spend the whole night, and some of us smoke, and we didn't know we couldn't take smoking breaks during the deliberation process. This is ludicrous. It really is.

You know, Dr. Bethany Marshall joining me, psychoanalyst and author. You can see her on Peacock now. Dr. Bethany, just the way that Chris McDonough said that, and I'm going to circle back to Jennifer and Dr. Michelle about the wounds to the victims. But what he just said, I don't think, I can't think of anything worse in this world than to see harm come to one of my two children, much less what Maggie witnessed. It's just, when I think about it, shooting not only your spouse,

but your spouse and your son. Decimating your entire family. And Nancy, as Chris McDonough was talking, the thought crossed my mind, when was there a dawning of consciousness for Maggie? Was that split second where she saw her son's head get blown off? Did she realize what was happening? Did it just hit her from out of the blue? You know, Alex Murdoch is not attached to anybody, just himself. And when you think about it, why did he kill them? Because he had this elaborate Ponzi scheme going. He would spend money out of clients' trust accounts. And once he'd loaned that money, then he had to procure more money from another client's trust

account. And we know the story. It went on and on. And now there was a trial coming up in which he was potentially going to have to pay more money because of his son, the Mallory Beach situation with the boat being driven into the pier and the girl that was ejected and killed. So like the Ponzi scheme, he had to figure out a way to either snuff people out or get more money. And I think this was part of his MO in terms of killing Maggie and his son. And just back to the juror for a second. I don't think we can have it both ways in our justice system. We can't say, I trust you, the juror, to make the appropriate decision about whether or not this man is guilty. But no, I don't trust you,

juror, to be easily swayed by somebody's comment. So is the juror trusted or is the juror not trusted? Which way is it? So I think this whole thing is fallacious, this argument about Becky Hill. And you know, Mark Pepper joining me, high profile criminal defense attorney. And Mark, you can't even argue that this was spur of the moment he'd a passion where he got into an argument and just went crazy and shot them or shot one in anger and then shot the other one because he didn't want to witness because he lured Maggie to that location, their hunting lodge out on Mazzell. He lured her there. So this was planned in advance.

I mean, they had plenty of guns and ammunition there, but he planned it. This was cold-blooded to murder his wife and son in cold blood. We watched the same trial, Nancy, and respectfully, I don't recall evidence to that effect. I recall that there were some cell phone data that put him at the scene within a seven minute window or so, but I don't recall. Hold on just a moment, Pepper. Jennifer Wood, let's correct Mark Pepper. That's why he wins all of his cases. Because his revisionist history, his version of the facts.

Isn't it true, Jennifer, from Fitz News, that Maggie told her friends, I don't know why he wants me to go all the way out to Moselle. He wants me to come out to the hunting lodge. And she was worried on her way out there. She didn't want to go. Isn't that true, Jennifer Wood? She did. He did want her to come out there, but it was because his father had been admitted to the hospital. So, yeah. Then why not go to the hospital, Jennifer? That's a good question. Why not meet at the hospital? I believe he was in Savannah rather than have her drive all the way to Hampton from, you know, Edistal Island where

their second home was. Alex Murdoch on path to get a new trial. Will he walk free? I've got to to decide, am I believing him and his lawyers, or am I believing Becky Hill, the clerk? Now, let's take a look at Murdoch's credibility. Remember this? 10-10-9-1-1, where's your emergency? Oh, I'm Salkahatch, but I'm okay. Were you shot? Yes, but I mean, I'm okay. I'm shot in the head, but I'm okay. This elaborate ruse for what? Insurance money? His lawyers then claimed he had traumatic brain injury,

but he shows up in court a few days later with a Band-Aid on his head. And here he is lying to 911, and then later, through his lawyers, lying to the court about his attack on the side of the road. Listen. You shot where? Where were you shot at? Huh? Did they actually shoot you or they tried to shoot you?

They shot me. Okay, wait, you need EMS? Well, I mean, yes. I can't drive. Okay. I'm bleeding a lot. What part of your body? I'm not sure.

Somewhere on my head. You're not bleeding a lot. You're lying. You're not bleeding a lot. You're lying. You're actually fine. This was all a setup arranged by Alex Murdoch to get what else? Money. Money. It's all about money. You know, I'm trying to understand Jennifer Wood. As you recall, Murdoch set up this whole scheme where he would be shot on the side of the road for money. And there he is lying about it to 911. And all of this came out at trial. It sure did. I mean, when it happened shortly after we realized that the vehicle he was driving actually had run flat

tires. So he claimed that he stopped to change a flat tire. And quickly, we realized that he didn't even need to, that car would have kept driving. So it really fell apart. And then during the trial, the prosecution managed to get evidence about that roadside shooting admitted in testimony. Yet now, Murdoch is on the precipice, the verge of a new trial. To you, Pepper, what would that mean if he got a new trial? We start all anew. It has never happened. None of the testimony that has been placed under oath can ever be read into the record again. We start as if we were way back in January of last year, picking a brand new jury, sending new summons out. The question will become, can he get a fair

and impartial trial in Hampton County? Can he get it anywhere in the state of South Carolina at this point? If we get a new trial by the Supreme Court, we've got a lot of homework to do. Where is the venue going to be? How big is the jury pool going to be? But they're going to have to put up the same exact witnesses. And now Murdoch's lawyers are going to have the prosecution's playbook. They're going to have seen all their cards. This is a very interesting twist that could very well not only grant him a new trial, but render the opposite verdict this time. Now there's the issue of an unauthorized photo taken of Murdoch in the holding cell. Listen. Currently facing ethics violations during her time as the clerk of court,

Hill has been accused of arranging a photo to be taken of Alex Murdoch when he was being held in a holding cell. The State Ethics Commission filed two complaints against Becky for a total of 76 ethics violations. The complaint against Hill has two counts. One that she provided an individual with confidential information, the photo of an inmate in the Colleton County Courthouse holding cell to promote the sale of a book. Count two states Hill filmed a promotional segment with the Walterborough Chamber of Commerce president for her book in her office at the Colleton County Courthouse. Jennifer Hill, Fitch News. How does a photo of Alex Murdoch in a holding cell and a promo she shoots with the Chamber of Commerce, what does that have to do

with Murdoch getting a new trial? I don't care about that. It goes straight to Becky Hill's credibility. So we keep talking about how Murdoch isn't credible because he lies over and over again. But now we're looking at a 76 count ethics complaint that is being heard by the Ethics Commission in December. And a lot of those ethics complaints have been referred to for criminal investigation. So it's going to be very interesting to see how that plays out. You know, Becky Hill used that photo to promote her book, the photo of Alex in his holding cell. And that came up in the ethics complaint. Hill says that Gary Hale, one of her employees, actually took the photo.

So it is. They're all interesting, and they all go to Becky Hill's credibility. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Did you steal part of the book? I did plagiarize Mr. Hartfield. That's stealing, isn't it? It is. And for that, I'm very sorry. And I have apologized.

Okay. And that makes it okay? What I did, I did. And I apologized for that. And part of the book is, you say, literary license? Exaggeration? I wouldn't call it exaggeration. Okay.

You're hearing court court Becky Hill under cross-examination by Murdoch's defense. So we've got her admitting that she plagiarized in part of her book. The book was immediately taken off the stand. But how does that equal a new trial? And by the way, that sound was from our friends at WLTX. So let's compare that to testimony from Alex Murdoch. Listen. You lied to Danny Henderson. I did lie to Danny. Did you lie to Jeannie Sechinger? Yes, I did. Did you lie to Annette Griswold? I did. Did you lie to Michael Gunn? I'm sure I did at some point, but Michael wasn't involved in any of this,

so I don't know that any of this ever came up with Michael. Did you lie to your clients? Did you lie to Pamela Pinckney? I did. Natasha Thomas? I don't know that I dealt with Natasha, but I certainly lied about that. A lot of the people he lied to were his clients, some of them even disabled, getting big money settlements for them and stealing it. You're hearing sound from the trial from our friends at WLTX. But this

pattern, and you will recall this, Dr. Michelle Dupree, seemingly goes back at least to the death of teen girl Mallory Beach. In that case, his son was on his Murdoch's boat drinking to excess. Photos have emerged of that evening on the boat. I went out on the water and saw where Mallory Beach's body was flown through the air with Murdoch's son speeding drunk at the helm. And this is what we know. We know, Dr. Dupree, that witnesses state that immediately after the boat crash caused by Murdoch's son. Murdoch goes to the hospital and tries to get the teens to change their story and not speak to police. So that starts at the time of the Mallory Beach death. The pattern of lying and subterfuge to get what you want. Do you remember the death of Mallory Beach, Dr. Dupree? Absolutely, Nancy. Another tragic accident that should not have happened. Whoa. Did you call that an accident where you're drunk out of your skull and everybody's begging

you to get from behind the wheel, but you laugh maniacally and keep driving until you hit cement pilings under an overpass. And Mallory goes flying through the air to her death. She's fished out of the water about three days later, bloated, bloated and purple. That's not an accident. With every drink that was intentional, that's a crash. You're absolutely right. I think that should be classified as a homicide. Unfortunately, it usually isn't. But no, you're right. I mean, you know, Alex did everything he could, no matter what it cost, no matter what it took. He would lie his way out of things.

And he has a pattern of doing that since basically the beginning of time. That is how he has lived his life. And it just came to fruition. It came to light with the Mallory Beach crash. And then it went downhill from there. Now, another person is probably doing a backflip over the possibility, the very strong possibility of a new trial for Murdoch is prosecutor Creighton Waters. Now, here he is trying to rehabilitate Becky Hill on the stand.

At any time, did you interact with any juror in an attempt to influence their view of the facts in the State v. Murdoch case? No. All right. Now I want to ask you some specifics about that and some allegations that have been raised. At any time, did you tell the jury not to be fooled by evidence presented by Mr. Murdoch's attorneys? I did not. At any time, did you instruct the jury to watch him closely and look at his actions? I did not. At any time, did you instruct the jury or tell the jury to look at his movements? No. I did not.

No. No. That from our friends at WLTX. The problem is this, Mark Pepper, a high-profile lawyer with the Pepper firm. I may not, well, I don't believe anything Alex Murdoch says. And I did not observe any inappropriate behavior on the part of Becky Hill when I was there every day at the trial. But the law is that the appellate court is not a trier of fact. They've got to make their decision based on the transcripts and the evidence given to them. And if it looks like to them that Becky Hill had any impact on even one juror, then we're looking at a new trial.

That's correct. That's the test. We can talk about who's a liar and who's not all we want. At the end of the day, either Becky Hill is lying to her answers to Creighton Waters or these jurors whom he was reading their written affidavits to Becky. And our law is clear. If there is an outside force, especially an elected official who you spend hours and hours with that has influenced your vote, then as a matter of law, you did not get a fair and impartial verdict rendered against you and you are entitled to a new trial. That is the law of our state. That is the law of the United States. Let me give you an example. You indicate riding back from Moselle that you and three other people were in a car and you all decided adamantly, I think was the word you used, that he was guilty, that he had killed his wife and son.

Is that what you put in the book? I can't remember if I put that in the book, but if you say I did, then I will agree with you. Did that happen? We did have a conversation about what each of us thought. And all four agreed that he was guilty, correct? And none of us were jurors. No, no. Trust me, I know that.

But you had an abiding conviction, at least by the time of the Moselle visit, that he was guilty. That's from our friends at WLTX. Thank you, LTX. It doesn't matter what Becky Hill thought or believed. What matters is what the jury believed. And did she affect their decision? For the appellate court, what matters is, is there an appearance of impropriety? Does it look like she may have affected their decision?

And if so, Alex Murdoch could be headed to a new trial and it wouldn't be the first time there had been jury tampering whether wittingly or unwittingly thank john gaudy the mob boss remember gaudy jury tampering hoffa jimmy hoffa same thing jury tampering we're still looking for his body by by the way. You know, Chris McDonough joining me, director of Cold Case Foundation, former homicide detective. How sick does it make you to think of Paul and Maggie dead, shot the way they were. No mercy. All the hard work put into that case.

You remember that trial? We lived through it together. And now a reversal. Yeah. I mean, again, I go back to, you know, there's a huge difference of just, you know, allegations of state funds and using facilities as, you know, ethics violations, et cetera, for, you know, the clerk of the court. But from an investigative aspect, I mean, just that one 911 call from the shot earlier, you know, just that alone was gold for an investigator. I mean, first of all, he says, they shot me. Well, who's they? You know, and I think those are the kind of smoke and mirrors that are taking place by the defense. And you got to give them credit. They're doing their job. But at the same time, it is very frustrating to see that they skip the appellate process and the Supreme Court in South

Carolina picks it up right away. But why do they do that? Because they shifted the law on a federal case and they applied that, you know, to the to the motion. So, yeah, it is frustrating, Nancy. And, you know, I hope the victims get justice here. But wouldn't you agree, Chris McDonough, wouldn't you agree, even knowing the blood, sweat and tears that LA law enforcement put into making this case, that no matter what we think of Alex Murdoch and no matter what he did, the law is the law and the law must prevail whether you and I like it or not. We serve the law. Do you agree with that? A hundred percent, Nancy. And that's why we always investigate information and not the person. And, you know, let's hope that the right information goes to that court.

As it stands right now, I don't see a way around it. We'll see as justice unfolds. Nancy Grace signing off. Goodbye, friend. You're listening to an iHeart Podcast.