Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Did Alex Murdaugh Use Hose to Wash Crime Scene?

Episode Date: February 14, 2023

Puddles of water became the focus of cross-examination today of the man who took care of Alex Murdaugh’s dogs. Dale Davis testified that puddles of water were not where they should have been when police responded to the murders. Dale Davis said that when he left the afternoon of the murders,  that water hose that he meticulously hung up  was on the ground in a video reportedly taken by Paul Murdaugh.   Roger Dale Davis Jr., cleaned the Murdaugh’s dog kennels twice daily.  His routine involved hosing down the kennels with a hose.  Davis would them roll up the hose oto keep it from breaking or kinking and then hang it outside.   In the video, Davis pointed out, the hose had pressure on it, indicating that it had been used, and it was kinked.  Under cross-examination, Davis acknowledged not everyone was as careful as he was with the hose.      Joining Nancy Grace today:  Ted Williams - Defense Attorney, Former Washington DC Police Detective, Fox News Contributor, Starred in the nationally televised show, ‘Power of Attorney’ Irv Brandt -Senior Inspector, US Marshals Service International Investigations Branch, Chief Inspector, DOJ Office of International Affairs; US Embassy Kingston, Jamaica, Author: “SOLO SHOT: CURSE OF THE BLUE STONE AVAILBLE ON AMAZON, ALSO "FLYING SOLO: Top of the World" Twitter: @JackSoloAuthor 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   Dr. Kristen Mittelman - Chief Development Officer, Othram Inc., Othram.com, DNAsolves.com, Twitter: @OthramTech Katie Kamin - Breaking News Anchor / Investigative Reporter, Live 5 News (Charleston, SC), Twitter: @KatieKaminTV, Facebook: "Katie Kamin TV" See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. We are on a lunch break right now. The judge has just recessed for the lunch period. A lot going on in the courtroom. With me, an all-star panel to make sense of what we know right now But one thing we're definitely sure of according to an expert Paul Murdoch could have survived the first gunshot wound Now let that sink in just a moment Paul Murdoch could have survived the first gunshot wound. What did he endure

lying there on the floor of a dog kennel, knowing his killer was coming in for the kill shot? This, as we believe, Maggie Murdoch ran for her life. First of all, we know that they were shot at close range, both of them. Take a listen to our cut one. This is Dr. Ellen Rimmer. Gunpowder is basically burning and projects the projectile out of the barrel of the gun. A projectile can potentially travel a very long distance, like many feet or yards, depending on the projectile, until it hits something. Or if it doesn't hit anything, it can eventually lose power and go to the ground. But the gunpowder that leaves the barrel of the weapon can travel not too far. It only travels up to three feet, depending on the weapon.

You don't usually see it any more than three feet. Sometimes it's within two feet, but depending on the firearm, I can't say exactly, but it's somewhere in that range. Joining me, Ted Williams, high-profile defense attorney, former Washington, D.C. police detective, Fox News contributor, starred in Power of Attorney. I could go on and on. Ted Williams, that's not good for the defense. You think that this young man, his son, could have lived after the first gunshot?

And what was he doing? Crawling along, trying to get away from his killer? Think about that. What is the jury thinking about right now? Well, I think what the jury actually is thinking right now is that this was very tragic, that it was traumatic testimony. It was shocking shocking testimony but what it does not do is connect Alex directly with the shooting of Paul or Maggie and you are looking for the prosecution to connect the dots and Nancy I've got to tell you they haven't done that yes they put on that very gruesome testimony.

Dr. Raymer was excellent in explaining the death of these two people. But above and beyond that, what the prosecution must do, they've got to connect the dots to Alex. And I've got to tell you, that is what the jury is looking for. The jury, I'm sure, is somewhat upset. Ted Williams, you keep saying connect the dots, connect the dots. I'd like to see him also, Christine. Connect the dots, connect the dots, connect the dots.

They're not tying it to him you mean other than the gunshot residue on his hands and his clothes and the victim's blood on his steering wheel and all of his lies and the videotape placing him in the kennels about two minutes before the gunshots what more do you want man a video of the murder nancy what i want is just this, the prosecution, the proof that Alex Murdaugh murdered his wife and his son and to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. And there is reasonable doubt when you talk about the blood on the steering wheel, when you talk about the blood on the shirt, those kind of things can be explained. And I think you're going to find that the defense, when they start their case, they're going to try to explain some of the things that you've talked about here. They have not shown to me, meaning the prosecution, that they've so far to date proved their case

beyond any reasonable doubt. Okay, Irv Brandt, Senior Inspector, U.S. Marshal Service, DOJ, author, solo shot, just out on Amazon. He's been sent all around the world on prosecutions. Can you help me? And Christina New York, could you please check Ted Williams IFB? Because I don't think he's hearing the evidence. He's missing somehow. He's missed that Alex Murdoch has gunshot residue on his hands, on his clothes. There's blood from Maggie and there's his DNA and Maggie's blood on his steering wheel. He lied about his alibi. He's asked witnesses to lie.

And the weapons used in the murder are from the Murdoch dog kennels. They're from there. They belong to a Murdoch. I mean, what else do I need to stand out on third avenue and scream alex murdoch shot his wife and son or brent can you talk to him uh yeah nancy i'd love to talk to mr williams uh i know he was a detective now he's a defense attorney and it's always been my experience with the defense that they put reasonable doubt and beyond the shadow of a doubt and without a doubt. They always put it together. What he was saying, I understand, but it's reasonable.

Everything that the prosecution has put together is reasonable. And every person sitting on that jury is going to come to the same conclusion that he murdered his wife. Hold on. Hold on. I'm hearing in my ear joining us straight out of the courtroom is Katie Kamen, breaking news anchor, investigative reporter, Live 5 News out of Charleston. Katie, first of all all how was the jury reacting i saw murdoch tune up he turned on the waterworks but you know what every time i look at him i would be tempted to feel sorry for him when he starts crying but then i think back on the body cam footage where he was going, but there were no tears. That was fake.

The whole thing was fake. No tears at all. I mean, who should I believe, Katie? Him or my lion eyes? Come on. What's the jury doing? That's really all that matters. Ted Williams can say anything he wants to, but all that really matters is what the jury thinks.

Well, Nancy, first of all, thank you for having me. We have obviously seen some changes in the jury because of COVID and some illnesses last week. The jury is always very, they're listening intently always. It was hard for the jury to listen. Some of them were getting really emotional. Some of them looking away. I mean, it is such gruesome graphic testimony. I mean, it hurts your heart to think about a mother and her son being slaughtered in this way.

I think it's having an impact on them in one way or another. But you also have to think that they've been instructed to come into this courtroom thinking that Murdoch is entirely innocent. He's innocent until proven guilty. They come in with a clean slate. So they're really having to put all of this through their brains. They're really having to think this over. And it certainly is a lot. But I do know that they are getting emotional. It's weighing on them heavily what they've had to hear today and yesterday. Now, I'm going to interpret what Katie Cameron just said to mean they showed no emotion.

No, I think I think there are some there. They do feel emotion hearing that yesterday. I think one of the women there was maybe even crying, shaking her head, had to be consoled by another juror. I do think that this is weighing heavily on them. I do think that especially what we heard from Dr. Reamer yesterday, it's hard to listen to, to hear about the gunshot wounds and what's happening to the victims or what happened to the victims. I think it is weighing on them. I think they are getting emotional, but I do think that they have to have a different perspective than

all of the rest of us who are hearing media reports, who are reading stuff on the internet. Yeah. When I'm talking about jury reaction, that's what I'm talking about because I find it really hard to believe a jury could hear all that evidence and not have and see those pictures and not have any reaction at all but I did notice this dr. Michelle Dupree joining me pathologist medical examiner, former detective, author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide, Dr. Dupree. You and I have repeatedly gone over and over that body cam footage. And we see, by the time the cops got there anyway, Alex Murdoch has on a clean white t-shirt, clean shorts, clean hands, clean everything, and as much as he contorts his face, I mean, for Pete's sake, they get there. He's standing right there in front of his wife and son's dead bodies trying to say, oh yeah, this has something to do with that boat accident. I mean he's getting his story in I mean with a very very

methodical description and there are no tears dr. Dupree no tears at all we've both seen it Nancy I agree with you I you know I don't think that he is acting appropriately but then everybody does grieve differently and I'm sure that he's in shock whether he did it or not. I'm sure that he is still in shock. But I think these videos are telltale. To me, when he is interviewed in the car that night, he is calculating. He is thinking. I can see his wheels turning in his head.

He's thinking about what he's going to say before he says it. And he actually has, I think, inappropriate responses on several occasions. When he asked the person later at the crime scene, hey, how you doing? That isn't something that you're likely to say when your wife and child have just been murdered. Hold on, Dr. Dupree. Dr. Dupree, guys, Dr. Dupree is right there on the scene in South Carolina. She's been to the scene. She's been to the boat crash. She knows everything, the ins and outs of this Carolina. She's been to the scene. She's been to the boat crash. She knows everything, the ins and outs of this case. She knows what she's talking about. But I really don't think you did that justice, Dr. Dupree, when you said, he said, hey to somebody,

no, no, no, no, wait, wait, wait, back it up, back it up, doctor. He's right in the middle of trying to cry and carry on in front of the cops. He's trying to tell what happened. And then right in the middle of it, he's going, oh, my wife, my son. And then he sees somebody he knows walking by and he goes, hey, how you doing? That's what she's talking about. I mean, complete. And another thing, while we're on the subject of tears, he never cried then. But in front of the jury, oh, don't you know Hart Pullian had this orchestrated. He's got a Kleenex box right in front of him. And the jury's about, what would you say, Katie Cameron, about 20 feet away.

He's like, I can't get it fast enough. Let me just take all the Kleenex out of the box. You know, it's just so obvious because when he is not in front of the jury, no tears. But in front of the jury, he can't get in that Kleenex box fast enough. Yeah, you're exactly right, Nancy. You know, he seems to put on a show when it's needed and when he's going to be seen by the appropriate people, such as the jury. He even sort of tries to have some sniffles and a little bit of tears or crying when he's being interviewed. But he really puts on the show, as you said, when the jury is in the room. To Katie Kamen joining us, breaking news anchor out of Live 5. You can find her on Facebook, Katie Kamen TV. Katie, did he start crying in court today?

Yes, he was once again very emotional today. Very emotional yesterday. I think he's been more emotional today and yesterday than I've seen this entire trial. But, you know, it was very gruesome. Testimony he listened to. What motivations you want to believe he has, obviously. But extremely emotional. Crying.

Yesterday he got very angry as well, it seems. About what? That was when one of the SLED agents took the stand. The DNA expert. And she was going through each test that was taken and identifying who might have contributed to that DNA. He seemed to be scowling at her, giving her a side eye even. Haven't seen that side eye today, but definitely seen some tears from him today. Okay, Katie Kamen, what do you mean by side eye?

Like a scowl, like beyond just a sassy look, like an angry look. Not necessarily looking directly at who's testifying, but as you might guess, kind of from the side. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Ted Williams, do I need to harken back to the ultimate, ultimate courtroom show, masterpiece of O.J. Simpson? Not once did you ever see, I'm telling you, Johnny Cochran, God rest his soul, my old co-anchor, he knew what he was doing. He had Simpson was kicked back, not like he's, you know, putting his feet up on the table, but he was relaxed. He'd smile at the jury when he would watch a witness. He would act like he was taking it in. He'd write notes. He's probably playing tic-tac-toe with himself, but he looked like he was taking actual notes. He'd lean over and something to Cochran. Never once did he come off angry. Once in a while, he would look like, you know, he questioned the witness, what they were saying, look in disbelief.

But number one rule, you do not want your client to look angry chart if your client charged with murder and one of those lady jurors looks over there and sees Alex and we're not looking all angry and mad and the next thing you know and her mind she'll have him holding that pump shotgun in his hand you have to control your witness unless he cannot be controlled and Hart Pootley and listen I've talked to a lot of lawyers that know Hart Putlian, and when he's not in court, he's the kind of guy, which reminds me a lot of Cochran, that you want to be with. He can tell a joke. He can tell a story. He can spin a yarn. In other

words, make people like him. I guarantee you Hart Putley cannot control Alex Murdoch. And there he's sitting there looking like he wants to take somebody's head off. Well, Nancy, yesterday, I don't think his attorney wanted to control him. Look, that jury, when all of this testimony they saw, the pathologist was speaking, Dr. Reimer there, on the stand and telling how these people's brains were blown out, how tragic this was, how their bodies were found. The jurors were not looking at the doctor. The jurors were looking at harpolyan's client and that is alex murder and what did you want him to do just to set their stoic when he hears about the persons he loved and he's saying that he did not kill them that their brains were all over the place so you just want him to sit there in a stoic manner

that isn't gonna happen and if it did happen and if he did not show any emotions that jury would hang him in a heartbeat so when he showed those emotions he played and I'm sorry the prosecution allowed Alec Murdoch without at this stage getting on the stand to look very very sympathetic in the eyes of that jury they would have expected him to cry under the scenario and circumstances of what he heard even if you were just outside the courtroom, you wanted to cry for when you heard

about how these people were murdered under these circumstances. Can I see Ted Williams again, please? Ted, if the whole TV star thing doesn't work out, have you considered taking to the pulpit? Because all that preaching you just did reminded me when I was a little girl and the preacher would be telling us we're all going to go to hell if we don't XYZ. Man, you can really lay it out.

But see, that's not the question I asked you. I asked you something entirely different. I asked you not about him crying in front of the jury. I asked you about him looking angry the way that Katie Kamen just described him looking angry at the scientist who's just up there talking about the DNA and it made him mad. It made him mad. Let's examine why it made him mad and in that vein joining me is a world-renowned DNA expert chief development officer at authoram inc authoram.com or dnasolves.com and one of their expertise is to take degraded or mixed DNA, DNA that's been underwater, DNA that's been in mud,

DNA that's the result of an exhumation, digging up a dead body, and somehow finding a way to make a proper DNA analysis and get results. Dr. Kristen Milliman, thank you for being with us. Could you venture to hypothesize why Alex Murdoch probably was angry about the expert on the stand? Absolutely. First,

thank you for having me, Nancy. And yes, he was angry because DNA doesn't lie. There was blood on that steering wheel. There was blood that contained his own DNA and also DNA that belonged to the victims on the steering wheel of his car. Why was there blood in the steering wheel? When there was no blood in his hands, when the police and the detectives arrived, there was no blood on his clothing, which you would have expected, right? If I saw my husband and my child in a crime scene, I would probably touch them in a way that there would be blood or DNA from that blood transferred onto my clothing. There was nothing. There was nothing on his hands. Like you said, he was calm and collected when even even brought up motive when law enforcement arrived. Yet there was blood on the steering wheel. Why did he even go back to the car? I thought he drove home and then found.

You know, I'm curious about his scowl during the DNA expert up on the stand, the crime lab person. Let's go back to investigative reporter joining us, Katie Kamen. Katie, could you give me, could you give everyone who may have missed some of the testimony this morning, it's been a very packed morning, and I want them to get through this evidence, Katie, because I don't want to lose any more jurors. What would you say is the crux of the testimony this morning before lunch break? Well, it's certainly been a packed morning. We've heard from multiple witnesses. We had heard more from Dr. Reamer. She was that forensic pathologist yesterday that went into that grisly, gruesome detail about the wounds that Maggie paul sustained during the murders um when harpootlian cross

examined her he was trying to get her to uh basically say that the the gun was right up against paul's head he was trying to get her to adjust what her belief was where that entry wound was she did not budge she had a great quote for him as well, kind of putting Harpootlian in his place a bit. We also heard from a man who, he used to take care of the dogs, the kennels there at Moselle out in that rural part of Colleton County. Now, he was detailing, you know, everything from how he wrapped up the hose at the kennels to where the dogs were located, talking about how well kept he kept all of those dogs, where they had the guns kept on the property. Those are probably the two most interesting and intriguing bits of testimony today.

A man from General Motors, he took the stand just to introduce evidence. We heard yesterday that General Motors maybe has some more data that just was shared with the prosecution over the weekend. We expect to hear more from them. Right before we went on lunch break, we heard from someone with the Attorney General's office, a forensic accountant who was testifying about some of Murdoch's financial situation in the months leading up to the murders. I guess the defense will have their chance at cross examination with him after lunch but that kind of sums up this morning definitely been a packed morning definitely been an interesting morning

as well guys I want you to take a listen to our cut 12 this is regarding Alex and Maggie's DNA on the shotgun this would be slated to be 259. And what is that item? 259 contains sled items 15 and 16, which were swabs from the Camo Bonelli 12-gauge shotgun. The comparisons would now be Margaret Murdaugh and Richard Alexander Murdaugh contributed to the mixture versus two unidentified unrelated individuals contributed to the mixture. And the result of that comparison is the DNA profile is approximately 48 quinticillion times more likely if Margaret Murdoch and Richard Alexander Murdoch contributed to the profile than if two unidentified unrelated individuals contributed to the profile. Okay, let's examine that. Katie Kamen with us. The DNA found on the shotgun is Maggie's and it is also Alex Murdoch's. Explain to me the defense theory, if we know it

yet, as to how Maggie's DNA is on the shotgun. Nancy, I'll be honest with you. There was so much information shared during that witness's testimony. I think that I and a lot of people, including the jury, probably have some difficulties sifting through all of that, why the defense made that or why they talked about this. So I'm going to have to defer to somebody else on that one, unfortunately. Well, I can tell you, well, probably because they haven't laid it out in their cross-examination. But what I think they're going to say, Irv Brandt, is that Alex Murdoch touched Maggie to get her pulse even though she was obviously dead and then touched his shotgun ran into the house to get a shotgun because he thought a perp was still there but the problem with that is when the cops got there and Christine if you could show

that body cam video of him in the car in the the patrol car, he doesn't have blood on him. It's not on his shirt that you can see. It's not on his hands. So there's got to be some other way that he got blood on that shotgun. Many would argue it's because the shotgun was present at the time of the shooting, not that it was the murder weapon, but that it was present. What about that theory, Irv Brandt? I think you're exactly right, Nancy. There's only so many ways you can explain it. And that seems to be the most logical explanation that you just laid out. Unless something else in the testimony comes later that gives you a different perspective, I think that one is the correct one. Also, take a listen to Hour Cut 13.

This is about Alex Murdoch's shirt reportedly being positive for blood. The white shirt from Richard Murdaugh was submitted with a blood request. On June 9th of 2021, I processed this item for the possible presence of blood. So that entails I first visually examined the shirt for any areas that are consistent with the staining of blood. Then I tested these items that I have indicated with our phenolphthalein presumptive test for blood. Two stains were indicated, or were tested. Both stains were positive for the possible presence of blood. So the shorts also were submitted with a blood request.

They were processed in a similar manner. Several stains were tested, however two were positive for the possible presence of blood. A stain located at the front left interior pocket of the pair of green shorts was forwarded for further analysis. This was processed on the same June 9th date of 2021. The shorts were also additionally processed at the same time the shirt was additionally processed to retrieve a second stain that was indicated as the possible presence of blood. So the presumptive results for this stain were that it was positive for the possible presence of blood. Well, Ted Williams, Ted Williams, you're going to have a field day with this because reportedly when the state did the testing on the shirt the shirt ended up getting turned blue or

purple in other words it ruined the shirt for further testing by the defense you know absolutely um here again when you're talking about the blood that was supposed to have been found, you still, even that witness on the stand, did not connect the dots. All you could do is say that that was blood. They did not talk about whether this was Paul's blood or whether it was Maggie's blood. But this is the key. The fact about it is, he's not saying that he never touched their bodies, or he's saying that when he found them, he tried to find a pulse. So there are a lot of ways that that can be explained, Nancy,

and I think that you're going to find at some stage or another, the defense will give more of an explanation of it. I just wish that the prosecution would have put on a more crystallized case. Those witnesses, the woman that testified yesterday, the problem was the testimony was all over the page. And I'm sure that a jury that wanted to be focused on these various items. I'm sure at some stage some of them had to lose focus. I listened to this testimony, and I wondered when the hell was it all going, because it was all over the page. And so I find that to be very troubling. And that does not help the prosecution, I believe, to prove that Alec Murdaugh murdered his son and his wife.

Not by any stretch of the imagination. Well, we can't let it would be disallowed, given the right objection. You can't let a crime lab scientist connect the dots, as you are saying, because the crime lab scientist is not the one to say hey the reason there's blood on his shirt is because he shot them that's for the state to do in opening and closing statements so we're going to have to wait for that but i agree with you as it stands right now the jury may be wondering, okay, what does this mean? But we did learn something regarding that garden hose you just heard about. I want you to take a listen to our cut 10.

Where in this picture, where is the hose you're talking about located? It's back towards the left-hand side, back towards the forest end. Is that that yellowish wrapped up? That's that yellowish green looking hose. Were you pretty particular about how you wound that hose? Yes. And why would you do it that way? And did you do it that way every time?

Every time. The picture that you're seeing there, that hose, is that the way you would wind it up? No. How do you know? My very particular how I roll that hose up, and it's kinked up. If you notice, there's pressure on that hose. Somebody used that hose out that I did because it is twisted. Okay, to Katie Kamen joining us from Live 5 News.

Tell me the significance of that garden hose out by the kennels. Well, Nancy, back, you know, one of those first days of testimony when we're watching that body cam footage, or we're hearing about that body cam footage at least, when they're out at the kennels, they keep mentioning these puddles of water by the kennels, close to where Paul's body was found. For days, we've kind of been wondering why this water kept being brought up in other testimony from other witnesses. So now it's brought up again, this hose. What we think that the state is getting at is that after they allege Murdoch killed Paul, killed Maggie,

he maybe used that hose to clean himself off, clean up the crime scene a little bit. And that's why there would be water there. Of course, the dog keeper, the man that took care of the kennels, testified when he left, that hose was exactly where he put it. There was no water. It was all dried. So we'll see what the jury thinks, I, the kennel was dry in the video that Paul took of the dog for his friend, Rogie, Rogan Gibson. There wasn't puddles of water. And now, after Maggie and Paul are shot dead, there are puddles of water and the garden hose is unfurled that is kinked up so Wow Ted Williams what killer would take the time to hose off the kennel well let me just use the word so what and when I use that Nancy I don't use it in a flippant and manner I am saying that I don't know how the hose got the way it was put there. But let's say that Alex wanted to clean himself off.

Let's say he wanted to even clean some of the blood off. Don't you think that when the authorities arrived there, saw that area, saw that puddle, that they would have even have looked in that puddle and taken some evidence from that puddle? Don't you think that the crime scene search people would, in preservation of that crime scene, would have used or picked up anything they could in the sense of that kind of fluid. Because guess what? Even if he cleaned his body off and there was some blood that went in that water, they could still be able to find that, meaning the crime scene search people. So I don't make a big deal out of this. And the prosecution, again, Nancy, we want the prosecution to connect these damn dots.

Tell us, tell that jury what is the connection between that hose, that water, and Alex, just to infer you want to convict this man and a murder because you want an inference to be drawn with a hose? That's not going to happen in this case. Dr. Michelle Dupree, not only pathologist, medical examiner, but former detective and author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide, if there's a random killer, you never see staging of the scene because they don't have anything to cover up. If you see a killer connected to the victims, then you see staging. Staging simply means the scene was altered. I had one case where the mom victim was found naked

on her bed dead and the killer had put a wicker trash basket over her head. I've seen cases where the body was moved. Or in serial killer cases, those freaks will redress the woman's body and Ted Bundy even applied makeup and washed the victim's hair post-mortem. That is extreme staging. But in this case, it's very clear that the killer wanted to get rid of evidence. They weren't worried about getting caught. They had time in their mind to hose out the kennel for Pete's sake. They knew nobody was going to come catch them. And that's only one person, Alex Murdoch. Exactly, Nancy. And there's something interesting about this. We keep saying that the blood on the t-shirt, if you are checking a body for a pulse, you're not going to have droplets like

that. You may have transfer, which has been talked about before, but where this blood is located, where this blood was found, it's not going to be as if you were checking a pulse. And in addition, we want to know what that looks like. It's not a smear or a streak of blood. It's basically small droplets. And again, you don't get those from checking someone's pulse, if in fact he really did check someone's pulse. Guys, we have been taking your calls, your questions, your emails, a lot of it off social media. And here's a really good one. It's from Stephanie Marie. Why is Alex Murlock silent on the 911 call until they pick up? There's no crying.

There's no sobbing. There's nothing. But the minute that 911 caller dispatch picks up, everything changes. Katie Kamen, who has listened to the 911 call like the rest of us isn't that true stephanie is stephanie was right there's no sound from him at all until the dispatcher picks up yes nancy that is true i've listened to it um the unredacted version months and months ago listen to it again um now yeah it is it is silent. And if you've ever called 911 before, you do hear at the beginning, they record you the second that you dial those numbers. So

certainly something interesting to think about that as soon as he hears that operator, that's when he starts crying and you could actually hear that emotion. You know, Beverly A. Bear has a good question. Why would Maggie's phone be moved and discarded, but Paul's left behind? That's a really good question. What was on Maggie's phone that needed to be discarded? Why did Alex Murdoch delete, I believe it was 73 entries in his phone? Question to you, Dr. Kristen Middleman, Paul's phone was laid neatly on his body and there had to be DNA evidence on that phone. What does that signify to you?

I know you look at not only DNA, but the placement of DNA. Yeah, so it is odd. It's odd that one person's phone was laid neatly on their body, and obviously mixed DNA would be there, and then the other phone was discarded as to hide something or to not allow it to be found because of the information that was probably on the phone. I think in this case, he wasn't as worried about his DNA being on all these items because he belonged to the family. And so he believed that that would just be excluded. So I don't think he worried about the DNA being all over the crime scene, as you say it was. And I think that what you have to do is you have to put that in context of where it is, how it is, just like the previous person just said.

It wasn't like a smear of blood from hugging someone. It was spatter. It was a droplet of blood found on the shirt. The position of that DNA found on the gun, that's very important. That will start to tell the story. Where was Maggie's DNA on that weapon? Where was Alex's DNA on that weapon? I think that that's what we need to hear next. We've heard from the analyst in the lab, sort of that, yes, the presence of DNA is

there. And at what sort of degree they can exclude other people from from having DNA there. We even heard the defense take on the fingernail clippings and make a big deal about the fact that his DNA was not under the fingernails. Although I don't think that means anything. There was no defensive wounds. So there shouldn't have been a struggle. And as you can see, someone made a note that she had gone to the nail salon earlier. I wonder if they would want to, instead of just tell the presence or absence of DNA on all these items, start to discuss what, where exactly on these items that DNA was. and what would probably let us know whether or not Alex was involved in murdering these two people or whether he was just there. Obviously, he was there. There is the audio.

Now there's blood on the steering wheel. There's DNA everywhere. But the question is, how was he involved? And the placement of DNA could start to tell that story. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace The Internet is on fire right now with rumors, speculation that Alex Murdoch is going to take the stand in his own defense. To Katie Kamen, what's the word at the courthouse? How much longer do you expect the state's case to last? When will Curtis Edward Smith testify?

And most important, what about the theory that Murdoch will take the stand? Well, Nancy, we expect the state's, their case, all of their witnesses, we expect that to wrap up tomorrow, even with the addition of some of this new evidence from GM that they introduced or expect to introduce, they said middle of the week so tomorrow even with this covid stuff um obviously we would expect curtis eddie smith uh to testify before then we've been hearing about it since last week though um heard it from officials and off the record and he still hasn't taken the stand so at this point we're wondering if there was some sort of controversy behind the scenes because we've seen his attorney in court not sure if he's going to take the the

stand or not so many people want to hear from him though obviously you know the story nancy but for folks who maybe don't he is allegedly involved in an insurance plot a suicide for hire with murdoch back after the murders um so we definitely would like to hear from him. As far as the defense, we expect them to start their testimony with their witnesses. Maybe Thursday, they expect that to take a week as well. And we're also hearing some grumbling, some rumors that Alec Murdoch himself may take the stand at the end of all of this. Might be true, might not be true. We'll just have to see on that one i guess uh katie cammon are you telling me that curtis edwards smith's lawyer has been in the courtroom as of today or yesterday yeah i'm not sure exactly what day it was but one of our other

investigative reporters said that she she did see his attorney in the courtroom at least in the past week okay that means he is still set to testify as of that moment because there's no way she's going to spend her time sitting in the courtroom if her client is not involved. I'm sure she's got a thriving practice with clients waiting for her to show up or do something. Long story short, she's not just sitting there watching the trial without any purpose from what I know about her. Here's another question. This is from TL Barber. Who will the defense call for questioning? Character witnesses? Fat chance like a snowball's chance in H-E-double-L. Ted Williams the reality is once the defense brings on good character the state can then respond with bad character, and there's plenty of it.

Well, the state has already tried to respond as best it could with bad character evidence. I can tell you that the defense has been very slick in this case, and they have, with witnesses that have been on the stand, they have been able to put on subliminally character evidence that Alex is not such a bad guy. That has come out through witnesses on the stand. Now, who they anticipate, I believe, that the defense is going to call in their case in chief is that they are going to call quite a few experts to dispute the experts that have already taken place. For instance, Dr. Raymer, the pathologist. I would have to believe that they are going to call their own pathologist to dispute some of the testimony of Dr. Raymer.

So I think you're going to get here next week into the battle of the experts, or perhaps even this week after the prosecution rests. But when you speak of Cousin Eddie, I think that guy is bad news for both sides, and I don't know if the prosecution really want to call him to the stand. One of the things that we are leaving out here, Nancy, and we must talk about, these two people, Maggie and Paul, were shot with two different weapons. Paul with a shotgun and Maggie with possibly an automatic long gun. And so the fact about it is the defense's argument is that there were two shooters that killed these people.

And their argument is that this is about the murder or should we say the accidental killing or the killing of Miss Beach by Paul when he was driving that boat and that's going to be the manner in which the defense is going to go at this case. Yeah that is what they're going to do. I don't know that anybody believes it but yes we have been talking in depth about the fact that two weapons were used. Maggie and Paul were not shot with the same gun. The guns both appear to be Murdoch weapons and both the guns, at least one of the guns is a Murdoch weapon, both the guns have disappeared. Now little green men from Mars may have beamed down Ted Williams and gunned down Paul and Maggie. Could have happened, but did it happen? Is it reasonable to believe

that? No, not really. So that will be what the state argues back. But my question to you was, would the defense call character witnesses? That was the question. If they call good character witnesses like Alex Murdoch singing in the church choir. No, no. Because then the state can bring in all of the times he was drunk. Every time he ever stole. Not just the few we've heard about. Everything he ever did wrong will then come into evidence.

And right now it's being barred. You're absolutely right. If they put on testimony meaning of his good character, they will open up a door where, in even rebuttal at the prosecution, will far as I'm concerned in this case, by putting on this cockamamie of financial evidence to try to show that this man murdered his son and his wife because he was concerned about the exposure of this financial, of his financial fraud? That's utterly ridiculous that's another area i don't know i disagree with you and i'll tell you why maggie was about to take half of everything he was worth in a potential divorce including his inheritance from his father but once she's dead you don't have that problem. Paul was the source of a major multi-million dollar lawsuit against Murdoch and his family.

Paul was killed. That argument, that lawsuit was quickly settled after Paul's death. But let me ask Dr. Middleman the question regarding the DNA. The DNA. How do you come up with such fantastical numbers as to the likelihood that this DNA came from anybody else but Alex Murdoch? It's like one in four quintillion.

It's numbers we don't even learn in math. Yeah, it's just the probability standards of how many times it would be that that those letters of dna would show up in those alleles across the population and and what those numbers tell you when they tell you like 1 in 14 quintillion or whatever it is that they they name a few times that just means that it is not likely that another person on this earth because there's not that many people on this earth could have left the dna there and then sometimes you get a result like you know it's 11 times more likely that the dna belongs to this person rather than this person that's just telling you that we don't have enough

loci on that DNA to characterize so the the probability of it being someone else is still very possible right there are enough people here to have that happen so it's giving you that statistic number so that you can wait how important that piece of information that the DNA analyst gave you is when they're making that testimony so when you hear those huge numbers, that means there's a lot of weight in what they're saying. So when they say the mixture is between Maggie and Alex and the number is, you know, in the quintillions that it would be someone else, then you know that that's certain, that's almost certain. When they tell you that

it's 11 times more likely that the DNA underneath the fingernails came from the person that could be from the person that maintains the grounds, then, you know, that's a very, it could also be a whole bunch of other people. So you wouldn't wait that as much. That's how you think of that information that they're giving you. I don't know if that answered your question. Yes, it did. You know, Cookie at the Beach asked, what happens if more jurors come down with COVID? Out to Katie Kammon joining us at the courthouse. Katie,

how many alternate jurors do we have left? Nancy, we're down to three. We started off with six. Now we're down to three. Those jurors are going to be tested for COVID again tomorrow. We'll see if a few of them drop out. As we know with COVID, it spreads. So very well could happen that we're down to even less than that number. We did talk to our legal analyst last night who said there is no rule to have 12 jurors if these alternates get wiped out and we get down to 10 or 11. We could continue with this.

Unlikely. You know, the defense probably would call for a mistrial never gonna happen but a possibility we are in dire straits katie that's never gonna happen if the defense can get a mistrial because you get down to 11 jurors that's what's gonna happen so we've got to try and finish the case before three more alternates or excuse me three more jurors come down sick here's another question this is for dr michelle dupree from carol letby who was killed first can you tell dr dupree it appears from the evidence and the things that i've read it appears that um paul was probably killed first um and we look at that because of the evidence that's there. And also because it's theorized that Maggie was shot in the front, but also in the back, and that she was probably

heard Paul being shot and was trying to run or get away. And that, as Dr. Dupree said, is determined by the evidence. Did it look like she was running? What was the angle of her body? She had just been in the kennel with Paul shortly before the murders. Where was her body found? Matters like that will tell the investigators very often the sequence of the events. Here's another question, and I want to throw this to Irv Brandt. We've heard Ted Williams speak often about not connecting the dots in this case. You, Irv, have sat through many, many jury trials in felony cases. Do we think the jury is so inept they can't add two plus two is four?

Because I reject that that i think they know exactly what's going on in the courtroom they do nancy and uh defense attorney williams lays it out about connecting the dots and he wants prosecution to connect the dots and connect the dots connect the dots connect the dots when he knows good and well you don't connect the dots, connect the dots, connect the dots. When he knows good and well, you don't connect the dots until closing argument. You lay the foundation, you put out all your evidence, you draw up the plan, then you connect the dots at the very end. And he knows that. So I'd like to hear from Detective Williams, not Defense Attorney Williams. And I think he would agree with that.

Okay, Detective Williams, give it a stab. I've got to give it a stab. Look, a case of this nature has to be driven by the evidence. Just a few minutes ago, Nancy asked Dr. Dupree an excellent question, an excellent question. Which, who was killed first, Molly or Maggie, I stand to be corrected, or Paul? That is not for Dr. Dupree to be able to say. That prosecutor, that prosecution, they should be able to tell that jury which one of these people will kill first. They need to be able to put evidence on to that effect. They haven't done that. We, this panel, have done a better job of putting on

a case, I believe, than the prosecution. Dr. Milliman just mentioned the evidence here that can be reasonable doubt. We have DNA that was found under Maggie's fingernails. And guess what? It was not Paul's. And guess what? It was not Alex. So that is something that the defense will be able to hang its head on its head on in closing arguments so when you use the fact that we're talking about closing arguments closing arguments are there to sum up the evidence and to connect those dots to the evidence but if the evidence has not been presented, as in this case, they've been all over the page, as the evidence has not

been presented properly, it could lead to reasonable doubt and this man being found not guilty because of that. You know, I think the state's been very clear about its theory as to why they believe Paul was killed first. And to Dr. Kristen Middleman joining us from Othram Inc. Othram Labs. We know that Maggie had just had a manicure. Now wouldn't it be significant to you Dr. Middleman to know whether the DNA on her nails was epithelial skin or who gave her the manicure? Was it blood? Wouldn't those questions be important to you in making a determination regarding the DNA under Maggie's nails? Absolutely and that's that's exactly what needs to be presented. My guess is because they did name what was blood under the DNA evidence that this was not blood evidence this was epithelial DNA that was found underneath the fingernails. It's also obvious to me that

there was no physical struggle. These victims were executed, as we know, at a close range, but there was no physical struggle that we know of because there are no defensive wounds. So expecting the DNA under the fingernails to actually point to the perpetrator doesn't make sense to me. And like you said, she had just gone to the nail salon, and it could very well be that the technician that was doing her nails is who has the other profile that matches the DNA under her fingernails. And Nancy, there is a question. The prosecution put that evidence on. Dr. Milliman, they need to call her as an expert because what she says makes a lot of sense. You would have expected that as a part of the prosecution's case that they would be able to put on somebody to be able to say, hey, look, where this DNA may have come from.

But they haven't done that, Nancy. Dr. Milliman should be the expert in this case. You know what, Ted Williams, let's just be honest here. The only reason that we know about the DNA on Maggie's nails is because of a state's witness. The defense didn't produce that. The state produced that. That is how we know about it.

So all your bluster about the state needs to bring that forward. The state did bring it forward. So there's your answer that came from a state's witness report. Nancy, Nancy, Nancy, would you agree with me that the prosecution has the burden in this case. The prosecution has the burden. The defendant can sit over there on his butt and not say a word. Yeah, well, the fact is you said the state didn't bring it in, but it came in through a state's witness. So you're wrong.

Dr. Dupree, go ahead, please. Okay, so there's a couple things about this DNA. One is that my understanding is there was not enough DNA for a profile. So as it was, I think it was 11 or something like that. The other thing is DNA can last for up to 17 days. Now, you know, that would be unusual that she didn't wash her hands. But if she had gel nails or something, there could be gel stuck with the DNA there. So there could be many reasons for her to have a little bit of DNA under her fingernails.

And it could be the technician or someone else that she had come in contact with that day. So I don't think this DNA under her fingernails is actually a very big deal. But do you hear, Williams? It will be a big deal by the time Hart Pooleian gets done with it. OK, Ted Williams, this is going to hurt. But last word to you. Well, look, I think this has been a tremendous panel because I think we've done a better job, I believe, than the prosecution of clarifying matters of evidence before the jury. The jury needs as much clarification as we can give them in a case, as you already know, Nancy. And I got to tell you, well, when I looked at the way they put the DNA on yesterday, it was very confusing. And then when they put on more financial evidence today,

after they were already had put on enough, it seems as though they're over-trying the case, and that could hurt them. Nancy, you have been around. You know that there are cases that have been over-tried, and jurors can pick up on it instinctively, and they can move in a different direction than you want them to move in. And remember, we are only, only in the prosecution's case at this time. Thank you. Okay, but wait a minute.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have, oh, the state's failing. They're not connecting the dots. They're not doing their job. And now you're saying they're over-trying the case. You've got to pick one. Not really. When you're looking at this financial

evidence, which I think is substantially more prejudicial and probative, and you bring this in and you keep hammering away at the financial evidence, and when you can't connect the dots with the actual evidence that is needed for a successful prosecution, and I don't think the financial evidence does it, I think you've got a problem the witness that was testifying I believe regarding the DNA under Maggie's nails to Katie Cameron I believe was state's witness Zapata is uh the sled DNA analyst isn't that correct you know what never mind I've got it right in front of me. It is. Okay, but I will throw a bone to Ted Williams.

The state's witness did tell it, but it was under cross-examination by the defense. And I'm leaving on that note before Ted Williams can say anything else. Goodbye, friend. We're going back in the courtroom. This is an I heart podcast.