Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Murdaugh Murders: DID MURDAUGH DISCARD BLOODY SHOES?

Episode Date: February 7, 2023

Jurors in Alex Murdaugh's murder trial finally heard from the CFO of the law firm where Murdaugh was a partner.  Jeanne Seckinger told the jury that she had a tense meeting with the lawyer over settlement money that the law firm had collected, which was missing.  That total amount was more than $2.8 million. In less than  12 hours, Murdaugh's wife and son were fatally shot.    Also on the stand today, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) Forensic scientist Megan Fletcher discussed the gunshot residue she found on Alex Murdaugh’s blue, tarp-like raincoat. The raincoat was found on the third of his mother's home about a week after the murders. Residue was found on the outside and inside of the jacket.  Testimony was also given on tests run on Murdaugh's shoes.  Joining Nancy Grace today:  Mark Tate - Trial Attorney- The Tate Law Group Leonard Romero -Forensic Firearms Examiner/ballistics Expert  Christina Marinakis - Psych. D., J.D.  Jury Consulting & Strategy Advisor,  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 Anne Emerson - Senior Investigative Reporter, WCIV ABC News 4 (Charleston, SC); Host of Award-Winning DAILY Podcast: "Unsolved South Carolina: The Murdaugh Murders, Money and Mystery;” Twitter: @AnneTEmerson  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. You know, the other day when Second Juror was on the stand, this is the lady that worked with Alex Murdoch that found out he was stealing really millions of dollars from clients in the law firm. Remember, the jury wasn't there. They didn't hear any of that that we heard. We actually know more than the jury knows. Well, the judge had a bombshell ruling in court, and that was that this financial motive, financial misdeeds could be heard by the jury. And remember, typically a jury never gets to hear all that. Why? Because it could be considered to be bad reputation or other bad

acts, not the murders. That's what he's on trial for, the murders. And that is unconstitutional. But in this case and in other similar cases, this type of evidence is allowed. Why? Because it shows motive, frame of mind, scheme, course of conduct, and it was contemporaneous. In other words, it was res geste. All happening at the same time, not some bad thing he did 10 years ago, but happening right then that was motive for the murders of Maggie and Paul, his wife and son. Man, it better be some good motive to murder your wife and child and the way he allegedly did it. So we heard that the other day. That's where I started. We heard her

testifying outside the presence of the jury. Why? Because the judge wanted to hear all that evidence to determine, is this admissible? Well, guess what? She has been on the witness stand and she came into that courtroom locked and loaded. Let me tell you, guns a-blazing. She is not parsing words. Let's take a listen to a little bit of that. Christine, can we play cut five? Let's listen to Seconder. Tell me, what was your observation of Alec as a lawyer in the office?

Alec kept different hours than a lot of the rest of us. He came in and he would work late, always loud, always busy, always in a rush. He had the gift of gab, but he always seemed last minute and hurried and frenetic. What were your observations of him as a lawyer? I think Alec was successful more not from his work ethic, but from his ability to establish relationships and to manipulate people into settlements and clients into liking him. So he did it through the art of

bulls**t, basically. Okay, she got beat. Now, I gave up cussing when I had the twins. I've got an all-star panel lined up to make sense of what we know right now, but let me first go to Mark Tate. Tate is a high-profile lawyer out of Savannah, which is just a hop, skip, and a jump from this courtroom. You know, a high profile lawyer with Tate Law Group at TateLawGroup.com. Mark Tate, I didn't like anything I just heard. Because when I finally, after three years of doing something different, I was a law clerk to a federal magistrate. Then I worked in the antitrust division at the FTC and consumer protection.

I finally made it to a DA's office and I immediately got put in indictments. How do you draw up an indictment? How do you read police reports and supplementals and figure out legally what should be charged? And I noticed that there was this guy in the drug unit. He was never there when I was there. I'm like, hey, who's behind that locked door? Who works in there? They went, oh, he keeps odd hours of the day and night I'm like oh okay even as a novice I knew something was way wrong with somebody that had odd hours and listen don't get me wrong my dad worked the swing shift you know one night he'd be on the graveyard shift one night he'd go in one day he'd go in at 7 a.m he had all different kind of work hours on the railroad where he worked.

So I'm not knocking that. But the way she said it. I mean, if you had a partner in Tate Law Group that would blow in about 8 p.m. at night and nobody knows when he comes or when he goes. No, uh-uh. No, right there something is wrong. Well, it wouldn't happen. That wouldn't happen here. I'm a little uncomfortable with you continuing to describe me as a prominent trial lawyer in the Savannah area

because I'm afraid that starts to get a little bit too close to what they're saying about the guy that's on trial for murder now. But I do appreciate the tongue-in-cheek way in which you proceed with that. Don't look at me to come to your aid as a cameo appearance as a defense lawyer that's not happening but right there when she said he kept unusual hours i know what that means yeah that means that nobody was keeping track of his work hours and that he was unprepared and frenetic he relied on relationships no, I don't want a lawyer to rely on relationships. I want them to be prepared and on time. Well, it's a balancing act. Obviously,

Murdoch played off of his family's name and reputation. He made no secret of that. And what this Ms. Sechinger says is she clearly didn't have a whole lot of respect for his lawyerly abilities. She didn't say that he was brilliant. She didn't say that he was brilliant. She didn't say that he was a strategic, analytic genius. She said that he was a bull**** artist. And that's her quote. And I think that what that means is his family's been around for so long that he's able to get people to do things.

And she said manipulate, which means you're convincing people to do something that's less than in your best interest because of friendships and charm, I guess. But she clearly did not have a great deal of respect for his ability as a lawyer. I suspect from the tone of her testimony that she really never did like him, and she probably never liked him because she thought or felt like he had tripped backwards into a very lucrative and prestigious position just because of his birthright. That's what it sounds like to me, but she clearly does not like him. I never marked Tate. You know, he must be a mind reader. You're clairvoyant as well as being a high profile lawyer out of the Savannah area. Because I didn't pick up that she never liked him. I didn't get that at all. Christine, let me know when we get Ann Emerson hooked up from WCIV. I didn't get that

because remember she worked with Maggie. But now that you're saying it, you might be right because you know a leopard it doesn't change its spots right and if he's that way now I wonder you know I've been doing some digging of my own and managed to dig up a roommate of his in undergrad who said he was an odd duck even in undergrad that people didn't really want to be around. There was just something about him that was odd, and they couldn't really put their finger on it. So I'm just wondering if you're right. But remember, Mark Tate, she very well likely knew Maggie. And by all accounts, Maggie was just a sweetheart of a person because Maggie was a bookkeeper at that firm. Well, I mean, I've been in private practice for over 30 years and I've worked in a lot of different kinds of environments and a lot of different law firms.

And I can tell you that the lady who is or the man who is in charge of keeping the books and is the chief financial officer of that firm, they have a lot of relationships, but they have a lot of opinions that they very carefully hold to themselves. And they are by the book if they're successful. And sure, she may be friends with his wife and may be nice to his wife, but that doesn't necessarily mean she has to like or respect him. And the thing that you want to hear from an employee is, you know, this man was a fantastic lawyer. This man had a gift of persuasion in the courtroom. He had the ability to convince people that his point of view or his or her point of view was correct. We didn't hear any of that. All we heard is that he keeps weird hours and uh you know he got where he got because of

birth he did it all through the art of bull her words not mine direct quote let me let me reiterate that again listen to this another odd moment that we hear from jeannie seconder on the stand and if you think you got an earful when she was outside the jury presence, oh, I wish you could have been in that courtroom today. Take a listen to our cut seven. And what is this next page of this exhibit? That's the canceled check payable to Forge for $83,333.33. All right. And you recognize that signature on there?

That's Alex. Okay. signature on there? That's Alec's. And so when you were when we last left off, you were telling Alec that it had been done wrong because it had gone straight from the trust account direct to what you believed to be Forge at the time, correct? Correct.

And it can't go to the law firm or the tax benefits go away. That's right. Alright. So you raised those issues with Alec. What was his response when you first talked to him about this? His response was that he was not worried so much about the tax ramifications and saving the taxes that he was trying to get money in Maggie's name due to the boat accident that happened in February of 2019. Okay, you know what that means. He's trying to hide money in Maggie's name, and he outright says, I'm doing it because of the Mallory Beach boat accident. crime stories with nancy grace for those of you that don't know i don't want to be too inside

baseball mallory beach was a 19 year old girl that was on a speedboat belonging to murdoch being driven by his drunk as a skunk, high as a kite son, Paul, now murder victim. There's Mallory right there. Beautiful, beautiful girl. Everybody on the boat that night was begging him to slow down. He didn't. And he plowed into some cement pilings. And I've gone and looked at them myself. They're jutting up out of the water. You can see them at a great distance. But somehow, instead of veering around them, he plowed right into them. Mallory was thrown over the edge of the boat. This young girl flies over the side of the boat to her death. She was in the water for days. I talked to the emergency crew that had been out

looking for her. And when her body was found bloated with water days later, everybody just started crying. It was awful. So that family, the Mallory Beach family, was suing the Murdochs. And as we talked about it yesterday, no Paul, problem partially solved. Paul was killed. He was the driver of the boat. So he knows they're going after him for money, after the Murdochs.

So he's trying to put money out of his name and into Maggie's name. Did I explain that correctly, Mark Tate? Yeah, I think you did. But I think that that is, I think his, that statement to his bookkeeper, it doesn't really make sense to me. And I think there's a big gap in what she's explaining to the jury with regard to the way structured settlements work. And I don't want to bore them any more than than or more bored your audience any more than that jury may be bored by but I have done work in my 30 years with the real and valid forge consulting and the way it works is there's an act the structured settlement act whereby an injured injured individual can direct money directly from the payor to an insurance company that pays them an annuity over time that is tax-free.

And so it never comes into possession of the firm. And the problem is that she was not talking about the tax consequences to him. The lawyer still pays tax on your fees. She was talking about the tax consequences to the injured party, because if the firm comes into possession of the funds, you've got to fund that annuity before it goes to the client. That destroys the tax benefit of a structured settlement, of an annuity. That's what she was talking about. And I think once again, now listen, no one can dispute that Alec Murdoch was playing fast and loose with money. Clearly that was the case.

We can't dispute that. You know what? That's really putting perfume on the pig, isn't it, Tate? Playing fast and loose with money. He stole about $10 million that we know of. Yeah. So sometimes pigs need perfume. The question is, is killing his son and is killing his wife, is that going to, and that's what Harpoolian

is pointing out, is that going to keep the heat off of him from stealing that much money? And that's what's always worried me a little bit is, first of all, the complication of describing the financial incentive of what he was doing with the fake forge and also convincing a jury that that uh murder of his wife and son is going to take the heat off of him financially and that's our no no ann emerson joining me senior investigative reporter wciv wait a minute wait for it tay hold on and i'm not arguing that it was just the money that was motive for murder. And number one, the state doesn't have to prove motive at all. Number one, let's start with that.

But Ann, it wasn't just that money. It wasn't that his law firm had just found out, hey, you're stealing millions. That was happening. His whole life was out of control. Many believe that Maggie wanted a divorce. Paul was high and drunk and ended up basically killing a girl with the boat. That was happening. If Maggie got a divorce, she would go into all of his money and find out they were going broke because he was running through the money and he would be left with nothing. He would get disbarred. He would have nothing left. Plus, according to his own lawyers, he's high on opioids. So everything is

spinning out. That's the motive. And Nancy, it feels like that's exactly how they're building this case layer upon layer. That's what we're hearing from the state right now is all of these, all of these factors had to play a role. It was, as they said in the opening statement, remember when Creighton Waters said, this is the perfect storm and we're going to show you how this perfect storm came together. And there's another thing that was happening the day that paul and maggie were murdered remember this is also when his father randolph uh the patriarch of the murdoch family the one who had been from what we can tell through all of these canceled checks and all this money that's been moving around, that he had been at times taking loans out,

that money was gone. Dad was not around to pick up the pieces right now. So you wonder how that was affecting his mental state as well. And from all accounts that we're hearing in that testimony that's finally going into the courtroom today on these alleged financial crimes, there was an enormous amount of pressure happening that day. You're absolutely right. And Nancy, go ahead, please. So Nancy, it actually did buy him about 30 days reprieve anyway, which is not much for killing your wife and son. But it did postpone some of that investigation for 30 days. I'm hearing the voice of Dr. Michelle Dupree, forensic pathologist, medical examiner, former detective and author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide.

Dr. Dupree, a lot of our viewers and listeners wrote in last night after we talked about one witness describing him as fidgety. And I said, well, it, he was high on opioids. Don't they make you sleepy? And many of them said they can also make you fidgety, especially if you're trying to come off them. I want to circle back with you on that, Dr. Dupree. But back to this woman on the stand. I mean, we so-called experts can talk till we're blue in the face, but nothing says it like Jenny Sechinger. Take a listen to

Hour Cut 8. June 7, 2021, what happened? Went to look for Alex. He was standing outside of his office leaning on a file cabinet, and he looked at me with a pretty dirty look, one I'd not seen before, and said, what do you need now? Clearly disgusted with me. I said, I have reason to believe that you received the Ferris money directly to you, and, I have reason to believe that you received the Ferris money directly to you and you need to prove to me that you did not. And he assured me again that the money was in there. Said he was trying to leave it in there to decide what to do as far as structuring some more money or putting more money in Maggie's name. During the middle of our conversation he took a

phone call and the call was saying that his father was in the hospital. Around four o'clock, my phone rang and Alec was asking me some information about his 401k balance because he stated he had to get some documents and financials together for a hearing regarding the boat wreck later that week. And you can only assume that he is thinking of raiding his and his wife's 401k, their retirement funds, to pay off the balance on what he was sued, families being sued for the boating accident. So everything is spinning out of control exactly when all of this is happening. And then Jeannie gets the realization, Jeannie Sechinger, that it wasn't just one case or two cases. He was stealing millions of dollars.

Take a listen to Jeannie Sechinger on the stand. I cut 10. As the council checks hit the back of my printer, I could see Alec Murdoch's signature on the back. It would say Alec Murdoch and a lot of them were Bank of America. And as everyone come out, I started noticing it more and more, and the sickest feeling you could feel in the world, I knew that he was stealing all this money. At that point, William Barnes just happened to call over to my office and said, What are you doing? How are you doing today? And I said, I'm about to throw up. You need to come over here. And showed him the checks, at which point he verified that he thought that was Alex's signature as well.

The fact that his signature was on the back and the endorsement on the back was Bank of America. And what did that indicate to you about all those checks when you saw his signature on them? That they were stolen fees and stolen money. But then just as Alex Murdoch is getting confronted about stealing, guess what happens? Take a listen to our Cut 9. I got a call and started getting texts from friends asking if I'd heard if Maggie and Alec, I mean Maggie and Paul had been shot. Nobody knew what was going on, so very scary. You said this law firm is like a brotherhood, correct?

That's correct. Did everyone rally to Alex's aid? We did. Nothing happened that week at work. Everybody spent time with Alec trying to support him, bringing family meals, attending the funerals, so nothing happened all week. After the murders happened, was anybody

at all concerned about getting the proof for those missing fees after those murders happened at that point in time? We weren't because we were concerned about Ellick. He wasn't working a whole lot. He was erratic. We knew he was taking pills.

We were just worried about his sanity, so we weren't going to go in there and harass him about money when we were worried about his mental state and the fact that this his family had been killed so ann emerson senior investigative reporter wciv abc sounds like dr michelle dupree is right the murder of paul the murder of maggie his wife and son did get him a reprieve from the firm, who was about three inches up his tailpipe about all the stolen money. Well, and Nancy, to be super clear about those cuts that we were just listening to as well,

the first and the third cuts, those are both happening around the June 7th period. The second cut, that middle cut that we heard about that sick feeling that Jeannie Sechinger was having, that happens three months later and leads us straight into the Labor Day shooting, the botched suicide attempt. That's when she started, the whole system started unraveling. So you have this first event that the state's trying to set up that there was an enormous amount of pressure that day when the call comes through about randolph remember also jeannie seconger is a very important witness for lots of reasons she's known alex since she was 16 years old she went to high school with him she ended up marrying or her sister ended up marrying um Lafitte, who was one of his bankers at Palmetto State Bank, who's already gone to federal trial regarding these charges, that he was involved in this whole plot with Alec Murdoch. So she has a huge cross to bear in this this whole thing not only that she's the one that had to confront alec that day and she's the one

that has already said to the jury i feel like i somehow have responsibility in this because i didn't catch it sooner that guilt that overwhelming guilt you could see it on the jury's faces they're watching her and then they're looking at alec they're watching her and they're looking at alec and they're putting two and two together and this is a pivotal moment in this trial because this is the first time we have actually heard these financial charges laid out on the table for the jury. We've heard them. We've heard them for the last year. They have not heard them. And this is extremely important for the state to to make their case. And Emerson, the way you're describing that reminds me so much of when I was trying cases. Nothing else in the world would exist. I'll be looking at the witness and at the jury. Witness, jury, witness, jury, and nothing else seemed to exist. Did you hear that, Tate?

That's not a good sign for Murdoch for the jurors to be looking at this witness than looking over at Murdoch. Don't you know they've had about a snoot full of him already? You don't like that. No, clearly this is not a great thing for Murdoch. Clearly things are going poorly. The Julian can only do so much with a cross-examination. And so I think really, at least from a casual or even a lawyer's position observing this trial, you should view it really as perhaps a lesson in examination and cross-examination

and how a lawyer will conduct it when maybe they don't have a very great hand to play. Well, I can tell you one thing, Tate. They better not bully up on this witness because the jury, she's very likable. She's very believable. And the jury is not going to like it. She's very believable. And the jury is not going to like it if our Hart Pullian or some other defense attorney starts wailing on her and getting her upset and bullying her. But guys, today I have two more experts for you. One is about a jury consultant, and she is very astute and learned when it comes to tampering with witnesses.

We also have a forensics expert to discuss what we're finally hearing about gunshot residue. Now, a lot of us have heard about it, but the jury is just now hearing about all of this. I want to talk to you about bullying the witness. And one witness really touched my heart. I want you to take a listen to our cut to this is about bullying witnesses. Listen. And what did he say? He was at the house. And I'm not 100% following.

He was telling you or saying to you that he was at the house. And I'm not 100% following. He was telling you or saying to you that he was at the house? Mm-hmm. When? The night of the murders. The night of the murders? Yes. What was he telling you about that he was at the house the night of the murders? That he'd been there 30 to 40 minutes.

Did he indicate to you what he wanted you to do with that information? No. What did he say? He did say that he was at the house for 30 or 40 minutes. That's it. He said what? Was he there 30 or 40 minutes that night? Not to my regard. Why are you crying?

Because it's a good family, and I love working here. And I'm sorry all this happened. Joining me is Christina Marinakis. Not only are you a psychologist or a psychiatrist, I know you're also a JD but you've got a lot of initials by your name Christina, but your expertise is jury consulting strategy advisor, you're the author of Pattern for Dire Questions and you can find it

at expertservices.com Christina, thank you for being with us. What do you make of that witness who broke down crying on the stand after she was bullied? I believe Marmite came up to her after Mr. Randolph, his father's memorial. It was at someone's funeral or memorial. He comes up and says, hey, you remember, I was at my mom's house for 30, 40 minutes, right? Right. Okay, bye. Well, clearly this witness has a close relationship with the family. And that's why she seemed to be so emotional. And she seems torn. I'm sure that she really cared about Alec as well and all the other family members. I think the word bully seems a

little strong for what the testimony was. I think there was a suggestion there. And certainly witnesses, their recollection of time periods is very different, not always accurate. So 30 minutes to one person could be 20 minutes to another. I think him saying that seemed off to her. And I believe she called her brother afterwards. So she felt off, but it didn't seem to be threatening per se. Well, all I know, she called her brother the chief of police in a neighboring county. And she's so upset about what happened, she broke down on the stand and started crying. So the time actually is critical to proving this case.

Because if he was at his mother's at the time of the murders, then he's innocent. If he's lying about the time, then he's guilty. It's just really that simple. So 20 minutes or 40 minutes makes a big difference in this case. And if she didn't feel bullied,

then why is she crying on the stand? I think she's just overwhelmed from the whole situation. Okay. Is that Tate? Jump in, Tate. I was just going to say one thing briefly. We and I at my firm, when we try cases, we've had the pleasure of working with top-notch jury consultants like Christina. And, you know, we rely on input of folks other than lawyers to get a feel for the way a jury is responding. And so, you know, lawyers think that we all think that we

are the most skilled at forming our questions and judging the way the answers to those questions are interpreted by others. But sometimes it takes someone who is not quite knee deep in it as perhaps you and maybe even I might find ourselves at this point. But it's interesting that she finds that this is a moved witness, not a bullied witness. And so it's those kinds of things I think a trial lawyer should listen to, perhaps in shaping the cross-examination of future witnesses, is it's going to be a person who's going to be emotionally involved with the family who's going to break down and be careful of that going forward. So I think she's right.

I think she's right. It's certainly not the first witness to break down on the stand. In Emerson, joining me, WCIV, this woman is afraid she's going to lose her job if she doesn't say Alex Murdoch was at the mother's house for 40 minutes.

And I find that to be very, very concerning. And also in the same breath, he said, hey, aren't you about to get married? Weddings are expensive. I'm going to help you with that. All right. I mean, it's just so so obvious that's what i was just thinking about nancy was that next comment the way she put it we don't know the exact timeline but we know that it was during this very emotional aftermath of randolph murdoch's funeral who was the patriarch an incredibly powerful figure in these parts he was a solicitor you know and part of that Murdoch legal framework that we understand. So you're already dealing with an incredibly strong family. You've got a guy who's a big guy who's like, I could help you with that wedding and you're getting married soon. So there's like another

level that the state was intimating that there was another intimidation going on as well. So that's something that we should keep in mind about this witness. But also that she's doing this in front of Alec. She's doing this right with Alec Bardock in the room. I mean, I couldn't help but be watching that interaction once again. It's so important to be able to see what's happening in that courtroom. And I would not be surprised if she did start crying because she's looking at this man who she's pointing the finger

at to some degree right on the time frame and the alibi but remember there's a very good reason why this state put her up there as well not just because she can you know connect these dots but there this jury is a majority is female so what were they doing is they're watching this interaction this hardened look from the defendant over here? They're watching it very intently. It was really powerful. And there's more from another witness. Take a listen to our cut one. Did you see the defendant there? I did. And did you have a conversation with him about the boat case? I did. All right. Relate that conversation to the court, please.

Yeah. I think, I'm not 100% certain that it was a fundraiser either for Mr. Harpootlian or it was a fundraiser for Lindsey Graham. Alec sees me and he comes across and he gets up close in my face and says, Hey, Bo, what's this I'm hearing about what you're saying? I thought we were friends. And I replied, Ale replied, we are friends. If you don't think I can burn your house down and that I'm not doing everything and I'm not going to do everything, you're wrong. You need to settle this case.

The point of it was we're friends. I took it as he tried to intimidate me. He didn't intimidate me and sort of bully me into backing off. Straight back out to Christina Marinakis, jury consulter and strategy advisor, author of Pattern Voidire Questions. Christina, what do you make of that testimony? Well, now we've got a problem because you've got a pattern. You know, jurors, what I've learned from doing this, we do focus groups and mock trials, and you could have jurors see the same witness testimony and then come away with different conclusions. But when you have multiple witnesses lining up suggesting the same thing,

it creates a more cohesive, believable story for the prosecution. So how do you think that impacts a jury, Christina? Well, you know, you said earlier that the state doesn't have to prove a motive. But from a juror's perspective, they need to see motive because the lack of a motive to them is brings reasonable doubt. And that's really what the defense needs to prove here is is just that there's reasonable doubt. And that's how you can get a conviction in these types of cases or get an acquittal. You know, the plaintiff's lawyer in this case, the fellow who was approached at this fundraiser for either Harpoolian or Lindsey Graham, for Alec to come up to him and try to threaten him in that fashion does only one thing. And

I'm the kind of lawyer that represents people who've had bad things happen to them in instances like that for the most part. And if a defendant comes up and tries to harass or intimidate me as the counsel for somebody who we believe is genuinely injured, first of all, it's infuriating. But we also know that we're going to get to cross-examine that person later at a trial or in a deposition and hang them out. And so to me, that just kind of shows that Murdoch is sort of stupid and thinks that he can get away with anything. And that may be more so helpful to a prosecution, to the prosecution in answering questions a juror might have about why this would happen. It may just be that Murdoch, you know, just behaves in ways that he thinks there are no consequences for his conduct. Leonard Romero joining us out of Pasadena, forensic firearms examiner and ballistics expert.

You can find him at BallisticsFirearmsExpert.com. Leonard, I want you to take a listen to what we're learning about gunshot residue in our cut four about that rain jacket. Listen. Is this the rain jacket that you were describing? I can check the bottom cuff. Yes, sir. My dates, the date and my initials are here in the bottom cuff. And tell the ladies and dates, the date and my initials are here in the bottom cuff. And tell the ladies and gentlemen, how did you process? Where did you attempt to get particle lifts? Basically, the entire garment.

We marked it off in different sections, again, where Megan advised me to collect from, and I repeatedly dabbed the particle lift across each section until it lost adhesive. These particle lifts? Yes, sir. We also sampled the inside of this garment as well. Did you test it or take samples from the outside of the hood? Yes sir we did. Did you take samples from the inside of the hood? Yes sir we did. When you're examining all of these items do you wear gloves? Yes sir to make sure we're not contaminating it as well as to protect ourselves from anything that may be on the garment. You know, Leonard Romero, you're the expert, but I just want to tell you what my friends on Twitter, Insta, and Facebook told me last night. They said it would be a cold day in H-E-L-L if they went hunting in a bright blue poncho or raincoat.

And I hadn't really thought of that, but they're right. Okay. So that said, what do you think about Jamie Hall, the scientist that found gunshot residue? What do you think about that testimony? Oh, she did a great job. Her collection techniques were consistent with the way we would go ahead and collect gunshot residue with these sticky little discs. I've done it hundreds of times. Could you explain exactly how it's done? It's like lifting baby powder. Could you explain it? It's a very delicate process. Yes, ma'am. What it is, is it's primer gunshot residue. Primer gunshot residue comes from the rear portion of the gun when it's discharged. It comes off the primer of the cartridge as opposed to coming from the front of the barrel this comes out from the rear or the size of the of the firearm now if we look at this case in totality we've

got seven eight shots that were fired from large guns shotgun and of course that 300 blackout rifle so we've got a lot of gunshot residue in the area so to speak so what they're going to do is they're going to take these small metal tabs that have an adhesive on it and they're going to dab the areas on the clothing or on the individual and to go ahead and see if they can collect any of these small particles. These particles exist in small spheres and they're consistent with barium, antimony, and lead. And then they go ahead and put it in a scanning electron microscope where they can physically see the particles and then they can also chemically analyze the particles to come to the conclusion that it is gunshot residue. You know, Ann Emerson, WCIV ABC, from where did authorities get the raincoat?

Where was it found? Well, you know, there's a couple of issues with that as well. And one of them is that this blue raincoat wasn't found until three months after the murders found at Almeida. Now, according to that witness that we just heard, the one that started, broke down on the stand talking about her confrontation with Alec Murdoch, Shelly Smith was the caretaker. And what we learned yesterday was that she was in the house and she hears a knock on the bedroom window at like 6.30 in the morning and Alec comes in carrying what appears to be a big blue something bundled up in his arms and he hightails it upstairs to the second bedroom. Now this isn't an area where she goes very often so she doesn't from what we understand she didn't

really investigate it for what it was worth. Three months later, SLED comes and does a search of the mother's home, Alec's mother's home, and discovers this raincoat in the back of the closet. Now, right now, we've just been allowed to bring that blue raincoat into evidence. That was just decided this morning. There was a lot of back and forth between the defense and the state because this witness, Shelly Smith, just wasn't 100% sure what it was. Was it a tarp? Was it a raincoat? So of course defense is using that and getting right in there to try and say, hey, we don't even know what she saw. Why are we even using this raincoat that's got GSR on it if we don't even know that it's tied to what happened in this whole timeline of events. So there's they're going to use that. That's just something we need to be

aware of, that that is something that the defense is going to use is this witness wasn't clear on what she saw. Was it a tarp or a raincoat? So there's this is going to still come up a few more times. And so bottom line, the blue raincoat was found at Murdoch's mother's home upstairs. Is that correct? That's what we've been told. And Anne Emerson, what day was it as it relates to the murders that this blue raincoat was brought to his mother's home by Alex Murdoch? What day? The day after the murders?

The week after the murders? The week after the murders? When? I want to say this was three days after Randolph Sr. passed away. So this was after the murders. So this is the 10th is when he died. Then there was the funeral, and it was after that because the tents were still up. After the murders of Paul and Maggie. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.

You know, Dr. Michelle Dupree, yesterday, you said something. You said that the caretaker, Alex Murdoch's mother's caretaker, thought it was very odd that he came so early in the morning. And I went, no, he came late at night, the night of the murders. And you said he also came early in the morning. This is what you were talking about. Because I've never heard you make a mistake before in the facts or your analysis. And when you went, it was in the morning. I'm like, no, it was at night, the night of the murders. You're talking about this.

And that was odd that he shows up at 630 in the morning to go hide a blue raincoat. You are absolutely right, Dr. Dupree. Yes, Nancy. She said that he had never done that in the three years that she had worked for that family, that he had never come early in the morning and only rarely at night. Absolutely correct. With the odd hours. To Leonard Romero, firearms examiner, ballistics expert, gunshot residue is so easy to get rid of. I mean, you can do like this and it's gone. It's literally like baby powder or that or wash your hands. That's why you don't want to let a defendant go to the bathroom on the scene if there's been a shooting because all he's got to do is wash his hands and it's all gone. It's really a miracle that this raincoat was found

still bearing gunshot residue, is it not? That is correct. It is absolutely correct because this stuff is transitory. It can be washed off very quickly. Just as you alluded to, suspects, I've had them where they're rubbing their pants to try to get rid of it on their pants, or they're in a chase, they're running, we lose the gunshot residue. But in essence, he preserved the evidence here, okay,

by securing it. The other thing that's of interest here is how the caretaker describes how he was handling the raincoat as if there was something in it. Something was carried in it or just the way he was holding it as opposed to it's just a raincoat. We put it on our arm or put it on our hand and walk with it. So that's kind of an interest as well. But it looks like the evidence was preserved. It's placed inside. It's folded up. Or I mean, with me, I would hang it up to let it dry out or go hang it in a closet with the other raincoats and coats. And Emerson WCIV, is there an intimation that he carried a gun

in it or that he had been wearing it? Oh, more than an intimation. I mean, I think the objection was sustained. But basically, at one point, he said, is it like, was it like, the state was asking Ms. Smith, was it like he was carrying a rifle? And she said, yes. And they, of course, defense went, objection. You know, we don't know that it was a rifle. And those are the kind of things that they get objected to. But the jury heard it, right? I mean, they heard him say the word rifle. Yeah, the bell has been rung.

It cannot be unrung now. And see, that's where you need a really quick lawyer to jump up before the answer can come in. but she gave the answer. They weren't quick on the draw. Pardon the pun. They should have jumped up the moment they heard the question before she could answer. That's what they're getting paid to do. It's like a gunslinger for Pete's sake. Guys, there's one other thing, and I don't know if everybody caught it or not, but I want you to hear something that's missing. Take a listen to our cut three. Can you show these to the jury? Sir.

Show the jury what you own. So with shoes, when we collect from them, we're going to collect again to the area that would be closest to the discharge of the firearm, so the front of the shoe. So in this case, I would do the area where the laces would typically be and the front toe. Depending on how well the adhesive continues, it will depend on how far back I go, but I start with the toe and then work my area down the sides is this the condition they were when you saw them on gene 8 2021 there was more grassy type material on them when I had them do you remember did you see anything that looked like blood I did not make any note of that no sir, sir. Well, you know, to you, Dr. Michelle Dupree, that doesn't mean to me that he was not there at the time of the murders. It means to me that he changed his shoes. We know he changed his clothes that day. Hey, Christine, do you have the picture of his wardrobe change?

The video that was taken that afternoon? He's got on long pants and a shirt. And then that evening when the cops got there after the shootings, he had on a white t-shirt and short. Oh, thank you, Christine. You already had that one up your sleeve, didn't you? That's all in one day. Now, if my husband ran in and did a wardrobe change, I would call his mother and say something is wrong.id is doing wardrobe changes in the middle of the day he changed his shoes too look look at that whoa whoa whoa we see his shoes right there they're um what were they called and uh kind of slide on low for sparing

yes and then when the cops get there he's got on the tennis shoes. So, of course, there was no blood. Dr. Dupree? Nancy, also, we don't know if he has on a T-shirt, or at least I can't tell, under that blue shirt. And if I remember correctly, there were actually three gunshot particles, gunshot residue particles, found on this infamous white T-shirt. If that was under his clothing, that we don't know where it is now, then that could certainly be something that is significant. Ann Emerson, tell me about the marks, the spots on his white t-shirt. Well, once again, that's a huge bone of contention between the defense and the state right now because the state said that they found blood spatter from an incident on that like over a hundred blood spatter spots on

that t-shirt the defense has been fighting it tooth and nail before this trial ever started it was the one piece that we thought was going to be just a linchpin to this case and it hasn't gotten presented yet um we're thinking it's because the prosecution because they i think that the state felt like they had done such a good job of uh the defense had done such a good job of of discounting the expert they had on blood spatter that they went ahead and we're seeing a we well we feel like we've seen a shift in their focus. And they're now saying that he changed his clothes. So that kind of takes the pressure off of having to bring this blood spatter up again with this t-shirt. So this is what we've

heard about the t-shirt in pre-trial motions, trying to get it in, still hasn't gotten in. And I feel like the state has moved on and said he changed his clothes. So whatever was on that t-shirt, if it's transferred, then so be it. We're not going to try and try and prove anything because we haven't heard anything yet. But I mean, should I believe Murdoch or my lion eyes? Because look, he's got on Sperry slip-ons right there that afternoon. And when the cops get there, he's got on a different outfit and tennis shoes that miraculously have no blood on them let me ask you another question about gunshot residue leonard romero joining us out of pasadena

when you shoot a gun gunshot residue will only fly a very limited distance how far would it go leonard um we don't know exactly because we don't have the weapons but it is going to go a limited distance and it also depends the environment that you're in um if you're pretty fairly closed in environment you're going to have a lot of it on you but it's limited in its distance you're correct in that yes long story short can I just break it down? If there's gunshot residue on that raincoat, that means that raincoat was within at most three feet from the gun when it was fired. There. Would you disagree with that, Leonard? No. Given where it's at also, I would add that it is a distinct possibility that he carried either ammunition components in there or the rifles itself or a rifle.

Typically, it's just a given that gunshot residue will not travel beyond three to five feet. So, number one, what was gunshot residue doing on the raincoat that the caregiver, Michele Smith, sees him coming in and hiding upstairs at his mother's house? A lot swirling in the courtroom right now, and when are we going to hear from cousin eddie curtis edward aka eddie smith that admits he shot murdoch in the head there's so much coming out about that the rumors are swirling we definitely expect to see cousin eddie this week i thought it was going to be earlier in this week but we're now thinking that it might get shoved down a little bit down into the later part of this week just because there's so much testimony on these alleged financial crimes that still need to go through cousin eddie is critical to the state of course because i mean even the the defendants uh attorneys say that this was his longtime drug dealer. Cousin Eddie also was a relative,

you know, two removed, cousins removed. But Cousin Eddie has been in his life since, from what I can tell, at least 2013 as a person who he leaned on for all kinds of odd jobs that we're going to hear about. And we're going to hear about his alleged connection to this drug connection and with Eddie. There's a lot that came out in pretrial. I'm thinking we're going to hear from him for sure by Friday. They've got to get it out there because I don't think the prosecution, what I'm hearing right now, will go past much into next week. I think we probably only have another week with the prosecution yeah if the word is and we'll see if it's true because there's a lot of word floating around

the courthouse that curtis edward smith will testify and i put his lawyer on the hot seat i knew she wasn't going to answer that would violate her attorney client oath but I think he's going to state that Murdoch told him he shot Paul and Maggie that's best case scenario for the state he might chicken out on the stand and waffle once he's right there in front of Murdoch we'll see what happens but I I would say that's pretty much, as you're indicating, Anne, the culmination of the state's case. Hey, Anne, quick question. I've got 100 questions about, is Murdoch eating something in the courtroom? No, he's chewing on something, though. I've been watching, too.

I think he's chewing on some gum or something. That's what it looked like. But it also is like this weird clenching his jaw. But I think he's been popping a little bit of gum or something and chewing gum okay let me throw that very quickly to Christina Marinakis jury consulting and strategy advisor he needs to take a page out of Simpson OJ Simpson dare I bring that specter up who sat there and seemed not over the top jovial but at least friendly toward the jurors people think he's eating i had 50 questions pop up on social what is he eating whatever he's doing he needs to stop for his own

sake one thing that we tell witnesses defendants is that the microphone is always on the camera's always rolling you should assume that you are being watched by those juries all the time from the minute you walk into the parking lot uh all way in the restroom, you always have to be mindful. And jurors pick up on those things. One thing that jurors will take signs of nervousness, like chewing gum or hedging, not making good eye contact, they assume those are signs of dishonesty or signs of being uncomfortable. And so jurors may make conclusions from that behavior that shows he's nervous about what's being set up on that stand. And also we've seen him break down crying a couple of times. And I can't help but think he's not crying because he's sorry he did it.

He's crying because he's sorry he got caught. Because I'm analyzing when does Murdoch start crying as opposed to what's happening in the courtroom at that moment? Is it extremely probative? Is it helping the state? So, Mark Tate, you've tried a lot of jury trials. How do you rate Murdoch in front of the jury? Well, I'm glad you asked me that, Nancy. I am. Because as we're hearing this story about the jury doesn't like him chewing or eating, I agree with you.

And it reminded me of a trial that I had. And it was in a very small courtroom. And my client was unfortunately an alcoholic. And she'd been the victim of some podiatric malpractice and lost her toes and her foot. And so we would come into court every morning and every single morning she smelled like tequila. And the jury was about an arm's length away from me. And I said, Ms. Client, please, you've got to stop your drinking by midnight because the jury can smell it coming from either you or me, neither of which is going to help our case.

And so y'all are right. The jury does watch. They do absolutely watch the defendant and they try to read into them and determine, in this case, the defendant, determine how they're acting. Okay, you're reminding me of an arson I tried, Mark Tate, where a woman burned down an entire apartment complex because she was

mad at her girlfriend and I had a witness an eyewitness that came in it was August in Atlanta and she had on a big fake fur hat and you could smell her a mile away she reeked of booze I'm like I know the jury could see me going oh dear whoo whoo okay so according you never did grade him mark tape but i can tell you this you know he needs to quit eating whatever he's eating at the table yes so what yeah i think that makes a poor appearance however i would say that if he's having an addiction how did i know you were not done yet go ahead he may be he may. He may be gotten addicted to nicotine. It could be Nicorette.

I don't know what the heck he's chewing, but it makes him look bad to be constantly sitting there chewing his cud. It's not good. Look, if people online on social media think he's eating snacks at the table, then somebody on the jury may think it, too, and he needs to stop. Enough said about his snacks. Ann Emerson, what's happening next? We're about to go back in the courtroom. Well, we certainly have a lot more testimony to get through, don't we? I mean, this is where the state has to be incredibly careful, in my opinion.

We talked about it last night on our podcast on Unsolved South Carolina with Charlie Condon. We were talking about who was the former attorney general. We were talking about how they really, really need to pay attention to what's going on with the jurors ability to take in all this financial information. Are they going to be bringing up some of the actual alleged victims right now? We know a lot of those victims and we've already heard them without the jury present with tony satterfield um talking about what happened to his mom so i'm expecting to start to see some of these guys rolling out before we bring to the crescendo the cousin eddie

testimony right so we are going to work our way through this but but you know they've caught as as we were talking about it sort of like the dog chasing the car or the bus if they catch they caught the bus the state caught the bus they get to bring in all this financial information right now but what do you do with the bus you know you've got to be careful that you don't overwhelm this jury with numbers and facts and figures it gets boring and tedious it's a hard hard sit. So I think they're going to have to get incredibly serious about this. A lot of times during trials, I would have horrible nightmares

during the trials and well after the verdict had come in. And I had one last night and it was about Maggie Murdoch. And she sees her own child getting murdered. And for a mother to lose their child, this is one of her only two children, just shot dead. And then she starts running.

I mean, I don't even know if you'd want to live after you see your child get shot dead. And then she starts running only to be murdered herself. That's what the jury's going to be thinking about. I wonder if they're having dreams too. Oh, we're headed back in the courthouse. Thank you for joining us here. This is an iHeart Podcast.