Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Murdaugh Murders: Bomb Threat Halts Testimony in Trial

Episode Date: February 8, 2023

A bomb threat halted testimony today in Alex Murdaugh's double murder trial. The courthouse was evacuated. Testimony resumed at 2:30 p.m. and ended early at 4:30 p.m.  Court resumes tomorrow morning.  During the two hours of afternoon testimony,  FBI electronics engineer Dwight Falkofske discussed his analysis of the computer data on Murdaugh's 2021 Chevrolet Suburban.  Every time Murdaugh put his car in park on the night of the murders, it was recorded.   The data appeared to suggest that Alex had only visited his mother for about 20 minutes that night. That is shorter than the amount of time Murdaugh told investigators. Joining Nancy Grace today: Ted Williams - Defense Attorney, Former Washington DC Police Detective, and Fox News Contributor; Starred in the nationally televised show, ‘Power of Attorney' Dr. Bethany Marshall – Psychoanalyst; Netflix show: 'Bling Empire;' Twitter: @DrBethanyLive   Irv Brandt - Senior Inspector, US Marshals Service International Investigations Branch, Chief Inspector, DOJ Office of International Affairs; US Embassy Kingston, Jamaica; Author: “SOLO SHOT: CURSE OF THE BLUE STONE," AVAILABLE ON AMAZON IN JANUARY; ALSO "FLYING SOLO: Top of the World;" Twitter: @JackSoloAuthor Dr. Michelle DuPre - Former Forensic Pathologist, Medical Examiner and Detective: Lexington County Sheriff's Department, Author: "Homicide Investigation Field Guide" & "Investigating Child Abuse Field Guide", Forensic Consultant See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. In the last moments, the Alex Murdoch double murder trial has been put on hold and the entire courthouse has been evacuated due to a reported bomb threat. And you know what I told you? I love this judge, Judge Newman. He reminds me so much of the judge that I tried cases in front of. Judge Newman, as calm as a cucumber, very quietly says, quote, ladies and gentlemen, we have to evacuate the building at this time. So we will be in recess until we discover what's going on.

He says in a very calm voice, and everybody gets up and walks off. Meanwhile, outside, reporters and journalists are running like crazy, but the jury has been taken out of the courthouse due to a bomb threat. Gee, I wonder who would have done that. Who would want the testimony delayed? I mean, I hope I'm right, but do we really think that there is a bomb at the Colleton County Courthouse? We'll find out. Guys, I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thanks for being with us.

There is a recess, and the bomb threat was timed, coincidentally, right at lunchtime. With me, an all-star panel to make sense of what has happened in the courtroom in the last couple of hours. First of all, gunshot residue has appeared on more of Alex Murdoch's clothes. First of all, take a listen to our cut for. Were there any gunshot residue? What did you find on the shirt? So for the white T-shirt from the particle lift that was collected from the right sleeve, right chest area,

two particles characteristic of gunshot primer residue were found. And from the left sleeve, left chest area, the particle lift collected from there, one particle characteristic of gunshot primer residue was found. My opinion is that that object, this t-shirt, was either in the vicinity to the discharge of a firearm or came into contact with something that had gunshot primer residue on it. Can you tell me, did you locate any particles and where they were on these shorts, please? Yes, sir. On the right side, right groin area, there were two particles located and confirmed. And then on the left groin area, there was one particle located and confirmed.

My opinion is that this pair of shorts were either in the vicinity to the discharge of a firearm or came in contact with something that had gunshot primer residue on it. Gunshot residue found on the clothing of Alex Murdoch. They're talking about on his shirt and his shorts. Now recall he was wearing something, wearing something completely different that afternoon at Moselle, which is their hunting lodge. Why the wardrobe change? But that said, gunshot residue is found on those clothes, the t-shirt and the shorts. With me in all-star panel, Irv Brandt is joining me. This guy has traveled all over the world prosecuting cases, working on cases for the U.S. government,

the Marshal Services, DOJ. He's written two books, Solo Shot, Curse of the Blue Stone, and Flying Solo, both on Amazon. Irv Brandt, that's not good. You've got gunshot residue on your shirt and your pants the night that your wife and son are gunned down. That's correct, Nancy. The defense has always said that the case is circumstantial. It's not direct evidence. And it's true, but circumstantial evidence doesn't lie. And gunshot residue on your shirt and on your shorts is devastating to the defense. I don't know how they're going to possibly counter that. I bet they'll find a way

because as much H-E-double-L that I've been giving to the lead defense attorney, Hart Putlian, he's still one wily guy in the courtroom. They'll come up with something. Ted Williams joining me, everybody. You know Ted Williams, high profile defense attorney, former Washington, D.C. police detective, Fox News contributor, starred in a national TV show power of attorney Ted thanks for being with us now Ted what do you make of this bomb threat a bomb hasn't gone off yet but what they did succeed in doing is delaying this testimony Ted you know NASA is very interesting that the bomb scenario came into play just as one of the witnesses was testifying here at noon. It seems to me that there's somebody out there, somebodies who are trying to, should we say, interfere in this case.

I'm like you, Nancy. I like the way the judge was cool as a cucumber. I mean, the judge just said, hey, look, you know, let's stop here. And then he announced that there had to be an evacuation of the courthouse. That's very interesting that it happened at this immediate time. Maybe they'll be able to ferret it out where that information came from. You know, I find the timing very unusual. Guys, for those of you just joining us, we are live at the courthouse with the latest. And the latest is everybody went running. Now, the judge didn't run.

I can guarantee you that. That judge, calm, cool, collected, dignified, hard line. I guarantee you he walked out with poise as did his whole staff. Now as far as everybody else it was nothing but tail hole and elbows. That's all you could see. But I'm looking at the timing. The timing. Why now? Why right now at this juncture of the trial does somebody call in a bomb threat? That said, back to you, Ted Williams. Now, we know I'm going to take this, everything you say, with a box of salt because you are a veteran defense attorney as well as a former cop. But, you know, when gunshot residue turns up on the clothes you're wearing the night your wife and son are shot dead,

it's not a good look, Ted. Well, Nancy, you're absolutely right. It's not a good look, but there's always a defense for it, I believe. And I think that you may hear at some stage that, hey, having guns and shooting guns at Moselle is something that was always done there, and that there—and the problem with the gunshot—with the residue, the gunshot residue, is that they're not able to say specifically when that residue was or got on those clothes so it could have been that night it could have been later it could have been two days before so all that is certainly something that is out there and I don't think it's just

clearly explanatory under the circumstances here Nancy can I interject well this is this Dr. Bethany? Dr. Bethany, now, I know that you know, we all agree on the panel, you know more than all of us put together, but I didn't know that gunshot residue was part of your training as a Beverly Hills psychoanalyst. Well, but what is part of my training is that he was struggling with opioid addiction, or maybe he wasn't struggling. Maybe he loved his opioid addiction, but when you are an addict like that, you are messy. And I think a lot of people will find it difficult to believe that if he did commit this crime, he would be so messy as to wear his own clothing, have the gunshot residue on it, leave an obvious trail behind him.

But opioid abuse lowers your connection to reality, and it reduces your connection and attachment to everyone around you. So somebody struggling with opioid addiction like this would not feel the love towards his wife and son that he once did. Now remember Alex Murdock, he pulled a lot of people into his web. If you listen to the trial testimony yesterday and today, Jeannie believed him for what, how many years? Annette believed him. He charmed them. He called Annette from his rehab and said, I love you. I'm so sorry for everything I've done. So the fact that he

pulls so many people into his orbit until they have a dawning of consciousness that he's committing crimes means that whoever planned that bomb threat was also one of many people who got pulled into his orbit. And that's going to be an interesting thing as this trial proceeds. Like who has been conned by him? Who has been manipulated and charmed by him? And all these trolls and people out there who are now going to try to disrupt the testimony as the defense is examining the witnesses. Dr. Michelle Dupree also joining me. I've got with me Dr. Bethany Marshall, psychoanalyst. You can find her at drbethanymarshall.com. I think what Dr. Bethany just said, and I'm trying to interpret it in regular people talk, as I call it, is that if he's high as a kite,

his love for his wife, if there is any left, and his son is out the window, he is just getting a solution to his problems. His son, Paul, caused a multi-million dollar lawsuit to be filed after against the family after he crashed a boat and a beautiful young teen girl flies off to her death. He's dead. That's going to be resolved. His wife, according to what we've been told there on the ground, was looking at divorce attorneys, which means forensic accounting, which means she's going to find out he's been snorting up or doping up all the money. She's dead. So that's solved.

When you're high as a kite on opioids, you're not thinking rationally. Think is what Dr. Bethany just said. In a yes, no, Dr. Bethany, is that what you just said? Yes. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Dr. Michelle Dupree, I'm leaving our other gunshot residue expert, psychoanalyst from Beverly Hills, Dr. Beth Dupree I'm leaving our other gunshot residue expert psychoanalyst from Beverly Hills

Dr. Bethany Marshall to go to Dr. Michelle Dupree and let me just tell you that in addition to being a former detective she is a pathologist she is a medical examiner and she's the author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide which is

some seriously good reading. Dr. Dupree, you know I said gunshot residue GSR is found on his shirt and his pants, his second wardrobe for that evening. It's also found on his hands. It's on his hands, Dr. Dupree. You know what that means. Well, Nancy, remember that he went to the house to get a gun after he had called the police. So he did have a gun in his hand that night. He could get gunshot residue on his clothing from that.

Well, wait a minute. Would you repeat that one more time? What did you say about gunshot residue? So I said that he went to the house. He told the 911 operator and law enforcement that he was going to the house to get a gun, which he did. And when police arrived, a gun was leaning up against, I believe it was his car. So he did handle a gun that night. It is possible to get gunshot residue from handling the gun that night. I believe that perhaps he got it on that t-shirt and clothing because he may have been wearing it when he before he changed clothes and the clothes that he was wearing when he allegedly shot them got gunshot residue on the t-shirt. Okay Ted Williams we didn't have to look far did we? There's your answer right there. He should say, yes, I'm not even contesting this. I had gunshot residue on my hands because when I found my wife and son shot dead, I grabbed a gun

because I was afraid the perp could still be there. There you go. You were right, Ted Williams. And it pains me to say that, but it's true. You're absolutely right. They're going to have an excuse handed to them on a silver platter. No, on a Christmas tree, as my father used to say. There's the answer, Ted. Well, you're absolutely right. That could very well be one of the answers. And I think when you looked at Megan Fletcher, who testified, she was the gunshot residue expert, she clearly said that while she found it on the jacket, while she found it in the area of some of

his underwear, that she could not say when it got there. And that's the problem that the government has. It can show that this residue was there, but when was it put there? How did it get there? And there are all explanations here. No, no, no. Ted, disagree. I'll tell you why.

Gunshot residue, which I've mentioned, is just like baby powder. You're not going to have gunshot powder residue on your underwear for very long. Because when you take down your pants, you're going to lose that GSR. I mean, all you got to do is that to get rid of gunshot residue, Ted. And I mean, it's there for a very short period of time. That's why, as I mentioned yesterday, we would never, absolutely never let a defendant go to the bathroom on a crime scene because all you have to do is wash your hands and the GSR is gone. So the fact that you said GSR is on his underwear, you have to kind of figure out how did that happen? And it must have just happened because it would have been gone if he had dropped his drawers to go to the bathroom or for any other reason, Ted. Well, but Nancy, if you were testifying in this case, I think that would come across credibly.

But just think about it. Megan Fletcher testified. Everything that you've just said here, which is rational and logical, she did not testify to. So that, what you're saying, is not in evidence, so it's not part of the case, unfortunately. And I think that maybe down the road they may very well be able to bring in another expert that can connect these dots, but until these dots are connected, it's out there, and it's out there that this residue was found and that she cannot say when it was placed there.

That's really an excellent point. And the prosecution really needs to make a case for asking how easy is it to get rid of gunshot residue and let the jury understand that it's fairly easy. My phone is blowing up right now because I'm getting messages from people that were inside the courtroom telling me that right now everyone is waiting for dogs to come to the courthouse and make a sweep of the courthouse looking for a potential bomb. That's what's going on at the courthouse right now. While we wait to find out what exactly, if anything, is found, I want to focus on what happened in the courtroom. Why would someone hypothetically want to stop the testimony in its tracks about this gunshot residue.

Let's take a listen to more. It's in our cut five about the gunshot residue found all over Alex Murdoch's clothes and that raincoat. Listen. After your examination, what were your results? Particles characteristic of gunshot primer residue were also found on the interior of this jacket. Was there a lot of gunshot primer residue inside of the jacket? I would say there were a significant number of particles characteristic of gunshot primer residue on the inside of this jacket, yes. How many did you determine? I confirmed 38 particles characteristic. There were

significantly more particles were listed as candidate features containing the elements lead, barium, and antimony. I had to make an analyst decision based on my experience to stop at the number that I did. There was a possibility that there would have been more on it. But you found 38. I confirmed 38. Okay, more about the gunshot residue. Guys, it seems as if the state is building up to a climax. And I want to go back to you, Ted Williams, former Washington, D.C., cop, defense attorney. I either, well, I like to both ways, Ted. I like to start the case with a

bang, like maybe putting up the medical examiner right up front. And I like to end it with a bang. So do you get the sense, Ted, that the state is working up to the zenith, the culmination of their case, which I believe may very well be Curtis Eddie Smith, cousin Eddie, that reportedly took a shot at Murdoch to get life insurance policy proceeds. What do you make of that? Well, you know, it's interesting as to where the case is going. Nancy, I've got to tell you, I see a circumstantial evidence case here, but it seems to be somewhat of a rambling discard of a case. I mean, I'm deeply concerned here that you would even allow, by the way, this financial evidence to come in.

I think it's substantially more prejudicial and probative. And I think the state right now is just rampant. Can I say, Ted, Ted, you know what? Yes. Did somebody ask you about the financial evidence? Because I know what you're doing. You're dodging the question. And typically, I think you'd be

right. The financial evidence could not come in because it would be deemed more prejudicial than probative. In other words, it would hurt his reputation more than it would prove anything. That's what probative means. But under the law, if a prior bad act goes to course of conduct, scheme, motive, frame of mind, it comes in. Boo hoo. It came in. It came in to show motive. His world was spinning out, Ted, over the money. Over the money he spent on, it's really hard for me to believe he spent all that money on dope.

That said, it's motive evidence but do you believe they're working up to curtis smith i think they're working up to somebody or something and i don't know where they're going right now with their case because as i've said it seems like it's really whatever we can throw at the wall and hope that it will stick. Some of the evidence that they put in, like you said, this gun residue, that's very important. We know that the night of this incident, that when Alex went to his mother's home, we have a caregiver there saying that he had a blue tarp-like matter that he had with him and that he had gone upstairs with him. It is believed that this was this blue poncho that had some of the residue on it. But, again, we don't know where the government is going, because they seem to be just rambling.

And I'm really not encouraged with the case that the government is putting—ramling. They don't seem to know how to put this case on. They put on some witnesses, and then they go back to the financial records. Now they are looking at someone to talk about more of the financial records. And I got to tell you, this is not the way I would have put on this case. I agree with you. I think putting the medical examiner on, number one, and having them to explain what took place there is significant and important. And on the end, I'm hoping that they have this witness that just blows this case out of

the water but i'm not sure about that nancy hey nancy can i make a comment about the financials yeah hold on hold on i want to say something to ted williams ted williams now i know that you're a high profile defense lawyer but i why are you saying all this do Do you think Alex Murdoch and Hart Pullian are going to take you out to a steak dinner after the trial? Because everything that you just said, well, almost everything, they're not rambling. The state is not rambling. Now, granted, granted, there is a grain of truth in what you just said. The state's witnesses have rambled on a tiny bit. I will concede that. But I don't think the state is rambling. Why did you say that? Well, I don't think it's and let me back off a little bit here. I don't think it's so much the state. I think it's some of the witnesses

that they are putting on. But I would hope that they have that one witness that's going to blow this out, because clearly, as your first guest said, and I do agree with him, this is purely a circumstantial evidence case. OK, again, and I think I hear Dr. Dupree or Dr. Bethany jumping in. But Ted Williams, just a couple of quick lightning round questions. Yes. no. Isn't it true that under the law, the black and white letter of the law, that circumstantial evidence is deemed as powerful as direct evidence? Isn't that true? Absolutely. According to the way it's used. Absolutely. So bottom line, when you say it's just a circumstantial case, that means nothing to me. I love circumstantial cases.

I like them better than direct cases. This evidence, I mean, when Curtis Eddie Smith takes a stand and says what I think he's going to say, there's going to be another bomb threat because I think Murdoch's going to threaten to fire Hart Poolean when his cousin Eddie spills everything. Okay, I'm hearing in my ear, is it Dr. Dupree or Dr. Bethany that wants in? I have a quick comment about the circumstantial evidence. And that is that I think it's important, not just because his world was spinning out of control, but there's a saying in my field with sociopaths, and that is death before dishonor.

And what that means is if their loved ones are about to see them in a negative light, if they're about to be humiliated, if they're about to lose respect in the eyes of somebody important to them, they would rather kill that person than be seen in a diminished light. So I see the possibility that he murdered his wife and son, not so much because of the fact that all of his financial misdeeds would be exposed, say, you know, through some divorce proceeding or something like that, but that they would see that he had been supporting them off of stolen gains for all of these years. So the whole raison d'etre, yes. Okay, now you're not just using psychological terms.

You threw some French at me. Raison d'etre, reason for living. Okay, I haven't managed to pick that much up. But I'm getting tons of questions on social media. And one is for you you Dr. Bethany what would the effect of a bomb threat be on a jury? Well see I think that's a very good question because remember after the after the murder of Maggie and Paul was revealed to the staff at the law firm they became very paranoid remember they were looking

out the windows and they were saying to the attorneys, especially to Alec Murdoch, oh, I see a white car. You better not leave for home now because somebody might be coming to get you. So there was this general paranoia that there was a killer on the loose, not that there was potentially a killer within the law firm. And I think that paranoia could spread to the jury, that if they think truthfully, if they assess the situation accurately, are they going to receive some threat when this trial is over? So when we are threatened and we feel in danger and the amygdala, the fight or flight gets activated, we can't think clearly. So this is really going to affect the juror's assessment. And they need to be reassured not only that they are safe,

that potentially they have some protection after this trial wraps. And also treatment for potential trauma from everything they're seeing and hearing. Dr. Michelle Dupree, joining me, forensic pathologist, medical examiner, former detective, author. What were you saying, Dr. Michelle? Well, I wanted to go back to the circumstantial evidence and to the gunshot residue. Circumstantial evidence, Nancy, I totally agree with you. I love circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is physical evidence, and physical evidence doesn't lie finding this gunshot residue which is the circumstantial evidence i mean tells us a lot i think you know alex handled

a gun that night okay that's fine but where is this gunshot residue found on his person and it's found in places that normally simply handling a gun you're probably not going to find. And I think that's a question we need to ask. Okay, wait a minute. I like what you're saying. Could you explain that in, let's just say, illustrative terms? Okay, so I can understand, you know, like a parable. Don't just tell me religion. Give me a story.

Like, you know, the prodigal son or the woman at the well. I understand that. Now, what are you talking about that the gunshot residue was in a place that indicates he shot a gun versus had just picked up a gun out of fear? I believe so, because if we look back at the testimony, we see that gunshot residue was found on the left and the right sleeve. OK, but it was also found on his shorts in the left and right groin area. If you simply hold a gun, OK, it's going to be in a certain place. If you're firing that gun, it's going to be up near the collar. And that is where some of this gunshot residue was actually found. Just holding it or carrying

it to your car, I don't believe it's likely to be found in those places. Guys, so much is happening in the courtroom right now. We're still waiting for SLED to bring dogs. They may already be there to scan the building to find out if this bomb threat is real? Is it to disrupt the testimony, this particular testimony? Is it real? Or is it simply to delay the trial? And who, if anyone, would that benefit? Is it meant to scare jurors? Is it meant to scare witnesses or the judge? Guys, while we're trying to figure that out, another major development in the courtroom today, yet another witness identifies the voice of Alex Murdoch in the kennel just before the shootings.

Take a listen to our cut 11. Do you recognize any voices in that video? I do. I hear three voices. And tell me who you hear. I hear Paul Murdoch, Maggie Murdoch, and Elliot Murdoch. And how sure are you? I'm 100% sure. Christine in our New York control room running the show right now. Christine, I know it's not on our list, but could you possibly pull up the video that goes with that sound?

Everybody, I know you legal eagles saw it just like we did in the courtroom. The video where Paul Murdoch, now dead. Oh, there it is. That was quick. See, Paul Murdoch has his friend's dog over. The friend is worried about an ailment, something to do with the dog's tail. The dog's name is Cash. So he's trying to get a video and a still of the dog's tail that they're going to send to a lady veterinarian that they know. In the background, you can hear a lot of sound and it purports to be, according to the

state, Paul now murdered, Maggie now murdered, and lo and behold, just before the murders, the voice of Alex Murdoch. Hey, Christine, tell me when you have that where we can hear it as well. In the meantime, you hear one person identifying that voice. This is now the third person that identifies that voice as being Alex Murdoch on the scene of the murders in the kennel where the murders took place just before, like minutes before the murders occurred. And that's not the only one. Take a listen to our cut one want you to listen to it and tell me if you recognize any voices on this video please Hey, he's got a bird in his mouth.

Hey, mama. There's a kitty. There's a chicken. Come here, mama. Come here, mama. Okay. Did you recognize any voices on that video? The three voices on that video are the voices of Paul Murdoch, Maggie Murdoch, and Alec Murdoch.

And how sure are you? I'm 100% sure. So that gives me now the friend, Rogie, Roganan Gibson I believe was his last name Rogan's friend IDs at 100% then you've got Cosby and you've got Annette Griswold that's four people stating that that is Alex Murdoch's voice. And this is, I would say within 30 minutes of the killing or less. We believe that, let me get out my little trial notebook they gave me when I went into the courtroom. So you'd have to carry this instead of a phone. It says, you've entered the no phone zone, hashtag leave it at home. I narrowed it down guys believe it or not after days of testimony we'll find out if the prosecution uses my timeline or not but

down to an eight second space where I believe the murders occurred and I'll tell you how I came up with that I came up with it because this is the time that Maggie had just gotten Christine did you say we do have the video oh great let's play that while I find this in my trial notebook let's see the video that they were just looking at Come on, come on. Come on, come on. Come on, come on. Come on, come on.

Come on, come on. Come on, come on. Come on, come on. how many times do you think that jury has seen that i mean you know ted williams defense attorney joining us that's pretty good evidence. You're talking about how you don't view circumstantial evidence as being as powerful as direct evidence. There you've got Alex Murdoch, the defendant, at the location of the murder in the kennel, the dog kennel, with the two victims just before the murders. What are they going to do with that, Ted? Nancy, that is damning evidence.

That is direct damning evidence as far as I'm concerned in this case. We know that that evidence was around 8.44 that night. And that was a time that Alex has told investigators that he never, never was around that kennel area. And this evidence, this puts him directly there at 8.44. We know that he told his friend Cosby that he went to sleep on the couch and that at 9 o'clock he left and he went to go to his mother's home. But he was never at that kennel. And this is the kind of evidence that could get a guilty verdict against this man. Because this, every one of the witnesses, Nancy, has said 100 percent they recognize his voice on that video.

That is damning. And that is the best evidence, I think, that the prosecution got. And they need to continue to drive that video with any and every witness who can say that they can identify Paul's voice, Maggie's voice, and Alex's voice. That Alex is there 100% they can identify it. That's damning. Ted Williams, have you ever considered public speaking? Because, man, you can lay it on.

I mean, that was a heck of a sermon right there. That said, I found it. I had to. Okay, I think I'm conceding what you said earlier. That some of the state's witnesses were meandering. It took me like 34 pages before I finally found my chart. Listen to this, guys. After all the testimony, for days, I came down with one block.

Murders occur, according to me, between 849.27 p.m. and 849.35 p.m. Why? Because Maggie gets a text that she reads at 849-27. That's where I'm getting that. She was still reading and responding to texts and whatever she was getting on her phone, phone calls and all that. Up to 849-27, she opened up a group text about Mr. Randolph being ill, Murlock's dad. At 8.49.35, a message and call from the friend Rogan Rogie Gibson, 8.49.35, was never read. Paul had been responding back and forth to Rogie

about the picture. Okay, do a still. Don't do the video. He's moving too much. Make him be still. They're going back and forth and back and forth about the dog. And then suddenly, 849.35, Paul's phone goes dead. No more texts, no more phone calls, no more Snapchats, nothing. She answers the call, 849.27. His phone goes cold, 849-35. And this video is placing him there just minutes before all this happens. Okay, what about that, Dr. Bethany Marshall? Well, my thought, and I think this is going to be in the jury's mind, why the dog kennels? If he did it, it seems like he's actually picking a burial site or a site to commit the crime away from the house, away from his precious furniture, you know, in an area where it's sort of barren, the dogs are kept.

It shows utter disregard and disrespect for his wife and son. Yes, we have the timeline. Yes, it's very damning. But as a psychoanalyst, I see a whole nother area where when there is a planned targeted murder or attack, the perpetrator usually prepares like a dump site or a site to commit the crime. And it's almost like he's romancing that site, like a drug addict would romance a pharmacy, like an alcoholic would maybe romance, you know, a bar that he is sort of swirling around that site until he gets up the courage to do it. And remember, this is Paul Murdoch's MO. I mean, I know he's on trial and he hasn't been convicted, but he would always wait to the last minute with Jeannie, with Annette. He would just blow in at 10 to 5, ask them to write out a check, throw the office into chaos, and then get them to do it before anyone could respond. So I think

it's the same MO is just sort of, you know, taking photos, a lot of chaos, working up his courage, and then bam, the ill deed gets done. You know, speaking of chaos and the storm that seemed to be swirling around Murdoch at all times, would you say, Dr. Bethany Marshall, that that is an indicator of drug abuse? Yes, I would think his decreasing attachment to the people around him, the sloppiness that Jeannie, the CFO, referred to, that he was very slick with his crimes, and then all of a sudden he got more sloppy. The fact that he left his keys in his car, he would often just not even show up to work. You know, all of this, I think that the planting of the tree while Paul is Snapchatting, it shows a very confused mind. This is not somebody who

plans a homicide as if somebody else had done it. He is very sloppy. And you know, even, I know I'm going all different directions with this, but I think it's because his mind went all different directions. So there's so many things to talk about. You think about the coat that had the gun residue on it. Then it's at his mother's house who has Alzheimer's. It's hastily folded. It's stuffed in a closet. This is not somebody who's thinking anything out at all. There's a high degree of impulsivity, which we also know is associated with opioid abuse. Well, it's interesting that you're saying that because Alex Murdoch's paralegal described him as, quote, the Tasmanian devil. And I know you all know the Looney Tunes character, the crazy Tasmanian devil.

I want you to take a listen to what came out in the courtroom in our cut six. How was the defendant as a boss and a lawyer? Just what were his typical work habits and what was he like in the office? Extremely intelligent when it comes to the law. I respected and admired that in him greatly. He didn't keep normal hours. He liked to float in later in the late morning time or early afternoon. We always had a running joke.

We never knew. We knew that he might not be there all day, but he would always show up right before 5 o'clock when we were ready to leave. So just, you know, kept on set hours. I sometimes referred to Alec as a Tasmanian devil because when he walked in, no matter what you were doing, you started spinning because he was just coming through and shouting everybody's name and ready to get work done when he was walking in the door.

Yeah, I don't want a lawyer or a doctor, any of those professionals that you are trusting to take care of your business or your body or your family, showing up like the Tasmanian devil at 5 o'clock and barking orders. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace Another very unusual thing happened, as you will recall. It seems like a fleet of lawyers suddenly showed up at Moselle, the hunting lodge, at the time of the murders. Now, how in the hay did that happen? I want you to take a listen to our cut to this is Ronnie Crosby on the stand about what he saw at the hunting lodge known as Moselle the night that Maggie and Paul were gunned down dead in the dog kennel. Listen, do you remember June 7th, 2021?

I do. Did you see Alec earlier that day? I saw him later that night. Yes. Sometime around 11 p.m. My wife got a phone call. I don't remember his exact words, but it was something about Maggie and Paul being shot. I got in my vehicle and started headed to Moselle. I'm confident that my partner Mark Ball was already there. Ellick was there. Did you have conversations with the defendant the next day?

Yes. And what did Ellick tell you about his activities that night? That Maggie and Paul went outside to the dog kennels and that he sat on the couch and fell asleep. And then around 9 o'clock, he woke up. He went back to Varnville, to Alameda, to check on his mother. And that goes, that is in direct contradiction to him being at the dog kennels, which we see in the Snapchat. That's also what he told police, that he was never at the kennel. Guys, got an update for you from the courthouse. A Collington County Sheriff's Office deputy was seen sprinting across the grounds of the Collington County Courthouse,

panicking, his voice yelling for everyone to clear the area. One person that made it out safe and sound immediately is Alex Murdoch. He was driven out in a large black van. It's been confirmed that there was a bomb threat. Of course, the Colleton County Sheriff sent that out a little while ago. And it's been said that law enforcement have not only evacuated the courthouse, but the entire block of all the reporters and public spectators that were around the courthouse. There's a heavy police presence. Law enforcement have formed a perimeter around the courthouse. There's a heavy police presence.

Law enforcement have formed a perimeter around the courthouse square. Attendees exited the building from the front sweeping stairs, the ones not normally used by the public. So that confirms everything, all the emails and texts I'm getting from people at the courthouse. There was a bomb threat. Wow. I wonder who engineered that. That said, let's talk about what happened in the courtroom. Let's talk about what we are hearing.

Straight back out to our friend, Dr. Michelle Dupree, pathologist, medical examiner, detective, and author, what do you make of what you're hearing now about all these people being there at the hunting lodge the night of the murders? Nancy, this is not the way to handle a crime scene. Again, you don't want a lot of people around. You want to separate any possible or potential witnesses, and you don't want a mass of people tracking through what might potentially be evidence. So this really wasn't a secure scene at that time. But I'd like to go back to one other thing, and I agree with Dr. Bethany when she was talking about some of his erratic behavior. But go back to the night when he was actually interviewed, the night of the murders. To me, Alex was not erratic. He was rather calm. He seemed almost calculating. He thought about everything that he was about to say before he

said it. You know, I'm thinking about his behavior. To Irv Brandt joining me, world-renowned, travels all over the country. He traveled for the U.S. Marshal Service, for DOJ, International Affairs, representing our country in prosecutions all around the country. He traveled for the U.S. Marshal Service, for DOJ, International Affairs, representing our country in prosecutions all around the world. I'd like to hear your critique of the evidence as we know it so far. And what do you make of the bomb threat? Well, let me start with the bomb threat first. What you said about seeing a deputy sprinting away and possibly having panic in his voice is indicative of someone finding a suspicious package. To get a threat phoned in is one thing, then you do a search of the building is another thing, but to start evacuating a block around the courthouse,

not just evacuating the courthouse, but evacuating the people from around the courthouse, not just evacuating the courthouse, but evacuating the people from around the courthouse, suggests to me that they may have found either a device or something, a suspicious package that may contain a device. You know what, let me tell you what my producer Kelly has come up with. The bomb threat came in right before the testimony of a SLED computer crimes agent, Brian Hudak. Right before a computer crimes agent, Brian Hudak. It just makes me wonder, what is Hudak going to say? Ted Williams is joining me, Fox contributor, high-profile defense attorney, former D.C. cop. Ted, the bomb threat comes in right before a computer crimes expert is going to testify. And I don't mean a theoretical expert that knows all about computers. I mean somebody that tapped

into Murdoch's, probably his phones and his computers. Ruh-roh! You know, Nancy, you're absolutely right. That is very suspicious. HUDAC is definitely going to be able to supply some kind of evidence and show a nexus between the phones and the time of when certain things happen there on that scene, I believe. And I believe that it is suspicious that you would get this bomb threat at this immediate time. But I also believe you're, I guess guess just prior to me, and that is that

normally when there's a bomb scare, they, yeah, they will clear the courthouse and that kind of thing. But the fact that you have a deputy running across the courthouse area there, it leads me to believe that there may be more to this than we know at this immediate time. So it's interesting. I think that we should pay a lot of attention to the testimony of this SLED agent that's about to testify. I think that very well may be something that ties Alex closer to that crime scene on the night of these murders. We have been hearing that you're seeing footage right there of sheriffs converging on the Colleton County Courthouse as a bomb threat is ferreted out. And that takes a while.

They may sweep it and find nothing. I mean, I believe completely in bomb detection dogs. They're as powerful or more so than cadaver and drug dogs. So what is happening in the courtroom? Why did it have to be disrupted right now? Is it to take the jury's mind off something? Is it a real bomb threat? Is it to impede progress of the trial? We are hearing the state is culminating its case. That means they're going to wrap, and then it will be showtime for the defense. Now, of course, under our Constitution, the defense does not have to present one shred, not one scintilla of evidence. It's not their

burden of proof. It's all on the state to prove the case or not. scintilla of evidence. It's not their burden of proof. It's all on the state to prove the case or not. The defense doesn't have to say a peep in the courtroom, but we predict that they will. So what was happening? We learned that Alex Murdoch had a complete personality change after the Mallory Beach boat incident, when son Paul, now murdered, as settlement conversations swirled, a hearing was set for that week, abrupt change, like a personality transplant, after the Mallory Beach incident. Take a listen to our Cut 7. After the boat case happened, did you notice any change in the defendant's demeanor around the office and about his work habits? I did. He was more distant. Even

when he was in the office, he was absent. It was hard to, he's always been hard to sit still and and get answers from and it was almost impossible for us to to reach him. Even he was always on his phone. It was consuming his life almost. There was a couple instances where I referred to him as having his ass on his shoulders because that's how I felt. It was disrespectful of me to feel that way and to say that out loud, but that's how I felt because he just wasn't his self with us anymore. He came in and it was just like, yelled our names and just didn't treat us the same way he did prior to the boat accident. There was a multi, multi-million dollar lawsuit filed by that teen girl, Mallory Beach's family, against the Murdochs and others for that drunken boat incident where Mallory died because of it.

Millions of dollars at stake, and not only that, a forensic accountant could very well be involved. And the last thing Murdoch wanted anybody to do is look at his finances and find all that theft. I hear you laughing. There's Mallory. Oh, my stars. Look at that beautiful girl. Yeah, I hear you, Ted Williams. That's the last thing he wanted.

Nancy, you are 100 percent right. His demeanor changed not because he was concerned about Mallory and her death. He was concerned about his pocketbook. He was concerned, I believe, that he was going to be exposed as the fraud that he was. He was concerned about the exposure of the—all of the funds that he had stolen from that law firm. And I think all of those are the things that were weighing on him. So quite naturally, the finances were important and are important, but I just don't know if I would have let them in in this case to give him an appellate issue when you have other damning evidence like that video at the county. Nancy, if I could speak to his personality changes. Go for it, Dr. Bethany. Okay, I think prior to the boating incident,

he could just barely handle his addiction, his theft, fueling his lavish lifestyle, fueling his drug purchases. He kind of had a perfect con going for quite a length of time, for years. Then with the Mallory Beach death, the boating, his son Paul drunk driving, and this huge multi-million dollar potential verdict being brought against him, it's not only that his finances would be exposed, but it placed additional pressure on the con. So let's say his drug addiction was escalating. Now he had even more bills to cover. I think his interest in his wife and his son actually lessened under the influence of all of these opioids that he was taking. And so the clear solution was to get them out of the way so he

didn't have to pay for them anymore. It's more complicated than not wanting his finances exposed, is he couldn't handle the stress of all of this. And think about criminals when they're about to come to court and they have to take accountability for their actions. Do you remember Michael Jackson who got the spider bite and because of that he couldn't show up to court? I mean, they begin to fall apart when they have to take responsibility for their actions. And I think that's what was happening. He was becoming extremely chaotic, disorganized. The reason he became more organized right after his son and wife were murdered is not only did he have to really focus to get himself off the hook that time, but often when people commit homicide of loved ones, domestic homicides,

there's a relief phase afterwards. They are relieved that those people are out of the way, and that clears their minds temporarily, and that's what could have happened to Alec Murdoch. You know, just thinking about what you're saying, Irv Brandt, well, everybody on this panel, we've seen murders for a lot less than this. I've seen a murder over a $5 drug debt. A murder over a $5 drug debt. And the dealer had to maintain his cred, so he gunned down a young man, right in front of his mom, by the way, over a $5 drug debt.

So what I'm saying is, we're talking about millions and millions of dollars standing in the community, the whole works. And in his drug-addled mind, maybe he thought, hey, I kill Paul, no more Mallory Beach case. I kill Maggie, no more divorce. Goodbye forensic accounting. I'll keep my job, I'll make a ton of money, and Buster and I will be fine. If he even thought about his son, Buster. I mean, Dr. Michelle Dupree, you see more murders than any of us in the morgue. I mean, there doesn't have to be a

reason for a murder. But here there's about eight million reasons. Exactly, Nancy, you're right. And you know, I've said it time and time again, I am continually amazed at what people who supposedly love each other do to each other. Some of the horrific acts, and I think this is just an example of that, it's just, it's mind-blowing, really. You know, I'm wondering how the defense can counter any of this. Is there even a remote possibility, Ted Williams, that they would put Alex Murdoch on the stand? Nancy, let me try the word. Hell no. I would be shocked if they put Alex Murdaugh on the stand. He would be an open target. in and that they're going to try to do whatever they can to muck up the water to show that there is reasonable doubt in this case and that this case is not beyond a reasonable

doubt. And so—so, but putting Murda Alex on the stand? Hell no. Alex is going to run from that stand. He's a lawyer. He's not somebody who doesn't know the way of the courtroom and court procedures. And the last thing I believe he wants to do is to be anywhere, anywhere on that stand. You're not kidding. And I predict he'll stand up and say, well, you know, I want to testify.

I really do. But my lawyer's not letting me do it. You know, hold me back. In other words, no way am I getting on the stand and taking a grill on cross-exam. Guys, we're heading back to the courthouse to find out what we can about the bomb threat. Goodbye, everybody. Thank you for being with us. Goodbye, friend.

This is an iHeart Podcast.