Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Alex Murdaugh Takes a Hit, Judge Bans 'Egg Lady' Juror to Claim Clerk Poisoned Jury

Episode Date: January 17, 2024

Alex Murdaugh’s three-day evidentiary hearing takes place later this month. The hearings will held in open court and court-controlled television cameras will be allowed. They cannot, however, focus on the faces of testifying jurors, who will be referred to by their juror numbers, not their names. The hearing will determine whether Murdaugh will be granted a new murder trial, after his attorneys, alleged jury tampering by Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca “Becky” Hill. Former S.C. Chief Justice Jean Toal is now the judge hearing the case. She took control of her South Carolina courtroom -, making several rulings affecting Alex Murdaugh’s bid. His attorneys say jury tampering by Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill impacted the original trial’s outcome, and that according to Toal, will be the defense’s burden to prove. The attorneys argued the law only required them to prove improper contact with jurors had occurred. Toal says she will rule that, “Prejudice must be proved, not presumed.” Toal says the stand she will take on the specific evidence of ”what was said, when it was said, and how it impacted the jury,” lies with the defense, not an assumption on Becky Hill’s credibility. Toal told the courtroom that she would not allow the upcoming evidentiary hearing to turn into a trial of Becky Hill. Becky Hill is facing her own ongoing ethics and criminal investigations related to her conduct during and after the Murdaugh trial.  The judge says she intends to limit the witness list to the twelve deliberating jurors and Becky Hill.   An alternate juror and Juror 785, now known as the “egg lady” due to her insistence that she retrieve a dozen eggs from the jury room before leaving the courthouse, will not be allowed to testify.  Toal says she sees  “no necessity” to hear from anyone other than the (deliberating) jurors.”   What's more, Toal says she will be the one asking the questions. Joining Nancy Grace Today: Ronnie Richter – Attorney for Sandy Smith, Satterfield family, and other victims of Alex Murdaugh; Partner, Bland Richter Law Firm; Twitter: @BlandRichterSC  Dr. Bethany Marshall – Psychoanalyst (Beverly Hills); Twitter: @DrBethanyLive/ Instagram & TikTok: drbethanymarshall; Appearing in the new show, “Paris in Love” on Peacock 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.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. I can't believe these words are actually coming out of my mouth. Is Alex Murdoch convicted of the double murders of his wife and son going to get a new trial? That's basically having the winner of the Super Bowl turn over his playbook to the other side just before you take to the field. Bad. Not good. The state never wants the defendant to get a new trial. Their entire strategy revealed. It's like the first trial was a dry run for the defense. They find out what they did wrong. For instance, putting Alex Murdoch, that big liar, on the stand to fidget and look around the courtroom and blink rapidly and lie through his teeth.

Yeah, the jury knew he was lying. They would never put him on the stand on a second run. And by doing that, may win. Remember in the first trial, the defense team stupidly opened the door to proof of financial crimes, millions of dollars. The double murderer, Alex Murdoch, had stolen from his firm and his clients, including clients that were forever, forever immobilized in pain, in wheelchairs. He stole their money. Now, the jury would never have heard that if the defense had not brought it up first about financial motive. As soon as they did that, the state could bring in all that damning evidence about who Alex Murlock really is. Now think about it. What would happen if there's

a new trial and Murlock did not take the stand like the wily fox he is and that financial motive never came in? What else would they do differently? That's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, all that evidence is true, but on a second trial, the jury may never hear it. And we are inching, inching, step by step closer to a new trial for Alex Murdoch. I sat through the whole first one. I don't want to do it again. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with

us here at Crime Stories and on Sirius XM 111. Now, as you know, Murdoch was just in court. He was in court in the last 24 hours trying to get a new trial on the back of the clerk of courts, Rebecca Hill, who I found to be a reliable and trustworthy, friendly person. Did she say something that's going to merit a new trial? God forbid. We're going to find out. But also in the last days, Murdoch has been back at the podium in the courtroom whining and snotting and slobbering. Well, you know what?

You listen. Listen to Murdoch. My wife loved you. And you are absolutely right about everything you said. But you are dead wrong about one thing. And I would never hurt Maggie. and I would never hurt Maggie and I would never hurt Paul and it is important to me that you know that because she did love you and I hope you know that. And I hope you know that I mean what I say here today.

Does it never end with this guy? How dare he invoke the name of his beautiful, incredible wife, dead wife, that he murdered in his effort to get lenient treatment. I mean, does this guy have any shame at all? I've got an all-star panel, but first I need a shrink and I wouldn't need one now. This double hot tea is not going to pull me through this. Dr. Bethany Marshall joining us, a high-profile psychoanalyst joining us out of L.A. She's now appearing in the new season of Paris in Love on Peacock.

Dr. Bethany Marshall. Does this guy have no shame? You know who he reminds me of right now? Another double killer, quadruple killer probably, or quintuple killer. Lori Vallow, cult mom. Remember when she invoked, I actually

hate to say these words because I'm trying to be a Christian. She actually invoked the name of Jesus Christ and her dead son that she helped murder in her bid for a lenient sentence. She told the judge that Christ knew she hadn't done

anything wrong. Right. I'm not going to even speak on his behalf. And that her son, I think, didn't she say, Jackie, he came to her in a vision and said, Mom, you didn't do anything wrong. Oh, you know what? Yes. Jackie says yes. I mean, yes.

Came to her in her jail cell. You're right, Jackie. You know, and now we've got Murdoch conjuring up the image of Maggie Murdoch, his long-suffering wife, and talking about her trying to get lenient sentencing. What is with this guy? You know, Nancy, he's a con artist, and he will con to the end of his days. And he conned Maggie into thinking that he loved her he conned his law firm into thinking that he was upright and not you know putting putting all the

money into a trust account now he's trying to con the judge he's trying to con the jury you know he will never stop you know sociopathy quit using your. OK, I may be a trial lawyer, but I'm not a straight. What is that? Speak English woman. What's sociopathy? A sociopath is a narcissist on steroids. It's a very amplified version of that. And what we know about sociopaths is that they are parasites. They live off other people. So we can see that in how he, you know, lived off the law firm,

but unlawfully, of course. Dr. Bethany Marshall, do I need to remind you that after prosecuting this long and being on TV for this long, you're going to have to speak to me in soundbites. These long, prolonged explanations. I don't even know what you're saying.

What? Why is he invoking the name of his wife, Maggie Murdoch? Because he's not attached to her. He will use anything and anybody. You know what, Dr. Bethany Marshall, let me go to Chris McDonough as well. Okay. And no, no, I'm going to circle back to you because I just had a thought and I certainly don't want to lose one of those. Chris McDonough is joining me, director of Cold Case Foundation, former homicide detective, about 300 homicides under his belt, host of a YouTube channel, The Interview Room, where I found him. Chris, before I go back to Dr. Bethany, and I've got a special guest, Jennifer Wood is joining

me. She's been on the story from the get-go joining us from Fitz News. Dr. Michelle Dupree, who is the medical examiner who is all over this case, and Ronnie Richter, partner at Bland Richter, who's about three inches of Alex Murdoch's tailpipe. But to Chris McDonough, see, this has just started my whole day off wrong. As a homicide investigator, you could go into the office. I'm here in the studio with my hot tea. I've got the picture of the twins here. I'm all happy. Then I have to hear Alex Murdoch whining and snotting in court. Guarantee you he wasn't crying when he gunned down Maggie and his son, Paul, right?

All he was thinking about was himself. And then, you know what? My day is just shot to H-E-L-L, and I have to hear his whiny voice. Did that happen to you? You go in the, I know your wife, a.k.a. Honey, I bet she'd give you a wonderful cup of coffee and a kiss on the ear, and off you'd go to work, and then you have to read a case file. And it's just shot to hell

you know nancy with our our motto in homicides when your day ends ours begins and with him uh is everything that he talks about murdoch is in the past tense here do we ever notice that that she did love me you know and every time he gets caught, all of a sudden it becomes present. I'd be fascinated to hear what the doc thinks about why he is always talking in the past tense. That's a really good point. Hold on, Ronnie Richter.

I hear you're chomping at the bit. Thank the Lord, because you've been in the courtroom, Murdoch back in the courtroom trying to get a new trial, believe it or not. Hold on, Ronnie. I got to go back to Dr. Bethany. Dr. Bethany, again, please dummy down for me. I'm just a JD. You're the shrink.

This guy will stop at nothing. Just like cult mom used Christ and her dead son to try to get a lighter sentence. And here he is using Maggie. He thinks he's controlling everybody. He's been in control his whole life. He's been in charge of everybody. Or he has the illusion that he's been in charge of everybody because he's not in charge of anybody right now.

But lying and lying, that is a way to manipulate other people. But it comes from a sense that other people won't see his BS, that other people think he's great. I not only see it, I can smell it. I can smell it right here in the studio. And when he took the stand, he like emanated the stench of BS. Dr. Bethany, I know that your parents were missionaries and you go on mission trips. Have you ever actually smelled bullshit? Cow crap in a field.

There's nothing like it. All kinds of bullshit. I mean, you know, this guy, like he reeked walking. Hey, you ever seen Charlie Brown in Pigpen? Always has a cloud of dust around him. There's just a stink around Murdoch everywhere he goes. And he has beautiful outfits. I was looking at his brother who was in court,

his son who sat right in front of me, all the family. Talk about designer clothes. I mean, they look like they had gone straight to the couture department at Dillard's. I mean, that's the only thing I can think of. Or Saks Fifth Avenue. They looked awesome.

And so did he, but he still stunk. When the beads of sweat are on the person's forehead and snot's coming down their nose and they're sweating. You know, we've got to quit saying snot because I told the twins not to say it. And sometimes they sneak and listen to crime stories. Let me go to Ronnie Richter. Hold on, Jennifer Wood. I know you're the one that has actually all the true facts right now. But can I address this to Ronnie Richter. Hold on, Jennifer Wood. I know you're the one that has actually all the true facts right now, but can I address

this to Ronnie Richter? Partner Bland Richter Law Firm. They're representing the Stephen Smith family. Another teen found dead near Alex Murdoch's hunting lodge. Gloria Satterfield's family. She worked for the Murdochs raising the boys as a nanny, the Plyer sisters. Ronnie, Alex Murdoch back in court. Could you just explain? And in a nutshell, I used to love it to get on the elevators or at the courthouse or in court, like in the opening statement where the

defense attorney would, you know, shoot off a big, long Latin phrase to try to impress the jury. It did the opposite. So please speak English, simple English to me. Okay. Alex Murdoch back in court for a new trial. Why? He wants a new trial because he contends that the clerk of court went into the jury room during the deliberations and said something that changed the outcome of the trial.

I like what you just said. Simple, short. I loved it. And you're right. Simply put, you are right, Ronnie Richter. Dr. Michelle Dupree, high profile forensic pathologist, medical examiner, former detective. And she actually wrote the book Homicide Investigation Field Guide, and a recent book, which is on Amazon, Money, Mischief, and Murder, The Murdoch Saga, the rest of the story. Dr. Dupree, one of the reasons I'm so angry right now is because,

as you know, my fiance was murdered just before our wedding. It changed my life. I didn't even want to live. Dropped out of school, lost down to 89 pounds, couldn't eat, couldn't think. It was horrible. And I thought, oh, I know it all now about grief and suffering. I didn't know anything until I had the twins. And now I realize what grief and suffering would be. One of the twins or the both of them living without one of their parents, me losing one of them.

I don't think unless you've lived through it, going to a murder scene that you have, you have been to many as you have been McDonough, as you have been, McDonough, as you have been, Ronnie Richter. The stench of blood, the dried blood, looking at the victims lying there, staring off into space, their bodies at weird angles, just holes, their bodies riddled with holes, gaping wounds, blood all matted in their hair. And, you know, Maggie was such a perfect dresser all the time. And she dressed her whole family, I can tell you that, like beautifully. Their clothes drenched in blood.

And then it starts to coagulate and dry and smell. It's terrible. That's what's going through my mind about Maggie and Paul dead like that. I mean, once you have lived through that and been to those scenes, you never look at a murder the same way again. Until then, it seems like a movie or a made-for-TV story. But when you go to that scene and you see these people and they're suffering, it's terrible. And to see him get up in that courtroom and call on the name of Maggie to get

a lighter sentence just sends me right over the edge. Explain what a real murder scene is like, much less a double murder, Dr. Dupree. Nancy, you have done an excellent job, and you're absolutely right. It is something that you will never forget, the sights, the smells, the sounds even. And, you know, one thing that I find very interesting, and I've done a lot of research on this,

Alex keeps saying that I would never hurt them. I have never found where he said, I would never hurt them. I have never found where he said I did not hurt them. That just strikes me as something very odd. Now to the latest, and it pains me to say this. Jennifer Wood is joining me, director of research, fitsnews.com. That's F-I-T-S news.com. Jennifer, what is it? And see, I'm very torn because I befriended Becky Hill during the trial.

We spoke during breaks. I needed a phone one day. I couldn't get reception. I had to find out something about the twins. Something was happening and I couldn't find my husband. I couldn't find anybody. I had to use, she let me use her phone one day. She could not have been nicer or friendlier and more importantly, more professional.

So I tend not to believe these allegations. But what if she said something in passing like, oh, this will be a quick verdict, meaning, you know, in jest, like it's probably going to be a long verdict. Because I remember coming out of the courtroom right after the closing statements and jury charges, and I called Jackie, who's sitting right here with me right now, because I was there and she was here. And she said, well, what's going to happen? I said, oh, we ought to have a verdict in about 30 minutes. And we both started laughing because we knew it was not going to be in 30 minutes. So how do I know that's not what she said? I mean, I tend to believe her.

But what in the hay is happening, Jennifer Wood? You know, I had the same experience with Becky Hill during the trial and even after the trial. You know, as, as a journalist, we have to reach out to the clerk of court's office frequently for court filings. And she was always, she's always been professional. She's always been helpful. So the things that are coming out now are surprising to me still. In terms of what happened during the trial, I tend to lean where you are, where I, you know, I can see her saying something in passing, not something intentional. But it's getting, you know, the water is getting muddier, the more we find out about stuff that she's done since the trial ended. What do you mean by that?

You know, so we've got the allegations of, you know, she admitted she plagiarized portions of her book. OK, wait, tell me about that. What does she allege to plagiarize? And actually, that's neither here nor there when it comes to a new trial. But what does she allegedly plagiarize? So there are portions of her book that appear to be lifted from an article written during the trial by a BBC author. So, you know, if you line them both up, it's very clear that, you know, it was definitely pulled from that article. She's admitted that she did that in a rush to publish her article or her book. You know, and there's, you know, there's allegations, there's ethics investigations going on and

SLED has two ongoing open investigations into her. What, what, but what? Two investigations by South Carolina Law Enforcement Division on Becky Hill? Yes. For what? So the investigations are related to the ethics, the ethics violations against her. So, you know, the SLED has said, yeah, we do currently have two ongoing investigations into Becky Hill relating to, you know, if she was involved in, you know, what the wiretapping that her son was indicted for, if she was involved in any wrongdoing as the clerk of court. It sounds like it's the same thing that the defense is bringing up.

And Ronnie Richter joining me, jumping off what Jennifer Wood just said. Guys, Alex Murdoch back in court. He slunk back in trying to get a new trial. Ronnie Richter, what's her son accused of? Her son is accused of wiretapping and wiretapping related to intercepting communications about the investigation into her over the jury tampering charges. Okay, hold on. Let me get this straight. Our number one concern is, did Becky Hill, the clerk of courts, who I found to be a nice person and professional, which is important as it relates

to this claim. Did she say or do anything to prejudice this jury into a guilty verdict? Now she's being investigated about, did she lift sentences from some other article and put them in her book in her haste to publish. That's one thing. And did her son wiretap? When you say wiretap, how did he allegedly wiretap? I don't know the mechanism, but in South Carolina, you can record a conversation that you're a party to. Apparently, he recorded a conversation

that he was not a party to. Party too. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Jennifer Wood, you're hearing Ronnie Richter partnering with Bland Richter. Jennifer, could it be something as simple, and I'm certainly not defending any wrongdoing, but I'm trying to understand what the facts are that he recorded a phone conversation with his phone. Could it be that simple? Is South Carolina a two-party

consent state? South Carolina, I believe, and Ronnie, correct me if I'm wrong, is South Carolina is a one-party consent state. But I do not. Yeah. I do not believe that he was a party to the phone call that he recorded. Okay, so this is... Now, did he allegedly set up some equipment or was he in the room recording it? Or did he put some device on someone's phone? How is it alleged he recorded somebody else's phone call?

And this was recording a phone call about the investigation into his own mother. How is it alleged he did that else's phone call. And this was recording a phone call about the investigation into his own mother. How is it alleged he did that, the mechanism? You know, they did not give, flood did not give details, or the 14th Circuit Bulletin did not give details in their indictment. So that's all just what we're hearing from our sources. So it could be anything from planting a bug in somebody's room to being in the room when a call was going on and recording it. All right. So we don't know what it is yet.

Now, who would not be hard pressed to record a conversation about someone investigating your mother? Okay. I'm going to take the fifth on that because I would do a lot to help my mother. That said, that's a whole nother can of worms. And I can't believe, Ronnie Richter, you even brought that up. Oh, sorry. It was me. So let's get back to Alex Murdoch, the double killer, and not Becky Olson recording a conversation about somebody investigating his mother. Let's get down to Alex Murdoch, who needs to stay behind bars.

Take a listen to Sidney Sumner, Crime Online. Alex Murdoch's hearings will be held in open court. Court-controlled television cameras will be allowed, but they cannot focus on the faces of testifying jurors. The jurors will be referred to by murder trial after his attorneys alleged jury tampering by Coleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca Becky Hill. During a status hearing, Murdaugh's attorneys proposed a list of witnesses who should testify during the trial, including each of the jurors and Coleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill. Murdaugh's attorneys also listed State Prosecut prosecutor Creighton Waters and Judge Clifton Newman. Oh, I only hope they call Creighton Waters to the stand. That is the chief prosecutor in the Alex Murdaugh case. Go on, put him up on the stand because then the state can cross-examine

their own colleague. That will be incredible. I remember in an arson murder case, the defense was stupid enough to call one of my arson investigators. And you're going to love this, Ronnie Richter, you're a trial lawyer. They called him at about four o'clock in the afternoon. You know what that means? Right before the jury went home for the weekend, I had my own investigator on cross-examination. I practically danced across the courtroom. I'm like, isn't it true? You think he did it, right? I mean, I just said whatever the truth was.

And the witness would go, that's right. That is right. It was a field day. So I only hope, hope that they actually put creighton waters the lead investigator on the stand and let me tell you something else ronnie richter that happened at crime con creighton waters was there and i went up to him nobody else was around i'm like waters please tell me there's not going to be a new trial because of becky hill i just don't believe that she said any of these things or if she did, that she didn't

say them in jest. And if she did say them in jest, that actually made the jury come back with a guilty verdict. He wouldn't say a word. He just gave kind of like a grin and kind of sidled off. He wouldn't tell me a thing as he shouldn't. But he's a pretty wily lawyer. I only hope they put Creighton Waters on the stand. It's not going to happen. Okay. What else do we know? Take a listen to the defense lawyer. Now this has just gone down in the last 24 hours in court. Let's hear what they're up to. Take a listen as the Fox

shows its hand. Our cut to 13. We have in our motion for a new trial submitted affidavits of one deliberating juror, one alternate, excuse me, and then another affidavit of a witness to an interview of an alternate, where in all three statements are consistent, and in that they heard Ms. Hill, the clerk of court, prior to deliberations and, frankly, before the defense put on their case, Ms. Hill instructed, do not be fooled by the defense. That's what the sworn statements say. And secondly, before Mr. Murdoch took the stand, Ms. Hill advised one deliberating juror and two alternates at least, watch his demeanor, which is an indication of, you know, he's going to lie. And so then the question becomes, actually, did those contacts happen? Uh-oh, he's interpreting what he says he'll said. How do I know a juror didn't say, you think he's telling the truth? And she said, well,

you watch. You decide. You watch him on the stand. How do I know that's not what happened? Now, I want you to hear what Creighton Waters says back. This just went down in court. Listen. We made the argument that the affidavits on their face, the only deliberating juror indicated, and that's 630, in that affidavit only said that she voted guilty. She had questions but voted guilty because she felt pressured by other jurors. And, of course, the law is crystal clear in multiple cases that that sort of internal

debate is actually in Rule 606, that that's not any sort of misconduct or anything that is an appropriate venue or mechanism in order to attack the verdict. So for that reason we've argued that their showing in their motion for a new trial is insufficient based on the case law for an evidentiary hearing because there is on his face no sufficient allegation of prejudice. Okay. Decipher that, Ronnie Richter. Well, that means that in every jury trial, Nancy, you know this as well as anybody, the only thing the jury agrees on is that they want to go home.

And so every jury... Or that they want to go to lunch. They agree on that. Then they fight about what they're going to have to eat. Go ahead. 100%. So for a juror to say that they they render their verdict because they felt pressured, that is the jury process. So that has nothing to do with a motion for a new trial. And these extra extra judicial statements by the clerk of court, again, they have to prove first they were said. And and one or more jurors have to say that because Becky said that thing, I changed my vote. And that's a hard stretch to think someone's going to actually say that under oath. You know, when I said to you, Chris McDonough, you probably probably lived through this as many people on the panel.

When Richter says the only thing they really agree on is they want to go home. And I said, and they also agree they want to go to lunch. That would be like the bailiffs. Number one concern is getting the jury to lunch. You know, Chris McDonough, you've lived through a lot of homicide trials. Every Sunday after church, we go out for lunch somewhere, and it never fails. All four of us want to go somewhere different. It never fails. And we, of course, have a discussion about where we're going. Of course, the jury is going to argue about where they go to lunch. But we all agree that we want to go.

So to have a juror say, I voted guilty, I felt pressured by the jury, other jurors at some point, that doesn't mean she would not have voted guilty anyway. So all this discussion about the jurors disagreeing and feeling pressure, that happens in every jury trial. Have you had that experience, Chris? Absolutely, Nancy. I mean, the interesting part of this particular situation that everybody finds

themselves watching here is I had a case where I actually had three defendants and three separate juries in the same courtroom. They would not separate. And it was one of the first in California, long story short, I had a juror saying I was smiling too much during the proceedings. And, you know, they bore dire the entire all 45 jurors, and one of them in the middle of it turns and he goes, Well, Detective McDonough, smiling doesn't bother me. However, that guy, and he points to the defendant and all heck broke loose, right? And it was like, people make decisions quickly based upon emotion. And maybe she was hungry, but it doesn't mean to your point, Nancy, that that influenced her decision. So let me understand this, Ronnie Richter.

The defense has to show not only are these accusations against Becky Hill true, but also they must prove that it prejudiced the jurors, correct? 100 percent. And that was the big takeaway from yesterday. We also heard the judge lay down the law. Take a listen to this. Former South Carolina Chief Justice Jean Toll took control of her South Carolina courtroom, making several rulings affecting Alec Murdaugh's bid for a new murder trial. His attorneys say jury tampering by Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill impacted the original trial's outcome. And that, according to Toll, will be the defense's burden to prove. The attorneys argued the law only required them to prove improper contact with jurors had occurred. According to Toll, she will rule that, quote, prejudice must be proved, not presumed. Toll says the stance she will take on

the specific evidence of what was said, when it was said and how it impacted the jury lies with the defense. Not an assumption on Becky Hill's credibility. Crime stories with Nancy Grace. Jennifer Wood joining us, director of research, Fitznews.com. Jennifer, thank you for being with us. It's really hard for me to believe anything the defendant says or the defense says. Because remember, right after Alex Murdoch claimed he had been attacked on a rural road, shot in the head, and one of the lawyers came out and said, oh, he's got a brain injury,

blah, blah, blah. He came into court like a day or two later with a Band-Aid, a Band-Aid. On the back of his head. Yeah. One Band-Aid. I'm like, is that the brain injury? Yeah. So how can I believe anything that they say? You're right. It's, you know, kind of like the boy who cried wolf in what their case, you know,

is what they're saying true. And do they have, do they have what's needed to back it up? And I think Chief Justice Toll really closed the door on a lot of it because she's really focusing on the law, which I think is fabulous. You know, she said she's not there to hear a criminal trial against Becky Hill. She is there to hear whether the jurors who deliberated were influenced and if that influence can be proved that it changed their verdict. So, I mean, they tend to throw a lot of noise. Like I said, they muddy the waters by, you know, throwing all of these different allegations about Becky Hill. But really what Chief Justice told Ed was boil it down to the facts that are needed to determine if he should receive a new trial. Guys, I want you to hear the judge herself, Justice Jean Toll, in our cut to 19.

The question of whether improper contact was made with them and whether it affected their verdict. I understand that you, on the defense side, have views about what further should be asked of your lawyers on two levels. One, as a predicate to what you want to do with the clerk herself in examining her. And two, as a means of further attaining the credibility of the clerk in her testimony. There's a whole lot more that Mr. Park Hoopman has indicated he'd like to explore that our regard is totally extraneous to the inquiry that we've maintained. I'm not going to allow those questions to be asked by way of proper and then have the clerk answer those questions and have that be the proper although

i consider them irrelevant questions we're not going to handle the case in that way if i exclude the certain questions being asked then the proper will be whatever in writing that is chosen to be offered in that regard. But I will not conduct a hearing that is an old-size hearing in which every question or desire is asked and required to be answered. Wow, that is one smart judge. To you, Ronnie Richter, high-profile lawyer who has deep and many connections to the Murdoch case. In regular people talk, what did the judge just say? She said this is going to be a very skinny affair that I know you want to talk about.

You know, Dick and Jim, you want to talk about. Who are the defense lawyers? The defense lawyers. You want to talk about why Becky Hill did what she did and some of these extraneous matters. But we're going to limit this to a couple of essential questions. What did she say? Was it improper? And did it change the outcome of the trial?

That's it. Don't want to hear anything else. And also, it sounds like the judge is saying proper. The judge is saying proffer, which means you give the judge what you're intending to ask. You give the judge a sneak preview of what you're intending to do before you do it in open court. So it sounds to me, Ronnie, like she's trying to head off a lot of cross-examination type questions where the attorney makes a speech and then at the end puts a question mark at it to trash Becky Hill. You're 100 percent right. There would be no theater here.

She's asking the attorneys to literally prepare the questions that they want to have asked. She will consider those questions and she will ask those questions. I don't even think she's going to afford an opportunity for cross-examination. Yeah, I see. I have a saying I used quite a bit as a trial lawyer and still do. Once the camel's nose is in the tent, his tail will surely follow. In other words, if she lets the defense go on a rampage down a winding pig path. You know what a pig path is, right, Richter?

I'm from South Carolina, Nancy, yes. Yes, so of course you do. A pig path, to those of you that don't know, means you're going along a path with a herd of pigs, and they take off, and they take a pig path, which means willy-nilly running. You can't catch them. In fact, as a matter of fact, you know, Ronnie, I told you my dad worked for Norfolk Southern Railroad for 40 plus years. He also had a pig farm. In other words, raised pigs with my mother's brother who thought it was a great idea. It was awful. After he would get home from work on the railroad all day, crazy hours, he'd have to chase pigs on their pig path. And,

you know, you grab them and take off. You can't hold on to a pig like a greased pig. That's what we don't want the defense to do in this case or anybody to run off down a pig path like a greased pig and you can't catch it and you lose control of the courtroom. This judge is not going to let that happen. So Jennifer Wood, again, what's next and what is the defense going to try to do? Number one, are they going to bring on the alternate jurors, including the egg lady who made a big production of going back into the jury deliberation room after she was relieved of her position to get the dozen eggs she brought the jurors to eat? We're not hearing from them, are we? No, Chief Justice Toll really limited the scope of the evidentiary hearing, which is scheduled January 29th, to just the jurors that deliberated. And she said she wants to hear from all 12 of them. So, you know, I do

think that Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin, who represent Alex Modock, are going to try to get as much of the evidence as they can into that hearing regarding that stuff. But it sounded to me like she doesn't want to hear that. It doesn't. The alternate jurors or the jurors that did not deliberate are not critical to what she's hearing. You know, Dr. Bethany Marshall, a big danger in court is underestimating your opponent. We all know Alex Murdoch is a big fat liar. But remember, he fooled a lot of people for a really long time.

These lawyers who I love to skewer are actually very, very good lawyers, Griffin and Harpootlian. They're extremely crafty. They're clever. They're wily. They've won a lot of cases. And while I always would go to the courtroom wearing the mantle of the right side, knowing that the defendant was guilty and was evil and needed to go to jail. If you underestimate what the defense is doing here, you're going to be up the creek without a paddle. You know, Nancy, you read my mind because I was thinking these lawyers lie as prolifically as their client does. And I was thinking birds of a feather flock together.

Is there some influence back and forth between Murdoch's lying and their lying and actually the sophistication and the slickness of it in that they really know what to say to grab people's hearts, to influence them, and as I said earlier, to manipulate them because we can all be manipulated, Nancy, all of us. And it always starts slowly. It starts with one sentence, one agreement, one thing we capitulate to with another person, and pretty soon we're ensnared. And, you know, unfortunately, the judge is used to this, so she's not going to be ensnared.

But that's not true of the normal everyday citizen who is not used to being lied to so much. You're right. This judge has seen it all, but can this judge be bamboozled? From what I know about the judge, I would have to say no. Dr. Michelle Dupree, I don't want to forget what this is really all about. It's not about Hart Pootling or Griffin oriff in her crate and waters or even Alex Murdoch. This is about Maggie, the mother of two, who had put up with the Lord only knows what for years, being lured to that hunting lodge and seeing her son gunned down. I can't think of anything that could hurt me more than to see anything, God forbid it, please, happen to my children, to one of my children. And as she raced, I believe, toward Paul, she gets gunned down. That's what this is about. If you could just describe, Dr. Dupree, as you know better than

any of us today, what happened to Paul and Maggie? Absolutely, Nancy, and it is such a tragedy. The scene indicates that she was, in fact, running toward Paul when she herself was shot, and Paul, we believe, was shot first. He was shot with a shotgun, which is a devastating injury. I mean, it literally just devastates the person. Maggie was shot several times with a rifle. Again, a devastating injury running when she hears the shot running towards her son, not knowing what's happening. And then both of them apparently realizing that the person that is doing this is, again, someone that is a member of their family, their husband, their father. I cannot imagine. Jennifer Wood, director of research, Fitznews.com, who is on this case, has been on it since day one.

Jennifer, what's going to happen next? So we're going into that evidentiary hearing the 29th of January. It is scheduled to be held three days. Chief Justice Toll said that she will be hearing from the jurors the first day. And we expect to also hear from Rebecca Hill regarding her point of view. Nobody knows what Becky Hill is going to say. So that's kind of a wild card. You know, she's going to have to get on the stand and give her point of view while she's, you know, under an active flood investigation. So, Richter, does she have a lawyer?

Yeah, she has a lawyer. You know who the lawyer is? She's got a couple. She's got Will Lewis and Justin Bamberg, who's a state representative out of Bamberg, oddly enough. Well, they may be a state representative, but you know what I think about politicians. Are they good trial lawyers? That's all I care about. He was a good trial lawyer before he was a politician, but yeah, he's good. We'll see.

We'll see if she takes the fifth. Oh, Lord in heaven. Yep. Okay, we will see. We wait as justice unfolds. Goodbye, friend. This is an iHeart Podcast.