Law&Crime Sidebar - Murdaugh Murders: Lawyer Who Killed His Family to Save Himself — The FULL Twisted Story

Episode Date: March 8, 2023

The Murdaugh double murder mystery shook the South Carolina low country when Maggie and Paul Murdaugh were gunned down outside their own home in June 2021. As the investigation unfolded, eyes turned to the patriarch of the family, Alex Murdaugh, a fourth generation lawyer in Hampton County who was once revered as a trustworthy and powerful man of law. News of other suspicious deaths, civil lawsuits, and stolen money connected to the Murdaugh family elevated concern among locals who started to believe the family could easily make things disappear. Nearly two years after Maggie and Paul were shot to death, in March 2023, a jury found Alex guilty of executing their cold-blooded killings -- a judge sentenced him to life in prison. The disbarred lawyer is now facing over 100 other criminal charges related to his admitted financial trickery. The Law&Crime Network's Angenette Levy and Jesse Weber break down the entire twisted story of Alex Murdaugh, the disgraced lawyer who killed his family to save himself.LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergWriting & Video Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa FisherSocial Media Management - Vanessa Bein & 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. Once I lied, I continued to lie, yes, sir. Why? You know, oh, what a tangled web we weave. But once I told the lie, I mean, I told my family, I had to keep from revealing tapes to shocking admissions on the stand and Jeanette Levy and I go through all the twists and turns of the Alec Murdoch murder trial welcome to sidebar presented by law and crime I'm Jesse Weber after six weeks dozens of witnesses hundreds of pieces of evidence and an incredible verdict we are reflecting on the Alec Murdoch trial the man accused of murdering his wife Maggie and son Paul by shooting them to death on their family property back on June 7th, 2021. And what a trial it was. I mean, this was a case that had everyone talking, everyone.

Even people who don't follow true crime were asking about this. All the major news outlets were covering it. How often do you see CNN and Fox News both streaming testimony and arguments in real time? And here at Long Crime, here at Sidebar, we followed every second of it with play-by-play analysis. And boy, oh, boy, is there a lot to get into? So we are going to do a full recap of the Alec Murdoch trial and who better to join me than my partner in crime here on Saibar. My co-host, someone who is inside that courtroom in South Carolina, long crime correspondent, Angenette Levy. Anginette, good to see you.

Good to see you, Jesse. All right, you know where I'm going to start. We're going to start with the opening statements. So this is where they laid out the case. Here is some of what prosecutor Creighton Waters had to say. About 8.50 p.m. and the defendant over there, Alec. Burdock took a 12-stage shotgun and shot him in the shoulder, and the chest in the shoulder with buckshot.

And the evidence is going to show it was a million to one shot. He could have survived that, but after that, another shot went up under his head and did catastrophic damage to his brain and his head. The evidence is going to show that Paul collapsed right outside that fever. And just moments later, just moments later, he picked up a 300 blackout, which is a type of ammunition, but an AR-style rifle, and the evidence is going to show that the family had multiple weapons throughout the property, picked up that 300 blackout rifle and opened fire on his wife, Maggie, just feet away near some sheds that used to be a hanger. POW! Two shots, Adamen, and the lead, and took her down. And after that, there were additional shots, including two shots to the head that again did catastrophic damage and killed her instantly. The evidence is going to show that neither Paul nor Maggie had any defensive wounds.

Neither one of them had any defensive wounds as if they didn't see a threat coming from their attacker. And then defense attorney Dick Harputlian provided the opening statement for Alec Murdoch. Here is the law. He didn't do it. He is presumed innocent. Officers that arrived at night, there's no what on him. They didn't find any what on him.

Sleds testing indicated 12 different places on his shirt and pants. No human blood detected, period. You know, there's no direct evidence. There's no eyewitness. There's no camera. There's no fingerprints. There's no forensics tying him to the crime. None.

So, Andron, it seemed to me that this was a tough case for the prosecution, right? From the beginning, you know, there's no physical evidence. There's no murder weapons. There's no forensics. Especially given, you know, the explosive force of these blasts. There was really nothing on Alec Murdo. except GSR, gunshot Resindou, but that was questionable. Walk me through what you thought of the beginning of this case and as it was progressing

that maybe the prosecution didn't have everything. Well, in the beginning, you know, and whenever these types of cases happen, the family member or the person closest to the people is usually the prime suspect. So we can safely say that Alec Murdoch that night was more than likely a prime suspect, but they also had to look at other possibilities, including the first. the boat case. And it really just seemed very unusual that we didn't hear anything about having found murder weapons or, you know, him having anything on him. You know, there had been some information leaked during the case before the trial had started that there was

blood spatter on his t-shirt. We later found out, you know, we later find out from the defense before the trial that that's not true, that the t-shirt was destroyed in testing. And so Dick Carputlian sought to have that piece of evidence excluded from the trial. So something we thought might be true, something we had heard leaked through anonymous sources in some media reporting, turned out to not be true according to the defense. So it seemed like, wow, if you made that mistake, what else went wrong? Or what evidence do you actually have linking Alec Murdoch to these homicides other than the fact that he is the spouse and father of the two victims? and he had been with them that evening.

And it's maybe tough to get past the idea of a father brutally murdering his son and wife. And that goes into a significant piece of evidence, two significant pieces of evidence, the Snapchat video that was taken off of Paul's phone from earlier in the night, the night of the murders. And then there's the video of Alec Murdoch's birthday party from about a week prior. So for me, I'm looking at that and thinking, you know, it's tough for the prosecution for this man who's having such nice moments with his family, literally on the night to then just savagely kill them.

Did you feel that was a challenge for the prosecution? I think it was because I think that, you know, especially when you're a juror and us watching these things, we bring our own experiences to the table and we view these things through our own lenses. And we're supposed to be open-minded and we are. But it is, it does seem odd that you would see a father and son on a Snapchat video, an hour or so, potentially a little longer than that, before the homicides. And then this same person is supposed to be taking a shotgun to his son's head and literally

blowing his brain out of his head. You know, the defense kept hammering on that during the opening statement and other portions of the trial that listen to how brutal this was. This is only somebody who would be full of anger and rage who could do something like this. And Alec Murdoch wasn't that person, according to the prosecution. but the state, you know, says he's our guy. And look, I think it's also important to note with that Snapchat video, the change of clothes. So when Alec Murdoch is ultimately interviewed by police, and in fact, when they first come on the scene,

he's wearing a white t-shirt and shorts, which is very different than what he's wearing in that Snapchat video. And the reason I talk about that is because another piece of important testimony was that of Blanca Simpson. This is the Murdoch Housekeeper. And she talked about an unusual conversation she had. had with Alec Murdoch after he was confronted with that Snapchat video by investigators. And he was pacing back and forth in the, in the living room. And he said, I got a bad feeling. He said, I got a bad feeling. He said, something's not right. And then he said, well, you know, there's a, a video. There was a video that was out. I hadn't seen a video. And he said, you remember

the shirt I was wearing that Vinnie Vine's shirt. Those were, that's what he said to me. And in my mind, I was saying I don't remember Vinnie Vine's shirt. It was the polo shirt, but I didn't mention. He said, well, you know what I was wearing that shirt? He said, you know, in the, that day. And still, I was just, I didn't say anything, but I was kind of, thrown back because I don't remember that. I don't remember him wearing that shirt that day.

So it basically seems, according to her, that he was trying to get her to say what he was wearing that day when he really wasn't. I mean, and Janet, what did you make of her testimony and also the whole idea of the change of clothes? Did we ever get a definitive answer about that? About the change of clothes? Not really. I mean, he was never asked to produce the clothing formally. And, you know, it was a blue Columbia shirt from what Blanca, that's how she described it. She does the laundry. She talked about seeing a pair of khakis on the bathroom floor near a puddle of water. So obviously, there was a clothing change.

But what happened to those clothes? We really never, ever got an answer. The prosecution contends those are the clothes that Alec Murdoch was wearing when he carried out these homicides, then cleaned up really quickly, and heads out to his mom's house changing clothes. But we don't really know what happened to those items of clothing. And there was testimony that Alec Murdoch had stayed in several places after the homicides. So nobody knows where those clothes are. But the real big piece of evidence, you know where I'm going. The one that you could say, whatever the weaknesses were in the prosecution's case,

everything changed with the kennel video, the infamous kennel video. So let me backtrack a little here. Alec Murdoch, as you said, Injad, repeatedly told police that he never was down at the kennels. Again, the crime scene before the murders. What did you do once Maggie and Paul left? I stayed in the house. Okay. And I was watching TV, looking at my phone, and I actually fell asleep on the couch.

Okay. And then he says, like you said, he went to visit his mom, came back to the house, found Maggie and Paul dead. The only problem for Alec Murdoch was there was this video. There was a video taken off of Paul's phone, a recording that lasted from 844 to 8.4 to 8.45 on the night of the killings at the kennel, where Paul and Maggie's bodies are found. This is just minutes before when prosecutors say the two were killed at around 8.50 p.m. And they base that off of the cell phone data of Paul and Maggie's phones. Let's watch this video.

Come here. Come here. Come here. Come on, dear. Shit. Come, close to it. Yeah. Hey, he's got bird his mouth.

Bubba. Oh, boy. And you're a guinea. This is a chick, man. Come in my, Bob. Come, my, gosh. Come here, my, Bob. And you hear three voices on the tape.

You hear Paul, you hear Maggie, and you hear Alec Murdoch. How do we know that's Alec Murdoch? Well, we're going to get into later what Alec Murdoch ended up saying about that. But people testified, multiple people, people who know Alec Murdoch well, they said that that is his voice. And Jeanette, that felt like the smoking gun in this case. it really did jesse because you know videos were played that showed alec murdock these were police interview videos not mentioning at all that he was at the kennels you know he was taking a nap and then went to his moms he he'd never mentioned being at the kennels with paul and maggie

and actually talked about them leaving the home to go to the kennels and there were family or there were law partners of his that testified they were there that night and the night of the homicides. They came to the, to Moselle, and they said he never said he was at the kennels. So we only had witnesses identifying his voice, at least seven of them saying, yes, that is Alec Murdoch's voice. There's no mistaking it. But also, you know, you had not only people saying, yes, that is Alec Murdoch's voice. There were at least seven witnesses who testified to that. But you also had, you know, the tapes from the. the police interviews, and these witnesses saying, he told me he never went down there.

And real quick, Anjad, were you in the courtroom when this video was played for the first time? Or maybe even when people were confirming it was his voice? Because I'm curious what the jury's reaction was to that. I was in the courtroom when the Snapchat video showing him in the chinos and the blue shirt was played for the first time. but I was not in there specifically when that kennel video was played for the first time. But, you know, so many people, you know, you can't deny it. I mean, it clearly sounds like him. I know they had to do that for authentication purposes, but nobody had to tell me that that wasn't Alec Murdoch or that that was Alec Murdoch after the first time I heard it.

Yeah, I think the jury probably came to that conclusion pretty quickly. But real quick, talking about things that Murdoch said, let's quickly put this to rest, okay? When Alec Murdoch was interviewed by investigators, it's the famous, they did them so bad, or I did them so bad? Sitting there talking today is tough. It's just so bad. They did it so bad.

Personally, Anjonet, I think too much attention was spent on this. I really don't think the prosecution need to push it, that this was a confession that he said I did them so bad, because I personally heard they did them so bad. I'll give you the floor real quick on that. Well, I don't know if the prosecution focused on as much on it as the media did and the defense, because the defense then slowed down the clip for the special senior special agent, Croft, who, you know, was sitting next to Alec Murdoch when this was stated in the vehicle. I felt like he said they. And I said that on the air several times. You know, maybe too much emphasis was placed on it. But if he says I did them so bad, maybe it is potentially a confession or maybe it alludes to something else. But then if you're saying they did them so bad, how would you know it was they?

How would you know it was more than one person? You wouldn't know that or shouldn't know that at that point in time. You wouldn't know about the two such a shell casings there, the shotgun shells and then the 300 blackout rounds that were found around Maggie's body. So unless you knew who did it or unless you had a feeling about who did it. And so I thought all of that was pretty interesting. There were a couple times it played I heard I, but for the most part, I felt like I heard they. Well, let's move on to something that I think was really significant, and that was the timeline that was set up by the prosecution. So the prosecution used cell phone data, car data to track Alec Murdoch's movements.

How significant was that for you when you were listening to that? How important do you think that was for the prosecution's case? What did they do well there? Well, I thought that the phone data was interesting because, you know, they showed that Maggie, Alec, and Paul were all, you know, prolific cell phone users. It sounds like they typically always had these phones on them. They were reading text messages up until 849 that evening when both Maggie and Paul's phones locked. Alec Murdoch's phone was up at the house. We know that. His phone doesn't activate or wake up until 902. p.m. 13 minutes after Paul and Maggie's phones lock. So I think you're left with deducing from that that the homicides occurred sometime after 849. Yes, they could have put their phones down. But did the homicides happen at 9, 9.30? Were they down there working and cleaning the kennels? Who knows? But we know that Alec Murdoch's phone, at least, that he picked that up at 902. And so I thought

It was an interesting point when they said there was Special Agent Dove, Lieutenant Britt Dove, I should say, the cell phone expert from SLED. He said that Paul, or I'm sorry, he said that Alec and Maggie's phones were never together at the same time period. So I thought that was really interesting. And I still have questions about that, how that was possible. So I thought that the timeline was really interesting. And we learned a lot about how you can have your cell phone in your hand and just turn it. And it's logged on. the phone and they can download that information and extract it yeah and also we know that through the the car data they were trying to show that alec merduck was speeding you know faster than he had had been the whole day right after paul and maggie are killed maybe trying to establish an alibi to be from a to b to see really quickly there was also a conversation that his car passed by with a place where maggie's phone was ultimately found i will tell you that one of the most significant pieces of evidence was from michelle shelly smith this was the caretaker of alec's mother and she says that Alec did in fact visit his mom on the night of the murders, like he states about his

alibi, it just became a question of how long was he there for? How long did he stay in the room with y'all? I say y'all, for the record, you and Ms. Libby, I apologize to him. About 15 to 20 minutes, 20 minutes. Not 100% following you. He was telling you or saying to you that he was at the house? When? The night of the murders. The night of the murders?

Yes. What was he telling you about that he was at the house The night of the murder? They had been in 30 to 40 minutes. And she also goes on to say that he kind of asked her about the wedding that she had. So was he trying to bribe her to ultimately confirm how long he was there? Because he initially said, Anjanet, right, he was there much longer. Right.

He said that he, you know, he, he's trying to intimate that he was there longer than 20 minutes. minutes. And he wanted Shelly to say, according to her, that he was there between 30 and 40 minutes. So the times are all over the place here. When the police first arrive, he says, you know, I saw him like an hour and a half. I was at my mom's, maybe for an hour and a half or I saw them an hour and a half ago. I mean, times are all over the place. So he's at his mom's Miss Libby's for 15 to 20 minutes, according to him. And then she talks about this conversation they had where he said, no, I was. they're 30 or 40. And she felt so unnerved by that that she called her brother, who was an assistant police chief. That's how uncomfortable that made her. And you couple that with what we played earlier with Blanca Simpson, maybe him trying to cover up after the fact to, you know, confirm his timeline. I also want to mention what she talked about this blue tarp. And that became a whole significant piece of conversation. The prosecution saying Alec Murdoch tucked away a possible blue raincoat that had gunshot residue on it at his mom's house. She couldn't say whether it was a tarp or a

raincoat. In the end, how significant was that? I thought it was very strange. That is another piece of the investigation that I don't understand. I've never heard of anybody putting a tarp in a container of dishes. I've heard of other types of things to kind of pad, you know, to protect plates and things like that. So we have the tarp that. We have the tarp that. was not tested for blood or GSR, which is very strange. She felt there was a tarp that he had hung over Miss Libby's retirement chair when he came by early one morning. Then we have this raincoat that's apparently balled up in a closet upstairs in the home where it doesn't sound like anybody's really ever up there. And it has 38 GSR particles. They said they stopped testing because there was so much

on it. But then Blanca, who does the laundry and knows all of his clothes, says she's never even seen that coat, that rain jacket. And I'll tell you, Jesse, I looked all over the internet for that rain jacket, that style, that brand to see when it was made. I couldn't find anything that looked like that at all. So I think we have still the mystery of the blue raincoat, but I've never, I've never heard of so much GSR. I mean, it sounded like they were trying to say these guns were wrapped up in the blue rain jacket to be disposed of or secreted away. So I think that that was a really strange thing that we still don't have a lot of answers to because if he owned that rain jacket or any of the boys did, I would think Blanca would have known about it. And talking about things

that we don't quite have answers to, one of the reasons the defense says that is is because they say there were missteps by police, specifically SLED, the South Carolina law enforcement division. They talked about issues about failure to preserve evidence, failure to look into things, contamination of the crime scene, just these general missteps in the investigation. But there was a bloody footprint near his, it turned out to be law enforcement, correct? Yes. In the fever. Right.

In blood. Is that preservation of the scene that your standards require? Not exactly, no. Not exactly? Should the police be walking through the scene? No. Do we know what other evidence they may have destroyed? I have no idea.

That's right. We don't. for you and janet what were some of the most significant or biggest missteps of sled that were highlighted by the defense well first of all no one is perfect and no investigation is perfect we've seen that many times over the years there are always mistakes but i think some of the biggest missteps include the fact that the day after the murders june eighth senior special agent katie mccallister had a search warrant for moselle yet didn't execute it John Marvin Murdoch testified that she took off her gun and her badge and she said, you know, we don't want to inconvenience you. Why don't you walk around the house with me? She was looking under beds, looking in places for potential evidence. It's a double homicide case. Even if you are trying to be kind to these people because they're powerful,

you still at the same time need to treat it as you would any other homicide case. So you've got the warrant, execute it, get everybody out of that house, and start where you're supposed to start, where they talked about, about Devo and talked about the circle and how everybody's in the circle and you've got to do things to take people out of the circle. Well, that wasn't really done, at least not at the home in Moselle. Also, they didn't go to Almeida. They were giving permission. Alec Murdoch and his brothers were giving them permission, carte blanche to go all over Mosell. They didn't ask to go over to Almeida when they knew Alec Murdoch had been there. And he, of course, because of how these

things work would have been the prime suspect. Also, Dave Owen, the lead agent on this case, testified in front of the grand jury that there was blood spatter on that t-shirt. That information was used to obtain an indictment against Alec Murdoch. However, the grand jury testimony revealed that but then the fact that we heard other testimony from Sarah Zapata, the DNA analyst at Sled, that said, no, there was no blood on that t-shirt when they did the confirmatory test. So I thought that was a very serious mistake. I kind of pressed Craton Waters about that when I interviewed him following the sentence. And, you know, they said no investigation, you know, investigations evolved. None of them are perfect. But you put that information in front of the grand jury. And it wasn't even

true. It's like, would you have gotten the indictment anyway, quite possibly? So I think there was some serious mistakes in this case and the fact that they didn't do any lifts for shoe impressions inside the feedroom. I've seen other cases where they do that. I mean, it's just all about dotting your eyes and crossing your T's and that that scene was released what it felt like very quickly. Yeah. And that is something you wonder whether the jury will find significant enough to make their decision. I will tell you one of the things, one of the things that we really haven't touched upon yet is why would Alec Murdoch want to kill Maggie and Paul, right? So now the prosecution's theory was that he killed his family to distract away from his alleged financial crimes from being

exposed because at the time that Maggie and Paul were killed, there were inquiries into his finances related to a lawsuit that he was facing. He was stealing money from his clients and his law firm. And the idea was that he was about to be exposed. So as a way to buy a time, as a way to get everyone to rally behind him, so his secrets wouldn't be revealed. He kills his family. And you know what? The judge allowed this evidence in. And it was significant evidence.

It was something to look at. I'll give you to everybody an example. Here's the CFO of Alec Murdoch's former law firm who confronted him on the day of the killings hours before Maggie and Paul were killed about missing money. When we went in his office, I said, I told him, I said, I have reason to believe that you received the fairest money directly to you. And you need to prove to me that you did not. and he assured me again that the money was in there. I told him I still needed to see the ledgers or proof that it was. After the murders happened, was anybody at all concerned about getting the proof

for those missing fees after those murders happened at that point in time? We weren't because we were concerned about ELEC. He wasn't working a whole lot. He was erratic. We knew he was taking pills. We were just worried about him sanity, so we weren't going to go in there and harass him about money

when we were worried about his mental state and the fact that his family had been killed. And, Ann Janette, we heard from other witnesses, too, like Mark Tinsley, who represented the Mallory Beach family that was suing Alec Murdoch for the boat crash in which she died, and then he was trying to get a hold of Alec Murdoch's finances, and he said, look, if he was really a real,

victim of this, the case would have been lost. I mean, no jury wouldn't have sided with us. And that was a big win for the prosecution, right? Oh, I think it was huge. And they didn't get just a little bit of this let in. They got every last bit of it let in. And it took up another week or two of the trial because we had the hearing outside the presence of the jury. So the judge could decide whether or not this would help the jury when looking at motive. It was not admitted for character evidence. The jurors were told they could only consider this for motive. But still, even if you're only able to consider it for motive, it makes him look like a terrible human being. And how do you really separate that when it comes down to it? He could be a thief. It doesn't

make him a murderer. And the jury heard a lot. I mean, they didn't just hear about finances. They heard about the September 2021 roadside shooting where Alec Murdoch essentially got a cousin of his to shoot him in the head. The idea being that the life insurance proceeds would go to his surviving son, Buster Murdoch, Alec Murdoch admitted that, admitted that to police. I mean, he eventually lied about it, said that he was shot by a stranger, then eventually came clean. So now the jury's left with this idea of, look at all these elaborate plots he gets into when he finds himself in trouble. And he doesn't, he has a propensity to lie to ultimately law enforcement about this. I will tell you, I want to go into something else, and that is the defense, because the defense,

they focused on problems in the investigation. They focused on a lack of direct evidence. And they also brought in their own experts to suggest the shooting maybe wasn't quite like the prosecutor suggested. If whoever shot this shot or these shot, well, first of all, the quail band shot was 5-2 to 5-4. That is the most likely explanation, yes. Okay.

My opinion is the totality of the evidence is more suggestive of a two-shooter scenario. And that the individual who shot first with the shotgun minimally was stunned, probably blood and material in his eyes, and maybe have been injured, and would have taken some degree of time to recover. Why would you break, why would one shooter bring two long rifles, two long weapons to the event? You can't handle and shoot two of them. Sir, Anjanet, the shooter could have been shorter than Alec Murdoch, who's, you know, six foot four. Maybe there were two shooters. They even suggested that the angles of attack were different than the prosecution suggested. Now, we know the prosecution fought back on this a little bit, but what did you take away from all that?

Did you think it was effective? I thought it was interesting. I know you can tell a lot about trajectories and stuff. They get out the rods, you know, they do some of the laser stuff on the computer mockups. So I thought it was interesting. But at the end of the day, I still kind of, you know, you hear these things in court and then you think about. it and then it sits and kind of, you know, ruminates in your mind for a little bit and you think about it. And I kind of thought even after Palmbach testified, the one defense expert and after

hearing from Dr. Kinsey, the states expert, I kind of thought like, I don't know if I buy any of this because I think the shooter could have been any height. It didn't really impress me that much because there are so many things that could affect how you hold a weapon, you know, how you might be firing it, you're positioning, things like that. So I was just kind of like whatever. I mean, even with the 5-2 stuff, there are probably ways that that could change depending on how you're standing, whether or not you're, you know, crouched down or holding the gun up here or holding it down here. So I wasn't overly impressed by all of the height stuff in this case. All right. Well, let's get into the bombshell. Alec Murdoch, would he?

would he not he decided to take the stand and my gosh in the first five minutes not even the first five minutes listen to what he had to say this is a good i didn't shoot my wife or my son anytime ever mr murdick is that you on the kennel video at 844 p.m on june 7th the night maddie maggie and paul were murdered it is were you in fact at the kennels at 844 p.m on the night maggie and paul were murdered. I was. Did you lie to Slet Agent Owen and Deputy Laura Rutland on the night of June 7th and told them that you stayed at the house after dinner? I did lie to them. As my addiction evolved over time, I would get in these situations or circumstances where I would get paranoid. Not only does he admit to being at the crime scene after

lying about it continuously. Again, prosecutors say Maggie and Paul were killed just minutes later, but he even admits to lying and stealing from his clients and his law firm. And Jeanette, that was incredible. That was incredible. Were you expecting that? I expected him to admit to it because I thought that he had to say, I'm a thief, but I'm not a murderer. I've screwed up in my life. I've done really bad things. You know, I'm a drug addict. I was doing terrible, terrible things, but I did not kill my wife and son, and I felt like he had to take the stand because he's the only one that can explain the kennel video and the fact that he lied. He lied continuously and repeatedly about being down at the kennels. So I wasn't incredibly shocked. I thought it was really

risky for him to take the stand, but at the end of the day, how could he not? Because the jury would just be left to, you know, draw a conclusion that this guy lied. At least he tried to get up there and owned that he lies. And Creighton Waters, the prosecutor, certainly wanted to create the impression that you cannot believe Alec Murdoch now. The reality is, Mr. Murdoch, is the reason why no one's ever heard that before is because you had to sit in this courtroom and hear your family and your friends, one after you other come in and testify that you were on that kennel video. So you, like you've done so many times over the course of your life, had to back up and make a new story that kind of fit with the facts that can't be denied. Isn't that true, sir? No, sir, that's not true.

And that cross-examination was something in it of itself, Anjanet. Yeah, it went on for a really long time. I thought that he got too into the weeds with the cross-examination on the financial crimes issues. And I, you know, I thought to myself why he keeps saying the same answer. And he's going to say the same thing. Yes, I did bad things. I stole from my clients. Yes, I did this.

I thought it was too much. But then he got into the night of the murders and all of these other things. So, you know, it was an interesting cross at points. At points, it seemed like it was going on way too long. But, you know, each person has their own style. Well, after all the evidence was presented, after all the closing argument, with so much to consider, it was in the hands of the jury, and I will be the first to tell you I thought it was going to be a hung jury.

I didn't even think that this jury was going to make a unanimous decision because there were so many things on both sides for them to really analyze. At the very least, I thought they would deliberate for days upon days upon days. Nope. I was wrong. I was very wrong because the jury came back with a verdict after less than three hours. The state versus Richard Alexander Murdoch defendant, indictment for murder, SC code 16-3-0010, CDR code 0116.

Okay. Guilty verdict. That was surprising to me, Ann Jeanette. Maybe not necessarily the verdict, but the timing was surprising. What was your reaction? What was your reaction and also the feeling in court? Well, I thought, you know, as the case, progressed, I thought that the prosecution could get a conviction. You know, people close to this case were telling me, even before the trial started, that they thought it would be a hung jury. And I thought that was a distinct possibility. But I wasn't overly surprised that they found him guilty because I thought they could, given the evidence that they had. And the fact that Alec Murdoch just, there were some questions he wouldn't or couldn't answer on the stand regarding his last words to Maggie and things like that. So, The speed surprised me only a little bit, but there were a lot of people I can tell you in

Walterboro who are kind of courthouse types and lawyer types who were telling me the night before that they thought there would be a verdict Thursday night. And I was shocked by that because I thought at least it would be until Friday. I didn't think after being there six weeks, these jurors were initially told they would be there three weeks. I didn't think it was likely to go past Friday night because we all know how that can work. These jurors are tired, they're over it, and they do not want to come back. So Thursday night, the verdict night, I found it a little surprising, but not terribly so. And you spoke to a juror after the verdict. Let's play some of that. Kennel video. How important was that to you and was it to you? Because to me, it seems to be the

biggest part or at least one of the biggest pieces of the state's case. I think it's a very crucial piece, and I think that it's incredible timing as to when they were able to get it, and I think it's incredible timing on Paul's part. I don't think that anyone would have ever known that he was down there if it wasn't for that video. I think that there's a lot of evidence that points towards Alex, but I feel like that does solidify it. He can't deny that he was there at that point because there's a video that places him there. I think that it speaks a lot that somebody that couldn't speak. Somebody that couldn't be a witness was able to be a witness even after they had passed away.

Did you believe anything that he said? I think that he is, I think that he's good at being able to talk to people. And I think that part of the way that he is able to be so good at talking to people is that he's convincing. And I think that whenever he's convincing, he's convincing himself as well. And I think he's able to do that because he often meshes the truth with a lie. So I think that there was some truth. And I think that it's true that he did love his family. But I think that he also makes his lies in there.

What were some of your highlights from your interview with James? Well, first of all, James, he's 22 years old. So he was the same age as Paul Murdoch was when Paul was murdered. James was in college when this happened. He went to Clemson University, so he heard about it, but it wasn't something he really paid attention to. I should also note that James's brother was one of the first responders from Colleton County who arrived on the scene that night. He wasn't intimately involved in the investigation as sled agents were, but I think he was the second guy on scene and testified at the trial. So he said despite that, he's like, I was busy with other things.

My brother and I weren't hanging around talking about this. I was in college when this happened. So he was questioned about that by the defense in chambers and the prosecution, he said, during voir dire, and they approved of him being on the jury. They thought he would be a good juror. So one of the things that stood out to me was the fact that he claimed he didn't make up his mind until the closing arguments were over. Also, he said the trip to Moselle really gave him a visual and really allowed him to think

about how this could have understood. unfolded that night. And the fact that, you know, the two-shooter theory, oh, this would have been too much for one person to do, he could see how close that feedroom door was to where Maggie was found a shot and killed. It wasn't that far away. So he said that was very helpful. He has a visual in his mind of how this unfolded, what he believes happened. And so, yeah, I thought it was interesting. They weren't allowed to take notes. We kept mentioning that on the news. He said during the breaks, they would write down their questions in the jury room on notepads there. So sometimes their questions were answered as the testimony progressed. But he was a very put together young guy,

22 years old, a construction manager. He dressed in a shirt and tie for court every day. He felt it was important to show respect for the court and even more a U.S. Constitution tie. He thought that would be appropriate, he said at times. He borrowed those ties from his father because he doesn't have a lot of ties. He's 22 years old. So he seemed to be very thoughtful. And it sounded like a lot of the jurors were pretty thoughtful. And I must tell you, Jesse, they were very attentive. There was one lady who was an alternate that kept appearing to fall asleep. We called her blanket lady because she had a blanket with her. But I watched as those jurors. Sometimes you could tell they were just done. But they looked back and forth between witness and

attorneys, witness and attorneys. And James said he specifically did that, looking at both the prosecution and the defense to see their reactions to certain pieces of testimony. And I'm glad to see jurors taking that responsibility seriously because it is very important. And that was the jury's decision. And then we heard Judge Clifton Newman hand down the sentence. Mr. Meadow, I sentence you to the State Department of Correct. on each of the murder indictments. In the murder of your wife, Maggie Murdow, I sentence you for the term of the rest of your natural life

for the murder of Paul Murdahl, whom you probably love so much. I sentence you to prison for murdering him. for the rest of your natural life. And there you have it. The trial of Alec Murdoch. Anjanet Levy, thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Thanks, Jesse. And that's all we have for you here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, 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 Law and Crime series. right now on Wondery Plus.

Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.