Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Murdaugh: VERDICT WATCH

Episode Date: March 2, 2023

Closing argument are through and the jury now is deliberating Alex Murdaugh's fate.  Joining Nancy Grace today:  Eric Bland  –  Attorney for Gloria Satterfield’s sons- Founder/Partner- Bland Richer, LLP Attorneys at Law, Twitter: @TheEricBland, blandrichter.com  Chris McDonough - Director At the Cold Case Foundation, Former Homicide Detective, Host of YouTube channel- ‘The Interview Room’, ColdCaseFoundation.org Joe Scott Morgan - Professor of Forensics: Jacksonville State University, Author, "Blood Beneath My Feet", Host: "Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan", Twitter: @JosephScottMorg 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, DMichelleDupreMD.com Kelly Skehen - Fox Nation Senior Producer  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Guys, we have just come out of the courtroom and what a morning it has been. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thanks for being with us. We are live at the courthouse here at Colleton County. I want you to hear the first thing this morning, how the whole session got kicked off. Take a listen to our cut nine. A few days ago, I received a complaint from a member of the public indicating that a juror had engaged in improper conversations with parties not associated with the case.

The juror denied discussing the case with anyone not on the jury or with anyone on the jury. She provided information that led us to contact the persons that she was suspected of having conversations with concerning the case. individuals were interviewed and provided an affidavit regarding the contact that the juror had with them. I'm not suggesting that you intentionally did anything wrong, but that in order to preserve the integrity of the process and in fairness to all the parties involved, we're going to replace you with one of the other jurors. You just heard sound of the judge dismissing a juror. Guys, with me, an all-star panel to make sense of what's happening in the courtroom right now, straight out to Eric Bland, high- high profile lawyer who represented the satterfield family eric i can't hear you but i

hope you can hear me what do you make of the judge throwing off the juror um the reason is because the juror disregarded his directive he told the jury in the beginning when they took their oath that they have to listen to him that they they cannot make up their minds, that they cannot begin to deliberate before he releases the evidence and the case to them after he charges them on the law. And this juror obviously made some comments to someone that would indicate that that oath was in jeopardy. And maybe that there were other jurors who complained that possibly that juror was trying to infect the jury room. This is a very serious thing. Both sides want to have a full and fair opportunity to present their cases. And the judge was left with no choice. Eric Bland has been one thing after the next with the jury. I got word yesterday from

a source that's been in the courthouse with me that said two jurors were actually having words. In fact, one juror said to the other, the F you will. OK, I don't know which two jurors said that, but that did happen. I mean, what are they arguing about their lunch order? If you're arguing before they even begin deliberations, that's a bad sign. Well, it is a bad sign. that there is some hard feelings that probably develop when you have this group of different people being put in a room and they can't get to know each other by talking about the case. And then people develop factions where two people start to be close with two people and then another group of people. I think this is a portend to what this jury is going to do.

I think we're going to see smoke and fireworks from that jury room. I don't think we're going to hear peace and quiet. I have some legitimate concerns when you have a six week trial and there is this strong feelings. Look, I'm shaking right now, Nancy. I just heard some of the best oratorial lawyering by John Meadors. I mean, that was from the heart. Okay. I got to tell you something, Bland. John Meadors gave what I consider to be the best summation we have heard. I want you to hear some of that. Let's start with cut 21, Christine. Cut 21. Now, remember, you had the state's closing argument, but in this jurisdiction, like many,

many others, the majority actually in our country, the state has a burden of proof. So the state begins closing arguments, closing argument number one. The the defense comes second and then the state has a final closing argument they get the last word in nearly every criminal case unless the defendant puts up no evidence other than his or her own testimony that did not fit in this category so matters got the last closing argument and he made the most of it. Take a listen to our cut 21. I don't know why he killed his wife and son. I don't have to say why.

I think he did it to protect the one he loved the most. The one he really loved the most. So he could keep his lifestyle and not be embarrassed financially and he wanted to keep going and loving Alex. You are hearing matters lay it down in front of this jury. Bland, I agree with you. Kelly Skian with me. Fox Nation senior producer John Matters by far exceeded all the other closing arguments. Agree or disagree? I agree. I think he put this case in layman's terms and said, look, this is common sense.

And don't get distracted by the smoke and mirrors that Dick Harpootlian is so well known for. This is common sense. Alec Murdoch lied about being at the scene and therefore alec murdoch is the only logical person that have could have killed and did have motive to kill maggie and paul and the only person that alec loved more than maggie and paul was alec alex murdoch loved alex murdoch more than anybody else go ahead bland i'm telling you the the the visual that he painted at the end that both Maggie and Paul testified and that Paul had the insurance policy to make sure his father would not lie in infamy about what happened in those murders. He did the video and Maggie testified, yes, I was shot five times, but I made sure those shell casings were next to my body.

And then, Bubba, I'm telling you, that's why you and I became lawyers, to feel it from the heart. He talked. He didn't read. It was from his bones, Nancy, from his bones. You know, I really admired that about his closing. He was not looking at his notes and flipping pages. He was telling it like it is. And there toward the end, and I want to go to you on this, Dr. Michelle Dupree. One thing he said was that he would still be lying on the ground hugging his son trying to bring the son back to life how could you do that and take pulse and go back and call 9-1-1 all in 20 seconds you've seen you've

been by moselle i agree with him dr michelle dupree nancy i agree with him, Dr. Michelle Dupree. Nancy, I agree with him also. And again, I do not know how at that critical incident when you are right there the night of the murders, when you're being interviewed, how can you not tell the police everything that you know if you're innocent? You want these people or this person found. And Alex didn't do that. Instead, he made up a lie. You know, that's another thing that John Meadors hit, and he hit it hard in our cut 18, exactly what Dr. Michelle Dupree just said. Christine, could you play our cut 18?

I find it offensive that the defense, who the defendant, who was also a part-time solicitor, is claiming that law enforcement didn't do their job. Listen to me, please. Didn't do their job while he is withholding and obstructing justice by not saying, I was down at the kennels. I was down at the kennels. I was down at the kennels. I was down at the kennels. And he's going to blame everybody else.

Is that offensive? Is that offensive? Mr. Griffin said a minute ago, can you imagine coming up on the scene and seeing, can you imagine not telling law enforcement, lying that I was down there and I saw them? I was right there. Why wouldn't you tell them that?

Maybe get some more evidence. Did you hear somebody? No, I wasn't even down there. Credibility. Believability. That really does sum it up. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. I'm telling you, the way Metters laid it in front of the jury,

I do not see how they could turn away from his closing arguments. Also with me, Kelly Skian. Kelly, Fox Nation's senior producer, threw out the defense's closing argument. most of the jurors seemed stoic. They were not really responding to the defense except for one lady that we call the blanket lady because I've seen her pull her blanket up to right here, right here. During the courtroom, you've seen her pull it all the way up over her head. I was very surprised she wasn't taken off the jury when that happened. But that said, I saw her nodding up and down vigorously during the defense closing statement. Yeah, I saw her as well. It looked like she was

hanging on to every single word of those closing arguments by Jim Griffin. Other jurors had their, you know, they were looking stoically at Jim Griffin. I did see one who wasn't even looking at him at all. It's really hard to tell what the jury is thinking at this point, especially after the major shakeup this morning where another juror was dismissed. So they've spent six weeks together and they are just dropping off like flies. And now we have one alternate juror left. To Eric Bland, speaking of the jurors, what is your understanding of what this lady juror did to get thrown off the jury? She evidently told somebody who reported it to Judge Newman that she made up her mind. Now, I don't know whether she said, you know, on innocence or

guilt, but it's completely unacceptable. It is someone who has... Well, I can totally tell you what she said. What did she say? You were in the courtroom with me, Bland, sitting right behind me, because when they three were off the jury, the state went, okay, and the defense said, well, I don't like it because this and this and blah blah blah obviously she was pro-defense or the defense would not have been squawking and clucking about the courtroom when she got thrown off correct i just don't want to impugn somebody's uh character but i am upset that you know they didn't listen to the judge do you think it's you think it's impugning her character that she was pro-defense no i'm just saying i don't listen to the judge. Wait a minute. You think it's impeding her character that she was pro-defense? No, I'm just saying I don't want to hammer somebody.

You know, I'm upset that jurors are not listening to this judge. This judge has given his time. He has been as even temperamental as you can imagine. He hasn't bitten anybody's head off. He hasn't fallen asleep he hasn't tried to take over the courtroom you've had judges who take over a courtroom start asking questions um this guy uh from a solomon-like wisdom standpoint has been great um and i think you know he was joking about the eggs and all but in his heart i think he was upset you know he

doesn't want this jury to be jeopardized i think he was upset you know he doesn't want this jury to be jeopardized i think he was upset too because we're now we're now down to one alternate go ahead eric don't forget two months ago at the russell defeat trial that i was at in federal court uh judge gerbil had to remove two jurors from the deliberations in the middle of deliberations because of the one said that she refused to deliberate any further and another said that she was getting anxious and felt her health was at risk. Listen, that could be what we're going to see in here. And we need 12 jurors. Remember, can't can't compromise and do an 11 person jury in a murder case. It's got to be 12 by the Constitution.

Back to Kelly Skian. Kelly, when the lady juror left, the judge asked her in open court, well, what do you have left in the jury room? And she said, well, my purse and my water. And I brought a dozen eggs in, or a dozen eggs for the jury. And he says, okay, to the sheriff, go get that for her for her and she said I want to take my eggs with me so she took her water and her eggs she's so that was a little levity in the courtroom when she wanted to take the eggs back that she had

brought for the jurors but I could tell she was upset and I could tell the judge does not like losing yet another juror so So she did. She told the judge she left a dozen eggs that she had brought in for the jurors from her farm, her purse and her water in the chambers and which she was not allowed to go back into once she was dismissed. She was brought downstairs. I went downstairs. She looked very shaken, almost embarrassed. And I think something that's really important here is she lied about it. When she was asked if she had discussed the case she said no and we had to in effect have another trial within the trial to get to the bottom of this where they brought in three different people got them on the record

and said no she this woman did give an opinion about the case the judge said look I know it's probably really hard to stay away from media coverage for this case but bottom line is you broke my rules. I can't budge on that. You got to go. Yeah, I could tell she was embarrassed when she left. Guys, another very odd statement was made during the defense closing argument. Attorney Griffin was talking about was Alex Murdoch still home when his wife and son were murdered.

And Griffin says, I don't know. Maybe he was. Okay, that's not a good look for Murdoch being there when Maggie and Paul were murdered. But that is what the defense said. Take a listen to our cut 17. This is defense attorney Griffin arguing to the jury. So we do know from the timeline that Alec left the property at 9-07. Were they killed before he left?

I don't know the answer to that. I don't know the answer to that. But we do know that if he was in the house, when the shots were made down at the kennel, that he would not have heard them. Yeah, right. Okay, I've been saving this moment for Joe Scott Morgan, professor of forensics, Jacksonville State University, author of Blood Beneath My Feet and star of Body Bags with Joe Scott Morgan podcast. Okay, Joe Scott, could you believe your ears when you heard the defense

place their client at Moselle when his wife and son are murdered at Moselle? Not hear the gunshots my rear end. Of course you could hear those gunshots. Of course you could. You're talking about a high velocity round, multiple high velocity rounds coming out of this 300 blackout. Not to mention, if anyone has ever heard the report of a 12-gauge shotgun, not just once, but twice, Nancy, we know that. We have that confirmed. You've got to be living under a rock. There's no way, acoustically, that you could not appreciate that sound, the crack of that rifle. That rifle, it fires a supersonic round that means that it

breaks the sound barrier as it's exiting that muzzle there's no way you could not have heard that and people talk about the distance from the house down to that complex down there it's not that far away you could certainly hear that nancy you'd smell the gun there's no question nancy it's urban warfare yeah you would smell a little bit of gunpowder. There's no question. Nancy, it's urban warfare. You would smell a little bit of gunpowder. I'm telling you. But even if the defense attorney is arguing, which I think he was trying to, that Murdoch was up in the house area of Moselle,

that he would not have heard the gunshots as close as the kennel was to the home that is just not true chris mcdonough joining me director at cold case foundation former homicide detective and host of the interview room on youtube what about it chris mcdonough you know i think uh joe nailed it uh there is no way that if he's down there which we know he is because the kennel video that you know you have seven shots going off two from the shotgun and you know another five from the the ar or the the blackout um you know that sound travels forever in that area i mean i went out there and stood there on the street it was so quiet in the middle of the day. It even gets worse at night. And so there's no way he didn't hear those gunshots go off. Nancy? You know, Christine, I want to, hold on, Eric. I just want Christine to show something while you're talking. I want to get, thank you for the video number one Christine but I'd like to get to where the

dog kennel is and the feed room just keep playing it because we're going to get to it because I don't believe that all of those structures even have walls some of them are more like pavilion like right that's it see right, that's a pavilion-type atmosphere. And if the gun was fired in that area, there's not even a wall to protect the sound. Now, that is definitely inside right there. Okay, what were you saying, Eric? I have represented homeowners that reside near gun ranges, and we've sued them over public nuisance. I've had two of those cases and I've had experts come in and we've had the judge come out and on site, listen to these gunshots go off. Hey, Eric, look at your

screen. Do you see that? That's what I'm talking about. They were not even walled in. Right. And now inside right in there. Yes. High power deer rifle arsenal travels the sound for two miles nancy two miles not just 900 feet two miles i was just wondering if any of the jars actually are falling for the theory that no one would hear the gunshot i mean just got morgan i'm not talking about a little 22 talking about a high power 300 blackout and a shotgun for pete's sake yeah i can't i can't imagine that they would and here's something else you kind of have to factor in nancy where was this jury pulled from remember that we're in a rural area there are a lot of people that possess weapons and have been around weapons they've been around weapons because a lot of people that possess weapons and have been around weapons.

They've been around weapons because a lot of people hunt, Nancy. People are familiar with the sound of weapons. Yes. And, you know, I can imagine them sitting back and scratching their head thinking, oh, my God, you know, you're saying you couldn't hear that? They've been out there now, Nancy. Remember? They took a bus ride, Nancy. That's a good point.

Guys, I want to hear that one more time. If you don't mind, Christine, could you play that one more time, Hour Cut 17? Now, remember, this isn't the state. This is the defense attorney, Griffin, claiming, hey, he could have been there when they were murdered. Did he not understand what he was saying? Take a listen. So we do know from the timeline that Alec left the property at 9-07. Were they killed before he left? I don't know the answer to that.

I don't know the answer to that. But we do know that if he was in the house when the shots were made down at the kennel, that he would not have heard them. Okay now I want you to hear the response by the state and this is John Matters arguing in our cut 20. Take a listen to Matters laying it down. Maybe he just got angry. Maybe he got angry at Paul. Maybe he got angry, you know, he started all this with the boat case. And maybe he just lost it. Maybe he just lost it.

Maybe he looked like a suicide. And then Maggie came. And he had to shoot her. I don't know. Only one person knows. And that's why we've got the motive. That's why we say he did it. But we don't even have to have motive. Just angry. He did it. Nobody else could have done it. Nobody else did do it. I'm

going to get to that. And that's how we prove beyond. And of course, it was never overtly argued, Kelly Skin, Fox Nation senior producer, that if he didn't do it who did that was not actually argued but it's really clear from Meador's argument that that's what he's saying he's the only one that could have done it I mean think about it who else could have done it Kelly these spirits the specter that was on the internet and became angry over the boat crash and then sought vengeance by killing not just Paul, but Paul and Maggie. And wow, darn, Murdoch just missed it by an instant. I mean, according to matters, Murdoch would have had to have passed the killer going down the driveway. I mean,

Christine, could you show an aerial of Moselle, that long sweeping driveway that goes up to the home and the kennels and the gunshot range? I guess they passed each other en route, Kelly. Well, yeah, Nancy. And we heard another theory from Jim Griffin today that maybe it was Alec's drug dealer. Maybe Paul Murdoch found the person who was supplying Alec Murdoch's drugs, confronted them, said, please stop selling drugs to my dad. Griffin alleged that this person was part of a very dangerous gang down here, and that gang then retaliated by killing Maggie and Paul. At the same time, that shooter would have had to know that Maggie and Paul were at the kennels

at that exact same time and hope that Alec Murdoch wouldn't find them killing his wife and son. We also heard today Jim Griffin explain away Alec Murdoch's lies as, quote, just misstatements and saying, quote, that Alec Murdoch, it's not, it's irrational for him to kill. But throughout this entire trial, we have heard from the defense themselves that Alec Murdoch was irrational because of his addiction. Well, exactly. I want you to listen to cut 14. That is exactly what Kelly Skian just described. Listen. Another curious point in Mr. Waters' closing argument yesterday involves Paul's intuitive talent. You will recall that Alex informed agents that Paul was an intuitive little dude. Referred to him as a detective. That Miriam

Proctor, Maggie's sister, said that Maggie referred to Paul as his little detective, her little detective. And particularly when it came to trying to root out whether Alex was still doing drugs. And then he just sort of left it there. For you to then take it and run with it as if Paul must have found Alex using drugs. There must have been a confrontation down there at the kennel,

and that must have been what happened. Now, he didn't go that far in his argument, but he laid it out there for you to run with. But that was clearly the implication. Let me add another scenario that's equally as plausible. What if Paul the detective learned the source of drugs that were being sold to his dad? What if Paul the detective goes to that drug source? That's my dad. You're in my family.

And if you don't, I'm going to tell on you, turn you in. A drug gang? I'm going to tell on you? Where did that come from, Bland? What? Nancy, a drug gang has their own guns, Nancy. They don't come to kill somebody and hope there'll be guns in the house that they could steal and then shoot you with them. They have their own weaponry and they don't use long rifles. They use guns and they come up and they execute shoot you with a handgun. It is preposterous to posture the fact that these people came to kill Paul and Maggie with no guns. That's just insulting. Exactly, Nancy. That's a crazy idea. Go ahead,

Dr. Dupree. I totally agree with Eric Bland. That's a crazy idea. In addition, if you'll remember one of the interviews, Alex actually said, no, no one else was here. He was asked, were the dogs misbehaving as if there was an unknown person or persons around he said no no they were not what does that tell you nancy there's one more salient point here go ahead dear yeah there's one more point here remember what matters when he was bringing down the thunder in his closing there he mentioned he mentioned that the fbi had gotten involved helping sled this what you're not you but what they're implying here is that this is an organized crime event relative to the fbi is already involved they would have they would have sussed this out they would have gotten a dea involved in this as well there's been no evidence

of that so that that's something that uh you know as they say in the lowlands that dog won't hunt guys there's another point to our cut oh yeah i want to hear it go ahead chris so you lay it out there and let them run with it was the word of the day because alex has been doing that from day one uh and remember the interview in the car where he introduced the idea of the cat and or i may have seen them come onto the property i'm not really sure about that uh so this this narcotic this narcotic hit now uh is just uh again uh another fabrication guys i was waiting for the defense to address the big lie the big lie about why he lied that very night. Not when he was paranoid or afraid of SLED, but in the 911 call, Alex Murdoch had already formulated a lie removing himself from the dog

kennels. Kelly Scan, I really thought you were going to fall off your seat in the courtroom when defense attorney Griffin said he lied to avoid scrutiny on himself. Describe that moment, Kelly. I mean, it's just unbelievable. He lied to avoid media scrutiny, and then he lied and then in turn found himself in the middle of media scrutiny in a murder investigation. It just doesn't make sense. And it's yet another example of the ever-evolving story from Alec Murdoch's defense team of what happened that night. Was he home? Was he not home? What is their story here?

I don't even know if the jury is following. But all they really have to do is plant that one seed of reasonable doubt. And I do think that that's their strategy. Confusion. Take a listen to our cut one. They didn't have this kennel video until April of 2022, when Paul's phone was finally unlocked, and that changed everything. Opportunity. Being at the scene of the crime when the murders occurred. And more importantly, exposing the defendant's lies about the most important thing he could have told law enforcement. When was the last time

I saw my wife and child alive? Why in the world I saw my wife and child alive. Why in the world would an innocent, reasonable father and husband lie about that? And lie about it so early. And he could always say, well, Rogan must be mistaken. I'm surprised. Not if my times are right, was what he said. Why would he even think to lie about that if he were an innocent man?

Okay, now here is how the defense countered that. Their response to the big lie, an hour cut 12. Listen carefully to how they explained it away in closing arguments. Listen. We're left with the lie. Alex lied about being down in the kennels. And frankly, I probably wouldn't be sitting over there right now if he had not lied. And he told you why he lied. He said he lied because that's what addicts do. He lied because he had a closet full of skeletons, that he didn't want any more scrutiny on him, which is the most ironic thing in the world because depending on which day of the week, their theory is

that he slaughtered his wife and son to distract from a impending financial investigation. But he puts himself in the middle of a murder investigation, and he puts himself in the spotlight of a media firestorm. That's their motive evidence. He lied because of his drug paranoia kicked in and he was clearly in the throes of addiction. What he didn't lie for is because he was covering up the fact that he killed Maggie and Paul. Joe Scott Morgan, professor of forensics, you and I have seen a lot of cases. But to say a loving husband and a loving father, of course, the jury never got to hear about the affair he had behind Maggie's back.

But that every time they said in court today about how much he loved Maggie and how he worshipped Maggie and adored Maggie, all I could think about was him having that affair and how upset she was till the day she died about that. But that said, Joe Scott Morgan to say, I lied about the last time I saw my child and wife alive to avoid scrutiny on myself. I mean, did the jury get that, do you think? How ridiculous that is?

Yeah, it is absurd. And this idea, Nancy, where they're falling back, you know, that he's an addicted person, that he's literally a junkie. And this has come down. It's come down to this now. This is your defense. This is the best that you have. You're saying that he's so addled at this point in time. He has no perception of what's going on. Either it's one way or it's another. Is this what you're saying? So you being addicted has led to all of these lies, but yet it's a bridge too far to think that, yeah, you may have gone in there and slaughtered your family. Okay, well, you've got lie after

lie after lie. And line look they have talked about that they don't have to prove motive you've taught me that over all of these years i know that they don't but when you begin to piece this together point by point by point on this continuum it's powerful stuff and it comes to this conclusion at the end they're staring everybody in the face certainly that jury is they're going to go back into that uh into that little room together and hey guys i want to hear it one more time go ahead dr dupree so we're forgetting something alex never thought he would get caught that's one reason he lied he never thought he'd be caught he is too smart to get you're leading me to another point dr dupree no matter where i have been at the Mexican restaurant last night,

at, um, in the lobby of the hotel where we're staying here at the courthouse, I mean at Walmart, every, the gas station, everywhere I have been, somebody comes up and says, I'm from Colleton County. My dad knew this and. My sister this. My cousin. All connected to the Murnaugs. They have run this county for a hundred years. I don't know if they're going to run this jury too. But you're right, Dr. Dupree. He never thought he would get caught. He never knew that his voice was captured on that video.

That video is damning. I want you to hear again the defense trying to explain why he gave the big lie. And I was writing in the courtroom, the defense explanation falls flat on the big question. Listen to cut 12. We're left with the lie. Alex lied about being down in the kennels. And frankly, I probably wouldn't be sitting over there right now if he had not lied. And he told you why he lied. He said he lied because that's what addicts do. He lied because he had a closet full of skeletons. That he didn't want any more scrutiny on him, which is the most

ironic thing in the world because depending on which day of the week, their theory is that he slaughtered his wife and son to distract from an impending financial investigation. But he puts himself in the middle of a murder investigation, and he puts himself in the spotlight of a murder investigation, and he puts himself in the spotlight of a media firestorm. That's their motive evidence. He lied because of his drug paranoia kicked in, and he was clearly in the throes of addiction.

What he didn't lie for is because he was covering up the fact that he killed Maggie and Paul. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. You know, back to you, Joe Scott Morgan. Let's talk about something that you and Dr. Dupree, it's your expertise. Let's talk about blood. Because I realized for the first time when John Meadors said it, that that's water I hear running in the background of that video. And he argued to the jury that right there, Alex Murdoch used that hose to clean himself up totally. Not in the shower in the lodge at Moselle, but right there. And you do hear the water in the background of that video.

Yeah, I think that that's potentially plausible. You go into this idea of cleaning. You know, I've held, you know, one of the things I couldn't get past in this when people were talking about the house and this sort of thing, why didn't they take out the drain traps in the house to look for tissue? I'm not talking about blood. I'm talking about actual tissue because think about how violent Paul's death was. And we've already heard about tissue.

And I'm thinking, you know, that's one of the things we do at crime scenes. We take drain traps out. We look for bits of tissue and that sort of thing. I hadn't heard anything about that. But out there at that kennel, if you're rinsing off with a hose, there wouldn't be any drain traps to take apart. I'm wondering how well they searched that area, if there was anything particulate that they found out there that could be associated with him being present for that blast, essentially. You know, because Paul was in a very enclosed area. It wasn't kind of outside where Maggie was shot.

So that tissue being dispersed upon him, it would have left something behind. You know, another thing that happened, and I'd really like to hear Dr. Dupree weigh in on this. In the final closing with John Meadors, he discussed how really the state is damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. He described the blood evidence that was tested on Murdoch's shirt, the one he was wearing, not the one that disappeared forever, but the one that he was wearing. At the beginning, it seemed initially that there was blood spatter on there. When it turned out that it was not, and that makes perfect sense because he changed into a clean shirt, the state did not try to present that. But then, at trial and closing arguments, the defense turned it around to pretend that the state had somehow misappropriated that evidence and used it against the defense.

So they're damned if they make the test and then they're damned if they don't bring that evidence in at trial. Right, Nancy. And again, you know, this is why we do something. We do a presumptive test first and then a confirmatory test. And I'm not sure how this information got mixed up, but it did. And, already heard testimony that he has clothes all over. What if he had a change of clothes in his car and he cleaned up right then? It would be very easy to do. There have been witnesses that even said that he looked like he was fresh. He had a shower. It just doesn't make sense. Well, the defense attacks the state, as I always describe it, when you've got nowhere to go and you're like a feral animal trapped in the corner, you have to lash out. You have to blame somebody. So who are they going to blame? A drug gang? A phantom killer? A random

vigilante? None of that's really sticky. So you know what? Don't look here. Look here. Blame SLED. Blame law enforcement. It's all their fault. Take a listen in our cut 10, how the defense claims that SLED, quote, failed miserably. On June 7th, 2021, Alec Marduk called 911 and Officer Deputy green and then followed by other deputies rolled up on the scene and he is standing on his property his wife and son lie dead in a pool of blood each he's within yards of him and he just put shotgun down. So he's in the circle by virtue of calling 911. And that's fair enough. What doesn't strike us as fair is that the next morning on June the 8th, after the gruesome murders of Maggie and Paul, Collingwood County, and SLED that says,

at this time, there's no danger to the public. Does that tell you that on June 8th, law enforcement had decided it had to be Alec Murdoch? He is at the mercy of the ability of SLED to exclude him from that circle. We believe that we've shown conclusively that SLED failed miserably in investigating this case. You know what, Chris McDonough, former homicide homicide detective now star of the interview room on YouTube that's just part of the deal that comes with the package of being in law enforcement being a prosecutor you are going to be attacked and you are going to be blamed no matter how well you do your job. Look there is in every case I tried that went up on appeal I didn't have a single one where I wasn't accused of prosecutorial misconduct. The first maybe 10 or 12 times, I would be so upset.

I took it so personally. Then I figured it out. An older prosecutor in the office said, that happens on every appeal. It's not about you. That's what they do. And that's what's happening here. I mean, Chris McDonough, have you ever been accused of misconduct? Oh, absolutely, Nancy.

I mean, I've worked over 300 murders in my career, and, you know, 299 of them are perfect. And then there's that one, right, where you get hung out to dry here i mean i think for the very first time uh alec is being held accountable uh and unfortunately they're the only tactic they can use is to blame the other guy i.e sled and the investigators and the and the system as a whole. But I think the system's going to work here. I love the state seal in Latin where it says, while I breathe, I hope. Wow, that really hit home. Because just talking about it, Joe Scott Morgan, death investigator, you've been on so many homicide scenes.

I mean, what was the state supposed to do? They see the t-shirt. It looks like there are blood spatters, very pinpoint spatters near the top. They have it tested. They were wrong. It wasn't blood. So they didn't use it. What are they supposed to do? Not test it because they might be wrong? No, you have to test it. As a matter of fact, you have to exhaust every possible avenue that you have as an investigator. From a forensic standpoint, you collect everything that there is. And I don't care how long it takes. You know, I've worked cases where we rode away from the scene with van loads. And I'm talking about multiple van loads of evidence that have to be tested.

You have to pursue everything. The biggest disappointment, I think, that I have in this case is this absence of weapons, though. But I think that there's an answer to that question. I find it fascinating when they talk about him going to his parents' home, you know, after the fact, you know, a week or so later, and he's taken out a four-wheeler or something like this. I'm wondering how thoroughly all of these properties have been examined. I'm wondering if there are old wells on these properties where those weapons could have been disposed of. Are they sitting at the bottom of an old abandoned well? Is there some other place they haven't looked? Those weapons are out there somewhere.

They didn't just vaporize. So that's my one big thing. And I think that that's one of the biggest hurdles that that jury is going to have to overcome. People want to see a weapon. So that's my one big thing. And I think that that's one of the biggest hurdles that that jury is going to have to overcome. People want to see a weapon, and that's going to be one of the biggest sticking points. Dr. Michelle Dupree, we have gone and we've driven all around Moselle looking at how vast the property is. I think that one day, maybe not in our lifetime, but one day, somebody will find those weapons. They're out there waiting to be found. They've been hidden somewhere that only one person knows. And he's not talking, Dr. Dupree. I think you're right, Nancy. I mean,

this is 1,700 acres. Much of it is swamp. I mean, they could be literally anywhere. And you're right. There is only one person that knows where they are. Dr. Dupree, I was just talking about with Chris McDonough, how many times when a defendant has nowhere to go, nothing to argue, they begin blaming the cops. The cops did this. The cops did that. Hey, it worked in OJ Simpson. The jury actually fell for it. As a medical examiner, I mean, I was thinking about Dr. Reamer, who did such a fantastic job and was just really just burning brilliant. It just oozed out of her. But I could see her getting upset and defensive when she was being attacked. That doesn't feel good for anybody in law

enforcement. When you give it your all and then you're accused of misconduct or doing a sloppy job. What did they want the state not to test the shirt? Because now they're getting reamed out because the shirt was negative and the state didn't bring it in. Nancy, I think this is really a great example of what we call that CSI effect. And I saw it when I was a detective, and I've seen it as a medical examiner. The jury watches TV, and they expect everything to work the way it does on television, and it just doesn't. Every time I testify, nearly every time, I look straight at the jury and I say, this is how it's really done. It's not like on TV. And then I proceed to explain what the real situation is. We also saw Kelly Skian, the attack on police saying that they identified Murdoch as

a suspect at the beginning. And I remember right at the beginning when SLED released a statement, Kelly, and you and I talked about it at the time stating the public is not in danger. And you and I said, wow, they must think it's Murdoch. So that part is true. But on the other hand, you've got two people single out in a remote location, killed execution style, riddled with bullets, no rape, no sex attack, no robbery. So they were singled out. They were targeted. And because the victims were targeted, that means that the general population is not at risk. But, you know, the defense did have a heyday with that, with that big, huge poster of the press release saying the public is safe. Don't worry. Remember

that in closing arguments? I remember that. And I have a list of the things that SLED would have to manufacture here. So they would have to manufacture the fact that these murders were done with family weapons. They would have to manufacture Alec's own alibi, and they would have to manufacture the fact that Alec lied about turning over the bodies before calling 911. So another thing I think that we're also seeing here is Alec Murdoch's influence in this town is actually helping the defense possibly. We even heard that while the police had a search warrant that they could execute at Moselle to search the house, they didn't do that. They offered to put the badge away. So I think his influence impacting the investigation is actually possibly helping the defense here because they are using that to paint SLED as sloppy. And of course, the defense hammered the

theory. Go ahead, doctor. So again, every time we have such a targeted hit like this, which is what this was, yes, the person who finds them or who calls 911 is going to be someone that we're going to be interested in. And just because we believe that the public is no longer at risk doesn't mean that we are singling out and having what we call tunnel vision, only looking at one suspect. You can have that, but still not just focus on one. Nancy can I add some clarity as well? Sure please do. With what Dr. Dupree is talking about so that's what we call the victim risk continuum and what that means is if you take an L for an example and on this side you have environment situation circumstance then you have low medium or high risk activity if

everything starts going to the low risk based on the environment situation and circumstance that means this was a targeted event ie the statistics tell us that this individual who committed these crimes is familiar with these victims and knew and had some type of, you know, a relationship with the victim. If you go to the other spectrum, then that is a stranger event. So everything told these investigators that night that it was definitely somebody close to that environment and that's where they came up with the terminology within the circle guys i want you to hear where the defense will not let go and i completely understand it the theory of two shooters take a listen to our cut 16 you know the most common sense thing here is there were two shooters. Because there were two guns,

and as Mr. Pombach said, one gun is high capacity. Holds 10, 20, 30 rounds. And if you're going down to execute somebody, one gun's enough. Why take another gun that only has three shots? And Dr. Kinsey agreed with the angle coming out of the quail pen so that the angle puts it pretty far away from the door of the feeder room where Paul was killed. But it's not our burden.

It's not our burden. It's their burden to prove to you, based on circumstantial evidence, that all the circumstances are consistent with each other and point conclusively to the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And those facts are just not consistent. Joe Scott Morgan, what do you make of the two-shooter theory? Well, I think that one of the things that they're arguing here is, and certainly I've thought about it, is that why in the world would you employ two long arms?

You know, in the military, you carry a primary weapon like an M4 carbine and you have a sidearm. And you see our troops transition. You see law enforcement do this as well from one to one. I think that their promising reconstructionists that they had they being the defense argued that it would be very cumbersome actually it's not uh if the individual is wearing what's referred to as a tactical sling on this 300 blackout you could chest carry that very easy and still operate this 12 gauge also he's got control over this property he can sequester weapons anywhere he wants to and utilize them here's here's the rub for the defense and they're not addressing this is that

if you want to try to make something look like that there are two shooters why not employ two weapons that would give you the thought that hey you know we've got two weapons that are very difficult to manage uh technically you have to bring them to your shoulder to fire them it seems rather cumbersome well it's the perfect scenario for that so you know you you have to calculate all of this again I think the jury I don't know at this point you you had mentioned how you understand why they're pursuing it and I understand that too because if there's one point that the jury could potentially hang up on, it's going to be the two shooter theory. Is it possible that this could have, that this could have been perpetrated by one person?

And it can be difficult to prove. Exactly, Nancy. And remember, I think that this is Alex's attempt at what we call forensic countermeasures. He knows he's very smart. He knows that this is going to potentially throw off the investigation and that is exactly why someone would do that. Well I always compare it to you have a fork in one hand and a knife in the other. Nobody has a problem with that. An experienced shooter will have no problem with two guns, especially if you employ a sling. And seasoned hunters use slings. They don't tromp through the woods holding the guns in their hands. They use a sling. I find it very hard to believe that Murdoch didn't have a sling. I want you to hear

what I thought was possibly one of the strongest arguments by the state in its final close today. It's our cut 22. And of everything I have heard in the courtroom from the beginning, Meador's closing was by far the best, hands down. Take a listen to our cut 22. You know, it's something else i don't understand your wife and your son have just been killed and you're worried about having a lawyer around and i said well you know just sled agents we need to have a lawyer around really my wife and son have just

been butchered and i'm worried about having a lawyer from the alibis that he's created that he's doing and he says i went and ran you doing. And he says, I went and ran. You might get on my knees over here. Went and ran and I tried to take the pulse of Paul. I'd still be on the ground hugging myself. And I tried to turn him over.

I tried to check his pulse. Tried to check his pulse. Really? I went to Maggie, checked her pulse. And you can't do that in 20 seconds. Wow. You know what? To you, Chris McDonough, that says it all. The way he laid that out about if he found his son lying there dead, what he would do.

Yeah, Nancy, I mean, it's, you know, I come from living at it, you know, with authenticity. As you know, I lost my son who was 20 years old. And I can't tell you what it felt like that day. But I can tell you this. I didn't call a lawyer, nor would I ever call a lawyer at that moment. And he not only called one, he called his firm. He had a firm of lawyers show up that night at the death of his family. I think he nailed it in the closing. I got to tell you something, Chris. I thought I knew it all about grief and mourning

when my fiance was murdered shortly before our wedding. But now that I have John, David, and Lucy, I agree with you. I don't think I could even think about calling a lawyer after seeing my child lying there dead? Straight back out to you, Kelly Scan, I think at that moment, the courtroom just came to a stop when Meadors made that argument. I agree. And I think also the fact that up until this point, we have heard how gruesome these injuries are. So Alec Murdoch saw his own son's brain on the ground and then decided to still check for a pulse.

I think a lot of this stuff is just not adding up. And more ironic, seeing his son like that and then thinking, wow, I better call a lawyer. I don't want scrutiny on me, so I'll just lie about it. Uh-uh. So much has happened, and this court may be behind me. Go ahead. Go ahead, Joe Scott. Nancy, I got to tell you,

one of the things that absolutely has amazed me about this whole process that no one has really talked about relative to Alec. We've heard about how powerful this family is. I want to know why on the day after he wasn't standing out on those court steps and there would have been an endless bank of microphones in front of him with cameras. People that he had summoned with all of this power that this family is supposed to have. That he would have been slobbering and crying and wailing begging for people to come forward help me solve this double homicide where my family has been butchered remember he witnessed this the night before

that's not what happened i never saw that i never saw anybody screaming at the top of their lungs getting up on the rooftops and shouting out, where in the world is this killer? They're running around the countryside out here. We've never had anything like this happen. Where's the horror? Where's the terror? You know, where is it? Because I can tell you, my family, I'd want blood.

I would want them. I would want that person. I would want to drag them through the streets in the city. I would want to know that my community was safe and that I was going to have justice for my wife and my son. That never happened. Guys, the judge is about to charge this jury with the law by which they are to judge the facts of the case. This will be the judge reading the black and white letter of the law. And then this jury finally begins jury deliberations. Thank you for being with us. We're headed straight back into the courtroom for the jury charges.

Goodbye, friend. You're listening to an iHeart Podcast.