Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - MURDAUGH BOMBSHELL: "I DID HIM SO BAD"

Episode Date: January 31, 2023

Five words are a major focus at Alex Murdaugh's murder trial. During a recorded conversation with investigators three days after the killings, the police body cam footage shows Murdaugh saying, “It���s just so bad. I did him so bad." He’s such a good boy, too.” Many are claiming this is a possible slip-up, a statement of guilt in the death of his son. Defense attorneys however pushed a SLED agent to say that it was possible that Murdaugh said "they" not "I," but the agent did not waver from his original assessment. Prosecutors went through the bullet evidence in detail looking at each casing, giving its caliber and recovery location.  Also discussed in court today were phone records of the victims and how they were tied to the timelines of their deaths.   Joining Nancy Grace today: Wendy Patrick - California prosecutor; Author: "Why Bad Looks Good" and "Red Flags;" Host: "Today with Dr. Wendy" on KCBQ in San Diego; Twitter: @WendyPatrickPHD Dr. Angela Arnold - Psychiatrist; Expert in the Treatment of Pregnant/Postpartum Women; Former Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Obstetrics and Gynecology: Emory University, Former Medical Director of The Psychiatric Ob-Gyn Clinic at Grady Memorial Hospital  Sheryl McCollum - Forensic Expert & Cold Case Investigative Research Institute Founder; Twitter: @ColdCaseTips  Leonard Romero - Forensic Firearms Examiner/Ballistics Expert Dr. Michelle DuPre - Former Forensic Pathologist, Medical Examiner, and Detective with Lexington County Sheriff's Department; Author: "Homicide Investigation Field Guide" & "Investigating Child Abuse Field Guide;" Forensic Consultant, DMichelleDupreMD.com  Anne Emerson - Senior Investigative Reporter, WCIV ABC News 4 (Charleston, SC); Host of Award-Winning 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. We are live outside the Colleton County Courthouse and you should have been in the courtroom so much. Went down in the last hours right behind us. And to see Alex Murdoch sitting there at the table, you would think not a thing had happened. But that is entirely not true. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111.

First of all, have you ever heard of a Freudian slip? Well, you're about to hear one right now. Take a listen to our Cut 7. You testified that Alex said on the video captured by audio that it was so bad, I did him so bad. That's what you testified to yesterday. Yes, sir, that is what I testified to. Now, are you 100% confident that Alex said,

I did him so bad, rather than they did him so bad? I am 100% confident in what I heard and I interpreted him as saying. Okay, you are hearing a cross-examination of a state's witness. The defense tried so long and so hard to tell this witness he didn't hear what he heard. Alex Murdoch saying in tears, I did him, Paul, my son, so bad. Now listen to this, our cut eight. There was a mental note that it was definitely something that we needed to follow up on and ask at a later time. The father, the only one in the circle, and he says, I did him so bad, and you can't tell a jury you even wrote it down on a piece of paper. I don't recall if I actually made a physical note of it or not, sir.

Your Honor, we'd like to play it again at one-third speed to slow it down. It's so bad. I did it so bad. Did you hear they then? No, sir, I did not. No matter how they tried with this witness, he would not give in to the defense. With me, an all-star panel to make sense of what just went down behind me. Just as we were all coming out of the courtroom, they had a former Secret Service member from the U.S. Secret Service and formerly of the Columbia

PD. But I want to address that slow-mo replay of what Alex Murdoch said that's caught on body cam. Wendy Patrick joining me, California prosecutor. Wendy, I wish you had been in the courtroom. This witness was describing Alex Murdoch breaking down in tears and as part of his blubbering he said, I did him so bad. And the defense tried over and over to get the witness to say no. He said they did him so bad, not I did him so bad, but the witness never gave in, Wendy Patrick. That's exactly right, nor would the witness give in. This witness is trained to listen to the words exactly. That wouldn't have been something the witness would have needed to write down. It is so explosive, and you heard exactly that. There

was no question as to what was said and slowing it down It's even more significant and even easier to hear and can I tell you? Something to Cheryl McCollum joining me crime scene expert forensic expert founder director of the cold case Research Institute Cheryl I found myself Literally sitting on the edge of my seat. I scooched forward, hunched forward so I could put my ear to what I was hearing in the courtroom when they did that slow-mo. I mean, I closed my eyes. I'm like, did he say they did Paul so bad when he was murdered? I mean, the whole courtroom, Cheryl, you've been there. You could have heard a pin drop.

What do you make of it? Well, first of all, the word I and they don't sound anything alike. Number two, if he used I, that's going to be a confession. If he used they, then he's saying there was more than one person. Why would he say that? At that time, he didn't know two separate weapons were used. So again, it seems like to me he's invoking some knowledge there. Either one of those words is going to help him. Well, I can tell you that witness sat there with a stone face and the whole courtroom hung on his words. Let me ask our New York control room, could you play cut eight one more time? I want you to hear it just the way we heard it in the courtroom. There was a mental note that it was definitely something that we needed

to follow up on and ask at a later time. The father is the only one in the circle and he says, I did him so bad and you can't tell a jury you even wrote it down on a piece of paper. I don't recall if I actually made a physical note of it or not, sir. Your Honor, we'd like to play it again at one-third speed to slow it down. It's so bad. It's so bad. Did you hear they then?

No, sir, I did not. Man, I was looking right at that witness, and I was thinking, what is he going to say? And what I'm seeing here is the same attack that we saw yesterday. For instance, we heard a lot about bloody footprints yesterday and that the scene had been contaminated. You know, it's almost like a TV drama where the defense says, well, shouldn't there be bloody footprints? And the state says there are bloody footprints. So the defense then says, well, they were contaminated. So we see that happening again today, that same attack, because we hear the video and then the attack becomes, well, you didn't write it down, did you? Well, of course the witness didn't write it down.

It was all on body cam video. Guys, joining me, a very well-known psychiatrist joining us out of the Atlanta jurisdiction. You can find her at Angela Arnold, MD. Dr. Angie, thank you for being with us. You know, I've thrown around the term with my layperson's understanding of it, a Freudian slip. Now, I didn't pay very much attention to Sigmund Freud until the twins turned four, and then I started believing pretty much everything he said. But please explain the meaning of a Freudian slip Nancy in very simple terms a Freudian slip is a slip of the tongue but it reveals something that someone is

unconsciously thinking so this man is upset we hear him crying and he has a slip of the tongue that reveals something that is going on in his unconscious mind. It is very important. It is a very important clue. So I want to circle back to Wendy Patrick, California prosecutor, author of Why Bad Looks So Good. You can find her at Wendy Patrick PhD. Wendy, explain what happened in that courtroom because I can tell you I wasn't the only one on the edge of my seat. The jurors, every one of them were looking at the replay. They were listening. They were looking right at the witness to find out if he was going to crack. Oh, that's exactly right. And that's the benefit you have of actually being in the courtroom and seeing these witnesses and the defendant in the flesh.

The jurors are able to gauge his reaction. Now, he's technically not an exhibit, but you can imagine they're imagining what they would feel seeing their loved ones covered with blood, listening back to the statements they say, wondering if they would ever accidentally admit committing a murder. So these are very powerful statements and observations that they're able to make firsthand just like you are. You're on the edge of their seat. I'm willing to bet they are too. Crime stories with nancy grace and emerson with me senior investigative reporter wciv abc and i was just talking to all the guests about that slow-mo replay i saw you in the courtroom when everything was going down literally everyone was sitting on the edge of their seats so they could get one inch closer to that replay. And I was thinking, after all this time, we've been talking about Alex Murdoch

saying, I did him so bad. I did Paul, my son that just got murdered. I did him so bad. And now on slow-mo, we're going to hear that he really said they did him so bad i i couldn't believe that's what was happening explain to everyone you had a bird's eye view of it what went down well i was and i was right there leaning in with everybody else i think and we were looking at the jurors we really wanted to see exactly how they were going to be taking this information in and sort of pivoting back and forth and looking at the senior SLED agent Croft at the same time, seeing if he was going to change his decision about what he heard. And he did not. He stood his ground on what he heard and said, this is what I heard.

And Griffin, of course, had to say, well, it's going to be up to this jury, who was riveted. They were absolutely trying to figure out, thinking this could be a critical turning point. So we'll see what they say when they get back into that jury room, Nancy. So right before they called the lunch break, a new witness had taken the stand. He was short. He was succinct. He was awesome. Jonathan Van Houten, as I i recall his name and he has been with the u.s secret service and he is a digital expert and he's explaining to everybody how he ultimately unlocked paul murdoch's phone this is critically important because paul murdoch the son the murdered son had sent a snapchat and was sending voicemails and phone calls and texts all the way up until the time of his murder.

This guy is talking about unlocking Paul Murdoch's phone and how you do it. But before I get to that, I want to circle back chronologically. Let me get in my notebook. No phones allowed. So I had to write everything down as quickly as i could um i want to talk about and this is where you come in leonard romero joining us forensic firearms experts at ballisticfirearmsexpert.com leonard thank you for being with us a lot was made this morning let me get back to my notes about Blackout 300 ammo taken from the murder scene.

And I couldn't quite understand where the state was going and what the defense was trying to get to. And then it all became very, very clear. You know, they had basically a gun room there at the dog kennels. It's not really a kennel. It's a big, big spread. It's not a dog shed. I can tell you that much. And inside, which the defense fought really hard yesterday to keep out.

I don't know if we can pull up a picture of this or not. But a room within the Hunting Watch estate that was dedicated to holding all the guns and ammo. We learned, Leonard, that during this time, it was very hard to get 300 blackout ammo because of COVID, they said. And they looked across the entire estate as best as they could. They found.223 caliber,.256,.308 from a hunting rifle, also military use, but no other.300 blackout. But that was what was used for the murders. Now explain to me, what is 300 Blackout Ammo? Thanks for having me, Nancy. 300 Blackout Ammo is basically similar to an AK-47 type of ammo.

All it is is it's very powerful ammunition. It's an AK-47 type round that's been developed to be fired in an ar type weapon as the weapon as we've seen with this blackout 300 what's interesting about that gun room is the cartridge cases that they found in the flower bed and just adjacent to the stoop entering the gun room. I believe they were 300 blackout ammunition, but they were weathered cartridge cases, okay, that had been fired. You mean old? Old, yes, ma'am. If we can go ahead and link them to the fired cartridge cases back in the kennel, as well as any other cartridges that were cycled through the weapon then that puts to rest that the gun was brought onto the property that shows that that gun was fired

leonard romero slow down will you say that again very slowly so i can just let it sink in yes ma'am what happened happened is the same sled agent who was just testifying about, just a minute ago when you showed him, he found some cartridge cases adjacent to the flower bed in the gun room as well as adjacent to the stairs entering the gun room.

He described them as being weathered. Those cartridge cases being weathered means they've been there for a significant amount of time. That tells us if we can link them back to the fired cartridge cases within the kennel, as well as any ammunition that have may been cycled through the weapon, that tells us that that weapon was on property all along, that it's not a weapon that just came onto the property because those cartridge cases have been there a significant amount of time. Very significant. Ann Emerson joining us, WCIV. it was a wild goose chase pardon my pun pardon my pun because there was a huge long line of questioning and cross-examination about turkey shot in other words waterfowl ammo versus landfowl

ammo and i thought why do we care about waterfowl versus non-waterfowl ammo. And that went on and on forever until suddenly they made their point. But could you back up, Ann, to what Leonard Romero was telling us about the 300 blackout ammo? Well, it's very significant because markings on these shell casings, as we just heard,

are going to be so important to this case. They are like the signature of a gun. Now, we don't have the murder weapon in this circumstance. They've already said that several times, that we don't have the actual murder weapon. But the prosecution is setting it up that this is a family weapon that was used, even if we don't have it. Yet we have these shell casings that can all point

they're telling us from the range to the stoop of the house to the the casings that were found around maggie's body that these 300 blackout that not only are they uncommon according to our senior sled agent he says he has never worked a case with 300 blackout before. This is also the same shell casing. So we're going to have to see how hard the defense goes after that. Now, the waterfowl, I thought that was so interesting, too. And I was, you know, as at one point Griffin said, I'm a city boy. You know, I'm not, you know, I'm still from a small southern town, but I guess I'm a city girl. So I really had to take a lot of notes on that, too.

But what I got from that was that Griffin, the defense, Jim Griffin, is trying to say that the shells that killed Paul Murdoch, well, those just were not on the property. These steel shells, these steel bullets that kill waterfowl that would have been loaded into this shotgun, the way I understood it, this just isn't what killed Paul. So that does seem to present a problem. You know, they went through a lot of discussion, a lot of questioning and cross-examination on particular types of ammo. And I took so many notes. I'm just wondering how the jury could keep up with it because I noticed they're not taking notes. Now, in some jurisdictions, note-taking is allowed. In many jurisdictions, it is not allowed. And this is the legal reasoning why some judges do not allow jurors to take notes. The law, the judge, does not want the jury, when they are working in tandem, to rely solely on one or more jurors' notes.

They are to reach a true verdict based on their collective memories of what happened in the courtroom. But I can tell you, I tried a flow chart about all the different ammo and all of the ammo-related questions, but I'll tell you what it boils down to. I can do that for you. Leonard Romero, forensics ballistics expert, it boils down to this. We all know that a bullet is like a fingerprint because once a bullet hurtles down the barrel of a gun, it is indelibly and forever marked with the imperfections on the inside of that barrel where when the factory made it that metal cooled and there will be little rivets and dots inside the barrel and those bullet striations or marks on a bullet are only made by one gun and one gun only when you look at it under a microscope at the crime lab you get your

known bullet out of the body or at the crime scene that was fired from a gun and then you try to fire from the known weapon the murder weapon and see if they match our problem is we don't have the murder weapon what a lot of people don't know is that a cartridge can do not exactly the same thing but but much the same thing. Explain. Yes, basically the cartridge case is going to have tool marks on it that are individual for a particular firearm that it was fired in. Just as the bullet has those individual tool marks that allow us to identify it back to a particular gun,

the cartridge cases all have those similar tool marks in different areas of it that we can use to identify back to a particular gun, the cartridge cases all have those similar tool marks in different areas of it that we can use to identify back to a gun. Going back to your original question with regards to the ammo, it is a fairly new round. It was developed in 2010, but there was a difficulty in getting ammo during COVID. Not only for this particular round, what made it more difficult for this is that it was a newer type of round developed. But for all ammunition, because of COVID, it was very difficult to buy ammunition.

Ann Emerson with me, Senior Investigative Reporter, WCIV. We keep hearing about a receipt that was found in a trash bag, and it was a Gucci receipt why do we keep hearing about a Gucci store receipt and what if any significance do we believe that played well Nancy you know it just seems like they just keep on hooking us did you see the room again like once again it was one of those moments where everyone but he oh, my gosh, we're going to talk about that Gucci receipt again.

And then they sort of leave us hanging. All we get out of that is that there was a Gucci. There was a receipt from the Gucci store. We're thinking that it was from Charleston because we know that there's one in Charleston, that it was for over $1,000. It was on a credit card statement. It was circled. And it was balled up and it was thrown in the trash can of this of this kennel of the area of where the murders took place. And so who threw away the Gucci receipt?

How does this play into what we already know about the financial pressures that Alec Murdoch had brought upon himself with these alleged financial crimes. How is this going to play into the prosecution? Now, one thing that I have heard over and over again is that this case is to be looked at just like a puzzle. They are giving us a piece at a time. And sometimes those pieces turn out to be really not the right fit. But gosh, I mean, we are starting to see a picture for sure. So that Gucci receipt to me was something was bought there. It was over a thousand dollars that would have caused pressure on the family. You know, we can really start kind of seeing where they're that the state wants us to focus on financial issues, whether or not they get brought into evidence. Well, I've done a little bit of digging since we've been here in Walterboro.

And I'm thinking about that Gucci receipt. And this is what I've learned by not one person, but by two. I'm thinking about this Gucci receipt. I'm thinking about how Alex Murdoch knew he was so deep in debt, stealing clients money, siphoning money from his law firm, just outright embezzling money, you know, to the point where his law firm kicked him out. And of course you know yesterday we spoke with Eric Bland, the lawyer for the Satterfield family, whose mom was found at the foot of the stairs there. And all that money, hundreds of thousands of dollars, was taken by Alex Murdoch that should have gone to that family.

That's just one small example. So Murdoch knows he's way drowning in debt. But Maggie didn't really know, according to some sources, how bad it was. And I'm wondering if she went and unwittingly blew a thousand bucks at Gucci. Now this is what I've learned. That the man, the home, the beach house they had in Edmonton, was in Maggie's name, Ann Emerson, and that Murdoch went to Maggie and wanted her to put that beach house up as collateral for him to get yet another loan. She wouldn't do it, and he was mad as H-EE-L-L that she would not use that house as collateral.

That there were all sorts of money tensions between these two. You know, I would like to pose a hypothetical. Why do rich people, all they want to do is hold onto that money, spend it, and try to get some more. That said, this Gucci receipt, we're going to hear about that, Ann Emerson. We're going to hear it because they keep mentioning it in the courtroom. They keep unhooking us. They're absolutely going to bring that up. And I think they're going to bring it up in a way that's going to make a lot of sense as far as what we also know, which is that the chief financial officer over at the Murdoch law firm has confronted Alec Murdoch the day of the killing. So that's going to have to play

in tandem with this level of pressure that's building on the family. Years and years of financial allegations that are going to be coming to play here. And it's just a matter of time. Well, I can tell you one person that better get their story straight. But before I go to Alex Murdoch and our cut one talking about exactly when the last time he saw his wife alive. I mean, I can tell you right now, the last time I saw my children and my husband as I pulled out of the driveway to come here I can tell you exactly what they were doing but he seems to have a little trouble remembering exactly what was happening the last time he saw his wife alive but before I go to that dr. Michelle Dupree joining me forensic pathologist medical examiner also

detective author of homicide investigation Investigation Field Guide. Dr. Dupree, I mean, I know you've had a lot of autopsies, but it just stopped me in my tracks when I heard that Paul's, God rest his soul, brains were down by his feet. Those words were Murdoch's words, not mine. Murdoch's words. I don't think I would have put it quite like that. But Dr. Dupree, would a 300 caliber blackout bullet, as opposed to let's just say a 22, for Pete's sake, cause that type of damage to the human body? Absolutely, Nancy. The way that we determine the damage to the body is basically by the kinetic energy or the amount of energy in that specific projectile and that would cause extensive damage to a human body,

especially when it hits a skull like that. It would be devastating. And again, at rather close range. But to take your brain, first of all, out of your skull, and it fly all the way to your feet, a bullet, a weapon that powerful, is that what a.300 Blackout is? Yes, it is, Nancy. That's what any type of weapon like that is. A rifle or an AK would do the same thing. A shotgun the same thing. Now this type of weapon, Leonard Romero,

ballistics expert, is a semi, semi-automatic, which means you have to pull the trigger. It's not like a machine gun on TV where you go and you pull the trigger one time and it just keeps on shooting. This is a semi where every time you hear a bullet, somebody had to pull the trigger for each firing, correct? Yes, ma'am. That's correct. With each pull of the trigger, the gun is fired. I can tell you right where that's going, Wendy Patrick. That is going to intent because intent to commit a crime does require some malice, a forethought. But under

the law, there is no specific time for that planning. It does not have to be a long attenuated plan such as I feed Ann Emerson a little bit of arsenic every day in her coffee before court until she kills over. That's a long, extended plan to kill. Intent to kill, under the law, the law says this, not me, the law, says it can be formed in the twinkling of a moment, the blink of an eye, the time it takes you to raise the gun and pull the trigger is long enough to form intent to kill, much less when you fire multiple rounds, Wendy Patrick, and each time you must knowingly and willfully pull the trigger. Isn't that true? Oh, absolutely. You know, not only does the law say you can form intent to

kill very quickly, but in a case like this, where there are so many moving parts that you can put together, that's exactly what you find here, to the extent that it's almost a rage type killing when you have chosen and selected this particular weapon which by the way through that unique signature that we've been discussing is tied directly to the crime scene so this may be a puzzle but we've already established the border now the gucci receipts some of the other information that's just going to fill in the middle of it. Jurors don't need to see notes to see the picture that is emerging. To Cheryl McCollum joining me, a forensic expert at the Cold Case Research Institute. Cheryl, weigh in on what you're hearing about ballistics.

I think one of the most important things is going to be the placement on their body, then where the carcasses were found. But Nancy, also something that sticks out for me major is Paul has never said any guns were missing. Okay, hold on, hold on. Say that one more time. I'm out here in front of the courthouse. You cut out on me. What did you just say?

Paul has never said guns were missing from his arsenal. He's never said, oh my gosh, this one's missing and that one's missing. He never said guns were missing from his arsenal. He's never said, oh my gosh, this one's missing and that one's missing. He never said that. You know what's interesting about what you just said? I want to circle back to Ann Emerson on exactly what Cheryl McComb just said. They're laying the foundation. The defense is laying the foundation. Ann Emerson, how many times have we heard the defense say in court that Paul Murdoch leaves things laying around and is suggesting he's lost a gun? Absolutely. I mean, and it was something that was laid by Alec Murdoch. The defendant started laying the groundwork for that in his first statements to sled officers. We heard that

Paul was absent-minded. He was irresponsible. We heard that he had ADHD. We heard that he left stuff all over the place, including his clothes all over the state, his guns all over the place. He talked about how he used his guns all over the 1,700-acre estate. In other words, like, who knows what he could have done with his guns? He was really setting that up in these video statements that paul was irresponsible with guns and ammo and that he would

he would take a 300 blackout and just go shoot hogs when he felt like it now the thing about the lost or stolen there's a big question here because we heard that he never reported his stolen uh blackout rifle of paul's this is what we were hearing that alec murdo he never reported his stolen blackout rifle of Paul's. This is what we were hearing that Alec Murdoch never reported it but he did let his buddies know in law enforcement in case it turned into a drug thing. So I'm wondering if defense already has some witnesses lined up to say we knew that Paul's gun was missing from the property. I can see them laying the trap right now. I wasn't sure where they were headed, but i knew they're laying a trap for the state

they're implicating paul the dead son as somehow being irresponsible and quote leaving guns laying around you know uh cheryl mccullum you and i've handled a lot of cases in inner city atlanta and almost all of them dealing with guns there's a big difference in having a messy room and throwing your clothes around your car or your bedroom and leaving an AR, basically, you know, a semi-automatic assault weapon lying around. I just don't see that. I don't believe that for one minute. I don't believe it either, Nancy. Here's what's going to happen. The prosecution is going to show what all is not present at that scene that could be if this was an outside person. They're going to show there's no unknown footprint.

There's no unknown cell phone key. There's no other suspect anywhere that anybody's been able to name that would have promoted him. There's no one else that's newer than this. Nobody else did that they could all 3D there that, you know, Alex could be. There's no unknown power pack. There's no Berkeley.

There's no Sexton Hall. There's nothing. There's nothing that Alex Murdoch, every time he's in front of the gate to speak to residents, is going to come back to Alex Hardoff. The day of the murder, what does he tell you? He went to his office. He's dealing with the civil suit involving Paul. That's on the receipt.

Angle about money. He lured his wife there. He already admitted he and Paul were out. Paul, that's why you've got the new weapons. He's telling you, i was on this property with these two people that i got there and i had two you know i was looking at my notes about what i was telling you earlier that two witnesses two people came up and told me that maggie had a Nice, beautiful antebellum home in downtown Hampton. And that Murdoch had her sell it and move.

And that he also wanted her to put up the Edisto Beach home, put it up for collateral so he could get another bank loan. And she refused. We also heard a lot today about stippling on the skin and I nearly jumped out of my skin yesterday. Ann Emerson and you know Leonard Romero or anyone on the panel, Dr. Michelle Dupree, I keep telling you guys this is not high tea at Windsor Castle with the new King Charles. Okay so jump in if you have an idea here. You're all experienced veterans. So Ann Emerson, yesterday, when the defense was going on and on and on about the trajectory path, the angle at which the victims were shot,

was it from here down? Was it straight across? Let me just give an example. Here's a way to tell if there was a suicide. If somebody shot in the back of the head, that's probably not a suicide because it would be difficult for the suicide victim to do that. They were arguing yesterday about the trajectory of the path of the bullet that shot the victims and were trying to get Worley. I love that woman, she was such a great witness, on the stand to say that there were two shooters. She would never say it. Today they came in,

first thing this morning, talking about stippling on the victim's skin, which in my mind would show a defendant, a perp could shoot at one angle, and when the victim was down, they could go over and shoot close range at a different trajectory path, a different angle. So, Ann Emerson, they came in immediately talking about stippling on the victim's bodies. What do you make of that? Well, I think that there's a couple things here that I took away, and I'm trying to listen to some of the tidbits that they're handing out because, like you said, this is very important,

that they were that close that they actually had stifling on both of these bodies. Now, we were hearing from defense that there must have been another angle that was quite far away, and that's where defense started setting up the two-shooter theory, which I don't think they did a bad job with. I just think the problem that they're having is that people are saying, the witnesses on the stand, states talking about that they're actually,

people can move. It's not like they have to stay still if they're shooting. In fact, we know because we heard earlier on that Maggie and they've already said that the shooter and Maggie were moving when that happened when she was shot they were both moving so there's nothing there's nothing stopping the state from saying hey this is one person and he was moving around I think their

bigger problem is how he was holding two guns did he have one on his back did he have one in his hand I'm really interested to see what they're going to say about where the positions of these guns were. Ann Emerson, apparently, when you were in journalism school, you did not get the required course in Arnold Schwarzenegger or Rambo. They always carry two guns. So anybody who's been watching TV and they think they're going to pull off a murder, they do what they see on TV. They come in, you know, guns loaded, locked and loaded. I can very easily see him coming in with two weapons. It's not that fantastical to me. Okay, guys, another thing happened today. I want you to hear. Alex Murlock seems to be a little confused about the last time he saw his wife alive take a listen to our cut one at some point we were all back at the

house together Maggie had gotten home and you know we sat down we ate supper which we usually suffer together I know that Maggie went to the kennels. I don't know exactly where Paul went, but he left the house too. I mean, I'm assuming Paul went to the kennels. I stayed in the house. I was watching TV, looking at my phone,

and I actually fell asleep on the couch. When you and Paul got back to the house, Miss Maggie was there, and y'all ate supper, which has been prepared. And you said you laid down and took a little nap. And when you got up, Maggie and Paul was gone. Or did they leave when you laid down? I believe that.

I'm not sure. But they weren't there when you woke up around the 9 o'clock mark or so when you made the call to Maggie to let her know you were going to your house? No. Nobody was in that house when I left. So I'm just trying to narrow down. The last time that Paul and, you saw Paul and Maggie's when y'all were eating supper? Yes, sir.

Guys, he can't be asleep having supper at the kennels, in the car, on the phone, all at the same time. I mean, he's not clear. He's giving multiple explanations of where he was, where Maggie was, and when he saw her for the last time before she was murdered. How can that be? It can't be.

And I'll tell you something else. When he says, I was watching TV and throwing on my phone, that's going to be easy for them to prove whether or not that happened. What show were you watching? He's either going to be able to tell something that was on TV at that time or not. They've got his phone. They're going to know whether or not he was scrolling right before he took his nap. What is going to be critical is the totality of everything that he has said and when he said it and his actions. How many times has he ever woken up from a nap, didn't see his wife or child and left without telling them he was leaving?

Nancy, can I jump in here? Oh, okay. Go ahead, Wendy. Jump in. Sheriff was making some great points about the fact that the suspect was giving all this kind of information that can be corroborated. What was he watching on television? What was he doing on his phone? They can check all of that. I want to point that tone of voice is very important here as well. It's not just what he's saying. It's the way he's saying it. And remember, this was close in time to the murders. So the fact that there's this

inability to reconstruct a timeline that literally just happened is definitely something that jurors are going to really pay a lot of attention to and then loop in, as I think everybody else has been saying, with the weight of the rest of the evidence they have to work with. Well, let me just ask Dr. Angie Arnold. Angela, do you remember the last time you saw your husband before you came to the set? Well, what was he doing? What was he doing? He was leaving to go to a meeting. And I remember what time it was also.

Because, Nancy, typically what people do, they associate things with other things that are going on. So one of my questions is, had Alex been drinking heavily that night I don't know why could he why is he so specific about some of the things that he remembers that he wants us to think that he remembers and then he and then everything else is so fuzzy I think that's a very big red flag also. Well, another thing, Dr. Angie, is I can remember to this day, the last moment I saw my fiance alive before he was murdered. He was leaving in his car and I was waving and he held his right hand out the window and waved. And that was the last I saw him. I remember it like it happened before the lunch break.

And now Murdoch can't tell me the last time he saw his wife alive, the mother of his two children. That is some BS, and that is not a technical legal term. Guys, a lot going down in the courtroom, and I want to go to our cut nine about not only is it stippling on the body but another significant line of questioning by the defense that has just happened about where does the cartridge land when you shoot a shotgun or any long gun this is important listen to this are you aware that both victims had stippling on them from their gunshot injuries yes sir, sir, I am. And what is stippling? Stippling is a powder burn pattern which is left on an individual due to a close range shot. To a close range shot? That is correct. Thank you. You were asked some questions about the location of where shell casings land when they're ejected out of the weapon.

Is that correct? Yes, sir, it was. Are there a number of factors that go into where a shell casing might actually land? Yes, sir, it is. Can people move? I'm sorry, sir. Do people move? People can move, yes, sir.

I've got to tell you, that was, he knows his way around a courtroom. I can tell you that much. He's good. And they had another defense lawyer up today, in addition to Hart Poole again, doing cross exams. He was pretty good too. So right now, it's an even match in the courtroom between the lawyers. Can we talk about why it's important? Where does the cartridge go after you fire a long gun with me Dr. Michelle Dupree not only pathologist medical examiner but she also is a forensic consultant what can you tell us about where the cartridge goes when it's ejected not the bullet but the cartridge when it's ejected from

a long gun well Nancy that that's a good question. And most of them do eject to the right and oftentimes backwards. But the problem is we can't place a lot of stock in where we find that cartridge, that cartridge casing, because there are so many things that happen. Maybe the person themselves moved it. Maybe the shooter kicked it. Maybe some of the first responders kicked it. It's something to look at, but that is not definitive.

I want to say one other thing. It does give some indication as to possibly where the shooter was standing. And there's also been a lot made about not having the weapon or not finding the weapon. But oftentimes we don't have the weapon when we go to trial. We don't ever find the weapon. And that's one of the things that is just, I guess, sort of smoke and mirrors that the defense is trying to throw out. I think the defense is also trying to set up that it's not just that it's the murder weapon. It's that it could be a stolen weapon that came off of their property, and they

don't know where it is, and they don't know what happened to it. So I think that's also part of the mystery behind which weapon was used and was it Paul's actual.300 Blackout. Leonard Romero, ballistics expert, let me talk to you about this ejection theory. As Dr. Dupree just said, typically a cartridge will eject to the right of the gun, of the shotgun, the long gun, and maybe a little bit backwards. And I can't tell you how the defense went round and round establishing that. I can see where they're going with this. Exactly what Dupree just said, they're going to argue about could there be two people standing in two different places in that dog kennel when the shootings went down. But the reality is the surface on which the cartridge

falls. I remember a case where a murder took place in a bedroom. The victim was lying in the bed. It was set up to look like suicide. We were looking at where the cartridges went. And if it's carpet, it could bounce. If it hits tile, it could go somewhere else. But wouldn't you agree it typically ejects to the right and usually a little back over your shoulder? Typically to the right. Yeah, that's correct, Nancy. If we're dealing with a semi-automatic shotgun, yes, it's to the right and with this blackout 300, it's going to be to the right. What's interesting also about this case is if you look at the SLED officer's diagram, you'll see items 2 through 7, which are the 300 blackout cartridge cases, kind of going in an arc towards Maggie, away from Paul.

You're correct in that the surface does play a big reasoning or a big hindrance, if you will, as to where the cartridge case can land and when we're trying to do ejection pattern analysis. But if you look at this crime scene, you'll see also right behind Paul, there's a shotgun wad that's labeled as photo ID number one, and that's right directly behind him. And then if you look in front of him going towards Maggie, you will see what looks like an arc of cartridge cases. And those, my understanding, photo IDs two through seven were the 300 blackout cartridge cases. But it is a dynamic crime scene. People are moving. The individual is moving. Victims could be moving at the time. So again, those are all factors that have to be considered when you're doing these ejection pattern analysis.

You're so right, Leonard Romero. Cheryl McCollum with me, forensics expert. Maggie, we believe, was running. We believe she was running from the shooter. Talk about a dynamic crime scene. Yes, people were running and moving and screaming. So I think that that is going to benefit the state, but yet it will give the defense a toehold. They're going to argue that cartridges were in different places, so that would indicate a second shooter. Of course, that's anything but true. Well, again, if Paul was shot first, which is what we all believe, Maggie was aware of that at some point, especially with the second shot, with the shot in the chest and the head. At that point, she is running to try to save herself, and the shooter is now hunting her.

So again, I think it's real important that we understand, was Paul out there, you know, in where his mother was when the murders occurred? But Alex, was he hunting hogs or was he hunting his family? So I'm going to tell you something, Nancy, not his brothers, not his law partners, not his friends, not other family members. Nobody has demanded law enforcement go out and find the real killer. Nobody's hired a private investigator. The community at large is not afraid of some loose madman on the run. You know, I was just thinking about something else, and I'm going to go to our cut four to the control room,

and I really appreciate you playing this sound in the control room because I want everybody to hear what's happening, not just me telling you what happened, but for you to actually hear. We've been recording it for you. They better be careful when they keep talking about what a great marriage they had. Take a listen to our cut four. How was your relationship with Maggie? As good as it could possibly be. I mean, you know, we had our issues,

but wonderful. And we really didn't argue about much. We didn't have much to argue about. Thank you, Tom. Go ahead. Just use it. I'm sorry. You're good. I mean, she was a wonderful girl. And a wonderful wife.

And she was a great mother. She, you know, she didn't work. And she always said it was her job since she was privileged enough not to work. She was going to make sure she took care of me and the boys. And, I mean, she did everything. She did absolutely everything me and the boys. And I mean, she did everything. She did absolutely everything. I'm sorry. No, no.

You know, everybody can do that. I got to tell you something. If someone asked my husband, how's your marriage with Nancy? And he said, well, it's as good as it can be. My head would blow off. Because if somebody asked me about how is my marriage to David, I'd say, next to having the twins, it's the best thing I ever did in my life. I only wish I had done it earlier. As good as it can be? Really? I mean, Cheryl, help me. If anybody says, well, it's as good as it can be, then you're telling them there's some problems there. It ain't great. It's not fabulous. It's not the best thing I ever did.

It's not the best thing in my life. Good as it could be. Nancy, it wasn't a natural answer. It isn't quite true that she didn't work. Maggie did do some work at the law firm as a bookkeeper. That's the last thing a mom wants to hear is the husband saying, well, she didn't work. What? Raising two boys? Putting dinner on the table every night, seeing that they do their homework and they do this and that?

I tell you what, when I have a weekend, I can't wait to get back to work because I work harder being a mom and a wife than I do being a lawyer, for Pete's sake. She didn't work, and our marriage was as good as it could be. Nancy, he didn't just say she didn't work. He said she was privileged not to work. Let's not let that word go by the wayside. He provided her the privilege of not working. That's what he thought of what she did. Guys, let me tell you what's happening next. This judge is running the courtroom

as tight as a ship. He's a great judge with a great demeanor, and he does not tolerate any misbehavior in the courtroom. And he listens very carefully to both attorneys when they're making objections but what's happening on the stand right now is telling you earlier is a former secret service person from the U.S. Secret Service about how Paul Murdoch's phone was unlocked. Now I think the last thing he said was that they had used multiple attempts to get into Paul's phone. Yeah, and it turns out after all that, it was his birthday. And I can tell you where they're heading with this. And last to you, I think we're trying to get in the Snapchat video

or the video he was sending just before his murder. I think that's where we're headed. I think that it is too, and I think we've got a lot headed our way. I'm really, really interested to see what they found on Paul's phone as is everybody. I also want to know Rogan Gibson, who's this friend of his, who we've already heard about. We know that this was sort of the last communi- this was the last communication that Paul had and it was right before the time of the murders. Right. communication that Paul had. And it was right before the time of the murders. And what I'm concerned that this Snapchat, it was also already sent to him. So I'm wondering if he's going to be

one of our witnesses coming up. That's going to be a huge piece of this puzzle. Yeah. His name is Rogan Gibson, a.k.a. Rhodey Gibson. I think he will be taking the stand. Guys, I didn't get to even a tenth of what we the notes I took in the courtroom today. Thank you so much for being with us, to the guests and to you for joining us here. Goodbye, everybody. This is an iHeart Podcast.