Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Murdaugh Murders: Murdaugh Bullies Witness for Alibi

Episode Date: February 6, 2023

Bombshells in the courtroom today as the judge in Alex Murdaugh’s double murder trial rules that the state may present evidence of the now-disbarred South Carolina attorney’s alleged financial crimes. The prosecution contends that the fact that these crimes were about to be revealed provided Murdaugh with a motive for murder.    Also heard in court today was testimony surrounding the "blue tarp" found on the second floor of  Alex Murdaugh's mother's home. That blue tarp, under testing, showed gun residue.  According to Shelly Smith, a caregiver for Murdaugh's mother, Alex came by one week after the murders carrying a balled-up blue tarp. It appeared to have something inside it.  Joining Nancy Grace today: Eric Bland - Attorney for Gloria Satterfield’s sons; Founder/Partner- Bland Richer, LLP Attorneys at Law; Twitter: @TheEricBland Chris McDonough - Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective, and Host of the YouTube channel, ‘The Interview Room' Dr. Michelle DuPre - Former Forensic Pathologist, Medical Examiner, and Detective: Lexington County Sheriff's Department; Author: "Homicide Investigation Field Guide" & "Investigating Child Abuse Field Guide;" Forensic Consultant Anne Emerson - Senior Investigative Reporter at 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. More bombshells in the Alex Murdoch double murder trial. Just a moment ago, the judge announced we are going on a lunch break. Now, it's timed because the jury is about to hear some sort of a recording, a recording that the judge announced would take about half an hour for the jury to hear. What is it? What will it reveal? Also today, a bombshell ruling about financial motive to commit murder. We're waiting for Ann Emerson to come straight out of the courtroom, Senior Investigator Reporter WCIV. But first, I want to go to Eric Bland joining us, high-profile lawyer

out of Columbia and the lawyer for the Gloria Satterfield family. You all recall that Gloria Satterfield is the housekeeper and nanny that the Murdoch's employed for decades. And I will never forget on that 911 call after she had fallen to her death there at the Murdoch home how the caller referred to her as the woman that worked for us really the woman raises you helps raise you and now she's the woman that worked for us okay Eric Bland joining us Eric what do you make of what's going on in the courtroom right now well I think we had an explosive day, Nancy. First, thanks for having me on. I think Mark Tinsley shows the type of lawyering that we have here in South Carolina. He just tore the lid off of the myth of Alex Murdaugh and what the pressures that he was under on the day of the murders and in the month of June. I think we also saw a little bit of Brooklyn, New York,

like we were in a mafia trial because Mark mentioned about Alex tampering with the jury. And then with Ms. Shelley, we just heard about witness intimidation. This is the power, Nancy, that the Murdahls had as a grip on these counties for a hundred years. But I think what we've seen is this judge is now seeing who Alex Murdaugh really is a true dastardly sociopath a man that will steal from clients steal from his law firm steal from his family intimidate people it it was a big ruling now you got to be real careful as a prosecutor because now you've got something. And does this create an appellate issue when all the 404B stuff comes in?

But I think I've called it the emperor without any clothes. We're seeing who he is. Eric, don't throw around any legalese. When you say, what did you say, 404B? Explain that in regular people talk. Yeah, I'm sorry. That's the bad character evidence. Admitting all of these potential financial crimes that he's charged with and other financial pressures.

And what we don't want in our courts, Nancy, is the reason for this rule is we don't want somebody to be convicted of murder just because they're you know a serial penciling or thief like he is um but the judge showed that they are temporal in time to the murders and that this influenced his actions it became the motive so we'll see if these dots can be connected. But it was explosive testimony today to the court by Mark Tinsley. And then Miss Shelley, really, you could see labored hard about what she had to say. But he was clearly crafting an alibi of saying that he was there at the house for 30 to 40 minutes. Guys, when you hear Eric Bland, who is a high-profile lawyer joining us from Columbia, South Carolina,

describe the financial, I'm just calling it misdeeds, but what it is is outright embezzlement, siphoning, stealing from clients and the law firm. He said they were temporal in time. In other words, it was happening at the time of the murders. Okay.

It was very important to him to cover that up. It was contemporaneous with the time of the murders. It's not like the state is reaching back for the last 20 years to show a pattern of theft. This was happening right up to the time that Maggie and Paul were gunned down dead. Now, Eric Bland, how do you believe that the state is going to tie millions and millions of dollars that Murdoch stole, including from your clients? How are they going to connect that to the murders as being the motive? You know, sometimes motive isn't clean, Nancy. Sometimes people kill for reasons that would make us scratch our head like you really did it for that. But what this was is nothing more than problem solving.

As my co-host on our podcast, Cup of Justice, Liz Farrell, says he had a problem and that is when the law firm is breathing down his neck on misappropriated fees of $792,000 and in his head he knows that the Satterfield matter is now being publicly talked about, him stealing $4.3 million he knows that his entire life

is dependent on his law firm revenue, both legitimate and then what he steals. And it would be taken away. The Satterfield case is so important because he can't control that. If that gets to our state bar, he gets disbarred. Exactly what happened when I got the $4.3 million judgment. So in your mind or in other people's minds, they'll say, well, this really isn't a reason why you would kill your wife and kid.

But remember, this guy is a sociopath. Money to him is his God. It's his status in life. And he saw that money train drying up quickly. And that's why he did what he did. Now, whether the jury is going to believe that's proper motive, that's for another day. But I think what you heard today is the courage of Mark Tinsley, who I've described as nothing but a positive terrorist. You put that person in your house, he will blow it up. He's that dogged for his clients. And Ms. Smith is credible. I mean, she didn't want to

testify. You saw the fear, the palpable fear that that woman was showing in court because Alex tried to put the grips to her and said, I was there 30 to 40 minutes, right? And she's saying, no, you were only there to 10 minutes. However, we took a break. There is a rough draft that was just given to the prosecution of her statement that she gave, and we'll see if she supports that in her statement that she gave in June of 2021. But Alex Murdaugh really is somebody that the world is seeing right now without his clothes on. Harpootlian and Griffin are doing what they can, but his family's got to ask some hard questions. We know where this judge stands on this man, Nancy. We know where he stands. You know, you were talking about the

allegation that Alex Murdoch would intimidate witnesses. I want to tell you a true story. I had a, this was my first mass murder case that I ever handled. And I had a photo array, a photo lineup to show a witness, what I thought was going to be a witness. It was late one Sunday night when three murders went down. And only after we had done the photo array and I was back at the courthouse and I was getting everything together to present to the jury. Eric, I looked down at my photo array and one photo was about a half an inch bigger than the other photos. Can I tell you, I remember the moment I realized it was about that much bigger than the other

photos because they were, what would that be, Jack, a three by five type photo. They weren't, you know, passport size photos. And when I put them all together, I saw one was a little bit bigger and I'm like, oh-sized photos. And when I put them all together, I saw one was a little bit bigger, and I'm like, oh, my stars. And clearly you see the constitutional problem with that. The witness would look at that photo because it's bigger than the others.

Well, luckily, the witness did not identify that photo, and that photo was not the perp anyway but still in my mind I'm like oh my stars I've done something wrong this is unconstitutional that photo is about a half an inch bigger so Eric Bland I was a nervous wreck until the photo array was admitted I mean something that small I thought that that's wrongdoing. What's going to happen? Is the ID going to get thrown out? It meant nothing. It meant nothing at all. And now we've got claims that Alex Murdoch actually intimidated witnesses. Also, a lot in today about the Mallory Beach death. We all know that Mallory Beach was a young teen girl that was on a boat with Paul Murdoch. When Murdoch, high as a kite and drunk as a skunk,

insisted on speeding in the dark hours of the night through a tiny channel. I've been there, Eric Bland, and we were going easy, really easy, because there were twists and turns. He was flooring it. He slammed into some cement pilings, and Mallory Beach flew off the boat to her death. I mean, Dr. Michelle Dupree, you were there. We saw it virtually at the same same time that little channel where Mallory Beach lost her life do you do you remember seeing those cement pilings no one could have survived that Dr. Michelle Dupree I do remember that Nancy and that was so reckless when you look at that channel in broad daylight as we did it doesn't seem as treacherous, but it's still very narrow. And the pilings are, as you said, concrete. And to be speeding at night like that is simply horrific.

And Eric, when I'm building up, I'm laying a foundation right now to my question, for my question to you. You mentioned that Maggie and Paul's murders were, your words, not mine, problem solving. And that's exactly what I've been thinking because Maggie was finally for a divorce it hasn't come out in court yet I don't think but she was filing for a divorce the moment I put my foot in South Carolina I had people come up and say Maggie saw a divorce lawyer he's a piece of crap she wants a. And so he killed her. It seemed like everybody knew. Yeah. Okay. Fine. You say whatever you want to Eric Bland and Paul

and Paul was the reason. So anyway, regarding her divorce, she would be filing for a forensic accounting to try to find the money for her to get half of. All right. And Paul, he was the fly in the ointment because Paul is the reason Mallory Beach's family was going after the Murdoch empire. So when you say problem solving, is it really just that cut and dried? Get rid of Maggie, no forensic accountant. Get rid of Paul, the Mallory Beach case will settle. Is that what you meant by problem solving? Yes.

I mean, look, it's not a rational reason. And when we look at it now, but in the height of his frenzy at that time, that's what he could come up with. Remember, there was one other investigation that hasn't been talked about yet. We had an impaneled grand jury for nine months, and Alex was being looked at for obstruction of justice for what he did inside the emergency hospital room after the Mallory Beach case because he was going from room to room and trying to influence what the boys would say that Paul was not driving the boat. So in addition to Maggie not signing over the beach house in connection with the Palmetto State Bank loan, in addition to being confronted by Jeannie of the $792,000 fee with Chris Wilson,

in addition to Mark Tinsley, who's just a hurricane force attorney breathing down his neck. Now you have him being investigated on a grand jury scale. You have the Satterfield matter that he knows is now publicly written about. And you also have the fact that he's being sued, Buster's being sued in the Mallory Beach case. Plus Paul is being criminally charged with DUI homicide, which he knows he's going to get at least 20 to 30 years if he lives. That kind of pressure breaks pipes, Nancy. Guys, speaking of Alex Murdoch trying to bully the Mallory Beach lawyer, 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 Bo case? I did. All right. Can you 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. Ellick 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, Ellick, 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. So Eric Bland, I was worried about a half an inch photo that was too large, okay, that somehow I had done something wrong. And here's this guy trying to intimidate lawyers into backing off of a very serious case regarding Mallory Beach. Yeah, it's indicative of how Alex comports himself. He has, his entire life, he's gone to other lawyers And said look Bo let's work this out Together you know Don't worry about the clients

I'll scratch your back you'll scratch my back Mark Tinsley wasn't playing that game that day Mark Tinsley told him I will burn your house down to watch Mine smoke And Alex really learned at that point in time Man Tinsley is going to come at me and he's going to want to know my finances. And if I have to put my finances together, and if you're correct, Nancy, that Maggie was seeing a divorce lawyer, then Maggie's going to get a full picture of his finances.

So he was under an inordinate amount of pressure in June of 2021. Jim and Dick are just watching a different script, a different play than we are, but that's pressure that that man was under, and he tried to problem solve the best way he can. I know Dick and Jim say, well, wait a minute, he's a thief, and he's going to try to cover up his financial crimes and now implicate himself in a murder but a sociopath and a narcissist think they can control the situation they think they can talk their way out of it nancy how many narcissists have you prosecuted many many that you you scratched your head and said you really thought you could control the situation? But they do because they're arrogant. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace.

You know, to Chris McDonough joining me, he is the director at the Cold Case Foundation, former homicide detective many, many years, host of a YouTube channel, The Interview Room. You can find him at coldcasefoundation.org, and you can find Bland, Eric Bland, at blandrichter.com. Chris, nothing would make me, well, I take that back, a lot of things would make me madder, but one thing that would make me, well, I take that back. A lot of things would make me madder. But one thing that would make me mad as a wet hen is for someone to come up and try to trade on our familiarity.

You know, like, hey, Nancy, you know, we're old friends. There are very few, quote, old friends that are defense lawyers. In fact, very few at all. I could count all defense lawyers that are my friends on one hand. Because as a prosecutor, I could not blur that line. That would be unethical to me. And for someone to come up and go, hey, you know my family, you know me, we're friends, we go back, we went to law school together. B.S. Don't care. So Chris McDonough has anyone after all those years of you being a homicide detective come up and try to parlay their way into some kind of an advantage or a sweet deal? Because that's no friend at all to expect you to do the wrong thing. Oh, no. Yeah. Nancy, three words, greed, addiction and desperation.

You know, I we heard testimony where SLED was going to go do an interview. And guess what? He filled the room with a room full of lawyers. I've never had a case where I've walked into a room as the door opens and I scan the room and I see that everybody in that room except potentially two people are practicing law. And why are they practicing that day in that room to talk about the timeline and all this the minutiae events that are going on in Alex Murdoch's life so no I've never had somebody come up you know play a friend to me and then you know later on try to you you know, play it off. No way. Ann Emerson is joining us, senior investigative reporter, WCIV ABC News. And she is the host of an award-winning daily podcast, Unsolved South Carolina, The Murdoch Murders, Money and Mystery.

Ann Emerson, great to have you with us. Tell me everything. Don't leave anything out. Go. Oh my gosh. I mean, once again, we have this trial within a trial going now. We've had some resolution earlier today. Of course, the financial crimes are coming in, which it could be a devastating blow to the defense right now. It certainly feels like a huge deal, but the judge said, you know, when he came across his ruling, he said, yes, I'm allowing all of these financial charges, all of these crimes that Alec Murdoch is alleged to commit.

It's coming in as evidence. And this is, the judge said he found it so intimately connected and explanatory. I think it's essential to allow the state to use this in their motivation for or for committing what they say Alec Murdoch did, which was kill his wife and son. So that happened this morning, Nancy. And then once we kind of got through that and the jury came back in. Hey, Ann. Yes.

I want to play that for our listeners and viewers right now. It's in our cut eight. But this is a turning point in my mind. A lot's been happening in the courtroom. But when the judge decided to allow this motive evidence in, it's a real game changer as far as I'm concerned. Because we all know that Alex Murdoch is a POC. That's a technical legal term. But the jury doesn't know it.

The jury doesn't know it because as Eric Bland pointed out, in our country, in our jurisprudence system, a defendant is judged and evaluated on the crime at hand, not based on bad reputation or past bad acts. I want you to hear how the judge reached his decision in our cut eight. Listen. While motive is not a necessary element, the state must prove malice, and evidence of motive may be used to prove it. And in this case, since the identity of the perpetrator is a critical element that must be proven beyond the reasonable doubt, evidence of motive may be used in an attempt to meet that burden. I find that it is so intimately connected with an explanatory of the crime charge under the theory of the state is seeking to prove that proof of it is essential to

complete the story. In conclusion, the state's motion to admit the other evidence or evidence of other crimes is admitted. Wow. You know, earlier you were hearing Eric Bland describing Alex Murdoch bullying people, intimidating witnesses. Before I go back to Ann Emerson joining us from WCIV, I want you to hear it the way we all heard it straight out of the courtroom in our cut nine. And you'll recognize this is Alex Murdoch. It's talking about Alex Murdoch telling someone he was at the house with her. It's his mother's caretaker. That's who it is. For 30 or 40 minutes. And the woman is trying to stick to her guns and say that's not true. Take a listen to Hour Cut 9.

And what did he tell you? 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? 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. No. What did he say? He said 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 he's a good family, and I love working here. And I'm sorry all this happened. You know what I don't like, Ann Emerson? Nancy.

I don't like it. That was crushing testimony. I don't like it when someone who is rich and educated and well-positioned trying to intimidate or bully someone who is not as powerful or as cunning as they are. I don't like that this lady is reduced to tears on the stand. Did you hear what she says i've been with this family a long time i like working with them i mean i wonder if they were family too i mean along with him that she would lose her job it was absolutely a moment in that courtroom when she started to break down and you knew that she had already said that she was only there that he had only been there for about 15 to 20 minutes and had made that very clear in her testimony and when this came up and this was at the at the funeral uh after the funeral of

of mr randolph uh alec's father that alec would come up and say I was there I was there for 30 or 40 minutes and that's what he told her this was this is a very obviously was a very hard thing for her to deal with do you know what the first thing was that she said she did when when he said that though she called her brother you know her brother is chief of police over at another small town. That was the first reaction she had and he said, why did you call your brother who is a chief of police? And she said, because there was not something right about this. So, you know, she knew that she had to deal with that information right off the bat because it was, it was strange. Other things that

were strange that she talks about that i'm sure defense is going to be talking about as well but the prosecution asked her when he came over that night what did he have on he had on a t-shirt he had on his shorts he had on some sperry shoes what did he do he came and he laid down on or was lying sort of on the bed with his mom for 15 or 20 minutes. Unusual time? Yes. She said it was an unusual time for him to come, that she doesn't remember him coming that time of night. And something we've heard before about Alzheimer's patients is that,

which Ms. Libby, from what we understand, was suffering from, that's not a great time of night for Alzheimer's patients. So once again, just another layer in this or a thread in the rope of the circumstantial evidence of what's going on. But there's more, Nancy, but you tell me if you have a cutout on what happened with the blue tarp. That was sort of the next sort of devastating blow. I want to go through what you've already said. And if I could get Christine, could you put up the lady witness, the caretaker again? Because I guarantee you, making a lady like this, a fine lady, break down in tears on the stand, what you don't want to do

is make a witness cry. Unless they're a flat-out liar or they're the defendant. I have no problem making the defendant cry on the stand. I love that. But this lady's just trying to do her job and mind her own business. And it's never a good thing when for the defendant, if the jury perceives he has put her in a bad position and is making this lady cry on the stand and call her brother out of fear. Now, Ann Emerson, I played the sound for our listeners, but I want you to tell us in detail what she said, how everyone was reacting. I want to hear the whole thing in Technicolor. Tell me everything. I think it's so important to understand exactly what was happening in there it was kind of one of those moments where time slowed down a little bit for all of us because we're hearing that she had just said that that she

knew that he had been there for 15 or 20 minutes and for him to just sort of walk up at that point at a very emotional time when they've just lost you know the patriarch Randolph Murdoch and she he from what she said he came up to her and said I was there for 30 or 40 minutes and she didn't say anything when that happened but it was enough to kind of take her take her a minute but when the when the when the crowds cleared from that from that gathering with all the family there she went and called her brother. Now, what was going on in the courtroom when she told this? It took her a couple of times to get it out. As you heard, it took her a minute to get it out. You've got Alec, the defendant, you know,

sitting at the defense table, and he is staring hard at this witness, Shelley he was staring very hard at what she was saying the family is literally leaning in because you know right you got Buster Murdoch and you've got John Marvin who've been at you know everything Lynn Murdoch I was watching very closely his sister, and they were really listening to this. And you knew that this felt like new information the way she was sharing it. It may be information that they had heard, but they had not heard a woman who was so close to that family say it like that. And you know that jury. That jury was paying, literally hanging on her every word of what she was going to say next it was a it was an incredible powerful moment is this eric go ahead

jump in eric bland you're going to hear after lunch the uh statement that she made um to the investigators and i'm sure she may not have mentioned in such uh clear terms the 30 to 40 minute um suggestion that alex said and understand why she's got a job she's taking care of miss libby alex is not charged at that time alex is still a powerful lawyer at that time. Alex and his family run the county at that time. So it's not beyond seeing why maybe she didn't give such a detailed statement to either the police or to the defense at that time because Alex wasn't charged. Now that he's charged, maybe she has a little bit more personal protection that she feels. But I'm not moved if I didn't hear her say the 30 to 40 minute suggestion in her first interview because Alex is still full of power. Today he's neutered. So that's going to be

interesting to see what we hear after lunch. Absolutely, Eric. That is a defense statement. That's a statement that the prosecution says that they didn't get. So this is the defense handing over 30 minutes or so of a statement that they got from this witness. And the way I understood it, and tell me if I'm wrong, but the way I understood it was that the prosecution didn't have this in their discovery, which I think is going to be a bone of contention for sure they did not they did not it would be like john gatti's lawyer bruce cutler coming up to the witness since and and trying to get a statement and john gatti hasn't been uh accused yet i mean you're going to be a little bit circumspect of what you're going to say and she she viewed Alex Murdoch the same way that somebody in New York City would view John Gotti.

He's that big. Ann Emerson, are you saying that the defense attorney approached Miss Shelley Smith, Michelle Shelley Smith, before Alex Murdoch was charged to get a statement from her? Is that what you're saying? I don't know when this statement was taken. I don't know if Eric caught that, but I haven't heard exactly when the statement was given to the defense. But we know that it was given, and this is new information. At least that's the way they reacted.

The prosecution and the state certainly reacted as if they didn't hear this. I can't understand you. Let me just make it really simple. Do we know who took the statement from Michelle Shelley Smith? Who took the statement? Defense. Okay. Did the defense hand the statement over to the government? No. No. Just now, from what we understand. I want you to hear what we're talking about. It's Hour Cut 9. Christine, if you could play that one more time. And what this is about is Alex Murdoch telling Miss Michelle Shelley-Smith,

oh, yes, I was there 40 minutes the night of the murders. And she's like, no, you weren't. Listen. And what did he take he 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 when um 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 murder that he'd been in 30 to 40 minutes did he indicate to you what he wanted you to do with that information? No. No. What did he say? He didn't say that he was at the house for 30 to 40 minutes. That's it. He said what?

Was he there 30 or 40 minutes that night? Not to my recall. Why are you crying? Because he's a good family, and I love working here. And I'm sorry all this happened. And there you see this lady witness on the stand saying, quote, I'm sorry all this happened.

She is apologizing. He's the one that's accused of double murder. She's not accused of anything. But this lady is crying and she's up on the stand apologizing. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Guys, you heard Ann Emerson joining us on WCIV ABC talking about a blue tarp. I want you to hear it just the way we heard it in the courtroom.

It is Hour Cut 10. And then we'll go to Ann and let her explain and get Dr. Michelle Dupree to follow up. Guys, take a listen to Hour Cut 10 about the blue tarp. He had a blue something in his hand. It was like a tarp that you put on a car. You keep your car covered up. Big thing. Yeah, blue.

And was he holding it like this? He was holding it like this. He fist-fired Mr. Murdoch came in your Alameda residence that morning. This is States 223. Do you recognize that? Yes. What is that? Upstairs.

Going upstairs. And is that where he went, Alex Murnau, that morning? Yes. Carrying some blue thing? Mm-hmm. Did you ever see that blue thing unfolded when you were that morning, or you saw him carrying it? It was unfolded. Okay.

Where did you see it? In the bedroom. When you came back the next day, was that there? No, it wasn't. It was gone? Yes, it was gone. And did you see Alexlex mcnaught leave after he went upstairs do you know what he did upstairs no i don't know that morning

this morning when you first saw him at 6 30 did you observe anything about his face any on his face i think i got a little color a something. Ma'am, I apologize. A little what cut? Like a little bruise or something. Where was it? It was above his forehead. Out to Ann Emerson joining us, WCIV. Ann, what happened?

Well, you know, she talks about what happened about three days after Randolph Murdoch's funeral. She described it like the tents were still up in the yard. early morning it was like 6 30 in the morning when she hears a knock at the bedroom window he doesn't do what he did the last time when he came on June 7th when he came in and and actually kind of came to the door and said let me in he went to a bedroom door knocks on the window she comes around lets him in and he says he's carrying it and the way they sort of described it is this blue tarp vinyl material kind of bundled up and and he's holding it like this like a baby i don't know if you can see it but like holding it like this is the way they talked about it to the point where, you know, she was getting down from the stand, holding like where it was, looking at the blue tarp. There was a lot of

action going on in the courtroom. And I've seen it from both sides, honestly, where they bring the witnesses down to really kind of show what they're talking about. But they do that. But there was also with this blue tarp that he goes up to a bedroom. Now, defense digs a little deeper with Miss Shelley and asks her, you know, how much have you been upstairs? And trying to, I think, poke holes in exactly where she saw this. But what we understand is this blue tarp had gone into a bedroom that she doesn't really go up to very often because she's always with Miss Libby downstairs but he goes he puts this blue tarp over Miss Libby's retirement rocker like an old rocker and then the next day it's gone so there's this mystery around that there's also a mystery around

what car he was driving when he came in and left and then came back it seems like and we're and i've asked the other reporters that we were sitting around i was like did we get a clear idea of like these trucks and and the vehicles that they're talking about that were moving in and out because we heard there was a white truck that day and then there was a black truck that day we also heard that an atv like an all-terrain vehicle they use on these farms and out in the country, had also had been moved on this property at Almeida. This is where Alex's parents, Libby and Randolph Murdoch, lived. So we need to find out a little bit more after lunch about what's going on with this truck and the vehicles and how it ties into what they think happened with this blue tarp. Joining me is Dr. Michelle Dupree, a forensic

scientist, a medical examiner, former detective, and author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide. Dr. Dupree explained the significance of the blue tarp, according to Ms. Michelle on the stand, Alex Murdoch brought over to his mother's home the night of the murders. Well, Nancy, there's a couple things interesting about this. First of all, she said that this was very early for him, that he's never in her three years tenure working there come to visit this early. And he's carrying this blue tarp or whatever it may be there is some significance because during the investigation a blue item was found with

significant gunshot residue on it now is that the same item or not i'm not sure that we really know but what other blue item could there be and emerson i thought she said he never came over that late at night well that's true that true that's what that's what they talked about was she said she hadn't seen him come that late when he came on june 7th um that he normally did not come that late so these were unusual times and she also said that early visiting his mom you, another thing about the blue tarp, isn't it true, Ann Emerson, that gunshot residue was allegedly found on the blue, she thought, a blue tarp? Tell me about the blue tarp.

Well, that's what the prosecution has been talking about, and there's been a lot of, like, talking amongst them, you know, about this tarp versus a raincoat. Was it a raincoat? Because, of course, we know the weather was really bad uh the night of the murders uh but the blue tarp is what they seem to be kind of sticking with right now and yes that's what we've been told early on um in this trial as they as they were going through what kind of evidence that they were going to present they certainly spoke about this blue tarp with with gunshot residue that they found on the inside. And now we need to find out where they actually

got that blue tarp. We've heard that it was in a closet, but we've got to hear more from the prosecution about how they're going to use this. Now, when she describes it, obviously, there was a lot of intimating going on in that courtroom that there was something wrapped up. That's where the prosecution was going with. Something was wrapped up like a rifle. They even said it once. They said, was it like a rifle? And I think they objected to that.

But the defense was like, you know, they're going to argue. They're arguing the semantics of what it looks like to see a blue tarp in somebody's arms wrapped up. So I think that's what they're working with right now. To Eric Bland, high profile lawyer joining us out of South Carolina. Eric, in my mind, in every case I've ever tried, there's always that one moment when everything changes. And I truly believe that Michelle Shelley Smith was that moment. Because I believe that this one witness is so credible and so believable that it changes everything to the state's benefit. Yeah, she covered a lot of bases for the state. She's covering possible gunshot residue. She's covering the power of the Myrdal. She's covering the

alibi creation by Alex. But what she really conveys is the intimidation factor, a witness that you saw the palpable fear and anxiety that she was under just talking about them even at a time where Alex is behind bars and has been behind bars for 14 months so this this is how this happens you know it's going to be interesting Nancy on the drug issue because I heard one of the experts said addiction the state can either use the drugs to their advantage by saying Alex was under opioids which created a heightened sense of anxiety and lack of rational thought I for one don't believe it because I don't think he would be able to appeared in court going to Thanksgiving dinners with his family, be in partners meetings and client

meetings. He would have fallen asleep or would have exhibited some kind of behavior that would have clued people in that he was on drugs. So I think the drug's a red herring issue, but it can be used by the state to say that he wasn't rational when he did it. But this witness, I think Tony Satterfield, when he comes on now and testifies in court, and Mark Tinsley, I may come on to just talk about the confession of judgment that we got. This is looking at Alex in a whole new light. He's no longer, you know,

the shine on the venerable dome is starting to dull a little bit. That's what we're seeing. I think it's true, too. Another thing that came out in court with this witness on the stand, Ann Emerson, is that this witness, didn't she call Alex Murdoch? Didn't she say he was acting very fidgety? Yes, I was going to say, yes, absolutely. She talked about how he very fidgety he was yes i was gonna say yes absolutely she talked about how he was fidgety the defense immediately when as soon as they got into cross with that they tried to like talk about how that's just his personality how he's always kind of on the go and moving but

yes she absolutely talked about how he looked fidgety that night that can't that can't be good yeah but you know i want to tell you one other thing about intimidation um that the prosecution tried to play up as well when they were when they were in when they were uh when she was testifying she talked about how she was getting married and this happened at the same time he said about the i was there 30 or 40 minutes you know talking to shelly at the after that funeral and And, um, she, he said, so you're getting married soon. And she said, yeah. And he goes, you know, weddings are expensive. And she goes, I know. And, um, he was, he said, she testified that he was like, well, you know, he's, I'll be helping out with that. You know, basically I'm going to help. I'm going to help

with that, with that wedding. I know how expensive expensive this wedding is and she took it for the goodness and she even said at one point she thought alec murdoch was a good person um it was their relationship but the fact that she brought it up in this testimony i think it is important to bring up another layer of control and power and intimidation is what this is. And then you knew somebody at her school. Bribe. Go to you. You've handled so many homicide investigations.

I know the defense is going to try to swing this fidgety description to their benefit by possibly saying, yeah, he had an addiction. I don't think it's ever good for a jury to find out you're high. You're high as a kite all the time. I don't think that ever helps. Do you? Not at all. And in fact, what the jury's also going to hear the type of addiction if it's an opioid that's actually going to slow down his you know his internal symptomology which is going to lead us back to that interview in the car the night of that incident you know i look at alex murdoch as a very good, I would describe a three-card Monty player, right? Remember that old game where you find the right card? He is a master manipulator, and he's put so much emotional stress upon that witness that we just saw. However, his undoing is going to be a couple of things that he brought out out of his own mouth the night in that car. A couple of them, one is the fact that he rolls his son over after witnessing, you know, allegedly

body parts next to the body. And what does he introduce into the conversation? A cell phone. Why is that relevant? I think we all can understand that he picked it up and he was going to do something with it and then change his mind and put it down. Well, that just kind of ties into the investigative evidence that we heard about that cell phone screen changing distance. And it also brings relevance to the fact that Maggie's phone is different. But the gun aspect of this is the shotgun that he was holding when law enforcement came onto the scene that night. There he now puts his fingerprints on it. He gives a reason for it. But that also is another three card Monty play, in my opinion, because now the defense can argue, look, this guy, you know, he told you he

had a shotgun. He told you he picked up the cell phone. Well, isn't it interesting that now we have this blue tarp with gunshot residue on it and there is one gun missing. So I think he's he the minutiae details here again Nancy are going to be crucial for the witnesses to continue to testify to and the jury to hear. Dr. Michelle Dupree joining me out of that jurisdiction she's joining us from South Carolina, forensic pathologist, medical examiner, former detective and author. All this evidence we're amassing regarding Alex Murdoch's opioid addiction.

Explain what type of medications that would be in street talk and also how an opioid addiction would affect you? Would you be fidgety or would you be lethargic? Well, Nancy, that's a very good question. It's a very good observation because an opioid is a central nervous system depressant, which means that it slows things down. So we're going to see him instead of be fidgety, we're going to see him be much more like he was the night of the interview, taking things more slowly and he's going to be thinking a lot probably and again not not in a fidgety sense. If that was his normal behavior, fidgeting, then we're

going to see him not do that so much if he's on opioids. The other thing is, if he has had an opioid addiction for such a long time, he is not going to look as healthy as he does. You would never look at him and suspect that he had an opioid, a long-term chronic opioid addiction. Why do you say that? Because you're going to have a thinner appearance. You're not going to appear as healthy. It is an addiction and it causes physical changes to your body. My concern is why haven't they mentioned his gambling issues? We know that judges, attorneys, people in the low country, ever since I can remember, when court is in session, they all go over to Ladies Island and

have big time Las Vegas style gambling games. OK, I hope you're not speaking of that from firsthand witness account. But common names of opioids are Oxy, which can be Oxycodone, Vicodin, Norco, Loratab, Percocet, Tramadol. Those are types of pills that have a high opioid content. And if you want to wonder, what would opioids do to you? Has everybody in this room seen The Wizard of Oz? Yes, no. Yes. Okay. Remember when Dorothy was trying to get to the Emerald City and she came across a poppy field and she became sleepy and the dog got sleepy and the tin man got, everybody fell asleep. I think but the dog. Anyway, long story short, opioids slow you down. So why was Alex Murdoch so fidgety according to and in my opinion the best witness that's been put on the stand bar none the housekeeper of the mom Michelle Shelley Smith I think has been the best witness

that the state has put up so far why according to her was he fidgety if he's on opioids because he just committed a double murder and that leads me to the next thing ann emerson she described what he was wearing when he got there was a white t-shirt and the shorts so what happened to his clothes and emerson well exactly i mean what the what the prosecution is teeing up for us is that that he changed his clothes because we see in the snapchat video from earlier in that day that's already been admitted into evidence we've already looked at it it's he's got on a totally different outfit and this is a couple of hours beforehand an hour beforehand um so this is to to completely change his clothes they asked him when he got you know, they both use it for their benefit.

One is saying his clothes are clean as a whistle is what the defense is saying. And the prosecution's saying that's because he changed his clothes. So you've got these two storylines. It's going to be very interesting to see how the jury reads it. But right now, that's why he's, you know,

every time we see him at any point during that day, someone's asking, what did he have on? What did the clothes look like? And was there blood on it? From what we understand, Shelly did not see any blood on his clothes. So Eric Bland, what did he do with his clothes? Well, that's the question. You know, are they still at Mizzou? I've been there. There's half the acreage is swamp. I know that they have had divers in there and they had divers at Almeda. You know, he knows that country better than anybody else, that country area. So it could be somewhere. We just don't know. Or somebody could have helped them get rid of him. Okay, now, Eric Bland, you're the renowned attorney out of South Carolina, not me.

Now, when I say Eric Bland, where do you think the clothes are? I'm expecting a little bit more than, I don't know. I mean, based on the terrain, based on Moselle. Yeah, I know he got rid of him, but is there a body of water? Is there a ravine? I don't see him taking the time to bury them somewhere because he was trying to establish that alibi

at his mother's house. So, thinking through it... I've been on the property. And? There is tremendous areas of swamp where the guns and those clothes can be buried and they'll never be found. I've been in that country area there. There are a lot of nooks and crannies when he could have been on his way to Almeida after showering and cleaning himself off that he temporarily hid this stuff.

Look, Yellowstone has the train station. There's somewhere in Mizzell area there where there's something similar. Oh, yeah. He got rid of it. But where? And would he have risked going back to the hiding location to secure the clothes, get the clothes and then destroy them, such as burn them? We also don't have a murder weapon. That's not the end of the world for the prosecution. To Ann Emerson, joining us, Senior Investigative Reporter, WCIV ABC. Ann, I heard the judge, wow!

I was seeing an overhead earlier of Moselle. It's huge. Those clothes could be anywhere. I understood that there is, there's going to be half an hour for the jury to listen to something. What is it they're going to hear? Well, the jury needs to hear what Miss Shelley, this witness that was on the stand, they are going to listen to what the defense when they interviewed her. And this is going to be part of this is going to be going into evidence. But the but the jury needs to hear this conversation that the defense had with Shelley Smith. And this is what the prosecution was talking about just before break.

They were like, we don't know about this. We don't have this. It's not discovery. Why not? We need a copy right now. And the judge totally agreed. He said, absolutely. Of course. I mean this was it's extraordinary because this is what the defense was up in arms about five months ago that they weren't getting all the discovery in a timely fashion so it was a surprise for all of us to hear that that this hadn't been put in but there's something else and I don't want to take it too off track, but there is a conversationdoch's former law firm who are also close friends.

John Marvin Buster, Randy. Anyways, there was this whole group of people that had come together to support Alec Murdoch right before he was going to be giving this second interview to law enforcement. The state is trying to get that conversation, witnesses to that conversation entered in. We heard about it on Friday as sort of this court cliffhanger. We hear it today that we're still working toward getting this conversation that we haven't heard before law enforcement got it. What did Alec tell these people that they did not want to have admitted or that they're concerned about what did Alex say to Ronnie Crosby to mark ball to these friends that were supporting them and who was actually standing there it's

gonna be it's gonna be important if it may just be digging a deeper hole as far as his alibi goes that he was taking a nap up at the house. That's what we're all kind of thinking. But we don't know. We don't know what he said to these folks. So that's why they wanted to enter into evidence. And it looks like I think they're getting it. You know, Eric Bland joined me, high profile lawyer out of Columbia. This is a real constitutional conundrum as I see it, because here you've got the defense taking a statement from a state's witness and then not handing it over to the state prior to trial if the state had done that the entire audio the

entire statement would be ruled out the jury would never hear it because the state is under a duty to hand over the evidence to the defense to test and examine prior to trial. So the problem is if the state seeks to exclude it because they never got it before trial to examine, then if there's a conviction there's going to be a reversal because it could be argued the defense was inept they're usually in criminal cases as you know the burden is on the state to produce inculpatory and exculpatory material to the defense yep the defense doesn't have that same burden like in a civil case where there's mutuality of discovery obligations where one side gets to ask for all the stuff of the other side and similarly vice versa. It's a little different in a criminal case.

So there may be reasons why that was not turned over to the state, but there's not the mutuality of obligation to. They didn't want the state to have it. That's why it wasn't turned over to the state but there's not the mutuality of obligation to they didn't want the state to have it that's why it wasn't turned over that said the state has an entirely different burden their burden is to do the right thing and get a true verdict we're about to head straight back in the courtroom I'm hearing that the lunch period it's almost up the jury's gonna be filing back in their seats I don't want to miss that. We'll have the eagle eye out for the conversation. Ann Emerson is telling us about the conversation the state wants in and the defense wants to keep it out. I can only imagine what that is.

Guys, let's go back in the courtroom. Goodbye, friend. This is an I Heart Podcast.