Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Murdaugh Murders: Defense Claims Two Shooters

Episode Date: January 30, 2023

SLED Special Agent Jeff Croft took the stand today in Alex Murdaugh's trial, testifying on several matters related to the night Maggie and Paul Murdaugh were murdered.  Croft told the jury that he interviewed Paul Murdaugh's good friend, Rogan Gibson,  about the phone exchanges between himself and Paul, minutes before Paul was shot to death. Paul was caring for Gibson's dog, and they were discussing a possible problem with his tail. Croft testified that after Paul Murdaugh did not respond to a text, Gibson texted Maggie Murdaug, asking her to pass on a message to Paul to call Gibson.  Croft also testified that he entered the main residence of the Murdaugh's hunting property the day after the murders.  Croft explains to jurors what they were seeing in body camera footage.  He described how he arrived at the property and found spent .300 Blackout shell casings outside the exterior door of the gunroom. Prosecutors say they matched the casings found near Maggie Murdaugh's body. Croft testified he was also looking for a 12 gauge shotgun as 12 gauge shell casings were found near Paul's body.  There was not a gun found in the gun cabinet.  Earlier in the day, defense attorney Dick Harpootlian was examining a crime scene tech of the trajectory angle of the bullets that killed Maggie and Paul Murdaugh suggested the possibility if not likelihood of two shooters.   SLED special agent Jeff Croft is the 10th witness so far. Joining Nancy Grace today: Eric Bland - Founder/Partner- Bland Richer, LLP Attorneys at Law; Twitter: @TheEricBland; Attorney for Gloria Satterfield's family 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 Robert W. Crispin - Robert Crispin - Private Investigator, Former Federal Task Force Officer for United States Department of Justice & DEA and Miami Field Division; Former Homicide and Crimes Against Children Investigator; “Crispin Special Investigations;" Facebook: Crispin Special Investigations, Inc  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" Consultant 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. Hello everyone, I'm Nancy Grace here with Fox Nation and we are just outside the Murdoch murder trial courthouse. It's happening right behind us. It's been quite a day in the courtroom this morning. Let me tell you what's been happening so far. It took the defense a long time to get started. They were cross-examining a crime scene analyst. She was really good on the stand, Melinda Worley. Now, we met her for the first time last week. The state had her up on direct examination. The cross-examination this morning, it was Dick Harpootlian at his

best, but can I tell you, he really had the gum in the works. He did not have all of his photos and his demonstrative evidence ready. There was a lot of shuffling around in the courtroom, long delays. The judge finally said, everybody, let's take a break so the defense can get it together. The jury left the courtroom. The jury came back in the courtroom. There was more bumbling around. But finally, Harputlian made his point. And his point is, wait for it, could there have been two shooters based on the trajectory path of the bullets. And think about this. Think about having a ball of styrofoam and you take a knitting, a knitting needle, and you stab it into the styrofoam ball. That needle will be the trajectory path of the bullet aiming. Okay. And Hart Pulliam made a really good argument about that.

Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. I want to introduce to you my guests. I'm going to take them one at a time. First, I want to go to Robert Crispin, private investigator, former DEA Miami Field Division. Now he's at Crispin Special Investigations. For those of you just joining us, we're live outside the Murdoch Courthouse, and I've learned a lot this morning. Robert Crispin, please try and explain in simple terms what Hart Poolean is up to in the courtroom. Smoke and mirrors. He's trying to put a bunch of smoke and mirrors up to the jury to detract them from the truth.

What he's talking about is the flight rod that the investigators have put into the hole where the trajectory went. They're talking about the dog cage. So they're saying now that there's an 82 degrees angle of that trajectory going into that cage. That puts it way up here. Hence why he's saying we have a second shooter who could have been higher. He completely caught that investigator off guard.

Hold on, hold on, hold on. Let me understand what you're saying he was saying in court hey guys in addition to uh crispin with me is dr michelle dupree former forensic pathologist medical examiner detective it goes on and on and on author of homicide investigation field guide she also knows her way around ballistics dr dupree, everybody on the panel jump in. But Dr. Dupree, let's follow up on what Crispin just said. What Hart Poole is trying to tell this jury is that there were two shooters. Okay. And he's right now arguing it through his cross examination that based on the trajectory path, this is important guys, based on the

trajectory path of the bullet, like did it come from up to down? Did it come from right to left? He's arguing that I guess there had to be a sniper or a sharpshooter up in a tree shooting down at that angle. That's what he's trying to say dr michelle dupree but here's here's the fly in the ointment maggie her body had stippling that's important explain dr dupree what is stippling? Yes, Nancy. It is possible there could have been two shooters, but that doesn't mean that just based on the trajectory. And stippling absolutely discounts that because stippling is a close-up, not a contact. Can you just slow down just a moment?

Not everybody is a firearms expert. I want you to explain how stippling on Maggie's body, it's burning from the shooting. It's a contact shot. Why? That defeats the theory that somebody's outside shooting in. That's BS, technical legal term. Hit it. It is BS because stippling is actually not a contact, but it's a close contact. It's very near the target. And many things come out of the barrel of a gun when there is a shot. There's fire. There's soot. There's unburned metal and gunpowder.

And this is actually small, very small particles of unburned metal that will scratch the surface of the skin it cannot be wiped away this actually injures the skin and it indicates by definition that this was a close range shot so the the theory that there's a shooter off of the distance shooting or even 10 feet away that won't fly because maggie has stippling on her skin. It was almost, if not, a contact hit. Hey guys, I'm hearing in my ear, straight out of the courtroom with me, Ann Emerson, Senior Investigative Reporter, WCIV, host of Unsolved South Carolina, The Murdoch Murders, Money and Mystery, which I have listened to about 10 times, Ann Emerson. And I want our listeners and viewers to hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

If I could get the control room to play our cut eight, listen to what Hart Poolean is spinning out in the courtroom. Listen. But doesn't this indicate to you there were two shooters? There was a shooter up here and a shooter down here. Is it a possibility? Let me say this. Is it a possibility that there are two shooters? Based on the data you collected. It just indicated there was movement to me.

Movement from here all the way up to here? I don't know, but it's not all the way up there. But is it, I'm not telling you. I mean, one explanation would be movement, correct? Yes. One explanation would be two shooters. There are two guns there. One's a shotgun, one's an AR,

and we now see that that AR is being shot from way up here, correct? I can't see the tip of the... Somewhere along that line. Could someone have been a lookout there? They went there to kill Paul, and that's the lookout? Maggie surprised them. They thought she was gone? I'm going to... Reasonable, though, right?

Right? I feel like he wasn't there. I know you weren't there, but none of us were there. We're trying to figure out what happened that night. And clearly, one reasonable explanation is two shooters. One explanation. Okay, so one explanation, two shooters. What in the...

Hey, you know, I can tell you this much. Ann Emerson, I'm going to have a t-shirt made, and it's going to say, I love Melinda Worley. Did you hear her pootling and trying to lead her down the garden path? And she was very nice about it. She'd go, no, no, I didn't get that at all. Tell us what happened, Ann. She stayed on point, sure for this state she's been working really hard to keep uh what they've been working on just on point the whole way

through you're absolutely right about that and uh harpootlian spent a lot of time this morning uh trying to line up angles that would have uh in just that little glimmer of a doubt that there could be two shooters involved. Now, the state fought back on that. Oh, they sure did. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Hey, guys. I'm hearing in my ear, in addition to Robert Crispin, Dr. Michelle Dupree, Ann Emerson joining us, Dr. Angela Arnold. And, boy, do we need to shrink.

High-profile psychiatrist joining us. Dr. Angela Arnold, a boy doing the strength, high-profile psychiatrist, joining us out of the Atlanta jurisdiction. I'm hearing in my ear that now joining us also outside the courthouse is Eric Bland. He is the founding partner of Bland Richer, and you may know him more by the fact that he has been representing the Gloria Satterfield family. If you didn't know that name before today, let me tell you who Ms. Satterfield was. The longtime housekeeper and nanny, she helped raise these children. Paul, now dead, and Buster, who was sitting about four feet in front of me in the courtroom. Eric Bland, I haven't talked about Murdoch's grand entrance into the courtroom,

but he certainly made one today, cool, calm, collected. I noticed not wearing a wedding band. He was decked out like he should be on the front of a men's clothing catalog. And I wondered how it must feel to him, Eric Bland, who's argued so many times to so many judges in this courtroom right behind me, how it feels in a courtroom where his grandfather, great-grandfather's picture is up on the wall, and he has been representing so many people. Now he's sitting at the defendant's table being tried for murder, and I still don't understand why the death penalty has not been sought. That's a whole other can of worms.

What do you make of it so far, Eric Bland? Well, I think he's feeling confident. Obviously, he knows the courtroom. He feels like he knows the jury. He feels like that he has very seasoned attorneys. And this is all scripted, Nancy, as you know. The fact that his family is sitting behind him is a message to the jury. The way the cameras are set up, Buster, John Marvin, his sister, the other day Randolph, all the family

members are sitting on the defense side. And I get it that Alex is innocent until proven guilty, but they know he's a thief. They know that he stole almost 10 million dollars from clients. They know that he betrayed his law firm. He betrayed his family. He betrayed his friends. But I think what you're seeing is it's a message to the jury that they need to trust Alex because his family trusts him. Remember, the state's spending millions of dollars vindicating and championing the rights of the deaths of Maggie and Paul, but no one is sitting on the state side. Now, I get it that he is innocent until proven guilty, but this is sending a strong message. You also heard this morning, Nancy, that his law partners actually were on the crime scene the night, the morning after

the shootings. That four of his law partners and his brother got on the crime scene. Now I'm telling you, you cannot do this anywhere else. Family members would never be able to be on the crime scene before it was finished. Now, Harculean is spending a lot of time attacking this crime scene, and rightly so, but I've never met a defense lawyer who's liked the crime scene. I've never met a defense lawyer who stood up and said, hey, you know what? You guys have done everything right. I have no questions. If they took 100 pictures, he would say they should have taken 200. Let's let the state continue to build its case. It's like building a house you've got to

start with the foundation so that it can fortify that house and that's what they're doing. They brought in the person who secured the crime scene, they're putting the person to make sure they preserve the crime scene. The person who gathers the evidence, then they bring it back to the labs. Let's let the state finish out its case before we have all these people out on national TV saying Harpootlien is doing so great, he's carving up these witnesses. These ladies that have been witnesses for the past three days, I think, have made my state proud. They are credentialed, they are educated, they are serious, and they've

done a good job. So that's what I have to say right now. Well, hold on just a moment, Bland. Guys, with me, Eric Bland, who is representing the Gloria Satterfield family who fell to her death, another dead body connected to the Murdoch clan. You say that it has been said that Harpootlian is, quote, your words, not mine, carving up the state's witnesses. I object to that characterization because Harpootlian couldn't even find his documents in his pictures today. He had a whole fleet of defense attorneys sitting at the table and not one of them could come up with the photo he's trying to show the witness. I can't tell you. It was like watching paint dry.

It was excruciating. And I'll be darned if I was paying that kind of money to a lawyer. Well, I'm telling you, every night I go on TV and I battle Mark Garagos and all the other national defense attorney minions that are out there extolling how great a job that Dick's doing. Look, I get it. He is a good lawyer. I get it.

We should commend him. At 74 years old, it's not easy being a trial attorney. It's stressful, and there's a lot of work that goes into it, and he's up on his feet. I'll give him props for that. Could you address what I just said? He was unprepared. I'll put it out there. I don't see him. He was not prepared.

They got out early on Friday, and come Monday morning, he still doesn't have his evidence in order. The judge had to send the jury out so Harpootlian could get it together. And when they came back, he still didn't have it together. I don't think he's made a dent. I really don't. But he is sprinkling out that there is possibly another shooter, that there is some things that should have been done on the crime scene, that there was some footprints that may have been walked over, tire tracks. I get it. They're all red herrings. It doesn't change the fact that Alex was there six minutes before the shootings were happening

and he said for a year and a half that he was never near the kennels. It doesn't negate the fact that he was never near the kennels. It doesn't negate the fact that he was totally clean after the police showed up, after he called 911, when he supposedly turned over a bloody body and checked Paul's pulse. There was no blood on him. There was no mud on him. He came to the property and brought Maggie there that night to supposedly go together to see the father in the hospital. Yet he leaves the property by himself. Excuse me again, Eric Bland.

He did not bring Maggie there. He lured her there. She told her friends, uh-oh, what is Alex up to now? I smell a fish. She didn't want to go. But he lured her there. But he doesn't even go see the father Nancy that was the whole purpose he goes to see the mother it does none of this adds up Alex's timeline is is blown to bits he's now at the murder

scene the phone evidence puts him there the voice evidence puts him there, the voice evidence puts them there, that we now know that he changed his clothes from 745 to 1015. These are potent facts that need to be stressed. The one, the only criticism I may have of the state is that they should have shown an overlay of the Moselle property. I've been there. It's very confusing. That's a good idea. Can I tell you something? I was out there looking at the Moselle property at 1130 last night. I see what you mean. An overlay would be very, very helpful. With me is Eric Bland, high-profile lawyer, joining us here outside the courthouse and I got to tell you something else let me go to Ann Emerson on that this WCIV watching Creighton Waters after seeing I mean there's really no other other way to say it I know Harpootlian had good intentions but he was bumbling around in the

courtroom I'm telling you they've had since last Friday, they got out early, to this morning, and they still don't have their evidence marshaled. And they've got, what, five, six lawyers over there. But when Creighton Waters got up to conduct the next direct exam, it was like a symphony. He had everything ready to hand it to the witness. No delay. The jury perked up because finally something was happening in the courtroom. And another thing, the female lawyer, Savannah Good, not bad at all. She was good. But Creighton Waters, excellent.

I think it was a very different feed that was going on at the beginning. We were all expecting for him to come out literally on fire, Dick Harpootlian, and instead it was just this slow, trickle, and confusion of evidence, of exhibits, of numbers. It was a little painful at the beginning. Now, what I do think, one thing to note is that they did have, they've been doing Agent Worley, you know, of course, on Friday. The state has had an opportunity to really kind of run through their stuff. So they've been working hard on that. And before I forget, Nancy, I wanted you to know that something that Dick

Karputlian said in his opening statement, he said, he just kind of dropped it in there. He hopes the jury will get a chance to go out to Moselle to see it for themselves. And, you know, as everyone kind of wraps their head around this whole huge 1700 acre estate where this brutal attack happened, I think that's going to be a pivotal moment for the during to be able to see how this place is laid out. Dr. Angela Arnold is joining me also high profile psychiatrist out of the Atlanta jurisdiction. I've got my little trial notebook. First of all, they took away my Fitbit. So I have no idea about my steps anymore, and my cell phone. But I had this. Let me tell you what I wrote down, and I stood up to get a good look at Murdoch in the flesh when he came in the

courtroom. He's tall, thin, unlike when he shaved his head, for what reason I don't know, he's got a full head of hair, perfectly groomed, not wearing a wedding band. Very, very charming. He made a beeline to this beautiful blonde assistant. She may not be an assistant. Maybe she's a second chair lawyer. I'm not sure who she is. She could be a paralegal. And he chatted her up very exuberantly, waiting for the judge to come in. He was very charming to her. He was gesticulating, as Eric Bland said, as he spoke to her with a lot of confidence. I mean, if I was looking at a double murder charge, I would be in awe of everything happening

around me, concerned, worried. He did not signal any of that, Dr. Angie Arnold. Nancy, I think that that shows us you are seeing who this man really is. That's his narcissism coming out, Nancy. He doesn't think he's going to go away for murder. He's probably convinced himself he didn't murder anybody. Okay. So what you have just described is evidence that this man is at least a complete and utter narcissist, which lends itself to why he's been able to do all of these things in his life, that everybody's like, oh my God, how could he do this? How could he do that? Because Nancy, he is a narcissist at the very least. And you just described that as you were able to see it in the courtroom. Also, in the courtroom today, I saw the elected state attorney general, for the first time he has come to the courtroom.

What, if anything, does that mean, Eric Bland? I recall AG assistants coming in on some of my murder cases because if I had gotten a conviction, they always write an amicus curiae friend of the court brief to hold the conviction, but I don't remember the elected attorney general leaving the Capitol and coming to the courthouse. What does that mean, Eric? Well, I've been baiting him for about 10 months to come. We have not heard from him, Nancy. We haven't heard from why they charged all the financial crimes and haven't scheduled those trials and put the murder trial first. So I have gone on a lot

of shows and said, it's time we either hear from Alan Wilson or he supports his troops. Look, Alex is getting a lot of support in that courtroom from family and friends. Do not kid yourself. And there's a lot of people in this area that still have good feelings either towards Alex or the Murdaw family. Look, I saw in court the other day something I've never ever seen before, and that is a defendant in front of the court security was able to turn around and hug and touch family members and friends. No other criminal that's charged with double murder could do that, Nancy. So I think that Alan Wilson is coming here to show the jury, to show television anchors

like you, hey, I'm here to support my charges. These are my troops and I'm proud of them. Well, I've got to say, I don't know what Garagos is talking about on TV, but I've been looking in the courtroom and the state has a very fine set of prosecutors and somebody needs to sort out what Horputlian is doing as a defense lawyer and feed him the right documents and the right evidence so he can get on with it. The judge, who I thought was very well controlled, on time, precise, handled every objection perfectly, was getting fed up with Harpootlian, dragging everything out. I want you to hear more about what happened in the courtroom right now. The defense is trying to hammer in the theory that there were two

shooters, but I think that the direct evidence is going to contravene that. I want you to take a listen to what they're trying to do, Hart Pooley, and he knows his way around the courtroom. Don't get me wrong. He's won a lot of cases. This is about bloody footprints. Attack number two. Listen. Your analysis is that one set of those footwear impressions is Paul facing the back of the feed room, right? Right.

And yet we know, and they're bloody, so he's already been shot. Has anyone discussed with you how he got faced away from where he was shot? No. Where the footprint smudged as if he was turning and there was blood uh dripping he was stepping in the blood and leaving his own footwear impressions in the blood i don't i don't know that it was smeared necessarily you can't explain how he got shot in the front when he's at some point soon thereafter facing backwards i can't say which way he was facing when he was actually shot guys that's the woman i'm talking about worley the criminalist and there was a

moment in the courtroom and emerson is joining me from wciv that he heartputely and actually tried to crack a joke with her i believe let me my notes, she said she was a senior criminalist. And then he tried to crack a joke with Worley about being special. Like, what's special about you? Something to that effect. And she just, you know, it was like water on the ducks back to her. But the jury did not laugh okay that's why you shouldn't crack jokes as a lawyer in a double murder case the

jury did not laugh along with hart pootling well that was like the third time this has happened too that i've been counting we had that happen happen. We had earlier when he referred to the handling of a cell phone, it's like they must have just held it like a can of pork and beans. And there was kind of that same feeling right then. What I'm trying to say is to, in any way, if his goal was to make fun of her being, what, a special agent, I don't know what, the jury didn't laugh, and I don't think they even got it but that said she stayed strong she did not exhibit any emotion one way or the

other and what you were just hearing about the bloody footprints let's get back to the actual evidence for a moment he's saying to Worley on the stand well did anybody tell you which way Paul was facing when he was shot? She said no. And Hart Pulling acted like she should know that. She's a crime scene analyst. That's not what she's there to do. And I don't know if that was lost on the jury or if they got it. What do you think? I hear Bland jumping in. Go ahead, Eric. Dick is trying to draft every single agent to go beyond what their job is. Well, why didn't you do this? Why didn't you do that? And the answer is, because it's not my job.

Again, building a case and building an investigation happens in segments, in blocks, interconnected. And Worley is not the analyst. Her job is to gather evidence. She doesn't make conclusions and Harpootlian was trying to score points by saying, well, why didn't you do that? And her answer is because that's someone else's job in this investigation. And that's what I think the jury did see that. I was very impressed with Worley as I was with some of these other officers. They didn't knuckle under to Harpootlian's sarcasm and they were just Jack Webb. Just the facts, presented themselves and walked off and go back and do their jobs. That's what we want with our law enforcement officers, Nancy.

I wish they wouldn't say, that's not my job, because that tends to suggest some sort of apathy, like that's not my job. But to the point of saying, well, sir, I'm a crime scene tech. My job is, and say what her job is, because she did her job, and she did a darn good job. She talks about getting a 1033 p.m. call in the middle of the night. She gets out of bed, and she's at the crime scene at 12.07 in the morning, ready to process a double murder scene. To have them say, it's not my job, could make them sound apathetic, like, I'm not doing it, that's not my job. That's not at all the case.

They were doing their jobs, doing a pretty good job of it. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Guys, we got a three-prong attack going on this morning in the courthouse right beside me in the double murder trial of legal heir Alex Murdoch. There is the two-attacker theory, and that's based on the trajectory path of the bullets that entered the bodies of Paul and Maggie. We have the bloody footprint attack suggesting the state screwed up the scene. There's no nice way to put it. And we have the third prong of this morning attacks about blood on a shirt or lack thereof. Take a listen to this straight out of the courtroom. You would agree with me that this shirt has, it doesn't look like it just came back from the laundry. It's got smudges down here and generally stains here and there, correct? It's not completely clean.

And there seems to be something on the bottom that looks like a handprint, does it not? I don't see a handprint. That was on the body cam footage where he was wiping his face with the shirt right there. You did this with LCV, right? That's what they call a presumptive test. It could be human blood. It could also be animal blood. It also could be detergent.

Could it be something other than human blood? It doesn't determine whether it's human or not. Right. So it could be animal blood. It's possible. Could be detergent. Detergent, oftentimes. Bleach, maybe.

Bleach? Okay. Okay. turtleneck oftentimes not bleach maybe bleach okay okay he's talking about testing the shirt with lcd testing ann emerson joining us wciv abc news this is harpoolian's third prong of his attack on the states some of their most critical evidence this morning. Explain what he's trying to say. Well, there's, you know, this is going to get more and more interesting because we've been privy to pre-trial motions. But what he's talking about right now is the LTD that was sprayed on the T-shirt. I don't think this is the last time he's going to talk about it either, because there was enough LTD on that T-shirt that it destroyed the T-shirt in the end. And the defense was not able to examine it like they needed to. Now, what we did here was that the test came back after the LPD, which is this sort of, do we see anything on there?

And they go and they look at uh they look at it with chemo traits they take it one more step further and at that point they say no blood is found and then he cut it off and went straight to the short um we did not i feel like got a clear end of the testimony on that which means that he's got a lot more to say about that is what I'm thinking from the defense. I don't think they're done yet. Robert Crispin joining me, former DEA and Miami field officer. Crispin, thanks for being with us from CrispinInvestigations.com. What is he trying to do? What is Hurt Putley trying to do with Murdoch's shirt? Now, we know that this was a very bloody crime scene,

and the shirt looked really pristine to the naked eye. What's he trying to do right here, Crispin? Just like the trajectory of the bullet, he's trying to detract and say that there was no blood on there. When the issues are, if we can go back for just a second, and I want to talk about this second shooter theory for just a minute and to understand, and this is where it's going to come back and it's going to haunt the defense because now the state knows where the defense is going on the second shooter issue. And they're going to slam it home when they put their ballistics expert out there.

Because to understand the velocity that a bullet comes out of an ar-15 at 3200 feet a second or 2200 miles an hour into a cage i don't know too many cages that are made of solid steel i think what you're dealing with you're digging you're dealing with a ricochet and i think that's going to come back and that's going to haunt the defense and that's going out and the jury's going to see that. Wow. I like your ricochet theory. Go ahead. Now, let's talk about the shirt. They're trying to get the jury to hear that there was no blood on the shirt. That's what they're trying to do. But I don't care that there was no blood on the shirt.

We already know everything that's been going on. My theory is he's already changed his shirt before he called law enforcement. He probably took a shower before he contacted law enforcement. And the problem with those LCD tests is, yes, they do give a preemptive test for the hemoglobin in the blood, but they also do test positive for bleach and rust. That's a problem. But it does help law enforcement on the scene when they come across bodily fluid to say, hey, yeah, that's blood.

Let's go ahead and test that. Let's collect that. That could be DNA, especially like around a window of a burglary. When you have blood around a broken window, you can put that on there and you can get a positive test in the hemoglobin to show that it's blood. Right there we can pull that and we can secure it and we can DNA test it. So when we do get a suspect we've got your DNA inside the house with your blood during the burglary. What about it? With me Dr. Michelle Dupree, former forensic pathologist,

medical examiner and detective. What do you make of it Dr. Dupree? Well the fact that there's no blood on or allegedly no blood on the shirt, I don't think that's really an issue either because we believe that he wore a jacket over that. We know that he took a jacket, a blue jacket, to his mother's house and hid it. We've heard that that has a lot of GSR on it. I wouldn't doubt if that also didn't have blood on it as well. You know, I'm just thinking back over what has been happening in the courtroom this morning right behind me. It was a completely different tone when the prosecution took over the direct examination of the second witness that took the stand today. But I just want to follow through with the theory, Eric Bland.

The presumption of innocence, of course, we all understand that. But to believe that Alex Murdoch did not commit a double murder, Eric, we would have to believe that he was at the murder scene, what, about five or six minutes before the murders, and that he was back at the murder scene an what, about five or six minutes before the murders, and then he was back at the murder scene an hour later, and that somehow in that one hour time period, somebody else came in and murdered both of them and got away scot-free. Is that the theory? That is the theory. The problem for him is that when he comes out of the house, he's going to smell gunpowder. That was an urban warfare that took on there with the 300 rifle as

well as two shotguns. When he gets in his car, he's going to at least have heard before he got in his car the shots or he's going to smell gunpowder. Plus he sent numerous messages that neither Paul nor his wife answered. So I just don't understand how he thinks it's going to be reasonable for somebody to assume, yep I left the scene of the murders, I went and saw my mother, I started creating my alibi by texting and making phone calls to a lot of different people. And then I come back and all of a sudden I decide I'm going to go to the chemicals and I did the kennel, excuse me. And now I discovered the murder scene. Nancy, I do want to address one thing. There's one thing that is stuck in my crawl since Dick Carputian did his opening statement and that is he said

it was his honor to represent Alex Murdaugh. Now I don't mind a defense attorney saying I represent Alex Murdaugh and I believe he's not guilty of murder but he knows that his client disgraced our legal profession, stole $10 million from his clients, of which I've gotten $7.5 million back for our clients. But I don't know a lawyer in the world that would stand up and say, it's my honor to represent a thief that disgraced our profession. You just made me think of something about going to see his mother that night.

Isn't the whole reason he lured Maggie to the hunting lodge was to go see the father? Wasn't the father in Savannah Memorial Medical Center? Weren't they supposed to go see? He died two days later. I thought the whole reason was to go see the dad, but he didn't go see the dad, and he certainly didn't take Maggie to see the dad. You know what else is not credible, Nancy? The fact is that he said when he got in the car with the investigators, it was the boating accident. My son, Paul, had numerous death threats against him. What parent in the world wouldn't report that to the police? There's not one police report where Paul, the mother,

the father reported that his life was threatened. That is not another credible explanation, Nancy. Oh guys, yes, I've got that teed up for you. He is asked... Go ahead, jump in, doctor. Okay, so also that same night he is asked about his relationship with Paul and he answers something I find very strange. He says, as good as it could be. What does that mean? As good as it could be under the circumstances? I think that was a strange answer. That's a really good point. Now I'm going to have to bring in our shrink on that, but I want you to hear this back to what Bland was just saying. Let's go out of order. I want the listeners to hear Hour Cut 5,

where this is immediately, and I think he even says it on the 911 call, starts laying blame back to the Mallory Beach boat crash. Take a listen to Hour Cut 5. This is Murdoch caught on body cam video. Listen. This is the firearm you brought from inside the house? Yes, sir. This is a long story. My son was in a boat wreck months back. He's been getting threats. Most of it's been benign stuff we didn't take serious. You know, he's been getting punched. I know that's what it is.

Was that when you previously testified that he mentioned the boat case or the boat wreck? I know that's what it is. Wendy? Was that when you previously testified that he mentioned the boat case or the boat wreck? That's correct. Pirate didn't mean asking him anything about it. He did mention it. There he is at the beginning laying out a potential assailant. And I want you to hear one more thing. And, guys, we have crime scene photos that were just seen in the courtroom.

I will tag them whenever you put them up from the control room. But I want you to also hear, I found this really interesting in our cut four. They are asking, oh guys, hold on. Here we go. This just happened. This is the gun room inside the hunting lodge. I think there were, oh gosh, there's blood. That looks like smear to me on the wall. Here's more inside, and these are photos that were taken the night of the murders. There is blood markings there. I don't believe that's spattered. That looks to be a drip mark to me. Take a look at that on the ground. That's a trial exhibit that has just been brought into evidence and is referred to in the courtroom. These are all crime scene photos that were alluded to or used during the direct and cross examinations we

were just listening to. Now, the defense really threw a fit when this came in. They did not want the jury to know how many weapons and how many high-powered assault-type rifles and shotguns were there for some reason. They did not want the jury to see this or know about this. These are trial exhibits you're seeing. Guys, I want you to hear Murdoch speaking. It's caught on body cam audio. This is immediately after his wife and son were found murdered by him. And I can remember, and I'm projecting right here, after my fiance was murdered, I couldn't even stand to hear the radio, the TV. I didn't want to talk to anybody. Nothing they said was making any sense to me. And right in the middle of them asking about it, somebody walks by and goes,

Hey, hey man, how you doing? I want you to hear this. Take a listen to our cut four. What's her name? Her name's Maggie Murdoch. Margaret Branstetter Murdock. How you doing? What's her birthday?

Um... Pause it right there. What did the defendant just say? Let me back it up. Margaret Branstetter Murdock. How you doing? What did the defendant say right there? So while I'm in the process of gathering information about the two victims from Mr. Murdaw,

somebody walks by behind me and he pauses what he's telling me to say, hey, how you doing? How you doing? Yeah. And who was that he said that to? I'm not 100% certain. I believe it was a fire rescue individual. Okay. Can I bring in our shrink?

And I mean that in a loving and caring way. Dr. Angie. And I know I'm projecting and everyone acts differently. But I couldn't eat. I couldn't drink. I couldn't think after Keith was murdered. And here are guys walking by and goes, hey, man, how you doing? His wife and son are lying there with their brains at their feet.

He's like, hey, man, what? Nancy, you are so right about that. It shows how detached he is from what happened. And again, smoke and mirrors, like everyone is talking about. How in the world could you take your mind off of this and just go, hey, hey, how you doing? You could never do that. And I do realize that everyone reacts differently to things, Nancy, but not in such a cavalier

fashion. You would not see that kind of behavior from someone who was truly upset and truly attached to the individuals that were murdered in front of him. I'm circling back to our guest. Ann Emerson is joining me straight out of the courtroom, joining us WCIV. Ann, give us a recap of what has happened this morning once Hart Putley got his papers in order. That took about the first, I would say, 35 minutes at least. That's correct. Yeah, once we got through the cross on Agent Worley, we were able to

learn a little bit more about what was going on with, you know, as far as what the defense was trying to accomplish here. As we've discussed, they were trying to establish that the crime scene was not preserved and secured in a way that would rule out other shooters, other people being on the scene. That was a big, that's something he's been doing for the last few days of testimony, since the very beginning, really. And they also really wanted to make sure that everybody knew about the bloodstains. And once they got through the t-shirt being clean, and how could somebody with a t-shirt that's that clean could have been part of such a brutal attack? We got into what was going on with the prosecution. The state

has fought back. They came back with a lot of evidence. Not only what we talked about with the cell phone evidence, they're really narrowing that timeline because we know that Paul was a young person. he used his phone all the time at 8 44 he talks to his buddy and then 859 when his buddy tries to call him back this is evidence that's already getting put in you know on the record he doesn't answer and maggie doesn't answer hold on just a second and i want to nail down time. I've got so many notes I took, but you just said it perfectly. What time does Alex Murdoch, what time does he say, well, no, let me nail it down even better. What time is the Snapchat that Paul sends his friend?

And we heard a little bit about that this morning. It seems that Paul was taking care of a friend's dog and the dog had some type of an injury. That is a Snapchat video that everyone's wanted to know what's the content. The friend asked him, I think his name was Rogie. Oh he asked Paul just take a video and send it to me so Paul takes the video and in that video it's very clear that Alex Murdoch is there what time was that video sent and well we were told in the opening statement they talked about the cell phone video from what I and that would have been what you're talking about, this Snapchat. And we're waiting to see, I think we're waiting to still hear a little bit more details about that. What I heard in testimony today was the phone call that Paul made to Rogan Gibson at 8.44 p.m. And at 8.49, Rogan replied, obviously they're talking

about this injured dog. And he, he, he goes back and says to, um, that Marion wants to take it to a vet, get, try to get him to sit and stay and don't want him to be moving around. And that was to Paul from Rogan. Um, and then, um, that was a text and then, you know, he doesn't hear anything. He doesn't hear anything. He sends, what, one, two, three, four, five. I've got five phone calls from Rogan to Paul after that, starting at 9, 10 p.m. And 9, 58, he sends another text. He tries to reach Maggie. Doesn't happen.

So it really narrows that timeline. timeline and I think that snapchat video is going to be that um hole in one that the prosecution's hoping to bring in to really make it obvious that something bad happened in a matter of five minutes and this was oh in just a few moments because the way I've got it written down and and correct me if I'm wrong to Eric Bland uh veteran trial lawyer who's representing the Gloria Satterfield family. They were going back and forth about the video of the dog at 8.44. At 9 o'clock, 9 o'clock sharp, that's what I've got in my notes, calls from the friend, Rogan Gibson, were unanswered. And that is when I think we have our time of the killings at 9 o'clock.

He kept trying to text him and call him. And finally at 9.34, Eric Bland, he texts Maggie to tell Paul to call me. And Maggie also does not respond. So between 844 and nine o'clock, two murders went down. That's the way I see it, Eric Bland. Yeah, at 745 is when the Snapchat was, Nancy. And that shows Alex in a different set of clothes from what we understand. And then there was a video that was taken right before Paul died that he sent to his friend showing the tail on the dog was was injured and and Alex's voice is in that in that video and Creighton Woodard said he believes the time of death happened around 854

because at 855 the phones of Paul and Maggie went dead. Okay, hold on just a moment. You just dropped a bombshell on me right there, Eric Bland. And anybody on the panel, jump in. Could you repeat what you said about Alex Murdoch having on different clothes in the video than what he had on when the cops got there? In the Snapchat. In the Snapchat got there. In the Snapchat. In the Snapchat at 745, supposedly we're going to see that he had on different clothes,

long pants and a different shirt. Now when the police showed up after the 911 call at 10 o'clock, after 10 o'clock he was wearing a white T-shirt and those green olive khaki shorts. So we're going to have possibly a change of clothes taking place. Before the murders he was wearing one thing, after the murders he was wearing another thing. And don't forget, he took a blue coat to his mother's house two days later. I don't know who does that. I don't go take a coat and hide it at my mother's house two days after my wife and son got, for better or for worse, murdered.

Plus, there's this seatbelt that's now in evidence from his suburban. And we know that there's GSR on there, and I'm banking on Nancy that there's going to be blood on there. Because I don't think that Creighton Waters is going to go through the whole shirt, the fact that the shirt possibly is now ruined and couldn't be tested by the defense. I don't think Bevel's going to come in because I think that was a Trojan horse that Creighton Waters was setting Dick up on. Dick focused on that t-shirt for three months. And I think there's other credible cogent evidence of blood that'll be on that t-shirt for three months. And I think there's other credible cogent evidence of blood that'll be on that seatbelt and on other places in the car and also the amount of GSR on the coat and the seatbelt. And I've got a question. Will Dave try and put his seatbelt on? Who puts his seatbelt

on to go up to get the 12-gauge shotgun at the house? I mean, that would be literally the only time that would make sense for Alex Murdoch to have that seatbelt get any kind of residue on it, right? I mean, you would literally have to be going from just severing the body to getting the 12-gauge shotgun and coming back. And that is the only thing I think the defense has if they see anything on that seatbelt. What about from leaving the crime scene to go to his mother's house? Yeah, if there's DSR and blood on it then, he's got a big problem. And at what time was the 911 call made? Ann, do we know the time of the 911?

10-06. I want to go to Robert Crispin, private investigator joining us, former DEA, and homicide. Robert Crispin, there is no eyewitness here. And many people argue it's just circumstantial. Under the law, the black and white letter of the law, which will be read to the jury during jury instructions, circumstantial evidence is to be considered, under the law anyway, as powerful as direct evidence. Of course, the jury is their sole province to determine the facts and the law however they see fit. But it's not just the wardrobe change that Eric Bland was pointing out.

It's not just the gunshot residue. It's not just him being at the scene five minutes before the murders and then he comes back and whoops, they're dead dead it's not just his demeanor each one of these a brick in the wall building the case for the state all taken together i mean how in the why would you have a wardrobe change well these are all pieces of the puzzle that are going to put the picture together at the end when this is all over. We have the video. We have the voice on the video.

We've got the change of clothes. We've got the blue jacket that went to the mom's house with gunshot residue on it. We've got the seatbelt with the gun residue on it. Every single one of these are going to be a piece of the puzzle that's going to come down to the end and it's going to be a crystal clear picture for the jury. This is exactly why the defense is trying to do their best to create a diversion. And this is what defense lawyers do. They create a diversion when the facts are against them. So you're going to see in time as this plays out, and obviously there's a lot more to come,

that puzzle is coming together. And I think at the end of this, I don't even think this jury is going to deliberate very long. I think they're going to come right back with the right decision. We didn't even discuss the ballistic evidence, the cartridge evidence that the jury is going to hear. So, Ann Emerson, if you could give us your takeaway from today, what would it be? Well, I think that it just keeps on coming back to the fact that there was a very, very, there was very little time for two killers, a large crime scene that was unfolding with Alex still in the house.

It's going to be a tough mountain to climb for the defense to be able to say that he wouldn't have heard or smelled or witnessed anything happening down by the kennels within that period between the time that the murders happened and when he went to his mother's, which we know is at 9.06 p.m. because that's when his car turned on. So as far as what they've introduced so far. So there is a very tough timeline to fight here for all of the crime scene that may have been disturbed that night. I think that the prosecution is doing a pretty solid job of saying the things that were disturbed, it's okay. It didn't change the way we have been looking at this case. And I think that's my big takeaway. Also, I think it's very hard to get around the fact about the ballistics, what you just said, the gun evidence that's coming into play, the fact that the same type of gun, the same type of ammo were found in the house right off the bat.

That's going to be very hard for the jurors to forget or even make it okay, unless someone else has full access to their house or ammo. Another thing that struck me, Dr. Angie Arnold, and if I could get the control room to put up, oh, there he is. That was the last witness before the lunch break right there. If I could get you guys to put up those crime scene photos again. When they showed the, and the whole courtroom cannot see the evidence. I just happened to be able to look over some people's shoulders as I was sitting there and see on their computers what the jury was seeing. And I looked at that blood spatter and the blood smear. Dr. Angie. And I looked at the jury.

And they were just staring at that blood. Because that blood. Was the life's blood. Of the mother Maggie. And the son Paul. And I looked over. At the defendant. And he did not even blink an eye. I mean, nothing. Sometimes when I even

look at my dad's picture, it chokes me up because I remember I was there in the room when he died. I mean, Murdoch didn't even bat an eye looking at the blood of his son and his wife all over a dog kennel. Wow. You know, Nancy, again, like I said, people say that he had such a close relationship with his wife. I don't believe he was as attached to his wife and his son as they want us to believe. Well, I've got a pretty good feeling that if they bring that up in their case in chief for the defense, the state is going to have a rebuttal case to that. Guys, I'm hearing in my ear, they're counting me down. I guess that means I'm going back into the courtroom. We're live outside the Murdoch trial and the evidence is unfolding fast and furious.

Thanks for being with us, everybody. I'll see you tomorrow. This is an iHeart Podcast.