Law&Crime Sidebar - 9 Shocking Details Revealed in Alex Murdaugh's Family Murder Trial — Week Two Recap

Episode Date: February 3, 2023

Disgraced lawyer Alex Murdaugh returned to court for his second week of trial for the alleged murders of his wife and son. Prosecutors presented new evidence including cell phone records they said is critical to the case and called witnesses close to Murdaugh to testify about his life. The Law&Crime Network's Jesse Weber breaks down 9 shocking details revealed during week two of the Murdaugh murders trial.LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieObjectionsThey Walk Among AmericaCoptales and CocktailsThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wonderly Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wonderly Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. An alleged confession, crucial cell phone videos, and an alternative theory, it's a recap of week two of the Alec Murdoch trial. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Long Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Who's that guy in the green shirt, do you know? That's Chris Wilson. You know Chris Wilson's relationship to Alec Wilson or Alec Murdoch?

Yeah, I think they're best friends. Week two in the Alec Murdoch trial is wrapped up. So, you know what time it is. It's time to do a recap. It was a week where the prosecution continued their case against the former renowned South Carolina attorney accused of murdering his wife Maggie and son Paul by allegedly shooting them to death on June 7th, 2021 on their family property. The prosecution's theory seems to be that Murdoch did this because his life was falling apart, that he was about to be exposed for committing financial crimes,

killed Maggie and Paul to distract attention away from that, maybe to gain sympathy, maybe the pressure of everything was just too much for him. The defense says Murdoch loved his family and that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution doesn't add up. Okay, so this week we heard a lot about guns and ammunition. Now, here's the thing about that. The murder weapons haven't been recovered. Investigators believe, though, that Maggie was killed with a 300 blackout rifle and Paul with a 12-gauge shotgun. Now, why do they think that? Well, the Murdoch family had a lot of guns, and guns were fired on that property in the past. So the prosecution is saying that the ammunition, the materials found near the bodies, matched the bullets and weapons that were found

around the home, give you a better idea of that. Here is South Carolina Law Enforcement Division Senior Special Agent Jeff Croft talking a little bit more about it. What else are you looking for right now as you look through the other firearms on that particular gun rack? Any additional rifles capable of shooting a 300 blockout and also the any 12-gauge shotguns which are capable of shooting three-inch magnum. Let me ask you this, did you find any other weapons that could shoot?

300 blackout? No, sir. We did not. Did you ever find any other weapons on Alec Murdoch's property that could shoot 300 blackouts other than that one that was in the gun rack? No, sir, we did not. We're going to talk more about this in a minute, but did you find some 12 gauges? Yes, sir, we did.

What's that? This would be the magazine which I removed from this rifle on the video and the ammunition which it contained. And what kind of ammunition is that? ammunition is that? It's headstamped S&B 300 blackout. And do you know a specific brand and make and caliber of ammunition that was used to kill Maggie Murdoch? The head stamps on the shell casings at the crime scene was S&B 300 blackout. Same thing? Yes, sir. Now here's what's interesting about that. So the prosecution is saying, well, of course the murder weapons have to be

the Murdoch family weapons. I mean, look how particular these guns and bullets are. Well, we found out from John Bettingfield, a gunmaker who actually created three guns for the Murdoch family in the past. The 300 blackout rifle is not as rare as people might think because that was something that was used for hog hunting in that area. And have you recommended a number of, to a number of customers to 300 blackout to root out the nuisance? Yes. I have. Do you have any estimate of how many 300, blackouts you've sold over the last four or five years? No, sir. I wouldn't. I've a little over 600 firearm transfers. I wouldn't know. Think it's more than 100? I don't know. It's a lot,

but I don't know how many. All right. I've said it before. I will say it again. The prosecution can say that the killings, look, they happened on Murdoch's property and it's possible his guns were used. But isn't it also possible that someone could have come onto the property and use the guns to kill Maggie and Paul? I mean, if those guns are spread all over the place, isn't it possible? It seems like you have to directly put the guns into Murdoch's hands to make this stick. No? In fact, listen to what Murdoch told investigators. I mean, Paul has guns scattered all over the place. So, you know, some of our guns aren't there. Again, something to think about. And by the way, with week two, it was also interesting because the defense

even furthered a theory that perhaps not only was Murdoch not responsible, but maybe there were two shooters. Here's defense attorney Dick Harputlian cross-examining sled special agent, Melinda Worley. But did you know the degrees? No, that one didn't know. Until July 12th. But on July 12th, did anyone go back out and walk this line to see that maybe there's self-casing way up here. No one looked up there, correct? Not what I learned. Okay, and no one did a topographical study to indicate, if you follow these lines back,

wherever a shooter could have been, were higher or lower than the doghouse or the small animal cave, right? But doesn't this indicate to you there were two shooters? A shooter up here and a shooter down here? Is there a possible? Let me say this. Is it a possibility that there are two shooters, based on the data you collect it?

I just indicated it was movement to me. Movement from here all the way up to here? I don't know that it went all the way there. But is it, I'm not telling you it. I mean, one explanation would be movement, correct? One explanation would be two shooters. I'm sorry? Yes?

I wasn't there. No, no, no, no. But one explanation would be movement. its data would be two shooters. One explanation, not the, but one. Not the only one. Yeah, not the only one. But it is a reasonable explanation, just like one shooter running up that way, correct? Sure. One of the reasonable explanations is there are two people there. There are two guns there. One's a shotgun, one's an AR, and we now see that that AR is being shot from way up here, correct?

I can't think it's somewhere along that line. and that line goes a dozen, two dozen, three dozen yards from the feedroom if you follow it straight up. I don't know where they weren't within that line. Could someone have been a look out there? They went there to kill Paul, and that's the look at it. Maggie surprised him. They thought she was gone.

I have no idea. Reasonable, though, right? Right? I know you weren't there, but none of us were there. We're trying to figure out what happened that night. And clearly, one explanation is two shooters. One explanation. Right.

And a number of them. So when you think about the trajectory of the bullets and the two guns being used, it could be a reasonable theory, something for the jury to think about, right? You know, maybe it's possible that it's not one person using two guns to kill two victims, but there were two shooters. Now, is it possible that you could have had one shooter using both guns to make? it look like it was two shooters, absolutely. But again, something the jury's going to have to work through. Sticking with Agent Worley for a second, Harputian was grilling her on investigators doing

sloppy police work, namely failing to properly secure the crime scene and the problem of potential contamination of the evidence. It was a police officer. Yes. Probably a Calton County police officer. I don't know that for sure. Who else could it be? That could have been one of us from seven. One of yours? I don't think it was mine, but it could have been from sled. I don't know. Could have been Sway, could have been Colleton County, could have been the coroner. Yeah, sure. But, I mean, and in your business, there are rules about who should be walking through crime scenes, right? Yeah.

And that could be a problem for prosecutors. I mean, is it enough to get an acquittal? Not sure. But the more the defense can attack the integrity of investigation, the weaker prosecution's case can be. But maybe it's not necessarily all about these forensics. maybe we have to step, step away from the franics, because what about the audio and video evidence? That brings me to one of the biggest developments in week two, the alleged confession of Alec Murdoch. So, during an audio interview with Agent Croft, Alec Murdoch said something that is, I will tell you, caused quite a bit of a stir, quite a bit of a debate.

Let's listen for yourself. And you definitely saw a traumatic picture, and I know it's not hard, or not easy. I know it's hard. And sitting there talking today is tough. It's just so bad. It did it so bad. When you asked the defendant about a traumatic picture that he saw, of Paul and Maggie, what did he say?

It's just so bad. I did him so bad. I did him so bad. Yes, sir. I did him so bad. The assumption being that he slipped up and said, I killed Paul in such a brutal fashion. Maybe. Maybe he slipped up.

Maybe it was a confession. Or could it be something else? Here is defense attorney Jim Griffin pressing Croft on this. And at various points in time, you were asked. What did he just tell you? Did you just tell you this? Do you remember that? I do, sir.

And then you get to one point in the interview where you're asked, what did he just say after you said it must be tormenting? And you testified that Alex said on the video, captured by audio, that it was so bad I did him. so bad. That's what you testified to yesterday. Yes, sir. That is what I testified to. Now, are you 100% confident that Alex said I did him so bad rather than they did him so bad? I am 100% confident in what I heard and I interpreted him as saying. So could it be they did him so bad? What did you hear? Well, the defense even slowed it down for Croft.

Your Honor, we'd like to play it again at one-third speed to slow it down. It's just the same. Thank you. Your Honor, we're objectifying it at one-third speed. Foundation late for who's manipulating it, how it's being manipulated. I think obviously we have it in real time, but there would have to be some additional foundation. Right, please play at one-third speed. And sitting here, and sitting here talking, is just tough. So bad.

Hmm. So a few things to take away from here. If he said they did him so bad, then he could be referring to the killers, right? No problem. But if it's I did him so bad, then could it be him messing up and maybe confessing? Maybe. Or could it be something else? Maybe it means he failed to protect his son.

He failed him as a father. I did him so bad. Maybe something like that. Maybe he was in such an alarmed, excited, emotional state. We don't know what he was saying or what it means. Look, it's going to be up to the jury to decide what Murdoch said and what way to give that audio. I will tell you one thing. The prosecution is going to need a lot more than resting their case on an I or they. Okay. So in the Alec Murdoch trial, cell phone evidence is proving to be quite critical in this. case. And as we have shown in week two, the cell phone activity is helping prosecutors nail down the timeline of the shooting. They assert that the shootings happened at around 8.50 p.m. on June 7th. Now, how do we know this? Well, let's look at Maggie's phone log. When looking at this phone

log, a couple of things to point out. We learn that at 7.50 on June 7th, Maggie calls a Barbara, and that would be the last call that she ever made or received. She read a group text at 831.16 seconds. the last red text was at 84927. Remember, prosecutors believe the killings happened in around 8.50 p.m. The device locks at 849.31. And then this is fascinating. From 853 to 8559 steps are recorded on Maggie's phone activity. And during that time, the orientation changes to landscape mode on the camera. In fact, it seems that the camera was turned on for one second at 854 and between 9 and 10 p.m., more steps are recorded. So what does this suggest? It suggests that someone may have been trying to use her phone and walking around with it. But we also know that Maggie's phone was found on

the side of the road. But, but, but, but, but, but, but the defense made the argument that if you look at the phone data, Maggie and Alex's, Maggie and Alex's phones were not together when her phone switched from orientation that final time. So was he using it or not? Or not? Or, or Or then again, maybe he didn't have his phone on him when he was holding Maggie's phone. But back to Alec for a second. We learned about his phone activity too. What's the next call you see on this log? Moving up the call log.

The next call I see is from 1-803, 942, 1227 on line 5. It has the name of Alex. The time received on that call is at 945-32. P.M. UTC minus 4. All right. And that's lines 5 and 6, correct? Yes, sir. For the same call, correct? Yes, sir.

All right. And finally, let's talk about lines 3 and 4. What information do you see there? On lines 3 and 4, they're the same call. From 1-803-942-1227 on line 4, it shows it as PA, direction, it's an incoming call, and it was received at 10.0358 p.m. UTC minus 4 as a miscall. And to clarify, these last five calls from Alex's, were any of them answered? No, sir. And previously, we looked at...

Pictures, I just said. When you took pictures of Maggie's phone, you took a picture of her call on, correct? Yes, sir, I did. All right, and I was showing you again, I'm going to put it up on the screen. It's been admitted, Exhibit 278. And we saw that numeral five next to Alex's name. Correct? Yes, sir. That's correct. Now represents five missed calls. Yes, sir. That's correct. And I don't know if you're doing math while we went through that and we can look at it again if you'd like

to the dove, but did you count the calls from Alex that were missed in a row as we went through that call load? Yes, sir. I came up with five. Okay. Now, interestingly, prosecutors would show evidence that when looking at Alex's phone log, the calls from his phone to Maggie were deleted. that of course raises the question of why were they deleted that looks a little suspicious and then let's look at paul's phone okay so with paul's phone again pick a couple of snippets here between 840 and 848 paul is making outgoing calls he takes and records a video it's showing red messages on his phone now his phone was at 2% battery at 849 but starting at 849 Paul's friend Rogan Gibson sends a text to Paul that goes unread and then he repeatedly tries to call him from 910 to 1008 with no answer.

So you can see why the prosecution believes that the killings happened at 8.50 p.m. But let's focus on Paul's phone for a minute. Alec Murda's alibi is that the last time he was with the family on the night of the murders was dinner. Then he took a nap, went to visit his sick mother. When he came home, he found the bodies. So they left and went down to the kennels? Well, Maggie went to go to the kennels. Okay, and Paul left.

And I'm assuming, you know, I'm assuming Paul left because of, you know, what happened. I mean, I'm assuming Paul went to the kennels. Okay. And what did you do once Maggie and Paul left? I stayed in the house. What did he tell you he did after Maggie and Paul went to the kennels? He stayed in the house. So he says he didn't go down to the kennels.

And that is important. That is important because there is a video that was recorded on Paul's phone. A crucial video that was recorded on Paul's phone. Some would say the most important piece of evidence that we have seen. It was taken at 844 and lasted about 50 seconds till 845. and you can arguably hear three voices on it, Paul, Maggie, and possibly Alec Murdoch. Get back, get back. Quit, Cash.

Come, quit, Cash. Come, quit. Come on, go. It's not a bad. Shit. Come. Close to... Calf.

Hey, he's got a bird in his mouth. Baba. Hey, Baba. That's a guinea. This is a chicken. Come here, Baba. Come here, Baba. Come here, Baba.

Cache. Quit. In fact, Rogan Gibson, Will Loving, two friends of the Murdoch family say, they are certain that is Alec on that video. Do you recognize your dog? I do. You recognize Paul's voice? Yes, sir. You recognize Maggie's voice?

Yes, sir. You recognize Alex's voice? Yes, sir. 100%. Yes, sir. Can you point out, Alec Murdoch, the person whose voice you recognize in this video in this courtroom, please? Sitting right in a great jacket. Please let the record reflect he's identified the defendant.

Thank you, Mr. Judge. Nothing perfect. Good voices, did you recognize on that video? Paul Murdole, Maggie Murdole, and Alex Murdole. And how sure are you? 100%. the person whose voice you recognize on there, that you identified as Alec Murdo. Do you see him in the courtroom here today?

Yes, sir. Can you point him out for the jury? He's sitting right there. Your Honor, please let the record reflect he's identified the defendant. It does. So if the jury accepts that that is Alec on the video, then they would also accept that he wasn't honest with investigators about his activities, and he was at the crime scene minutes before prosecutors say the murders happened. That is big. That is very big for prosecutors.

Now, talking about videos, we also saw two other videos that I have to mention. One was a Snapchat video that Paul took on his phone about an hour before the time prosecutors say the killings happened. It's Alec in that video, very clear, and you hear Paul laughing. They're having a kind of light moment. And then there was also a video from Alex's birthday on Memorial Day just about a weekend before the killings. Come on. Hey. Thank you, baby.

And when you look at that, the defense is saying that Alec Murdoch loved his family. He was happy with them. This man is then going to brutally murder them. He's going to have this light moment with his son only to viciously, and I hate to say this but this is the way it's being described, blow his head off. That's what he's accused of doing. And I will tell you, that can be hard to reconcile. That can be hard for a jury to reconcile.

It is a weird oddity of this case. Now, on the other hand, here at law and crime, we have seen countless cases where people commit murders out of nowhere. It can be shocking. It is the last thing that anyone expects. And speaking of shocking, speaking of do we know everything about a defendant? Do we know everything about Alec Murdoch? This week also saw the prosecution attempting to introduce evidence about the defendant's alleged financial crimes.

As I mentioned, the theory being that as a way to buy himself time from his financial misdeeds being exposed, he killed his wife and his son. he was under a lot of pressure. He knew the gig was up, killed his family. This is the theory. And to get an idea of this, during a special hearing in front of Judge Newman, the prosecution presented witnesses to show these alleged financial crimes. Again, this is all outside the presence of the jury. And one of the witnesses we heard from was Chris Wilson. I was supposed to have $792,000 in my trust account that was supposed to have been paid to his firm I'm responsible for that trust account.

I put $192,000 of my own money in that trust account to cover the shortfall. Based on his representation that he'd get you back. Yes, sir. And he said that he admitted to you he had been stealing client money? Yes, sir. So he confessed that to you, is that correct? I said he had a lot of people up.

I don't remember exactly how it ended in to Mr. Wards. I was so mad. I'd love the guy for so long, and I probably still loved him a little bit, but I was so mad. And I don't remember how it ended. I left. What a week. That's all we have for here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series, ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.