Dateline NBC - Murdaugh on Trial: The Prosecution Rests

Episode Date: February 20, 2023

Go inside the courtroom for the trial of the year.  Today Show Anchor and Dateline Correspondent Craig Melvin and Dateline Producer Carol Gable — two proud natives of South Carolina — dissect the just-concluded prosecution case against Alex Murdaugh for the murders of his wife and son, charges to which he has pleaded not guilty. They analyze key moments, review dramatic testimony, and assess the trial so far, with the defense about to take center stage.

Are we recording? Okay, before we get started, Craig, you come on these podcasts with me with your really smooth anchorman voice. I just want to remind you what the famous philosopher Loretta Lynn said. Where I'm from, this is not an accent. You should have saved it for the podcast we just i just said it they're recording all right are we ready to start all right here we go It was a pitch black night back in June of 2021 when Maggie and Paul Murdoch were found shot to death on their family's sprawling country property. That tragedy and the events that followed brought national, even international attention to tiny Hampton, South Carolina, as the life of Alec Murdoch, a third generation member

of a powerful legal dynasty, unraveled spectacularly. It was just so bad. They did it so bad. I'm Craig Melvin, NBC anchor and Dateline correspondent, and this is Murdoch on Trial. The prosecution rests. A perfect storm that was gathering, that all came to a head on June 7th, 2021,

the day the evidence will show he killed Maggie and Paul. As the trial plays out, we are going to be with you every step of the way with inside information and analysis on one of the biggest and most dramatic trials in South Carolina's low country in decades. In this episode, we'll go inside the prosecution's case. The state rested after more than three weeks of testimony, dozens of witnesses,

and Dateline producer Carol Gable has been in that courtroom in Walterboro, South Carolina, from the very start. We sat down to talk about the highlights of the case so far and what's next. Hey there, my friend. How are we, Carol Gable? Well, I'm good, but I am in a massive deficit on doing any kind of exercise because we've been sitting on what is essentially a church pew for a month. Well, we appreciate your sacrifice, though. You could go a few weeks without exercise and you'll be fine. We should remind folks who are listening, Alec Murdoch, who has pleaded not guilty to the murders of his wife and son. He has sat through weeks of testimony, ranging from first

responders to detectives, former colleagues, his friends, family, even hired help. And you've been there as well. Describe for me, Carol, before we dig into some of the witnesses and evidence, describe for me what it's been like in that courtroom day in, day out. Well, I have to say, if you ask Hollywood to create the quintessential charming, small Southern town, it would be Walterborough. It's beautiful. There are palmetto trees, the state tree. The courthouse was designed by the famed architect, Robert Mills, who designed the Washington Monument. Ringed around that courthouse was designed by the famed architect Robert Mills, who designed the Washington Monument. Ringed around that courthouse are reporters from around the United States who are doing

live shots all through the day and covering this trial. There are very few spectator seats, and people are standing in line to get those seats as early as 5 30 in the morning i talked to someone today who's been there 10 times and they're in rapt attention they've come on vacation it it is really an amazing scene um what about the family and friends who are seated who have occasionally i've noticed noticed, been seated behind Alec Murdoch? Are they there every day? Who have you seen come and go? The Murdoch family is there every single day.

Many times it's both his brothers, nieces, his sister's brother-in-law, and of course Buster has been there, I think, every single day. And they have been very cordial and polite. People go up and speak to them. I mean, your heart really has to go out to Buster. Here's a young man who loses his mother and his only brother, and his father is accused of killing them. And every day he's in court listening to, at times, grisly details about how they were killed, why they were killed. I just, I can't begin to fathom what must be going through that poor young man's mind.

People watch him. I watch him for his reaction. And he's been very stoic. You know, there have been tears on that family row often. And Alex has cried. I mean, he's he's sobbed during points of the trial. What do you think was the testimony or evidence that elicited the most emotion from either Alec or Buster, the family? I think the family for sure was that pathologist. She basically said Paul's brain was blown off. I mean, it was just gruesome. And Maggie was also killed in especially one of the final two fatal shots in essentially an assassination sort of way.

It's just really gruesome. And to have to sit there and listen to those details. Yeah, I can't even begin to fathom it. What about the defendant, Carol? What have you noticed know, perhaps like he would if he was going into a courtroom to try a case. So, and he's, of course, between his two lawyers, he's represented by someone you know well, Dick Harpootland, state senator, former prosecutor, former head of the South Carolina Democratic Party, and now a very successful private attorney. His other co-counsel is an experienced and well-regarded trial attorney that I have to add is from my hometown, Anderson, South Carolina.

Of course, of course. And then the prosecution team is led by Creighton Waters. He's a 24-year veteran of the Attorney General's office. Actually, it's a team of seven lawyers from the AG's office. And, in fact, Alan Wilson, the AG himself, has been there virtually every day, which, as you know, with the caseload he oversees, it's quite rare that he would do that. But he's at the table directing what's going on. One of the knocks that I have heard and read from legal analysts from the beginning of the state's case is that the state was presenting evidence and information in a somewhat disjointed way and at times boring and at times the minutia seemed to be, you know, just sort of mind-numbing, if you will.

And they really, one of the criticisms was that the state really hadn't done a great job of connecting the dots. And then all of a sudden, with their very last witness, this special agent from SLED, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Peter Rudofsky, he gives us this timeline. And not just a timeline, but at one point, there's a color-coded timeline of Alex's car movements. There's digital phone evidence, text messages, GPS info. And I felt like at times we were essentially watching and listening to this, this countdown to murder.

Do both Maggie's and Paul's phone lock forever around 849? They do. And it, you know, from where I was watching, your vantage point was different, Carol, but it seemed like the state at the end of the presentation of the case did a pretty solid job of laying out the timeline. I think you're exactly right. When we came into the trial, there was a very tight timeline that had been fairly well established during which this crime could have happened. Alex said for a long time that his day went like this, that he went to the office. He left the office in the 5, 530 range. He meets Paul at Moselle, which is how they refer

to their country property where Paul and Maggie were murdered. They ride around, which is how they refer to their country property, where Paul and Maggie were murdered. They ride around, and he says they rode around in a couple of vehicles. They looked at trees, plantings, sunflowers. Maggie arrives. They have dinner that housekeeper Blanca had left for them on the stove. After he eats, he says he got on the sofa and napped, which is a routine of his. Then he gets up in the nine range. He texts Maggie saying, hey, I'm going to go to mom's. He leaves at 9.06, gets to his mother's house, sits on the bed with her, holds her hand, watches a game show, and then stays about 20 minutes, and then leaves and gets back to Moselle. And then we know the 911 call occurred at 10.06.

When in fact, Maggie and Paul, and now we know Alec, went down to the kennels where Paul was taking care of a friend's dog. And the dog had a tail problem, which I personally, it looked like a mangy tail to me. And so he was trying to take a video of the problem for his friend. And what do we hear in the background? We hear Paul, Alec, and Maggie. Nobody is seen on the video, just the dog, but several witnesses testified you hear all three of them. On the stand, they said, that's Alec's calling to the dog. Come here, Bubba. Come here, Bubba.

Come here, Cash. Come here, Bubba. Cash, quick. So if he is down at the kennels at 844, he can't be napping. Murdoch had maintained repeatedly that he had never been down to those dog kennels. And then you have Creighton Waters, who on a number of occasions over the last few weeks, had witness after witness identify his voice on the video. And what voices did you hear?

Paul's, Miss Maggie, Miss Taylor. Whose voices did you recognize on that video? Paul Murdoch, Maggie Murdoch, and Alex Murdoch. Whose voices did you hear? Paul Murdoch, Maggie Murdoch, and Elliot Murdoch. Could you tell where they were located in that video? Did you get a sense of where that was? Don't get them.

So it's going to be interesting to see how the defense explains that he lied. And not only did he lie, it's kind of one of those lies where now it's glaringly obvious that he was lying because you had at least five or six people say, oh, that's Alex's voice. No, no, that's his voice. No question. Once that Dogtail video came out, I mean, the defense's timeline is just blown up. I mean, he lied to SLED three times on a videotaped interview. So it's not someone's interpretation. It's Alex saying that three times, at least three times. Did the defendant repeatedly deny ever being at the kennels at that time period? Yes, he did. Various interviews with law enforcement.

What time was that kennel video? 8.44. And what time did Paul and Maggie's phones go silent forever? 8.49 is when their phones went silent forever. It's difficult to overstate how vital I think the timeline is ultimately going to be for jurors who are deciding this case. I think so, because I think jurors are very sensitive to people that have big inconsistencies in his story. Let's talk about some of the witnesses, Carol, that you've seen and heard from. Let's start with Maggie's sister. How effective was her testimony?

Oh, my gosh. I don't think you can underestimate the effectiveness. She came in and it was a little disarming because she looks like Maggie, as you might expect, and very quiet and calm and was quite complimentary of the relationship with Maggie and Alec and how they vacationed together and everything was good and just a heartbreaking account of learning that her sister had been murdered. And then after all of these comments about how it unfolded, then she says, but all that changed in September. And everyone knew what that meant, that the emperor suddenly had no clothes. This giant financial problem is collapsing. At that point, information started coming out about some things that Alec had done financially that we had no idea about.

I also found it interesting, you know, when she talked about Alec's demeanor and the conversations that they had shortly after the murders, and that he, according to her, seemed to be more interested in still clearing Paul's name with regard to the boat accident, clearing his name, more interested in that than finding out who had just killed his wife and son. Exactly. And she had pointed that out. That wasn't something that I'd really his wife and son. Exactly. And she had pointed that out. That wasn't something that I'd really known before her testimony. Exactly.

That was new. So you're right. That was very arresting. What about the testimony that we heard from Alec Murdoch's mother's caretaker? What did you make of what we heard from her? Well, she clearly didn't want to be there, didn't want to testify. She was very emotional. She said that Alec usually did not come that time of the day to visit his mother.

But then, you know, he's there 20 minutes, and she says that later, a few days later, he comes to her and says, Remember, I was here for 40 minutes, remember? He didn't overtly tell her to lie, but it does seem that he's definitely trying to lay down a timeline of what he did that night. You know, Carol, one of the things that I think is, it was probably striking for a lot of folks is here you have this family that, you know, I mean, they've got a lot of help. I mean, there's a housekeeper, there's a guy that just looks after the dogs. There's the caretaker for mom. They've got a lot of folks

around them that the Murdochs have been paying to help them for years. I find it striking that I'm sure that there was an assumption made that they would just do what they were told. You know, but that's one of those things that I have found a bit strange because I'm sure, again, generational wealth, generational power, and ultimately the people who have been propping them up, if he's convicted, these are going to be some of the same folks who helped do him in. Well, certainly, I think they were, especially with the caregiver from Miss Libby, I mean, she was obviously tortured, had a very tortured demeanor on having to admit or say it's true that he said, remember, I was here 40 minutes. It was very hard. And, of course, they are the employer. And do you fear for your job?

I did think it was noteworthy to point out Judge Newman's handling of the case so far. It is, you know, this is a closely watched case. And this is a judge who, for folks who might not know, longtime judge, but also a judge who lost his son. His son, who's just a few years younger than me, also an attorney. His name is Brian Newman, Judge Newman's son. He drops dead of a cardiac event less than two weeks before this trial was set to start. And instead of delaying the trial, Judge Newman insisted that the trial go on. And from my vantage point, Carol, looking at it objectively, it seems as if the judge has just really had sort of a masterful control of that courtroom. And under the circumstances, I think that's something that should be applauded. Well, exactly. And he is, his voice is very melodic. In fact, I'm thinking he has a career

reading bedtime stories for audiobooks because his voice is so calm. And he never gets excited. He never raises his voice. It's very calm. He's been very even, steady, constant through the whole trial. decision to allow the financial crimes and evidence related to the financial crimes, to allow that to be introduced in this case. Ultimately, I guess we'll know how significant that was. But in that moment when you were in court, how much of a surprise was that? Well, we all knew it was coming. and we knew that the state wanted it in, and of course the defense did not. The judge was very specific when he made his ruling that he was letting it in not to talk about Alec's character, but for the weight it might carry in people's minds toward motive. Now, I don't know how you don't take away something from character if you hear about that, but that's what the judge said,

and there are people that think that might be an appealable issue. You know, you and I talked during our last podcast about motive. And it seems as if so far that the state's thesis, if you will, is basically Alec Murdoch killed his wife and son to distract, to buy some time. And, you know, I'm the when the defense presents its case it'll do its best to to shred that that thesis but based on what you've seen and what you've heard in that courtroom the motive itself is is is that something that seems to be resonating with jurors or do you get the sense that there was so much financial crimes evidence

introduced that it's going to be difficult for jurors to decipher or even buy into that idea, period? I think it's clear that he had no internal stop button to steal from his own law firm, from his own best friend, from his clients. I don't think there's question about that. It did seem as if, if you were watching and listening to the evidence presented, that testimony especially, that folks around him were starting to catch on. Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. May it please the court.

The state would call Jeannie Sechinger. Especially that CFO in that firm. Oh, yeah. When you see this check, what, if anything, is your realization? That he stole the money. That he'd been lying. She was a tiger with a tail. She was on him just saying, where's the money?

Where's this money? Where's this money? And you could tell she took it personally, that there was money missing and that the firm had to pay back to clients millions of dollars. State calls Mark Tinsley. So Mark Tinsley is the lawyer who represents the family of Mallory Beach, a young woman who was killed back in 2019 when the boat she was in, allegedly driven by Paul Murdaugh, crashed into a bridge piling. Tinsley is suing the Murdaugh family because of that crash. And that meant you were seeking a personal recovery against him.

He was always going to have to pay and pay a lot of money. Carol, what did we hear from Mark Tinsley on the stand about motive and what happened to his case, what he thought was going to happen to his case in the wake of the double murder? Well, he did two things. Number one, he outlined a potential reason. He called it the fuse was lit because he was coming after Alec personally for his personal money because he didn't have great insurance that would have applied to the boat case. So Mark Tinsley was coming after a lot of money, and they had a little run-in at a lawyer

meeting where basically Alex says, bro, I think we're friends. We were friends. What is this? I hear about that. And Mark says, I'm coming after you. And I'm coming after you personally for that money. So he says that. So we know that that's a pressure point for Alec, according to Mark Tinsley. But Tinsley also testified that after the murders happened, he felt his client's case against Alec was over because no one would want to find against Murdaugh in the boat accident after he lost his wife and son. Did that have any effect, that tragedy of their deaths, did that have any effect on your assessment of the boat case and how everything fit together if things

were how they initially appeared? It would have affected, I mean, yes, it did, and it would have ended the case. Why? What had changed after this terrible tragedy? Well, nice people get good verdicts. If Ellick is the victim of a vigilante, nobody's going to hold him accountable. It doesn't make any difference what he did or how clearly what he did contributed. The case would be over against Alec. It was also interesting to hear, and we spent some time during one of our Dateline episodes devoted to this topic, talking to some of the victims of Alec's financial schemes, crimes.

So Gloria Satterfield, for folks who may have forgotten how she fits into this story, she was so much more than just the housekeeper. I mean, she essentially helped rear Buster and Paul. And, you know, one day at the house, she, she, she falls down, trips over some, some dogs on the porch and, and, um, takes a nasty tumble, ends up in the hospital for a few days, and she ends up dying. And the family discovers sometime later that the settlement money from that fall has allegedly been stolen by Alec Murdoch. I found it curious that that was of the witnesses that could have testified to some of the financial wrongdoings. They focused in on Gloria Satterfield. I would assume, Carol, because she was so close to that family.

The son that testified, and you and I met him early, he's really come a long way. He's matured during this awful, awful process, and I thought he was very articulate about the loss they suffered. And you recall what Ellick would tell you about the case? Yes. At first it started off as it was going to be a hard case, and then it turned into we're making progress. Did he ever tell you that there had been a recovery for $3.8 million against that?

No. Did he ever pay you one penny of $3.8 million? No. It put a face on the financial crimes you know you can say it you can say he stole millions but when you see the faces of those victims and and you hear their voices and you realize you know they're they're just salt of the earth people. And yet, in Alec's mind, it was okay to rip them off. Yeah, you've got to wonder if the prosecution's motive there was essentially to say to the jury, if a man would do something like this to someone who is practically part of his family,

what else would he be capable of? Exactly. Yeah. I don't think calling them was an accident or not well thought out. But as we wrap this thing up, my friend, the defense is going to get started. There are reports that among their first witnesses is going to be Buster. Buster is definitely on the witness list. So we'll hear from him. And there's been a lot of talk about Buster. Of course, of course.

It seems as if the defense is poised to essentially say to the jury, our guy is a liar. Our guy is a thief. But our guy would not kill his wife and son. That best I can gather so far, based on what I've heard from the cross-examination of the witnesses so far, that seems like that might be the central theme to their defense. question is, how was Alec Murdaugh's life better with his wife and son dead when he was in the position we know he was in? And I don't know that anybody has drawn a straight line to that, because you've got to get an advantage if you're willing to do that? And what was it for him? I'm Craig Melvin. Thank you so much for listening to this episode of Murdoch on Trial. I hope you'll

join us next time after the defense rests. Murdoch on Trial is produced by Michael Nardi with Haley Barber and Jared Crawford and edited by Jacqueline Speyer. Alex Loray is the associate producer and Paul Ryan is the senior producer.