Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Maggie Murdaugh’s Blood on Hubby’s Steering Wheel

Episode Date: February 13, 2023

New bombshells arrive in Alex Murdaugh's double murder trial. Today, a DNA expert told jurors where DNA was found related to the crime scene. Everything from weapons to the clothes Alex Murdaugh was found wearing the night of the murders was discussed. One notable revelation is that blood was found on the steering wheel of Alex Murdaugh's Chevy suburban.  Also shown today was the body cam footage from the night police responded to Murdaugh's 911 call.   Joining Nancy Grace: Dale Carson - High Profile Criminal Defense Attorney (Jacksonville); Former FBI Agent; Former Police Officer (Miami-Dade County) Author: "Arrest-Proof Yourself; Twitter: @DaleCarsonLaw   Chris McDonough - Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective, Host of YouTube channel, "The Interview Room" 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 Giovanni Masucci -Senior Digital Forensic Examiner - Over 35 years of combined professional experience in Political and Governmental Affairs; Physical & IT Security, Technology, Consulting, and Investigations Anne Emerson - Senior Investigative Reporter, WCIV ABC News 4 (Charleston, SC), Host of Award-Winning DAILY Podcast: "Unsolved South Carolina: The Murdaugh Murders, Money and Mystery;" Twitter: @AnneTEmerson   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. A lot going down in the Alex Murdoch trial this morning. We're on a lunch break, so let's get right down to the nitty gritty. So far, we've lost two jurors to COVID. Now, of course, the defense is going to take this opportunity to demand a mistrial or at least a delay. If the judge is smart, he will stick to his guns and pray they don't run out of alternate jurors. They've got six of them. Two of those alternates are now on the jury. Six is a good number because typically you don't go past six alternates. And there have been cases, for instance, the Scott Peterson case.

We lost a lot of jurors during that trial. You have to have plenty of alternates. Typically in that jurisdiction, they pick two alternates. Here, they've picked six. Thank goodness. But two out because of COVID. Let's hope it didn't spread to anyone else. And the clerk of court, a fine lady, is also out with COVID. But that aside, the trial is going forward. We got a bombshell today. It turns out that in the middle of the trial, and I hate when this happens, the state has gotten evidence that they tried to get over a year ago about the movements of the car Alex Murdoch's Suburban moved the night of the murders? Well, apparently they've got it in now.

But is it too late to be allowed into evidence? There are very strict rules about handing scientific data over to the defense in time for the defense expert to review it and prepare a cross-examination. That didn't happen because the state has just gotten it. We'll see what happens with that. In the meantime, another bombshell, blood found on Alex Murdoch's steering wheel of his Chevy Suburban. With me, an all-star panel to try to make sense of what we know right now. First of all, I'm going to go out to Dale Carson, high-profile criminal defense attorney out of the Jacksonville jurisdiction and also former fed with the FBI as an FBI agent. Listen, this is a big deal for the

state. And I know you've tried a lot of cases, Dale, and typically you want to go out with a bang, not a whimper. So I believe that the state is working up to their best evidence. They had to lay a foundation for it. And today we're hearing about blood on Murdoch's steering wheel. Hey, Christine, in the control room, could you show, you know I love two videos, especially Dear to My Heart, but this is the one where Murdoch, not the two-shot, but with Murdoch in the vehicle

in his white t-shirt talking to police the night of the murders, Christine. It's the videos, body cam video. Everyone has stated so far, there he is, nice and fresh and clean, just as fresh as a daisy. Look at him, not even a tiny speck, no blood. There's no blood. Uh-oh, and he's not crying either. Whoopsie. Okay, that aside, Dale Carson, remember, everyone has said he didn't have any blood on him. So how did blood get on the steering wheel of his car? Well, obviously, he didn't correctly tell the investigators what truly happened at the events and why would he?

He is innocent until proven guilty and in a situation like this where all of a sudden there's new evidence about where the car was when it was in park when it was the doors were opened all of those things are now being attempted to be brought into evidence and that may ultimately prove his downfall because those are fixed items the steering wheel bloods a fixed item turning the car on and off and being in and out of the car is a fixed item and if it's different from his actual original testimony when it was most fresh in his mind and that's why we want to interview individuals as quickly as possible and as separately as possible. Add to that the fact that he could also be charged with destruction of evidence because

we know he was wearing one shirt when this all began. And it seems to have handily disappeared. And his hands are clean when he's filmed giving the interview in the actual squad car. OK, you know what? I don't know what you just said. Because what I asked you was, you did a really good job. You danced all the way around my question. My question is, how can he explain blood on his steering wheel when his shirt and his hands, which we see in the video, are clean? Now, wait a minute. You said something about he doesn't want to tell everything up front or he doesn't. Oh, I know what you said. You said he's got the right to remain silent.

It's too late for that. He gave a full on explanation the night of the murders to the police. He's locked into that story, Carson. Well, he's got a statement, but that may not be the truth of the matter, obviously. Well, of course it's not the truth of the matter for Pete's sake. Well, and if you're lying and it reduces your credibility, if he should take the stand, the jury's certainly going to become aware of that and they're going to use that to judge his credibility. Bill Carson, you just made me laugh for the first time today thank you if he takes a stand there is no way in he double help me out chris mcdonough i don't know what planet uh carson is beaming down from right now number one chris

mcdonough let me introduce him director cold case foundation former homicide detective that's part i like the best host of a youtube channel which i like a lot the interview room and you can find him at coldcasefoundation.org okay chris i'm gonna start over with you don't make me spank you because i will i will how can he explain blood on his steering wheel? So, Nancy, what's the old saying? The devil's in the details. The only way you can explain that is if you've come in contact with that blood somewhere around that crime scene. And how it gets there, that's up to him, the you know, the defense to explain, you know, how it got there. There is one part in the 911 call where you can hear in the background a car, the vehicle.

And so it's, if that's the link to this, that the prosecution sounds like they're connecting the dots here. The defense has got quite a run to go at to say that it was put there by some other dude. Well, they're either going to have to say that or they'll have to say, somehow they've got to explain with a straight face how he managed to get clean clothes and clean hands. But somehow, he's going to have to explain getting back to the car and getting either Paul or Maggie's or both of their blood on his steering wheel. Because that's where it's going. Hey, Christine, do we have the new body cam video from the night of the murders where they have Murdoch raise his shirt up

and they're looking at him to make sure he doesn't have a Oh great. Guys, I want you to see the Oh, here we go. Here we go. Thank you. Okay, they're coming to the scene. They're looking around. It's pitch dark. There's Murdoch talking.

They're shining a light on his waist right there to make sure he doesn't have a gun stuck in his pants. Can you play it with the sound, Christine? Okay, let's hear it guys The scene is secure at a whiskey Fox whiskey Mike both gunshot wounds to the head I want you to let you know because of the scene I do I did go get a gun and bring it down here It's in your vehicle. I just have any guns on you No, sir, so leaning up against the side of my car you're fine man you're fine

turn around for me i don't have any okay yes sir i see that okay this is your wife and son okay it's bad it's bad. Check the pulses. Yes, sir. Okay. The behavior he's exhibiting right there, he's got a completely straight face. He's speaking coherently. Hey, Christine, could you play that one one more time, and then later I'll go to our cut 11. Could we hear 10 one more time? I want to make sure I heard it all.

The scene is secure. We've got a whiskey fox, whiskey mic, both gunshot wounds to the head. Sir, I want to let you know because of the scene, I did go get a gun and bring it down here. It's in your vehicle? Do you have any guns on you at all? No, sir. It's leaning up against the side of my car.

You're fine, man. You're fine. Turn around for me. I don't have any guns. Okay. Yes? No, sir. It's leaning up against the side of my car. You're fine, man. You're fine. Turn around for me. I don't have any guns. Okay. Yes, sir. I see that. Okay.

This is your wife and son. And son. Okay. It's bad. It's bad. I shake the pulses. Yes, sir. Oh, my God.

Oh. Yes, sir. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Sir, I want to let you know because of the scene, I did go get a gun and bring it down here. Okay, it's in your vehicle? Do you have any guns on you at all? No, sir. It's leaning up against the side of my car. You're fine, man. You're fine. Turn around for me. I don't have any guns. Okay. Yes, sir. I see that. Okay. This is your wife and son?

And son. Okay. This is your wife and son? And son. Okay. It's bad. It's bad. I'm shaking my pulses. Yes, sir. Okay, guys. I want to go to Dr. Michelle Dupree joining me, pathologist, medical examiner, former detective, and author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide, and she is there on location in South Carolina. You can find her at dmichelledupreemd.com.

Dr. Dupree, thank you for being with us. Did you notice, doctor, that he wasn't crying at all, that he was speaking perfectly coherently. And I've written down what he says. He says, Sir, I want to let you know that because of the scene I do, I did go get a gun and bring it down here. And then he goes, it's leaning up against the side of my car.

And he goes, I don't have anything. And then and only then does he go, a little sniffy, right there. He is perfectly coherent, Dr. Dupree. Yes, Nancy, he is. He seems very calm. I also noticed that he folds his arms across his chest in a very, what I would consider, defensive posture.

This, to me, is not like someone who has just witnessed a horrific scene, his beloved wife and son. I think this is unusual. Well, his use of the word seen. Yeah. Oh, that's really good. Is that you, Carson? Jump in, Dale Carson. Come on.

You would never say that. Not in that situation. The word seen is something that talks to exactly what it is in reality. It's a scene. It's been created. But who created it? Oh, that's really insightful, actually. I was all ready to fight with you.

But you're right. You're absolutely right. Now, hey, Christine, let's play Cut 11, more of the body cam video. I don't even check them. They are dead, aren't they? Yes, sir. That's what it looks like. more of the body cam video. I don't even check if they're dead. They are dead, aren't they? Yes, sir. That's what it looks like. Randy.

I'm a smaller cat. When was the last time you were here with them? Or talked to them or anything like that? Um. It was earlier tonight uh i don't know the exact time but okay i left i was probably gone an hour and a half for my mom's and i saw them about 45 minutes before that there he goes man he's got that time uh his timeline in his own head, even though it's not borne out by the facts. Did you hear that, Chris McDonough? He says an hour and a half. He's sticking to that he was at his mom, the story he was at his mom's for an extended period of time. It's about a 20 minute drive there. It's about a 20 minute drive back. And he is trying to account for 90 minutes minutes so he's saying he was at his mom's

50 minutes that's not what happened yeah and and there's a couple other things going on here nancy the the fact that when he's asked that question notice he turns away from that officer and then it kind of buys him a moment to think through what his response is going to be. And mind you, remember, in front of him is his deceased wife and his deceased son. And he's walking back on the telephone, calling and speaking with somebody. So in the business, we would call this does not look right, DLR. Well, it also is, what's his statement? I like that this does not look right, DLR. Well, it also is, what's his statement? I like that, does not look right, DLR.

Hey, Dale Carson, Dale, let's watch it again together. Christine, could you play that again? Because now that Chris has pointed it out, he does turn away from the question. He's absolutely correct. Let's take another listen. They are dead, aren't they? Yes, sir. That's what it looks like. When was the last time you were here with them?

Or talked to them or anything like that? It was earlier tonight. I don't know the exact time, but I left. I was probably gone an hour and a half from my mom's, and I saw them about 45 minutes before that. Okay. You know what's interesting? When I look at a witness to determine if they're lying, you will notice that they either blink a lot or they look away, they pause, they fidget with something in order to calm themselves to continue with their lie that they may be fabricating right then and there. And that's exactly what Chris McDonough pointed out. What about it,

Dale Carson? Well, that's certainly true. But what I listen to is his words. And one of the questions he says, are they dead? Well, that's not what you would routine. Can you help? There's the ambulance on the way. I mean, do you really believe that that's how you would approach that situation and describe your son and your wife as T-H-E-Y? No. Now, that doesn't smell right. You know, we're looking at body cam video that the jury has just seen.

A lot going down in the courtroom right now. Very telling, the way he behaves. Christine, one more time, can I see that last bit of videotape you played, the body cam? I'm not even checking, but they're dead. They are dead, aren't they?

Yes, sir, that's what it looks like. Randy. Randy's what it looks like. When was the last time you were here with them? Or talked to them or anything like that? It was earlier tonight. I don't know the exact time, but I left. I was probably gone an hour and a half from my mom's, and I saw them about 45 minutes before that. Now, the jury has seen this in the last couple of days, and we have been wrangling with authorities to get our mitts on it, and we finally did. notice again, Dr. Michelle Dupree, that he is perfectly coherent when he is spouting off his timeline and other cogent facts. But then every once in a while, you'll hear a little whine or a

little that, but he is not showing any indication that he is bereft. That's true, Nancy. And also, when he's in the car being interviewed, he is very calculating. He, to me, he is thinking of all of his words before he says them. He's very slow. He's thinking about what he's going to say before he answers. I think this is telltale. Doctor, if you did something like this, would you try to disassociate from it in order to explain it so you are emotionally not connected to it? And that would explain why he is simply.

So the disassociation allows him to call the killing of his wife and his son a scene instead of this horrible circumstance. So he's living in two separate worlds. Absolutely. Living in two separate worlds. Absolutely. Living in two separate worlds. I'm wondering how Murdoch has been behaving in court and where his family is sitting now. Guys, we've just shown you body cam video that the jury has already seen. And now two alternates have taken the place of other jurors. We are also learning, and this is where you come in, Giovanni Masucci joining us, Senior Digital Forensic Examiner.

Over 35 years, by the way, of expertise in this field. We are learning that the state is just now getting navigational data to show where the car went and when. What could possibly have taken so long? Well, as we heard, thanks Nancy, or we heard from the FBI technician that the data infotainment system, he said it was the first time he's ever seen that it was encrypted. That being the case, they also took over a year to come up with their own software program to try to break that encryption and get the data out. And so it took them a long time. Now, obviously, they're putting it in a format that's readable, that they can utilize in court. And so it may have taken them an extra time to get it to the state prosecution to go ahead and start presenting it.

You know, I'm just trying to figure out what they're really going to be able to prove with it. Giovanni Masucci, what do you believe the state will be able to show? What's the point of bringing it in now? Well, let's think about this. Remember, they said that the phone was was thrown from a vehicle, right? What do we see that they uncovered as that the federal examiner, he could tell when the windows were raised and lowered? To me, that's important. When were they raised and lowered? Do we have a date?

We don't have any date. Do we have a date? That has not been brought into court. I'm curious to see if they're going to come up with any date, you know, time, exactly when that was raised in the order. Was it in that time frame? Right? So that to me is important. The other thing is that, you know, you have times. He said it was gone for an hour and a half. And, you know, they've received calls from they said the in and out of park between 906 and 1013 quite interesting and they don't know if it was in motion or not that's fine but was he starting

and stopping you know what was the process or you know is the state you know when he gets on the stand they're going to grill him on this you know where did he stop why did he stop and so this is going to be interesting especially that they did bring in cell tower analysis that they did on his phone. Well, they may be able to bring in Bluetooth information too when it connected to the car's Bluetooth to his phone. And that would demonstrate an absolutely positive time that he was not where he said he was. Right. And they did grab a Bluetooth information which

showed the two calls and made around 1006 so that would be interesting see exactly I mean they couldn't get all the data that they wanted because they didn't even come up with GPS data so they were had to rely on cell tower information as well from the carrier but if his cell phone linked up to a Wi-Fi at the property, which certainly there is a Wi-Fi at the property, they should be able to determine precisely what time he was at the property and when he left. Right. If it was connected to Wi-Fi. At the very best case scenario, Giovanni Masucci, what will the state be able to prove with the new evidence? That he was in the area.

That he actually was in the area and that he wasn't telling the exact truth. Well, we already know that. We know he was in the area because it's on a video taken by Paul. We hear his voice. We know he was there. So how is this going to help the state? I mean, I think I know the answer, but you're the expert, so I'm asking you, what do you believe? I believe

that he lied, for sure. He definitely lied. Okay, this is what I think it's going to show. I believe that the new evidence, I'm going out on a limb here, is going to show exactly where the car went, at what time, how long the car was in park, at his mother's house. We

know he was there because her caretaker said so. How long he was there and when he came back. That is what I think the new evidence is going to show. And as Giovanni just told us, it may very well show if he slowed down to throw something out of the car, if the windows went down along the way in his ride to his mother's home, if he detoured somewhere to bury the items or to get rid of his bloody clothing that could be extrapolated from those stops or the windows going up and down. That's what I think they're bringing it in to show. Now, interestingly, hey, I'm hearing in my ear, I've got Ann Emerson joining us straight out of the courtroom, senior investigative reporter with WCIV ABC and the creator of Unsolved South Carolina, The Murdoch Murders, Money and Mystery, a daily podcast.

Ann, thanks for being with us. Tell me, first of all, about the evidence that the state is trying to bring in. Who will it help? What is it? Well, they're working really hard right now at trying to bring in all of this DNA swabs that they took. And really what we're getting to the bottom of is who was actually, what they're able to get out of this DNA is who they can exclude, right? So right now they're able to go over all of the different things that they've been testing from his shirt to the defendant's shirt to his shorts. They're looking at the car, they're looking at the steering wheel.

They're looking for places that they need to test for DNA in order to exclude other people and whoever they need to include. And right now, what we've heard over and over again from this DNA testing that was done, the forensics is we are able to include Maggie and Paul, of course, but also Alec at several of these points that they've tested, but not anyone else. So that's what we're hearing really through this testimony. And it is really, as you know, really long. They have to make sure that they go through every single thing. They dot every I, they cross every T, because they want the jury to know that they've done absolutely everything to exclude other

possible suspects. So I think that's really the crux of what we're looking at right now. Some of the really interesting things that have come out is that they've been able to look at, one of the things that pointed out was one of the things that they did not find, and that was that raincoat that we've talked about so much, that raincoat that ended up at the mom's house. That raincoat, according to these forensic experts, did not have any blood on it. Ann Emerson, you're saying the shirt is positive for Paul and Maggie's DNA. Would that be from blood? Right now, they're saying that Paul's,

yes, Paul Murdock's DNA that would be from a blood test that they did would have been found on the shirt. They were also looking at Maggie's blood on that shirt and that Alec contributed to that shirt as well, of course, because he's wearing the T-shirt, right? So, yes, they're talking about where they found blood. There's 10, I think it was 12 points that they're looking at on that T-shirt. So it's Paul and Maggie's blood, not touch DNA, correct? From what I understand, they did the blood tests, and now they've gone back in and done DNA tests to be able to provide more conclusive evidence

of who they're finding on that t-shirt. Okay, what we were talking about when you first came out is the car data that the state apparently has just gotten. That is the data we're discussing. What do you believe it is and what do you believe it will show? Well, what I'm hearing is that this is GPS points. And I'm thinking this is already what you were going through as I was running down the steps out of the courthouse today was that there is all of this new information coming out of the OnStar that GM wants to provide for this trial. They've been watching it along with everybody else. And when

they heard that it took a year to open this up and be able to look and unlock some of this data, they were like, hold on, we have a lot more for you. Now, what the defense and the prosecution is saying is that this is really interesting data points for both of us. And we really need to go through it. The defense only got a hold of these of this GPS information as of Saturday. So they've got they said massive amount of data that they need to go through. So we're waiting to see if this somehow is going to create any kind of delay as we start going forward. And Nancy, I think that I want to jump in here for a second, if you don't mind.

So I also don't want to forget that we have testimony from Shelly Smith, who remember, he shows up that night and tries to convince her that his timeline is at least 30 to 40 minutes different than what she testified to of being about 15 or 20 minutes that car data that they've just received will also substantiate uh you know what the correct timeline is to your point earlier that he did go over to his mother's house at that point. But remember, he was trying to influence her to change her story because he probably knew that data was going to be an issue. You know, another issue about this GPS data coming in right now, the defense could move to have it excluded because it was not handed over ahead of time. The state could then

argue back, this is legal strategy, that it is newly discovered evidence. If they can show they just got it. When you get newly discovered evidence, you can bring that into trial over the defense's objection. You can't have evidence and you just sit on it, not hand it over, and then jump up and claim it's newly discovered. But if it truly is newly discovered, the judge can let it in. Right now, as I understand it, Ann Emerson, the defense is not trying to exclude it. They, in fact, want to study it and see if it can help them as well. Absolutely, Nancy. You hit the nail on the head.

I mean, that's exactly what they were saying this morning. Those were the words they were using. You're in the head of what's happening with the state, I think. I mean, they were saying this is newly discovered evidence. This is stuff that we didn't know about and we wouldn't have known about if this, you know, the people that were running this on-store system came forward and told us what was happening. So it's really interesting, too, the way the defense is handling it rather than saying, hold on, this is totally out of order, you know, concerned. They're like, bring it. We want to see what it is.

Absolutely. We believe that this is just going to solidify our case as well. So it was a moment, though, because you could also see, like, you know, just last week, the defense was calling for a mistrial, you know, which was extraordinary, you know, last week when that happened. And with all of these things that are happening right now, we've got a couple of jurors that are now out with COVID. There's this concern. We've got a mask mandate in that courtroom now. We've got that concern. And then you've got this mass mandate in that courtroom now um we got that concern and then you've got this newly discovered evidence you would think that the defense strategy and tell

me if i'm wrong but like that the defense strategy would be looking at oh well here's an opportunity for us to seriously slow down this trial no they're like let's see the evidence we're going to try and look at it as quickly as we can but but we're still, we're still in the game is what I'm getting from it. Guys, I want you to hear, go ahead, go ahead. Nancy, I believe that if after they get their own expert to look at the data and if it proves that it will go against their client, that they'll act to try to get suppressed, but because the OnStar is going to show breadcrumbs, that's going to give you some really detailed data on the movement of that vehicle. It's going to take it's going to take days for them to analyze it, which they will have.

You know, I don't know why the lawyers don't think they can work overtime after the jury goes home. We should not be having any hearings or any work done on the jury's time. The lawyers need to stay late or come in over the weekend to do that work so the jury is not held up. Guys, I want you to hear, and again, this is where our experts coming in today, evidence about phone pings in Hourcut 1 and 2. We haven't heard a lot about the pinging, but we are now. Take a listen, first of all, regarding Maggie and Paul's last phone pings in our cut one. This is 804 to 805 p.m. Okay.

And so now we're seeing some hits across this Moselle Road, correct? That's correct. So at 80620, it's here near Moselle Road, just north of the driveway. Okay. And from there, it moves towards the dog kennel or the hangar, then kind of up the driveway, and then finally winding up back at the house at about 814. 830807, where do we see that phone start pinging? There's a 56-meter hit right around the doghouse.

Now we're going to move on to Maggie's phone. We have about 425 p.m. and then ending at about 705 p.m. The phone's generally in the West Ashley area. And then we see a series of hits with Maggie's phone. These start at what time? They start at 707 and end at 7.50. It's traveling from the Charleston area west towards Moselle or Almondo. And here we have a hit at 7.50 p.m., 7.50, 20 p.m., correct? Yes, sir. And where is this? That's right in Walterboro, actually, right here.

Did you get any more tower information off of Maggie's phone for the rest of the evening? No. That 7.50 p.m. was the last tower hit I received. That was on Maggie's phone. 7.50 p.m. is the last tower hit that the expert received. Now, that was about Paul and Maggie's phones. Now, take a listen. This is critical to the phone pings from Alex Murdoch's phone that night.

Our cut to Christine. We're looking at Alex's phone. Here we have a number of calls between 640 and 910 p.m. And they're all using tower 159263. And that's the one shown which faces north and is consistent with being in the area of the Moselle province now we're looking at 912 to 918 In the 912 phone record where does Alex's cell phone? Uses sector 3 on tower 159 263, which is the one closest to Moselle. So somewhere south or close to

the border of this tower. Yes. And then at 918 p.m. we see a ping off this tower, correct? Yes, off of 159217 which is closer to Vaughnville. From 920 to 946 there's a handful of calls all using Tower 159217, but using Sector 2 that kind of faces towards the Almeida address. And then there's also one RTT hit at 934 at about 2.09 miles, which is consistent with being in the area of the Almeida residence. If you like data and you like trial work, this is a symphony to your ears. Ann Emerson, WCIV and host of a hit podcast called Unsolved South Carolina,

The Murdoch Murder's Money Mystery. Explain what we just heard. Well, what it's doing really is it's tracking Alec Murdoch's movements and Maggie's. We're now getting a very clear idea of the timeline. Once again, they're just narrowing it and narrowing it. I bet they're now going to be able to take these GPS points that we're going to be learning about that have just been unlocked from that OnStar system. I'm thinking that this is going to play right into where we saw these pings. Now the pings are really important as far

as the cell phone towers because they're going to have to start following him where he's going and when he's getting there. So this is really going to be an enormous part of the state's case as far as to be able to track exactly where he says he was and where you're able to show where he was because you know the eye in the sky never lies hey christine could you back it up to that first graph you were showing about murdoch's phone pinging because it's placing him between moselle and Alameda where his mother lives. Okay, till 9, 10 p.m., his calls are near Moselle. Same tower, 12 to 18 pings near Moselle.

Then suddenly, 920 to 946 pings near Alameda. And that's almost exactly what the housekeeper says, that he came in, he was there about 20 minutes, and left. Then from 9.46 near Alameda, we see him traveling at 9.52, right at 9.53, between Alameda and Moselle,. 1006, he calls 911 at Moselle. At Moselle. Now, I guarantee you, Del Carson, your veteran trial lawyer, the jury is going to have this and go through it with a fine-tooth comb when they get in the Gerard deliberation room but it's on the

state to make it as clear as Christine and the New York control room just made it and what they're going to have to do Dale is you're going to have to overlay overlay overlay they're going to have to put the pings they're going to have to put the GPS tracking data they're going to have to put the GPS tracking data. They're going to have to put all of those cell phone calls and texts in there to basically put him at the scene at the time of the murders. That's a lot of evidence. Well, it is, but it's easily expressed on a whiteboard where you take and show the pattern and you can show that it's all connected and that the initial interview of alex was incorrect and therefore not accurate because he's defending against what he was actually engaged in which is of course slaughtering his son and his wife. And although he's got the opportunity to defend

himself and we've yet to hear his side, he's not yet been convicted. But it's likely if the jurors can follow that pattern that's drawn out for them about pings and where they were at what time, in addition to the information brought out by GM from their OnStar tracking system, he's likely to end up in a convicted situation. To Giovanni Masucci, joining us, Senior Digital Forensic Examiner. Giovanni, I'm so glad you're with us today to make sense of all of the technological data. But I remember one of my favorite props I used in closing arguments was a big jar, a clear jar of muddy water. And when I did my closing argument, I would start off and then I would address what the defense had said.

And I'd shake it and it would get all cloudy. You couldn't see into the jar and I would sit it down on the state's table and finish my closing argument outlining the state's case and attacking the defense case. And by the time I finished one hour later later the jar was clear again. So my question to you is Giovanni how will the defense try to muddy the water on the ping the cell phone ping data? Well they may take into account if there was any man-made interference or if there was any natural impediments. Because what happens is that they're going to try to take it apart. I don't see how they're going to do it, only because when they're doing cell tower triangulations, they've got the data from the mobile carriers and the towers and the sectors because there's three sectors on a tower and so we see where the the pings were hitting all in the location of where the the

crime crime the scene the crime and so i think it's going to be difficult for them to take that apart and saying well you know why did it go to this tower and you know i think it's you know because it can travel from tower to tower if there's traffic there if there's natural impediments but i think the state has a really good case as far as showing the pings and adding the gps data and all the other data that have and putting it on a whiteboard i've been on another murder trial for um the prosecution where they had to do this um i had to back up um the f, the FBI cast folks that were doing analysis, and I did the phones. And we took all the data and we put it on whiteboards and showed the travel of the suspect that committed the crime. And I think this is going to be awesome for the jury

to see in such a basic terminology, not to overpower them. Let's put it that way. Well, and this is rural. So there's use of the cell phone towers is quite limited and more exact than in an urban setting. Sure. Sure. Interesting. Interesting that you said that, because I believe that the FBI and others can narrow down cell phone pings within, you know, 100 feet. It can be done. I think the way the defense is going to try and muddy the water, and the state needs to anticipate this, I'm sure they have, and be ready to shoot it down before it hits its mark, that being the jury, they're going to argue,

well, hey, hey, cell phone pings off towers is not an exact science. You know, Moselle, Almeida, they're fairly close together. We're not sure exactly where the pings, if the pings can identify where Murdoch was at that moment. That's what they're going to do. And the state has got to be ready for that. That's exactly what they're going. Now, I want to circle back to DNA. I want you to take a listen.

We're talking about the steering wheel first and our cut six. They are all swabs that were taken from the Chevy Suburban. So it appears that these swabs were collected because they were blue star positive, which to my understanding is a presumptive test used by the crime scene unit to indicate areas of possible blood staining. Since they were already presumptively tested I used a confirmatory test to test these swabs for the presence of blood. So sled items 51 through 55 and 57 through 60 were all negative with that testing, which means there is no human blood identified. Item 56, which was swabs collected from steering wheel, had a positive result, which means blood was identified on this item. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. They are all swabs that were taken from the Chevy Suburban. So it appears that these swabs were collected because they were blue star positive, which to my understanding is a

presumptive test used by the crime scene unit to indicate areas of possible blood staining. Since they were already presumptively tested, I used a confirmatory test to test these swabs for the presence of blood. So, sled items 51 through 55 and 57 through 60 were all negative with that testing, which means there is no human blood identified. Item 56, which was swabs collected from steering wheel, had a positive result, which means blood was identified on this item. Now, we've got to figure out how Murdoch is going to explain Paul and Maggie's blood on his steering wheel. But believe you me, he will come up with something. Believable? Don't know. But he will come up with something and it will be voiced by the attorney Hart Pooley-Ann. Now let's take a listen to what we learned about Murdoch's t-shirt and shorts in our cut seven. The white shirt from

Richard Murdoch 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 for the 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. Okay, we know there's blood on the clothes, but what kind of blood? To Dr. Michelle Dupree, it's very, very significant. Was it a transfer where he had been checking Paul and Maggie's pulse and then transferred the blood? Was it spatter, which would have indicated he was standing right there at the time the gun went off? It's very important. What type of bloodst stain was it? Exactly, Nancy. And I don't think we know that at this point.

As you said, if it's spatter, that is a much, much different situation than if he had touched something and then simply transferred it to his clothing. Okay. You know, a lot is going to be made of the blood evidence. Joining me, WCIV ABC's Ann Emerson. What about it, Ann? Well, you know, that's exactly what Michelle Dupree was just saying. Dr. Dupree's talking about, we've got to figure out if it's blood spatter or if it's transferred. Now, this was a lot of what was going on in pre-trial motions because the defense was fighting tooth and nail to keep the blood spatter expert out of court and keep this evidence excluded. They've been trying to discredit this since the beginning. The blood spatter, supposedly, the defense has not been able to look at this T-shirt

the same way the state was able to look at it because after the part that you just played, they went ahead, after they had tested the shirt, they went ahead and put LCV on it. And crime scene experts from SLED came and did another testing. This LCV actually turned the T-shirt purple. So now the defense is having a hard time at least examining what the state was looking at before. So right now we're in the middle of this major discrepancy

about what's actually going to be admitted into evidence. Wow. Okay, guys. And we heard from a SLED forensic serologist. Take a listen to our cut eight. Item 15, which were the swabs from the receiver forward of the loading port of the Camo Benelli 12-gauge shotgun, tested positive for the possible presence of the camo benelli 12 gauge shotgun tested positive for the possible presence of blood item 16 swabs collected from barrel of camo benelli 12 gauge shotgun tested negative for

the possible presence of blood both sets of swabs were forwarded to the dna section for further analysis okay i want to examine that one particular phrase did you hear what she said? It's item 15, the swabs from the receiver forward of the loading port. The 12-gauge shotgun tested positive for presence of blood. Okay.

The other part of the gun was negative. Both sets of swabs were forwarded to the DNA section. So regarding the gun, why would blood be on the receiver forward of the loading port? What about that to you, Chris McDonough? So Nancy, there's a couple things going on here and what the experts will be able to testify to is one, if the gun was fired, and if it

did make an impact, then what would have been what is called blowback. And when a shotgun is fired, it's sending gas and it's sending these projectiles down range. But when it impacts something, and that means all of that blowback potentially could come back and would possibly hit that weapon. That may be what they're talking about in this particular case. Well, that gun is not the murder weapon. That is the gun, I believe, Ann Emerson that Murlock said he went and retrieved from

the house because he thought the killer may still be on the grounds. But I'm interested that the DNA is found on that particular part of the gun and there is a mix in Hour Cut 9. We hear about a mix of Maggie and

Alex's DNA found on the 12 gauge. Take a listen to our cut nine. This would be stage exhibit 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 Virtue 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 quintillion times

more likely if Margaret Murdoch and Richard Alexander Murdoch contributed to the profile than if two unidentified unrelated individuals contributed to the profile. Wow, she really knows her stuff, doesn't she? And we also heard Alex Murdoch and his interrogation in our cut four. I want you to listen and watch his demeanor as he says this. Our cut four. When I got back to the house, the house was obviously nobody was in there. So I figured they're still up here fooling around.

Paul was going to be getting set up to plant our sunflower seeds got sprayed and died and he was refiguring to do to plant the sunflower seeds so I came back up here and I drove up and saw and called that is not how I would expect a husband to act, finding not just his wife, but his son dead. To Ann Emerson, how is the jury responding to all the evidence? Well, that's a great question. I mean, right now, today, I mean, you know what we were listening to. They were listening to a lot of explanations that had to be done methodically and carefully so i'm going to be honest they looked pretty bored like for the

first part of this today i saw eyebrows go up a few times when they were really kind of narrowing in on the the the dna and that it was alec and maggie or Maggie and Paul's DNA that they were finding, but they weren't finding anybody else's. So I definitely saw the wheels turning a little bit, I think. But today, this morning, that was a tough morning for these jurors. They got to get through this sort of methodical take on the DNA. But you know, there's one thing is that we out, you know, have finally been able to see some of these redacted body cam videos. And this is what they were looking at. And we were literally watching some of the jurors putting their mouth, putting their hand over their mouth,

like aghast at what they were witnessing. From a visual standpoint, to be able able to once I got out of the courthouse today and took a quick look at what they were looking at it is incredible to see what they had to sort of go through the first day of testimony to be looking at these body camera videos and what was happening they have a very clear idea as we are starting to get of what it really looked like out there on Moselle that night. And do you see them looking over at Murdoch? I do. I do. They spend a lot of time now. I think they've gotten a lot more comfortable with being able to go back and forth. And depending on who they're listening to, right, if they're listening to one of these witnesses, like we heard the housekeeper confidant the friend of Maggie who who

got up there who who looked very reluctant to be speaking against anybody in the family really it was a very hard moment for her boy they were just their heads were on a swivel literally it was like watching a tennis match with she would say something and they would look at the prosecution or they would look over at the defense table for a reaction. They're also trying to read the defendant right now, right? They're also trying to understand how in the world as jurors are we supposed to make the leap that this white collar crime, as a great prosecutor told me, how do these white collar crimes turn blood red? How does that work? How do we use that motive that they've told us that we're supposed to be looking at and take this

this guy that we're staring at every day and make him who the state says he is? Guys, I want you to hear our cut three. Now, the timing of this sound, the timing of Murdoch speaking is critical to what the state is trying to show. Remember, some of this is a month after his wife and son were murdered. Listen. I'm going to direct your attention to July of 2021, specifically July 4th. did you drive Alex to the airport? I did. Where was he going? I believe he was going to Florida Keys with Maggie's family.

And did he say anything to you on that ride to the airport? We talked. Did he tell you anything about the boat case? He did. What did he say? He said that he would like to clear Paul's name. And do what? And beat the boat case? Beat the boat case.

So now with Paul gone, he's talking about he can beat the boat case. That's correct. This is a month after the murder? That's correct. You know, again, I know that I'm probably projecting, but four weeks after my fiance's murder shortly before our wedding, I couldn't care less about a lawsuit or returning. I dropped out of school. I didn't care about that. I didn't want to eat. I didn't want to drink. I didn't want to sleep. I didn't want to live. And he's talking about beating a lawsuit. It's over. Paul's dead. At all. That Mallory Beach's

family, that's who he's talking about, the teen girl that was thrown off Paul's boat. Well, it's Murdoch's boat, but Paul was driving it drunk as a skunk and high as a kite, and they were suing the Murdochs, of course, among others. That's where his head is. This is four weeks after his son. His son and his wife are murdered. Why isn't he out trying to find the killer? Screw a trip down to the keys. What?

Okay, somebody jump in because I find this the most repugnant testimony so far. I can speak from personal experience of losing a son in 2003 who was 20 years old. I can tell you I can't remember for months what life was like outside of wanting to figure out why. And when we see behaviors like this, just so blatant coming out where, you know, I need to, you know, figure out this lawsuit. Again, it goes back to this idea of all of the problems that I've seen in this is he has injected the cell phone conversations. He's injected the shotgun conversations. He's tried to talk to all of these witnesses and get them to kind of go along with his narrative. So this is not the behavior, in my experience of working over 300 murders in my career, of somebody who's distraught in relationship to a victim's family. Now, people grieve differently. I get that. But in this particular case, you know, he's very specific and methodical. And if we go back to that first interview in the car with him where, you know,

SLED has him there, I'm curious not to shift gears for a second, but there's a screen on his phone that looks like an Apple reset screen. You'll see it towards the end of his conversation here when he starts looking for phone numbers. So if you get a chance, take a look at that. And I had a question for, you know, the expert, the digital guy here. Sure, go ahead. Is there evidence that shows he actually reset his phone that night? Because when you see that phone, it's only one of three screens that Apple offers you.

And they're both the original factory screens. And he's got it on his phone as clear as day. When you go back and staff can pull it up, you'll see it clear as day. So, go ahead if he reset his phone they would lose some important data that's on that phone because what happens all these keys get lost and so you're not able to get data when they reset a phone it's very difficult to acquire data really benny when you reset a phone. So I'd have to look long and hard at that video again and see exactly. Oh, please do. Please do, Giovanni.

Please look at it again. I just want to say that that last bit of sound that Christine played for us, this is four weeks after his wife and his son, his beloved, have been murdered. Is he out trying to find the killer? H-E-L-L-N-O. Is he putting up posters? Is he publicizing a reward? No. He's going on a vacation to the Keys. And he put a time limit on the reward. Yeah. It's completely bass-ackwards. And he's not

worried about clearing Paul's name. Paul is dead. He is worried about losing Murdoch money to that lawsuit. Talking about, yeah, I think I can beat the case. I don't know if it hit the jury like it hit me, like a ton of bricks. But that would have been the furthest thing from my mind trying to save money when my husband and my child were murdered?

No. No. Okay, guys, we're going back in the courtroom and we're hoping and praying that we don't lose any more jurors to where we have to declare a mistrial and start this whole thing all over, God forbid. Thanks for joining us. Goodbye, everybody.

This is an iHeart Podcast.