Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Body Bags: Double Murder in the Low Country (episode 2)

Episode Date: October 9, 2021

As news comes out the Maggie Murdaugh had sought the advice of a divorce attorney, Death Scene Investigator Joseph Scott Morgan takes us back to the Low Country of South Carolina to take a closer look at the double homicide of Maggie and Paul Murdaugh. Mother and son were found shot to death on June 7 at their family’s hunting lodge. Alex Murdaugh – Paul’s father and Maggie’s husband – discovered the bodies that evening after returning to the property. The victims, who were located outside the residence, had multiple gunshot wounds. No suspects have been named.Subscribe to 'Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan :Apple PodcastsSpotifyiHeart  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Body bags. Joe Scott Morgan has been on over 10,000 death scenes, and now he takes apart, in a way that only he can, the homicides that we are all investigating. Body bags. Joe Scott Morgan. Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan.

I don't know about y'all, but I got to tell you, I couldn't even fathom driving up to my property where my family had probably celebrated holidays and enjoyed one another's company for years and years. Getting out of my vehicle and 10 o'clock at night, it's dark everywhere and looking off in the distance and seeing two forms laying on the ground. It's the bodies of my wife and my son. Apparently shot down there in the darkness on the evening of June 7th, 2021. That's when this nightmare started in the low country

of South Carolina. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan, and this is Body Bags. Joining me today is Jackie Howard, executive producer of Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Jackie, what can you tell us about what I'm calling the Murdoch executions that took place on that fateful night. Joe, as you mentioned, Alexander Alec Murdoch found their bodies around 10 p.m. near the kennels of their 1,700-acre property. During the 911 call, Alex Murdoch was crying, and you could hear him telling the operators that he found his wife and his son shot. Details of this incident have been redacted as those reports have been released. But one of the main pieces of information that we do know is that the Murdaws,

Paul and Maggie, were shot with two different firearms. Paul, 22, was shot multiple times with a shotgun. His mother, 52-year-old Maggie, was killed with a semi-automatic rifle. And this has started an investigation that has taken so many twists and turns, including finding relations to three other deaths and a possible suicide attempt by the father, Alex Murdaugh. At the time of his death, Paul Murdaugh was facing a three felony count of boating under the influence charges concerning the accidental death of 19 year old Mallory Beach. She was ejected from the boat when Paul, who was allegedly drunk driving at that time in February of 2019, ran into a piling and Mallory was ejected from the boat. There's also the death of Gloria Satterfield, the housekeeper who died from a slip and fall. There's also Stephen Smith. He was a 19-year-old who was

found in the middle of the roadway in July of 2020. There is information linking that death to this case as well. So far, no one has been criminally charged in connection with Maggie and Paul Murdoch's death. The only charges that have been leveled so far were the charges that Paul Murdoch was facing in relationship to the Mallory Beach death. So, Joe, there is a saying in broadcasting, there are more questions than answers. And in this case, it is so true. There are so many more questions than answers. So let's see what we can kind of figure out here. Let's start with finding the bodies. Alex Murdoch called

911. The bodies were found near the kennels on the property. Where do we start? When I heard about this case, it's not too often that you encounter a case as an investigator where you have actually a double, what would seem at least to be a double execution style homicide. And that's kind of what it's been portrayed as. And I have to say, the bodies, as we all know, in, you know, in most death investigations are the central factor in a case. So just imagine, if you will, a wagon wheel that has a central hub. The bodies are actually that central hub and everything else, just get this word picture in your mind, everything else just kind of radiates out from there, any kind of evidence gathering, that sort of thing. So the bodies for our purposes are the most essential piece of information, or they at

least can give us the most essential information in this case. So the one thing that you want to consider as you're beginning to look at these bodies, and remember, Alec Murdoch actually observed these bodies first, which is critical. You know, he is, he's the father, he's the husband, he's the one that actually found the bodies as opposed to anyone else. It wasn't hired help. It wasn't extended family. It was him that had eyes on first. So, you know, as an investigator, one of the things I'm going to want to know and want to observe here is the physical placement of the bodies relative to one another, you know, because it's so odd to have a double, like I said, double execution. So you've got essentially a mother and her son were, when they observed these bodies, were they lying side by side, just kind of neatly there, you know, that would, if you saw that, that would give you an indication that more than likely they had been placed very close to one

another, as opposed to, say, for instance, a random type of event where you have an individual that is essentially shot, and then the other one is chased down and shot in maybe close proximity, but in kind of a disordered fashion. But were these bodies, when initially found, were they lying side by side? Say the shoulders are parallel to one another, side by side, so that their feet were perfectly aligned, their heads were perfectly aligned. Right there is one piece of information that I can fill in. According to the police reports, their bodies were several feet apart from each other. So what is that going to tell you? I think my question would be, as been reported by the news,

what does several feet mean? Are we talking three feet? Are we talking six feet? Are we talking 10 feet away? Maybe if we look at it from that perspective, maybe if it was several feet, like, I don't know, maybe up to 20 feet away, maybe you had an individual that had taken one of the victims and shot them.

And the other person was essentially held in one location and they were shot separately. Maybe they were forced to watch. Can you imagine the horror in that? Or were they essentially taken apart? Because, you know, one of the things that I'm thinking about in this particular case, since we've got, and we'll get to this in just a minute, but since we've got two weapons here, that implies to me that we probably have two shooters. Because why would one individual need two separate weapons? And we're not talking about pistols here, okay?

We're talking about long arms. So it gives me an idea that you have two individuals holding these two separate weapons at a distance. Well, maybe the bodies were separated, you know, as they've put several feet away, maybe they're separated because neither one of the shooters wanted to be shot. Maybe they didn't want to transfer evidence to one another. Maybe they did it not in sync, but they did it essentially with a pause, perhaps, to send a message or maybe to exact information from these two individuals. Maybe an individual had information that they wanted for another, and they essentially liquidated one before they liquidated the other. And I think all of these things are probably going through the minds of the police officers out there. Could one person, you know, we talk about having two different weapons, but could one person

have managed both weapons considering one of them was an assault type rifle? Yeah. You know, that's very interesting since, you know, you bring up this term assault rifle. And when you think about it, I'd like listeners to think about a tactical weapon, kind of a military grade rifle, you know, kind of like what our troops carry. An M4 carbine in civilian parlance that's known as an AR15, fires what's called a 5.56 millimeter round. Yeah, you could shoulder sling that weapon and you can put it, you know, kind of, or you can chest sling it too and carry the shotgun and be free handed and doing it. But why? Why would you do that? Why would you need the utility of two long arms? Because long arms are hard to manage, okay? You have to swing the muzzle around and all

these sorts of things. And if you're attempting to essentially kill two individuals, you want to have kind of an economy in movement. You want to be able to herd them in one particular direction. And that's another thing that comes in here that brings us back to the bodies. With the type of weapons that were used, and we know that each body was shot multiple times, what kind of damage does that do to a body? One of the things that we would be looking for with both of these weapons platforms, both a shotgun and a tactical weapon like this, the damage or the trauma that both of these weapons platforms, both a shotgun and a tactical weapon like this, the damage or the trauma that both of these weapons would inflict on either one of these subjects is going to be over the top. It's going to be massive, if you will.

And a lot of that is going to be dependent upon where they are shot anatomically, where these are arranged. Say, for instance, if you have an individual that is shot in the head with a shotgun, not only are you having to deal with the actual projectile that is coming out of the end of that weapon, and think about this, if it was buckshot, you're talking about multiple, essentially 32 caliber slugs or pellets that are going downrange. So it'd be like being shot multiple times by a 32 caliber pistol, only at the same time. So just factor that into your thought relative to the amount of damage. And not only that, coming out of the muzzle of this weapon, you've got a tremendous amount of gas.

So let's just say, for instance, someone took that weapon and placed it at the back of an individual's head. Not only are the projectiles being driven into the body, into the head, you're also talking about hot air. And what does hot air do? Well, it expands. And that's why you get these grotesque injuries sometimes, because we all know that hot air expands. It's superheated. And as it expands, it just does great destruction to the body. And, you know, from what we understand, at least relative to Paul, he was probably shot multiple times with a shotgun. So it'd be very, and from an investigative standpoint, when you're examining the body,

you want to try to understand, well, what attitude was his body in when he was fired upon? Was he twisted to the left? Was he facing the shooter, the muzzle of the weapon, if you will? Had he turned his back in order to run away, to try to put as much distance between himself and the shooter. And that's all critical when we're trying to assess the scene and the body and its relationship to everything else that surrounds this environment. We're talking about the execution style murders of both Maggie and Paul Murdaugh in the low country of South

Carolina. Specifically, we've been discussing what kind of damage can be expected to be inflicted by the weapons that were used in this case. Joe, talking about whether or not one person could have handled both weapons and been able to do this. Let's talk about the distance. How are we going to know how far away? I mean, obviously one of these weapons was a rifle, so that's a long distance weapon. The other was a shotgun, which is not necessarily a long distance weapon. Why those weapon choices for one? And two, how are we going to know how far away these people were when these actions were taken? It's always been my opinion that you see people in crimes, for instance, where a firearm is involved. They essentially use long arms, which you can classify both of these weapons, a shotgun

and a rifle, as long arms. That means they're shoulder-fired weapons. They use these as a means to terrorize an individual, to control them with power. It's much more intimidating. I don't think any of us would like to have a pistol pointed at us, but you can imagine to be staring down the barrel of a shotgun as opposed to some tiny little pistol that somebody has in their hand. Automatically, you have their attention. You have everybody's attention.

Matter of fact, if you're walking down the street with one of these things, people are going to notice you. It's not like you got a pistol in your pocket. So when you look at this and you begin to think, well, why in the world would they use these heavy weapons, essentially, from a civilian standpoint, on both a young man and his mother, why would these be brought to bear? Well, you know, part of me, I think that they were the tools that were at hand for whoever the killer is in this particular case. It's what they had access to.

It's what they thought that they would need to use as opposed to just merely using a handgun. And certainly, you've got two individuals. And let's think about this a little bit. You've got two individuals that obviously have a will of their own. How are you going to control them? We're going to have to control them through intimidation as you're maybe moving them out to this location in order to end their life. Nobody's going to go willingly, but you stick the muzzle of that weapon in their face or

in their back and you begin to kind of prod them along toward what's going to wind up being their end. You have to have that force behind it. And I'm not talking about the pulling of the trigger. I'm just talking about the intimidation factor. Now, when it gets to both of these weapons, how are we going to tell how far away the individuals were? With a shotgun, let's say, for instance, they're using ammunition like a buckshot, for instance. And again, this is the buckshot inside these shotgun shells. It's about, I don't know, roughly 32 calibers.

And that's a pistol round, but it's a pellet. And there's multiple of these in here in each one of the shells. 32 calibers, and that's a pistol round, but it's a pellet. And there's multiple of these in here in each one of the shells. And so as you're firing this weapon, you're sending these pellets out of the end of the barrel, but that's not the only thing coming out of the end of the barrel. You've got unburned powder. You've got actually smoke that's coming out of the end of the barrel. You've got fire.

And then you've got two components which are unique to shotgun shells. You've got what's called wadding, which is kind of a fiber disc that's down in the shell. And that travels out of the end of the barrel. I've actually found those embedded in bodies at autopsies. And then you have something else. It's called a shotgun shell cup. And it's a cup that's made out of plastic. It's got four little petals, just like a flower, if you can imagine that. And the projectiles themselves are contained within this little cup. And when you fire that shotgun shell and those pellets come out of the end of the barrel,

that wadding comes out, which is a little, you know, almost, it looks like a felt disc, but you've got this cup that comes out and it deploys in the air, these little wings, these little petals spread, and there's four of them. And you know, if you're close enough to the body, you get a presentation, it's a contusion that comes up on the body. It's called cup slap. And it's very unique. It looks like a huge hand has come down and driven fingers into the body. Now, if you're outside of a range of, I don't know, over about seven to eight feet with one of these shotgun shells, that cup is just going to fly away. But if you're closer than that, if you're closer than that, there's a high probability that that cup is going going to fly away. But if you're closer than that, if you're closer than that,

there's a high probability that that cup is going to strike the body. So what do we know as forensic scientists? Well, we know if we have cup slap that kind of overlies the holes that the projectiles created, we know that we're talking about a very specific distance or range of fire when it comes to placing the shooter in relation to the decedent. Is that something you've got to worry about with the rifle as well? You know, the rifle is significantly different than the shotgun. First off, you can tell just in the name, Jackie.

You know, the name rifle, it actually implies that you're talking about a rifled barrel. And just so y'all understand, that means that the barrel actually has grooves in the barrel. It twists in one direction, either to the left or the right. And it's very specific. It actually leaves marks on the sides of the bullet. And that's one of the ways that we identify the bullet to match it up to a weapon. But when it comes to range of fire, rifle, the rifle is highly accurate. It's very, very powerful.

So compared to the shotgun, the rifle has a higher muzzle velocity, which essentially means that the rate at which the projectile travels out of the end of that barrel is what we refer to as supersonic. That means it's above the speed of sound at that point in time. So it gives you kind of an idea. You know, we have that large crack that you hear when a rifle is fired.

Now, one thing that does come out of the end of the barrel of a rifle, other than that projectile that just kind of slams into the body, is also going to be unburned powder. Now, this is significant because dependent upon the spread of that powder and how widely it has spread gives you an idea as to the range of fire. So just think about this. If you're looking at a rifle or a handgun, and handguns are rifled as well, after about 36 inches, the powder is just going to kind of drift away because it's not very aerodynamic. Because that bullet is spinning and it's staying right on target, it's going to drive right into the target.

So if we're within about 36 inches of that body, guess what's going to happen? Hot gas is going to come out of the end of that muzzle. It's going to sear the wound potentially. We're also going to get powder, unburned powder, embedded into the surface surrounding the wound. And one more thing, we're going to get something that's referred to many times as bullet wipe. And bullet wipe is the grease that actually comes, you know, when bullets are fitted in to a cartridge, they're actually kind of greased up so that they will fit in and then it's crimped. You'll actually get what's called bullet wipe, where you'll see this kind of black material that's surrounding the wound itself.

And this gives us an idea as to the range of fire with a rifle. Joe, just in listening to your details about the positioning of the body, the types of ammunition that could be used, the distance, there are so many things there. You're looking at a crime scene that's going to take a tremendous amount of time to process. Oh my gosh. You know, hours, you know, it's one thing. And again, you know, I think folks can understand this pretty easily. I know if I can understand it, y'all can. The more bodies you have, the more evidence you're going to have, and the more time that's going to have to be expended. When SLED, that's the state police in South Carolina, showed up, they had to bring full force out there relative to their forensics

people to work the scene. And the way we do this, if we have multiple bodies at a scene, I've worked a lot of homicides where I have like a mass shooting. Okay. You don't have one investigator that's essentially working every individual person. Well, why is that? Well, because you're going to miss details. And trust me, in a case like this, there are a ton of details. So what will happen is that you will have a team of investigators that essentially will work these bodies individually,

and then they'll compile their reports. But, you know, when you begin to think about it, what do you have to recover at the scene relative to this shooting? You've got, if these were semi-automatic weapons that were being fired, that means you've got ejected shell casings. That's the spent casings. And you have to consider those as to where they were ejected to. Was the person moving around a lot when they're firing this weapon? So you've got spent brass, as it's called, all over the place or spent shotgun holes or shells all over the place. And that gives you an indication that not only were the victims maybe moving, but the shooter was moving,

kind of migrating around the body, if you will. So you have to take all of that into account. And then you have to compare where these two shootings took place and try to get a measurement for the distance apart that all of these shotgun shells are dispersed over. And one of the other reasons that it's so complicated, I'm still not convinced that they were absolutely shot at this location. We're talking about the brutal execution of a mother and her son. We were just discussing the nature of a crime scene and how layered this is when you not just have one body, but you have two bodies and not just one weapon, but two weapons. Joe, you just brought up a really good point about the location of the bodies and whether or not Paul and Maggie Murdoch were killed at this location.

We don't know that. So number one, how will we know if they were killed at this location? Or how will we know how the bodies got to this location if they weren't killed on the property? We cannot assume anything when it comes to a case involving a double homicide. And, you know, at this point, we cannot even assume that both Maggie and Paul were killed specifically at this location. Because the information has not been completely revealed at this time. I think that one of the questions we have to ask is where their bodies were found, where they were situated in this particular case. Is that actually where they died? Were they shot in another location perhaps,

and then brought to the location where Alec eventually found them? You know, and that, that has puzzled me relative to this case, you know, because there were a couple of vehicles out of the scene. I'd, you know, as an investigator, one of the questions I want to ask is, well, is there any indication that maybe they had been transported to that location? Their deceased bodies were taken out there or were the vehicles used to convey them there, you know, at gunpoint? Or were they summoned there? Were they summoned there to meet specifically at that location, to meet someone who would have access to that property?

You know, essentially what it comes down to is how did they arrive at their end, if you will? And that's a big question. So when you're thinking about this, you have to think, well, if they were not shot there and shot somewhere else on the property, did someone physically pick the bodies up, place them there, and lay them in these positions? Were they drug? Well, if they were drug to those locations, guess what we're going to have? We might have bloody drag marks that lead back through the grass there.

Maybe they were shot against a building somewhere and there's actually blood staining on a wall somewhere. But when we think about where they picked up and carried after they were injured, you know what that means? That means that whoever carried them, because the scene would have been a bloody mess, we would be dealing with something that's called blood transfer. And essentially, all that means is that the blood from these bodies would have transferred on to the individuals that were carrying that. It means that they would have just been covered in blood. Specifically, you think about a shotgun wound. They're grotesque. You're going to have a tissue that's blown apart. Individuals would be stained that would be touching the bodies.

And you would absolutely have to take your clothes off and burn them to, you know, get rid of any kind of evidence that you might find on clothing. And you would certainly have to bathe yourself very well afterwards. And you go back to the vehicles. Well, if they were transported in a vehicle after they had been shot, there would be blood staining that was left within that vehicle. And again, that's transfer blood. If they're shot in a vehicle, you're going to have more of a dynamic event in there where you have high velocity blood staining that'll be on the interior of the car. So we have

a lot of unanswered questions, but the great thing about forensic science is that if you have someone that's not necessarily telling you the truth, the science is going to actually reveal what the truth is because the numbers don't lie relative to this. And this case is actually going to come down to that. It's going to come down to attempting to assess the bodies, okay, which has been done at the autopsy. And it's going to be done in order to assess all of the evidence that surrounds those bodies. Think back to what we were talking about.

The bodies are the hub. They are the hub of the wagon wheel. And everything else radiates out from them. And then eventually it's all going to be tied back together because when they do, in fact, catch whoever it was that perpetrated these crimes, and this is two crimes. This is two separate homicides, you're talking about the ending, the brutal killing of these two individuals, folks are going to be charged and they're going to be prosecuted. And it is key that all of this

information, all the forensic science that's involved in this case, be tied up in a neat little package so that the people on the jury can understand it because this is a highly, highly complex case. I'm Joseph Scott Morgan, and this is Body Bags. You're listening to an iHeart Podcast.