Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - KILLER LAWYER ALEX MURDAUGH ESCAPES MURDER CONVICTION, CASE REVERSED

Episode Date: May 15, 2026

Alex Murdaugh's murder conviction has been unanimously overturned by the South Carolina Supreme Court.  A new trial has been ordered for the disgraced attorney privously convicted for the murders of his wife and son.  The ruling was based on jury tampering accusations against court clerk Becky Hill, of improperly influencing jurors, depriving Murdaugh of a fair trial. The court also noted that the original trial judge erred by allowing extensive testimony on Murdaugh's financial crimes.   The two consecutive life sentences against Murdaugh have been vacated. Prosecutors now intend to retry the murder case by January 2027. Murdaugh will remain in prison, as he is still serving roughly 67 years for numerous financial crimes and fraud, to which he plead guilty.   Joining Nancy Grace today: Amie Williams - juror in Alex Murdaugh's murder trial / Author of "The Long Road to Justice: Unraveling Alex Murdaugh's Tangled Web"  John Mobley  - Trial attorney, John Mobley Law Firm, https://johnmobley.com/ Dr. Bethany Marshall -  Psychoanalyst, Host of a new podcast "On The Couch with Dr. Bethany Marshall,"  Author: "Deal Breaker,”  featured in hit show: "Paris in Love" on Peacock, www.drbethanymarshall.com , Instagram & TikTok: drbethanymarshall, Twitter: @DrBethanyLive   Dr. Michelle DuPre - forensic pathologist and former medical examiner,  former detective: Lexington County Sheriff's Department, Author: “Money, Mischief, and Murder: The Murdaugh Dynasty...the Rest of the Story,"  "Homicide Investigation Field Guide" & "Child Abuse Investigation Field Guide", rorensic consultant,  DMichelleDupreMD.com Jennifer Wood  - Journalist and Director of research at FITSNews.com, Twitter: @IndyJenn_, Dave Mack- Investigative Reporter, 'Crime Stories'  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Killer lawyer, Alex Murdoch, escapes his murder convictions. That's right. The case reversed. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories.

I want to thank you for being with us. Tell me it's not true. Yes, I predicted it, but please tell me it's not true. Sources stating there's a unanimous. vote coming down for reversal? I think it is true. I think we might be looking at a new trial. There's going to be a reversal because Alex's

Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury trial may have been compromised. The bombshell has left a crater and it's mighty wide. Straight out to Jennifer Wood joining us. Director Research Fitz News. Well,

nobody believed us last week when we reported the case is getting reversed. And it has been. What happened? The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Alex Murdoch's trial was not fair, that the jury tampering affected the verdict, and they have remanded it back to the circuit court for further proceedings and likely a new trial. Well, what alternative is there, Jennifer Wood? Do you actually think there won't be a new trial and the state will take a plea and the defense will take a plea? I don't know. say that happening. Me either. I do not anticipate a plea. I believe we are looking at a new trial. And based on Attorney General Allen Wilson's comments yesterday, we're looking at a new trial sooner rather than later. Jennifer Wood, what was the grounds of reversal? The grounds of reversal was that former clerk of court, Colleton County, Becky Hill, had had conversations with jurors about specifically Alex

testimony. The, you know, two days he sat on the stand and testified, telling them, you know, watch his body language. This is a big day. And, uh, apparent, you know, according to the Supreme court, that is enough to overturn that verdict and send it back. According to a couple of jurors, the clerk of court, Becky Hill, made comments that led them to believe she thought Murdoch, was guilty and they claim that affected their verdict. John Mowbley joining us. Veteran trial lawyer with the John Mowbley law firm out of South Carolina. John, thank you for being with us.

John, with all of that evidence, how could they vote any other way? And you know what? Well, John, could you take a look at your screen? I'm going to show Mirlog on the stand, snodding and crying and having to admit he lied. He had to admit. under oath, that he lied under oath. He snotted and cried and carried on and ended up having to place himself at the crime scene when digital forensics had already placed him there.

Then finally he drags up on the stand and went, yeah, I lied. I mean, really? There was so much evidence you really think the clerk with her offhand comments caused a guilty verdict, John Mowgli? It's from our friends at WLTV. Well, you know, Nancy, I got to call it like I see it. A lot to impact on what you said. First thing I'm going to say is I'm going to disagree with your statement about how much evidence there was.

I mean, I think there's certainly plenty of evidence that Alex Murdole is a liar and a thief and a generally despicable human being. But when you take that out of the case, when you take out the evidence of him stealing money from clients and his firm and being a liar and thief, and you focus on the circumstantial, because it's not direct, but the circumstantial evidence that correct them to connect them to the murder, at best is tenuous. I really think the only thing they had that kind of connect him was the opportunity based on his voice being on the Snapchat. So that's the first thing I want to say.

Now, regarding whether or not the decision was right, I completely agree with the decision 100%. It was the right thing to do. I mean, you know, in South Carolina, you know, the standard in a case like this under these circumstances, you know, people refer to it as jury tampering. It's not technically jury tampering. In South Carolina, the standard or the issue is whether or not there was an improper communication with the jurors such that it probably affected the outcome. So clearly there was a communication by the clerk of court, another despicable dishonest human being here in South Carolina, our lovely state. Clearly there was a, you know, a communication. It was clearly improper. And the litmus test, you know, the million dollar question is whether or not that communication possibly affected the outcome. Well, at the hearing, the jury that testified, testified that it probably did affect her decision.

So, I mean, once I heard that, I was actually shocked that the decision was to set us out of the trial was denied at the hearing. So it was the 100% right thing to do. Well, I've got to tell you, John Mobley, there's no question in my mind that, Alex Marnock is guilty. But the question I have right now is, should I believe you or my lying eyes? Because I want you to look and listen to this video. Get back. Get back. Quit, cash.

Come, quit. There's a chick, cat. Come on, Cash. Come, Cash. Quit. So, isn't it true, Dave Mack, Crime Stories, Investigations. reporter that it was proven in court under oath that the voice heard in the dog kennel, the scene of the murders is in fact killer lawyer Alex Murdoch.

That's a yes, no. Wasn't that proven in court? Absolutely yes. And A Mac, isn't it true that after calling in the Secret Service to unlock Paul's phone, it was determined that Snapchat was sent just minutes before Paul. Paul and Maggie were gunned down less than five minutes. Yep, that was recorded at 8.44 p.m. June 7, 2021. So John Mowbley, you're a veteran defense attorney with the Mowley law firm.

John, he places himself at the scene of the crime with that video that he hoped would never be uncovered. and then his own digital footprint that he left behind. Can't you just see him in the dark there at Moselle? Run and can't see anything but butthole and elbows running away from the scene. His wife and his son bleeding out in the dirt. Then he jumps in his car and unbeknownst to him, everything he did would be digitally recorded with the vehicle, the SUV's black box, so to speak. shows when he cranked up, put it in reverse, put it in drive, scratched off like Moody's goose,

slow down, let his driver's side window down electronically where coincidentally Maggie's phone was thrown out on the side of the road, then he scratched off to hide out at his mommy's place. He's there at the scene of the crime less than five minutes before they're murdered. He placed himself at the scene. John, what are you saying? Somebody else did it? Well, I mean, number one, it's his house. He's going to be at the scene.

I mean, so I don't think that's a surprise. So, I mean, I think, you know, you're... They're dead. I have a problem with you being at your house, but not with two dead bodies on the dining room floor. Yeah, but, you know, you're taking one circumstance and you're eliminating all other possibilities. and you're not really talking about what's missing in the case.

And when I say that, keep in mind the circumstances of this murder, these two murders are very distinct. I mean, you have two different weapons, not just two different firearms that were used. You have two different long firearms that were used to murder two people in close proximity. And I think there's, you would, I think you would have to agree with me that it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense for what. individual to use two separate long weapons to commit two murders in close proximity.

Put him up. Excuse me? So I think you have that issue. Mr. Mobley? Mr. Mobley? Yes, ma'am. Yes. You do know that before I sat in this anchor chair, I tried nothing but felonies in

intercity Atlanta, which was then one of the murder capitals of the world. Does it make sense? Let me ask you. Query, does it make sense? it makes sense to gun down your own son and wife just because they're about to crack your financial crimes wide open and you're going to lose a whole heap of money. Is that a sensical solution to financial undoing? I submit no, but yet he did it. So it doesn't have to make sense because nothing about double murder makes sense. He owned firearms exactly like the firearms

that were used. So yeah, it makes perfect sense. And guess what he stores at most of the most of his firearms. And when you say circumstantial, circumstantial, isn't it true, Mr. Mowbley, that the law is, I want to see him. The law is and is in the judge's jury instructions that circumstantial evidence under the law is as powerful, with the jury so deems, as direct evidence. Isn't that the law? The law is circumstantial evidence as good evidence. However, the chain of circumstance can only lead to that one conclusion and cannot, you have to eliminate other reasonable inferences based on those circumstances. And I do believe, and I've said it from the beginning, that the circumstances of these murders lead to more than one inference that he committed the crimes.

And I want to address what you're saying about the financial crimes, because what you're saying is consistent with the prosecution's theory, but I've always said that was a red herring. I've always said that was a mistake. And let's talk about that. You know, this whole thing that he was going to commit the murders to somehow derail the financial investigation makes no sense whatsoever. I mean, that train was coming down the tracks. Whether his wife and son got murdered or not, that was not going to erase the ink and those financial records. And he got away with that for years. Why would he not think he would continue to get away with it or could buy his way out of it or could pay everybody off? I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what. If you will take a breath,

I will tell you what. The reason it had happened now is because Maggie wanted a divorce. Up until this moment, she had not wanted a divorce. But now she does want a divorce. Gee, I wonder why. She would have legal discovery in those

divorce proceedings, and all of his financial BS is stealing $12 million would be found out. And two, Paul, his son, drove drunk as a skunk on a boat belonging to Murdoch, everybody begged him get away from the wheel he wouldn't do it what happened he crashed into cement

pilons and mallory beach 19 years old flew off the boat and died her bloated body found three days later floating face down that lawsuit was coming to a head he murdog paul and a liquor store had all been sued and it was set down in the next days that paul would have to go to court on a legal proceeding regarding that lawsuit and pursue it to that discovery all of us of Murdoch's shenanigans were coming to light. And that hadn't happened until then. Until that happened, he probably could have got away with it. But no, not anymore.

It all came to a head. Evidence came out at trial that he lured Maggie to the location. She didn't want to go to Moselle. She told her friend. I don't know why he wants me to come out there. But I'm going just before she was murdered. Experience Harry Styles live in London, England at Wembley Stadium. This is Harry Styles.

IHart Radio wants to send you and a mate across the pond, with flights from Virgin Atlantic, hotel from TripCentral.ca, tickets, and $1,000 cash. Here we got it. Download the free IHart Radio app. Listen to IHart new music for 10 minutes. Enter to win. Every day is another chance to see Harry Styles.

Very excited to see you with the show. Kiss all the time, disco occasionally available now. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Regarding the financial crimes, I've read the Supreme Court opinion, the South Carolina Supreme Court opinion to Jennifer Woods. Isn't it true that the South Carolina Supreme Court did not pass on the financial evidence as being reversible because they didn't have to? They reversed on other grounds, those grounds being Becky Woods' behavior, the clerk.

Yeah, so they said that due to the reversal on Becky Hill's conduct, they did not really have to address the evidentiary issues, but they did offer the trial court guidance for the second trial in terms of the financial evidence. And while they did say it was admissible as a motive, they noted that they actually did the math on this, approximately 12.5 hours of testimony. was excessive and it should be limited in the next trial to just what is needed to prove motive. He was very gracious, thankful, and he said, Jim, I'm seeing, I'm reading it, and it's still hard to believe, but he's glad to get that moniker off of him as a convicted murderer of his wife and son. No doubt about that. That jury was tampered with. That jury was told, don't believe Alec before he got on the stand in so many words. And so, the jurors came out saying we didn't believe him, but they were coached to not believe him.

We do have information that's been provided to us, potential third parties and potential motives, and we just, we can't disclose it here right now and don't intend to. If you take away all those financial crime, prejudicial, you know, victims testifying, the only thing they have is this, he lied about where he was. The Snapchat video. Right. Other than that, the motive is paper thin. Did you hear that, his own defense attorney?

The only thing they have? He lied where he was, the Snapchat video, placing him at the scene. Dr. Michelle Dupree joining us, renowned forensic pathologist. Oh, that's from our friends at the Today Show, by the way, and those were Murdoch's lawyers, one being the very successful Hartpoolian. Dr. Michelle Dupree, forensic pathologist, former medical examiner, former detective Lexington County Sheriff's Department, and author of Money, Mischief, and Murder,

the Murdoch, the rest of the story. But from my purposes, she's also the author of the Homicide Investigation Field Guide. Dr. Dupree, thank you for being with us. Could we just do a little reality check? John Mowbley is so blithely describing what happened and the circumstantial evidence. Paul's head was blown off.

His skull was in a different area. His brain matter was at the top of a door. That's right, Nancy. This was a horrific crime. And, you know, forget about the two-weapon controversy. That was forensic countermeasures. The injuries that these two people suffered, Paul were right.

Paul was shot twice. He was shot under the armpit, and he was shot at about, they estimate, about three feet away. But then he was shot at almost, point-blank range with a shotgun, a 12-gauge shotgun, that does massive injury, explosive injury to a person's head. And yes, his skull, parts of his skull and his brain matter were on the dirt. His brain matter was on the door jam, the upper part of the door jam of that

kennel. This was devastating. It was absolutely horrific. And Maggie, Maggie was shot five times. She was shot three times in the body. She was shot twice in the head. She was shot on the way to trying to help her son to get away. Her first shots, they were facing the killer. She saw who pulled that trigger. She saw him. Straight out to renowned psychoanalyst, host of On the Couch with Dr. Bethany podcast,

author of Deal Breaker. You can see her now on Bravo and Peacock. and you can find her at Dr. Bethany Marshall.com. Dr. Bethany Marshall, you have long wanted to wait in on this debacle. And I'm not saying the Supreme Court, the South Carolina Supreme Court was wrong. I actually agree with Mobley that, you know, the Supreme Court is an appellate court. They don't question witnesses. They don't take evidence.

They have to rely on the transcript they've been giving. I don't know that Becky Woods offhand comments caused a guilty. verdict. I think the evidence caused the guilty verdict, but the fact is, she said them to the jury, and that was wrong, and the jurors said what happened. I don't think they had any choice but to reverse this case, given what they had. But the way we're picking it apart so analytically, that was devastation in that dog kennel where two people bled out dead. What mind did it take to shoot your wife in the back as she lied face down on the ground to shoot your own son, Dr. Bethany.

Somebody who is completely psychopathic has no regard for life, but Nancy also a very desperate man. He had been on a crime spree for 20 plus years and hiding behind the power of the Murdoch dynasty. And not only was he about to be served discovery demands by his wife, but Nancy, his own law firm had confronted him the morning of the deaths, and they had a full spreadsheet. So he was going to be exposed there too. But you know what really?

This is really what confounds me is how similar the offending pattern is between Alex Murdoch and Becky Hill. He's a psychopath and she's the bumbling church lady, but both of them motivated by money, both sworn officers of the court, jury tampering and witness tampering. Remember Alex Werdock after the Mallory Beach boat crash? He followed those kids to the hospital and told them not to talk to anybody. So he witnessed tampered, just like Becky Hill tampered with the jury. Colossily bad judgment, thinking that they could get away with it, no sense of consequences, and actually kind of seeing everybody as marks. I mean, We know to Alex Murdoch, everybody was a mark, even his own housekeeper who fell down the steps.

And then at her funeral, he approaches her son, says, hey, bring a wrongful death lawsuit against me. And then he keeps the $4.2 million settlement and never gives it to her sons. And, you know, Becky, I think, thought that she would get a big payday from this book. So I just want our viewers to know, offending patterns are alike. whether you're a psychopath or you're the bumbling church lady, when people get in trouble, they get in trouble in trouble in very similar ways. I just don't understand the psychopathy that could allow someone to bring themselves to the point where they shoot their wife point blank range. Isn't that right, Dr. Dupree, that Maggie was shot when she was already faced down on the ground, shot in the back?

She was. She was, absolutely. And again, trying to get to your son when he's in danger like this, it's unthinkable. It's absolutely unthinkable. And how is it, Dr. Dupree, that Paul's brain matter was found on the top of a door? The theory of that is he was shot first and on the side, basically, under his arm. And so he turned. He sort of, you know, went over forward. And when he did that, That put him much closer to the barrel of the gun. And then it was an upward shot to his head, which ended up having his brain matter on the upper part of the doorframe and part of his brain left on the ground. Joining us now, special guest, Amy Williams, a gerar on the Alex Murdoch double murder trial. Amy is also author of The Long Road to Justice unraveling Alex Murdoch's Tank. Wendell.

Ms. Williams, thank you so much for being with us. Congratulations on your incredible book. I know that took a lot of effort. Ms. Williams, what went through your mind when you heard the case is reversed? I was shocked. I couldn't believe it. Just, wow, wow, is all I could say. Why were you shocked?

Do you believe that Becky Hill, who I met several times, very bubbly, outgoing, seemed very efficient. That was my knowledge of her. Did you hear the comments? And if so, do you think they resulted in a guilty verdict? I don't think for me it didn't result in a guilty verdict. And the other 10 stated that it didn't for them. And most of those comments I did not hear.

I don't know what they were talking about or where it came from. So we took an oath, you know, by witness testimony and evidence to convict him. That's the only way we could do it. And that's what I did. And it was a lot to go through. So who had time to paying attention to what anybody else was saying? I never felt like she was pushing an agenda with me. Never felt uncomfortable about it at all.

You know, I've got to tell you my experience with her, Ms. Williams. guys joining us a juror on the Alex Murdoch double murder trial. There was a double murder conviction and has just been reversed by the South Carolina Supreme Court. I agree with John Mobley, veteran trial lawyer. The court did what it had to do. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it. Amy has written an incredible book, The Long Road to Justice Unraveling Alex Murdoch's Tangled Web.

See, I believe, based on sitting in the courtroom, watching the jurors, you watching the trial unfold that there was overwhelming evidence of Murdoch's guilt. My experience with Becky Hill, she was very nice, bubbly, outgoing, seemed very efficient. Yes. If she said the things she did say, that wasn't proper, it was improper. I also think there was overwhelming evidence, and that is why he was convicted. What did you consider, Ms. Williams, to be the strongest evidence. against Murdoch?

There was so much, but the strongest would be the video, considering that he said that he wasn't at the scene, and that was the most important piece that he lied about. And then once he got on the stand, he could not explain, even though he admitted that he lied, he couldn't make sense of the timeline. He couldn't make sense of what happened. So why did they kill them and not you?

What happened? You were there. You know? So that was the biggest piece for me. And then all the other pieces just fit together perfectly. What did you make of all that snot? All that, ooh. You know, I mean, I had to look away.

That was just wrong. Me too. I had to say that, I always say that he's a horrible actor because he goes over the top. He just pushes it over the top. And then he'll fall out of character. It's just, it's insane. It was just insane. I don't know if you can see your monitor,

but I'd like the viewers to see Miss Williams. We have him, Body Cam. Oh, my dear. There's a snot. You know, I never said snot so many times in my life because I think it's really rude until I got to the Alex Murdoch trial.

Then, you know, there's just really no other way to put it. That was from our friends at WLTV. Control room, could you play for her? I don't know if she can see it or not. The body cam, where he's in the back of the car going, and all of a sudden he starts checking his phone. Just like that. It's just, there he goes.

And then all of a sudden, he straightens up and he's on his phone. I don't know if anybody else noticed that, but, oh, there you go, he's straightening up. Here it comes. Everybody's can soak, there you go. Now that was a jump cup, but that's pretty much what happened. Miss Williams, I got to ask you, it's not secret anymore. What did the jury say about all that. sniveling and lying on the stand.

In deliberations, I mean, we just said that it just wasn't. It was too much. I mean, it was entirely too much. And it just wasn't real. It wasn't real. Now, a lot of people are claiming that you all reached a guilty verdict because you found out about all of his financial crimes to the tune of $12 million, I believe it was. And Jennifer would jump in, because you know the case better than anybody.

Jennifer Woods is joining us. She's the first one that told us a week ahead of time. There was a reversal coming down the pipe. So what did you think about that, Ms. Williams? People are saying you all found him guilty because of his financial crimes. No, no, that's not true. And we were instructed to only consider it as a motive. And I believe it was part of a motive, but I think there was more in the pot. It was a bigger storm. It included more stuff. But no, it. It was not based on the financial crimes. All the evidence pointed to him and him only, him only. I mean, he taught, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he, he he was dead, as the pathologist said, um, when she hit the ground, he stood over her and shot her in the head. That's personal. That's a lot of rage.

I mean, I, it's, I, can I just say John Mobbley real quick, place, John Mowbley? and you may want to go ahead and put him on mute right now. Hey, here you go. Here you go, Mowley. I had this yesterday for Murdoch, but this is for you because she just shot your theory about financial crimes is the reason they found him guilty and how wrong that was. She just shot that to hell him back. So if you want these, I'll FedEx him to you. Okay.

Silent tears. Okay. Back to you, Ms. Williams. What do you make of people that insist Murdochardog. is innocent or somebody else did it? Where is the person that did it? Because Dick and Jim said that they were going to find the real killer. So where is he?

Where is he or she or whoever? You know why they can't find him? Because we already have him in jail. He's already been convicted. All the evidence pointed to him, not anyone else. He was in the circle, as the authority said. He was the only one in the circle. I mean, this whole video that we're looking at now,

he fell completely out of character so many times. I mean, it was just insane. Hey, did you ever notice his shirt, Ms. Williams? Oh, I could talk to you all night long. Hey, Chris McDonough, Veteran Homicide Detective, Director Cole Case Foundation, star of the interview room on YouTube. Chris, do you notice in his shirt he's got on? There's no blood on it at all?

Nothing? That's where, was he wearing that when he found his wife and son dead? Yeah, exactly. Nancy. I mean, and you called it from day one on this whole thing. And here we are now, you know, taking a step back and he's going to get act two, you know, and rightfully so. I mean, I think the court ruled appropriately. However, the evidence has not changed in any way, shape, or form. Let's not forget the other big piece of this is he lured his wife to that property that day. And within 90 seconds after that voice is heard, which is Alec on that voice, on that tape from his son,

he blows that boy's head off and then he executes his wife. And all of the digital evidence that was presented proved that beyond a reasonable doubt. Dr. Michelle Dupre, you've studied the case, you've written a book. What do you think about this reversal? And what do you think about the murders themselves? Guilty. absolutely guilty. Jennifer Wood, you called it first. Jennifer joining us from Fitz News. She is the director of research there. She told us a week ago, this reversal was coming down. Nobody believed it.

Well, it happened. Way in, Jennifer. Well, this reversal was not unexpected. It is still disappointing. And I don't think anybody is looking forward to a second trial. I do think the second trial is going to look vastly different than the first trial. I think we're going to see less financial evidence admitted. I would be surprised if ELEC testifies. So it'll just be another roller coaster to see what happens next. Experience Harry Stiles live in London, England at Wembley Stadium. This is Harry Stiles. I-R. Radio wants to send you in a mate across the pond with flights from Virgin Atlantic, hotel from tripcentral.ca, tickets, and $1,000 cash. Here we got to.

Download the free IHeart Radio app. Listen to IHeart new music for 10 minutes. Enter to win. Every day is another chance to see Harry Styles. Very excited to see you with the show. Kiss all the time, disco occasionally available now. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Dr. Bethany Marshall, have you ever seen anything like it in your life?

I believe Alec Murdoch's crime spree, which spanned decades, was aided and abetted by the fact that he was surrounded by people who looked up to him. He was a lawyer. He had power. He was educated. He came from a long line of judges. And because of that, there was kind of a societal collusion with him, which allowed him to keep using opiates, allowed him to keep stealing money from clients, taking money from his own law firm. And I think there were a lot of people around him who kind of knew what was going on, but they also couldn't believe it at the same time. A number of stories, you know, really stick in my mind when Paul crashed the boat because he was driving three times over the legal limit in terms of alcohol. Alex Murdoch was allowed to go past the crime scene tape to the boat, whereas Mallory Beach's mother was kept behind the crime tape. She couldn't even go to check on her own daughter, which is so sad. Alex Murdoch was then allowed into the hospital to influence the young people to not give testimony. Me, questions were never asked.

And I think what Amy just said, the juror on this show, was so powerful when she talked about the execution type shot to Maggie Murdoch's head, that this was up close and personal. wasn't just motivated by hiding his financial crime. She was about to leave him. And women, as we know, and I've said again and again, are at the greatest risk for homicide when they are about to leave a relationship. He saw, he shot Paul first. So Maggie had to see that. And when we think about domestic violence, often the children are abused or killed to get back at the other parents. So we can really think about this as a DV or domestic violence scenario.

where the child is taken out to punish the other parent. She had to see it. And then he shoots her execution style. So this is not just financially motivated, cover up, concealment motivated, but I think this is motivated by ongoing simmering rage towards somebody who is no longer going to do everything that he asked her to do. Well, I'm about to pull the tiger by the tail. John Mowbly, final thought.

You know, it's always so interesting to hear people talk about this case and talk about how overwhelming the evidence is and what a despicable person, Murdole is. And I will say, obviously, you have to agree that he was an extremely unpleasant, that was a liar, was a thief. I mean, he was still a nickel from his, you know, from his own mother and lie about it. But, I mean, the things that are significant is there are, there's absolutely no history of violence in his past. There's zero. There's no allegation. There's no investigation that he ever engaged in any violent conduct toward anybody under any circumstance. All the prior evidence is he's a he's a thief and he's a very powerful person and a very, you know, corrupt individual, which we all agree. And it appears that, you know, while everyone will talk about overwhelming evidence of guilt and how he had to commit these murders, you know, 99% of what they talk about is his character and what a, you know, dishonest person he is. He is. He is. Even the jury that is so adamant that he committed the crimes talks about his demeanor on the stand and, you know, how she didn't like his personality and his demeanor and he was just honest and untrustworthy. That's not evidence of murder. I mean, there are a lot of questions in this case.

I mean, you know, where were the murder weapons that they never found? Where are the bloody clothes? I mean, you know, what's so interesting they talk about is how, you know, he was there within 90 seconds. All this stuff happened. that I'm thinking, okay, well, in 90 seconds, he had two long weapons and killed his son, killed his wife, and got rid of the bloody clothes, got with the bloody, you know, got one of the weapons such that, you know, an entire law enforcement department, or two law enforcement departments after Camas and the area could not find any of it. That just doesn't make any sense to anybody.

It just does not. And I challenge someone to say that he could hide all that stuff in 90 seconds and clean himself up and have no blood on him and get with him. all the phones and give me of all the firearms and leave no trace of his presence at that crime scene and no blood or any other physical evidence on this person, I challenge anyone to say that he can do that in 90 seconds and completely evade the forensic investigation of two separate law enforcement agencies. I mean, it does not make sense to defy the logic. I really would like to come back with that. I understand what you're saying, but it was more than 90 seconds because he was the one that actually, you know, pulled out the timeline. He was one that

the timeline. He called 911 when he wanted to. So he called 911 after he got back from his parents' house, which he took a shower. He could have washed in the little shed that they had to clean theirs or whatever you do with that kind of stuff. There was something there where he could have showered. He could have showered in the house. He set the timeline. He did everything the way he wanted and he called 911 when he wanted to. So he had plenty of time. And then the police didn't even search the area completely that night. There were people all in the house before then, after then. And then they, when they finally do search the house, they can't find the guns.

But they did prove that the guns, the bullets that they found outside of the house had the same scriations on it just like the bullets that they found in Maggie. Okay. So that tells you right there. It's like a fingerprint. And it was the family weapons were used. I mean, shoot, you have people who've been committed on murders for murders who you don't even have a body for it. So we had enough evidence to show that he did it.

Plain and simple. He set the timeline. He did everything you want it. Well, I just think as far as the timeline goes, and that's another issue I have is when you're talking about the timeline, and you're saying he set the timeline. I mean, that's another issue in the case. I mean, there really is no clear timeline for the murders. You know, any, any attempt to put together a specific timeline, is speculation at best. And that's what happens when you have, and I will tell you, you know, I've prosecuted, I've defended these cases,

and let me tell you what happens time and time again. You know, when there's a murder, and I can tell you, I can guarantee you that when these bodies have found, Alex Murdoch was the immediate suspect. And if you're going to say anything otherwise, and I think that's not realistic. I mean, that spouse,

the people that have the connection or the relationship with the victims are always the first and, immediate suspects, whether law enforcement wants to admit that or not. Those are the first people they look at. And let me tell you about law enforcement, once they kind of fix it on the suspect, and they really don't look for anybody else, okay? And when they don't have clear evidence of anybody else and the evidence against that person

is circumstantial, they're going to start going down that road and they're not going to turn around. I can guarantee you that. And that's what happened in this case. Chris McDonough, thoughts? So statistically, 92% of all homicides across this country are committed by people that know the victim. That means Alex Murdoch has an 8% chance of proving approximately that he's not the guy. This case is about a system that caught a court employee allegedly tampering with a jury. the Supreme Court rightfully turned it back and said, let's try this again.

It doesn't erase what Murdoch did to his wife and son. Maggie and Paul deserve a fair trial and a verdict that actually sticks this time. This is about jury tampering, not the strength of the case. The timeline, the lies, the shotgun, the rifle, the evidence, the financial motive. and Murdoch's own voice on the kennel video, all stick rock solid to a presumption of guilt. The prosecution does not have to prove a motive. And I love the fact that, you know,

if I'm ever in trouble in South Carolina, I'm going to call John because he has the ability, no doubt, okay, to argue passionately for his client. And I think in this one, though, he'll be unfortunately found incorrect on this one. Final word to you, Ms. Williams. Definitely guilty, and I will vote it a million times over. In my book, my co-author and I detail exactly how we went through the evidence, how we came to the verdict that we did, and how the evidence was just overwhelming against him.

And we will vote this over and over and over again. I can vote it a million times. He is guilty. No doubt about it. I don't have to agree with what the court did. I understand, you know, according to the law, they had to do what they did, but he is guilty. If you know or think you know anything about this case, the state is starting square one. If you have information, please call South Carolina Law Enforcement 803-896-2605.

803-896-2605. We remember American hero, Sheriff, Richard Coyle, Crittenden County Sheriff's Kentucky, shot in the line of duty after 30 years, leaving behind a wife now widow, Jamie, American hero, Sheriff Richard Coyle. Nancy Gray signing off. Goodbye, friend. This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed human.