Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Closing Arguments: Murdaugh had Means, Motive, and Opportunity to Kill

Episode Date: March 2, 2023

Closing arguments began today in the Alex Murdaugh murder trial after the jury visited the murder scene at the family hunting lodge. A caravan of vehicles carrying the jury, both legal teams and protection personnel traveled more than thirty minutes west of the Colleton County Courthouse.Judge Clifton Newman followed  in a pick-up truck driven by law-enforcement.  The jurors spent just over an hour walking the overgrown path between the kennel area and the shed.    Joining Nancy Grace today: Darryl Cohen - Former Assistant District Attorney (Fulton County, Georgia) Former Assistant State Attorney (Florida), Defense Attorney, Cohen, Cooper, Estep, & Allen, LLC, CCEAlaw.com, Facebook: "Darryl B Cohen", Twitter: @DarrylBCohen 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. Sheryl McCollum - Forensic Expert, Founder: Cold Case Investigative Research Institute in Atlanta, GA, ColdCaseCrimes.org, @ColdCaseTips   Host of new podcast: Zone 7- 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 Kelly Skehen - Fox Nation Senior Producer  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Hello, everybody. We have just come out of the courtroom and what a closing argument it has been so far by the state's first counsel, Prosecutor Waters. But before we could start closing arguments, and I tell you, you could hear a pin drop in that courtroom, and I very carefully was watching each juror that I could see. But before we could even get there, the jury went to Moselle, the hunting lodge, the scene of the murders, before closing arguments bright and early this morning. Take a listen to Judge Newman in our cut four. We're going to have an escort take you all to the subject property, Moselle, to have a view, a jury view of the location.

You are not allowed to discuss the case with anyone, and you're not allowed while there to ask any questions of anyone who may be there. If you have any questions, you can only ask me. Now, it has been a year and a half or more since June 7th of 2021, and things have changed, or most likely have changed. So you have to take that in mind and certainly consider that. But still, it's the same location, and we'll do that tomorrow morning. Taking a jury out of the courthouse, out of the bubble in which they have been existing, is very, very dangerous. Anything can go wrong. As I was mentioning earlier today, if they pass one person holding up a sign,

Murdoch did it. That is grounds for a mistrial. With me, an all-star panel, but first I want to go to veteran trial lawyer Daryl Cohen, former felony prosecutor in inner city Atlanta, now defense attorney out of Atlanta. Daryl Cohen, did you ever take a jury out of the courthouse? Nancy, we never did that because my worry is exactly what you had to say. My concern would be they saw something. Could have been an accident. Could have been any number of things that would create a problem when it came time to a verdict. And the last thing you want is for a jury's verdict to be nullified based upon outside circumstances. You know, another thing happened in court just before the jury broke. And this was when Dr. Kinsey was on the stand just before these closing arguments started. And Christine,

let me know when you pull up the video and the sound. It was the South Carolina Attorney General, the elected Attorney General, who came in for the direct examination on rebuttal of Dr. Kinsey. And the AG got a long gun and acted out the defense's theory of how Paul was shot, and it was completely ridiculous. Cheryl McCollum is with me, forensics expert, founder of Cold Case Research Institute. You know, Cheryl, you've got to be really careful when you start waving a gun around in a courtroom, especially with a jury sitting there. They don't like that nor does anyone but when the AG the attorney general got that long gun and he had Dr. Kinsey crouched down in the position that Paul would have had to have been at the time of the murder to according to the defense it didn't make any sense Cheryl and also

before you answer keep in mind that right behind the shooter in that scenario up at the top of the door is all the pellets from the shotgun so how do you shoot somebody like that and the pellets go back there it doesn't even make any sense it's impossible for that to have happened and that's why what he did to me was genius. Show them, act it out, prove that this is not possible. Not just that we don't believe their theory. It could not have happened. A cartoon couldn't have put the pellets where they lay in any way possible. Guys, I want you to take a listen to our cut one. Did you have the opportunity to observe

one witness named Michael Sutton, who was a forensic mechanical engineer for the defense? I did. Now, do you recall any of his conclusions or what his main conclusion was regarding the size of the shooter? I do. Five foot two to five foot four. Based on your many years of law enforcement experience, education, and training, what is your overall opinion on his conclusions?

I think his intentions are well, but I think his methods were flawed. The defense determined that there were two potential angles. How confident are you that the methodology used to determine those angles are accurate? I have zero confidence from this piece of evidence. When the defense expert says that the shooter has to be between 5'2 and 5'4, do you disagree with that? I do disagree with that wholeheartedly. I just think it's an unknown. I mean, there's many more variables you have to know how the shooter was holding the gun. You know, Cheryl, finally, somebody on the stand that speaks plain English

that makes any sense. Now, that was Kinsey addressing the defense theory that the shooter had to be 5'2 or under. But listen to one more thing before everybody on the panel gives me their final vote. Take a listen to our cut three, Kinsey on the stand. I love this guy. Paul has just been shot. Yes, sir. And in the defense's theory, you tell me what to do, and you act this out. And I'm going to do what you tell me to do based on the defense's theory of the case. The defense agreed with the assessment that Paul stood there for a moment, bleeding down his injured left arm, and he slowly walked toward the door. Okay and what does the shooter do? The shooter's coming in the door

and then what does the shooter do? He shoots Paul in the back of the head after he passes him. Okay and then shoots Paul in the back of the head like this. And where does the blood spatter go? The blood spatter, the pellet defects, and one that I didn't know about that the expert collected was in the door frame at the top of the door. What did you find odd about the theory, first of all? I think the theory is preposterous, in my opinion. Okay, there you go, Cheryl. That is where the AG attorney general and kenzie were acting out the defense scenario and when they did it it all crystallized that it didn't make any sense didn't make any sense and i think kenzie does a does a beautiful job here again showing

in motion in action this couldn't have happened the way they're wanting the theory to go. It's just like the two-shooter theory. What are you giving us? There's any other stranger shooter, much less two of them. You're giving us nothing. Where the pellets landed, where the blood splatter went, everything is not indicative of what they put forward. What Kinsey is showing you, everything that went into motion, is one shooter in this direction, not their make-believe story of what happened.

To Robert Crispin joining me, private investigator now, but former federal task force for the U.S. Department of Justice was with the DEA in Miami, where there's never a lack of business. He's at Crispin Special Investigations now. Robert, the reason I'm telling everyone about Kinsey and the AG at the end of the state's rebuttal, because just a couple of hours ago, guys, we're camped out right in front of the courthouse. I ran to get here to you once the state's first closing argument was done. Just a couple of hours ago, the jury came back from going to Moselle. That's the hunting lodge where in the dog kennels, the two murders went down. Now see, they've heard all this testimony and Crispin, then they go to the scene, they go in that dog kennel and don't you know, they were looking around and looking up at that door and looking where the bodies would have been and it had to hit home to them the various arguments they've been hearing. Yeah, I mean, actually, they got to go see where yesterday they were trying to

show how it could not have happened that way. So they actually got to see it. And that's very, very, very important. The only thing I wish they would have done when they went out to do that jury site inspection is I wish somehow they could have orchestrated some type of letting an AR-15 on a test fire go off to see how loud that weapon is and as loud as the shotgun is because the timeline going back in time to when he says he wasn't there when he was up at the house just to see how loud those weapons are and that automatic gunfire is you would have heard it it doesn doesn't fit. You know what's interesting about what he just said, Daryl Cohen? I wanted to hear that too. I wanted to be inside a Moselle and hear shotgun and a blackout fired at the kennel. I wanted that. But don't you know, if there had

been an experiment with the jury there, you'd have one GR that's deaf in this ear, another one that has a hearing aid, and this and that, another one that wasn't paying attention, and somebody wouldn't have heard it, and then somebody would have heard something different. It's a very dangerous matter to try an experiment like that in front of a jury. I mean, Daryl Cohen, do you know how many times I would practice a demonstration in front of a jury. I mean, Daryl Cohen, do you know how many times I would practice a demonstration in front of the jury before I did it? I mean, there are too many variables that can go wrong. And then you'll send the completely wrong message. Nancy, if it can happen, it will, and it's never good. So I agree with you. It pains me sometimes to agree with you, but I do.

You don't want to have that type of experiment taking place in front of a jury because all of us see and hear something different. I can't hear you. Wait a minute. My left ear is not as good as my right. My right ear is not as good as my left. I don't know what in the world I should be listening to. I don't think I heard what I should have heard. I saw it differently. Did you see that? So all of that makes a difference. And actually what we're looking at, do the jurors like him or do they hate him?

That's really what we're talking about. Okay, well I've got to talk to you about what I saw in the courtroom. But before I get to the jurors and their reactions to this closing argument this is going to be in segments in many jurisdictions the state can make the first argument then the defense goes and then the state follows up attacking the defense and they get the last word why because the state has the burden of proof I'm going to get right to what I saw happening in the jury box but to you dr. Michelle Dupree joining me, pathologist, medical examiner, author, former detective, wrote the Homicide Investigation Field Guide. Do I need

to tell you anything more about Dr. Dupree? Dr. Dupree, take a listen to our cut two. I want to find out if you agree or disagree. Can you describe the kind of trauma you have observed in your career with contact wounds to the back of the head or any part of the head? And specifically to the face. Generally speaking, whether it be a shotgun or a large caliber hand gun, the result is similar. You feel as though the forehead and the facial features have went away, and that's a kind way to put it. They're actually there, but they've been shredded, and the pathologist can actually put those features back in place,

or the majority of it. But looking at it, it looks like from the teeth up, the person went away. It's just a mess. Are the wounds suffered to call the back of the head consistent with a contact shot to the back? Absolutely not in my opinion. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Darryl Cohen, do you remember Fred Tokars? May he rot in hell? Fred Tokars was a practicing judge in my old jurisdiction, inner city Atlanta. He was a practicing lawyer, defense lawyer, and he was a part-time judge.

Beautiful wife. Remember the Ambrusco family? Gorgeous girls, every one of them, one prettier than the next, smart, engaging. He married her. They had these beautiful little boys. And then tow cars, out dating strippers, using drugs on the side, the whole shebang. He hires two idiots to kill his wife. Wasn't her first name Sarah?

Sarah, that's correct. Anyway, I was so, so sick at the time when I heard this description, but it comes to mind right now. There were two perps. They get in the car with Sarah, and the little boy is there, if not both of them are in the car, and they shoot Sarah in the head. The other idiot first says, man, that effed up my high. And then he said, her head blew up like a pumpkin. Now, when that happened, Daryl Coe and Cheryl McCollum, I was a brand new prosecutor. The only thing I knew about murder was when my fiance had been murdered. And when I heard blew up like a pumpkin, I thought, well, that's an awful thing to say.

Why did they say that? How can you say that in front of a jury? You guys remember that? I remember it quite well. It was horrendous. Now to you, Dr. Dupree. Nancy, I have to do something. That is exactly what it would have been like, isn't it, if Paul had been shot in the head with a shotgun.

Nancy, I've been to so many crime scenes where there was a contact shotgun wound to the head, and we have literally had to scoop up the brain with a ladle and put it into a plastic baggie. That is not what was described. Okay, wait, wait, wait. His brain was mostly intact. Dr. Dupree, now see, even I, a veteran prosecutor, I don't know how many dead bodies I've seen. I'm not proud of it. But even I just got put off by what you said. But the truth is that that's the truth. Okay, could you explain that to me? Go ahead. So the brain, normal brain, is the

consistency of, say, a firm pudding. It's about two, two and a half pounds. When the brain is shot with a shotgun blast, it is decimated. It turns into almost fluid. There is just no way that this could have been a contact wound to the head. It is so much more realistic that it was an angled shot and that the shot severed the brain stem near the back of the neck and therefore the brain basically popped out of the skull and landed where it did nearly intact. It doesn't make sense to be a contact wound. You know, Daryl Cohen, did you hear the way she explained that? I understood it perfectly. But I'm thinking about Dr. Reamer, who was on the stand, and she is brilliant. She is just burning brilliant.

But I think the defense got to her, and she became defensive and agitated as any normal person would have. And I hope the jury got the gist of what Dr. Dupree just said. I mean, it's hard when you're on the stand and you're being attacked to articulate to regular people like us very complicated medical issues like Dupree just did. Well, Nancy, you've got to keep it simple, stupid. K-I-S-S. That's my view. And we're not saying, and Murdaugh is not saying that he killed him and it came from a different way. He's not saying that he saw it happen. They are throwing throwing out a theory whether it's good or bad that it's how it could have happened and he is not charged with being the murderer because people saw him pull the trigger not once but twice he's charged with it with circumstantial evidence you

and i used to talk about the snow argument. It didn't snow last night when I was awake. I woke up this morning and it was snow on the ground. Somehow it got there. That's really what the prosecution has got to do. Or he used rain. I used snow. But it's the same. It doesn't change. You don't have to see the storm to know that it rained when you come out of your office or your home but guys i haven't heard the prosecution do it yet kelly skin is with me uh fox nation senior producer who's been listening to all the evidence in the courtroom with me he hasn't hit the evidence yet waters and all eyes are on water she started motive, which to me is the single most troublesome fact in the case, Kelly. Yeah, we have heard Waters make this storm analogy from opening arguments,

and we see it again in closing arguments. And as we just heard, you don't need to be outside to know it is raining, and that is what he is asking the prosecution to do. He says you need to find means, motive and opportunity here. And he is saying that the only person who possibly had all three of those, as well as evil and wicked intent, is Alec Murdoch. OK, let me go to you. Everybody jump in again. Do I have to keep reminding you this is not high tea at Windsor Castle with King Charles? Jump in. I've got a little delay in my ear, but I'll try

not to step on top of you. Cheryl McCollum, what it boils down to me is just like in Scott Peterson, and don't believe some half-baked entertainment show about Scott Peterson. I heard the trial. I heard the evidence with the jury, and I agree with the verdict. Scott Peterson placed himself at the scene of the disposal of Lacey's body on the day that her body was disposed, along with baby Connor, her unborn child. Murdoch is placing himself at the scene of the murders. Listen to this. At 8.49.27, wait, 8.45.47, so 8.46, he's there in the video. He is in the video at 8.46. At 8.49, Maggie reads her last text. At 8.49, eight seconds later, Paul stops responding to the chat and the phone calls he was having back and forth with his friend, Rogan Gibson, Rogie, about that dog. That

was Rogan's dog. And Paul was taking a video. He had the dog at his kennel. And they were going to send that video to a lady veterinarian to look at his tail. Listen to this time again, everybody. 846. He is there. Murdoch is there. 849. The murders have happened. Right then. have happened right then so you want to tell me that in three minutes somebody he leaves and

somebody else rushes over grabs two murdoch weapons shoots him dead and gets away that's bs nancy is worse than that that's all you got to say is right when when you say he placed himself there he lied he did not place himself there that child he took a video and that placed him there so not only do we have only a three minute window we have the only time he absolutely lied about where he was was the most critical place so you've got alex saying i wasn't anywhere near there and it's not until that video comes out that paul took that he's busted and he lied about the most critical place and nancy cheryl he also says finally admitted on the stand that he was there because so many went yeah that's him that's him that's him that's him he finally said it on the stand he was at the kennel and it's at 8 45 47 which is 8 46 he's there and the murders occur

at 8 49 what what doctor and nancy he also says that the dogs are not misbehaving they are not acting like anyone else is there but But no, nobody else is around. Well, duh. Exactly. You know, you're right. And what killer would have made sure the dogs were back in their cages and everything was just fine? Go ahead, Cheryl. The killer would have killed him.

There's no way somebody is coming into that remote area in three minutes while he's there. Fire seven shots. He don't know nothing about it he don't see nobody there's no other evidence of footprints or tire tracks or phone pings nothing every road guys i'm looking down because i've got all my notes from the closing arguments let me tell you prosecutor waters walked in he walked out of the courtroom right before closings i wonder what he did out there maybe he went to the bathroom maybe he got some water maybe he said a prayer down on his knees but he came in and he was full of swagger he walked right by everybody went up there and started his argument and started at 12 13.25 day 27 and he hit it and he hit it hard this is what is concerning me i'm going to go back over the

closings but daryl cohen you know how i always ask people well what was the jury doing and they always say well they were listening that doesn't help me that doesn't help me at all so I got in a very precarious perch I started looking at every juror I could listen to this Daryl and Kelly skin listen to this because you know the jurors just as well as I do from looking at them there is a red-headed lady on the front row that is nodding with the state almost imperceptibly. There is a short-haired brunette lady on the back row that doesn't take her eyes off the prosecutor waters there is a white male that has on glasses and a mask he also never takes his eyes off waters I got one lady though the lady that always brings a blanket and pulls it up she was doing everything but

looking at water she might glance at him and then she'd look off she'd drink her drink she spent most of her time looking out at the audience you know i'm talking about back row i do nancy and i talked to a source i talked to a source very close to the prosecution this morning about that same jurors body language and asked him what he thought about this juror quite literally covering her face with a blanket and what he told me is I am NOT going to speculate on where any juror is at this moment in the trial because one day you think they're for you the next day you think they are against you and everyone who is watching this trial right now is analyzing our body language the

prosecutor as in the prosecution's body language every step of the way as well. See, Nancy, I'm not as concerned with the prosecution's body language. Okay, that did not help me, Kelly. You're worried about the jury. Let me tell you who's going to be a problem. There's a guy on the back row, a white male. There's two of them back there that are wearing, I call them lumberjack shirts, they're plaid shirts. Now, there's one guy all the way by the wall under the flag.

He never looks away from the prosecution while they're talking. The other guy in a lumberjack shirt, it's a red lumberjack shirt, will barely look at the prosecution at all. That is not a good sign, Daryl, while you're spilling your guts in front of the jury, and they're like looking off up at the ceiling, counting the squares in the ceiling. That's not good, Daryl. Nancy, this case has gone on and on and on,

and we have to realize a swindler does not a murderer make. So as a result of that, the prosecution has got to hit it and hit it hard and get to the jurors mentally and physically. And looking at their facial expressions, watching their body language throughout the trial means everything and i am fearful for the prosecution that they have spent so much time with this banter back and forth that the jury has gotten bored and when they get bored they close their minds and they're just there it's just physically there not mentally and that's not a good sign he needs to hit that timeline and hit it hard guys take a listen now we have just come out the courtroom closing arguments we expect the case to go to the jury today if for once for Pete's sake they could let this jury work late we might get a verdict for Pete's sake

guys take a listen to our cut five as Prosecutor Waters launches his closing argument. On June 7th, 2021, at the Moselle property in Colleton County, Maggie Murdoch and Paul Murdoch were brutally and maliciously murdered at the kennels by Alec Murdoch. Paul, as you know, suffered two shotgun blasts. Maggie suffered five blackout rifle wounds. And after an exhaustive investigation, there was only one person who had the motive, who had the motive, who had the means, who had the opportunity to commit these crimes, and also whose guilty conduct after these crimes betrays him. The defendant is the person on which a storm was descending, where his own storm would actually mean consequences for Maggie and Paul and consequences for those who trusted him. And that person is the defendant, Richard Alexander Murdoch.

You know, I like the way he talked about one person that had guilty conduct after the shootings. Who lied? Who tried to hide evidence? Nobody but Murdoch. Hey, I'm hearing in my ear Christine we there you go she is showing video from the Moselle jury visit it trust me I did not even risk hanking it jinxing it by showing up and spying on the jury. But I can't say that somebody else didn't. Here is the video of them at the crime scene this morning. Not the jurors themselves, but what they were seeing.

And it opens up into the home. I'm not sure what they're seeing right there but they're they're going out you know that looks a lot like Almeda to me where the where the mom lived that said we're told this is video from the scene this morning now I would expect them to be going out to the kennel. Again, to you, Daryl Cohen, that could have made all the difference, that visit to the hunting lodge today. It's going to either crystallize in the jurors' minds what the arguments have been, what the testimony has been, what the evidence has been, or it's going to confuse them. I think by going out there, it helped crystallize a lot of what they were hearing and made it real. It took a

story and turned it in to me as each, every, and each and every individual juror making me part of this story and bringing me in. So I think it was a great idea for them to go out there. I realize the prosecution was against it but i think the more jurors can feel and see what has happened the more likely they are to render a verdict that will be in accordance now wait a minute that looks like the drive that looks like the long inch i'm looking off at a video we're showing you that looks like the long drive entrance to moselle and it's pretty amazing robert crispin that this judge newman had it timed almost to the minute he said we will be back by 11. and it's a 25-minute drive from the courthouse at least and he was right I was sitting

right here and I heard the crowd behind us cheering and I turned around it was a group of the lawyers I don't know which side we're walking in yeah now that's looking more like Moselle from an aerial view and you can see off to the side you see cars parked trying to protect the jurors from anyone coming out there and causing a disturbance that could ruin the trial and make it end in a mistrial. Every step of the way, see, there's somebody driving in front of them. There's going to be people driving behind them to protect the jury. And hey, I think it may have worked, but in my mind, it was a big risk to take because Robert Crispin, scenes change. When you go back, the trees may have grown. The bushes may no

longer be there, or there may be more. There could have, somebody else owns it now. What if they've changed the kennel in some way structurally, and it's not the same as it was the night of the murders? Yeah. Hey, I mean, that's definitely a chance that they took today. And the judge has been spot on this entire trial. I like this guy. But I think what this did today, although a lot of us didn't want it to happen, I think this finally gave the jury an opportunity to flush out their headgear because they've been sitting in those chairs for 27 days listening to all this and i gotta be honest with you going back hold on crispin

crispin hold on hold on crispin we're seeing right now that absolutely is the kennel that absolutely is where the murders went down that's definitely it wow christine thank you for getting that video for us okay Okay, go ahead, please, Crispin. No, I was just trying to say it gives them an opportunity to flush out their head gear because they've been sitting there for 27 days. And when you listen to Murdoch's testimony, my God, I was confused because this is a lawyer who's repeating questions and just extending out his testimony what I feel was a great opportunity to confuse the jury I mean this is a very well educated lawyer this is you talk about a perfect storm I'll tell you what the perfect storm is Nancy the perfect storm is when a con

artist and a lawyer crash into each other and that that's what you have here. He knew exactly what he was doing. How many other witnesses repeated the question every single time, or almost every single time? I mean, I sat back and I'm like, I'm starting to get confused. And I think that's very intentional. Obviously, he knows what he's doing, and he's got to because he's got to attack the government because the facts are

against him okay that is the front of moselle and that is the kennel go ahead cheryl it is imperative that they went out there today you and i preach all the time you've got to walk that scene in order to understand it for 27 days they've seen two-dimensional pictures they've got to go out there excuse me so even if the trees are fallen and the brush is overgrown what has not changed about that is the layout and where it is located as far out as it is they're going to understand somebody would have to drive that long road take that long driveway, and be unseen by Paul or anybody else. Nobody's going to buy that. This was too isolated, too far away, too secluded.

This was a one-person job, and they're going to be able to see that because now they understand it in a way they could not yesterday. Well, I'm glad you mentioned that long driveway of the perp getting in and out. Go ahead, Dr. Dupree. So I think it's also very important for the jury to actually see and imagine how far are the distance between the two bodies and how realistic it would be that someone could actually shoot both of them, you know, with two different guns. It's not an impossibility. Guys, I want you to hear more of what we just heard in the courtroom. Hey, who is that? Go ahead. This is Kelly. I was just going to say I was out there at Moselle this morning when the jury visited, and we were expecting that road to be blocked off and no media allowed, and that is

not the case at all. I was able to drive the road, as I've done many, many times before, and we know that the jury was on the property for about 20 to 30 minutes. And specifically, one juror was looking up at that doorframe of the feed room where we've heard that there is damage from those pellets from the upward trajectory of the shot that Paul was shot with, as the prosecution alleges. But we also know that they weren't allowed to ask questions. So my question is, do they know at this point where Maggie was found versus where Paul was found? Because they weren't allowed to ask questions. So my question is, do they know at this point where Maggie was found versus where Paul was found? Because they weren't allowed to ask questions.

So do they know the difference between the feed room and the kennels and the overhang where Maggie was near? Or are they just as confused as a lot of people watching this? I don't see how they can be more confused after visiting the scene than less confused. Guys, I want you to hear more of Waters opening, closing. And what I mean by that is very often you will see the state give the initial closing statement. Then the defense will go. And then the state will finish up. Take a listen to our cut six. The evidence that you've heard shows that the defendant became so addicted and so dependent on a velocity of money that the millions of dollars

in legal fees that he was receiving was not enough. And so he started to steal. When he's earning millions of dollars and stealing millions of dollars, he's also borrowing millions of dollars from wherever he can. The bank, his law partners, his father, and it still wasn't enough. And this slow burn was continuing and continuing until the boat crash happened in February of 2019. And that changed everything. That set in motion things that were going to happen because of the criminal charges related to that case as well as the civil charges related to that case. And in the aftermath of the Boat case, things changed. The pace of his stealing increased. In fact, that's when he stole the money from Tony Satterfield that you heard from.

Ultimately stole about $4.5 million between the Satterfields and others. You heard where his finances were at on June 7th, 2021. And you saw what happened in the wake of that. And on June 7th, 2021, as all these pressures were mounting, the defendant killed Maggie and Paul. You know, he's really making a point, Kelly Skin, to tie this into the boat crash. Because the boat crash was a case that was supposed to have a hearing that week. I believe it was the 10th. And then Paul was murdered on the 7th.

And suddenly, the boat crash lawsuit seemed to go away. And the lawyer for that case, Tinsley, actually said, well, yeah, it's not as good of a case anymore. We don't have a defendant. Paul's dead. The Murdoch family has all this sympathy. And sure enough, that case settled for a lot less money than was expected, just like Murdoch thought. Yeah, we've heard from the prosecution in closing arguments that Alec Murdoch was on this hamster wheel of just trying to keep up with begging for money, borrowing money, stealing it, allegedly, and hoping that this truth would not be exposed. That was until the boat crash when Mark tinsley was going to make a motion

to compel and alec murdoch would have to show how much money he had alec murdoch and his attorneys claimed he was broke tinsley didn't believe it and was going to file this paperwork for alec murdoch to show what money he had and the prosecution is alleging that that is the pivotal moment in which alec murdoch made allegedly the decision to kill to kill Maggie and Paul to distract from this boat crash lawsuit because he knew, allegedly, that Mark Tinsley would drop it this, described how after the boat crash, people were not three inches up Alex Murdoch's tailpipe about the missing millions. They were overcome with sympathy. Everyone was reaching out. How can we help you? It was almost as if the thefts had never happened.

It got dropped like a hot potato after the murders of Paul and Maggie. It did, but what it also did is it, you mentioned it took away from, we're going after him because he has stolen all of this money, but it also is not, in my view, a good motive to kill his son and his wife. I think that is the weak point in the case. The other weak point is when the prosecutor allowed Murdoch to continue to repartee with him back and forth. I would have been much more to the point, ask a question, and see if we can get him off the stand, because Murdoch was so good, at least it appeared to be good, making a point, cozying up to the jury. And that's why what the people who have seen the jurors,

the woman looking out, the other people looking at them, that makes all the difference to see who is, who is not resonating with the jury because ultimately nancy if the jury likes murdoch he is acquitted if they don't like him he is convicted that simple and they'll find a way to justify their verdict right before we came out at the lunch break uh Christine, I want to play Hour Cut 11 because we heard Murdoch referring repeatedly to Paul, his now deceased son, as they quote, little detective, because he blamed Paul for finding his drug stash. And from that point forward, Paul and Maggie were, quote, watching him like a hawk, and he was descending into withdrawals. Take a listen to our cut 11. We know in May that Paul sends a text to him saying, Mom found some pills.

We need to talk. Another pressure from Paul and Maggie on him. And if you look at the texts, the weekend of the ball game on june the 7th ellick is not at the game and he's texting back and forth and maggie's like don't come if you feel bad and he's like well they're you know i think i can get a late checkout and then he's like at one o'clock they made me leave it's a reasonable inference they were on him at this time. They were watching him like a hawk. Opiates, the most powerful of withdrawals. And everything's coming to a head, including this. Run out of money, running out of options, doesn't get paid in any significant way until December, already stole the Ferris fees and spent that money in two months, has an expensive pill habit,

and accountability and consequences will undo everything in his life, everything that is his self-identity, everything, the only things that he cares about. He doesn't care about lying to his partners and his family and his friends and his clients

if it will delay accountability for him. He'll do it in a heartbeat. And all of that is about to be undone. Can you imagine your wife and your son watching you like a hawk trying to keep you away from your opioids when you have a 20-year $50,000 a week addiction he himself says that withdrawals are awful that you will do anything to make them go away what was he willing to do to make Maggie and Paul go away so he could get back in the bottle, the bottle of opioid pills.

Guys, when things are starting to die down and attention is focusing on him, according to the prosecution, this is what happens. Take a listen to our cut seven. His buddy Chris Wilson comes and sees him on September 4th and confronts him about what he's been doing and then within two hours the side of the road happens. When accountability was at his door he was a victim again and he told a extremely detailed lie and went so far as to draw a composite sketch with the police of this assailant. The accountability that had rotted his doorstep again he tried again. Tried to get it to go away and it worked for a little while.

But this time it fell apart a little quicker. Because his own brother figured out that he was trying to buy drugs. He is a different man than the kind of stories that we've seen before. When you have a middle-aged man who's outwardly successful, who has a strong family legacy, prominence in the community, but is living a lie. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Okay, Kelly Skin, I think that everything the prosecution has said so far is correct, and I think he said it well. I also think he needs to start doubling down on the night of the crime and the evidence proving

the murder and get off motive. We have heard more times throughout that night than I can count whether it's 8 44 or 7 46 and really it's like the jury needs a printout to get the times of that night right. But something he also said about opioids is, I'll let you decide, the jury, if he really could take a thousand milligrams of opioids a day. But even if he was, being intoxicated is not an excuse for murder at all. However, I agree with you completely that they are going to have to put a bow on this to really nail down and solidify that timeline of what happened that night because the jury's not allowed to take notes. They can't read articles. Will they remember the times that the prosecution has been talking about

for six weeks now or is Creighton Waters going to really wrap this up with a bow for them so they can really comprehend the exact moments that Paul and Maggie died. And it really hit home when he was describing they even had a graphic of a hamster on a wheel. It was a drawing. Take a listen to Hour Cut 9, the way that Waters is describing Murdoch for now 20 years addicted to opioids, begging, borrowing, lying, stealing, doing anything to get that next high and just keep it going. Take a listen to cut nine. It's the main thing he did in the wake of the murders of his wife and son was he made sure to stay again one step ahead of the game because he had more time now. He had time he didn't have on June 7th, but he

had it now. And that's the first thing he did. It's the first thing he did. It's the main thing he did, was keep the hamster wheel going. I know it seems like a lie, but you have to consider the unique circumstances of this particular man. This particular man who has proven over and over again that he will do anything to keep that hamster wheel going and to avoid accountability. And he's been doing that for over 10 years. He just finally reached a point that he had never reached before. And he hammers it home. Listen to Cut 8. I want you to hear it the way we heard it in the courtroom right behind us. Take a listen.

That's a situation I think is akin to a Ponzi. And a Ponzi is kind of like a pyramid scheme where it depends on new money coming in to pay old investors. And it works. It'll work for a long time as long as you can keep that money coming in. But the second you can't, the second that you're out of options, it crashes and burns. That's how every Ponzi crashes and burns. And that's the situation fundamentally his finances were like. And that's the situation that was arriving in June of 2021 when he was at the scene

with the victims minutes before they died and lied to everyone he would listen about. A gathering storm. The boat case, other factors that were arising, a gathering storm. The boat case, other factors that were arising, each one leading to that inevitable day of reckoning.

You had the trial lawyers conference where he was confronted. Mark Tinsley was confronted by Alec. Alec, of course, denied it. Everybody's lying on Alec. Alec's telling you the truth even though everyone who knew him had no idea who he was. Everyone. No one knew who he really was. The people who came in here and said, we thought this about him, not a single person knew who he really was. That's how convincing he is. You know, all that is true. But the one thing that

sticks out in my mind right there, Daryl Cohen, is that he is at the scene of the murders minutes before we know the murders occurred. And according to my calculation, it's not even minutes. It's about one and a half minute before the murders occurred. Nancy, there's no way for him to get around that. There's no way for him to get around that there's no way for him to avoid that he is where it happened whether he says he did it or didn't do it he is right there and that is something that he is not able to get over not able to explain away not able to use his gift of gab to say, I was there, but it just doesn't fly.

This doesn't fly. I think I hear you, Cheryl. Go ahead. The jury is going to under... ...will lie, and then he will invoke a gun when he needs to. The fake suicide, which incidentally was also a bad thought, which is what happened to Paul and Maggie. He could have had himself shot anywhere on his body, but he chose that area. And then he will deflect attention away from the truth by garnishing that sympathy to stop any more investigation. That's what he did over and over again.

That's his playbook. To you, Dr. Michelle Dupree, from your point of view as a pathologist, medical examiner, former detective, what is the main fact that you would hammer home to the jury right now? I would hammer home exactly what you've been talking about, Nancy. That timeline and that specific three minutes where, I mean, it probably takes almost that long just to drive down the driveway. He's been there. He is there during that time. I would hammer that home so strongly. Oh, I like what you just said because it fits perfectly. The jury has just come from Moselle in the last two hours. It took that long just to drive down that long driveway. Hey, Christine, do we

have that aerial shot of Moselle? There's this, and we saw it on the jury viewing, a huge long driveway that is bordered with beautiful pine trees. There you go. Yes, yes, that's it. It's a really long driveway. It would have taken him that long, as Dr. Dupree just said, to get down the driveway. That, it's just, I think that's what they need to be hitting. Robert Crispin, veteran law enforcement, now private investigator, if you had to hit the jury with one fact what would it be oh the video and the electronic evidence and the fact that the jury was just down there and now we're coming back from lunch and he's going to go in there and he's going to slam that timeline in there right now and they're going to go wow yeah i was just out there yeah that does kind of fit yeah i was on the property because it's completely different when you see it in real person and in real time. You feel it, you smell it, you see it. It's a completely different story.

Yeah, it was a big gamble to take him out there. I agree. But when he comes in, buckle up. To you, Kelly Skin, what do you believe is going to happen next in that courtroom? I know the state's not through with closings. I never liked it when any closing statement or opening statement had to be interrupted by a lunch break or really for any reason. Hold on. Let me go to you, Daryl Cohen. You're the veteran trial lawyer.

It's never good to have your argument broken up or even an important witness to have suddenly a recess in the middle of that that's that's never a good thing I'm not sure why but I know it to be true Darrell Nancy it doesn't bother me if I am questioning a witness or if I'm arguing and when we start back again I am back in front of that jury because what I'm trying to do is curry favor with a jury I'm trying to cuddle up to that jury, and I want each and every one of those jurors to like me and hate the defendant. And if they like me, they're more likely to hate the defendant. They'll ignore my problems, they'll ignore my

little this, my little that, but they will focus in on that jury, will focus in on what that defendant did and what he likely did. So it doesn't really bother me. It does bother me if there is a time when the jury goes out and then the next morning I have to come back or the next morning the defense comes back. That does bother me. But just a little bit of a break as long as the continuity is there. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sorry we broke for lunch, but it was very important for you to remember, as we broke for lunch, exactly what the argument was based upon what the evidence was or the lack of evidence. You know, even there at the end of his first closing argument. Waters was pounding on Murdoch lying, as he should,

and Murdoch hiding behind his opioid addiction. Take a listen to our Cut 10. Common sense, a thousand milligrams a day, does that sound survivable? And if it was, that you could still engage in work, have a successful practice, and then on top of that engage in these complex conspiracies to steal and fool everyone and live a life and have people outwardly think that you're, you know, who you profess to be in public. I have no doubt that he was taking opiate pills. And I would submit to you to decide whether or not he looked you in the eye and claimed them out.

It's inconsistent with whatever else we know about this man. It's really inconsistent with survivability. He can never function at the level he's been functioning. Keeping up with these pressures, staying one step ahead for over a decade if he was taking that much dope. I would submit to you as a lie that he's trying

to get you to believe, to feel sympathetic for him. You know, Kelly Scan, Fox Nation's senior producer in the courtroom. Kelly, I think now is the time to bring it home that he is so out of his mind on opioids the night of the murders, Kelly. And he himself says it makes him feel paranoid, agitated, upset. He's out there that night and here are the two people trying to take his drugs away. The people watching him like a hawk. It all fits together. It just fits together, Kelly. Yeah. And as the prosecution has said, only the killer would know to lie about those critical moments when the murders happened. And the prosecution says that person is Alec Murdoch and Alec Murdoch did lie. So I think

when we go back into the courtroom, we can expect Creighton Waters to give it a little recap of what happened before the lunch break. Maybe another rain analogy. You don't need to be outside to know that it's raining. You can hear the raindrops on your roof and know exactly what happened. I think he's going to bring this timeline full circle. And when we hear from the defense, you know that they're going to double down on the double shooter theory, the short shooter theory, and the fact that Alec Murdoch loved his wife and his son and could have never done that. You know, another thing, Kel, I'm pretty sure that the jury stays in the courthouse for lunch, and I hope they do. I somehow wandered into the secret Batcave getaway on the other side of the courthouse. There is a

wrought iron fence around it that a sheriff has to come and let you out. So if you go back to the courthouse and from the front of the courthouse, it's on the right. That's where the judge and I guess the, I'm not sure, but probably the jail transport comes that way because it's encased in a secured fence. Well, I got out there. A sheriff had to let me out, by the way. I don't think that they would risk that at this juncture. And I also distinctly smelled lasagna. And I saw a sheriff rushing by, a bailiff, with a plate of lasagna on his plate. Because I want them back on time to get ready. And you know how people doze off after they have lunch? I guarantee you that judge is going to have the courtroom sub-zero to keep the jurors awake, Kelly. Yeah, and we've heard Judge Newman ask the jury before, too, what time is lunch delivered? So I think it's way too

risky to let the jury out during lunchtime. There is a sea of media out here, as well as there's not that many places to eat in Walterboro, South Carolina. So you can be rest assured that they are having lunch delivered into that courtroom. Hopefully not too many carbs because that would put them to sleep. And you know, another thing to you, Daryl Cohen, the state does not have to prove motive. So they need to wrap up motive and get to the facts of the night of the murder. I completely agree with you, Nancy. I analogize it to a wild, vicious animal being cornered.

And that animal will do whatever it needs to do to survive. And I think that is what the state has to show, that he did what he needed to do in his own demented mind with all of the drugs to survive. And that meant killing his wife and his son other than that get rid of the motive the motive thing i don't like it i just don't just rely on the facts rely on what his lies are rely on what the jury is looking at and nancy you know one other thing struck me, Kelly, that you may have seen. Go ahead, Dr. Dupree. We're running out of time.

Make it quick. Okay, so if we just look at all of Murdoch's answers, he answers exactly to fill in the holes for the evidence that the prosecution is presenting. You're right. Okay, Kelly, let's go back in the courtroom. Everybody, thank you for being with us on the lunch break. We're headed back in the courtroom. Everybody, thank you for being with us on the lunch break. We're headed back in the courtroom. Goodbye, friend.