Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - BOMBSHELL OPENS in Alex Murdaugh Murder Trial

Episode Date: January 26, 2023

Dramatic opening statements from both the prosecution and defense in the Alex Murdaugh murder trial as both attorneys laid out different versions of the same story.   Prosecutors say forensics will prove Murdaugh, 54, killed his wife and son. Defense attorney Dick Harpootlian says however that there is no forensic evidence to tie Murdoch to the murders. Harpootlian suggested that the crime may have been the work of two people because of two different weapons. The rifle that killed Maggie Murdaugh has not been found.  Murdaugh could be seen visually emotional as his attorney laid out in graphic detail the injuries Maggie and Paul Murdaugh suffered. Maggie Murdaugh, defense attorney Dick Harpootlian said, died running for her life, and Paul Murdaugh's brain was blown out of his skull.  Joining Nancy Grace today: Wendy Patrick- California prosecutor, Author of 'Red Flags;' Host: ‘Today with Dr. Wendy’ on KCBQ in San Diego; Twitter: @WendyPatrickPHD  Dr. Bethany Marshall - Psychoanalyst (Beverly Hills, CA); New Netflix show: 'Bling Empire' (Beverly Hills); Twitter: @DrBethanyLive  Sheryl McCollum - Forensic Expert, Founder: Cold Case Investigative Research Institute in Atlanta, GA; Twitter: @ColdCaseTips; Host: 'Zone 7' Irv Brandt- Former US Marshals Service International Investigations Branch; Author: "FLYING SOLO: Top of the World," available on Amazon; Twitter: @JackSoloAuthor  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 Jen Smith - Chief Reporter at DailyMail.com; Twitter: @Jen_e_Smith  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. We have liftoff. Finally, the double murder case against legal heir alex murdoch is off the ground sensational opening statements go down in a south carolina courtroom i'm nancy grace this is crime stories thank you for being with us here at fox nation and sirius xm 111 first of all listen to this prosecutors say forensics will prove murdoch's guilt after a perfect storm of circumstances came to a head. The state contends Maggie was killed with a weapon owned by the family that was never recovered.

And that a cell phone video captured at the murder scene just before the time of deaths puts Alec at the scene, contradicting his alibi that he only reached there when he discovered the bodies. And he was there just minutes, Maggie and Paul, just minutes before their cell phones go silent forever and ever. The defense argues there's no forensic evidence to tie Murdoch to the murders. No fingerprints, eyewitnesses, murder weapons. And despite the gruesome scene, no blood on Alec when police arrive. You would be covered in blood from head to foot.

The defense argues a video taken earlier in the evening shows Paul and Alec enjoying time together and that police pinned Alec as a suspect before investigating, even suggesting the crime may have been the work of two people because two different weapons were used. They have pounded that square peg in the round hole and you're going to hear about it. They've ignored some witnesses. Wow. The defense claiming the state ignored witnesses. Well, little known fact, the defense has subpoena power just like the state. If they want a witness brought in, all they have to do is go hand them a piece of paper and it's done.

I love it when the defense claims the state missed some witnesses that could exonerate the defendant. Guys, you were just hearing from our friends at NBC and hearing courtroom audio in the background. Well, we are off to the races. What happened in court and what's happening right now in court? Joining me in all-star panel, but first to chief reporter for DailyMail.com, our friend Jen Smith. Jen, tell me everything. Don't leave anything out. I mean, what a way to kick off this trial. These opening statements really were sensational. We heard from the prosecutor, he calls Alec Murdoch a storm that was heading towards his family, really painting a picture of this inescapable doom that was facing the victims, Maggie and Paul. Now, we also heard some very strong words from the defense, a full-throated defense by Murdoch's family and his attorney. He had his brothers in the courtroom

supporting him. Another person who was in the courtroom, Nancy, was Buster Murdoch, his only surviving son. We don't know whether or not he's supporting his father or if he's going to testify against him. Now, what the defense is claiming is not so much about what the evidence does show. It's about what evidence is lacking here. So we heard at the top of the show from those clips that you played, there's no murder weapon. Prosecution says that they haven't been able to find it. Defense is trying to use this to their advantage. The other thing that they're claiming is that there isn't a clear motive for

Alex Murdoch to commit these crimes. They say that he loved his wife and that he loved his son and that they can prove it. And then lastly, lack of forensic evidence. They say that he would have been drenched in blood had he been the one to pull the trigger at such close range. So it was just the beginning, but they're really laying out where this trial is going to go and the best is yet to come, clearly. Opening statements are akin to a roadmap, telling the jurors where the state and the defense are headed. Now, it's my understanding that the one Murdoch family member remaining of that nuclear family, Buster Murdoch, is in court and will be a witness. And it's my understanding that he was on the state's witness list, which means he will be a witness for the state. That is a very, very tricky maneuver

because if he is still siding with his father, it could be a disaster to put him on the stand for the state. But you know what? Sometimes you got to go to hell to get the witness to put the devil in jail. Guys, take a listen now as the chief prosecutor, Creighton Waters, here he is in his own words, an opening argument. On the evening of June 7th, 2021, at the defendant's property off Moselle Road in Colleton County. His son, Paul Murdoch, is standing in a small feet room in some kennels they had on the property. About 8.50 p.m.

and the defendant over there, Alec Murdoch, took a 12-shade shotgun and shot him in the shoulder, in the chest and the shoulder, with buckshot. And the evidence is going to show it was a million-to-one shot. He could have survived that. But after that, another shot went up under his head and did catastrophic damage to his brain and his head. I could just see that prosecutor pointing over at Alex Murdoch,

telling the jury that is who murdered his own wife and son. A lot going down in that courtroom. We're going to go back in and hear more of the opening statements. But almost immediately, let me go back to you. Cheryl McCollum joining me, forensic expert, founder of the Cold statements, but almost immediately, let me go out to you. Cheryl McCollum joining me,

forensic expert, founder of the Cold Case Research Institute, star of a new hit series, Zone 7 podcast. You can find her at coldcasecrimes.org. Cheryl, almost at the beginning, remember, we knew at the very get-go that one of the murder weapons was a Murdoch-owned gun. And now, they didn't say they had the gun, but they knew it was a Murdoch-owned gun. And I thought, wow, how do they know that? Now it's all made very clear, Cheryl McCollum. It's all made very clear. And Nancy, I'm telling you, you mentioned a roadmap. This whole thing is incredible to me when you look at what they're outlining.

And she already mentioned the reporter mentioned what's not there. Let's talk about what's not there. Well, hold on just a minute. Don't make me Q&A with myself, Cheryl McCollum. I'm leading you right up to the very beginning. Good gravy, woman it I guess I'll have to cross-examine you okay Cheryl McCollum isn't it true that at the beginning of the investigation we were told that one of the murder weapons was a Murdoch family weapon and now isn't it true Cheryl McCollum we know cops knew it was a Murdoch family weapon because cartridges, shells, from one of the murder weapons were found to match ballistically to other cartridges found throughout the property as target practice. They matched identically. That is how we know.

Isn't that true, Cheryl? That is absolutely true. Good gravy. I might as well just go back in the courtroom and try cases for Pete's sake. If I've got to cross-examine you, go ahead. But I'm desperate to mention the coat. So a week later, he's got this raincoat that he takes to his parents' house. Investigators find it. There's gunshot residue all over it. So it's not at the murder scene, but it's at mom and daddy's house that he's had with him the whole time. Oh my goodness. You are so right. Not just a

raincoat, but a tarp. You know what? Jen Smith, chief reporter of Daily Mail, listen to this and I want to hear what you have to say about it. Cheryl, you're right. And, you know, before I play it, Dr. Bethany Marshall, percolate on this for a moment. Why does everybody always run home to mommy and hide under the bed? Guys, take a listen to our cut 158. Again, this is the chief prosecutor. Listen. We're also going to hear evidence that about a week after the murders, Mr. Al Murdock's father had died, Mr. Randolph, and about a week after the murders, he shows up early in the morning at his parents' home,

where his mother still is, in late-stage Alzheimer's, on Almeda in Hampton. It's uncharacteristic for him to show up early, uncharacteristic for him to show up and all like that. And he comes in and he's carrying something in a blue tarp and he takes it upstairs and eventually law enforcement finds out about that. And they go upstairs and they find upstairs, they find a wadded up very, very large raincoat in a blue color. It could look like a tarp. And you're going to hear evidence that it was coated with gunshot residue on the inside. Ruh-roh. Somebody hid the murder weapon inside a raincoat.

Uh-oh. And then hides it at Mommy's house. Okay, Jen Smith, Chief Reporter, DailyMail.com. What about that? Yeah, I mean, that's a hugely problematic detail for the defense here. They were kind of resting on this idea that there's no physical evidence that could tie him to the crime scene. And then we have this gunshot residue inside this raincoat. Hugely problematic.

I also want to point out more about his mother. So she's an elderly woman, and we've just found out that she is on her deathbed. She has Alzheimer's. Not only was her house the place where they found this coat, she is also the person that Alex Murdoch claimed was her alibi. Now, this hasn't come out in court yet. At least yesterday, it wasn't raised in opening statements but back in November the defense filed records with the court which said he was visiting his elderly mother at the time of the murders now clearly she is not going to be able to be called as a witness she is old she is frail she is no longer of sound mind he maybe thinks that his mom might be his way out

of this or he definitely did at one time, but this is a problematic detail for the defense, clearly, Nancy. Well, you know, Jen Smith, chief reporter at DailyMail.com, you just triggered a very, very important detail. If the mother, Alex Murdoch's mother, is so old and frail and is in late stage Alzheimer's. God bless her. Who's the witness that places him coming into her home with the blue tarp that turns out to be a raincoat covered in gunshot residue on the inside, wadded up and hidden? Who is the witness?

We're going to find out. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. To you, Dr. Bethany Marshall, psychoanalyst joining us out of L.A. You can find her at DrBethanyMarshall.com, star of Bling Empire on Netflix. Dr. Bethany, why does everybody run home to mommy? There he's putting murder evidence under mommy's bed for Pete's sake. Oh, Nancy, you know, our mothers often think we've never done anything wrong. They collude with us. They protect us.

They buffer our world against danger and insult. And I think these sociopaths have gotten their mothers to collude with them for so long that they just think the pattern is going to continue. And, you know, Alex Murdoch, he came from, I keep saying intergenerational wealth, intergenerational power. He has to have gotten that entire family system to overlook and to collude with him. I mean, he has this 1,700 acre hunting estate. This is not even his private home. Hold on. Let me just add something right there. Anybody that knows about it, jump in. They've got this so-called hunting lodge that dr bethany just pointed out 1700 acres they've got a home somewhere they've got a beach house uh somewhere i don't know what all they've got i'm not coming from a place of jealousy because you know what

every rich person i've ever known is miserable all they think about is how to hold on to their money or get some more. And they always think somebody's trying to get their money. It's like a dragon sitting on a gold treasure. It's a horrible way to live. So Dr. Bethany, you're right. It's not just the hunting lodge, but the home, the beach home, the cars, the bank accounts, the blah, the blah, the minks, the jewels. Whoa, it's actually giving me a little bit of a headache. You know, this guy's not smart enough to have made all that money. He had to steal it. No, he got it from granddaddy and daddy and mommy.

And he stole it from his law firm. Let's not forget these embezzlement charges. You're right. You and Bethany are right. Go ahead, Jen Smith. And I want to make clear that even though he's facing nearly a hundred financial crimes of stealing, siphoning, embezzling, outright taking money from his clients and his law firm, the jury is not going to hear about that because that would prejudice them under the law unless and until the defense opens the door

they bring it up somehow then the state can bring it in or unless somehow the state's going to think of a way to use it as motive evidence without getting a darn reversal that's going to be a very tough line to toe jen smith and dr bethany you're right go ahead dr bethany well so so what i was saying is that this guy is so unintelligent he he shoots his own wife allegedly shoots his own wife and child in his own hunting lodge with his own gun idiot he he uses his mother who has alzheimer's as as like an alibi you know nancy the research shows there's two types of sociopaths. There's the organized and the disorganized. The organized is like the president of Enron.

They amass more and more and more, and they're very slick at it. They're like the Bernie Madoffs of this world. And then there's the disorganized. They're messy. Everything goes wrong. It's like everything they do is like stepping into a pile of, you know, you know what, CRA piece. Did you just spell crap?

I had to. I didn't want to get to leave. I don't let the children say crap either. Okay. And I only say it in secret. Go ahead. So he's the disorganized subtype. So everything is messy. So he couldn't disorganized subtype. So everything is messy.

So he couldn't have amassed all this wealth. He couldn't have gotten all this far. You know what all of that psycho talk means to me? When you say disorganized killer, it means one thing. What? He's leaving me loads of evidence because he is a textbook definition of disorganized killer. Yes, he is. You know, Koberger in Idaho tried his best to cover his tracks.

Murdoch did a much worse job. Another thing that happens in opening statements is we find out exactly how the state believes the double murder went down. I mean, I'm just thinking about not only murdering your wife, who stood by you all these years with your BS, your drug addiction, your money problems, your showing out in public, your alcohol, and your son. I mean, I just keep thinking of my husband and my son and my daughter, the thought of killing them. I just push it out of my mind. It's so awful. But the state is saying that's exactly what happened here. And this is how they say it went down. Take a listen. Our cut 151 straight from the courtroom. Just moments later, he picked up a.300 Blackout,

which is a type of ammunition, but an AR-style rifle, and the evidence is going to show that the family had multiple weapons throughout the property, picked up that.300 Blackout rifle, and opened fire on his wife, Maggie, just feet away near some sheds

that used to be a hangar. Pow, pow. Two shots, abdomen in the leg, and took her down. And after that, there were additional shots, including two shots to the head, that again did catastrophic damage and killed her instantly. Joining me, special guest Irv Brandt, former U.S. Marshal Service International Branch Chief Investigator with DOJ, author of Solo Shot, Curse of the Blue Stone. That's on Amazon starting now.

Also, author of Flying Solo. I could go on and on and on. Irv Brandt. They're talking about Maggie like she's a deer or some sort of animal prey. He shot at her. He shot her in the leg. He took her down and then he went over to her and finished it off. It's just so brutal. So brutal. It is, Nancy. And it's a so brutal so brutal it is nancy and it's a highly highly uh emotional uh case and when you when the prosecutor lays it out how dispassionate it was take those shots, to take the initial shots that'll bring somebody down, then to move in and take careful aim for kill shots to the head.

It's hard to accept that it's done by a loved one. But in most cases, that's exactly how it's done. That's when someone is murdered, and you know this as well as your listeners. The first person they look at is the spouse. And there's no doubt, I mean, no doubt, guilty, guilty, guilty. Lawyers and cops make the worst criminals. You would think they make the best criminals. They make the worst criminals. This guy isn't good at anything.

He's not good at fraud. He's not good at tax evasion. He's not good at murder. He can't stage his own murder. He's terrible at it. He is going to be convicted. There's no doubt. And I got to tell you guys something. Irv Brandt

knows what he's talking about. Like every member on our panel. They're all so experienced. Is that Dr. Bethany jumping in? Yeah. Hold on. I'm going to lose my thought. You know, I just have the attention span of a fruit fly. Hold on. Wendy'm going to lose my thought. You know, I just have the attention span of a fruit fly. Hold on.

Wendy Patrick, California prosecutor, author of Red Flags, WendyPatrickPhD.com. She is the star of Today with Dr. Wendy, KCBQ, San Diego. Wendy, as Irv Brandt was talking, I was thinking about a spouse. Now, I know a lot of people get angry and things happen. You get a divorce. But I was just thinking about David, my husband, who has been with me through thick and thin, really ever since my fiance Keith was murdered. He was there when I gave birth, when Lucy and I almost died. He saved me from drowning once. He helps me take care of my mother. He raises our children.

I think about our children and how that's the thing I look forward to most in life. And just the thought of raising a gun to them, the way Irv Brandt described it, like a kill shot on your spouse has been through everything with you and stood with you shoulder to shoulder through thick and thin. It's really hard to take in, Wendy. Yeah, you know, and Nancy, you brought up one of the points I was going to make. It's also going to be hard for some of those jurors. You have a wonderful husband. Some of those jurors might also have absolutely wonderful spouses, and they are so disconnected from the idea to begin with that right from the beginning, even though they've heard the prosecutor's opening, what they're going to have to do through motives, through other things that they're going to bring in through the evidence, is win those jurors over from the absolute disbelief that something like this could ever happen, especially when you're looking at a family that doesn't necessarily have any outward signs of there being any problems. Now, that, of course, will have to be developed during the course of the trial, but it's that mindset you

just pointed out that's going to be difficult to overcome. Not that it can't be done, but they're going to have to do it through the evidence. Now, you know, I heard. Oh, go ahead, Dr. Bethany. I know you were jumping in with something. I'm going to circle back to what Wendy just said. Go ahead. What I think is so heinous is that he killed them as a distraction from his other crimes, from being caught. Let's not forget that. In most cases of domestic homicide, you have a very sick, disturbed spouse who's just anguished with jealousy or envy, or they want to control their spouse.

They want to, like, crush them under their heel. They envy their goodness and everything they're accomplishing in this world. So you kind of take a deep dive, or at least I do, into the homicidal spouse's motivation for killing. And in this case, he kills as a distraction that's what's heinous not just that the murder but the motivation i think is particularly cruel there's so many other distractions on the face of this planet that he could have come up with but that i mean but you have to hold that in the back of our mind. I want to follow up on what Wendy, Bethany, Cheryl, everyone has mentioned. The defense is fighting back, but I want you to listen to something they're saying in our cut 172.

This is Dick Parputian, former prosecutor, now defense lawyer. You're not going to hear a single witness say that their relationship, Maggie and Alex's relationship, were anything other than loving. You're going to hear about how they went to a baseball game the weekend before. You're going to hear a loving relationship. Paul, the apple of his eye. You're going to see a video somewhere between 7.30 and 8 o'clock the night of the murders. Paul and Alec riding around looking at some trees they planted. It's a Snapchat that Paul sent to other people because the trees were not planted very well they

can't leave ring over they're laughing they're having a good time that would be about an hour before the attorney general says he slaughtered them when i say he slaughtered when they were slaughtered and no question i don't know how much that helps the defense to keep saying they were slaughtered. No question. But correct me if I'm wrong, everybody, but wasn't Maggie seeing a divorce lawyer? And he's talking about that baseball game and a witness says at that baseball game,

Harpootlian's talking about, that Murdoch goes and gets some popcorn, a bag of popcorn, and comes back into the box or wherever they're sitting and throws it, just throws it at Maggie. I tell you what, it'd be a cool day in H-E-L-L that David Lynch came up and threw a bag of popcorn at me, especially in front of people, to witness my humiliation. Uh-uh. That is not a loving marriage. Anybody in this room with that?

Is that okay? Somebody throw popcorn at you? Uh-uh. And that's out in public. What? Who? Jump in. All of them.

This is not. So that's what you've got to remember. The locals down there, they know that this was not a happy marriage. Remember that Maggie texted her friend that something's up. She doesn't trust Alex going to Moselle that night. Ooh, good, good point. Go ahead, Dr. Dupree. By the way, Dr. Dupree, Dr. Lee Dupree is,

Dr. Michelle Dupree is joining us from South Carolina. She went with me side by side through a lot of this evidence there in South Carolina. And she's right. Everywhere I went, Dr. Dupree, people would go, oh yeah, Maggie was getting a divorce. They even knew it down at the Jimmy John's sandwich shop. Everybody knew it. So I don't know what Art Poulian is talking about, Dr. Dupree, who, by the way, is a forensic pathologist, medical examiner, former detective, and author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide. Go ahead, Dr. Dupree. And it's not just Maggie,

but remember that Paul might have been the apple of his eye, but he was a screw-up from the very beginning. Sorry, Paul, but it's true. Yeah. Paul Murdoch was the son that got rip-roaring drunk. Didn't he even have an alias name his friends would call him when he was so drunk? Timmy. Was it Chucky what? Timmy. It was Timmy. Timmy.

Timmy would take over. Evil Timmy. And his whole body language changed. Yes. And he had just crashed Alex Murdoch's speedboat into some pilings. I think it was into pilings. I don't think he hit the bridge. speedboat into some pilings. I think it was into pilings. I don't think he hit the bridge. No, it was pilings.

He hit pilings. And Mallory Beach, 19 years old, who was scared to death during all this, flies off the boat, dies on impact, and her body floats in the water for days and days and days. I talked to some of the rescue guys that were part of finding her body and they say that little girl's body just bloated being out in the water. So I don't know how much Paul Murdoch was the apple of his eye anymore because Jen Smith, DailyMail.com, isn't it true that part of the alleged motive for murder is that the lawsuit regarding Mallory Beach's death and Paula Murdoch's court date was looming? Yeah, that is right.

The prosecution hasn't nailed down specifically which financial stress component is what they believe caused Alex Murdoch to actually do this. But, you know, there are a few. There's this lawsuit, like you mentioned, Mallory Beach's family was suing the Murdoch family for wrongful death. Now, if you pair that with the fact that Alex Murdoch was already in financial trouble, he was trying desperately to hide it. And he also had opioid addiction, which we haven't even touched on yet and there's so much that he was stealing from his law firm and from his clients jen smith that's correct yeah and

all of this paints a picture of someone who was frantically trying to protect what little he might have had left so yes the fact that paul had put his family into shame or disfavor at the very least let's call it that for now that doesn't bode well for this idea that he was the apple of his father's eye but what is really crucial here in town and everyone who knew this family locally yes sure they may be well acquainted with the rumors about them but that's precisely why those people are not on the jury when it when it really boils down here what we have is whether or not the defense is going to be able to convince this jury who have all gone on record and said that they do not know anything about this family at least not enough to prejudice their decisions is the jury going to believe the defense that this

was a happy family or are they going to be convinced by all the outside evidence? Well, if the defense keeps claiming in court that they had a happy marriage, the state is going to have to bring on evidence that they had anything but an unhappy marriage. In fact, she was living at the beach house. They were not living together. That's right. Here's the tricky part of that, Nancy. This is Wendy. The tricky part of that is you can't bring in all this bad behavior unless there's sufficient evidence to

back it up evidentiary. And can they do that? It would be great if the jury were privy to all of what we're discussing on this call, but they're not going to be. So it's going to be a fight, a real battle to get some of this in. From the popcorn throwing to the bad behavior of the son means so much outside evidence is relevant. We know to motive. But how much in that balancing analysis the judge does is the jury going to get to hear? And the interesting thing about that is that can change as doors are opened and closed in terms of the questions lawyers ask as this trial proceeds. Yeah. What she means by that, Wendy, when she says open the door, that's actually a legal term. If the defense starts going on and on and on, second verse, same as the first, that they were so happy in their marriage, that, quote, opens the

door for the state to come in and prove what a bad marriage it was. Go ahead, Cheryl McCollum, jump in. I just think it is critical that we mention, as a wife, nobody knew him better than Maggie did. Maggie told her friend something's fishy. He's up to something. Direct quote. She went to that family farm because she knew Paul was there. She went there to try to protect that child. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. According to the evidence, Jen Smith, DailyMail.com, he, Alex Murdoch, lured Maggie out to the hunting lodge,

which is a good ways away from where she was staying at their beach house. She was not living with him. And he lured her out there, according to the evidence, claiming that he wanted her to go visit his father because Murdoch says his father, Daddy Murdoch, didn't have much longer to live. And she, Maggie, actually said to one of her girlfriends before she went out there, I don't want to go. He talked me into it i don't know what alex murdoch is up to but something is fishy when he lured her to go out there isn't it true jen smith that that is the whole reason she was even at the hunting lodge because alex murdoch lured her there that's exactly what has been suggested

yeah absolutely but again the problem is all of the people who can actually verify this none of them are alive anymore so we just have alex murdoch his father died a few days after maggie and paul were killed obviously maggie and paul aren't here to tell the truth either and then we have his ailing mother it is the prosecution's argument that alex murdoch lured his estranged wife whether or not they were in the formalities of becoming estranged we don't know yet we know that she consulted a lawyer we don't know if she filed any paperwork yet doesn't look like she did but that is what the prosecution is saying that she wouldn't have even been there unless he called her there and that is the last thing he wanted Irv Brandt is for that divorce proceeding to get cranked up and her lawyer, her divorce lawyer, have full access

to all of his bank accounts because that's number one forensic accounting. That was going to happen. All their property, their possessions, their money was going to be divided, split down the middle. The last thing Murdoch wants is an astute lawyer going through his business and finding out he's been embezzling, stealing, outright taking money from his clients and his law firm. I mean, millions of dollars. That's exactly right, Nancy. That's the motive right there. He didn't want someone competent going, yes, going through his financial records and he had to take care of the liabilities and took care of paul murnog at the same time that ends that and he was he was a

liability also but the wife filing for divorce and demanding the records of their assets is going to bring that house of cards down. Completely. And of course, he's drug addled. And also, he was right. After the murder of Paul Murdoch, his son, that lawsuit settled. It settled. And there's nobody left to prosecute. And Paul Murdoch's never going to take the stand. Nobody's going to be digging through their finances. And there's nobody left to prosecute and Paul Murdoch's never going to take the stand. Nobody's

going to be digging through their finances and there's no divorce. No astute lawyer and forensic accountant's going to be digging through his bank accounts anymore because they're both dead. Now, I don't believe if I were the defense attorney, which of course would never happen, that I would phrase it quite like this, But I want you to take a listen to cut 176. Again, this is straight out of the courtroom. This is the defense attorney for Alex Murdoch, Dick Garputli. And listen. Now, Maggie is shot running. There's no defensive wounds because she's shot running. And after she falls to the ground and has one bullet that has hit her and probably traveled up and hit her brain, she's on the ground. And whoever the perpetrator was walked up, took that AR and put one in the back of her head.

Executed. Executed. Why? execute why well if he keeps asking why i'm pretty sure the state's gonna tell him i mean to you cheryl mccollum can't you just see in the courtroom when the defense attorney is saying and whoever the perpetrator was and they probably all looked right over at Alex Murdoch, and he says, walked up, took that AR, and put one in the back of her head, executed. Right. And we all know long guns are for moving targets. I mean, we know what he did here.

It appears very simple to us. He waits an hour, Nancy, to call 911. Why would he wait for an hour? Because he's trying to hide that weapon and dispose of other evidence. And again, I want to go back to the one thing the prosecution is going to be able to show what's not there. There's no additional cell phone pings from an unknown person. There's no unknown footprint from an unknown person. There's no unknown time track. You've got the gunshot residue. You waited over an hour.

You lured her there. You hid the weapon. You said you were somewhere else at 844, and we know now that's a lie. You had motive to kill your son. You had motive to kill your wife. Nobody else did. It's going to come back to Alex Murdoch every single time.

You know, that brings up an interesting point. This is Wendy. Negative evidence witnesses. That's where we call people to say, if someone else had been here, we would have found it. There would have been DNA or footprints or tire tracks or something from somebody else. So Cheryl brings up an interesting point. And sometimes these cases, especially when it's an alibi defense, are not just about what you found at the scene, but what you didn't find and what that means for the prosecution. You know what I love? Cell phone pings. I love cell phone

pings. I want you to take a listen and then we'll have Jen Smith explain to us what was just said at opening statements. And we're going to go back to the courtroom after this. Take a listen to our cut 154. Cell phones and ballistics. Cell phones and ballistics. And the evidence is going to show that the defendant, Alec Murdoch, over there, told anyone who would listen that he was never at those kennels. But the evidence is also going to show from these things that every one of us most of us carry around in our pockets that he was there and he was

there just minutes before with Maggie and Paul just minutes before their cell phones go silent forever and ever despite what told people, I was never at those kennels. The cell phones are going to show otherwise. Okay, Jen Smith, a Snapchat video taken just before the murders, taken by Paul Murdoch,

has come to light because it's my understanding Alex Murdoch is in the video showing that he's there at the hunting lodge just before the murders, although he said he wasn't. Is that correct? That is correct, Nancy. So what this video shows is a dog. It's a dog that belongs to one of Paul's friends. Now, Paul put this on his Snapchat. You don't see Alex Murdoch, but you do apparently in the background here alex murdoch

with maddie murdoch and their son now what's key about this video is the time that it was taken the time that it was put out prosecutors say that minutes literally i think it's three or four minutes after that every inch of cell phone activity on pa's phone and on Maggie's phone, it stops. It stops cold. So that's what they're trying to point towards as being the time of the murders. And this is a new piece of evidence. And it's really, really important because like you say, it places Alex Murdoch at the scene of the crime when prosecutors say that it happened. Cheryl McCollum joining me, forensic expert. And everybody, jump in on this. So Paul Murdoch sends the Snapchat video to several people.

And one of those people, within like two or three minutes, calls him right back. He never picks up his phone again. He never responds. He never sends another text. It's over. That's it, forever. That is the another text. It's over. That's it forever. That is the time of the murder. Absolutely. And simultaneously, his mother, her cell phone never again has any activity that she initiates.

Both of those phones simultaneously are inactive forever. What about it, Wendy Patrick? Cell phones are the perfect unbiased witnesses. They don't favor one side or the other, and that is one of the reasons we're talking about them, not only in this case, but they establish the timeline dead victims cannot. And that's one of the reasons is that we're all noting here that there are going to be such powerful evidence in a case like that.

Yes, and we saw it come out as very powerful evidence in the Brian Koberger quadruple slaying in Idaho. So, Jen Smith, what's going to happen now? Well, today we're expecting the prosecution to put their first witnesses on the stand. Now, that is obviously going to be hugely telling. We're expecting some EMTs and some first responders who are the first people to interact with Alex Murdoch after the murderers. And then, and I think this is going to really tell an interesting story, the jury is going to see video of Alex Murdoch's first police interviews. Now, we don't know yet what he said in these interviews, except from what we've read in previous transcripts or affidavits. But

the prosecution is claiming he made strange statements. And they're also claiming that his lack of statements was incredibly strange, too. So they're using this interview to point to his guilt. The defense claims that he was acting strangely because who wouldn't after their wife and their son had just been murdered. And they're also claiming that it's going to prove that cops only ever focused on Alex Murdoch and ignored any other possible suspect because they were so desperate, as they put it,

to fit this square peg in this round hole. So that's today. I can't wait. Nancy Ray's Crime Stories, signing off. Goodbye, friend. This is an iHeart Podcast. Goodbye, friend.