Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Alex Murdaugh's Damning Roadside 'Shooting-For-Hire' to be Heard by Jury

Episode Date: February 16, 2023

Jurors learned today that Paul and Maggie Murdaugh were shot at close range. Dr. Kenneth Kinsey testified about the graphic wounds the pair sustained.  Kensey said the first shot didn't kill Paul. In fact, Paul stood for a moment and began moving toward his killer, before he was hit with the second fatal shot. Kensey told jurors that the blood pattern proved this.  Judge Clifton Newman also reversed his decision about allowing testimony on Murdaugh's alleged botched suicide plot. Judge Clifton Newman initially announced he would prohibit jurors from hearing evidence about Alex’s alleged botched attempt, but will now allow it after the defense opened the door with questions about Murdaugh's drug abuse and drug contacts.  Joining Nancy Grace today: Ronnie Richter - Attorney for the Satterfield family and other victims of Alex Murdaugh; Partner, Bland Richter Law Firm; Twitter: @BlandRichterSC Sheryl McCollum  - Forensic Expert, Founder: Cold Case Investigative Research Institute in Atlanta, Ga.; Twitter @ColdCaseTips; Host of "Zone 7" podcast Jeff Gentry - Forensics-Crime Scene Investigator and certified bloodstain pattern analyst and death investigator; fmr. toxicology lab analyst; Author: A Visual Guide to Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Bloodstain Pattern Analysis for Death and Crime Scene Investigators; TikTok: @jeffreygentryBPA, Facebook: Jeff Gentry Bloodstain Pattern Analyst 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 Nicholas Reagan -  Anchor/Reporter with Live 5 News; Twiter: @NickReaganLive5; Instagram: Nick Reagan News See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. The judge has let the jury go for their lunch recess and just before they walked out he appointed juror, I believe he said number 826 as the foreperson of the jury. Now, I don't know that the jury voted on the foreperson. Did the judge select the foreperson for the jury? But that signifies to me that this case is moving along. God willing, nobody else gets sick and falls off the jury.

I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us. We are live at the courthouse and that jury has seen and heard a lot of evidence today, including an in-depth description of the murders of Paul and Maggie. But first, I want you to watch this. Now, there was a time, and I remember it well, when every statement and or confession was not videotaped. And that's a real danger at trial because it allows the defense to get a toe in the door and claim that there was torture, that there was a beating, that there was all sorts of coercion in order to get a statement. But when you have a video, there's no way to misinterpret what happened in that interrogation room.

So, with that in mind, take a listen to what happens when Murdoch is asked point blank if he killed Maggie and Paul in our cut two. Did you kill Maggie? No. Did I kill my wife? Yes, sir. No, David. Do you know who did? No, I do not know who did. Did you kill Paul? No, I did not kill Paul. Do you know who did? No, sir, I do not know who did. Do you think I killed Maggie? I have to go where the evidence and the facts take me. I understand that. And you think I killed Paul?

I have to go where the evidence and the facts take me. And I don't have anything that points to anybody else at this time. So does that mean that I am a suspect? With everything that we've talked about, with the family guns, the ammunition, nobody else's DNA, I have to put my beliefs aside and go with the facts. For Pete's sake, man, didn't you go to law school?

He says, you think I killed Maggie? You think I killed Paul? And the cop says, well, I've got nowhere else to go. And he goes, does that mean I'm a suspect? Yes, that means you're a suspect, Murdoch. With me, Ronnie Richter, South Carolina attorney for the Satterfield family and other victims of Alex Murdoch. He's a partner at Bland Richter Law Firm. Ronnie, thank you for being with us. What was Murdoch playing at there? Because you hear him say, wait, you think I killed Maggie? You think I killed Paul? And the guy says, yeah. And he goes, well, does that mean I'm a suspect? h-e-l-l-y-e-s that's

exactly what it means not nancy he knew he was a suspect he knew he was a suspect the night of the murders i mean you're you're the guy that called 9-1-1 you're the immediate next of kin you're at the murder scene uh you're you're obviously you're a person of interest what's stunning to me is that this interview took place at all. He's a third generation solicitor. His family has held the seat for 100 years. You got to know that rule number one is that you don't voluntarily offer statements to the police. And if you if you rewind to the beginning of that statement, the purpose they came there that they that they came for that day was really for Alex to interview them.

You know, I want to hear that one more time, Christine, if you don't mind playing where he says, wait, wait. You think I'm a suspect? You think I did it? Did I kill my wife? That is a textbook classic way to avoid a question. Let's hear that one more time. Take a listen. Did you kill Maggie?

No. Did I kill my wife? Yes, sir. No, David. Do you know who did? No, I do not know who did. Did you kill Paul? No, I did not kill Paul. Do you know who did? No, sir. I do not know who did. Do you think I killed Maggie? I have to go where the evidence and the facts take me. I understand that. Do you think I killed Paul? I have to go where the evidence and the facts take me. I understand that. And you think I feel Paul? I have to go where the evidence and the facts take me. And I don't have anything that points to anybody else at this time.

So does that mean that I am a suspect? With everything that we've talked about, with the family guns, the ammunition, nobody else's DNA. I have to put my beliefs aside and go with the facts. With me, founder, director of the Cold Case Research Institute, crime scene expert. And you can find her at coldcasecrimes.org. Cheryl McCollum joining us. Cheryl, wouldn't that have been a great time for Murdoch to say, hell no, I didn't kill them. We got to get out of this interview room and go find who did kill them.

That's what I would have expected him to say. He should have lost his mind if he were an innocent person. That Lieutenant Owens is wasting any time at all on anybody. You know, he would just waste his time talking to him if he didn't do it. Nancy, you know what this reminds me of? Sarah Tokard. Remember Fred, when they interviewed him and Fred said, yeah, I think the person entered from the second story, fine glass door. And then we already knew the murder weapon was a long rifle. How in the world would somebody scale that with a long rifle? I mean, that's not what they would typically do.

But Fred, when he first entertained that, is the first time we started to look at him as somebody that might know more about this crime. Well, the same with Alex Murda. You've been around the justice system literally your entire life. Literally. And you're going to sit down with these officers and not demand that they go do their job and find this person? It's baffling, his attitude. Did he interrupt the officer? I know that. You know, and then calls him David. I mean, he's very cavalier about the whole thing.

Mr. Ronnie Richter joining us, lawyer for the Satterfield family. And as you will recall, Alex Murlog volunteered to represent the Satterfield family after the housekeeper and really the woman who helped raise Buster and Paul fell down the steps at the Murdoch home and there was a lawsuit and Murdoch volunteered to handle it for the Satterfields. Turns out he got I think it was four million dollars and never handed any of it over to the Satterfield children. Well, this is the lawyer that represented them. Ronnie, again, thank you for being with us. What do you make of Alex Murdoch's, let me just say, non-verbal behavior? Because if somebody asked me, did you murder your husband or did you murder

your son John David or your daughter Lucy I would be doing a backflip but he is sitting there with his arms crossed and his legs crossed he never misses a beat he doesn't get upset he doesn't even blink an eye well what I interpret from that is just the strength of the home court that he's on. You need to appreciate who he is and where he's located. I mean, these Murdaugh's in Hampton County, in Colleton County, they are kings of the county. They ruled for a hundred years. They held that seat, the solicitor's office, and he is very comfortable in that setting. He's comfortable in the courtroom in which he's in right now. When it was time for the jury panel to be generally qualified, he showed up in the morning and acknowledged the jury panel. I mean, this is a guy who's there

charged with double homicide, and he turns to the veneer and acknowledges them, waves to them as if they are his people. So you're seeing someone who is very comfortable in his setting. Guys, the shift in evidence quickly goes toward the actual murders of Paul and Maggie. I want you to take a listen to a witness on the stand for the state. This is Dr. Kenneth Kinsey, and he is talking about Paul still standing after the first shot, after the first gunshot wound in our cut five. Here along the floor, what you see are passive or 90 degree blood droplets and when blood you can tell a lot of from the direction of blood by the way it strikes an object so it has a cohesive factor it's viscous and you probably heard that term before

with the motor oil for your car it's thicker than water and the thing that causes that blood droplet to change shape is the friction and the direction and how much force was used. Well a 90 degree drop just is exactly that. It's perpendicular to the ground. So these 90 degree drops right here tell me that Paul was standing there for a moment. Can't tell you how long but those drops were running down from that wound on his arm and you can see these 90 degree droplets here here and then they actually lead to the door he's not moving very fast because most of them are almost perfectly circular or 90 degrees so i know he was moving slowly and i know he was standing in the middle of this room for some time after he after the first shotgun wound.

Wow. That is an incredible analysis by Dr. Kinsey. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace And today we have with us one of only 60 International Association for ID Certified Blood Stain Pattern Analysts in the world one of only 60 the author of a visual guide to blood stain pattern analysis blood stain pattern analysis for death and crime scene investigators with me is Jeff Gentry Jeff it's a real honor and pleasure to have you on today and I'm sure you have been studying the Murdoch testimony but what Dr. Kinsey just said when he's saying it it makes perfect sense that a moment later it's like wait what did he just say could you please explain how he can look at this incredibly bloody crime scene and tell us 100% Paul was still standing after the first gunshot wound so his

testimony was great mr kinsey did a great job on the stand he was nice and cool and collected so what he's looking at is the patterns and so that's what blood pattern analysis is all about it's identifying patterns within sometimes a very big messy scene so he could tell that paul was upright because these blood stains when he sustained that first gunshot wound he's bleeding almost immediately a shotgun wound is obviously very devastating so it's going to cause trauma so he's bleeding right away it's it's falling from up high off the ground that's what he's talking about when he says it's creating circular stains on the ground. So it's individual blood stains that he could tell were under the influence of gravity and they're being deposited on the ground.

They make essentially circles on the ground. So we know he was upright for some period of time. We don't know exactly how long you would assume. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Jeff, see, you're talking so quickly quickly it's like drinking from a fire hydrant it's too much too fast I think what you just said in regular people talk is that due to the circular nature of certain blood drops you are extrapolating that those are blood drops that just drop down from the wound it's not spatter from a high impact that goes all over the wall in a fine spray it's actually blood

droplets is that what you're saying yes that's right right. So he's looking at both the size of the bloodstains as well as their appearance, their shape. So an impact, when you subject blood to force, say, for example, a gunshot or a beating, it's going to break that blood up into little blood drops that are going to create little bloodstains. And in this case, there were some smaller blood stains we could talk about those but these stains in particular they're larger blood stains and they're circular so we know that there wasn't some contributing force that created those okay wait you're saying their blood drops like somebody has a nosebleed and a drop of blood falls straight to the floor. It falls and it lands in a little circle, not a perfect circle, but a little circle as opposed to dipping your hand in spaghetti sauce and flinging it to the wall.

It has a an elliptical shape based on which way you throw it. Would you agree with that? Yes, that's exactly right. it's a great description okay okay so the fact that it's and it's paul's blood because it has been tested with dna so we know that there are drops vertical drops on the floor of the kennel which means he was still standing correct that's correct that's exactly right whoa okay hold on jeff oh please go ahead well the other thing that he brought up uh was that there was a footwear impression in the blood that uh so after he's depositing these bloodstains on the ground he's probably making his way towards the door um trying to escape or maybe trying to see you know the person who shot him and so he's making his way to the door before he got

shot again so that that is also really important because it shows that this wound wasn't his fatal wound he's upright bleeding he steps in his own blood probably in a panic and then as he's exiting the door he probably saw his shooter so he probably saw we believe his father shooting him for the second time before it happened jeff gentry you said there was some kind of mark in the blood what did you say what was the mark in the blood um i believe mr kinsey said that there was a footwear pattern that was in the blood that somebody has stepped in bloodstain after they were deposited on the ground

and based on his description it sounds like it was Paul's shoe or footwear that made that impression so he's stepping in his own blood as he's bleeding trying to escape that room before he gets shot again Cheryl McCollum you have been in the courtroom many times when a murder trial will be going on. Has there ever been a witness so great that you just wanted them to keep talking? Absolutely. Absolutely. And this witness right now is doing such a phenomenal job at not just explaining everything, but explaining it in a way that the jury can completely understand well i was actually

talking about jeff gentry because the way you described that about how you know what just to be sure could and then i'm going to go to you dr michelle dupree is joining us pathologist medical examiner former detective i've got dueling books by experts hers is homicide investigation field guide uh could you go through that one more time Jeff Gentry and then I'm going to get Dr. Dupree to weigh in on the actual wounds to Paul's body and how that will coincide and fit in with your analysis of the blood on the floor and what, if anything, it may mean about the drops and about how you believe Paul was moving toward the door. And please go slowly for me. I'm just a lawyer. Absolutely, Nancy. Thank you. So based on Mr. Kinsey's description in the courtroom, Paul sustains the first gunshot wound while he's in the room.

He's obviously several feet inside of the room. He sustains a gunshot wound to the chest. That was with the buckshot ammunition. So it's going to create multiple wounds to the body at close range. And so those wounds are going to start bleeding we don't see the the impact spatter that you would in in some cases but it's more passive bleeding so his heart is still beating he's obviously starting to go into shock he's in a panic and so this blood is starting to drip out onto the ground hey christine let's see the blood as he's talking about it.

Okay, go ahead, please. And so as the blood is dripping onto the ground, it's creating circular blood stains. And then obviously he's trying to make his way to the door at some point because he steps in his own blood. So he's standing there long enough to drip blood on the ground.

And then with his own shoe or own footwear whatever he was wearing he steps in that blood makes a footwear impression and then he makes it to the door and we know he's still upright because of the second gunshot wound and where it hit him but my assumption is is that at that point he's trying to escape and he likely sees the person probably his own father, as he shoots him again for the second time, that fatal wound that pretty much exploded his head. Okay, to Dr. Michelle Dupree, as I mentioned, pathologist, medical examiner, former detective, and author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide. Joining us from there in the jurisdiction of South

Carolina, she knows all of these locations like the back of her hand. So based on what Jeff Gentry just explained to us, Dr. Dupree, could you now overlay Paul's wounds that he sustained to corroborate what Gentry just said? Yes, Nancy, and that makes perfect sense because the first shot that was fired was not a fatal shot. We know that that went into the chest, and we know that that's going to bleed almost immediately. That blood, as he mentioned, is going to drip down and make those circular-type patterns. Those we know were the 90-degree patterns. That second shot, however, is the one that entered that left shoulder sort sort of tangentially, as Paul is beginning to move, and he's slightly turning, probably, in order to get that tangential shot. That tangential shot,

the second one, hits his left shoulder, goes up through the back, basically, of his head, not injuring the front part of his face, but injuring the back of his head, and of course, dislocating the brain. And that is the fatal wound, which would cause him to immediately drop to the ground and move no more. Okay, Dr. Dupree, can you now explain what you just said as it relates to Gentry's description of the blood? Yes, because again, that first shot, which is not fatal, is going to allow Paul to be standing. Paul is going to start bleeding immediately. The blood is going to travel downward because of gravity and it's going to

basically drip on the floor below Paul. As Paul begins to move slowly because this was not a fatal shot, those blood drops are going to continue to move toward the door. The second shot is fired and this is the one that is the fatal shot. But because this is a significant injury, it is going to cause blood spatter to move forward and spatter on the surrounding surfaces like the door in addition that's going to cause more bleeding and it's going to cause Paul to drop to the ground immediately and basically that is what would end his life he would no longer be moving Wow the way that you and Gentry just explained it it's

crystal clear and based on the injuries Paul sustained and based on the blood pattern added to the trajectory of the bullet, the path in which it traveled, it is now deduced that the shooter was in the feed room doorway when Paul was shot. They can tell that based on the blood and the injuries and the trajectory path of the bullet. Take a listen to our cut six. In your review of the crime scene evidence, did you come to any conclusion about the location of the shooter when that first buckshot blast struck Paul in his chest? It would be hard to say exact, but I can say to a bare minimum the breach of the shotgun, because I don't have the shotgun. I don't know the length of the barrel, that kind thing or I could run it from the door but the breach of the

shotgun where it ejects the shot shell casing after it fires was somewhere inside the door because had it been on the other side of the door the shot shell would have been located outside so depending on the length of the shotgun at least i can say the the ejection port was inside the the door of the shed okay and now this is what he means by that you can have a sawed off you know where the the barrel is that long you can have a long barrel then of course you have the butt but the ejector is what we're interested in because he's talking about where the casings fell okay cheryl mccollum a crime scene expert explain why this expert says when paul was shot the shooter was standing in the doorway and this is very significant cheryl

it is significant when that shell is exited from that weapon, ejected, it's going to go back about, you know, two feet from the right. So it's going to go right and back a little bit. So if it's inside that feed room, the ejection port was also inside that feed room. So if you're thinking the barrel is anywhere from 12 to 18 inches, like he said, he can't, he doesn't know for sure, but you can pretty much tell from the wound in his chest, it was an assault off situation. It was probably an intact rifle. So again, you take the length of that barrel, this person was right up on Paul, but they

had hidden himself inside that room. Okay, guys, I'm hearing in my ear that we are now being joined by Nicholas Reagan, anchor reporter with Live 5 joining us. Hey, Nicholas, thank you for being with us. Nicholas, I bet you could have heard a pin drop in that courtroom when this came out. Nicholas, take a listen to our cut seven about once the second shot was fired, Paul never moved again. Listen. Once Paul received that second shot, he never walked again. He never made any movement. Any movement he made was involuntary, and it was due to gravity pulling his body down to the ground.

When you sustain an injury to your brain like that, that ceases all movement. So he was found outside the feed door. He fell over forward after sustaining that movement. Some wounds are fatal later. You can actually see someone that receives a fatal wound and I've seen them run 100 yards. They can move for a little while. This is not that type of wound. Once he received this wound, it ceased all movement. And Nicholas Reagan joining us. Nicholas, now we heard Dr. Michelle Dupree put a little perfume on the pig. She said that Paul's brain was dislocated.

His brain was down by his feet. What was the jury reaction when that testimony came out? You know, you're right. This has been a day that has been very much different to the days earlier in the week where the jury almost seemed to have gotten lost in some of those very technical details. But definitely today, the jury much more attentive, much more focused, and you highlighted it there, one of those moments when Kinsey was mentioning how that second shot to Paul was instantly fatal and he fell just outside of that feed room door. It was very quiet. It was very solemn in there. And of course, the jury was just honed in on everything that Kinsey was saying throughout all of this,

because he was such an incredible witness. And he continues to bring more and more, both technical expertise, but also in a way that everyday people can understand so you you nailed the you hit the nail on the head there when you when you said you could hear a pin drop in the courtroom uh especially for that moment you know ronnie richter joining me south carolina lawyer high profile lawyer veteran trial lawyer he's representing the satterfield family ronnie it's one thing for us to all discuss the angle, the trajectory path, the what each blood spatter or spot or droplet means and what does it prove and where where did the what was the ejection path from the shotgun. But what I'm thinking about something that was just said by a witness.

No, actually it was by Jeff Gentry out of Fresno. He saw the shooter, probably his father. I couldn't help but think about my own son and my own daughter. Because that's what's happening here. And very often, Ronnie Richter, we get caught up in, oh, what does this blood drop prove? And what can I prove by the ejection path and the trajectory path? And on and on. But these are real people.

This is someone's son that, according to the state, turned around and saw his father on the wrong end of a barrel. Yeah, Nancy, you're a reasonable person. And I think what you're articulating is reasonable doubt. And it's the first of many reasonable doubts that the defense has raised in the case. Actually, that's not at all what I was saying. That's not at all what I was saying. That's not at all what I was saying. I was saying the shocking nature of turning and realizing it's your father. If it's your father, if it's your father, I can for me still, if I have a criticism of the state's case, I think they're doing a fabulous job, but too many dots, not enough lines. So I've yet to see the connection that ties it back to Alex. And I think one place where the jury got lost was...

Oh, you mean, what about him being there in the kennel, the crime scene, about three minutes before the murders, the gunshot residue on his clothes and his hand, the blood on his steering wheel, the lying about his alibi, the intimidation of witnesses, the money motive. None of that is connecting the dots for you. I don't know that it's enough. I don't know that it's enough because you have to overcome what you just said, that the thought that someone would actually do that to their son face to face, close range, gun under the chin, blow the back of his head off and the question that still lingers is is why you know i get it he's under financial pressure we we uncovered those financial

crimes we we brought forward the evidence that led to many indictments against him and to his disbarment so i'm very familiar with those financial crimes but does financial stress lead someone to break so badly that they literally blow their son's head off without any real, any real strife in that relationship? That, that, that is still a bridge that I think the state has to cross. Okay, to Cheryl McCollum, I hate to break it to Ronnie Richter, but I've prosecuted a lot of child homicides and the killer is the father and or the mother. A lot more than I even want to think about. Abuse, child molestation, sodomy, pimping your kid out, getting your kid high, beating your kid out getting your kid high beating your kid starving your kid killing

your child that i see it every single day of my life maybe everybody else has it but i have so it's not that hard for me to embrace the state's theory we have an entire system set up entire agency set up because children are abused by their parents. There's no question this happens all the time. What is shocking here for everybody that isn't used to our world, Nancy, is that Paul absolutely not only saw his shooter, he probably spoke to him right before he was shot because the call turned around. That's why he was shot in the chest. So something got his attention. And not only did he know who the killer was, when he turned to try to leave and get away, he knew what was coming next.

And there's the other issue. Nicholas Reagan joining me. Nicholas, not only, well, and I hear Ronnie Richter arguing, look, you got to give me more if you want me to believe a father killed his son. Well, I'll give you some more. What about not just his own financial world crumbling in, but a multi-million dollar lawsuit filed against him by Mallory Beach's family because of that son, Paul. And then amazingly, Nicholas, after Paul is murdered, not long after that, there's a settlement in the Mallory Beach case. Because who are you going to put on the stand paul's dead and not only that wasn't there evidence that murdoch had a fifty thousand dollar a week opioid addiction yeah you know you're talking about uh curtis eddie smith cousin eddie as uh lots of folks like to refer to him too and that was actually how we

started the day was with the uh defense sort of trying to backtrack with the judge and saying that they hadn't opened the door to that specific case. Of course, the judge said, yes, you did. You did that yesterday when you mentioned Smith and $50,000 a week. You know, they referenced that that was in relation to debts that Smith owed that he was getting money from Murdoch. But Smith had all of these all of these debts to one of the gangs down here for drug money. But the state has argued that, of course, they the the gang wasn't concerned about Murdoch and wouldn't have wouldn't have actually killed him because they knew that he was good for the money. And, you know, that was sort of one of the one of the the back and forth.

The defense has always sort of hinted that somebody else, while they have plainly hinted that somebody else committed these these homicides and maybe suggested that it was a gang down here that did it. Of course, we haven't seen any evidence actually presented of that, but certainly the defense is sort of trying to do this defense through confusion tactic where they just continue to pick away and ask questions of all these witnesses to really, again, just try and create confusion confusion we'll have to wait till they actually call their own witnesses to see what their defense is going to be do i have this right and this is a yes no question the defense is pursuing the line of inquiry that because cousin curtis edward smith Curtis Edward Smith owed money to a gang the cowboy gang and apparently they spell their name c-o-w-b-o-i just to be different the cowboy gang okay so Curtis Edward Smith owes money to them so they come kill Alex Murdoch's family?

Doesn't make any sense. How did they even know the family was going to be there that night? Remember? How would they have known that? Maggie didn't even want to go. And Murdoch talked her into it. Guilted her out about his father getting sick. So the theory actually is going to be that the cowboy gang, Murdoch doesn't owe them any money,

but they come kill his family because of curtis edward smith they kill the family of the cash cow murdoch you're absolutely right about that you know um the the defense again hasn't specifically said that uh but that's sort of almost what they've been kind of hinting at is that there was okay somebody else killed molly or maggie and paul um who was it well maybe it was one of these uh gangsters down here we we just don't know right and you know what maybe it's my producer sitting over there maybe sydney did it hey sheryl mccallum what about that theory the cowboy gang did it it's gonna wash out and the reason is in order to do a hit where you send a message, everybody has to understand it. It's got to be real clear. Nobody in the first day, the first week, the first month, nobody mentioned any gang

related hit. Nothing. There's not going to be anything from the Department of Corrections. There's not going to be anything online. Didn't happen. Wasn't the deal. And killing Maggie and Paul would not have sent a message to Cousin Eddie about any drug-related money owed. I mean, if they wanted to get back at Cousin Eddie, Curtis Edward Smith, they would kill his family or his dog or burn his house down. Not Alex Murnaug's. Go ahead, Dr. Dupree. Exactly. And Nancy, there was no other evidence at the scene of the crime for anyone else being there. In addition, Alex was there within about four or so minutes of the murders and he saw or heard no one else. It just

doesn't make sense. Guys, also because of a line of questioning the defense pursuit earlier on, the state had to come in and address the theory that Paul committed suicide, which makes no sense at all. But I want you to take a listen to our cut eight. Did you see any support or evidence in this crime scene that could support that the injuries suffered by Paul were in any manner a suicide or self-inflicted? I don't see the possibility knowing that it's not a contact shotgun wound and I'm fairly strong and I'm bigger than Paul was and I don't know of any way you could hold that shotgun out and shoot yourself in that direction at that angle and put that biological material on top that door like that. I don't think it's possible. Jeff Gentry joining us from Fresno Forensics Crime Scene

Investigator. Could you address the testimony you just heard? Absolutely. So over the course of my career, I've investigated well over 300 to 350 suicides, many of them with gunshot wounds. And so you would first have to explain how he was shot in the chest from a distance. And then that's unexplainable for a self-inflicted wound. And then the trajectory that was calculated by Mr. Kinsey would also have to be explained that it was from a distance of three to four feet away and then at an upward angle. And that's near impossible. So everything about the scene suggests that somebody else from a distance shot Paul. Not that any of this was self-inflicted. There was no evidence at the scene to explain a self-inflicted wound. You know, yesterday we talked a lot about Curtis Edward Smith, called Cousin Eddie, that the judge would not allow his evidence of the so-called roadside shooting where Murdoch reportedly bargained with Eddie to shoot him in the head to get life insurance proceeds for the surviving son, Buster.

I don't think that was the reason he did it, but that said, today there was a huge about face. Christine, could you please play our cut one? The judge has now reversed that decision. Take a listen. Mr. Griffin introduced the relationship between the defendant and Eddie Smith. The court conducted a pretrial hearing outside the presence of the jury, addressed the issue, made it clear that the roadside shooting was a bridge too far. Then the defense decided to build a road over that bridge as if they could dance through fire without getting burns, guard, or anything. The door was open. Defense sought to introduce the relationship between the defendant and Eddie Smith

and then to seek to infer that Eddie Smith might have been or should be a suspect in the murder. The state is entitled to explore this relationship. You know, I hate it, Ronnie Richter, fellow lawyer, when lawyers dash around the courthouse throwing around fancy legal phrases, but I'm going to use one right now. Boy, did they screw up. I mean, big time. Explain, Ronnie. Yeah, it's a major gaffe. So the opening the door concept is when a party has successfully convinced a judge to keep out of

evidence matters that would be damaging to them, they open the door by asking questions about the very same subject matter that they just got the court to exclude. And that's exactly what happened here. The defense does not want anything in the evidence about that roadside shooting for good reason so they successfully blocked that from the trial and then right on top of that they followed up by asking questions about alex's relationship with cousin eddie and went so far down that line that the judge correctly reversed and said look i kept it out for you you asked me to but if you're going to if you're going to ask questions about the same subject matter, then the door is now open again. And so we're going to get into the roadside shooting, which I do think is pretty damning for Team Murdoch.

You know what? When I would explain legal concepts to juries, I like to use illustrations. And in this case, I like to use the illustration of a vampire. We all know vampire lore, don't we? Well, a vampire can't get well, everybody in the illustration of a vampire. We all know vampire lore, don't we? Well, a vampire can't get, well, everybody in the studio is shaking their head yes. You know a vampire can't get into your home unless you invite them in. You know that, right? Don't you know that, Ronnie Richter? I do know that. Okay, see?

You know that, right? So does the jury. So the state could not bring in under the law a prior bad act. That's reputation that has no bearing on this murder trial unless and until the defense opens the door by bringing it up no matter how tangentially themselves. And that's what they did. They go, judge, judge, judge, don't let the state bring in the roadside shooting where Curtis Edward Smith shoots Murdoch in the head for money. Don't. And the judge says, you know what, you're right.

And then they turn right around and try to frame Curtis Edward Smith and the cowboy gang for the murders. I mean, Cheryl McCollum, 24 hours had not even passed by. They get the evidence out, and then they open the door to let it come in. And it's coming in, Cheryl. Oh, it's coming in. Believe me. And it's going to be remarkable once they outline this with the totality of everything else they have. I think it's going to be a remarkable testimony.

And Nicholas Reagan, can we talk about something? Nicholas joining us in WCSC Live 5. You can find him on Twitter at NickReaganLive5. Nicholas, I don't buy that whole theory that Murdoch wanted Curtis Smith to shoot him in the head to get insurance proceeds for his surviving son. Buster. Number one, are we sure there was insurance proceeds? But number two, when has Murdoch ever thought about anybody else other than himself? I think the roadside

shooting was set up so cops could then be misled to believe oh the shooting of Maggie and Paul was botched they were trying to get Alex Murdoch that's what it was so he's been the target all along not he's the killer all along I think that he was shot to throw off suspicion from himself. Daisy I think everybody thought that when they when that news came in that he was shot to throw off suspicion from himself. Daisy, I think everybody thought that when that news came in, that it was definitely a diversionary tactic to sort of say, hey, the family is being targeted. But I want to go back to something that one of your earlier panelists said about that, letting opening the door, letting this testimony come through. I believe it was Mr. Eric Bland who

tweeted himself that he thinks that the defense is not stupid and that they did this on purpose to try and goad the state into bringing Smith to the stand. Of course, you know, Smith brings all sorts of issues for both sides. So, you know, is this a tactic the defense is attempting to actually get Smith on the stand? We'll just have to wait and find out. I can tell you that as of this morning, we were told by a source close to all of the how the witnesses come in that Smith was was not being prepared to take the stand today. Of course, he still could, but it wasn't necessarily on the schedule for sure. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace You know, Ronnie Richter, one concern I had about the defense opening the door to Curtis Everett Smith's testimony is

if it had been allowed at the get-go, an appeals court could have said, oh, no, no, you tainted the jury with prejudicial information that was not probative as to the murders. But now that the defense basically begged for it to come in by opening the door, that sets up an appeal on ineffective assistance of counsel. Well, it could, and I tend to believe it was a gaffe. I think they just went too far with the Cousin Eddie evidence after they had successfully kept it out. I do think if there is a conviction in the case, when the jury hears the facts about that roadside shooting, the entire setup is so ridiculous that he fakes a flat tire he gets eddie to come by and take a shot at him this has nothing to do with suicide for hire he calls 9-1-1 to report that some stranger just drove by and tried to kill him it's obvious that he is trying to set up the false narrative that the murdoch

killer is still at large and now alec is being hunted. And he's doing that because he's trying to get the hounds off of his trail because he knows from that interview in August that they're focusing in on him. So innocent people don't set up elaborate lies like that. No, when he should have been out hunting for the real killer. Christine, just look and see if you have Murdoch's 911 call from the road sign incident because the man has been shot in the head he's talking about how he was shot by a stranger and he had been changing his tire blah blah blah finally the dispatch lady says well sir were you shot because he's talking about everything other than hey lady I just got shot he's talking about everything other than, hey lady, I just got shot.

He's saying everything but. And to Dr. Michelle Dupree, pathologist, medical examiner, former detective. Come on, remember? He had a lawyer trot out and say, oh, he's had a brain injury. You know, all these horrible injuries had occurred from the roadside shooting. He came into court a couple of days later with a Band-aid. It was a band-aid, not one of those big gauze bandages around your hand. He had a little, he might as well have a door band-aid for all I care. It was a band-aid that big. That was the injury. Exactly, Nancy. I mean, this was, this was obviously a setup from

the very beginning. And when he did come into court with that Band-Aid, it was it was totally obvious. And again, you know, if someone was really trying to shoot to kill him, they would have done a better job. They would have taken a second shot. You know, they would have shot him right the first time. This was such a hoax. You know, Cheryl McCollum. Yeah, I was just coming to you because we just were talking about that. Go ahead. Yes, the shooter should have done like Alec and shot more than one. Second, if the defense is going to call Cousin Eddie, it will be a fail.

Because what it will do, it will show the jury that their client associates the criminal. The other thing, the suicide, that was also a fail to even entertain that for a moment normally if somebody takes a weapon and blows their brains out the weapon is right beside them there was no gun there so logic will tell you guys telling this jury guys christine managed to find the 9-1-1 call because she's amazing. Please listen to Murdoch on this 911 call. Listen. Okay, what's going on? I got a flat tire, and I stopped, and somebody stopped to help me.

And when I turned my back, they tried to shoot me. Oh, okay. Were you shot? Yes. But, I mean, I'm okay. You shot where? Where were you shot at? Huh? Did they actually shoot you or they tried to shoot you? They shot me. Okay. Did you guys hear that? He starts it off. The man has been shot in the head all right his lawyer trots out to say he's got a brain injury and the first thing he says is oh I got a flat tire what is that what you're talking about Cheryl McCullum I mean without he got the shot in the head and I thought the guy could come

back and shoot me again that would be the last thing I would be worried about to be flying through those woods where he had pulled over by the side of the road and trying to hide for Pete's sake. Absolutely. And when he's asked, where were you shot? He pauses. Oh, that's his answer. Why wouldn't he be screaming for help? I was shot in the head. Get somebody out here. He doesn't. And once Curtis Edward Smith is on the stand, the floodgates are open now about him being Murdoch's drug dealer. About 50 grand a week spent on drugs. And, you know, Ronnie Richter, let me circle back to you, young man. Because you're saying, how could a father do this? How about a father that was high out of his gourd on opioids?

What about that, Richter? Look, Nancy, I'm not saying he didn't do it. I am in the camp that believes that he did. I'm concerned that the state is not satisfying his burden. But if the Cousin Eddie roadside shooting comes in and the jury gets a sense that these are the links that the guy went to just to get the hounds off his trail, I think it's going to be the thing that pushes it over the top. And not for nothing. He was driving a brand new Mercedes with run-flat tires.

The entire setup is such an obvious ruse. Again, innocent people don't go to these links to try to create this false narrative that someone's hunting them well it proves one thing about Alex Murdaugh well it proves many things but it also proves when he's in a jam he pulls a gun that's what happened there he wanted cops to think he was a target so he had somebody pull a gun let me ask you a couple of lightning-round questions Ronnie Richter these are yes no I know that's hard for a trial lawyer like you and myself to answer in a yes, no.

But wouldn't you agree that a reasonable doubt does not mean any doubt or to a mathematical certainty such as two with two equals four? Do you agree with that, Ronnie? Absolutely. And isn't it true

that you just stated, I'm in the camp, I think he did it. Didn't you say that you just stated I'm in the camp I think he did it didn't you say that I did say that okay so if you think if you have deduced that Murdoch is in fact

guilty of double murder then hasn't the case been proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt because you believe he did it no it has case been proven to you beyond a re-stumble doubt? You believe he did it. You believe he did it. No, it has not been proven to me. Oh. And there's one missing piece.

I still have trouble with the two weapons. All right. I'm having trouble with two weapons, one shooter, both of the weapons being long rifles. I don't have a problem with it at all. What about it, Dr. Michelle Dupree? You and I have gone over and over that theory. I don't have a problem with that at all either because I think, again, it was a forensic countermeasure. I think that he set this up beforehand. It's very easy to go from one gun to another. I think, actually, he didn't want to take the time to reload after he shot Paul the first time. So it made sense to

have two guns. It's simply a forensic countermeasure. It means nothing. It was absolutely not two shooters. Guys, let's address Maggie's wounds before we have to go back in the courtroom. Christine, could you please play cut nine? Her fatal wounds were she had an abrasion or a burn on the left side of her abdomen from the outside in. That bullet followed a straight path, it entered the end of her breast and did extensive damage to the end of her breast, entered her left jaw, side of her face area, and went into her brain. That's the first fatal injury. And it was immediate, and she dropped right where she was at. I saw no evidence that her body had been manipulated, moved, or rolled over. The second fatal injury was down into her head,

and it actually did what in the day they call a keyhole injury just from appearances. The entrance and exit in the top of her head were so close it made one big injury, and then it entered into her upper shoulders and went down into her body. That would have also been a fatal wound, but it was second, in my opinion. Jeff Gentry, are you convinced, based on what you just heard from Dr. Kinsey, that Maggie was down when she was shot fatally in the head. Yeah. So I heard Mr. Kinsey give some testimony that there were some blood flows down her leg that would indicate that at some point she was upright when she was shot initially.

But both of those fatal wounds, she was executed. Whoever shot her wanted her dead and wanted to make sure that she was dead, shooting her multiple times with multiple fatal wounds. But no doubt that she was on the ground and died a pretty horrific death there at the scene. And from my experience, and I'd like to hear everybody else weigh in on this if you have a different theory. Multiple gunshot wounds to the head. I mean, you know the person is dead after the first gunshot. Why do you keep shooting? Why do you shoot someone over and over and over? That, in my mind, is a crime of passion. To keep shooting them.

I mean, you know, a random burglar or a hit. No, you don't see repeat gunshot wounds. Now, a lot has been made about what many have said is a tire impression on Maggie's leg. We heard that from the defense and cross-examination. Let's put that to rest. Take a listen to our cut 10. Tell me what these images reflect. That is that Polaris ATV side-by-side that I mentioned.

Is it your expert opinion that this mark on the back of Maggie's leg is a tire impression and not anything else? That is a tire trade impression. That is my opinion. And in your opinion, based on these very significant mirror images and accidentals and that sort of thing, is that most likely that specific tire tread that's on the back of that? It is most likely that tire. If it's not that tire, it's a similar tire with the same tread design. I saw no evidence that she was run over, so she had to make contact at some point in time. Yes, isn't it true, Dr. Dupree, if she had been run over, she would have other bodily injuries,

but there were none. So what are they trying to say, doctor? Absolutely, Nancy. I actually, I think this is sort of a red herring. I think that it means nothing. I think she probably just backed up against the tire to the ATV. It wasn't even a bruise. It wasn't there when the pathologist examined the body. It was just dried mud or dirt on the back of the leg. I don't think it means anything. And guys, we now know based on what our expert Jeff Gentry and Dr. Michelle Dupree and Dr. Kinsey say Paul's shooter was standing in the doorway, we believe, of the kennel. But what about Maggie's shooter? Take a listen to our Cut 11. Or any signs of murder evidence. Guns, bloody clothes, or anything.

Until well after sometime in mid to late September. Is that correct? That is correct. Well, if a thorough, tight, quick, prompt investigation had been taken of the Moselle property, the route to Almeida, and the Alameda property, that could have possibly excluded Alec from this circle, couldn't it? If you found no evidence of guns, bloody clothes, or anything, right? If you know what you're looking for and where to look,

and have some type of information that would lead you to that area, yes. And that opportunity was missed. Would you agree with that? I wouldn't say it was missed because it wasn't known about other than... Okay, what I'm trying to get is cut 11. And this was flagged on social media. Murdoch apparently nodding as the pathologist talks about a bullet through Paul's arm and we hear about wadding which tells us where the shooter was at

the time take a listen to our cut 11 how about raise your left arm for me please so and his arm was not raised but I'm going to point out it comes out we'll just see some pictures in a minute okay turn a little bit this way so it would have come out right under his arm yes we do have the exit pellet wounds there and we also have wanting doing that yeah we have a lot of stuff in the undersideit. And then it goes through his arm. Yes. Still coming front to back? Well it's from it's left to right but there is a slight front to back because we don't have we have some exit wounds on the back. Okay that's what everybody's talking about on social media right there. Alex Murda going yeah yeah like yep that's the way it happened all right. Guys I'm hearing in my ear I'm not going to get to play that sound for you that would possibly indicate where the shooter was standing when

maggie was shot because i'm being told everybody is heading back in the courtroom people are starting to go back into the courthouse main entrance right now getting ready for the jury to come in so we've got to go too thank you for being with us today for our live lunch show. Let's go back in the courtroom. Bye, everybody. Thank you. This is an iHeart Podcast.