Hidden True Crime - MURDAUGH MOTIVES: Dr. John Matthias on Alex Murdaugh's testimony and cross examination

Episode Date: March 2, 2023

Recording of our weekly LIVE Hidden Hour SHOW, February 24, 2023 Alex Murdaugh testified at his own murder trial. Dr. John Matthias shares his thoughts about his testimony and cross examination. Murdaugh is at the center of a current trial—charged with killing his wife and son. The family has had a legal dynasty in South Carolina for 100 years —ever since Alex's great grandfather Randolph Murdaugh opened his first law firm in 1910. In the late evening of June 7th 2021 Alex called 911 after he says he found his wife and son shot to death at their rural hunting lodge. Months later —To the shock of many in the area—the influential Alex Murdaugh is arrested and charged in the death of 52-year old Maggie and 22-year-old Paul. But the killings are not what started the unraveling of the family’s tangled history. Forensic Psychologist John Matthias uncovers how the family's history of secrets plays into the possible motives of murder. All parties discussed are innocent until proven guilty. HIDDEN: A TRUE CRIME PODCAST is: CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY REINVENTED. Join a forensic psychologist and journalist (who happen to be husband and wife) on a journey into the darkest recesses of the human mind and the unconscious motivations that drive human behaviors in order to understand the world and ourselves.  Subscribe for Friday night lives, psychological analysis, and insider interviews for an in depth look at crimes.  DR. JOHN MATTHIAS is a licensed clinical and forensic psychologist with 30 years’ experience in both clinical and forensic work. He serves as an expert witness for the federal government and has consulted on numerous high-profile cases for District Attorney’s offices and defense attorneys in several states. In the forensic area, Dr. Matthias has developed expertise in personality assessments, hidden behavioral motivations, complex trauma and criminal psychology. In the clinical realm, he has worked with numerous victims. He received his Master’s degree in Marriage, Family and Child counseling, as well his doctorate degree, from the University of Southern California.  Dr. Matthias graduated with honors in philosophy from Princeton University, and he won the prestigious McCosh Thesis prize while there. In high school he graduated valedictorian from a large public high school in Chicago where he was chosen to participate in a ground-breaking valedictory study that continues to this day.  Dr. Matthias has been an adjunct assistant professor in the University of Nevada Las Vegas clinical psychology doctoral program since 2007. He supervises UNLV doctoral students on forensic assessments, clinical case formulation, and various therapeutic approaches to clinical work. LAUREN MATTHIAS has worked as an anchor and reporter for ABC, NBC, and FOX News in East Idaho, Boise, and Salt Lake City, Utah. She spent a decade reporting on a diverse range of topics from high profile crimes to Presidential visits. Most recently, she reported for Salt Lake City’s ABC affiliate News4Utah. In 2015 she received the Idaho State Broadcaster’s Association Best Reporter award. She left the reporting world to produce the Hidden True Crime Podcast along with her husband Dr. John Matthias, a forensic psychologist. Your support helps us produce these podcasts/videos. We have some big plans to explore the true crime terrain in a way that no one else has attempted.  WEBSITE: https://hiddentruecrime.com/ TO SUPPORT:  https://www.patreon.com/hiddentruecrime https://paypal.me/hiddentruecrime https://cash.app/$hiddenTruecrime Our Sponsors:* Check out Acorns: https://acorns.com/HIDDENTRUECRIME* Check out Acorns: https://acorns.com/HIDDENTRUECRIME* Check out Armoire and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://www.armoire.style* Check out Effecty and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://www.effecty.com* Check out Happy Mammoth and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://happymammoth.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/hidden-a-true-crime-podcast1836/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price.

Quince uses premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Hidden, a true crime podcast, a forensic psychologist and a journalist explore the hidden motives behind unthinkable crime. while examining our deepest fears along the way. We have so much to talk about when it comes to the Alec Murdoch trial and the Alec Murdoch family

that we decided to split it up into two nights. Tonight we're going to talk about Alec Murdoch's testimony. We're going to break it down. It's been fascinating. We've been glued to the TV and watching some commentary as well. And I know that Dr. John has some things to say. we have a lot of great questions from all of you, our hidden gems. Thank you so much for the support we received in talking about multi-generational shame.

And we're going to continue that conversation with the Murdoch family part two. John has been watching, researching, and he has more things to say. So that'll be tomorrow night. Let me start with Debbie. Debbie writes, in today's hearing, the prosecutor brought up shame and family annihilator. Someone's listening to you on the prosecution team, Winky Face. It was interesting that they brought shame up and I think that's where we want to start. Can I share a video? Shame for you, I asked this before, but shame for you is an extraordinary

provocation, isn't it, Mr. Murdoch? Shame for me is an extraordinary provocation. I don't like to be shamed. The prospect of humiliating the legacy is an extraordinary provocation to you, isn't it, Mr. Murdo? What do you mean by an extraordinary provocation? It affects you deeply. It's your biggest concern, is it not? No, that's not my biggest concern. You're a middle-aged man like me? I'm 54 years old. I'm not sure. You look like you're in better shape than me, so I don't know.

That was actually a couple of years behind you in law school, but we never knew each other, did we? I never knew you, no, sir. Had a very successful career up until this point. Simple question. And the answer to that is no, Mr. Waters. I was an addict for more than 20 years. All right, so making millions of dollars over a decade is not having a successful career? Is that what you're going to tell the jury?

No, that's not a successful career when you... Okay, well, let me put it like this. Hang on. Let me just... All right, go ahead. You know, it may have been what you perceive as a successful career, but, you know, I was the one who was fighting that. You don't have a very high self-esteem when you're an addict.

So I don't deem myself a success. Would you agree that at least outwardly you're perceived as successful? I made a bunch of money if that's what you're wanting to get at. I'm actually asking about the perception. You were perceived as a prominent, powerful lawyer. How I was perceived. You were president of the trial lawyer. I sure tried to be.

Lived a life of possessing authority. Possessing authority? Yeah, we saw the badges. You just admitted of your prominence in the legal community. I don't think that I lived a life of possessing authority. I never saw myself as that way. You don't think you lived a life of privilege? I think I was very privileged.

But as we move to June of 2021, you were suffering from a drug addiction? Absolutely. Your father was terminally ill? When? As we moved to June of 2021. No, sir. He was very ill. He was very ill.

And you were coming to a point of financial crisis. I was having financial crisis. I was having financial. issues like I'd had many times in the past. Mr. Murdoch, are you a family annihilator? A family annihilator? You mean like, did I shoot my wife and my son? Yes.

No. I would never hurt Maggie murdered. I would never hurt Paul murdered under any circumstances. Excuse me? You say that, but you lied to Maggie, didn't you? I did lie to Maggie. You lied to Paul? Sometimes.

Do you lie to your father? I'm sure I did at some point. Did you tell him all the stuff you had been up to over the years before he died? No, I didn't tell him. Did you lie to your brothers? About financial things? Yes. I would have lied to Randy at some point, I'm sure.

Did you lie to him about the last time you saw your wife and son alive? I did. Did you lie to their wives? I'm sure I did Do you lie to Marion Proctor? Yes Did you lie to Bart Proctor? Yes

Did you lie to the Brandsteaders? Yes Did you lie to your best friend Chris Wilson? Probably Did you lie To your other friend Barrett Bullwere When you took his money? No sir

No I didn't lie like I told you I didn't lie directly to him I lied to him by a mission Like we talked about him He was, I didn't talk to him. I didn't see him at that time. July to your law partners?

I did. July to him about the kennels. Some of them. July to Mark Ball. Yeah, based on what Mark said, I believe I did. July to Ronnie Crosby. According to what he said, I believe I did. July to Johnny Parker.

I don't believe I ever discussed that with Johnny. Did you lie to him about the finances when you borrowed that money in July of 2021? I don't know if I lied to him about, Johnny, I don't think Johnny asked me. I don't think I had to lie to Johnny about that, so I don't know. It was interesting. A few people did say that they thought of your analysis and what you discussed about family's shame when they watched that part of the trial today. What are your thoughts, Dr. John?

Yeah, I don't know if that's accurate. I think that most reasonable people would see that Alex is someone who suffers with shame and this is a family filled with shame. So I'm not sure I wouldn't be willing to take credit for that. But nevertheless, it was an extraordinary moment for me because shame, I think, is a huge part of this case. And the fact that the prosecutor had the courage to bring it up, I think, was really important. And it threw Alex for a bit of a loop, by the way. He didn't know what to make of that.

I think he was, it kind of pushed him back on his feet a little bit. Keep in mind that Alec was in drug addiction treatment after the murders. So this is a guy who's been in treatment. You would anticipate that they've talked about shame or at least self-esteem. He does bring that up. But he still doesn't seem to understand what that means. He's still thrown aback by that. So that's what kind of threw me for a loop is I saw that.

And I mean, I was I was a little bit surprised that the prosecutor asked that. I think it was a great question. But I think he took Alex by surprise, even though Alex had been in treatment. Usually people that are in drug addiction treatment, they pick up the language of therapy. And they kind of know what to do with those types of questions. And this guy seems like Alex, Alex seems like someone who's never been in treatment for a day because he just, he didn't, he didn't understand the question. He didn't understand what shame provocation was. he seemed thrown for a bit of a loop. And maybe that was, maybe that was Creighton Waters point. And by the way, a shout out to Creighton Waters, I think he did a marvelous job. I've seen some criticisms of the fact that the prosecution is letting Alex talk too much. And they're kind of giving him more rain than most prosecutors might in terms of expecting yes or no answers. But I'm going to totally disagree with that. And I'll explain that in a minute. He's admitted to lie.

his defense attorneys have admitted that Alec is a liar. He's admitting that he's a liar. He's admitting that he lied about his alibi that he was indeed at the kennels when he said he was not. And he wanted to take the stand to explain himself. So a lot of this prosecution talking to Alec Murdoch has to do with lying. And how much line is lying? And we have a question actually here from Evan. Well, a couple of questions.

Do habitual liars often reach the point where they have trouble telling their own truth from their lies? Do you think Alec has reached that point here? They ask another, is it your experience? Yeah, they often believe their own lies or can convince them of their own lies. And do you think this is likely with Alec? Yeah, it's an interesting question. I think this issue of pathological line is something that would require more time than we probably have tonight. But there is something in a branch of psychology called social cognition that it's called the sleeper effect.

And that is essentially that the more often you tell a lie about something, the more likely you are to believe it. And the more likely the people around you are to believe it. And so it's actually similar to the, you know, I think Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi guy propagandist, was famous for saying something similar that if you tell a lie often enough, people believe it. But we have a term for that in psychology called the sleeper effect. And I think it's possible that there may be some of that, but I'm a little skeptical. Alec, I think that Alec is used to controlling the narrative because he's a Murdoch and he has a lot of power. he's used to controlling the narrative and when he tells you something that often it's going to be believed.

If you change little bits of reality, you're trying to control the narrative, right? You're telling people, I am going to force you to bend reality to fit my, in some ways, you're bending reality. And I think that's what line is about. Line is about trying to create a new reality from evidence that doesn't really exist. So you're trying to shape the narrative. and it's about power because you're trying to get people to believe that reality. You take these little pieces of the puzzle and you put them together and you can see how somebody like this can engage in this type of line over time.

I should also mention that pathological line is often tied to unreliable parenting. And so in families where there's a lot of mixed messages, especially between the parents, children get confused about what to believe and who's telling the truth and who's not. and some children will fixate on certain versions of reality that might involve line to try to do sense of the world. Because neither parent is super reliable. So I think a lot of children who begin line, they're in families that are very conflicted and there's a lot of mixed messages. And also you get pathological line from what I would call narcissistic families.

And those are families where essentially parents control the narrative in the family and the children have to confront. form to that narrative. So the children don't really develop a voice of their own. The children react to the needs of the parents. Now, normal, you know, healthy parenting should be that the parents are reacting to the needs of the children and reading the needs of the children. But when you live with the narcissist, or you're a narcissistic family, and a narcissist, usually the male figure controls the family, that figure controls the narrative. And that figure wants most of the attention. And so the children will shape their worlds and their reality to fit the needs, expectations of the parent, of the narcissist.

And that creates a lot of distortions of the world and a lot of distortions of reality, and that can lead to a lot of lying. So if you look at the Murdoch family and you look at somebody like Hansom, who again, let's use, you know, we talked about the name handsome, how, and it's a peculiar, I guess you could argue that maybe it's a bit of a fun name, but I think it's also a peculiar name in the sense that he's having the grandchildren refer to him in a very adoring way, in a very, I don't know, for lack of a, in a very narcissistic way almost. He wants reflected back to him the fact that he's handsome. Now, do I, do I think that handsome's a narcissist? I don't know. I have no idea,

but, but my point is it's a little unusual. It's not hard to imagine that somebody like Hanson, might have some narcissistic features and might have children who have a distorted view of the world or reality and they start lying to create their own version of reality that makes sense to them. Some great questions here. And we have a shorter show today. Again, we're going to do a brief summary of our thoughts on Alec Murdoch's testimony because we have so many thoughts coming down and so many questions. And then tomorrow we're going to continue discussing shame. Here's a great question from our listener, Tad. What did you make of him talking baby talk, calling his son Paul Paul or Papa when referencing him? I think he's trying to be more relatable. He's trying to be a little

more sympathetic. He's trying to be a more, you know, a little more homely in the sense that he's presenting this kind of down-to-earth, Southern family that isn't, that doesn't have the kind of privilege and wealth that they have. I mean, he's obviously not telling you about the chartering the private jets and going to the Super Bowl and flying all over the country and going to these big parties. And you know, you're not, you're not seeing the part of him that was shown in the Netflix documentary, for example, about a family that's beyond privileged and they flaunt their wealth. And so I think that's a way of trying to make himself more relatable to the jury. He's trying to be as Southern as he can be.

He's trying to appeal to them. After all, he doesn't, he's not appealing to us. He's not appealing to the, to the millions and millions of people around the world watching this. He's appealing to 12 people in the jury box. I loved it when the prosecution called him out and said, said, you know, you're calling him Papa, but in every interview previous to this testimony, you have never called him, Papa. You've always called him Paul. And he didn't look very happy by them pointing that out, but it's true.

I had not heard that nickname until today. And we've seen and heard so much from him. And he has always called him Paul until today. Do you think this is a question from Arlene? Do you think he continuously brings up his addiction for sympathy? Or isn't an excuse. I think, you know, an excuse or sympathy. That's part of the defense strategy that I think they really don't know how to make a strong argument about his motives or why he wouldn't do this.

So they're saying in effect, he's essentially saying the drugs made me do it. In other words, lie, not commit the murders. They're trying to avoid that. But the drugs made him steal money. And the drugs made him do all of these horrible illegal behaviors. anything else. It's an easy out for them. It's allowing them to explain everything in terms of the drug addiction rather than the reality of what's going on. Mary asks Alex mentioned that drug users like him often have low self-esteem. Do you think that is the case here, or is Alex just saying that

because he felt it was a statement they may benefit in some way? And we heard him discuss that his low self-esteem. This is going to open the door for the main point I want to discuss tonight. And that is, you know, I've looked at some of the commentary and people talking about the case and they're talking about are the tears real? Are the jury going to feel sympathetic to them? Do they believe the tears? Blah, blah, blah. I think those comments are interesting, but I think they're really missing the bigger picture here. And, you know, I could be wrong about this, but I'm approaching this from a psychological perspective.

Most of the commentators are lawyers. So I'm going to offer a bit of an analysis that's a little different. I think the reason why Quentin Waters is so effective is because he's showing us who Alec Murdoch is in real time. And the reason he's doing that is because he's being evocative and he's getting Alex to feel, shame, and some emotions that he does not want to experience. So what you're seeing with Alec on the stand is you're seeing someone who's moody, he's impetuous, he's defensive, he's oppositional, he's defiant, he's controlling, and he's power obsessed. You see this in many ways. Number one, he doesn't answer a lot of questions directly. So he's oppositional in the sense that he refuses to give answers, direct answers to Creighton. He's also many times during the trial, or, you know, when he was on the stand, he would lash out at Creighton.

Crayton Waters was trying to get him to discuss specific instances of fraud with specific clients. And Alec kept reverting back to a broad statement, a blanket statement about, I did wrong, what I did was wrong. Yes, I stole, but he couldn't give him in a specific instance. You could tell that he was getting angry. You could tell that, you know, there were times when there was a moment during that particular testimony when he said, let's get this done quickly. I mean, when somebody, when you're on the stand and you're fighting for your life and you say to the prosecutor, let's get this done quickly, who's in control? Is Creighton Waters in control or is Alec Murdoch in control? Alec Murdoch is being placed in a position that he's never been in before.

And that is he's in what we call, psychologists call it a one down position, meaning he's the one who doesn't have the power anymore. And because he doesn't have the power, he's experiencing some shame. And here's a really important point. For the first time in his life, he's probably experiencing some real helplessness and a real loss of control. Now, and this gets to the line too. A lot of the line is about trying to gain the upper hand on the narrative, trying to get it. in the upper hand on what's being said publicly and ways to avoid family shame and ways to perpetuate the family myth, which the family myth is essentially, this is a family that's rich,

powerful, untouchable, perfect, and we deserve everything we get because we're entitled and special and privilege and all that stuff. So he's trying to perpetuate the family myth. And if you don't think, by the way, that the family is on the same page or invented in the family myth, that just look at who's sitting behind him. All of his siblings are there, suggesting that they're all supportive. This is a family that the term family therapist sometimes uses a mash. They're deeply a mesh. They deeply support each other to the point where their identities probably merge with one another. They will do anything to protect each other. And that's your motive. In the end, I think that's your motive. We'll get to that in a second. But the question about the tears, the question about the tears is

is an important one because I would say that because Alec Murdoch is feeling helplessness for the first time in his life, I think the tears are actually coming from a place of not just shame. I think there is some shame there, but a sense of being helpless. You could argue that there's a little bit of grief in there, and I think there probably is, but that's not the primary reason he's crying. He's crying because he doesn't, he can't, he's probably just completely flabbergasted that he's in this position that he's on the stand fighting for his life, and that for the first time in his life, he's giving up control, and he has to sit there being embarrassed by this prosecutor,

by Creighton Waters, and he feels helpless. And I think a lot of his tears are, so he is experiencing shame on the stand, and I think a lot of his tears are coming from that place of feeling helpless. Are these genuine tears of remorse? I doubt it. You know, the fact that you can see him oscillate between, he's oscillating constantly on the stand between shame and control and anger. So shame and control slash anger. That's why he's so moody. And that's why he's lashing out so much because he's going between this sense of helplessness and this desire to get control back, which looks like anger, but it's, it's an attempt to reassert his power. You see it all the time. He says something, there's a couple of times where he said, hang on Mr. Waters, as

in like, stop and listen to me, acknowledge me, pay attention to me, right? So that's, that's, most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get in the those robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection.

With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove. What's one financial lesson you learned the hard way? I'll go first.

It's not too late to start saving. Today's episode is sponsored by Acorns. Acorns is a financial wellness app that makes it easy to start saving and investing for your future. don't need to be an expert. Acorns will recommend a diversified portfolio that matches you and your money goals. You don't need to be rich. Acorns lets you get started with the spare money you have right now. And one of the best things about acorns is they allow you to see projected growth on their website. Simply go online, type in how much money you'd put in and see the potential future balance of your account. Sign up now and join the over 13 million all-time customers who've already saved and

invested over $22 billion with Acorns. Head to Acorn. Orns.com slash hidden true crime or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non-client endorsement. Compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns, Tier 1 compensation provided. Investing involves risk. Acorns Advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. A few important disclosures at Acorns.com slash hidden true crime. Has losing weight and getting healthier been on your mind lately?

Have you heard about groundbreaking GLP1 treatments like OZMPIC and WeGO? With Effecti getting access to these power. medical medications has never been easier or more affordable. Starting a new medication is always a bit scary when you aren't sure what to expect. And using Effecti makes it so much easier with their hands on support, which gives unlimited access to licensed doctors so you never have to jump through hoops for help with any dosing questions or just other support when you need it. Effecti uses rigorous testing and their products are backed by research so you can rest assured. Ready to level up your weight loss game? Right now, my listeners can get 50,

off of GLP 1 weight loss treatments at effecti.com with code hidden true crime at checkout. That's effecty.com, EFFF-E-C-T-Y.com, and use code hidden true crime to get $50 off your first month of G-LP-1 weight loss treatment, no hassles, no memberships, and no hidden fees. Get started today. You see these little power plays. If you were to pull some of the video and go through certain segments, I could show you so many points where Alec Murdoch is trying to establish a reassert power with Craton Waters because he's never probably experienced that. The Murdox don't know what it's like to be in a one-down

position and they do not know what it's like to feel helpless and to have a loss of control. And the response to that, which you're seeing with Alec on the stand, the response is defiance, oppositional behavior, he's defensive. I think that's what's going on. on here. The irony of Craton Waters asking about shame is that he's been eliciting shame for a day and a half with Alec on the stand and he's showing you. Alec is showing you real time what it's like to feel helpless and ashamed and he is exhibiting the very behaviors. And this is a really critical point. The jury's probably not going to see this or get this. But he's showing you why he might be capable of committing murder.

And what I mean by that is that you see the anger, you see the control, you see the defensiveness, you see the moodiness, you see the impulsivity, you see the defiance. Those are all things that, if taken to an extreme, they can lead to murder.

So ironically, the very thing that Crayton Waters is trying to do or trying to prove, he's doing it real time, and Alec is she, showing us who he is. He's not some laid-back super nice guy, super chill guy that, you know, has been in treatment for three months and he's come to terms with his shame and he's good. And now he's telling the truth. No, that's not what you're seeing. You're seeing someone who's really angry who occasionally expresses tears because he feels helpless and ashamed. But then he circles

right back. He returns right back to the anger and the lashing out. And that's what's going on. You know, there's an important part of this narrative that I haven't seen the prosecution talk about, and that is, to me, this is the final piece of the puzzle, but Alec Murdoch has a history of violence that has not been talked about as far as I can tell. Maybe it's because those charges were never formally, those charges were dismissed, but there was at least one time when Alec was 25 years old. He was, I believe he was on Hilton Head Island, and he was in a bar fight, and he assaulted a bouncer very severely.

And the police were called out. Of course, they all knew who he was. They knew he was a Murdoch. He was never, as far as I know, he was never formally arrested, but I believe there was a police report issued over that incident. And I think that because of his family's influence, Handsome got the charges dismissed really quickly. But there is a record of that.

And that's not the only incident. That's not the only bar fight. He was well known in college to have gotten in multiple bar fights. I believe there was another incident. I don't remember exactly when. We haven't had time to really dig deep into these sources. So I assume the prosecution has. They probably weren't able to use it because they weren't formal charges.

I don't know. But the final piece to this puzzle is that Alec Murdoch does have some history of violence when he was younger. And there was some police involvement. again, not only are we seeing someone who understand who is showing us who he is, but we also have someone who has a lot of antisocial characteristics, right? He has a lot of antisocial features that would include drug addiction, fraud, financial fraud, some past history of violence, which has not been discussed. The defense is implying that this is someone who would, you know,

that's fairly benign and only would, commit financial fraud, but that's not true. That's not what his real history, I think, shows. So I think that's the most interesting part of Alec on the stand that's really not being talked about, is that this guy, again, I know I've repeated this a bunch of times, but this guy's really giving us a glimpse of who he is and why he could commit murder. I don't know, but I'm guessing that the prosecution, well, let's talk about the Netflix documentary in Morgan. Morgan knows, the Murdoch family extremely well. She dated Paul for four years,

and she says straight up in the Netflix documentary, I believe Alex Murdoch, Alec Murdoch was capable of murdering Paul and Maggie. What does Morgan know that she's not telling us? I don't know, but she obviously sees some potential violence in him. I'm guessing that she's seen his temper. She's seen a lot.

She tells us a lot in the Netflix documentary. She does, but she doesn't give us specific instances of violence. my point is that she knows this guy well enough she knows that he probably has a temper she implies that he's really impulsive he has mood swings we know he's a drug addict we know that he has a past history of violence we know that he can lie

you know lie through his teeth and smile at you and we know that he's capable of stealing over $10 million from clients that desperately need the money is this someone who's capable of committing murder I don't know if the prosecution is answered that, but I've seen it. We see it. It's right in front of us. And if you take the history, including Morgan on Netflix, saying, yes, I think this guy can commit murder. Whether the

jury's convinced to that, I don't know. But I think the prosecution is laid out a pretty compelling case. So many thoughts. I want to bring up one thing you said that was really interesting because watching television, reality television, real television with Dr. John is always really interesting. And today as we were watching the trial, and you already mentioned it, but I want to emphasize it when, when Creighton Waters was trying to get him to say, yes, I lied to clients. I lied to their face. I lied, you know, looking at them. As you point out, he could not do that. That was such a small thing. And he kept saying, look, I've come clean. I have financial crimes. I've lied. I don't know if I lied to their faces. Like he couldn't say.

it. And I want to point that out because you said that is him avoiding that shame. And I, that was an aha moment for me. So I just wanted to emphasize that. Right. When he was doing that, it reminded me. So I've done therapy groups over the years for a lot of felons, sex offenders, violent criminals. I've done therapy groups for at least, I don't know, 13, 15 years. And I don't do them anymore, but I've done them for years. And I told Lauren, this reminds me exactly of one of the sitting in my groups that's confronted about their behavior or part of their criminal behavior that they need to talk about openly in the group. And they will not discuss it.

They simply will not let you go there. They'll keep throwing up one defense after another. And it felt a lot like that. And I think the reason they do it or one of the reasons they do it is because they don't want to touch that shame. They don't want to get near that shame. It's too painful for them. and they want to throw up this barrier

and keep you at a distance from any type of shame. And that's what it looks like. That's exactly what it looks like. They'll revert to something more general and abstract like he did. So instead of saying, yes, I looked Hakeem Pinckney in the eyes and I said, I'm going to steal your money. I mean, that's not what he said, but that's what he did.

The prosecutor couldn't get him there because Alec Murdoch was incapable of being vulnerable and allowing himself to feel the shit. shame in that moment. And that's what that's why he was pushing back and lashing out because Alec wanted to control the narrative at that time. It was something so simple and he could not say it. Thank you for sharing that. I have to say, Robin B stated, did you see the occasional sniffle? It seems psychological. Let me acknowledge that and just say yes. That I think, you know, Lauren and I were talking about it. We were watching it real time. And I think my comment was that this was the

the cycle, this is a cycle of going from experiencing some vulnerability and shame to total control and anger to get back to reassert his power. So that's what you saw. It was a constant oscillation or shuffle between this shame and this feeling of vulnerability and helplessness even, let's say that. I think helplessness to Alec Murdoch is something that he simply does not want to get near. And so you see this oscillation between the helplessness and between the anger, between the need to reassert himself. Okay. Well, then, so I want to go forward with that then. You know, I'm going to talk from my innocent until proven guilty, as always.

But I do not like Alec Murdoch. And I don't like watching him. You're not alone. And I'm triggered by him. him. And I felt that this man from commenters today on national TV and people asking questions, they had more sympathy for Alec Murdoch than, let's just say Amber Hurd seems more hated nationally than Alec Murdoch. People were more solid, had more solidarity around their dislike of Amber Hurd during the Johnny Depp trial than they do with Alec Murdoch. Earlier in our chat said,

I know grieving and this man is grievings. Our wonderful listener said, I think he feels terrified. Other people are saying, this was real. He is crying. There's no question. And I have to be honest, like I want to scream when I see this stuff. I hate to break it to them. He's not.

Can you share a little bit of that? Can you share what you're seeing when you see these tears? I know you just said it, but let's go a little bit further. What is it when people are saying, no, this is real? you'll know this is genuine, what would you say to these people? I have the advantage of having worked with criminals for years, so I know what this is, right? But many people, I think, when they see someone crying or, you know,

one of the things about his crying is there weren't actually a lot of tears. I think it's a natural human instinct when you see someone that you believe is genuinely crying to feel for them. And so I understand why they would experience that, but is it real? I don't, you know, let me, in fairness, let me say that I think there could be some grief packed in there. I think that he's probably confused. If he's experiencing some shame and helplessness, there probably is some confusion. There's a lot of grief in this family that's never been expressed or processed.

So in fairness, I think there might be some grief in there. And I think he obviously recognizes that he's lost to people that he, loves. And he, you know, whether he has regrets or remorse about that, I don't know. You know, I really think he committed these murders because he's trying to protect the Murdoch Empire. And he's trying to protect the Murdoch myth of this family. And he was really angry at Paul for the boat crash, which started to unravel the whole operation. And he was angry at Maggie because I believe, as some of the documentaries have pointed out, that it was a bit of a myth that their marriage was perfect and that they were doing great as a couple. I don't think that's

accurate. I think that they were probably struggling a little bit. She was spending most of her time at Edesto. So I think he was mad at Maggie for rejecting him possibly and for trying to decipher or trying to figure out some of their financial issues. Bills weren't being paid. The bank account was being overdrawn. She knew there were issues here. And by some account, she was asking for a financial accounting of his records, his bank records. So, he knew that these two could blow up the entire enterprise. They could blow up the whole operation. And that begins in 1920 with Randolph 1. We talked about that last week. But this whole dynasty, this whole empire, is in jeopardy. And he knows that. And the family knows it.

There's a rumor from a really credible source. We have not talked to the source yet. But supposedly the night before the murders, somebody knew, and I'm not saying this is accurate or not, but it's out there that handsome told Alec. This is the night before. He told Alec, if you don't take care of Paul, I will. So he's essentially telling Alec, you protect this dynasty at all costs, or I'm going to take care of it. Yeah, I'm on my deathbed.

I'm on my death bed, but if you don't do something, I will. That doesn't necessarily mean he said go kill. No, no, no, but take care of this. Like, this is a problem. I don't know what it means. This is a problem for a family. It's a problem for our legacy. This is a problem for the Murdox, the enmeshed Murdoch family. It means that you put the family dynasty above your child and your wife. That's what it means.

Who, bro writes, they say, did Alec tell the prosecutor that the boat case was the reason. This happened, the motive. He said when being questioned that someone hated Paul because of the boat crash. And I thought him. It was a great moment. It was a great moment. It was a great moment towards the end of the cross-examination of Alec. When Alex said, and this is a quote,

I believe the boat wreck is the reason why Paul and Maggie were killed. What Alec meant by that comment was essentially he believed that somebody was so angry at Paul for the boat wreck. He didn't mean, he didn't mean, he didn't mean the immediate numbers of the family that were in the boat wreck like

Mallory's family, but he believed that somebody on social media, some vigilante, this is the theory they're advancing. As Crane Waters pointed out, there's zero evidence of this, by the way, but the theory they're advancing essentially is that some vigilante, some angry vigilante wanted to get back at Paul. Doesn't explain why Maggie would have been killed, by the way, but wanted to get back at Paul because of the vote wreck and so killed him that evening. Of course, you know, as a psychologist, my first thought is, okay, right, he basically just told us why he killed them.

Yeah, he's right. The boat wreck is the reason, but it's not a vigilante. It's him because the boat wreck is the unraveling of the Murdoch dynasty. And that's what he wants to protect at all costs. So to me, it was an extraordinary moment, just not for the reasons he thought. His argument is a vigilante, do it, of course, did it, of course. There's zero evidence of that whatsoever. the defense doesn't have to advance or prove that theory,

but they're putting it out there without any evidence. And a vigilante would have to be pretty, pretty, you know, pretty angry and unconcerned about the consequences of committing a murder over a boat crash two years earlier that they had nothing to do with. I don't know. But so is the boat wreck the reason? Yep. He's sure right about that.

I want to say something about the tears too. And then I want to read Emily's question. Just remember again. when you have sympathy. I think you're right, Dr. John, we all feel sympathy for people that are crying and maybe there is some truth to his tears. But just remember, Hakeem,

remember what he did to glorious Satterfield's son. Remember Mallory Beach and how he didn't seem to care about her parents, you know, just remember. When his life is on the line and he's a one-down position and doesn't have the power, he sure brings on the tears. But when he's in a powerful position

and he has control over everything, the narrative, the Murdoch dynasty, finances, he's completely without remorse. He has no problem stealing people's money, people that need that money desperately. He's showing up the night of the boat crash within hours. He's showing up with his badge in the hospital, trying to get people, trying to cover it up, essentially, trying to say that Connor Cook is driving the boat so that his son Paul can get off, Scott Free. Emily asks, do you think Alec is surprised that this has become a murder charge since Paul was disliked after the boat crashed?

Do you think Alec assumed the public wouldn't care about his murder? Can I say something before you answer? I think this might be true. I've had the same question, though. I want to know what you think because I want to know that he didn't care about Mallory Beach. He didn't care about Hakeem. He didn't care about Stephen Smith. So why would he think someone's going to care about his?

own son. I just want to throw that out. What do you think, Dr. John? I think he's stunned that he's sitting on the stand answering questions from the prosecution. I think he's absolutely stunned because he's a Murdoch and he never would have imagined that it could have come to this. Yes. Thank you. The evidence for him being stunned is the fact that he's so angry on the stand. Collette is reminding everyone if you're wondering about the Patreon membership, you join here. She put the post in comments or in the chat, excuse me, Patreon.com slash hidden true crime slash posts. If you want to join the YouTube membership, you have to be on a desktop or browser to join. We have no idea why we hope that YouTube fixes that soon, but in order to see join membership.

Thanks for explaining that. Colette. We do have to end soon. I am going to be on News Nation tonight on Banfield. We're going to continue the conversation there on some Murdoch theory. there have been a lot of great questions. Many I actually wrote down, but I'd like to end with one last question, John, and I'll let you end. If you were Creighton Waters, if you were on the prosecution, what would you ask Alec on the stand? What would you try to do with him there? And then anything else you

want to add? It's a little hard for me to answer this question because I'm more of a clinical person. So if I were Crayton Waters, I probably would have called out some of his anger and some of his, some of those psychological moments when I felt like he was trying to exert power. Because I think it would have showed the jury that this is someone, you know, when Alex says, let's get this done quickly. Craton Waters was kind of stunned by that moment, by the way. He was taken aback and he's like, no, we're not going to get it done quickly. So Creighton kind of reacted in his own way by reasserting his power and showing Alex that he's in control. But I think my response to something like that would have been to kind of pause and say, excuse me, what did you do? What did you just say that you want this done quickly?

Okay. You know, in other words, I think for me, I would approach it more clinically and kind of point out how his behaviors are. are showing us who he is, that they're a little over the top at times, that they're controlling, that he's in a bit of a power struggle with the prosecutor. I don't know if the jury's going to see that,

but I think I would be more apt to highlight those moments and to say essentially something like, do you see what you're doing here? Do you see how this anger is showing us who you are? do you realize that you're showing us that you're someone who's quite capable of committing murder under the right circumstances

and with the same kind of anger that you're now showing us? But, you know, lawyers, you know, my training is quite different. So I don't know. So for me, I'd be more apt to show the jury what I'm seeing in real time, which is this is someone who's really angry that he doesn't have power, that he's lost control of the narrative,

and now even on the stand fighting for his life, he's really kind of giving us a glimpse of who he really is. Thank you, Dr. John. We are going to continue this conversation tomorrow. As soon as this live ends, you will see a redirect to tomorrow's live. So when that page comes up, hit the notification button. We're going to go live tomorrow at 5 p.m. Pacific.

That's 6 Mountain, 7 central. 8 Eastern. I want to share some research by James Gilligan. I mentioned Gilligan a lot. He wrote a book called Violence. The book I'm holding is called Preventing Violence. James Gilligan is a psychiatrist. He's done research.

He's interviewed a number of violent criminals over the years. And I'm just going to summarize his take on why people commit violent crimes. And here's what he says. The basic psychological motive or cause of violent behavior is the wish. to ward off or eliminate the feeling of shame and humiliation, a feeling that is painful and can even be intolerable and overwhelming, and to replace it with its opposite, the feeling of pride. So if you want to know why Alec Murdoch might be able to commit murder, you're seeing it right there. You're seeing him trying to cope with shame and humiliation and how painful that is for him. how intolerable and overwhelming it is,

and you're trying to see them replace it with its opposite, which is pride. And pride, by the way, is exactly what the Murdoch dynasty has really owned and expressed for nearly 100 years. And so this is in some ways that, a tension between shame and pride, or I might say even between strength and weakness,

if you think of pride as being a version of strength, and if you see shame as being a version of weakness, then in some ways this is an attempt to reassert the Murdoch's strength as a family, as a dynasty, and Alec is well on his way to obviously tearing down that whole empire. And so I think that's part of what's going on here. Come join us over on Banfield right now. I'm going to hop on over there to talk on News Nation.

Join us tomorrow again. There will be a link at the end of this video. Hit the notification. And we'll see all of you tomorrow. Lead your questions for tomorrow's live in the comments of this video. And we'll see you then. Thanks, everyone, and have a great night. Good night.

Good night. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it. usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere.

That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support.

Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at ORA.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove.