Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - Pill Popping Serial Liar Alex Murdaugh Admits at Murder Scene

Episode Date: February 24, 2023

Alex Murdaugh's cross-examination continued today with the disgraced attorney admitting that he had lied many times. Not only had he lied to investigators and clients but also his loved ones. Still, he insisted that he was telling the truth about his innocence. Murdaugh's testimony ended today and Dick Harpootlian, one of Alex Murdaugh’s lawyers, says more witnesses will be called on Monday. The prosecution could call two rebuttal witnesses after that. It's possible the case may be in the jury’s hands by mid-week.  Joining Nancy Grace today:  Ronnie Richter - Attorney for the Satterfield family and other victims of Alex Murdaugh; Partner at Bland Richter Law Firm; Twitter: @BlandRichterSC   Jeff Gentry - Forensics-Crime Scene Investigator, Certified bloodstain pattern analyst and death investigator, fmr. toxicology lab analyst; Author: “A Visual Guide to Bloodstain Pattern Analysis: Bloodstain Pattern Analysis for Death and Crime Scene Investigators;” TikTok: @jeffreygentryBPA, Facebook: Jeff Gentry Bloodstain Pattern Analyst Susan Constantine - Body Language Expert that specializes in deception and detection; President of the Human Behavior Academy; Author: "How to Spot a Liar in 7 Seconds or Less"   Dr. Michelle DuPre - Former Forensic Pathologist, Medical Examiner and Detective: Lexington County Sheriff's Department; Author: "Homicide Investigation Field Guide" & "Investigating Child Abuse Field Guide;" Forensic Consultant Anne Emerson -Senior Investigative Reporter, WCIV ABC News 4 (Charleston, SC); Host of Award-Winning 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. The judge has just ordered the jury out for a lunch recess and I noticed that it was when the state said this may be a good time for a recess. The state is right in the middle of a Syrian cross-examination of double murder suspect Alex Murdoch on the stand and he's got him caught in so many lies. As a matter of fact, he changed his story again in the last 20 minutes. I think I've got this right. First he said he checked Paul and Maggie's pulse when he found them dead in the kennel, then called 911.

Okay. In court, he said the reverse. That he saw them, went back to his phone, called 911, and then went to go check their pulse. Now he's saying he was calling 911 while he was checking Paul, his son's pulse. Okay, a lot happening in the courtroom. The jury has just left for their lunch break. With me, an all-star panel to make sense of what is happening right now. To Ronnie Richter joining us, a high-profile lawyer for the Satterfield family and other Alex Murdoch victims, partner at Bland Richter. Thanks for being with us, Ronnie. What do you make? To me, this is significant because even though it was many years ago, the day my fiance was murdered, I remember exactly what happened when he left the house that morning and I never

saw him alive again. So do you find it very unusual this is his third story? No, I mean, not for this particular player, right? We know him to be a liar. So he is consistent with his stripes. This is what he does. You know, and this is the hazard of taking the stand that you've taken a very complex case and you've boiled it down to a single issue. And that is, does a jury believe Alex on the most important lie of his life, the lie he told the police about where he was at the time of the murders? Do you believe him or not? Because if he's lying, it means he's lying because he has a reason to lie. So it all boils down to that one issue.

Okay, I had a thought, and I want to see what you think about it. Guys, also with me in addition to Ronnie Richter is Jeff Gentry, a forensics expert joining us out of Fresno, Susan Constantine, a nonverbal communication expert. She's watching his every move, not just listening to what he is saying dr michelle dupree pathologist medical examiner and detective and author and we're waiting for ann emerson from wciv abc to come out of the courthouse guys i want you to help me articulate this okay he is trying to explain why he lied. Within 20 minutes after the murders, he was

concocting a lie that he had never been at the dog kennels. And now that he and his lawyers have seen the state's case, and they know that there is proof he was at the dog kennels, he's like, oh yeah, well, I was there. You got me. Now, why is it that that night he knew that being at the kennels earlier in the evening would incriminate him? Only the killer would know what time the murders went down. I mean, for all he knows, the murders happened five minutes before he got back home. So, the fact that he knew to lie about the critical moment of the killing, about his whereabouts, he could have easily told the police the truth, Dr. Michelle Dupree. He could have said, I was just there. I was out at the kennels. We were playing with the dogs and we did a Snapchat video and a cell phone video and everything was fine. And I

got in my car and I went to my mom's. I was there 20, 30, 40 minutes. I came back and they were dead. But he, of all people in the world, knew that that moment, that timing was critical. Only the killer would have known that. Nancy, that's exactly right. And, you know, look at that video again. He does not seem paranoid. I mean, not at all. He seems actually rather relaxed.

He is not distrustful of law enforcement at that point in time, but he keeps telling in his rendition of this, he keeps saying how he distrusted SLED. And again, he has worked with these guys for years. I just don't see it. He doesn't look paranoid at all to me until he begins to break down in tears and then things start to change. You know, I think he turns those waterworks on and off at will. You know, Ronnie Richter, are you getting my gist of what I'm saying? I may not be articulating it as well as you could, but you can stick with your story about you went to your mom's and you laid down on the bed and you were there for, well, he says 40 minutes. The caregiver says, he says 40, she says 20. But how would he know to lie about the moment of the murders if he were not the killer?

No, I get your point exactly. And I think it's going to be very difficult for a jury not to navigate around that one. But what he didn't know at the time of that police interview or what he didn't appreciate, I think is the fact that that video existed at all. So now fast forward, you become aware of the charges, you become aware of the state's evidence, you become aware of this video

and it becomes critically important that you back up and explain, you know, how is it that you gave a different account to the police? And I think he's doing a terrible job of that right now. Joining me is Jeff Gentry, Forensics Crime Scene Investigator, Certified Blood Stain Pattern Analyst, Death Investigator, and former Toxicology Lab Analyst. Man, Jeff Gentry, you've worn a lot of hats. What Dr. Dupree just mentioned about him not seeming paranoid. He wasn't fidgeting.

He wasn't scratching at his nose or his face. He wasn't rubbing his hands back together. He wasn't shaking any of his limbs. Christine, could you show the video, not out loud, no sound, but I want everybody to see him in the vehicle, in the cruiser. He's just sitting there, calm as can be, telling his story. I mean, look at him. You are a former toxicology lab analyst. What do you make of what Dr. Dupree just said? I completely agree. It's ridiculous to think that he is just making

this up on the fly. It's crazy. This is all planned out. It's concocted. I've investigated hundreds of deaths, and I've seen people that are under the influence. I've seen people that die as a result of overdoses. And he didn't really seem to be under the influence. He was pretty cognizant of what was going on. He was aware of his surroundings. He was acting appropriately. He was answering the questions that he wanted to answer. I've also seen people that have witnessed death. I've seen family members that witnessed death, and they do not act like this. You can tell when it's genuine feelings of pain and anguish after witnessing a death or finding a family member dead. You don't see any of this with him at all. I've also seen the flip side of it. I've seen when

families have something to hide or suspects have something to hide. And that's exactly what you're seeing here. It's no surprise. His actions are scripted. They're scripted in court. They were scripted the day that he committed these crimes. So everything that you're seeing, you would expect to see in somebody this line. OK, Susan Constantine with me is master of psychology, deception and body language expert, author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Reading Body Language. OK, I'm going to take that in the best possible intentions. But, Susan, I want you to listen. Christine, just turn this around for you guys to hear. Hour cut 20.

This is when he changes his story. Well, this is his first story about telling the police he checked the bodies, both of them, and then called 911. This is what he said that night. and I could see his brain on the screen. And I ran over to Maggie. Actually, I think I tried to turn Paul over first. You know, I tried to turn him over, and I don't know. I figured it out. His cell phone popped out of his pocket.

I started to try to do something with it, thinking maybe, but then I put it back down really quickly. Then I went to my wife. Did you touch him at all? I did. I touched him both. I tried to take, I mean, I tried to do it as limited as possible, but I tried to take their pulse on both of them.

And, you know, I called 911 pretty much right away. Okay, now see, that's got to sink in with the, as I'm calling it, the OnStar data of him opening and closing the car and opening and closing the car repeatedly in those minutes. Susan Constantine, what do you make of his body language there, right there? Well, I think, is this the one we're talking about that he was in the police car? Because I don't see the video in front of me. But what I will speak to is... that's it. Okay. Okay. So when I'm watching his body language, first of all, let's go back a little bit. You're talking about paranoia, paranoia, you should be able to see whites above the eye that looks like this, the eyelid is lifted up. And you're in a state of paranoia, and your mouth drops. So I've seen this paranoia expression quite a

bit with serial killers and people that are detached from their emotions that was not paranoia the other thing is that I noticed is that in paranoia your forehead will crinkle because your eyelids are raised that's paranoia and the same thing is what you're saying Nancy is you would see the fidgety nests the anxiousness, the oddity of the language, the fast pace of the language kind of going in and out. I've seen people on opioids when they are in that paranoid statement or stage that wasn't it. His body language is left quite open. He has one hand that's rested with his fingers just slightly closed, more in a relaxed

position. I did not see a sense of franticness about him. I didn't see a lack of concern or or even fear. Those emotions were not present in that car. Guys, Christine, could you pull up Pull up our cut 19. This is when Alex Murdoch is questioned on getting out of the car and checking the bodies. Take a listen. Looking at this data to show the vehicle parking at 10.05 and 55 seconds. Yes, sir. 10.05, 57. The Suburban arrives at the kennels you agree with that okay the 911 call was at 1006 14. okay just about 20 seconds later you agree with that i think that sounds right yes sir i saw them and i know i jumped out of my car, but I believe that before I checked them, in fact, I'm almost certain,

then I went back, and I got my, that's when I went and got my phone, and I called down one way. I want to belabor this point, that what you're saying here today, now that we have this data, that's not exactly how you expressed it to law enforcement in your prior statements. Is that correct? No, sir. I disagree with that. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Looking at this data to show the vehicle parking at 10.05 and 55 seconds. Yes, sir. 10.05, 57. The suburban arrives at the kennels. Do you agree with that?

Okay. The 911 call was at 10.06, 14. Okay. Just about 20 seconds later. Do you agree with that? The 911 call was at 10-06-14. Okay. Just about 20 seconds later. Do you agree with that? I think that sounds right. Yes, sir.

I saw them. And I know I jumped out of my car. But I believe that before I checked them, in fact, I'm almost certain, then I went back and I got my, that's when I went and got my phone and I called down one way I want to belabor this point that what you're saying here today now that we have this data

that's not exactly how you expressed it to law enforcement in your prior statements is that correct? No sir I disagree with that Okay hearing that Christine let me know when we get Ann Emerson outside of the courthouse because I want to find out how the jury was reacting to that.

To you, Ronnie Richter, lawyer for the Satterfield family, what do you make of what you're hearing? Well, I mean, you hear stark inconsistency, right? But the worry is, is it getting lost on the jury? I'm with you. How are they receiving this? Do they see the stark difference between the two different accounts? And not just the difference, but obviously what's happened in the intervening span of time is Alex has come to learn the evidence that the state has. And chameleon-like, he's able to shape the story to match the new facts. You know, there's no way he could have done everything that he first described

if his Yukon pulled up and 20 seconds later he's calling 911. So, obviously, he's shaping the story to fit the evidence. Yes, now that the state's case has been made clear, his story is evolving. Now, there was a moment, and you can see it in our cut seven, where Prosecutor Waters and Murdoch square off over the first time he ever reveals publicly that he actually was at the scene of the murders. Take a listen to our cut seven. When I got arrested and I went to jail, we began reaching out to you to talk to you about all of these things, to try to tell you you everything that I've done to give you all these details to help y'all go through these financial things and up until the time that y'all charged me with murdering my wife and child you would never give Jim Griffin a response

to our invitations to sit down and meet with you. Are you saying that you ever before yesterday reached out to anyone through yourself or through your attorneys and reached out to anyone in law enforcement or the prosecution and told them the story about the kennels? Are you telling me that? When I'm telling you, Mr. Waters... Answer my question first, please, sir. No, sir, I did not.

This questioning about him volunteering information on these charges violates his Fifth Amendment rights and we strongly object. Objection is overruled. He did not bring it. He was talking about financial stuff. Okay, Richter, it does not violate his Fifth Amendment right because he has waived his Fifth Amendment right when he got up on the witness stand. He is no longer invoking his right to remain silent. Hello, he's on the stand testifying. So there's no more Fifth. So did you hear the objection on the Fifth Amendment ground? That's ridiculous. This is the hazard of putting the man on the stand. I don't know if they put him there or he insisted to go, but

everything that had come into evidence up until that point in time is fair game on cross-examination. Everybody would have known that in making the decision that he's going to testify. And the financial crimes are front and center. It is the state's motive case. However you feel about that motive, it's a little shaky, but it is the motive case the state put on. It's fair game for cross-examination. It's a ridiculous objection. Ronnie Richter, attorney for the Satterfield family, you seem to suggest that the motive is shaky. But isn't it true that the state is never required to show any motive at all? And by showing the extent of his lies and his debt that the world was spinning out of control for him, that sounds like motive to me, Richter.

The state doesn't even have to show motive. Well, you're 100 percent right. The state does not have to show it. But as a practical matter, the jury always wants to know it. Right. So whether you have to prove it or not, the jury wants to know, why did you do this? And the idea that I was under such extreme financial pressure that it caused me one day to break and go home and shoot my son's head off and brutally murder my wife, that's shaky. But having said that, the defense has now made this a single issue case. Do we believe Alex or not on his account about where he was at the time of the murders? Because he lied about it he did it because it was important to lie about and Susan Constantine I think I hear you coming in uh and I want to ask you yes I hear what Richter's saying and he's got a really good point but he's trying

to apply logic to an illogical thinking pattern nothing Murdoch did stealing nine million dollars being high on Oxy all the time doing all the cover-ups he did none of that makes sense for a guy that's got a great reputation he's got a great family standing he's got a beautiful wife two sons three properties that i know of so none of this makes sense susan no it doesn't make sense and i knew that once he took the stand, because he's now trying his own case, that the more he speaks, the more he's going to reveal himself. Deception Detection 101 is shut up and let him talk. Because when he keeps talking, he's going to start refuting the things that he's already stated. And then the state can come in and then go back and pull up what he had

said and see how they contradict. So I think this was a big win for the state because he's trying to try his own case and his lies are being revealed, especially when he's tried and he's tried and he's tried again, which is nothing but an attempted failure over and over again. So the word tried is a real big one for me. Susan Constantine, you're on it as usual hold on hey i think i've got ann emerson in the seat she's just come out of the courthouse senior investigative reporter wciv abc and she's also the star of a hit podcast called

unsolved south carolina the murdoch murders money and mystery and thanks for being with us first of all i've got to know did a juror cry yesterday um oh well what i was seeing was i didn't see tears but i saw a lot of emotion a lot of leaning in from where i was sitting what i did see was at some point uh they there was there was some person who was actually from the jury that was actually handing a box of Kleenex to the defendant. So that was an extraordinary moment. As far as actual tears from one of the jurors, I didn't witness any tears. Dear Lord in heaven, Richter, you're a trial lawyer. What's worse, a juror crying or a juror handing a box of Kleenex to the defendant on the stand?

I'm also a southerner, Nancy. I can tell you that we can slip you a box of Kleenexes and stab you in the back at the same time. So I'm not. Oh, that's true. Yeah. Okay. That's very true, Richter. Very true indeed.

The next thing they'll say is bless his heart. Okay. Ann Emerson, back to you again. Thank you for elbowing your way out of the courtroom because there is a bottleneck coming out of the courtroom and getting down those stairs. So that's what I was really listening to as far as some of what was happening in that courtroom. As you just said, there is a huge crowd in that courtroom today. It is absolutely packed. I heard that this morning at like six o'clock in the morning, they were turning people away saying you're never gonna get in because they had actually Right in front of me gone all the way to Hampton Street

If you remember Hampton Street it that line wrapped around and up to the top of the court Where the courthouse steps are now on top of that you it was a little bit more boisterous in there to the point where the judge actually had to say to everybody that had come to watch this, there will be no jeering, there will be no discussion. Everybody needs to be absolutely silent during the proceedings because whenever there was a moment where perhaps the public thought that Alec Murdoch was getting away with something or that Creighton Waters had made a great point, There was definitely a pro-state sort of audience up there. You would hear a little jeering or maybe a couple of claps. And as you know, that just cannot go on in Judge Newman's courtroom.

No. So there was that whole kind of feeling. It was a little bit more of a circus today than most days. Wait, wait, wait. This is not the Brooklyn Zoo. People are clapping and cheering and or jeering. I'm surprised Newman didn't throw him out on the rear end. I'm shocked. But they didn't. But what he did say was before the jury came back after a break, he said there will be none of that again.

Like you've gotten your warning. You're a new crowd in here. No one is making another sound in my courtroom. So he got it under control there. But but it was absolutely going in the early part of this morning for sure. I'm very, very disappointed, not in the judge, but I'm disappointed in the group in the courtroom. I mean, it's like they all bellied up to the bar and they're watching WWE up on the TV screen for Pete's sake. Do you know? And well, of course you do, because you're a veteran journalist. That type of behavior can cause a mistrial. Did you know that any outburst in the courtroom? You run the risk. Do I think it's viable? No. But can it happen? Yes. They could actually be a mistrial over that kind of behavior.

Well, you're absolutely right, Nancy. And, you know, that is what was Newman trying to stop it, I think, as soon as he had a break. However, we've had this once before in the courtroom where it was even louder. And I don't know if you remember this, but it was probably maybe week two, maybe week three. We're on, you know, we're headed into week six next week. So, you know, we've had one other instance of this and it definitely was jarring for anyone because it makes your stomach jump, doesn't it? I mean, you're like, oh my gosh, we can't get this far and then have a mistrial with things going the way they're going right now. But it was extraordinary. Now, as far as what happened in there i definitely saw that the jurors were paying a lot of attention there is a uh there is a very

strong beeline into this timeline right now they're working really hard waters is working really hard to nail down the defendant on these details of where he was after that kennel video before he left for almeda and boy all I can say is when y'all were listening to it, you know, we are down to seconds. We are down to seconds of where he was in that house and whether or not it is logical, whether he would have heard anything at that point. I am looking for my little trial notebook. I had it down to, I think, an 11 second window between the time that Maggie answered her last video or Paul, and then they all went dead. No more responses. There's that window right there. They're really hammering him, and he's changing his story a lot today in the

last 30-35 minutes about the Kettles story. Guys, take a listen to our Cut 8. But you admit information was never conveyed that you wanted to change your story after multiple interviews with law enforcement about what happened that night, including the most important fact of all, which is when the last time you supposedly saw your wife and son alive was. I understood to bring all this to a close that y'all would want me to sit down and go through all of these financial things, all of these things that I'd done wrong, and to try to bring that to a close.

The reality is, Mr. Murdoch, is the reason why no one's ever heard that before is because you had to sit in this courtroom and hear your family and your friends, one after the other, come in and testify that you were on that kennel video. So you, like you've done so many times over the course of your life, had to back up and make a new story that kind of fit with the facts that can't be denied. Isn't that true, sir? No, sir, that's not true. The second that you're confronted with facts that you can't deny,

you immediately come up with a new lie. Isn't that correct? Mr. Waters, have we established I have lied many times, but I can't sit here and tell you that, what are you talking about, facts that I can't deny? I admit again that I have lied to people that trusted me. Okay. Also, new details are now emerging with Murdoch on the witness stand about the night of the murders. Take a listen to our Cut 9. When did you take the shower that you've been talking about to this jury? I believe when I first went in the house. I mean, I would have talked to Maggie for a second, but I'd seen her that morning.

You left your clothes on the floor? I'm not sure. It makes sense to me, given what Blanca's said, but I couldn't tell you. About what time was that, you think? In looking at the records, I think that was a little after 8. I came back out, sat down on the couch to eat dinner. And you say Paul was already eating at that point? He was. And just to be clear, but I didn't see him. All of this detail was people were hearing for the first time yesterday, like we talked about before.

Yes, I did not tell law enforcement. And all of this, the last time you saw your, supposedly saw your wife and child, all of this detail, you as a lawyer and a prosecutor didn't think that was important to offer on your own? Well, I think it's important. You told this jury how cooperative you've been and how much information you wanted to provide, but you left out the most important parts, didn't you? I left out that. I sure did. The very last time he saw his wife and his son alive. Hey, guys on the panel, remember, we're not having high tea with King Charles at Windsor Castle. Jump in, people. Richter, back to you.

You're the trial lawyer joining us, but all of you, I think, can relate to this. The last time everybody's lost somebody they loved. I lost my fiance. He was murdered shortly before our wedding. I remember the last time I saw him. He was driving away and I was standing there waving at him, leaving early, like five o'clock in the morning, and he held his left hand out of his car and waved back. The next thing I saw of him, he was in a casket. and he held his left hand out of his car and waved back.

The next thing I saw of him, he was in a casket. I remember that. How did he leave out the last time he saw Maggie Murdoch alive? The last time he saw his son alive. Richter, you're a veteran trial lawyer. How could an individual forget that or get it wrong somehow? Well, you can't. You know, and it's a credibility case now. Forensics don't matter anymore. I don't think any of it matters anymore. I think all that matters is are they convinced with the account that he's now giving? And how could you be when the account keeps changing?

I think those events would be emblazoned in his mind. I don't see any room for any ambiguity here whatsoever. He's had nothing to think about since the time of their deaths except this very thing. I think he would remember every look. I think he would remember every comment. To think the details like this are somehow absent is not credible. And Dr. Michelle Dupree, pathologist, medical examiner, you have processed so many homicides. You've talked to so many witnesses that were the last ones to see the

victim alive. That's very important in your line of work to determine cause of death sometimes when you need to look at extrinsic evidence beyond the victim's body. What do you make of him? He can't remember the last. It just happened an hour ago for Pete's sake. An hour, an hour and a half. He doesn't remember the last time he saw them. He can remember some things so clearly, things that are not really that important and the important things he is so fuzzy on. And it's clearly evident now that he was much more interested in setting up an alibi and confirming his story with Blanca and Shelly before he ever gave law enforcement the real information. You know, talking about that, I'm going to circle back with you, Susan Constantine, but first I've got to have corroboration from WCIV Ann Emerson. Ann, if I have to hear about the chicken and Bubba getting the chicken and Bubba was proud he caught the chicken, blah, blah, blah. Who gives a flying fig

about the chicken? He talks about it and talks about it and talks about it. Why is that something comfortable for him to talk about? No, it's what he's got to fill in the gaps now, right? Now that he's admitted to this, to the big lie of the of the kennel video, he has to try and make this timeline fit. And that is exactly what he's doing. He's telling the jury to their face. Once again, I really wanna talk about like that body, like his big six foot four frame is filling that jury box.

He is looking straight at the jury the whole time. He's telling this new account of the story that no one has ever heard before, including, I guess, his lawyers to some degree. We're hearing this brand new account. He's got to fit it into this really tight timeline that we've been talking about. And part of it is how do you get a live animal or a dead animal out of the jaws of a big dog in just a couple of seconds, get that chicken up on a crate and then get back in your golf cart and somehow say goodbye very,

very quickly and then race up to the house. That is what Creighton Waters is trying to break down and make him kind of lose track of time possibly a little bit because that is really the crux of this whole case, isn't it? As far as having some really strong threads to build this rope for the state. This is what we're talking about. And I think we're getting very close. If I hear that chicken story one more time, I'm going to call the chicken in as a hostile witness. So you, Susan Constantine, what about it? What do you make of his demeanoranor every time he gets in a bad spot he'll start snotting up or start talking about the darn chicken and the dog and the bubba and the this and the spit cup it's just for those of you don't they don't know as chewing tobacco and you spit it

into a cup okay that said go ahead Susan Constantine. Well cluck cluck cluck I just had to say that one since we're talking about the chicken. You had to. I just had to do it. So anyway, liars always move away from the truth, right? So they try to use as distractors and the chicken and all this other kind of jazz. But they also skip over all this incriminating information. So he's trying, like I said, he's trying to fit his narrative together, the timeline.

So he intentionally skips over, minimizes, removes, omits crucial information because it's really important. So back to all of these little stress indicators. What's going on is his mouth is dry. We know that through just the vocal cords get dry, they become strained. He starts licking around in his mouth. He's pushing away the inside of his mouth away from his teeth because of the dryness of his mouth. That in itself is not a deception indicator, but when you combine it with what he's saying that his demeanor with the anxiousness the nervousness

and the crying and in the amount of crying so what i had stated earlier in another show is that what he's doing is he's pushing these emotions so on a scale of intensity it didn't warrant that level of intensity, but he's forcing it. So you can see it in his forehead. His skin becomes extremely red, really flushed. And then you see all of a sudden the snot and everything else all flowing down. So he's pushing these emotions. And that's why for others that are looking at it are looking going you know wipe your nose or something because it's really disgusting but he doesn't he leaves it there so that everybody can see it because what he's doing his need is to to feel people to feel sympathy and compassion for him and that was my concern with two of those jurors to you dr michelle, joining us, pathologist, medical examiner, former detective, author of Homicide Investigation Field Guide. People have been going crazy on social, if they're right, about him sucking his teeth and his mouth is dry and he's licking his lips, just like Susan Constantine was describing.

Why does your mouth go dry when you lie or you're under emotional duress? Well Nancy it's really still part of that fight or flight response and your mouth becomes dry because you're you're scared you're nervous you have anxiety and that's going to cause your mouth to go dry when you're not telling the truth or you're nervous or you know whatever may be the case. You know to you Nancy. Go ahead. oh okay there was something else that I wanted to point out and it was a note that came up as he was talking as someone said earlier very astutely on the panel you know you the more he talks the more he's trying to fill in some of these details and more trouble he could possibly get into with

his story and one thing that he said, and that was, there was nobody around for them to sense, talking about the dogs, because they were like, why weren't the dogs barking? Did you hear the dogs? Was there anything going on with the dogs? And he said very clearly, Alex said, there was nobody else around. There was nobody else around. That's why the dogs weren't at high alert. That's why we didn't have any problems with them. You know what? We were just going to play that Ann Emerson. You read my mind. Were the dogs barking and carrying on or going out into the woods or acting like they sensed somebody was around that they didn't know?

Were the dogs acting like there was somebody around that they didn't know? Yeah, like dogs do. No. No, they weren't. There was nobody around that the dogs didn't know. Okay. Dogs didn't, to your indication, sense anything out of the ordinary? They were just chasing after the guinea?

There was nobody else around. All right. There you go. There was nobody else around. There you go. There was nobody else around that the dogs didn't know. Nobody but him. I was going to ask you. Show up 30 seconds later. One person wrote in on social. So what happened?

He was there at the kennel. And then what was he doing for the next four minutes? Picking blackberries and sunflowers out of the back lot. I mean, it just nothing he's saying right now is making any sense. Hey, Jeff Gentry, let me ask you a question. The reason we're talking about the significance. Well, for a lot of reasons, evidentiary, probative reasons, whether he called1 before he checked their pulse his story has varied now as a matter of fact and correct me if i'm wrong i wrote it down during testimony and emerson he's

now saying wait a minute i called 9-1-1 while i was checking paul's pulse he actually said that he said that didn't he and that's right he's he's now trying to marry those time lines they're trying to marry that time of when he called 9-1-1 and when he was checking pulses and checking the bodies of maggie and paul and who came first he's not real sure but he was going back and forth checking these bodies in sort of this chaotic fashion and I'll tell you what it reminds me of is a it's a book that that that Scott Peck wrote called People of the Lie and it's very interesting to hear whether or not he remembers or whether or not he is weaving he's trying to create this this blurred timeline at that point, just not trying to like sit on the truth necessarily. But in his mind, he's telling now the story that he's saying to the state is it wasn't,

he wasn't trying to lie to David Owen, to Agent Owen about that timeline. He was just not, he was just panicking. He was running from body to body. He was calling 911 at the same time. That is just not a clear timeline now. And for him, that works with what he's trying to say. Jeff Gentry joining us out of Fresno. Jeff, you are a bloodstain pattern analyst and death investigator. I think it's going to be critical because of the blood maggie's blood on his steering wheel did he check the pulse and then go back to the car to get his cell phone did he have a cell phone on him at what point did maggie's blood get on his steering wheel so going going back to the the previous about him checking pulses

and everything while he was on the 911 call. So I've also had EMT training. And so both of these people had injuries incompatible with life. So Paul had essentially, you know, his brain blown out of his head.

So he's laying there dead on the ground. No reasonable person would check a pulse on somebody that has their brain next to their body. And then Maggie, she was shot multiple times with a AR-15 style rifle. I don't know if you've ever seen people that have been shot with those guns before, but the damage is not pretty. So her also, any reasonable person, especially an attorney, somebody that has law enforcement experience experience would not go up and check the pulse of these individuals they would be on the phone immediately you know with 9-1-1

trying to get help they would realize that you know there's probably not much that can be done but as far as the the blood that was transferred to the steering wheel that was probably done earlier on i mean i know it was wet there uh the the condition when he was driving to his mother's house it could have already been transferred at that point um I I am personally of the opinion that he disposed of his bloody clothing I mean the the assault was very violent he was in close proximity to the victims so it makes sense that he would have some blood on his clothing, on his shoes, somewhere on his body as long as well as GSR. So he knew that. And Emerson, I've got to ask you a question before you begin to make your way back into the courthouse.

The jury is showing no recognition of these lies. There hasn't been one eye roll, not one shake of the head, nothing? No, I think much more to the point there have been a couple of times where I've seen jurors literally just turn their back to the whole conversation that he's having with himself about what happened. And, you know, trying to explain to Creighton Waters, I literally have seen body language where, you know, jurors literally kind of move to be looking in other directions. So I think it's even more than that. I saw another one kind of just look down. Absolutely, to your point, I'm definitely seeing recognition of the fact that this does not add up at times. Specifically, when I'm talking about this, I'm specifically talking about the kennel video. I think, I think that's probably still as much of a timeline issue as you could possibly have.

So they're having a very hard time rectifying that. And you can see it. Absolutely. You can see it on their faces. You know, Ann Emerson, I look at every single fact like it's a Rubik's cube. I have to look at it 50 different ways before I'm finally happy. Are they? Because I've actually read on social and people are saying to my face at the grocery store, why is he doing this on cross? Why won't the state move on from financial? I'm like, because this is important. Every detail matters. Every lie to someone he trusted or loved he said he loved some of his clients but still lied to their face and stole from them so i'm worried is you're fed up with the lies from defendant or from the barrage of questions from the state because the state has got to do what

they've got to do and yeah well you're right and and i think that they are doing what they need to do, but there is like a time where I think that you can see absolutely, I mean, this has been a really long trial, it's a marathon, so you can absolutely see on their faces when they start to get just kind of fed up with the questioning. And we were getting there at lunchtime, and of course it's right before lunch. I think right before lunch and right after lunch seem to be very dangerous times for for whoever is trying to cross or direct on on with someone on the witness stand they just started to kind of they the jury just starts to kind of lose it at some point you know one guy I mean you know you

just never know how people are going to react in that situation crime stories with nancy grace susan constantine what do you make of jurors actually turning away physically turning their backs this tells me a lot i love to watch the panel of the jury. One thing I want you to pay attention to is watch their eye blinking, how fast it's blinking, because that shows cognitive load and impatience. The fact is that they're shifting away, away from him. That's an anchor shift. That's huge because that's saying that they are impatient. There's disbelief even when the head goes down. But when you start to see jurors nearing one another and doing that at the same time, that's telling you what the majority is feeling. Anytime a juror moves their shifts, their anchor, their upper torso or their legs or even get up and shift to the other side of the chair that is not a good sign because when a

person is connected and believe someone they're more pair they're right directly in front of them not turning away turning away is a really bad sign is exiting out I want out of here I'm tired of it get me out I don't believe it dr. Michelle Dupree I think I heard you jump in yes so I just wanted to make a comment I I understand the financial implications and the relevance to this but I'm I'm afraid that the state is leaving a little too much for the jury to infer I want the state to come out and say if Alex can lie to the people he cared about and loved straight to their face look them in the eye

why do you think that you should believe him now as a jury you don't even know him but i want them i want the state to make that case i don't want to leave it up to the jury to infer that nancy i'm sure they're going to be arguing it and arguing and closing arguments is that you richter no this is jeff no go ahead this is james and nancy um i agree with the doctor i i wish the prosecution during that moment when uh he said that he is i'm reading it off he said he was willing to hurt the people that he loved i wish the prosecution right after that would have said well did you love maggie did you love paul and that that way the jury could have heard it in connection with him stating that he is willing to hurt the people that he loved. Okay, now wait a minute.

You are an EMT. You're a crime scene investigator, a bloodstain pattern analyst, a death investigator, former toxicology lab analyst. And now you're coming up with some pretty good cross-examination questions. So you may want to rethink that career you've got going on. Who is this? Dr. Dupree jumping in? Go ahead. Yes, yes.

That's an excellent point. If you go back and look at the defense yesterday when he asked Alex to describe Maggie and to describe Paul, and this was very telling to me. He gives all kinds of accolades, very nice adjectives, very personable, very personal adjectives. But he does not say, I love them. I loved her. Until the defense actually asked that question. Exactly what I thought. Because you know what?

If somebody asked, hey, tell me about David. I would say, oh, well, you know what? He got his CPA. And then he went and got his graduate degree at the Wharton School. And I would say say I love him. He's the best father. He takes care of my 91-year-old mother, and that's certainly not easy. He's always upbeat.

I wouldn't be talking about his CV, and that is what it sounded like when he described Maggie. He never said, she's my whole world. Never did hear that. I love her. I love her. Guys, something else happened in the courtroom today. I love it when it degenerates to this point where the defendant is saying everybody's lying but him. Okay, let's kick it off, Christine. Let's hear cut 17. You told law enforcement on multiple occasions that, first of all, Maggie was planning to stay at Edisto the night of June 7th, correct? I did say that. All right.

And you also said that you came to find out that she came home of her own accord, correct? You told that to law enforcement. Is that true? She did come home of her own accord, correct? You told that to law enforcement. Is that true? She did come home of her own accord. That she decided on her own to come home because she was worried about you. Isn't that what you said? I did say that and I believe that to be the case. All right, but since we've, despite what you told law enforcement, we've since seen the text that you actually called her and asked her to come home on the night of June 7th. No, sir. That's not correct. That's not correct?

No, sir. That's absolutely not correct. All right. So you heard your sister-in-law, Marion, testify to just that fact of a conversation she had with Maggie, but you're saying that's not true? I don't believe that's what Marion said. Okay, well, we all heard Marion Proctor on the stand. And she said that Maggie communicated to her that Murdoch wanted Maggie to come to Moselle. So, I guess Marion Proctor, that's Maggie's sister, is just a big fat liar, right? Well, she's not the only one. Take a listen to our Cut 18. When you had a conversation with Miss Shelley after the fact, you actually asked her to say that you were there longer than 20 minutes.

You know, I heard Shelley's testimony. I believe Shelley to be a good person. I wasn't trying to influence Shelly on any particular length of time because at the beginning of this, I believed that data would show what data would show. And for me to tell her to say something when my own star is going to show something different just doesn't make any sense. So, you know, I can't answer that. What my recollection is is that I told Shelly that law enforcement would be talking to her.

We may have discussed how long I was there. At that point in time, if I thought I was there 45 minutes, I may have said I was here 45 minutes. But, you know, I can't tell you. Okay, so Shelly's also a big fat liar. Guess who else is lying? His cell phone. Take a listen to our cut 15. Remember those 73 calls that were deleted?

Well, that's a big fat lie too. The cell phone is lying. Or maybe it's the phone company. Maybe it's Verizon that's the big fat liar. Take a listen to Hour Cut 15. Do you know why so many phone calls were missing from the log around this relevant time period when law enforcement downloaded your phone on June 10th? From my phone?

Yeah. No, I don't. Did you delete them, Mr. Murdoch? Not intentionally. Just around the time of June 7th, all these calls are missing, but you had nothing to do with that between June 7th and June 10th. No, sir, I did not. And I did not delete phone calls from my phone.

Mr. Waters, one of the most important things in this whole thing for Me has been getting this Data that I believe would exist phone calls and phone records Would be part of that I've been in enough civil cases and used phone Records enough times to know that you delete a phone call from your phone, it doesn't disappear. So I can tell you, this jury, and everybody who's listening that I did not intentionally delete phone calls from my phone. Are you talking to me, Murdoch? Because I'm listening and I don't believe you I guess your cell phone's

lying okay Ronnie Richter a high-profile lawyer that's representing the Satterfield family and other victims of Alex Murdoch don't you just love it when the defendant starts blaming everybody else is lying he's the only one telling the truth yeah and there's another one too Jeannie Seconder the firm's bookkeeper uh lied as well when she described the confrontation at the firm over oh yes hold on i'm gonna make a flow chart here genie seconder that's right and you know who else um the housekeeper that gathered the clothes up that couldn't find his shirt so you've got gene blanca. Yes. Thank you, Christine. Good memory. Blanca, the housekeeper, Jeannie Seconder,

the cell phone and the cell phone company, Shelly and Miss Marion Proctor. They're all liars. Yeah, they're all liars in a credibility case where Alex is the ultimate boy who cried wolf and he desperately needs

the town now to believe that this time he's telling the truth. And to go back to the financial crimes just for a second, it's not just that he stole the money, but A, he stole it by deceit. B, in every one of those circumstances, he's the guy that only admits the truth when you've got two shoulders pinned to the mat for a 10 count and then he rolls to the next one and it's the fact that he stole the money is bad enough but the people he stole it from make him a monster and so what we know about monsters is is that they're scary and they do unpredictable things so if he would steal the money from gloria satterfield's family. This is the woman that raised his children who died literally on his front steps. And he saw that as a profit opportunity and left her children destitute.

If you would steal from that person, it's not just that you're a thief or a liar, you are a monster. And so if you would do that, what else are you capable of doing? Now, wasn't Satterfield's son, who I think is learning challenged, I'm not sure, but I think he is, wasn't he living in a mobile home?

And hey, I've got no problem with mobile homes. My great-grandma lived in one. He was going to get that foreclosed on. And even knowing that, Murdoch still took his money and all of it yes he was living in a mobile home with his mother who's now deceased the bank foreclosed on the mobile home he's a vulnerable adult he's displaced and homeless there were 4.3 million dollars was recovered any money for that young man would have changed the arc of his life. And Alex took every dime.

Well, you know, there's really nowhere for me to go from right there. But everybody on the panel, I want you to hear something that Christine and I cooked up. I cut her off at about 40 seconds. Here is Alex Murdoch's go-to when he's in a tight bind, when he's got his rear end in a sling in the courtroom. Roll it, Christine. I don't remember doing that. I don't believe that I've ever had one of those. I don't know a single thing about that. Not that I remember. I don't. I certainly don't recall. Mr. Waters, if I did, I sure don't recall it. I don't specifically remember doing that. I don't remember taking the oath. I have no idea. I don't recall, Mr. Waters. If I did, I sure don't recall it. I don't specifically remember doing that.

I don't remember taking the oath. I have no idea. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know, but I don't believe so. But I really don't know. I don't remember having that.

I don't know. You don't remember that? I don't remember that, no, sir. I don't know. I don't have a specific memory of that. What I can say is i don't remember it i don't even recall this mr waters christine you have to add volume two to that please okay because there's just so many you know to susan constantine we heard murdoch puffing himself up

talking about hey i've tried a lot of cases and I've been a civil attorney for a long time. Well, I'll be darned if I'm going to hire a lawyer that forgets as much as this guy does. Yeah. You know, you picked up what I had written down and I love it. And I need to have this piece for what I'm doing in training class because this is just priceless. So first of all, it starts with it's not intentional. So what he's basically saying is he knows that they were omitted or they were removed but it was it was like a mishap then he goes on to attack the accuser these are all red hearings he attacks the attorney then he uses the qualifier i'm the attorney right so then he goes through his years of education then he finishes with the cooperation, right? So he needs the other people.

So he's the other people. He needs a cooperation that what he had said to the jury. So when you look at these, there's all these qualifiers that he uses. But the reason I can't recall to my recollection, these are all classic 101 deception, verbal indicators, and he's using All classic 101 deception verbal indicators. And he's using them all.

That's what is so mind-blowing to me is that he should know this. But this goes to show you even someone as narcissistic as he is, every liar is going to trip up and he has blown it. It's perfect. It's priceless. Please give me that clip. It's perfect. It's priceless. Please give me that clip. It's great. Okay.

It's all yours, but I insist that we get to add on part two overnight to Jeff Gentry. You've been in a lot of courtrooms wearing a lot of different hacks as experts. What do you make? Would you ever put an expert on the stand that kept saying, I don't know. I don't know. I don't recall.

I'm not sure about that over and over and over. No, it's amazing that his attorneys allow him to keep making those answers. Funny story. I was listening to the trial and my 11 year old daughter walked by and she goes, oh, that guy looks totally guilty. Just the way he's acting, the way he's responding. She goes, watch. She even quoted. She goes, I bet you he's going to say next. Well, I don't really know about that. And sure enough, he did.

So, yeah, he's not answering things well. Well, here's a problem for Alex Murdoch. Another problem for Alex Murdoch. He is trying to lie up against technical data. Data doesn't lie. It can be misinterpreted, but it does not lie, including how many steps he was taking. Oh, yes. Down to the number of steps. Take a listen to our cut 14. Waters questioning Murdoch on steps. What were you doing, running on a treadmill? Listen. Both Maggie and Paul's phones locked for the final time around 849.

That's what the data shows. After that, you agree that Maggie's phone around 853 shows some steps being taken? That's what the data shows, yes, sir. Data doesn't show who's carrying it, but that's what it shows. Is that correct? That is correct. From 902 to 906, your phone finally comes to life and starts showing a lot of steps. I do agree with that. What were you doing?

I was getting ready to go to my mom's house. Getting ready to go? I thought you took a shower already. You were just laying down on the couch. What all do you need to do to get ready to go to your mom's house? I don't know. I can't tell you exactly what I was doing. That's far more steps in a shorter time period than any time prior, as you've seen from the testimony in this case. So what were you so busy doing? Get on a treadmill? Went to the bathroom.

No, I didn't get on a treadmill. Jogging place? No, I didn't jog. No, sir. I did not do jumping yet. I know what I wasn't doing, Mr. Waters. Okay. So it's really hard to lie in the face of technical data shown by your phone, by your car, by Maggie and Paul's cell phones, by GPS data. It's really hard to argue with that.

So let me ask you, Ronnie Richter, you're the trial strategist. What can he do now? And I don't expect cross-exam to end anytime soon. Oh, no, this well is deep. So Creighton's going to be here for quite some time. What can Alex do now? Not a lot. He's kind of pinned himself in the corner here. And although he says look i'm a lawyer i've used cell phone data before that this is not the data that we typically recover yeah we get call logs and things like that but there was no way he appreciated the depth of the data that's available through onstar or that that little supercomputer in your hand was tracking that closely all of your movements so again you get a circumstance

where he had given several accounts to the police then he gets the data dump from the state and he sees what the evidence really looks like and he has a hard time backing into his story what are you doing in the house for 269 steps in that that very critical window of time how do you not recall that these are huge problems for alex and again it speaks to the reason why you don't take the stand he is he is tying his own rope and walking himself to the gallow the more he talks and at one point he's referring to what he said in that initial interview in the cruiser and he said words to the effect yeah i'm married to that i am wed to that yeah he is he's wed to those effect, yeah, I'm married to that. I am wed to that.

Yeah, he is. He's wed to those statements. Can't get rid of them. Guys, I'm hearing in my ear, everyone is heading back into the courtroom. Well, let's see what happens next. Please stay with us. Goodbye, everybody. This is an iHeart Podcast.