Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Alex Murdaugh to Take the Stand?

Episode Date: February 22, 2023

Alex Murdaugh could take the stand in his own defense on Thursday.  New reports speculated on whether the accused killer will take the stand. The defense attorneys laid the groundwork, asking the judge about the range of questions Murdaugh could be asked on cross-examine, and whether Murdaugh would be able to take his Fifth Amendment right against incriminating himself. Judge Clifton Newman said any ruling would be made as they happened, not before the testimony.  Also in court today, Murdaugh's former friend and law partner testified about going to Moselle after hearing about the murders. Mark Ball said he was angry and mortified after hearing an officer say, "we have all we need," referring to evidence of Ball finding a baseball size chunk of Paul Murdaugh's skull still lying on the kennel floor.  Joining Nancy Grace today: Ted Williams - Defense Attorney, Former Washington DC Police Detective, and Fox News Contributor; Starred in the nationally-televised show, ‘Power of Attorney" Irv Brandt  - Senior Inspector, US Marshals Service International Investigations Branch, Chief Inspector, and DOJ Office of International Affairs; US Embassy Kingston, Jamaica; Author: “SOLO SHOT: CURSE OF THE BLUE STONE AVAILBLE ON AMAZON, ALSO "FLYING SOLO: Top of the World" Twitter: @JackSoloAuthor Chris Painton - Forensic Firearms Consultant for the Stria Consulting Group, and President of the Stockwell Consulting Corp.; Retired NYPD Detective Dr. Michelle DuPre (Columbia, SC) -  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.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. The jury is on their lunch break and we're going to try to bring you up to date with everything that has happened since we talked last. Testimony coming in from the witness stand, and we all know the defense is not required to prove a thing. The entire burden is on the state. I've seen defendants that put absolutely nothing up as a defense,

and sometimes they've won. One reason some defendants choose not to put up any evidence at all is because in many jurisdictions, if the defendant puts up nothing except for the defendant's own testimony or nothing at all, they reserve the right to a final closing argument. Once the defense puts in any evidence, then they lose a final closing argument in many jurisdictions. You will very likely see the state give a closing argument, the defense give a closing argument, and the state have a final closing argument. We'll see how that shakes out, but while everybody is hustling out of the courthouse and to their seats, I want you to see something that you may have missed. I want you to take a listen at what Hart Pullian, the lead defense

attorney, said in court. Take a listen. I'm not 5'2", or 5'4". I think you said 5'2", or 5'4". But position me... Tempting, but I don't know how I can do this. I'm not pointing at somebody. There you see the lead defense attorney pointing the gun at state's counsel, a prosecutor, and saying, tempting. He, he, he. I didn't think it was very funny, but I guess it did give a comedic break for a moment. You know, to Chris Payton joining us from New York Forensic Firearms Consultant for the Stria Consulting Group

and president of Stockwell Consulting, former NYPD. That's not easy. Chris, thank you for being with us. You know, whenever I would handle a gun in front of a jury, I would go to great pains to open the barrel, check it out in front of the jury, shove the barrel back where it's supposed to be,

and then hand it over to the witness. So the jury was never in any fear that there was even a bullet in that gun. So I find it really odd that you've got one of the lawyers actually pointing the gun at the courtroom. Yes, Nancy, it's a little bit odd to point the weapon at people. And I agree with you. It should be made safe. It should be shown that it is safe, pulling the slide to the rear, locking it to the rear, and visually and physically inspecting the weapon before you'd make any demonstration. And that being said, you still wouldn't point the weapon at anybody, preferably at the ground, and treat all weapons as if they're loaded. Yeah, I mean, look in the

chamber when I said barrel. That's the number one rule of using firearms, loaded or unloaded. And I learned on day one trying cases, never point the gun at the jury or at anybody in the courtroom. Very often, I'd hold a gun out like this, straight down with the barrel facing down. If I needed to hand it to a witness or needed to hold it for in front of the jury just as a precaution the last thing you need is one of the jurors becoming afraid but I can tell you what I've learned about Hart Pullian the lead defense attorney Ted Williams he reminds me in a way of my old uh co-anchor Johnny Cochran God rest rest his soul. Guys, with me, Ted Williams, defense attorney, former Washington, D.C. police detective, Fox News contributor, starting power of attorney. Ted, this is what I learned from Cochran because, of course, I didn't agree with one thing that ever came out of his mouth.

But I can tell you this, Cochran had kind of an it factor and can't take that away from Johnny Cochran. He would walk in a room and everybody would go and look right at him. And he was just a guy that people wanted to be around, you know, talk to, talk about his cases, hear him tell stories. And I think Judge Ito felt the same way about Cochran. What I have learned from speaking to many lawyers that have practiced against Tartpoolean is he's like this good old guy that he can spin a yarn. He'll throw back some drinks with you. He's very well liked. Now, does that mean his client's innocent?

No, but it may mean he can spin a yarn and that closing argument that may transfix at least one juror, just like he pointed a gun want to do, and that is to be able to establish a rapport with the jury. And when Dick Harpolian did his act yesterday, maybe some took exception to it. But in reality, he got laughter out of it. And most of the court was laughing at that. So what Dick did was he, in his unusual way, in his good old country boy way, was able to establish a rapport with the jury. One of the worst things that can happen to a lawyer during the course of a trial is for the jury to dislike the lawyer, because if the jury dislikes the lawyer, that may have some effect on the client and their verdict. So Dick Harpoolian, going through the theatrics that he went through yesterday,

did an excellent, excellent job of establishing a rapport with that jury. And that's what he wanted and did. You know, I agree with you, Ted Williams. And I think when I tried cases, I think it was more important to me that I be absolutely correct on the facts and the law without a single mistake so that I would be believed. I don't know that I was ever liked, but believed. I think it's all about credibility. And you know, Hart Poolean is nobody's fool. He's tried a lot of cases. I mean, a lot of cases, and he's won major money settlements as well. He knows his way around the courtroom, but so do the prosecutors, but that was one moment in the courtroom that really struck me. Guys, you got to hear more of what the defense expert said. Now,

this guy on the stand is an engineer. He has no training at all in ballistics, and I believe the judge threw him a bone, threw the defense a bone by letting him even testify about ballistics. No training. He's more of an accident investigator, accident reconstructionist. I'll tell you how he got into the defense mix. He worked with the law firm PEMPT, as I like to call it, P-M-P-D, and that was Murdoch's firm. He worked with them on accident civil cases, and he also was called in on the Mallory Beach case to defend civilly Alex Murdoch and Paul Murdoch. That's how he got roped into this thing. Take a listen to the expert on the stand. Have you had any formal training in pathology?

No. Have you had any formal training in firearms or firearms, how they work? No. Are you a member of any organizations that do that line of work, that do tests on firearms or pathology? No. Are you a member of any organizations that do that line of work, that do tests on firearms or pathology? No. Have you taken any shooting incident reconstruction classes? No. Do you have any certifications in shooting incident reconstruction?

No. Have you taken any classes in gunshot wounds? No. Any of those studies that you did, were they subject to peer review or published in any publication? No, I typically don't write papers or submit papers. I'm not a firearms expert or a pathologist or a wound expert. That's not my area of physics. It's not my area of expertise. Well, at least he didn't try to lie. To Chris Payton joining us again, former NYPD, and he is a forensic firearms expert. How did this guy end up testifying about the bullet trajectory or anything about bullets or ballistics or guns at all? Well, that's an interesting question.

I don't want to put down any defense witness or expert witness if they claim they are. Usually that type of stuff is done during the voir dire and whether it was up to the prosecuting attorney to let him proceed as a defense expert. So it's entirely up to the court and the judge if they want to do that. It's up to the judge. It's up to the judge whether he is qualified as an expert. Now, look, I didn't say this guy's not an expert. He is an expert in accident reconstruction. That is what he's an expert in.

You know what? When I would put a ballistics expert up on the stand, I would ask them, what's your education? Where do you work? What did you study? How many, how many ballistics tests have you conducted in the course of your career? How many times have you testified about ballistics? Have you ever written a paper? Have you taught a class? Have you been to a class? On and on and on. And I would have ballistics experts, you know, especially people from the crime lab that have done seven or 8,000 ballistics exams over the course of their career. This guy has not, not saying he's not an expert, but he's not an expert in ballistics. But I want you to hear

how he testified about ballistics. You didn't do any other renders along these lines of an adult-sized human being kneeling on the ground while shooting, did you? No, what I did do is consider that because, I mean, obviously from your question, you kind of can see that in your mind. The first thing you look at is that Alex is 76 inches tall. I measured to his knee is 25 inches. So that means that if he went down on one knee, his shoulder is still 51 inches above the ground. And if he shouldered the rifle in a kneeling position, he still can't make the quail shot because the muzzle would be above where the

hole is. So that's number one. So the more you back them up, then it just gets more and more improbable. So that's basically two feet above the ground. So that's why it only fits. You said 11-year-old kid, but it only fits with a short person or with some bizarre shooting posture that doesn't match an aiming position or a normal shooting position or just an abnormal shooting position. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. If he shouldered the rifle in a kneeling position, he still can't make the quail shot because the muzzle would be above where the hole is. So that's number one.

So the more you back him up, then it just gets more and more improbable. So that's basically two feet above the ground. So that's why it only fits. You said 11-year-old kid, but it only fits with a short person or with some bizarre shooting posture that doesn't match an aiming position or normal shooting position or just an abnormal shooting position. This is very, very critical to the state and the defense when you're talking about trajectory path and where the shooter was standing at the time of the murders. To Dr. Michelle Dupree,

pathologist, medical examiner, former detective and author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide. What do you make of this guy testifying about ballistics and trajectory paths and guns and bullets? He's an engineer. Well, Nancy, I don't like to criticize anyone, but from this testimony. Oh, dear Lord, I'm not criticizing him. I said he's an expert in engineering. Yes, but not in this. And I think this is rubbish. I think that there are so many variables. And he even admitted that there were many variables. But then all of a sudden, he forgot to mention what those variables were and how important they could be.

For example, where on that line of trajectory was the shooter standing? That's going to make a difference in how tall that person is supposed to be. In addition, you know, he could be kneeling on one knee. That wasn't even discussed, and that would make it a very big difference in the size or the height of that shooter. I want you to take a listen to our— Nancy, can I say something, Nancy? Oh, I was just waiting.

I knew Ted Williams could not stand by and hear this. Go ahead. Hit me. I'm ready. I have, before an expert is qualified, I've asked the judge to voir dire that expert. And then after I voir dire that expert, we've been able to disqualify that expert before that expert even testified. And you would have thought that the prosecution, not the defense, because they wanted this guy and they got some good testimony from him. The prosecution should have taken him on board there and then asked the judge. And you're right. Ask the judge not to qualify him as an expert, a ballistic expert. They didn't do that. They were stuck on stupid and not doing that. I knew somehow you twist this around to make it the state's fault.

And I admire the way you spun that out. Guys with me right now, Ann Emerson, senior investigative reporter, WCIV ABC, and she is the host of Unsolved South Carolina, the Murdoch Murders, Money and Mystery podcast, which is awesome. Very in-depth. Ann Emerson, how did this guy, and and again everybody's worried about hurting his feelings this is not hurting his feelings he can read his own resume he knows he has not a ballistics expert they asked him on the stand he went nah I never did any of that he's an engineer he is an expert in accident reconstruction I'm not saying he's some hayseed that just fell off the turnip truck. I'm saying the man's an engineer. He's an expert, but not in this field. How did he end up testifying on the witness stand, Ann Emerson? That's a great question.

And I think that's exactly what they were driving in and drilling down when the prosecution was crossing them. And, you know, honestly, just to watch the jury, because, you know, we're in the room with them, to watch their sort of, the expression on their face when you're trying to explain to a jury that the person who, or persons who did this would have been 5-2 to 5-4, I think that's where it just stuck, right? And it was so easy for the prosecution to come in and just really kind of bring that point home. I mean, what did they kept on saying?

Is this a 12-year-old, like, that did this? So watching the jury's expression, it's just, it kind of took the top off of that, his whole testimony that day. It was hard to listen to that part of it. Now, as far as what they did that was effective, and I think I've brought this up before, but the optics of the 3D animation, the visual, I mean, you would know this so much better than me, but from a prosecutor's standpoint, isn't that effective to have that visual tool? Yeah, I thought that the visuals were really beneficial to the defense. Let me ask you, did the state object to this guy, Mike Sutton, coming on as an expert? And did the state object to him coming on?

They did not. OK, I'm really surprised. I did not hear any major objection to Mike Sutton coming on. They did not. Okay, I'm really surprised. I did not hear any major objection to Mike Sutton coming on. Guys, take a listen to more to this guy, Mike Sutton. And you're here to say, to testify to these jurors, that your most likely answer is that it was a 12-year-old, two 12-year-olds at 5'2". There's been no testimony that two 12-year-olds are involved in this anyway, misstating the facts. Sustain the objection. You're saying, though, that 2-5-2, which we can all guess approximates what size individual or age of individuals,

that's your best guess of what went on that night? It's not a guess. And again, it's not two individuals. It could be one person moving slightly there. But that is not a guess. That is my opinion. And I've tried to explain it to the court as best as I possibly can. Back to Chris Payton, joining us out of New York, forensic firearms consultant for the Stria Consulting Group, president, Stockwell Consulting Corporation, and former NYPD detective. What do you make of this guy's testimony? Well, he's going by the aspect that he was already admitted into the court as an expert,

so he felt he was able to give his opinion. I thought the prosecutor did a pretty good job of denouncing everything that he said by saying he wasn't an expert in firearms and he went through no formal training, no experience, but since he was already admitted, he decided to give his opinion. It takes a long time to be an expert in the field of firearms and ballistics. It takes approximately a year and a half of training just to do microscopy. You have to test, like you said, thousands of cases, thousands of guns. You have to testify. You start with one, but then you testify hundreds of times.

And you have to take various courses. And he didn't do any of those things. So you're right. He didn't qualify as an expert for somehow or other. He still got in. At least not an expert in ballistics. And he admitted he wasn't an expert in ballistics. Chris Paynton, you mentioned the study of microscopy.

You mean when you put bullets under a microscope and compare grooves or tool markings? That's correct. When you put cartridge casings and fired bullets under a comparison microscope to see what markings that the gun left on those fired cartridge casings and fired bullets. Yeah, it's very painstaking undertaking. But once you get the hang of it, it's just like looking at two fingerprints to determine if they're the same one. If you're an experienced expert, you can spot it immediately. And that is what Chris Payton is talking about. So, you know, one last question on this before

I move to the million dollar question about whether Murdoch is taking the stand. Dr. Michelle Dupree, when we're talking about variables and we're talking about this incredible light display the defense put on with this expert witness, you know, the green lines and the trajectory path. Hey, Christine, can we show that to them? What, Peyton? Nancy, I do want to say you did say it's an immediate. It's not always an immediate process. Sometimes it takes time, especially with bullets.

If I remember correctly, the SLED, the state law enforcement investigator, gave an opinion that it was inconclusive that the cartridge casings they found were they fired from any of the guns that were seized on the property. So it's not, sometimes it's a painstaking process. It takes a little bit. Sometimes the things are matched right away, but it's not an easy thing to do. No, it is not. Truer words were never spoken. So Dr. Dupree, I don't know if you can see what we're showing right there with the green light showing the trajectory path of the bullets. It doesn't mean a thing. And I'll tell you why. And tell me if I'm wrong. You're the expert. I'm just a JD. Because of the burn on

the bodies, the stippling, it shows they weren't standing out there. They were standing right up on the body. You can only get stippling or powder burn. It's like a tattoo of burn marks because you're so close to that hot gun barrel. It scorches your skin. There was stippling. So all of that right there doesn't mean a hill of beans. They weren't standing out there. They were right up on the victims. That's right, Nancy. Because of that stippling or tattooing, as we call it, that person had to be within about three feet or so of their target. And we know that the expert said that he could be anywhere along that line, that green line, but that just isn't so. That person has to be within approximately three feet of their target in order to get that stippling or tattooing on the body. Guys, again, you're seeing Dr.

Michelle Dupree, but on the right, you're seeing it's a pretty good demonstrative display the defense put on. I'm wondering if anybody's going to get hung up on it back there in the jury room because it was pretty impressive. Of course, with those stippling marks on a victim it means the shooter was right there up on the body so close to the body that the skin was burned with a gunshot powder tattoo that's what that means um guys also go ahead jump in uh-oh here he comes go ahead'm sorry. I've got to ask a question. Why did the prosecution... Okay, first of all, I know you're not sorry, but go ahead. Why did the prosecution have to bring out this evidence and put on that 3-D demonstration?

Why didn't the prosecution put on this information instead of the defense? I meant I stand to be corrected. It seems to me that the prosecution would have brought out what Dr. Dupree just represented and they would have shown how to discipline. They would have shown how close everything was. A ballistic wise. They let the defense steal the day with that uh i believe nancy well i don't know if you were listening to the case in chief when the state put up their evidence but the stippling did come in the stippling has come in so that's going to be argued in closing argument and why

did they why did the defense use such an awesome demonstrative tactic? Because they could and they've got the money to do it. So why not do it? Doesn't mean a hill of beans to me. They can put up all the slides they want to, but I know what stippling is. And that jury is going to know what stippling is on the bodies of the victims. That means the shooter was not out there as depicted in that picture presented by the defense. As depicted in that picture presented by the defense, that slick 3D, let me just say, scenario that they put up. That's not true.

That's not real. The stippling is real. The medical examiner saw it and it has been accepted into court that the killer was at close range. Hey, guys, another thing. Let me just ask everybody on the panel right now. Now, hey, Williams, this is a yes, no question. Okay, you're on cross. Will Murdoch take the stand, Williams?

You don't want me to just say yes or no, please. Yes, I do. Just this one time. Okay, go. Yes, I think he's going to have to take the stand. I think he's going to have to take the stand. There's just too many things that are left out there that needs to be explained. The timeline.

The fact that at 8.44 you've got that video of his voice along with Paul and Maggie's. Somebody's got to explain that. That is the prosecution's case. And they need to focus on that aspect of the case, Nancy. Well, have you ever thought, what about it? With me is Irv Brandt. He has seen prosecutions all over the world. Why the world?

Senior Inspector U.S. Marshal Service. You know, I love the U.S. Marshals. They will track you down no matter where you are and drag your rear end in a court. He was with DOJ, Office of International Affairs. He's been placed in embassies around the world. He is an author of Solo Shot, Curse of the Blue Stone on Amazon. Also, Flying Solo, Top of the World on Amazon. I don't know when you've got time to write books, but power to you, man. Let me ask you this, Irv Brandt. Let me set it up for you.

Hold on. Ann Emerson, isn't it true that today the defense put up a partner, one of Murdoch's law partners on the stand. And on the stand, this law partner advised how Murdoch could not keep his story straight. First, he said he checked, I believe this, unless I've got it backwards, he checked Paul's body first, then Maggie's. Then later, he got it reversed. That's the kind of thing you don't confuse whose body you went to first. He can't keep his story straight, even talking one-on-one with his law partner. What's going to happen when he's on the stand? Didn't that happen right before he went to break? Well, absolutely. Mark Ball was the defense witness,

but he really felt like he was working for the prosecution as well. I have to be honest. I mean, Mark Ball, as far as a witness goes, just in general, the ability for him to recount some of the details, not just of that night, but of their entire relationship. I mean, this is someone that Alec has known for 34 years. He came across when he was talking about the defenses very sympathetic to his family. But boy, was he mad about the lying and angry about what had happened, not just in these murders, but the financial crimes. I mean, he was talking about how $10 to $11 million had to come out of his pocket and all of his partners at this firm where they saw his family. So first off, I don't know who he was more effective for,

if it was for the defense or the prosecution. But one of the things that was on top of the, who did you check first, Maggie or Paul? The other thing that came out things that was on top of the who did you check first maggie or paul the other thing that came out in that was about the kennel video and that was tough to hear because he said three times three times alec had lied to him or had had neglected to say that he had been at the kennel at 8 44 and this And this is a guy who remembers details. Came across very truthful. And I agree with you. And tell me if I got it wrong,

because there have been over 60 witnesses at this point, I believe. Irv Brandt, formerly with the U.S. Marshal, this guy is one of those guys that's a real believer. In other words, he's devoted his life, his life's work anyway, to this law firm. I believe he said he clerked a year with a judge and then he joined this law firm and he's been with this law firm his whole career. You know, like us, Irv, we've been in prosecution and representing the state our whole lives. That's the way we see the world.

This guy was very believable. He talked about how much money he had lost because of Alex and Murdoch and how he had devoted himself to this firm. He talked about the night that Maggie and Paul were murdered. He talked about going and trying to console Alex and Murdoch and how Murdoch changed his story about what he did that night. Whose body did he check first? Who did he go to immediately to see if they were alive? And as Ann pointed out about the kennels, he denied or failed to state he had ever been at the kennels, which is a lie. And this witness, who is Murdoch's friend, agreed that was a lie. What do you make of that? Exactly, Nancy. Well, exactly what you said. It's one thing for

him to say it, and he actually said it during the testimony. It doesn't matter to me that he changed his story. He was upset. He was traumatized. He tried to explain that away. I don't like to disagree with Ted Williams. I actually love to disagree with Ted Williams. It would be a massive mistake for Alec to take the stand. He's not going to be able to get away with saying something like that. The reason why I changed my story is because I'm what's traumatized. He would get cut apart. If he takes the stand, it'll be over the objections of his defense.

He would be sliced up like a Thanksgiving turkey on a silver platter put on top of the Christmas tree. That is what would happen. And all of his lies would be exposed. What, Ann? Nancy, you know, and this is what we saw at the very top of this morning before the jury came in. Jim Griffin has already talked to the to the judge about whether or not the financial crimes would be let in. Are there stipulations? Can we go ahead and have some ground rules if Alec goes on the stand? And of course, the judge was like, absolutely not. I'm

going to have to. You know what? That's interesting that you brought that up. That is exactly what I was just about to play for the listeners. Take a listen to our cut five. We are discussing with Mr. Murdoch his right to testify or not testify. And one of the issues that has come up is the scope of cross-examination that the state would be permitted to go into. The basic rule is when the defendant takes a stand, he waives his Fifth Amendment privilege as to matters to which he testifies on direct and relevant matters. What we're asking is for an order excluding the state from being able to question Mr. Murdoch on cross-examination matters related to the financial crimes. Your Honor, Rule 611B on the scope of cross-examination expressly says that a witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case.

These matters which go right to the heart of the credibility and frankly, the extensive dishonesty of this defendant. I am not going to issue an order in advance limiting the scope of cross-examination. Any objectionable matter must be addressed as the evidence is presented. Okay, what they're asking there, the defense is asking when Murdoch and if Murdoch takes the stand, can his cross-examination be limited? I don't see that under the Constitution, but the fact that they're even talking about it suggests that Murdoch may take the stand. I think for the defense, it would be a horrible, horrible move because as I was asking Irv Brandt earlier, if he can't keep his story straight when he's talking to his friend

the night of the murders and he gets his story confused, what is going to happen when he is under cross-examination by the state? That states, and I also noticed, Ann Emerson, that the more this witness was talking, the more Alex Murdoch got to chewing on those lifesavers. I mean, he was chewing up a storm. I'm so glad you noticed that. He was chewing up a storm, but it was, I think, partly because he saw who was looking at him.

There were the 12 jur it was, I think, partly because he saw who was looking at him. There were the 12 jurors plus, you know, the two alternates that are left staring at him. They, at least, you know, half of them looked very uncomfortable as well as they were hearing everything. You're talking about the Mark Ball testimony, that it was very uncomfortable uncomfortable and they looked angry. I mean, they did. There were several of them that did not look happy at all as they were listening to this. So, you know, I was definitely picking up a lot of vibes. And what about that part when Mark Ball was on the stand and it was on cross-exam. Now remember, this is the defense witness. The defense did this. They put this guy on the stand, a friend of Murdoch's, and he was

very, very believable. When he was on cross-exam and the prosecutor got a hold of a list of all these clients that Murdoch had built, it's not just money. Ann Emerson, I believe it was Mark Ball that was testifying to one of the clients had colon cancer and was dying and he was a friend of murdoch's and murdoch stole his money there was another sheriff or cop that had been injured and i think it was coming up on christ. I can't remember the way that one went. And Murdoch stole the money from this cop. Yes. Yeah, I did an interview with him. Tell me that story.

I talked to Tommy about this. I talked to Tommy about this. I actually interviewed him not far after the time came out with the indictments against Alec Murdoch for this particular charge. Very believable. Boy, if they get Highway Patrol trooper Tommy Moore up there, I mean, talk about a difficult situation. I mean, it was just another financial victim. He got hurt on the job. He was helping a car during a freak snowstorm that we had down here. And he basically broke his neck and never got the money because Alec Murdoch had allegedly pocketed it.

And that's what Mark Ball was talking about because the Tommy case was really hard for Mark because Mark was working on, I think, the workman's comp part of that case. So they were working together on Tommy's money. So when that went through, you could just see how that just hit Mark Ball on the wrong angle. He's obviously a very truthful man. This is his legacy. He said this is his family, the whole firm. He took this incredibly personally. So did the jury. So did the jury. Let me circle back to Ted Williamsiams ted williams you think

alex murdoch should get up on that stand oh boy how i would like to cross-examine him because i'd like to ask him why did you steal this trooper's money with a broken neck that was your friend why did you steal the money from the guy who was dying of cancer? You stole his money. If you would lie to them, wouldn't you lie to this jury to save your own skin, Murdoch? Wouldn't you? Oh, yes, I would tear him a new rear-end hole, and I'm putting it mildly. No way this guy's taking a stand. Well, let me say I agree with you, and I want to say something to my friend, Erd, and that

is I do not think Murdoch should be anywhere near the stand, but I do believe that there is a possibility that he is going to take the stand, and the reason being is because sometimes lawyers are stuck on stupid and dumber than they are. Sometimes lawyers believe that they can get up there on that stand and that they can tell a story that is believable to the jury. In this case, you are absolutely right, Nancy. They will cut him up every which way but loose. And I question the sanity of this man to get up and get on that stand when he cannot explain even the timeline, when he can't explain that he left from Moselle there, going to visit his mother. But along the way, guess what they find is Maggie's cell phone on the same route That he was visiting. How do he explain that?

So so so no, I don't want him to take the stand, but he may take the stand unfortunately Ignorantly well, I never said you would advise them to take the stand. I'm saying, what I'm saying is it would be a big mistake for them to take the stand. Let me ask Chris Payton a question. Firearms consultant joining me. I didn't mean to cut you off, Irv. Sorry about that. Chris, have you ever had a client that you have told A, B, C, and then they get up on the stand and they say X, Y, Z. And you're sitting there going, how did that happen?

I can tell you a story. I don't have clients, but I have had where prosecutors have asked questions or defense attorneys have asked questions and defense attorneys have asked questions and gone completely off script to what was supposed to be talking about, what was supposed to be discussed. I don't have defense clients, but sometimes the things just go completely off the rails in the court and it has to be corrected during the trial. I know you're not a defense attorney or a lawyer, but I know you've got a lot of clients to be the CEO, the president of Stockwell Consulting Corp.

The point is, sometimes you get a client that just absolutely will not do what you tell them to do. I mean, I don't know why he's paying Hart-Pootley and all this money if he's not going to do what Hart-Pootley tells him to do. But I've seen it over and over. Williams, haven't you seen that in court? I've looked over there. And, of course, I love it when it happens. But I've looked over there and seen the defendant and the lawyer is just fighting furiously, whispering. And, you know, then the defendant decides to take the stand.

And I'm just so happy. You must have been in court somewhere when I was there with my handkerchief out crying because there are times that we learn one thing it's hard to control a client and once that client is on the stand he is fair he or she is fair game and when you look at what happened this morning where they wanted to come in, meaning the defense, and try to limit the testimony that he's going to give, that will never happen in that court or in this country where you're going to limit the testimony under those circumstances. Now, I want you to also hear, guys. Isn't that why Jim was to just have it on the record?

He may have or he may be trying to psych out the state thinking they need to run home tonight, burn the midnight oil, getting ready for a Murdoch's cross exam. I guarantee they've already been thinking about that because we know Murdoch is uncontrollable. Guys, I want you to listen to our cut seven. I want you to hear Mark Ball talking about what he saw the night of the murder. Did you look in the feed room? I did. You could see where one of the shot had gone through and had embedded in the window frame right there, the molding. And then there was a piece of buckshot laying on the ledge of the windowsill.

What did you do when you observed the shots? I walked back out and asked what I thought was the agent. He said, we've got all we need. And so I walked back over there. Looking around down around the floor and all that, there was a piece of Paul's skull about the size of a baseball laying there. Did that upset you? It did, very much.

I mean, it just really infuriated me. This young man had been murdered, and there were still his remains there. And there was a large blood spot and tissue out right off of the apron of that area right outside the feed room that was there. And it's kind of like walking across the grave. area right outside the feed room that was there. It's kind of like walking across the grave. crime stories with nancy grace did you look in the feed room i did You could see where one of the shot had gone through and had embedded in the window frame right there, the molding. And then there was a piece of buckshot laying on the ledge of the windowsill.

What did you do when you observed the shots? I walked back out and asked what I thought was the agent. He said, we've got all we need. And so I walked back over there. Looking around, down around the floor and all that, there was a piece of Paul's skull about the size of a baseball laying there. Did that upset you? It did, very much.

I mean, it just really infuriated me. This young man had been murdered, and there was still his remains there and there was a large blood spot and tissue out right off of the apron of that area right outside the feed room that was there and it's kind of like walking across the grave and you know dr michelle dupree joining me, medical examiner, pathologist, former detective, also author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide. Dr. Dupree, there is nothing like being on a homicide scene. It's very upsetting, much less when you know the victim, and in this case, the victims, and you hear, this is the dichotomy I'm presenting to you, Dr. Dupree, you hear this witness, Mark Ball, and his, seemed like anger, that this young man's body was still laying there, splayed out, just riddled, torn apart with bullets.

But yet Murdoch was thumbing through his phone, looking up a restaurant. Nancy, to me, that's unfathomable. I can't imagine. And there have actually been, unfortunately, published photographs of exactly what he's talking about, the entrance to the feed room, and two sections of Paul's skull are shown in that photograph. I can't imagine that being someone that you are close to, a loved one, a family member, and you are looking at a restaurant. You can't dial that by mistake. I don't know what was going through his mind at that point in time, but I don't think it was about his family. You can't because you really can't because he had to put in the name and spell the restaurant into Google to get it to pop up. What was he looking at the closing time? Did he think he was going to run by and have a steak and a potato?

I don't know. But he was looking at restaurants and opening a group chat, a group email about a woman in a bikini. And here you've got the friend, Mark Ball, angry and upset about Paul's remains. Not Murdoch. But I want you to hear what Ann Emerson, WCIV, was telling us about in our cut 10. And did you talk to him about what he did that night? Yeah. And did he deny ever going down to those kennels to his buddy and law partner of 34 years? He said that he ate dinner, laid down on the couch, took a nap, and then left to check on him. And now you know that's not true from seeing the kennel video, right?

Dude. And that wasn't the only time he told you that. At least three times. In his conversations with you, did he ever change his story about who he checked first at the scene, supposedly? I don't know whether it's just because of the trauma of the situation, but the first time I remember, he checked Maggie first and then went to Paul. And then I heard him say at one point that it was Paul and then it was Maggie. It didn't really matter to me. It wasn't something I really was picking up on because it was horrendous either way. I mean, I can't imagine seeing my wife dead and my son dead

in such a brutal manner. Ann Emerson, let me ask you a question. Has anybody performed a test where one person sits inside a Moselle in the hunting lodge and the other person goes out to the dog kennel and fires guns multiple times? Has anybody done that to find out if the person in Moselle can hear the gun? Well, that's actually interesting because that's what they were messing around with yesterday with Mike Sutton, the forensic engineer that was on the stand for the defense. He was talking about the decibel levels, and he said that the house is so well insulated that when you're inside, and I am literally just kind of replaying what Mike Sutton was talking about,

was that the decibel levels, he tested at a shotgun level, and it was extremely hard to hear, especially if there was like a TV on. So that is what we heard in testimony yesterday from the defense. And actually, I'll add to that. Prosecution actually didn't, they didn't go after him. The prosecution did not really go after him on this decibel part. And I don't know why. I don't know if I don't know why. I thought that they would have something to say that it doesn't seem like they had any decibels. Nancy, that's very said it was extremely hard to hear, but that he did hear it. Correct. I think that's basically it would be if you were watching TV, you might be distracted. You may not

know what it was. It was kind of that idea that like you wouldn't really know what you were listening to if you heard gunshots going off is where he was going with it, I think. But yeah, the house is really well insulated. So it would be hard to hear. Prosecution. But they didn't even know if they cross-examined all that. He said it's extremely hard to hear. That didn't was not I didn't hear it. It was hard to hear it, but he heard it. Nancy? Yes? Did he replicate, did he actual, at Strya and Stockwell, we train people in microscopic analysis and, you know, dealing with the ballistics in this case, that's the core thing that we do as far as training people in microscopic analysis. We don't really necessarily

deal with firearms, but in my experience, did they replicate, did he have a shotgun? And if he did have a shotgun, how do they know exactly the length of the shotgun, what load was used, the barrel length, whether there was choke restrictions on it. It's a difficult thing to determine after the fact that hearing would rather be subjective. You know, shotgun blasts are allowed. There have been cases where there's been gunfire inside of a building and people didn't hear it, but I think it's a strange approach to say that it could be heard or not be heard after the fact whether they actually could replicate the firing of a gun when they don't actually have the murder the shotgun yeah

here they do not have the weapon they don't have the actual murder weapon it has vanished but you know what i think uh ted williams it's kind of thing where you don't want to do the experiment, the science experiment, because it may go wrong. If the state does that experiment and the person cannot hear it in the house, they got to turn that over under Brady v. Maryland. That's exculpatory. And if the state, if the defense does it and you can hear it, well, that hurts them. So I think that is really why everybody's dancing around this nobody really

wants to talk about it in court because it could backfire well it could be to that because i actually i do know some information about that as well what's going on or i think that's going on is that there's going to be a there could be a rebuttal case, right? They had Ken Kinsey up for the prosecution a while back as their forensics expert. I think that's what they're waiting to be able to do. If they're going to have any kind of rebuttal case once the defense is done, I think that's where you're going to hear some of the prosecution coming back. Ted, what were you saying? No, I wholeheartedly agree with you, Nancy. You know, but I got to tell you, I don't know what the prosecution is doing.

I think that they should have went at this guy when he represented about the quietness of the bullet and the ballistics and that. They should have gone at him. They didn't go at him, meaning the prosecution. Also, I need to go back just for a second where we talked about Mark Ball and the skull and all of this. Remember what he said. He said that the sled, the law enforcement had allowed him to go back into that area. So what he was trying to get out and to help Dick and them was with, and to help Alex, is that the scene itself was contaminated, because he was allowed to go back and forth in that area where the crime scene was and that he discovered this piece of the skull. So that is where they're going with this contamination of evidence. But again, the prosecution is missing, is missing some, some great things that they could come at in this case and they're not

doing it. And I don't know why in the hell they're not doing it. On cross-exam, you're right. You're right about that. Guys, there is more. I want you to take a listen to our cut 11. We were describing it earlier where his longtime friend and law partner was on the stand. He's very, very believable. Can you describe the money that he stole from Barrett? Barrett had had a fire on a piece of property that he had. It burned down the house and there were proceeds for

cleaning up and then there were proceeds for various and sundry things that were associated as well as the structure and we started looking at it and figured out that the

$75,000 had been stolen, and then later on there was an additional amount that never went through there. How much was that additional amount? $279,000, according to this exhibit number. I would say that was one of his closest friends. One of his closest friends. That's who he ended up getting Moselle from. Barrett was dying of colon cancer, yes.

And needed that money, and Alex stole it anyway, right? I assume he needed the money. Irv Brandt, you've been in a lot of courtrooms. I guarantee you the jury was shooting daggers at Alex Murdoch right about then. No, absolutely, Nancy. And if he, I can't predict this guy's behavior but if he decides to get on the stand and the prosecution is allowed to uh under cross-examination go into things like that it's going to be disastrous for the defense and it would be something that you can never recover

from because there's no telling what Murdoch will say and then it can be cross-examined on what he says. Out of the blue, guys, one last thing I want you to hear. This is Mark Ball's reaction when he

finds out Alex Murdoch has been shot in the head. Take a listen to Hour Cut 12. The storm was arriving again for Alex on September 3rd when y'all confronted him. Is that correct? Yes, sir. It was over. And then on September 4th, what happened? What did you hear about? 11, 30, 12 o'clock, whatever time it was, I was on a tractor,

and he called me and said, you're not going to believe what happened. And I thought, my first response was, don't tell me that jackass killed himself. And he said, no, somebody shot him. And I just said, I don't believe that. You don't believe that? A lot of people thought right away, oh my gosh, the real killers are back. Correct? The chickens were home to roost again for Alec, and all of a sudden he's a victim again, correct?

I went to the scene. I went straight to the scene. But I didn't believe it. I said, I don't buy it. And we walked up towards the car, and I think I said, it's got run-flat tires, and the tire's not flat. Before we got to it, Ronnie said, it doesn't even have a spare. And then when we got up to it, you could see at a nine o'clock where somebody had stabbed the tire. You know, when he said that on the stand, Ann Emerson, I asked myself, did that jackass kill himself? I mean, everything changed when Murdoch got shot in the head.

It was a little skin mark on the side of his head. And I still say, if he had wanted to get shot and killed for those insurance proceeds to go to Buster, his remaining son, he would have been shot and killed. This was a ploy, I say, not to make people feel sorry for him and take attention off of all of his theft, but to suggest the real killer was out there and now finally coming for Alex Murdoch. Well, two things on that. One is, you know, I've spoken with Eddie Smith, cousin Eddie, before he went to jail where he is still, you know, and when I talked to him, I mean, he said, and he said this a couple of times, you know, if I was going to, if I wanted to shoot somebody, I would have shot him.

In other words, I wouldn't have missed if that was the case, which was an interesting thing to say. But also, if you were going to have somebody write a book about all of this that has happened with Alec Murdoch, would Mark Ball not be your person to write the book? He literally has the details that are like, I'm on a tractor. I mean, the jury immediately goes, oh, he's sitting on a tractor. He's on his farm. He's a couple of miles away from Moselle and he gets the word. It's so descriptive. You have to believe everything that Mark Ball's saying. And when he says it, he's kind of, you're kind of living through this experience with him again. He's obviously not only grieving over the fact that he's lost half of this family that he adored,

he also lost the man, which he says very clearly, I didn't know him. It was hard to believe that the defense had him up on the sand when he said that. He goes, after September 4th, everything changed, or September 2nd, not even the 4th, everything changed. Or September 2nd, not even the 4th. That everything changed, that everything was torn down. His legacy, his life, his firm, everything that he believed about Alex Murdoch was gone. And I mean, he said if he could lie about that, what else is he lying about? Dr. Michelle Dupree, I remember very clearly the moment I heard Alex Murdoch had been shot. And I didn't know how it happened. I didn't know the story.

But I knew he was somehow involved in his own shooting. And I at the time thought it had been jerry-rigged to somehow make it look like the killer of Paul and Maggie had come after him. And lo and behold, while they were riddled with bullets, he managed to walk off with a scrape on the head. And that changed everything because we knew he was lying. And like Ann Emerson just said, if he would lie about that, what else will he lie about? Exactly, Nancy. And very, very many people believed when they first heard it without knowing the circumstances that this was some type of a ruse. It just didn't make sense. and all of that, it was clearly evident that this was something that he had probably orchestrated to take as a diversion off of him to buy him time or to make people feel sorry for him that now

somebody else is after him just as they were after Maggie and Paul. To Ted Williams joining us, Ted, you know, in every trial, there is that one moment that changes everything. In Simpson, it was the glove that I still contend fit. At every trial, there's a moment where everything changes. And the thing here is, you can't even blame the state for the roadside shooting evidence to come in because the defense opened the door. And I really believe that that is going to affect this jury because they will see if he will lie about that and set up that shooting. Are we going to believe him about what happened in the dog kennel?

You know, Nancy, I got to tell you, I'm of the same mindset that that is significant that he's a liar. It is no doubt about it that this man is significant, that he's a liar. There is no doubt about it that this man is a jerk. He's a thief. But the question is, has the prosecution in its case proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Alex Murdoch murdered Maggie and his son Paul? And I don't know if they have done that. The best evidence they have in this case is that video at 844 putting Alex, Paul, and Maggie in the same location at the same time and believing

that from their own evidence that she was killed and Paul was killed shortly thereafter. That is the best evidence. That's where they're going to have to focus their circumstantial evidence case. Everything else in this case is pretty weak, I must believe. I say at this stage, unfortunately. Well, I'm hearing in my ear, like it or not, that Ted Williams is actually getting the last word. He is because everybody's heading back in the courthouse. So we are too. Everybody, thank you for being with us. We're heading straight back into the

courtroom to see what the defense is going to pull out of their sleeve next. Goodbye, everybody. This is an iHeart Podcast.