Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Defense Changes Course: Killer Now Tall?

Episode Date: February 28, 2023

Bombshells in the Murdaugh courtroom today as the defense asked for the jury to be taken to Mozelle.   Defense attorney Dick Harpootlian said he wants the jury to see the family's rural hunting lodge, so before jurors move to deliberations, they will be allowed to walk through the crime scene.   Also today a defense witness seemed to contradict another defense witness who claimed the shooter was around 5'2".   Today's expert testified that the shooter would be taller than Maggie or Paul Murdaugh.  Joining Nancy Grace today: Mark Peper - Criminal Defense Attorney: The Peper Law Firm; Twitter: @PeperLawFirm Dan Corsentino - Former Police Chief, Former Sheriff, served on US Homeland Security Senior Advisory Board, Private Investigator  Dr. Heidi Sievers - Founder- Sievers Forensics; Bloodstain pattern analyst and lead consultant; Author: "The $#*+ You Can't Make Up: Dark humor and Unhealthy Coping Mechanisms;"Twitter:@thebloodstaindr, 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  Kelly Skehen - Fox Nation Senior Producer  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Hi guys, we are joining you live outside the Colleton County Courthouse where people are streaming out for the lunch break. We're inching forward toward the end of the defense case, but there was a bombshell at the very beginning of the morning. Take a listen to our cut four. We believe it would be useful for the jury to visit Moselle, both the area of the kennels and the house, just to get some understanding of spatial relationships.

And so what we would ask is that you ask the jury if they want to do that. I mean, I know I wouldn't, if they don't want to do it, I don't want them to do it. If they want to do it, that would be fine with me, and it needs to be done in an expeditious way. You know, I am not, the state is not asking for there to be a jury view of the scene, and if anything, I think that that would require additional testimony, because the scene is different than it existed on the night of June 7th, 2021. Generally, jury views are at the request of a party, and I'm requesting, again, I don't know that it's necessary in this particular instance. If I decide wants a jury view the court will arrange a jury view. Okay there you have it straight out to high profile criminal defense attorney joining us from the Pepper Law Firm

Mark Pepper. Mark thank you for being with us. This conjures up images of the O.J. Simpson jury view of his home, where my former co-anchor, God rest his soul, Johnny Cochran, and his team had gone through and carefully rearranged everything in the home to make it more palatable to the jurors. What do you think about viewing Moselle now so much time has passed since the incident. You had to include a lot of picture frames of the family, as I recall, and the stairwell. Good, good analogy there, Nancy. This is pretty typical in our state here in South Carolina. Relevance simply means we'll help the fact finder determine what the facts are. And so typically when any side or either side or both ask the court to allow the jury to visit the scene, the judge is going to allow it as he did this morning. I guess on one hand,

if you're the state, it helps show how far away the main house is in the theory that clearly those 258 steps was you hiking all the way back up that hill on the defense. Maybe they're looking at it a different way in that the close proximity of the kennel to the feed room, grabbing two separate guns. It's just not possible to have conjured all this. And then you've got the growing of the trees right now. We're going to get a jury charge on, well well shrubs and trees may have grown since then this is all about the defense trying its best uh to do two things in my opinion nancy one is just confuse the jury just confuse them let's take them on a field trip let's let's let them out let's get some credibility with them and make sure that we continue to hammer the credibility of the state's witness we kind of thought Dick Harpootlian might have

something up his sleeve this week. I'm not so sure that this is the last trick, but certainly a good move by the defense. Mark Pepper, I agree with everything that you just said. Got a question. How many times have you taken a jury out to see a scene? Zero. Agreed. It's very rare. You know why? It's fraught. It is fraught with possibilities for a mistrial. You go by one nut on the highway with a sign that says Murdoch did it. Honey, it's over. Or you go by a protest or however it may be staged,

saying the other way. Now, the state doesn't really have a lot of room to ask for a mistrial, but the defense does. So this will all be to their advantage. And what you were touching on, I found very interesting, Mark Pepper, in that the scene is not as it was the night of the shootings. Time has passed. Shrubs may have been added, removed. I believe somebody else owns it now. It's completely different than the way it was the night of the shootings. And in my mind, that distorts their view of the evidence because they're seeing something that is not necessarily based in the evidence. Isn't that the whole point here, Nancy? Right? I mean, what if there's a footprint that a juror picks up on that says, wait a minute,

we haven't seen a picture of this footprint. We don't know whose footprint that is, right? The bloodstains? Oh, they said it was awful. It doesn't look bad to me. This is all an attempt to create confusion among the jurors. Great point as far as getting to and from Moselle. We're talking a rural community in southwest South Carolina. I mean, you're going to be passing more cornfields and cows than you are people. However, if the people know the field trip is coming by, don't think for one second that there

won't be some type of sign or thumbs up. I mean, this is going to turn into the spectacle, the circus show that the defense has wanted all along. And another point, great point you brought up, we've got some serious appellate issues here already. We've got the 404B stuff that came in, right? Didn't come in, but then it did come in. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Talk plain English. He's talking about the, well, you've got the Cousin Eddie evidence, which is going to be a problem. Either a problem because it was let in

or a problem because the defense can now claim if there's a conviction, of course, ineffective assistance of counsel, for I believe it was Griffin that opened the door. One of the defense attorneys opened the door to that. So if there's a conviction, while Murdoch right now is very thankful to all of his lawyers after he sits in jail for a year or two. I can see him filing an appeal or even a habeas corpus when the time is right on ineffective assistance to counsel if everything else fails because of that one question. What else does he have to do if he if he sends to life? I think he's going to file something. And you're you only have ineffective assistance to counsel, which, you know, you told that while you go through the appellate process, that'll be the last straw I think he brings. But certainly he's going to challenge any conviction based on the legal rulings that were made that he feels prejudiced him.

I mean, look, this is a circumstantial case. We've seen the evidence. We haven't heard an eyewitness. We haven't heard any fingerprints or footprints as we just heard that witness testify today. This is a circumstantial case. And so can't you see the jury sitting back there going, I'm not sure he did this, but man, he is a bad person based on what we've heard. So let's just go ahead and convict. That is an appellate issue that is ripe for appeal. Mark Pepper, when you said that the law in South Carolina is that jurors go see the scene, that is very common, but you've never done it and you've tried a lot

of cases. Now, I never tried a case without going to the scene myself, ever, never, never, never. That's a rule one in trial advocacy is you go to the scene yourself. And if you can't get to the scene, you need to quit trying cases. End of story. But it would be a cold day in H-E-double-L that I would want my jury to go there. Not that I'm hiding evidence. It's just that things will have changed. It's the time of the incident. And you never know what may hang up a juror.

I mean, for all I know, a building has been built. I've tried cases in inner city Atlanta. If a building had been built or some obstruction had been created since the time of the incident, the jurors would think, well, wow, the witness couldn't see that because of this shrub. So long story short, it is fraught with peril. Guys, I'm hearing in my ear, I am now being joined by Kelly Skin. Fox Nation's senior producer has been in the courtroom with me the entire morning. Kelly, this is the end of the defense case.

They may have one or two more witnesses left. Do you know if these are the final two witnesses or will there be two additional witnesses? Hi, Nancy. We are expecting at least two more witnesses from the defense as well as that visit to Moselle, the murder scene, as we have been hearing about. But what we also heard this morning is that the defense still expects to rest its case today. So we are expecting two more witnesses. It's to be seen whether that is more of Alec Murdoch's family members. We have been expecting his brothers to take the stand, at least one of them. Kelly, Kelly, you know who I like? Don't know her personally,

but I like Savannah Goode in the courtroom. She finally, during the direct examination of some of these witnesses, stood up and said, leading. And she actually kept, oh, I love this part. I had to write it down verbatim. When Hart Putlian was trying to get in, as we call it in the law, Kelly, a learned treatise. That's a book. I don't know why. Bart Pepper, why do we keep calling it a learned treatise? It's a book. Just call it what it is.

It seems like lawyers come up with every word possible to make things more confusing, but it was a learned treatise. It was a book and it's a really good book. Uh, it's written by an incredible expert in the criminal field, but he wanted to submit the book or portions of the book into evidence. Well, no, I've never seen that done. I've handled literally thousands of cases plus reported on, I don't know how many, because it's all hearsay. It's what some author that is not there in the courtroom for cross examination. It's what they say. And it may be accurate, but it is hearsay. And I loved it, Kelly Skin, when I guess one of his helpers handed him the law on a learned treatise. And he said, no, it should come in your honor. And he started reading it, and the end of the sentence was, shall not come into evidence and will be excluded.

And he went, uh-oh, well, I'm not entering that. I bet somebody gets a chewing out at the lunch break for handing him that law kelly skin i yes nancy i saw that and we did see savannah good stand up and say this is hearsay you cannot admit this into evidence the guy who wrote the book is not here on the stand he is not here to testify. You know, the state is questioning them fairly well, I think, on cross-examination. But Kelly, explain these two witnesses. It's Dr. Isisat and Tim Palmback. Who are they and what is their point? Let's take the doctor first, the pathologist. Yeah, Nancy, we've seen a big back and forth in the courtroom today between witnesses. This was to be expected. The defense is trying to poke holes in the

prosecution's case. Today we heard from Tim Paulbach. He is a forensic scientist. And then we also heard from, I'm looking at my notes, there are many witnesses to keep track of, Dr. Jonathan Eisenstadt. And basically they're trying to poke holes in the prosecution's case about from which direction maggie and paul were shot um and which shots were the fatal wounds they're you know last week or the week before that we heard that their um the defense said this was a 5-2 shooter today we're also hearing that paul was shot in the top of the head so i think you see a lot of confusion on the jury's face trying to reconcile what they're hearing from the prosecution, what they're hearing from the defense. Crime stories with Nancy Grace.

Well, Kelly, that's a really good point you just brought out. I heard that, and I was wondering if the jury could connect all the dots with so much evidence pouring out. But if you caught it and I caught it between the two of us, Kelly, certainly somebody on the jury caught it because that witness was suggesting that the shooter was taller or in an elevated position when they took aim and that's exactly diametrically opposed to the whole defense theory remember the little green man and the green trajectory pass that they used to convince the jury of the double shooter motif and we're seeing the double shooter motif in theory rearing its ugly head yet again for the state and this time they've got experts to back it up you know joining me is Dan Corsentino, Dr. Heidi Seavers and Dr. Michelle Dupree but first to you Dr.

Michelle Dupree you have been listening to Eisenstadt's testimony throughout. Bottom line, where is he going? What is the point of his testimony? Well, Nancy, I think that it's actually to, again, discredit part of Dr. Reimer's testimony and bring up the two-shooter theory. I don't think he's doing a very good job. I think there are holes in what he has said as well. One of those being he admitted that there were pellet defects on the top of the door or something. I have never in all of my years of practice ever seen pellets bounce backwards. It just doesn't make sense. Well, I got to tell you

something about Dr. Jonathan Eisenstaff. He has certainly done a lot of autopsies. I was ready to write down everything wrong about his curriculum vitae, but I'm telling you, anybody that is a medical examiner in inner city Atlanta, they have seen plenty of autopsies. He was doing between 100 and 250 autopsies a year. Now, I did notice that he has left, and he is now doing a consulting practice. And also, as usual, and of course, we would expect nothing less, Pepper, he was cross-examined on how much money he's making, and he's making a lot of money. I mean, thousands of dollars. Would that, Of course,

the state's going to argue that that would taint his testimony. Well, you know, I thought Savannah did as good a job as she could. There's really not a whole lot to challenge him on, but make sure the jury understands he's a paid expert, not by the state, but by Murdoch over here he's a jukebox you put in this case just a minute i take it you have handled murder cases have you not yes i have how many times have you seen a rectal thermometer stuck up a dead victim's rear end there's really no nice way to put it there's not and that's why the answer is zero zero you don't you don't put a rectal thermometer in there any murder case i know yeah i mean okay guys look you're here because we're trying a murder case and it's happening right behind me and that was the testimony today one of the first things they did dr michelle dupree thank goodness i wrote down all these notes

was jump on the state because they didn't use a rectal thermometer on the two dead bodies really that's right because that's right Nancy they made uh they made a play at the fact that the investigators felt the armpit and as I recall and Kelly correct me if I'm wrong it was still warm so if the body is still warm I don't have to have a medical degree to tell me that the murder was recent Dr Dupree now listen you're the MD I'm a JD, but I can tell you I have never had a single case where a medical examiner used a rectal thermometer of the dead body. No, never. Nancy, you're exactly right. I have never used a rectal thermometer. I have used a thermometer in the liver, which is much more accurate. I have never, and has no one that I've ever known that has been trained as a forensic

pathologist or medical examiner, put our hand in the armpit. That is absolutely not scientific. There's no forensic basis for that. Yes, it tells you that the body is warm, but it doesn't tell you how warm. And again, there are many variables. And as you well know, the time of death is very much a variable. There are many other factors like lever mortis, rigor mortis, and all of those things. Well, can I ask you a question, Dr. Dupree? And be blunt. Sure. I don't have you on the stand.

You're not on the oath. You can say whatever you feel like saying. But don't we have them alive and well at about, help me out, Kelly 8 47 p.m on that video their phones went dead at it and don't have them man you've got it together kelly ski and i'm glad you're here okay 8 49 and you know what those two minutes i said 8 47 she said 8 49 they matter they absolutely matter in this case and then by 10 o'clock when he gets back 1006 he calls 9-1-1 we can pretty much establish the time of death between 8 49 and 1006 don't you agree with that Dr Dupree absolutely absolutely Nancy and a thermometer at that point is not going to make a difference. No, it is not. You're having a murder go down on June 7th. It's hot as Hades in South Carolina,

and the bodies are still warm, and you have a timeline between 8.49, basically, nine o'clock, and 10 o'clock. So we've got it narrowed down to an hour so all this rigmarole about the rectal thermometer and oh you know speaking of rectal thermometers and I've certainly never said that sentence before but thinking of speaking of rectal thermometers back to you dr. Michelle Dupree again thank you so much for being with us and she's not just a pathologist. She is not just a forensic expert. She's also a former detective. When

you are trying to analyze a crime scene and there is blood spatter everywhere, do you really think it's appropriate to manhandle the body, yank the pants down, and do a rectal thermometer take? No, Nancy, I do not. And again, I honestly don't know anyone that has actually done that. That is not the way that we're trained. If we're going to take the temperature, if there is some need to know the specific amount of temperature, then we use a thermometer in the liver, not in the rectum. How do you get a thermometer in the liver not in the rectum how do you get a thermometer in the liver you push it through the skin to the liver okay I had not thought of that guys with me an all-star panel to make sense what we know right now all you've heard so far is we're going to

Moselle and threatening a mistrial in doing so and you've heard a lot about rectal thermometers joining me is Dr. Heidi Seavers, founder of Seavers Forensics. She's an expert in blood stain pattern, blood stain patterns. What did you make of what was being said about the blood spatter evidence? I still don't see how they're making the conclusion that there were two shooters. What do you make of it, Dr. Seavers? So one, I think that it was a ploy, just like we've been discussing, about poking holes in the state's case and trying to confuse the jury. This is starting to become the personification of the classic CSI effect of, one, going back out to the scene. The jurors are going to expect for that scene to somewhat be

memorialized, even though obviously it's not going to be. They are going to expect to see the things that they've been discussing. Further, really what I've been hearing all this morning is what I call trigger words when it comes to bloodstain pattern analysis. And those are words that the jury has probably heard in the media or on television shows but honestly some of them are being used incorrectly and somewhat flippantly and although they can have other connotations they're being used in the wrong manner and in this case that terminology makes a difference when we're looking at these and further when he was discussing the amount of spatter on that door

as what he called blowback or what's termed back spatter, the height of that, he actually, I'm not sure he realized he was doing it, but just like with that higher shot on a taller person, he actually implicated that that would have been a taller person with the amount of spatter only being at the top left-hand corner of that door. Okay, you know what? I was trying to drink in everything that you just said. Can you say it one more time? Because I want everybody else on the panel to weigh in on what you just said about the

blood spatter. Go ahead. Sure, absolutely. So first and foremost, some of the words that are being used are what I term trigger words when it comes to bloodstain patterns. And they're words that are commonly seen in television shows and in the media. But in this case and from what I've been hearing in testimony, some of them are being used flippantly. And when it comes down to it, they matter. Using them in the correct context matters. And further, the first witness that was on the

stand suggested that the shooter was taller. And when they were talking about the, they termed it blowback, but the back spatter that deposited on the door in the upper left-hand corner and creating that void of the shooter, they actually, unbeknownst to them, I'm not sure they realized they did it, but they actually implicated it being a much taller shooter to block that door only with the exception of the top left-hand corner of the door. Hold on. I'm writing that down. Kelly Skian, did you hear what Dr. Heidi Seavers just said?

They did. She's right. And she articulated it so perfectly. Kelly, they implicated a much taller shooter. Could you finish the rest of that, Dr. Seavers? Yeah, they implicated a much taller shooter because they discussed the voided area, which a void is simply just the absence of a continuous bloodstain pattern. So an absence of blood where we would expect there to be blood. So in the essence of the back spatter, which was evidence at the top left-hand corner of that door,

we see that voided area, which is most likely where the shooter was standing. But because it's in such a small and very high up area, very tall area at the top left-hand corner, they really seemingly implicated a much taller individual. A way I would explain it to the jury is if if Sydney was standing there and she had a giant bowl of tomato soup and threw it at me it would hit all around me on the wall behind me but there would be a void that you hear Dr. Shevers talking about where I'm standing. That's an easy way to explain the accurate discussion that Dr. Heidi Seavers just gave you. Something really important that hasn't been mentioned today.

So the defense is essentially saying that Paul was shot at the top of the head and that went out of his shoulder. The prosecution said, no way, it went through his shoulder and through the top of the head. And what we haven't heard from about today is that there is damage to the door that was above Paul's head indicating that he was shot as the prosecution stated going from the shoulder to his head and not as the defense stated where you know the gun was pushed directly onto his head. Because if the gun was he was shot on the head you wouldn't have damage on the doorframe above his head you know what you're so right and that is something that everyone can understand and it makes

perfect sense so what they're doing today is they are somewhat telling the jury insinuating to the jury that the shooter is tall. Murdoch is about 6'3", or so we think. Dan Corsettino joining me, former police chief, former sheriff, served on U.S. Homeland Security, senior advisory board. He's a PI at DanCorsettino.com. Dan, I want you to hear our SOT 7. Take a listen. This is Hart Poodlian direct examining the pathologist. Okay, so when you look at the wound in his shoulder and his neck, and of course his head, tell us where Dr. Reamer got it wrong. I think she has it reversed. If the entrance wound is here on the left shoulder,

and we're saying that we're at least three to four feet away from there because we have no soot, we have no stippling on the skin, then by the time it gets to the left side of the chin or over here at the angle of the mandible, the jaw, we've lost a lot of energy. And so, yes, you can get some pellets still going up into the head, but you're not going to have the

top of the head completely blown off. And if you look at the photograph here, you can see he's missing the top of his skull. That would not have happened three feet or further shotgun wound coming in on the left side. Okay, hold on, Dan Corcentino. I want Dr. Michelle Dupree to take a stab at that. And then I want to hear from you what you think their strategy is right now, why they're asking the questions they are asking and what they're trying to tell the jury. What do you make of that, though, as a medical examiner and pathologist, Dr. Dupree? Well, Nancy, I've actually had cases where the top of the head was blown off when the shotgun was three feet or so away. And again, it depends on

so many things. What is the what we call the choke on that shotgun? What is the length of the barrel? All of those kinds of things. But I do not believe that this was a contact wound to the back of the head the rest of the trajectory just doesn't make sense Dan Corsentino what is their theory they're making a huge big deal about the double guns that one shooter had double guns. And Dan Corsentino, you're perfect for this question. There at the end of the testimony of the second witness, the witness was actually telling the jury that after killing one person, that would have been Paul, that the shooter would have been so stunned that they couldn't shoot another person. Maggie, I couldn't believe what I was hearing because I have had multiple cases of homicide

with multiple victims at the hands of one shooter. Frankly and sadly, it happens all the time. But the defense witness actually told the jury that the shooter would have been so shell-shocked and so covered with matter that he could not get another gun and pull the trigger. And I have a legal term written by that, BS. I'm sure you're familiar with that, Dan Corsettino. Yeah, absolutely. Nancy, and first of all, thank you. I completely disagree with a defense expert in this situation because of the fact that we've had many cases where one shooter had multiple victims, and I agree with you. And the fact that the victim or the shooter in this case would have been stunned or had a temporary thought process that was completely clouded, I don't buy that whatsoever.

I think the mindset of the shooter at this point in time was clearly to shoot both individuals and that individual clearly knew what the job was for the long-term gain and as far as trying to cloud the jury I think that's all that the defense is trying to do in this it's just to throw mud on this case because in totality they're going to take a look at the very basics of this case was their there motive? Was there opportunity? Was there ability? And does the science match those components? And I think that it's becoming clear. What's really interesting is the maturation of the jurors.

They come into this case with a blank chalkboard or an empty journal, and they start now to compartmentalize everything the prosecution and defense is saying and they're going to reach a conclusion which I think is going to be not surprising to many. You know, Mark Pepper, listening to Corcentino, he lays it out so plainly. I mean, it's, I don't know what I would even cross on this because it is absurd to tell a jury or make a statement that one person will be so discombobulated and so shell-shocked they can't kill two people at once. It happens every day. I don't even know how many cases I've

handled where there are multiple crime victims at the hands of one shooter. I get it. I don't even know how many cases I've handled where there are multiple crime victims at the hands of one shooter. I get it. I get it right. But let me play devil's advocate just a bit using some of what I've heard and analyzed the last two, three minutes. One is I totally agree with the expert panelists, the doctor with the blowback and the void, if you will, what they're trying to accomplish in defense is they've moved on from this low-lying shooter that was a 12-year-old or what. They're just saying, look, we're going to stick to our theme that there's no possible way Alec Murdoch murdered his wife and son as evidenced by the fact that you heard from two witnesses today, and this is them talking, not me, just making the argument, okay,

that this shooter or shooters would have been covered in matter, in blood. You got the bullet that goes, the pellet that goes way up. Maybe it makes sense to a juror. It may not make sense to our panelists here or me or you but it might with one juror and it takes two to tango but it only takes one to hang it up and that's really what the defense is doing they're going to run run all this back through and spit it out and in closing say if if you believe what any of what we said then you believe it's impossible that this man would have done this to his own flesh and blood. That's going to be their theory here.

And I agree with Mark. Go ahead. No, I was just going to say I agree with Mark saying they're trying to raise reasonable doubt. There's no doubt about that. So if we look at the totality of the circumstances in this, that's the question. Do they raise reasonable doubt based on everything? You know, I'm curious too, Dr. Michelle Dupree, regarding the entry and exit wounds on Paul's body, that is elementary.

You can, even I, who am just a lawyer, can look at a wound and tell an entry from an exit. Could you please explain? That's very plain to the naked eye. Absolutely, Nancy. And again, there are many things that we look at. Typically, the entrance wound is smaller than the exit wound. Not always, but in this case, I think that it would be. But we also

look for something called an abrasion rim. When a bullet goes into a body, it does stretch the skin and the abrasion ring is on the side that tells us the trajectory from where the bullet came. One of the witnesses was talking about skin tags and that's basically sort of the same thing. It's going to tell us where that projectile came from and it will help us determine that trajectory. And also when we talk about Maggie and being two shooters, do you really think that a second shooter who is just waiting there to shoot Maggie is going to shoot her in the leg and two other places before the final last two shots, the fatal shots.

Those were number four and five. That doesn't make sense either. You want your first shot to be the kill shot. You know what? You're right. And that is exactly what's being advanced in the courtroom. Guys, we were telling you about Paul's injuries and how that is being used by the experts on the stand. Take a listen to our cut five now.

This depicts Maggie's body on the autopsy table. And when we're doing our measurements on a body, that's how we're looking at the body, lying on her back or on the person's back on the autopsy table. Here is that wound with the left ear and the left chin. And here's her left breast. And then right above this wound here we have that semi-circle which is consistent with the earring so this is the shot you would disagree uh with dr reamer about this yes this is the only shot i disagree she stated that it was going upwards would have

entered the breast and then gone up right when we look closer at the breast and we look closer at the right, the left side of the chin, skin tags are pointing upwards showing that that's where the bullet came from. It just seems very odd that that, when you have one going this way, you have to be in a very bizarre position to be able to get it to go up. But from the scientific standpoint, it's how the wound looks. Okay, and as far as what they're doing in the courtroom, Mark Pepper, it's always a good thing to get your witness off the witness stand and down in the well in front of the jury. That's right. That's right. You want to make them personable, somebody they can relate to. You get lost in the sauce when you just hear yes, no questions from somebody sitting 10,

12 feet away. Anytime you can pull a witness off, anytime you can hand them a pointer or an easel or an exhibit that they can stand in front of the jury, that's their show. I mean, the jury then makes eye contact with this witness and judges their credibility versus forgetting what the heck they said because it was the day before or the day before that. They're going to remember that testimony tonight. They're going to remember the testimony of anybody that stands two feet in front of them. This is a very tiny courthouse in Walterborough, South Carolina. Everybody's on top of each other.

And so when you get a chance to bring a witness down and look these jurors in the eyes, likely to leave an impact. This is exactly why both the state and the defense continuously bring their witnesses down. Great point. Nancy. Guys, the... Also... Yeah, go ahead, please. Okay.

So also, when we're talking about Maggie's wound to the head, you heard it described as a keyhole injury. And that is something that is a very definitive forensic pathology description. And it's an entrance and exit in a skull that typically has beveling, which again, we heard talked about. And that clearly tells us which is the entrance and which is the exit side of that wound. It's basically a tangential in and out almost. And that is what was described by Dr. Reamer. Guys also the witnesses are testifying through a certain lens the lens of high dollar payments to the witnesses. Now does that make them less believable in the eyes of the jurors? I don't know but I can tell you this. A state's witness is on a salary. They don't get a bonus or a raise if they go testify in a case.

As compared to the tens of thousands of dollars, these witnesses are being paid. Take a listen to our cut nine. Dr. Reamer performed an autopsy here. Yes, ma'am. And she performed an independent autopsy? She did. Did she perform an autopsy of either of the victims in this case? I did not. And you relied on, I think you testified that Dr. Reamer's report,

x-rays, crime scene photos, and autopsy photos in determining your opinion. That's correct. And you were hired, right? Yes, I was. And you were here on Friday, weren't you? I was. So that would mean you've made over $10,000 in evaluating or taking part in this case.

At the end of the day, that's correct. To Dr. Heidi Severs. Dr. Severs, of course, independent experts are going to be paid. And that's neither here nor there, except, you know, if they were not going to say what the defense wanted them to say, they would not be called as an expert. But what do you make of the testimony regarding blood stains, regarding the stains on the door, the blood spatter? A lot was made toward the end of the testimony of the second

witness about a bloody footprint. And the witness, who is Tim Paul Paulbach tried to suggest to the Gerards that it was the killer's footprint or the killer's plural footprint until on cross Savannah Goode said they didn't give you the report that that's Paul's footprint and he said no I I didn't see that that had hurt yeah that was uh that was a rough blow for him certainly um well first just like I was saying a little bit earlier with those trigger words is what I call it so first and foremost with the door he had mentioned that it had downward what he called trajectory but we use the term directionality so that it had downward directionality suggesting that it had that little

bit of a fountain effect as it came up over the shooter's shoulder and deposited downward. But from the photos I've seen, what I think he's terming as that is actually what we would call more of a gravity flow stain. When you're dealing with something of that proportion, when it comes with velocity, as well as the amount of biological material being pushed back right or the back spatter back towards the shooter, it's going to be too much for the surface tension to just stick right on that door. So it's going to start to flow downwards and I think he's using that as what he's calling trajectory or directionality and that has nothing to do with the way it was deposited. It has everything to do with the weight of that biological material, whether it be blood or brain matter, sliding down that door as a result of gravity. So that's

first and foremost that I noticed because there is directionality of those stains going upward with what you would expect from a shot going up from the shoulder through the head up towards the door which if you notice follows the path of those indentations in the door and the small pellets in the door frame right it's all going to follow that I've got another I've got another expert here she's a t-shirt expert apparently. What's your name? Kathy Lee. Okay, okay. Don't trust your soul to know Backwoods Southern Lawyer. Okay. There are now t-shirts. Just so you know, thank you. My best friend bought her this t-shirt and it's all over the world now. Thank you. I just have to. Thank you.

Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. So, apparently there are Murdoch t-shirts now. Just wanted everybody to know that. They're all around the courthouse. And to you, Mark Pepper, that's exactly what I'm talking about, about a mistrial when the jury leaves the bubble of the courtroom. Increasing the chance, without a doubt. I think we're going to have a mistrial here anyway because I don't think there's going to be a unanimous verdict.

But if there is, we're running the risk of mistrial appeals, you name it, and putting them on a bus for a field trip. I mean, we're going to do a bag lunch too. And I mean, it'd be curfew. They're going to be allowed to talk to each other because obviously that's not allowed. There's another mistrial. We're going down a slippery slope here. I agree. And when Mark Pepper says, hey guys, he's a high-profile defense attorney joining us out of this jurisdiction, the Pepper Law Firm. When he says the jurors can't talk to each other, what we mean by that is they can't talk about the case with each other. They can say, hi, what did you do this weekend? What time, how far away do you live? Do you have a family? They can talk about that. But how long is that going to last?

How long until somebody says, what is Murdoch eating at the defense table? What is that cracking sound? You know, they're going to talk about the case. And then there's going to be a mistrial. Guys, I want to get off of the t-shirt and off of the candy cracking at the defense table, I want you to take a listen to our cut 10. And this is more about the blood spatter. Why is it important?

Because today with their own witness, their own witnesses, the defense is seemingly suggesting that they themselves were all wrong about the short shooter. Actually, the shooter is tall. And wasn't the top of Paul's skull missing? Yes, it was. And Paul's face, it wasn't blown off, was it? It was not. His brains weren't splattered all over the floor?

His brain left his head and ended up being on the floor. There were some smaller pieces in other areas and then a large piece in one area. Does that brain look macerated or splattered everywhere? No, but that brain has been extruded from the head. But when you zoom in on it, you can tell that there's injury to the brain. But the brain, yes, I agree, it's not macerated. Is that blood spatter on top of the door? That looks like blood spatter at the top of the door, yes, I agree, it's not macerated. Is that blood spatter on top of the door? That looks like blood spatter at the top of the door, yes.

And no blood spatter out there on the sidewalk from his brain being blown out from his head and his face being left intact, right? Right, the brain would come out the top of the head. And the blood spatter is on the top of the door. Right, that's blowback. That's from here, the pressure pushing it backwards you know kelly's skin they keep uh mentioning that the shooter would have to be covered in bodily fluid blowback blood well that just backs in that rear ends into the state's theory that murdoch then went in and took a shower and changed clothes. It does beg the question of

did Murdoch go take a shower after shooting Maggie and Paul? We still do not know that. It's unconfirmed, but that seems like the picture that the prosecution is trying to paint with testimony thus far. And it also seems like the defense is shooting themselves in the foot in a sense with these witnesses today who have conceded on the stand that yes the shooter could have been taller than Maggie and Paul. So it's in direct contradiction to what we were hearing from them last week that the shooter is 5 feet 2 inches tall. Well Kelly correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't there been testimony that murdoch was wearing one outfit in the afternoon one outfit when the cops got there and there was a pool of water by the shower in the moselle property bathroom and there

was a damp towel and his shirt that he was wearing that afternoon has never been recovered that to me if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. He took a shower. Yeah, we have heard a lot about the outfit changes. We've heard a lot about what clothes was he wearing that night. He keeps clothes in his car. He keeps clothes at various different people's homes. Where are the clothes that he was wearing that night is a big, big, big question.

So, I mean, to me, Danny Cors corsatino i don't know about you be blunt but that fits hand in hand with the fact that we believe that he went in and took a shower at some point yeah i believe that there's uh you know circumstantial evidence to believe that he went in and took a shower i also believe that this was a planned event and that it fits the pattern in its totality of all the other information that the prosecution is trying to bring out. And it starts with his own financial insolvency and it evolves from there. The only thing Mark Pepper is with a timeline so tight between that video for a friend Rogan Gibson and immediately leaving for his mother's house that doesn't give him time for a shower right there but we know he changed clothes and we know those clothes that shirt has never been recovered along with the

murder weapons go ahead mark murder weapons certainly has not been recovered but there's still two witnesses left nancy and i'm not so sure that seafoam green shirt that we've seen on the the tree snapchat is still missing and i'm told that there may be one more trick up Dick's sleeve to show the lack of the investigation done by SLED. That's theme one, right? Two, theme two is timeline, to your point. If today's testimony did anything for the defense to help them, it's to tighten the timeline up to where the state has already put it. You've got an 846 Snapchat. Phones go dead at, I believe, 849, if I'm not mistaken. And then we know the cell phone starts at 1006. Between 1002 and 1006, we've got 258 steps. I don't know that the jury

is going to think that there's enough time for him to have made it all the way back up to Moselle, showered, disposed of the clothes, disposed of the weapons, and still be on his way to his parents' house. The defense better hope that the jury doesn't think that, because if they do, coupled with the financial, the 404B stuff we talked about earlier, then I think the defendant is in trouble. Yeah, I don't think there's any way he could have taken a shower right there. Go ahead, Dr. Dupree. So, Nancy, I think that it's much more likely that he may have taken a shower earlier that night, as evidenced by the clothes on the floor and the pool of water.

But don't forget, the hose was unraveled and there was water there. What was to prevent him from showering off right there at the scene having clothes in his car ready to dispose of when he did go to his mother's house you know what you're so right dr michelle dupree kelly's skin we completely discounted what she just said about the water hose and one of the first things that was noticed is the pools of water in the kennel. So that's exactly, I mean, there's no way he can fit a shower in after the shooting, get in the car. We know what time he got in the car and started driving because it's on his navigation system from his Suburban. There's not time for a shower there. She's right. The shower was earlier in the day.

Go ahead. And pools of water that weren't tested. so we don't know what exactly was in that pool pool of water was Alec's DNA in that pool of water and something else is we never heard from any of the wit any of Alec Murdoch's mother's caretakers I'd be curious to know was his hair wet when he showed up that night because we've heard today from the defense's witnesses that Alec would have a bunch of spatter in his thick hair. So if he did shower off using the hose at the kennels, was his hair wet when he showed up at his mom's house? I'd like to know. That's a really good question. Go ahead. Nancy, this is Dan, and I just have a comment. This case is extremely complicated in many ways, and I think one of the things leading to potential

mistrial is the fact that will the jury be able to simplify this case and extract the science to put it into some believable judgment that they can make toward guilt or innocence. And certainly I can't speak for jurors. I don't know the jury IQ. I don't know where they come from. But I will say that when you get the little things, such as in the feeding room, if you will, in the defense expert is bringing out that the partial footprints in the blood and around the feed room, there should have been spray enhancements. If I'm sitting on a jury, I'm starting to ask questions about that. Why weren't the little things done in this? Guys, I want you to hear a little bit more of the testimony. Now, at this juncture,

you hear the witness actually agreeing with the state experts in our cut 12. so i frankly think he was startled by that shot right shoulder was a door i mean if he knew somebody was coming and or saw somebody coming he would be facing the door or attorney trying to run which he wouldn't have anywhere to go but he laid he was essentially facing this way and the door is this way. I don't think he even perceived it until he was shot the first time. And you asked the question, did I see any defensive injuries or any indication of defensive actions on him or in the feed room? The answer is no. What type of defensive indications have you seen in the past that would indicate that there

was a struggle of some sort? Well, I think obviously your hands always kind of come up, and his hands would be going up in the direction of the shooter and the weapon. His hands coming up means that he likely, they could have been injured. Certainly there could be gunshot residue distribution on them. That would be the main difference. So Kelly's key in, I think it's agreed all around that Paul never saw what was coming. I don't think Paul or Maggie ever saw what was

coming that night, no. And that also suggests that if it were to be Murdoch, that he could get up close to them in their proximity in that small area of the feed room and they would not know what was about to happen as opposed to an intruder that they had never seen before someone coming up on them that would make them run. Kelly what did you notice about the girards? How did they appear to you? Sure. So on that note, too, we also know from Alec Murdoch's own testimony that he says no one else was there that night that shouldn't have been. And the dogs were not acting like there was a stranger around just five minutes before Maggie and Paul's phones went silent forever. I saw some very interesting body language from the jury

today. They saw a lot of graphic autopsy photos and a lot of them had various different reactions. One juror literally pulled a blanket up over her forehead. Others were looking down. Some were wincing and others were like very intently looking at the screen in front of them. There were very, very graphic images. And I think something else that should be noted today, too, is that when Dick Harpootlian said he wanted the jury to go to Moselle, he wanted the jury to vote on that. The judge said that's pretty unheard of. And also having the jury vote on whether or not to go to Moselle opens the jury up to have conversations about the case before deliberations actually

start, therefore possibly leading to a mistrial. You know, to you, Mark Pepper, have you ever seen a defense attorney intentionally insert reversible error into a case, such as suggesting the jurors conduct a vote as to whether they go to Moselle? That would that would absolutely trigger discussion about the case, which is not allowed prior to deliberations. Right. I've never seen them insert purposely a reason for a mistrial, but I have seen them lay the traps for a mistrial, just as Dick did today and has done in some other arguments where they actually wanted some testimony in, but they filed a motion to suppress that testimony to force the state to bring it up and then whether or not it opens the door. What Dick was doing this morning was trying to play the all shucks judge. If the jury wants to do it, you know, I'd like to do it as well, but it's up to the jury. He knows Judge Newman can't go ask the jury that, but what if he would have? There's yet another appealable issue if there's a conviction. Or if he would have said, yeah, sure, I'll do it, did some mistrial. Or if he says what

he did say, no, that's unheard of you know that if you want it though you got it you're setting the stage for a potential mistrial that seems to be some type of strategy that the defense has employed remember these are the defense lawyers whose own client rejected their advice and said i appreciate advice, but I reject it and I will be taking the stand. These folks are doing everything they can to protect him. Now, I suppose they're doing everything to make sure he doesn't get convicted in any scenario possible. And that's their job. What do you think about the two gun theory? Because who better than Alex Murdoch to come up with a mode of murder that would suggest to assailants. He's been a prosecutor. He's tried many, many cases.

He's been in on investigations. We know he's not afraid to pull out his fake badge and put his blue light going in his private vehicle. If you wanted to fake out a jury, what better way than to use two weapons? Well, the only one I can come up with is that you hire somebody to do it. I personally, given all that background, you're absolutely right. He's a former prosecutor. Some say current. He carries a badge. He obviously lives in the legal arena in that world a plausible explanation for as I drive off the two shooters or one shooter comes up and the guns will be there or maybe they already have them you know again we're speculating at this point but that's exactly what the defense lawyers are going to do in their closing is is offer some alternative explanations to just get the jury to hesitate to act as to whether to convict the defendant. Well, you know, another thing, Dan Corcentino

with me, former police chief, former sheriff, served on U.S. Homeland Security Senior Advisory Board, now private investigator. Dan, I don't believe I have ever once seen a murder conspiracy where somebody didn't blab. I mean, I think that's virtually impossible. Exactly. In Colorado, we've had at least two or three burner for hires actually during my career that I've been involved in, and one of those individuals has shared information with a third party, and the case was broke wide open. I mean, you're absolutely right, Nancy. Someone's going to talk if that was the case in my professional opinion. I think the question for me becomes on June 7th, between the hours of when we speculate this murder took place, why at that moment in time when Maggie and Paul were killed,

why is that so much outside the norm of Alex Murdoch's plan for everything else? Everything else he's done in his life has been orchestrated. There's been a pattern. And why isn't this part of that pattern? It just seems unusual to me when you fit it with his personality that there be an anomaly here. And, of course, guys, we're about to head back in the courtroom. But while this is not a standard of

proof, it can certainly be argued by the state. Who in the world would want Maggie and Paul dead? The best the defense has come up with so far is a random vigilante. For what? Because they read something online and got mad and then decided to show up at the lodge hope there were gonna be guns there and kill Paul and Maggie it's it's crazy it's outlandish it's fantastical that did not happen so the jury is gonna have to sort through potential motives as well okay I'm hearing in my ear people are starting to mill back into the courtroom let's go straight back to the courthouse everybody we're alive here at Colleton County are starting to mill back into the courtroom. Let's go straight back to the courthouse, everybody. We're live here at Colleton County, and we're going back into the courtroom.

Thank you to the guests, and thank you to you for being with us. Goodbye, everybody. This is an iHeart Podcast.