Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Alex Murdaugh: 'THAT'S NOT ME" in Damning Video

Episode Date: February 15, 2023

Another bombshell in the courtroom today as Judge Clifton Newman ruled that testimony regarding Alex Murdaugh's alleged roadside shooting. September 2021,  Murdaugh claimed he asked another man to shoot him so his surviving son could obtain millions in life insurance.  Judge Newman ruled that the roadside shooting would be a “bridge too far” and “does not meet the logical relevancy test.”  In testimony today, the jury in Alex Murdaugh’s double murder trial saw more footage of Alex Murdaugh's interviews with state investigators. SLED agent Lt. David Owen testified about his question in of Murdaugh. Owen said at the time Murdaugh was  “the only known suspect” in the case. The footage shows Murdaugh being confronted with inconsistencies in his statements: specifically that Murdaugh claimed he ate dinner with his family, took a nap, and then drove to his mother's. He said he discovered the bodies when he returned.  Regarding the video taken by his son, Murdaugh denies that it is his voice in the video.  Murdaugh tells Owens that at 9 p.m. he was not at the kennels. The fact that Murdaugh had changed clothes was also brought up.   Maggie Murdaugh's sister testified that Alex never seems scared while everyone else was. She also testified that her sister thought Murdaugh had an affair 15 years ago.  Joining Nancy Grace today:  Mark Tate - Trial Attorney- The Tate Law Group Dr. Angela Arnold -Psychiatrist and Expert in the Treatment of Pregnant/Postpartum Women; Former Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Obstetrics and Gynecology: Emory University   Chris McDonough - Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective and Host of YouTube channel- ‘The Interview Room’ 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. Hi, everybody. The courtroom is on its lunch recess. The jurors have just filed out of the courtroom. And now this is what has happened today. First of all, I don't want to be the one to tell you. I want you to hear it from the judge's mouth himself in our cut seven. Evidential evidence was allowed on the issue of motive.

This evidence, I find, goes beyond motive or is not evidence of motive, and I believe this, as I stated, will be a bridge too far. It does not meet the logical relevancy test I agree with the defense that it would be admissible perhaps if the trial was the trial on the financial theft issues but not on the murder. So I grant the motion to exclude this evidence at this time. Okay, what did the judge just say? He is saying that the testimony of Curtis Edward Smith, aka Cousin Eddie, about the roadside shooting where Murdoch allegedly agreed to have Curtis Edward Smith shoot him in the head. So his son, his only surviving son, Buster Murdoch, could get millions and millions of dollars of life insurance.

That's not coming in. He ruled it out. Newman has ruled out the roadside shooting evidence. Got an all-star panel, but first I want to go to Mark Tate, trial lawyer, joining us from the Savannah jurisdiction, not too far from the Colleton County Courthouse. You can find him at tatelawgroup.com. I will tell you what he just did. He split the baby.

That's what he did. Because there's a lot of ways the roadside shooting could have come into evidence. For instance, hey, this guy Murdoch, he is not afraid to pull a gun if it means money in his pocket. That's what he did on the side of the road with Cousin Eddie, and that's what prosecutors are saying he did to his wife and son. That's how I would have tried to get it in. Forget the financial motive. It is copycat.

Same thing he had done, he did, to his wife and son. That's how I would have argued it. No matter who argued it until they're blue in the face, I don't think Newman was going to let it in ever. He's splitting the baby. He let in the financial testimony, and now he's excluding something. He's balancing out the scales. What

do you think? I think that's exactly right, Nancy. And, you know, Judge Newman, I think, has really done a very good job in the case in allowing in evidence that's appropriate to show what the prosecution's argument is with regard to motive, even though they don't have to prove a motive for murder, this whole financial pressure evidence that they want to put on, it's pretty lock solid. The evidence is pretty clear that Murdaugh was in a lot of financial trouble. And then they used that to essentially bootstrap their theory that he was going to try to do this horrible thing to gain sympathy, which is a depraved mind to think in that fashion. But regardless of that, when we start talking about that, we're going to get cousin Eddie to kill us so that our boy surviving child can get 10 million dollars in life insurance. I think that that the judge is right about that.

I don't think that that shows motive. Well, I'm not saying it shows motive, Tate. Nobody's saying that shows motive for a murder. That's not motive for murder because it happened after the murder. So it can't be motive for murder. But it does show frame of mind, course of conduct, a pattern, an M.O., modus operandi, method of operation. Because when Murdoch is in a jam, what does he do? He pulls a gun. And I am not buying that

total BS about, oh, I wanted to leave money to my son. I'm not buying that. I don't believe that. If he wanted money for his children, he wouldn't have done any of the stuff that he did I think this was a harebrained idea to throw blame off of him in the double murder and make it look like hey the killer came after me I didn't recognize him he was on the side of the road changing a tire he shot me in the. Because if they wanted him dead for insurance money, Cousin Eddie would have pulled the trigger a second time. Right. No, I agree with you that it doesn't, the whole getting some money thing. But I think that the prosecution argument, I think it fails.

I think Newman did the right thing because he doesn't want to get reversed on something like this. The evidence has come in potentially why he acted this way. And now to bring in more, it risks reversal. And we know this, that no matter what happens in this trial, that when or if there is a conviction, then Murdoch's going to prison for all of his financial crimes as well, and he has nothing but time to be courthouse lawyer for the rest of his life. And there's going to be appeals based on inadequate assistance of counsel. There's going to be every single evidentiary question brought up on appeal as well. I completely disagree.

Because Chris McDonough, joining me, former homicide detective for many, many years, director of the Cold Case Foundation, host of the Interview Room on YouTube. You can find him at coldcasefoundation.org. Chris, did you hear what Mark Tate just said? Don't bother to answer. I know that you did. Murdoch goes away on theft and even if it's eight million dollars of theft you know darn well when the jail gets full of murderers and rapists and child molesters and drug lords he is going to go behind bars he's going to help people get their GED he's going to find religion he's going to teach classes, he's going to do everything right and

he will get out early. That's what's going to happen if he's convicted only on financial crimes. How many times, McDonough, have you seen a POC, technical legal term, walk out of jail early? A million? Maybe? Well, Nancy

a thousand percent correct your analogy. I agree with you. And California just let 7,000 out recently. So that tells you your point is right on target. And I agree with you. I think the judge cut the baby in half here today, leveled the scales of justice, and gave the defense a win on that particular issue. Actually, if he had to let one or the other into evidence and exclude the other, I think the financial motive may have even been stronger. I got to think that went through. But bottom line, for those of you just joining us, Newman dropped a bomb on us today.

He excluded, did not allow in, the evidence, the admitted evidence, that Cousin Eddie, Curtis Edward Smith, long thought to be Murdoch's dope supplier, that he shot him on the side of the road in a financial scheme. The jury will never hear it. Okay, let's take a look at what they did here. Christine, could you just kick it off with cut three? We were afraid. We didn't know what was going on. My family was scared. I was scared for Ellick and Buster. I felt like they needed protection. I think everybody was afraid. Ellick didn't seem to be afraid.

Man, talk about a pregnant pause. I thought she'd quit talking. But her words were, I think everybody was afraid. Long pause. And Alec did not seem to be afraid. Why? Because he knew no one else was in danger because he's the killer. That's why he was not afraid. He knew who the killer was. He sees him every time he shaves in

the morning, every time he looks in the mirror. He wasn't afraid. Guys, thank you for being with us. The jury's on a lunch break right now. We're trying to cram in as much as we can to catch you up with what all has been going on since we last spoke. This is Crime Stories. I'm Nancy Grace. Thanks for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. And what a panel of stars. Let me go right now to start her own right. Dr. Angela Arnold, renowned psychiatrist, joining us out of the Atlanta jurisdiction at AngelaArnoldMD.com. Did you hear that?

This woman was in tears, afraid her sister had been gunned down in the dog shed. Her nephew had been gunned down, brutally gunned down. It's like someone's taking out hits on the family. She's scared silly. She's sick with fear that the other nephew, Buster, is going to be murdered. But guess who was not afraid at all? Alex Murdoch, Dr. Angie. And Nancy, I believe, so the whole time I'm thinking about what is the jury going to remember about all of this? The jury is going to remember that pregnant pause, aren't they? So whatever is being left out, whatever baby is being cut out, cut in half,

the jury is going to remember the pregnant pause and the tears that she was shedding. That was so powerful. That was such a powerful testimony that she made today. And you know what else I like about this witness? Let me go back to Mark Tate. He's a veteran trial lawyer. I'm going to try and mirror a little bit of what Dr. Angela Arnold just said about this witness. You could not have hired an actress to portray what she portrayed on the stand. And no, she was not a drama queen. There was no wailing and crying and getting dizzy.

No, she was perfectly calm and poised. She cried. She tried to conceal her tears. She wasn't putting on a show. At least it didn't seem like she was. She's very believable. She had a quiet dignity about her, I thought. Yeah, I thought she was an excellent witness. She may be, after the, I guess maybe the sled officer we heard, I think she was a fantastic witness, and I think she's devastating. And I

think the point of who's scared about what's happening with this family and that Alec seemed like he was okay from her estimation, I think that's something that's going to really come home with the jury and when they're deliberating. And that to me is something that would be very worrisome if I was defending Alec Murdoch. I wouldn't like it. There's a lot of things about defending this case that seem very, very, very difficult. And when you're trying a case like Harpoolian is trying here, you really have to try to take it one bite at a time because, you know, the way you eat an elephant, you got to start one bite at a time. And he's got an elephant here. Well, I've never really thought about it that way, about eating an elephant, an endangered species.

But, OK, I thought you were going to say this witness. This is Maggie's sister. We've heard a lot online, where is Maggie's family? Well, this sister was set to testify, and I believe she's been kept. She did stay out of court during the other testimony, whether she was forced to or not. But she reminded me in some ways of the caregiver for Libby Murdoch, Alex Murdoch's mother, who was afraid. She broke down and cried on the stand because she thought she was going to lose her job. And that would have been Michelle Shelley Smith, who I thought was an incredible witness

and very, very believable. Guys, this witness, I'm telling you, this woman is awesome. I want you to hear more of what Maggie's sister Marion Proctor says on the stand. Take a listen to our cut one. Did you have any conversation with Alec about what had happened? I didn't talk to Alec a lot. Alec was just really busy and the whole town was coming to see him and he was very, very, very torn up.

I did at one point ask him if Maggie had suffered. And he assured me that she did not. Now I don't know that I think that's true. And I asked if Paul had suffered, and he said no. And then later I asked him, I said, Alec, do you have any idea who's done this? I said, we have got to find out who could do this. And he said that he did not know who it was,

but he felt like whoever did it had thought about it for a really long time. I just didn't know what that meant. Straight out to Dr. Michelle Dupree, forensic pathologist, medical examiner, former detective, and author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide. Dr. Dupree, thank you for being with us.

This is your neck of the woods. Dr. Dupree joining us from South Carolina. Dr. Dupree, did you hear that? Ah, no, she didn't feel anything. Really? How would he have known that? Because that one question, to this day, will drive me to distraction. I wonder, did my fiance know what was happening to him when he was shot five times? What did he feel? Was it so quick he felt nothing?

But the awful truth is, I think he did feel a lot of it. I think he suffered. But here, Murdoch is saying, ah, no, she didn't feel anything. What? Nancy, doesn't that say a lot? I mean, you want to tell the loved ones that they didn't feel anything, but he says it apparently in such a flippant way, and it makes you wonder. In addition, he says that somebody thought about this for a long time. Well, I think Alex, or allegedly, did think about this for a long time because I think it was planned. And I think that you can see that in a lot of his testimony. You know, another thing that he said repeatedly is that he wanted to clear Paul's name. Okay, Paul's already dead.

Translation, I don't want to pay out a big fat settlement to Mallory Beach's family. That's another thing that was preoccupying his mind after the murders of his wife and son. Take a listen to our cut too. In the days and weeks following Maggie and Paul's murder, did Alec ever say anything about the boat case? We would talk about the boat case. And he was very intent on clearing Paul's name. What did he say? He said that

his number one goal was clearing Paul's name. And I thought that was so strange because my number one goal was to find out who killed my sister and Paul. But that wasn't Alex's concern, main concern. I know he must have wanted that too, but I don't know how he could have thought about anything else. And more in that same vein, take a listen to our cut four. She's further describing Murdoch's seeming indifference toward finding Maggie and Paul's killer. You're not critical of Alex for wanting to clear Paul's name after he was murdered, are you? I'm not critical about that at all.

I think that was his way of honoring Paul after he was gone. I just thought his priority should have been focusing on finding out who killed Maggie and Paul. And how do you know that wasn't a priority for him? We never talked about finding the person who could have done it. It was just odd. We were sort of living in fear because we thought this horrible person was out there and we didn't, we were mostly afraid for Alec and Buster, but we didn't know the motive behind the killings. We thought it probably had something to do with the boat case and we thought that up until September and then

things started to change a little bit. And right then Christine she cut that off right when all the lawyers go, objection, objection, stop, stop, stop, because what happened in September was when Alex Murdoch arranged to have himself shot by cousin Curtis Edward Smith on the side of the road. And that is what changed her thinking about who may have murdered her sister and her niece. And another thing, Tate, I want you to listen to this next bit of sound because you know what? All their talk about a happy family. I told you, Tate, that if you looked hard enough, you would find a girlfriend, a mistress, a something connected to Alex Murdoch. Take a listen to our cut five.

Was that something that remained in Maggie's mind over the years up until... She would know that. I think that if I asked her that question, she could express an answer to that, yes, sir. What is the answer to that? It was an affair that happened, or Maggie thought it was an affair that happened many years ago, they were able to resolve the issues, but Maggie still brought it up. As recently as when? A year ago. She did not think anything was going on.

She just, it still bothered her. Do I have to follow up with you? Yes. During when that event occurred, did she make Alec leave the household for a period of time? She did. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Was that something that remained in Maggie's mind over the years up until... She would know that. I think that if I asked her that question, she could express an answer to that. Yes, sir. What is the answer to that? It was an

affair that happened, or Maggie thought it was an affair that happened many years ago. They were able to resolve the issues, but Maggie still brought it up. As recently as when? A year ago. No. She did not think anything was going on. She just, it still bothered her. Can I ask a follow-up?

Yes. during when that event occurred did she make alec leave the household for a period of time she did now the problem with this is i don't believe the jury was present hey i'm hearing in my ear ann emerson is joining us right now senior investigative reporter wCIV ABC News 4. She is also the star of Unsolved South Carolina, the Murdoch Murders, Money and Mystery podcast. And I don't believe the jury was there when Maggie's sister talked about the affair. The infidelity, that's correct. Nancy, hi. Yes, so that was a moment that you were just playing before where there was an objection. They took the jury out of the room and said, okay, we got to talk about what's going on. And the judge wanted to hear what was going on. He wanted to hear what

Maggie's sister, Marion, had to say about this. So they let Marion Proctor speak without the jury present in order for the judge to make a clear decision about what he wanted to do with some of these issues that were coming up. One of which was this alleged affair that Alec was having 15 years ago. That was the first thing that he was sort of looking at whether or not he would be allowing that testimony. He decided no, that was not going to go in front of the jury it was what what's past was past and that was just too far out of the realm for him but there was the roadside shooting of course because she was talking about um leading up to september right

so we just got to that moment again in september when the uh assisted assisted botched suicide attempt with Eddie Smith, all of these revelations were coming to light in September. So the judge decided to move it into today. So we have new information about what's happening with that roadside shooting and where the testimony went to today. So long story short, the jury, as it stands right now, is not going to hear about Curtis Edward Smith shooting Murdoch at Murdoch's request. As it stands right now, that's not going to come in. To Dr. Angela Arnold, a psychiatrist joining us out of the Atlanta jurisdiction, after all that time, it still bothered Maggie Murdoch that Alex cheated on her, sexually cheated on her. And I'm an armchair shrink, but a lot of people would have said, you know what? It happened a long time

ago. We have worked through it. We're fine. But I believe it's bothered her up until the time she died because other things triggered her mistrust. And when one thing happens after the next, after the next, you can't help but have that old wound be reopened, Dr. Angie. Well, I completely agree with you, Nancy. First of all, if anybody believes that anyone ever gets over an affair, they've never dealt with this. Okay, so typically no one ever gets over their significant other having an affair. They cheated on them. It's a level of mistrust, and then that trust has to be brought back into the relationship. So certainly if there are other things going on and it does sound like she was

finding out other things along the way. And so it just continues to dig at that hole of mistrust that he placed inside of her. So of course it's going to blow. Allegedly. Allegedly. Yes. Allegedly. We haven't had Murdoch admit it and the lady in question has not presented herself. So these are Maggie's suspicions. I don't know what brought about her suspicion, but she believed it for several years. And, you know, and I don't know if she thought it was a one-time thing or many times. Wait, whether Newman's right or many times. Whether Newman's right about what? I was just saying the question is, did Newman make the right decision

in excluding evidence of a 15-year-old affair? And what he's got to decide is whether that's going to be something that's potentially so prejudicial as to make it so the jury cannot make an unbiased decision. Is that evidence that is an out-of-court fact being testified to in court to prove that that happened, to prove the affair happened, is that going to be something that's going to prejudice this jury so badly against Murdoch

that they're going to find him guilty because of reasons other than his guilt? And so Newman decided that a 15-year-old affair that we don't have any evidence in court of other than his guilt. And so Newman decided that a 15-year-old affair that we don't have any evidence in court of other than what this wonderful witness has to say about what she believed the decedent thought. I think that he made the right decision. That's too prejudicial. And that's the kind of thing that we're layering one weird thing on top of another on this Alec Murdoch guy. And we know this. You know, weird is not a murderer. And there's plenty of evidence that the prosecution has successfully put on.

Well, hold on. I don't know that that would hold up to the transitive law of mathematics. Weird does not make a murderer, but a murderer is always weird. So I'll let you put that in your pipe and smoke it for a moment, Tate. That's fine, Nancy. But all I'm saying is, we don't want a situation where Murdoch has a reason to have an appeal that may result in a reversal of a conviction. And so Newman really wants to make sure that when this prosecution rests and that after Harpoolian defends this man, and he will as best he possibly can, that when and if there is a conviction, that that conviction

stands and that there's not a reversal on some evidentiary thing that Newman got wrong. And so I think that he's weighing fairly conservatively and has let in the evidence that supports the prosecution's theory of motive. I think that he's held things out that tend to arguably, from at least from Harpoolian standpoint, is going to be unduly prejudicial. And I think he's allowed the prosecution to put on a very strong case. Once they rest, we get to hear what our court is going to answer. But the law is really clear to just boil it down very easily. If you've got a bad act that doesn't go to motive, course of

conduct, scheme, frame of mind, MO, modus operandi, and plus it's attenuated in time. It's not coming in. There. Bam. An affair 15 years ago. It may have nothing to do with the murders. So it didn't come in.

It's really, really simple. But I like hearing you throw around all those Latin phrases once in a while, Mark Tate. So I want to get back to. I'm doing that to help you feel more at home. I'm trying to make you, Nancy, feel more comfortable. I feel pretty good. In this setting. I'm trying to help. Ann Emerson, you know what I thought was really impactful is when the sister, Maggie's sister, Mary Proctor, on the stand was describing the last time she talked to Maggie is she broke down crying because you explained to everybody what happened oh that was so heartbreaking too we see first of all we feel like we're we're hearing Maggie through Marion as well because they look so similar don't they they really are two peas in a pod this is her only sister her older sister which I think is important because that's always a protective role and so she's on the on the stand and she's talking like they do all the time right two sisters on the phone and she's like should I or shouldn't I go Maggie loves

the beach Maggie wants to stay at Etisso and then Marion is like no he wants you to come. Go with him. Go with him. Go see him in Moselle. He's dealing with his dad. And so you hear this unbelievable regret that comes forth. She starts to cry. And they tease this part out, really, and say, this is the last time you spoke to her. Yes, you encouraged her to go and she just, it just killed her. And she said, yes, I encouraged Maggie

to go to Moselle that day. And I think it broke everybody's heart in the jury box. And I was watching what was going on. You know, Marion Proctor, when she came in with her husband, Bart, she was sitting next to the victim's advocate on the prosecution side. She was not making eye contact with the family that was sitting in the back row. She wasn't looking at John Marvin or Liz Murdoch or Buster. She was looking straight ahead. But boy, when she said that, I saw tears. I saw tears across the whole Murdoch side. It was just too much to bear. But I'll tell you, Nancy, you know how this case has been coming through, and we've just been connecting the dots. We've been tying together these loose threads, and that's what the prosecution's job is to do. And I'm starting to see a clear picture of why they were teasing that painful emotional part out from Marion Proctor and that

was because the prosecution was holding some cards still about what they knew that Alec Murdoch was going to say about that last why Maggie was at Moselle why Maggie was really at Moselle and so we were learning a little bit more about that and and I can share that with you as well. But as far as Marion Proctor, when she got up there and did that, boy, that just, that really brought the house down. She, there wasn't a, there wasn't a person who didn't feel so sorry for her right then. Yeah, you know, Dr. Angie Arnold joining us. Can you imagine the guilt the sister carries around to this day? She broke down crying on the stand because Maggie called Marion Proctor and said,

Well, he wants me to come out to Moselle, the hunting lodge. I don't want to go. I want to stay here. Remember, they were living apart. But Alex says, you know, we're going to go visit his father. His father, Mr. Randolph, is not doing well. He's going to die. So the sister says, you know, we're going to go visit his father. His father, Mr. Randolph, is not doing well. He's going to die.

So the sister says, you should really go. You should go. Basically, sending her to her death. But how could the sister know that? The sister had no way of knowing that. Nancy, the sister never knew that she was sending her sister to her death. And I hope that she can find some help to get over the guilt that she could possibly feel for that. I believe her sister thought that she was doing the right thing. They were living apart. She wanted to help her. She was encouraging her sister and supporting her

sister in helping her with her marriage, which wasn't very good at this point, apparently. So she didn't send her to her death. She was trying to be a good, supportive sister to help her sister in a very difficult decision. Guys, a lot happening in the courtroom. I want you to listen now to what happened when Alex Murdoch was asked about that Snapchat video. What happened when Alex Murdoch was asked about that Snapchat video? Remember the damning Snapchat video that Paul took just minutes before the murders? They were out of the kennel and you can hear Alex Murdoch's voice in the background. So he's confronted with the Snapchat.

Oh, can you only guess what he said? Take a listen to our cut eight. There is a video on Paul's phone of you and him on the farm that night. And you were in khaki pants and a dress shirt. You were playing with a tree. I don't remember playing with a tree. Yeah, I guess there was a tree sapling or something that had fallen over or bending over, and you were trying to get it to stand back, stand up.

But the question in that is, when I met you that night, you were in shorts and a T-shirt. At what point in that evening did you change clothes? I'm not sure. You know, it would have been... Before dinner or after dinner? No, it would have been... What time of day was that?

I would have thought I had already changed. There's not a time. Is he asking you now what time that picture was? Yes, sir. go ahead i'll stab on it because there's so many posts um but i want to say it looks to be about dusk so that would have been 7 38 o'clock i guess that changed when i got back to the house he is being asked about the snapchat video where he's wearing one thing in the afternoon and something else after the murders.

We learned a lot about that from the housekeeper. They claim she never saw those clothes again. They were disposed of somewhere along the way. I love the way he did that. Out to you, Chris McDonough joining us, former homicide investigator in Miami-Dade, has handled, I would say, three or four hundred homicide investigations.

You can find him on the interview room. Chris McDonough, did you hear Alex Murdoch? He said, what? Now, let me see. That must have been, I don't know, sometime in the afternoon. B.S. McDonough. He's like, oh, crap. They realize I changed clothes. I mean, did you see him acting like he was thinking about it? And the whole time in his head, the wheels are turning. Uh-oh. They

figured that out, didn't they? Yeah. And Nancy, San Diego, by the way, and this is classic, classic deception. He all of a sudden finds himself in an aha moment, is what we'll call that, and remember a couple of things here. This investigative team is slow and steady up to this point. They've had a couple of interviews with him in the car, and now they've got him into a controlled environment. And also, they realize this is an experienced trial lawyer who brings a lawyer who has assembled a team of lawyers to strategize about this investigation. So I would submit to you this was one of those moments where they had not calculated that Paul had taken that video early

on showing his clothing. And so notice one thing, he asked a question with a question. So he answers a question with a question. That is one of those moments where you just go, okay, that's an experienced interviewer who absolutely led him right to the trough to drink. Guys, let's hear that one more time now that we've analyzed it a little bit. I can't wait to hear what Mark Tate has to say about this. No legal terms, no Latin legal terms, Tate. If you can control yourself. I'm not going to say anything. Guys, let's take a listen. It's all going to be English, and it's going to be very plain.

It's going to help everybody out, learn how to deal with problems in the future. Take a listen to our Cut 8 one more time, and watch Murdoch during this questioning. There is a video on Paul's phone of you and him on the farm that night and you were in khaki pants and a dress shirt playing with a tree.

I don't remember me playing with a tree. Yeah, I guess there was a tree sapling or something that was had fallen over or bending over, and you were trying to get it to stand back, stand up. But the question in that is, when I met you that night, you were in shorts and a T-shirt. At what point in that evening did you change clothes?

I'm not sure. You know, it would have been... Before being a rack of dough? No, it would have been... What time of day was that? I would have thought I had already changed. There's not a time. Is he asking you now what time that picture was?

Yes, sir. Go ahead. I'll stab on it because there's so many posts. but I want to say it looks to be about dusk. So that would have been 7, 8 o'clock. I guess that changed when I got back to the house. Yeah, I guess. What time of the day was that? I don't remember anything like that.

You know, Dr. Angie Arnold, I've never known of a grown man having so many wardrobe changes. I haven't had a single wardrobe change since I got up this morning when I put on my work clothes. So here we've got Murdoch having a wardrobe change and Don can't remember that. He can remember so many other details, but not that. I'm telling you, Nancy, it's telling. I think this man is digging his own grave. People can see the way he's acting in all of this, can't they? And the changing of the clothes, and now the clothes are missing, and oops, I don't remember. I mean, did he have a stroke in between changing his clothes? Who doesn't remember these things, right? And Nancy, she's exactly right. And this is why you never, ever talk to the police.

The police had already decided he was going to jail when they started that interview. They asked him a hostile question. They already had the plan for him. No way. Never talk to the police. Mark Tate, they've already got a defense team. So, you know, they don't care about your theory right now. Hey, but I've got to point it out.

I've got to help your viewers. You're talking about the cops having tunnel vision? That's not even what we're talking about. We're talking about Murdoch, his body language, pretending he didn't know what was. My point is exactly that. He dug his own grave. So don't dig your own grave. Don't talk to the police.

They're not there to help you. They're there to lock you up. They had already decided they were going to lock you up. This is Crime Stories on Fox Nation. This is not an infomercial. No matter how many cases you have won for bad guys to come and hire you, you don't need to tell all the bad guys out there, don't talk to the cops.

You think they don't already know that? But yeah, okay, granted, you're right. But I was trying to get at what Murdoch did. The little guy who's falsely accused. Well, that would not be Murdoch, as far as I can tell. Go ahead, please help me out, Dr. Dupree. Nancy, okay, so look back at that interview and look at his posture. Look at his body language. Again, he is in a very defensive posture. His arms are

folded across his lap and they're almost always folded across his lap, except a few times he will reach and try to open up a little bit and grab his knees. But the vast majority of that entire interview, he is basically defending himself with those folded arms. That says a lot. You know, Dr. Angie Arnold and McDonough. Is this McDonough talking? I was just going to go to you and Angie because I haven't really thought this through clearly.

And I know you and Angie accused me of projecting, and you're right. But, you know, a lot, a lot after my fiancé's murder was blurrish. It's a blur. But my movements up until that moment, and this was decades ago, up until the moment I learned he had been shot dead, I remember crystal clear exactly what happened. I came out of a statistics exam. It was dark inside the building. It was light outside when I opened the doors. I walked across campus carrying my books. I stopped at a pay phone to call my job in the library and tell

them I was late on the exam and I was getting there. I remember it all very clearly. I remember the phone booth, but yet Murdoch can't remember anything that happened, Chris McDonough, leading up to the murders. Yeah, and Nancy, I mean, trauma will slow everything down, and those moments will be ingrained in your memory for a lifetime you know what we've not heard one sentence out of his mouth yet and that's who murdered my family not one time through the entire process here i've never had a victim's family not ask me who murdered their loved one. And I saw that telling, very telling quickly. And as he's starting to parrot a lot of information by asking questions on top of questions. Yeah, you know what? What about that Tate? Mark Tate joining me from the Tate Law Group in the Savannah jurisdiction. Mark, he never once says, hey, instead of worrying about me changing clothes, who the H-E-double-L shot my wife and my son?

I never see any of that, man. I'd be laying on the courthouse steps screaming that I wanted justice. He never does a darn thing. Yeah. Never. No, you're exactly right. And that's why he was a terrible witness against himself. And let me tell you, we've seen another instance right here in Georgia

when a lawyer hired his wife murdered. If you remember Fred Tokars back a few years back, had his wife shotgunned. I knew Tokars, sadly. Yeah, Sarah and Bruce got shot right in front of their children. Yes, and he wailed at that wedding. It was awful. And so tears can be lie, obviously. But yeah, Murdoch did not help himself in this interview. And I know you don't like it.

I know you don't like it. But Nancy, there was no defending himself in that interview. The only defense to being interviewed is to not be interviewed. Same as the first. Okay. I want you to hear another thing Alex Murdoch says when he is confronted with that Snapchat video. His son Paul took another video that was taken that day. Take a listen to our cut 10. Had you confronted him with what you're about to ask him prior to this? No, I had not. The question you had just asked him,

did that deal with whether he went down to the kennels or not after supper correct and he said he had not he had not maggie was hurt in the background and you were hurt in the background and that was prior to none yeah rogan gibson asked me if i was up there he said he thought it was me. Was it you? At 9 o'clock? Yes sir. No sir.

Not if my times were right. Who do you think it could have been? I have no idea. And Rogan's been around your family for pretty much all his life? Absolutely. And he recognizes your voice and you have a distinct voice. Do you think of anybody else that has a voice similar to yours that you may have misinterpreted? So this is actually the video.

Hey, Christine, could you run that video? The video that Paul took, not the Snapchat, the video he took at the kennels. Can you play it with sound, Christine? Come here. Get back. Get back. Quit Cash. Come. Quit. It's okay.

Come here. It's not that bad. Come here Cash. Shit. Come here. Post it. Cash. Hey, Come here. Close to you. Hey, he's got a bird in his mouth! Baba!

Hang on, Baba. That's a guinea! That's a chicken. Come here, Baba! Come here, Cash. Come here, Baba! Come here, Baba. Quit. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace Get back, get back

Quit, Cash Quit, it's okay Come here Come here, Cash Shit Come here, post it Quit This is a chicken. Come here, catch. Come here, catch. Quick. You are seeing and hearing the video, and you hear that third voice in the background. I've heard it before where you could hear it even more loudly.

Now, in the last sound that we played for you, Murdoch is denying it's his voice in the kennel video during a police questioning. Straight out to Ann Emerson, senior investigative reporter, joining us from WCIV ABC. Ann, what was the jury doing when they see Murdoch denying that was him? Well, they're paying a lot of attention. They're paying a lot of attention. And, you know, the other important thing to note in this is that the agent, when he is questioning him in August, has not actually seen this video. This is what Rogan Gibson the friend of Paul had actually pulled the head had Alerted sled agents that he had been speaking with Paul just before these murders Met them at a corner store nearby

Soon as soon as he possibly could after the murders the day after to tell them about this audio and video that he heard Alec Murdoch's Voice on on this video. So that is what they're hearing about. So you absolutely saw they were leaning in, they were listening. You know, some of the tape from Alec about, you know, when he's in that room talking on this third sled interview is hard to hear sometimes. So on top of that, you know, they, at one point, the judge was like, please turn it up. We need to be able to hear every single thing that's coming out of his mouth right now. So they literally turn up the video and the, and the jury is listening to everything that's being said and not said at that point. And one of the things he said, of course,

was, uh, I don't, yeah, I don't know about this. Like, no, what did he say exactly? He said, no, no, no, I don't think that's me. I don't think that's me. It's like, what? But we just had how many of your closest friends, including Paul's friends, including Marian's husband, your brother-in-law, they've all said that it's you, Ale alec that this is your voice on the video you know so we're jumping in the timeline a little bit because we know at that point the agent hasn't actually seen this video but we've already he's already heard from rogan that this is alex's voice and he's

taking his word at it and he's asking alec about it so it's fascinating because this is still what, like seven months before they actually were able to unlock Paul's phone and confirm what Rogan said and then be able to pair it with what Alex said in this interview in August of 2021. Guys, we've got more of what Alex told SLED, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division. Now here he is telling another whopper that he was at his mother's house up to an hour the night of the murders. Take a listen to our cut nine. How long would you say you were at your mom's at night? Forty-five minutes an hour.

Had you talked to Shelly Smith at this point? She had been interviewed, yes. I had not spoken with her by that time. Hey, Christine, do you mind re-racking that? I want to hear it again. He says it right up front. They question, how long would you say you were at your mom's? He says 45 minutes an hour.

Let's hear that one more time, Christine, please. How long would you say you were at your mom's at night? 45 minutes an hour. Had you talked to Shelly Smith at this point? She had been interviewed, yes. I had not spoken with her by that time. So this is significant to me, Chris McDonough. And I truly believe, having tried so many cases, as you've investigated so many cases, that from each piece of evidence, very often you can end up proving a lot. mom's house up to an hour, you have to question why. Why would he lie about that? Because he

already knew the timeline. He needed to be at his mom's house at the time of the murders. So he is looking at Sled right in the face and lying. The motive for, I mean, there's one thing, oh, I'm just mistaken, but he knew. He knew how long he had been there, and he lied about it. And the jury has got to ask, why did he lie about how long he was at his mom's? Yeah, and also they have to ask, why did he try to intimidate that witness to change her story about that timeline because he knew exactly what you're saying, Nancy. He knew he had to tie him or separate himself a little bit further from that crime scene that evening. And this is one of the ways to do it. Unfortunately for him, it's some of the vehicle data that came back on the Suburban tied that time frame a little bit tighter, which put him into a precarious situation.

Guys, we are trying to take your questions and your ideas, as many as we can. Karen Mitchell asks, why aren't they allowing the roadside shooting? Judge Newman just ruled the roadside shooting is not allowed in, that it's too, gosh, I would say prejudicial. He is not going to let the jury hear about it because it doesn't go to motive. I think it should have been introduced to show course of conduct and modus operandi. In other words, when he's in a jam, he'll pull a gun, but it's not going to be allowed because the judge thinks it's too prejudicial. Here's a good one. Why wasn't Gloria Satterfield exhumed before the trial? I'll take a stab at that

because the Gloria Satterfield allegations as to how she died would not bear on the finding of guilt or innocence in this case. What about it, Mark Tate? Why wasn't Satterfield exhumed in time for this testimony? You know, obviously, that's a whole brand new undertaking that's being just now started, given what we apparently have learned about the propensity of this family somehow to resort to violence to solve financial problems. And I believe that we can recall that the Satterfield matter devolved into and where we found out about some of the money that Murdoch was able to secret away to himself as a result of that as a result of that passing and so why well I'm not sure that anything that's going to come out of demonstrating a different cause of death is going to wind up being admissible especially in front of Judge Newman

who's trying a very careful case yeah uh to yeah I mean that would go to another potential murder. Satterfield's death only came in for financial motive, not to suggest that Murdoch, who was not there at the home when Ms. Satterfield fell down the steps, we've been told, that would absolutely be too prejudicial. They cannot allow that in. Okay, here's another one. Why not kill Buster? This is from Barbara Powell. The other one was from Susan Pageant. Barbara Powell knows, why not kill Buster? Do you think he was in on the murders? No, I do not think Buster was in on these murders. And I'd like to point out, as Kelly and Christina are reminding me in my ear, when the sister, Marion Proctor, got up off the stand, she went and hugged Buster. That alone

tells me she doesn't think he was involved. But no, I don't think Buster was involved. Anybody want to take a crack at that? What about it? Straight out to you, Ann Emerson. Buster involved in the murders? No way. No way. This is absolutely this is getting tied to the fatal boat crash. That's what we keep on hearing about it. That is what the state is looking at. As far as the evidence that we've been hearing about over and over again. Yeah. Was about the threats to Paul in the boat crash. The lawsuits tied to the boat crash. That all goes back to Paul. In addition, I mean, just from the logical steps of what Buster was doing in his life at that

time, we just heard that, honestly, Buster didn't really come to the farm. He didn't have that love of the farm like Paul did. That would have been a leap for him to just even be there. He was in another part of South Carolina. Annie, yes, exclamation, asked, why would CSI not take samples from the water puddles? Now, you know, the hose and the water puddles are taking on a whole new significance, suggesting that Murlock tried to clean up the scene or even himself. We saw that angle emerging yesterday. To you, Chris McDonough, I mean, I guess it's possible to take samples from water puddles. I think CSI was taking actual blood samples and were trying to secure the crime scene. What do you think about taking samples from water puddles?

Well, you know, Nancy, that's a great question from your viewer. The challenge with that is obviously is the evidence starts to, you know, become problematic whenever there's water, snow, anything like that because it's an outdoor scene. One of the interesting things that I found was the fact that when he makes a comment going over and he rolls Paul over and the phone falls out, I've always had a question about why he didn't go roll Maggie over. He left her just in the position she was in. And that kind of made me think about, well, is there some type of evidence to your viewer's question that he was also, you know, wanting to make sure he didn't contaminate or cross-contaminate himself onto her, which kind of made it look a little bit more like a two-shooter scenario.

Hey, guys, here's a really good one from Oren. If Murlock touched the bodies, wouldn't there be blood on the car door handle and his phone? Straight out to Dr. Dupree. Dr. Dupree, what about it? Nancy, yes, absolutely, you would think that, but remember, he is really pretty smart. There was blood on the steering wheel. Perhaps he thought about there not being blood on the door handle and wiped it off or used something else to open that door handle, but he couldn't wipe off all of the blood on the steering wheel, and that was found there. Yeah, you know what, it's also inconsistent that there's there's blood on the steering wheel but

not on the car door handle or and is on to something right there hey from tally schecter what will happen if murdoch's found not guilty? Will there be further investigation into the case? No, it's over. Double jeopardy. He can never be tried again. Here's one more thing. Let me throw this to you, Ann. Do you believe the state is trying, I mean, the defense is trying to suggest Paul shot himself? No, I don't think so. I think that they're going to be looking for that second third shooter those people that the empty chair theory that's where i think they're going with it i know what you're talking about though because they were talking about whether or not the way he was shot you know when they were going on and on about it i could be wrong but i i would be very

surprised if they wanted to go there because it is hard for a lot of people to conceive how he would have actually gotten that shot, basically. So I think that they're going, and also they didn't find that gun underneath them when the cops said that they rolled Paul up because they disturbed the crime scene to be looking to see if they found a gun and there wasn't a gun there, obviously. But no, I don't think they're going to be doing that necessarily. I think they're going for that empty chair, that second shooter, those people that had come in. And why aren't we? Hey, very quickly, Anne, from Diane Frank. She wants to know, Anne Emerson, what do the different colored badges mean in the courtroom? Very quickly.

We have different colored badges. I have a purple one. That means I'm media. They have new badges every day for the people that are coming into the public gallery, which was packed today. They did yellow badges for them. So every day they come up with different colors to make sure that they're able to go through. Guys, we're going to go back in the courtroom very quickly. Peggy Strickland asks, did he take a lie detector? Think OJ. He took a lie detector and he failed. Lie detectors don't come into criminal cases unless there's a stipulation prior to trial

that it will come in. In civil cases, however, they do come in. So if there's ever a civil case, maybe we'll find out if Murdoch took a lie detector. That said, we're going back in the courtroom. We want to beat the jury in there. Everybody, thanks for being with us today. I'll see you tomorrow at lunch break. You're listening to an iHeart Podcast.