Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - BREAKING: Jury Misconduct In Trial?

Episode Date: March 1, 2023

Prosecutors brought rebuttal witnesses to the stand today.  Murdaugh’s former law partner Ronnie Crosby was called back as well as pathologist Dr. Ellen Reimer.  Retired Hampton County Sheriff TC Smalls took to the stand to testify that he never once spoke to Alex Murdaugh about installing blue lights in his vehicle.  We also learned today that the jury will visit Mozelle on Wednesday.  One interesting note was the possibility of juror misconduct. So far no information has  been releases.  Joining Nancy Grace today: Eric Bland - Attorney for Gloria Satterfield’s sons- Founder/Partner- Bland Richer, LLP Attorneys at Law, Twitter: @TheEricBland, blandrichter.com  Chris McDonough - Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective, Host of YouTube channel- ‘The Interview Room’, ColdCaseFoundation.org  Dr. Laura Pettler - Forensic criminologist specializing in staged murder, expert in statement analysis, Owner, Laura Pettler & Associates Death Investigations, inventor of The Kaleidoscope shooting Reconstruction and Bloodstain Reconstruction System used worldwide, Author: “Crime Scene Staging Dynamics in Homicide Cases”, Host of The Murder Room Podcast, LauraPettler.com, was the OzTeam Forensic Criminologist for the Emmy-Winning Dr. Oz Show,Twitter: @DrLauraPettler 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  Matt Harris - Former reporter WSOC TV, Radio Show Host, and Podcaster “The Murduagh Family Murders: Impact of Influence”. Facebook: “MurdaughPodcast” See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. We have just come out of the courtroom. We've been in there all morning watching testimonies that pour from the witness stand. And let me tell you something. It has been hot and heavy with fireworks blasting in the courtroom on multiple witnesses. As you know, yesterday, the defense rested with a very emotional witness. It was John Marvin Murdoch.

That's Alex Murdoch's brother. And I've got to tell you, this guy was very believable. He was calm. Everything he said seemed to be sincere and heartfelt. I want you to hear the testimony that he delivered from the witness stand. But today, starting this morning with the state's rebuttal case, it's been a whole nother thing. Lots of fireworks, especially when the defense attorneys would get a hold of the state's witnesses. I really thought there for a moment when the lady medical examiner, Dr. Rima, was on the stand, I thought she might just give Hart Putlian a kung fu kick, but she was very restrained, even under intense cross-examination.

But let's start at the beginning. I want you to hear how the defense ended its case yesterday with one of the most believable and poignant witnesses for the defense. It's John Marvin. Take a listen. So when did you first learn that your brother was down at the kennels just before the murders? Two days ago with the rest of us? No, no. I went in for an interview with SLED, the one I told you about where we talked about the shirt, talked about the blood, all that. That was the reason for me being there was to hear that audio. And I saw the kennel, of course at that point I heard his

voice and I knew I knew that was him. Before August of 2022 at that interview when you heard your brother's voice at the kennels had he ever told you that he was down there just prior to the murders? No sir. Would you agree that that is not full cooperation? By him not telling SLED that he was at the kennel? Correct. I would say that, yes, he lied. You are hearing John Marvin on the stand describing what he knew. And when we come back, Christine, I would like to hear the full cut three. Let me go straight out to Eric Bland, high-profile lawyer for the Satterfield family. Eric, it never helps when your own brother says you lied. No, it doesn't.

This trial now is a referendum on Alex Murdoch. All the scientific evidence, I think, is out. All the technological evidence is in but out. In the jury's mind, it's going to come down to what they believe in Alex Murdoch. And of course, John Marvin was a compelling witness, but he's a slanted witness. And you've done this many times like I have, Nancy. You ask him three questions. Do you love your family? Yes. Do you love your brother? Yes. Would it hurt your family and its legacy and reputation if Alex is convicted of a double murder? Yes. And then you sit down.

Because you know what you're going to get when you get a family member. Of course they're going to rally the troops. So this trial is a referendum on Alex. He's called everybody else a liar. Dick Carputlian called Ronnie Crosby a liar. Called the pathologist a liar on Alex. He's called everybody else a liar. Dick Carpullian called Ronnie Crosby a liar, called the pathologist a liar this morning. So is the jury going to believe Alex over the 20 other witnesses that have come forward against him? And that's really what's going to come down on this verdict. Has anybody ever told you, Bland, that you like to put the cart before the horse?

I haven't gotten to that yet. yet. Did you or did you not think John Marvin Murdoch was a good witness for the defense? Yes. I agree he was a good witness for the defense. Now what you just heard was him admitting that his brother Alex Murdoch lied and that he learned for the first time when that kenn lied. And that he learned for the first time when that kennel video was played, he learned for the first time that all along his brother had been telling him a different story, that he hadn't been at the kennels.

But let me go in reverse for just a moment. I want you to hear his description of what he found the night of the murders in our cut three. I could see where Maggie had been, and it was grass, and, you know, they had covered it up with dirt, so there really was nothing could see where Maggie had been and it was grass and you know they had covered it up with dirt so there really was nothing to see where Maggie was.

I walked over to the feed room and y'all have heard the descriptions. Y'all saw it. I've never seen pictures and I've told them before coming to this court that I was not going to see pictures. But y'all can imagine what I experienced. It had not been cleaned up. I saw blood. I saw brains. I saw pieces of skull and when I say brains it could just be tissue. I don't know what I was seeing. It was terrible. And for some reason I thought it was my

something that I needed to do for Paul and for some reason, I thought it was my, something that I needed to do for Paul to clean it up. And you're seeing him on the stand, he is upset, but yet he seems to me to still be telling the truth, and he did not lie for his brother about his brother being at the kennels. Matt Harris is joining me, formerly WSOC-TV radio host and star of the Murdoch podcast. Matt, you have news about the jury? I'm here, so I missed the very end of it, but thank goodness my Impact of Influence podcast partner,

Seton Tucker, came out and told me right at the end there was an email that the judge had received, and he handed both the defense and the prosecution this email and then someone was with her said she heard clearly uh either dick or jim say something about a juror and it appeared from this these two people that i just talked to that came in that they were giving a positive response to whatever is they received not the same response from Creighton Waters and his team. Don't know what it fully means, but they said they will attack it first thing. Okay, I don't know what to make of what you said, and you're also cutting in and out on me. Could you just try to give it to me in a bullet?

Are you saying there's been juror misconduct? Are you saying that one of the jurors communicated with the judge? What are you saying? That the judge received an email. We don't know who it was to. He called it up. He gave the emails to both of them. And two people in the courtroom overheard the defense kind of smiling and said, it's a juror.

I don't know what that means when they say it's a juror. But they said they will deal with it as soon as they come back. And they will get both sides. He wants them to take lunch to figure out what to do about this email. So it's more than I mean, who knows what it is, but it sounds like it could be something pretty big. OK, to you, Eric Bland, whenever the judge says we'll take care of it, that means there's an issue and if the juror was mentioned in that conversation that I mean it for all I know it could be a juror feel sick to his stomach it could mean a juror fell asleep during some of the testimony it could mean a juror

reported that someone tried to talk to them this does not mean juror misconduct and this also does not mean we're losing a GERAR. You know to Matt Harris how many alternates are left if any? Two. Two alternates left. You're right it could be nothing but you know we only have two alternates left we're getting down there. And just because Hart- I have some news.

It's like a crocodile smiling. Do you know if it's smiling at you or is it about to bite your head off? So I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in the fact that Hart Putley was smiling over the news. Are you saying you have more news? I do. Last night, you know, I receive a lot of communications from some of my podcast listeners and obviously because I have the good fortune of being on your show, people recognize me now. Thank you for that.

There is a rumor floating around that one of the jurors has told a co-worker during the trial that that juror believes that Alex is innocent. And somebody said that this was going to be emailed to the judge. I have no idea the truth of that, but I think that that could be what Matt is referring to. My understanding is that that has been sent to the judge. But again, that could just be a rumor with no veracity. But I do believe that that could be what Matt is referring to. Well, you know what? It's a little too coincidental that you heard that and that now Matt Harris has heard about an email regarding

one of the jurors. But here's the rub. If the juror went into this thinking that Alex Murdoch is innocent, that's absolutely the way it should be because he is presumed innocent until the state proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So if he said that prior to trial, I don't have a problem with it. But if he was communicating with a coworker during the trial about this case, that juror has to go. They cannot stay on the panel. It's just that simple. That's the law.

Does anybody disagree with that on the panel? Yes, no. Okay. Nancy, you're right. EB always knows what he's doing. EB's on it. Yeah. Problem.

Yep. Got to go. That's a big, well, he's out. He's out. If there is any discussion about the case with outsiders that are not on the panel or any discussion about deliberations before both sides have rested and closings have done, have been done and the jury charges have been done. If they try to deliberate before that, they're out. There are very strict rules regarding jury conduct. And I can tell you right now, if there was a conversation about this trial and this evidence during the trial with a co-worker, that juror is gone. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.

Let's talk about what we do know. The state is mounting a rebuttal. Take a listen to Hour Cut 7. This is Ronnie Crosby on Alex Murdoch's original story. Did you on multiple occasions go over in great detail Alex's original story as to what he did on the night of the murders? On more than one occasion, we discussed his story. And what, if anything, did the defendant tell you about whether or not he checked Paul and Maggie before calling 911? My understanding of what he told me was that he checked them before he called 911. That was clear to me. When was the first time you've heard the

defendant's latest story admitting that he was in fact at the kennels minutes before the victims were killed? When I heard that Ellett was taking the stand, I believe it was last Thursday, I did set up my workstation so that I could watch his testimony, and it would have been when he told you that he was at a kennel. It was the first time that I'd ever heard that. Okay, back to you, Matt Harris, star of the Murdoch podcast. Matt, Ronnie Crosby, I believe, is one of his law partners, is he not?

Right, well, former law partner. Yeah. Yeah, former law partner. And so the first time that he had heard the story that Murdoch was at the kennels at the time of the murders, and earlier today I was comparing this to the Scott Peterson case, where Scott Peterson places himself at San Francisco Bay. He places himself at the location where his wife's body was dumped. Here we've got that voice, his voice on the video,

placing him at the scene of the murder within about a two to three minute space before the murders. And this is the first time his friend and law partner had ever heard that. I thought that was pretty damning, but I don't know how the jury is taking it. Joining me, Dr. Laura Petler, forensic criminologist specializing in staged murders and statement analysis. Dr. Petler, thank you for being with us. What do you make of the defendant knowing the exact moment to lie about? Why couldn't he have just told the cops, hey, I just saw them. I was at the kennel.

We were trying to video a friend's dog for the veterinarian and everything was fine. And then I left and I came back and they were dead. Now, how would anyone but the killer know that that was the critical time interval? Those three minutes is when the murder occurred. Right. And you know what, Nancy, with staged murders, it's very different than other types of murder in that if the murder is staged it's basically telling us that there is a victim offender relationship and when alex murdaugh has decided to tell certain people certain things and then omit certain things it's because it meets his needs and he it meets his needs at the time but then I think at some point there's some cognitive overload where he begins to get fuzzy into everything he's lied

about so that's where you see that Crosby idea where he told Crosby one thing and then told somebody else something else so it's it's all about meeting his needs and the victim offender relationship you know sit tight dr. Michelle Dupree, if you don't mind, because I'm about to get into Dr. Reamer, the state's medical examiner on the stand. Man, if looks could have killed, Hart-Pootlian would be dead by now. Now, the word around the courthouse is that Hart-Pootlian's nickname is Poot,

but I'm going to stick with Hart-Pootlian for many, many reasons. I'm coming right at you. Chris McDonough is with me. Chris McDonough is a veteran homicide detective. He's handled well over 300 cases. And is the star of The Interview Room. That's his channel on YouTube. Chris, now you know that Hart Putlian is a very, very tricky character.

He's a good trial lawyer. He did not let Crosby go. Completely unscathed. Take a listen to Hour Cut 9. And if you're implying that I would come in here and somehow shade truth in any way because of that, I would take high offense with that, Mr. Hart Putlian. I'm not concerned about your high offense. Are you angry at him for stealing your money?

I have no feeling one way or the other. I don't have any feeling about Alec Burdock betraying you and stealing your money. I admire you. I don't know that I can look beyond that. I have had anger with him, extreme anger, Mr. Hart-Pootland, because of what he did to my law firm, what he did to his family, what he's did to so many people, but you can't walk around with anger. You have to find a way to deal with it and move forward. If you think I've come in here and told this jury something because of money, when we

we're talking about two people who were brutally murdered, then you're headed in the wrong direction. Maybe I just saw some anger there. Were you angry just a moment ago? I thought I knew who Alec was. I did not. You know, I've got to function. I've got a family.

I've got to move on with life. Wow. I would say at the end of Crosby's testimony that he definitely got the best of Hart Putlian. And, yes, he got angry on the stand. Who wouldn't? But I found something he said very, very telling. He was on the stand and he said, I have a reputation of integrity. I wouldn't lie on the stand is what he's trying to say. And I guarantee you, if Hart Putlian had one scintilla of evidence to suggest that Crosby was not of high integrity and did not have a good reputation, he would have paraded it right in front of the jury.

Chris McDonough, what do you make of having your law partner come in and your brother, your brother who's supporting you, by the way, and state that you lied about where you were at the time of the murders. You know, I thought it was a good move on the defense's part, because obviously with that exchange, Nancy, we we see that he put that not only, you know, Crosby under the microscope, but his integrity and the integrity of, you know, the firm. And so Crosby had to defend that. And by putting John up there, Alec's brother, what struck me with John is his testimony was moving, and he was, you know, very moving emotionally, and he was actually showing emotion. I would love to see that out of Alec in relationship to, you know, real emotion. So one thought that I had there, that may backfire if the jury had paid attention to that.

Guys, Hart Poolean is a courtroom veteran trial lawyer, and he really knows how to stop a witness in their tracks, but it did not work on Crosby. Christine, could you please play our cut number eight? This is a tiny peek at Hart Poolean's MO, his modus operandi, his method of operation in a courtroom. Take a listen. You don't go around looking for hogs in the daytime because they're nocturnal from the defendant, did you not? Are you familiar that that was what was said? Objection, Your Honor, if it's based on what he's heard or seen. You always want to be, you know, prepared to shoot them, so you would generally have some type of rifle with you, a long gun?

Objection, Your Honor. He's giving an opinion. He's not been qualified as an expert. Objection is overruled. That summer I received a call from his son-in-law. Barrett was in the Mayo Clinic with stage 4 colon cancer. Objection, Your Honor. Objection is overruled.

Barrett had some waterfront lots. Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay. All this material came from somebody else. Objection. You see Crosby, Ronnie Crosby, he was a lawyer himself. And Hart Pooley, when we come out with some objection,

you see him going giving him the side eye because he knows that's not a valid objection Hart Poolean doesn't care I know exactly what he's doing he's trying to break up this testimony of an incredible witness for the state and he's doing it by the way but the judge is not showing any ire, at least in front of the jury. He just overrules all of Hart Putley's objections and keeps going. You know, I've got to admire him for at least trying, Eric Bland, to break up good testimony for the state. He's jumping up every couple of minutes. And the more he objects, that tells me, the more he dislikes dislikes the testimony well you know you you were once a great trial lawyer I'm not a great trial lawyer I'm just a trial lawyer we know there's two ways of

dealing with that there's two ways of dealing with damaging testimony Nancy you can do what harpootlian did which is try to interrupt the flow and break the rhythm and then the jury can't focus on what's being said, as opposed to just looking at the fighting. Or you just sit there and smile, and you act like it's no big deal, and when it's your turn to cross-examinate, you just say, no further questions. And the jury will say, well, that must not have been damaging testimony. What Ronnie Crosby was doing in that courtroom was extremely damaging to Alex Murdoch because he delivered the eulogy to Alex's son, Paul. He has been his longest serving

partner, friend in that firm, and he's very close to the entire family. It was extremely damaging, and the jury did make a connection with Ronnie Crosby. Okay guys, now we're going to get into Dr. Michelle Dupree's bailiwick. Dr. Dupree is joining us here in South Carolina. We're camped outside the courthouse right now. She is a forensic pathologist, she is a medical examiner, a former detective, and author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide.

And I imagine, Dr. Dupree, if you heard DeMayo mention one more time, you're going to do a backflip. Because the defense has tried over and over and over to use that, as we call it, learned treatise regarding shotgun blasts and gunshot wound injuries and homicides but you know what it's like going into a kitchen and not knowing the difference between the microwave and the oven and the dishwasher you know you're in the right place but then you don't know what to do because very often when he tried to throw that book in Reamer's face she swatted him down like flyswatter well Nancy interestingly enough I actually worked with and trained with Dr. DeMaio in

San Antonio. And he is the father of modern pathology, a gunshot wound expert. He's renowned all over the world. That is the Bible for us on gunshot wounds. I felt really badly for Dr. Reimer today. Harpootlian did everything he could to discredit her, but she is absolutely correct. There is no way that this could possibly be a contact shotgun wound to the head. One of the things that I think she's having a little trouble with is explaining what she means. And it's not just the gas that we're talking about. It is something we call... Dr. Dupree, can I just cut through it and ask you this if Paul had sustained and I'm certainly no expert yeah like you are but I do know this if

Paul Murdoch had sustained a contact wound which is touching your skin to the head with a shotgun not a 22 but a shotgun he wouldn't even have a head that's just about right nancy we have to remember that she said that the orbital bones which are where the eyes are they are so paper thin it's they're like parchment paper they were not damaged you know there's just no way that this could possibly be a contact wound. From the angle that she describes, it makes perfect sense. It was tangential. It basically severed the brain stem at the base of the neck. And I'll use a different word, but the brain popped out nearly intact.

The brain is approximately two, two and a half pounds. It's the consistency of sort of a firm pudding. It popped out nearly intact. A gunshot wound to the top of the head is not going to do that. That brain would be basically mush. And like you said, the rest of the head would pretty much not be there. There's just no way this is a contact wound. Nancy, I'm going to drink everything. Okay. I think I hear Bland. Hold on, Bland. I wanted to clear something up. Okay, I think I hear Blaine. Hold on, Blaine. I wanted to clear something up. Actually, I just want you to say it again so that everybody like me

that's not a medical examiner can understand what you're saying. You said something, I think, very probative, or in other words, it proved something about the orbital bone around the eye the orbit around the eye you said that that bone is paper thin and that if he paul murdoch had been shot contact wound to the head with a shotgun because we see plenty of suicides where people shoot themselves and say a 22 or a lesser powered weapon than a shotgun and their head is still there, or at least part of it is. What were you saying about the orbital bone and the delicate nature of the orbital bone? How the orbital bones around the eye would react to a shotgun wound, a shotgun blast contact to the head? What would happen to those orbital bones? Nancy,

they would be fractured in so many pieces that they may be even indistinguishable. They are so paper thin, they're like parchment paper. And again, it's not just the pellets that are going to cause damage, but it's that temporary cavity. If you throw a pebble into a lake, the pebble is the bullet, but the waves that come out from that is the temporary cavity, which are filled with energy, which disrupts tissue. It can disrupt and do a lot of damage. And there's just no way this could be a contact wound. Okay, guys, I want you to jump in. Yeah.

I just say Dr. Dupree is explaining this way better than I believe we got the explanation in there through no fault of anybody. But I think that both of the experts, loud out here, gave kind of a confusing, not very clear testimony on how they thought it happened. I went on the show yesterday about the guy talking about was he in the feed room or was he not in the feed room. And today I was a little confused about exactly how she was saying it. Now, Dr. Chapri, she broke it down perfectly, but I'm not sure they got through to the jury. Yeah, and Nancy, from an investigative... Well, I'll tell you, this is boring. Go ahead. This is Chris. Hey, you know, thinking what Dr. Dupree just kind of dovetailed on her thought process, she's a thousand percent right, because you now have to move the shooter into a contact position, right? If the shooter is using a shotgun at the top of the head, number one, that means the victim has to be lower than that shotgun barrel,

ultimate barrel. And that puts the shooter into that feed room even further. And when that trigger is pulled, all of that matter is going to be going in a forward position where Paul's body ultimately ended up. So you would see it all out there. Whereas where his positioning was in, unfortunately, his brain next to him, that is much more consistent to the way Dr. Reamer has been testifying. And so Dr. Capri is a thousand percent correct, in my opinion. To Dr. Laura Petler, joining us, criminologist and host of the Murder Room podcast. Laura, what is the significance? Why are the lawyers fighting so rabidly in the courtroom to show that Paul was either shot in the head or through the arm and it went up? Why is that so important to them?

Nancy, I think it's important to them because the state is positing that there was one shooter. The shooter was Alex Murdaugh and he used two firearms to kill first Paul and then Maggie while in opposition the defense is arguing that there could be two shooters and that if there were two shooters it was impossible for one person to have done this without being covered in material brain matter blood, blood, skull, and then turn around, grab another gun, and shoot Maggie from a distance. And so it's really important for both sides to get their points across because they're

arguing the two-shooter theory versus the one-shooter theory. But if the defense is saying, yes, they're, okay Fine. There is one shooter. Maybe there is one, but if that one was a person that shot Paul, shot Paul at a contact range, that person would not have had time to get cleaned up and would not have had time to do everything else, including Maggie, that the state has argued that Alex Murdoch had to do. Because they are really going to the mat on this. I want you to hear our cut 10. And this is Dr. Reamer on the stand trying to explain her point. Listen. Can you please look at the images that you have and explain to the jury your conclusions and why that defense pathologist is incorrect, who didn't conduct the autopsy to begin with, why he's incorrect.

We have the abrasion on the left shoulder, clavicle area, and then we have an entrance defect in this left side of the face. We can see a hole there. It's a hole. And there was a defect in the left temporal lobe of the brain which was included in my autopsy report that could only have happened from that being an entrance wound. I physically performed the autopsy and the way I determine direction is I have a hole below the left ear which went into the brain and so that's not going to happen in the opposite direction.

And I understand that people can look at pictures. That's like a two-dimensional view, but doing the autopsy makes certain information available to the pathologist that is not available to an individual not performing the autopsy. And I had that information in my report which was not you know I guess overlooked overlooked by the defense pathologist and also just a moment Christine I want to go to our cut 11 where dr. Reamer emphatically states that Paul Murdock's wound was not a

contact wound to the head. You know, I want to ask you this too, Dr. Michelle Dupree, she confirmed over and over, she re-emphasized over and over that she performed the autopsy, not the defense expert, that she saw the body, that she took the measurements, not the defense expert. The defense medical examiner, who I agree is an expert, you get a lot of murders in inner city Atlanta, but he was judging everything off of photos that she had taken, not seeing the body. That makes a big difference in my mind. That's right, Nancy, because one of the ways that we determine trajectory is we follow that bullet path. And if there's an injury in the left temporal lobe, which is about the middle of your brain, then the only way that that injury can get there is if the trajectory is

from the left, as long as there's not another wound on the right. And she did not describe that. So obviously, it entered on the left. Again, no way that there could be something any different. Also you have to remember there were pellet defects up on the door. Again, going left to right. No way that those pellets are going to bounce backwards. That's really important because Eric Bland, we cannot approach the knowledge that the medical examiners have regarding the autopsy of the bodies. But something we can understand, we can wrap our minds around is exactly what Dr. Dupree just said, the pellet defects on the door. That makes sense to me, where those defects were in relation to that gunshot. You just used your common sense

and that is what the jury is going to have to do because they have 24 ears and 24 eyes. Look what these pathologists do is not so much a science as an art. It's developed over time. Dr. Reamer has done 5,000 autopsies so she has her own methodology that may be different from another pathologist. Like she said, it doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it wrong. As long as my methodology gets to a conclusion that's scientifically and medically based. But you just used your common sense. There's not doctors on that jury. They're going to use their common sense and I think what dr. Reamer testified to was a common sense

Trajectory of what happens after a bullet and gas discharge along with packing material to a shell now Is important Explain I agree so the packing material is important because, again, it comes only when the projectile is entering the body. The packing material is not on the exit side of any wound. You're talking about the wadding that's used in shotgun? Yes, and the packing material that's around it. So you would only see that on the entry wound, correct? Exactly.

You know what? We could just break it down like that for the jury uh guys i want you to hear the state's medical examiner sparring with hart putley you decide who won in our cut 12 i don't see how you know you're yes it's a respected treatise, but this is specific to a contact shotgun wound to have. This is what this is describing. Really? Well, it's fine. You know, it doesn't matter.

I can look at my photos. I can look. If you're going to talk about theory, the photos. Doctor, I'm asking the court to instruct her to answer the question as specifically as she can. She goes off on tangents. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Your Honor, you may continue answering the question.

Do you remember what the question was? No, that's your question. Is this series of shots from the book depicting a contact wound? I think that's what I understand. I don't give theoretical talks. I don't start looking up in this book while I'm doing an autopsy. I use my practical reasoning and my experience and knowledge of things. If there had been gas in the wound, or when it hit his shoulder or his neck,

would you expect to find some physical manifestation of that? Well, there would have been a lot more shoulder expansion. This was fairly contained. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. I don't see how, you know, yes, it's a respected treatise, but this is specific to a contact shotgun wound. This is what this is describing. Really? Well, it's fine.

You know, it doesn't matter. I can look at my photos. I can look. If you're going to talk about theory, the photos. Doctor, I'm asking the court to instruct her to answer the question as specifically as she can. She goes off on tangents. I'm sorry. You may continue answering the question. Do you remember what the question was?

No, that's your question. Is this series of shots from the book depicting a contact wound? That's what I understand. I don't give theoretical talks. I don't start looking up in this book while I'm doing an autopsy. I use my practical reasoning

and my experience and knowledge of things. If there had been gas in the wound or when it hit his shoulder or his neck, would you expect to find some physical manifestation of that? Well, there would have been a lot more expansion, shoulder expansion. This was fairly contained. Okay, well, I've got to tell you this, Bland.

Eric Bland joined me, high-profile lawyer connected to the Gloria Satterfield case. The last thing I want is a doctor performing surgery on me that has to go look it up in a book in the middle of the surgery. N-O. And I love the way Riemer said, no, I didn't go look it up in a book, look up a picture. I could look at it and tell what it was. Right. A learned treatise doctrine, Nancy, is if an expert is going to make an opinion based on it. Dick was trying to use it as a weapon against her that

she should have utilized the methodology in that treatise. She said, yes, it's an expert, but I didn't use that methodology because my photo showed it wasn't a contact uh a wound it was an upward wound that had a totally different uh conclusion that had to be reached she was perfectly within her right as an expert to state her opinion and she believes in it and it's going to be a question whether the jury thinks she's right. Well, and if I can jump in for a minute, Nance. Sure, please do. Eric's spot on. Yeah, Eric's spot on, of course.

The question is, there's also, besides just the science, there's the emotion and the feelings that people have when they're watching this. And Harpoolian going after the doctor like that, who comes across as very likable, even though he's defending his client, could backfire on him, not based on any science or anything like that, just because, hey, why are you picking on this doctor I like? Well, another thing that I noticed in the courtroom, and this is something you never want to do, Hartputlian, as he was questioning Dr. Reamer on cross-examination, he had a huge stick in his hand. It's a really tall pointer stick. It almost resembles a cue stick, a pool stick. And at a certain point, he was arguing, the state was arguing about his question. She, Dr. Reamer, was sitting there and he was

pointing at her and doing the stick up and down at her. And she stood there. She never flinched or stepped back or anything. But I didn't really like that at all. I did not think it was a very good optic for Hart-Pootlian, nor do I think it's a good optic to beat up a lady witness. Especially, she's a very learned, scholarly doctor. At least that's the way I took her. And beating up on her that way, I don't think it did him any favors. I mean, Chris McDonough, you're a veteran homicide detective. You've been in many, many courtrooms. If you're going to try to bully a witness,

it could very well backfire on you. I tried to never come down on a witness unless I had caught them in a lie. And then all H-E-double-L breaks loose. But to pick on a lady witness this way, I don't think that did him any favors. I agree with you, Nancy. And have you ever seen in all of your years in the courtroom, a defense attorney, you know, as esteemed as he is, walk in between the expert witness and the state during their expert testimony so many times. I mean, he was walking in the well as if he was, you know, checking his steps. I'd never seen that in my career with somebody who is trying to basically, and my feeling was, he's just trying to distract the jury even further and further away from this expert witness. Had you ever seen that before?

Yeah. Chris McDonough, I can't believe it. I thought that I was the only one that noticed that because I was thinking if Hart Putley had been on my back like he was on the district attorney's back during all of this cross-exam I would have had to have the judge instruct him to sit down he just wandered Hart Putley wandered all across the courtroom I thought he was lost but finally he would go in between as you said the prosecutor and the witness during the questioning. Nancy, I could speak to that. And then he hovered behind him. Nancy, I could speak to that. I know what he was doing. He was injecting himself into the questioning and trying to distract the jury. What? Go ahead, Eric. He

gave a 2013 interview where he explained his trial technique. And he said he likes to walk around the courtroom and walk through witness testimony to have the jury divert he likes to lay smoke fires all over the courtroom so that the jury ends up being confused looking at him and not listening to the testimony this pathologist was perfect she was quirky you could see her being alone in a lab where she likes it. She came across as believable. She was wearing white. Perfect witness for the state. There were times after I tried so many cases, I actually enjoyed going to the library and being alone and researching, getting my facts and my law together. So, you know, that's what you want out of a medical examiner. You want someone that is learned.

You want them to have a lot of experience, having had done a lot of autopsies, and to be articulate and convincing. And I found her to be all of those. Was that you, Chris McDonough, jumping in, or was that Matt Harris? That was me, Nancy. I'm sorry. I apologize for stepping over you.

Go ahead. I was going to say, you know, with Crosby's testimony about the theatrics of Alec and his father, I'm hoping that the jury looks at Harpoolian's theatrics and ties those two together, because that will, in my opinion, really not play out well for alex uh alec in the long run well theatrics are one thing it's madigan impact of influence yeah yeah i was going to say that he you know theatrics are one thing but when you perceive uh an older guy beating up on an educated woman, and let's say we have a draw between the two experts. If you don't like that attorney and what's happening there,

the edge goes to them, right? I mean, there's more than just science in what is going on in these jurors' heads. Guys, there are so many trial tactics at work here. I'm just sitting back in amazement. But, you know, Chris McDonough had it right. It was getting on my last nerve seeing Hart Pootley and basically five inches behind the prosecutor as the prosecutor was trying to cross-examine. I was very surprised the prosecutor did not ask for him to sit down or go where the other spectators were if he wanted to see the exhibits.

But that said, it's water under the dam. It can't be helped now. That's what happened with Dr. Reamer, but we're forgetting another witness that I really liked. Take a listen to Hour Cut 13. Do you know the defendant, Alec Murdoch? Yes, I do. Have you known him for years?

Oh, yeah. Did you ever have a conversation with Alec Murdoch about him asking you permission or even telling you about installing blue lights in his private vehicle? No sir. I never had a conversation with Alec Murdoch. Matter of fact, I never had a conversation with anyone in my 39 years about installing blue lights in their personal vehicle. Did you know anything about the defendant claiming that you permitted him to do so until he testified to that last week? Correct. Didn't know anything about it? I didn't know anything about it. Okay, you are hearing a witness that I thought to be very, very believable. And it was my understanding that this had been the elected sheriff. His name is Thomas Smalls.

I'm looking back in my notes. He goes by T.C. Sheriff Smalls was with law enforcement for 39 years and 8 months. And he just retired December 31, 2022. Now this all goes back all the way to Alex Murdoch and his blue light special. Remember how we have the photo Christine you have that photo of Alex Murdoch trying to badge his way into the hospital to influence witnesses after the boat crash. We heard from his own testimony he would use his badge whenever, there you go, whenever it was convenient to him, and when he wanted a, quote, his words not mine, warmer reception by sheriffs or police.

Then we found out that he had a blue light installed in his car. And he said that this witness, T.C. Small, the sheriff, gave him permission and said it was all right. And so the state produces T.C. Small. He said, I never had that conversation about a blue light. Never. Well, the defense tried their best to discredit that by naming, well, do you know this guy and that guy and this guy and that guy? I guess to suggest that maybe they had authorized it. But almost everyone was shot down by T.C. Smalls. And what this does, in my opinion, Matt Harris, is show Murdoch lies about things great and small.

Oh, yeah. I mean, it's just a matter of just like little pin here, little pin there, little pin there, till this big Y balloon pops and when you, it was a very short testimony, right and straight to the point, no confusion about it, just simply he didn't tell him to put the lights on, he was a sheriff and when he, the other guy he listed Alec that said, gave him the okay, was the guy who got thrown off the force for drugs and domestic abuse. So he was, you'll never find him again. So, yeah, it's just one lie after another.

And lies, when you are a, you know, sociopath or whatever you want to call it, a liar, a liar, a liar, you lie about, like, silly things you don't need to lie about. Nancy, Nancy, it goes beyond just he's lying. Lord Abbott said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And this man has shown that he uses and abuses whatever power he has. And I have firsthand knowledge that he took that badge and walked into an IHOP and flashed it to a hostess to get a table. So this is the kind of man we have. You know, Maya Angelou says, if somebody shows you who they are, believe it.

Alex has shown us who he is throughout this trial and through when you hear credible witnesses like this sheriff. Dr. Petler, I find that personally offensive, having been law enforcement for most of my practicing legal career, that this guy gets a blue light in his car with what uses it when he wants to rush to the Waffle House, or using his badge.

I mean, that is impersonating an officer. Stop it, Nancy. Come on. What about it, Petaffle House. Stop it, Nancy. Come on. What about it, Petlar? I find that very offensive. I think it's offensive as well. I, like you, come from the DA's office in my earlier piece of my career, and we did not have blue lights as I was a DA's investigator, and none of the DA's in our office had blue lights either.

So, yeah, it's extremely offensive. The one thing we always have to remember about Alex Murdaugh, in my opinion, is that he's a very intelligent person. But he also has a pathology that trumps his intelligence almost every time. And this time he's fallen short in being able to cover everything up. He's a master at it. And quite frankly, I'm sure there's a lot of people who feel like there's many, many things he's done that are extremely offensive, including the blue light to all people that are in law enforcement and rightfully have a blue light, you know, for the right purpose and not a manipulative purpose.

I wouldn't say he's a master at lying. He just got away with it for a while. The interview room, having been a homicide detective for so many years, what do you make of someone that misuses their badge and actually has a blue light installed in their car? As far as I'm concerned, it's impersonating an officer. Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely, Nancy. One thousand percent.

And in fact, one of the other considerations that folks need to recognize here, it's not only, you know, stolen valor. It is this fact that that is a very dangerous thing to do because it puts them above the law just by flaunting it into the public arena. Imagine the things we don't know about that he did with those blue lights and that badge. We had a saying in law enforcement, do not wear your badge on your T-shirt, ie when you're gone when you go home go home but when you wear it you wear it proud and you wear it within the bounds of the constitution exactly nancy you know matt harris joining us go ahead we were not allowed to take gifts or special treatment if we had a badge and like he would just said you don't wear it or use it when you're not particularly on duty. You know, Matt Harris, formerly WSOC and now star of the Murdoch Family Murders Impact of Influence.

Matt, it's bigger than the badge. It's bigger, the misuse of the badge, correctly. It's bigger than getting a blue light. It's about posing. It's about being, projecting whatever you think you have to project in order to get what you want, whether it's true or not. To say whatever you have to say, to do whatever you have to do, whether it's right or wrong, to get what you want, whether it's fake badging a nurse at the hospital or putting on your blue light when you're in a personal hurry or lying to police or changing clothes or lying

to Maggie about the pills or the affair or whatever lying lying your way to the point where you're trying to go and that's what i think we see here right and we went with that title impact of influence when little do we know how true that was going to be and how it was going to be part of the prosecution cases i think they're going to say, listen, this guy enjoyed those perks. It's not just about being uncovered for the money. This guy lived that life, loved that life, and he saw it slipping away. Not necessarily, even necessarily be backed up against money. That's one thing. But being unable to get the good seat of the IHOP, to be able to go to your USC games and be the king of the ball, to be able to walk through town and be Alec Murdoch. That was his identity, and that's what he was going to lose. And that is, I think, a big part of the state's, if you want to use motive, I know they don't

have to have it, but that's what they're going to pitch. You know, Eric Bland joining me here in South Carolina, and I'm going to throw this to you as well, Dr. Dupree. Yesterday on the lunch break, when I finished talking to all of you, I walked for an hour around town here in Colleton County and met people and the breeze was blowing. It was beautiful weather. I didn't meet a single soul that wasn't friendly and welcoming and kind. And I just wonder, Eric, if he has any idea what he is giving up through all the pills, through the murders, through the decision in one moment, according to the state, to take the lives of Maggie and Paul.

And for what? He's just given up so much, if in fact the jury finds him guilty. Yeah, it is confounding. But you know, you're a rational person, and you're trying to get in the mind of an irrational person, somebody who had a problem and engaged in problem solving. And sometimes the way people who are in a manic state or a paranoid state or a state that they think they're desperate, they choose to solve a problem in a way that would make a normal person like Nancy Grace say,

why would you ever do that? So I don't think you can ascribe your notion of rational behavior or what you're giving up and try to impart that on Alex Murdaugh it's a fool's errand Nancy well I think you're right and dr. Dupree when you think about it this guy had everything he's got this beautiful wife two sons I think the last count, I think they had three homes. I mean, this thriving practice with law partners that considered him a brother. I mean, what more could the man want? Nancy, I think he did actually realize what he would be giving up if he were caught,

if all of this came to light, which fortunately it actually did. But at the time, I think that was part of his motive. I think he didn't want to give up this prestige, this, you know, genteel picture of the old South and the legacy that he had. And I think that was part of the motive for trying to cover up his crimes and for doing exactly what he's done. Definitely a reason for the cover-up. You know, Matt Harris, the star of the Murdoch Family Murderers Impact of Influence podcast. If you could put it in a nutshell, Matt, what would you say

was his motive for murder? I would say the motive was seeing the life, the image, everything that was his identity was, I'm Alec Murdoch, I'm one of the Murdochs. I'm a hundred years in this powerful position. I made this name for myself because I'm piggybacking on all the other Murdochs ahead of me. I've got these houses, I've got these boats, nobody can stop me, no one has called me out on a lie ever. That would be the motive. It's about to get crumbling down and he will not be the big man on campus anymore. And that scared the bejesus out of him. But how does killing

Maggie and Paul translate into that motive? I mean, they were part of his image. That's the motive for a cover-up. But what's the motive for the murder? It's delaying the inevitable. Yep. Nancy, I have delaying the inevitable. Yep. Nancy, I have an idea about this. I'm trying to find rational behavior.

Okay, Dr. Laura, what is your motive not for the cover-up? Dr. Laura, what is your motive not for the cover-up, but for the murders? It's very different, as you're stating. The murder is different than the cover-up. And the motive for murder for me is, first of all, the number stating the the murder is different than the cover-up and the motive for murder for me is first of all we the the number one rule about murder is murder is typically simple and in this case i think that we see the rise and the escalation of alex's life falling apart but i think he told us what this was about at the very onset of the 9-1- 911 call when he mentioned the boat case on the 911 call.

That was not something that was necessary to get help for Maggie and for Paul. It was just a piece of information that he was offering. And then when the police arrived, he offered that same piece of information and said that this is about the boat case. And so for me, it was always about that because in statement analysis, we listen to what the word choice is and how the sentences are structured and their tone and their idiolect and he's told us what this was about paul and then for maggie you know from the very beginning when this happened and somebody called me back in 2021 and said you know why do you think this happened

to me it was like paul cost him so much money and we know that money and prestige is the most important things to alex murdoch so for paul to be creating all of these problems for him it created preceding conflict between them no matter what he says there was preceding conflict we know that through mark tinsley's testimony and then with maggie did she protect paul or did she try to smooth things over between Alex and Paul? We don't know. But for me, as a staged murder expert, he is charting on all of our metrics at LPA

for numerous staged behavioral patterns, in this case, on numerous points and planes. So I don't just say that I think I know that Alex Murdaugh has something to do with these murders or is the shooter himself. I'm saying that because based on our metrics, he is charting that he is. Nancy, I have a question for you. We are. Go ahead.

Nancy, can I ask you a question? You're a prosecutor. Are you going to ask for a lesser included charge on voluntary manslaughter because he testified, I did not intentionally shoot Maggie or Paul? What are you going to do as a prosecutor in this case? Well, in the past, in many cases, I was okay with the defense request for a lesser because if a lesser included offense, such as voluntary or even involuntary, can be construed from the facts, it is reversible error, not for the judge, to allow those charges. But in this case, I would go for broke. I think this is an intentional murder and nothing less. It's double murder. If

the defense asks for those, there's really no way to stop it because it could be made out in the facts and that would be reversible error. So you really should not object to that. Guys, we're about to find out what this tempest is regarding a juror. Are we about to lose another juror because of misconduct? We'll find out. I'm going straight back in the courthouse and I want to thank all of my guests

and especially you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. I'll see you in the courtroom. Goodbye, friend. This is an iHeart Podcast.