Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - STRANGER DNA UNDER MAGGIE'S NAILS?

Episode Date: July 1, 2026

Alex Murdaugh's second murder trial in the deaths of his wife and son is now scheduled for April of 2027.  His 2023 convictions were overturned by the South Carolina Supreme Court which ruled  former Colleton County Clerk of Court Rebecca “Becky” Hill improperly influenced the jury.  Murdaugh remains incarcerated  for 22 state financial crimes and 14 federal charges serving both sentences concurrently, unaffected by the murder retrial.    A status hearing is set for August for Judge Debra McCaslin  to decide pending motions on a change of venue and allowing independent DNA testing of samples from under Maggie Murdaugh’s fingernails, among others.    Joining Nancy today: Blanca Turrubiate-Simpson - Murdaugh's former housekeeper,  Author: Within the House of Murdaugh: Amid a Unique Friendship, Blanca and Maggie, website: https://withinhouseofmurdaugh.com Mark Peper - Criminal defense attorney,  PeperLawFirm.com, Twitter: @PeperLawFirm Dr. Bethany Marshall  - Psychoanalyst,  https://www.drbethanymarshall.com/, Instagram FB & TikTok: drbethanymarshall, Twitter:@DrBethanyLive,  Author: "Deal Breaker,"   featured in hit show: "Paris in Love" on Peacock, Host: "On The Couch with Dr. Bethany Marshall"  Brian Fitzgibbons - Director of Operations for USPA Nationwide Security,  website: www.uspasecurity.com, Instagram: @uspa_nationwide_security,  Thomas Coyne  - Medical Examiner, University of Florida.  District Eight Medical Examiner, State of Florida. Toxicologist.  Forensic Pathologist and Neuropathologist.   GiGi McKelvey  - Journalist, Host of the podcast “Pretty Lies And Alibis”,  prettyliesandalibis.org,  Facebook, IG, TikTok: @PrettyLies And Alibis, Twitter: @PrettyLiesAlibi  Dave Mack - Investigative Reporter, 'Crime Stories'   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Bob Shill tonight, Alex Murdoch, inches closer and closer to a double murder retrial with the death penalty now, possibly on the table? Tonight, is there stranger DNA under Maggie's nails? Good evening. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime. stories, I want to thank you for being with us. Sir, I can't think

to anybody who would want to go to that extreme. Stranger DNA under Maggie's nails? Remember, reality check. Maggie Murdoch was

lured to Moselle, Alex Murdoch's hunting lodge. She didn't want to go. She stated that. She even put it in a text to a friend. She did not want to go. Let's see shots of Moselle since that's what we're talking about. She goes out there and ends up dead. Tonight, Stranger DNA under her nails.

She was found face down in the dirt. Shot point blank range in the back. Her blood seeping down into the floor, the dirt of that hunting lodge. stranger DNA under her nails? Straight out to Dave Matt, crime stories investigative reporter. What? This is the claim from the defense, Nancy,

the first salvo being thrown out there, claiming that underneath Maggie Murdoz fingernails, there was DNA, male DNA that was not the DNA of Alex or any other family member according to Jim Griffin. That's Murdoz lead attorney, Nancy.

And he calls, claims, Griffin claims, that they never put that DNA into CODIS. There was never a follow-up on this DNA. That is a bombshell claim from the defense. Straight out to G.G. McKelvey, joining us out of South Carolina, star of pretty lies and alibis investigative journalist. Gigi, stranger DNA under Maggie Murdoch's nails now. Is this just BS by Hartputtling, or is this real?

I mean, that's a pretty bold claim. would think if they were aware of this at the first trial, they would have insisted that be at least put in Dakotis or tested. So I guess time will tell whether or not that is a true claim, but you can bet if it is, it's going to be a big part of this second trial. Joining us, Mark Pepper, veteran criminal defense attorney out of this jurisdiction in South Carolina, founder of the Pepper law firm. Put him up, please. Pepper, whether there is stranger DNA under her nails or not. let me just jump to the next legal reality, which the defense will have to grapple with. Isn't it true?

And this is a yes, no. I know you hate that. Isn't it true? The defense has the right to have the state's evidence tested. Isn't that true? 100% yes. And isn't it true that whatever was under Maggie's nails was there at the time the autopsy was conducted, and I'm going to go to Joe Scott and Morgan in just a moment about how those

nails were preserved, and they had the right to test the DNA then. And I wonder why they didn't, if it even exists, maybe because it would reveal Alex Mernog's DNA? They 100% had the right to test it. I suspect they did, Nancy. Maybe they didn't like the results, or maybe it was simply a trial strategy, that they did not want to kind of get off of this path of he just, just wasn't there. He just didn't do it. I think your next guest will be able to explain a bit better than I will the logistics of the scientific evidence, but as a defense law, I'm putting it in, period. It's coming into evidence. I'm making sure it comes in because all you're trying to do here is just create doubt. Could someone else have done this? Muddy the water, right? That's what

the defense's job is, correct? Okay, at least you're being honest with me, Mark, and that's why you win so many cases. Mark, let's review what you just said and break it down. Tonight, bombshell, is there stranger DNA under Maggie Murdoch's nails? Mark, spin that out to its logical conclusion. What if, I'm going out on a limb saying, Hart-Pootly is telling the truth. What if it's true? What does that mean for Murdoch's defense? A lot. It changes the entire case, in my opinion. If you put up evidence that proves scientifically that there was another human being there or in close proximity to Maggie at the time of these shootings, that is a bombshell to use your words, Nancy. That has to get put in front of the jury. It changes the entire landscape of the case, in my opinion.

In South Carolina, we want to see hard evidence. And when all the signs are pointing to Alec, in the very least, you've got to give them another option. Is it possible that someone else was at this crime scene? Is it possible that Maggie defended herself, that she scratched someone, and that's how somebody's DNA not named Alec Murdoch got under her nails? This is bombshell new... Pepper, Maggie Murdoch, and Paul, her son, were gunned down in cold blood execution style. So, this is not exactly pristine conditions.

She could have gotten anything. That could be dog-dead. DNA under her nails for all I know. And it could be anybody's, but it's not Alec Murdox, according to Griffin and Harputin. And that is the key, Nancy, is that when you're trying to create reasonable doubt, you've got to give the jury some other explanation. And maybe we have it now. Maybe Alex's defense team has what they need.

DNA from another human not named Alec that is fresh, would have been collected. You would have had chain of custody. This evidence is going to come in. Griffin and Harputley are dead set on introducing this evidence as they should. Okay, let's just boil it down very quickly, Mark Pepper. This is not an in-court argument where if you go on and on and on enough to the judge, you think he, she may side with you just to make you stop. Here's the deal.

If there is a stranger DNA under her nail, human DNA under her nails, their claim is going to be sod. Some other dude did it. She fought with him and got his or her, his DNA under her nails. That's what they will have and they will actually have DNA to support it. Just like in the quadruple slate in Idaho, remember the stranger DNA that was on a glove in the parking lot, was on a banister in the party house, Koeburger was going to use that. Did we have a match to who it was? No. But it's as you said, Mark Pepper, the possibility of another perpetrator based on scientific DNA under her nails, right?

They may have a leg to stand on. Do I believe it? No. But this could be one leg and a stool for reasonable doubt to sit upon. That is exactly right, Nancy. Create the reasonable doubt. You don't have to necessarily put up a defense that it wasn't Alec. You at least have to allege that it's possible it could have been someone else. And that's exactly what they'll use this DNA for. You have the nail on the head, Nancy. It's not only to defend Alec, but is to put in the mind of these reasonable jurors that is it possible. Have you heard anything over this six-week trial, eight-week trial, 10-week trial that gives you hesitation that it was Alec? Well, let's go back and look at what the science shows.

We have DNA evidence of someone else's DNA. Under Maggie's nails, that creates reasonable doubt. That is exactly what Jim and Dick will show in this journey. Listen, and you're there for heart-wrenching knockouts. The world's biggest stage. And breathtaking triumph. 2026 FIFA World Cup. The knockout stage.

Every match, every moment. Listen on TSN radio. Join the globe. On the road to the July 19th final. 2026 FIFA World Cup. Stream it all live on TSN Radio. Available on IHeart Radio. Crime stories with Nancy Grace.

Joining us now a very special guest. It is Blanca to Biate Simpson, Merlock's housekeeper for many, many years, knows Maggie and all of the children like the back of her hand. And she is the author of a brand new book within the house of Murdoch amid a unique friendship, Blanca and Maggie.

It's an incredible book, by the way. You of all people. Hey, let's see that dog kennel again. Can help me out here. Didn't Maggie have her nails done regularly? What could be under her nails? What do you know of her, Blanca? She went to the nail salon to get her nails done.

So for many women, if we go to the beauty salon, all the tools that are used are, you know, cleaned, perfect. She could have gotten, you know, stranger DNA from the tools that are used. And so that doesn't, that part of it does not bother me for them to try to create, you know, a big scene over the stranger DNA under her nails, you know, because we all get our nails. down the house up there and, you know, it could have been a dirty tool. You know, Blanca, how often would Maggie have her nails done? Usually special occasions or if she wasn't doing any, any, if she wasn't doing any kind of dirty work,

like I would say, you know, but she was touching up a lot of areas at Eredisto, you know, the painting and all that. And I think she was just looking forward to getting her nails done that day. She usually would go maybe once a month. Do you know that she went that day, Blanca? She did go that day. She did go that day. That is very significant. And the nail salon where she went that day, where was it?

All she told me was she was going to get her nails done when we talked in a pedicure. She used to get her hair done out there in Hilton Head. mutual friend recommended a young lady out there, and that's where she used to go get her hair cut. So that will be a matter of getting that video surveillance of the salon that day to see if she was there just before she went to Moselle. If it's in existence, I mean, it's so many years of past. I don't know they saved it.

Or maybe it's in the cloud. Straight out to you, Joseph Scott Morgan, Professor Forensics, Jacksonville State University. He is the author of Blood Beneath My Feet on Amazon. He is the star of a hit podcast, Bodybags with Joe Scott Morgan. But for our purposes, he is a death investigator with over 10,000 death scenes under his belt. There are many ways by which Maggie Murdoch could have gotten DNA under her nails. Yeah, you're absolutely right.

And this is what I'm thinking. Okay. So when these samples were taken from her remains at autopsy, They would have been very, very careful, Nancy. And if you'll just permit me, I'll tell you what the breakdown is and how this is done. There's a sterile kit that we use on the hands at autopsy. Now, her hands hopefully had been bagged at the scene. Okay.

When they go into the morgue, they will cut those bags away. And anything that's particulated inside of the bags, it just falls off or anything. They save those bags, all right? That's in general coming off the hands. Now, the next step is that if you think about, you know, the cuticle pushers that people use on their nails, their long wooden sticks, there is a tool that's similar to that where we go beneath the nails. You hear this term nail clippings and nail scrapings. We do scrapings first. So under the nail, you scrape this out with this instrument.

Okay, it falls into a piece of paper. that's separated, that's kept separate. Each finger is done individually. Then you go through with sterile nail clippers, all right, that come in this packet, and you clip each nail. Those are kept separately. So if everybody that's listening to us right now and just think about it, where do you put your hands throughout the day? Well, you can't keep track of it. You touch various surfaces.

You come in contact with it. It goes back to LeCard's principle. Every contact leaves a trace. And we're not talking about even at a trace evidence level. We're talking about at a molecular level, Nancy, where this bit of transfer can happen with a nail. Now, our guest here is, I think this is a brilliant, brilliant examination here. Gold Star to her because you're thinking about who's touching her hands at this point in time. Now, I think that if SLED has suspected that there was some kind of connectivity here, they would have followed this up because this is bombshell information.

And at minimum, they're saying that this was not entered into CODIS. All right. Well, that's kind of a stab in the dark anyway. But I'm wondering if they ever thought about doing phenotyping on any of this DNA sample that was there. And that would put you into categories like racial determination, male. versus female. You can actually do height, hair color, eye color, all these sorts of things relative to the subject that this foreign DNA comes from. I just wonder how far they pursued this lead, Nancy. To Dave Matt, crime stories investigative reporter, correct me if I'm wrong,

but wasn't this brought up in the first trial? It was, Nancy, and it was discussed at length during cross-examination the discussion about this specific DNA being found under Maggie Murdoz fingernails. And it didn't have an impact on the jury. And so it really comes down to the defense is just bringing out something that didn't work last time and they're going to try to reframe it this time. But since the first trial, Dave Mack, the defense may have decided to retest the stranger DNA under her nails. Isn't that true? Absolutely true. They are going to push to, you know, as just got mentioned a minute ago, about going into CODIS. That has been a big point of what the, what the defense is saying now. They're like, we have to do more. This was used as an example of the

lack of investigative work that was done during the first trial where they were talking about how law enforcement failed Murdo by not investigating some things that could have proven some other guy did it. And they're really hammering on this, Nancy, because if there's DNA under her fingernails that does not belong to Alec Murdoch or anybody else in the Murdof family, well, you're left with, okay, she had her nails done earlier in the day. Well, I know a little bit about that. Out to Pepper, it was day 16. There were hours of testimony regarding DNA, and the scientist was asked about unknown male. We know it's male DNA under Maggie's fingernail. Okay, the defense had full cross-exam.

They asked were Paul and Alex Murdoch excluded as contributors. Experts Zapata said, yes, defense. So male DNA under her nails were not from Paul and not from Alex Murdoch. Response. The foreign DNA to her, yes, they were excluded as contributors. So help me out. Mark Pepper, how is this different than what was said? the first time around.

What will be different, Nancy, is that that same cross-examination will take place, except it will take place in a much more aggressive way, A, and B, I suspect will be followed up by a defendant's own expert who has likely now tested this DNA, who has likely now been able to come up with a DNA profile. So maybe we get more than just a unknown male. I suspect Jim and Dick have done their homework on this. This will not just be a simple day 16, two-hour cross-examination of what-ifs and what force. This will be a very targeted attack. Pepper. Pepper.

Pepper. Please. Please. I know they'll put on a big circus, a big dog and pony show, but they had access to this DNA first time around. Yeah. Okay? We know that it was tested. So what is different today other than Hartputtland putting it out in the media?

Just because he says it so, does it make it so, Pepper? Well, what makes it different is that this is a different case. This is a different trial. They're going to lead with their best items that they now understand what maybe worked the first time and what didn't work. If they get any impression, as some of your other guests have stated, that this DNA fingerprint issue kind of went over the jury's heads, well, they're not going to let that happen again this time. They're going to spend money on experts to make sure that this becomes a central theme of this trial.

I would also say this, Nancy, in response to some of your guests, they didn't put it in CODIS, correct? They didn't call their own expert. They didn't put up a big dog and pony show. Isn't it possible that none of these things were done by SLED because SLED didn't want to know who's the, was under her fingernails? Isn't it possible that they had their guy and they solely focused on him?

And they thought, well, if we put any additional. Oh, good gravy. Second verse, same as the first. He places himself at the scene on the dog video. If I could get the control room to pull that up, I'll play it in a moment. But first, another way they can attack based on DNA under Maggie's nails. And in this case, as you saw in the first trial, Ralph Swed bungled the crime scene processing.

They didn't take DNA or attempt to take DNA or fingerprints from the feed room where Paul was shot. They bought, they did not preserve things like Maggie's phone in a Faraday bag. I mean, it's blunder after blunder after blunder after blunder after blunder. They have no forensic evidence. They didn't take fingerprints. They didn't gather DNA. They have no video. They have no confession.

They have all. They have nothing. nothing that connects him to the murder in terms of physical evidence, witnesses, or statements. That from our friend Donna Attuno at Fox News and from Inside Edition. Okay, everything that he just said is a lie. To Dr. Bethany Marshall joining us, renowned psychoanalyst out of the L.A. jurisdiction. She's the author of Deal Breakers. You can see her now on Peacock and on Bravo and find her at Dr. Bethany Marshall.com.

Dr. Bethany, I saw heart pooling it. His lips were moving. So I guess that means he's lying because analyze what he said. They didn't take DNA. Well, yes, they did. Because that's his new claim that the DNA that they did take doesn't match a Murdoch. Okay? They didn't preserve things like Maggie's phone in a Faraday bag.

Yes, they did. They almost didn't because his client threw it out the window and we see where Murdo car based on the black box, the nav system, slow down. You can tell he lowers the passenger side window. That's exactly where her phone was found. And they did preserve it. They didn't need to put it in a Faraday bag. A Faraday bag, and I'll go to Fitzgivance on this, is something to protect the phone from admitting signals or getting signals. They found it. And they preserved it right where Murdoch threw it out. So all that is a lie. Okay, then what else does he say? They have no forensic evidence. Well, I don't know what they think the dog video is. They didn't take fingerprints.

Yes, they did. They didn't gather DNA. Yes, they did. They have no video. I'm about to play it. They don't have a confession. That's true because Murdoch is a very wily lawyer. They have nothing. Okay, all of that's a lie. That is all a lie. So again, his lips are moving, Dr. Bethany Marshall. You know, Nancy, all this lying is not going to play well with the jury. And I'll tell you what else is not going to play well with the jury. This whole thing about another man's DNA being under her fingernails, you know, that would be more consistent with triangulation or with a knife attack, something like that, right?

Because then the perpetrator is close enough to Maggie and Paul that they would have to fight the perpetrator off. Now, somebody who's going to use a gun, a shotgun, done is going to be far away from the victims, not close enough for the victim to have to fight the perpetrator off. So I'm sort of thinking, do they not know that the jury is capable of critical thinking? Do they not think that the jury is going to be offended by all these lies? Jurors are people, too, Nancy. They have thoughts, they have feelings, and they do respond to how the attorneys talk to them and speak to them. And if they're, attorneys are acting like their third graders, they're not going to like that.

He states, Hart Putleyan, again, states they don't have video. Well, I'm about to play it. Watch. Get back. Get back. Quit, Cash. Come. Quit.

Come, quit. Come on, bad. Come on, gosh. Come on, gosh. Baba. There's a chick cat. Come on, Cash. Come on, Cash.

Come on, Cash. Quit. To you, Gigi McKelvie, what is the significance of that video? I mean, the timing of it, because it puts him right there in the kennels when their phones essentially go silent minutes later. So you have kind of a rough estimate of when these murders took place. I think it's a big video. I was there when that was played in court, and everybody was glued to that video. And after that day, you know, during a break, we all talked about how normal it sounded.

which some people thought maybe that's not going to hit well with the jury because Paul seems very relaxed. Maggie seems to relax. You hear Eleg in the background saying, Bubba. I mean, so we'll see what happens. But I think one thing to note, Nancy, is we're going to have an entirely new jury. And the other thing, too, we don't know where this trial is going to be held yet. There hasn't been a change of any request. But the original vote was nine guilty.

Two jurors voted not guilty in that first vote. And then you have one undecided. So I think the defense is going to take the totality of this DNA evidence. The kennel video I would focus on everybody sounds normal, sounds playful. You know, we don't know where this trial is going to be held. But I'll tell you this, Nancy, living in South Carolina, a lot of people think he's guilty, but there are plenty who think he didn't do it. And then there are a lot of people who really have no clue about this case.

So this is going to be a very different trial in a million ways. And I'll be there for the other six weeks or however long this takes to see. get through. I mean, the reality is to Brian Fitzgivins joining us, Director Operations, USPA nationwide security. He is a former Marine and an Iraqi war vet. Brian, the reality is that. And jump in, Dave and Gigi, anybody on the panel, if you've got a better timeline than I do. But it was within minutes, minutes after that video occurred. And we know when the video occurred. heard because it was sent. The story behind the video is that the dog you're seeing, let's see the dog, is named Cash. Cash had to go to the vet. Cash did not belong to the Murdogs,

but the Murdogs had him in the kennel, so they were taking a video of him, specifically his tale, to show, to send the video to a lady vet that night. And they did send the video to the owner. So we know when the video was taken. We know based on the nav system, what time Murdoch scratched off and went and hit out at his mother's. Then he was back. What, one hour later and poof, they were dead? Do I have that timeline correct? Gigi McKelvey? Yeah, that's pretty much it. You know, what's interesting is from the time elapsed of when Paul took the video to when his phone went silent was four minutes. So it was four minutes after that recording that both his and Maggie's phones never sent texts again.

Because remember, Paul was actively texting the owner of the dog. He was trying to figure out something that was going on physically with the dog. So, yeah, we do have that timeline there. And then at 10.34 p.m. Wait a minute. It's even, if these are more precise, Gigi, at 844 is the video. It started at 844. At 849, all the phones go.

silent. So in that five-minute space. So he must have been standing there with the gun behind his back at the time of the video. And then we've got the SUV screeching off. Okay, not only that, to Dave Mack, Murdoch's team is contesting the timeline stating that we don't really know when Maggie and Paul were shot dead. That's exactly what they're doing, Nancy. Now, you just pointed out about the video, about Paul's kennel video being taken at 844 and being sent at 848. But look, the argument from the defense, the time of death is only an estimate and not an exact scientific determination. They're also contesting cell phone activity and vehicle telemetry, claiming it can be misinterpreted, creating uncertainty about precisely when Maggi and Paul were killed.

The defense is also attacking the state's theory, saying it leaves too little time for Murdo to commit the murders, clean up, dispose of weapons, and leave for his mother's house at 9.06 p.m. And the defense is also arguing that investigators constructed the timeline to fit their theory rather than allowing the evidence to dictate the sequence of event. Back to you, Brian Fitzgibbon's USPA Nationwide Security, wait in. Yeah, this kennel video is often referred to as Paul somewhat testifying from the grave. And while this doesn't prove that Alec Murdof pulled the trigger, it certainly contests his alibi and shoots down the credibility of his alibi and points out that some of the circumstantial evidence has quite a bit of weight to it. So it remains something that the prosecution going into the second trial is certainly going to present to the jury. Listen, and you're there for heart-wrenching knockouts. The world's biggest stage!

And breathtaking triumph. In 2026 FIFA World Cup, the knockout stage. Every match, every moment. Listen on TSN radio. the globe on the road to the July 19th final. 2026 FIFA World Cup. Stream it all live on TSN Radio. Available on IHeart Radio.

Crime stories with Nancy Grace. Back to Blanca Turbayette Simpson joining us, author of Within the House of Murdoch. Blanca, Maggie, texted about you that evening around 6.10 p.m. To son Paul, who was about to be murdered, stating, love you, Blanca cooked you dinner. What were the events that night leading up to the murders, as you know them? Alex had texted her and asked her to come.

His father was not doing well, and Maggie was kind of reluctant at that point. She really did not want to go back to Mosel because she had some workers at Esto that were finishing up. And she was kind of like on the fence. about whether she wanted to go, whether she wanted to go back to Edestown. So I just, I remember she said, she asked me to cook. I cooked dinner for them. And she said, Paul was going to be coming out there to mix, to fix the screw up, you know, on the sunflower fields.

And he wasn't happy about it. She said, he's not happy about having to come back. And that's all, you know, when we discussed. So she wasn't looking forward to coming, but she said he had asked her to come out there. Well, she knew she was being lured out there. She didn't want to go. And the reality is he stated that he wanted her to come out there to go visit his illing dad, I believe it was in the Savannah Memorial Medical, and they never went.

What was for supper that night, rice and beans? Rice, green beans, and country-fried steak, or steak burger, which is how she called it. So looking at the timeline, I mean, he is right there at the scene when we think the murders go down. But yet at this juncture, Joe Scott Morgan, the defense is claiming we really don't know when the murders occurred. Well, that's BS. And they're arguing that the medical examiner. determine the TOD time of death by getting the temperature under Maggie's armpit. What is that all about?

Yeah, it's called an axillary temperature, which means that you would place the thermometer externally beneath the armpit held down just like this, okay? And it's something we've done for years and years. But it's highly inaccurate because now kind of the goal to, standard is to do what's referred to as a core body temperature doing a liver stick. Some people resist doing this, and there's a lot of good reasons why not to do it. And so, you know, people need to completely disbues themselves of thinking that determining time of death is like an absolute science.

Most of the time, the best we can do is hit somewhere between three to four hours. It's really hard to dial it in any tighter than that. So at best, it's an educated guest, Nancy. Well, Joe Scott, we've got more than her armpit for Pete's sake. We have her on a video at a specific time alive. So we know she was alive then. Then we have Murdoch back on the scene and correct me, Gigi or Dave, if I'm wrong on this. and about an hour later.

So we've got it down to one hour, don't we? Through extrinsic evidence, not just her armpit temp. What about it, Gigi? Well, if you look at the timeline, 8.49 p.m. was the last time Paul's phone was unlocked by passcode. Now, that could have been anybody. It doesn't mean it was Paul. The bodies were discovered at 10.34 p.m. or that's when the first batch of law enforcement arrived on scene.

you do have that window of the kennel video in 8.34 p.m. when law enforcement was on scene. So clearly the murders had to have taken place somewhere within that time frame. Well, I mean, the 911 call is at 10.06. Take a listen. This is Alex Murdo. I have 41 47 Mozel Road. I think the police just and my wife and Tom could stop badly. Okay, you said 41 47, Mobley Road and now. Allison? Mr. Sir?

You said 4147 Mozel Road and Allerton? Yes, sir. 4147, Rose Road. Stay on the line with me, okay? Yes, sir. Stay on the line with me, okay? Alex Murdoch on the line, call her from 4147 Moswell Road. He's advising that his wife and child was shot.

Mr. Murdoch, go ahead and talk to Colleton. Yes, again. It's 41-47, Mosel Road. I've been up to it now. to it now is bad. You know what I love about this Brian Fitzgibbon is based on all of the digital data. We can even see how many steps he walked based on his iPhone. The time he got into his vehicle, turned it on, put it in reverse, put it and drive the speed, the letting down the windows, hitting the gas to get to his moms and then coming back. I mean, it's very, very detailed.

I wonder what Harputleen has to say to that. Yeah, we don't. just have the armpit temperature. We have Maggie's phone and the activity and the time stamps of that activity and when it stops. We also have Paul's phone and the normal usage stopping abruptly, right? So there's a deep pattern of life of how often Paul was opening and using that phone prior to the date of the murder. And to your point about the step activity and the telemetrics from the vehicle, there's a mountain of circumstantial evidence here, digital evidence, that corroborates the estimation of this time of death.

Dave, Mack, we know that the 911 call is at 10.06. What more can you tell me about the timeline is established by digital forensic data? Nancy, it is shocking what is available with that digital forensic data. When you actually start with, from the time Rogan Gibson sends his message to Paul Murdoch, asking if he can see a video of the dog, the forensic show that Maggie Murdo's iPhone shows 59 steps travel at that particular time. That's where she's getting shot. Or is that where she's helping take the video?

I think that's where she's helping take the video. And what time is that? Dave Mac? 853. Okay, look at 906 on the timeline we constructed. At 906.53, Murdoch's suburban shows he's in the car. Device connection to iPhone. Three connections.

He's in the car. That's 906.553, 907. Maggie Murdoch's phone, backlight off. 90706 he scratches out so 90706 9.0706. 9.07.06 okay? At 908 he starts texting Maggie saying going to check on M.B. right back. He just left her. Why is he having to text her that? That's at 908. At 10.06 less than one hour later, he's already gotten back to the scene, found the bodies, and is making the 911 call. So in the space of about 40 minutes, Mark Pepper, an unknown killer comes to the scene, shoots them dead and gets away clean,

really? And I think we're going to be able to ISO it down even tighter. Well, I would suggest strongly that the AG should narrow that down because 40 minutes is a long time, a long, long time for many people to have made it to that property to commit the detainous acts. I understand where everything's going, where the timeline, you know, points to at least a phone call, a video being sent, Alec leaving, but no one is going to be able to take the stand and say when the crime occurred. The best they're going to be able to do is come up with this theory that it had to be prior to Alec leaving based solely on DNA or skin him up. Well, of course it's before he left according to the defense. Why would he leave with the body's laying right there? I mean, that doesn't

even make any sense. But I appreciate your double talk. Mark, there's been a lot of confusion regarding whether the death penalty will be sought. Typically, if it's put on the table the first trial and the jury forwent it and went with life, you can't then retry him and seek the death penalty. It's kind of like punishing him for getting a new trial, right? You can't seek a greater sentence than what he got the first time. Here is the difference.

DP wasn't sought the first time. Now we understand the DP death penalty may be sought. It's very possible. I still think it's unlikely for a couple of reasons. One is that we are in an election year, as you may know, Nancy. Alan Wilson, who is the Attorney General at the time, will not be the Attorney General when this case is retried. If you know or think you know anything regarding the murders of Maggie and Paul Murdoch, please dial 803-896-2605. The state is rebuilding its case, as is the defense. Tonight, we remember an American hero, Officer Lewis Canty, Grand River Dam, PD, Oklahoma, died in the line of duty after 42 years. Leaving behind, a grieving wife, Stacey, two sons, Jason and Jeff, and daughter, Addie, American hero, Officer Lewis Canty.

Thank you to our guests, but especially to you for being with us. Nancy Grace signing off. I'll see you tomorrow night. And until then, good night, friend. This is an I-Heart podcast, guaranteed human.