Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - CAN BULLET EVIDENCE PROVE ALEX MURDAUGH IS A KILLER?

Episode Date: January 25, 2023

Jury selection continues Alex Murdaugh murder trial with opening statements expected later in the day. Over the past two days, motions have been filed by the defense asking the judge to not allow some evidence be presented, including ballistics and some of the state's expert witness testimony. The judge ruled that a ballistics expert,  a SLED agent, was credible.    Another point of contention, blood spatter evidence. The defense says the white t-shirt worn by Murdaugh, which the state says has blood spatter on it, has been damaged by testing so that defense experts cannot conduct their own tests.  Both prosecutors and the defense agreed not to bring up the blood spatter evidence during opening arguments.     Joining Nancy Grace today: Mark Tate- Trial Lawyer- The Tate Law Group; Twitter: @TateLawGroup (Savannah, GA) Dr. Mindy B. Mechanic- Professor of Psychology (Emeritus) at California State University Fullerton; Forensic Psychologist focusing on trauma/victimization, intimate partner violence, sexual assault and stalking  Sheryl McCollum - Forensic Expert, Founder: Cold Case Investigative Research Institute in Atlanta, GA; Twitter: @ColdCaseTips; Host: “Zone 7” Leonard Romero-Forensic firearms examiner/ballistics expert 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   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.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. The beat goes on with jury selection for wealthy attorney turned murder defendant Alex Murdoch, accused of murdering his wife Maggie and son Paul as his financial world, his empire, unraveled. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. Right now, we believe a jury may be impaneled as early as today. With me, an all-star panel to make sense of what we know right now. But first of all, I want you to take a listen to our cut 134, our friends at NBC. The tiny town of Walterboro, South Carolina.

Tonight, an epicenter of intrigue. Do you have anything to say? The widely watched murder trial of former attorney Alec Murdoch now underway. Murdoch is charged with killing his wife Maggie and son Paul in June of 2021. His defense claims he's innocent. The killer's still at large. But prosecutors contend he's snapped under the pressure of a secret life unraveling his motive they say to garner sympathy and distract from a series of financial crimes

where murdoch stole millions of dollars from his family law firm and from clients all that unraveling before the eyes of potential jurors got an all-star panel to make sense of what we know right now but first straight out to matt harris formerly with wsoctv and now star of the murdoch family murders impact of influence you can find them on facebook at murdoch podcast matt thanks for being with us what's the latest in the jury selection well today's the day we think even before the second session begins that they will finalize the jury. Today, the defense and prosecution are going to get to use their strikes this morning, the jurors that are left, and then it'll be whittled down again. And hopefully by lunch, we will have a jury. Wow. You know, again, Mark Tate with me, high profile lawyer out of Savannah with the Tate Law Group at TateLawGroup.com. Again, this is not California where jury selection can take weeks and weeks and weeks. 900 jurors to pick 12 from, 12 plus six alternates.

And it should be very difficult to claim. Out of 900 people, you can't find 12 qualified jurors. You know, you're right. It's not California. It's not New York or South Florida. And I've picked juries in New York and South Florida and Arkansas, and I can tell you that this judge and in South Carolina, the judge doesn't put up with a whole lot of delay and dilatory tactics from either side in selecting a jury. And you know, Nancy, you're not really selecting the juries, the jurors, you're simply eliminating the ones

with your strikes that you have. And each side gets a certain number of strikes, and each side has an unlimited number of, you know, biased-based strikes or for a cause. And I agree with you. Getting down to 12 from 90 for either side should be fairly straightforward. Harpoolian's got to prove that there's a doubt that you can put a reason to, and the prosecution's got to prove there is no doubt that Murdoch killed them. You know, Mark Tate, a high-profile lawyer out of Savannah, is throwing around a lot of legal ease

when he's saying strike for cause. That means that there is a legal ground that this person, let's just pretend it's Jackie, absolutely cannot be fair. For instance, let's just say she is related. She's first cousins with Alex Murdoch. Well, that's a strike for cause. I, as a state, don't have to use one of my very precious 20 strikes. When I was prosecuting for many, many years, the state got 10 strikes and the defense got 20. That's not fair. That said, she, Jack, would be struck for cause and neither side has to use one of their strikes. All right, here's a strike that I'd have to use one of mine up. Let's just say Jack's now a psychologist, no offense, Dr. Mechanic, and I look into her a little bit and I I find out that her dissertation, when she got her Ph.D., was about wrongfully convicted.

Uh-uh. N-O. I don't want her on my jury. Bye-bye. So I would have to use one of my, a strike, one of my 20 selected strikes against her to get her off because the defense would really want her on. So you've got strikes for cause, and then you've got your 20 that you can have any reason you want to, as long as it's not unconstitutional. So that's what's happening. Matt Harris, how are the jurors? Wait, you haven't been able to see the jurors, have you, Matt?

No, no. And I want to, you were talking about strikes just to let you know, I believe 10 for the defense, five for the state and unlimited for cause, as you said, just to straighten that out. Well, that is just not fair to the state at all. So that is a derivative of the schematic I had picking jurors. So the defense gets 10 strikes. The state gets five, is your understanding. And then you can strike anybody for cause. Okay, is that your understanding of South Carolina jury strike? Yes, yeah, absolutely. In a criminal matter, obviously it changes a little bit in civil matters

with regard to who has the burden of proof. But here the state does have the burden of proof. Yep, yep, yep. Well, I still say it's unfair because the defense gets twice the number of strikes than the state is. But you know what? I'll save that argument for another day.

Matt Harris, I'm about to go to our experts, but can you tell me, there are some major pretrial issues that the judge was hearing. One is about blood spatter, one is about ballistics,, one is about ballistics, and one is about motive for murder, all of his financial fraud. What can you tell me? What did the judge decide about? Let's talk about ballistics first. What about ballistics?

Okay, ballistics would go to a big win for the state on this one. They found, the state on this one uh they're they found the state did evidence of the ammunition the shell casings that were around maggie murdoch were identical in their science to ones found on the murdoch moselle property at the shooting range and other areas they say throughout the property let me just let that soak in. You're telling me, and jump in, everybody on the panel, why do I have to keep telling you this is not high tea at Windsor Castle with Camilla and Charles? If you have a thought, jump in there, okay?

So let me get this straight, Matt Harris, and I'm going to go to Leonard Romero, forensic firearms expert with ballisticsfirearmsexpert.com. And Cheryl McCollum, director of the Cold Case Research Institute, also a forensics expert. Let me understand this, Matt. So the state says we found shells. We found ammo and cartridges around Maggie's dead body. Right. That match up to a gun that was there on the estate. Did I get that right?

That is correct. Yes. Cartridges throughout the state. They believe it's one of two blackout rifles that Alec Murdoch purchased earlier in the year. One of those, the defense is saying it's stolen and the state is saying it's missing. Uh-huh. I think I might know where it is. I think I know who knows where it is. Alex Murdoch knows where it is. Leonard Romero, forensic firearms expert. What's a blackout rifle? Let's just start with that. A blackout rifle let's just start with that a blackout rifle what it is is it's a uh it looks like an ar-15 rifle it was developed in 2010 it basically fires an ak-47

type of cartridge in it um but it maintains the same configuration or same platform as an AR-15 rifle. It just has a different, more powerful cartridge in it. It's basically a.30 caliber rifle, but it looks like an AR-15. I had to be looking down the wrong end of that. And the motion, by the way, Nancy, was the motion was to say that that science wasn't isn't 100 percent provable. So they should strike it. But the judge let it in to Cheryl. You know, they used to say the same thing about fingerprints. OK, Cheryl McCullough, forensic expert, founder, director of Cold Case Research Institute.

You can find her at Cold Case Crimes dot org. And she's the star of a brand new hit podcast. And I mean a hit, Zone 7. Cheryl, what about this argument made by the defense that ballistic science isn't, it's a little murky, it's soupy. I can't have an expert look under a microscope and tell if this bullet or cartridge came from that gun. That's total BS. It's just like a fingerprint. It is just like a fingerprint for that rifle or shotgun, no question about it.

And the jury is going to be sophisticated enough to understand this, Nancy. me is that you've got two separate weapons involved with these murders and you've got evidence of those two weapons being fired on that property before the murders. And again, people are going to be able to understand that with no problem. I don't mean to jump in, but I'd like to talk about that, what they're going to see. And, you know, juries, I don't necessarily know very frequently are accused of being sophisticated when it comes to science. And at this point, you got to remember that Harpoolian was a prosecutor. And not only that, he knows how to properly cross-examine a ballistics expert. And there may be a general level of

science that supports the conclusions, but the facts that have been input to reach those conclusions can be challenged and may be wrong, and there are, or as wrong, and there are certainly studies that call into question at least some of the science behind making these markings and determinations. And again, Harpoolian doesn't have to win. All he has to do is have something out there, a piece of admissible evidence from which he can draw a reasonable inference in his closing arguments, and he can shove it right down the prosecution's throat. That's so funny you said that. I was thinking of the defense shoving it in the exact opposite direction. But I'll tell you what, we got a problem. We got a problem. The problem is exactly what Mark Tate just said. He's right. High profile lawyer out of Savannah. He's tried cases in this

jurisdiction before. He knows what he's talking about. And he's right. Hart Poolean is a defense attorney. He's as wily a varmint as I've ever seen. The state has got to be ready. This guy's a former prosecutor. He knows every trick and the trade. And this is what I would do. I'm telling you right now, prosecutors, listen to me, please. I had to do this in a fingerprint case. Same thing.

I had to get the fingerprint, known fingerprint of the defendant, and I had to get the latent print found at the murder scene I had to make up glossy comparisons and give one to each like a big you know the big postcards you can get not the little ones when you're at a tourist attraction and side by side, I put the known and the latent and circled in red the comparisons. Because my fingerprint analysis was under fire. That's what they need to do with this ballistics. Cheryl, go with me on this. Wait a minute.

They need to get the known cartridge or bullet. And they need to put it under the microscope and show the striation marks. In other words, the little marks that only one gun in the world will leave on the bullet as it hurtles down the barrel at high speed. Then they need to get the questionable one under a microscope,

put them both on a little card where the jurors can see, yeah, that's the same gun. Who's jumping in? Is that Cheryl? Me. No, this is Doc. Here's the problem. We don't have the actual gun that fired that bullet.

We have one gun. Matt Harris, don't we have one gun? Yes, but that's the problem. And if we're talking about a shotgun, they have a smooth bore. They don't cause rifling marks on the bullet. And secondly, if we're just looking at the shell casing itself, that's what we'd have to go with. And we'd have to go with that firing pin mark and ejector mark or something of that nature to compare it to. And we don't have anything positively to compare it to i hear you dr michelle

dupree joining me she literally wrote the book homicide investigation field guide matt harris don't we have one of the guns the shotgun which was the the bird shot and the buck shot that killed paul that one which won't have rifling marks on it well guess what you're right what with with the blackout gun what they can do because there's two my understanding is there's two possible blackout guns that are there of which one is missing like y'all just mentioned what they can do is they can take the the cartridge cases that were found on the property and any cartridges unfired cartridges and compare them and to see if they were cycled through the same firearm. What they could say is all of those cartridge cases were fired in one gun and those

cartridges were cycled in the same gun as those ones that were fired. For the shot shells, what they're going to have to do is just look at the shells and look at the firing pin impressions and look at the holes and look at any ejection marks on those. Of course, you know, their pellets and the pellets are consistent with the shot shells that were found. Guys, you're hearing Leonard Romero, 23 years experience as a firearms examiner. I didn't mean to interrupt you. Go ahead, Leonard. Oh, no, ma'am. No problem.

Yeah, so what they're going to do, my understanding is basically they can tell what the caliber of the gun is from the stamp on the cartridge case. So they know what the caliber is, okay? They can go ahead and compare the fired cartridge cases to each other to see if they were fired from the same firearm. If there's any unfired cartridges on the property or within his residence or within anything of his person that they recovered, they could look to see if there were cycling marks on those. Okay. They could look to see if there were cycling marks on those. Okay, when you say cycling marks, it's the same evidence that's being relied on in the Delphi double murder cases of Abby and Libby. Hold on, Cheryl McCollum, I'm going to circle back to you

because Delphi is your bailiwick, but I want you to hear our cut A from Ann Emerson. Yesterday was a day that we literally got to have a witness on the stand. We got our first witness on the stand and it was Paul Greer. He was fled and they wanted to see if they could bring him in as an expert on ballistics. And that was what this hearing was about yesterday. They wanted to see if Greer could be brought in to discuss ballistics because that is a critical part of the evidence for the prosecution. Now, Greer is talking about the shell casings and about a rifle, a rifle that the state is trying to link

to Maggie Murdoch, especially. Now, the problem with this, of course, is they don't have a murder weapon. But what they do have are shell casings that have markings on them. And those shell casings were found at Maggie's body, as well as a range where they shoot guns on that property and in the gun room where Paul Murdoch's body was found as well. So those cartridges by Maggie's body, matched cartridges found at the gun range on the same estate and inside the house. So that's how we know it was a Murdock gun.

And what? The two people, one shot one, and then the other shot themselves, and then they hid the bullet, hid the gun? No, the perp had the murdoch weapon and got rid of it whoever that perp may be and take a listen to more from ann emerson wciv this explains it all the important thing about this is that we don't have that murder weapon but we have these shell casings that can talk about the signature of a gun. So what they did is they went in and they shot, test fired a blackout rifle, which was the same gun as the one that they think killed Maggie. And they fired it and they had these tests done with the shell casings and came to a conclusion,

at least on some of these shell casings, that they were a match with what they think is the missing blackout rifle. So right now, this is critical evidence for the prosecution to move forward. And they were allowed to bring in that expert witness. And that was a bit of a blow for the defense. So we're going to see how they handle all of this gun evidence that's going to be coming in probably very quickly. Cheryl McCollum, that made perfect sense to me. Of course it makes perfect sense. It's logical.

And I remember you as a young prosecutor telling a jury when evidence was missing that this person should know where it was, such as a blackout weapon. Don't reward him for being a good criminal. Just because he's gotten rid of this weapon is not going to, you know, absolve him. To me, having the exact same type of evidence in other places on that property, such as the range where he's practicing shooting, is an incredible piece of evidence. Joining me is Dr. Mindy B. Mechanic, Professor of Psychology, Emeritus, California State University, Fullerton, forensic psychologist.

Dr. Mechanic, thank you for being with us yesterday and today. Alex Murdoch on trial for a double murder was seen smiling and even smirking in front of the jury the jury pool what do you make of that i'm surprised his lawyers didn't admonish him to keep a neutral face my understanding from defense attorneys i've worked with is that they always talk to their clients about keeping neutral not looking disgusted not looking angry certainly not smirking so I can only imagine that he couldn't help himself. You know he looks a lot

different than he did with his shaved head and his little band-aid on his head where he said he had a botched suicide attempt. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Matt Harris joining me from formerly WSOC-TV, now radio host and star of the Murdoch Family Murders Impact of Influence podcast. So, Matt Harris, not only is there the issue of ballistics, which we've explained, but there's also blood spatter evidence. And I'm referring specifically to Alex Murdoch's clothing the night of the murders. What is the evidence we're talking about? And what, if any, was the judge's ruling as to whether it will come in or be deemed inadmissible? Okay.

The blood spatter, the issue there is the expert, Tom Bevel, originally said, okay, we can't tell, inconclusive. The SLED agents went to him with a better picture of said blood spatter shirt. He changed his conclusion. Harpoolian and the defense team is saying, well, he was basically bullied into changing that ruling or that discovery. And so it shouldn't hold up. They also had the issue of the shirt has been destroyed due to all the testing that has taken place.

So the defense cannot have their own people do the scientific study of the shirt. So what Judge Newman has said is, I'm not ruling it completely out. What we will do is on a case-by-case, argument-by-argument basis, he will make the ruling whether it is allowed in or not. So that's really going to be a fluid situation as the trial goes on. So what do you make of the potential blood spatter evidence and the controversy swirling around it? To forensics expert Cheryl McCollum, director of the Cold Case Research Institute. What about it, Cheryl? Nancy, they're going to look at it for high velocity. And that's little bitty, tiny specks, and they're going to say this guy was close when the fire, you know,

the weapon was fired. That is not a smudge. That is not something where he knelt down and got blood on him because he was looking for signs of life. That happened because he was standing there when that weapon was fired, period. And a photograph will show high velocity versus low velocity by itself. And remember, they're long guns, both of these, which I talked about with Dr. Dupree. They're both long, long guns, which of course, you know, puts you a little bit of a distance away anyway. And there was some transfer blood on the bottom of the shirt to spatter up a little higher on the shirt. Good point. To Dr. Michelle Dupree, forensic pathologist, former detective,

Dr. Dupree, the defense motion is referring to a blood spatter, blood on a white T-shirt. Alex Murdoch wore the night his wife and son were murdered. Murdoch's team is arguing the blood expert should not be allowed to testify because the t-shirt was ruined or used up during forensic testing. They are also claiming an expert first said that it was a transfer mark that Murdoch may have gotten when he reached down to touch Maggie or Paul, but upon close examination, for instance, under a microscope, that actually blood spatter is visible. What is the difference and why is it important, Dr. Michelle Dupree, between transfer and spatter?

Well, Nancy, transfer means, of course, that you touch something and then you transfer it to your clothing, which would be absolutely reasonable if you were checking on the person to see if they were still alive or not. Spatter, however, is very different. Spatter comes from actually shooting a weapon close to someone and getting that back spatter from that person. So if that is the case, that would be very damning for him.

The other thing is that they actually found the blood spatter they're talking about is up by the shoulders. It's not down at the bottom, as Matt had said. So, you know, there are at least three locations that is not consistent with transfer. In addition to that, they actually found three gunshot residue particles on the shirt that he was wearing. And those are absolutely definitive that he was in contact with a gun very recently. So why are they not asking, you know, asking about that? Where did that gunshot residue come from?

Did he hold a gun that day? If so, where is it? You know, tell us about it. Nothing has been said about that. Well, the one thing they did mention was, and I don't know if this puts gun residue on you, but they said when Alex found the body, he went back to his house after he called 911 to get a gun in case the intruder was still around or whatever. So I don't know if just picking up the gun from the house would get that, but he mentioned that. Yeah, it's called

primer gunshot residue. And they're going to come up with three conclusions. One, that the individual was in close proximity to a gun that was being fired the individual fired a gun or the individual um was in an environment where there were gunshot residue particles so it's very easily transferable i mean if you're picking up ammunition or you're handling a gun you can pick it up what interesting here is, was there any back spatter on the muzzle of the gun, the rifle that was used? I don't know if there was any blood that was detected or was there any distance determination on the clothing that was looked at to see if there's a possibility that they can do a muzzle-to-target distance determination.

I know there's no rifle you would need to do that, but you can look under, even though the clothing is heavily bloodied, you can look under an IR photograph and see if there is a discernible pattern there. We do know that there was stippling. Yeah, there was stippling, which is a contact wound. Guys, we also learned from motions yesterday detailed information that we didn't know before about how Maggie and her son Paul Murdoch were murdered. included that 22-year-old Paul was standing in the so-called feed room of the dog kennels when he was shot in the chest and the head. He stumbled forward before he was shot the second time in the head. Maggie, however, took five bullets, gunshot wounds, including a fatal gunshot wound to the head. Now, based on what we know about bullet casing patterns and other analysis, we learn that Maggie and the shooter were both moving when Maggie was murdered. Maggie was shot six times, five, and then the final shot to the head. Now,

let's just think about that for a moment. To Cheryl McCollum and to Mark Tate, I'll start with you, Mark Tate, high-profile lawyer out of Savannah, that means just one thing. Maggie Murdoch was running for her life when she was shot six times, including in the head. It's absolutely, yeah, it's a horrible, horrible thing to hear. And the jury's going to hear the absolute details of the horror of what kind of a person would shoot their child twice in the chest and then, you know, once in the head. And by the way, what an excellent shot. That's a guy, you know, apparently there were no casings found that were missed. This guy's a good shot. And then was able

to maintain the, you know, the resolute nature needed to chase down his wife and shotgun her to death. Well, I appreciate you complimenting the shooter about what a great shot he is. No, I don't. He is? No, I don't. He was shooting his wife a close

range. Oh, it's horrible. Absolutely. To do that. It's hard to believe that a father would do that to his son or mother, and I think that's what Parpoulian is going to seize on to make a jury wonder. Do you recall the moment in Harry Potter where

the, I believe, Ollivander, who owned the wand store, said, yeah, Voldemort was terrible, but he did great things. Kind of sounds like what Mark Tate's saying. I don't like it. I think it's pretty cool to bring Harry Potter and Voldemort into this whole thing because, you know, I agree with your analogy.

That's a brilliant thinking on your feet analogy to come up with, Nancy. I'm impressed with that. No amount of sucking up will ever erase from my mind that you complimented the killer on being a, quote, great shot. Okay, that said. Ask one of the ballistics guys, is that a good shot? That's not a novice shooter. It's just not. Has everybody on this panel lost their mind? Okay. Ask one of the ballistics guys, is that a good shot? That's not a novice shooter. It's just not.

Has everybody on this panel lost their mind? Okay, I think, Matt Harris, help me out. What's going to happen today, Matt? They will hopefully wrap up the jury situation and find their jurors and alternate. And then after lunch at some point, they will get into and begin their opening argument. And then we'll be off and running on this trial that we've waited so long for. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace Guys, people are coming from all around, literally hundreds and hundreds of miles away to see the Murlock trial, one thing that remains to be seen as to whether this jury will ever find out about motive evidence. Take a listen to our cut 144. Our friends at WCSC.

When it comes to the financial crimes, though, Judge Clifton Newman has ruled in that case. The state was trying to get that evidence introduced. What they call in linemen which judge newman says is basically what typically is used to take away evidence but the state is wanting to introduce it and he just did not feel comfortable so the state did agree to introduce that evidence as it was needed once trial actually started it's actually called a motion in limine a motion in limine and what that is is um you believe the other side is going to introduce evidence that you believe should be disallowed. So you have a motion in limine, which means before it can happen, you want the judge to rule against it.

What about it? Straight out to you, Mark Tate. Well, the judge has agreed to hold that in advance or hold any ruling on that until he hears some evidence, I believe, that's proper. You know, I think Harpoolian is strategically smart, obviously. I'm going to get his contact information in case, you know, you decide to come after me over my complimenting Murdoch and his shooting ability. But, you know, I think it's a smart move from the defense side to try to keep the evidence out. And I think that you should count on the fact that if it comes in, once again, Harpoolian knows how to cause that evidence to dissemble. And each and

every argument, if you want a clue how he's going to cross-examine the expert who is going to put that evidence in for the prosecution, if we want a clue on how Harpoolian is going to try to dismantle and discredit that testimony, take a look at his motion and eliminate to exclude it. And he will have in there all of the arguments that he has that show that it's inadmissible or should be inadmissible, and he'll use that to attack that witness, except he'll do it with the Harpoolian lifelong prosecutor, defense lawyer, politician, and smooth operator in South Carolina skill to dismantle an expert on the stand. Nancy, I think, as you know and as we've mentioned earlier in the broadcast, that the prosecution does not have to have motive. However, I think the state wants to show motive

so they can bring in the prior bad deed. I would want to bring in motive to explain to a jury why a man would kill his wife and his own son. And speaking of financial motive, take a listen to 146 from WYFF. Prosecutors believe Murdoch's financial crimes were to be exposed the Friday before the murder, thus fueling a motive. He had been stealing for over a decade, 99 counts to date, and facing essentially life without parole on these particular financial accounts. And that's

the significance of what he was trying to prevent from being exposed. His theory, and this is sort of is that he knew the jig was up. So he went home and butchered, blew the head off his son and butchered his wife. There's not one shred of evidence there was any problems between any of them. Really? Because that's not what we have been told, Matt Harris. Isn't it true that Maggie had been meeting with a divorce lawyer? If it is true, and I'm pretty sure there was at least a forensic accountant as part of a divorce thing going on i don't know if it's never going to be appearing before the jury because no attorney or accountant has come forward with that information i think what will be important is the snapchat video that paul sent his friends a couple hours before the murder.

Maybe there's some mention of there. Also, Buster, the other son, is listed as a witness, so maybe he will be asked about that. Otherwise, I don't know what the state has up its sleeve to prove there was some marital discord, and I don't think the state is going in that direction anyway. They're going in the, just throwing it out there. So he can mention to everybody that it was a great marriage. The state is going in the direction of, he did this to delay being found out

that he had ripped off all these people, maybe do a shell game, move somebody around, he would never get caught, get a lot of sympathy, and the bright, shining light would not be on him for a little while. That's the state motive, not because the marriage was messed up, because he just needed to try to figure out how to just keep pushing the day of reckoning down the line a little

bit. Guys, financial disaster claims of stealing millions and millions of dollars from his clients. It was all about to explode. Why? Because of one thing and one thing only. The death of a beautiful teen girl named Mallory Beach. Guys, what do we know about what Mallory Beach's case has to do with this murder case? To you, Matt Harris, explain how Mallory Beach's boating death at the hands of a Murdoch has anything to do with this murder trial? Well, the state's going to bring this up so they can bring it in, which is that two days after the murders,

there was supposed to be a hearing on the Beach lawsuit against Paul and Maggie and Alec and a number of others, where it was going to be decided how much financial information and documentation would have to be turned over. So the state has said that along with the fact that this morning of the murder, one of his co-workers at the law firm confronted him on dismissing huge checks from Chris Wilson, another attorney, was showing that it was starting to bubble up. The gig was up. And this hearing that was going to happen because of the beach death and the boating fatality, that was another reason that things were going to start to come to light.

So the state's going to bring that in as showing, hey, well, that was thrown out. As soon as the uh murders happened that motion was was kicked away guys take a listen to our cut 136 our friends from nbc one possible piece of evidence that jurors will need to take into account a snapchat video taken just before paul and maggie murdoch were killed as jurors are vetted inside outside an invasion of cameras tents and trucks on every corner of the courthouse. Eyes wide as a man who once tried cases here as a prominent attorney awaits his fate in handcuffs. That Snapchat was sent at about 7.56.

Out to you, Matt Harris. Do we know the content of the Snap? No, we do not uh i know that they have subpoenaed and put somebody on the witness list from snapchat to tell us what that is all about we have heard about a video at 8 44 that paul and maggie and alec are in which was a video where paul was showing one of the animals in the kennel was injured, and he was sending it to his friends, and they were taking care of that dog. Now, Hartfootland has said, oh, this will prove that they were just chumming it up.

I've heard otherwise that it wasn't that chummy-chummy. So I'm interested in what's on the Snapchat because, you know, you have to imagine if it's being used that Paul had to be saying something about Alec or the marriage or why Maggie showed up there that night to have dinner because she was somewhat suspicious, according to reports. She said to her friends, why is he wanting to meet me? Because she was living in Edisto, which is like an hour and a half away. Right. And according to her friends, Maggie said that Alex Murdoch convinced her to come there, against her better judgment, to go visit his father because the dad was about to pass away. That she said, quote, something fishy is up. I wonder what Alex is up to.

She was very, very leery of going. Now, tell me again who was in the video? On the video, the 844, I don't know about the Snapchat video. Snapchat video is between Paul and some friends. The 844 video is Alex, Maggie,

and Paul, and that is at 844, and then at 906, that is when he allegedly that his truck starts and he leaves so that's the window right there and in that video from what i've been told it is a video of paul showing the dog but you can hear paul and maggie ellick talking and that's uh just moments before the murder would have occurred murders but i thought alexdoch told 911 he had just gotten there and found the dead bodies. But that video you're referring to would show that he had been there earlier. Yes. And he left to go see his mother about a 15 to 20 minute drive away.

And they did like 20 minutes and then came home. Originally, we had heard he was not there at all that day, that he just showed up at 9 or 6. Turns out they all had dinner together that evening, Paul, Maggie, and Alex. We wait for the jury to be seated and justice unfold. Goodbye, friend.