Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - BOMBSHELL VIDEO: ALEX MURDAUGH AT THE SCENE?

Episode Date: February 2, 2023

Cell phone video again was the focus of testimony today in Alex Murdaugh's murder trial.  Prosecutors played a video reportedly taken by Murdaugh’s 22-year-old son Paul just minutes before he and his mother, Maggie, were killed.   In the video that is just under a minute long, three voices can be heard, Maggie Murdaugh and Paul, and one other. Prosecutors believe the third voice is Alex Murdaugh.  Paul Murdaugh was trying to take a video of one of the dogs he was caring for. The dog's tail had a condition and Paul had been texting with a friend.   The timestamp on the video is  8:44 p.m., June 7, 2021.    Joining Nancy Grace: Wendy Patrick - California prosecutor, author: "Why Bad Looks Good", and author of ‘Red Flags”, wendypatrickphd.com, ‘Today with Dr Wendy’ on KCBQ in San Diego, Twitter: @WendyPatrickPHD Robert Crispin - Private Investigator, Former Federal Task Force Officer for United States Department of Justice, DEA and Miami Field Division, Former Homicide and Crimes Against Children Investigator, “Crispin Special Investigations” CrispinInvestigations.com, Facebook: Crispin Special Investigations, Inc. Giovanni Masucci -Senior Digital Forensic Examiner - Over 35 years of combined professional experience in Political and Governmental Affairs, Physical & IT Security, Technology, Consulting, Investigations. North Carolina  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, DMichelleDupreMD.com  Anne Emerson - Senior Investigative Reporter, WCIV ABC News 4 (Charleston, SC), Host of Award-Winning Podcast: "Unsolved South Carolina: The Murdaugh Murders, Money and Mystery,” Twitter: @AnneTEmerson  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. We are here right outside the courthouse. The judge has just broken for lunch, and what a day it has been in the courtroom so far. Court kicked off this morning at 9 30, and it was back at it with cell phone data, and finally we've gone through a labyrinth of information, and we're finally learning something. Not only that, we finally saw the Snapchat video that places Alex Murdoch at the scene of the murder just moments before the state says Maggie and Paul were murdered. Let's take a listen to our cut one. This is the Snapchat audio just played in court behind me. Listen. just played in court behind me listen Hey, he's got a bird in his mouth.

What a lot. Hey, buddy. There's a kitty. There's a chicken. Get him off. Get him off. Okay. Okay, I wish you could see it.

We're trying to get it so you can see it as well, just like everybody in the courtroom did. The way they've got it set up are their little computer monitors for the jurors to look at. Then each side, the state and the defense, has monitors, and they just got working. I saw it today for the first time, a monitor so everyone out in the audience could see. And what that was is Paul trying to take a video of a friend, Rogan Gibson, aka Rogie, his dog. They were going to take the dog to a vet, but they wanted to show a picture of the dog's tail to a vet friend of theirs. And they wanted him to send that video. So you hear Paul telling the dog what to do, you hear Maggie speaking, and then you hear a third adult male voice. The state contends it is Alex Murdock at the scene of the crime just minutes before evidence suggests that Paul

and Maggie were murdered. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. Hey, if I could get the New York control room to play that one more time because this is a bombshell for the state. Now, how the defense is going to explain this, are they going to say that's not Alex Murdoch when we've all heard Alex Murdoch speaking? It's him.

Let's listen to it one more time, guys. Take a listen. Get up. Get up. Quit, Cash. Come on. Quit. Come on. Come on. Come on. Come on. Hey, he's got a bird in his mouth. Whoa, whoa. Hey, buddy.

It's a guinea. It's a chicken. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Come here a chicken. It's a chicken. I'm looking at a feed right now of what the jurors could see. I could only see the back of Murdoch's head bobbing up and down. But the jury, just like you did, could see his facial expressions while that was being played. Probably the last words that Maggie or Paul ever uttered. Again, we are live right outside the courthouse.

We all came rushing out for the lunch break with me and also our panel to make sense of what we know right now. Now, that bombshell evidence was preceded by hours of laying, and it was tedious, painstaking, minutely done by the state, and then the defense had their chance to cross-examine cell phone data. And I was amazed. Let me first go out to Giovanni Masucci. We're waiting on our senior investigative reporter, Ann Emerson, to dart out of the courthouse. Giovanni Masucci, Senior Digital Forensic Examiner for over 35 years. Giovanni, thank you for being with us. Giovanni, we have laid out as best we can and we've scribbled all over it and revised it over and over a very intricate list of all the movements, all the calls, all the text messages, all the

pictures, everything from 840 p.m. to 1034 that night. Giovanni, we can even identify when Alex Murdoch walks with a phone to his Chevy Suburban at 9.06 and we can see Maggie's phone is moving at the same time and at 9.06 he cranks his car up. We've got about 280 steps by Alex Murdoch at 92 to 906. We believe that the shootings occurred around 849. He's right there based on his own steps, based on his own Chevy Suburban cranking up. Giovanni Masucci explained to us how do they do that. The state and the rest of the folks that were involved, the FBI and U.S. Superstition, did an excellent job as far as obtaining the data from all the phones and correlating it together and linking all the data.

It was pretty amazing how what the iPhone records itself, the type of data, with the health app and GPS and location. And so it's very intricate how they laid it out. And I think they did a great job detailing it. Now, having said that, you know, they talked about the motion of the phone, okay? And the phone, you know, ringing on the phone call coming in, the defense was saying, you know, could that trigger possibly the orientation change? And so you've got the phone at the same time, right?

You have the dates coming at the same time. Is it possible? Is it possible that the motion can change the phone if the phone is making a filter? Is it possible? It depends on how Maggie's phone was set up because that helped that. Exactly. Everything on there.

We are looking at text messages incoming, read and not read. It's pretty amazing the way we can see what's happening. I mean, Wendy Patrick joining me, California prosecutor, author of Why Bad Looks So Good, as well as Red Flags. Wendy, I mean, this is such a timeline in such intricate detail. I've never seen a murder timeline like this. You have Paul making that Snapchat video and then shortly after that he gets a message, a text message at 8 49 from the friend Rogi. It's never read. And according to my calculations, the murders happened between about 8.50 when Maggie gets a text that she opens, and within, you know, two minutes. It's all over, Wendy Patrick. No more phone calls, no more texts,

no more outgoing, incoming, no more photos, nothing. It's done. It's done. You know, I would say the theme of this testimony is time is of the essence and the way you queued it up is exactly what they're proving. Talking, texting, watching. I mean, who knew your phone could do so many things? Think about how much easier it is to establish a timeline with this evidence than it would have been 20 years ago, 10 years ago. And here's the thing with the way this testimony is unfolding regarding the cross-examination. Jurors don't leave their common sense at the door. They're not persuaded by what's possible. They're persuaded by proof. And they're persuaded by proof that's corroborated by this very sound technology that they're now learning about that's consistent with the rest of the evidence they've already heard

crime stories with nancy grace Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. I'm hearing that Ann Emerson, Senior Investigative Reporter, WCIV, ABC, is joining us outside the courthouse. Ann Emerson, we were in there shoulder to shoulder listening, and after all of these calculations and entries and steps, and camera comes on, camera camera goes off camera changes orientation I mean and did you know when you take your phone and you move it from portrait like this to landscape like this somewhere off in the lab they can tell that you did that they can tell when you turn on your phone I mean they can tell when you turn on your camera they can tell when you're walking they can really track everything you're doing.

But based on hours of testimony, I came down to this, Ann Emerson. Do you have a revision? The murders occur between 849-27 and 849-35. That's exactly what I'm getting to. We've been doing the math. I've been doing the math with you in there and in the court as we were going along. There's this eight second window that we're looking at from the time that Maggie read her last text at 849.27 to when the last text is not read by Palmer Doc, which is 849.35. That is an eight second window where we start seeing a very clear picture of something going on.

Now, just four minutes before that, of course, the Snapchat video with the three voices on it. We were there, Nancy, at the end of that, right before that break. We saw the faces of the jurors. We saw how Alec Murdoch was reacting to this video and these timelines as it got narrower and narrower. The whole courtroom that was packed just leaned in to this part of the testimony. You know, I'm thinking about what you were saying, Ann Emerson, and you're exactly right. I mean, I can barely read on my notes because I get one timeline and then in would come a camera coming on, and so I'd have to change it.

And then Paul Murdoch, murder victim, last read text, and then he quit reading them. But then after that, Maggie gets a group text about her father-in-law's health. She reads that, and that's where I'm getting the 84927. She was still alive at 849-27. And by 849-35, when more texts are coming in, I think from the friend, Rogan Gibson, no more phone calls, no more texts, no more reading texts, over. And I heard something really scary. I heard one of the lawyers bring up, is it possible, was she, Maggie, trying to take a picture, a photo of the killer? And that happened right before the lunch break because her camera on her phone came open. But then in one second, it closed.

Did you hear that? I did hear that. Was she trying to take a picture now? Was she just grappling with her phone or was it just one of those circumstances where the phone moved? We don't know. And of course, if there was a picture, we would think we would know about it by now of a perpetrator. But it was very compelling when we heard that just at the break. Once again, I have never in my life, Nancy, these cliffhangers that we get as we go to break, as we go to lunch, as we end the day, it's just like you're ready to turn the next page and they stop us. So it's like now we have to wait for an hour before we find out exactly what that means. But as far as the also I wanted to throw in one more thing into that

timeline that we're looking at. I wrote down that Paul's last outgoing message was also 840805. So no matter how you cut it, we're talking about seconds and minutes. We're not talking about hours. We're not talking about a big timeline. So if there is a way for the prosecution to somehow link Alex's voice with the third voice that we heard on that Snapchat video, that is going to be very compelling evidence. And I just got to say, I mean, and I want to circle back to you on a text that Maggie, we now know what it said, sent her friend as she was en route to the hunting lodge at Moselle. Let me bring in Robert Crispin, private investigator, former federal task force officer for the U.S. Department of Justice at CrispinInvestigations.com.

Robert, thank you for being with us. Robert, please, come on. He gave his story that he was never at the kennel, Never. And here he is popping up on audio. It's him. Even the context of what he's saying. He's talking to them about this dog picture. I mean, it's clearly Maggie, Paul, and Alex Murdoch, the defendant. Yeah, this is a major problem for them and a huge problem for the defense. And the best part about all this is, this is electronic evidence.

And electronic evidence cannot be altered. And this is what you got out of your phone. And this chronologically laid out exactly the steps he took, where he was, and everything else that went along all the way up until the killings. He gave a statement that said he was sleeping. That's just not possible because if you go back and you look at the testimony from Detective Love,

there's a lot of steps in his phone starting at 6 and 7 o'clock and going on up. So he's not sleeping. Oh, you're so smart. You're so smart connecting those dots. Robert Crispin, hold on. Guys guys he just did something pretty brilliant Murdoch says he's asleep before the shootings and then he wakes up in the hunting lodge goes straight to his suburban and leaves but we've got his suburban leaving at 9 0 6 but Crispin is correct the phone shows we were all trying to figure out why are we talking about Alex Murdock's steps,

you know, an hour before the shootings. Because of what Crispin just said, he's not asleep, he's walking around. Go ahead, Robert. Let me explain to you also about automatic weapon fire as well as a shotgun blast. It's deafening. And on certain nights, depending on where you are, automatic weapon fire can be heard for miles away. We're talking a thousand yards from the house down to the kennels. He was up. Clearly his app is showing that he's walking. He's not sleeping like he said he was. The video puts him there. Trust me, if he was at the house, that automatic weapon fire would have woke him up, and he would have jumped up in two seconds. And at 9.08, we've got Murdoch texting Maggie, quote, going to check on him, mom, be right back. So at 9.08, he's texting Maggie, who by this point

we believe is dead, hey, I'm going to check on mom. I mean, I'm wondering is he walking along with her phone as he's texting her? Hey, is that you and Emerson jumping in? There seems to be a lot of health data that we've really got to take a look at and one of the things is that Alex phone according to these steps data,

that phone is not moving from 809 to 902 PM. So there's a question of well, if the state carries on with this thought process, then did he leave his phone back at the house when he was supposedly on the Snapchat video, if they do prove that that's Alex's voice on the Snapchat video? Now, but the other thing is, is that we've got to figure out some things about these steps about when Maggie's phone, her health data is going to play a critical role in the defense, it looks like, because Maggie's steps do not marry with when Alec was moving at that critical 906 window when he's turning on his car and driving off.

We know that because we've got that information coming out of his phone in his car and driving off. We know that because we've got that information coming out of his phone and his car. Now we need to figure out what's going on with Maggie's phone at that point. This is how the defense is able to start weaving in a theory that we are hearing again about a possible second shooter. So I think that's going to be very important because Maggie's phone, according to what the defense was asking the expert on the stand, Lieutenant Dove, was not moving at the same time as that 906 time. So, Nancy, I think that's going to be very critical to what we see as we carry on through this day. We've got to find out how that all works together. But at 906, Maggie's phone changes orientation.

At 906,'s phone changes orientation. At 9.06, her phone changes orientation. In other words, someone moves it from portrait to landscape. The phone is moving at 9.06. At 9.07, her phone camera activates for one second, indicating someone may have been trying to unlock her phone. It didn't work. So to me, that fits hand in hand with him walking. Oh, I see you're saying Maggie's phone is not walking. Is that what you're saying? That's what I'm saying. Her steps aren't walking. So how do we get that? Is it a matter of vehicles involved at this point?

It's sort of what I'm wondering, is if maybe a vehicle could be possibly involved in the state's argument at that point. So we're going to have to see. I want to just say that those guns, the noise, Nancy, just the last thing on what we just heard about the guns and the noise. So far, we've heard that those suppressors were never bought by ALEC, which means the silencers, anything that would have lessened that deafening noise from guns was not purchased on the blackout rifles. So it certainly lends into why didn't we hear this gunfire. Loud as H-E-double-L. This is Wendy Patrick. One of the things I want to point out, all of those jurors have phones and they're listening to the testimony from the witness, Dan, and obviously they know

that's the only evidence they're supposed to consider. But you know they know how these phones work. They chalk their steps. They look at how many miles they've watched. They take pictures all the time. They accidentally text the wrong people. They swipe wrong and they get a different screen. There are things running in the background that are slowing down other programs. They have knowledge that I hope they don't use in the deliberation room, but you have to remember they're also going to be able to use that knowledge to gauge the credibility of the testimony they're hearing and the weight to afford this, is it possible questions that keep coming out. So they're going to have their own expertise, if you will, legally that they're going to be lending to this analysis.

Also joining us, Dr. Michelle Dupree. This is her neck of the woods, forensic pathologist, medical examiner, and detective and author of the Homicide Investigation Field Guide. Let me warn the New York Control Room. I'm trying to hear that sound where we learn what Maggie texted her friend about going out to the hunting lodge on Moselle. Dr. Michelle Dupree, we know, you and I have seen a lot of domestic homicides. I've seen very few homicides where the perp kills his wife and his child in this manner. That said, Dr. Michelle Dupree, we both know that Maggie Murdoch had been living at Edisto Beach, at the beach house, and she didn't like coming back and forth to Moselle, that hunting lodge. But we were wondering why was she there that night of all nights? So Dr. Michelle Dupree,

I want you to listen along with me about what we just heard in the courtroom. Roll it, please. It's June 7th, 2021. It's at 7.55, 26 p.m., but this is in UTC time, so to go back minus four hours to set it to our time zone would be at 3.55, 26 p.m. All right, and that's 3.25, 3.55 in the afternoon, correct? Yes, sir. June the afternoon, correct? Yes, sir. Of June 7th, correct? Yes, sir. That's in the afternoon. You should try it before. Read that text, please.

It says, T.Y., I'm waiting at doctor. Alex wants me to come home. Alex what? Wants me to come home. I had to leave door open at Edisto, but trust Mexicans to shut and lock for me. His dad is back in hospital. The last daughter claims no cancer, it's pneumonia. And there's some emojis, and it says Alex,

but I'm not sure if that's going into the next thread or not. Okay, Dr. Dupree, there you have it. She writes her friend, Alex wants me to come home and we all know it was to go and visit the father, the ailing father in the hospital, Mr. Randolph. And the thing is, he never went to go see Mr. Randolph. He never went with her to go see Mr. Randolph. She got out there and he left, reportedly, to go see his mother. For what, 20 minutes and then come back and, whoa, my wife is dead?

Exactly, Nancy. And also remember that Maggie texted a friend on the way and said, I don't like this, I don't feel comfortable, Alex is up to something, or something along those lines. And another thing, if Alex was there during the time frame that this electronic data is showing, he says he didn't see anyone else around. Well, that's within minutes of when this happened, and he saw no one? Ann Emerson with us. You were there when this went down, and the jury was all ears, Ann Emerson. Absolutely. I mean, everybody's just, you know, as one legal analyst said to me,

it feels like Maggie and Paul are talking to us from the grave, telling us exactly what's going on as in the minutes and hours leading up to their deaths. It's unbelievable how many details we're getting off of these phones. And one of the things that's really been bothering me as well as I've been listening to it is the text message that Alec reportedly sent to Maggie on his way as he was about to leave to go see his mom now. He sends a text that says, I'm going to go see him. Him or mom? Like, which is it? And as you said, did why did maggie not go to the to the hospital to go see the dad um there's just a lot of confusion right there that defense is going to have to work double time to clean up i think well that's starting his his alibi yeah they're really

they've got a lot to work with uh regarding this because the fact that Maggie's phone was not moving along with his that's gonna be a problem for the state but I've got a feeling their experts gonna be able to come through guys so much happening in the courtroom I want you to also listen to our cut seven take a listen at some point in time did you ever have another conversation with Alec about making another blackout? I did. And when roughly was that? Do you recall? It would have been around April of 2018.

April of 2018. All right. And what did Alec tell you? What was your conversation with him about making a third blackout? That Paul had lost or misplaced his rifle and he wanted to replace it. Okay. And did you ultimately make him a third blackout? I did. Did this particular rifle, did you put any optic on it? I did not.

All right. Did Alex say, don't put an optic on it because they already lost the other one? Yes. Those optics are fairly expensive? They can be, yes, sir. Okay, guys, you were just hearing different sound from the courtroom. It was about a blackout gun, a third blackout gun. And I'm actually glad you guys played that.

Thank you, control room. Because the blackout guns have become a source of contention in the courtroom. As we all know, and it was really first revealed publicly by SLED South Carolina law enforcement in court, that neither murder weapon has ever been recovered. So these blackout guns have become a real bone of contention. We know that in 2016, Murdoch buys two blackout guns, which I'm going to explain to you what they are, for his sons, totaling almost $9,000. Then in 2018, he goes and gets another blackout, I guess for himself. To Ann Emerson, tell me about what is a blackout gun and why has that become such a central focus in the trial?

Oh, and there's a couple of different things they're really tying it together quite well on the state side I think. I mean we have two guns that are bought for the boys that we're as you just said. Now the the blackout rifle is an assault type rifle that can shoot these semi-automatic rounds. And this is the rifle that killed Maggie. And we know this also because we found 300 blackout shell casings right underneath her. I mean, they were right there. We also found shell casings with the same markings at the range where the Murdochs have property. We found the same shell casings near the stoop of the house, and that was all in testimony. And the problem there is that they all have the same tool

markings. They identify to the same gun. It's like a fingerprint for a gun, the DNA of a gun. So that is why this blackout rifle keeps on getting brought up. Now, what we understand is that Paul lost or it was stolen or something happened to this gun that he received. So Alec goes and gets another gun. And I have to bring up something that we talked about yesterday. You were like, Ann, didn't you see Rambo?

Like, don't you know how people carry two guns? I remember you asking me about that. So I went back and looked at the blackout rifles. And what I learned about the gun that Paul had lost or stolen or it went missing, this second blackout rifle had a long sling on it in order to carry it. The other one didn't. And it just brought home the fact what you said earlier to me. Well, maybe it was a slung across the back.

That is one way that there could be two guns on one person. And you see it in the picture clear as day. You know, I've been thinking about that missing blackout gun for a gun that costs, you know, $4,500. I believe I would file a police report if that was stolen, but that never happened, leading me to wonder, was it ever stolen? Hey, Robert Crispin, how would you define the kind of gun we're talking about? The gun that murdered Paul Murdoch? A very violent weapon, a very violent shotgun, and a very powerful impacting projectile that comes out and just rips through your flesh and just annihilates your body. Guys, we're talking about the blackout gun used to commit at least one of the murderers. And now I'm going to try that cut seven about phone records, phone records regarding Alex Murdoch. Take a listen. Record 25 shows that the phone recorded 74 steps. Start time of June 7, 2021 at 8.05.35 p.m.

Ending time of 8.09.52 p.m. Record 26 shows the phone recorded 283 steps with a start time of June 7, 2021 at, 902.18 p.m. Ending time, 906.47 p.m. Okay. So, and I'll hand this report back to you, but we see an hour gap, approximately an hour gap, between those steps that we ended at 809 and when the steps start to occur again at 902, correct?

We see any steps that occur on that phone between those two times, We ended at 8.09 and when the steps start to occur again at 9.02, correct? Correct. Do you see any steps that occur on that phone between those two times, between 8.09? No, sir, I do not. Okay. And whose phone are we talking about again? This phone was Alex Murdoch's phone. Okay. Robert Crispin, it sounds to me like Murdoch, according to the state,

left his phone back at the hunting lodge or maybe even in his vehicle, his Chevy Suburban, while he went and committed double murder. He did not take his phone there. His phone went not dark, but no steps, no activity for about an hour. So are you forgetting who we're dealing with? We're dealing with a former prosecutor who has prosecuted these types of cases in the past. He has an entire family of prosecutors that have prosecuted murders and violent crimes. He's not stupid. He knows. This was systematically laid out. But what happened is he started to get tunnel vision. And when you get tunnel vision, you start to lose sight of the big picture. So yes, he knew, let's put that phone down. He knew that these records are going to

eventually come into play. He's not stupid. One thing I do want you to do, Nancy, is when you go back, and I just want to bring this up real quick. I want you to go back, watch when they play that video again with the Snapchat video. I want even the lay person, watch when they play that video again with the Snapchat video. I want even the layperson, and I have interviewed hundreds and hundreds of suspects in my career. The layperson, I want you to look at Alex Murdoch when they're playing that video. And I want you to watch his expression. And I want you to watch and see how red he gets. And then I want you to look over at his defense lawyer right to his left.

And I want you to look at the defense lawyer and look at him with open eyes like, whoa. I think he wanted to tell him, calm down. This is a very, very big problem for the defense. And they're playing that. Watch him. He's short of breath. He can't catch his breath. He's turning red. He's shaking his head. Listen, we need the rest of the facts to come out before we say guilty or innocent. But I'm telling you right now, that is a key

moment in this trial, a key moment. And I'm sure the jury looked over and saw that. That is a huge problem for him. Oh, I got to tell you something. We've been watching the jurors. We've been watching the jurors, Robert. And it's exactly as you say. There's one guy wearing wireframe glasses on the front row on the far left,

and I'm sure you've seen him. He looks at Alex Murdoch non-stop. And it's not a benevolent look. It's just a very analytical look, just looking at him as all this evidence is pouring in. And Wendy Patrick, I can tell you this, all of this tedious, meticulous discussion of this phone call at this time time and the phone turns off at that time and the phone walks at this time it may be all blending together in everybody's mind that's why i had to keep taking notes but when the state lays it out in a timeline and you see pa and Maggie responding to texts, moving around, reading texts, taking videos, and then suddenly everything stops and they never move again, you know that's

the time of the murder. No more texts are read, no more texts are sent, no more phone calls, nothing. It's going to be laid out very clearly when the state does closing statements. We often say that. That's a way we can prove the case without the victims, because they testify through their digital evidence, through their electronics, through their phone.

Once they're dead, now you wonder whether or not manipulation is this kind of sophistication alibi. And that's what we're seeing. That's what we've talked about in other segments, is whether or not movement after death has to do with fabrication rather than memorialization is what the mom and the son were doing while they were alive. And that's why it's so important that that timeline starts and stops and ends exactly when it does. Jump in, Ann Emerson. Nancy, what you're saying earlier,

so important as far as what you're seeing in that courtroom and what I'm seeing in that courtroom as well. I was watching Alec, not just when we were listening to the Snapchat video, but when they were talking about his steps, he had that same look on his face, Nancy. It was just this clenching of the jaw. He was chewing.

He had his glasses off. He was kind of moving back and forth a little bit, but it was this extreme anxiety and tension that you could actually read on his face. So I was very curious to see how some of these jurors that were looking intently at him, how they were handling that sort of anxiety and stress that he was exhibiting. Because one thing that I did notice as well as just taking notes on all of the steps that were involved, just to jump over there for a minute, the number 283 kept on getting brought up, both in Maggie's steps and in, no, in Alec's steps and in Paul's Paul steps I saw twice the 283 steps were

walked on that phone on Alec and then Paul I saw the same number now the first 283 with Alec was earlier in the day and it took about 10 minutes to walk the second 283 was from 902 to 906 that was a four minute jaunt wherever he was. And then 283 was also recorded on Paul's phone. I just want to know how far the kennels are from the house as far as steps go. That's all I want to know. I have a feeling I might be able to figure it out. Yeah, it's just gone down. Yeah, it's about a thousand yards. Right. And the courtroom behind us, it's sunny and windy here outside the courthouse. The courtroom was kept at a very low temperature. There was one juror. I know you guys, oh, you can't see the jurors from the feed, but she's so

cold she brings a blanket in every day. And the reason they're keeping the courtroom cold is they don't want the jurors to fall asleep during this very meticulous phone data. And it's coming from basically a scientist, a technician that is an expert in this. And he is definitely an expert. So they're sitting up there and they don't want the jurors to get warm and doze off. So everybody's freezing in the courtroom and every so often the judge says, let's stand up and everybody stands up and moves around to keep those jurors focused on what's happening. But I can tell you several of those jurors have a gaze right at Murdoch throughout the entire thing. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. We are here right outside the courthouse.

The court kicked off this morning at 9.30, and it was back at it with cell phone data. I want you to take a listen to another specter that reared its ugly head in the courtroom. Did Murdoch delete calls and messages? Take a listen to our cut six. And again, every time there's a cover-up of any sort, it always comes out, and it makes the person look even more nefarious than they did before. Take a listen to our cut six. We see just simply a gap. We see calls from May of 2021

and then there's a couple calls on June 4th of 2021 and then nothing until 10 25 p.m. the night of the murders, correct? Yes, sir, correct. Is that, can the database simply overriding itself explain that gap? A gap like that would indicate that it was actually removed from there. How can those calls be removed to create such a gap? For a call to be removed, you can go in and very easily go to your call log if you chose to, and you can swipe it. If you move it to the left, that number, it will pop up red on the right-hand side and say delete. And if you choose to delete that call, you could do that the same way you could with text messaging, voicemails,

other things that you have access to, user access to. Is there any way other than that, what you just described, that you're aware of, any process that could explain that gap in call records on Alex's phone? No, sir. Let's go back to senior digital forensic examiner Giovanni Masucci. Giovanni, interpret for us. Yeah, so it's definitely very possible that he could have deleted data. Not an issue. Very easy to do it. And the examiner, the expert on the stand for the prosecution, is it possible that he could have picked up deleted data? It is possible with the tools that they were utilizing, the cellbrite, to read the data that was extracted

using the Grady tool to unlock the phone. Absolutely. And so with the false extraction, he could have gotten deleted data. Now, there's no rhyme or reason how it gets deleted once the user of the phone deletes the data, because it's a short memory that's on the phone. And so every time the phone is used, which is volatile data, it can be overwritten. So they weren't able to do a physical extraction where you could get more data that's been deleted. But the possibility did exist for them to actually get deleted data. The question is, we didn't hear him say, our prosecution expert, say that he acquired deleted data.

And so I'm curious if they're going to bring any of that up as the trial goes on. I'm really curious to see where they are on that point, because that's one of the things that I wrote down is like, where's the deleted data? Did they try to get the deleted data? Was there any deleted data? You know, how difficult is it to retrieve deleted data, Giovanni? It's not that difficult. Now, it depends on the making model of phone, which we know was an iPhone. I didn't see where the model was, but it also depends on the make and model of the phone, which we know was an iPhone. I didn't see where the model was. But it also depends on the iOS and what the tools can actually recover for that iOS make and model. They had Cellbrite.

Cellbrite is a standard industry standard for forensic examiners. They used Magnet, Axiom, another standard tool in the industry. They used Grady for unlocking. These are all standard uh industry tools um that they utilize so again it breaks down to you know what was left on that phone what residue my other question becomes did did alex add backup did he back up to icloud we haven't heard anything about icloud for any of the victims and any of the phones that were analyzed. I'd like to know if they were able to obtain any backup data that was put on iCloud.

So these are things that I'm very curious to hear. I am wondering, are we going to get that lost data or deleted data? Will we hear that? I mean, I'm not hearing that right now. The expert seems to think unless the defense has something up their sleeve, they're saying that once you swipe across that information about the lost, that call is deleted, the information, other information on the phone, data on that phone, we haven't heard if they've been able to extract any deleted data yet. But I will tell you that the issue here that I'm sure the defense is going to be bringing up is that they did not get Alex's phone until September. That's three months later when they started working with Alex phone and and also to throw in that timeline that Snapchat video that

we keep on talking about that we saw today on Paul's phone uh that is going to be so critical that did not get unlocked on Paul's phone until March nine months after these murders uh that's when that was extracted from that phone so there has been been a delay to be able to get some of this information. Now, as far as Paul's phone, of course, we don't think it's been manipulated. Alex's phone, yes, huge question. May 30th, 2021, and then to June 4th, and then June 7th. So June 7th, of course, being the day of the double murders, we have these deleted phone calls that the state brought up earlier today.

Where are they? As far as the calls go, I think I heard from the expert that those calls were gone. But the data, the data, we've got to find out if there's going to be data that they can pull out. They seem to be able to do a lot, Dancy. To Wendy Patrick, it never looks good when you're trying to get rid or delete evidence, Wendy Patrick. When the cover-up becomes evidence of the crime as deleting evidence and deleting phone calls,

it really illustrates as a practical matter why behavior of the defendant after a murder is sometimes even more important. That's why the jurors are looking so intently at Mr. Murdoch. They heard from Paul and Maggie on the tape. They know what their movements were before the murder. But if you don't have,

or if you have inconclusive evidence digitally, they're going to look emotionally and try to determine how would someone act after they just killed their spouse and son and whether or not those movements are consistent. Because sometimes we just don't have all the digital evidence, even in this day and age, that we wish we could have. Dr. For forensic countermeasures.

Dr. Hold on a moment. Dr. Michelle Dupree. Dr. That is someone who is intentionally trying to cover up. Dr. I was just going to ask you about that, Dr. Dupree. Countermeasures are what we call measures, attempts to cover up a crime, to counter the evidence. Dr. Michelle Dupree, we're talking about lack of evidence, but I mean, to me, it's laid out minute by minute, murder by the minute. You have 848, 847, 846. You

have him walking to his car at the same time he's calling Maggie and texting her, hey, I'm going to go check on mom. If he's still there at the home, he should have heard those shotgun blasts and that blackout gun blast. I mean, I think this is a lot of evidence, Dr. Dupree. Exactly. I agree with you, Nancy. And we keep hearing about circumstantial evidence. I love circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is physical evidence. Physical evidence does not lie. So all of these things, these discrepancies, as we said before, they're forensic countermeasures. It's someone who is intentionally trying to cover up their actions. And to me, that's a very guilty scenario. Well, we haven't heard about the third

video statement yet. Okay, go ahead and tell me about that. Then I want to circle back to did Maggie pick up her own murder weapon? Go ahead, Ann. Well, I was just going to say, I mean, well, the question now is, okay, so we heard from Alec earlier on about the statements he gave to law enforcement, right? And we heard that he was asleep and then he went to go see his mom and that he just called Maggie. Well, there's a third statement. We've been told, there's a third statement. We've been told that he made a third statement to law enforcement. I'm wondering when they're going to introduce that. And does this video play a role in that? Was it a late statement

that he gave to law enforcement? I have a lot of questions about how he handles any conversations with police once the Snapchat video surfaced, we're all aware of it. He's aware of it. How does that fit into his timeline? Did he try and move things around? I think that's going to be very interesting. Guys, I want you to take a listen to our cut three. Did Maggie Murdoch actually go and pick up, for her husband's convenience, her own murder weapon?

Listen. Did you ultimately provide that weapon? I did. All right, well, tell me how you provided that. Did Alec pick it up or did somebody else pick it up? He did not. When I let him know it was ready, he said he was unavailable and Maggie would come pick it up. Okay, and is that what happened?

It is. All right, and so tell me about that. Tell me about your interaction with Maggie when she picked that weapon up. She came to town. We met, did some paperwork, and she handed me a check and drove back to Hampton. You gave the weapon, the third weapon? Yes, sir. Yep. She would have completed the 4473 with me. All right. So you made three blackouts, excluding the optic, roughly in the same configuration.

Maggie picked up that third one, correct, sir? The irony, did Maggie Murdoch actually unknowingly go and pick up for her husband her own murder weapon? That's floating around the courtroom as well as what we can reveal in our cut for this goes back to did someone the question did someone try to use facial recognition to open up Maggie's cell phone or was she trying to take a picture of her killer take a listen to our cut for so the camera's on for one second in your opinion what does that tell you is happening on this phone? It appears the phone's being moved and the camera's activating in the background to see if it would recognize somebody's face that would unlock it. So the phone is attempting to face unlock, correct?

Yes, sir. That's what it appears. But you just testified that after 8-49-31, the phone never unlocked, correct? Correct. If that camera had seen Maggie Murdoch's face, what would you expect to happen? I would expect for it to unlock. Let's keep going. This is at time 8-55-32. What do you see there, sir? It shows the end time for orientation portrait, which means it was ending in that orientation. Okay. So, again, at that time, would it be your opinion that that phone was held in somebody's hand? Yes, sir.

To Robert Crispin, it brings up the, it conjures up the horrible image that Maggie may have been trying to take a quick photo of Paul's killer before she herself was murdered, or that someone was using that phone to actually open the phone up by putting it up to her face. But it would not unlock Robert Crispin. I don't buy the, she was getting ready to take a photo of her killer. I think it's more to the fact that the phone was in the hand and they tried to FaceTime, or not FaceTime, but do the facial recognition to open the phone. And because it happened so, so quick and things were flowing so much, he stopped. But let me go back just a little bit.

Now, let's go back to day one and two of this trial. And, you know, we were talking about motive. And I know we were talking about the homicide, but let's go back to the motive and two of this trial and you know we were talking about motive and and I know we were talking about the homicide but let's go back to the motive for just a minute do you remember what they talked about when the detective said that they were doing the trash and they were going through the trash do you remember that do you remember one of the items specifically that the detective said that he removed from the trash where was that receipt from remember the Gucci receipt for $1,200 and something

odd dollars? Yes. Do you remember them talking about that? So now let's go back. Let's talk about some deleted phone calls. In a case like this that has so many twists and turns and so much craziness, you know as much as I do from being a prosecutor and a former cop that it just doesn't stop. Don't be surprised if somebody comes forward and says that she was his mistress. I'm not saying that's what's going on but that clearly talks about or explains some deleted phone calls. It really does. You know I'm thinking about that as well and every time the defense conjures up a happy marriage how wonderful their life was i go back to what alex murdoch said yesterday we heard him say when he was asked how was your

marriage he goes well as good as it could be rumors of mistresses and more have been floating around the courthouse since I got here. But that doesn't mean it's true. So far, no mistress, no hooker, no girlfriend, no sweetheart has come into that courtroom. And until they come into that courtroom, in my mind, it doesn't matter. All that matters is what this jury hears and people have come up and told me oh he did this and he dated her and it doesn't mean a hill of beans unless it comes in in front of the jury otherwise it's just gossip it's just gossip at the local restaurant it means nothing until it can be proven. But one thing that the prosecution keeps on asking us to listen to,

they keep on asking us to listen to the fact of the stuff that perhaps Alec doesn't tell us or we don't hear from him. And in that statement is very telling as well because you hear a lot of language, and I know you've got some fabulous behavioral psychologist on board too that can talk about this. But, you know, you hear about can talk about this but you know you hear about this wonderful marriage but you don't hear the word love you don't hear the word love about Maggie when he's talking and crying about her you don't hear love the word love when he's talking about Paul and that just

struck me as odd when you're going through several interviews more that we've listened to him talk about you know what happened that night for four think, close to an hour now in the two interviews combined, and we never hear the word love, not once. So that's something that I've sort of listened to in my, like, layman's psychological profile of what's going on. You know, Ann Emerson, I want to follow up on what you just said. When people ask me, oh, how are the twins? Or how's David? It's really simple. They're my whole world. And I've been wondering why Alex Murdoch never displayed that about either Paul nor Maggie. But I talked it off to him not being emotional or effusive about his marriage. I mean, what do you make of that? Let's go to

Robert Crispin. Okay, Crispin, you probably don't gush about the love of your life as much as she may wish, but where's the love for Pete's sake? Well, clearly these detectives saw that. These are trained seasoned investigators, homicide investigators. Trust me, they're not saying it out loud, but every single one of those people sitting in that car, and I tell you, I've been there. I've been in those seats and I've listened. There is no love here. And who goes and stays for an entire summer at their ocean house and your husband stays at the ranch house? That just doesn't happen in a marriage of true love. You miss your spouse. You need to be together. Go ahead, Dr. Dupree.

Well, there's something that really hasn't come up, and that is Maggie actually did work at the law firm as a bookkeeper, at least occasionally. Now, what does that conjure up? She may have actually found where some of these funds were being mishandled, and she may have talked to Alex about that. That would certainly be another motive. You know, Dr. Dupree, when I was out here many, many months ago and you and I were together investigating the Mallory Beach homicide by drunk boating because of Paula Murdoch, that is exactly what was being discussed way back then that Maggie got wind of what was happening

and she was consulting divorce attorneys and then all of a sudden she ends up dead. Guys, for those of you just joining us here at Fox Nation Series XM, I want you to listen to a bombshell that just went down. It's Hour Cut One. It's a Snapchat video son Paul Murdoch took in the kennel there at Moselle Hunting Lodge and you can clearly hear in the background his mother Maggie soon to be murdered and who we believe to be Alex Murdoch at the murder scene.

Take a listen. Hey, he's got a bird in his mouth. Hey, buddy. There's a kitty. There's a chicken. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. You can see Alex Murdoch during that getting red, shaking his head back and forth. There were other times in testimony today that even from

where I sat you could tell he was agitated and moving around in his seat. I want to go back to that bombshell that happened in the courtroom. We've been waiting for it. Would you see Alex Murdoch? Would you hear Alex Murdoch? We heard him loud and clear.

Ann Emerson now was the defense going to say that wasn't him, but we didn't hear that, but we definitely heard that there is, we're expecting another witness to take the stand, and that's the person who received that Snapchat. I mean, it certainly will have an impact, I think. Rogan Gibson, we think we're going to be hearing from him shortly to get called up for the state, the receiver of that Snapchat. Now, the Snapchat, what you hear is them talking

about something that happened to the dog's tail. I mean, you see this tail and it's all chewed up. And you hear Maggie in the background say something to the effect of, oh, it's a guinea being like a guinea hen. But then you have two distinct male voices, one which appears to be holding onto the tail, which would be Paul, and then another voice, which seemed to be a little bit further away.

And the first one goes, it's a chicken, I think it was Paul, and then the second one goes, chicken. So you hear this going back and forth a little bit, and you can hear the difference of where those voices are, so it feels very obvious. The only place they've got to go is to argue that that is not Alex Murdock, and if it's not him, then who the hay is it? We wait as the evidence unfolds.

Goodbye, friend.